the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Monitoring and quantifying wind turbine clutter in DWD weather radar measurements
Abstract. Wind turbine clutter (WTC) is a serious threat to radar measurements from polarimetric weather radar. In Germany, wind turbines can now be built within the 5–15 km range of a weather radar in order to support and further increase the production of green energy. In order to protect the remaining 5 km radius from further wind turbine expansion, WTC is monitored and the consequences on radar data quality are quantified. There are currently no filter methods that can reliably separate wind turbine clutter from desired weather information. It is shown, that a dynamic WTC detection algorithm on the signal processor level performs well in over 80 % of the time if the rotor speed of the wind turbine is larger than 5 rpm (i.e. wind turbine is running). The dynamic WTC detection algorithm fails in situations where, presumably, the static clutter contribution from the wind turbine tower is too large. This is assessed for the first time by using wind turbine operator data from two wind turbines at a distance of about 10 km from a radar system, which are provided in real-time to the Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD). For the DWD radar system Ummendorf, persistent WTC occupies 5 % of the area in the 5 km radius (approx. 4 km2), and 3 % in the 5–15 km radius (approx. 18 km2). WTC is found up to an elevation of 3.5° within the 5 km radius, and 1.5° with the 5–15 km radius. Using wind measurements from a synoptic weather station near the radar system Ummendorf, a WT detection probability between 60 % and 80 % can be deduced for the WTs at around the 5 km radius. We show that polarimetric radar measurements are more sensitive to WTC. Especially the areal coverage of the disturbance is larger than that observed for traditional radar reflectivity. Also, the vertical extent of WTC on polarimetric moments, illustrated by the depolarisation ratio (DR), is clearly present at 3.5° elevation, and less so in radar reflectivity. A wind park at the 5 km range from the radar system Ummendorf is used to quantify the beam blockage by WTs statistically. Though the data are noisy, a 0.5 dB blockage can be estimated for this particular wind park. This is significant, as the overall accuracy of the radar reflectivity has to be within ±1 dB, meaning 50 % of the radar reflectivity error budget is consumed by this particular wind park. Further, the radar looses sensitivity in measuring precipitation, in particular at long ranges. Static beam-blockage corrections are not applicable to WTC. We conclude, that the 5 km radius must be kept free from WT expansion.
- Preprint
(5920 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4957', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Nov 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Michael Frech, 28 Nov 2025
See the attachment for our response to reviewer RC1
-
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Dec 2025
The authors have successfully answered my questions and I have no further comments. Congratulations on the good work!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4957-RC2 -
AC5: 'Reply on RC2', Michael Frech, 22 Jan 2026
Thank you!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4957-AC5
-
AC5: 'Reply on RC2', Michael Frech, 22 Jan 2026
-
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Dec 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Michael Frech, 28 Nov 2025
-
RC3: 'Comment on figures in egusphere-2025-4957', Norman Donaldson, 03 Dec 2025
I am still working on writing up comments on the text, but I have some comments on figures. Since changes to figures are more time consuming, I am going post those comments now. See attached PDF. I hope to get the full review up early next week (week of Dec 8).
-
RC4: 'Reply on RC3', Norman Donaldson, 10 Dec 2025
Earlier I posted comments on Figures because I thought any changes there would require more effort.
Here is my full review as a PDF document. I like the paper and it deserves publication. I had some questions and suggestions but none of them are "show stoppers", so the authors may make changes as they think is appropriate.
NRD
- AC3: 'Reply on RC4', Michael Frech, 21 Jan 2026
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Michael Frech, 21 Jan 2026
RC3: 'Comment on figures in egusphere-2025-4957', Norman Donaldson, 03 Dec 2025
The response on the comments and suggestions here can be found in the response to RC4, which includes the everything from RC3.
RC3 General
I am still working on writing up comments on the text, but I have some comments
on figures. Since changes to figures are more time consuming, I am going post
those comments now. See attached PDF. I hope to get the full review up early
next week (week of Dec 8).Response: see above RC4
RC3 Figure Comments
Figure 3: The colour bar does not correspond to the figure. The colour bar shows pure gray
colours, but the figure is using colours with a magenta/purple shade. The figure is deceptive
because starting at 0m implies the radar antenna is higher than all surrounding terrain.
Google Earth says the ground height is about 800m at turbines TUR2 and TUR3, and the
height at the radar is about 735m. That means the antenna would need to be lower than the
ground at that location, unless the antenna is more than 65m above ground. (Maybe the
radar is that tall? The radar site specifications are not given.) My version of the figure using a
crude topography database is below.Response: see above RC4
Figure 4 Change “wea” in title? (“WTC”?) Is it easy to replace the WIGOS id with a name?
FYI I could not find this ID in the OSCAR database, but I have little experience with WIGOS,
so it might be somewhere else.Response: see above RC4
Figure 8: As with Figure 3, colour bar does not correspond to the figure itself.
Response: see above RC4
Figure 10 In my opinion the upper limit on reflectivity colours should be higher. I was
surprised that the turbines seemed to be spread uniformly across 3 degrees, until I realized
that the observed values must be far above the colour limits; colours were saturated so no
detail below 3 deg in azimuth. I suspect the reported reflectivities are much in excess of
60 dBZ.Response: see above RC4
Figure 11 What is the meaning of white? I can guess that clutter has exceeded the ability
to correct reflectivity, but please state meaning. The same comment for Figure 12.Response: see above RC4
Figure 14: What is “Wea” and “NoWea” on the figures? Maybe “WF” (Wind Farm) was
intended, since discussion in the text indicates that the distributions labelled “Wea” are
from the wind farm sector. (Elsewhere WEA is WTC, but I would prefer WF here.)Response: see above RC4
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4957-AC2
-
RC4: 'Reply on RC3', Norman Donaldson, 10 Dec 2025
-
RC5: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4957', Anonymous Referee #3, 22 Dec 2025
This work reports the impact of WT on weather radar measurements; personally, I find it unbalanced: I mean, a great/relevant emphasis on the spectral component and a little one on key polarimetric variables.
As far as the quality is concerned, I find it good.
- AC4: 'Reply on RC5', Michael Frech, 21 Jan 2026
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 379 | 164 | 46 | 589 | 19 | 20 |
- HTML: 379
- PDF: 164
- XML: 46
- Total: 589
- BibTeX: 19
- EndNote: 20
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Please see attached comments.