The Influence of the Wind Measurement Campaign Duration on a Measure-Correlate-Predict (MCP)-Based Wind Resource Assessment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Despite the manuscript analyses the evident research question that a longer campaign of collecting data improves the long-term estimations in an MCP method, this could serve as starting point to analyse the optimal duration of the short-term period. For this reason, this manuscript could be of interest for Energies readers.
The manuscript is generally well presented and structured. However, some questions have to be solved to improve the article and before to be published:
1. In lines 162 and 165, it is said that there are 10 short-term time series. I understand that this is because you are using two target stations, but it is not clear enough. Please clarify this point.
2. To clear the specific application of the MCP method and the overall method used, the manuscript requires two very good diagrams:
i) one, to show how data have been divided and used, regarding explanation made in lines 160-164, including periods considered in short-term and long-term
ii) another one, to show the overall procedure taken. At the end of section 2.
3. Why is it not used a typical error metric to eval the method/procedure, as MAE, MAPE, or other? This would improve the relevance of the results. If it will no be used, please, justify better the use of OU.
4. A final chart presenting obtained results should be beneficial for the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors should show the technical contributions for the publication of Energies.
MCP method is very general method for wind resource assessments and so it very hard to see the new concepts or approaches in the manuscript.
The authors should add some paragraphs or contents to existing sections or a new section to show technical contributions. of the proposed manuscript comparing to the existing methods.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper presents a wind resource assessment study with an emphasis on quantifying the effect of the duration period on the associated uncertainty. I'd recommend the paper for publication after some minor edits. I'd request the authors to check take into consideration the following points before final submission: 1. The introduction needs to include information about the potential impact of atmospheric turbulence on wind turbines. Please provide more details on how information on atmospheric turbulence and gusts makes is necessary for reducing the fatigue load on wind turbines, and thus it is important to have an idea about these before setting up a wind farm. The section fails to put into context the importance of wind resource assessment for wind energy applications. Include the following references with the information they provide about the potential impact of atmospheric turbulence on wind turbine loading: i) Kelley et al. 2002, " The NREL Large-Scale Turbine Inflow and Response Experiment ― Preliminary Results", ii) Churchfield et al. 2012, "A numerical study of the effects of atmospheric and wake turbulence on wind turbine dynamics", J of Turbulence, iii) Nandi et al. 2017, "Non-steady wind turbine response to daytime atmospheric turbulence", Phil. Trans. Royal Soc A . Please read these references carefully, and modify the Introduction accordingly. 2. Write the full form of MCP when it first appears in the paper (the abstract). 3. Figure 1 needs a gray scale colormap for proper interpretation.Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Following the reviewer comments, the revised manuscript was well re-written.
Thanks!
