Energy 269 (2023) 126655

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Evolution of offshore wind resources in Northern Europe under

climate change
A. Martinez a, L. Murphy a, G. Iglesias a, b, *
a
MaREI, Environmental Research Institute & School of Engineering, University College Cork, College Road, Cork, Ireland
b
University of Plymouth, School of Engineering, Marine Building, Drake Circus, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Jesse L. The Climate-change impacts on offshore wind resources in Northern Europe over the 21st century are investigated
based on the most up-to-date narratives of societal development and land use, the Shared Socioeconomic
Keywords: Pathways (SSPs). Three scenarios are considered: a high-emissions (pessimistic) scenario, SSP5-8.5; an inter­
Offshore wind energy mediate scenario, SSP2-4.5, in which current emissions do not vary notably; and, for the first time in this type of
Wind power
work, a low-emissions (optimistic) scenario, SSP1-1.9, representing the fulfilment of the ambitious goals of the
Offshore renewable energy
EU’s Green Deal and the Paris Agreement. A multi-model ensemble is constructed with the global climate models
Renewable energy
Climate change that are found to best reproduce the wind climate in Northern Europe. The results anticipate an overall decline in
Multi-model ensemble wind power density, especially in the high-emissions scenario and in certain regions (up to 30% off Western
Shared socioeconomic pathway Ireland), which should be taken into account in planning future offshore wind deployments. As an exception,
slight increases (around 10%) are projected in certain areas of the Baltic Sea. The general decline is less pro­
nounced in the low-emissions scenario. Indeed, the results prove that reducing emissions as advocated by current
climate objectives would not only weaken the declining trend but also lead to a more stable resource.

1. Introduction
Cutting carbon emissions to mitigate climate change and reducing
the over-dependence on fossil fuels are listed as a priority in a great
number of countries throughout the world. As a result, investments in
the energy sector are shifting towards renewable energies; among all the
renewables, wind energy is experiencing remarkable growth in recent
years. Globally, the wind energy sector has undergone two record years
in new capacity installations – a total of 93 GW in 2020 [1] and 94 GW in
2021 [2]. However, these reports also emphasise the need to quadruple
the current growth rate to stay on course for the ambitious goals of the
Paris Agreement [3] and the European Union Green Deal [4], i.e.,
net-zero emissions by 2050.
However, onshore wind presents several drawbacks, e.g., the scarcity
and high prices of available land, especially in developed countries,
noise nuisance and visual impacts. Consequently, the energy sector has
found new technologies to harvest wind energy in offshore areas. With
wind turbines mounted on bottom-fixed platforms (jackets [5] or
monopiles [6]) or floating platforms (tension leg [7], spar buoy [8] or
semi-submersible [9]), the possibility of exploiting the stronger and
steadier offshore winds is combined with the fewer constraints on
turbine size, noise nuisance and visual impacts [10–12]. Indeed,
offshore energies have arisen as a great alternative in the context of
climate change, e.g., wave [13,14] and tidal [13,15,16], of particular
interest in achieving energy independence in small islands [17].
Particularly, offshore wind offers the unique opportunity of combined
exploitation with other renewable energies in co-located structures [18,
19], such as wind-wave [20,21] or solar-wind [22,23]. Globally, a re­
cord 21.1 GW of new offshore wind capacity was installed in 2021,
leading to a total of 57.2 GW [2]. Particularly, Europe has been one of
the strongest markets for this technology, accounting for more than 45%
of the global installations – vastly dominated by bottom-fixed in­
stallations in countries bordering the North Sea [24], i.e., the UK, Ger­
many, the Netherlands and Denmark. Furthermore, Northern Atlantic
Europe has been found to be of particular interest for future floating
offshore wind farms [25], and a great number of new installations are
expected in the coming years [26].
Importantly, the economic viability and profitability of an offshore
wind farm are determined by the amount of energy that it can produce,
and thus by the available wind resource [27]. Wind power density being
proportional to the wind speed cubed, it is highly sensitive to variations
in the wind climate [28]. Therefore, the effects of climate change on

* Corresponding author. MaREI, Environmental Research Institute & School of Engineering, University College Cork, College Road, Cork, Ireland.
E-mail address: gregorio.iglesias@ucc.ie (G. Iglesias).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.126655
Received 14 December 2022; Accepted 7 January 2023
Available online 9 January 2023
0360-5442/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A. Martinez et al. Energy 269 (2023) 126655

Fig. 1. Limits of the study area and its regions.

Table 1
GCMs considered in this work.
Model Centre Resolution Reference
(lat × lon)

FGOALS-f3- Chinese Academy of Sciences 1◦ × 1.25◦ [46]

L (China)
CanESM5 Canadian Centre for Climate 1.775◦ × [47]
Modelling and Analysis (Canada) 2.1825◦
MPI-ESM1- Max Planck Institute for 0.93◦ × [48]
2-HR Meteorology (Germany) 0.9375◦
MPI-ESM1- Max Planck Institute for 1.85◦ × 1.875◦ [49–51]
2-LR Meteorology (Germany)
EC-Earth3 EC-EARTH-CONSORTIUM (Europe) 0.7◦ × 0.7031◦ [52]
IPSL- Institut Pierre Simon Laplace 1.2676◦ × 2.5◦ [53]
CM6A-LR (France) Fig. 2. Normalised bias of the historical data of the multi-model ensemble
MIROC6 JAMSTEC (Japan Agency for 1.4◦ × 1.4063◦ [54] relative to the ERA-5 time series.
Marine-Earth Science and
Technology) (Japan)
MRI-ESM2- Meteorological Research Institute 1.12◦ × 1.125◦ [55]
0 (Japan)
GFDL- NOAA-GFDL (USA) 1◦ × 1.25◦ [56]
ESM4

Table 2
Number of points in the grid statistically similar to their ERA-5 counterparts
(percentage of the total number of points).
Model Number of grid points statistically similar

MRI-ESM2-0 92%
MIROC6 88%
MPI-ESM1-2-LR 86%
EC-Earth3 84%
FGOALS-f3-L 82%
CanESM5 74% Fig. 3. Mean power density (baseline) (Wm-2).
MPI-ESM1-2-HR 72%
IPSL-CM6A-LR 69%
GFDL-ESM4 51% have been initially studied based on scenarios A2 and B2 of cumulative
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [31], focusing on the long-term evo­
lution [32]. Later analysis using different regional climate models have
atmospheric patterns may be expected to have significant repercussions been used to evaluate the future wind resource in Europe [33] and its
on wind energy resources [29]. Indeed, recent studies have shown that effects on energy production [34]; however, these studies strongly differ
offshore wind resources are poised to decrease in Northern Europe as a in areas of the North Sea – it appears that these climate predictions are
result of climate change [30]. It follows that to plan new offshore wind subject to great uncertainty. Recently, the 6th phase of the Coupled
projects and operate current installations, a characterisation of future Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) [35] has released an extensive
offshore wind energy resources is much needed. number of global climate models (GCMs). Among its activities, the
The effects of climate change on the wind climate in Northern Europe ScenarioMIP develops climate projections by means of the most novel

2
A. Martinez et al.
Fig. 4. Continuous evolution (%) of the mean power density for climate-change scenarios SSP1-1.9 (left column), SSP2-4.5 (centre column) and SSP5-8.5
(right column).
Fig. 5. Coefficient of variation (COV), baseline.
and complex scenarios of climate change, the shared socioeconomic
pathways (SSPs) [36]. These updated scenarios consist of different
narratives of global socio-economic development, employed by the
CMIP6 as a means to reach a certain radiative forcing. These models
have been recently employed to evaluate future changes in the wind
3
Energy 269 (2023) 126655
resource in North America [37], China [38], the UK [39], the North­
western Passage [40] and Europe [41]. In the latter, a large-scale study
predicted relevant reductions in wind power density in the offshore
Atlantic, which were found to depend significantly on the scenario
considered.
Large-scale studies may miss the special characteristics of a specific
area. Particularly, previous studies showed that the performance of the
GCMs is inferior in mountainous areas due to their coarse resolution.
Similarly, GCMs may struggle to model the offshore climate if their
validation was dominated by continental regions. In this sense, an
offshore specific approach is well-justified, and studies on the evolution
of the offshore wind resource have been undertaken for the USA [42]
and, more recently, China [43].
In this work, the evolution of the offshore wind energy resource in
Northern Atlantic Europe in the 21st century is studied by considering
the most novel and complex scenarios of climate change, the SSPs. Three
climate change scenarios are considered: a high-emissions scenario, an
intermediate scenario in which current policies persist and, for the first
time, a low-emissions scenario. Particularly, the low-emissions scenario
represents a pathway in which the EU’s Green Deal and Paris Agreement
goals are achieved, with the atmospheric concentration of GHG (and
A. Martinez et al.
Fig. 6. Continuous evolution (%) of the coefficient of variation (COV) for climate-change scenarios SSP1-1.9 (left column), SSP2-4.5 (centre column) and SSP5-8.5
(right column).
thus global temperature) declining in the second half of the 21st century.
Hence, it is of particular interest to evaluate changes in the wind climate
in this scenario, which has not been undertaken so far.
Global Climate Models from the CMIP6 activities are employed and
validated in the specific area of study, and those that perform best for the
past wind climate are used to form a multi-model ensemble (MME). In
this manner, the individual uncertainties of the GCMs in the region are
mitigated [44]. The evolution of the offshore wind energy resource is
evaluated by studying changes in mean wind energy and its overall and
intra-annual (seasonal) variability.
2. Study area
The study area is within the ranges of latitude (48◦ N, 66◦ N) and
longitude (13◦ W, 31◦ E), encompassing the offshore regions of Northern
Europe (Fig. 1). Hereinafter, these regions are separated and referred to
as: the Norwegian Sea, Atlantic Ocean, Irish/Scottish Sea, Celtic Sea,
North Sea, English Channel and Baltic Sea (Fig. 1). The vast majority of
the current European offshore wind capacity is located in these regions,
which are expected to accommodate a great number of new installations
in the future.
4
Energy 269 (2023) 126655
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Global climate models
The climate projections used in this work, which derive from the
activities of the CMIP6, employ the most novel and complex scenarios of
climate change, the shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) [45]. In this
work, three scenarios are considered: SSP1-1.9, a low-emissions scenario
in which climate targets of the EU’s Green Deal and Paris Agreement are
achieved, resulting in net-zero emissions by 2050 and ~1.4 ◦ C of global
warming by 2100 (compared to current values); SSP2-4.5, a moderate
scenario in which current energy policies continue without substantial
deviation; and SSP5-8.5, a high-emissions scenario resulting from an
intensive energy consumption from fossil fuel sources.
Data from all the GCMs involved in the ScenarioMIP activity of the
CMIP6 providing data on the wind climate for the three scenarios are
considered. Moreover, given the relatively small study area, GCMs with
a lower resolution than 2.5◦ in latitude or longitude are considered unfit
– very low resolutions are not able to capture the particularities of the
coastline of Denmark, the UK and Ireland. As a result, a total of 9 GCMs
are taken into consideration for the study (Table 1). Notably, the MPI-
A. Martinez et al.
Fig. 7. Seasonal mean power density (baseline) (Wm-2) – MAM (March-April-May), JJA (June-July-August), SON (September-October-November) and DJF
(December-January-February).
ESM1-2-HR does not consider the SSP1-1.9, unlike the low-resolution
model (MPI-ESM1-2-HR). Nonetheless, both GCMs are studied, with
the possibility of using the high-resolution model as a substitute for the
SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios. Analysing the performance of both
models would also illustrate differences between high- and low-
resolution models.
Historical data of the above-mentioned GCMs are validated, and the
GCMs that are considered to best represent the wind climate in the re­
gion of study are selected to form a multi-model ensemble (MME). With
this approach, individual biases and uncertainties of the GCMs are
significantly mitigated [57].
3.2. Validation of GCMs
Historical data of the GCMs are compared and validated against the
ERA-5 reanalysis database [58] produced by the European Centre for
Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) and accessible through the
Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store [59]. The
ERA-5 is the most recognised database in reanalysis products, it has been
employed extensively for validation in previous works, e.g., Europe
[30], Africa [60] or the Mediterranean [61], and is the official validation
dataset for the CMIP downscaling initiatives [62]. Data on near-surface
historical (2000–2014) wind speed are thus compared with their ERA-5
counterparts.
The validation is conducted to determine distributional differences
using the two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (K–S test), which ex­
amines the hypothesis of two groups of data belonging to the same
distribution. In the following analysis, the evolution of the wind
resource is quantified by comparing wind projections of a certain GCM
against historical data belonging to the same GCM. Hence, for the scope
of this paper, it is more relevant to test the similarity of the distributions
rather than the biases.
Given that all the GCMs (Table 1) and ERA-5 present different res­
olutions, before the validation a remapping of all the data is conducted.
The data are remapped into a regular 1◦ × 1◦ following a first-order
conservative remapping, maintaining the flux integrals [63]. The
two-sample K–S test is applied to the unbiased time-series data of the
GCMs against the unbiased time-series data of the ERA-5 with a
5
Energy 269 (2023) 126655
significance level of 5% – by eliminating the seasonal bias, the K–S test is
shown to detect distributional differences in higher-order moments
[64]. The number of points in the GCM grid that are statistically similar
to the ERA-5 time series is calculated as a percentage of the total number
of points (Table 2).
3.3. Selection of GCMs
To study the evolution of the wind resource, wind projections from
different GCMs are combined into a multi-model ensemble and
compared against historical data of the same multi-model ensemble. The
GCMs that are found to best reproduce historical data are selected for the
MME; how well a GCM performs is measured by the number of grid
points that are statistically similar to their reanalysis data counterparts
(Table 2). In this work, the five models that present more than 80% of
statistically similar points are selected to form the MME, namely: MRI-
ESM2-0, MPI-ESM1-2-LR, MIROC6, FGOALS-f3-L, EC-Earth3.
Notably, the number of points of the GCMs that are statistically
similar to the reanalysis data is significantly higher than in studies
including onshore regions [37]. Moreover, even though the GFDL-ESM4
was selected for its accuracy in previous studies in Europe [41], in the
area of study it performs poorly in comparison. These facts reiterate the
importance of an offshore-specific approach, which may be expected to
lead to better results.
To quantify errors that may be expected in the MME, the normalised
bias, i.e., the bias normalised against the standard deviation, of the
historical (2000–2014) MME against the ERA-5 in the same period is
calculated (Fig. 2). It is clear that the MME performs better offshore than
nearshore.
The evolution of the wind energy resource in the 21st century is
studied by separating the time frame into 15-year intervals: 2025–2039,
2040–2054, 2055–2069, 2070–2084 and 2085–2099. Importantly, the
scenario with low emissions, SSP1-1.9, represents a pathway in which
atmospheric concentration of GHG and global temperature increase by
2050, but later decline as a result of climate change policies. Hence, it is
of great interest to evaluate the effects of this change in trends in global
conditions on the wind resource.
In the following, the evolution of the available wind resource is
A. Martinez et al.
Fig. 8. Continuous evolution (%) of the MAM (March-April-May) mean power density for climate-change scenarios SSP1-1.9 (left column), SSP2-4.5 (centre column)
and SSP5-8.5 (right column).
measured by comparing the wind resource of the MME in a certain time
period against the historical (2000–2014) wind resource of the same
MME, hereinafter referred to as the Baseline. Variations in the different
variables characterising the wind resource are quantified as a percent­
age of change to the Baseline.
The available wind resource is measured by the wind power density
(P), obtained from the wind speed (U) as
1
P = ρU 3 ,
2
where ρ is the air density, taken to be 1.225 kgm-3. Since P is propor­
tional to U cubed in Eq. (1), small variations in wind speeds are
amplified in the available wind energy resource.
4. Results and discussion
The multi-model ensemble is constructed as indicated in section 2.
Five 15-year periods are considered: 2025–2039, 2040–2054,
2055–2069, 2070–2084 and 2085–2099. Changes in the wind energy
resource predicted by the MME are measured in comparison with his­
torical data (2000–2014) of the same MME.
Energy 269 (2023) 126655
4.1. Mean wind power density
The mean power density of the multi-model ensemble in the three
climate change scenarios is computed and compared with the baseline
values (Fig. 3). The baseline shows that the greatest wind energy
resource is concentrated in the open Atlantic areas off western Ireland
(~1000 Wm-2), where strong westerlies prevail. For this reason, this
area is considered to have great potential for future offshore wind
(1) development [65]. Conversely, the weakest resource occurs in the more
sheltered areas of the Baltic Sea (~100 Wm-2), where many
bottom-fixed wind turbines are installed in its relatively shallow waters
[66]. Nonetheless, the vast majority of current offshore wind in­
stallations are allocated in the North Sea [67], where relatively high
values of mean power density (~700 Wm-2) occur. This region is ex­
pected to develop intensively offshore wind in the coming years and
therefore is of special interest in the subsequent study [68].
Importantly, the evolution of the resource shows a generalised
decline in the available wind power density in the second half of the 21st
century regardless of the climate change scenario (Fig. 4). This decline is
greater in the scenario with the highest GHG emissions, SSP5-8.5, with
reductions of up to 30%. The evolution of the wind energy resource does
6
A. Martinez et al.
Fig. 9. Continuous evolution (%) of the JJA (June-July-August) mean power density for climate-change scenarios SSP1-1.9 (left column), SSP2-4.5 (centre column)
and SSP5-8.5 (right column).
not show clear trends up until mid-century, with increases and decreases
spread in the area of study without following any particular pattern.
Conversely, from mid-century onwards tendencies in the evolution of
the mean wind power density become apparent – given a certain sce­
nario, changes in the mid-century are maintained or exacerbated to­
wards 2100.
The scenario with the lowest GHG emissions, SSP1-1.9, shows the
least changes relative to the baseline. Interestingly, this climate-change
scenario represents a pathway in which global temperature returns to
current values after a short increase. However, this return is not re­
flected in the evolution of the resource. Even though all the climate
targets of the EU’s Green Deal and Paris Agreement are achieved, an
overall decline in wind power density is projected in all the regions
studied, and in particular in the English Channel and nearshore regions
of Ireland (~20%). More generally, this scenario predicts a slight in­
crease in wind power density in the North Sea and western regions of the
Norwegian Sea in the first half of the century, which later evolves to a
slight decline towards 2100.
The other two scenarios predict a similar evolution – except for a
slight increase in the North Sea in SSP2-4.5 in the first half of the cen­
tury. Trends in wind power density are parallel, but with more
7
Energy 269 (2023) 126655
pronounced changes in the SSP5-8.5. The climate projections anticipate
a pronounced decrease of up to 30% in areas off Western Ireland which
progressively extends eastwards, leading to a generalised drop of ~10%
in the North Sea. On the contrary, localised increases of up to 10% are
predicted in the nearshore regions of the Gulf of Riga, the Gulf of Finland
and the Gulf of Bothnia. Notwithstanding, no significant changes are
predicted in most of the Baltic Sea.
4.2. Variability
The variability of the resource has a large bearing on wind farm
planning and project funding, as investors often prefer a stable revenue.
For that reason, the temporal variability of the resource and its evolution
are of great interest to the future of the offshore wind industry.
The temporal variability of the resource is studied using the coeffi­
cient of variation (COV) of wind power density [69], computed for each
15-year period. The COV can be defined as the ratio of the standard
deviation (σ ) to the mean value (x) of a statistical sample,
σ
COV = . (2)
x
The COV is computed for every period and compared against the
A. Martinez et al.
Fig. 10. Continuous evolution (%) of the SON (September-October-November) mean power density for climate change scenarios SSP1-1.9 (left column), SSP2-4.5
(centre column) and SSP5-8.5 (right column).
COV of the baseline to quantify changes in the temporal variability.
The COV in the baseline (Fig. 5) shows relatively similar values in the
overall area of study. The largest values are concentrated in the southern
regions of the North Sea around the UK and the Netherlands and in the
nearshore regions of the Norwegian Sea, where the presence of land­
masses induces more variability. The lack of obstacles in the open
Atlantic regions, on the contrary, produces the most stable resource.
The evolution of the COV values (Fig. 6) shows that major changes
are projected exclusively in the scenario with the highest emissions,
SSP5-8.5. In this scenario, an overall increase of the variability is
anticipated, which is of greater magnitude (up to 15% of the COV
values) in the Celtic Sea and nearshore regions of the North Sea. The
only exception to this tendency is found in the open Atlantic Ocean,
which shows negligible changes.
Importantly, the other scenarios anticipate little to no significant
changes in the variability – generally in the range of ±5%. Nonetheless,
SSP1-1.9 predicts a general decrease in the variability up to 10% in the
English Channel and adjacent regions.
8
Energy 269 (2023) 126655
4.3. Intra-annual variability (seasonality)
The evolution of the intra-annual variability of the resource is ana­
lysed in the three climate-change scenarios through the evolution of the
seasonal mean power density. The year is divided into four three-month
periods – MAM (March-April-May), JJA (June-July-August), SON
(September-October-November) and DJF (December-January-
February).
The baseline values (Fig. 7) show that the most energetic winds occur
in DJF, regardless of location. The greatest values of mean wind power
density (up to 1200 Wm-2) occur in open areas of the Atlantic Ocean, off
West Ireland. On the contrary, the resource is weakest in JJA, especially
in the Baltic Sea (<100 Wm-2). With this pattern, increases in the pro­
jected mean wind power density in DJF and/or decreases in JJA result in
augmented variability and, conversely, decreases in DJF and/or in­
creases in JJA lead to a more stable resource.
The climate projections (Figs. 8–11) anticipate different trends for
the climate change scenarios. The climate change scenario with the
highest emissions, SSP5-8.5, shows a well-spread decrease in wind
power density that is persistent throughout the year, of greater magni­
tude off West Ireland in JJA (up to 30%). An exception to this trend is
A. Martinez et al.
Fig. 11. Continuous evolution (%) of the DJF (December-January-February) mean power density for climate-change scenarios SSP1-1.9 (left column), SSP2-4.5
(centre column) and SSP5-8.5 (right column).
found in the Baltic Sea, where the wind energy resource is predicted to
increase in DJF and MAM. Being the strongest decreases in JJA and the
increases in DJF, the intra-annual variability of the resource is poised to
increase, which is also reflected in the evolution of the COV in SSP5-8.5
(Fig. 6).
In climate scenario SSP1-1.9, the projections show two opposite
trends throughout the year. On the one hand, increases in wind power
density (up to 20%) are anticipated in JJA and, to a lesser extent, MAM –
of greater significance in the near- and mid-term future. On the other
hand, a decrease in wind power density is predicted for the rest of the
year, most notably in the long-term future. Being of similar values but
opposite signs, these two trends nullify changes in the mean wind power
density values (Fig. 4). However, in stark contrast with SSP5-8.5, trends
in SSP1-1.9 lead to a decline of the intra-annual variability, which is also
reflected in the evolution of the COV. This highlights the importance of
studying the evolution of intra-annual variability.
Finally, climate-change scenario SSP2-4.5 predicts slight regional
increases in MAM and JJA in the Baltic Sea, more notable in the near-
and mid-term future. In other regions, general decreases are anticipated.
9
Energy 269 (2023) 126655
5. Conclusions
In this work, the evolution of wind energy resources in offshore re­
gions of Northern Europe was studied considering the novel scenarios of
climate change — the shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs). In
particular, three climate-change scenarios were taken into account: a
high-emissions scenario, SSP5-8.5; an intermediate scenario, SSP2-4.5,
and a low-emissions scenario, SSP1-1.9. Climate projections of global
climate models (GCMs) participating in the CMIP6 activities were
considered and validated, and a multi-model ensemble was constructed
using the GCMs that were found to best simulate a historical period
(2000–2014) for the study area.
The validation of the GCMs performed in this work showed that an
offshore-specific approach leads to a selection of much more statistically
accurate models and thus to more reliable results. Due to their relatively
coarse resolution, the GCMs present bigger uncertainties in onshore
areas, which would influence the validation if included. In other words,
the differences between onshore and offshore areas regarding uncer­
tainty levels in the modelling of the wind regime make an offshore-
specific approach all the more relevant, even though the multi-model
ensemble helps to reduce individual uncertainties.
A. Martinez et al.
Under climate change the greatest changes are anticipated in the
scenario with the highest emissions, SSP5-8.5, in the form of a general
reduction in wind power density, which is particularly pronounced off
West Ireland (of up to 30%). At the other extreme, in the Baltic Sea, the
exception to this general trend is found in the form of local nearshore
increases (up to 10%) in the Gulfs of Riga, Finland and Bothnia.
Importantly, in this study climate-change scenario SSP1-1.9 was
considered for the first time in this type of analysis. The scenario with
the lowest emissions, SSP1-1.9 represents a pathway in which global
temperature returns to current values after a short period of increased
values. However, this return to current temperature values is not
replicated in the wind climate projections. Instead, a decrease in wind
power density is anticipated in the entire study area, and in particular in
the English Channel and nearshore regions of Ireland (~15%).
SSP1-1.9 does lead to lesser changes in the mean wind power density
relative to the baseline than the other scenarios considering higher
levels of carbon emissions. This difference between scenarios is further
corroborated when studying the temporal variability of the wind
resource. While the temporal variability is predicted to increase to a
large extent in the high-emissions scenario, the low-emissions scenario
shows a decrease in most of the study area. The intermediate scenario,
conversely, does not show significant changes.
Finally, the importance of studying the intra-annual variability is
demonstrated. Changes in the available wind resource of similar mag­
nitudes but of different signs occurring in different periods of the year
may cancel out and therefore are not reflected in the mean wind power
density evolution. Notwithstanding, they may lead to great changes in
the variability. This is the case of the projections in SSP1-1.9, where
increases in JJA and decreases in DJF lead to a decrease in temporal and
intra-annual variability.
The results of this study are relevant in assessing the future viability
of wind power projects. In the case of Western Ireland, for instance, the
wind energy resource is among the most substantial of the study area in
the baseline situation; however, it will be affected by the largest pro­
jected reductions in wind power density, of up to 30%.
As indicated, the results predict significant changes in available wind
energy resources — generally, in the form of a decline. A ray of hope,
however, is also to be found in the results, more specifically in the
comparison between the three climate-change scenarios, which implies
that reducing carbon emissions by adhering to current climate objectives
would weaken the decline and produce more stable resources. Conse­
quently, both policy-makers and developers should consider the evolu­
tion of wind resources in planning the future energy mix and offshore
wind farms in Europe.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The authors do not have permission to share data.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by European Union’s Horizon 2020
European Green Deal Research and Innovation Program (H2020-LC-GD-
2020-4), grant No. 101037643 – ILIAD (Integrated Digital Framework
for Comprehensive Maritime Data and Information Services).
The authors are grateful to the World Climate Research Programme
(WCRP), which is responsible for the CMIP6, and to the groups
participating in the ScenarioMIP activities, for producing and making
their model outputs available; the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF),
for storing and making the data accessible; and the funding agencies
10
Energy 269 (2023) 126655
supporting the WCRP and ESGF. The authors are also grateful to the
European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) for
producing and making available their reanalysis products.
ERA-5 data on wind speed were downloaded from the Copernicus
Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store. The results contain
modified Copernicus Climate Change Service information 2020. Neither
the European Commission nor ECMWF is responsible for any use that
may be made of the Copernicus information or data it contains.
References
[1] Global Wind Energy Council. GWEC| global wind report 2021. 2021.
[2] Global Wind Energy Council. GWEC| global wind report 2022. 2022.
[3] United Nations. The Paris agreement. What is the Paris agreement?. https://unfccc.
int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement;. [Accessed 30
September 2022]. Accessed.
[4] European Union. A clean energy transition. https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/
priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal/energy-and-green-deal_en; 2021.
[Accessed 17 September 2021]. Accessed.
[5] Perez-Collazo C, Greaves D, Iglesias G. A novel hybrid wind-wave energy converter
for jacket-frame substructures. Energies 2018;11(3):637.
[6] Negro V, López-Gutiérrez J-S, Esteban MD, Alberdi P, Imaz M, Serraclara J-M.
Monopiles in offshore wind: preliminary estimate of main dimensions. Ocean Eng
2017;133:253–61.
[7] Sclavounos P, Lee S, DiPietro J, Potenza G, Caramuscio P, De Michele G. Floating
offshore wind turbines: tension leg platform and taught leg buoy concepts
supporting 3-5 MW wind turbines. In: European wind energy conference EWEC;
2010.
[8] Tomasicchio GR, D’Alessandro F, Avossa AM, Riefolo L, Musci E, Ricciardelli F,
Vicinanza D. Experimental modelling of the dynamic behaviour of a spar buoy
wind turbine. Renew Energy 2018;127:412–32.
[9] Lopez-Pavon C, Souto-Iglesias A. Hydrodynamic coefficients and pressure loads on
heave plates for semi-submersible floating offshore wind turbines: a comparative
analysis using large scale models. Renew Energy 2015;81:864–81.
[10] Vasconcelos RMd, Silva LLC, González MOA, Santiso AM, de Melo DC.
Environmental licensing for offshore wind farms: guidelines and policy
implications for new markets. Energy Pol 2022;171:113248.
[11] Ramos V, Giannini G, Calheiros-Cabral T, Rosa-Santos P, Taveira-Pinto F. Legal
framework of marine renewable energy: a review for the Atlantic region of Europe.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;137:110608.
[12] Lee M-K, Nam J, Kim M. Valuing the public preference for offshore wind energy:
the case study in South Korea. Energy 2023;263:125827.
[13] López I, Carballo R, Taveira-Pinto F, Iglesias G. Sensitivity of OWC performance to
air compressibility. Renew Energy 2020;145:1334–47.
[14] Calheiros-Cabral T, Clemente D, Rosa-Santos P, Taveira-Pinto F, Ramos V,
Morais T, Cestaro H. Evaluation of the annual electricity production of a hybrid
breakwater-integrated wave energy converter. Energy 2020;213:118845.
[15] Fouz D, Carballo R, López I, Iglesias G. Tidal stream energy potential in the
Shannon Estuary. Renew Energy 2022;185:61–74.
[16] Fernández-Jiménez A, Álvarez-Álvarez E, López M, Fouz M, López I, Gharib-
Yosry A, Claus R, Carballo R. Power performance assessment of vertical-Axis tidal
turbines using an experimental test rig. Energies 2021;14(20):6686.
[17] Veigas M, Ramos V, Iglesias G. A wave farm for an island: detailed effects on the
nearshore wave climate. Energy 2014;69:801–12.
[18] Ramos V, Giannini G, Calheiros-Cabral T, López M, Rosa-Santos P, Taveira-Pinto F.
Assessing the effectiveness of a novel WEC concept as a Co-located solution for
offshore wind farms. J Mar Sci Eng 2022;10(2):267.
[19] Astariz S, Abanades J, Perez-Collazo C, Iglesias G. Improving wind farm
accessibility for operation & maintenance through a co-located wave farm:
influence of layout and wave climate. Energy Convers Manag 2015;95:229–41.
[20] Astariz S, Perez-Collazo C, Abanades J, Iglesias G. Co-located wind-wave farm
synergies (Operation & Maintenance): a case study. Energy Convers Manag 2015;
91:63–75.
[21] Wen Y, Kamranzad B, Lin P. Joint exploitation potential of offshore wind and wave
energy along the south and southeast coasts of China. Energy 2022;249:123710.
[22] Yunna W, Geng S. Multi-criteria decision making on selection of solar–wind hybrid
power station location: a case of China. Energy Convers Manag 2014;81:527–33.
[23] de Souza Nascimento MM, Shadman M, Silva C, de Freitas Assad LP, Estefen SF,
Landau L. Offshore wind and solar complementarity in Brazil: a theoretical and
technical potential assessment. Energy Convers Manag 2022;270:116194.
[24] Durakovic G, del Granado PC, Tomasgard A. Powering Europe with North Sea
offshore wind: the impact of hydrogen investments on grid infrastructure and
power prices. Energy 2023;263:125654.
[25] Martinez A, Iglesias G. Mapping of the levelised cost of energy for floating offshore
wind in the European Atlantic. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2022;154:111889.
[26] Buljan A. Denmark could build its first and world’s largest floating wind farm at
bornholm. ; 23 September 2022. https://www.offshorewind.biz/2022/09/23/den
mark-could-build-its-first-and-worlds-largest-floating-wind-farm-at-bornholm/?
utm_source=offshorewind&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
_2022-09-26.
[27] Martinez A, Iglesias G. Multi-parameter analysis and mapping of the levelised cost
of energy from floating offshore wind in the Mediterranean Sea. Energy Convers
Manag 2021;243:114416.
A. Martinez et al.
[28] Tian Q, Huang G, Hu K, Niyogi D. Observed and global climate model based
changes in wind power potential over the Northern Hemisphere during
1979–2016. Energy 2019;167:1224–35.
[29] Gao Y, Ma S, Wang T. The impact of climate change on wind power abundance and
variability in China. Energy 2019;189:116215.
[30] Carvalho D, Rocha A, Gómez-Gesteira M, Silva Santos C. Potential impacts of
climate change on European wind energy resource under the CMIP5 future climate
projections. Renew Energy 2017;101:29–40.
[31] Räisänen J, Hansson U, Ullerstig A, Döscher R, Graham L, Jones C, Meier H,
Samuelsson P, Willén U. European climate in the late twenty-first century: regional
simulations with two driving global models and two forcing scenarios. Clim Dynam
2004;22(1):13–31.
[32] Pryor S, Barthelmie R, Kjellström E. Potential climate change impact on wind
energy resources in northern Europe: analyses using a regional climate model. Clim
Dynam 2005;25(7–8):815–35.
[33] Hueging H, Haas R, Born K, Jacob D, Pinto JG. Regional changes in wind energy
potential over Europe using regional climate model ensemble projections. J Appl
Meteorol Climatol 2013;52(4):903–17.
[34] Tobin I, Vautard R, Balog I, Bréon F-M, Jerez S, Ruti PM, Thais F, Vrac M, Yiou P.
Assessing climate change impacts on European wind energy from ENSEMBLES
high-resolution climate projections. Climatic Change 2015;128(1–2):99–112.
[35] Eyring V, Bony S, Meehl GA, Senior CA, Stevens B, Stouffer RJ, Taylor KE.
Overview of the coupled model Intercomparison project phase 6 (CMIP6)
experimental design and organization. Geosci Model Dev (GMD) 2016;9(5):
1937–58.
[36] O’Neill BC, Kriegler E, Ebi KL, Kemp-Benedict E, Riahi K, Rothman DS, van
Ruijven BJ, van Vuuren DP, Birkmann J, Kok K. The roads ahead: narratives for
shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century.
Global Environ Change 2017;42:169–80.
[37] Martinez A, Iglesias G. Climate change impacts on wind energy resources in North
America based on the CMIP6 projections. Sci Total Environ 2022;806:150580.
[38] Wu J, Shi Y, Xu Y. Evaluation and projection of surface wind speed over China
based on CMIP6 GCMs. J Geophys Res Atmos 2020;125(22). e2020JD033611.
[39] Moradian S, Akbari M, Iglesias G. Optimized hybrid ensemble technique for CMIP6
wind data projections under different climate-change scenarios. Case study: United
Kingdom, vol. 826. Science of The Total Environment; 2022, 154124.
[40] Qian H, Zhang R. Future changes in wind energy resource over the Northwest
Passage based on the CMIP6 climate projections. Int J Energy Res 2021;45(1):
920–37.
[41] Martinez A, Iglesias G. Wind resource evolution in Europe under different scenarios
of climate change characterised by the novel Shared Socioeconomic Pathways.
Energy Convers Manag 2021;234:113961.
[42] Costoya X, DeCastro M, Carvalho D, Gómez-Gesteira M. On the suitability of
offshore wind energy resource in the United States of America for the 21st century.
Appl Energy 2020;262:114537.
[43] Zhang S, Li X. Future projections of offshore wind energy resources in China using
CMIP6 simulations and a deep learning-based downscaling method. Energy 2021;
217:119321.
[44] Yazdandoost F, Moradian S, Zakipour M, Izadi A, Bavandpour M. Improving the
precipitation forecasts of the North-American multi model ensemble (NMME) over
Sistan basin. J Hydrol 2020;590:125263.
[45] Riahi K, Van Vuuren DP, Kriegler E, Edmonds J, O’neill BC, Fujimori S, Bauer N,
Calvin K, Dellink R, Fricko O. The shared socioeconomic pathways and their
energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Global
Environ Change 2017;42:153–68.
[46] Yu Y. CAS FGOALS-f3-L model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP. Earth Syst
Grid Fed 2019. https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2046.
[47] Swart NC, Cole JNS, Kharin VV, Lazare M, Scinocca JF, Gillett NP, Anstey J,
Arora V, Christian JR, Jiao Y, Lee WG, Majaess F, Saenko OA, Seiler C, Seinen C,
Shao A, Solheim L, von Salzen K, Yang D, Winter B, Sigmond M. CCCma CanESM5
model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP. Earth Syst Grid Fed 2019. https://
doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1317.
[48] Schupfner M, Wieners K-H, Wachsmann F, Steger C, Bittner M, Jungclaus J, Früh B,
Pankatz K, Giorgetta M, Reick C, Legutke S, Esch M, Gayler V, Haak H, de Vrese P,
Raddatz T, Mauritsen T, von Storch J-S, Behrens J, Brovkin V, Claussen M,
Crueger T, Fast I, Fiedler S, Hagemann S, Hohenegger C, Jahns T, Kloster S,
Kinne S, Lasslop G, Kornblueh L, Marotzke J, Matei D, Meraner K, Mikolajewicz U,
Modali K, Müller W, Nabel J, Notz D, Peters K, Pincus R, Pohlmann H, Pongratz J,
Rast S, Schmidt H, Schnur R, Schulzweida U, Six K, Stevens B, Voigt A, Roeckner E.
DKRZ MPI-ESM1.2-HR model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP. Earth Syst
Grid Fed 2019. https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2450.
[49] Milinsky S, Li H, Brune S, Wachsmann F, Wieners K-H, Giorgetta M, Jungclaus J,
Reick C, Esch M, Gayler V, Haak H, de Vrese P, Raddatz T, Mauritsen T, von
Storch J-S, Behrens J, Brovkin V, Claussen M, Crueger T, Fast I, Fiedler S,
Hagemann S, Hohenegger C, Jahns T, Kloster S, Kinne S, Lasslop G, Kornblueh L,
Marotzke J, Matei D, Meraner K, Mikolajewicz U, Modali K, Müller W, Nabel J,
Notz D, Peters-von Gehlen K, Pincus R, Pohlmann H, Pongratz J, Rast S, Schmidt H,
Schnur R, Schulzweida U, Six K, Stevens B, Voigt A, Roeckner E. MPI-M MPI-
11
Energy 269 (2023) 126655
ESM1.2-LR model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP ssp 119. Earth System
Grid Federation, http://cera-www.dkrz.de/WDCC/meta/CMIP6/CMIP6.
ScenarioMIP.MPI-M.MPI-ESM1-2-LR.ssp119; 2018.
[50] Wieners K-H, Giorgetta M, Jungclaus J, Reick C, Esch M, Bittner M, Gayler V,
Haak H, de Vrese P, Raddatz T, Mauritsen T, von Storch J-S, Behrens J, Brovkin V,
Claussen M, Crueger T, Fast I, Fiedler S, Hagemann S, Hohenegger C, Jahns T,
Kloster S, Kinne S, Lasslop G, Kornblueh L, Marotzke J, Matei D, Meraner K,
Mikolajewicz U, Modali K, Müller W, Nabel J, Notz D, Peters K, Pincus R,
Pohlmann H, Pongratz J, Rast S, Schmidt H, Schnur R, Schulzweida U, Six K,
Stevens B, Voigt A, Roeckner E. MPI-M MPI-ESM1.2-LR model output prepared for
CMIP6 ScenarioMIP ssp 245. Earth System Grid Federation, https://doi.org/10.22
033/ESGF/CMIP6.6693; 2019.
[51] Wieners K-H, Giorgetta M, Jungclaus J, Reick C, Esch M, Bittner M, Gayler V,
Haak H, de Vrese P, Raddatz T, Mauritsen T, von Storch J-S, Behrens J, Brovkin V,
Claussen M, Crueger T, Fast I, Fiedler S, Hagemann S, Hohenegger C, Jahns T,
Kloster S, Kinne S, Lasslop G, Kornblueh L, Marotzke J, Matei D, Meraner K,
Mikolajewicz U, Modali K, Müller W, Nabel J, Notz D, Peters K, Pincus R,
Pohlmann H, Pongratz J, Rast S, Schmidt H, Schnur R, Schulzweida U, Six K,
Stevens B, Voigt A, Roeckner E. MPI-M MPI-ESM1.2-LR model output prepared for
CMIP6 ScenarioMIP ssp 585. Earth System Grid Federation, https://doi.org/10.22
033/ESGF/CMIP6.6705; 2019.
[52] EC-Earth Consortium. EC-Earth-Consortium EC-Earth3 model output prepared for
CMIP6 ScenarioMIP. Earth Syst Grid Fed 2019. https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/
CMIP6.251.
[53] Boucher O, Denvil S, Caubel A, Foujols MA. IPSL IPSL-CM6A-LR model output
prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP. Earth Syst Grid Fed 2019. https://doi.org/
10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1532.
[54] Shiogama H, Abe M, Tatebe H. MIROC MIROC6 model output prepared for CMIP6
ScenarioMIP. Earth Syst Grid Fed 2019. https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/
CMIP6.898.
[55] Yukimoto S, Koshiro T, Kawai H, Oshima N, Yoshida K, Urakawa S, Tsujino H,
Deushi M, Tanaka T, Hosaka M, Yoshimura H, Shindo E, Mizuta R, Ishii M,
Obata A, Adachi Y. MRI MRI-ESM2.0 model output prepared for CMIP6
ScenarioMIP. Earth Syst Grid Fed 2019. https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/
CMIP6.638.
[56] John JG, Blanton C, McHugh C, Radhakrishnan A, Rand K, Vahlenkamp H,
Wilson C, Zadeh NT, Gauthier PPG, Dunne JP, Dussin R, Horowitz LW, Lin P,
Malyshev S, Naik V, Ploshay J, Silvers L, Stock C, Winton M, Zeng Y. NOAA-GFDL
GFDL-ESM4 model output prepared for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP. Earth Syst Grid Fed
2018. https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1414.
[57] Moradian S, Torabi Haghighi A, Asadi M, Mirbagheri SA. Future changes in
precipitation over Northern Europe based on a multi-model ensemble from CMIP6:
Focus on Tana river basin. Water Resources Management; 2022.
[58] Hersbach H, Dee D. ERA5 reanalysis is in production. ECMWF Newsl 2016;147(7):
5–6.
[59] Hersbach H, Bell B, Berrisford P, Biavati G, Horányi A, Muñoz Sabater J, Nicolas J,
Peubey C, Radu R, Rozum I, Schepers D, Simmons A, Soci C, Dee D, Thépaut J-N.
ERA5 hourly data on single levels from 1979 to present. Copernicus Climate
Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS). 2018. https://doi.org/10.24381/
cds.adbb2d47. Accessed 23rd March 2022.
[60] Dosio A, Panitz H-J, Schubert-Frisius M, Lüthi D. Dynamical downscaling of CMIP5
global circulation models over CORDEX-Africa with COSMO-CLM: evaluation over
the present climate and analysis of the added value. Clim Dynam 2015;44(9–10):
2637–61.
[61] Bloom A, Kotroni V, Lagouvardos K. Climate change impact of wind energy
availability in the Eastern Mediterranean using the regional climate model PRECIS.
Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 2008;8(6).
[62] Gutowski WJ, Giorgi F, Timbal B, Frigon A, Jacob D, Kang H-S, Raghavan K, Lee B,
Lennard C, Nikulin G. WCRP coordinated regional downscaling experiment
(CORDEX): a diagnostic MIP for CMIP6. 2016.
[63] Jones PW. First-and second-order conservative remapping schemes for grids in
spherical coordinates. Mon Weather Rev 1999;127(9):2204–10.
[64] Brands S, Herrera S, Fernández J, Gutiérrez JM. How well do CMIP5 Earth System
Models simulate present climate conditions in Europe and Africa? Clim Dynam
2013;41(3–4):803–17.
[65] Martinez A, Iglesias G. Site selection of floating offshore wind through the levelised
cost of energy: a case study in Ireland. Energy Convers Manag 2022;266:115802.
[66] Wikipedia. List of offshore wind farms in the Baltic Sea. https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms_in_the_Baltic_Sea;. [Accessed 7 October 2022].
Accessed.
[67] Wikipedia. List of offshore wind farms in the North Sea. https://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/List_of_offshore_wind_farms_in_the_North_Sea;. [Accessed 7 October
2022]. Accessed.
[68] North Sea offshore wind to help repower the EU. Wind Europe; 22 May 2022. https
://windeurope.org/newsroom/press-releases/north-sea-offshore-wind-to-help-re
power-the-eu/.
[69] Walpole RE, Myers RH, Myers SL, Ye K. Probability and statistics for engineers and
scientists, vol. 5. New York: Macmillan; 1993.