Spain’s Climate Change Impacts Assessment: Meeting energy needs in

a changing climate.

Introduction

Climate change and associated increasing temperatures are causing global average wind
speeds to change, especially over Europe (Greene et al., 2010; Nolan et al., 2012). This is
caused by quasi-resonant amplification (Mann et al., 2018; Eichelberger et al., 2008,
Appendix slide 6), whereby the jet stream increases in amplitude, and causes winds to
speed up or slow down in the Northern hemisphere. Without anthropogenic forcings, global
wind speeds decreased until 2010 due to increased surface roughness from buildings
creating drag; a process called ‘global stilling’ (Zhenzhong et al., 2019; Appendix slide 5).
However, climate change reverses this slow-down, generally speeding up winds, which can
increase the electric output of renewable wind energy power systems in certain areas.
Nonetheless, some areas are still projected to see changes in average wind speeds, which
may impact the security of the energy resource (Weber et al., 2018; Carvalho et al., 2017).
As climate change worsens and global temperatures continue to rise, it can be expected that
the impacts on weather systems will change also. As electric output is equal to the cube of
the wind speed (Solaun and Cerdá, 2020; Appendix slide 6), a change in wind speed is
magnified as an output of electricity from a turbine. Climate change adaptation requires a
shift in energy supply from traditional fossil fuels to renewable sources (Cronin et al., 2018;
Ellabban et al., 2014; Appendix slide 3), but as these resources are affected by climate
change, they must be understood in order to ensure energy supply meets demand in the
coming years.

This report will provide recommendations for adaption to the impacts of climate change in
Spain, which aims to increase energy output and security. Spain was chosen as in 2019 it
generated almost 50% of power through wind energy on particular days in winter, and by
2017 it had generated 47,598GWh in total (Ramírez et al., 2018). Therefore, the impact of
climate change on the future output of wind systems in Spain is important to understand.

Summary of Methods

Four studies are used to identify strategies for adaptation in Spain and the Iberian
Peninsula. These studies include an impacts model focussing on future energy output in
Spain due to changing wind speeds, earth system models (ESMs) which aim to calculate
power output and cut-off days, and regional climate models (RCMs) predicting future wind
speeds and the impact of temperature scenarios on energy output. All models vary in time
scales, methods used, and their consideration of non-climatic drivers (Appendix slide 9). The
features of each study are displayed in Table 1.

200930211 Word count: 2523

Table 1: Characteristics of four models.

Pryor and Devis et al., 2018 Solaun and Cerdá, Tobin et al 2018
Barthelmie, 2010. 2020
Summary Using models to Using 5 ESMs to Impacts model of four RCMs ensemble from
predict wind speeds. calculate future wind farms in Spain. the EUROCORTEX
They review changes in European They show the impact initiative used to show
mechanisms by wind power output for of changing wind the impact of different
which the climate different seasons. speeds on energy temperature scenarios
can affect weather output. on electricity
patterns such as generation of wind
wind. farms (1.5°c, 2°c, and
3°c).
Region Global scale but Europe Spain Europe
focussed on Europe.
Model/data RCM limited areas CIMP5 datasets of Modelled future RCMs from the
set model, CanESM2, NorESM1- energy outputs EUROCORDEX
AOGCM, PRECIS, M, IPSL-CM5-MR, projected with initiative, CSC-REMO,
HadAM3 HadGEM2-ES, CNRM- changing wind speeds SMHI-RCA4, KNMI-
CM5. 5 ESMs, RCM. in four areas. RACMO22E, SMHI-
RCA4.
Resolution ‘At or above Range from 1.4°x1.4° - 0.11°x0.11°
0.5°x0.5°’ to 2.8°x2.8°
Historical - 1979-2005 2010-2016 ‘Pre-industrial’ 1881-
data 1910
Number of - 5 ECMs 4 wind farms 5 RCMs
models
Downscaling Statistical - - -

Projection Up to 2100 2020-2049 - 2004-2084

Wind speed +/- 30% wind ‘Significant’ decrease Projected variations of >5% reduction in areas
variability decade-to- in wintertime wind <+/-5% in speed, +/- in a 3°c scenario, and
decade in Europe. speeds in the Med (- 8% in production, and <5% reduction in a 1°5
3% to -6% speed). W +/- 10% in operative or 2°c scenario. Spain
and N Europe margins. and Portugal are most
projected increase of severely impacted by
4% speed. climate change.
Annual mean winds
increase by 3.5% in NW
Europe, whereas
speeds decrease by
3.5% in southern
Europe.
Scenarios A2 and B2 SRES RCP4.5 RCP4.5 and 8.5 1.5°c, 2°c, and 3°c
emission scenarios

200930211 Word count: 2523

Tobin et al. (2018) use five RCMs with 0.11°x0.11° resolution (~12km) to show the impact of
different temperature scenarios on wind energy generation in Europe. This resolution is
reasonably high, which is useful when collecting wind speed data for different countries, as
global climate models (GCMs) with lower resolutions often cannot measure speeds at or
below hub height accurately (Lee et al., 2015). The method used to collect current wind
speeds is in line with Elliot (1979), whereby 10m wind speed is vertically extrapolated to get
hub height speeds. This method is useful as the measured wind speeds are located at
turbine height, rather than those which are subject to more drag near the surface (Lee et al.,
2015). However, it still would have been beneficial for the authors to publish their current
and future projected wind speed data, rather than only produce data on the output
changes.

In addition, the authors did not consider inter or intra-annual variability of the wind energy
resource or electrical output in any scenario, which may be an important parameter to
consider as it helps to understand whether the wind resource will meet demand (Bartos et
al., 2016). Overall, the models used by Tobin et al. (2018) are effective at calculating wind
speeds for different countries. However, uncertainties may arise when using vertically
extrapolated wind speed data for entire countries as it does not consider ground friction
differences and variations in regional speeds, and the authors do not consider variability in
the wind resource or output.

Devis et al. (2018) also focus on calculating future power output for Europe, but they use
five ESMs and give predictions for different seasons. Model resolutions are lower than Tobin
et al. (2018) and range from 1.4°x1.4° to 2.8°x2.8°, which means that less specific land areas
are used. Devis et al. (2018) argue in favour of using high-resolution ESMs to calculate wind
speed changes rather than using downscaling of GCM data. They argue that downscaling
makes data ‘less accurate’, and that it does not increase the climate signal of wind speeds.
Unlike Tobin et al. (2018), they consider the intra-annual variability in wind speeds and
associated power output for areas of Europe. They find that Europe will see changes ranging
from -12% to +8% in power output, with decreases becoming common in winter.

Additionally, Devis et al. (2018) fail to use the equations set by Elliot (1979) which allows for
vertical extrapolation, and therefore use 10m wind speeds for their analysis even though
turbine hub heights are usually 80-120m in height (Lee et al., 2015). Therefore, the study
may not consider the reduction in surface drag and increase in wind speeds that occurs with
height towards the turbine blade (Lee et al., 2015), thus wind speeds may be unreliable.
Overall Devis et al. (2018) provide valuable insight into the variations in energy resource
which may occur in the future season-to-season, allowing greater understanding of resource
supply variability compared to Tobin et al. (2018).

Solaun and Cerdá (2020) use an impacts model to show the effect of changing wind speeds
on the energy output at four different wind farms in Spain. The benefit of an impacts model
compared to Tobin et al. (2018) and Devis et al., (2018) is that it expresses temperature and

200930211 Word count: 2523

wind speed differences on the energy output at particular sites. Therefore, the authors were
able to give more specific power output changes that other papers. They predicted that
Perdón and Río Almóvar would see speed increases of 5-6%, leading to substantial output
increases (Seo et al., 2019), whereas Rubió and Cuadramón are predicted reductions of 5%.
This method may be more practical than the ESMs and RCMS as it tells the energy industry if
their wind farm is expected to benefit or suffer from the impacts of climate change and
allows consideration of other adaptation strategies. Substantial reductions in power output
may mean that the areas have to invest in other electricity sources as wind may no longer
meet demand, particularly during peak times (Bartos et al., 2016; Greene et al., 2010).

However, the impacts model does not aid the understanding of changes in wind speeds in
the future for other regions, which may be useful when scoping a new wind power site for
Spain, or when finding adaptation options for other affected countries. Overall, Solaun and
Cerdá (2020) provide important information on the impacts that four wind sites may face.
However, they do not consider the wider effects of climate change or affected areas, which
could be found in a lower resolution RCM or GCM study.

Pryor and Barthelmie (2010) use RCM limited areas models to predict global wind speeds at
high resolution, with a focus on Europe. They show wider mechanisms by which weather
patterns can be affected, such as atmosphere-ocean circulations and icing, rather than just
wind speeds. The resolution is ‘at or above’ 0.5°x0.5°, which is lower than the RCM used by
Tobin et al. (2018). Additionally, the authors chose to use statistical downscaling, which
goes against Devis et al. (2018), who claim this practice makes findings unreliable.

Pryor and Barthelmie (2010) provide a review article, and as such their methods are limited.
Preferably to the other studies, the authors mention inter and intra-annual variability of the
wind resource, which allows them to make assumptions on the stability and security of the
resource for electricity generation over time. Findings are fairly vague although they state
that Europe may see a +/-30% variability decade-to-decade. The authors do not however
mention the increase in extremes which is projected (Mann et al., 2018; Hosking et al.,
2018), or a subsequent change in the number of days where turbines will be turned off as
winds will be above cut-off speeds, or below cut-in speed (Hdidouan and Staffell, 2017; Seo
et al., 2019). Additionally, mentioning day-to-day changes would show an understanding of
how much electricity populations could expect to be supplied with from wind energy
(Hdidouan and Staffell, 2017). Overall, the authors review the long-term effects of climate
change on electric output to some extent, however their failure to include specific sites or a
reference to daily changes makes the model somewhat lacking.

Summary of Results

Tobin et al. (2018) use 1.5°C, 2°C, and 3°C temperature scenarios, which usefully relates
wind energy to the implementation and achievement of mitigation strategies (IPCC, 2011)
such as the Paris Agreement. Results show that the 3°C reduces power output by >5%,
whereas output reduces by <5% in the lower temperature scenarios, promoting mitigation

200930211 Word count: 2523

as well as adaptation. The authors give country-wide impacts but fail to mention specific
sites. Rather than mentioning specific output reductions, the authors only state that Spain
and Portugal would be the ‘most severely impacted’ by decreased wind output in high
temperature scenarios compared to the rest of Europe, therefore, it is difficult to
understand how great the impacts may be (Appendix slide 10). Additionally, it would have
been useful to relay findings for specific sites, as Solaun and Cerdá (2010) did. This would
also allow wind farm sites to understand if their output is projected to reach demand in the
future, and still be economically competitive in the area, or if investment is needed in other
energy resources, transportation, and storage facilities.

Tobin et al. (2018) use pre-industrial historical data for their RCM ensembles, from 1881-
1910. Comparatively, Solaun and Cerdá (2020) use recent wind speeds directly from turbine
sites. As the four sites chosen are all fairly recent developments, and so their data is from
2010-2016. Although a consideration of recent output for specific sites is important, the
historical data used by Tobin et al. (2018) is also valuable as it gives a baseline scenario for
wind speed data. This allows for comparison and a recognition of changes in the long-term
(Bossi et al., 2015), whereas Solaun and Cerdá (2020) allow changes in the specific sites to
be measured. It should be said that a lack of historical data may mean that uncertainties
arise as the results are only site-specific, but the authors do state that finding a historical
record for wind turbine sites is ‘a challenge’. Therefore, both methods seem useful for their
respective models.

Solaun and Cerdá (2020) consider the effect of non-climatic drivers on the wind energy
resource, which Tobin et al. (2018) and Devis et al. (2018) both overlooked in their methods.
The authors mention that the Spain Royal Decree for wind farms allows companies to
receive financial support during the first 20 years of operation. This incentivises wind energy
generation and supports Spanish mitigation efforts and the move towards a low-carbon
society. The authors do consider the lifetime of the decree and propose it will be phased out
by 2100, although, they do not mention future growth rates or mention if the funding will
actually be needed.

Unlike all other studies mentioned, Pryor and Barthelmie (2010) use their findings to
recommend the optimum wind turbine blade type for different areas of Europe. This is an
intelligent albeit expensive way of maximising electric output from the wind resource in a
specific area, without investing in other energy projects. Although this is useful information
the authors do not deliver any other adaptation strategies to increase the security and
stability of the electricity supply from renewable sources, nor do they offer adaptation
strategies for areas which do not currently have wind power fields. That being said, a
recognition of which turbine blades can achieve the highest rotations per minute compared
to an existing blade is important.

200930211 Word count: 2523

Conclusion and Summary of Results

This report recognises that there is great uncertainty and disagreement in the predicted
wind speeds and power outputs of wind energy in Spain. However, studies do generally
agree that Spain will see both increases and decreases in output. To increase energy security
and adaptation efforts, this report makes three recommendations in line with the analysed
models:

• Firstly, this report disagrees with Solaun and Cerdá (2020) in their hypothesis that
the Royal Decree should be removed by 2100. Incentivisation of new wind farms
may still be necessary in the future to adapt to climate change and maximise electric
output, especially in areas that are projected an increase in wind speeds. Therefore,
this study recommends not phasing out the incentives.
• Secondly, future wind speed changes may increase the number of days where
turbines are shut off, increasing the need to maintain security of electricity supplies.
The consideration of variability in the resource and energy output allows for an
understanding of supply-side limits. Therefore, this study recommends investment in
storage and transportation facilities.
• Thirdly, this study recommends more consideration and research into changing
turbine blades to maximise output in existing sites, in line with findings from Pryor
and Barthelmie (2010).

200930211 Word count: 2523

References

1. Bartos, M., Chester, M., Johnson, N., Gorman, B., Eisenberg, D., Linkov, I. & Bates, M. (2016)
Impacts of rising air temperatures on electric transmission ampacity and peak electricity
load in the United States. Environmental Research Letters. 11(11), 1-13.
2. Bossi, N.R.M.K., Herrera, R.G. & Trigo, L.P. (2015). A long-term perspective of wind power
output variability. International Journal of Climatology. 35(35), 2635-2646.
3. Carvalho, D., Rocha, A., Gómez-Gesteira, M. & Santos, C.S. (2017) Potential impacts of
climate change on European wind energy resource under the CIMP5 future climate
projections. Renewable Energy. 101, 29-40.
4. Cronin, J., Anandarajah, G. & Dessens, O. (2018) Climate change impacts on the energy
system: A review of the trends and gaps. 151, 79-93.
5. Devis, A., Van Lipzig, N.P.M. & Demuzere, M. (2018) Should future wind speed changes be
taken into account in wind farm development? Environmental Research Letters. 13(6), 1-11.
6. Eichelberger, S., Mccaa, J., Nijssen, B. & Wood, A.W. (2008) Climate change effects on wind
speed. North American Windpower. 7, 68-72.
7. Ellabban, O., Abu-Rub, H., Blaabjerg, F. (2014). Renewable energy resources: current status,
future prospects and their enabling technology. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.
39, 748-764.
8. Greene, S., Morrissey, M. & Johnson, S.E. (2010) Wind Climatology, Climate Change and
Wind Energy. Geography Compass. 4(11), 1592-1605.
9. Hdidouan, D. & Staffell, I. (2017) The impact of climate change on the levelised cost of wind
energy. Renewable Energy. 101, 575-592.
10. Hosking, J.S., MacLeod, D., Phillips, T., Holmes, C.R., Watson, C.R., Suckburgh, E.F. & Mitchell,
D. (2018) Changes in European wind energy generation potential within a 1.5°C warmer
world. Environmental Research Letters. 13(5), 1-20.
11. IPCC. (2011). Summary for Policymakers. In: IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy
Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, New
York, NY, USA.
12. Lee, J., Kim, D.R. & Lee, K.S. (2015) Optimum hub height of a wind turbine for maximising
annual net profit. Energy Conversion Management. 100, 90-96.
13. Mann, M.E., Rahmstorf, S., Kornhuber, K., Steinman, B.A., Miller, S.K., Petri, S. & Coumou, D.
(2018) Projected changes in persistent extreme summer weather events: The role of quasi-
resonant amplification. Climatology. 4(10), 1-9.
14. Nolan, P., Lynch, P., McGrath, R., Semmier, T. and Wang, S. (2012). Simulating climate
change and its effect on the wind energy resource of Ireland. Wind Energy. 15(4), 593-608.
15. Pryor, S.C. & Barthelmie, R.J. (2010) Climate change impacts on wind energy: A review.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 14(1), 430-437.
16. Ramírez, F.J., Honrubia-Escribano, A., Gómez-lázaro, E. & Pham, D.T. (2018) The role of wind
energy production in addressing the European renewable energy targets: The case of Spain.
Journal of Cleaner Production. 196, 1198-1212.
17. Seo, S., Oh, S.D. & Kwak, H.Y. (2019) Wind turbine power curve modeling using maximum
likelihood estimation model. Renewable Energy. 136, 1164-1169.
18. Solaun, K. & Cerdá, E. (2020) Impacts of climate change on wind energy power- Four wind
farms in Spain. Renewable Energy. 145, 306-1316.

200930211 Word count: 2523

 19. Tobin, I., Greuell, W., Jerez, S., Ludwig, F., Vautard, R., van Vliet, M.T.H. & Bréon, F.M. (2018)
Vulnerabilities and resilience of European power generation to 1.5°C, 2°C and 3°C warming.
Environmental Research Letters. 13(4), 1-8.
20. Weber, J., Wohland, J., Reyers, M., Moemken, J., Hoppe, C., Pinto, J.G. & Witthaut, D. (2018)
Impact of climate change on backup energy and storage needs in wind-dominated power
systems in Europe. PLoS One. 13(8), 1-20.

Appendix

200930211 Word count: 2523