pith. sign in

arxiv: 2103.09781 · v1 · submitted 2021-03-17 · 💰 econ.GN · q-fin.EC

Reviewing methods and assumptions for high-resolution large-scale onshore wind energy potential assessments

Russell McKenna , Stefan Pfenninger , Heidi Heinrichs , Johannes Schmidt , Iain Staffell , Katharina Gruber , Andrea N. Hahmann , Malte Jansen
show 11 more authors
Michael Klingler Natascha Landwehr Xiaoli Guo Lars\'en Johan Lilliestam Bryn Pickering Martin Robinius Tim Tr\"ondle Olga Turkovska Sebastian Wehrle Jann Michael Weinand Jan Wohland
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 12:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💰 econ.GN q-fin.EC
keywords onshore windpotential assessmentrenewable energyland eligibilitylevelized costfeasible potentialenergy meteorologysystem integration
0
0 comments X

The pith

A review of onshore wind potential methods identifies best practices across geographical, technical, economic and feasible stages.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper reviews the methods used to estimate how much onshore wind energy could be deployed at large scales and high resolution. It examines each layer of potential in sequence, from land constraints and wind resources through turbine design choices to costs and social acceptance factors. The authors critically assess current practices in the literature and outline recommended approaches for more consistent and realistic results. A sympathetic reader would care because these estimates directly inform energy policy, investment decisions and grid planning. The review also flags areas where further research could reduce uncertainty in projections.

Core claim

The state of the art for onshore wind potential assessments proceeds through four successive stages—geographical, technical, economic and feasible—each shaped by specific choices on land eligibility, turbine power density and spacing, levelized costs at turbine and system levels, and non-technical factors such as scenicness and stakeholder preferences; the paper critically discusses these choices and derives best-practice recommendations for each stage.

What carries the argument

The staged hierarchy of potentials (geographical to feasible), which successively incorporates land eligibility criteria, energy meteorology, turbine characteristics, economic costs and social factors to narrow the estimate toward realistic deployment.

If this is right

  • Using consistent land eligibility criteria across studies reduces large discrepancies in geographical potential estimates.
  • Incorporating turbine-specific power density and spacing rules produces more accurate technical potentials than uniform assumptions.
  • Including system integration costs alongside site-specific levelized costs yields economic potentials that better reflect real deployment barriers.
  • Adding scenicness assessments and stakeholder elicitations narrows feasible potentials beyond purely economic calculations.
  • Future assessments following the outlined practices would generate more comparable results between regions and countries.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The recommended practices could be adapted to offshore wind or solar potential studies to improve consistency across technologies.
  • Policymakers using these estimates for target-setting might need to revisit earlier projections if best practices alter the numbers.
  • High-resolution mapping that follows the staged approach could help identify specific sites where social acceptance is the binding constraint.

Load-bearing premise

The review can reliably derive best practices only if the selected literature is representative of the full field and the critical analysis correctly identifies which methods are flawed or superior.

What would settle it

A large-scale study that applies all the paper's recommended best practices and produces potential estimates that differ substantially from those in the reviewed literature would support the recommendations; convergence on similar estimates across independent studies using those practices would also test their value.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2103.09781 by Andrea N. Hahmann, Bryn Pickering, Heidi Heinrichs, Iain Staffell, Jann Michael Weinand, Jan Wohland, Johan Lilliestam, Johannes Schmidt, Katharina Gruber, Malte Jansen, Martin Robinius, Michael Klingler, Natascha Landwehr, Olga Turkovska, Russell McKenna, Sebastian Wehrle, Stefan Pfenninger, Tim Tr\"ondle, Xiaoli Guo Lars\'en.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Evolution of Europe’s onshore wind turbin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Specific potential for onshore wind in se [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The rapid uptake of renewable energy technologies in recent decades has increased the demand of energy researchers, policymakers and energy planners for reliable data on the spatial distribution of their costs and potentials. For onshore wind energy this has resulted in an active research field devoted to analysing these resources for regions, countries or globally. A particular thread of this research attempts to go beyond purely technical or spatial restrictions and determine the realistic, feasible or actual potential for wind energy. Motivated by these developments, this paper reviews methods and assumptions for analysing geographical, technical, economic and, finally, feasible onshore wind potentials. We address each of these potentials in turn, including aspects related to land eligibility criteria, energy meteorology, and technical developments relating to wind turbine characteristics such as power density, specific rotor power and spacing aspects. Economic aspects of potential assessments are central to future deployment and are discussed on a turbine and system level covering levelized costs depending on locations, and the system integration costs which are often overlooked in such analyses. Non-technical approaches include scenicness assessments of the landscape, expert and stakeholder workshops, willingness to pay / accept elicitations and socioeconomic cost-benefit studies. For each of these different potential estimations, the state of the art is critically discussed, with an attempt to derive best practice recommendations and highlight avenues for future research.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper reviews methods and assumptions for high-resolution large-scale onshore wind energy potential assessments. It addresses geographical, technical, economic, and feasible potentials in sequence, covering land eligibility, energy meteorology, turbine characteristics (power density, rotor power, spacing), levelized costs at turbine and system levels, system integration costs, and non-technical factors such as scenicness, stakeholder workshops, and socioeconomic studies. For each category the state of the art is critically discussed with an attempt to extract best-practice recommendations and identify future research needs.

Significance. If the reviewed body of work is representative and the identification of methodological strengths and weaknesses is accurate, the paper could provide a useful reference for standardizing onshore wind assessments and informing energy-system planning. The explicit separation of potential types and the attention to often-overlooked system-integration costs are constructive features.

major comments (1)
  1. [Introduction and throughout] No dedicated methods section or explicit literature-search protocol (databases, keywords, screening criteria, number of papers retained) is described. Because the central claim is that critical discussion of the selected literature yields reliable best-practice recommendations, the absence of verifiable selection criteria directly affects the defensibility of those recommendations across all potential categories.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that best-practice recommendations are derived but does not indicate the temporal or geographic scope of the reviewed studies; adding this information would help readers assess coverage.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and the recommendation for major revision. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Introduction and throughout] No dedicated methods section or explicit literature-search protocol (databases, keywords, screening criteria, number of papers retained) is described. Because the central claim is that critical discussion of the selected literature yields reliable best-practice recommendations, the absence of verifiable selection criteria directly affects the defensibility of those recommendations across all potential categories.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of an explicit literature-search protocol reduces transparency and thereby weakens the defensibility of the best-practice recommendations. Although the review was conceived as a critical narrative synthesis informed by the authors' domain expertise rather than a formal systematic review, we accept that documenting the selection process is necessary to support the central claim. In the revised manuscript we will insert a dedicated Methods section that specifies the databases searched (Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar), the main keyword combinations and Boolean strings, the inclusion criteria focused on high-resolution large-scale onshore wind assessments, and the approximate number of papers screened and retained. This addition will be placed early in the paper and will apply uniformly to all potential categories discussed. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Review paper contains no derivations or predictions that reduce to inputs by construction

full rationale

This is a review paper that critically discusses existing methods for onshore wind energy potential assessments without presenting original derivations, equations, or predictions. The central contribution is a synthesis of literature and best-practice recommendations derived from external studies, not from self-referential fits or self-citations that bear the load of the claims. No steps in the analysis reduce to the paper's own inputs by construction, making the work self-contained against external benchmarks in the reviewed literature.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

As a review the paper does not introduce new free parameters, axioms or invented entities; it critiques those appearing in the wind energy assessment literature.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5841 in / 991 out tokens · 29405 ms · 2026-05-24T12:52:43.705290+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

276 extracted references · 276 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    http s://irena.org/publications/2020/Jan/10-Years-Progress-to- Action (accessed 23 January 2021)

    IRENA, 10 Years: Progress to Action, 2020. http s://irena.org/publications/2020/Jan/10-Years-Progress-to- Action (accessed 23 January 2021)

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    https://www.irena.org/publications/2019/Mar/Renewable-Capacity-Statistics-2019 (accessed 23 January 2021)

    IRENA, Renewable capacity statistics 2019, 2019 . https://www.irena.org/publications/2019/Mar/Renewable-Capacity-Statistics-2019 (accessed 23 January 2021)

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Enevoldsen, F.-H

    P. Enevoldsen, F.-H. Permien, I. Bakhtaoui, A.- K. von Krauland, M.Z. Jacobson, G. Xydis, B.K. Sovacool, S.V. Valentine, D. Luecht, G. Oxley, How much wind power potential does europe have? Examining european wind power potential with an enhanced socio-technical atlas, Energy Policy 132 (2019) 1092–1100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.06.064

    work page doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2019.06.064 2019

  4. [4]

    McKenna, S

    R. McKenna, S. Hollnaicher, P. v. d. Ostman Ley e, W. Fichtner, Cost-potentials for large onshore wind turbines in Europe, Energy 83 (2015) 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.02.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.energy.2015.02.016 2015

  5. [5]

    https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/europes-onshore-and-offshore-wind-energy-potential (accessed 23 January 2021)

    EEA, Europe’s onshore and offshore wind energy potential, 2009. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/europes-onshore-and-offshore-wind-energy-potential (accessed 23 January 2021)

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Ryberg, D.G

    D.S. Ryberg, D.G. Caglayan, S. Schmitt, J. Linß en, D. Stolten, M. Robinius, The future of European onshore wind energy potential: Detailed distribution and simulation of advanced turbine designs, Energy 182 (2019) 1222–1238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.06.052

    work page doi:10.1016/j.energy.2019.06.052 2019

  7. [7]

    Jäger, R

    T. Jäger, R. McKenna, W. Fichtner, The feasible onshore wind energy potential in Baden-Württemberg: A bottom-up methodology considering socio-economic constraints, Renewable Energy 96 (2016) 662–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.05.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.renene.2016.05.013 2016

  8. [8]

    Höltinger, B

    S. Höltinger, B. Salak, T. Schauppenlehner, P. Scherhaufer, J. Schmidt, Austria's wind energy potential – A participatory modeling approach to assess socio-political and market acceptance, Energy Policy 98 (2016) 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.08.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.08.010 2016

  9. [9]

    Harper, B

    M. Harper, B. Anderson, P. James, A. Bahaj, Ass essing socially acceptable locations for onshore wind energy using a GIS-MCDA approach, International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 14 (2019) 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/ctz006

    work page doi:10.1093/ijlct/ctz006 2019

  10. [10]

    Eichhorn, F

    M. Eichhorn, F. Masurowski, R. Becker, D. Thrä n, Wind energy expansion scenarios – A spatial sustainability assessment, Energy 180 (2019) 367–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.05.054. 25

    work page doi:10.1016/j.energy.2019.05.054 2019

  11. [11]

    Vargas, G.R.T

    S.A. Vargas, G.R.T. Esteves, P.M. Maçaira, B.Q . Bastos, F.L. Cyrino Oliveira, R.C. Souza, Wind power generation: A review and a research agenda, Journal of Cleaner Production 218 (2019) 850–870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.015 2019

  12. [12]

    Azevêdo, P

    R. Azevêdo, P. Rotela Junior, G. Chicco, G. Aq uila, L.C. Rocha, R. Peruchi, Identification and analysis of impact factors on the economic feasibility of wind energy investments, Int J Energy Res (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/er.6109

    work page doi:10.1002/er.6109 2020

  13. [13]

    Kaldellis, D

    J.K. Kaldellis, D. Zafirakis, The wind energy (r)evolution: A short review of a long history, Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 1887–1901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.01.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.01.002 2011

  14. [14]

    Leung, Y

    D.Y.C. Leung, Y. Yang, Wind energy development and its environmental impact: A review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16 (2012) 1031–1039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.09.024

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.09.024 2012

  15. [15]

    Singh, T.S

    S. Singh, T.S. Bhatti, D.P. Kothari, A Review of Wind-Resource-Assessment Technology, J. Energy Eng. 132 (2006) 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9402(2006)132:1(8)

    work page doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9402(2006)132:1(8 2006

  16. [16]

    Zhang, J

    Y. Zhang, J. Wang, X. Wang, Review on probabil istic forecasting of wind power generation, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 32 (2014) 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.033

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.033 2014

  17. [17]

    Widén, N

    J. Widén, N. Carpman, V. Castellucci, D. Lingf ors, J. Olauson, F. Remouit, M. Bergkvist, M. Grabbe, R. Waters, Variability assessment and forecasting of renewables: A review for solar, wind, wave and tidal resources, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 44 (2015) 356–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.12.019

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.12.019 2015

  18. [18]

    Gualtieri, A comprehensive review on wind r esource extrapolation models applied in wind energy, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 215–233

    G. Gualtieri, A comprehensive review on wind r esource extrapolation models applied in wind energy, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 102 (2019) 215–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.015 2019

  19. [19]

    B. Yang, L. Zhong, J. Wang, H. Shu, X. Zhang, T. Yu, L. Sun, State-of-the-art one-stop handbook on wind forecasting technologies: An overview of classifications, methodologies, and analysis, Journal of Cleaner Production (2020) 124628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124628

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124628 2020

  20. [20]

    Chinmoy, S

    L. Chinmoy, S. Iniyan, R. Goic, Modeling wind power investments, policies and social benefits for deregulated electricity market – A review, Applied Energy 242 (2019) 364–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.088

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.088 2019

  21. [21]

    K. Dai, A. Bergot, C. Liang, W.-N. Xiang, Z. H uang, Environmental issues associated with wind energy – A review, Renewable Energy 75 (2015) 911–921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.074

    work page doi:10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.074 2015

  22. [22]

    Murthy, O.P

    K.S.R. Murthy, O.P. Rahi, A comprehensive revi ew of wind resource assessment, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 1320–1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.10.038

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.10.038 2017

  23. [23]

    Şen, Innovative methodologies in renewable energy: A review, Int J Energy Res 43 (2019) 5621–5658

    Z. Şen, Innovative methodologies in renewable energy: A review, Int J Energy Res 43 (2019) 5621–5658. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.4619

    work page doi:10.1002/er.4619 2019

  24. [24]

    Ishugah, Y

    T.F. Ishugah, Y. Li, R.Z. Wang, J.K. Kiplagat, Advances in wind energy resource exploitation in urban environment: A review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 37 (2014) 613–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.053

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.053 2014

  25. [25]

    Shafiullah, A

    G.M. Shafiullah, A. M.T. Oo, A.B.M. Shawkat Al i, P. Wolfs, Potential challenges of integrating large-scale wind energy into the power grid–A review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 20 (2013) 306–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.057

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.057 2013

  26. [26]

    Voorspools, W.D

    K.R. Voorspools, W.D. D’haeseleer, Critical ev aluation of methods for wind-power appraisal, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 11 (2007) 78–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2004.12.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rser.2004.12.006 2007

  27. [27]

    Joselin Herbert, S

    G.M. Joselin Herbert, S. Iniyan, E. Sreevalsan , S. Rajapandian, A review of wind energy technologies, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 11 (2007) 1117–1145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2005.08.004. 26

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rser.2005.08.004 2007

  28. [28]

    Joselin Herbert, S

    G.M. Joselin Herbert, S. Iniyan, D. Amutha, A review of technical issues on the development of wind farms, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 32 (2014) 619–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.055

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.055 2014

  29. [29]

    Angelis-Dimakis, M

    A. Angelis-Dimakis, M. Biberacher, J. Domingue z, G. Fiorese, S. Gadocha, E. Gnansounou, G. Guariso, A. Kartalidis, L. Panichelli, I. Pinedo, M. Robba, Methods and tools to evaluate the availability of renewable energy sources, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (2011) 1182–1200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.09.049

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rser.2010.09.049 2011

  30. [30]

    McWilliam, G.C

    M.K. McWilliam, G.C. van Kooten, C. Crawford, A method for optimizing the location of wind farms, Renewable Energy 48 (2012) 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.05.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.renene.2012.05.006 2012

  31. [31]

    Saavedra-Moreno, S

    B. Saavedra-Moreno, S. Salcedo-Sanz, A. Paniag ua-Tineo, L. Prieto, A. Portilla-Figueras, Seeding evolutionary algorithms with heuristics for optimal wind turbines positioning in wind farms, Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 2838–2844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.04.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.04.018 2011

  32. [32]

    Chowdhury, J

    S. Chowdhury, J. Zhang, A. Messac, L. Castillo , Unrestricted wind farm layout optimization (UWFLO): Investigating key factors influencing the maximum power generation, Renewable Energy 38 (2012) 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.06.033

    work page doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.06.033 2012

  33. [33]

    Fueyo, Y

    N. Fueyo, Y. Sanz, M. Rodrigues, C. Montañés, C. Dopazo, High resolution modelling of the on-shore technical wind energy potential in Spain, Wind Energ. 13 (2010) 717–726. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.392

    work page doi:10.1002/we.392 2010

  34. [34]

    Krewitt, J

    W. Krewitt, J. Nitsch, The potential for elect ricity generation from on-shore wind energy under the constraints of nature conservation: a case study for two regions in Germany, Renewable Energy 28 (2003) 1645–1655. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(03)00008-9

    work page doi:10.1016/s0960-1481(03)00008-9 2003

  35. [35]

    Adaramola, O.M

    M.S. Adaramola, O.M. Oyewola, O.S. Ohunakin, R .R. Dinrifo, Techno-economic evaluation of wind energy in southwest Nigeria, Front. Energy 6 (2012) 366–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-012-0205-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11708-012-0205-y 2012

  36. [36]

    McKenna, S

    R. McKenna, S. Hollnaicher, W. Fichtner, Cost- potential curves for onshore wind energy: A high-resolution analysis for Germany, Applied Energy 115 (2014) 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.10.030

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.10.030 2014

  37. [37]

    Blankenhorn, B

    V. Blankenhorn, B. Resch, Determination of Sui table Areas for the Generation of Wind Energy in Germany: Potential Areas of the Present and Future, IJGI 3 (2014) 942–967. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi3030942

    work page doi:10.3390/ijgi3030942 2014

  38. [38]

    Yue, M.-H

    C.-D. Yue, M.-H. Yang, Exploring the potential of wind energy for a coastal state, Energy Policy 37 (2009) 3925–3940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.04.055

    work page doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.04.055 2009

  39. [39]

    Nguyen, Wind energy in Vietnam: Resource assessment, development status and future implications, Energy Policy 35 (2007) 1405–1413

    K.Q. Nguyen, Wind energy in Vietnam: Resource assessment, development status and future implications, Energy Policy 35 (2007) 1405–1413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.04.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.04.011 2007

  40. [40]

    Price, M

    J. Price, M. Zeyringer, D. Konadu, Z. Sobral M ourão, A. Moore, E. Sharp, Low carbon electricity systems for Great Britain in 2050: An energy-land-water perspective, Applied Energy 228 (2018) 928–941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.06.127

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.06.127 2050

  41. [41]

    Millward-Hopkins, A.S

    J.T. Millward-Hopkins, A.S. Tomlin, L. Ma, D.B . Ingham, M. Pourkashanian, Assessing the potential of urban wind energy in a major UK city using an analytical model, Renewable Energy 60 (2013) 701–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.06.020

    work page doi:10.1016/j.renene.2013.06.020 2013

  42. [42]

    Aydin, E

    N.Y. Aydin, E. Kentel, S. Duzgun, GIS-based en vironmental assessment of wind energy systems for spatial planning: A case study from Western Turkey, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (2010) 364–

    work page 2010

  43. [43]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.07.023

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rser.2009.07.023 2009

  44. [44]

    M. Bons, M. Döring, C. Klessmann, J. Knapp, S. Tiedemann, C. Pape, D. Horst, K. Reder, M. Strappel, Analyse der kurz- und mittelfristigen Verfügbarkeit von Flächen für die Windenergienutzung an Land, 2019. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/analyse-der-kurz-mittelfristigen-verfuegbarkeit-von (accessed 24 January 2021). 27

    work page 2019

  45. [45]

    Siyal, U

    S.H. Siyal, U. Mörtberg, D. Mentis, M. Welsch, I. Babelon, M. Howells, Wind energy assessment considering geographic and environmental restrictions in Sweden: A GIS-based approach, Energy 83 (2015) 447–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.02.044

    work page doi:10.1016/j.energy.2015.02.044 2015

  46. [46]

    Kaltschmitt, W

    M. Kaltschmitt, W. Streicher, A. Wiese, Renewa ble Energy: Technology, and Environment Economics, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007

    work page 2007

  47. [47]

    Hoogwijk, B

    M. Hoogwijk, B. de Vries, W. Turkenburg, Asses sment of the global and regional geographical, technical and economic potential of onshore wind energy, Energy Economics 26 (2004) 889–919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2004.04.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2004.04.016 2004

  48. [48]

    Rinne, H

    E. Rinne, H. Holttinen, J. Kiviluoma, S. Rissa nen, Effects of turbine technology and land use on wind power resource potential, Nat Energy 3 (2018) 494–500. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0137-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41560-018-0137-9 2018

  49. [49]

    Mohammadzadeh Bina, S

    S. Mohammadzadeh Bina, S. Jalilinasrabady, H. Fujii, H. Farabi-Asl, A comprehensive approach for wind power plant potential assessment, application to northwestern Iran, Energy 164 (2018) 344–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.08.211

    work page doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.08.211 2018

  50. [50]

    J. Feng, L. Feng, J. Wang, C.W. King, Evaluati on of the onshore wind energy potential in mainland China— Based on GIS modeling and EROI analysis, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 152 (2020) 104484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104484

    work page doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104484 2020

  51. [51]

    Ryberg, Z

    D.S. Ryberg, Z. Tulemat, D. Stolten, M. Robini us, Uniformly constrained land eligibility for onshore European wind power, Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 921–931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.127

    work page doi:10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.127 2020

  52. [52]

    Y. Zhou, P. Luckow, S.J. Smith, L. Clarke, Eva luation of global onshore wind energy potential and generation costs, Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (2012) 7857–7864. https://doi.org/10.1021/es204706m

    work page doi:10.1021/es204706m 2012

  53. [53]

    Lawan, Abidin, W

    S.M. Lawan, Abidin, W. A. W. Z., W.Y. Chai, A. Baharun, T. Masri, The Status Of Wind Resource Assessment(Wra) Techniques, Wind Energy Potential and Utilisation In Malaysia and Other Countries, ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 8 (2013)

    work page 2013

  54. [54]

    Clarke, Wind energy progress and potential, Energy Policy 19 (1991) 742–755

    A. Clarke, Wind energy progress and potential, Energy Policy 19 (1991) 742–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-4215(91)90044-O

    work page doi:10.1016/0301-4215(91)90044-o 1991

  55. [55]

    X. Wei, Y. Duan, Y. Liu, S. Jin, C. Sun, Onsho re-offshore wind energy resource evaluation based on synergetic use of multiple satellite data and meteorological stations in Jiangsu Province, China, Front. Earth Sci. 13 (2019) 132–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-018-0699-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11707-018-0699-7 2019

  56. [56]

    Bosch, I

    J. Bosch, I. Staffell, A.D. Hawkes, Temporally -explicit and spatially-resolved global onshore wind energy potentials, Energy 131 (2017) 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.05.052

    work page doi:10.1016/j.energy.2017.05.052 2017

  57. [57]

    Migoya, A

    E. Migoya, A. Crespo, Á. Jiménez, J. García, F . Manuel, Wind energy resource assessment in Madrid region, Renewable Energy 32 (2007) 1467–1483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2006.06.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.renene.2006.06.015 2007

  58. [58]

    Dalla Longa, T

    F. Dalla Longa, T. Kober, J. Badger, P. Volker , C. Hoyer-Klick, I. Hidalgo Gonzalez, H. Medarac, W. Nijs, S. Politis, D. Tardvydas, A. Zucker, Wind potentials for EU and neighbouring countries: Input datasets for the JRC-EU-TIMES Model, 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/wind-potentials-eu-and-neighbouring- countries-input-datasets-jrc-eu-time...

    work page 2018

  59. [59]

    P. Ruiz, W. Nijs, D. Tarvydas, A. Sgobbi, A. Z ucker, R. Pilli, R. Jonsson, A. Camia, C. Thiel, C. Hoyer-Klick, F. Dalla Longa, T. Kober, J. Badger, P. Volker, B.S. Elbersen, A. Brosowski, D. Thrän, ENSPRESO - an open, EU- 28 wide, transparent and coherent database of wind, solar and biomass energy potentials, Energy Strategy Reviews 26 (2019) 100379. htt...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.esr.2019.100379 2019

  60. [60]

    Tröndle, S

    T. Tröndle, S. Pfenninger, J. Lilliestam, Home -made or imported: On the possibility for renewable electricity autarky on all scales in Europe, Energy Strategy Reviews 26 (2019) 100388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.100388

    work page doi:10.1016/j.esr.2019.100388 2019

  61. [61]

    Y. Ali, M. Butt, M. sabir, U. Mumtaz, A. Salma n, Selection of suitable site in Pakistan for wind power plant installation using analytic hierarchy process (AHP), Journal of Control and Decision 5 (2018) 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/23307706.2017.1346490. 28

    work page doi:10.1080/23307706.2017.1346490 2018

  62. [62]

    Ryberg, M

    D. Ryberg, M. Robinius, D. Stolten, Evaluating Land Eligibility Constraints of Renewable Energy Sources in Europe, Energies 11 (2018) 1246. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11051246

    work page doi:10.3390/en11051246 2018

  63. [63]

    Silva Herran, H

    D. Silva Herran, H. Dai, S. Fujimori, T. Masui , Global assessment of onshore wind power resources considering the distance to urban areas, Energy Policy 91 (2016) 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.12.024

    work page doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2015.12.024 2016

  64. [64]

    Bossavy, R

    A. Bossavy, R. Girard, G. Kariniotakis, Sensit ivity analysis in the technical potential assessment of onshore wind and ground solar photovoltaic power resources at regional scale, Applied Energy 182 (2016) 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.08.075

    work page doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.08.075 2016

  65. [65]

    https ://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover/clc- 2012 (accessed 16 March 2021)

    EEA, Corine Land Cover (CLC) 2012, 2012. https ://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover/clc- 2012 (accessed 16 March 2021)

    work page 2012

  66. [66]

    http://maps.elie.ucl.ac.be/CCI/viewer/download/ESACCI-LC-Ph2-PUGv2_2.0.pdf (accessed 16 March 2021)

    ESA, Land Cover CCI: Product User Guide Versio n 2, 2017. http://maps.elie.ucl.ac.be/CCI/viewer/download/ESACCI-LC-Ph2-PUGv2_2.0.pdf (accessed 16 March 2021)

    work page 2017

  67. [67]

    https://www.eea.europa.eu/data- and-maps/data/natura-11 (accessed 16 March 2021)

    EEA, Natura 2000 data - the European network o f protected sites, 2019. https://www.eea.europa.eu/data- and-maps/data/natura-11 (accessed 16 March 2021)

    work page 2000

  68. [68]

    https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and- maps/data/nationally-designated-areas-national-cdda-15 (accessed 16 March 2021)

    EEA, Nationally designated areas (CDDA), 2020. https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and- maps/data/nationally-designated-areas-national-cdda-15 (accessed 16 March 2021)

    work page 2020

  69. [69]

    https://www.protectedplanet.net/ (accessed 16 March 2021)

    UNEP-WCMC, IUCN, The world database on protect ed areas, 2016. https://www.protectedplanet.net/ (accessed 16 March 2021)

    work page 2016

  70. [70]

    USGS, USGS EROS Archive - Digital Elevation - Global 30 Arc-Second Elevation (GTOPO30), 2018. https://www.usgs.gov/centers/eros/science/usgs-eros-archive-digital-elevation-global-30-arc-second- elevation-gtopo30?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects (accessed 16 March 2021)

    work page 2018

  71. [71]

    http://due.esrin.es a.int/page_globcover.php (accessed 16 March 2021)

    ESA, GlobCover 2009, 2010. http://due.esrin.es a.int/page_globcover.php (accessed 16 March 2021)

    work page 2009

  72. [72]

    http://worldmap.harvard.edu/data/geonode:Digital_Chart_of_the_World (accessed 16 March 2021)

    WorldMap, Digital Chart of the World (Countrie s), 1992. http://worldmap.harvard.edu/data/geonode:Digital_Chart_of_the_World (accessed 16 March 2021)

    work page 1992

  73. [73]

    https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/content/global-soil- biodiversity-maps-0 (accessed 16 March 2021)

    ESDAC, Global Soil Biodiversity Atlas Maps, 20 16. https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/content/global-soil- biodiversity-maps-0 (accessed 16 March 2021)

    work page 2021

  74. [74]

    https://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/ (accessed 16 March 2021)

    NASA, Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradio meter, 2021. https://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/ (accessed 16 March 2021)

    work page 2021

  75. [75]

    https://www.usgs.gov/centers/eros/science/usgs-eros-archive-digital-elevation-hydro1k?qt- science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects (accessed 16 March 2021)

    USGS, USGS EROS Archive - Digital Elevation - HYDRO1K, 2021. https://www.usgs.gov/centers/eros/science/usgs-eros-archive-digital-elevation-hydro1k?qt- science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects (accessed 16 March 2021)

    work page 2021

  76. [76]

    http://download.geofabrik.de/ (accessed 16 March 2021)

    Geofabrik, OpenStreetMap Data Extracts, 2021. http://download.geofabrik.de/ (accessed 16 March 2021)

    work page 2021

  77. [77]

    https://cmr.earthdata.nasa.gov/search/concepts/C1214622194-SCIOPS (accessed 16 March 2021)

    NASA, SRTM 90m Digital Elevation Data from the CHIAR Consortium for Spatial Information, 2008. https://cmr.earthdata.nasa.gov/search/concepts/C1214622194-SCIOPS (accessed 16 March 2021)

    work page 2008

  78. [78]

    https://www.google .com/intl/de/earth/ (accessed 16 March 2021)

    Google, Google Earth, 2021. https://www.google .com/intl/de/earth/ (accessed 16 March 2021)

    work page 2021

  79. [79]

    Barrington-Leigh, A

    C. Barrington-Leigh, A. Millard-Ball, The worl d's user-generated road map is more than 80% complete, PLoS One 12 (2017) e0180698. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180698

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0180698 2017

  80. [80]

    Hecht, C

    R. Hecht, C. Kunze, S. Hahmann, Measuring Comp leteness of Building Footprints in OpenStreetMap over Space and Time, IJGI 2 (2013) 1066–1091. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi2041066

    work page doi:10.3390/ijgi2041066 2013

Showing first 80 references.