4.7 Article

Projected changes in wind power potential over China and India in high resolution climate models

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS
卷 16, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/abe57c

关键词

regional climate change; wind power; CORDEX; CMIP; China; India

资金

  1. Harvard Global Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As more countries commit to emissions reductions to curb climate change, decarbonization of the electricity sector becomes crucial. Wind and solar power will play a major role in this transition, despite a slight decrease in available resources, there is enormous potential for expansion.
As more countries commit to emissions reductions by midcentury to curb anthropogenic climate change, decarbonization of the electricity sector becomes a first-order task in reaching this goal. Renewables, particularly wind and solar power, will be predominant components of this transition. How availability of the wind and solar resource will change in the future in response to regional climate changes is an important and underdiscussed topic of the decarbonization process. Here, we study changes in potential for wind power in China and India, evaluating prospectively until the year 2060. To do this, we study a downscaled, high-resolution multimodel ensemble of CMIP5 models under high and low emissions scenarios. While there is some intermodel variability, we find that spatial changes are generally consistent across models, with decreases of up to 965 (a 1% change) and 186 TWh (a 2% change) in annual electricity generation potential for China and India, respectively. Compensating for the declining resource are weakened seasonal and diurnal variabilities, allowing for easier large-scale wind power integration. We conclude that while the ensemble indicates available wind resource over China and India will decline slightly in the future, there remains enormous potential for significant wind power expansion, which must play a major role in carbon neutral aspirations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据