On the socio-technical potential for onshore wind in Europe: A response to Enevoldsen et al. (2019), Energy Policy, 132, 1092-1100. (October 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: McKenna, R.; Ryberg, D.S.; Staffell, I.; Hahmann, A.N.; Schmidt, J.; Heinrichs, H.; Höltinger, S.; Lilliestam, J.; Pfenninger, S.; Robinius, M.; Stolten, D.; Tröndle, T.; Wehrle, S.; Weinand, J.M.
• Is Part Of: Energy policy. Volume 145(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-10
• Subjects: Onshore wind -- Resource assessment -- Public acceptance -- Barriers -- Feasibility; Energy policy -- Periodicals; Politique énergétique -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 333.79
• DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111693
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0301-4215

Abstract

Abstract: A recent article in this journal claimed to assess the socio-technical potential for onshore wind energy in Europe. We find the article to be severely flawed and raise concerns in five general areas. Firstly, the term socio-technical is not precisely defined, and is used by the authors to refer to a potential that others term as merely technical. Secondly, the study fails to account for over a decade of research in wind energy resource assessments. Thirdly, there are multiple issues with the use of input data and, because the study is opaque about many details, the effect of these errors cannot be reproduced. Fourthly, the method assumes a very high wind turbine capacity density of 10.73 MW/km 2 across 40% of the land area in Europe with a generic 30% capacity factor. Fifthly, the authors find an implausibly high onshore wind potential, with 120% more capacity and 70% more generation than the highest results given elsewhere in the literature. Overall, we conclude that new research at higher spatial resolutions can make a valuable contribution to wind resource potential assessments. However, due to the missing literature review, the lack of transparency and the overly simplistic methodology, Enevoldsen et al. (2019) potentially mislead fellow scientists, policy makers and the general public. Highlights: Critique of an article assessing Europe's 'socio-technical' onshore wind potential. 'Socio-technical' not defined and the paper overlooks important recent literature. The method is overly simplistic, opaque and in some respects incorrect. Results: 120% and 70% more capacity and generation than highest other estimates. Overall the article potentially misleads readers.