## 3 Results and Discussion
### Evaluation of the WRF Simulations  
To assess the accuracy of the WRF model outputs, the simulated wind speed and wind power were compared with wind observations. However, wind observations at meteorological stations were collected at a low height of 10 m a.g.l., which is not coincident with WRF simulations or suitable for wind energy assessment. Therefore, only SATBA stations that measure wind at a height of 40 m a.g.l. were used to evaluate the simulated wind-energy potential. Table 10 presents the mean, median, and wind power density (WPD) values calculated using both measured wind data and WRF simulations. The results show that the mean, median, and WPD values were overestimated at Hajiabad and Sheikh-Tape stations and underestimated at the other stations. The maximum errors in mean and median values were shown at Hajiabad station, with an error of 0.61 m/s and 0.94 m/s, respectively. The maximum WPD error of 158 Wm\({}^{-2}\) was obtained at Khalkhal station. These findings suggest that while the simulated mesoscale mean wind speed provides a preliminary indication of a site's wind energy potential, it cannot be assumed as the best estimator for wind energy production potential. Hajiabad station is an excellent example of this fact, since it presents the highest mean wind speed error but the lowest WPD error. Therefore, the mesoscale climatic wind data provide a general overview of areas with wind energy potential. However, for wind farm development, it is necessary to conduct further studies and extensive evaluations in several areas. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Area** & **NG** & **January** & **February** & **March** & **April** & **May** & **June** & **July** & **August** & **September** & **October** & **November** & **December** & **ANN** \\ \hline A1 & 682 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.01 & \(-\)0.06 \({}^{\star}\) & \(-\)0.1 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.01 & 0.06 \({}^{\star}\) & \(-\)0.03 & 0.06 \({}^{\star}\) &  
To further investigate this matter, Figure 9 displays the wind speed distribution for both simulated and observed data at the SATBA stations. The model slightly overestimated wind speeds above 4 m/s in Hajiabad and Sheikh-Tape stations, leading to a general overestimation of WPD in these two stations. Therefore, the model's ability to simulate higher wind speeds has a more significant impact on WPD estimation than its overall performance. Conversely, wind speeds above 10 m/s at Koolhin and Khalkhal stations and above 5 m/s at Songhor stations were underestimated by the model. On the other hand, this comparison revealed r values in the order of 0.75-0.92, indicating great consistency between the WRF-simulated and the measured wind. The findings of this study demonstrate that the WRF model represents the wind speed distributions at SATBA stations in Iran with high accuracy, with some minor discrepancies observed. These results indicate that the model is reliable in assessing wind power density at selected locations in Iran and in the Middle East. However, to enhance our understanding of the Aeolian regime and wind energy potential across Iran, it is recommended to establish more SATBA stations in the future, particularly in areas affected by strong winds like the Sistan Basin. Further evaluation of the model outputs with more measured data will allow for a more comprehensive assessment of wind resources. The current wind simulations were previously evaluated against measured wind data at ten stations around the Urmia (NW Iran) and Bakhtegan (south Iran) desiccated lakes in order to assess the influence of WRF simulations on the wind erosion and dust outbreaks from these dried lake basins [27]. The results of the simulations showed that the model overestimated 10 m wind data in all the stations around Bakhtegan Lake and it performed better at stations around Urmia Lake. The height difference (10 m vs. 50 m) may be a regulatory factor for this overestimation.