## 3 Results
### Energy Output Estimation Results
#### 3.4.2 Estimation of Proposed Installation's AEP and CF
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Power Curve**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Wind Speed Time Series over 1 Year**} \\ \cline{3-8} \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Rated Power**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**PAGV Effect Case**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Augmenting Factor**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Anem**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**QM Simple**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**QM Dir**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**QM Season**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**QM Comb**} \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{100 W} & \multirow{3}{*}{C1} & 1.28 & 5.51 & 7.55 & 4.5 & 7.22 & 5.98 \\  & & 2.34 & 30.17 & 40.36 & 29.93 & 40.33 & 33.67 \\  & & 3.50 & 69.43 & 89.53 & 71.57 & 87.45 & 74.51 \\  & & 1.28 & 12.37 & 17.03 & 11.1 & 16.38 & 13.83 \\  & & 2.34 & 51.97 & 66.84 & 51.77 & 66.12 & 55.69 \\  & & 3.50 & 102.54 & 127.98 & 109.5 & 122.59 & 108.57 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & 1.28 & 20.23 & 27.04 & 18.85 & 26.73 & 22.58 \\  & & 2.34 & 71.66 & 91.15 & 72.95 & 89.11 & 75.93 \\  & & 3.50 & 130.85 & 155.99 & 137.76 & 148.7 & 134.31 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{150 W} & \multirow{3}{*}{C1} & 1.28 & 5.56 & 7.55 & 4.5 & 7.22 & 5.98 \\  & & 2.34 & 33.46 & 45.04 & 31.83 & 44.98 & 37.57 \\  & & 3.50 & 81.83 & 106.33 & 82.85 & 104.75 & 88.19 \\  & & 1.28 & 12.7 & 17.38 & 11.1 & 16.62 & 13.95 \\  & & 2.34 & 59 & 77.09 & 58.96 & 77.03 & 64.7 \\  & & 3.50 & 125.57 & 159.21 & 131.32 & 154.15 & 133.94 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & 1.28 & 21.21 & 28.84 & 19.17 & 27.8 & 23.6 \\  & & 2.34 & 84.26 & 107.85 & 84.08 & 106.3 & 89.52 \\  & & 3.50 & 162.39 & 200.78 & 173.57 & 192.09 & 171.29 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{200 W} & \multirow{3}{*}{C2} & 1.28 & 5.56 & 7.55 & 4.5 & 7.22 & 5.98 \\  & & 2.34 & 35.23 & 47.98 & 32.55 & 47.21 & 39.78 \\  & & 3.50 & 89.93 & 118.01 & 91.05 & 117.39 & 99.18 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & 1.28 & 13.03 & 17.39 & 11.1 & 16.63 & 13.95 \\  & & 2.34 & 63.94 & 84.34 & 63.28 & 84.23 & 70.72 \\  & & 3.50 & 142.99 & 183.14 & 147.03 & 178.89 & 152.96 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & 1.28 & 21.56 & 29.49 & 19.19 & 28.23 & 23.92 \\  & & 2.34 & 92.56 & 119.52 & 92.23 & 118.92 & 100.38 \\  & & 3.50 & 188.07 & 236.31 & 198.77 & 227.88 & 199.8 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{250 W} & \multirow{3}{*}{C1} & 1.28 & 5.56 & 7.55 & 4.5 & 7.22 & 5.98 \\  & & 2.34 & 36.24 & 49.76 & 32.85 & 48.07 & 40.71 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & 3.50 & 96.16 & 127.62 & 97.83 & 127.5 & 107.41 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-8}  & & 1.28 & 13.14 & 17.39 & 11.1 & 16.63 & 13.95 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-8}  & & 2.34 & 67.55 & 89.72 & 65.69 & 89.72 & 75.12 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & 3.50 & 156.77 & 202.16 & 159.85 & 198.36 & 167.64 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-8}  & & 1.28 & 21.9 & 29.67 & 19.19 & 28.4 & 23.92 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-8}  & & 2.34 & 99.01 & 129.08 & 98.89 & 128.98 & 108.47 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & 3.50 & 209.81 & 265.75 & 219.27 & 257.35 & 223.7 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Annual Energy Production (AEP) expressed in kWh for all scenarios. The value that is closer to that of the measurements is underlined for each scenario. The predicted wind speed and direction were later used to calculate 4 AEP and CF values, one for each rated power in the intermediate scenario. The results are shown in Table 9, which also shows the equivalent AEP and CF values calculated with the directional calibration and the measured data from the testing data set.