Wind Power Fact Book

Growth onshore, hope offshore
Wind Power
A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute

May 2016
Wind Power
Compiled by the A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute
Acknowledgements
A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute wishes to acknowledge for his review of this FactBook: Ryan Wiser, Senior Scientist
and Deputy Group Leader in the Electricity Markets and Policy Group at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. His review
does not imply that he endorses this FactBook or agrees with any specific statements herein. The Institute also wishes to thank
the authors of this FactBook for their contribution: Benoit Decourt and Yann Fayet.
About the FactBook – Wind Power

This FactBook seeks to summarize the status of the wind industry and its prospects, list the main technological hurdles and
principal areas for research and development, and to analyze the economics of this technology.
About the A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute

The A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute is a nonprofit organization. It provides leading insights on global trends in energy
transition, technologies, and strategic implications for private sector businesses and public sector institutions. The Institute is
dedicated to combining objective technological insights with economical perspectives to define the consequences and
opportunities for decision makers in a rapidly changing energy landscape. The independence of the Institute fosters unbiased
primary insights and the ability to co-create new ideas with interested sponsors and relevant stakeholders.
Wind Power 2
Executive summary (1/6)
Wind turbines use rotor blades and an electricity generator

to convert kinetic energy into electrical energy
Wind energy has been used for millennia to power windmills and pump water, for instance. Now, its primary use is to generate
electricity from wind turbines. As with all sources of energy – with the exceptions of tidal, geothermal and nuclear – solar is the
root source of wind energy. When sunlight heterogeneously heats the Earth and its atmosphere, temperature gradients are
formed, resulting in air motion – i.e. wind – moving from cold to warm regions. The global technical potential for wind energy
exceeds current global electricity production, although the quality of resources varies by location.
The kinetic energy theoretically available for extraction increases with wind speed – power is proportional to the cube of the
velocity. Wind energy is harnessed by turbines that use rotor blades and an electricity generator to convert the kinetic energy of
moving air into electrical energy. Several designs exist, but horizontal three-bladed upwind rotors with variable speed operation
have become dominant. Over time, turbines have grown larger and taller to maximize energy capture over a range of wind
speeds, while reducing cost per unit of capacity. In addition, turbines are now being sited offshore in order to capture higher
wind-speed. Although the technical fundamentals of onshore and offshore wind are the same – offshore wind turbines installed
in recent years are essentially scaled-up, marinized versions of land turbines or those installed in shallow waters – the
technologies use in onshore and offshore wind systems are likely to diverge further in the future.
Wind Power 3
Wind-power capacity has accelerated rapidly over the past

decade in the OECD, China & India
Global wind-power capacity increased by an average of 23% a year over the past decade, reaching 370 GW at the end of 2014.
Growth has been driven by onshore technology, which accounts for 97.6% of capacity. China accounted for 41% of capacity
additions in 2014 and was the principal driver of market growth during that year, ahead of Germany (11% of capacity additions in
2014). The market in the U.S. recovered in 2014, with 4.9 GW of capacity additions, having dropped in 2013 to 1.1 GW,
following the expiration of the Production Tax Credits. Despite this impressive rate of deployment, wind still accounts for no more
than 6.4% of electricity-generation capacity installed globally and supplies just 3.6% of the world’s electricity (The average load
factor or onshore wind farms built to date is 23%. The load factors of new onshore and offshore projects are 34% and 49%
respectively).
Going forward, wind power is expected to continue to grow, with capacity increasing to over 630 GW by 2020. Asia will continue
to make the most capacity additions, with 148 GW of new capacity expected in the next five years. North American and
European markets are also expected to remain dynamic. Wind development should continue to expand in other regions, in
emerging wind markets such as Russia, India, Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, Iran and South Africa. Growth in wind generation should
exceed capacity growth because of increasing load factors, mainly as a result of improvements in turbine technology and the
accelerated deployment of offshore wind farms. However, despite European and Chinese interest, offshore is unlikely to account
for more than 6.5% of global wind capacity in 2020.
The IEA estimates that, in order to create an energy system capable of limiting the average global temperature increase to 2°C,
wind will need to be meeting 15-18% of global electricity demand by 2050. Even in the most conservative forecast (6°C
increase; business-as-usual case), wind is expected to play a greater role in the power mix, meeting at least 5.2% of electricity
demand in four decades' time.
Wind Power 4
Wind R,D&D efforts are focused on maximizing energy

capture, promoting the use of offshore wind power and
solving network-integration difficulties
Developing larger and taller turbines is a major focus of R,D&D. This is being driven by offshore wind, with the aims of mitigating
relatively high infrastructure costs (e.g. building foundations offshore) and lowering the number of units per kW of installed
capacity, which improves access and facilitates maintenance. Onshore, meanwhile, tower height tends to be restricted because
of public acceptance of noise and visual disturbance, as well as road-access constraints and, in some cases, economics (i.e.
where higher capital investment does not result in a higher capacity factor). Nevertheless, in some regions, rotor diameter in
onshore turbines continues to increase. Finally, unconventional designs - mainly airborne wind-energy systems - are also
arousing curiosity, although there is no large-scale pilot plant at this stage.
The need to ensure that wind power meets network requirements has also resulted in a significant effort to create innovative
transmission systems and to develop power-control systems. R,D&D is now essential in offshore wind to improve components
and reduce technology costs. Large-scale demonstration activities are under way in Europe.
After stabilizing at around $100-150million a year from the mid-1980s to the mid-2000s, public funding of wind-energy R&D has
recently recovered, reaching a new peak in 2010. But investment in wind R&D remains substantially lower than investment in
other renewables, such as solar.
Wind Power 5
Onshore wind is nearly competitive with fossil-fuel power

in some locations, but cost reductions in offshore wind will
be needed after the present demonstration phase
As with most other renewables, up-front investment accounts for the bulk of the full cost of wind power, although operation &
maintenance costs are more significant in offshore projects. Investment costs are significantly lower for onshore than for
offshore, ranging respectively from $1,300 to $2,300 /kW and from $2,700 to $5,100 /kW. This gap can be explained by offshore
wind's relative lack of maturity, as well as the marine environment's need for expensive foundations and costly grid connections.
However, a limited decrease is expected for onshore investment costs by 2040, while offshore should benefit from a larger
decline in investment costs per unit of power.
If wind conditions are favorable, onshore projects can be competitive, with a levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of $60-120
/MWh. Offshore wind is not yet competitive, with an LCOE of $120-200 /MWh, varying according to the load factor. In addition,
because of the cost structure of offshore wind, the technology's economics are highly sensitive to project delays. Grid-integration
costs have not been taken into account in either case. Cost estimates are system specific and dependent on the wind resources
available, but, in general, the higher the wind penetration, the higher the integration costs.
In parallel with the expansion in capacity, wind finance took off during the 2000s, but it now facing growing competition from
solar photovoltaic. The ecosystem of wind power has developed and matured in recent years, with various financing entities
playing a growing role. Whereas the onshore wind-turbine market is relatively fragmented – with a significant presence of non-
OECD players, offshore is still dominated by European companies.
Wind Power 6
Wind is not facing any major environmental and social

hurdles
Wind power is one of the lowest greenhouse-gas-emitting energy technologies, with median emissions of 11 and 12 grams of
CO2 equivalent per kWh over its full lifecycle for onshore and offshore technology, respectively. However, wind CO2 abatement
is highly system specific and its overall impact depends on the penetration level and on the power system's ability to
compensate for wind's intermittency without relying on carbon-intensive peaker power plants.
Despite the reluctance of the public to accept wind power because of the noise of turbines and their aesthetic impact, and
relatively high space requirements, wind is not facing significant social or environmental hurdles.
Wind Power 7
Wind energy raises major network integration issues that

are system-specific
Wind is an intermittent source of energy: its output is variable, imperfectly controllable and predictable, and can be subject to
changes in availability over several distinct timescales, from sudden, short-term turbulence to inter-annual events. In addition,
wind output tends to be poorly correlated with demand.
As a consequence, wind power tends to increase flexibility needs - which is apparent in the residual load (i.e. demand minus
wind and solar generation). At the same time, it makes a limited contribution to the flexibility pool of resources, mirrored by the
low capacity credit that system operators allocate to wind power. Therefore, despite the smoothing of output that can be
achieved by building wind turbines in diverse geographical regions, wind requires back-up resources, whether in the form of
dispatchable plants, energy storage, interconnection with adjacent markets or demand-response. These resources are system-
and location-specific.
Finally, the best wind resources are often far from large consumption centers or in offshore locations, requiring long-distance or
marine transmission lines. As a consequence, it is highly likely that wind will foster the development of additional high-voltage
direct current and alternative current transmission investments.
Wind Power 8
Table of contents
1. Key concepts of wind power……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10

1.1 Wind energy……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11
1.2 Design and components……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16
1.3 Onshore and offshore concepts……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 20
2. Status and future development………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 22
2.1 Installed capacity……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23
2.2 Project pipeline………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 28
2.3 International scenarios…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 32
3. Research, development & demonstration……………………………………………………………………………………... 33
3.1 Priorities………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 34
3.2 Funding ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 40
4. Economics and ecosystem ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 42
4.1 Costs …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 43
4.2 Policy support …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 47
4.3 Ecosystem ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 51
5. Environmental and social impacts ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 59
6. Grid integration …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 63
Appendix & bibliography ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 68
Wind Power 9
1. Key concepts of wind power
Wind Power 10
Key concepts of wind power – wind energy
The global technical potential for wind energy exceeds current global
electricity production
Global wind resource map
Meters per second (m/s)
• As with all sources of energy – with
the exceptions of tidal, geothermal
and nuclear – solar is the root
source of wind energy. When
sunlight heterogeneously heats the
Earth and its atmosphere, temperature
gradients are formed, resulting in air
motion – i.e. wind – from cold to warm
regions.
• The technical potential1 of wind
exceeds current global electricity
production. Estimates range from 70-
450 EJ/year2, while the global
electricity production is of 60 EJ/year2.
• Wind is location and weather
Wind speed over water Wind speed over land dependent. Though wind speeds vary
considerably by location, ample
technical potential exists in most
regions to enable significant wind
energy deployment.
1. FactBook utilizes the definition of technical potential given by the IPCC “as the amount of renewable energy output obtainable by full implementation of demonstrated technologies or
practices. No explicit reference to costs, barriers or policies is made”; 2. EJ: Exajoules (1018 Joules). According to the IEA, 189 EJ are transformed every year in heat and power co-
generation plants, generating 60 EJ of electricity, 11 EJ of commercial heat and 118 EJ of losses.
Source:IPCC (2011), “Special report on renewable energy“; IEA (2012), “Energy Technology Perspectives”; Picture credit to CNET (link) Wind Power 11
Wind turbines use rotor blades and an electricity generator to convert

kinetic energy into electrical energy
The first wind turbine to generate electricity in the U.S.
Cleveland, ohio, 1888
• Wind energy has been used for millennia (e.g.
windmills to pump water, grind grain and for
propulsion), with the first successful electricity
production observed in the late 19th century.
• Nowadays, the primary use of wind energy is
to generate electricity from large, grid-
connected wind turbines. The use of wind to
generate electricity on a commercial scale
started in the 1970s in Denmark, followed by
California.
• Wind turbines use rotor blades and an electricity
generator to convert the kinetic energy of
moving air into electrical energy.
Source:IPCC (2011), “Special report on renewable energy”; Picture credit to Robert W. Righter Wind Power 12
The kinetic energy theoretically available for extraction increases with

wind speed but is controlled to protect the turbine
Conceptual power curve of a wind turbine
kW, m/s
How to read this graph
Power output, kW Cut-out Speed
Rated power • Cut-in speed: rotors start extracting energy
2,000 from the wind at a defined speed, the cut-in
speed (usually ~3 to 4 m/s).
1,500 • Rated power: power production increases
with wind speed until it reaches its rated
power level (usually ~11 to 15 m/s). The
1,000 energy available in the wind is a function of
the cube of the wind speed.
Cut-in speed Control rotor’s
• Controlled speed: after rated power, control
500 rotating speed
systems limit power output to avoid
overloading the wind turbine through stall
control, pitching the blades, or a combination
0 of both (see appendix).
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
• Cut-out-speed: most turbines stop
Hub height wind speed, m/s producing at a defined speed to limit loads
on the rotor and prevent damage to the
turbine (usually ~20 to 25 m/s). The blades
Air density ρ=1.225 kg/m3 are feathered and the gearbox is locked (see
1 v=wind velocity appendix)
𝑃 𝑣 = ρ𝑣 3
2 P=power
Note: m/s: meters per second.

Source:IPCC (2011), “Special report on renewable energy“ Wind Power 13
Converting wind energy to useful electricity through wind power systems

results in power losses of around 55%
Power conversion losses for wind power
Base 100 on rated power
• According to Betz’s law, a maximum of about 59%
Total electricity of the energy in wind can theoretically be
generated extracted from it, regardless of the design of the
Total kinetic wind turbine in open flow. The rotation of the blades,
energy which drag the shaft, transmitting mechanical energy
through a gearbox, lead to additional losses of about
20%. Finally, the generator, which converts
mechanical energy into electrical energy, engenders
losses of around 4%. Therefore, a wind turbine with a
typical three-bladed power system and an optimal tip-
100 59 49 47 45 speed ratio can theoretically convert around 45% of
wind energy into electricity.
• Conversion efficiencies from installed systems
are lower than theoretical efficiencies obtained in
laboratories. In real-world conditions, inferior
performance results from manufacturing defects, bad
Maximum kinetic electrical connections, maintenance and
energy that can be malfunctions. Also, the electricity produced needs to
extracted from the be transmitted to end-users via transmission and
wind (Betz’s law): Typical values for rotor Typical efficiency ranges for distribution feeders (lines), further increasing losses2.
Pmax = 0.59 * Pwind efficiency – 3 blades, at the energy transformation –
optimum tip speed ratio at nominal power: • Energy efficiency is an important parameter3.
However, its impact is somewhat lower than for
and for a glide ratio1 of
Gearbox: [0.95 - 0.98] fossil fuels, since wind energy is available for free
100: and does not directly engender greenhouse gas
Generator: [0.95 - 0.97] emissions.
Rotor: 0.83
1. The glide ratio corresponds to lift coefficient over drag coefficient; 2. Transmission and distribution losses depend on distance and technologies, but also vary greatly by country. The global
average T&D loss is of 8%, but, it ranges from 2% in Qatar to 46% in the Republic of Congo; 3Energy efficiency is particularly important from an economic perspective since it affects the
levelized cost of electricity of wind power.
Source:A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute; Gundtoft (2009), “Wind Turbines”(link); A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute (2015), “Introduction to smart grids” Wind Power 14
Wind speed varies over several time scales, from short-term turbulence
to inter-annual events
Illustration of wind variability according to time scale1
Wind speed in km per hour in London (Hampstead)
• Wind variations can categorized
7 7 8 8 8 8 8 by time period. As illustrated by
Yearly average the figures on the left,
2009-2015 fluctuations may appear over the
following time horizons:
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
– Inter-annual (time scale
10
9
10 10 greater than a year, e.g. El
8 8 8
7 6 6 Niño)
Monthly average
2015 – Annual (less than a year, e.g.
seasonal variation)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
– Synoptic (a few days in
9 duration, typically due to
7 8 8 7 8 9
7 6 5
7
5
weather systems)
Daily average 4 4 5 5
3 3
October 2016 1 1 – Diurnal (daily variation, e.g.
day/night)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
– Short-term (turbulence)
9
Intra-day variation
19-20 October
10 am 12 am 09 am
1. Graphs are plotted based on wind speed data measured in Hampstead by nw3 weather. Daily graph is reproduced directly from the website (picture credits).
Source:nw3 weater (link); A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis Wind Power 15
Key concepts of wind power – design and components
A typical wind turbine is composed of three blades attached to a hub,

containing a gearbox, generator and control system mounted on a tower
Key components of a wind turbine
• Most turbines have an upwind rotor with a yaw motor
to turn the rotor and preserve alignment with wind
direction. Blades are attached to the hub, from
which power is transferred through a gearbox to a
generator.
• There are several designs for the layout of the
rotor support, gearbox and generator, depending on
the manufacturer. Some designs avoid the use of a
gearbox by using direct-drive instead.
• The gearbox, generator and control system are
contained within a housing unit called a nacelle.
Electricity is transmitted down the tower from the
generator to a transformer at the base of the tower.
• Support structures are commonly tubular steel
towers tapering in some way (e.g. in metal wall
thickness and in diameter). Tower height is site
specific.
1. Yaw control consists in orientating the hub so that it face the wind, whereas pitch control consists in orientating the blades. For more information, refer to appendix 2.
Source: IPCC (2011), “Special report on renewable energy“ Wind Power 16
Several designs have been investigated and have converged to

horizontal three-bladed upwind rotors with variable speed operation
Leading wind system design options Example of wind turbine design
Land Marine Air
Location
(onshore) (offshore) (airborne)
Onshore Offshore pile
Foundation Floating
foundation foundation
Rotation axis Vertical Horizontal
Blades: number 1 2 3
Blades: type1 Stiff Teetered Flexible
Rotor Upwind Downwind
Tower Lattice Tubular
Drive train2 Geared Hybrid Direct
Speed control3 Stall Pitch Yaw
Variable-
Generators Fixed-speed Two-speed
speed
Most popular
1. Wind blades have different mechanical properties, depending on their design, especially in regards to material elasticity; 2For more information, refer to slide 33; 3There
are two ways to regulate the power output of wind turbines: orienting the nacelle to face the wind (known as yaw control), or rotating the blades (pitch and stall). For more
information, refer to appendix 2.
Source: A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute, IPCC (2011), “Special report on renewable energy”; Global Wind Energy Council (2015), “Global Wind Report 2014” Wind Power 17
Turbines have grown larger and taller to maximize energy capture over a
range of wind speeds while lowering – or minimizing increases in – cost
per unit of capacity
Growth in size of wind turbines since 1980 and prospects
Hub height (meters) and rating (kW)
• There is an important trade-off for wind-power
developers between investment costs and
capacity factor. Higher turbines may incur higher
up-front capital costs, but this may be offset by a
higher capacity factor and lower generation costs1.
320
300 • Potential weight increases have been lessened
280 by advances in materials and aerodynamics.
260 Today’s installed towers are typically 80-100
240 meters tall and occasionally up to 135 meters tall
220 (e.g. Ellern 7.5 MW Enercon Turbine).
200
180 • Onshore turbines have increased in size, in
160 some markets – such as the U.S. – in particular,
140 but their size may be limited by constraints in
120 the construction process2. These limitations may
100 be circumvented if efforts to develop self-erecting,
80 telescopic towers or segmented blades are
60 successful.
40
• Offshore sitting allows larger turbines. Larger
20
0 turbines can be constructed offshore. Areva,
Future Future Siemens or Repower have announced plans for
turbines with rotor diameters exceeding 130 m (up
to 160 m). These are likely to become the
standard.
• Improved blade efficiency should help to capture
more energy at lower wind speeds.
1. This is measured by levelized cost of electricity. Fore more information refer to slide 44;
2. Such as transporting components by road and finding large enough cranes.
Source:IEA (2013), “Technology Roadmap – Wind energy); US DoE (2015), “2014 Wind Technologies Market Report”; IPCC (2011), “Special report on renewable energy” Wind Power 18
Wind turbine components and systems are at different stages of maturity
Technology maturity curve
Offshore pile foundation

2-blade
Vertical axis
Lattice tower
Downwind
1-blade
Capital requirement x Technology risk
Offshore caisson foundation

Offshore floating foundation
Stall control
Pitch control
Yaw control
Upwind
3-blade
Tubular tower
Horizontal axis
Onshore foundation
Unconventional1 Offshore1 Onshore1

Large/commercial-scale projects
Lab work Bench scale Pilot Scale with ongoing optimization Widely deployed commercial-scale projects
Research Development Demonstration Deployment Mature Technology Time
1. Typical position of dominant wind turbine design groups on the maturity curve. Unconventional wind turbines include airborne wind energy technologies, but also bladeless turbines for
instance.
Source: A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute Wind Power 19
Key concepts of wind power – Onshore and offshore concepts
Although the fundamentals of the technology are the same, onshore and
offshore wind systems are likely to diverge further
Typical onshore & offshore technology features
Worldwide
Onshore Offshore • Offshore wind has a greater
energy potential but marine
conditions make project
• ~23% capacity factor on • ~40% capacity factor on delivery and maintenance
average to date average to date more difficult.
Resources1 • ~34% capacity factor on • ~49% capacity factor on
• Offshore wind turbines
average for new installations average for new installations
installed in recent years are
essentially scaled-up,
• 3 - 7 MW turbine size (avg 3.7 marinized versions of land
• 1 - 3 MW turbine size MW) turbines installed in shallow
Dimensions • 20 - 200 MW wind farm • 100 – 1,000 MW wind farm waters.
• $30 - 400 million investment (average 368 MW)
• However, a new approach to
• $450 – 4,500 million investment
wind power is needed and is
• Rough marine conditions under development:
• Land-based conditions
• Remote from shore (~32.9 km – Turbine technology and scale;
• Unrestricted access
Environment • Land constraints for large
in 2014 for a 22.4 m depth) – Foundation types, infrastructure;
• Access limited by waves and
turbines (roads) – Logistics (dedicated vessels);
storms
– Operation & Maintenance
(remote control, accessibility…).
• Built on different types of soil
• Built on solid ground
(sand, clay, rock...)
Foundations • Standard concrete foundations
• Foundations depend on water
cast on site
depth & soil consistency
1. Capacity factors have been calculated as the ratio of yearly average output to annual full-load production (i.e. dividing these number by 8,760)
Source:E.ON (2011), “Offshore Wind Energy Factbook”; European Wind Energy Association (2015), “The European offshore wind industry key 2014 trends and statistics”;
IEA (2015), “Renewable Energy, Medium-term market report 2014” Wind Power 20
Key concepts of wind power – Onshore and offshore concepts
Wind industry could capitalize on oil & gas best practices to ensure
efficient and safe offshore operations
Oil & gas best practices
• The offshore wind industry is facing greater technical challenges as larger turbines are sited in deeper, more hostile waters
further from the coast. Financial investments are becoming more onerous too.
• The oil & gas industry has undergone a similar process, moving from onshore operation to shallow waters and deep waters –
developing a profound knowledge of the requirements and peculiarities of the offshore environment.
• Not everything is transferable, but synergies do exist and lessons can be learnt.
• Oil & gas offshore facilities, especially in their late life, could also be used to host wind turbines and wind substations.
• Fit for purpose equipment (e.g. lifesaving appliances and fire fighting
equipment)
Safety
• Safety processes and tools (e.g. emergency response plan, audits, risk-
assessment methods)
Oil & gas best

practices Investment • Remote control (e.g. remote or on-site maintenance)
transferable to arbitrage • Access (e.g. air or marine access)
offshore wind
• Production performance (e.g. shutdown management)

Operating
• Marine logistics (e.g. vessels fleet management)
Performance
• Inspection (e.g. diving, remote operating vehicle)
1. For instance, Norway’s oil and gas company Statoil ASA is exploring the development of a 30 MW floating wind farm offshore Scotland.
Source:DNV (2010), “Access to offshore wind facilities - What can we learn from other industries?“; Statoil Hywind Demo website (link) Wind Power 21
2. Status and future development
Wind Power 22
Status and future development – Installed capacity
Wind capacity has spread worldwide over the last three decades
Wind development timeline

2000s 2015
Massive expansion in Germany is
European, U.S., Chinese & 2010s overtakes the U.K.
1980s 1990s Indian capacities, with China becomes for offshore capacity
First large-scale Development in Europe accounting for less leader, with most additions in 2015,
development in Denmark, Spain & than 50% of cumulative installed capacity, but the U.K. remains
California Germany capacity at the end of the surpassing the U.S. leader in terms of
decade and Germany cumulated capacity
1980 1990 2000 2010
2015
1991 2014
1977 2004
First offshore wind ~370 GW of
First wind farm Wind development
farm in Denmark operational capacity
in Denmark starts in China &
(Windeby), (8.8 GW offshore)
(52kW) India
~5 MW in total
2003 2012 2015

First offshore wind London Array, Three offshore
farm in the U.K. offshore wind projects connected to
(North Hoyle), farm projected the grid in Germany
60 MW in total 630 MW in total ~780 MW in total
Source:A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute, Global Wind Energy Council (2015), “Global Wind Statistics 2014”; The Guardian (2008),
“Timeline: The history of wind power” Wind Power 23
Cumulative installed capacity has grown at a steady annual rate of about

23% since 2004, driven by onshore technology
Global installed wind capacity
GW
370
9
319
282 7
5
23% 238
4
197
3
159 361
2 312
120 277
94 1 234
74 1 194
59 1 157
48
1 119
1 73 93
47 58
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Wind offshore Wind onshore
Offshore wind’s
1.3% 1.2% 1.1% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.6% 1.7% 1.9% 2.2% 2.4% share of total
installed capacity
1. CAGR: compound annual growth rate.

Source: Global Wind Energy Council (2015), “Global Wind Report 2014” Wind Power 24
China has overtaken the U.S. and Europe as the principal driver of
market growth, accounting for 45% of capacity additions in 2014
Installed wind capacity
GW
• China is the world’s largest market for
51 370 wind. China accounted for 31% of installed
23 (45%) -1 capacity at the end of 2014 and for 45% of
capacity additions in 2014.
319 • Europe has long been the world leader in
115 terms of installed capacity. At the end of
2014, it still accounted for about 34% of
91 installed capacity and made 22% of
capacity additions in that year. The
European market is still driven by Germany
66 – the second-largest country, after China,
for capacity additions in 2014, with 5.1 GW
61 – and to a lesser extent by the U.K., France
22 and Sweden, with 1.4 and 1.1 and 1 GW
20 capacity additions in 2014, respectively.
39 Europe also accounted for 82% of
34 decommissioning in 2014, with most
23 occurring in Germany.
23 12
11 9
9 • The U.S. market recovered in 2014, with
8 4.9 GW of capacity additions. The U.S.
9
was the third-largest, after China and
Germany, for capacity additions. The
32 42 market was weakened greatly in 2013 –
with 1.1 GW of capacity additions,
compared with 13.1 GW in 2012 – because
End of 2013 New in 2014 Decommissioning End of 2014 of the expiration of the U.S. Production Tax
in 2014 Credit (PTC).
China India Spain France RoEU
U.S. Germany UK Italy RoW
1. ROW: rest of the world.

Source: Global Wind Energy Council (2015), “Annual Market Update 2014”; US DoE (2015), “2014 Wind Technologies Market Report” Wind Power 25
Except in some European countries, wind supplies less than 5% of

electricity consumed
Annual average wind electricity penetration1 IN TOP-23 wind countries
% projected wind electricity as a proportion of electricity consumption
40 39
35
30
26
25 24
21
20
15 14 13
11
10 9 9
6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4
5 3 2
1 3.6%
0
Turkey
Italy
Germany
Greece
Mexico
Japan
Portugal
U.K.
U.S.
Ireland
Sweden
Denmark
Spain
Austria
Brazil
Poland
Romania
Netherlands
France
China
Canada
Australia
India
Approximate wind penetration end of 2014 Approximate wind penetration end of 2012 Approximate wind penetration end of 2008
Approximate wind penetration end of 2013 Approximate wind penetration end of 2010 Approximate wind penetration end of 2006
Global wind penetration in 2014’s electricity production
1. Wind penetration corresponds to the share of total electricity consumption supplied by wind power.
Source: US DoE (2015), “2014 Wind Technologies Market Report“; IEA (2013), “Technology Roadmap: Wind Energy – 2013 Edition” Wind Power 26
Growth in wind-power capacity is expected to continue over the next five

years to about 631 GW
Projected installed WIND CAPACITIES (2014-2020)1
GW
• Even if the growth rate remains lower
631 than in the 2000s, installed wind
CAGR2: +9%
9% 581 29 capacity growth is expected to continue,
532 25 increasing capacity between 2014 and
487 20 2020 to about 631 GW.
446 15 • Offshore growth is expected to
399 13
370 accelerate. Germany will see the strongest
12
9 growth, with 2.8 GW of additional capacity
expected in 2015 and up to 6.1 GW of total
602
512
556 additions by 2020. The U.K. is also
433
472 expected to expand, reaching 6 GW by
361 387 2016 and around 10 GW by 2020.
2014 2015e 2016e 2017e 2018e 2019e 2020e

Wind offshore Wind onshore
25.7% 34.1% 10.2% 16.2% 30.5% 24.9% 17.1% Offshore

Projected year on year growth in capacity additions
15.8% 7.3% 11.7% 9.0% 8.6% 8.6% 8.3% Onshore
1. The source for historical figures is GWEC, but forecasts are from the IEA. Discrepancies among sources for the installed capacity figure for 2014 partly explain the relative low figures for
capacity additions in 2015; 2. CAGR: compound annual growth rate; The drop in capacity additions in 2013 occurred largely because U.S. developers had rushed to complete projects
before the end-2012 expiry of the U.S. Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit.
Source: Global Wind Energy Council (2015), “Global Wind Report 2014”; IEA (2015), “Renewable Energy, Medium-term market report”; Bloomberg (online), “German Offshore Wind Installs
Surge to 76 Gigawatts This Year” Wind Power 27
Status and future development – Project pipeline
As a result of offshore penetration and improvements in onshore technology

and grid-connection, wind generation is expected to grow rapidly
Projected wind energy generation (2014-2020)1
TWh per year
• Wind electricity generation will grow more
quickly than installed wind capacity between
1,420 2014 and 2020, at an annual average growth rate
CAGR2: +12% 93
12% 1,291 of 12%, compared with 9% in the case of capacity
1,169 76 additions. The reason for this is an increase in the
1,061 59 average load factor2 of wind turbines.
955 48 • An increase in the average load factor is
840 42 expected to result from growth in deployment
703 35 of offshore wind, improvements in onshore
25 1,328 turbine technology and better integration of
1,215 wind farms into the electricity grid, especially in
1,110
1,014 China. For instance, although it is second after
913
805 China in terms of installed capacity, the U.S. is the
677
largest wind-energy producer because of a high
average load factor (32% in 2014). However, an
increase in the average load factor at the global
level may mask local grid issues (congestion or a
2014 2015e 2016e 2017e 2018e 2019e 2020e lack of transmission and distribution lines3). This
Wind offshore Wind onshore is notably the case in Germany.
33.1% 33.7% 36.9% 36.0% 34.4% 35.4% 36.7% Offshore load factor
22.6% 23.7% 24.1% 24.5% 24.7% 24.9% 25.2% Onshore load factor
1. For consistency purposes, load factors calculation are based on installed capacity and generation figures from the IEA. Note that historical installed capacity figures displayed on slide 20
are from GWEC and differ slightly from the IEA; 2. CAGR: compound annual growth rate; 2Load factors are derived from generation supplied to the grid / capacity. They are therefore
affected by grid-connection delays and curtailment; 3There is a long lead time for expanding transmission lines
Source: Global Wind Energy Council (2015), “Global Wind Report 2014”; IEA (2015), “Renewable Energy, Medium-term market report”; US DoE (2015),
“2014 Wind Technologies Market Report“ Wind Power 28
Asia is likely to remain the main driver of wind development
Projected installed wind capacities by regions (2014-2019)

GW, cumulated
300 • Asia is expected to be the main driver of wind
282 development in the coming five years, with 140 GW
of capacity additions.
253
250
• North America is also expected to grow faster than
224
Europe, despite being behind in absolute terms. In the
204
200 196 U.S., growth is expected to remain strong in 2015 and
188
2016, based on projects under construction. But growth
168 173
160 after 2016 is uncertain, and subject to regulatory
150
142 147 changes and uncertainty in gas prices.
134
112
122 • Wind capacity in the rest of the world remains
95
103 negligible in absolute terms, with forecast installed
100
78
87 capacity by 2019 of 58 GW – 8.7% of global wind
capacity. However, countries outside North America,
Europe and Asia are increasing their share faster than
50
28 34 expected, as a result of growth in emerging wind
17 22 16 markets such as Iran, Turkey and Brazil.
94 13 7 12
3 54 56 69 8
0
2014 2015 2016 2014 2018 2019
2014-2019: +56% +52% +99% +294% +91% +540%
North America Asia Pacific

Europe Latin America Middle-East & Africa
Note: Projections are more optimistic in this scenario that forecasts 666 GW by 2019 compared to 583 GW for the IEA.
Source: Global Wind Energy Council (2015), “Annual Market Update 2014” Wind Power 29
Wind power capacity is starting to be deployed outside established

markets and could accelerate if announced targets are to be met
Wind power– forecast capacity additions in key emerging markets1
GW
Iran Russia
Targets 5 GW by 2020, Targets 7 GW by 2020,
compared with ~0 GW compared with 14 MW
installed as of 2014. installed as of 2014
Turkey
Targets 20 GW by 2023,
compared with 3.8 GW
installed as of 2014.
India
Mexico
Targets 60 GW by 2022
Targets 12 GW by (including 1 GW offshore),
2020, compared with Morocco
compared with 22.5 GW
2.5 GW installed as of Targets 2 GW by 2023, installed as of 2014.
2014. compared with 0.8 GW Saudi Arabia
installed as of 2014. Targets of 9.5 GW renewable
power by 2030 (including solar
and wind with no quotas), and 9
GW for wind set for 2040.
Brazil
Targets 16 GW by 2021, South Africa
compared with 5.9 GW Targets 5 GW by 2019,
installed as of 2014. compared with 0.8 GW
installed as of 2014.
1. The list is not exhaustive and for illustrative purpose only.

Source: A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute; Global Wind Energy Council (2015), “Annual Market Update 2014”; Bloomberg (2015), “Turkey Seeks 2,000 Megawatts of Wind Power
Earlier Than Planned”; Reegle (link); North American Wind Power (2015), “Mexico Wind Has Bright Horizons, Thanks To Energy Reform”; Renewables International (link), “Russia wind power
plans part 1”; Busby (2012), “Wind Power: The Industry Grows Up”; IRENA (2016), “Renewable Energy Market Analysis – The GCC Region” (link); Reuters (2016),
“Saudi Arabia targets 9.5 GW of renewable by 2030” (link) Wind Power 30
Despite progress in Europe, offshore wind is yet to overcome

deployment-phase challenges
Installed offshore capacities forecast
GW
• Northern Europe is leading offshore development, with over
28.8 90% of installed capacity at the end of 2014 and almost 80%
1.3 of capacity additions expected by 2020. The U.K. has taken the
lead, accounting for half of global installed capacity at the end of
3.5 2014 and setting a target of 10 GW by the end of the decade.
Germany is catching up, with 1.8 GW offshore wind power
connected to its grid in the first half of 2015, as part of its plan to
add 6.5 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2020. Finally, France
7.4 is also planning to invest, despite delays in forthcoming tenders
and reductions in their size.
0.2 • China is the main non-European investor in offshore wind.

1.7 6.1 However, deployment costs are high and application procedures
are onerous. As a consequence, its ambitious target of 30 GW
3.1 by 2020 seems difficult to achieve and the IEA’s latest forecast
8.8
has been revised downwards, to 3.5 GW only.
0.7 4.0
2.5 • The forecast for installed offshore capacity was more
1.0 10.4 optimistic in 2012 than in 2015 and its geographical spread
was different. But although investment plans in Europe have
4.5 6.2 generally been scaled back slightly, notably in Sweden and the
Netherlands, the most important downward revisions have come
from Asia (China and South Korea) and the U.S., where the
Installed Expected Expected Cape Wind project was cancelled. This may be explained by
at the end in 2017 in 2020 financial challenges arising from the high up-front costs that
offshore projects incur, by technical constraints caused by harsh
of 2014 marine environments and by connection difficulties.
(IEA 2012 projection) China Region Germany
Rest of the world Other Europe United Kingdom
Source: IEA (2012, 2015), “Renewable Energy, Medium-term market report”; Bloomberg New Energy Finance database Wind Power 31
Status and future development – International scenarios
In its most ambitious climate change mitigation scenario, the IEA estimates
that wind would need to account for 15%-18% of global electricity generation
IEA 2DS scenario for wind
GW (left axis); % of global electricity generation in TWh(right axis)
~6,000 TWh Left axis
Other OECD
European Union
2500 68% 20%
United States
Other non-
2000 16% OECD
India
1,420 TWh
1500 12% China
93%
840 TWh Right axis
1000 8% 2DS1
96% 2DS-hiRen2
500 4% Wind generation share

Offshore
0 0% Onshore
2009 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
• Wind's share of global electricity consumption would need to rise to 15%-18%, compared to around 3.6% in 2014, in order for the IEA's 2DS Scenario1
to be achievable. Even in less stringent scenarios, wind is expected to make a significant contribution to the electricity mix, accounting in 2050 for 5%
of demand in the 6DS (business-as-usual case) and 10% in the 4DS (which takes current governmental pledges into account).
• For wind to attain a 17% share of global electricity generation (2DS), an additional 2,200 GW of installed capacity would be required – a seven fold
increase in capacity from the end-2014 level and a nine fold increase in generation.
1. The 2DS Scenario corresponds to the lowest-cost pathway to an energy system consistent with an emissions trajectory that recent climate science research indicates would give an 80%
chance of limiting the average global temperature increase to 2°C; 2. The 2DS-hiRen scenario is a variant of 2DS, with lower shares for nuclear, and carbon capture and storage.
Source: IEA (2012, 2015), “Energy Technology Perspectives”; IEA (2014), “Renewable Energy, Medium-term market report”; IEA (2013),
“Technology Roadmap: Wind Energy – 2013 Edition” Wind Power 32
3. Research, development and demonstration
Wind Power 33
Research, development and demonstration – Priorities
Wind R,D&D has three principal objectives: maximizing energy captured,

minimizing the cost per unit of capacity and meeting network
requirements
Objectives Drivers Axis of RD&D
• Larger rotor diameter / turbine size and unconventional

Maximizing • Access to better wind resources design
• Exploit lower-quality wind resource • Variable speed turbine
1 energy sites • Extreme conditions resistance
capture • Increase load factor • Innovative towers that can reach higher heights cost
effectively
Minimizing
• Reduce investment cost • Lighter rotor and nacelle, drive train layout
2 cost per unit • Reduce operation & maintenance • Pitch system, control system to avoid fatigue
of capacity
Meeting • Pitch control, power converter, drive train

• Contribute to system stability
• Variable speed, fast response & communication,
3 network • Contribute to voltage control
converters
requirements • Enhance predictability
• Computational tools & new projection methodology
Note: R,D&D: Research, development and demonstration.

Source: A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute based on Global Wind Energy Council (2012) Wind Power 34
Developing larger and taller turbines remains a major focus of R,D&D

and is increasingly being driven by the greater scope for size offshore
Evolution of wind-turbine rotors-diameter
Rotor size in meters in the most advanced turbines1
• The market is dominated by 1.5-3 MW turbines.
However, in the offshore segment, companies are
Østerild, Denmark
Vestas/MHI 8 MW racing to develop very large offshore turbines.
160m rotor
160 • Offshore economics requires indeed larger
150 Borkum West,
turbines to (i) limit the proportionally higher costs of
140 Germany infrastructure (e.g. building foundations); and (ii) to
130
Areva 5 MW lower the number of units per kW of installed capacity
116m rotor
120
in order to facilitate access and maintenance.
Buffalo Ridge,
110 Altamont MN zond Z-750 • The levelling-off in onshore turbine size is due to
100 Pass, CA kW 46m rotor
Kenetech 33-
road-access constraints, and public acceptance of
90 Altamont
Pass, CA 300 kW 33m Ellern, Germany
noise and visual disturbance. In addition, in some
80 Kenetech 56- rotor Enercon 7.5 MW cases, larger turbines and taller towers increase the
70 100 kW 17m 127m rotor investment cost to an extent that is not balanced by
rotor
60 higher capacity factor, hence not reducing the levelized
50 cost of electricity.
40
Hagerman, ID
30
GE 1.5 MW
20 77m rotor
10
0
1981 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2014
Onshore Offshore
1. This graphic shows prototypical "larger-than-average" turbines created at different stages of the period shown, and does not depict growth in average turbine size.
Source: A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute analysis based on US DoE (2015), “2014 Wind Technologies Market Report”; IPCC (2011), “Special report on renewable energy, 2011”;
Global Wind Energy Council (2014), “Global Wind Report 2014 Wind Power 35
Unconventional wind-turbine designs arouse curiosity, although there is

no large-scale pilot plant at this stage
Classification of airborne wind energy (AWE) systems1
Airborne structure
Heavier than air Lighter than air
Soft/flexible wing Rigid wing Buoyant
Pumping mode (also The reel-out phase The helium-filled

On ground
known as Yo-Yo consists of fast loops, cylinder exploits the
Generator stays on
mode) with a reel-out while the reel-in relies Magnus effect during
ground where an
phase generating on the wing facing the reel-out, and stops
unrolling tether
electricity and a reel-in station for minimal rotating when pulled
drives a rotating
phase (retraction) tensions back (reel-in)
drum
(e.g. KitePower) (e.g. Ampyx Power) (e.g. Omnidea )
Generation
system
Electrical generator is The helium-filled
On board
part of an airplane with balloon is a large
Generator is
one or multiple rotating drum
mounted on the
No design available turbines conducting generating electricity,
turbine, which is
electricity through the transmitted back with
held by a strong
tether the conducting tether
conducting tether
(e.g. Makani) (e.g. M.A.R.S)
• Unlike in conventional turbine design, where the three-bladed horizontal-axis system predominates, no unconventional system has yet taken the lead.
Multiple designs, using different aerodynamics principles (lift, drag, Magnus…) co-exist and are still under development.
1. In some designs, it may be possible to develop multiple wing systems. The list is not exhaustive and aims to illustrate the classification of airborne structures. 2. Other unconventional
turbines (non-airborne) are under development, such as bladeless designs, which work using resonance frequency.
Source: A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute; Diehl (2013), “Airborne Wind Energy: Basic Concepts and Physical Foundations”; Picture credit to yespolitical (link), awec (link), omnidea
(link), European energy review (link), domsweb (link) Wind Power 36
With wind turbine size and power quality requirements increasing, there
has been a significant trend towards innovative transmission systems
Drive train Technology comparison
Reliability
• Variable wind power generates electrical energy of
Investment cost (inc. rare earth content)
varying frequency according to the rotational
High speed Low & medium speed speed of the rotor. It is then converted by electronic
Direct drive system devices to the frequency of the grid by the transmission
geared system geared system
system.
Stage
Dominant system Few turbines installed ~20% market share

(~80% market share) (mainly Vestas and Areva) (mainly Enercon & Goldwind) • Several new technologies seek to offer the best
• Multiple speed gearbox • Hybrid systems are being • Direct drive eliminates the mix of capital costs, maintenance requirements,
allows the use of a developed to combine the need for a gearbox: the
small generator and reliability of direct-drive generator rotates at the power quality and efficiency. The main trade-off is
reduces initial systems and the compact same speed as the rotor. between the use and complexity of the gearbox, and
investment costs. size of high-speed geared • This increases the reliability
• Complexity and the systems. of the turbine and is more the size of the generator and its associated costs.
Concept
number of moving parts • A trade-off in costs arises efficient at low loads.

are likely to create from the choice of the However, it requires a • The use of permanent magnet synchronous generators
reliability problems and number of speeds, which, on bigger generator and
lead to higher the one hand, affects the induces higher capital (PMG) instead of coils is another important trend.
maintenance costs. complexity of the gearbox costs, especially with a
and, on the other hand, permanent magnet • Offshore is likely to favor reliability in order to minimize
determines the size, cost and generator (PMG).
rare-earth requirements of maintenance requirements.
the generator.
• First coupled with • Mainly coupled with PMG, • First developed with classic
doubly-fed induction this system minimizes rare synchronous generators,
generator, which only earth material requirements, direct drive is now using
Generator
requires a small especially in medium-speed PMG to increase low-load

converter, but there is designs (greater gearbox efficiency. However, it
growing use of complexity allows use of raises a major cost issue
permanent magnet smaller & cheaper due to the rare earth
generators (PMG) to generators). content of the magnet and
increase efficiency at its quantities needed in
low loads and to reduce large generators.
nacelle mass.
Source: The Switch (2014), “PMG vs. DFIG – the big generator technology debate” (link); American Superconductor (2009), “Direct Drive Generators” (link) Wind Power 37
R,D&D in offshore wind is required to optimize high up-front investment,

ease maintenance and improve reliability
Offshore main axis of R,D&D Foundation Designs

Group Axis of RD&D
Resources • Wind: the goal is to catch high wind speeds and
NEAR-TERM
assessment simultaneously minimize wake losses1
• Marine conditions: ice, waves, storm prediction
Maintenance • Favor reliable components to minimize
maintenance
• Foster remote control and preventive
maintenance
Foundations • New substructure beyond mono-pile & gravity- Mono-pile Gravity base Multi-pile Multi-pile Mono-caisson
based (idem) (tripod) (jacket) (suction)
• Floating turbine (avoid heavy foundations & move
further offshore)
Logistics • Purpose-built vessels for installation and
maintenance
FLOATTING
• Compatible harbor installations
Turbines • Stronger structure to resist harsh marine
conditions
• Affordable materials with higher strength-to-mass
ratios
• New blades (e.g. carbon fibre, titanium…)
Spar Barge Tension leg

platform (TLP)
Note: The wind behind the turbine, in its wake, is less effective at generating energy for a certain distance in the downwind direction due to turbulence created by the upwind machine. Wake
losses often account for a large share of overall energy losses, and are among the most difficult problems to manage after a turbine is installed.
Source: A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute; Global Wind Energy Council (2012); IEA (2013), “Wind Energy Roadmap 2013” Wind Power 38
Resource assessment, control systems and energy storage are at the

forefront of R,D&D to ease integration
Areas of R,D&D for wind integration into the power grid
• Originally, controllers had simple sequential control tasks to perform: start-up,
controlled shutdown, and the monitoring of temperatures
• More advanced control could reduce the mechanical loads on the turbine and
Control thereby allow mass to be reduced (new algorithms & the implementation of
System sensors on components) and limit outages/maintenance
• Active power control for turbines would allow them to actively support the grid
(e.g. frequency regulation)
• Resource assessment is critical to identifying the most suitable locations and

Mitigate Resources developing appropriate technology (offshore is easier as it has a lesser
Intermittency assessment & topographical effect)
& Variability forecast • Wind prediction models are also an important system for enabling further
penetration of wind and reducing forecast error range
• The addition of energy storage could help mitigate the intermittency of wind,
helping its penetration grow
Energy storage
• Battery storage and hydrogen production are being investigated (e.g. Utsira
Wind and Hydrogen project in Norway)
Note: R,D&D: research, development and demonstration.

Source: Chatham House (2011), “Patent Landscapes of Individual Energy Sectors” Wind Power 39
Public funding of wind-energy R&D has a long history and interest was
rekindled in the late 2000s
OECD public funding for wind energy
$2011 million, 1975-2011
• Public R&D funding for wind energy first peaked in
1981 in OECD countries. This reflected growing
environmental concerns and interest in alternative
sources of supply, following the first oil shock. Public
R&D funding for wind then fell in the 1980s and
stabilized from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s at
around $100-150 million per year, before increasing
again in the late 2000s, surpassing the 1981 peak in
2008.
• In the past 37 years, fluctuating public R&D
funding in the OECD for wind power has
accounted for only 1-2% of all energy-related R&D,
reaching a maximum of $450 million a year. Wind-
energy R&D has received less public funding than
other energy technologies.
U.S. Japan
Germany Denmark
Spain Other IEA member countries
Share of total R,D&D
Source: IEA (2013, 2009), “Wind Energy Roadmap”; IEA (2012), “Tracking Clean Energy Progress”; EC Joint Research Centre (2011), “Capacities Map 2011” Wind Power 40
Research, development and demonstration – Funding
Wind R&D investments are substantially lower than those in solar energy
Global R&D Investments in wind (2008-2014)

$ billion
6.0
+12%
4.8
3.6
3.0
+15%
2.3
2.0 2.1
1.7 1.7
1.3
0.8 0.9 0.8
0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4
0.3 0.2 0.3
2008 2010 2012 2014 2008 2010 2012 2014 2008 2010 2012 2014 2008 2010 2012 2014 2008 2010 2012 2014
Solar Biofuels Wind Biomass Geothermal
Government R&D Corporate
• Corporate R&D in wind has increased in the past four years. An increase in public R&D funds in 2009 resulted from a push
towards offshore in the late 2000s, and funding has remained stable since 2010.
• Wind R&D is relatively low compared with investments in other renewables, especially solar.
Source: UNEP (2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009), “Global Trend in Renewable Energy Investment”. Results based on Bloomberg,
Bloomberg New Energy Finance, IEA, IMF, and various government agencies Wind Power 41
4. Economics and ecosystem
Wind Power 42
Economics and ecosystem – Costs / Investment
With zero fuel costs, wind is a capital-driven industry
Typical onshore & offshore wind cost breakdown

Capital cost breakdown (top) & share of capital in levelized cost of electricity (bottom)
• The cost of wind power predominantly consist of up-

Onshore Offshore front investment. Operation & maintenance typically
account for 20% to 25% of the electricity price (up to
[1,300 - 2,300] $/kW [2,700 - 5,100] $/kW
35% for some offshore projects). Financing costs are
therefore fundamental to the economic viability of a wind
8-30% project.
4-10%
• Turbine costs account for most of the capital cost in
30-50% the case of onshore, where they can account for up to
84% of total installed costs. The main components of
13-30% turbines are the rotor blades, the tower and the gearbox,
65-84% which account for around two third of the overall capital
costs.
• Offshore has significantly more onerous cost
components than onshore, mainly as a result of the
30-55% harsh marine environment, which requires expensive
installations, more robust grid connections and deeper
foundations. The support structure, assembly, transport
and installations represent more than 25% of the total
capital cost of offshore wind systems.
70-89% 11-30% 65-85% 15-35%
Turbine Balance of station Soft costs Capital Cost Operation & Maintenance Cost
68% 23% 9%
1. Turbine costs include rotor, drive train and tower; 2. Balance of station costs include foundations, roads and civil work, assembly and installation, electrical interface, development, project
management; 3Soft costs include insurance, surety bond, contingency, construction and financing
Source: PCC (2011), “Special report on renewable energy“; IRENA (2012), “Renewable Energy Technologies: Cost Analysis series - Wind Power“; IRENA (2015), “Renewable Power
Generation Costs In 2014”; NREL (2013), “2011 Cost of Wind Energy Review” Wind Power 43
Onshore investment costs are significantly lower than offshore costs
Wind investment costs1

$ /kW
6,000
• Wind project costs vary, depending on turbine
5,100 prices, wind farm sizes and local market conditions
5,000 (e.g. competitiveness of local industry, labor costs…).
• Onshore wind is maturing. Investment costs typically

4,000 range from $1,300 to $2,300 /kW. They are as low as
$1,300 /kW in China or India, and averaged around
$1,700 /kW in 2014 in the U.S. The cost of onshore
3,000 wind is highly correlated with the cost of turbines.
2,700
2,300 • Offshore wind is at the early deployment phase and
2,000 consequently it is significantly more expensive than
onshore (around twice as expensive). Costs range
between $2,700 and 5,100 /kW, depending on turbine
1,300 size, foundation types and other considerations. The
1,000
average for shallow water and semi-near shore
conditions is around $4,500 /kW in the U.K.
0
Onshore Offshore Solar PV Coal2 Nuclear Natural gas2
wind wind utility-scale
1. Comparing investment cost per kW does not reflect the competitiveness of the technologies. It does not take into account the load factor, nor the lifetime or required transmission and
distribution costs, which will highly impact the competitiveness of the technologies; 2. Coal investment costs range include all technologies from subcritical to integrated gasification
combined cycle (IGCC). Natural gas technologies also include open cycle gas turbine (average around $500 /kW) and combined cycle gas turbine (average $1,000 /kW).
Source: IEA (2012, 2015), “Tracking Clean Energy Progress”; IRENA (2015), “Renewable power generation costs in 2014”; A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute”(2015),
“Solar PV FactBook” Wind Power 44
Investment costs have fallen but remain highly sensitive to commodity

prices and supply-chain bottlenecks
Investment costS of wind power plants in the U.S.
$2014 /kW
1. There have been substantial cost decreases per
unit of capacity from 1980s to early 2000s as a
6,000 result of economies of scale, the learning effect and
improved technology. Historical learning rates for
5,000 wind power were around 10% from 1980 to 2004.
4,000 2. Between the early 2000s and 2010, the U.S. wind
industry experienced an increase in turbine
3,000 prices, caused by (i) increases in the prices of
commodities, mainly steel, copper and cement; (ii)
2,000 supply-chain bottlenecks caused by rapid market
growth; and (iii) increases in turbine price1, size and
1,000 system sophistication to achieve higher load factors
and meet system requirements.
3. Since 2009/2010, there has been a substantial

decrease in capacity-weighted average project
   costs. These appear to have stabilized as a result
of (i) more stable – and even declining – commodity
Individual project cost (743 projects, total 54,014 MW) prices; (ii) supply chain catch-up with demand; and
Capacity weighted average project cost (iii) increased competition, thanks to the emergence
of manufacturers with local content in low-cost
manufacturing bases.
1. Turbine prices peaked in 2008/2009, but project-level installed costs peaked in 2009/2010. This is due to the time difference between agreement and installation; 2. Data on this graph
relating to the period since 2009 partly reflect the fair market value rather than the installed cost of wind-power projects and could therefore be inflated. In 2014, capacity-weighted average
investment costs increased slightly, compared with 2013. However, the sample was very small in 2013 due to the drop in installation that year. Average installations can therefore be
considered as leveling since 2012 and are expected to remain in the same range in 2015.
Source: US DoE (2015), “2014 Wind Technologies Market Report”; US DoE (2014), “2013 Wind Technologies Market Report” Wind Power 45
The investment cost reduction of offshore wind projects remains uncertain

in the next few years, but is likely to be greater than for onshore
Projected investment costs
$/kW
• Projected reductions of investment costs are
greater for offshore than for onshore due to
6,000 offshore’s relative immaturity, allowing for a greater
learning effect, standardization and economies of
scale. Offshore could also benefit from greater
5,000 reduction in grid connection costs as a result of high
voltage direct current cabling.
4,000
• Having diverged from its historical learning rate
because of increasing turbine prices, onshore
3,000 wind is now expected to return to a pathway of
cost reduction. However, reduction in offshore-wind
costs are expected to be capped by (i) increases in
2,000 raw-materials prices; (ii) requirements from grid
operators regarding power stability and controllability;
and (iii) the continued growth of turbine size, including
1,000 rotor diameter and hub height.
• Increased competition from emerging market

0 manufacturers is likely to foster a decline in
Wind Onshore Wind Offshore project costs.
2010 2014 2020
Source: IRENA (2015), “Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2014“ Wind Power 46
Economics and ecosystem – Costs / Operation and maintenance
Operation and maintenance costs have been steadily decreasing
Median annual O&M costs by project age and OPERATION date1 of ONSHORE
wind power plants in the U.S
$2014 /MWh • Operating costs are a significant component
of wind-power costs. They are made up of: (i)
Year on year operation and maintenance (O&M) costs,
increase: including all wages and materials associated with
40 operating and maintaining the facility2 or rent;
Commercial operation date:
and (ii) other continuing expenses, such as
35 1998-2004 administrative expenses, taxes, insurance.
+6%
2005-2008
30 2009-2013
• Despite a lack of data and marked regional
differences, there is a clear trend of
25
decreasing costs. In the U.S., O&M costs have,
-55% on average, fallen by about 75% since the 1980s,
20
to below $10 /MWh. The fall in costs can be
15
-46% +5% explained by design improvements that reduce
the need for O&M on a per MWh basis, but also
10 +4%
by the fact that O&M costs tend to increase more
slowly as turbines age3. In other words, one
5 should distinguish between two trends: project
Number of vintage and project age.
year(s)
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
• O&M costs are larger for offshore concepts
than for onshore systems. Average onshore
How to read this graph: O&M costs are typically around $10 /MWh in the
U.S., accounting for roughly half of total operating
O&M cost on this year, for this category 15 Number of projects under costs (~$20 /MWh). Offshore O&M costs are
O&M in the study expected to be significantly higher, ranging from
Commercialized between 1998 and 2004 Number of years after $27 to $54 /MWh.
0 project commercialized
1 Operation date means commercial operation date;

2 This includes scheduled and unscheduled maintenance;
3 This is due to component failures becoming more frequent and the potential expiry of warranties.
Source: US DoE (2015), “2014 Wind Technologies Market Report”. Wind Power 47
Economics and ecosystem – Costs / Levelized cost of electricity
With recent cost declines, onshore wind power’s LCOE is close to that of
fossil fuels and is lower than that of any other source of variable
renewable energy
Typical LCOE range for renewable technozlogies and regional weighted
averages - $2014 /kWh
0.4
The most competitive onshore

wind projects are now regularly
0.3 delivering electricity for $0.05
/kWh, and even lower costs (as
low as ~$ 0.04 /kWh) are
expected to be possible
0.2
0.1
Fossil fuel power cost range
0.0
Onshore wind Offshore wind Solar PV Concentrating Hydro power
solar power
Africa Asia Europe Middle East North America Oceania South America
Note: The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) represents the per-kilowatt-hour cost of building and operating a generating plant over an assumed financial life and duty cycle. Its ranges reflect
differences in resources available, local conditions and choice of sub-technology. Calculations are based on a 7.5% discount rate for OECD countries and China and 10% for the rest of the
world. While LCOE allows comparison of costs among technologies, it may be an unreliable metric when comparing technologies at different stages of maturity. LCOE can also be a
misleading measure of the value of technologies that perform different roles in an electricity system and that should be assessed in terms of their contribution to system reliability.
Source: A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute based on IRENA (2015), “Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2014” Wind Power 48
As with other renewables, the quality of a wind resource has an

important impact on the economics of the power it produces
Impact of wind speed on the relative levelized cost of electricity of offshore
Wind – Illustrative only - % compared with a reference plant with an average wind
speed of 9 m/s
Caution: wind speeds indicated below are for offshore wind. • As with any renewable energy, the
400% competitiveness of wind power depends
Calculations are made on the basis of “all things being equal”
i.e. they use the same assumptions for location, even if costs on the quality of the natural resource.
differ (e.g. operation and maintenance, logistics, discount rate). This is generally measured by wind speed1
300% (meters per second or km per hour) and will
affect the availability of the plant (its load
factor).
200%
• All things being equal, the higher the
+113% wind speed, the lower the levelized cost
of electricity produced2. Variations in
100% wind speed, depending on geographical
-58% location, make the plant’s location critical in
determining its economic viability.
0
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Average yearly
Delta del Ebro Mumbai Kemi Butendiek London wind speed (m/s)
Putian
Anholt Bruges
1. LCOE are calculated for a typical offshore wind turbine of 4.3 MW, assuming investment costs of $5,187 /kW, yearly O&M of $136 / kW, discount rate of 8% and
a lifetime of 20 years. Note that these parameters actually vary between countries; 2. Wind speed data have been extracted from 4Coffshore.
Source: A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute; 4Coffshore (link) Wind Power 49
If its most ambitious climate-change mitigation scenario is to be met, the

IEA believes the LCOE of wind would need to fall by 14-33% by 2025
LCOE decrease in IEA 2025 ETP target
$ /MWh, global average
300 -14% to -33%
250 233
200
-15%-15%
to -23%
150 132
112
100
50
56 43
0
2014 2025 2014 2025
ONSHORE WIND OFFSHORE WIND
• Most stakeholders predict that the LCOE of wind will continue to decrease. This is due to a combination of levers,
including: (i) reduction in wind-power system costs arising from the learning rate; and (ii) the development of more efficient
turbines, which can harness higher and more regular wind speeds (e.g. airborne wind turbines, and larger offshore turbines
that can be sited further offshore) and reach higher capacity factors. Decreases in costs are expected to be larger for
offshore systems than for onshore because of their relatively low level of maturity.
Source: IEA (2015), “Energy Technology Perspectives 2015” Wind Power 50

Economics and ecosystem – Costs / Grid integration
Failure to include rising grid-integration costs in the levelized cost of

electricity generated from wind may miss important economic
considerations
Increase in balancing costs vs. Wind penetration
$/Mwh
APS (2007) • Wind penetration will generate
$20 Avista (2007)
integration costs due to intermittency.
BPA (2009)
BPA (2011) This will include (i) balancing costs (i.e.
$18 BPA (2013) second-to-hour timescale); (ii) adequacy
CA RPS (2006)
$16 EXCOT (2012) costs (i.e. day-to-year timescale); and (iii)
EWITS (2010) transmission costs – dedicated lines.
Idaho Power (2007)
$14 Idaho Power (2012)
MN-MISO (2006) • Grid integration costs resulting from
$12 Nebraska (2010)
wind are hard to assess and highly
NorthWestern (2012)
Pacificorp (2005) system-specific. They are thus usually
$10 Pacificorp (2007) not taken into account when calculating
Pacificorp (2010)
Pacificorp (2012)
the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE).
$8 Portland GE (2011)
Portland GE (2013)
$6 Puget Sound Energy • Depending on penetration, integration
SPP-SERC (2011) costs may increase significantly.
We Energies (2003) There is a lack of research into
$4 Xcel-MNDOC (2004)
penetration rates higher than 30%,
Xcel PSCo (2006)
Xcel PSCo (2008) making wind's ability to account for a
$2 Xcel PSCo (2011) larger share of the generation mix highly
Xcel UWIG (2003)
$0 uncertain.
Source: US DoE (2015), “2014 Wind Technologies Market Report” Wind Power 51
Economics and ecosystem – policy support
Wind-support policies take two principal forms: those that mandate a

certain quantity of wind power and those that alter the prices to which
investors are exposed
Options for policy support1
Influence wind-deployment levels by Mandate a certain quantity of energy or
Price-based altering the prices to which investors Quantity-based capacity. Prices are thus determined by
instruments are exposed (increasing revenues or instruments the costs of projects required to meet
lowering costs). this obligation
Feed-in tariffs Guarantee a certain price per-kilowatt-hour (kWh) at

which electricity is bought during a long period of Renewable portfolio Set a target share or total amount of energy
(FITs) time (typically 20 years)2. generation from renewable energy sources for
standards (RPS) electricity producers or suppliers5.
Contracts Long-term PPA2 under which electricity is directly

sold to the market and investors receive or refund
for difference the gap between market and predetermined price. Set a specific amount of electricity to be generated
Quotas wit tradable from renewable sources and issue certificates for
each unit of green electricity to be traded on a
Electricity Allow self-produced electricity to reduce the green certificates market. This aims at meeting renewable obligations
electricity bill of the wind system owner through self more efficiently.
compensation consumption and/or net-metering systems3.
Complement revenues from standard electricity Usually implemented by a government or public

Market market by paying investors based on the quantity of Centralized body by organizing auctions to contract a
premiums electricity generated or capacity built. procurement predetermined quantity of renewable energy. The
price is set in a competitive bidding process.
Tax incentives Reduce the cost of renewable energy projects from

the perspective of an investor through direct tax
or credits reduction or accelerated depreciation of assets.
Direct cash Reduce investment costs / improve returns of

investors by giving back a percentage of investment
grants/rebates4 costs in cash to developers.
1. Policy mechanisms can also be categorised according to how they are financed. Renewable policy support is usually financed by additional charges to electricity consumers’ bills, via
payments through the general budget or dedicated state funds, or by accepting reduced tax revenues; 2. A FIT is a standardized, long-term power purchasing agreement (PPA). FIT can
also be combined with a tendering process; 3. For more information on net metering, refer to slide 48; 4. Also known as direct capital subsidies; 5. RPS build on the assumption that the
obliged producer or supplier has sufficient opportunities to build or purchase renewable energy directly. Where this is not the case, a quantity obligation can be combined with trading of
green certificates.
Source: IEA (2015), “Energy Technology Perspective 2015”; IEA (2014), “Trends 2014 in Photovoltaic Applications” Wind Power 52
Economics and ecosystem – policy support
Support policies vary by regions and typically consist of a mixture of

measures
Countries wit renewable energy policies and targets, early 2015
U.S. :
 Feed-in tariffs Germany:
 Direct capital subsidies  Feed-in tariffs
 Net metering  Tax incentives
China:
 Renewable Portfolio Standards  Direct capital subsidies
 Feed-in tariffs
 Tax incentives  Renewable Portfolio
Standards
 Tendering
U.K.:
 Feed-in tariffs
 Renewable Portfolio
Standards
Brazil:
 Direct capital subsidies
 Net metering
 Tax incentives
 Tendering
 Tax incentives
South Africa:
 Electricity quotas
 Renewable Portfolio
Standards
With policies & targets
 Tendering
With policies, no targets (or no data)  Tax incentives
With targets, no policies (or data)
No policies/targets or no data
Caution: map and breakdown depicts all renewable

support policies, not only wind power
Source: REN21 (2015), “Global Status Report” Wind Power 53

Economics and ecosystem – Ecosystem / Financing
Wind finance experienced strong growth until the end of the past
decade, but is now facing growing competition from solar photovoltaic
Wind power investments 2004 – 20141
$ billion
151: 2014 Solar
150
investments
CAGR: 19% 104

100
98
88
85 83
81
75
62
50
40
29
18
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Wind power (including onshore & offshore)
1. Investments include project financing, equipment manufacturing scale-up, and R&D.

Source: UNEP (2015) “Global Trends in renewable Investment 2015”; Bloomberg New Energy Finance database (accessed in August 2015) Wind Power 54
Economics and ecosystem – Ecosystem / Key players
The ecosystem of wind power has developed and matured in recent

years, with financing players playing a growing role
Wind power ecosystem1
R&D & Asset
Investors
academia management
Provide debt and / or Spin-out and management

equity of assets
Technology provider Project execution and development Operation and sales
Raw materials Component Service

Developer EPC2 Project owner Off-taker
producer manufacturer providers
Steel & cast iron

Rotor & blades In addition to Utility companies O&M4 companies
producers
Initiates projects, engineering,
typically appoints EPC procurement and Independent power
Aluminum producers Nacelles & controls company, select sites, construction of the Logistics companies
producers
negotiate with plant, EPC typically
Generator & power landowners, manage selects suppliers, Certification and
Other raw material approval process and Infrastructure funds
electronics underwrites final design inspection firm
(e.g. rubber, carbon grid connection. and power output
fiber, concrete…) Tower components projections. Community or other
owners
Core value chain
Land owner TSO/DSOs3 Regulator & public authorities
Establish and manage support schemes and project

approval / submissions processes
1. For illustrative purposes only. Note that many wind companies are involved at several stage of the chain (e.g. both developing and providing technology, as well as providing EPC services);
2. EPC for engineering, procurement and construction; 3. DSO/TSO for distribution system operator and transmission system operator; 4. O&M for operation and maintenance.
Source: A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute, based on interviews Wind Power 55
There are a wide variety of players in onshore technologies
Value chain players – non-exhaustive: onshore
Project Construction/ Power

Components O&M
development installation generation
• Siemens • Theolia • Global Energy • Theolia • Global Energy
Services Services
• Vestas • Eole Energie • Cofely INEO –
• Skanska AB Engie • Enercon
• Nordex • Iberdrola
• GE Energy • New Brunswick • Vestas Wind
• Gamesa • Prowind Canada
Power
• Manchester • Juwi Wind
• Enercon • Golder Associates
Companies • Golders • GE Energy
• Mitsubishi • Suzlon Associates
• Broadwind Energy • Manchester
• GE Energy • New Brunswick • Youngduk Wind
• Prowind Canada Companies
Power
• Goldwind • Green Wind
• Ebara Corp • Broadwind Energy
• Suzlon Renewables
• New Brunswick • Prowind Canada
• Alstom • Parque Eolico
Power
La Losilla • Suzlon
• Samyoung m-Tek
• THUEGA
• Nantong Hongbo Erneurbare
• Timken Energien
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance, extract of Database August 2015 Wind Power 56
Offshore wind firms are mainly based in Northern Europe
Value chain players – non-exhaustive: offshore specific
Components Foundations Cabling Vessels
• Siemens • PER Aarsleff • Jdr Cable Systems • RWE

• Vestas • Smulders Group • Js Cable Co • Ballast Nedam
• WinWinD • Ramboll Group • Prysmian • A2 SEA
• BARD • GeoSea NV • Nexans • GeoSea
• GE • Burntisland • NKT Cables • GMS
Fabrications
• Areva • IHC Merwede
• Gamesa • McNulty Offshore
• Mitsubishi • OWEC Tower
• Sinovel • Bard Engineering
• Daiichi Kensetsu
• Seajacks
International
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance, extract of Database August 2015 Wind Power 57
Onshore wind market is maturing and fragmented, while offshore is at an

early stage of development
Onshore turbine suppliers’ market share Offshore turbine suppliers’ market share
% of global cumulated installed capacity in 2013 % of global cumulated installed capacity in 2013
Total: 35,871 MW Total: 1,607 MW (434 offshore wind turbines)
Vestas
14%
Vestas (3%) Others (3%)
Senvion (9%)
Goldwind
Other 11%
42%
BARD (15%)
10%
Enercon Siemens (70%)
7%
5% 6% GE
6%
Siemens
Gamesa
Suzlon
• Onshore market is maturing, with Chinese suppliers such • Offshore market is still at an early stage of development,
as Goldwind increasing their market shares (11% in 2013, with five manufacturers accounting for all turbines.
vs. 9% in 2011). • While the market was previously largely dominated by
• Suppliers tend to have to position themselves in a specific German manufacturers Siemens, Repower and BARD,
market segment to preserve their competitive advantages Denmark-based Vestas was the second-largest supplier of
and meet local requirements. new-build offshore turbines in 2013..
Note: The graph is based IEA data for total wind market share (including both onshore and offshore) and specific information on offshore from other sources.
Source: IEA (2012), “Renewable Energy, Medium-term market report”; Wind monitor (link), “Wind turbine manufacturers worldwide”; EVWind (link) Wind Power 58
5. Environmental and social impacts
Wind Power 59
Environmental and social impacts
GHG emissions from wind are among the lowest of any renewable-energy
technology, but its overall impact depends on power-system integration
Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions
gCO2eq / kWh
• Wind does not directly emit GHGs or other
pollutants. However, median wind-power emissions
range between 7 and 52 g of CO2 equivalent per kWh
over a project’s lifetime, depending on its location (7-52
and 8-31 gCO2eq per kWh for onshore and offshore,
respectively) and design (e.g. type of foundations, type
of drive-train).
• This range is close to that of concentrating solar
power, narrower than that of solar PV and
significantly lower than that of fossil alternatives;
the average for U.S.1 natural gas and coal-fired power
plants are 500 and 1,000 gCO2eq/kWh, respectively.
• Replacing fossil-fuel power capacity with wind
power may result in an increase in the use of
flexible back-up plants. This could lead to a small
reduction in GHG emissions (well below 10%; in many
cases below 3%), although the impact would be highly
system specific. In general, greater use of wind power
will significantly reduce pollutants and GHG emissions,
with cycling from fossil plants only modestly reducing
those benefits.
1. Figures aim to provide an order of magnitude, as lifecycle emissions are inherently specific to location and technology.
Source:US DoE (2015), “Wind Vision: A New Era for Wind Power in the United States” Wind Power 60
Wind has a lower capacity density than solar, but the footprint of turbines
on wind farms is negligible and means the land may be put to other uses
Land-use comparison for two 330 MW-equivalent renewable-power plants
Turbine pad & clearing area

10 km
Undisturbed land
1 GW onshore wind farm 1

• 14 km² of • 350 km² of total wind plant area
panels Service road
• Typical U.S. onshore plant
• Arizona
desert • 500 * 2 MW turbines • The total plant area (defined as the convex hull containing all
• 33% capacity factor turbines) is very large because wind turbines must be erected at a
• 24%
minimum distance to each other in order to avoid the drop in wind
capacity speed in the shadow of upwind turbines3.
factor
• ~99% of the surface area of a wind farm is physically undisturbed.
Farming or fishing is possible, although no habitation can be built
1.4 GW without it suffering visual disturbance.
Solar PV • The direct land impact consists mainly of service roads (80%) and
plant2 3k
Land directly impacted turbine pads (10%).
m²
1. The weighted average capacity density of 172 existing U.S. onshore wind farms is 35 ± 22 hectare/MW, whereas land directly impacted averaged
0.3 ± 0.3 ha/MW according to NREL (2009) “Land-Use Requirements of Modern Wind Power Plants in the United States. Such a plant would meet the need of roughly 2.2, 6 and 0.8 million
households in China, Brazil and Germany, respectively; 2. According to the US DoE, modern solar PV plants require 10 to 20 km² per GW of capacity installed, depending on the latitude.
10km² /GW in this example; 3. Refer to appendix 4. for more information.
Source: NREL (2009) “Land-Use Requirements of Modern Wind Power Plants in the United States”; IPCC (2014), “Technology-specific cost and performance parameters”; NREL(2013),
“Land-Use Requirements for Solar Power Plants in the United States” Wind Power 61
Wind incurs few social challenges except aesthetic and noise impacts
Main social impacts of wind and means of mitigating them

■ Principal social issues for wind power are its aesthetic and noise impacts:
• Visual: Not In My Backyard syndrome (NIMBY) raises major social acceptance challenge and may have negative impact in
touristic areas;
• Noise: generally restricted to 35 to 45 decibels at 300 meters1 and not of concern to humans after 800 meters.
■ Wind projects may also have minor detrimental impacts on wildlife and land use:
• Wildlife: wind may result in habitat destruction and involve collisions with bats and birds (even if wind is thought to represent
only 0.003% of anthropogenic bird death);
• Marine ecosystems: wind farms may disturb mammals, notably due to the noise during construction. The long-term impact
is yet under debate, as it could also attract new species thanks to artificial reefs where marine species can thrive;
• Wealth: Property value & recreational impact.
■ Technology advances and siting wind farms offshore should avoid some of these impacts:
• Technology advances: wind turbine manufacturers have worked on designs and aerodynamics that limit noise and the
impact on wildlife;
• Offshore: wind farms are being located further and further from shores, which should negate many of the public concerns
relating to the visual and noise impact of turbines on coastal areas.
■ Public acceptance: social impact studies indicate that public concern about wind energy is greatest directly after the
announcement of a wind farm, while acceptance increases after construction, when the actual impacts can be assessed.
People living closest to existing wind plants are sometimes more accepting than those who live further away and are less
familiar with the technology.
1. Wind turbines have to be built at least at 300 meters from houses. At that distance, noise would range around 45 decibels, equivalent to the noise of an average air conditioner.
6. Grid integration
Wind Power 63
Grid Integration
Wind is weather-dependent and therefore variable, imperfectly

predictable and subject to strong ramping effects
Wind intermittency illustration
MW – Germany 2007
• Wind output is imperfectly predictable with (i)

lower level of predictability than fossil-fired power
plants; and (ii) less accurate forecast over longer
time horizon (multiple hours to days).
• Wind output is subject to ramp events. The output
of a wind turbine can vary from zero to its rated
capacity, sometimes changing very rapidly. In
particular, wind turbines can ramp down in case of
high wind speeds (over cut-out speed) with
production falling from rated power to zero in a
matter of seconds.
• Wind output is variable and imperfectly
controllable over several timescales. Wind output
depends on weather; and variations can occur on
multiple time scales, from sub-hourly to inter-annual.
• Intermittency is a crucial challenge for grid stability
and to match demand & supply1.
1. Interestingly, intermittency can be smoothed mechanically (larger and taller turbines can benefit from increased inertia), and electronically (with capacitor storing energy).
Grid Integration
The quality of wind resources is location specific, with the best locations
often found far from the load center
Wind resources & population misalignment
Illustration for China
• Wind resource locations tend to be misaligned with large
demand centers, requiring the construction of new long-
distance transmission lines.
• Due to the impact of wind quality on economics,
Wind resources additional transmission infrastructure is sometimes
economically justified.
W /m2
• However additional long-distance transmission lines face
multiple challenges including (i) technical challenges due to
thermal, voltage and transient constraints on long lines; (ii)
timescale challenges due to a longer development time than
wind generation (8 to 15 years vs ~3 years respectively); (iii)
economic challenges, as transmission and distribution (T&D)
costs are supported by end-consumers and already account
for a large proportion electricity prices; and (iv) institutional
barriers to siting and paying for transmission systems.
Population density
people /km2

Grid Integration
Wind power increases flexibility needs without contributing significantly to

the pool of resources that can adjust to just-in-time requirements
Installed vs. reliable capacity of additional renewables in 2035
GW
450
• Wind power intermittency1 makes power demand-supply
matching more difficult. Wind power tends to increase
flexibility needs. The latter are often divided into three groups,
Other flexible depending on timescale: (i) grid stability, which mainly refers to
capacity required for the control of frequency and voltage in order to comply with the
240 system adequacy grid’s technical limits over periods of seconds; (ii) grid
balancing, which refers to load changes over minutes or days
that must be balanced; and (iii) grid adequacy, which refers to
capacity needed to meet peak demand even under the most
extreme conditions in the long term (months to years). The
increasing need for flexibility is apparent by observing the
+90 GW residual load (i.e. demand minus wind and solar generation)2.
+45 GW
• Wind power makes a limited contribution to the flexibility
pool of resources, as it cannot be relied upon to produce
U.S. OECD Europe energy at a given time with any certainty. This is mirrored by the
low capacity credits that are granted by system operators.
Installed capacity Average power output Capacity credit • To mitigate the integration costs of growing variable
renewables, system operators will have to draw upon
How to read this graph:
• For OECD Europe, this means that out of the 450 GW of installed flexibility resources. Flexibility management can be optimized
capacity expected in 2035, only 22.5 GW can be relied on to meet peak by perfecting models for forecasting output from wind plants,
demand, according to capacity credits granted by system operators, fine-tuning market regulations and refining the design of power
while average annual output is around 112 GW. From this, it can be systems. But additional flexibility will be needed in the form of
estimated that ~90 GW of additional flexibility capacity (i.e. the difference demand-side participation, better connections between
between average annual output and capacity credit) must be found markets, greater flexibility in base-load power supply2 or
elsewhere to ensure system adequacy electricity storage3.
1. For more information, refer to slide 63;
2. This corresponds in most cases to fossil-fuel back-up; 3. For more information, refer to A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute Hydrogen-based energy storage FactBook (link).
Source: IEA (2014), “Renewable Energy, Medium Term Market Report 2014”; NREL (2012), “Renewable Electricity Futures Study”; IEA (2012), “World Energy Outlook 2012” Wind Power 66
Grid Integration
Wind power can be smoothed out geographically to reduce unpredictability

but may in some instances require expensive interconnection lines
Single wind turbine variable production and geographic smoothing across
Germany
Nominalized power, 2004
• Geographical dispersion of wind farms can smooth out output
Single Wind turbine (Oevenum/Fohr), 225 kW over a large area that may contain more than one prevailing
weather system (e.g. Atlantic and Baltic Sea in Europe),
1
balancing out local events, such as storms.
0.2
Group of wind farms (UW Krempel) 72.7 MW

1
0.2
All Wind Turbines in Germany, 14.3-15.9 GW

1
0.2
Days
Source: IPCC (2011), “Special report on renewable energy”, TradeWind (2009), “Integrating Wind - Developing Europe’s power market for the large-scale integration
of wind power” Wind Power 67
Appendix & bibliography
Wind Power 68
Appendix & bibliography – Acronyms
Acronyms
AC: Alternative current NIMBY: Not in my backyard

AWE: Airborne wind energy NREL: National Renewable Energy Laboratory
CAGR: Compound annual growth rate O&G: Oil & gas
CAPEX: Capital expenditure O&M: Operation and maintenance
c-Si: Crystalline silicon OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
DC: Direct current Development
DSO: Distribution system operator OPEX: Operational expenditure
EPC: Engineering, procurement and construction PBL: Planetary boundary layer
EJ: Exajoules (1018 joules) PMG: Permanent magnet generator
EU: European Union PPA: Power purchase agreement
FIT: Feed-in tariff PTC: Production Tax Credit
gCO2eq: Gram of CO2 equivalent P2G: Power-to-gas
GHG: Greenhouse gas PV: Photovoltaic
GW: Gigawatt R&D: Research and development
GWEC: Global Wind Energy Council R,D&D: Research, development & demonstration
HVAC: High-voltage alternative current ROW: Rest of the world
HVDC: High-voltage direct current RPS: Renewable portfolio standard
Hz: Hertz T&D: Transmission and distribution
IEA: International Energy Agency TSO: Transmission system operator
IRENA: International Renewable Energy Agency TSR: Tip speed ratio
LCOE: Levelized cost of electricity U.K.: United Kingdom
m/s: Meter per second US DoE: United States Department of Energy
MW: Megawatt UNEP: United Nations Environmental Programme
MWh: Megawatt-hour U.S.: United States
NREL: National Renewable Energy Laboratory WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization
Wind Power 69
Appendix & bibliography – Bibliography
Bibliography (1/3)
4Coffshore (link)
ABB (2011), “MITEI Symposium, Grid integration of Renewables: Challenges & Technologies”
American Superconductor - Daniel McGahn (2009), “Direct Drive Generators - High Temperature Superconductor Based
Machines” (link)
Bloomberg (2015), “Turkey Seeks 2,000 Megawatts of Wind Power Earlier Than Planned” (link)
Bloomberg (online), “German Offshore Wind Installs Surge to 1.76 Gigawatts This Year” (link)
Bloomberg New Energy Finance database (link)
Busby (2012), “Wind Power: The Industry Grows Up” (link)
Chatham House (2011), “Patent Landscapes of Individual Energy Sectors”
Danish wind industry association (link)
Det Norske Veritas (2010), “Access to offshore wind facilities - What can we learn from other industries?“
Diehl (2013), “Airborne Wind Energy: Basic Concepts and Physical Foundations” (link)
E.ON (2011), “Offshore Wind Energy Factbook” (link)
Energy Plus (link)
European Commission Joint Research Center – EC JRC (2011), “Capacities Map 2011” (link)
European Wind Energy Association - EWEA (2015), “The European offshore wind industry key 2014 trends and statistics” (link)
European Wind Energy Technology Platform - Tpwind (2009), “Integrating Wind - Developing Europe’s power market for the
large-scale integration of wind power” (link)
EVWind (link)
Global Wind Energy Council - GWEC (2015), “Global Wind Report 2014” (link)
Global Wind Energy Council - GWEC (2015), “Global Wind Statistics 2014” (link)
Gundtoft (2009), “Wind Turbines” (link)
Gurit “Wind Turbine Blade Aerodynamics” (link)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - IPCC (2011), “Special report on renewable energy“ (link)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - IPCC (2014), “Technology-specific cost and performance parameters” (link)
International Energy Agency - IEA (2009), “Wind Energy Roadmap” (link)
Wind Power 70
Bibliography (2/3)
International Energy Agency - IEA (2009), “World Energy Outlook” (link)

International Energy Agency - IEA (2012), “Energy Technology Perspectives” (link)
International Energy Agency - IEA (2012), “Renewable Energy, Medium-term market report” (link)
International Energy Agency - IEA (2012), “Tracking Clean Energy Progress” (link)
International Energy Agency - IEA (2013), “Electricity information”
International Energy Agency - IEA (2013), “Technology Roadmap: Wind Energy – 2013 Edition” (link)
International Energy Agency - IEA (2014), “Renewable Energy , Medium-term market report” (link)
International Energy Agency - IEA (2014), “Technology Roadmap - wind energy” (link)
International Energy Agency - IEA (2014), “Trends 2014 in Photovoltaic Applications” (link)
International Energy Agency - IEA (2015), “Energy Technology Perspectives” (link)
International Energy Agency - IEA (2015), “Renewable Energy, Medium-term market report” (link)
International Energy Agency - IEA (2015), “Tracking Clean Energy Progress” (link)
IRENA (2016), “Renewable Energy Market Analysis – The GCC Region” (link)
IRENA (2012), “Renewable Energy Technologies: Cost Analysis series - Wind Power“ (link)
IRENA (2015), “Renewable Power Generation Costs In 2014” (link)
Makani – Google (link)
MET, “The Planetary Boundary Layer: a Definition” (link)
MIT (2011), “The Future of Electric Grid” (link)
National Renewable Energy Laboratory - NREL (2012), “Renewable Electricity Futures Study” (link)
National Renewable Energy Laboratory - NREL (2013), “2011 Cost of Wind Energy Review” (link)
National Renewable Energy Laboratory - NREL (2013), “Fixed-Speed and Variable-Slip Wind Turbines Providing Spinning
Reserves to the Grid” (link)
National Renewable Energy Laboratory - NREL (2013), “Land-Use Requirements for Solar Power Plants in the United States“
(link)
Wind Power 71
Bibliography (3/3)
North American Wind Power (2015), “Mexico Wind Has Bright Horizons, Thanks To Energy Reform” (link)
nw3 weater (link)
Paul Gipe (2004), “Wind Power: Renewable Energy for Home, Farm, and Business” (link)
Reegle (link)
REN21 (2015), “Global Status Report” (link)
Renewables International (link), “Russia wind power plans part 1" (link)
Reuters (2016), “Saudi Arabia targets 9.5 GW of renewable by 2030” (link)
A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute (2015), “Introduction to Smart Grids FactBook” (link)
Statoil Hywind Demo website (link)
The Guardian (2008), “Timeline: The history of wind power” (link)
The Switch (2014), “PMG vs. DFIG – The big generator technology debate” (link)
Thermo radiances “Le rendement des eoliennes” (link)
UNEP (2009) “Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment” (link)
University of Ottawa, “Wind Energy Technology “ (link)
University of Ottawa, “Wind Turbine Generators for Wind Power Plants“ (link)
UPPSALA Universitet, Ivanell (link)
US Department of Energy, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (2014), “2013 Wind Technologies Market Report” (link)
US Department of Energy, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (2015), “2014 Wind Technologies Market Report“ (link)
Wind monitor (link), “Wind turbine manufacturers worldwide”
Wind Power 72
Appendix & bibliography – Picture credits
Picture credits
Slide 11: CNET (link). Global atlas of wind speed over land and over water, in meters per second.
Slide 12: Robert W. Righter (1996), "Wind Energy in America: A History“ (link). The first wind turbine generating electricity
was built in Ohio in 1888. It was an 18 m tall structure rated at 12 kW.
Slide 22: Bestweb, Shutterstock (link). Photo of Wind power installation on a sunny day.
Slide 33: Bestweb, Shutterstock (link). Gearbox of a wind turbine - room arrangement.
Slide 36: Yespolitical (link). A flexible-wing-airborne structure is a kite that generates electricity on the ground. During the
reel-in and reel-out phases of pumping mode, the generator is forced to move and thus produces electricity.
Slide 36: Awec (link). A rigid-wing-airborne structure turns in fast loops at an altitude of 300-600 meters, and generates
electricity on the ground during the reel-in phase.
Slide 36: Omnidea (link). The buoyant-airborne structure is lifted, since it is lighter than air. This movement drives a
generator that produces electricity on the ground.
Slide 36: European Energy Review (link). Turbines and on-board generators are mounted on rigid structures, and transform
kinetic wind energy into electricity, before transmitting it to the ground through a conducting tether.
Slide 36: Domsweb (link). An on-board-generating buoyant structure is a large but light balloon rotating around a generator
that produces electricity, which is then transmitted to the ground through a conducting tether.
Slide 42: Yobidaba, fotolia (link). Ship for offshore installation transporting two offshore wind turbines yet to be assembled.
Slide 59: Vattenfall – C. Steiness (2008). Horns Rev 1 offshore wind farm is a 160 MW plant, located in Denmark, with a
total of 80 Vestas V80-2.0 MW units that generate 600 GWh of electricity annualy.
Slide 68: E.ON Offshore Project (United Kingdom, 2009) (link). Robin Rigg wind farm, is Scotland’s first offshore project,
completed in 2010. It is a 174 MW wind farm, with 58 operational Vestas V90-3 MW turbines.
Slide 74: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (link). Illustration of the planetary boundary layer (PBL)
Wind Power 73
Appendix & bibliography – Appendix
Appendix 1 - Interest in high-elevation and airborne wind turbines is

strong because of the influence the Earth’s surface on the planetary
boundary layer
Illustration of the impact of the planetary boundary layer on wind velocity
Altitude (km) • The troposphere - the lowest zone of the atmosphere - can
Unconventional turbines
be divided into two parts: the free troposphere and the
planetary boundary layer (PBL)1. The latter extends upwards
1 from the surface to a height that ranges anywhere from a few
hundred to 3,000 meters, depending on the location. The PBL
is characterized by the fact that it is directly influenced by the
presence of the Earth’s surface, responding to forcings such
0.5 as solar heating or evapotranspiration.
Taller turbines • Within the PBL, forcings generate turbulence that have an
300 impact on the wind industry. In addition to wind turbulence
(e.g. changes in wind speed and wind direction), which affects
Velocity (m/s) power generation2, the PBL makes weather prediction more
complex since it involves complex calculations relating to
surface conditions.
Top of the PBL • To mitigate or circumvent the impact of PBL, the wind
Depiction of industry has explored the use of taller or airborne wind
turbines, capable of harnessing faster and more regular
various surfaces winds, with enhanced predictability3.
and PBL
processes
1. PBL, planetary boundary layer is also known as atmospheric boundary layer; 2. Power production increases with wind speed. For more information, refer to slide 72; 3. For more
information on unconventional wind turbines, refer to slides 32 and 76.
Source: A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute; Picture credit, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (link); MET, “The Planetary Boundary Layer: a Definition” (link)Wind Power 74
Appendix 2 - There are three main ways to regulate power output and to
optimize power production: yaw-, pitch- and stall-control
Yaw control Pitch control Stall control
“Feathered”: no New drag

turning force at all
New drag New lift
New
New rotation plane Chord pitch Rotation plane
angle
New lift
turbulences
New Rotation plane New
pitch angle angle
Wind
Wind of attack
New angle
Wind Apparent
of attack
wind
Apparent wind
• Yaw angle corresponds to the rotation of • The pitch angle is the angle between the • The angle of attack can also be oriented
the nacelle around its vertical axis (along rotation plane and the chord of the blade. to create a phenomenon known as stall:
the tower). engineered turbulence removes the low
• Controlling the pitch angle enables the pressure on the upper surface of the wind
• Therefore, controlling yaw angle enables power output to be regulated1. This is blade.
turbines always to face the wind, for because lift and drag are a function of the
optimum power production. angle of attack, which itself depends on • Stall control can be passive (the blade is
the pitch angle. designed so that turbulence occurs when
• Small nacelles can be oriented with a wind speeds are too high); or active (as in
wind vane (weathercock). For large • This angle is controlled by gearboxes that pitch control, blades are oriented to
nacelles, anemometers calculate the dynamically orient the turbine blades. create this stall effect). Stall is less
orientation of the wind and the turbine is Feathering the blade (facing wind = accurate and less effective than pitch
accurately aligned with the gearbox. parallel to flow) minimize drag and control, due to its turbulence nature.
prevent rotation.
Note: Controlling the angle of pitch enables wind turbines to produce more than their rated power, hence providing the option of having both negative and positive reverses e.g. to shut down
the turbine if there is an excess of power injected into the grid or to increase power supply to its maximum rated level if there is a shortage of electricity, assuming suitable wind conditions.
Source: A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute; Danish wind industry association (link); Energy Plus (link); Gurit “Wind Turbine Blade Aerodynamics” (link) Wind Power 75
Appendix 3 - Three-bladed-horizontal-axis wind turbines have become

the dominant design thanks to their wind-power extraction potential
Power extraction of wind turbines
Power coefficient Cp
• According to Betz’s law, a maximum of about 60% of wind
power in open flow can theoretically be extracted, irrespective
of the design of the wind turbine.
Optimum
Betz’s limit
Theoretical value for an infinite • The tip-speed ratio (TSR) λ represents the tangential speed of
number of blades without drag the blade (distance to center multiplied by rotor rotational
Wake losses speed) divided by wind velocity. If the blades turn too slowly,
wind power cannot be extracted effectively (wake losses). If
2 blades
the blades turn too fast, they tend to “form a wall”, which also
American 3 blades
wind turbine
limits power extraction. That is why each turbine is designed to
1 blade optimize the power coefficient Cp (the fraction of the wind
power that can be effectively harnessed by the turbine).
• Fluctuating wind speeds modify the value of the TSR and may
Darrieus
Drag losses put it outside the optimal range. However, regulating pitch
angle can help counterbalance this fluctuation and ensure
optimal TSR (pitch and stall controls).
Wind mill
Savonius
Tip-speed ratio λ
Source: A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute; Thermo radiances “Le rendement des eoliennes” (link); Gundtoft (2009), “Wind turbines” (link) Wind Power 76
Appendix 4 - Wind turbines must be spaced at suitable intervals to

ensure the optimal harnessing of wind energy
Distance between wind turbines required in wind farms
Wind speed (m/s)
• Wind turbines harness the power of the wind energy, and
therefore slow the wind down. Since the power is
proportional to the cube of the velocity, reduced speed leads to
reduce power. Therefore, wind turbines must be installed at
suitable distances to ensure maximum power optimization.
This distance is generally considered to be a minimum of the
diameter of at least five rotors
(5-9).
• The design of wind farms can be optimized by assessing
the prevailing wind and finding the best possible orientation.
>~5 rotor-diameter Thanks to yaw control, wind-turbine hubs can be oriented
towards the wind, thus reducing the average minimum
distance required between wind turbines from five to roughly
three rotor-diameters (3 to 5).
>5 (3.4%)
4 - 5 (3.4%)
3 - 4 (8%)
2 - 3 (18.6%)
1 - 2 (35.2%)
0.5- 1 (19.9%)
Source: A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute; University of Ottawa, “Wind Energy Technology“ and “Wind Turbine Generators for Wind Power Plants”;
UPPSALA Universitet, Ivanell (link) Wind Power 77
Appendix 5 - Several technologies can be used to convert mechanical

energy into electricity, depending on grid requirements
Classification of turbine components according to rotation speed
Blades Generator1
Mechanically fixed blades Fixed-speed generators2
• Power control is not possible (except by • Fixed-speed generators, such as type 12,
disconnecting the turbine) and optimization have a frequency proportional to their
options are limited: the rotor speed is rotational speed. Thus, the rotor speed
Fixed directly proportional to the wind speed. must be controlled in order to meet the
grid’s frequency requirements.
Rotation
speed
Mechanically orientated blades Variable-speed generators
• Power production/energy harnessing can • Variable speed generators, such as type
be adjusted because of, for example, pitch- 22, are equipped with variable resistors and
angle control: the rotor speed can be electronics. Variation in resistance directly
Variable adjusted to optimize the output of a wind impacts the current. Thus, controlling
turbine, depending on wind velocity. resistance allows for rapid power control to
ease integration under gusting conditions
or in the event of grid perturbations.
1. In order to maintain a 50 Hz frequency while preserving a good Tip Speed Ratio (function of the invert of the wind speed, critical for efficiency), induction generators with dual windings
generate electricity through either 4 or 6 poles at rotating speeds of 1,500 or 1,000 rpm, respectively. For a 60 Hz frequency (e.g. in the U.S.), the nominal rotation speeds are 1,800 and
1,200 rpm for faster and slower wind speeds, respectively; 2. There are five types of wind generators. Type 1 and 2 are the most common.
Source: A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute; Paul Gipe (2004), “Wind Power: Renewable Energy for Home, Farm, and Business”; NREL (2013), “Fixed-Speed and Variable-Slip Wind
Turbines Providing Spinning Reserves to the Grid”; University of Ottawa, “Wind Energy Technology“ and “Wind Turbine Generators for Wind Power Plants” Wind Power 78
Appendix 6 - Wind power’s share of the IEA’s most ambitious climate-

change mitigation scenario for 2020 has been slightly adjusted since 2012
IEA 2DS Scenario for wind in 2012 and 2015 compared with actual installed
capacity - GW
Onshore Offshore
700 50
650
45
600
550 40
500 35
450
+18% CAGR 30
400
350 25
300 +34% CAGR
20
250
200 15
150 10
100
5
50
0 0
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
2DS (old forecast in 2012) 2DS (new forecast in 2015) Actual installed capacity
Note: The IEA’s 2DS Scenario describes an energy system consistent with an emissions trajectory that recent climate-science research indicates would give an 80% chance of limiting the
average global temperature increase to 2°C.
Source: A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute; IEA (2014,2013,2012,2011,2010,2009), “World Energy Outlook”; Global Wind Energy Council (2015), “Global Wind Report 2014”
Wind Power 79
Appendix 7 - Makani’s energy kites are rigid, airborne turbines with

onboard generation, which aim to extract faster wind speeds and lower
investment costs
Makani 600 kw energy kite
• How does it work: Makani’s kite simulates the tip of a wind-

turbine’s blade. Rotors on the kite act like propellers on a
helicopter, launching it from the ground station. The tether
connects the kite to the ground station, and transfers power
and communications between the kite and ground station in
both directions. The ground station holds onto the tether, and
Operations
Rated power: 600 kW Kite material is used as a resting place for the energy kite when not in flight.
Maximum-rated power wind Kite: composite The ground station occupies less ground space than
speed: 11.5 m/s Generation system: 8 conventional wind turbines and is significantly smaller. The
Operational altitude range: business DC motors computer system uses GPS and other sensors to guide the
140-310 m kite to the flight path with the strongest and steadiest winds for
Circling radius: 145 m maximum energy generation.
First power point: 4 m/s Tether
Structure: carbon fiber • Rationale: The Makani system aims: to eliminate most of the
Conductor: aluminum materials required in conventional wind turbines in order to
reduce costs; to harness higher wind speeds because of the
Meters (m) greater altitude; and to produce more power than conventional
turbines at any given speed. Makani can bring electricity to
locations where access to energy is limited (by exploiting
200 energy at higher altitudes) and is viewed as one of the options
that might alleviate energy poverty.
100
Onshore Makani’s
wind turbine energy kite
Source: Makani – Google (link) [last access on August 2015] Wind Power 80
Appendix 8 - Direct current (DC) and high-voltage transmission

technologies are playing a crucial role in helping the development of
offshore wind
Illustrative arbitrage between HVDC & HVAC transmission lines
• The best wind resources are not necessarily close to the

main consumptions centers. In the early stage of onshore
wind’s development, wind-produced electricity was usually
Investment Total costs HVAC
consumed in the region where it was produced. However, the
Total costs HVDC development of larger, centralized onshore wind farms, and –
Break-even around 600-800 km more significantly – of offshore wind projects in deep waters
for onshore and 50-60 km further from shore, could be enhanced by long-distance and
offshore submarine electricity transmission systems.
Costs of DC lines • Over long distances, high-voltage direct current (HVDC)

has lower capital costs than alternative current (AC)
technology. Above a certain distance, the relatively high
fixed-station costs associated with HVDC are offset by savings
in conductor cables – HVDC requires fewer and thinner cables
than AC. HVDC also tends to have lower distribution losses
Costs of AC lines Costs of DC stations than conventional AC.
• In addition, HVDC can connect asynchronous grids and is
virtually the only solution for long submarine cables. AC is
usually limited to a few tens of kilometers (~60-80 km) and DC
Costs of AC stations
is believed to be cheaper for any project above 50 km. In
addition to requiring more modest and cheaper subsea
Length of the line infrastructure, DC has the ability to isolate farms from faults in
the grid and to reduce visual impact on land, with one cable
instead of two.
Note: AC for Alternative Current, DC for Direct Current.

Source: A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute (2015), “Introduction to Smart Grids FactBook”; MIT (2011), “The Future of Electric Grid”; ABB (2011), “MITEI Symposium, Grid integration of
Renewables: Challenges & Technologies” Wind Power 81
Appendix 9 - The increasing penetration of wind power had led to a

growing interest in the power-to-gas concept in Europe
Power-to-gas concept
• The increasing use of wind and solar PV is bringing the potential

and limitations of existing storage applications into sharp focus1.
Hydrogen-based storage technologies may be an effective way of
absorbing peaks in renewable electricity supply and avoiding the
wastage of large quantities of renewable power. Hydrogen is versatile
and its volumetric energy density2 is superior to that of alternative
methods of energy storage, especially when natural sites for pumped
hydro storage are not available or are already occupied.
ELECTRON
• In addition to hydrogen’s use as a fuel or as a chemical
GAS TURBINE feedstock, there is a growing interest in power-to-gas (P2G)1. This
TURBINE or was conceived as a way of using the gas grid to store renewable
FUEL CELL electricity. But, in practice, P2G does more than this. Its benefits
include the “greening” of end uses of natural gas, such as heat
generation; it also improves the flexibility of the energy system by
HEAT ELECTROLYSIS pooling gas and power infrastructure. Power and gas grids can be
linked in two ways: blending, which involves injecting hydrogen into
the gas grid; and methanation – the conversion of hydrogen and CO2
into methane, also known as synthetic natural gas. There are currently
METHANATION or BLENDING several large-scale demonstration projects, especially in Germany
such as Audi in Werlte.
METHANE HYDROGEN
• Even if power-to-gas elegantly binds networks and energy
REFORMING sources together, its economics remain highly uncertain.
Hydrogen produced from electrolysis is currently too expensive,
ranging from $120-500 /MWh, depending on the utilization rate and
electricity prices. However, it should be investigated as a solution for
decarbonizing heating and mobility, and several countries are
considering this option.
1. For more information, refer to A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute Hydrogen FactBook (link); 2. Although the volumetric energy density of hydrogen is inferior to those of
hydrocarbons, hydrogen-based energy storage is one of the only technologies capable of compensating for several weeks of windless conditions..
Source: A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute Wind Power 82
Appendix 10 - Increasing wind penetration requires flexibility sources,

which vary in costs
The flexible curve (NREL)
Illustrative, relative order is conceptual
• Wind power - and solar photovoltaic - increase the need for
flexibility by introducing variability and uncertainty to the
supply side of the power system. Up to a certain penetration
rate, the integration of wind and solar into the power mix can
High cost usually be managed with existing flexibility sources. The
threshold depends on the system’s location and
characteristics, and ranges roughly between 15% and 25%.
• To mitigate the increasing integration costs resulting from
Supply growth in variable renewables, system operators will have
side to draw upon alternative flexibility resources. Given that it
flexibility is normal practice to utilize the cheapest flexibility options first
(e.g. flexible demand), this is likely to incur increasing costs.
• Alternative resources (see graph) are known and are
already being used to some extent (e.g. dispatchable
power-plants, demand response from industry, better market
Demand interconnections, electricity storage), but their role is expected
side to grow in importance, and their task should be made easier by
flexibility improved market rules and processes for system
Low cost management.
Increasing renewable penetration
Source: NREL (2010), “The Role of Energy Storage with Renewable Electricity Generation”; A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute (2015), “Introduction to Smart Grids FactBook”
Wind Power 83
The A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute is a nonprofit organization. It provides leading insights on global trends in energy
transition, technologies, and strategic implications for private sector businesses and public sector institutions. The Institute is
dedicated to combining objective technological insights with economical perspectives to define the consequences and
opportunities for decision makers in a rapidly changing energy landscape. The independence of the Institute fosters unbiased
primary insights and the ability to co-create new ideas with interested sponsors and relevant stakeholders.
For further information about the A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute and possible ways of collaboration, please visit
www.energy-transition-institute.com, or contact us at contact@energy-transition-institute.com.
Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute copies of this work for personal or nonprofit educational purposes. Any copy or extract
has to refer to the copyright of the A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute.
Wind Power 84

Wind Power Fact Book

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Wind Power Fact Book

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Growth onshore, hope offshore

A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute

Compiled by the A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute

About the FactBook – Wind Power

About the A.T. Kearney Energy Transition Institute

Wind turbines use rotor blades and an electricity generator

Wind-power capacity has accelerated rapidly over the past

Wind R,D&D efforts are focused on maximizing energy

Onshore wind is nearly competitive with fossil-fuel power

Wind is not facing any major environmental and social

Wind energy raises major network integration issues that

1. Key concepts of wind power……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10

Wind turbines use rotor blades and an electricity generator to convert

The kinetic energy theoretically available for extraction increases with

Note: m/s: meters per second.

Converting wind energy to useful electricity through wind power systems

A typical wind turbine is composed of three blades attached to a hub,

Several designs have been investigated and have converged to

Rotation axis Vertical Horizontal

Blades: type1 Stiff Teetered Flexible

Rotor Upwind Downwind

Tower Lattice Tubular

Drive train2 Geared Hybrid Direct

Speed control3 Stall Pitch Yaw

Wind turbine components and systems are at different stages of maturity

Technology maturity curve

Offshore pile foundation

Offshore caisson foundation

Unconventional1 Offshore1 Onshore1

Research Development Demonstration Deployment Mature Technology Time

Oil & gas best

• Production performance (e.g. shutdown management)

Wind development timeline

2003 2012 2015

Cumulative installed capacity has grown at a steady annual rate of about

1. CAGR: compound annual growth rate.

1. ROW: rest of the world.

Except in some European countries, wind supplies less than 5% of

Growth in wind-power capacity is expected to continue over the next five

2014 2015e 2016e 2017e 2018e 2019e 2020e

25.7% 34.1% 10.2% 16.2% 30.5% 24.9% 17.1% Offshore

As a result of offshore penetration and improvements in onshore technology

Asia is likely to remain the main driver of wind development

Projected installed wind capacities by regions (2014-2019)

North America Asia Pacific

Wind power capacity is starting to be deployed outside established

1. The list is not exhaustive and for illustrative purpose only.

Despite progress in Europe, offshore wind is yet to overcome

0.2 • China is the main non-European investor in offshore wind.

500 4% Wind generation share

2009 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Wind R,D&D has three principal objectives: maximizing energy captured,

Objectives Drivers Axis of RD&D

• Larger rotor diameter / turbine size and unconventional

Meeting • Pitch control, power converter, drive train

Note: R,D&D: Research, development and demonstration.

Developing larger and taller turbines remains a major focus of R,D&D

Unconventional wind-turbine designs arouse curiosity, although there is

Heavier than air Lighter than air

Soft/flexible wing Rigid wing Buoyant

Pumping mode (also The reel-out phase The helium-filled

Dominant system Few turbines installed ~20% market share

number of moving parts • A trade-off in costs arises efficient at low loads.

requires a small especially in medium-speed PMG to increase low-load