the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Shallow and deep low-wind events in Europe: an ERA5-based event dataset (1979–2024)
Abstract. Persistent low-wind events (LWEs), often referred to as wind droughts, pose a growing challenge to power systems with high shares of wind energy. Existing assessments typically identify LWEs using wind speed at a single height, implicitly treating wind droughts as vertically homogeneous. However, weak-wind conditions can exhibit different vertical structures within the atmospheric boundary layer, leading to different wind conditions at turbine height. We present an event-based dataset of European LWEs derived from hourly ERA5 reanalysis for 1979–2024. The dataset introduces a two-height classification based on 10 and 100 m wind speeds. Events lasting at least 48 h are classified as shallow LWEs when wind speed is below 3 m s-1 at 10 m but above this threshold at 100 m, and as deep LWEs when wind speed remains below the threshold at both heights. Corresponding shallow-LWE-like and deep-LWE-like events are also identified for durations shorter than 48 h. The principal novelty of the dataset is that it adds a previously neglected vertical dimension to wind-drought climatology by distinguishing between weak-wind conditions confined near the surface and those that extend to turbine height. The physical plausibility of the classification is supported by distinct spatial and seasonal distributions and contrasting boundary-layer characteristics. Shallow LWEs are associated with stronger 10–100 m wind contrasts and more stable surface conditions, whereas deep LWEs represent more vertically coherent weak-wind states. The dataset contains event timing, duration, location, and classification, providing a resource for investigating European wind-drought climatology, boundary-layer controls, and land–sea contrasts. It also supports separate assessment of near-surface and turbine-height low-wind exposure in future renewable-energy systems. The dataset is available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20748499 (Zhou and Esau, 2026).
- Preprint
(1561 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2026-483', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Sep 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2026-483/essd-2026-483-RC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/essd-2026-483-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2026-483', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Sep 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2026-483/essd-2026-483-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
RC3: 'Comment on essd-2026-483', Anonymous Referee #3, 13 Oct 2026
The premise of the study is that a dual-elevation database of low-wind events (LWEs), in particular 10-m and 100-m, is a better choice than a single-elevation database, i.e., 10-m only, for wind energy applications, because a 10-m only database would wrongfully include extra events (between 10% and 80% depending on the region) that are windy enough at 100-m to actually generate power. This is well summarized by the following statements:
“Weak winds, on the one hand, can be confined to a stably stratified surface layer in which turbulent mixing is suppressed, and the flow aloft remains relatively strong. On the other hand, weak winds may extend throughout the turbine-relevant layer, reflecting a vertically coherent low momentum environment. These two situations are dynamically distinct, yet indistinguishable under existing definitions of LWEs.”
All this is true and well known, but the last sentence is the problem. Existing definitions of LWEs do not, and should not, use 10-m data. From the wind industry perspective, the only height that matters is the hub height, which is generally about 100 m. Given the plethora of data available near hub height, from analyses to re-analyses to ad-hoc simulations, nobody today would use 10-m winds to estimate wind droughts or LWEs.
The only exception is the study by Kay et al. (2023), which uses 10-m data from 10 climate models without providing any explanation for their choice of the 10-m level. I was not aware of their study and, as far as I know, it is the only one that looks at 10-m data and it is not the standard by any means.
In brief, a database of a single-level wind speed data is absolutely and completely adequate, as long as that single level is 100 m, or near hub height. Thus, the premise of this study:
“LWEs cannot be adequately characterized using a single-level definition”
is not true, except for the case of 10 m.
As a result, the climatology of shallow LWEs proposed in this study is effectively useless. As long as the wind turbine spins, like during shallow LWEs, nobody cares that winds are low at 10 m.
Basically, the current study is at best a rebuttal to Kay et al. (2023) and provides statistics and a full database of shallow LWEs, which are not really useful. I would have much rather preferred a database of deep LWEs (only Fig. 3a, middle panel, shows useful data on their duration).
Because of these considerations, I cannot recommend publication of this study.
I see two ways to proceed.
The first is to shift the focus from shallow LWEs to deep LWEs, which would not need to be called “deep” anymore. The wind industry would benefit from knowing where these droughts at hub height are more likely in Europe. A section could be retained to prove that using 10-m winds, like the Kay et al. (2023) study, would give wrong conclusions, more so in Northern Europe than elsewhere, but no more than a section.
The second is to keep the two-level approach, but focus on levels around hub height. Wind turbine hubs today are at about 100 m, but many are at 80 m or lower, and many will be at 120 m or higher. What error would one make by using, say, a database of 100-m LWEs to estimate the likelihood of wind droughts at 150 m? I suspect that misclassifications are less likely when the difference in levels is smaller, but this topic/approach could be worth exploring. I realize that this second choice would require more work (e.g., explicit interpolation of the ERA5 levels to the desired height, as opposed to using directly the 100-m fields).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-483-RC3
Data sets
Shallow and deep low-wind events in Europe: an ERA5-based event dataset (1979–2024) Lihong Zhou, Igor Esau https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20748499
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 192 | 100 | 121 | 413 | 153 | 110 |
- HTML: 192
- PDF: 100
- XML: 121
- Total: 413
- BibTeX: 153
- EndNote: 110
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1