Independent wind resource, measurement and met-ocean advisory for developers, investors and asset owners. From measurement strategy and site assessment to bankable energy yield studies and independent technical review.
Every assumption—from measurement strategy and long-term correction to wake modeling and uncertainty analysis—affects project value and investment decisions. Our role is to ensure those assumptions are transparent, technically justified and appropriate for the project context.
We do not rely on a single methodology simply because it is common practice. Instead, we evaluate alternative approaches, quantify their impact on results and document the basis for key decisions. The outcome is a defensible technical position that can withstand review by lenders, investors and independent engineers.
See how we engageRSD rectification is where we are most distinct, and where most clients first engage us. It sits within a complete wind engineering capability spanning the full development lifecycle.
Remote sensing campaigns can return data with reduced availability, sectoral gaps, or noise contamination — particularly in complex terrain, near forests or infrastructure, and in high-precipitation environments. Where the validated subset of the record is sufficient to anchor a calibration, the campaign can often be recovered through numerical reconstruction rather than redeployed. Using mesoscale modeling calibrated against the reliable hours of the existing record, combined with machine-learning reconstruction that incorporates sectoral and stability dependence, we synthesize a continuous hub-height time series at the sensor location — a virtual met mast. The reconstructed series is cross-validated against retained measurements, and uncertainty is quantified separately for measured and reconstructed portions. The deliverable is a documented record suitable for IE or lender review.
RSD rectification is where most clients first engage us. It sits within a complete wind engineering capability, from first screening to the structural design of the built project.
Mesoscale resource screening and comparative benchmarking for the go/no-go decision.
Instrument selection, mast and remote-sensing placement, and data-coverage analysis.
Synthesized hub-height time series where physical measurement is absent or incomplete.
Terrain-induced flow distortion correction for remote-sensing devices in complex terrain.
Quality control, long-term correction, and multi-method MCP with inter-method variance.
WRF mesoscale downscaling to 200 m for site-specific hub-height climatology.
P50 / P75 / P90 with full uncertainty propagation, for financial close and IE review.
Layout and wake-loss optimization across resource, constraints, and yield.
Turbine foundations, met masts, access roads, and site civil works. FEM and FSI methods.
Coupled wind–wave characterization and offshore site assessment across each stage.
A bankable Energy Yield Assessment produces P50, P75, and P90 figures intended to support lender due diligence and inform project financing. Our workflow combines WRF mesoscale modeling at 200 m–1 km resolution, multi-method MCP regression with quantified inter-method variance, and uncertainty propagation across measurement, long-term, wake, and methodological terms. Where a third-party EYA already exists, we serve as the independent technical reviewer, providing a structured memo for lender or investment committee use.
We hold no equity in the projects we assess, no commercial relationships with hardware vendors, and no incentive tied to whether a project proceeds. The deliverable is a technical opinion, not an outcome.
A 30-minute call to understand the problem. The goal is to determine whether we are the right fit before either side spends more time on it.
If there is a fit, we send a short scoping document covering the question we are answering, the data required, the deliverable, the timeline, and the price.
Engagements conclude with a written technical report and a working artifact — a model, dashboard, tool, or dataset. Thirty days of follow-up is included by default. Retainer arrangements are available where they suit the work.
Global reanalysis at 30 km is well-suited to regional screening and provides the boundary conditions for finer-resolution work. For site-specific energy modeling, downscaling to 1 km or below typically resolves terrain, coastal transition, and local boundary-layer effects that matter at hub height.
Each MCP method makes different assumptions about what is stable between the reference and target periods. The inter-method spread is typically 1.5 to 4 percent in long-term mean wind speed, which propagates to several percent in long-term energy. Carrying that spread as an explicit uncertainty term, rather than collapsing it through a single method choice, produces a more defensible result.
Reference correlations evaluated only on a single period, wake loss assumptions that may not match the as-built layout, loss factors carried forward from earlier projects without site-specific review, and uncertainty bands that do not fully capture complex-terrain variability. These are recurring areas worth checking in independent review.
The marine atmospheric boundary layer is more stability-dominated than its onshore counterpart, swell influences the local wind field through wave-induced stress, and floating LiDAR motion introduces a systematic bias. Coupled wind–wave modeling addresses these effects in ways that a marine-roughness adjustment to an onshore workflow does not.
Offshore wind and coastal infrastructure design has historically used extreme wind and wave statistics derived from stationary climate assumptions. Recent decades suggest the tails of these distributions are shifting, and site-specific extreme event modeling that incorporates climate scenarios is becoming part of the design conversation.
Inter-array and export cables can be subject to the same vortex-induced vibration mechanism that affects offshore pipelines on free spans. The relevant lock-in conditions depend on the local current profile, span geometry, and structural damping, and site-specific assessment can refine the generic fatigue analysis provided by cable suppliers.
A worked example using public reanalysis and a synthetic onsite record. Five MCP variants applied to the same data, with the inter-method spread quantified and propagated through the uncertainty composition.
Request the paperA discussion of stability-dominated regimes, swell-influenced wind fields, and floating LiDAR motion effects. Includes a comparison of treatments used in current offshore resource workflows.
Request the paperA minimal Python module that propagates measurement, long-term, modeling, and wake uncertainty with explicit treatment of correlations between terms. Includes worked test cases on public datasets.
Request accessTwo entry points, one fixed engagement. We accept either an existing EYA or a compromised RSD measurement record. Over fourteen calendar days we produce a structured technical diagnostic: for the EYA, the three assumption areas with the largest expected impact on P50 and P90, with sensitivity quantified; for the RSD record, an assessment of recoverability together with a recommended reconstruction pathway. Both tracks conclude with a written memo and a 60-minute walk-through.
Describe what you are working on and what you would like assessed. If a short call would help clarify scope, we will set one up. We respond to email within two business days. Initial conversations are without obligation.
info@spentapower.comAvailable for engagements worldwide