REVIEWS

Climate change impacts on wind

power generation
Sara C. Pryor 1 ✉, Rebecca J. Barthelmie , Melissa S. Bukovsky
2 3
, L. Ruby Leung 4

and Koichi Sakaguchi 4

Abstract | Wind energy is a virtually carbon-​free and pollution-​free electricity source, with global
wind resources greatly exceeding electricity demand. Accordingly, the installed capacity of wind
turbines grew at an annualized rate of >20% from 2000 to 2019 and is projected to increase by a
further 50% by the end of 2023. In this Review, we describe the factors that dictate the wind resource
magnitude and variability and illustrate the tools and techniques that are being used to make
projections of wind resources and wind turbine operating conditions. Natural variability due to the
action of internal climate modes appears to dominate over global-​warming-​induced non-​stationarity
over most areas with large wind energy installations or potential. However, there is evidence for
increased wind energy resources by the end of the current century in northern Europe and the
US Southern Great Plains. New technology trends are changing the sensitivity of wind energy to
global climate non-​stationarity and, thus, present new challenges and opportunities for innovative
research. The evolution of climate modelling to increasingly address mesoscale processes is
providing improved projections of both wind resources and wind turbine operating conditions, and
will contribute to continued reductions in the levelized cost of energy from wind power generation.

1
Department of Earth and
Atmospheric Sciences, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY, USA.
2
Sibley School of Mechanical
and Aerospace Engineering,
Cornell University, Ithaca,
NY, USA.
3
National Center for
Atmospheric Research,
Boulder, CO, USA.
4
Earth Systems Analysis &
Modeling, Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory,
Richland, WA, USA.
✉e-​mail: sp2279@
cornell.edu
https://doi.org/10.1038/
s43017-020-0101-7
The potentially exploitable wind energy resource exhib­
its marked spatial variability. Global estimates vary
from 70 to 3,050 EJ per year (or 19,400 to 840,000 TWh
per year)1–5, according to assumptions regarding atmos­
pheric conditions (for example, wind regime), techno­
logy (for example, type of wind turbines (WTs) deployed,
WT installed density and electrical power production
efficiency), economic constraints and exclusions (that is,
areas where development is prohibited). However, there
is consensus that the resource greatly exceeds both the
current global electricity demand of 26,700 TWh (ref.6)
and the total primary energy supply of 585 EJ (ref.7),
based on 2017 values.
Global installed capacity (IC) of WTs increased at a
mean annualized rate of ~26% from 2002 to 2018, and
19% over the period 2009–2018, reaching ~600 GW at the
end of 2018 (ref.8). WTs were deployed in 90 countries,
30 of which had an IC above 1 GW and 12 had an IC above
4.8 GW (ref.8) (Fig. 1). Projections for 2019–2023 indicate
additional global installations of over 300 GW (ref.8).
Reduction in the levelized cost of energy (LCoE)9 is
a primary driver behind the rapid expansion of the WT
IC, and is calculated as:
CapEx t + Fin t + O & M t
∑ nt =1 (1 + r )t
LCoE = Income(f (AEP))t
(1)
∑ nt =1
(1 + r )t
where CapEx describes capital expenditures; Fin, financ­
ing costs; O&M, levelized total annual operations and
maintenance costs; AEP, revenues that are a function of
the annual energy production; n, project lifetime; and r,
discount rate10. LCoE values are higher for WTs deployed
offshore due to higher installation and transmission
expenses, more complex and expensive foundations, and
higher O&M costs10. The average global LCoE from wind
energy is now ~$50 per MWh onshore and <$120 per
MWh offshore8. It is projected to continue to decline
due to increased capacity factors (the ratio of electrical
power produced to that if the WT constantly operated
at the rated capacity), longer project lifetimes and reduc­
tions in O&M costs derived from enhancements to WT
durability plus reduced financing costs10.
In 2017, WTs generated approximately 6% of global
electricity demand, including 44% of electricity sup­
ply in Denmark, 16.1% in Germany and 14.2% in the
UK11 (Fig. 1a). Thus, the wind power industry strongly
influences the decarbonization of the global energy
system. WTs repay their lifecycle carbon burden within
3–7 months of operation12 and provide 20–30 years of
virtually air-​pollution-​free and carbon-​free electricity
supply1,13,14.
Scenarios from the Global Wind Energy Council
(GWEC) 15 — including New, 450, Moderate and
Advanced — indicate increases in wind energy IC from

Nature Reviews | Earth & Environment

Reviews

13 12
6 14 11
16
4.8
6.1 10
6.3 4.8 0.6
9

Wind speed (m s–1)

4 4.4 8
7
6
5
7.4
4
6.7
2.2 3
2
1
0

200 100 20 10

Installed capacity (GW)

b 600

500

Energy density (W m–2)

400

300

200

100

c
1.2
∆E

1
0.8
1980 1990 2000 2010 1980 1990 2000 2010 1980 1990 2000 2010 1980 1990 2000 2010
N. America: SGP N. Europe: Denmark S.E. India N. China
0.25
Energy density interannual variability

0.2

0.15

0.1

1.2
∆E

1
0.8 0.05
1980 1990 2000 2010
N.E. Brazil

www.nature.com/natrevearthenviron

◀ Fig. 1 | Global wind resources, variability and wind turbines installed capacity.
a | Annual mean wind speeds at 100 m above ground level taken from the Global Wind
Atlas. Purple circles indicate the top 15 onshore installed capacity at the end of 2018
(ref.8): China (207 GW), USA (96.6 GW), Germany (53.2 GW), India (35.1 GW), France
(15.3 GW), Brazil (14.7 GW), UK (13 GW), Canada (12.8 GW), Turkey (7.4 GW), Sweden
(7.2 GW), Australia (5.4 GW), Mexico (4.9 GW), Japan (3.7 GW), South Africa (2.1 GW) and
Egypt (1.2 GW). The numbers indicate the fraction of national electricity supply that is
derived from wind turbines as of 2017 (ref.127). Data for Egypt are currently not available.
b | Mean annual energy density at 100 m above ground level over land areas from 1979
to 2018, derived using output from the ERA5 reanalysis28,29. c | Interannual variability in
energy density described using the standard deviation of annual values to the 40-​year
mean value. The insets depict time series of annual deviations (quantified as the annual
value divided by the long term mean) in five ERA5 grid cells located in regions with high
wind energy penetration. This figure illustrates the high spatiotemporal variability
in wind resources and the degree to which individual countries are harnessing the wind
resource for electricity production. SGP, Southern Great Plains.
the baseline value of 433 GW in 2011 to 2,870–5,806 GW
by 2050. Indeed, in the Advanced scenario, wind energy
contributes 36% (15,258 TWh) of projected global elec­
tricity demand in 2050 (ref.15) (Fig. 2a). Even this most
ambitious scenario requires a lower annual growth rate
in global electricity generation from WT (<8%) than was
observed between 2000 and 2018, and remains below
conservative estimates of the global resource.
Avoided CO2 emissions — an assessment of climate
change mitigation potential — are similarly projected
to increase in the future through expanded wind energy
production. Using the approach described in ref.13,
GWEC projections can be incorporated within climate
forcing (Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP))
scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC)16. The results indicate that, depend­
ing on the wind scenario used, avoided CO2 emissions
increase from ~ 0.5 GtCO2 in 2011 to 4.5–9.2 GtCO2 in
2050 (Fig. 2a). Cumulative avoided emissions from 2011
to 2050 range from 88 to 154 GtCO2. Accordingly, WTs
further help mitigate global temperature rise, the impact
of which is dependent on the RCP scenario. None avoid
passing the 1.5 °C threshold (Fig. 2b), but the Advanced
scenario delays exceeding the 2 °C threshold by up to
5 years, and, by 2050, reduces cumulative emissions
by ~154 GtCO2 (the equivalent of almost 5 years of
anthropogenic CO2 emissions) and, thus, offsets global
warming by approximately 0.1 °C. Assuming no fur­
ther expansion of wind energy IC so annual avoided
CO2 emissions from wind energy do not increase from
their 2050 annual values, by 2100, wind energy offsets
approximately 0.3 °C of warming (Fig. 2b).
There are, thus, substantial climate mitigation bene­
fits from wind energy expansion. However, wind energy
is both a potential mechanism to reduce climate forcing
as well as a climate-​dependent energy source, so climatic
changes may influence the conditions in which WTs
operate and the resource they are designed to harness.
Further, the wind energy industry is rapidly evolving in
terms of the size and numbers of WTs being deployed
and the locations where they are being deployed. These
industry changes may amplify the risks or opportunities
posed by climate change.
In this Review, we outline the reciprocal relation­
ships between anthropogenic forcing of climate and
wind-​derived electricity, updating previous reviews
Nature Reviews | Earth & Environment
Reviews
on the topic1,17,18. We begin by describing factors that
determine wind resources and operating conditions,
and guide WT selection. Then, we summarize how
greenhouse-​gas-​induced climate change might impact
wind power generation and the LCoE of wind-​derived
electricity via changes in wind resource magnitude, vari­
ability and/or the conditions in which WTs will operate.
We end with a forward-​looking synthesis of prospects
for advancing knowledge in this arena.
Statement of needs
Electricity production from wind. Scales of motion rele­
vant to wind resources span many orders of magnitude
and vary in terms of their sensitivity to global climate
change (Table 1). The instantaneous power (P) in the
wind that can potentially be harnessed by a WT and
converted into electricity is a function of air density (ρ),
swept area of the blades (A) and cube of the wind speed
(U) across the rotor plane19:
1
P= ρAU 3 (2)
2
Wind speeds close to the surface typically increase
approximately exponentially with height (z) and
also exhibit a dependence on atmospheric stability.
This height variation can be approximated using the
stability-​corrected logarithmic profile:
u⁎   z  
U (z ) = ln   + Ψ  z   (3)
 
κ   z 0  
 L  


where u* is the friction velocity, κ is the von Karman con­
stant (0.4), z0 is the surface roughness length (f(land use
L ()
land cover (LULC))) and Ψ z is the stability correc­
tion term (L is the stability parameter, Monin–Obukhov
length) . Alternatively, the height dependence of wind
20
speeds can be approximated using the power law:
α
z
U (z ) = U (r )   (4)
 z r 
where U(r) is the wind speed at the reference height (zr)
and α is a coefficient often approximated as 1/7. It is
also a function of stability conditions and LULC21. Both
approximations are only valid in the surface layer (lowest
10% of the atmospheric boundary layer, to heights of
50–200 m), where fluxes are constant with height. WT
dimensions are increasing so more of the rotor plane is
extending beyond the surface layer22 to heights where
wind speed profiles are no longer primarily dictated
by surface forcing, and the height dependence of wind
speeds becomes more complex23,24.
The wind resource is often described using the mean
energy density (E in W m−2, over a given time period;
j = 1, 2,…, n). It is also dependent on the cube of the
incident wind speed (assuming ρ is constant)19:
11 n 3
E= ρ∑U (5)
n2 1
Actual electrical power production as a function of
incident wind speed is described by a WT-​specific power
Reviews

a b
40 5

Cumulative world CO2 emissions (GtCO2)

8,000

Wind energy contribution to

30 Scenarios 2050 4

ΔT cf. 1861–1880 (°C)

world electricity (%)
6,000
20 3

Cumulative avoided 4,000

10 emissions from wind 2
energy 2050 (GtCO2)
3 103 154
88 116 2,000
0 1
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Wind energy IC (GW) Year
2015 New 450 New 450 Moderate Advanced (filled)
Moderate Advanced RCP2.5 RCP4.5 RCP6.0 RCP8.5

Fig. 2 | Projections of wind energy installations and associated climate change mitigation potential. a | Wind energy
installed capacity (IC) as of the end of 2015 and percent contribution to world electricity supply, along with projections
of wind energy IC and contribution to world electricity in 2050 for four Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) scenarios15:
New, 450, Moderate and Advanced. Cumulative avoided emissions from 2006 to 2015 or 2050 are depicted in the legend.
b | Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios presented in terms of cumulative global CO2 emissions and
associated temperature change16 (solid lines and solid circles). Also shown are the results of reduced cumulative CO2
emissions from 2011 onwards derived from application of the four GWEC wind scenarios to the RCP. To avoid double-​
counting, wind energy from each RCP scenario is removed and replaced by the GWEC scenarios under the assumption
that wind-​generated electricity displaces an average carbon-​based generation source that has an equivalent CO2
emission rate of 600 g per kWh following the approach used in ref.16. Avoided annual emissions 2050–2100 are estimated
by assuming wind energy IC does not increase beyond 2050 and are 8.5, 5.9, 5.2 and 4.3 GtCO2 per year for the Advanced,
Moderate, 450 and New scenarios, respectively. This figure illustrates that following an aggressive expansion of wind
energy could reduce warming by 2100 by up to 0.3 °C.

curve. Typically, WTs cut in (commence electrical power
production) at wind speeds ~4 m s−1, power production
increases approximately linearly with increasing wind
speed until ~12–15 m s−1 to the rated (or nameplate)
capacity and remains constant for wind speeds up to
~25 m s−1, after which the WT is shut down to protect
it from damage17. A simple approximation of gross
expected AEP derived using a WT power curve is:
Inf
AEP = T ⋅ f ∫ p(U )P(U )dU
0
distribution is often used to derive long return-​period
values27.
The non-​linear dependence on wind speed means
that 90% of electrical power production is typically pro­
duced by the upper half of the probability distribution
of wind speeds, and up to 25% of electricity is generated
from the highest 10% of wind speeds17. Thus, develop­
ing accurate projections of wind resources requires high
fidelity of climate projections, particularly in the upper
portions of the wind speed probability distribution that
(6)
dominate power production.

where T is the length of one year, f is frequency, p(U)
is the probability distribution of hub-​height wind
speeds, and P(U) is the WT power curve that relates
incident wind speed to power production. The viabil­
ity of potential WT deployments is often characterized
using P50(AEP) (median AEP) and P90(AEP), which
is the AEP for which there is a 10% chance of not being
reached or exceeded25.
Most wind speed time series conform to a
two-​parameter Weibull distribution26:
k  U  k−1   U  k
p(U ) =   exp −  
A  A    A  
 
where A is the scale parameter and k is the shape param­
eter. These wind speeds have an exponential tail, leading
to the accumulated probability of extreme wind speeds
conforming to a double exponential. Hence, a Gumbel
Energy density spatial variability. Figure 1 shows a
global overview of the mean annual mean energy den­
sity at 100 m above ground level (a.g.l.) and its inter­
annual variability (IAV), derived using output from
the ERA5 high-​resolution (approximately 30 × 30 km)
reanaly­sis for 1979–2018 (refs28,29). It shows good spatial
agreement with mean wind speeds in the Global Wind
Atlas and indicates that high wind energy potential is
apparent in regions with substantial current penetration,
such as the Central Plains of the USA, Canada, north­
ern Europe, north China and Australia, and in countries
that do not yet currently exhibit substantial wind energy
(7)
deployments, such as Argentina and Chile30,31.
The IAV of the mean annual energy density and
expected AEP are critical to determining the ‘risk’
associated with a wind project. Lower IAV represents
lower risk and is associated with lower cost of capital25
and, hence, lower LCoE. The IAV of energy density is

www.nature.com/natrevearthenviron
 Reviews

comparatively low in high-​resource regions of the USA
(such as the Southern Great Plains) and northern China,
moderate in high-​resource areas of northern Europe and
south-​western India, and high in north-​eastern Brazil
(Fig. 1c). Time series of annual energy density for five
high wind energy penetration subdomains emphasize
regional differences in both the relative magnitude of
IAV and the duration of relatively low or high energy
density periods due to spatial variations in the dominant
internal climate models and their inherent periodicity
(Fig. 1c; Table 2).
Most regions with high wind resources are located in
the mid-​latitudes close to the major storm tracks (Fig. 1).
The dominance of synoptic and mesoscale pheno­mena
(Table 1) in dictating regional-​s cale wind resources
(and variability therein) has important implications for
grid-​integration of wind-​derived electricity and for cli­
mate change research. It means there are inherent spa­
tial scales of coherence on timescales of a few hours to
days32 and geographic separation over which wind energy
density variations are decoupled or inversely coupled33.
Hence, it may be possible to balance load and supply of
electricity from wind across a region (such as Europe) if
the grid is sufficiently strong and the electricity markets
are integrated and harmonized34,35. Further, it is the basis
of the a priori assumption that global climate change will
likely influence wind resources primarily through changes
in larger scales of atmospheric motion (mesoscale to plan­
etary scale) that can be — at least partly — resolved in
current-​generation and future-​generation climate models.
WT design and operating conditions. During the
design phase of wind power plants, estimates of opera­
ting (or external) conditions including a range of wind
parameters (such as wind gusts, 50-​year return period
sustained wind speed and turbulence intensity) are
used to describe fatigue and extreme mechanical loads,
and guide the selection of an appropriate class of WT
for a given location. Engineering requirements, and,
thus, WT purchase price and O&M costs, increase as
these external conditions become increasingly harsh.
External conditions and WT wind classes are described
using design standards articulated by the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC 61400-1 (ref.36) or
61400-3-1 (ref.37)) and naturally contribute to the pro­
jected LCoE. Specific power is the ratio of its nameplate-​
capacity rating to its rotor-​swept area and is used as an
optimization parameter for selecting the WT type and
dimensions for a given wind climate and location38.
Generally, WTs with higher specific power will be more
economic at higher wind speed locations39.
WTs operate across a wide range of environmental
conditions, experiencing both fatigue (normal) and
extreme (ultimate) mechanical loading on various
components. Fatigue loading on WTs (and the result­
ing mechanical stress) is primarily a function of local
wind conditions40, and is, therefore, likely to have a low
sensitivity to global climate change (Table 1). However,
extreme loading cases associated with extreme wind
phenomena may differ under climate change as a result
of, for example, changes in the tracking and intensity of
synoptic-​scale and mesoscale atmospheric phenomena,
such as tropical cyclones41 and polar lows42.
Maintaining WT blade aerodynamic efficiency is key
to maximizing electrical power production. This effi­
ciency can be reduced by ice accretion, which also causes
uneven mechanical loads, resulting in increased O&M
costs43. Measures to reduce ice accumulation (coat­
ing or heating of the WT blades) add to costs and/or
reduce power production and, thus, increase the LCoE44.

Table 1 | Scales of atmospheric motion relevant to the wind energy industry

inherent scale in Spatial scale temporal scale relevance to wind Climate change
atmosphere energya sensitivity
Micro δ-​γ: fine-​scale 3 mm to 30 m <1 h Loading, materials, Low
turbulence operating conditions
Micro β: surface-​layer 30–300 m Minutes to hours Resource, loading, Low
turbulence (strong diurnal design, wakes, operating
variability) conditions, control
Micro α: boundary-​layer 300 m to 3 km Hours (strong Resource, loading, Moderate where flows
turbulence and flows diurnal variability) design, wakes, operating are generated by thermal
conditions, control gradients
Mesoscale (γ-​α) 3–700 km Hours to days Resource, wakes, Moderate where flows
forecasting, operating are generated by thermal
conditions, maintenance gradients (LULC) or
in regions with strong
mesoscale phenomena
(such as tropical cyclones)
Macro β: synoptic scale 700–4,000 km Days to weeks Resource, forecasting, High
operating conditions
Macro α: planetary 4,000–40,000 km Weeks to decades Resource, operating High
scale (including internal conditions
climate modes)
LULC, land use land cover. aControl = operation of WT or wind farms in specific modes to optimize performance; design = WT
dimensions and construction; forecasting = short-​term (hours to days) estimates of future power production (and variability
therein); loading = mechanical forces on wind turbines (WTs); materials = impact damage and wear; operating conditions = external
conditions such as wind gusts, icing, extreme wind speeds; resource = energy density; wakes = flow within and downwind of WT and
WT arrays (implications for power loss and loading).

Nature Reviews | Earth & Environment

Reviews

Table 2 | Précis of research on iav in WS or wind resources in the contemporary climate

region variablea Data set used magnitude of iav and sign of dependence ref.
on climate modes
North America
Eastern USA AEP RCM (12 km) 9 of 10 years AEP ±6% of long-​term mean. 25

in reanalysis IAV(AEP) = f(PNA/NAO/ENSO)

CONUS WS GCM Northern USA: WS+ when ENSO+ North-​east: WS+ when 67

PNA+Rest of CONUS: WS+ when ENSO−, WS+ when AO+,

WS+ when PNA−
CONUS WS In situ Pacific NW = f(PNA). Midwest = f(PNA, ENSO). 70

North-​east = f(NAO). South-​west = f(ENSO).

Central Plains = f(PNA, ENSO). South-​east = f(ENSO)
CONUS Monthly mean WS (80 m) Reanalysis Western USA: IAV(WS) up to 40% from modulated annual 156

cycle. Great Plains: WS+ when ENSO−

Western USA WS Reanalysis f(ENSO) moderated by sea-​surface temperature anomalies 157

in tropical Pacific
High Plains of central USA E RCM Lower values (~5%) in the 1970s and 1990s than in the 1980s 158

Minnesota Mean monthly WS (70 m) In situ 6–15% of variability explained by ENSO and AO. 159

No dependence on PNA
Colorado WS (80 m) In situ, one site Strong westerly flow+ when ENSO− Weaker westerly 160

winds+ when PNA− and AO−

Canada Mean monthly WS In situ f(ENSO) 161

South America
Brazil Mean monthly, seasonal In situ f(ENSO). El Niño WS+, La Niña WS− 162

and annual WS
Southern S. America WS (50 m) Reanalysis AAO+: WS−. ENSO influence weaker. AAO and ENSO variance 163

over timescales up to decades

Chile WS, CF RCM in reanalysis f(ENSO). El Niño WS−, La Niña WS+ 164

Europe
Europe Normalized AEP GCM ensemble Current IAV(AEP) dominated by NAO, exceeds projected 165

changes
Europe Normalized AEP Reanalysis Winter AEP (Finland, Norway, England and Germany)+ when 166

NAO+. Converse in S. Europe

Europe E (80 m) Reanalysis E factor of three variability f(NAO and AO). NAO+: E+ in north 167

and WPD− in south

South-​western Europe WS RCM in reanalysis NAO−: WS+ by 10–15% 168

Europe WS Reanalysis and GCM NAO+: WS+ north of 45°N, WS− south of 45°N 33

UK WS and AEP f(NAO) In situ (two sites) NAO phase = ±10% variations in mean AEP 169

UK AEP In situ IAV(AEP) = ±20%. ‘Wind drought’ in 2010 170

Norway WS Reanalysis NAO+ enhances wintertime strong winds 171

Scotland AEP, CF Reanalysis and NAO+1σ = CF + 2.6 in winter 172

in situ
Asia and Australasia
Malaysia WS (10 m and 60 m) In situ at three sites La Niña: WS+. El Niño: WS− 173

India CF (50 m) Reanalysis Intensification of monsoon: CF+ 174

AAO, Antarctic Oscillation; AEP, annual energy production; AO, Arctic Oscillation; CF, capacity factor; CONUS, contiguous USA; E, energy density; ENSO,
El Niño–Southern Oscillation; GCM, global climate model; IAV, interannual variability; NAO, North Atlantic Oscillation; PNA, Pacific–North American teleconnection
pattern; RCM, regional climate model; WPD, wind power density; WS, wind speed. aUnless otherwise stated, the estimates of wind speed or energy density are for a
nominal height of 10 m above ground level.

Robust estimates of icing probability over the entire pro­
ject lifetime are essential to evaluating the need for and
benefits of icing mitigation.
WT blade damage due to material stresses from pre­
cipitation impacts also decreases aerodynamic efficiency
and power production and increases O&M costs45. The
timescale to damage is determined by the hydroclimate,
specifically, the occurrence of hail and/or extremely
heavy rainfall45. Leading-​edge protection can be applied
but may degrade aerodynamic performance46. Thus,
there is a need to carefully assess the relative benefits
in reducing O&M costs versus the AEP loss. In many
areas with substantial WT IC, such as the US Southern
Great Plains, hail and heavy downpours are generated

www.nature.com/natrevearthenviron

by deep convection at the mesoscale47. Therefore, cor­
rect characterization of current and possible future
leading-​edge erosion potential requires accuracy of
climate simulations at that scale.
Other mesoscale phenomena of interest and impor­
tance to WT resource intermittency and operating con­
ditions include open-​cell structures generated in the
presence of large temperature gradients, such as cold-​air
outbreaks in coastal regions such as the North Sea48.
They are associated with strong gusty winds and local
increases in wave height49, and have a scale that makes
them relevant for power fluctuations from offshore wind
farm clusters and an intensity that makes them relevant
for extreme wind loading50.
Foundations represent a substantial fraction of the
installation cost of offshore WTs10. Foundation type is
largely dictated by water depth, while design and cost are
dictated by hydrodynamic and structural analyses based
on projected wind-​wave loading51. Significant wave
height (Hs, the mean of the highest one-​third of waves
measured from trough to crest) and peak period are
key aspects of design conditions. These parameters
vary greatly in space, in part due to bathymetry and,
also, atmospheric forcing. For example, the 100-​year
return-​period Hs is substantially higher off the west coast
of Scotland (~20–22 m) than in the North Sea (~14 m)
or the eastern seaboard of the USA52, resulting in differ­
ent extreme loading estimates and design for offshore
WTs53. Sea ice (amount, thickness, location, drift) and
sea currents (and resulting scour) also contribute to
mechanical loading on offshore WTs and foundation
design, and may exhibit climate change sensitivity17.
In the following, we summarize the challenges to
undertaking assessments of how and whether anthro­
pogenic climate change may influence wind power
generation through changes in wind resources and
WT operating conditions, describe tools that have
been employed and summarize the findings of those
assessments.
Climate impacts on wind power generation
Challenges. A number of inherent challenges confront
efforts to quantify how global climate non-​stationarity
might influence the magnitude of global wind resources.
They provide critical context for climate projections.
In contrast to air temperature16 and total precipitable
water54, it is unknown whether anthropogenic warm­
ing will result in stilling (decreases in wind speed) or
increased windiness at either the regional or the global
scales. Reductions in the equator-​to-​pole large-​scale
temperature gradient will likely modify tropical cir­
culation patterns (Hadley cell, monsoon circulations
and/or tropical cyclone frequency)55 and the behaviour
of mid-​latitude jet streams and storm tracks56 and, hence,
cyclone frequency57, intensity58 and tracking59. Enhanced
atmospheric water vapour and convective instability
may further impact the intensity of some mesoscale
to synoptic-​scale systems60. However, detection and
attribution of changes to mesoscale to synoptic-​scale
systems, as well as the resultant wind resources due to
global climate non-​stationarity, is extremely challenging,
given the presence of low-​frequency variability (years to
Nature Reviews | Earth & Environment
Reviews
decades)25,61,62 associated with internal modes of climate
variability33,63,64 (Table 2).
For example, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)
expresses variance at frequencies from sub-​annual
to multi-​decadal, with the latter (up to timescales of
60 years) being modulated by North Atlantic sea-​surface
temperatures65 and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation66.
The NAO plays a central role in dictating extratropical
cyclone tracks and, thus, wind resources over Europe,
particularly during winter (Table 2). For instance, wind
energy density over northern Europe exhibited high
values (+20% above the long-​term mean) during the
1980s and early 1990s due, in part, to the prevalence of
positive-​phase NAO33 (Fig. 1c).
In North America, by contrast, wind resources
exhibit region-​specific responses to three dominant
climate modes67: the Pacific–North American tele­
connection pattern (PNA) and the El Niño–Southern
Oscillation (ENSO) in the west; ENSO in the Central
Plains and south-​east; and the PNA and NAO in the
north-​east (Table 2) . El Niño events, for example,
are typically associated with lower wind speeds in the
western USA and La Niña with higher wind resources.
However, it is important to note that responses to differ­
ent phases of ENSO (as well as other climate modes) are
not directly opposite, and that mode–mode interactions
also cause variability67.
ENSO also appears to be an important control on
low-​frequency variability in wind regimes over South
America and Asia (Table 2), although less research has
been conducted to assess these teleconnections. In
locations where the resource is influenced by monsoon
wind speeds (such as India), there is both pronounced
seasonal reversal of wind direction and IAV linked to
monsoonal intensity and production of associated
transitory, synoptic-​scale phenomena68.
The presence of low-​frequency variability greatly
confounds the ability to identify and assign causes of
long-​term tendencies in wind resources. For example,
low-​frequency variability led, in part, to claims of global
stilling. An analysis of 822 in situ stations reported wind
speeds at 10 m a.g.l. declined by 5–15% over almost
all continental areas in the northern mid-​latitudes
between 1979 and 2008 (ref.69). However, analysis of
short-​duration time series and use of linear fitting might
have led to low-​frequency variability being misinter­
preted as ‘trends’ and trend magnitudes being inflated
by neglecting the presence of temporal autocorrelation70.
Further, in situ time series are subject to discontinui­
ties caused by changes in observational systems71 and
localized changes in LULC around surface observing
stations. Thus, detailed diagnostic research has found
that a large fraction (25–60%) of wind speed declines
was attributable to increased drag69,72, rather than global
climate change.
There has been a recent ‘recovery’ of wind speeds
in both individual regions (for example, in China)73
and across the Northern Hemisphere74. While global
annual mean wind speeds at 10 m height between the
1980s and early 2000s exhibit a negative linear trend
of <−0.1 m s−1 per decade, the trend has since reversed
and increases of >0.2 m s−1 per decade were reported for
Reviews
2010–2017 (ref.74). Consistent with the variability of dom­
inant internal climate mode across the continents (Fig. 1c;
Table 2), the timing of the linear trend ‘reversal’ varies
by continent. The inflexion point occurs in 2003 over
Europe, 2010 in North America and 2001 over Asia74.
The scales on which wind resources vary are below
that manifest in most current-​generation global climate
models (GCMs), which typically have horizontal grid
cells of ~100 × 100 km and comparatively low verti­
cal resolution. Key phenomena such as extratropical
cyclones have historically been rather poorly repre­
sented in GCMs75,76, and changes in mid-​latitude storm
tracks exhibit a high sensitivity to the precise global and
nested regional climate models (RCMs) used in their
simulation77. Thus, although it may be possible to infer
some information about changes in circulation patterns
at the synoptic scale (and above), direct output from
global or regional models with resolutions lower than
~50 km is of low utility to the assessment of potential
changes to wind resources. Hence, it is necessary to
downscale using either dynamical (application of lim­
ited area, regional, models) or statistical methods61,78
(Table 3). Application of downscaling approaches to
wind climates has demonstrated discrepancies in skill
and strongly varying differential credibility for different
RCMs in describing wind resources in the contempo­
rary climate79,80. In general, greater credence should be
attributed to wind resource results from such approaches
and to simulations conducted at higher resolution.
There is demonstrable value added by application of
higher-​resolution RCMs over the use of GCMs81,82
and/or lower-​resolution regional models83.This improve­
ment in fidelity and credibility is particularly marked in
higher moments of the probability distribution (such as
extreme wind speeds and gusts), where there is a strong
response to model resolution84.
Most wind speed observations are taken at heights at
or below 10 m a.g.l. and, thus, are strongly influenced by
local surface roughness, obstacles and topography. WTs,
by contrast, have rotor planes that sweep across a layer
of the atmosphere extending from ~40 to 160 m a.g.l.
with hub heights of ~100 m. The lack of in situ wind
speed data sets at 100 m a.g.l. against which model fidel­
ity can be assessed85, as well as discrepancies between
reanalyses28,71, constrain the ability to assign reliabil­
ity to model-​based projections of wind resources and
operating conditions.
Climate change and wind resources. Despite the chal­
lenges to developing actionable projections of wind
resources, there is a clear imperative to understand
how the evolution of the global climate system has
impacted, and may continue to impact, both the sup­
ply and demand components of the energy system.
There is marked spatial bias in the volume of research
that has been conducted on these topics, with the over­
whelming majority of analyses examining Europe and
North America.
Research focused on the historical and contempo­
rary climate over North America has illustrated large
divergence in wind speed trends computed using
in situ data, reanalyses and output from RCMs. In one
analysis, in situ data indicate declines in 90th percen­
tile wind speeds at 10 m a.g.l. between 1973 and 2005
over substantial areas of the eastern USA, but output
from multiple reanalyses and RCMs indicate no trend71.
Conversely, analyses of output from the North American
Regional Reanalysis identified positive trends in wind
speeds at 80 m at the annual timescale and during winter
and spring over most of the contiguous US (CONUS)
during 1979–2009; these linear trends have magnitudes
of ~0.6 m s−1 per year in the west, 0.12 m s−1 per year in
central regions and 0.9 m s−1 per year in the east86.
Research based on data from Australia also found
a clear discrepancy between output from reanalysis
products and in situ observations. In situ wind speed
measurements at 10 m a.g.l. declined from 1979 to 2001
(mean trend of −0.013 m s−1 per year), and while reanal­
ysis data sets also showed declines, they were a factor of
5–7 smaller in magnitude87.
Magnitudes of historical trends also exhibit a very
strong dependence on the precise period of data, owing
to the presence of low-​frequency modes of variability.
For example, both in situ data and reanalysis output over
the Tibetan Plateau exhibit evidence of declining annual
mean wind speed at 10 m from the mid-1980s to the
early 2000s, followed by a subsequent recovery between
2005 and 2015 (ref.73). Similar analyses over China indi­
cate declining annual mean wind speed at 10 m from
1970 to the early 2000s, with near-​constant values in
2001–2007 (ref.88). These analyses, thus, re-​emphasize
the importance of internal climate variability to the
interannual and interdecadal variability of wind speeds
and wind resources (Table 2).
Nevertheless, regarding projected future changes in
wind speeds and corresponding impacts on energy den­
sity, there is evidence of winners and losers at the regional
scale (Table 3). For example, the majority of research
focused on Europe indicates that wind resources in
the north and over the UK may show small-​magnitude
increases (<10%) over the current century89–92, while
those in the regions of lower current resource poten­
tial to the south (such as the Mediterranean) may
slightly decline91,93 (Table 3). In North America, there is
weaker evidence, but an evolving consensus, that wind
resources might decline by up to 5% in the mean annual
energy density over much of the western USA18,82. In the
Southern Great Plains, by contrast, it is anticipated
that energy density may increase by up to 5–10% by
mid-​century (2050)94,95. Studies over Brazil similarly
project large-​magnitude increases in the mean wind
resource over regions with current WT deployments96,97.
Moreover, there is evidence that resource seasonality
might amplify — increasing in winter and declining
in summer98.
Many studies have considered climate projection peri­
ods at the end of the current century (Table 3). However,
this timescale is inconsistent with the primary time hori­
zons relevant to the wind energy industry, which focus
on project lifetimes of approximately 30 years (refs10,99).
Differences in the mean wind resource or wind cli­
mates during future periods (even those at the end of
the 21st century) versus those in the contemporary cli­
mate appear to be of small magnitude (generally <5% of
www.nature.com/natrevearthenviron
 Reviews

Table 3 | Précis of research projecting wind resources for the coming decades
region variable models/method Projected change time period ref.
(and resolution)
North America
CONUS E 1GCM, 1RCM (50 km) <2% lower in south-​west; 3% higher (2041–2062) – (1979–2000) 18

in Central Plains
CONUS E 2GCM, 3RCM (50 km) No emergence from natural variability (2041–2062) – (1979–2000 80

CONUS WS (90th 4GCM, 5RCM (50 km) No change in Central Plains. Lower over (2041–2062) – (1979–2000 82

percentile) western USA

CONUS WS 5GCM (1–3°) Up to 5–10% increase in winter; declines (2079–2099) – (1979–1999) 98

in summer
CONUS Seasonal mean WS 1GCM, 1RCM (50 km) Remains within ±10% of contemporary (2040–2069) – (1985–2005) 175

at hub height climate

Eastern USA WS (90th 3GCM, 3RCM (50 km) Up to −5% (2041–2060) – (1981–1998) 100

percentile) plus statistical

downscaling
Eastern USA AEP 1GCM, 1RCM (12 km) Up to +8% in Southern Plains; up to −5% (2075–2099) – (1980–2005) 94

in Northern Plains
S. California Annual mean WS 12 RCM–GCM Within ±2% (2051–2071) – (1980–2000) 176

combinations (50 km)

High Plains of E (80 m) 1GCM, 1RCM (50 km) 2–3% increase in Kansas; 1–2% decrease (2040–2070) – (1970–2000) 95

central USA in central Colorado

N. America AEP 10GCM (1–2°) Increased AEP over Mexico. Declines (2020–2040) – (1980–2005) 177

over western USA. Large model-​to-​model and (2020–2040) – (1980–2005)

divergence
Western E, WS 1GCM, 1RCM (45 km) Change < σ (ensemble model mean) (2031–2060) – (1971–2000) 178

Canada
Offshore areas E (50 m) 1GCM (25 km) Declines exceed IAV in current climate (25 years end of the 21st 179

around Mexico century) – (1985–2011)

South America
Brazil WS (100 m) 1GCM, 1RCM Increases in high-​resource areas (2010–2040), (2041–2070) 96

(20 km)a and (2071–2100)

Brazil E (100 m) 3GCM, 1RCM (20 km) Increases of up to +50% in some wind (2021–2050), (1961–1990) 97

farm locations and (2070–2099) – (1961–1990)

Europe
Europe E (80 m) 1GCM, 2RCM Increases in northern and central Europe (2061–2100) – (1961–2000) 89

(up to 15%). Declines over southern Europe.

Largest changes in winter
Europe E 21GCM (1.125–2.8°) Increases <30% over Baltic region. Declines (2081–2100) – (1986–2005) 102

over western Europe. No change in IAV

Europe E (80 m) 22GCM, 1RCM Increases in ensemble mean over northern (2021–2060) and (2061–2100) 91

(25 km)a and central Europe (2061–2100). Decreases – (1961–2000)

over southern Europe in both periods
Europe E (HH) 6GCM, 10RCM 15-​member ensemble exhibits changes (2071–2100) – (1971–2000) 93

(25 km) of between −20% and +20%. Changes

aggregated over EU <2%
Europe Normalized AEP 5GCM (36 Near-​future spatially varying differences. (2020–2049) – (1979–2005) 180

(78 m) realizations) Ensemble mean change: of between −12%

(1.4–2.8°) and +8%
Northern E 1GCM, 2RCM (25 km) Increases over Denmark and Baltic Sea (2070–2099) and (2036–2065) 90

Europe – (1961–1990)
Northern E 1GCM statistical E small declines (<5%) but remains within (2046–2065) and (2081–2100) 101

Europe downscalinga historical IAV – (1961–1990)

UK WS, E, CF (80 m) 1GCM (2 × 2.5°)a Small increase in IAV. +2% increase in CF (2071–2090) – (1981–2000) 92

in Scotland
Germany E (80 m) 1GCM statistical No change at annual scale. Increases in (2061–2100) – (1961–2000) 181

downscalinga winter (<6%). Declines in summer (<4%)

Black Sea E (120 m) 5GCM, 1RCM No change in resource or seasonality (2061–2090) – (1979–2004) 182

(12 km)a

Nature Reviews | Earth & Environment

Reviews

Table 3 (cont.) | Précis of research projecting wind resources for the coming decades
region variable models/method Projected change time period ref.
(and resolution)
Asia and Australia
China WS 9GCM (0.56–2.8°)a No trend. Large model-​to-​model variability. (2006–2100) v. (1850–2005)b 183

No change in IAV
China WS 1GCM two Lower autumn wind speeds (difference of (2018–2100) v. (1961–2005)b 184

resolutions 0.12–0.18 m s−1) at the end of the century

(110–280 km)a
Australia AEP (80 m) 4GCM, 1RCM (50 km) Large spatial variability. Declines in (2060–2079) – (1990–2009) 185

south (<1%)
Japan AEP (80 m) 1GCM, 1RCM Declines (<6%) over Japan. Increases over (2051–2100) – (1951–2010) 186

(ensemble) South Korea (~3%)

Offshore WS 1GCM (20 km) WS lower off west and south coasts. (2075–2099) – (1979–2003) 187

waters in India Increases off south-​east coast (near current

WT deployments)
Most studies used a single climate forcing scenario. Climate forcing applied in the projections is described using the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) for
CMIP5 generation, global climate model (GCM) simulations or Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) for CMIP3. AEP, annual energy production; CF, capacity
factor; CONUS, contiguous USA; E, energy density; HH, hub height; IAV, interannual variability; RCM, regional climate model; WS, wind speed; WT, wind turbine.
a
Denotes studies with multiple RCP/SRES. Unless otherwise stated, the estimates of wind speed or energy density are for a nominal height of 10 m above ground level
(a.g.l.). bStudies where the time periods are specified with ‘v.’ are those that focused on trends rather than differences between two time periods.

the current mean energy density) and generally do not
exceed current interannual/interdecadal variability from
internal climate modes (Tables 2,3). Further, most studies
use a time windowing approach to examine changes in
wind resources and employ time periods that are rela­
tively short compared to the scales of low-​frequency
internal climate variability. The continued presence
of this low-​f requency variability may be aliased as
global-​warming-​related changes in wind resources.
Irrespective of the region under study, there is a
very large dependence of climate change projections of
wind resources derived using either RCMs or statistical
methods on the global model providing lateral bound­
ary conditions (LBCs) and/or predictors80,100,101. Sources
of projection variability, and, thus, uncertainty, listed
in order of importance are: the global model used to
provide the LBCs to limited area (regional) models or
predictors to statistical downscaling or from which data
are used directly, specific limited area (regional) model
applied, resolution and formulation of the model(s),
and specific climate forcing scenario101,102. There is evi­
dence of larger changes in mean energy density in the
higher climate forcing scenarios, but only a relatively
weak dependence on this parameter91, consistent with a
continuing dominance of internal climate variability in
determining IAV of the wind resource.
Figure 3 illustrates the magnitude of deviations in
wind resources under the contemporary climate that
arise due to differences in model resolution (12 km
versus 25 km) or formulation. It also shows that there
are broad similarities in mean energy density during
1980–2005 and some regions where there is agreement
in the sign of difference in energy density in the cli­
mate projection period. These estimates derive from
simulations at 12 km using the Weather Research and
Forecasting (WRF) regional model and at 25 km using
the global variable-​resolution Model for Prediction
Across Scales (MPAS)103 over CONUS. Both simula­
tions use bounding information from the Max Planck
Institute Earth System Model at Low Resolution
(MPI-​ESM-​LR104) for RCP8.5. Both project areas with
lower mean future resource in the north and north-​west,
consistent with previous research (Table 3). There are
also some differences; notably, WRF output suggests
an area of statistically significant higher resource at the
end of the century over the Southern Great Plains (in an
area of high wind energy penetration). This feature is
present in earlier simulations with regional models
nested in a range of GCMs80,105 (Table 3) but is absent
from the MPAS simulation (Fig. 3a,b).
A further important source of uncertainty in both cli­
mate and reanalysis models is the representation of drag
by unresolved features such as orography106 (Fig. 3c). This
stress is typically formulated in terms of subgrid-​scale
height variability (in this case, at a horizontal resolution
~1 km), but is the subject of considerable uncertainty.
Changing stress parameters have a profound impact
on the resulting mean energy density and the degree of
agreement with the spatial patterns of other resource
estimates (Figs1b,3a,c). There is, therefore, a need to
refine the manner in which this stress is applied in order
not to compromise representation of flow in the lower
boundary layer and, hence, wind resources.
Climate change and operating conditions. Compre­
hensive assessment of possible impacts from global cli­
mate non-​stationarity on wind power generation must
also incorporate improved characterization of the cli­
mate sensitivity of key external operating conditions.
However, there is a relative paucity of research into how
global climate change may impact phenomena at the
mesoscale to the microscale due, in part, to the difficulty
and computational cost of representing them.
Distinguishing climate change signals for extreme
wind phenomena is rendered challenging by limited
model fidelity18,107,108, uncertainty in extreme-​value
estimation109 and high temporal variability of rare
events110. They are, thus, dependent on the precise data
set, methodology and data period used to derive them
and the dynamical causes18,90,101,111. Projections from

www.nature.com/natrevearthenviron
 Reviews

a multi-​model GCM ensemble indicate reductions in
annual maximum wind speed in 2074–2100 relative
to 1979–2005 over much of the USA112. In Northern
Europe, 50-​year return-​period wind speeds increase
beyond the historical envelope of variability only by the
end of the 21st century90.
Wind gusts are an important driving phenomenon
of extreme mechanical loads on WTs. However, they are
probabilistic, not deterministic, features parameterized
in regional models on the basis of downwards entrain­
ment of higher momentum air from aloft or in terms of
the turbulent kinetic energy budget113. Despite relatively
high uncertainty, there is some evidence that wind gust
intensity, at least in some regions, may be increased in a
globally warmed world. For example, simulations of wind
gusts by multiple members from a single RCM using
an entrainment-​based approach indicate evidence for
increases of up to +10% in extreme wind gusts over parts
of northern Europe by the end of the current century90. An
analysis using a large ensemble of models to statistically
downscale sustained and gust wind speeds also projected
an increased frequency of wind gusts in excess of 70 km h−1
over parts of Canada under climate non-​stationarity114.
Occurrence of deep convection, although challenging
in both weather-​forecasting and climate-​projection con­
texts115, is relevant as a source of both extreme operating

a Mean energy density (W m–2) Δ Mean energy density (W m–2)

600 60

500 40

400 20
WRF

300 0

200 –20

100 –40

0 –60
b (W m–2) (W m–2)
300 60

40
MPAS

200 20

100 –20

–40

0 –60

c Mean energy density — terrain drag (W m–2) Mean energy density — no terrain drag (W m–2)
600 600

500 500
MPAS

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0

Fig. 3 | Contemporary and projected mean annual energy density. a | Mean annual energy density at ~100 m above
ground level for 1980–2005 (left panel) and the difference between 2075–2099 and 1980–2005 (right panel). Results are
derived using Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) simulations at 12-​km resolution within lateral boundary conditions
from the Max Planck Institute Earth System Model at Low Resolution94. b | As in panel a, but mean annual energy density at
~60 m derived using simulations at 25-​km resolution from the global variable-​resolution Model for Prediction Across Scales
(MPAS). Simulations are conducted using sea-​surface temperature and sea-​ice cover from ERA-​Interim for 1990–2010,
and with the change simulated by the Max Planck Institute Earth System Model at Low Resolution added to ERA-​Interim
sea-​surface temperature and sea-​ice data (2079–2099). The MPAS is configured with a climate-​oriented land model188
and physics parameterizations189, as tested by ref.190. On the right of panels a and b, only grid cells where the difference
in mean energy density in the two periods passes a two-​sided t-​test are shown191. Results of individual tests are corrected
for the false discovery rate with α = 0.05 (ref.191). c | Energy density computed with the MPAS for 2008 with (left panel) and
without (right panel) terrain drag. This figure illustrates some of the key challenges in making robust assessments of wind
resources in the contemporary climate and discrepancies in wind resources in the contemporary and possible future
climate that derive from different model formulations.

Nature Reviews | Earth & Environment

Reviews
wind gusts116 and hail, the latter of which is a major driver
of WT blade leading-​edge erosion45. According to some
estimates, deep convection is likely to become more fre­
quent in regions with high WT IC densities, such as the
Southern Great Plains in the USA117.
Mechanisms of ice accretion and the atmospheric
processes responsible for ice accumulation on WT blades
are complex and difficult to predict, even with short lead
times43. Further, icing frequency exhibits high IAV in
the contemporary climate118, rendering trend detection
and attribution to global climate change very difficult.
Nevertheless, one analysis indicated that surface icing
over Northern China (including the region of highest
WT IC) decreased over the period 1961–2015, with an
accelerating trend to 4.8 days per decade over the last two
decades119. This change is largely attributable to increas­
ing near-​surface night-​time temperatures119. Empirical
approximations based on climate model output have
also indicated declining probability of icing over most
of Scandinavia by the end of the current century120, and
over much of CONUS, except near the Great Lakes79.
These projections may imply shifts in the cost–benefit
analysis for de-​icing technologies, but more mechanisti­
cally advanced methods are needed to provide actionable
information to the wind energy industry.
At high latitudes, most climate projections indicate
amplification of global warming and resultant degra­
dation of permafrost121. These changes in permafrost
conditions may have profound impacts on both WT
foundation design122 and road construction and repair
for wind farm installation and maintenance123.
Changes in extreme wind-​wave loading on offshore
WTs associated with tropical cyclones may occur in
some regions where major WT deployments are pro­
posed. There has been only very limited work on this
topic and the results are likely to be highly regionally
specific. For example, one study suggested that the
20-​year return-​period Hs in the North Atlantic under
RCP8.5 will increase from 15.7 m (1970–1999) to 17.3 m
in 2071–2100, and from 18.5 to 20.3 m for the 100-​year
return period, although the mean Hs is higher in the
historical period124. In a separate study, extreme Hs in
the western tropical Pacific was projected to decrease
(by ~10%) under RCP8.5 by the end of the century125.
Summary and future perspectives
Summary. Wind energy is an increasingly important source
of clean, renewable electricity. Installed capacity is rapidly
expanding. Following an aggressive projected growth
scenario of IC, passing the 2 °C warming threshold can
be delayed by up to 5 years, and cumulative emissions
can be reduced by 154 GtCO2 (the equivalent of almost
5 years of anthropogenic CO2 emissions) by 2050 (Fig. 2).
Global climate non-​stationarity is likely to change
the resources WTs harness and/or the conditions
in which they operate, at least in some regions of the
world. Research to date has largely focused on potential
changes in regions with high WT penetration. Generally,
any change in regional wind resources over the course
of the current century is smaller than contemporary IAV
(Tables 2,3). The uncertainty envelope encompassing
projections made using different model tools includes
zero (Table 3). In Europe, there is some evidence for
emerging consensus that the mean annual energy density
will increase in the north (for example, over Denmark
and the UK) and slightly decrease over the south (includ­
ing the Mediterranean). In North America, there is some
evidence of regional declines in the wind resource over
much of the western USA, but increases in the region of
highest penetration (the Southern Great Plains).
Industry trends. Projections indicate enhanced longevity
of wind farm projects. Wind power plants being con­
structed today are anticipated to have lifetimes beyond
historical expectations of 20 years to nearly 30 years99.
There is also an increased prevalence of repowering126
(where WTs are replaced by newer-​generation and
large-​capacity WTs). Use of repowering implies a degree
of entrenchment in areas of traditionally high resource
suggesting value added from assessment of medium-​
term (up to 40 years) resource stability. One of the key
disjuncts that has hampered efforts to supply wind energy
stakeholder-​relevant science is that climate science typi­
cally focuses on long-​term changes (Table 3). Even with
the evolution towards enhanced project lifetimes, for
future changes in resource and/or operating conditions
to be of actionable importance to the wind energy indus­
try, they must either occur on timescales that mean the
resource at currently operating or planned wind farms
will change or be of sufficient magnitude that the industry
should consider migrating from regions with historically
high wind density to those that are projected to have the
highest resource in the future. Both require that climate
projections have higher fidelity than is currently observed.
Projected expansion of WT IC and evolution of new
wind energy technologies is amplifying the imperative
for research into how climate change may impact wind
power generation and affords new opportunities for
stakeholder-​relevant geoscience research.
Projections for global IC in 2040 are 2,400–3,320 GW
and 342–562 GW for onshore and offshore facilities,
respectively, a large increase from the 2017 values of 591
and 23 GW (ref.8). Much of the expansion may occur in
non-​traditional areas such as forested, complex terrain,
which poses particular challenges to accurate model­
ling of the wind climate and, thus, wind resources and
operating conditions111. For example, 69% of Sweden,
a country with large resource potential, is forested127.
To harness the power of higher wind speeds aloft
and increase swept area, higher hub heights and longer
blades are being employed, and the rated capacity
of WTs continues to increase22,128. The average rated
capacity of WTs installed in the USA during 2017 was
2 MW (ref.129), while in Europe, it was 2.7 MW onshore
and 6.8 MW offshore130,131. US projections for 2030 are
4.5 MW onshore and 10 MW offshore132,133. Mean WT
hub heights are projected to increase from 2017 values
of 86 m in the USA to 102 m in 2030 and rotor diame­
ters are expected to increase from a mean of 113 m in
2017 to 167 m by 2030 (refs132,133). The implied increase
in rotor-​tip speeds may increase rates of leading-​edge
erosion, adding to the imperative to better quantify
drivers of precipitation-​induced blade damage in the
contemporary and future climate.
www.nature.com/natrevearthenviron

Growth of the physical dimensions of WTs coupled
with expansion into complex terrain onshore and deploy­
ments offshore mean that WTs are no longer operating
in the atmospheric surface layer. Many of the studies
summarized in Table 3 vertically extrapolate modelled
wind speeds from a nominal height of 10 m to WT hub
heights (80 m or above), most frequently using the sim­
ple power law with an exponent of 1/7. The continued
physical growth of WTs is rendering use of these types of
approximations even less appropriate22. Advances in the
representation of atmospheric boundary-​layer dynamics
are needed to capture the first-​order and second-​order
moments of the flow and better characterize wind
profiles23, including the occurrence of low-​level jets24,
and to project how such phenomena may change as a
result of both climate evolution and changing LULC.
Major climate science research initiatives need to
archive output at WT-​relevant heights (~100 m a.g.l.) at
high spatiotemporal resolution to negate the need for
post-​processing vertical extrapolation of wind speeds
and, thus, decrease associated uncertainty.
Expansion of WT deployments offshore and expansion
into deeper water will require improved estimates of joint
wind-​wave loading134 and innovations in foundations135
or floating technologies136, particularly in areas prone to
intense mesoscale to synoptic-​scale phenomena such as
tropical cyclones that have potential for very high struc­
tural loading137. There is, thus, a the need for improved
coupling of atmospheric and oceanic models for charac­
terization of current and projected wind resources, WT
design properties and operating conditions138,139.
WTs are being deployed in larger clusters and across
larger areas. This clustering will increase the probabil­
ity of array–array interactions and illustrates the need
for improved characterization of whole-​wind-​farm
wakes both onshore128,140 and offshore141. Given the
propagation of these wakes is a function of atmos­
pheric stability and wind direction140, analyses designed
to optimize system-​wide power production should be
conducted under the contemporary and possible future
climate states.
Increased penetration of this intermittent resource
also requires improvements in short-​term forecasts of
power production 142 and improved understanding
of the scales of coherence of wind fluctuations in the
contemporary and possible future climate.
Recommendations for future research. A number of
outstanding research questions remain before projec­
tions of future changes in wind climates can be taken
into account when planning future WT deployments.
Further, there needs to be greater emphasis placed on
quantifying the fidelity of projections of wind resources
and operating conditions. Access to data from operating
wind farms would greatly benefit efforts to evaluate and
improve our modelling of wind resources and address
these challenges and other research questions85.
There is a need to better understand drivers and mag­
nitudes of resource variability at interannual to inter­
decadal timescales in order to contextualize projected
changes and enable attribution and detection studies.
There is also a need to undertake research designed to
Nature Reviews | Earth & Environment
Reviews
improve simulation of operating conditions to compre­
hensively assess the climate change sensitivity of wind
power generation.
Some of these needs are consistent with evolving foci
and initiatives within climate science. There is an increas­
ing focus on long-​term very-​high-​to-​high-​resolution,
convection permitting, simulations within regional cli­
mate science initiatives115,143. Use of a kilometre-​scale
resolution will likely improve representation of the mean
flow84 and should improve representation of phenomena
such as derechos and the resulting wind gusts and extreme
precipitation (including hail) and, thus, WT blade ero­
sion conditions47,144. Improved simulations of such
pheno­mena that are responsible for extreme and fatigue
mechanical stresses and how those may evolve under
global climate non-​stationarity will reduce uncertainty
for the wind energy industry. It will be instrumental in
enabling production of carbon-​free electricity at the low­
est achievable LCoE, by avoiding suboptimal siting, costly
over-​engineering of WT arrays, unacceptably high rates of
structural failures or underperformance of wind projects.
There is increasing emphasis on assessing the fidel­
ity of climate projections, and a recognition that models
need to exhibit both statistical skill in the contemporary
climate with respect to some target data sets and that
they are ‘getting the right answer for the right reason’94,145.
Enhanced model credibility will help develop and convey
actionable projections to the wind energy industry.
GCMs with 25–50-km horizontal grid spacings are
being included in CMIP6 under HighResMIP146 and
those with <5-​km grid spacing are being actively devel­
oped and tested using month-​long simulations147. Global
models with variable-​resolution capability (such as MPAS,
Fig. 3) afford important new opportunities, since they
can employ mesoscale and even convection-​permitting
resolutions in the refined domain while using coarser
(30–100-​km) grid spacings over the rest of the globe148.
High-​resolution coupled wind-​w ave RCMs are
increasingly able to simulate offshore winds and waves
and to accurately depict the influence of complex orog­
raphy. For example, in the Pacific coast and the Salish
Sea bordered by Washington State, USA and British
Columbia, Canada, surface winds are much better sim­
ulated by a regional model at 6-​km grid spacing com­
pared to a reanalysis product at ~25-​km grid spacing149.
Simulated wave height driven by the 6-​km regional simu­
lation also exhibits enhanced fidelity (Fig. 4). This research
demonstrates feasibility for improved wind-​wave loading
on offshore WTs in the contemporary and possible future
climate. Such coupling may also enhance the fidelity of
modelled extreme wind speeds138.
Increasingly large ensembles of high-​resolution
climate simulations are likely to better sample uncer­
tainties related to internal variability and model struc­
tural uncertainty150. There remains a need for carefully
curated subsets of GCMs and reanalyses to create an
ensemble that encompasses known uncertainties and
minimizes the use of LBCs that contain biases that
decrease the credibility of regional wind simulations.
Improved, higher-​resolution simulations from GCMs
are expected to reduce this problem151, and the availabil­
ity of GCM large ensembles will facilitate examination of
Reviews

9
46131
5

Modelled Hs (m)
4 8
50°N
3
2 7
1
0 6
0 1 2 3 4 5
Observed Hs (m)
49°N 5

Hs
46146
4 4
Modelled Hs (m)

3
2 3
48°N
1
2
0
0 1 2 3 4
Observed Hs (m) 1

46087 47°N 0
10 126°W 125°W 124°W 123°W 122°W
Modelled Hs (m)

8 46041 46088
6 12 4
10
Modelled Hs (m)

Modelled Hs (m)
4 3
8
2
6 2
0 4
0 2 4 6 8 10 1
Observed Hs (m) 2
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 1 2 3 4
Observed Hs (m) Observed Hs (m)

Fig. 4 | Simulations of Hs from a coupled regional climate model. Spatial distribution of significant wave height (Hs)
simulated by a wave model during a storm event at 10:00 on 13 December 2015. This storm event brought 9-​m waves to
the entrance of the Strait of Juan de Fuca near buoy 46087. Wave height is drastically reduced east of this location and is
strongly influenced by the local winds modulated by the complex orography. Buoy locations are shown with black and
white dots, with corresponding scatter plots of simulated and observed Hs at those locations for a 5-​year period between
2011 and 2015. The wave model was driven by winds simulated by a regional model at 6-​km grid spacing. This figure
illustrates the importance of topographic forcing on Hs close to coastlines and model skill for Hs. Adapted with permission
from ref.149, Elsevier.

uncertainties associated with natural variability152. New
research using regional refinement of global models
(as such the MPAS) may offer solutions to discontinu­
ities arising during application of RCMs within LBCs
from offline GCMs153,154.
Continued collaboration with the integrated assess­
ment modelling community will also allow additional
uncertainties related to future changes in LULC under
different socio-​economic scenarios to be incorporated
in RCMs155 and these may help inform constraints on,
for example, land areas available for expansion of wind
energy IC128.
Improvements in wind climate and mesoscale pro­
jections will not only benefit the wind energy industry
but also a wide array of stakeholders from different
socio-​economic sectors (such as the insurance indus­
try and the transportation sector). An increased
focus on characterizing and improving model fidelity
with respect to atmospheric flow will also fundamen­
tally advance climate science by improving represen­
tation of the surface energy balance and moisture
advection.
Published online xx xx xxxx

1. Wiser, R. et al. in IPCC Special Report on Renewable
Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation
(eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) 535 (Cambridge Univ.
Press, 2012).
A comprehensive analysis of the technical potential
wind resource, the role of wind energy in climate
change mitigation and wind energy technologies.
2. Eurek, K. et al. An improved global wind resource
estimate for integrated assessment models.
Energy Econ. 64, 552–567 (2017).
3. Marvel, K., Kravitz, B. & Caldeira, K. Geophysical
limits to global wind power. Nat. Clim. Change 3,
118–121 (2013).
4. Possner, A. & Caldeira, K. Geophysical potential for 9. Veers, P. et al. Grand challenges in the science of wind
wind energy over the open oceans. Proc. Natl Acad. energy. Science 366, eaau2027 (2019).
Sci. USA 114, 11338–11343 (2017). Emphasizes important trends within the wind
5. Jung, C., Schindler, D. & Laible, J. National and global energy industry and highlights resulting key
wind resource assessment under six wind turbine research avenues.
installation scenarios. Energy Convers. Manag. 156, 10. Wiser, R. et al. Expert elicitation survey on
403–415 (2018). future wind energy costs. Nat. Energy 1, 16135
6. International Energy Agency. Global energy & CO2 (2016).
status (IEA, 2019). 11. Global Wind Energy Council. Global wind report:
7. International Energy Agency. Key world energy annual market update 2017 (GWEC, 2018).
statistics 2019 (IEA, 2019). 12. Smoucha, E. A., Fitzpatrick, K., Buckingham, S. &
8. Global Wind Energy Council. Global wind report 2018 Knox, O. G. Life cycle analysis of the embodied carbon
(GWEC, 2019). emissions from 14 wind turbines with rated powers

www.nature.com/natrevearthenviron

between 50KW and 3.4Mw. J. Fundam. Renew. Energy
Appl. 6, 1000211 (2016).
13. Barthelmie, R. J. & Pryor, S. C. Potential contribution
of wind energy to climate change mitigation.
Nat. Clim. Change 4, 684–688 (2014).
Quantifies the potential role of wind energy
to climate change mitigation.
14. Wiser, R. et al. Long-​term implications of sustained
wind power growth in the United States: Potential
benefits and secondary impacts. Appl. Energy 179,
146–158 (2016).
15. Global Wind Energy Council. Global wind energy
outlook 2016 (GWEC, 2016).
16. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Climate Change 2013. The physical science basis
(Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
17. Pryor, S. C. & Barthelmie, R. J. Climate change
impacts on wind energy: A review. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 14, 430–437 (2010).
A comprehensive review on the topic of climate
change impacts on the wind energy industry.
18. Pryor, S. C. & Barthelmie, R. J. Assessing the
vulnerability of wind energy to climate change and
extreme events. Clim. Change 121, 79–91 (2013).
Addresses climate change impacts on the conditions
in which WTs operate.
19. Manwell, J. F., McGowan, J. G. & Rogers, A. L.
Wind Energy Explained: Theory, Design and
Application (Wiley, 2010).
20. Stull, R. B. An Introduction to Boundary Layer
Meteorology (Springer, 2012).
21. Irwin, J. S. A theoretical variation of the wind profile
power-​law exponent as a function of surface roughness
and stability. Atmos. Environ. 13, 191–194 (1979).
22. Barthelmie, R. J., Shepherd, T. J., Aird, J. A. &
Pryor, S. C. Power and wind shear implications of
large wind turbine scenarios in the US Central Plains.
Energies 13, 4269 (2020).
23. Gryning, S.-E., Batchvarova, E., Brümmer, B.,
Jørgensen, H. & Larsen, S. On the extension of the
wind profile over homogeneous terrain beyond
the surface boundary layer. Bound. Layer Meteorol.
124, 251–268 (2007).
24. Nunalee, C. G. & Basu, S. Mesoscale modeling of
coastal low-​level jets: implications for offshore wind
resource estimation. Wind Energy 17, 1199–1216
(2014).
25. Pryor, S. C., Shepherd, T. J. & Barthelmie, R. J.
Interannual variability of wind climates and wind
turbine annual energy production. Wind Energy Sci.
3, 651–665 (2018).
26. Pryor, S. C., Nielsen, M., Barthelmie, R. J. & Mann, J.
Can satellite sampling of offshore wind speeds
realistically represent wind speed distributions? Part II:
Quantifying uncertainties associated with sampling
strategy and distribution fitting methods. J. Appl.
Meteorol. 43, 739–750 (2004).
27. Mann, J., Kristensen, L. & Jensen, N. O. in Bridge
Aerodynamics (eds Larsen, A. & Esdahl, S.) 49–56
(Balkema, 1998).
28. Ramon, J., Lledó, L., Torralba, V., Soret, A. &
Doblas-​Reyes, F. J. What global reanalysis best
represents near-​surface winds? Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc.
145, 3236–3251 (2019).
29. Olauson, J. ERA5: The new champion of wind power
modelling? Renew. Energy 126, 322–331 (2018).
30. Garcia-​Heller, V., Espinasa, R. & Paredes, S.
Forecast study of the supply curve of solar and wind
technologies in Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico.
Renew. Energy 93, 168–179 (2016).
31. Bianchi, E., Solarte, A. & Guozden, T. Spatiotemporal
variability of the wind power resource in Argentina
and Uruguay. Wind Energy 22, 1086–1100 (2019).
32. Pryor, S. C., Conrick, R., Miller, C., Tytell, J. &
Barthelmie, R. J. Intense and extreme wind speeds
observed by anemometer and seismic networks:
An eastern US case study. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol.
53, 2417–2429 (2014).
33. Pryor, S. C., Barthelmie, R. J. & Schoof, J. T.
Inter-​annual variability of wind indices across Europe.
Wind Energy 9, 27–38 (2006).
34. Grams, C. M., Beerli, R., Pfenninger, S., Staffell, I.
& Wernli, H. Balancing Europe’s wind-​power output
through spatial deployment informed by weather
regimes. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 557–562 (2017).
35. Reichenberg, L., Wojciechowski, A., Hedenus, F.
& Johnsson, F. Geographic aggregation of wind
power-​an optimization methodology for avoiding low
outputs. Wind Energy 20, 19–32 (2017).
36. International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC
61400-1:2019. Wind energy generation systems –
Part 1: design requirements (IEC, 2019).
Nature Reviews | Earth & Environment
37. International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC
61400-3-1:2019. Wind energy generation systems.
Part 3-1: design requirements for fixed offshore wind
turbines (IEC, 2019).
38. Johansson, V. et al. Value of wind power–implications
from specific power. Energy 126, 352–360 (2017).
39. Jackson, K., Van Dam, C. & Yen-​Nakafuji, D.
Wind turbine generator trends for site-​specific
tailoring. Wind Energy 8, 443–455 (2005).
40. Hansen, M. O. L. Aerodynamics of Wind Turbines
(Routledge, 2015).
41. Knutson, T. et al. Tropical cyclones and climate
change assessment: Part I: Detection and attribution.
Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 100, 1987–2007 (2019).
42. Romero, R. & Emanuel, K. Climate change and
hurricane-​like extratropical cyclones: projections for
North Atlantic polar lows and medicanes based on
CMIP5 models. J. Clim. 30, 279–299 (2017).
43. Davis, N., Hahmann, A. N., Clausen, N. E. & Zagar, M.
Forecast of icing events at a wind farm in Sweden.
J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 53, 262–281 (2014).
44. Sabatier, J., Lanusse, P., Feytout, B. & Gracia, S.
in Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics
Vol. 495 (eds Gusikhin, O. & Madani, K.) 641–663
(Springer, 2020).
45. Letson, F. W., Barthelmie, R. J. & Pryor, S. C.
RADAR-​derived precipitation climatology for wind
turbine blade leading edge erosion. Wind Energy Sci.
5, 331–347 (2020).
46. Herring, R., Dyer, K., Martin, F. & Ward, C.
The increasing importance of leading edge erosion
and a review of existing protection solutions.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 115, 109382 (2019).
47. Letson, F., Shepherd, T. J., Barthelmie, R. J. &
Pryor, S. C. WRF modelling of deep convection and
hail for wind power applications. J. App. Meteorol.
Climatol. https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-​D-20-0033.1
(2020).
48. Feingold, G., Koren, I., Wang, H., Xue, H. & Brewer, W. A.
Precipitation-​generated oscillations in open cellular
cloud fields. Nature 466, 849–852 (2010).
49. Pleskachevsky, A. L., Lehner, S. & Rosenthal, W.
Storm observations by remote sensing and influences
of gustiness on ocean waves and on generation of
rogue waves. Ocean Dyn. 62, 1335–1351 (2012).
50. Larsén, X. G., Vincent, C. & Larsen, S. Spectral
structure of mesoscale winds over the water.
Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 139, 685–700 (2013).
51. Passon, P. & Branner, K. Condensation of long-​term
wave climates for the fatigue design of hydrodynamically
sensitive offshore wind turbine support structures.
Ships Offshore Struct. 11, 142–166 (2016).
52. Young, I., Vinoth, J., Zieger, S. & Babanin, A. V.
Investigation of trends in extreme value wave height
and wind speed. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 117,
C00J06 (2012).
53. Sun, C. & Jahangiri, V. Fatigue damage mitigation
of offshore wind turbines under real wind and wave
conditions. Eng. Struct. 178, 472–483 (2019).
54. Trenberth, K. E., Dai, A., Rasmussen, R. M. &
Parsons, D. B. The changing character of precipitation.
Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 1205–1217 (2003).
55. Ma, J., Xie, S.-P. & Kosaka, Y. Mechanisms for tropical
tropospheric circulation change in response to global
warming. J. Clim. 25, 2979–2994 (2012).
56. Shaw, T. et al. Storm track processes and the
opposing influences of climate change. Nat. Geosci. 9,
656–664 (2016).
57. Bengtsson, L., Hodges, K. & Roeckner, E. Storm tracks
and climate change. J. Clim. 19, 3518–3543 (2006).
58. Catto, J. L. et al. The future of midlatitude cyclones.
Curr. Clim. Change Rep. 5, 407–420 (2019).
59. O’Gorman, P. A. Understanding the varied response
of the extratropical storm tracks to climate change.
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 19176–19180
(2011).
60. McCabe, G., Clark, M. & Serreze, M. Trends in Northern
Hemisphere surface cyclone frequency and intensity.
J. Clim. 14, 2763–2768 (2001).
61. Pryor, S. C. & Hahmann, A. N. in Oxford Research
Encyclopedias: Climate Science (ed. von Storch, H.)
(Oxford Univ. Press, 2019).
62. Jung, C., Taubert, D. & Schindler, D. The temporal
variability of global wind energy–Long-​term trends
and inter-​annual variability. Energy Convers. Manag.
188, 462–472 (2019).
63. Bett, P. E., Thornton, H. E. & Clark, R. T. Using the
Twentieth Century Reanalysis to assess climate
variability for the European wind industry. Theor. Appl.
Climatol. 127, 61–80 (2017).
64. Moemken, J., Reyers, M., Buldmann, B. & Pinto, J. G.
Decadal predictability of regional scale wind speed
Reviews
and wind energy potentials over Central Europe.
Tellus A 68, 29199 (2016).
65. Higuchi, K., Huang, J. & Shabbar, A. A wavelet
characterization of the North Atlantic oscillation
variation and its relationship to the North Atlantic sea
surface temperature. Int. J. Climatol. 19, 1119–1129
(1999).
66. Schwing, F. B., Jiang, J. & Mendelssohn, R. Coherency
of multi-​scale abrupt changes between the NAO, NPI,
and PDO. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1406 (2003).
67. Schoof, J. T. & Pryor, S. C. Assessing the fidelity
of AOGCM-​simulated relationships between large-​
scale modes of climate variability and wind speeds.
J. Geophys. Res. 119, 9719–9734 (2014).
68. Sandeep, S., Ajayamohan, R., Boos, W. R., Sabin, T.
& Praveen, V. Decline and poleward shift in Indian
summer monsoon synoptic activity in a warming
climate. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 2681–2686
(2018).
69. Vautard, R., Cattiaux, J., Yiou, P., Thepaut, J. N. &
Ciais, P. Northern hemisphere atmospheric stilling
partly attributed to an increase in surface roughness.
Nat. Geosci. 3, 756–761 (2010).
70. Pryor, S. C. & Ledolter, J. Addendum to “Wind speed
trends over the contiguous United States”. J. Geophys.
Res. Atmos. 115, D10103 (2010).
71. Pryor, S. C. et al. Wind speed trends over the
contiguous United States. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos.
114, D14105 (2009).
72. Wu, J., Zha, J. L., Zhao, D. M. & Yang, Q. D.
Changes in terrestrial near-​surface wind speed and
their possible causes: an overview. Clim. Dyn. 51,
2039–2078 (2018).
73. Chen, L., Pryor, S. C., Wang, H. & Zhang, R.
Distribution and variation of the surface sensible
heat flux over the central and eastern Tibetan
Plateau: comparison of station observations and
multireanalysis products. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos.
124, 6191–6206 (2019).
74. Zeng, Z. et al. A reversal in global terrestrial stilling
and its implications for wind energy production.
Nat. Clim. Change 9, 979–985 (2019).
Reports evidence for the presence of low-​frequency
variability in near-​surface wind speeds.
75. Poan, E., Gachon, P., Laprise, R., Aider, R. &
Dueymes, G. Investigating added value of regional
climate modeling in North American winter storm
track simulations. Clim. Dyn. 50, 1799–1818 (2018).
76. Trzeciak, T. M., Knippertz, P., Pirret, J. S. &
Williams, K. D. Can we trust climate models to
realistically represent severe European windstorms?
Clim. Dyn. 46, 3431–3451 (2016).
77. Hodges, K. I., Lee, R. W. & Bengtsson, L. A comparison
of extratropical cyclones in recent reanalyses ERA-​
Interim, NASA MERRA, NCEP CFSR, and JRA-25.
J. Clim. 24, 4888–4906 (2011).
78. Pryor, S. C., Schoof, J. T. & Barthelmie, R. J.
Winds of change?: Projections of near-​surface winds
under climate change scenarios. Geophys. Res. Lett.
33, L11702 (2006).
79. Pryor, S. C. & Barthelmie, R. J. in Climate Change
in the Midwest: Impacts, Risks, Vulnerability, and
Adaptation Ch. 16 (ed. Pryor, S.C.) 213–229
(Indiana Univ. Press, 2013).
80. Pryor, S. C. & Barthelmie, R. J. Assessing climate
change impacts on the near-​term stability of the
wind energy resource over the USA. Proc. Natl Acad.
Sci. USA 108, 8167–8171 (2011).
81. Winterfeldt, J. & Weisse, R. Assessment of value
added for surface marine wind speed obtained from
two regional climate models. Mon. Weather Rev. 137,
2955–2965 (2009).
82. Pryor, S. C., Barthelmie, R. J. & Schoof, J. T. Past and
future wind climates over the contiguous USA based
on the North American Regional Climate Change
Assessment Program model suite. J. Geophys. Res.
117, D19119 (2012).
83. Larsen, X. G., Mann, J., Berg, J., Gottel, H. & Jacob, D.
Wind climate from the regional climate model REMO.
Wind Energy 13, 279–296 (2010).
84. Pryor, S. C., Nikulin, G. & Jones, C. Influence of spatial
resolution on regional climate model derived wind
climates. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 117, D03117 (2012).
85. Kusiak, A. Share data on wind energy: giving
researchers access to information on turbine
performance would allow wind farms to be optimized
through data mining. Nature 529, 19–22 (2016).
86. Holt, E. & Wang, J. Trends in wind speed at wind
turbine height of 80 m over the contiguous United
States using the North American Regional Reanalysis
(NARR). J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 51, 2188–2202
(2012).
Reviews
87. McVicar, T. R. et al. Wind speed climatology and trends
for Australia, 1975–2006: Capturing the stilling
phenomenon and comparison with near-​surface
reanalysis output. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L20403
(2008).
88. Chen, L., Li, D. & Pryor, S. C. Wind speed trends over
China: quantifying the magnitude and assessing
causality. Int. J. Climatol. 33, 2579–2590 (2013).
89. Hueging, H., Haas, R., Born, K., Jacob, D. & Pinto, J. G.
Regional changes in wind energy potential over Europe
using regional climate model ensemble projections.
J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 52, 903–917 (2013).
90. Pryor, S. C. et al. Analyses of possible changes in
intense and extreme wind speeds over northern
Europe under climate change scenarios. Clim. Dyn.
38, 189–208 (2012).
91. Reyers, M., Moemken, J. & Pinto, J. G. Future changes
of wind energy potentials over Europe in a large
CMIP5 multi-​model ensemble. Int. J. Climatol. 36,
783–796 (2016).
92. Hdidouan, D. & Staffell, I. The impact of climate
change on the levelised cost of wind energy.
Renew. Energy 101, 575–592 (2017).
93. Tobin, I. et al. Assessing climate change impacts
on European wind energy from ENSEMBLES high-​
resolution climate projections. Clim. Change 128,
99–112 (2015).
Includes one of the most comprehensive RCM
ensembles and a focus on medium-​term projections
of wind resources.
94. Pryor, S. C., Shepherd, T. J., Bukovsky, M. &
Barthelmie, R. J. Assessing the stability of wind
resource and operating conditions. J. Phys. Conf. Ser.
1452, 012084 (2020).
95. Greene, J. S., Chatelain, M., Morrissey, M. &
Stadler, S. Projected future wind speed and wind
power density trends over the Western US High Plains.
Atmos. Clim. Sci. 2, 32–40 (2012).
96. Ruffato-​Ferreira, V. et al. A foundation for the strategic
long-​term planning of the renewable energy sector in
Brazil: hydroelectricity and wind energy in the face of
climate change scenarios. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
72, 1124–1137 (2017).
97. de Jong, P. et al. Estimating the impact of climate
change on wind and solar energy in Brazil using a
South American regional climate model. Renew. Energy
141, 390–401 (2019).
98. Kulkarni, S. & Huang, H. P. Changes in surface
wind speed over North America from CMIP5
model projections and implications for wind energy.
Adv. Meteorol. 2014, 292768 (2014).
99. Wiser, R. H. & Bolinger, M. Benchmarking anticipated
wind project lifetimes: results from a survey of U.S.
Wind industry professionals. Electricity Markets &
Policy https://emp.lbl.gov/publications/benchmarking-​
anticipated-wind-​project (2019).
100. Pryor, S. C. & Barthelmie, R. J. Hybrid downscaling
of wind climates over the eastern USA. Environ. Res.
Lett. 9, 024013 (2014).
101. Pryor, S. C. & Schoof, J. T. Importance of the SRES in
projections of climate change impacts on near-​surface
wind regimes. Meteorol. Z. 19, 267–274 (2010).
102. Carvalho, D., Rocha, A., Gomez-​Gesteira, M. &
Santos, C. S. Potential impacts of climate change
on European wind energy resource under the CMIP5
future climate projections. Renew. Energy 101, 29–40
(2017).
103. Sakaguchi, K. et al. Exploring a multiresolution
approach using AMIP simulations. J. Clim. 28,
5549–5574 (2015).
104. Giorgetta, M. A. et al. Climate and carbon cycle
changes from 1850 to 2100 in MPI-​ESM simulations
for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase
5. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 5, 572–597 (2013).
105. Johnson, D. L. & Erhardt, R. J. Projected impacts of
climate change on wind energy density in the United
States. Renew. Energy 85, 66–73 (2016).
106. Lindvall, J., Svensson, G. & Caballero, R. The impact
of changes in parameterizations of surface drag and
vertical diffusion on the large-​scale circulation in the
Community Atmosphere Model (CAM5). Clim. Dyn.
48, 3741–3758 (2017).
107. Larsén, X. G., Ott, S., Badger, J., Hahmann, A. N. &
Mann, J. Recipes for correcting the impact of effective
mesoscale resolution on the estimation of extreme
winds. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 51, 521–533 (2012).
108. Lombardo, F. T. Improved extreme wind speed
estimation for wind engineering applications. J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 104–106, 278–284 (2012).
109. Cook, N. J. Confidence limits for extreme wind speeds
in mixed climates. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 92,
41–51 (2004).
110. Weisse, R. & von Storch, H. in Marine Climate and
Climate Change: Storms, Wind Waves and Storm
Surges Ch. 5 165–203 (Springer, 2010).
111. Lombardo, F. T. & Ayyub, B. Approach to estimating
near-​surface extreme wind speeds with climate change
considerations. J. Risk Uncertain. Eng. Syst. A 3,
A4017001 (2017).
112. Kumar, D., Mishra, V. & Ganguly, A. R. Evaluating
wind extremes in CMIP5 climate models. Clim. Dyn.
45, 441–453 (2015).
113. Born, K., Ludwig, P. & Pinto, J. G. Wind gust estimation
for Mid-​European winter storms: towards a probabilistic
view. Tellus A 64, 17471 (2012).
114. Cheng, C. S., Lopes, E., Fu, C. & Huang, Z. Possible
impacts of climate change on wind gusts under
downscaled future climate conditions: updated for
Canada. J. Clim. 27, 1255–1270 (2014).
115. Prein, A. F. et al. A review on regional convection-​
permitting climate modeling: Demonstrations,
prospects, and challenges. Rev. Geophys. 53,
323–361 (2015).
Emphasizes key trends towards higher-​fidelity,
high-​resolution simulations.
116. Orwig, K. D. & Schroeder, J. L. Near-​surface wind
characteristics of extreme thunderstorm outflows.
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 95, 565–584 (2007).
117. Hoogewind, K. A., Baldwin, M. E. & Trapp, R. J.
The impact of climate change on hazardous convective
weather in the United States: insight from high-​
resolution dynamical downscaling. J. Clim. 30,
10081–10100 (2017).
118. Di, Y., Lu, J., Xu, X., Feng, T. & Li, L. A response
characteristics study of widespread power grid icing
to El Nino. Math. Probl. Eng. 2019, 6589410 (2019).
119. Yu, Y., Ren, Z., Gao, F. & Meng, X. Changes in surface
icing duration over north china during 1961–2015.
Atmos. Sci. Lett. 19, e827 (2018).
120. Clausen, N. E. et al. in Impacts of Climate Change on
Renewable Energy Sources (ed Fenger, J.) 105–128
(Nordic Council of Ministers, 2007).
121. Zhang, Y., Chen, W. & Riseborough, D. W. Transient
projections of permafrost distribution in Canada
during the 21st century under scenarios of climate
change. Glob. Planet. Change 60, 443–456 (2008).
122. Zheng, M., Yang, Z. J., Yang, S. & Still, B. Modeling
and mitigation of excessive dynamic responses of wind
turbines founded in warm permafrost. Eng. Struct.
148, 36–46 (2017).
123. Cheng, G. Permafrost studies in the Qinghai–Tibet
Plateau for road construction. J. Cold Reg. Eng. 19,
19–29 (2005).
124. Vanem, E. Non-​stationary extreme value models to
account for trends and shifts in the extreme wave
climate due to climate change. Appl. Ocean Res. 52,
201–211 (2015).
125. Shope, J. B., Storlazzi, C. D., Erikson, L. H. &
Hegermiller, C. A. Changes to extreme wave
climates of islands within the Western Tropical Pacific
throughout the 21st century under RCP 4.5 and RCP
8.5, with implications for island vulnerability and
sustainability. Glob. Planet. Change 141, 25–38 (2016).
126. Dvorak, P. A look at repowering older wind farms
to 2020. Windpower Engineering & Development
https://www.windpowerengineering.com/look-​
repowering-older-​wind-farms-2020/ (2018).
127. International Energy Agency. Wind technology
collaboration programme: annual report 2017
(IEA, 2018).
128. Pryor, S. C., Barthelme, R. J. & Shepherd, T. 20% of
US electricity from wind will have limited impacts on
system efficiency and regional climate. Sci. Rep. 10,
541 (2020).
129. American Wind Energy Association. Wind industry
annual market report, year ending 2017. AWEA
https://www.awea.org/resources/publications-​and-
reports/market-​reports/2017-u-​s-wind-​industry-
market-​reports (2018).
130. Dalla Riva, A. et al. IEA wind TCP Task 26 –
Wind technology, cost, and performance trends in
Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, the
European Union, and the United States: 2008–2016
(National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2019).
131. Wind Europe. Wind energy in Europe in 2018
(Wind Europe, 2019).
132. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Annual
technology baseline: electricity. NREL https://www.
nrel.gov/analysis/data-​tech-baseline.html (2019).
133. Musial, W., Beiter, J., Spitsen, P., Nunemaker, J. &
Gevorgian, V. 2018 offshore wind technologies market
report (Department of Energy, 2019).
134. Horn, J. T., Krokstad, J. R. & Leira, B. J. Impact
of model uncertainties on the fatigue reliability of
offshore wind turbines. Mar. Struct. 64, 174–185
(2019).
135. Luengo, J., Negro, V., García-​Barba, J., López-​
Gutiérrez, J.-S. & Esteban, M. D. New detected
uncertainties in the design of foundations for offshore
wind turbines. Renew. Energy 131, 667–677 (2019).
136. Igwemezie, V., Mehmanparast, A. & Kolios, A. Current
trend in offshore wind energy sector and material
requirements for fatigue resistance improvement in
large wind turbine support structures – A review.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 101, 181–196 (2019).
137. Dai, K. S. et al. Nonlinear response history analysis
and collapse mode study of a wind turbine tower
subjected to tropical cyclonic winds. Wind Struct. 25,
79–100 (2017).
138. Larsen, X. G. et al. Estimation of offshore extreme
wind from wind-​wave coupled modeling. Wind Energy
22, 1043–1057 (2019).
139. Du, J. T., Bolanos, R. & Larsen, X. G. The use of a
wave boundary layer model in SWAN. J. Geophys. Res.
Oceans 122, 42–62 (2017).
140. Pryor, S. C., Shepherd, T., Volker, P., Hahmann, A.
& Barthelmie, R. J. “Wind theft” from onshore
wind turbine arrays: Sensitivity to wind farm
parameterization and resolution. J. Appl. Meteorol.
Climatol. 59, 153–174 (2020).
141. Jiménez, P. A., Navarro, J., Palomares, A. M. &
Dudhia, J. Mesoscale modeling of offshore wind
turbine wakes at the wind farm resolving scale:
a composite-​based analysis with the Weather
Research and Forecasting model over Horns Rev.
Wind Energy 18, 559–566 (2015).
142. Wilczak, J. et al. The Wind Forecast Improvement
Project (WFIP): A public–private partnership
addressing wind energy forecast needs. Bull. Am.
Meteorol. Soc. 96, 1699–1718 (2015).
143. Gutowski, W. J. Jr. et al. The ongoing need for
high-​resolution regional climate models: Process
understanding and stakeholder information. Bull. Am.
Meteorol. Soc. 101, E664–E683 (2020).
144. Kendon, E. J. et al. Do convection-​permitting regional
climate models improve projections of future
precipitation change? Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 98,
79–93 (2017).
145. Bukovsky, M. S., Gochis, D. J. & Mearns, L. O.
Towards assessing NARCCAP regional climate model
credibility for the North American monsoon: Current
climate simulations. J. Clim. 26, 8802–8826 (2013).
146. Haarsma, R. J. et al. High resolution model
intercomparison project (HighResMIP v1. 0) for
CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 4185–4208 (2016).
147. Stevens, B. et al. DYAMOND: The DYnamics of the
Atmospheric general circulation Modeled On Non-​
hydrostatic Domains. Prog. Earth Planet. Sci. 6, 61
(2019).
148. Hagos, S., Leung, L. R., Zhao, C., Feng, Z. &
Sakaguchi, K. How do microphysical processes
influence large-​scale precipitation variability and
extremes? Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 1661–1667
(2018).
149. Yang, Z. et al. Modeling analysis of the swell and
wind-​sea climate in the Salish Sea. Estuarine Coast.
Shelf Sci. 224, 289–300 (2019).
150. Coppola, E. et al. A first-​of-its-​kind multi-​model
convection permitting ensemble for investigating
convective phenomena over Europe and the
Mediterranean. Clim. Dyn. 55, 3–34 (2020).
151. Roberts, M. et al. The benefits of global high resolution
for climate simulation: process understanding and the
enabling of stakeholder decisions at the regional scale.
Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 99, 2341–2359 (2018).
152. von Trentini, F., Leduc, M. & Ludwig, R. Assessing
natural variability in RCM signals: comparison
of a multi model EURO-​CORDEX ensemble with a
50-member single model large ensemble. Clim. Dyn.
53, 1963–1979 (2019).
153. Marbaix, P., Gallée, H., Brasseur, O. & van Ypersele, J.-P.
Lateral boundary conditions in regional climate
models: a detailed study of the relaxation procedure.
Mon. Weather Rev. 131, 461–479 (2003).
154. Giorgi, F. Thirty years of regional climate modeling:
Where are we and where are we going next? J. Geophys.
Res. Atmos. 124, 5696–5723 (2019).
Summarizes the history of, challenges to and new
prospects for regional climate modelling.
155. Gao, J. & O’Neill, B. C. Data-​driven spatial modeling of
global long-​term urban land development: The SELECT
model. Environ. Model. Softw. 119, 458–471 (2019).
156. Hamlington, B. D., Hamlington, P. E., Collins, S. G.,
Alexander, S. R. & Kim, K. Y. Effects of climate
oscillations on wind resource variability in the United
States. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 145–152 (2015).
www.nature.com/natrevearthenviron

157. Lledo, L., Bellprat, O., Doblas-​Reyes, F. J. & Soret, A.
Investigating the effects of Pacific sea surface
temperatures on the wind drought of 2015 over
the United States. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 123,
4837–4849 (2018).
158. Greene, J. S., Chatelain, M., Morrissey, M. &
Stadler, S. Estimated changes in wind speed and
wind power density over the western High Plains,
1971–2000. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 109, 507–518
(2012).
159. Klink, K. Atmospheric circulation effects on wind
speed variability at turbine height. J. Appl. Meteorol.
Climatol. 46, 445–456 (2007).
160. Clifton, A. & Lundquist, J. K. Data clustering reveals
climate impacts on local wind phenomena. J. Appl.
Meteorol. Climatol. 51, 1547–1557 (2012).
161. George, S. S. & Wolfe, S. A. El Niño stills winter winds
across the southern Canadian Prairies. Geophys. Res.
Lett. 36, L23806 (2009).
162. Torres Silva dos Santos, A., E Silva, S. & Moisés, C.
Seasonality, interannual variability, and linear
tendency of wind speeds in the Northeast Brazil
from 1986 to 2011. Sci. World J. 2013, 490857
(2013).
163. Bianchi, E., Solarte, A. & Guozden, T. M. Large
scale climate drivers for wind resource in Southern
South America. Renew. Energy 114, 708–715
(2017).
164. Watts, D., Duran, P. & Flores, Y. How does El Nino
Southern Oscillation impact the wind resource in
Chile? A techno-​economical assessment of the
influence of El Nino and La Nina on the wind power.
Renew. Energy 103, 128–142 (2017).
165. Ravestein, P., van der Schrier, G., Haarsma, R.,
Scheele, R. & van den Broek, M. Vulnerability of
European intermittent renewable energy supply
to climate change and climate variability. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 97, 497–508 (2018).
166. Francois, B. Influence of winter North-​Atlantic
oscillation on climate-​related-energy penetration in
Europe. Renew. Energy 99, 602–613 (2016).
167. Kriesche, P. & Schlosser, C. A. The association of the
North Atlantic and the Arctic Oscillation on wind
energy resource over Europe and its intermittency.
Energy Procedia 52, 270–277 (2014).
168. Jerez, S. et al. The impact of the North Atlantic
Oscillation on renewable energy resources in
southwestern Europe. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 52,
2204–2225 (2013).
169. Brayshaw, D. J., Troccoli, A., Fordham, R. & Methven, J.
The impact of large scale atmospheric circulation
patterns on wind power generation and its potential
predictability: A case study over the UK. Renew. Energy
36, 2087–2096 (2011).
170. Earl, N., Dorling, S., Hewston, R. & von Glasow, R.
1980–2010 variability in UK surface wind climate.
J. Clim. 26, 1172–1191 (2013).
171. Iversen, E. C. & Burningham, H. Relationship between
NAO and wind climate over Norway. Clim. Res. 63,
115–134 (2015).
Nature Reviews | Earth & Environment
172. Commin, A. N. et al. The influence of the North
Atlantic Oscillation on diverse renewable generation
in Scotland. Appl. Energy 205, 855–867 (2017).
173. Albani, A., Ibrahim, M. Z. & Yong, K. H. Influence of the
ENSO and monsoonal season on long-​term wind energy
potential in Malaysia. Energies 11, 2965 (2018).
174. Dunning, C., Turner, A. & Brayshaw, D. The impact of
monsoon intraseasonal variability on renewable power
generation in India. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 064002
(2015).
175. Haupt, S. E. et al. A method to assess the wind and
solar resource and to quantify interannual variability
over the United States under current and projected
future climate. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 55,
345–363 (2016).
176. Rasmussen, D., Holloway, T. & Nemet, G. Opportunities
and challenges in assessing climate change impacts
on wind energy — a critical comparison of wind speed
projections in California. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 024008
(2011).
177. Karnauskas, K. B., Lundquist, J. K. & Zhang, L.
Southward shift of the global wind energy resource
under high carbon dioxide emissions. Nat. Geosci. 11,
38–43 (2018).
178. Daines, J. T., Monahan, A. H. & Curry, C. L. Model-​
based projections and uncertainties of near-​surface
wind climate in western Canada. J. Appl. Meteorol.
Climatol. 55, 2229–2245 (2016).
179. Gross, M. & Magar, V. Offshore wind energy climate
projection using UPSCALE climate data under the
RCP8.5 emission scenario. PLoS ONE 11, e0165423
(2016).
180. Devis, A., Van Lipzig, N. P. M. & Demuzere, M.
Should future wind speed changes be taken into
account in wind farm development? Environ. Res. Lett.
13, 064012 (2018).
181. Reyers, M., Pinto, J. G. & Moemken, J. Statistical-​
dynamical downscaling for wind energy potentials:
evaluation and applications to decadal hindcasts
and climate change projections. Int. J. Climatol. 35,
229–244 (2015).
182. Davy, R., Gnatiuk, N., Pettersson, L. & Bobylev, L.
Climate change impacts on wind energy potential in
the European domain with a focus on the Black Sea.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 81, 1652–1659 (2018).
183. Chen, L., Pryor, S. C. & Li, D. Assessing the performance
of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change AR5
climate models in simulating and projecting wind
speeds over China. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 117,
D24102 (2012).
184. Xiong, Y. J., Xin, X. G. & Kou, X. X. Simulation and
projection of near-​surface wind speeds in China by
BCC-​CSM models. J. Meteorol. Res. 33, 149–158
(2019).
185. Evans, J. P., Kay, M., Prasad, A. & Pitman, A.
The resilience of Australian wind energy to climate
change. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 024014 (2018).
186. Ohba, M. The impact of global warming on wind energy
resources and ramp events in Japan. Atmosphere 10,
265 (2019).
Reviews
187. Kamranzad, B. & Mori, N. Future wind and wave climate
projections in the Indian Ocean based on a super-​high-
resolution MRI-​AGCM3.2S model projection. Clim. Dyn.
53, 2391–2410 (2019).
188. Lawrence, D. M. et al. Parameterization improvements
and functional and structural advances in version 4 of
the Community Land Model. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst.
3, M03001 (2011).
189. Bogenschutz, P. A. et al. The path to CAM6: coupled
simulations with CAM5.4 and CAM5.5. Geosci. Model.
Dev. 11, 235–255 (2018).
190. Zhao, C. et al. Exploring the impacts of physics
and resolution on aqua-​planet simulations from a
nonhydrostatic global variable-​resolution modeling
framework. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 8, 1751–1768
(2016).
191. Wilks, D. S. Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric
Sciences Vol. 100 (Academic, 2011).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy
(DoE) (DE-​SC0016438 and DE-​SC0016605). The research
used computing resources from the NCAR-​CISL programme
(UCOR0020) and the National Science Foundation’s Extreme
Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE)
(allocation award to S.C.P. is TG-​ATM170024). The authors
express their appreciation to N. Davis of DTU Wind Energy
for providing access to a digital form of the Global Wind Atlas
mean wind speeds shown in Fig. 1a.
Author contributions
S.C.P. conducted the majority of the analyses presented
herein, made Figs 1,3 and Tables 1,2, undertook the litera-
ture review and wrote the initial draft of the manuscript.
R.J.B. conducted the analyses presented in Fig. 2 and wrote
related text and wrote the initial draft of the wind energy
industry trends. M.S.B. performed the WRF simulations that
are analysed and presented herein and wrote part of the
section on reconciling climate and wind energy science. L.R.L.
helped perform the simulations presented in Fig. 4 and con-
tributed related text. K.S. performed the MPAS simula-
tions that are analysed and presented herein and wrote parts
of the section on reconciling climate and wind energy science.
All co-​authors contributed to editing the draft manuscript
and read and approved the revised manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information
Nature Reviews Earth & Environment thanks Christopher Jung
and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to
the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© Springer Nature Limited 2020