Global Prospects for Airborne Wind Onshore

Ciaran Frost BVG Associates The Blackthorn Centre

Purton Road Cricklade Swindon SN6 6HY United Kingdom cjf@bvgassociates.com www.bvgassociates.com

Global Prospects for Airborne Wind Onshore

1_{BVG Associates} 2_{KPS Ltd}

Airborne wind energy (AWE) technology is evolving rapidly and could become mainstream in the next decade. The major target is generally regarded as off-shore, particularly on floating platforms at deep water sites. This is for three main reasons: there is less com-petition from other energy sources, there are significant cost savings compared to conventional wind due to lower material mass, and there are anticipated to be fewer planning issues as the devices will be located away from populated areas.

Onshore markets are also important, giving a low-cost opportunity to demonstrate proof of concept and accel-erate cost reduction. There are also many areas of the globe without access to electrical power from a reliable grid; these give AWE technology developers opportuni-ties to build volume and evolve technology at smaller scales.

In this study we characterised the global potential for on-shore AWE compared to alternatives. Using GIS software, we calculated the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of con-ventional wind, solar and diesel gensets across the world. The geospatial variance of the technologies was captured using global datasets: annual average wind speed, solar irradiation and country-scale diesel price, which were combined with benchmark system costs. The costs were fixed across all locations; this represented an assumption as in reality these will vary according to regional factors like logistical costs, tax regimes and local labour cost. The output of the analyses were ‘heatmaps’ of LCOE. At

each point analysed the lowest cost technology was iden-tified. The LCOE for an AWE device was also calculated and compared to the conventional case to identify the most suitable areas for the technology. An example of this output is presented in the Figure.

A further analysis considered socioeconomic and envi-ronmental exclusion zones. Examples included proxim-ity to airports and urban areas and remote areas far from road infrastructure. This allowed priority markets for AWE onshore to be identified. Conclusions are drawn as to the size and location of the markets and the likely role they will play in the development of AWE.

LCOE of the AWE device vs the cheapest conventional technology. The green areas indicate where the AWE device is cheaper, the red areas where the conventional technology is cheaper.