System impacts of wind energy developments: key research challenges and opportunities

Review System impacts of wind energy developments: Key research challenges and opportunities Russell McKenna, 1,2,3, *Johan Lilliestam, 4 Heidi U. Heinrichs, 5 Jann Weinand, 5 Johannes Schmidt, 6 Iain Staffell, 7 Andrea N. Hahmann, 8 Peter Burgherr, 2 Arne Burdack, 5 Monika Bucha, 9 Ruihong Chen, 1 Michael Klingler, 6 Paul Lehmann, 10,11 Jens Lowitzsch, 9,12 Riccardo Novo, 9 James Price, 13 Romain Sacchi, 2 Patrick Scherhaufer, 14 Eva M. Scho ¨ll, 15 Piero Visconti, 16 Paola Velasco-Herrejo ´n, 17 Marianne Zeyringer, 17 and Luis Ramirez Camargo 18 1 Chair of Energy System Analysis, D-MAVT, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland 2 Laboratory for Energy Systems Analysis, Centers for Nuclear Engineering & Sciences and Energy & Environment, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland 3 School of Engineering, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK 4 Sustainability Transition Policy, Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-N€ urnberg, N€ urnberg, Germany 5 Institute of Climate and Energy Systems, J€ ulich Systems Analysis (ICE-2), Forschungszentrum J€ ulich, J€ ulich, Germany 6 Institute of Sustainable Economic Development, BOKU University, Vienna, Austria 7 Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London, UK 8 Department of Wind and Energy Systems, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark 9 Kelso Institute Europe, Berlin, Germany 10 Department of Economics, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, UFZ, Leipzig, Germany 11 Faculty of Economics and Management Science, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany 12 European University Viadrina, Frankfurt (Oder), Germany 13 UCL Energy Institute, University College London, London, UK 14 Institute of Forest, Environmental, and Natural Resource Policy, BOKU University, Vienna, Austria 15 Institute of Wildlife Biology and Game Management, BOKU University, Vienna, Austria 16 Biodiversity, Ecology, and Conservation Research Group, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria 17 Department of Technology Systems, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway 18 Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands *Correspondence: russell.mcken[email protected] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2024.11.016 SUMMARY Wind power accounted for 8% of global electricity generation in 2023 and is one of the cheapest forms of lowcarbon electricity. Although fully commercial, many challenges remain in achieving the required scale-up, relating to integrating wind farms into wider technical, economic, social, and natural systems. We review the main challenges, outline existing solutions, and propose future research needed to overcome existing problems. Although the techno-economic challenges of grid and market integration are seen as significant obstacles to scaling up wind power, the field is replete with solutions. In many countries, planning and CONTEXT & SCALE Wind energy is currently one of the cheapest renewable energy technologies and plays a central role in many countries’ climate and energy strategies. However, like any electricity-generation technology, wind energy affects and interacts with the broader environmental, social, economic, technical, and legal systems it integrates with. These impacts can potentially slow its deployment, delaying progress on essential decarbonization and energy security objectives. Solutions often exist, but challenges remain due to fundamental research gaps and limited understanding of the true scale of impacts. This article identifies four broad impact categories and fourteen individual impacts, which we systematically analyze through a review of over 400 scientific articles. We qualitatively assess these impacts in terms of importance and spatial diversity, proposing concrete solutions where possible, and suggesting directions for future research. We also demonstrate that some recurring issues are actually not substantial, such as bird and bat collisions, noise and health impacts, local weather changes, and market price impacts at low penetration levels. However, we identify several genuine issues that are currently hard to solve, such as lengthy planning and permitting processes, rare earth material dependency, the recycling of blades, visual impacts on landscapes, and integration into power systems at high penetration levels. Joule 9, January 15, 2025 ª2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. 1 This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). ll OPEN ACCESS permitting are immediate barriers to wind-power deployment; although solutions are emerging in the EU and several countries, the effectiveness and long-term acceptance of fast-track permissions and go-to areas remains to be seen. Environmental impacts on wildlife and recycling challenges are rising issues for which tested and scalable solutions are often still lacking, pointing to large remaining research requirements. INTRODUCTION Wind power is one of the fastest growing, most mature, and costcompetitive renewable energy (RE) technologies, reaching more than 2,300 TWh production worldwide in 2024. 1 In many countries, wind power is a cornerstone of energyand climate strategies and already represents a substantial proportion of electricity generation (e.g., 14% in the EU, 20% in Germany and the UK, 2 57% in Denmark, 3 and 10% in the USA, with Iowa leading in-state wind generation with 62% 4 ), with global wind generation reaching half of the world’s projected electricity demand by mid-century. 5 The technology’s global weighted average levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) has already fallen 69% since 2010, 6 potentially decreasing by a further 37%–49% by 2050 for both onshore and offshore wind projects. 7 Despite recent progress, the continued deployment of wind power encounters substantial— and in some cases novel—obstacles. Many challenges facing wind power expansion relate to local resistance 8,9 because of concerns about changes to scenic landscapes 10 and adverse effects on biodiversity, 11 ecosystems, 12 human health, 13 or local economic impacts. Other challenges stem from restrictive or inefficient regulation, which results in excessively long delays in planning and permitting procedures. Also, considerable delays with grid connections are observed in countries where wind power already provides a substantial share of electricity generation (e.g., Germany, the UK, and the USA). 14 Both the intermittency and lack of (thermal) inertia of wind farm output present further challenges to effective integration into power systems. 15,16 These challenges have been analyzed in isolation and, in many cases, have fed a literature rich with examples and insights. Some researchers have reviewed ecosystem services 17 and lifecycle environmental impacts. 18 Others focus on the ‘‘grand challenges’’ that the technical science of wind energy faces by focusing on the meteorological, technological (i.e., turbinerelated), 19 and systems aspects (i.e., power system integration and control aspects) 20,21 but often without wholly addressing social or environmental impacts. 22–25 More recent articles 26,27 combine the grand challenges narrative with the social sciences and humanities (SSHs) perspective through a technological lens and argue for a closer integration of the SSH and technical sciences in wind energy research. Others have reviewed public perceptions and responses in relation to new energy technologies, including wind. 28 The main novelty in this present work is the broad interdisciplinary approach that draws on insights from socio-economic, technical, and environmental perspectives to assess the diverse impacts and issues related to wind energy development, thereby allowing us to formulate recommendations based on the evidence provided by this review. We address three central research questions: (1) what impacts does wind power have on environmental, social, technical, and economic systems; (2) how significant are these impacts; and (3) can existing or potential solutions help mitigate them? We take a system perspective on wind energy, viewed as a technology and component in these systems. Through an interdisciplinary lens, we explore the most pressing impacts that the ongoing development of wind energy has on the systems it interacts with and prioritize research within an integrative framework. We focus on tangible impacts without exploring how these relate to perceptions of wind power and consequently to social acceptance of renewable technologies. 28 We return to this limitation in the discussion. We identify fourteen impact types in four broad categories, which provide a structure for the rest of the article. Starting with environmental impacts, we first explore ecosystems and wildlife (1), weather and climate (2), end-of-life treatment (3), and rare earth elements (4). Subsequently, we turn to social, economic, and health impacts, in particular land governance and tenure (in)security (5), local monetary costs and benefits (6), landscape impacts (7), and local health impacts (8). Next, we focus on techno-economic impacts, namely energy system impacts (9) and market and price impacts (10). Finally, we assess the policy and regulation aspects, including financing and controlling the intellectual property (IP) (11), supply chain disruptions (12), cyber security and hybrid threats (13), and planning and permitting (14). We assess whether current research enables an understanding of the nature and significance of these impacts. Lastly, we formulate specific recommendations for future research to address those impacts that are currently lacking in understanding. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Impacts on ecosystems and wildlife Onshore wind power deployment primarily affects bird and bat populations, even though wind turbines may also disturb and displace terrestrial mammals. 29 Although there are no global estimates of yearly bird and bat fatalities caused by wind turbines, in the United States, with an installed capacity of 112 GW as of 2021, bird fatalities from turbine collisions number in the several hundreds of thousands annually. 30–32 Species at higher risk are typically migratory, soaring raptors, or bats 11 ; the additional mortality due to collisions can be particularly relevant for populations of long-lived and slow-reproducing species, 33–36 and collision with rotor blades and wind turbine towers might further endanger species already threatened with extinction. 37 However, there are fewer bird collisions with wind turbines than with other structures like buildings, power lines, and communication towers, 31,38 though some of these structures are also associated with infrastructure for wind turbines. 39 From 2000 to 2020, wind farms had no discernible impact on bird counts in the US, whereas shale gas wells reduced numbers by 15%. 40 But the displacement effect of new installations may in fact be specific to some species. 41,42 Although previous research suggested bat fatalities caused by barotrauma, 43,44 more recent studies 2Joule 9, January 15, 2025 Review ll OPEN ACCESS identify direct blade and tower collisions as the main cause of fatalities. 45–48 Despite the growing body of literature on bird strikes in open landscapes, there is a significant lack of research on these impacts in shruband woodland environments. 49 Much less literature exists on ecosystems and wildlife in offshore environments, though one review focuses on submarine power cables. 50 Offshore installations with steel piles driven into the seabed create underwater noise pollution, affecting porpoises, 51 whales, dolphins, and seals. 52 These mammals’ communication, feeding, breeding, and navigation can be compromised, leading to behavioral changes and habitat avoidance. However, the piles’ net ecological impact is unknown because data on the magnitude of these impacts are lacking, and their presence also positively affects marine biodiversity and provides certain bird species with areas to rest and feed. 12 These observations notwithstanding, the overall impacts of wind power deployment on wildlife are substantially smaller than those of using fossil fuels, even though such comparisons are usually methodologically difficult. 40,53,54 Furthermore, noise pollution from wind turbine operations can negatively affect birds, bats, and non-volant and marine mammals, disrupting their nesting, breeding, and movement patterns, which may result in population decline and displacement. Some species avoid wind turbines due to noise, 55 specifically during construction, 56–59 whereas others avoid areas with shadow flicker 60,61 (see section health and annoyance). Although not a bat attractant, low-frequency noise emissions can disorientate bats, which makes hunting difficult. 62,63 Land transformation related to the construction of wind farms 64 can also affect habitat suitability for wildlife species. 60 Landscape connectivity between habitats can become disrupted if wind farms are built in existing dispersal corridors. 65,66 Already-isolated populations can face a reduced gene flow 67 if areas in the vicinity of wind farms are avoided 37 and alternative dispersal corridors are rare. In addition, direct mortality due to collisions with wind farms can affect population dynamics on a large scale. 68 Some species might be able to adapt to altered habitat conditions after wind farm construction, 69 whereas others might not become habituated. 70 However, effects on population trends are difficult to assess because effects are highly site and species specific and long-term studies are rare. 71 Adequate siting of wind farms is a promising approach to reduce impacts on wildlife, but because many species’ habitat requirements change in the course of a year, it remains a challenging task, 72 especially when considering ecological corridors and stepping stones. 73 Micro-siting to avoid areas with high collision risk can reduce risks for birds, 74 but it is more challenging for bats. 75 A promising solution for on-site impact mitigation is to increase the cut-in wind speed from 3 to 4 m/s to 6 and 8 m/s for bats and soaring birds, respectively, as these animals have the highest flight activities at low wind speeds, while the production losses would remain modest. 76–78 Temporary shut-downs triggered by visual or radar observations are also effective solutions to minimize collisions. 79,80 Visual cues like painting at least one rotor blade black to reduce motion-smear have had limited testing but have shown promising results. 81 Lastly, ultrasonic deterrent systems can reduce bat fatalities, 82 though effectiveness can vary by species and environmental conditions. 83 Impacts on wind resources and weather The increasing number and size of wind farms can affect local weather and climate patterns, 84 though the magnitude of these effects is debated. 85 There is broad evidence based on photographs, 86 satellite imagery, 87,88 measurements, 89–91 and modeling. 92 Wind turbines extract kinetic energy from the wind flowing through their rotors, replenished downstream of the flow above the wind farm. 93,94 In large wind farms, the latter process cannot supply enough energy to compensate for lowered wind speeds, especially offshore. 95 Hence, a large wind farm can significantly lower the wind speeds in its vicinity, up to a distance of tens of kilometres, 94,96 thereby suppressing generation from nearby wind farms, 89,92,95,97 as shown in Figure 1 for a possible 2030 wind farm scenario for the North and Baltic seas. 98 The figure shows a possible 2030 scenario of wind farm development in the North Sea and the potential reduction in wind capacity factor induced by these wind farms. Early modeling studies argued that wind farm extractable energy was finite and limited to about 1 MW/km 2 for massive wind farm clusters 99,100 (i.e., of several gigawatts capacity spanning several thousands of km 2 ). Still, recent research demonstrated that this limit can be considerably larger (up to 4 MW/km 2 ) when wind speeds are high and persistent and turbulence can mix energy down from the free atmosphere above. 95,101 Confirming these findings is challenging due to scarce observations 89 and the limited sizes of presently operating wind farms. These impacts can be mitigated by strategically planning wind farm locations and sizes and limiting their capacity densities as well as during the operational phase within wind farms by socalled wake steering. 102 Thus, future wind energy development, particularly offshore, should consider potential wakes and efficiency losses and implement comprehensive international strategies for developing energy-abundant regions such as the North Sea. 97,103,104 However, the growth of wind power will likely be restricted by economic or environmental factors rather than global geophysical limits. 105 The operation of wind farms can also cause weather conditions to change locally. 91 This can take the form of shifts in surface temperature (often leading to warmer surface temperatures at night 109–113 ) and other weather parameters, such as precipitation and evaporation. 110 The local temperature increases are occasional and typically confined to less than 1C when they occur and are limited to a few kilometers from the wind farm. 92,112,114 Offshore wind farms could also affect waves, ocean currents, and sea surface temperatures. 115 Although there is no definitive solution to mitigate the effects on the weather, it is crucial to acknowledge that, on average, they remain limited and much less significant than the global impacts of climate change. 116 In sensitive areas, good spatial planning and coordinated approval processes can minimize the effects on weather and wind resources if they are expected to affect human activities. Impacts during the end-of-life phase Wind turbines face several challenges in their end-of-life phase, inevitably resulting in final disposal. 117 By 2030, around 60,000 wind turbines are expected to reach the end of their first life worldwide, two-thirds of which are in Europe (see Figure 2). Joule 9, January 15, 2025 3 Review ll OPEN ACCESS Several options exist to delay final disposal, 118 from extending the lifetime 119 and reusing or repurposing components to recovering or recycling different parts of the wind turbine, 120 each bearing its challenges. Recycling components attract the most attention in scientific publications and media. 121 Although the recycling of permanent magnets is widely covered in the media and policies in the context of security of supply for critical raw materials 122,123 (cf. section policy and regulation), the challenge of rotor blade recycling is intensely debated by the public, questioning the benefits of wind energy in general (cf. section social, economic, and health impacts). 124,125 Structural health monitoring and digital twins to extend the lifetime of wind turbines are still not implemented at scale, despite extensive industrial interest in the latter. 130,131 Although a recent review posits that the reuse and repurposing of old turbines is minimal and not expected to grow in the future, 132 the waste management company Veolia recently signed a contract to repurpose GE wind turbine blades into a raw material for cement in the US. 133 Regarding recycling, suitable processes and related challenges differ for each part of a wind turbine 120 (see Figure 3). Although recycling steel towers, gearboxes, and traditional generators is well established, 120 recycling concrete (esp. foundations) in some locations might be environmentally and economically challenging due to the trade-off between soil disruption, transport distances and material circularity. 117 A geopolitical challenge around the recycling of the generator system arises through the trend toward direct drives, 134 with their permanent magnets containing rare earth elements, such as neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium, 135 considered critical raw materials by the EU 136 (see section policy and regulation). Nonetheless, less than 1% of rare earth elements are recycled 117 because of the low technology readiness level (TRL), glued structures and comparably cheaper virgin counterparts. 135,137 At the same time, global demand for rare earth elements contained in wind turbines could rise from 52 kt/a in 2018 to 236 kt/a by 2030 137 (see Figure 4). A central end-of-life challenge arises from the turbine blades containing glass fiber reinforcement plastics (GFRPs). 120 Although some major wind turbine manufacturers have announced nearly 100% recyclable wind turbine blades between 2030 and 2040, 139,140 and the first recyclable blades were launched in 2021, 141 almost all current end-of-life blades are landfilled or temporarily stored, 142,143 raising much attention in the media. 124,125,144 Some regions with high wind energy capacities, like Germany, have already banned their landfilling and incineration, 118,132 while currently only a negligible fraction is mechanically recycled as filling materials. 143 Thermal and chemical recycling options are evolving but are still at low TRLs 145 and have a high energy demand. For example, pyrolysis (TRL 7 146 ), fluidized bed or microwave pyrolysis (TRL 5/4), and solvolysis (TRL 5–6) come with a high upfront investment, low quality of fibers, and potential greenhouse gas emissions by the unavoidable decomposition of products. 147 Notably, the recycling challenge is not limited to wind turbines but applies to many activities in the building, electronics, and transportation sectors for composites and electric motors, as well as domestic appliances and smartphones for permanent magnets, 137 so considerable sectoral spillovers in solving recycling problems are possible. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND HEALTH IMPACTS Land tenure (in)security The transition to higher shares of wind power boosts the demand for land. 148 The private appropriation of public land to secure access to and control over renewable (including wind) energy production has been referred to as ‘‘green grabbing.’’ 149–152 This can come at the cost of prior land users and increase the Figure 1. The effect of wind farm wakes on the wind capacity factors for a 2030 wind farm build-up scenario (A) Installed capacity (MW) on each grid cell in a 2030 wind development scenario. (B) Change in capacity factor between the 2030 scenario in (A) and a scenario without wind turbines. The capacity factor calculation uses the IEA 15 MW wind turbine, 106 and the wind data are generated using the WRF model and a wind farm parameterization. 107 The location of the 2030 offshore wind farms has been masked on (B). Modeling of the wind turbine wake effect follows the method described in Niras 98 and Pryor et al. 108 (https://www.niras.dk/projekter/kortlaegningaf-havindspotentiale-i-dk/). 4Joule 9, January 15, 2025 Review ll OPEN ACCESS vulnerability of traditional rural communities and Indigenous groups in particular due to the use of public land without free, prior, and informed consent, 153–155 unfair contractual arrangements, 156 and various forms of dispossession, 157 including the prevention of access by legal means and physically by fencing. 158 The impact of wind energy development on landtenure insecurity, especially for undesignated public and common lands, is addressed in several qualitative studies—in both the Global North and South. For instance, the installation of large-scale wind power in Norway has been described by Sa ´mi representatives as a form of ‘‘green colonialism,’’ pinpointing that these developments could intensify the continuation of historical struggles over land rights and territorial autonomy due to the non-recognition of Indigenous peoples. 159–161 Similarly, in Brazil, a large share of wind corridors is in undesignated public lands, historically occupied by traditional communities struggling to regularize the ownership and use of common lands. 158,162,163 The proposal of individual land leasing contracts for installing turbines in an already ill-defined communal land tenure system has also sparked conflict between Zapotec farmers, the government, and wind farm operators in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Mexico 164–166 as well as in North Africa and the Middle East. 167 The diverse impacts of wind power development on land appropriation and control, which affect the rights of traditional communities or Indigenous people to territory and livelihoods, need to be linked to a set of compliance rules. These include procedural aspects such as securing their free, prior, and informed consent, 155 addressing information asymmetries about the project’s specific local impacts, 168 and offering fair and legally approved land leasing contracts as well as legal advice on land use. 169 The issue of land ownership and rights is a key challenge to a just energy transition, particularly in recognizing the historical communal use of land by traditional communities and Indigenous people. Increasing the focus of spatial energy planning on land tenure issues, as well as integrating participatory and collaborative planning, 170,171 can be helpful approaches for renewable projects to better consider local community needs, interests, and rights and to provide fair compensation and manifest co-benefits for immediately affected residents. 138,168 Landscape visual impacts Another public concern is that wind turbines negatively impact the perception of landscapes, particularly untouched nature. This visual landscape impact is one of the main reasons for local opposition to onshore and offshore wind installations. 9,169,172–176 Acceptance of wind turbines is higher when they are placed in already unattractive landscapes, far from viewpoints, and with a limited number of turbines, 177 but the cumulative effects may vary by location. 178 Several studies have employed national datasets of landscape aesthetic quality (so-called ‘‘scenicness’’), based on survey-based ratings of representative landscape photographs, to quantify the costs incurred to power systems when excluding onshore wind potentials in landscapes with high aesthetic quality, showing a large range of impacts between countries 179–184 (e.g., Figure 5 for Great Britain). In addition, viewshed analyses, in which a three-dimensional space (the viewshed) within which one or more hypothetical wind turbines are visible, can aid in understanding the potential visual impact on sensitive receptors 185,186 ; however, these disregard people’s visual preference for certain landscapes over others. 187 They may, therefore, be combined with measurements of visual features of landscapes, as a correlation between such metrics and rated landscape qualities has been found. 188 Moreover, RE infrastructure such as wind turbines and power lines strongly influence the rated landscape coherence. 189–191 Quantifying the landscape impact of wind turbines to improve placement decisions requires that both visibility and landscape quality are considered. 192 Whereas the latter refer to changes in landscape quality and character, visibility impacts relate to (perceived) changes in views (of the landscape) and how these affect people. 176 Approaches based on geographical information systems (GISs) have been proposed to estimate landscape coherence 193 and wilderness 194 using indicators calculated from datasets such as land cover, topography, and remoteness. Similar approaches can be combined with visual impact assessments to develop robust, reliable, and scalable methods and tools for landscape impact assessments. Monetary costs and benefits Wind power deployment creates concerns about reductions in neighboring real estate value and negative impacts on tourism, both related to the perception of wind power on scenic landscapes. However, it may also generate local monetary benefits. Although some studies show a decrease in property prices of at least 2%, 195 more recent research shows either minor impacts with limited statistical significance 196,197 or cases of positive impact on real estate prices, the local economy, and incomes. 198 Associated acceptance problems can be reduced, mainly by fostering genuine community engagement during the project’s Figure 2. The cumulative number of wind turbines that would reach end-of-life up to 2040, split by world region Based on farm construction dates 126 and an assumed lifetime of 25–30 years. 127–129 Reproduced from the given sources. Joule 9, January 15, 2025 5 Review ll OPEN ACCESS planning stages, especially if combined with shared ownership models 199 and monetary compensation (cf. section planning and permitting) such as a fair sharing of the wind farm’s income with affected residents. 138,200,201 Moreover, results of studies about the impacts of wind power on tourism are mixed. 195,202 There are studies reporting that the presence of turbines can reduce the attractiveness of locations, 203,204 whereas, in other cases, stakeholders see wind power development as an added value to increasing the attractiveness of particular locations. 205 As with citizens, compensation for affected businesses 206 may decrease opposition but compensation mechanisms have to be developed carefully so as not to generate distributive fairness issues. 206 Furthermore, although at the global scale there is a clear positive economic impact of wind power deployment in terms of steadily growing trade and job creation 207 and increasing gender diversity in the energy workforce, 208 at the local level impacts are difficult to assess and evidence is inconsistent. Studies show increased local economic activities but limited job creation 198 and reduced local unemployment beyond the construction phase. 209 The high diversity of impacts on real estate prices, tourism, and local job creation found in the existing literature calls for further research, which we identify as an important literature gap. Health and annoyance Noise emissions and the ‘‘flicker’’ of the rotating shadow from wind turbines are frequently discussed as negative impacts of wind farms. Although current evidence suggests that noise emissions from wind farms do not have a significant direct impact on nearby populations’ health, 210,211 some studies have noted a correlation between noise-related annoyance and potential indirect effects on quality of life, such as sleep disturbance, 212 increased stress, and related health concerns (e.g., elevated blood pressure and psychological distress). 213,214 However, the causality and directionality of these effects remain unproven and require further research. The perception of noise seems higher in rural areas and around flat terrains. 215 Although low-frequency noise emissions cannot be heard, they may still lead to annoyance, 216 but the link between wind turbines and low-frequency noise has not yet been established. In addition, many studies show that only a small fraction of the population living near wind farms is disturbed by shadow flicker. 13,217 Shadow flicker exposure does not necessarily lead to self-reported Figure 3. Conceptual material flows and end-of-life strategies for wind turbine components, own depiction annoyance but rather subjective factors such as project appearance and general annoyance. 218,219 However, the disturbance attributed to wind turbine noise emissions should be evaluated compared with other routine noise sources. In a controlled study, 220 although subjects reported annoyance from the acoustic emissions of nearby wind turbines, health-related effects were specifically attributed to noise pollution from road traffic. Noise impacts can be mitigated by appropriate wind farm planning and simulations, and it is suggested that a certain noise threshold be respected (e.g., 35–45 dB(a)), 221 as is currently enforced in some countries. 222–224 Likewise, for cases where high levels of modeled shadow flicker exposure and self-reported annoyance correlate, easy-to-implement solutions exist, such as curtailment after specific exposure thresholds. 225 However, the probability of that correlation occurring is low because detailed shadow flicker simulations are an integral part of planning processes for wind farms and permission might not be granted in case thresholds would be exceeded (see, e.g., the German BImSchg 226 ). Nevertheless, the studies leading to that regulation were performed over 20 years ago when turbines were considerably smaller than today and were capable of generating a flickering effect of higher frequency. TECHNO-ECONOMIC DIMENSIONS Energy system impacts As the share of wind power increases, it displaces output from dispatchable thermal synchronous generators, which are conventionally the source of inertia and other ancillary services that provide system stability—though modern wind turbines (and other renewable technologies) can also provide synthetic inertia and participate in frequency regulation as inverter-based resources (IBRs). In contrast to its total energy production, wind power displaces relatively little dispatchable capacity as peak demand periods are not correlated with wind output 227 and the capacity value of wind falls with increasing penetration. 228 Hence wind-dominated systems may need extensive backup capacity, lack dispatchability, and become highly weatherdependent. 229 At low wind-share levels, the system’s impact is relatively small. 230 For example, wind penetrations of 10%–20% can be easily absorbed by the existing system because it typically lies within the operational flexibility range of existing thermal generators, storage, and imports/exports. 230,231 But above this fraction, the system needs to exploit so-called integration measures, including grid densification and expansion, 232 use of storage systems, increasing flexibility and sector coupling, and development of smart grids with distributed ancillary services. 233 6Joule 9, January 15, 2025 Review ll OPEN ACCESS Grid strengthening and expansion are essential to address mismatches between supply and demand. 234 But these measures have significant implications for public acceptance, landscape impacts, 179 and potential health impacts. 235,236 Though, as we discuss in the section social, economic, and health impacts, the direction and magnitude of these health impacts are far from clear. Similar to wind turbines, the power system infrastructure (overhead power lines and pylons) can and does face public acceptance problems. 237–239 Many construction projects for new transmission capacity face long delays (due in part to lengthy planning procedures, as discussed in the section planning and permitting), which may lead to grid expansion not keeping pace with the deployment of renewables and result in greater curtailment. Storage is another crucial option to tackle mismatches between supply and demand (see Figure 6). The total global installed capacity, including electrochemical batteries and pumped hydro storage, is expected to triple in the 2020s. 233 However, batteries are not always the best option to complement wind power due to the inappropriate timescale and generally limited energy-to-power ratio, so researchers focus on balancing wind power across seasons with hydrogen and power-to-x, 240–242 other forms of energy storage, hybridization with solar PV plants, 243–246 and geographic siting to match supply and demand. 245,247,248 The economic viability and business models for such long-duration storage are still unclear though. 233,249 Third, flexibility and sector coupling play a crucial role. Both supply and demand need to become more flexible to respond to short-term forecast deviations and make system balancing more cost-effective, in some cases through sector coupling via power-to-heat, power-to-gas and power-to-x. 250 New policy and market frameworks, such as capacity markets, dynamic prices, and peer-to-peer trading, are needed to monetize and incentivize greater flexibility across the electricity system. 251–253 Finally, to maintain grid stability, a smart grid is needed that automates the coordination of many distributed power plants and new sources of ancillary services, such as operating reserve and frequency response. 254,255 The installation of appropriate hardware and associated electronics is crucial to meet this challenge and provide services that are today largely provided by mechanical systems in thermal and hydropower plants, such as inertia. 256,257 To understand how these measures economically interact and complement each other across different energy systems, whole energy systems modeling approaches are required. Specifically, although extensive research has already provided insights into the least-cost integration of wind energy at the system level, 258–260 more work is needed to address and adequately reflect wider climate/environmental (section environmental impacts) and socio-economic impacts (section social, economic, and health impacts) of wind. Market and price impacts Integrating wind power into existing power systems creates two key problems. First, ancillary service costs rise as wind-generated electricity increases demand for services like balancing and inertia 261–263 and reduces the supply of these services by displacing traditional thermal power stations. 264 Second, wind has near-zero marginal cost, creating a so-called ‘‘merit order effect’’ that depresses wholesale market prices 265–267 and increases their volatility. 268 This lowers power prices received by all generators, eroding their profitability, potentially triggering early retirement, 269,270 and causing long-term underinvestment known as the ‘‘missing money’’ problem 271,272 —especially if there is a thermal overcapacity in the market. Price reduction is strongest at times of high wind output, so wind farms will ‘‘cannibalize’’ 273–277 their own profitability, possibly making investments unprofitable despite low generation costs. Historically, market integration impacts have not been critical 278 as few countries have sufficiently high wind-energy penetrations (see introduction) and countries with high wind shares also have substantial power system flexibility (e.g., Denmark). There is no consensus on measuring market impacts, with value-adjusted LCOE (VALCOE 279 ), total system cost, 280,281 system LCOE, 282,283 and cost of valued energy (COVE 280,284 ) being proposed. Effects are less severe for wind than for solar PV due to the strong day/night correlation, 274,285 but their magnitude increases non-linearly with wind penetration (see Figure 6). Meeting the final 10% of electricity demand with variable renewables will be most costly. 286–288 The type of scheme used to support wind power (see section policy and regulation) strongly influences these integration effects. 15 For example, schemes such as feed-in tariffs (FITs), power purchase agreements (PPAs), and contracts for differences Figure 4. Expected demand in 2030 and 2050 from the wind turbine industry for a selection of rare earth metals, relative to the 2018 global supply for all applications LDS: IEA ETP Reference Technology Scenario (+2.7C increase in temperature by 2100 compared with pre-industrial levels). MDS: IEA ETP Beyond 2 Degrees Scenario (+1.75C increase in temperature by 2100 compared with pre-industrial levels). HDS: Institute for Sustainable Futures 1.5C 2019 Scenario (1.5C with 100% renewable primary energy in 2050). Source, 138 further adapted by the authors. The LDS, MDS, and HDS scenarios assume a global market share of permanent magnet technologies for onshore installations of 40%, 50%, and 68%, respectively, compared with 32% today. For offshore installations, a constant market share of 70%–76% is assumed in the HDS scenario. Concurrently, in the HDS scenario, the assumed annual installed capacity for onshore wind turbines in 2050 is approximately 3-fold that of today’s (350 GW vs. 100 GW per year). For offshore installations, the annual capacity in 2050 assumed under the HDS scenario is about double that of today’s (40 GW vs. 20 GW per year). Joule 9, January 15, 2025 7 Review ll OPEN ACCESS (CfDs) do not incentivize time-shifting output to accommodate the wider market, thus exacerbating price volatility for all other technologies and ancillary service costs. 289,290 These schemes offer the greatest certainty to developers, however, lowering the interest rate for financing investments and, thus, the cost of wind energy. 15,291 These challenges can be addressed by market and regulatory changes that either bring more flexible capacity online or allow the existing system to react more efficiently to wind power volatility. 15 An example is the creation of the enhanced frequency response (EFR) service in Britain, which was supplied entirely by batteries. 233 Integration problems should decrease in the long run as power systems have time to adapt and accommodate greater variable supply. 267,282,292 Markets are already adapting via shorter balancing settlements, sharper imbalance prices, and more involvement in balancing markets. 261,262,293 Proper pricing of emissions will also help to establish correct market price signals. 294 Such changes have allowed balancing costs to fall in Britain and Germany despite wind penetration increasing 5-fold. 261 Many variations on current market designs are proposed that are more ‘‘system-friendly,’’ for example, in the UK’s Review of Electricity Market Arrangements. 295 These include the following: dAdding spatial granularity, moving from national markets to zonal (as in Italy and Japan) or nodal (as in the US) to sharpen price signals and guide investment, dLocal electricity markets with peer-to-peer trading (e.g., through blockchain) to bypass the wholesale market, dSplitting markets by technology characteristics (e.g., firm, flexible, and variable renewable), dMoving from national to local balancing, dPayment for output (energy-only markets), ability to deliver (capacity markets), or decoupled (e.g., revenue cap and floors). The ultimate aim of markets is to balance the competing objectives of attracting investment in new wind capacity with lowcost finance by providing certainty for investors and exposing wind to price signals that minimize system integration costs by optimizing where farms are placed, how they operate, and what flexibility options are provided. 15,296–298 Further research is needed to design resilient, secure, and efficient markets that could enable largely or fully renewable electricity systems and incentivize required ancillary services. 16,299,300 POLICY AND REGULATION Energy security and geopolitics There are several geopolitical and energy security challenges for wind power, 301,302 such as who finances and controls the technology and supply chains, and arising cyber security and hybrid threats. Concerns of energy supply as a geopolitical weapon have a long history for oil and gas, 303,304 exacerbated and vividly renewed during the war in Ukraine and resurging concerns over the weaponization of energy, 305 but recently shifted to a focus on the geopolitics of the energy transition. 301,306 The cyber threat relates to infrastructure security that depends on complex control and monitoring systems 307,308 and disinformation that can affect news trustworthiness. 309 In the energy transition context, finance and controlling the technology supply chain are key factors. 310 Industry leaders with large markets (e.g., USA, EU, and China) seek dominance in the clean energy sector. 311 China’s Belt and Road Initiative is an example that involves large-scale development of energy infrastructure. 312 Several studies take a broader approach, looking into how undiversified supply chains and geopolitical and environmental constraints can affect successful decarbonization, suggesting that, for example, more financial aid, technology transfer, cooperation across all levels, and new governance schemes are needed. 313,314 To address these issues, the EU and USA have developed several initiatives, such as the ‘‘European Raw Materials Initiative’’ and ‘‘America’s Strategy to Secure the Supply Chain for a Robust Clean Energy Transition,’’ respectively. 315,316 Furthermore, China’s increasing investment in Europe’s energy sector and wind energy projects—although an opportunity to accelerate deployment—raises political, economic, and national security concerns. 317 Similarly, China uses its dominant role in developing RE and building greater grid interconnections in Central Asia and Africa as geopolitical leverage. 318 Although this may be an opportunity for developing countries with limited financial means to build up wind capacities, it creates strong dependencies and risks. 307 An ongoing discourse in the scientific literature relates to how large-scale deployment of renewables affects the geopolitics and security of energy. In contrast to oil and gas, the transition to RE implies a shift from resource to technology, materials, and industry control. Still, there is no consensus on whether the associated geopolitical dynamics will be predominantly cooperative or fragmented and lead to more or less conflict. 319 Higher RE shares are expected to increase international wind power trade without increasing one-sided dependence. 320 The even distribution of RE resources 321 reduces the threat of oilcrisis-style coercion—the ‘‘energy weapon’’—but shifts dependence from energy to technology trade and ownership. 322 In Figure 5. Supply curves showing the amount of available wind power resource as a function of how people view the scenic landscape in Great Britain, on a scale of 1–10, for four scenicness thresholds: 3.67, 4.67, 5.8, and 10 The solid lines show the means and the gray thresholds show minimum and maximum ranges for the wind years of 2001–2006. Wind speed data are from the Meteorological Office 2018 (reproduced from McKenna et al. 179 ). 8Joule 9, January 15, 2025 Review ll OPEN ACCESS addition, global patent filing rates for wind are an often-overlooked aspect that can create concerns in terms of localization of innovation and market power, giving specific countries a competitive advantage 323 and a large share of the export market and jobs created—but also possibly resulting in a concentration of market power, which could become a security problem for importers. Wind farms are also exposed to multiple cyber security challenges (as are all energy technologies), 324 including safety components and information control systems (ICSs) like SCADA systems with proprietary protocols. 325 Energy sector cyberattacks have increased significantly since 2015, including attacks targeting the wind industry. 326 Examples include numerous attacks in Germany during 2022 on the IT infrastructure of turbine manufacturers and maintenance providers 327 and the ViaSat cyberattack at the beginning of the Ukraine war that caused collateral damage to wind turbine controlling and monitoring systems. 328,329 European wind farm monitoring and operation are increasingly dependent on technologies of foreign, state-owned companies, a potential entry-point for cyber activities in case of large-scale conflict. 330 Finally, disinformation and other hybrid warfare techniques create an impact in a less-direct manner by manipulating societal values. 331 On the one hand, it can generally reduce the perception of renewables’ reliability after a grid failure (e.g., blackout) 332 or through conspiracy beliefs influencing opposition against wind farms, 333 leading to lower overall acceptance and ultimately slowing down deployment. On the other hand, specific types of disinformation (e.g., price) could alter customer behavior, affecting system performance and, in the worst case, trigger disruptions. 307 Thus there is a need to balance investment opportunities and national security interests better to ensure fair market conditions and minimize distortions of industries’ competitiveness, which needs to be supported by developing a broader set of policy options. 317 Concerning supply chains, it is necessary to increase domestic exploration and production as well as midstream activities (e.g., critical materials refining), technical innovation, efficiency and material recycling, and demand reduction through substitution. 334 Overall, reshoring and near-shoring of supply chains can alleviate risks and increase resilience. Still, this needs to be carefully designed and strategic aspects concerning diversification, influence on standards, and investment in infrastructure considered. 335 Otherwise, this may cause reduced global effectiveness and potentially compromise efforts to close the green energy infrastructure gap. 336 To improve cyber security and reduce potential collateral damage (e.g., ViaSat event), it is important to propose and integrate secure technologies and resilient designs for wind power installations, which then need to be taken up by regulation to ensure rapid implementation by industry. 337 Furthermore, preventive measures such as detailed information and explanations can potentially reduce peoples’ susceptibility to disinformation and conspiracy beliefs and are applicable to increase wind power acceptance, although it may be challenging if these are deeply rooted beliefs. 309,332,333,338 Planning and permitting Lengthy permitting processes are ‘‘the biggest barrier to the expansion of wind energy’’ in Europe, with at least 80 GW onshore wind projects stuck in the permitting process in 2022. 339 Similarly, many wind power projects are also delayed due to permitting issues in the US. 340–342 The reasons for long processes are diverse, including increasingly complex formal requirements and insufficiently specific legal guidelines and responsibilities for permitting authorities. 343–346 Understaffed authorities and overloaded judicial systems unable to handle all cases aggravate the problem, 347 especially as anti-wind power movements increasingly use litigation to prevent projects. 348–350 One-fifth of German wind farms were subject to litigation, typically related to bird or bat protection (48%) or general species conservation (24%). 351 Local land-use conflicts intensify with increasing deployment levels as low-conflict sites become scarce 181 and general acceptance tends to decrease with increasing exposure to wind turbines. 352–354 The administrative phases of wind power construction are increasingly long. In Germany, for example, the average time from application for permission to realization increased from 20 months in 2011 to 49 months in 2022. 355,356 However, in the European context (Figure 7), the long process in Germany is one of the fastest. No country meets the EU requirement of 24-month permission time. 357 Several regulatory changes are underway to alleviate this problem. Most prominently, the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive was amended in 2023. 358 It mandates that renewables across Europe are considered an overriding public interest when balancing legal interests during permission processes and in litigation. 358–360 Member states must assign ‘‘acceleration areas’’ for RE deployment in which the often time-consuming environmental impact assessments are carried out only for the area, not individual projects. Moreover, a decision must be made on permitting within 12 months or the project must be considered approved. Outside these acceleration areas, permission processes must be completed within 24 months. Figure 6. Storage requirements in relation to the share of demand met by intermittent renewables This chart collates data from across 30 studies. A log-normal fit is shown, with shaded area giving the confidence interval. See Schmidt and Staffell. 233 Joule 9, January 15, 2025 9 Review ll OPEN ACCESS DECLARATION OF INTERESTS The authors declare no competing interests. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Supplemental information can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j. joule.2024.11.016. REFERENCES 1. Energy Institute (2024). Statistical Review of World Energy 73.https:// www.energyinst.org/statistical-review. 2. IEA (2023). Europe – Countries & Regions (IEA). https://www.iea.org/ regions/europe. 3. Denmark: power generation share by source 2023 Statista. https://www. statista.com/statistics/1235360/denmark-distribution-of-electricityproduction-by-source/. 4. Wiser, R., Bolinger, M., Hoen, B., Millstein, D., Rand, J., Barbose, G., Darghouth, N., Gorman, W., Jeong, S., O’Shaughnessy, E., et al. (2023). Land-Based Wind Market Report, 2023 Edition (United States Department of Energy). 5. BloombergNEF (2022). New Energy Outlook. https://about.bnef.com/ new-energy-outlook/. 6. IRENA (2022). Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2022 (International Renewable Energy Agency). 7. Wiser, R., Rand, J., Seel, J., Beiter, P., Baker, E., Lantz, E., and Gilman, P. (2021). Expert elicitation survey predicts 37% to 49% declines in wind energy costs by 2050. Nat. Energy 6, 555–565. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41560-021-00810-z. 8. Devine-Wright, P. (2009). Rethinking NIMBYism: the role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 19, 426–441. https://doi.org/10. 1002/casp.1004. 9. Scherhaufer, P., Ho ¨ltinger, S., Salak, B., Schauppenlehner, T., and Schmidt, J. (2017). Patterns of acceptance and non-acceptance within energy landscapes: A case study on wind energy expansion in Austria. Energy Policy 109, 863–870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017. 05.057. 10. Gkeka-Serpetsidaki, P., and Tsoutsos, T. (2023). Integration criteria of offshore wind farms in the landscape: viewpoints of local inhabitants. J. Clean. Prod. 417, 137899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023. 137899. 11. Thaxter, C.B., Buchanan, G.M., Carr, J., Butchart, S.H.M., Newbold, T., Green, R.E., Tobias, J.A., Foden, W.B., O’Brien, S., and Pearce-Higgins, J.W. (2017). Bird and bat species’ global vulnerability to collision mortality at wind farms revealed through a trait-based assessment. Proc. Biol. Sci. 284, 20170829. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.0829. 12. Galparsoro, I., Menchaca, I., Garmendia, J.M., Borja, A ´., Maldonado, A.D., Iglesias, G., and Bald, J. (2022). Reviewing the ecological impacts of offshore wind farms. Npj Ocean Sustain. 1, 1–8. https://doi.org/10. 1038/s44183-022-00003-5. 13. Ata Teneler, A., and Hassoy, H. (2023). Health effects of wind turbines: a review of the literature between 2010–2020. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 33, 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/09603123.2021.2010671. 14. The Economist (2023). The Ultimate Supply Chains. https://www. economist.com/technology-quarterly/2023-04-08. 15. Newbery, D., Pollitt, M.G., Ritz, R.A., and Strielkowski, W. (2018). Market design for a high-renewables European electricity system. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 91, 695–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018. 04.025. 16. Denholm, P., Arent, D.J., Baldwin, S.F., Bilello, D.E., Brinkman, G.L., Cochran, J.M., Cole, W.J., Frew, B., Gevorgian, V., Heeter, J., et al. (2021). The challenges of achieving a 100% renewable electricity system in the United States. Joule 5, 1331–1352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule. 2021.03.028. 17. Wang, S., Wang, S., and Smith, P. (2015). Quantifying impacts of onshore wind farms on ecosystem services at local and global scales. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 52, 1424–1428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser. 2015.08.019. 18. Atilgan Turkmen, B., and Germirli Babuna, F. (2024). Life cycle environmental impacts of wind turbines: A path to sustainability with challenges. Sustainability 16, 5365. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135365. 19. Beiter, P., Rand, J.T., Seel, J., Lantz, E., Gilman, P., and Wiser, R. (2022). Expert perspectives on the wind plant of the future. Wind Energy 25, 1363–1378. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.2735. 20. Veers, P., Dykes, K., Lantz, E., Barth, S., Bottasso, C.L., Carlson, O., Clifton, A., Green, J., Green, P., Holttinen, H., et al. (2019). Grand challenges in the science of wind energy. Science 366, eaau2027. https://doi.org/10. 1126/science.aau2027. 21. Veers, P., Dykes, K., Basu, S., Bianchini, A., Clifton, A., Green, P., Holttinen, H., Kitzing, L., Kosovic, B., Lundquist, J.K., et al. (2022). Grand Challenges: wind energy research needs for a global energy transition. Wind Energy Sci. 7, 2491–2496. https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2491-2022. 22. Wang, S., and Wang, S. (2015). Impacts of wind energy on environment: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 49, 437–443. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.rser.2015.04.137. 23. Katzner, T.E., Nelson, D.M., Diffendorfer, J.E., Duerr, A.E., Campbell, C.J., Leslie, D., Vander Zanden, H.B., Yee, J.L., Sur, M., Huso, M.M.P., et al. (2019). Wind energy: an ecological challenge. Science 366, 1206– 1207. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz9989. 24. Firestone, J. (2019). Wind energy: A human challenge. Science 366, 1206. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz8932. 25. McKenna, R., Pfenninger, S., Heinrichs, H., Schmidt, J., Staffell, I., Bauer, C., Gruber, K., Hahmann, A.N., Jansen, M., Klingler, M., et al. (2022). High-resolution large-scale onshore wind energy assessments: a review of potential definitions, methodologies and future research needs. Renew. Energy 182, 659–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021. 10.027. 26. Kitzing, L., Rudolph, D., Nyborg, S., Solman, H., Cronin, T., H€ ubner, G., Gill, E., Dykes, K., Tegen, S., and Kirkegaard, J.K. (2024). Grand Challenges in Social Aspects of Wind Energy Development (Wind Energy Science), pp. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2023-174. 27. Kirkegaard, J.K., Rudolph, D.P., Nyborg, S., Solman, H., Gill, E., Cronin, T., and Hallisey, M. (2023). Tackling grand challenges in wind energy through a socio-technical perspective. Nat. Energy 8, 655–664. https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01266-z. 28. Boudet, H.S. (2019). Public perceptions of and responses to new energy technologies. Nat. Energy 4, 446–455. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560019-0399-x. 29. Tolvanen, A., Routavaara, H., Jokikokko, M., and Rana, P. (2023). How far are birds, bats, and terrestrial mammals displaced from onshore wind power development? – A systematic review. Biol. Conserv. 288, 110382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110382. 30. Erickson, W.P., Wolfe, M.M., Bay, K.J., Johnson, D.H., and Gehring, J.L. (2014). A comprehensive analysis of small-passerine fatalities from collision with turbines at wind energy facilities. PLoS One 9, e107491. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107491. 31. Loss, S.R., Will, T., and Marra, P.P. (2013). Estimates of bird collision mortality at wind facilities in the contiguous United States. Biol. Conserv. 168, 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.10.007. 32. Smallwood, K.S. (2013). Comparing bird and bat fatality-rate estimates among North American wind-energy projects. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 37, 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.260. 33. Carrete, M., Sa ´nchez-Zapata, J.A., Benı ´tez, J.R., Lobo ´n, M., and Dona ´- zar, J.A. (2009). Large scale risk-assessment of wind-farms on 16 Joule 9, January 15, 2025 Review ll OPEN ACCESS population viability of a globally endangered long-lived raptor. Biol. Conserv. 142, 2954–2961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.07.027. 34. Dahl, E.L., Bevanger, K., Nyga ˚rd, T., Røskaft, E., and Stokke, B.G. (2012). Reduced breeding success in white-tailed eagles at Smøla windfarm, western Norway, is caused by mortality and displacement. Biol. Conserv. 145, 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.10.012. 35. Bellebaum, J., Korner-Nievergelt, F., D€ urr, T., and Mammen, U. (2013). Wind turbine fatalities approach a level of concern in a raptor population. J. Nat. Conserv. 21, 394–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2013.06.001. 36. May, R., Masden, E.A., Bennet, F., and Perron, M. (2019). Considerations for upscaling individual effects of wind energy development towards population-level impacts on wildlife. J. Environ. Manage. 230, 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.062. 37. Coppes, J., Braunisch, V., Bollmann, K., Storch, I., Mollet, P., Gr€ unschachner-Berger, V., Taubmann, J., Suchant, R., and NoppMayr, U. (2020). The impact of wind energy facilities on grouse: a systematic review. J. Ornithol. 161, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-01901696-1. 38. Bernardino, J., Bevanger, K., Barrientos, R., Dwyer, J.F., Marques, A.T., Martins, R.C., Shaw, J.M., Silva, J.P., and Moreira, F. (2018). Bird collisions with power lines: state of the art and priority areas for research. Biol. Conserv. 222, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.02.029. 39. Jones, N.F., Pejchar, L., and Kiesecker, J.M. (2015). The energy footprint: how oil, natural gas, and wind energy affect land for biodiversity and the flow of ecosystem services. BioScience 65, 290–301. https://doi.org/10. 1093/biosci/biu224. 40. Katovich, E. (2024). Quantifying the effects of energy infrastructure on bird populations and biodiversity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 58, 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c03899. 41. Shaffer, J.A., and Buhl, D.A. (2016). Effects of wind-energy facilities on breeding grassland bird distributions. Conserv. Biol. 30, 59–71. https:// doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12569. 42. Pylant, C.L., Nelson, D.M., Fitzpatrick, M.C., Gates, J.E., and Keller, S.R. (2016). Geographic origins and population genetics of bats killed at windenergy facilities. Ecol. Appl. 26, 1381–1395. https://doi.org/10.1890/ 15-0541. 43. Baerwald, E.F., D’Amours, G.H., Klug, B.J., and Barclay, R.M.R. (2008). Barotrauma is a significant cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Curr. Biol. 18, R695–R696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.06.029. 44. Grodsky, S.M., Behr, M.J., Gendler, A., Drake, D., Dieterle, B.D., Rudd, R.J., and Walrath, N.L. (2011). Investigating the causes of death for wind turbine-associated bat fatalities. J. Mammal. 92, 917–925. https:// doi.org/10.1644/10-MAMM-A-404.1. 45. Rollins, K.E., Meyerholz, D.K., Johnson, G.D., Capparella, A.P., and Loew, S.S. (2012). A forensic investigation into the etiology of bat mortality at a wind farm: barotrauma or traumatic injury? Vet. Pathol. 49, 362–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300985812436745. 46. Houck, and Dan. (2012). Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations of Bats Flying Near Operating Wind Turbines: Quantification of PressureTime Histories of Likely Flight Paths (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Office of Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists Application Review System (WARS)). 47. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) (2013). Reducing Bat Fatalities From Interactions with Operating Wind Turbines (Fact Sheet) (NREL). 48. Lawson, M., Jenne, D., Thresher, R., Houck, D., Wimsatt, J., and Straw, B. (2020). An investigation into the potential for wind turbines to cause barotrauma in bats. PLoS One 15, e0242485. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0242485. 49. Scho ¨ll, E.M., and Nopp-Mayr, U. (2021). Impact of wind power plants on mammalian and avian wildlife species in shruband woodlands. Biol. Conserv. 256, 109037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109037. 50. Taormina, B., Bald, J., Want, A., Thouzeau, G., Lejart, M., Desroy, N., and Carlier, A. (2018). A review of potential impacts of submarine power cables on the marine environment: knowledge gaps, recommendations and future directions. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 96, 380–391. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.07.026. 51. Tougaard, J., Carstensen, J., Teilmann, J., Skov, H., and Rasmussen, P. (2009). Pile driving zone of responsiveness extends beyond 20 km for harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena (L.)). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 126, 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3132523. 52. Bailey, H., Senior, B., Simmons, D., Rusin, J., Picken, G., and Thompson, P.M. (2010). Assessing underwater noise levels during pile-driving at an offshore windfarm and its potential effects on marine mammals. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60, 888–897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010. 01.003. 53. Sovacool, B.K. (2009). Contextualizing avian mortality: A preliminary appraisal of bird and bat fatalities from wind, fossil-fuel, and nuclear electricity. Energy Policy 37, 2241–2248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol. 2009.02.011. 54. Jones, N.F., and Pejchar, L. (2013). Comparing the ecological impacts of wind and oil & gas development: A landscape scale assessment. PLoS One 8, e81391. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081391. 55. qopucki, R., Klich, D., and Gielarek, S. (2017). Do terrestrial animals avoid areas close to turbines in functioning wind farms in agricultural landscapes? Environ. Monit. Assess. 189, 343. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10661-017-6018-z. 56. Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Douse, A., and Langston, R.H.W. (2012). Greater impacts of wind farms on bird populations during construction than subsequent operation: results of a multi-site and multispecies analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 386–394. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1365-2664.2012.02110.x. 57. Astiaso Garcia, D., Canavero, G., Ardenghi, F., and Zambon, M. (2015). Analysis of wind farm effects on the surrounding environment: assessing population trends of breeding passerines. Renew. Energy 80, 190–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.02.004. 58. Gonza ´lez, M.A., Garcı ´a-Tejero, S., Wengert, E., and Fuertes, B. (2016). Severe decline in Cantabrian capercaillie Tetrao urogallus cantabricus habitat use after construction of a wind farm. Bird Conserv. Int. 26, 256–261. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270914000471. 59. Sire ´n, A.P.K., Maynard, D.S., Kilborn, J.R., and Pekins, P.J. (2016). Efficacy of remote telemetry data loggers for landscape-scale monitoring: A case study of American martens. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 40, 570–582. https:// doi.org/10.1002/wsb.680. 60. Coppes, J., Ka ¨mmerle, J.-L., Gr€ unschachner-Berger, V., Braunisch, V., Bollmann, K., Mollet, P., Suchant, R., and Nopp-Mayr, U. (2020). Consistent effects of wind turbines on habitat selection of capercaillie across Europe. Biol. Conserv. 244, 108529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon. 2020.108529. 61. Skarin, A., Sandstro ¨m, P., and Alam, M. (2018). Out of sight of wind turbines—reindeer response to wind farms in operation. Ecol. Evol. 8, 9906– 9919. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4476. 62. Guest, E.E., Stamps, B.F., Durish, N.D., Hale, A.M., Hein, C.D., Morton, B.P., Weaver, S.P., and Fritts, S.R. (2022). An updated review of hypotheses regarding bat attraction to wind turbines. Animals (Basel) 12, 343. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12030343. 63. Bunkley, J.P., McClure, C.J.W., Kleist, N.J., Francis, C.D., and Barber, J.R. (2015). Anthropogenic noise alters bat activity levels and echolocation calls. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 3, 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gecco.2014.11.002. 64. Diffendorfer, J.E., Dorning, M.A., Keen, J.R., Kramer, L.A., and Taylor, R.V. (2019). Geographic context affects the landscape change and fragmentation caused by wind energy facilities. PeerJ 7, e7129. https://doi. org/10.7717/peerj.7129. Joule 9, January 15, 2025 17 Review ll OPEN ACCESS 65. Roscioni, F., Rebelo, H., Russo, D., Carranza, M.L., Di Febbraro, M., and Loy, A. (2014). A modelling approach to infer the effects of wind farms on landscape connectivity for bats. Landsc. Ecol. 29, 891–903. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10980-014-0030-2. 66. Guo, X., Zhang, X., Du, S., Li, C., Siu, Y.L., Rong, Y., and Yang, H. (2020). The impact of onshore wind power projects on ecological corridors and landscape connectivity in Shanxi, China. J. Clean. Prod. 254, 120075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120075. 67. Balkenhol, N., Cushman, S., Storfer, A., and Waits, L. (2016). Landscape Genetics: Concepts, Methods, Applications (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd). 68. Katzner, T.E., Nelson, D.M., Braham, M.A., Doyle, J.M., Fernandez, N.B., Duerr, A.E., Bloom, P.H., Fitzpatrick, M.C., Miller, T.A., Culver, R.C.E., et al. (2017). Golden Eagle fatalities and the continental-scale consequences of local wind-energy generation. Conserv. Biol. 31, 406–415. 69. Madsen, J., and Boertmann, D. (2008). Animal behavioral adaptation to changing landscapes: spring-staging geese habituate to wind farms. Landsc. Ecol. 23, 1007–1011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-0089269-9. 70. Agnew, R.C.N., Smith, V.J., and Fowkes, R.C. (2016). Wind turbines cause chronic stress in badgers (MELES MELES) in Great Britain. J. Wildl. Dis. 52, 459–467. https://doi.org/10.7589/2015-09-231. 71. Sander, L., Jung, C., and Schindler, D. (2024). Global review on environmental impacts of onshore wind energy in the field of tension between human societies and natural systems. Energies 17, 3098. https://doi. org/10.3390/en17133098. 72. Northrup, J.M., and Wittemyer, G. (2013). Characterising the impacts of emerging energy development on wildlife, with an eye towards mitigation. Ecol. Lett. 16, 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12009. 73. Guan, J., Hu, J., and Li, B. (2024). How to restore ecological impacts from wind energy? An assessment of Zhongying Wind Farm through MSPAMCR model and circuit theory. Ecol. Indic. 163, 112149. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112149. 74. Hanssen, F., May, R., and Nyga ˚rd, T. (2020). High-resolution modeling of uplift landscapes can inform micrositing of wind turbines for soaring raptors. Environ. Manag. 66, 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-02001318-0. 75. European Commission DG ENER (2020). Guidance Document on Wind Energy Developments and EU Nature Legislation (Publications Office of the European Union). https://doi.org/10.2779/457035. 76. Arnett, E.B., Huso, M.M., Schirmacher, M.R., and Hayes, J.P. (2011). Altering turbine speed reduces bat mortality at wind-energy facilities. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9, 209–214. https://doi.org/10.1890/100103. 77. Huso, M.M.P., and Hayes, J.P. (2009). Effectiveness of Changing Wind Turbine Cut-in Speed to Reduce Bat Fatalities at Wind Facilities. https://doi.org/10.2172/1218377. 78. Barrios, L., and Rodrı ´guez, A. (2004). Behavioural and environmental correlates of soaring-bird mortality at on-shore wind turbines. J. Appl. Ecol. 41, 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2004.00876.x. 79. McClure, C.J.W., Rolek, B.W., Dunn, L., McCabe, J.D., Martinson, L., and Katzner, T.E. (2022). Confirmation that eagle fatalities can be reduced by automated curtailment of wind turbines. Ecol. Solut. Evid. 3, e12173. https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12173. 80. Cohen, E.B., Buler, J.J., Horton, K.G., Loss, S.R., Cabrera-Cruz, S.A., Smolinsky, J.A., and Marra, P.P. (2022). Using weather radar to help minimize wind energy impacts on nocturnally migrating birds. Conserv. Lett. 15, e12887. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12887. 81. May, R., Nyga ˚rd, T., Falkdalen, U., A ˚stro ¨m, J., Hamre, Ø., and Stokke, B.G. (2020). Paint it black: efficacy of increased wind turbine rotor blade visibility to reduce avian fatalities. Ecol. Evol. 10, 8927–8935. https://doi. org/10.1002/ece3.6592. 82. Richardson, S.M., Lintott, P.R., Hosken, D.J., Economou, T., and Mathews, F. (2021). Peaks in bat activity at turbines and the implications for mitigating the impact of wind energy developments on bats. Sci. Rep. 11, 3636. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82014-9. 83. Schirmacher, M., Morton, B., Nostrand, T., Nagy, L., Becker, M., and Rogers, D. (2020). Evaluating the Effectiveness of an Ultrasonic Acoustic Deterrent in Reducing Bat Fatalities at Wind Energy Facilities (Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, United States Department of Energy). https://doi.org/10.2172/1605929. 84. Miller, L.M., and Keith, D.W. (2018). Climatic impacts of wind power. Joule 2, 2618–2632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.09.009. 85. Science Media Centre (2018). Expert reaction to research on climatic impact of wind power. https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expertreaction-to-research-on-climatic-impact-of-wind-power/. 86. Hasager, C.B., Rasmussen, L., Pen ˜a, A., Jensen, L.E., and Re ´thore ´, P.-E. (2013). Wind farm wake: the horns rev photo case. Energies 6, 696–716. https://doi.org/10.3390/en6020696. 87. Ahsbahs, T., Nygaard, N.G., Newcombe, A., and Badger, M. (2020). Wind farm wakes from SAR and Doppler radar. Remote Sens. 12, 462. https:// doi.org/10.3390/rs12030462. 88. Xia, G., Cervarich, M.C., Roy, S.B., Zhou, L., Minder, J.R., Jimenez, P.A., and Freedman, J.M. (2017). Simulating impacts of real-world wind farms on land surface temperature using the WRF model: validation with observations. Mon. Wea. Rev. 145, 4813–4836. https://doi.org/10.1175/MWRD-16-0401.1. 89. Can ˜adillas, B., Beckenbauer, M., Trujillo, J.J., Do ¨renka ¨mper, M., Foreman, R., Neumann, T., and Lampert, A. (2022). Offshore wind farm cluster wakes as observed by long-range-scanning wind lidar measurements and mesoscale modeling. Wind Energy Sci. 7, 1241–1262. https://doi. org/10.5194/wes-7-1241-2022. 90. Baidya Roy, S., and Traiteur, J.J. (2010). Impacts of wind farms on surface air temperatures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 17899–17904. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1000493107. 91. Bodini, N., Lundquist, J.K., and Moriarty, P. (2021). Wind plants can impact long-term local atmospheric conditions. Sci. Rep. 11, 22939. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-02089-2. 92. Akhtar, N., Geyer, B., and Schrum, C. (2022). Impacts of accelerating deployment of offshore windfarms on near-surface climate. Sci. Rep. 12, 18307. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-22868-9. 93. Volker, P.J.H., Badger, J., Hahmann, A.N., and Ott, S. (2015). The Explicit Wake Parametrisation V1.0: a wind farm parametrisation in the mesoscale model WRF. Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 3715–3731. https://doi.org/ 10.5194/gmd-8-3715-2015. 94. Schneemann, J., Rott, A., Do ¨renka ¨mper, M., Steinfeld, G., and K€ uhn, M. (2020). Cluster wakes impact on a far-distant offshore wind farm’s power. Wind Energy Sci. 5, 29–49. https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-5-29-2020. 95. Volker, P.J.H., Hahmann, A.N., Badger, J., and Jørgensen, H.E. (2017). Prospects for generating electricity by large onshore and offshore wind farms. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 034022. https://doi.org/10.1088/17489326/aa5d86. 96. Porte ´-Agel, F., Lu, H., and Wu, Y.-T. (2014). Interaction between large wind farms and the atmospheric boundary layer. Procedia IUTAM 10, 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.piutam.2014.01.026. 97. Borgers, R., Dirksen, M., Wijnant, I.L., Stepek, A., Stoffelen, A., Akhtar, N., Neirynck, J., Van de Walle, J., Meyers, J., and van Lipzig, N.P.M. (2024). Mesoscale modelling of North Sea wind resources with COSMO-CLM: model evaluation and impact assessment of future wind farm characteristics on cluster-scale wake losses. Wind Energy Sci. 9, 697–719. https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9-697-2024. 98. Niras (2023). Screening and environmental mapping of offshore wind potential in Denmark. https://www.niras.com/projects/mapping-of-offshorewind-potential-in-denmark/. 99. Adams, A.S., and Keith, D.W. (2013). Are global wind power resource estimates overstated? Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 015021. https://doi.org/10. 1088/1748-9326/8/1/015021. 18 Joule 9, January 15, 2025 Review ll OPEN ACCESS 100. Miller, L.M., Brunsell, N.A., Mechem, D.B., Gans, F., Monaghan, A.J., Vautard, R., Keith, D.W., and Kleidon, A. (2015). Two methods for estimating limits to large-scale wind power generation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 11169–11174. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1408251112. 101. Platis, A., Siedersleben, S.K., Bange, J., Lampert, A., Ba ¨rfuss, K., Hankers, R., Can ˜adillas, B., Foreman, R., Schulz-Stellenfleth, J., Djath, B., et al. (2018). First in situ evidence of wakes in the far field behind offshore wind farms. Sci. Rep. 8, 2163. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-01820389-y. 102. Harrison-Atlas, D., Glaws, A., King, R.N., and Lantz, E. (2024). Artificial intelligence-aided wind plant optimization for nationwide evaluation of land use and economic benefits of wake steering. Nat. Energy 9, 735–749. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-024-01516-8. 103. van der Horst, D., and Vermeylen, S. (2010). Wind theft, spatial planning and international relations. Renew. Energy Law Policy Rev. 1, 67–75. 104. Pelser, T., Weinand, J.M., Kuckertz, P., McKenna, R., Linssen, J., and Stolten, D. (2024). Reviewing accuracy & reproducibility of large-scale wind resource assessments. Adv. Appl. Energy 13, 100158. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.adapen.2023.100158. 105. Marvel, K., Kravitz, B., and Caldeira, K. (2013). Geophysical limits to global wind power. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 118–121. https://doi.org/10. 1038/nclimate1683. 106. Gaertner, E., Rinker, J., Sethuraman, L., Zahle, F., Anderson, B., Barter, G., Abbas, N., Meng, F., Bortolotti, P., Skrzypinski, W., et al. (2020). Definition of the IEA Wind 15-Megawatt Offshore Reference Wind Turbine – NREL Technical Report (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy). 107. Fischereit, J., Brown, R., Larse ´n, X.G., Badger, J., and Hawkes, G. (2022). Review of mesoscale wind-farm parametrizations and their applications. Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 182, 175–224. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10546-021-00652-y. 108. Pryor, S.C., Barthelmie, R.J., and Shepherd, T.J. (2020). 20% of US electricity from wind will have limited impacts on system efficiency and regional climate. Sci. Rep. 10, 541. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598019-57371-1. 109. Smith, C.M., Barthelmie, R.J., and Pryor, S.C. (2013). In situ observations of the influence of a large onshore wind farm on near-surface temperature, turbulence intensity and wind speed profiles. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 034006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034006. 110. Lee, J.C.Y., and Lundquist, J.K. (2017). Observing and simulating windturbine wakes during the evening transition. Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 164, 449–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-017-0257-y. 111. Takle, E.S., Rajewski, D.A., and Purdy, S.L. (2019). The Iowa atmospheric observatory: revealing the unique boundary layer characteristics of a wind farm. Earth Interact. 23, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1175/EI-D-170024.1. 112. Xia, G., Zhou, L., Minder, J.R., Fovell, R.G., and Jimenez, P.A. (2019). Simulating impacts of real-world wind farms on land surface temperature using the WRF model: physical mechanisms. Clim. Dyn. 53, 1723–1739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-04725-0. 113. Qin, Y., Li, Y., Xu, R., Hou, C., Armstrong, A., Bach, E., Wang, Y., and Fu, B. (2022). Impacts of 319 wind farms on surface temperature and vegetation in the United States. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 024026. https://doi. org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac49ba. 114. Wu, S., Archer, C.L., and Mirocha, J.D. (2024). New insights on wind turbine wakes from large-eddy simulation: wake contraction, dual nature, and temperature effects. Wind Energy 27, 1130–1151. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/we.2827. 115. Fischereit, J., Larse ´n, X.G., and Hahmann, A.N. (2022). Climatic impacts of wind-wave-wake interactions in offshore wind farms. Front. Energy Res. 10.https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2022.881459. 116. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2023). Energy systems. In Clim. Change - Mitigation of Climate Change (Cambridge University Press), pp. 613–746. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926. 008. 117. Wind Europe. (2020). Decommissioning of onshore wind turbines. https://windeurope.org/data-and-analysis/product/decommissioningof-onshore-wind-turbines. 118. Schmid, M., Gonzalez Ramon, N., Dierckz, A., and Wegman, T. (2020). Accelerating Wind Turbine Blade Circularity (Wind Europe, Cefic, EuCIA). 119. Staffell, I., and Green, R. (2014). How does wind farm performance decline with age? Renew. Energy 66, 775–786. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.renene.2013.10.041. 120. Khalid, M.Y., Arif, Z.U., Hossain, M., and Umer, R. (2023). Recycling of wind turbine blades through modern recycling technologies: A road to zero waste. Renew. Energy Focus 44, 373–389. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ref.2023.02.001. 121. Elig€ uzel, _ I.M., and O ¨zceylan, E. (2022). A bibliometric, social network and clustering analysis for a comprehensive review on end-of-life wind turbines. J. Clean. Prod. 380, 135004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2022.135004. 122. Carter, K. (2021). Unearthing rare earths | Wind systems magazine. https://www.windsystemsmag.com/24015-2/. 123. Energy Post (2023). Wind Turbines: how dependent is the EU on China? https://energypost.eu/wind-turbines-how-dependent-is-the-eu-onchina/. 124. Griffith, K. (2020). Hundreds of fiberglass wind turbine blades pile up in landfills. Mail Online. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8294057/ Hundreds-non-recyclable-fiberglass-wind-turbine-blades-pictured-pilinglandfills.html. 125. Bloomberg. (2020). Wind turbine blades can’t be recycled, so they’re piling up in landfills. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/202002-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-inlandfills. 126. Pierrot, M. (2024). Wind Energy Database. https://www.thewindpower. net/. 127. TYNDP (2022). Scenario Building Guidelines | Version. April 2022 (2022) (ENTSO-E). 128. Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (2023). Electricity generation costs 2023 (GOV). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ electricity-generation-costs-2023. 129. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2024). Capital Cost and Performance Characteristics for Utility-Scale Electric Power Generating Technologies. 130. Gadhia, B. (2022). Siemens gamesa taps NVIDIA digital twin platform for scientific computing to accelerate clean energy transition. NVIDIA blog. https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/siemens-gamesa-wind-farms-digitaltwins/. 131. Vester, N. (2024). Digital twins – a road to more profitable offshore wind (Vattenfall). https://group.vattenfall.com/press-and-media/newsroom/ 2024/digital-twins–a-road-to-more-profitable-offshore-wind. 132. Beauson, J., Laurent, A., Rudolph, D.P., and Pagh Jensen, J. (2022). The complex end-of-life of wind turbine blades: a review of the European context. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 155, 111847. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.rser.2021.111847. 133. Veolia (2020). United States: Veolia makes cement and gives a second life to GE Renewable Energy’s wind turbine blades. Veolia. https:// www.veolia.com/en/news/united-states-veolia-makes-cement-andgives-second-life-ge-renewable-energys-wind-turbine. 134. International Energy Agency (2021). The role of critical minerals in clean energy transitions. https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-mineralsin-clean-energy-transitions. 135. Pietrantonio, M., Pucciarmati, S., Sebastianelli, L., Forte, F., and Fontana, D. (2021). Materials recovery from end-of-life wind turbine magnets. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 19,3.https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-02103546-1. Joule 9, January 15, 2025 19 Review ll OPEN ACCESS 136. Market, I., Grohol, M., and Veeh, C. (2023). Directorate-general for internal. Study on the Critical Raw Materials for the EU 2023: Final Report (Publications Office of the European Union). 137. Joint Research Centre (European Commission); Alves Dias, P., Bobba, S., Carrara, S., and Plazzotta, B. (2020). The Role of Rare Earth Elements in Wind Energy and Electric Mobility: an Analysis of Future Supply/ Demand Balances (Publications Office of the European Union). 138. Scherhaufer, P. (2021). The complex relations between justice and participation in collaborative planning processes for a renewable energy transition. In Routledge Handbook of Energy Democracy (Routledge). 139. GE news(2022).Closing the loop: group unveils A prototype ofA recyclable wind turbine blade. https://www.ge.com/news/reports/closing-the-loopgroup-unveils-a-prototype-of-a-recyclable-wind-turbine-blade. 140. Siemens Gamesa (2023). RecyclableBlade. https://www.siemensgamesa. com/en-int/explore/journal/recyclable-blade. 141. Siemens Gamesa (2021). Siemens Gamesa pioneers wind circularity: launch of world’s first recyclable wind turbine blade for commercial use offshore. Siemens gamesa press release. https://www.siemensgamesa. com/global/en/home/press-releases/launch-world-first-recyclable-windturbine-blade.html. 142. Khalid, M.Y., Arif, Z.U., Ahmed, W., and Arshad, H. (2022). Recent trends in recycling and reusing techniques of different plastic polymers and their composite materials. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 31, e00382. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.susmat.2021.e00382. 143. K€ uhne, C., Stapf, D., Holz, P., Baumann, W., M€ ulhopt, S., Wexler, M., Hauser, M., Kalkreuth, J., Mahl, J., Zeller, M., et al. (2022). Entwicklung von R€ uckbauund Recyclingstandards f€ ur Rotorbla ¨tter (Umweltbundesamt). 144. Deutsche Presse-Agentur (2022). Schwierige Wiederverwertung von Windanlagen Rotorbla ¨tter mit Recyclingproblem. Spieg. https://www. spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/windanlagen-rotorblaetter-mit-recyclingproblem-a-4a2c64ed-2359-4711-b808-8eb216675f41. 145. Martinez-Marquez, D., Florin, N., Hall, W., Majewski, P., Wang, H., and Stewart, R.A. (2022). State-of-the-art review of product stewardship strategies for large composite wind turbine blades. Resources Conservation & Recycling Advances 15, 200109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rcradv.2022.200109. 146. Rathore, N., and Panwar, N.L. (2023). Environmental impact and waste recycling technologies for modern wind turbines: an overview. Waste Manag. Res. 41, 744–759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X22113 5527. 147. Korniejenko, K., Kozub, B., Ba ˛k, A., Balamurugan, P., Uthayakumar, M., and Furtos, G. (2021). Tackling the circular economy challenges—composites recycling: used tyres, wind turbine blades, and solar panels. J. Compos. Sci. 5, 243. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs5090243. 148. Scheidel, A., and Sorman, A.H. (2012). Energy transitions and the global land rush: ultimate drivers and persistent consequences. Glob. Environ. Change 22, 588–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.12.005. 149. Siamanta, Z.C. (2019). Wind parks in post-crisis Greece: neoliberalisation vis-a `-vis green grabbing. Plan. Natl. Space 2, 274–303. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/2514848619835156. 150. Fairhead, J., Leach, M., and Scoones, I. (2012). Green Grabbing: a new appropriation of nature? J. Peasant Stud. 39, 237–261. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03066150.2012.671770. 151. Klingler, M., Ameli, N., Rickman, J., and Schmidt, J. (2024). Large-scale green grabbing for wind and solar photovoltaic development in Brazil. Nat. Sustain. 7, 747–757. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01346-2. 152. Dunlap, A. (2020). Wind, coal, and copper: the politics of land grabbing, counterinsurgency, and the social engineering of extraction. Globalizations 17, 661–682. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2019.1682789. 153. Fjellheim, E.M. (2023). Wind energy on trial in Saepmie: epistemic controversies and strategic ignorance in Norway’s green energy transition. Arct. Rev. Law Polit. 14, 140–168. https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v14.5586. 154. Osakada, Y. (2024). Pitfalls of the green transition: towards a genuine understanding of the right to free, prior and informed consent of the Indigenous peoples. Polar Sci. 101119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polar.2024. 101119. 155. O’Neill, L., Thorburn, K., Riley, B., Maynard, G., Shirlow, E., and Hunt, J. (2021). Renewable energy development on the Indigenous Estate: free, prior and informed consent and best practice in agreement-making in Australia. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 81, 102252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. erss.2021.102252. 156. Gorayeb, A., Brannstrom, C., de Andrade Meireles, A.J., and de Sousa Mendes, J. (2018). Wind power gone bad: critiquing wind power planning processes in northeastern Brazil. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 40, 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.027. 157. Sovacool, B.K., Turnheim, B., Hook, A., Brock, A., and Martiskainen, M. (2021). Dispossessed by decarbonisation: reducing vulnerability, injustice, and inequality in the lived experience of low-carbon pathways. World Dev. 137, 105116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020. 105116. 158. Brannstrom, C., Gorayeb, A., De Sousa Mendes, J., Loureiro, C., Meireles, A.J.A., Silva, E.V.D., Freitas, A.L.R.D., and Oliveira, R.F.D. (2017). Is Brazilian wind power development sustainable? Insights from a review of conflicts in Ceara ´state. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 67, 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.047. 159. Normann, S. (2021). Green colonialism in the Nordic context: exploring Southern Saami representations of wind energy development. J. Community Psychol. 49, 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22422. 160. Lawrence, R. (2014). Internal colonisation and indigenous resource sovereignty: wind power developments on traditional Saami lands. Environ. Plan. D 32, 1036–1053. https://doi.org/10.1068/d9012. 161. Kløcker Larsen, R.K., Bostro ¨m, M., District, M.R.H., District, V.S.R.H., District, V.R.H., and Wik-Karlsson, J. (2022). The impacts of mining on Sa ´mi lands: a knowledge synthesis from three reindeer herding districts. Extr. Ind. Soc. 9.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2022.101051. 162. Traldi, M. (2021). Accumulation by dispossession and green grabbing: wind farms, lease agreements, land appropriation in the Brazilian semiarid. Ambient. soc. 24, e00522. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422asoc 20200052r2vu2021L4TD. 163. Klingler, M., Ameli, N., Rickman, J., and Schmidt, J. (2023). Large-Scale Green Grabbing for Wind and Solar PV Development in Brazil. 10.31223/ X5ND6Q. 164. Velasco-Herrejo ´n, P., and Savaresi, A. (2019). Wind energy, benefitsharing and indigenous peoples: lessons from the isthmus of Tehuantepec, Southern Mexico. SSRN Electron. J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn. 3337142. 165. Avila-Calero, S. (2017). Contesting energy transitions: wind power and conflicts in the isthmus of Tehuantepec. J. Polit. Ecol. 24, 992–1012. https://doi.org/10.2458/v24i1.20979. 166. Dunlap, A. (2017). Counterinsurgency for wind energy: the Bı ´i Hioxo wind park in Juchita ´n, Mexico. J. Peasant Stud. 45, 1–23. https://doi.org/10. 1080/03066150.2016.1259221. 167. Alkhalili, N., Dajani, M., and Mahmoud, Y. (2023). The enduring coloniality of ecological modernization: wind energy development in occupied Western Sahara and the occupied Syrian Golan Heights. Polit. Geogr. 103, 102871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2023.102871. 168. Solman, H., Smits, M., van Vliet, B., and Bush, S. (2021). Co-production in the wind energy sector: A systematic literature review of public engagement beyond invited stakeholder participation. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 72, 101876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101876. 169. Fast, S., Mabee, W., Baxter, J., Christidis, T., Driver, L., Hill, S., McMurtry, J.J., and Tomkow, M. (2016). Lessons learned from Ontario wind energy disputes. Nat. Energy 1, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2015.28. 170. Baxter, J., Walker, C., Ellis, G., Devine-Wright, P., Adams, M., and Fullerton, R.S. (2020). Scale, history and justice in community wind 20 Joule 9, January 15, 2025 Review ll OPEN ACCESS energy: an empirical review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 68, 101532. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101532. 171. Scherhaufer, P., Ho ¨ltinger, S., Salak, B., Schauppenlehner, T., and Schmidt, J. (2018). A participatory integrated assessment of the social acceptance of wind energy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 45, 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.06.022. 172. Wolsink, M. (2018). Co-production in distributed generation: renewable energy and creating space for fitting infrastructure within landscapes. Landsc. Res. 43, 542–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017. 1358360. 173. Petrova, M.A. (2016). From NIMBY to acceptance: toward a novel framework — VESPA — for organizing and interpreting community concerns. Renew. Energy 86, 1280–1294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015. 09.047. 174. Su skevi cs, M., Eiter, S., Martinat, S., Stober, D., Vollmer, E., de Boer, C.L., and Buchecker, M. (2019). Regional variation in public acceptance of wind energy development in Europe: what are the roles of planning procedures and participation? Land Use Policy 81, 311–323. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.032. 175. Spielhofer, R., Thrash, T., Hayek, U.W., Gr^ et-Regamey, A., Salak, B., Gr€ ubel, J., and Schinazi, V.R. (2021). Physiological and behavioral reactions to renewable energy systems in various landscape types. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 135, 110410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020. 110410. 176. Tsani, T., Weinand, J.M., Linßen, J., and Stolten, D. (2024). Quantifying social factors for onshore wind planning – A systematic review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 203, 114762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024. 114762. 177. Molnarova, K., Sklenicka, P., Stiborek, J., Svobodova, K., Salek, M., and Brabec, E. (2012). Visual preferences for wind turbines: location, numbers and respondent characteristics. Appl. Energy 92, 269–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.11.001. 178. Ladenburg, J., Termansen, M., and Hasler, B. (2013). Assessing acceptability of two onshore wind power development schemes: A test of viewshed effects and the cumulative effects of wind turbines. Energy 54, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.02.021. 179. McKenna, R., Weinand, J.M., Mulalic, I., Petrovi c, S., Mainzer, K., Preis, T., and Moat, H.S. (2021). Scenicness assessment of onshore wind sites with geotagged photographs and impacts on approval and cost-efficiency. Nat. Energy 6, 663–672. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-02100842-5. 180. McKenna, R., Mulalic, I., Soutar, I., Weinand, J.M., Price, J., Petrovi c, S., and Mainzer, K. (2022). Exploring trade-offs between landscape impact, land use and resource quality for onshore variable renewable energy: an application to Great Britain. Energy 250, 123754. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.energy.2022.123754. 181. Tafarte, P., and Lehmann, P. (2023). Quantifying trade-offs for the spatial allocation of onshore wind generation capacity – A case study for Germany. Ecol. Econ. 209, 107812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon. 2023.107812. 182. Weinand, J.M., McKenna, R., Heinrichs, H., Roth, M., Stolten, D., and Fichtner, W. (2022). Exploring the trilemma of cost-efficiency, landscape impact and regional equality in onshore wind expansion planning. Adv. Appl. Energy 7, 100102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adapen.2022.100102. 183. Roth, M., Hildebrandt, S., and Ro ¨hner, S. (2018). Landscape as an Area as Perceived by People: Empirically-Based Nationwide Modelling of Scenic Landscape Quality in Germany (Wichmann Verlag). 184. Seresinhe, C.I., Moat, H.S., and Preis, T. (2018). Quantifying scenic areas using crowdsourced data. Environ. Plann. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 45, 567–582. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813516687302. 185. Palmer, J.F. (2022). Deconstructing viewshed analysis makes it possible to construct a useful visual impact map for wind projects. Landsc. Urban Plan. 225, 104423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104423. 186. Chias, P., and Abad, T. (2013). Wind farms: GIS-based visual impact assessment and visualization tools. Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 40, 229–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2013.809231. 187. Betakova, V., Vojar, J., and Sklenicka, P. (2015). Wind turbines location: how many and how far? Appl. Energy 151, 23–31. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.apenergy.2015.04.060. 188. Spielhofer, R., Hunziker, M., Kienast, F., Wissen Hayek, U., and Gr^ et-Regamey, A. (2021). Does rated visual landscape quality match visual features? An analysis for renewable energy landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 209, 104000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.104000. 189. Ioannidis, R., and Koutsoyiannis, D. (2020). A review of land use, visibility and public perception of renewable energy in the context of landscape impact. Appl. Energy 276, 115367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy. 2020.115367. 190. D. Apostol, J. Palmer, M. Pasqualetti, R. Smardon, and R. Sullivan, eds. (2016). The Renewable Energy Landscape: Preserving Scenic Values in Our Sustainable Future (Routledge). https://doi.org/10.4324/978131 5618463. 191. Grimsrud, K., Hagem, C., Lind, A., and Lindhjem, H. (2021). Efficient spatial distribution of wind power plants given environmental externalities due to turbines and grids. Energy Econ. 102, 105487. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105487. 192. Tsani, T., Pelser, T., Ioannidis, R., Maier, R., Chen, R., Risch, S., Kullmann, F., McKenna, R., Stolten, D., and Weinand, J. (2024). Out of sight, out of mind? Cost of minimizing visibility of nationwide renewable energy systems. Preprint at Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs5017073/v1. 193. Karasov, O., Vieira, A.A.B., K€ ulvik, M., and Chervanyov, I. (2020). Landscape coherence revisited: GIS-based mapping in relation to scenic values and preferences estimated with geolocated social media data. Ecol. Indic. 111, 105973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105973. 194. Radford, S.L., Senn, J., and Kienast, F. (2019). Indicator-based assessment of wilderness quality in mountain landscapes. Ecol. Indic. 97, 438–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.09.054. 195. Zerrahn, A. (2017). Wind power and externalities. Ecol. Econ. 141, 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.02.016. 196. Sch€ utt, M. (2024). Wind turbines and property values: A meta-regression analysis. Environ. Resour. Econ. 87, 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10640-023-00809-y. 197. Brunner, E.J., Hoen, B., Rand, J., and Schwegman, D. (2024). Commercial wind turbines and residential home values: new evidence from the universe of land-based wind projects in the United States. Energy Policy 185, 113837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113837. 198. Brunner, E.J., and Schwegman, D.J. (2022). Commercial wind energy installations and local economic development: evidence from U.S. counties. Energy Policy 165, 112993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol. 2022.112993. 199. Brummer, V. (2018). Community energy – benefits and barriers: A comparative literature review of Community Energy in the UK, Germany and the USA, the benefits it provides for society and the barriers it faces. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 94, 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser. 2018.06.013. 200. Simos, J., Cantoreggi, N., Christie, D., and Forbat, J. (2019). Wind turbines and health: a review with suggested recommendations. Environ. Risques S. https://doi.org/10.1684/ers.2019.1281. 201. Wehrle, S., Gruber, K., and Schmidt, J. (2021). The cost of undisturbed landscapes. Energy Policy 159, 112617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112617. 202. Langer, K., Decker, T., Roosen, J., and Menrad, K. (2016). A qualitative analysis to understand the acceptance of wind energy in Bavaria. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 64, 248–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016. 05.084. Joule 9, January 15, 2025 21 Review ll OPEN ACCESS 203. Broekel, T., and Alfken, C. (2015). Gone with the wind? The impact of wind turbines on tourism demand. Energy Policy 86, 506–519. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.08.005. 204. Tverijonaite, E., and Sæþo ´rsdo ´ttir, A.D. (2024). Hydro, wind, and geothermal: navigating the compatibility of renewable energy infrastructure with tourism. Tour Hosp. 5, 16–31. https://doi.org/10.3390/ tourhosp5010002. 205. Carr-Harris, A., and Lang, C. (2019). Sustainability and tourism: the effect of the United States’ first offshore wind farm on the vacation rental market. Resour. Energy Econ. 57, 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2019.04.003. 206. Leer Jørgensen, M., Anker, H.T., and Lassen, J. (2020). Distributive fairness and local acceptance of wind turbines: the role of compensation schemes. Energy Policy 138, 111294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol. 2020.111294. 207. IRENA (2022). Renewable energy and jobs. https://www.irena.org/ publications/2022/Sep/Renewable-Energy-and-Jobs-Annual-Review-2022. 208. Xie, J.J., Martin, M., Rogelj, J., and Staffell, I. (2023). Distributional labour challenges and opportunities for decarbonizing the US power system. Nat. Clim. Change 13, 1203–1212. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558023-01802-5. 209. Costa, H., and Veiga, L. (2021). Local labor impact of wind energy investment: an analysis of Portuguese municipalities. Energy Econ. 94, 105055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.105055. 210. van Kamp, I., and van den Berg, F. (2021). Health effects related to wind turbine sound: an update. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18, 9133. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18179133. 211. Karanikas, N., Steele, S., Bruschi, K., Robertson, C., Kass, J., Popovich, A., and MacFadyen, C. (2021). Occupational health hazards and risks in the wind industry. Energy Rep. 7, 3750–3759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. egyr.2021.06.066. 212. Onakpoya, I.J., O’Sullivan, J., Thompson, M.J., and Heneghan, C.J. (2015). The effect of wind turbine noise on sleep and quality of life: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Environ. Int. 82, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2015.04.014. 213. Shepherd, D., McBride, D., Welch, D., Dirks, K., and Hill, E. (2011). Wind Turbine Noise and Health-Related Quality of Life of Nearby Residents: a Cross Sectional Study in New Zealand. In Fourth International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise. 214. Pedersen, E., and Waye, K.P. (2004). Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise - a dose-response relationship. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116, 3460–3470. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1815091. 215. Pedersen, E., and Persson Waye, K. (2007). Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self-reported health and well-being in different living environments. Occup. Environ. Med. 64, 480–486. https://doi.org/10.1136/ oem.2006.031039. 216. Flemmer, C., and Flemmer, R. (2023). Wind turbine infrasound: phenomenology and effect on people. Sustain. Cities Soc. 89, 104308. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104308. 217. H€ ubner, G., Pohl, J., Hoen, B., Firestone, J., Rand, J., Elliott, D., and Haac, R. (2019). Monitoring annoyance and stress effects of wind turbines on nearby residents: A comparison of U.S. and European samples. Environ. Int. 132, 105090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105090. 218. Haac, R., Darlow, R., Kaliski, K., Rand, J., and Hoen, B. (2022). In the shadow of wind energy: predicting community exposure and annoyance to wind turbine shadow flicker in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 87, 102471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102471. 219. Klæboe, R., and Sundfør, H.B. (2016). Windmill noise annoyance, visual aesthetics, and attitudes towards renewable energy sources. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 13, 746. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13 080746. 220. Radun, J., Maula, H., Saarinen, P., Kera ¨nen, J., Alakoivu, R., and Hongisto, V. (2022). Health effects of wind turbine noise and road traffic noise on people living near wind turbines. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 157, 112040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.112040. 221. Michaud, D.S., Feder, K., Keith, S.E., Voicescu, S.A., Marro, L., Than, J., Guay, M., Denning, A., McGuire, D., Bower, T., et al. (2016). Exposure to wind turbine noise: perceptual responses and reported health effects. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 139, 1443–1454. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4942391. 222. Antila, M. (2014). Wind turbine excess noise evaluation. In Presentation EWEA Technology Workshop Wind Turbine Sound (VTT Technical Research Center of Finland). 223. Energy Technology; Support Unit (ETSU) (1996). The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms - Final Report (ETSU). 224. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (1974). Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare With an Adequate Margin of Safety. 225. Rogers, J. (2020). Optimal strategies for wind turbine environmental curtailment. Wind Energy 23, 1331–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/ we.2489. 226. der Justiz, B. (1974). Bundes-Immissionsschutzgesetz in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 17. Mai 2013 (BGBl. I S. 1274; 2021 I S. 123), das zuletzt durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 3. Juli 2024 (BGBl. 2024 I Nr. 225) gea ¨ndert worden ist. 227. Keane, A., Milligan, M., Dent, C.J., Hasche, B., D’Annunzio, C., Dragoon, K., Holttinen, H., Samaan, N., Soder, L., and O’Malley, M. (2011). Capacity value of wind power. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 26, 564–572. https://doi. org/10.1109/TPWRS.2010.2062543. 228. Milligan, M., Frew, B., Ibanez, E., Kiviluoma, J., Holttinen, H., and So ¨der, L. (2017). Capacity value assessments of wind power. WIREs Energy Environ. 6, e226. https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.226. 229. Staffell, I., and Pfenninger, S. (2018). The increasing impact of weather on electricity supply and demand. Energy 145, 65–78. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.energy.2017.12.051. 230. Krohn, S., Morthorst, P.-E., and Awerbuch, S. The Economics of Wind Energy (the European Wind Energy Association). 231. Hirth, L., Ueckerdt, F., and Edenhofer, O. (2015). Integration costs revisited – an economic framework for wind and solar variability. Renew. Energy 74, 925–939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.08.065. 232. Odeh, R.P., and Watts, D. (2019). Impacts of wind and solar spatial diversification on its market value: A case study of the Chilean electricity market. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 111, 442–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.rser.2019.01.015. 233. Schmidt, O., and Staffell, I. (2023). Monetizing Energy Storage: A Toolkit to Assess Future Cost and Value (Oxford University Press). https://doi. org/10.1093/oso/9780192888174.001.0001. 234. Biancardi, A., Di Castelnuovo, M., and Staffell, I. (2021). A framework to evaluate how European Transmission System Operators approach innovation. Energy Policy 158, 112555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021. 112555. 235. IARC (2002). Non-ionizing Radiation, Part 1: Static and Extremely LowFrequency (ELF) Electric and Magnetic Fields80. 236. Carpenter, D.O. (2019). Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and cancer: how source of funding affects results. Environ. Res. 178, 108688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108688. 237. Sharpton, T., Lawrence, T., and Hall, M. (2020). Drivers and barriers to public acceptance of future energy sources and grid expansion in the United States. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 126, 109826. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109826. 238. Harold, J., Bertsch, V., Lawrence, T., and Hall, M. (2021). Drivers of People’s preferences for spatial proximity to energy infrastructure technologies: A cross-country analysis. Energy J. 42, 47–90. https://doi.org/10. 5547/01956574.42.4.jhar. 239. Bertsch, V., Hall, M., Weinhardt, C., and Fichtner, W. (2016). Public acceptance and preferences related to renewable energy and grid 22 Joule 9, January 15, 2025 Review ll OPEN ACCESS expansion policy: empirical insights for Germany. Energy 114, 465–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.08.022. 240. Welder, L., Ryberg, D.S., Kotzur, L., Grube, T., Robinius, M., and Stolten, D. (2018). Spatio-temporal optimization of a future energy system for power-to-hydrogen applications in Germany. Energy 158, 1130–1149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.05.059. 241. Samsatli, S., Staffell, I., and Samsatli, N.J. (2016). Optimal design and operation of integrated wind-hydrogen-electricity networks for decarbonising the domestic transport sector in Great Britain. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 41, 447–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.10.032. 242. Hunter, C.A., Penev, M.M., Reznicek, E.P., Eichman, J., Rustagi, N., and Baldwin, S.F. (2021). Techno-economic analysis of long-duration energy storage and flexible power generation technologies to support high-variable renewable energy grids. Joule 5, 2077–2101. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.joule.2021.06.018. 243. Solomon, A.A., Child, M., Caldera, U., and Breyer, C. (2020). Exploiting wind-solar resource complementarity to reduce energy storage need. AIMS Energy 8, 749–770. https://doi.org/10.3934/energy.2020.5.749. 244. Lu, T., Sherman, P., Chen, X., Chen, S., Lu, X., and McElroy, M. (2020). India’s potential for integrating solar and onand offshore wind power into its energy system. Nat. Commun. 11, 4750. https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41467-020-18318-7. 245. Lo ´pez Prol, J., de Llano Paz, F., Calvo-Silvosa, A., Pfenninger, S., and Staffell, I. (2024). Wind-solar technological, spatial and temporal complementarities in Europe: A portfolio approach. Energy 292, 130348. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.130348. 246. Murcia Leon, J.P., Habbou, H., Friis-Møller, M., Gupta, M., Zhu, R., and Das, K. (2024). HyDesign: a tool for sizing optimization of grid-connected hybrid power plants including wind, solar photovoltaic, and lithium-ion batteries. Wind Energy Sci. 9, 759–776. https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-9759-2024. 247. Roques, F., Hiroux, C., and Saguan, M. (2010). Optimal wind power deployment in Europe—A portfolio approach. Energy Policy 38, 3245– 3256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.048. 248. Lo ´pez Prol, J.L., deLlano-Paz, F., Calvo-Silvosa, A., Pfenninger, S., and Staffell, I. (2024). Spatial integration for firm and load-following wind generation. Environ. Res. Lett. 19, 094026. https://doi.org/10.1088/17489326/ad5d7d. 249. Sepulveda, N.A., Jenkins, J.D., Edington, A., Mallapragada, D.S., and Lester, R.K. (2021). The design space for long-duration energy storage in decarbonized power systems. Nat. Energy 6, 506–516. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41560-021-00796-8. 250. Pastore, L.M., Lo Basso, G., Ricciardi, G., and de Santoli, L. (2022). Synergies between Power-to-Heat and Power-to-Gas in renewable energy communities. Renew. Energy 198, 1383–1397. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.renene.2022.08.141. 251. Leinauer, C., Schott, P., Fridgen, G., Keller, R., Ollig, P., and Weibelzahl, M. (2022). Obstacles to demand response: why industrial companies do not adapt their power consumption to volatile power generation. Energy Policy 165, 112876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112876. 252. Ho ¨schle, H., De Jonghe, C., Le Cadre, H., and Belmans, R. (2017). Electricity markets for energy, flexibility and availability — impact of capacity mechanisms on the remuneration of generation technologies. Energy Econ. 66, 372–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.06.024. 253. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2020). FERC Order No. 2222: A new day for distributed energy resources (fact sheet). https:// ferc.gov/media/ferc-order-no-2222-fact-sheet. 254. Khalid, M. (2024). Smart grids and renewable energy systems: perspectives and grid integration challenges. Energy Strategy Rev. 51, 101299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2024.101299. 255. Gandoman, F.H., Ahmadi, A., Sharaf, A.M., Siano, P., Pou, J., Hredzak, B., and Agelidis, V.G. (2018). Review of FACTS technologies and applications for power quality in smart grids with renewable energy systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82, 502–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rser.2017.09.062. 256. Rancilio, G., Rossi, A., Falabretti, D., Galliani, A., and Merlo, M. (2022). Ancillary services markets in Europe: evolution and regulatory tradeoffs. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 154, 111850. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.rser.2021.111850. 257. Bahrani, B., Chaudhuri, B., Hoke, A., Ramasubramanian, D., Badrzadeh, B., and Modi, N. (2024). Inverter-based resources (IBRs). IEEE Power Energy Mag. 22, 18–29. https://doi.org/10.17023/agf2-hz86. 258. Gils, H.C., Scholz, Y., Pregger, T., Luca de Tena, D., and Heide, D. (2017). Integrated modelling of variable renewable energy-based power supply in Europe. Energy 123, 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017. 01.115. 259. Schlachtberger, D.P., Brown, T., Scha ¨fer, M., Schramm, S., and Greiner, M. (2018). Cost optimal scenarios of a future highly renewable European electricity system: exploring the influence of weather data, cost parameters and policy constraints. Energy 163, 100–114. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.energy.2018.08.070. 260. Zappa, W., Junginger, M., and van den Broek, M. (2019). Is a 100% renewable European power system feasible by 2050? Appl. Energy 233–234, 1027–1050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.08.109. 261. Joos, M., and Staffell, I. (2018). Short-term integration costs of variable renewable energy: wind curtailment and balancing in Britain and Germany. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 86, 45–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.rser.2018.01.009. 262. Kahrl, F., Kim, J., Mills, A., Wiser, R., Montan ˜e ´s, C., and Gorman, W. (2021). Variable renewable energy participation in U.S. Ancillary Services Markets: economic evaluation and key issues. 263. Heptonstall, P.J., and Gross, R.J.K. (2021). A systematic review of the costs and impacts of integrating variable renewables into power grids. Nat. Energy 6, 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-00695-4. 264. Wind Energy and the Electric Power System (2011). Wind Energy Handbook (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd), pp. 565–612. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 9781119992714.ch10. 265. Sensfuß, F., Ragwitz, M., and Genoese, M. (2008). The merit-order effect: A detailed analysis of the price effect of renewable electricity generation on spot market prices in Germany. Energy Policy 36, 3086–3094. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.03.035. 266. Cludius, J., Hermann, H., Matthes, F.Chr., and Graichen, V. (2014). The merit order effect of wind and photovoltaic electricity generation in Germany 2008–2016: estimation and distributional implications. Energy Econ. 44, 302–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2014.04.020. 267. Antweiler, W., and Muesgens, F. (2021). On the long-term merit order effect of renewable energies. Energy Econ. 99, 105275. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.eneco.2021.105275. 268. Brancucci Martinez-Anido, C., Brinkman, G., and Hodge, B.-M. (2016). The impact of wind power on electricity prices. Renew. Energy 94, 474–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.03.053. 269. Green, R., and Staffell, I. (2021). The contribution of taxes, subsidies, and regulations to British electricity decarbonization. Joule 5, 2625–2645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2021.09.011. 270. Yagi, K., and Sioshansi, R. (2021). Do renewables drive coal-fired generation out of electricity markets? Curr. Sustainable. Renewable Energy Rep. 8, 222–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40518-021-00189-1. 271. Hogan, W.W. (2005). On an ‘‘energy only’’ electricity market design for resource adequacy. https://whogan.scholars.harvard.edu/sites/g/files/ omnuum4216/files/whogan/files/hogan_energy_only_092305.pdf. 272. Hildmann, M., Ulbig, A., and Andersson, G. (2015). Empirical Analysis of the merit-order effect and the missing money problem in power markets with high RES shares. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 30, 1560–1570. https:// doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2015.2412376. Joule 9, January 15, 2025 23 Review ll OPEN ACCESS 273. Twomey, P., and Neuhoff, K. (2010). Wind power and market power in competitive markets. Energy Policy 38, 3198–3210. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.enpol.2009.07.031. 274. Hirth, L. (2013). The market value of variable renewables. Energy Econ. 38, 218–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2013.02.004. 275. Welisch, M., Ortner, A., and Resch, G. (2016). Assessment of RES technology market values and the merit-order effect – an econometric multicountry analysis. Energy Environ. 27, 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0958305X16638574. 276. Staffell, I. (2017). Measuring the progress and impacts of decarbonising British electricity. Energy Policy 102, 463–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. enpol.2016.12.037. 277. Blume-Werry, E., Huber, C., Resch, G., Haas, R., and Everts, M. (2021). Value Factors, Capture Prices and Cannibalism: nightmares for renewable energy decision-makers. J. World Energy Law Bus. 14, 231–247. https://doi.org/10.1093/jwelb/jwab027. 278. Mills, A.D., Levin, T., Wiser, R., Seel, J., and Botterud, A. (2020). Impacts of variable renewable energy on wholesale markets and generating assets in the United States: a review of expectations and evidence. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 120, 109670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019. 109670. 279. International Energy Agency (2020). Projected Costs of Generating Electricity. https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generatingelectricity-2020. 280. Brouwer, A.S., van den Broek, M., Zappa, W., Turkenburg, W.C., and Faaij, A. (2016). Least-cost options for integrating intermittent renewables in low-carbon power systems. Appl. Energy 161, 48–74. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.09.090. 281. Heuberger, C.F., Staffell, I., Shah, N., and Mac Dowell, N. (2018). Impact of myopic decision-making and disruptive events in power systems planning. Nat. Energy 3, 634–640. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-0180159-3. 282. Ueckerdt, F., Hirth, L., Luderer, G., and Edenhofer, O. (2013). System LCOE: what are the costs of variable renewables? Energy 63, 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.10.072. 283. Matsuo, Y., and Komiyama, R. (2021). System LCOE of variable renewable energies: a case study of Japan’s decarbonized power sector in 2050. Sustain. Sci. 16, 449–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-02100914-1. 284. Loth, E., Qin, C., Simpson, J.G., and Dykes, K. (2022). Why we must move beyond LCOE for renewable energy design. Adv. Appl. Energy 8, 100112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adapen.2022.100112. 285. Halttunen, K., Staffell, I., Slade, R., Green, R., Saint-Drenan, Y.-M., and Jansen, M. (2020). Global assessment of the merit-order effect and revenue cannibalisation for variable renewable energyPreprint. SSRN Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3741232. 286. Cole, W.J., Greer, D., Denholm, P., Frazier, A.W., Machen, S., Mai, T., Vincent, N., and Baldwin, S.F. (2021). Quantifying the challenge of reaching a 100% renewable energy power system for the United States. Joule 5, 1732–1748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2021.05.011. 287. Mai, T., Denholm, P., Brown, P., Cole, W., Hale, E., Lamers, P., Murphy, C., Ruth, M., Sergi, B., Steinberg, D., et al. (2022). Getting to 100%: six strategies for the challenging last 10%. Joule 6, 1981–1994. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.joule.2022.08.004. 288. Heard, B.P., Brook, B.W., Wigley, T.M.L., and Bradshaw, C.J.A. (2017). Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 76, 1122– 1133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.114. 289. Kyritsis, E., Andersson, J., and Serletis, A. (2017). Electricity prices, largescale renewable integration, and policy implications. Energy Policy 101, 550–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.11.014. 290. Jansen, M., Beiter, P., Riepin, I., M€ usgens, F., Guajardo-Fajardo, V.J., Staffell, I., Bulder, B., and Kitzing, L. (2022). Policy choices and outcomes for offshore wind auctions globally. Energy Policy 167, 113000. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113000. 291. Jansen, M., Staffell, I., Kitzing, L., Quoilin, S., Wiggelinkhuizen, E., Bulder, B., Riepin, I., and M€ usgens, F. (2020). Offshore wind competitiveness in mature markets without subsidy. Nat. Energy 5, 614–622. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41560-020-0661-2. 292. Soft, S. (2002). Power system economics: designing markets for electricity (Wiley-IEEE). 293. Riesz, J., and Milligan, M. (2015). Designing electricity markets for a high penetration of variable renewables. WIREs Energy Environ. 4, 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.137. 294. Brown, T., and Reichenberg, L. (2021). Decreasing market value of variable renewables can be avoided by policy action. Energy Econ. 100, 105354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105354. 295. HM Government (2022). Review of electricity market arrangements. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/review-of-electricitymarket-arrangements. 296. Klessmann, C., Nabe, C., and Burges, K. (2008). Pros and cons of exposing renewables to electricity market risks—A comparison of the market integration approaches in Germany, Spain, and the UK. Energy Policy 36, 3646–3661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.06.022. 297. Hiroux, C., and Saguan, M. (2010). Large-scale wind power in European electricity markets: time for revisiting support schemes and market designs? Energy Policy 38, 3135–3145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol. 2009.07.030. 298. Glachant, J.M., Joskow, P.L., and Pollitt, M.G. (2021). Handbook on electricity markets (Edward Elgar). 299. Diesendorf, M., and Elliston, B. (2018). The feasibility of 100% renewable electricity systems: A response to critics. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 93, 318–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.042. 300. Morales-Espan ˜au, G., Algarvio, H., De Vries, L., Faia, R., HernandezSerna, R., and Johanndeiter, S. (2020). Market Design for a Reliable 100% Renewable Electricity System (TU). 301. Blondeel, M., Bradshaw, M.J., Bridge, G., and Kuzemko, C. (2021). The geopolitics of energy system transformation: a review. Geogr. Compass 15, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12580. 302. Kuzemko, C., Blondeel, M., Dupont, C., and Brisbois, M.C. (2022). Russia’s war on Ukraine, European energy policy responses & implications for sustainable transformations. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 93, 102842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102842. 303. Kelanic, R.A. (2016). The petroleum paradox: oil, coercive vulnerability, and great power behavior. Secur. Stud. 25, 181–213. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09636412.2016.1171966. 304. Sharples, J.D. (2016). The shifting geopolitics of Russia’s natural gas exports and their impact on EU-Russia gas relations. Geopolitics 21, 880–912. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2016.1148690. 305. Boute, A. (2022). Weaponizing energy: energy, trade, and investment law in the new geopolitical reality. Am. J. Int. Law 116, 740–751. https://doi. org/10.1017/ajil.2022.53. 306. Hafner, M., and Tagliapietra, S. (2020). The Geopolitics of the Global Energy Transition https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39066-2. 307. Vakulchuk, R., Overland, I., and Scholten, D. (2020). Renewable energy and geopolitics: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 122, 109547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109547. 308. Ma ˚nsson, A. (2015). A resource curse for renewables? Conflict and cooperation in the renewable energy sector. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 10, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.06.008. 309. Gupta, M., Dennehy, D., Parra, C.M., Ma ¨ntyma ¨ki, M., and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2023). Fake news believability: the effects of political beliefs and espoused cultural values. Inf. Manag. 60, 103745. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.im.2022.103745. 24 Joule 9, January 15, 2025 Review ll OPEN ACCESS 310. Lewis, J.I. (2014). The rise of renewable energy protectionism: emerging trade conflicts and implications for low carbon development. Glob. Environ. Polit. 14, 10–35. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00255. 311. Goldthau, A., Westphal, K., Bazilian, M., and Bradshaw, M. (2019). How the energy transition will reshape geopolitics. Nature 569, 29–31. 312. Tao, Y., Liang, H., and Celia, M.A. (2020). Electric power development associated with the Belt and Road Initiative and its carbon emissions implications. Appl. Energy 267, 114784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114784. 313. Sovacool, B.K., Bazilian, M.D., Kim, J., and Griffiths, S. (2023). Six bold steps towards net-zero industry. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 99, 103067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103067. 314. Li, J., Peng, K., Wang, P., Zhang, N., Feng, K., Guan, D., Meng, J., Wei, W., and Yang, Q. (2020). Critical rare-earth elements mismatch global wind-power ambitions. One Earth 3, 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.oneear.2020.06.009. 315. Scha ¨fer, B., Gasparon, M., and Storm, P. (2020). European Raw Materials Alliance—a new initiative to increase raw material resilience for a greener Europe. Miner. Econ. 33, 415–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13563-020-00241-4. 316. US Department of Energy. Securing America’s Clean Energy Supply Chain. https://www.energy.gov/policy/securing-americas-clean-energysupply-chain. 317. Conrad, B., and Kostka, G. (2017). Chinese investments in Europe ’ s energy sector: risks and opportunities? Energy Policy 101, 644–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.12.016. 318. Gong, X. (2022). Energy security through a financial lens: rethinking geopolitics, strategic investment, and governance in China ’ s global energy expansion. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 83, 102341. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.erss.2021.102341. 319. Mercure, J.-F., Salas, P., Vercoulen, P., Semieniuk, G., Lam, A., Pollitt, H., Holden, P.B., Vakilifard, N., Chewpreecha, U., Edwards, N.R., et al. (2021). Reframing incentives for climate policy action. Nat. Energy 6, 1133–1143. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-021-00934-2. 320. Overland, I. (2019). The geopolitics of renewable energy: debunking four emerging myths. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 49, 36–40. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.erss.2018.10.018. 321. Overland, I., Juraev, J., and Vakulchuk, R. (2022). Are renewable energy sources more evenly distributed than fossil fuels? Renew. Energy 200, 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.09.046. 322. Apergi, M., Zimmermann, E., Weko, S., and Lilliestam, J. (2023). Is renewable energy technology trade more or less conflictive than other trade? Energy Policy 177, 113538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023. 113538. 323. Hache, E. (2018). Do renewable energies improve energy security in the long run? Int. Econ. 156, 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inteco.2018. 01.005. 324. US Department of Energy (2022). Cybersecurity Considerations for Distributed Energy Resources on the US Electric Grid. https://www.energy. gov/eere/articles/doe-cybersecurity-report-provides-recommendationssecure-distributed-clean-energy. 325. Sabev, E., Trifonov, R., Pavlova, G., and Rainova, K. (2021). Cybersecurity analysis of wind farm SCADA systems. In International Conference on Information Technologies (InfoTech), pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/InfoTech52438.2021.9548589. 326. Freeman, S., Gentle, J., and Conway, T. (2020). Cyber resiliency within offshore wind applications. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 54, 108–113. https:// doi.org/10.4031/MTSJ.54.6.10. 327. Wehrmann, B. (2022). Repeated Cyberattacks Cause Concern about German Wind Industry’s IT Security (Clean Energy Wire). 328. Willuhn, M. (2022). Satellite cyber attack paralizes 11 GW of German wind turbines. PV Mag. Int. 7. 329. Boschetti, N., Gordon, N.G., and Gregory, F. (2022). Space cybersecurity lessons learned from the ViaSat cyberattack. In AIAA ASCEND 2022. 330. Meza, E. (2022). Security Official Concerned over Chinese Involvement in German Wind Sector (Clean Energy Wire). 331. Dowse, A., and Bachmann, S.D. (2022). Information Warfare: Methods to Counter Disinformation (Springer), pp. 1–17. 10.1080/14751798.2022. 2117285. https://doi.org/10.1080/14751798.2022.2117285. 332. Benegal, S., and Scruggs, L. (2024). Blame over blackouts: correcting partisan misinformation regarding renewable energy in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 113, 103543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024. 103543. 333. Winter, K., Hornsey, M.J., Pummerer, L., and Sassenberg, K. (2022). Anticipating and defusing the role of conspiracy beliefs in shaping opposition to wind farms. Nat. Energy 7, 1200–1207. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41560-022-01164-w. 334. Lee, Y., and Dacass, T. (2022). Reducing the United States’ risks of dependency on China in the rare earth market. Resour. Policy 77, 102702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102702. 335. Ali, S.H., Kalantzakos, S., Eggert, R., Gauss, R., Karayannopoulos, C., Klinger, J., Pu, X., Vekasi, K., and Perrons, R.K.. (2022). Closing the Infrastructure Gap for Decarbonization: The Case for an Integrated Mineral Supply Agreement. Environ. Sci. Technol., 15280–15289. https://doi. org/10.1021/acs.est.2c05413. 336. IRENA (2023). World Energy Transitions Outlook 2023: 1C Pathway (Abu Dhabi: International Renewable Energy Agency). 337. Gentle, J.P., Johnson, J., McCarty, M., Rieger, C., Cooley, R., Rothwell, B., Culler, M., and Wright, B. (2023). Cyber resilience for wind power installations. https://www.powermag.com/cyber-resilience-for-windpower-installations/. 338. Liebe, U., and Dobers, G.M. (2019). Decomposing public support for energy policy: what drives acceptance of and intentions to protest against renewable energy expansion in Germany? Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 47, 247–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.09.004. 339. Wind energy in Europe (2022). Statistics and the Outlook for 2023–2027 WindEurope. https://windeurope.org/data-and-analysis/product/windenergy-in-europe-2022-statistics-and-the-outlook-for-2023-2027. 340. Rand, J., Bolinger, M., Wiser, R., Jeong, S., and Paulos, B. (2021). Queued Up: characteristics of Power Plants Seeking Transmission Interconnection as of the End of 2020. https://doi.org/10.2172/1784303. 341. Sud, R., and Patnaik, S. How does permitting for clean energy infrastructure work? (Brookings). https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-doespermitting-for-clean-energy-infrastructure-work/. 342. Bird, L., and McLaughlin, K. (2023). US clean energy goals hinge on faster permitting. https://www.wri.org/insights/clean-energy-permitting-reform-us. 343. Kahn, R.D. (2000). Siting struggles. Electr. J. 13, 21–33. 344. Nadaı ¨, A. (2007). ‘‘Planning’’, ‘‘siting’’ and the local acceptance of wind power: some lessons from the French case. Energy Policy 35, 2715–2726. 345. Pettersson, M., Ek, K., So ¨derholm, K., and So ¨derholm, P. (2010). Wind power planning and permitting: comparative perspectives from the Nordic countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14, 3116–3123. 346. Lauf, T., Ek, K., Gawel, E., Lehmann, P., and So ¨derholm, P. (2019). The regional heterogeneity of wind power deployment: an empirical investigation of land-use policies in Germany and Sweden. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 63, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1613221. 347. Mann, T. (2023). Cutting off the heads of the hydra: current reforms in German administrative litigation law. ELTELJ, 85–94. https://doi.org/10. 54148/ELTELJ.2023.1.85. 348. Abbott, J.A. (2010). The localized and scaled discourse of conservation for wind power in Kittitas County, Washington. Soc. Nat. Resour. 23, 969–985. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802438634. Joule 9, January 15, 2025 25 Review ll OPEN ACCESS