Original Article

Energy Exploration & Exploitation

2021, Vol. 39(6) 2169–2190
Investigation of wind shear ! The Author(s) 2020
DOI: 10.1177/0144598720930422
coefficients and their effect on journals.sagepub.com/home/eea

annual energy yields along the

coastal sites of Pakistan

Muhammad Sumair1 , Tauseef Aized1,

Syed Asad Raza Gardezi2,
Syed Muhammad Sohail Rehman1 and
Syed Ubaid ur Rehman1

Abstract
Ten-year hourly recorded wind meteorological data at six sites along the coastline of Pakistan at
two heights (10 and 50 m) were extrapolated to two higher heights (80 and 100 m). Monthly and
seasonal analysis of variation in air density (q), wind speed, Weibull parameters (K and C), wind
power density, and wind energy density with height was investigated. Analysis shows that wind
shear coefficient is highest in winter and lowest in summer. q, wind speed, wind power density,
and wind energy density all increase with increasing hub height, with the most prominent incre-
ment in winter and the lowest in summer. With increasing height, K has been found to decrease
slightly while C increases. Techno-economic feasibility analysis of annual energy production using
15 turbines was carried out which shows that capacity factor alone cannot render a turbine
feasible but also economic assessment is mandatory to evaluate the feasibility of turbines. G1 and
G2 turbines have been found the best options while B5 and V2 as the worst. Comparison among
sites shows that Karachi is the most potential site with cost of energy of $0.017/kW h while
Jiwani is the worst site with cost of energy of $0.039/kW h both at 100 m height.

Keywords
Wind shear coefficient, coastline of Pakistan, Weibull distribution, techno-economic feasibility
analysis, annual energy production

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan
Corresponding author:
Muhammad Sumair, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan.
Email: sumairliaqat@gmail.com

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and
distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and
Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2170 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 39(6)

Introduction
Substantial increase in energy demand owing to huge increase in global population, limited
conventional fossil fuel resources and a thirst to mitigate hazardous environmental impacts
associated with the usage of fossil fuels make it necessary to utilize renewable energy sources
which have minimum carbon emission (Khahro et al., 2014a, 2014b). Current exploitable
renewable energy potential in Pakistan has been estimated as 167.7 GW—significantly above
its actual electrical energy requirement (Rafique and Rehman, 2017). Wind energy with its
low environmental impacts is seeking global attention continuously (Shoaib et al., 2017).
According to Global Wind Energy Council report 2019, global wind installed capacity has
reached about 651 GW at the end of 2019 (Council GWE, 2020) which was about 597 GW at
the end of 2018 (WWEA, 2019). This shows a huge increase in global tendency toward wind
energy utilization.
Pakistan, an energy deficient country, has always been facing acute energy shortage since
the day it got independence (Hulio et al., 2019a). Like global inclination toward wind energy
utilization, Pakistan is also developing wind projects. For the first time in its history, wind
installed capacity in Pakistan reached about 106 MW (Khahro et al., 2014b) at the end of
2014, which increased to 1186 MW (IRENA, 2019) and 1236 MW (IRENA, 2020) at the end
of 2018 and 2019, respectively. According to Pakistan Renewable Energy Policy 2019,
Pakistan sets a target to obtain 25 and 30% of its total energy generation capacity from
Alternative and Renewable Energy Technologies by 2025 and 2030, respectively (Ali, 2019).
According to an estimate, about 9.06% of Pakistan’s land area is suitable for wind energy
utilization (Hulio et al., 2019a); coastline of Pakistan is one of those suitable areas which is
planned to be utilized for wind power projects installation by Government of Pakistan
(GOP). However, this area remains untouched so far as far as wind potential exploration
is concerned.
Accurate wind speed (WS) estimation is crucial as an error of about 1% in WS estimation
leads to an error of 2% in wind energy (Azad et al., 2011). Wind power potential assessment
has widely been made using Weibull density function with various methods (Sumair et al.,
2020). Wind power assessment in Timimoun region was made using Wind Atlas Analysis
and Application Program (Himri et al., 2016). Wind data recorded over a period of three
years (2001–2003), measured at 17 m height, were collected from Soci
et
e Nationale de
l’Electricit
e et du Gaz R&D Office. Weibull parameters, mean WS, wind power density
(PD), and optimum wind blowing direction were determined followed by the energy yield
estimation using various wind turbines. Many other researchers employed Weibull distri-
bution with various methods to estimate Weibull parameters (Fırtın et al., 2011; Hulio et al.,
2019b; Ilinca et al., 2003; Indhumathy et al., 2014; Islam et al., 2011; Milanese et al., 2019;
Mohammadi and Mostafaeipour, 2013; Ouammi et al., 2010; Oyedepo et al., 2012; Pishgar-
Komleh et al., 2015; Rafique et al., 2018; Rehman et al., 2018, 2020).
Amount of wind energy depends upon WS and air density (Azad et al., 2011; Hulio et al.,
2019a). The denser the air, the more energy it carries. Similarly, higher WS carries more
wind potential. Even at a site, both parameters vary throughout the year depending
upon the local atmospheric meteorological conditions. Along with monthly and
seasonal variation, these parameters also vary with elevation above ground level (AGL).
Therefore, wind power estimation must be made using height specific local wind and other
meteorological data.
Sumair et al. 2171

WS measurements are generally conducted at a height less than the actual hub height;
otherwise measurement itself may be very costly (Fırtın et al., 2011). In order to estimate the
WS at the required hub height, measured data are extrapolated using wind power law.
Normally, in the application of wind power law, wind shear coefficient (WSC) is assumed
constant (0.143) which can result in substantial underestimation or overestimation of esti-
mated wind energy (Fırtın et al., 2011; Rehman and Al-Abbadi, 2008). Therefore, wind
shear must be treated as variable (not constant) for an accurate estimation of extrapolated
WS. Many researchers have studied the variation of WSC and its effect on energy
generation.
WSC for Dholum (Saudi Arabia) was estimated and presented in Rehman and
Al-Abbadi (2008). It was found that WSC is 0.255 (significantly higher than 0.143).
Further, it was concluded that energy generation per year is 10–20% higher than estimated
using constant WSC. Another work (Fırtın et al., 2011) also analyzed the effect of WSC on
estimated wind energy generation for Balikesir and found that a substantial difference (up to
49.6%) can occur due to error in extrapolation of wind data assuming constant WSC.
WSCs using WS data at three heights of 20, 30, and 40 m at Gulf region (Saudi Arabia)
were estimated (Rehman and Al-Abbadi, 2005). Air density was also evaluated considering
the variation of pressure and temperature with height followed by the estimation of energy
generation at various heights. Three-year wind data (1995–1998) were used and mean WSC
and air density were found to be 0.194 and 1.18 kg/m3, respectively. Moreover, monthly and
seasonal variation analysis was also carried out which showed that wind shear coefficient
(WSC) and air density are greatly influenced by the time of the year, thereby influencing the
energy production.
Similarly, WSCs at Dhahran (Saudi Arabia) were evaluated using measured wind data at
20, 30, and 40 m heights AGL (Rehman and Al-Abbadi, 2007). Five-year wind data (1995–
2000) were used in this analysis. Air density values were estimated using temperature and
surface pressure values. It was found that mean WSC and air density were 0.189 and
1.18 kg/m3, respectively. Energy production from a hypothetical 60 MW wind farm was
estimated and it was found that actual WSC yields about 11–12% more energy when com-
pared with 1/7th power law. Similarly, capacity factors (CFs) were found to be about 2–3%
higher. Another such work has been presented in Islam et al. (2017).
WSC at Malta was evaluated (Farrugia, 2003) using wind data measured at two heights
of 10 and 20 m, respectively. This study concluded that WSC varied a lot with season—being
maximum in January and minimum in August as 0.45 and 0.29, respectively. Another study
presented in Sisterson et al. (1983) stated that WSC may be as high as 0.5 up to a height of
150 m AGL and in extreme irregular cases, it may go up to 1.0. Seventeen sites in Texas,
USA were analyzed (Bailey, 1981) to investigate the variation in WSC. Study concluded that
WSC may vary ranging from 0.15 to 0.36 for all the investigated locations. Wind power
potential assessment at Borj-Cedria, Tunisia was made using wind data at three heights of
10, 20, and 30 m, respectively, followed by the investigation of effect of WSC on proposed
energy production (Dahmouni et al., 2011). Similarly, wind potential estimation at South
Banat (Serbia) was made using wind data measured at four different mast heights of 10, 40,
50, and 60 m, respectively (D - urisi
c and Mikulovi
c, 2012). Moreover, according to Wind
Resource Analysis Program report (Fırtın et al., 2011), 7082 WSCs were evaluated with
91.9% values above 0.14.
2172 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 39(6)

As previously mentioned, Pakistan has about 9.06% land area suitable for wind energy
harvesting and coastline is one of those. To take advantage of higher WSs at higher hub
heights, GOP plans to install wind turbines at higher hub heights. Two proposed heights for
this purpose are 80 and 100 m, respectively. No literature is found for wind potential esti-
mation of these sites. Moreover, long-term wind data over these sites have not been mea-
sured at proposed hub heights (except for one year of 2015). Therefore, investigation of
WSCs along with the wind potential estimation needs to be evaluated. Current work focuses
on the evaluation of WSC followed by the extrapolation of wind data to required hub
heights at six sites along the coastline of Pakistan, shown in Figure 1 to carry out this
study, Ten-year hourly recorded wind data (at 10 and 50 m heights) and local atmospheric
temperature and pressure data (measured at 10 m height) have been used.

Materials and methods

Site description and data collection
Six locations, namely Gwadar, Jiwani, Pasni, Ormara, Sonmiani Bay, and Karachi have
been selected for this study which are located along the coastal belt of Pakistan. The wind
towers were installed at flat terrains (at all six stations) with minimum obstructions of height
up to 2.5–3.5 m which were 250–250 m away from towers. Wind data were recorded every
60 min. Technical specification of measurement sensors is given in Table 1.

Figure 1. Six sites along the coastline of Pakistan.

Table 1. Technical specifications of wind data measurements sensors.

Instrument Model no. and serial no. Height Accuracy Range

3-Cup anemometer NRG 40C and 1795-00229369 10, 50 m
0.14 m/s 1–96 m/s
Wind vane NRG 200 and 1799-00019689 10, 50 m
1.6 0 to 360
Temperature probe CS215 & E12667 10 m
0.3 40 to þ70
Pressure transducer NRG #BP20 10 m
1.5 kPa 15–115 kPa
Sumair et al. 2173

Wind potential estimation at six stations along the coastline of Pakistan was made using
ten-year (2009–2018) hourly recorded wind data (at 10 and 50 m height) and local atmo-
spheric pressure and temperature data (measured at 10 m height). WSCs at each station were
evaluated using wind power law and WS data were extrapolated to two required heights of
80 and 100 m, respectively. Monthly and seasonal variation in WSC was analyzed.
Furthermore, air density was calculated at each station using temperature and pressure
data measured at 10 m height and extrapolating it to calculate the air density at other
heights. Wind power potential was estimated using Weibull probability density function.
Effect of height on mean WS, Weibull parameters, wind PD, wind energy density (ED), and
annual energy production (AEP) was analyzed on monthly and seasonal basis. Finally,
economic assessment was performed using 15 turbines to evaluate the economic feasibility
of wind energy harvesting at each of these sites.

Wind power law

To extrapolate the WS to the required hub height from measured wind data at a lower
height, following wind power law is used (Azad et al., 2011; Farrugia, 2003; Fırtın et al.,
2011; Khahro et al., 2014b; Rehman and Al-Abbadi, 2008)

b
V2 Z2
¼ (1)
V1 Z1
where V2 is WS at required hub height, Z2 (extrapolated WS), V1 is measured WS at height
Z1 AGL, and b is WSC.

Air density (q)

Treating air as an ideal gas, ideal gas equation can be used to estimate air density using local
atmospheric temperature and pressure, as given below
P
q¼ (2)
RT

where q is the air density (kg/m3); P and T are the local atmospheric pressure (Pa) and
temperature (K), respectively; and R is the gas constant (R ¼ 287 J/kg K)
In order to calculate the air density at a height where local measured atmospheric tem-
perature and pressure data are not available, extrapolation of temperature and pressure is
done using following equations (3) and (4), respectively (Elger et al., 2016)

T ¼ Tr  aðZ  Zr Þ (3)

aRg
Tr  aðZ  Zr Þ
P ¼ Pr (4)
Tr
where T and P are required temperature and pressure to be evaluated at higher height Z, Tr
and Pr are measured known temperature and pressure at reference height Zr, a is a constant
known as lapse rate (5.87 K/km), g is gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s2), and R is gas
constant (287 J/kg K).
2174 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 39(6)

Weibull distribution
Weibull distribution is the most widely used distribution to estimate wind potential through-
out the world. Mathematically, Weibull probability density function is given as follows


K1
K V
eðCÞ
V K
ð Þ
fV ¼ (5)
C C
where V is the arbitrary WS whose Weibull distribution is to be evaluated, K is the Weibull
shape parameter (unit less), and C is the scale parameter (m/s).
There are different methods in literature to estimate Weibull parameters.
In this study, following less commonly used method has been applied for weibull param-
eters estimation (Sumair et al., 2020)

C / V ! C ¼ cV (6)

where c is a constant of proportionality. Let us suppose that c ¼ 1; if this assumption is true,

we can also write
 K1
C ¼ V
k
(7)

However, analysis of Weibull scale and mean WS data (found in literature) shows that
scale parameter and mean WS follow the following slightly different relationship given in
equation (8)
1
C ¼ ðVK ÞK (8)

Using the basic definition of standard deviation for any probability density function,
given as equation (9)
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Z 1
r¼ ðV  V Þ2 fðVÞdV (9)
0

Integrating equation (9) and simplifying yields equation (10)


0:5
2 2
r ¼ C½C 1 þ  C2 1 þ (10)
k K
Taking natural log of equations (8) and (10) followed by the elimination of C from
resulting equation gives equation (11)


  
2 1
lnðVK Þ  ln r2 þ V ¼ 0
2
lnC 1 þ þ2 (11)
K K

Equation (11) is numerically solved to obtain Weibull shape and scale parameters.
Sumair et al. 2175

Wind PD and wind energy density (ED) were calculated using

Z 1
1 3
PD ¼ qV fðVÞdV (12)
0 2
Z 1 
1 3
ED ¼ qV fðVÞdV T (13)
0 2

T is required time period over which wind ED is to be evaluated. Accuracy of this method
has been accessed using coefficient of determination (R2)
PN P
ðY i  Z Þ2  N i¼1 ðXi  ZÞ
2
R2 ¼ i¼1
PN 2
(14)
i¼1 ðYi  ZÞ

where N is the total number of observations, Yi is the estimated probability, Xi is the actual
probability, and Z is the mean of WS probability data.

Techno-economic feasibility of energy production

Average power produced by a certain wind energy harvesting machine is an important
consideration as it affects the economic feasibility of wind power project. Average power
a wind turbine can produce is calculated using equation (15)
Z 1
PWT ¼ PWT dfðVÞ (15)
0

Integral in equation (15) replaced by summation over bins, NB, gives equation (16) as an
alternative of equation (15)
h i h i
X
NB  K
ðVi1 Þ

ðVCi Þ
K

PWT ¼ e C
e PWT (16)
i¼1

Thus, energy production over a certain time period is given by equation (17)

AEP ¼ PWT T (17)

Performance of a wind turbine is generally described by a parameter known as CF, given

as follows in equation (18)

AP
CF ¼ (18)
RP

where AP is the actual power produced by a turbine and RP is the rated power.
2176 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 39(6)

Table 2. Ten-year monthly averaged values of WSC (b) at each station.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Gwadar 0.138 0.131 0.123 0.117 0.104 0.068 0.043 0.044 0.066 0.117 0.139 0.143
Jiwani 0.148 0.142 0.132 0.125 0.108 0.071 0.046 0.049 0.069 0.123 0.150 0.155
Karachi 0.190 0.187 0.168 0.140 0.112 0.090 0.088 0.100 0.128 0.170 0.200 0.198
Ormara 0.112 0.112 0.118 0.118 0.116 0.084 0.063 0.068 0.086 0.107 0.114 0.114
Pasni 0.120 0.115 0.111 0.110 0.107 0.071 0.043 0.046 0.076 0.112 0.122 0.123
Sonmiani Bay 0.152 0.157 0.149 0.130 0.109 0.085 0.081 0.088 0.114 0.141 0.157 0.156
WSC: wind shear coefficient.

However, only the CF cannot render a turbine feasible or unfeasible for wind energy
utilization. To evaluate economic feasibility, unit cost of energy (C) must be estimated.
Unit cost of energy is calculated using equation (19)

Net present worth

C¼ (19)
Ep

While net present worth is calculated using equation (20)

!!
ð1 þ jÞt  1
Net present worth ¼ I 1 þ m (20)
jð1 þ jÞt

where I is the total initial investment which takes into account the turbine cost and 30%
additional cost for civil work, etc.; j is the interest rate (assumed 10%) and m is the percent of I
which is equal to operation and maintenance cost; and t is the life time of turbine (assumed
20 years). In this analysis, turbine cost is estimated assuming $1.5/W (Windustry).

Results and discussions

Analysis of monthly and seasonal variation in WSC
Measured WS data at 10 and 50 m height have been used to calculate WSC on monthly and
seasonal basis which are further used to extrapolate WS to two heights of 80 and 100 m,
respectively. Ten-year monthly calculated values of WSC have been listed in Table 2.
Monthly and seasonal variation has also been depicted in Figure 2. It has been observed
that WSC varies throughout the year depending upon atmospheric conditions. At each
station, the highest values of WSC have been observed in winter (in December) and the
lowest in summer (in July). Moreover, autumn has somewhat lower values of WSC than
spring. The reason can be associated with temperature changes throughout the year. At high
temperature, there is better mixing of air AGL and hence smaller values of WSC are
expected and vice versa. On all investigated locations, summer is characterized by highest
temperature followed by autumn, spring, and winter, respectively. Therefore, lowest values
of WSC have been observed in summer followed by autumn, spring, and winter respectively.
Comparison between various sites shows that Pasni has the lowest average value of WSC as
Sumair et al. 2177

Gawadar Jiwani Winter Spring

(a) (b)
Karachi Ormara Summer Autumn

Wind Shear Coefficient

Pasni Sonmiani Bay 0.25
Wind Shear Coefficient

0.25 0.20
0.20 0.15
0.10
0.15
0.05
0.10
0.00
0.05
0.00
FEB
MAR

MAY

SEP
AUG

NOV
OCT
APR

JUL

DEC
JAN

JUN

Location
Time (Months)

Figure 2. (a) Monthly and (b) seasonal variation in WSC at each station.

Table 3. Average values of air density at four heights at each location.

Height (m)

10 50 80 100

Location Density (kg/m3)

Gwadar 1.17 1.22 1.26 1.29

Jiwani 1.17 1.22 1.26 1.29
Karachi 1.17 1.22 1.26 1.29
Ormara 1.16 1.21 1.25 1.28
Pasni 1.17 1.22 1.26 1.29
Sonmiani Bay 1.16 1.21 1.25 1.28

0.096 while Karachi has the highest as 0.148. This difference can be associated with different
temperatures observed at each station along with the near surface activities.

Variation in air density with height

Air density values have been calculated using local atmospheric conditions at each station.
Measured data of temperature and pressure at a height of 10 m were recorded which was
extrapolated to higher heights. Average values of air density over the entire observed period
at four heights have been listed in Table 3. Monthly and seasonal variation analysis, show-
ing the effect of height, has been presented in graphical form in Figure 3 at Gwadar.
Analysis of density variation at a height shows that density is highest in winter and
lowest in summer. During summer, temperature is highest hence air density is lowest and
vice versa. Analysis of air density variation w.r.t height shows that with increase in height,
air density also increases. As air density depends upon temperature and pressure, with
increase in height, both decrease. However, the decrease in temperature is significant than
2178 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 39(6)

(a) At 10 m At 50 m (b) At 10 m At 50 m
At 80 m At 100 m At 80 m At 100 m
1.35 1.35
Air Density (kg/m3)

Air Density (kg/m3)

1.30 1.30
1.25 1.25
1.20
1.20
1.15
1.15
1.10
FEB
MAR

MAY

SEP
AUG

NOV
APR

OCT
JUL

DEC
JAN

JUN

1.10
Winter Spring Summer Autumn
Time (Months) Time (Season)

Figure 3. Variation of density with height (a) monthly and (b) seasonal at Gwadar.

Table 4. Average values of wind speed at four heights at each location.

Height (m)

10 50 80 100

Location Wind speed (m/s)

Gwadar 4.04 5.09 5.57 5.70

Jiwani 3.82 4.55 4.74 4.86
Karachi 4.62 5.77 6.17 6.38
Ormara 4.51 5.30 5.44 5.56
Pasni 4.29 5.01 5.25 5.36
Sonmiani Bay 4.12 4.99 5.21 5.36

the decrease in pressure. Therefore, air density is mainly influenced by decrease in temper-
ature which causes it to increase. Similar trends can be observed for other locations too.
Table 4 shows that an increase of about 11% has been observed with increasing height from
10 to 100 m for all investigated locations.

Variation in WS with height

WS at two heights were measured and extrapolated to two higher heights of 80 and 100 m,
respectively, using WSC. Average values of WS at each height are listed in Table 4. It can be
observed that Karachi has the highest WS (observed in summer) while Jiwani has the lowest
of all (also observed in summer). Detailed monthly and seasonal variation has been depicted
in Figures 4 to 6 for three stations of Gwadar, Karachi, and Pasni, respectively. Remaining
stations have also similar pattern of variation with height. Moreover, it has been observed
that effect of variation in height is most prominent in winter and least in summer (due to
highest and lowest values of WSC in winter and summer, respectively), e.g. in Karachi, WS
increases from 3.41 (at 10 m) to 5.26 m/s (100 m) in winter which is about 54.17% while it is
only 26.71% in summer. Same is the case for other locations as well.
Sumair et al. 2179

(a) WS 10M WS 50M (b) WS 10M WS 50M

WS 80 M WS 100 M WS 80 M WS 100 M
6.00 6.00
Wind Speed 'WS' (ms-1)

Wind Speed 'WS' (ms-1)

5.50 5.50
5.00 5.00
4.50
4.50
4.00
4.00
3.50
3.50
3.00
FEB
MAR

MAY

AUG
SEP

NOV
APR

JUL

OCT

DEC
JAN

JUN 3.00
Winter Spring Summer Autumn
Time (Month) Time (Season)

Figure 4. Monthly (a) and seasonal (b) variation in WS with height at Gwadar.

(a) WS 10M WS 50M (b) WS 10M WS 50M

WS 80M WS 100M Wind Speed 'WS' (ms-1) WS 80M WS 100M
10.00 9.00
Wind Speed 'WS' (ms-1)

9.00 8.00
8.00
7.00 7.00
6.00 6.00
5.00 5.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
2.00 3.00
FEB
MAR

OCT
JAN

MAY
JUN

AUG
SEP

NOV
APR

JUL

DEC

2.00
Winter Spring Summer Autumn
Time (Month) Time (Season)

Figure 5. Monthly (a) and seasonal (b) variation in WS with height at Karachi.

(a) WS 10M WS 50M (b) WS 10M WS 50M

WS 80M WS 100M WS 80M WS 100M
6.50 6.00
Wind Speed 'WS' (ms-1)

Wind Speed 'WS' (ms-1)

6.00 5.50
5.50
5.00 5.00
4.50 4.50
4.00 4.00
3.50
3.50
3.00
MAY
FEB

SEP
OCT
MAR

DEC
APR
JAN

JUN

AUG

NOV
JUL

3.00
Winter Spring Summer Autumn
Time (Month) Time (Season)

Figure 6. Monthly (a) and seasonal (b) variation in WS with height at Pasni.

Variation in Weibull parameters with height

Weibull shape and scale parameters have been calculated using 10-year wind data at four
different heights. Seasonal variation in Weibull parameters with height has been shown
2180 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 39(6)

in Figure 7. It has been observed that Weibull shape parameter slightly decreases with
increasing height but this change is not significant. On the other hand, Weibull scale param-
eter increases significantly with increasing height. As Weibull scale parameter is proportion-
al to mean WS, so as the speed increases with height so is the case for Weibull
scale parameter.

K@10 m K@ 50 m
(a) K@10 m K@ 50 m K@ 80 m (b) K@ 80 m K @ 100 m
K @ 100 m C @10 m C @ 50 m C @10 m C @ 50 m

Weibull Scale Parameter 'C' (ms-1)

Weibull Scale Parameter 'C' (ms-1)
C @ 80 m C @ 100 m C @ 80 m C @ 100 m

Weibull Sacle Parameter 'K'

Weibull Shape Parameter 'K'

7.00 7.00 8.00 7.00

6.00 7.00 6.00
6.00 6.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
5.00 4.00
4.00 4.00
3.00 3.00
4.00 3.00 2.00
2.00
2.00 1.00 1.00
3.00 0.00 0.00
1.00
2.00 0.00

Time (Season)
Time (Season)
K@10 m K@ 50 m K@10 m K@ 50 m
(c) K@ 80 m K @ 100 m (d) K@ 80 m K @ 100 m
C @10 m C @ 50 m C @10 m C @ 50 m

Weibull Scale Parameter 'C' (ms-1)

Weibull Scale Parameter 'C' (ms-1)

C @ 80 m C @ 100 m C @ 80 m C @ 100 m
Weibull Scale Parameter 'K
Weibull Scale Parameter 'K'

5.50 10.00 5.00 8.00

5.00 9.00 7.00
4.00 6.00
4.50 8.00
7.00 3.00 5.00
4.00
6.00 4.00
3.50 5.00 2.00 3.00
3.00 4.00 2.00
1.00
2.50 3.00 1.00
2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00

Time (Season) Time (Season)

K@10 m K@ 50 m K@10 m K@ 50 m
(e) K@ 80 m K @ 100 m (f) K@ 80 m K @ 100 m
C @10 m C @ 50 m C @10 m C @ 50 m
Weibull Scale Parameter 'C' (ms-1)

Weibull Scale Parameter 'C' (ms-1)

C @ 80 m C @ 100 m C @ 80 m C @ 100 m
Weibull Shape Parameter 'K'
Weibull Scale Parameter 'K'

6.00 7.00 6.00 8.00

6.00 5.00 7.00
5.00
6.00
4.00 5.00 4.00 5.00
4.00 3.00 4.00
3.00
3.00 2.00 3.00
2.00 2.00 2.00
1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00

Time (Season) Time (Season)

Figure 7. Seasonal variation in Weibull parameters with height for (a) Gwadar, (b) Jiwani, (c) Karachi,
(d) Ormara, (e) Pasni, and (f) Sonmiani Bay.
Sumair et al. 2181

Investigating the effect of height on Weibull distribution

Weibull distribution curves for four different heights at each location have been drawn using
Weibull parameters calculated at each height. These distribution curves (for three locations;
other locations have also similar trends of variation) have been shown in Figures 8 to 10,
respectively. It has been observed that as the height increases, peak of distribution curve
decreases and spread on X-axis increases. Peak depends upon shape parameter (higher
values mean higher peak and vice versa) and spread on X-axis depends upon scale param-
eter (higher values are associated with higher spread and vice versa). With increase in height,
shape parameter slightly decreases and scale parameter increases, therefore, curve becomes
less higher and more spreading with increase in height. In order to evaluate the accuracy of
Weibull distribution, coefficient of determination (R2) has been calculated and listed in
Table 5. It can be observed that new method developed in this study estimates the real
wind data with significant accuracy (with R2 values more than 0.95). It can also be
observed that R2 increases with increasing height at a particular location. This is so as
Weibull distribution has limitation in defining the lower wind velocities accurately; with
increase in height, WS increases and hence Weibull distribution can describe actual wind
data more accurately.

W @ 10 m W @ 50 m W @ 80 m W @ 100 m
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
Probability

0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Wind Speed (ms-1)

Figure 8. Weibull distribution curve for four heights at Gwadar.

W @ 10 m W @ 50 m W @ 80 m W @ 100 m
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
Probability

0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Wind Speed (ms-1)

Figure 9. Weibull distribution curve for four heights at Jiwani.

2182 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 39(6)

W @ 10 m W @ 50 m W @ 80 m W @ 100 m
0.35
0.30
0.25
Probability

0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Wind Speed (ms-1)

Figure 10. Weibull distribution curve for four heights at Karachi.

Table 5. Coefficient of determination at various heights.

Height (m)

10 50 80 100
Location R2

Gwadar 0.971 0.976 0.978 0.988

Jiwani 0.960 0.977 0.978 0.980
Karachi 0.978 0.982 0.986 0.999
Ormara 0.957 0.961 0.966 0.967
Pasni 0.961 0.973 0.979 0.987
Sonmiani bay 0.964 0.970 0.990 0.991

Variation in wind PD and wind ED with height

Using Weibull parameters and local air density calculated at each location for all heights,
wind PD values have been calculated on monthly basis. Seasonal variation with height has
been depicted in Figure 11. No generalized behavior of seasonal variation for all sites has
been observed as it depends upon the wind patterns of individual site which may not nec-
essarily be the same for all sites. However, a generalized behavior of impact of wind shear on
PD in different seasons for all sites has been observed, i.e. with increase in height, PD
increases more in winter than in summer. At Gwadar, for example, PD increases from
46.24 to 122.81 W/m2 (165.59%) by moving from 10 to 100 m height in winter while this
increment is about 78.42% in summer. As winter season is most influenced by wind shear
and summer is the least. Furthermore, comparison among all sites shows that Karachi is the
most potential site while Jiwani is the worst. Same is the case regarding wind ED variation
shown in Figure 12.

AEP and economic feasibility analysis

Fifteen turbine models which are most used in Pakistan and are planned to be installed
along the coastline of Pakistan by GOP are listed in Table 6 along with their technical
specifications (rated power, rated WS, rotor area, cut-in and cut-out speeds, etc.).
Sumair et al. 2183

(a) PD @10 m PD @ 50 m (b) PD @10 m PD @ 50 m

Wind Power Density 'PD' (Wm-2) PD @ 80 m PD @100 m PD @ 80 m PD @100 m

Wind Power Desnity 'PD' (Wm-2)

140.00 140.00
120.00 120.00
100.00 100.00
80.00 80.00
60.00 60.00
40.00 40.00
20.00 20.00
0.00 0.00
Winter Spring Summer Autumn Winter Spring Summer Autumn
Time (Season) Time (Season)

PD @10 m
(c) PD @10 m PD @ 50 m (d) PD @ 50 m

Wind Power Density 'PD' (Wm-2)

PD @ 80 m PD @100 m PD @ 80 m
Wind Power Density 'PD' (Wm-2)

250.00
500.00
200.00
400.00

300.00 150.00

200.00 100.00

100.00 50.00

0.00 0.00
Winter Spring Summer Autumn Winter Spring Summer Autumn
Time (Season)
Time (Season)

(e) PD @10 m PD @ 50 m (f) PD @10 m PD @ 50 m

PD @ 80 m PD @100 m PD @ 80 m PD @100 m
Wind Power Density 'PD' (Wm-2)
Wind Poewr Density 'PD' (Wm-2)

250.00 300.00

200.00 250.00
200.00
150.00
150.00
100.00
100.00
50.00 50.00
0.00 0.00
Winter Spring Summer Autumn Winter Spring Summer Autumn
Time (Season) Time (Season)

Figure 11. Seasonal variation in wind PD with height for (a) Gwadar, (b) Jiwani, (c) Karachi, (d) Ormara,
(e) Pasni, and (f) Sonmiani Bay.

General wind power curve (applicable to any turbine with its rated power, cut-in speed, cut-
out speed rated WS) has been shown in Figure 13. AEP has been estimated for four heights
of 10, 50, 80, and 100 m, respectively, along with the evaluation of CFs in each case. Amount
of power produced (Pp), AEP, and CFs have been calculated for 10, 50, 80, and 100 m
2184 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 39(6)

(a) ED @10 m ED @ 50 m (b) ED @10 m ED @ 50 m

Wind Energy Density 'ED' (kWhm-2)
ED @ 80 m ED @100 m

Wind Energy Density 'ED' (kWhm-2)

ED @ 80 m ED @100 m
300.00 300.00
250.00 250.00
200.00 200.00
150.00 150.00
100.00 100.00
50.00 50.00
0.00 0.00
Winter Spring Summer Autumn Winter Spring Summer Autumn
Time (Season) Time (Season)

(c) ED @10 m ED @ 50 m (d) ED @10 m ED @ 50 m

ED @ 80 m ED @100 m ED @ 80 m ED @100 m
Wind Energy Density 'ED' (kWhm-2)

Wind Energy Density 'ED' (kWhm-2)

1,000.00 600.00
800.00 500.00
600.00 400.00
400.00 300.00
200.00 200.00
0.00 100.00
0.00
Winter Spring Summer Autumn
Time (Season) Time (Season)

(e) ED @10 m ED @ 50 m (f) ED @10 m ED @ 50 m

ED @ 80 m ED @100 m ED @ 80 m ED @100 m
Wind Energy Density 'ED' (kWhm-2)
Wind Energy Density 'ED' (kWhm-2)

500.00 700.00
600.00
400.00
500.00
300.00 400.00
200.00 300.00
200.00
100.00
100.00
0.00 0.00
Winter Spring Summer Autumn Winter Spring Summer Autumn
Time (Season) Time (Season)

Figure 12. Seasonal variation in wind ED with height for (a) Gwadar, (b) Jiwani, (c) Karachi, (d) Ormara, (e)
Pasni, and (f) Sonmiani Bay.

height, respectively. All these parameters have been found to be increased with increasing
hub height and this is expected. Comparison among these turbines shows that G1 (GE 45.7)
shows the best performance at all locations w.r.t AEP while B5 (Bonus 300/33) shows the
least. For example, at 10 m height, G1 has Pp, CF, and AEP as 503.17 kW, 21.88%, and
Sumair et al. 2185

Table 6. Turbine models with their specifications, PR (rated power), AR (rotor area), Vcin (cut-in speed), VR
(rated speed), and Vcout (cutout speed).

Notation
Turbine model for turbine PR (kW) AR (m2) Vcin (m/s) VR (m/s) Vcout (m/s)

Bonus 2300/82.4 B1 2300 5330 3.0 15.0 25.0

Bonus 1300/62 B2 1300 3018 3.0 14.0 24.0
Bonus 1MW/54 B3 1000 2300 3.0 15.0 25.0
Bonus 600/44 B4 600 1520 3.0 13.0 25.0
Bonus 300/33 B5 300 876 3.0 14.0 25.0
Vestas V80 V1 2000 5024 4.0 15.0 25.0
Vestas V63 V2 1500 3116 4.5 16.0 25.0
Vestas V42 V3 600 1385 4.0 17.0 25.0
GE 45.7 G1 2300 6936 3.0 14.0 25.0
GE/1.5 SL G2 1500 4654 4.0 14.0 20.0
GE600a G3 600 1662 3.0 14.0 20.0
De Wind D8 D1 2000 5027 3.0 13.5 25.0
De Wind D7 D2 1500 3846 3.0 12.0 25.0
De Wind D6 D3 1250 3019 2.8 12.5 25.0
Enercon E-40/600 E1 600 1520 2.5 12.0 28.0

Figure 13. Generalized wind power curve for wind turbines.

4407.79 MW h, respectively, while corresponding values at 100 m height are 1337.18 kW,
58.14%, and 11,713.68 MW h, respectively. On the other hand, B5 has Pp, CF, and AEP
as 63.40 kW, 21.13%, and 555.42 MWh at 10 m and 168.50 kW, 56.17%, and 1476.03 MWh
at 100 m height, respectively. As CF alone cannot help in selecting of turbines, i.e. higher CF
does not necessarily make a turbine feasible and vice versa. Selection of turbine also depends
upon the economic feasibility. Therefore, unit cost of energy has been calculated and it was
found that G1 is the most economical turbine at Gwadar and Jiwani while G2 at all other
2186 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 39(6)

Predicted Wind Speed @ 80 m Measured Wind Speed @ 80 m

6.00

5.00
Wind Speed (m/s)

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Time (Month)

Figure 14. Comparison of measured and predicted WS values at 80 m.

Predicted Wind Speed @ 100 m Measured Wind Speed @ 100 m

6.00

5.00
Wind Speed (m/s)

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Time (Months)

Figure 15. Comparison of measured and predicted WS values at 100 m.

locations. On the other hand, V2 has been found the least economical for all locations. It
can also be inferred that a single turbine cannot always be feasible at each location.
Comparison among locations shows that Karachi is the most feasible site for wind power
projects installation with highest Pp, AEP, and CF with minimum unit cost of energy
($0.019 and $0.017 at 80 and 100 m heights, respectively).

Comparison of measured and predicted WS

As long-term wind data are required to estimate wind potential with significant accuracy,
wind data measurement at higher heights is associated with higher measurement costs along
with technical difficulties. Therefore, extrapolation is needed. In current work, wind data at
10 and 50 m height were available for 10-year period; however, measured wind data at 80
and 100 m heights were available for only one year of 2015. Therefore, using WSCs, WS was
extrapolated to 80 and 100 m heights, respectively, for entire period. In order to analyze the
accuracy with which WSCs extrapolated the wind data, a comparison between measured
Sumair et al. 2187

Table 7. Comparison of current study data with historical data (obtained from literature).

Absolute percentage
Literature data Current study data deviation

Percent increase Percent increase

Height Speed in Speed Height Speed in Speed (%)

100 7.71 38.95 100 5.55 40.60 4.25

81.5 7.46 34.40 81.5 5.38 36.41 5.84
80 7.45 34.31 80 5.37 36.04 5.03
60 7.13 28.51 60 5.14 30.37 6.52
30 6.49 16.99 30 4.64 17.66 3.90
10 5.55 0.00 10 3.94 0.00 0.00

and predicted values for the year of 2015 was conducted and both data sets were found to be
in good agreement, as shown in Figures 14 and 15, respectively.

Validation of results
Historical data validation method has been used to compare the outcomes of this work.
The validity of a model is determined with respect to method used and scope of research.
This study mainly focuses on the investigation of wind shear effect to estimate wind power
potential at higher heights where measured wind data are generally not available using
power law model. This model has been found to be valid when compared with previous
historical data, as shown in Table 7 (Azad et al., 2011; Dahmouni et al., 2011; Fırtın et al.,
2011; Hulio et al., 2019b; Ilinca et al., 2003; Islam et al., 2011; Milanese et al., 2019;
Mohammadi and Mostafaeipour, 2013; Ouammi et al., 2010; Shoaib et al., 2017)

Conclusion
WSCs at six sites along the coastline of Pakistan have been estimated using measured wind
data at two heights. Effect of wind shear on monthly and seasonal variation of different
wind parameters has been analyzed along with wind power estimation using Weibull dis-
tribution. Finally, techno-economic feasibility analysis of AEP using 15 turbine models has
been conducted. Following conclusions have been drawn from this work:

(i) WSCs are maximum in winter and minimum in summer. The reason can be associated
with temperature changes throughout the year. At high temperature, there is better
mixing of air AGL and hence smaller values of WSC are expected and vice versa. On all
investigated locations, summer is characterized by highest temperature followed by
autumn, spring, and winter, respectively. Therefore, lowest values of WSC have been
observed in summer followed by autumn, spring, and winter.
(ii) With increase in height, the decrease in temperature is more prominent than decrease in
pressure. Therefore, air density increases with increasing height. Similarly, with increase
in height, Weibull shape parameter has been found to slightly decrease while Weibull
scale parameter increases significantly.
2188 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 39(6)

(iii) Wind PD and wind ED have been found to significantly increase with increasing height
owing to the increase in both WS and air density with height. This increase has been
found the most significant in winter while lowest in summer.
(iv) G1 (GE 45.7) shows best performance w.r.t AEP at all locations, w.r.t CF and unit cost
at Gwadar and Jiwani (for other locations, G2 has been found the best model). On the
other side, B5 and V2 have been found the worst w.r.t AEP and both CF and unit cost
(both), respectively.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

ORCID iD
Muhammad Sumair https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9026-1092

References
Ali F (2019) Future of renewable energy in Pakistan. Available at: https://fp.brecorder.com/2019/09/
20190907516041/ (accessed 11 April 2020).
Azad A, Alam M and Saha M (2011) Effect of wind shear coefficient on wind velocity at coastal sites
of Bangladesh. In: International conference on mechanical engineering, Dhaka, Bangladesh, pp.1–6.
Bailey BH (1981) Predicting vertical wind profiles as a function of time of day and surface wind speed.
In: Proceedings of an international colloquium on wind energy, pp.11–16.
Chang TP (2011) Performance comparison of six numerical methods in estimating Weibull parameters
for wind energy application. Applied Energy 88(1): 272–282.
Costa Rocha PA, de Sousa RC, de Andrade CF, et al. (2012) Comparison of seven numerical methods
for determining Weibull parameters for wind energy generation in the northeast region of Brazil.
Applied Energy 89(1): 395–400.
Council GWE (2020) Global wind report 2019. Available at: https://gwec.net/global-wind-report-
2019/ (accessed 11 April 2020).
Dahmouni AW, Ben Salah M, Askri F, et al. (2011) Assessment of wind energy potential and optimal
electricity generation in Borj-Cedria, Tunisia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15(1):
815–820.
 and Mikulovi
c J (2012) Assessment of the wind energy resource in the South Banat region,
- urisi
c Z
D
Serbia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16(5): 3014–3023.
Elger DF, Roberson JA, Williams BC, et al. (2016) Engineering Fluid Mechanics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Farrugia R (2003) The wind shear exponent in a Mediterranean island climate. Renewable Energy
28(4): 647–653.
Fırtın E, Güler O€ and Akdag SA (2011) Investigation of wind shear coefficients and their effect on
electrical energy generation. Applied Energy 88(11): 4097–4105.
Himri Y, Rehman S, Himri S, et al. (2016) Investigation of wind resources in Timimoun region,
Algeria. Wind Engineering 40(3): 250–260.
Hulio ZH, Jiang W and Rehman S (2019a) Techno-economic assessment of wind power potential of
Hawke’s Bay using Weibull parameter: A review. Energy Strategy Reviews 26: 1–13.
Sumair et al. 2189

Hulio ZH, Jiang W and Rehman S (2019b) Techno-economic assessment of wind power potential of
Hawke’s Bay using Weibull parameter: A review. Energy Strategy Reviews 26: 100375.
Ilinca A, McCarthy E, Chaumel J-L, et al. (2003) Wind potential assessment of Quebec province.
Renewable Energy 28(12): 1881–1897.
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) (2019) Renewable capacity statistics 2019. Abu
Dhabi. ISBN 978-92-9260-123-2.
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) (2020) Renewable capacity statistics 2019. Abu
Dhabi. ISBN 978-92-9260-239-0.
Indhumathy D, Seshaiah C and Sukkiramathi K (2014) Estimation of Weibull parameters for wind
speed calculation at Kanyakumari in India. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science,
Engineering and Technology 3: 8340–8345.
Islam M, Saidur R and Rahim N (2011) Assessment of wind energy potentiality at Kudat and Labuan,
Malaysia using Weibull distribution function. Energy 36(2): 985–992.
Islam MS, Mohandes M and Rehman S (2017) Vertical extrapolation of wind speed using artificial
neural network hybrid system. Neural Computing and Applications 28(8): 2351–2361.
Khahro SF, Tabbassum K, Soomro AM, et al. (2014a) Evaluation of wind power production pro-
spective and Weibull parameter estimation methods for Babaurband, Sindh Pakistan. Energy
Conversion and Management 78: 956–967.
Khahro SF, Tabbassum K, Soomro AM, et al. (2014b) Techno-economical evaluation of wind energy
potential and analysis of power generation from wind at Gharo, Sindh Pakistan. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 35: 460–474.
Milanese M, Congedo PM, Colangelo G, et al. (2019) Numerical method for wind energy analysis in
WTG siting. Renewable Energy 136: 202–210.
Mohammadi K and Mostafaeipour A (2013) Using different methods for comprehensive study of wind
turbine utilization in Zarrineh, Iran. Energy Conversion and Management 65: 463–470.
Ouammi A, Dagdougui H, Sacile R, et al. (2010) Monthly and seasonal assessment of wind energy
characteristics at four monitored locations in Liguria region (Italy). Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 14(7): 1959–1968.
Oyedepo SO, Adaramola MS and Paul SS (2012) Analysis of wind speed data and wind energy
potential in three selected locations in south-east Nigeria. International Journal of Energy and
Environmental Engineering 3(1): 1–11.
Pishgar-Komleh S, Keyhani A and Sefeedpari P (2015) Wind speed and power density analysis based
on Weibull and Rayleigh distributions (a case study: Firouzkooh county of Iran). Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 42: 313–322.
Rafique MM and Rehman S (2017) National energy scenario of Pakistan – Current status, future
alternatives, and institutional infrastructure: An overview. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 69: 156–167.
Rafique MM, Rehman S, Alam M, et al. (2018) Feasibility of a 100 MW installed capacity wind farm
for different climatic conditions. Energies 11(8): 2147.
Rehman S and Al-Abbadi NM (2005) Wind shear coefficients and their effect on energy production.
Energy Conversion and Management 46(15): 2578–2591.
Rehman S and Al-Abbadi NM (2007) Wind shear coefficients and energy yield for Dhahran, Saudi
Arabia. Renewable Energy 32(5): 738–749.
Rehman S and Al-Abbadi NM (2008) Wind shear coefficient, turbulence intensity and wind power
potential assessment for Dhulom, Saudi Arabia. Renewable Energy 33(12): 2653–2660.
Rehman S, Mohandes MA and Alhems LM (2018) Wind speed and power characteristics using LiDAR
anemometer based measurements. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 27: 46–62.
Rehman S, Natarajan N, Vasudevan M, et al. (2020) Assessment of wind energy potential
across varying topographical features of Tamil Nadu, India. Energy Exploration & Exploitation
38: 175–200.
2190 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 39(6)

Shoaib M, Siddiqui I, Amir YM, et al. (2017) Evaluation of wind power potential in Baburband
(Pakistan) using Weibull distribution function. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 70:
1343–1351.
Sisterson D, Hicks B, Coulter R, et al. (1983) Difficulties in using power laws for wind energy assess-
ment. Solar Energy 31(2): 201–204.
Sumair M, Aized T, Gardezi, SAR, et al. (2020) A newly proposed method for Weibull parameters
estimation and assessment of wind potential in Southern Punjab. Energy Reports 6: 1250–1261.
Sumair M, Aized T, Gardezi, SAR, et al. (2020) Wind potential estimation and proposed energy
production in Southern Punjab using Weibull probability density function and surface measured
data. Energy Exploration & Exploitation. Epub ahead of print 14 May 2020. DOI: 10.1177/
0144598720920748.
Windustry (2016) How much do wind turbines cost? Available at: http://www.windustry.org/how_
much_do_wind_turbines_cost (accessed 21 March 2020).
WWEA (2019) Wind power capacity worldwide reaches 597 GW, 50,1 GW added in 2018. Available
at: https://wwindea.org/blog/2019/02/25/wind-power-capacity-worldwide-reaches-600-gw-539-gw-
added-in-2018/ (accessed 11 April 2020).

Appendix
Notation

C Weibull scale parameter

f(V) probability density function
K Weibull shape parameter
Pp power production
R2 coefficient of determination
Tr and Pr reference temperature and pressure
b wind shear coefficient
q air density