| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
166985
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The continuous development of onshore wind farms is an important feature of the European transition towards an energy system powered by distributed renewables and low-carbon resources. This study assesses and simulates potential for future onshore wind turbine installations throughout Europe. The study depicts, via maps, all the national and regional socio-technical restrictions and regulations for wind project development using spatial analysis conducted through GIS. The inputs for the analyses were based on an original dataset compiled from satellites and public databases relating to electricity, planning, and other dimensions. Taking into consideration socio-technical constraints, which restricts 54% of the combined land area in Europe, the study reveals a nameplate capacity of 52.5 TW of untapped onshore wind power potential in Europe - equivalent to 1 MW per 16 European citizens – a supply that would be sufficient to cover the global all-sector energy demand from now through to 2050. The study offers a more rigorous, multi-dimensional, and granular atlas of onshore wind energy development that can assist with future energy policy, research, and planning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
177447
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper discusses and rebuts McKenna et al.‘s (2020, hereinafter M20) critique of the European wind power potential analysis of Enevoldsen et al. (2019, hereinafter E19). This paper rebuts M20's five claims regarding 1) potential definitions and conceptualizations of sociotechnical systems, 2) incomplete literature review, 3) opaque and incorrect use of input data, 4) oversimplified methods without validation, and 5) lack of consideration for some recent results. The five claims have been discussed using additional literature reviews, data from real operational European onshore wind turbines, elaborations of the research methodologies, as well as the justifications for the selected data and materials in E19, and finally thorough examinations of the proposed justifications for the five claims by M20 from where the majority was grounded in previous publications by the author group behind M20. We conclude that the relevant claims of M20 are incorrect or unproven, so the results of E19 stand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|