## 2 Materials and Methods
### Sensitivity Analysis
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Simulation setup**} \\ \hline Initial and boundary conditions and fields for grid nudging were taken from ERA-Interim reanalysis with 0.75\({}^{\circ}\)\(\times\) 0.75\({}^{\circ}\) horizontal resolution. \\ Simulation length: 60 h including 12 h spin-up (runs were started at 00:00 UTC every 60 h, with an hourly time step and the first 12 h of each simulation were disregarded as the spin-up). \\ Nudging: Grid nudging was implemented in D1 only; above PBL, the nudging coefficient was 0.0003 s\({}^{-1}\) for wind, temperature and specific humidity. \\ \hline Spin-up: 12 h \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Physical parameterizations**} \\ \hline Microphysics: [PERSON] et al. scheme [73]. A sophisticated scheme that has snow, ice and graupel processes, suitable for real-data high-resolution simulations \\ \hline Longwave Radiation: RRTM scheme. An accurate scheme using look-up tables for efficiency. Accounts for trace gases, multiple bands and microphysical species. \\ \hline Shortwave Radiation: Dudhia scheme [74]. Simple downward integration allowed the efficient estimation of clouds, scattering and clear-sky absorption. \\ \hline The five planetary boundary layers and surface layer used in this study are analytically discussed in the text. \\ \hline Land Surface: Noah Land Surface Model [75]. Unified NCCP/NCAR/AFWA scheme with moisture and soil temperature in four layers, including fractional frozen soil and snow cover physics. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._In summary, these PBL schemes differ in their approaches, equations, complexity, and focus. The YSU, MYJ, and MYNN2.5 schemes employ a combination of local and non-local closures, whereas the QNSE scheme utilizes quasi-normal scale elimination. The ACM2 scheme emphasizes the representation of convective processes. The schemes also vary in the number of equations that they solve, with the MYNN2.5 and QNSE schemes being more advanced and computationally demanding. Ultimately, the choice of PBL scheme depends on the specific modeling requirements and the atmospheric conditions being simulated. Each scheme has its own strengths and limitations, and the selection should be made based on the intended application and the desired balance between accuracy and computational efficiency. In numerical models, the representation of turbulent motions in the atmosphere depends on two processes in PBL schemes: (i) considering a local or non-local mixing approach and (ii) the order of turbulence closure. Among the five schemes that were investigated, the YSU scheme is a first order non-local scheme adapted from the Medium Range Forecast (MRF) boundary layer scheme. The YSU scheme uses the K-profile approach to parameterize turbulent mixing. The MYJ scheme is a local 1.5-order scheme and a modified version of the original [PERSON] [79] level 2.5 and level 2 models developed by [PERSON] [80] that uses a revised master length scale. The MYNN is a local 1.5-order scheme and is the modification of the MY scheme, similar to MYJ. The MYNN scheme uses large eddy simulation (LES) for the purposes of solving pressure-temperature-gradient covariance and pressure strain that are neglected by the MY scheme. QNSE is also a local 1.5-order scheme, although there are some differences compared to the other schemes. ACM2 is a first-order scheme and asymmetrical convection model, version 2. The ACM2 treats both non-local large-scale transportations, as well as local sub-grid scale diffusion. In this study, the simulation contained two two-way nested domains with horizontal resolutions of 15 km and 5 km, for D1 and D2, respectively (Figure 2). The following analysis to evaluate the model performance and wind energy resource assessment was carried out for the inner domain (D2).