Content uploaded by Mahmudul Alam Shakib
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mahmudul Alam Shakib on May 11, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Mahmudul Alam Shakib
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mahmudul Alam Shakib on Jan 26, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 7 (2022) 100415
Available online 21 January 2022
2666-7908/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Adverse environmental impacts of wind farm installations and alternative
research pathways to their mitigation
Nasimul Eshan Chowdhury
a
, Mahmudul Alam Shakib
b
, Fei Xu
c
, Sayedus Salehin
a
,
Md Rashidul Islam
d
, Arafat A. Bhuiyan
a
,
*
a
Department of Mechanical and Production Engineering, Islamic University of Technology, Board Bazar, Gazipur, 1704, Bangladesh
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Iowa, 2404, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA
c
Ansys, Inc., Austin, TX, 78746, USA
d
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Khulna University of Engineering & Technology, Khulna, 9203, Bangladesh
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Environmental impact
Bladeless wind turbine
Kite power
Aves
Wind energy
ABSTRACT
The world has witnessed an unprecedented growth of WF installation, driven by national and international
energy policies. Considering the negative impacts of fossil fuel and associated climate changes, wind is an
important form of renewable energy. Nevertheless, the conventional WFs also have some environmental effects.
Besides, the conventional WTs lack in performance due to technical limitations. Upon comprehensively
reviewing the impacts and the technicalities, this literature focused on the recent developments in the research
community to predict the potential research pathways for technical optimization and modication of the rele-
vant policies.
1. Introduction
The world is becoming increasingly more and more aware of the
adverse impacts of fossil and nuclear fuel-based power generations,
which thrives the enthusiasm for renewable power generation (Park and
Kim, 2019). Renewable energy sources are those natural sources that
replenish themselves over a short period. They are generally intermit-
tent in nature and location-specic. Which causes the power generated
from such sources to be highly dependent on environmental conditions.
Due to such constraints, unlike fossil fuels, renewable energy sources
cannot provide energy incessantly. However, efforts have been taken in
harnessing renewable energy, especially wind. European Wind Energy
Association has taken a target to generate 320 GW of wind power by the
year 2030 and initiated renewable-friendly policies across its member
states to accelerate the installation of renewable power plants (Haas,
2019). In addition to that, wind energy has provided some countries
with additional options to diversify their energy source, which could
enhance the safety of their energy supply. For instance, according to a
report of 2016, Brazil has 41.2% of renewable energy in its energy
matrix, 64% of which is hydroelectric. However, Brazil has shown a
favorable growth of wind power harness after the severe drought of
2014 (Rotela Junior et al., 2019).
Nevertheless, the current wind technologies contribute to environ-
mental impacts to a certain degree. Among the impacts, change in
meteorologic condition(Keith, 2018) and causing deaths to migratory
birds due to the collision with Wind Turbines (WTs) (Katzner et al.,
2017) are often reported. Harmful byproducts are also frequently
emitted through the manufacturing process of these technologies
(Rahimizadeh et al., 2019). In Fact, in the case of Global Warming, a
typical manufacturing process comprises about 89% of the total impact
(Gomaa et al., 2019). Besides, the conventional WTs possess some
technical drawbacks, like-electricity distribution (24%), control system
failure (19%) (Alhmoud and Wang, 2018).
Due to these facts, some alternatives have been addressed so far.
Among them, insect-inspired kites (Khaheshi et al., 2021), various
subsystems for drag power kites (Bauer et al., 2019), power kites with
inatable wings (Rushdi et al., 2020), analysis of LIDAR (light direction
and ranging) and mesoscale models (Sommerfeld et al., 2019a, 2019b),
ltration method of analyzing tethered kite wings (Schmidt et al., 2020),
vortex-induced vibration (VIV)-based piezoelectric energy harvester
(Shi et al., 2021), and vortex wind generation showed distinct outcomes
(Ren et al., 2021). However, from an environmental perspective, some
limitations have been observed in the current alternatives. This article
aims to address these shortcomings and to propose research pathways
accordingly. In this regard, the recent studies on environmental impacts
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: arafat@iut-dhaka.edu (A.A. Bhuiyan).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Cleaner Engineering and Technology
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/cleaner-engineering-and-technology
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2022.100415
Received 27 May 2021; Received in revised form 3 January 2022; Accepted 17 January 2022
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 7 (2022) 100415
2
and developments on the mentioned alternatives have been reviewed.
There have been several reviews on the impacts of WTs in recent
times. Some of them are regarding the health hazards of the WT em-
ployees (Karanikas et al., 2021), the impact of WTs on airport facilities
(Cuadra et al., 2019), effects of WTs on wildlife (Sch¨
oll and Nopp-Mayr,
2021), and impacts on surface temperatures of downwind locations
(Moravec et al., 2018). Whereas, reviews like (Nazir et al., 2019),
focused on a very narrow geographical region. Considering these fac-
tors, this literature attempts to investigate the current research gaps at
rst by the illustration of the latest studies on these impacts, and then by
comparative analysis of the outcomes. However, to gain a more pro-
found and comprehensive understanding, old studies have also been
addressed. This study attempted to construct a bridge between old and
new studies. We expect this review to benet the researchers and the
policymakers in paving the future for wind energy.
2. Brief history and current status of wind power
The history of harnessing wind power is of more than 3000 years,
which can be traced back to ancient Egypt (Varun Kumar, 2015).
However, Horizontal Axis WT (HAWT) is a later invention and was rst
introduced in the Duchy of Normandy in Europe, in the year 1180
(Leung and Yang, 2012). With the invention of the steam engine in the
1700s, utilization of wind energy started declining and was almost
completely abandoned after the invention of the internal combustion
(IC) engine (Tim, 2015). It was only after 1887 when Prof. James Blyth
from Scotland rst used the windmill to generate electricity; wind en-
ergy started to burgeon (The Science Team, 2017). During the 1920s and
1930s, before the large-scale installation of the power grid, small wind
machines (<1 kW) and windmills were seen widely in use for domestic
purposes in the rural areas of the USA. The introduction of electric
power lines in the 1930s, again diminished the acceptance of these WFs,
as its unstable nature made it difcult to be connected to the power grid
(U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2021).
However, the oil crisis in the 1970s and the recession in the following
years once again boosted the need for wind energy (Ackermann and
S¨
oder, 2002). Thus, throughout the history of the progress of wind
power, there has been a clear correlation between the oil price and the
demand for wind energy. In recent years, attention toward WTs has
gained much momentum, as the global installation of wind capacity has
Nomenclature
AA =Aesthetic attributes
AD =Abiotic Depletion
AWES =Airborne wind energy system
CO
2
=Carbon dioxide
CFC-11 =Trichlorouoromethane
CPRE =Campaign to Protect Rural England
CVM =Contingent valuation method
C
2
H
4
=Ethylene
DE =Doppler Effect
1,4-DB =4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy) butyric acid
ESS =Epworth sleepiness scales
EU =European Union
FWAT =Fresh-water aquatic eco-toxicity
WT =WT
WF =Wind Farm
GGS =Ground-gen system
GPS =Global positioning system
GWP =Global Warming Potential
HAWT =Horizontal axis WT
HTP =Human Toxicity Potential
IC =Internal combustion
I/Q =In-phase and quadrature-phase
ISO =International Organization for Standardization
LAeq,8h =Eight-hour equivalent sound level
LCA =Life Cycle Assessment
LIDAR =light direction and ranging
LWT =Large Wind Turbine
PO =Photochemical Oxidation
PA =Physical attributes
PO
4
=Phosphate
RAM =Radar Absorbing Material
RAMS =Regional Atmospheric Modeling System
RSPB =Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Sb =Stibium (Latin word of Antimony)
SO
2
=Sulfur dioxide
SWT =Small Wind Turbine
VAWT =Vertical Axis Wind Turbine
WTA =willingness to accept
WTP =willingness to pay
Fig. 1. Statistics of wind energy development in recent years: (a) the increase of WF installation (Worldwide Wind Capacity Reaches, 2020); (b) WF installation of
leading countries (Worldwide Wind Capacity Reaches, 2020).
N.E. Chowdhury et al.
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 7 (2022) 100415
3
increased signicantly, from 318.919 GW (in the year 2013) to 371.336
MW (in the year 2014), and in recent times it reaches to 744 GW, as
presented in Fig. 1 (a). The current statistics show positive trends in
China, along with some other countries, in wind power installations.
USA has the second-highest WF installation after China (290 GW of
installation in 2020), with an installed capacity of 122.33 GW in 2020.
Moreover, there were already 115 European offshore wind energy
projects in 2019 (Topham et al., 2019). Whereas, by adding another 356
offshore WTs to the grid they reached a total installed offshore capacity
of 25 GW in 2020 (WindEurope, 2020). However, the VAWT
manufacturing companies were not frequently seen in business until
2006, except Ropatec and Bolzano in Italy (EcoBusinessLinks, 2018).
Whereas, the popularity of Off-shore Wind Power is comparatively
small, except for Denmark which has the largest offshore WF, located at
Horns Rev in the North Sea (Garus, 2015). However, the present sta-
tistics indicate that wind energy harnessing has shown a positive trend
in recent years.
3. Classication of WTs
WTs can be classied from different aspects. They are mostly clas-
sied according to the mechanism and shape of the blades. Fig. 2 shows
some of the most prevalent WT types in large-scale power generation.
The modern HAWT represents the conventional model for commercial-
scale wind power generation. Whereas, Savonius WT and Darrieus WT
are mainly used for small-scale wind power generation. According to
axis orientation, applied force, and installation location, classications
of WTs are presented respectively as follows (Mishra, 2017):
i. Vertical Axis WT-
● Darrieus WT: It has straight or curved blades mounted on a
vertical frame and uses lift force to rotate.
● Savonius WT: It uses drag force and looks like an ‘S’shaped
plate while looking from above.
ii. Horizontal Axis WT-
● Upwind WTs: In this case, the wind rst hits the rotor and then
passes through other portions.
● Downwind WTs: In this case, the rotor is placed in the lee of
the tower.
iii. Lift force driven WT-The wind force lifts the blades for the airfoil
design. HAWT and Darrieus WT are in this category.
iv. Drag force driven WT-The wind force applies normally on the
blades and causes rotation in this model of WTs. Savonius WT is
in this category.
v. Off-Shore WT- This type of WT is installed on the shallow sea
water bed.
vi. On-Shore Wind Turbine- All the WTs, installed on the ground
belong to this category.
To refer to the WTs used in large-scale commercial electricity pro-
duction, the term Large WT (LWT) is frequently used. LWT normally
indicates large-scale HAWT, as it is the most commonly implemented
model for power generation (Jin et al., 2015). Among all the HAWT
types the ‘Three-blade’ conguration is the most popular, for its
numerous advantages (Hossain and Ali, 2015). Hence, most of the
studies on the impacts of LWT have been carried out based on HAWT
technology (Saad and Asmuin, 2014).
4. Environmental impacts of LWTs
Many countries still do not have specic environmental protection
standards for WTs, as mentioned by Katzner et al. (2017) and Dai et al.
(2015). Arnett and May (Arnett and May, 2016) have asserted that the
knowledge of environmental impacts of WT is not made publicly
available by the developers and manufacturers. This impedes scientic
progress and spreads distrust among the general population, making the
study on the impacts of WTs very challenging. To overcome this di-
chotomy and to have an unblemished view of the issue, both the major
and minor impacts of WTs have been described in this section.
4.1. The environmental hazard caused during manufacturing
Conventional WTs are regarded as ‘zero-emission’ during operation.
However, there are environmental hazards associated with their
manufacturing and disposal processes (Zhu et al., 2014). To date, several
researchers: Gkantou et al. (2020) and Li et al.(Li et al., 2021), have
authored on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of WTs of different sizes, types,
and capacities to investigate the environmental impacts of WFs,
considering the whole life cycle of the wind power system. In all the
studies, the ISO 14040 standard (International Organization for Stan-
dardization (International Organization for Standardization, 2021) has
been followed, which allows quantifying the overall impact of a WT
from an LCA study (Martínez et al., 2009). The LCA determines the
environmental impacts of products, processes, or services through pro-
duction, usage, and disposal (Eriksson et al., 2008). The LCA of WFs is
generally assessed in terms of all or most of the following impact
categories:
1. Abiotic Depletion (AD): It relates to the extraction of minerals
and fossil fuels and deals with the health of humans and the
ecosystem. The abiotic depletion factor is determined by minerals
and fossil fuels, based on the concentration of reserves and rate of
de-accumulation.
2. Fresh-water aquatic eco-toxicity (FWAT): This relates to the
impact of toxic substances on air, water, and soil.
3. Global Warming Potential (GWP): Greenhouse gas (GHG) emis-
sions in the entire period of the life cycle of a WT.
4. Ozone layer Depletion Potential: Related to the fraction of UV-B
radiation reaching the earth. According to World Meteorolog-
ical Organization, ozone layer depletion is one of the most vital
concerns for the preservation of the global climate system (WMO,
2011).
5. Human Toxicity Potential (HTP): Related to exposure and effects
of toxic substances for an innite time horizon (Martínez et al.,
2009), rst introduced by Guinee and Heijungs (Guinee and
Heijungs, 1993). Studies by Demir et al.(Demir and Tas¸kin,
2013), Garrett et al.(Garrett and Rønde, 2013) and (Martínez
et al., 2009), suggested that the manufacturing stage dominates
in HTP. Among the manufactured parts, according to the study of
2009 by Martinez et al. nacelle (Martínez et al., 2009) and
Fig. 2. Some of the most popular WTs in electricity production; Horizontal Axis
WT (most left), Darrieus WT (middle), and Savonius WT (right) (Teach-
erGeek, 2006).
N.E. Chowdhury et al.
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 7 (2022) 100415
4
according to the study of 2013 by Demir et al.(Demir and Tas¸kin,
2013) the foundation of a WT has the highest HTP value.
6. Marine eco-toxicity: It categorizes the impact related to marine
ecosystems.
7. Terrestrial eco-toxicity: It categorizes the impact on terrestrial
ecosystems.
8. Photochemical oxidation (PO): This deals with the growth of
reactive substances (mainly ozone). The impact potentials are
expressed as an equivalent emission of the reference substance
ethylene, C
2
H
4
.
9. Acidication: The potential of acidication is dened as the ratio
of the number of H
+
ions, produced per kg of different substances,
to the number of H
+
ions, produced per kg of SO
2.
The major
acidifying substances are SO
2
, NO, HCl and NH
3
.
10. Eutrophication: This relates to the impacts of excessive levels of
macro-nutrients exposure in the environment. Nitrogen (N) and
Phosphorus (P) are the two nutrients most implicated in
eutrophication.
According to the old LCA studies, like the study of 2008 by Ardente
et al. (2008) and Guezuraga et al. (2012), manufacturing is the major
source of environmental impacts. Whereas, the study of 2018 by Chi-
pindula et al. (2018), the operation has the lowest impact on the envi-
ronment. Another aspect is the impact of subsequent treatment and
dismantling of waste at the end of the turbine lifetime. Steel, which
accounts for 73% (by weight) of an offshore WT and 20.5% (by weight)
of an onshore WT (Bonou et al., 2016), is one of the most valuable
materials in terms of recycling (Topham et al., 2019). Since steel makes a
large share of the material used for the entire WT, an overall positive
effect of recycling can be achieved. A 2019 study shows that berglass,
contributing to 2.3% by weight (Bonou et al., 2016) of an offshore WT,
can be recycled into reinforced laments (Rahimizadeh et al., 2019).
Certain materials used in manufacturing WTs can cause adverse impacts
on the environment. For example, copper, which comprises 35% of the
total weight of the generator, is found to be the most hazardous material
used in manufacturing (Chen et al., 2020; Gkantou et al., 2020). Because
copper is not biodegradable and is accumulated in plants and animals
(greenspec, 2021) and its excessiveness can create metabolic distur-
bances and growth inhibition in plants (J.C and S, 1991). Consequently,
all these factors make the disposal of turbines difcult. However, the
alternator plays a critical role in achieving high turbine efciency.
Which necessitates a compromise between WT performances from an
economic perspective and an ecological perspective.
In terms of AD, both old and new studies on LCA of WTs reect that
the manufacturing stage has more than 80% of the total impact in
abiotic depletion, as mentioned by Garrett et al. (Garrett and Rønde,
2013) and Gkantou et al. (2020). The study of 2009 suggested that
among the manufactured parts, rotor (Martínez et al., 2009) have the
highest impact. However, the study of 2020 claims that the tower has
the highest impact (Gkantou et al., 2020) in abiotic depletion. It can be
attributed to the improvement of rotor-material during the last decade.
On the other hand, manufacturing contributes to 94.7% of total GWP
according to the study of 2009 by Martinez et al.(Martínez et al., 2009)
and 100% according to the study of 2013 by Demir and Taskin (Demir
and Tas¸kin, 2013). A later study by Garrett et al. (Garrett and Rønde,
2013)suggested that the manufacturing stage contributes to GWP by
85%. The percentage has decreased further to 84.7% in the recent study
by Gkantou et al. (2020). This decrement alludes to the improvement of
the manufacturing process during the past decade. Among all the parts
of a WT, Rotor (Martínez et al., 2009), tower (International Journal of
Life Cycle Assessment, 2013), and foundation (Demir and Tas¸ kin, 2013)
are the major contributors to the overall GWP. However, in these
studies, they did not consider the materials needed for major and
auxiliary engineering (Li et al., 2021). It is evident from the Comparison
of GHG Emission Intensity by different studies, presented in Table 1, that
the average GHG Emission Intensity drastically increases with the in-
crease of the size of the WT, which is a clear indication that major
development is needed in the manufacturing process of WTs.
To this end, more LCA studies are needed on various types of WTs to
lower the uncertainty levels incorporated into WT designs. Studies
calculating the life span of the WTs are still in the premature stage, to the
extent that some WTs had to be decommissioned well before their ex-
pected life span. These studies were conducted assuming a life span of 20
years and not the actual life of the WT. Studies until 2020 also assumed
tower height to be up to 150m only. Only a recent study by Gkantou
et al. (2020) presented an LCA for the tower height of 185 meters. This
implies comprehensive studies are still in demand.
4.2. Impacts on aves and mammals
The term Aves refers to the class of ying vertebrates such as birds
and bats (Powlesland, 2009). Kunz et al. (2007) conducted a study on
the impacts of WTs on the bats and concluded that WTs harm birds. In
this study, he took the phenomenon of bat carcasses being eaten by
scavengers into consideration. Whereas, they found the then existing
evidence to be inconclusive and too scarce to reach any decisive con-
clusions on mortality of aves from WTs. Kunz et al. (2007) suggested
further studies on the mortality of the aves from WTs. Migratory bats
tend to collide with the WTs, as suggested by the study of Arnett et al.,
(2008).The highest mortality rate was reported at low wind speeds and
was found among the adult bats, which eliminates the possibility of
lacking the maneuvering skills of certain aves (Arnett et al., 2008). The
ndings of Jourieh et al. (2009) reafrmed the ndings of Arnett et al.,
(2008).
Avian mortality from WTs is signicantly less than from many other
factors. For example, according to a USA-based survey, the rate of
mortality is about 400 times less than collisions with vehicles, about 30
times less than collisions with communication towers, and about 1200
times less than collisions with transmission lines (Wang et al., 2015).
However, the rapid growth of global WT installations makes it an issue
of growing concern. A survey was carried out in Østerild Plantation of
northwest Jutland in Denmark, based on the Scottish Natural Heritage
models, by Therkildsen et al. (2015) to investigate the risk of the colli-
sion of some selected species with the WTs. The study focused on
migratory birds including whooper swan, pink-footed goose, taiga bean
goose, and common crane. The researched birds migrated through a site
that had WTs with a maximum height of 250 m and a maximum rotor
diameter of 220 m. The Band model has been considered, which assumes
an even distribution of bird ights in the area. Besides, miniature GPS
data were also used to locate the ying nightjars. The study indicated
that these species might actively avoid the WTs, as during the survey
(having a duration of more than two years) no carcass of bird was found
around that tested area. However, they noted that the possibility of
scavengers taking the carcasses away could not be eliminated.
Agudelo et al. (2021) point out that studies conducted on WT-related
bird (or bat) casualty in Latin America are even harder to come by,
Table 1
Global Warming Potential of WTs in different LCA studies.
Reference Turbine Size
(MW)
GHG Emission Intensity (kg
CO
2
-eq/kWh)
Martínez et al.(Martínez et al.,
2009)
2 0.0080
Tremeac and Meunier (Tremeac
and Meunier, 2009)
4.5 0.0158
Garrett and Rønde (Garrett and
Rønde, 2013)
2 0.0080
Demir and Taskin (Demir and
Tas¸kin, 2013)
3.02 0.0238
Bonou et al.(Bonou et al., 2016) 2.3 0.0060
Gkantou et al.(Gkantou et al.,
2020)
5 0.0096–0.0103
Li et al.(Li et al., 2021) 40 0.0164–0.0282
N.E. Chowdhury et al.
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 7 (2022) 100415
5
compared to those in the US and Europe. Analyzing data from ten
different sources, they concluded that generalization is hard to make.
They noticed that the reported fatality among threatened bird and bat
species is rather rare. They nalized their study with a hopeful note that
more research will be done on this topic to ll in the knowledge gap.
This study found, in light of available research, bats (adult or
otherwise) are harmed by WTs. As for aves-mortality, it is possible albeit
not prevalent. This study also acknowledges the unavailability of a
broad-based dataset concerning the mortality of bats and aves due to
fatal collisions with WTs. Primary possible hindrances in the attainment
of such a dataset can be: the carcasses benign devoured by scavengers,
lack of reports of collision due to either lack of observation or lack of
concern, or simply the genuine scarcity of such collisions.
The impact of WFs on the habitat areas of the aves is an issue of even
greater concern. Drewitt et al.(Drewitt and Langston, 2006) presented
the real-life consequence of the improper selection of WF locations, in
terms of avian wildlife habitat. L. Stephenet al(Pearce-Higgins et al.,
2012). revealed that the construction process hampers the breeding
process, as greater noise emits during the process. In addition to that,
Piorkowski et al. (2012) prioritized the importance of different impacts
of WTs on migratory wildlife and urged to carry out more surveys before
coming to any decision about the level of intensity of such occurrence.
Bergstr¨
om et al. (2014) also pointed out the severe harm caused to
wildlife due to the construction phase of off-shore WTs.
Several studies further claried the reasons why WTs disturb the
distribution of natural habitat of aves; and concluded that the noises
resulting from the construction and the operation of WFs may cause the
aves species to relocate their habitats (Shaffer et al., 2016). Marques
et al. (2018) reafrmed the conclusions of Drewitt et al.(Drewitt and
Langston, 2006) and pointed out the deterioration of avian wildlife
habitat due to the improper selection of WF locations. The appalling
scale and severity of this damage were found out by a study on bent
winged bats by Millon et al. (2018) and they suggested that the presence
of bats can be decreased by up to 95% near the WFs as compared to other
natural sites. Similarly, off-shore WTs can also harm marine bird lives
(Kelsey et al., 2018).
Fern´
andez-Bellon et al. (2019) reported that the population density
of birds near the WFs is signicantly smaller, which seems to directly
correlate with the size of the WF. Further detail came to light from the
ndings of Miao et al. (2019) who found out that, the size of WTs is also
a critical factor, as the tower height has a positive inuence, but blade
length has negative impacts on the abundance of breeding birds.
After a thorough review of the existing research, this study
concludes, the drastic deterioration andrelocation of aves habitat due to
the installation of WTs in their vicinity, is glaringly obvious. To mitigate
these impacts, the locations of aves habitat should be considered before
the installation of WTs. Another promising research guideline is the
ndings of Miao et al. (2019) that, the tower height positively and the
blade length negatively inuence the breeding bird population. The
higher altitude allows for greater wind velocity, which can potentially
facilitate the generation of the same amount of power with a smaller
blade length. This study proposes the conduction of research on the
technological and economic viability of higher WTs with smaller blade
lengths.
Although not as prominent as the impacts on aves, the WFs do pre-
sent adverse inuences on land and aquatic mammals (Dai et al., 2015).
The construction process affects the habitats of wolves in Portugal,
where about 39% of WFs are located in the habitats of the Iberian
Wolves, as reported by Marques et al. (2018).Moreover, the off-shore
WTs were found to affect marine mammals. For instance, Minke
whales are stranded due to the sounds produced by WFs (Klain et al.,
2018). A Chinese study led by Ningning Song (Song et al., 2021) has
concluded that the location (and size) of WTs has a direct correlation
with the nest location, height, and density of Magpies. This has a clear
negative effect on the habitat of the Magpie. For reducing these impacts,
the study suggested increasing the farmland shelterbelt, near the nesting
sites.
Acoustic devices are frequently used to reduce the mortality caused
by collision, but they have been found ineffective (May et al., 2015). As
sound intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance,
the devices are effective only for small areas. Alternatively, Kingsley
et al. presented results on the effectiveness of the blinking lights, located
on the towers (Kingsley and Whittam, 2005). Properly locating the WFs
is another approach that was proven to be effective and practical (Arnett
and May, 2016; Powlesland, 2009). However, WTs become less effective
at the less contentious sites, which limits the choices of developers in
selecting the locations (Pasqualetti, 2011). The map presented in the
study of E. C. Kelsey et al. (2018) revealed that the impacts on marine
birds could be considerably reduced by placing the WTs farther from the
shore. Although moving the WTs further from shore is already in prac-
tice, it increases maintenance complexities and costs. Thus, research is
going on to develop an economic and efcient process to access those
turbines for maintenance (B Hu et al., 2019). Besides, the turbine
operating speed may also play an important role in aves casualties. The
study of Arnett et al. (2011) suggested that bat fatalities may be reduced
by at least 44% when turbine cut-in speed is raised to 5.0 m/s. Similar to
Fig. 3. Statistics of sleep disorder associated with WF noise from (Abbasi et al., 2015)(a) Sleep disorder at different levels of noise. (b) The relation between work
experience and sleeplessness for surveyed workers.
N.E. Chowdhury et al.
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 7 (2022) 100415
6
the study of Kingsley et al.(Kingsley and Whittam, 2005), where it was
suggested to reduce the rotation speed to minimize the possibility of the
collision risk. The latter approach has also been proposed by Powles-
land, as it helped to avoid motion smear and enhance blade visibility
(Powlesland, 2009). Thus, some guidelines have been found for facili-
tating further mitigation.
iii. Health disturbance
The noise of the WTs causes certain levels of noise (tonal noise,
impulse noise, and night-time noise), these are generated from the me-
chanical and the aerodynamic factors (Rogers et al., 2006). According to
Shepherd et al. (2011) (Shepherd et al., 2011), the environment of the
houses located within 2 km from WTs and the health of the inhabitants
of these houses can have notable impacts. Interestingly, although the WF
workers are more exposed to the noises than the inhabitants living near
the farm, there are so far, very few research are conducted considering
the workers. Karanikas and his team (Karanikas et al., 2021) highlighted
that despite constant material, technological and procedural improve-
ments – which diversify and intensify occupational hazards – thorough
research on risks incurred by noise is rather scarce.
From the review, some classical yet common procedures have been
encountered in investigating the impact. For instance, the Contingent
Valuation Method (CVM) involves a question and answer session which
asks people to directly report their willingness to pay (WTP) to obtain a
specied good, or willingness to accept (WTA) for giving up a good,
rather than inferring them from observed behaviors in regular market
places (A. et al., 2000). Quechee Test, Multi-criteria Analysis, Spanish
method are some other classical methods for the assessment of the visual
impacts (Tsoutsos et al., 2006). Quechee Test aims to measure the harm
caused by the presence of WTs to the aesthetic impact on the landscape.
Multi-criteria analysis is a widely used method that measures the visual
impact based on the Physical attributes (PA) and Aesthetic attributes
(AA). It has been found that the higher the PA is, the higher is the impact
(Tsoutsos et al., 2006)
The survey-based analysis of Abbasi et al.(Abbasi et al., 2015) in
which 53 workers of the Manjil WF in Northern Iran participated, re-
veals the impact of noise from the WF on sleep. The exposure level of the
workers was measured in an 8-h equivalent sound level (LAeq, 8h),
according to ISO 9612:2009 (ISO 9612:2009, 2021), which is a standard
engineering method for measuring workers’ exposure to noise in a
working environment and calculating the noise exposure level (Johns,
1992). The results suggested an increase in sleep disorders of up to 17%
of the workers with one year of experience in the WF. The workers
involved in eld maintenance can be affected 6.5 times more than the
ofce staff and 3.4 times more than the security personnel, as shown in
Fig. 3(a). Moreover, sleeplessness was also found to increase with the
duration of exposure, as shown in Fig. 3(b). Note that in Fig. 3, the
daytime sleepiness data was measured by Epworth Sleepiness Scales
(ESS), for which a number in the range of 10–24 is recognized as
abnormal (high sleepiness). Similar results were also reported by the
study of Poulsen et al. (2019).
The study of Karanikas et al. (2021) investigated some issues, such as
the hazards due to noise, the ickering of shadows (a rather unique
inconvenience), the exposure to the electromagnetic eld, styrene, and
epoxy pollution, and skeletal and muscular stress. However, the studies
are less methodical (instead of using medical experimentation, data is
based on worker opinion). Whereas studies done on risks posed by vi-
bration, weather conditions, biological hazards due to welding fumes,
and other harmful substances are nonexistent. To get a more compre-
hensive understanding of noise pollution due to WFs, amplitude mod-
ulation of noise is required to be studied. In this regard, the research by
Phuc D. Nguyen et al.(Phuc D. Nguyen et al., 2021) involved a year-long
accumulation of both meteorological and acoustic data taken from three
separate locations. It was found that, despite an increased AM (ampli-
tude modulation) depth of indoor data in the night, indoor AM preva-
lence was lower than that of outdoors. AM is also found to be
time-dependent and it occurs more often in crosswind and downwind
direction than that of upwind. To get a better appreciation of the
effectiveness of the countermeasures (to reduce noise pollution), Rob-
erto Merino-Martínez et al. (2021) devised and experimentally evalu-
ated a holistic method utilizing using synthetic sound auralization. Fig. 4
illustrates the overall procedure utilized in this study.
The literature found that there is a dramatic change in outcomes in
the recent studies as compared to old studies. A survey of 1984 people
was carried out by Pedersen et al. (2008) in 2008. They used A-weighted
sound pressure levels (Nilsson, 2007) and considered the characteristics
of the landscape and the residence, the position of the main roads near
Fig. 4. Block diagram illustrating the concept of perception-based evaluation of WT noise reduction measures. The blocks with dashed lines were not employed in
the current study but are considered as future extensions (Merino-Martínez et al., 2021).
Fig. 5. Comparison between the Dutch and the Swedish studies (Szychowska
et al., 2018).
N.E. Chowdhury et al.
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 7 (2022) 100415
7
the inhabitants, the density of the houses, etc. They noted that WTs
produce noticeable sound at night (Pedersen et al., 2008), which is
similar to the result of the study conducted in 2007 by van den Berg (van
den Berg, 2004). Interestingly, they also stated that those who were
beneted economically from WTs have a lower probability of being
annoyed by the noises, revealing an inuence of psychological factors on
these reports. The percentage of respondents who were very annoyed by
the noises from WTs was approximately the same for most noise levels
except for the band of 32–40 dB(A), reported by another independent
Swedish study (Pedersen et al., 2008), as shown in Fig. 5.
The change of landscapes by the WFs may also inuence residents’
mental health. The trade-off between landscape preservation and WF
installation was found to be of importance due to the issue (Caporale and
Lucia, 2015). The study of Van Den Berg et al.(Frits Van Den Berg et al.,
2008) dated back to 2008 and study of 2017 by Szychowska et al. (2018)
both reported that the surveyed respondents who could see at least one
WT from their dwelling were more likely to be annoyed than those who
could not see any turbines at all. As per the analysis of Mirasgedis et al.
(2014), they used the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) to study the
visual impact of WTs on the dwellers of South Evia in Greece, the visual
impact is a factor that is difcult to quantify.
However, a recent study conducted in 2019, reported that people
could wrongly attribute the low-frequency noise, resulting mostly from
the wind-caused structural vibration, of their dwellings to be the noise of
WFs (Duc Phuc Nguyen et al., 2019). It can be stated that the results
illustrated in Fig. 5 might be precise but not accurate. It is rather easy to
overestimate the impact on the health of noises emanating from WFs or
even wrongly attribute health issues to them; as shown in a Finish study
(Turunen et al., 2021). This study takes into account the objections of
people living in the vicinity of WTs to compare them with the available
scientic evidence. They came to the remarkable conclusion that apart
from a minor sleep disorder, other reported issues were found to be
ungrounded. As a result, the health disturbances caused by WTs, are too
complex to measure accurately, and more robust methodologies need to
be developed.
4.4. Communication interference
Doppler radar is a widely used device to measure velocities (A Lute,
2011). During operation, the Doppler radar is usually able to lter out
the near-zero frequency shifts to prevent possible interference with the
sound carrier of the next lower channel (Korner-Nievergelt et al., 2013).
But this type of lter often fails to lter out the signals from WTs, as they
sometimes generate much higher frequency shifts. as a result, air sur-
veillance radars (Jenn et al., 2014; A Lute, 2011) and broadcast
communication (Norin, 2017) over the past few decades have been re-
ported to be affected by WTs. The radars sometimes can even misin-
terpret WTs as aircraft, causing challenges in military sectors (Norin and
Haase, 2012). Besides, studies on military surveillance radars and
civilian air trafc control radars (David W Keith et al., 2004) showed
that the velocity of the tip of the turbine blades can frequently reach as
high as 100 m/s, strengthening the echoes from the WTs and causing
these echoes to take the shape of a signal similar to that of severe
weather conditions. As a result, radar may wrongly interpret these
echoes as severe storms and winds. The wakes generated by the blades
can also cause wrong readings. Moreover, the study of Sengupta and
Senior (Sengupta and Senior, 1979) revealed that the WT also affects
radio and television signals.
Clutter and blockage are two common disturbances caused by WTs.
Clutter refers to the unwanted echoes detected by radar (Baidya Roy
et al., 2004). However, the proper denition of clutter depends on the
function of the radar. Clutters are in three types:
● Surface Clutter – Signals returning from the ground or sea are
considered surface clutter.
●Volume Clutter – Weather and chaff are the common forms of vol-
ume clutter.
● Point Clutter – Birds, windmills, and individual tall buildings
generate point clutter and are not extended in nature.
Blockage results from the WTs work as obstacles in the searching site
of radar, which appear on Doppler radar as ying objects. Norin (2017)
investigated these impacts of WTs on a test site with 12 C-band Doppler
weather radars. Among them, four radars had been modied to be
capable of performing single dual-polarization measurements while for
the rest single horizontal polarization measurements were used. Because
of the higher sensitivity of the modied radars (data were sampled every
15.625 meters by those four radars, compared to every 167 meters by
others), a much higher wrong sampling rate was shown. They found the
echo from a stationary point target changes smoothly from pulse to
pulse. But for the WTs, the echo changes very sharply between neigh-
boring pulses, making the signal difcult to lter out. This point target
signature was found to be independent of the size, model, and yaw angle
of the WTs. As a result, the researchers proposed this distinct and
repeating signature of WTs to be used to identify and remove the wrong
signals. This model may be applicable to operational weather radar
signal processors with the presence of WTs. Another mitigation
approach mentioned in an old study of 2012 by Jenn and Ton (Jenn and
Ton, 2012) proposed to use radar absorbing material (RAM) instead of
non-conducting blade material for mitigating faulty reading in the radar.
The readings from the WTs on radar could also be identied and
potentially eliminated by measuring the rotor speeds (Trockel et al.,
2018). In that case, the proposals mentioned in the old studies can be
neglected. For instance, Rashid and Brown (Rashid and Brown, 2010)
asserted that clutter can be reduced by not placing WTs in line of sight of
the radar but arranging them in a radial pattern from the radar. This
implies that the impacts on radar have been solved to a great extent in
recent times.
4.5. Impacts on local meteorology
Abbasi et al.(S A Abbasi and Abbasi, 2016) showed that excessive
installation of WTs can reduce the kinetic energy of local winds so
dramatically that it may even cause impacts similar to the greenhouse
effect. The turbulence in the wake of the turbines can alter the direction
of the high-speed wind near the ground and consequently can enhance
local moisture evaporation (David W Keith et al., 2004). Back in 2004,
Roy et al. (Baidya Roy et al., 2004) studied the impact of a large virtual
WF on the surrounding local meteorology for over synoptic timescales
(for typical summertime conditions), to nd out whether WFs affect the
atmospheric thermodynamics, ground surface heat uxes, and moisture
of the surrounding landscape. Previously for the atmospheric numerical
modeling, prognostic (Ivanova and Nadyozhina, 2000) and diagnostic
(Magnusson, 1999) models had been used, which showed that the WF
signicantly affects the wind speed at the typical height of wind-turbine
hubs. In the study of Roy et al.(Pielke et al., 1992), they used the
Regional Atmospheric Modeling System (RAMS) to simulate the effects
of a hypothetical WF in Oklahoma, which integrated several weather
numerical models into one single framework for a particular area
(Archer and Jacobson, 2003). The RAMS solves a set of equations of
microphysics, compressible ow dynamics, non-hydrostatic ow dy-
namics, and thermodynamics (Baidya Roy et al., 2004). They found that
turbulence formed in the wake of the rotors can stimulate vertical
mixing which severely affects the vertical distribution of temperature,
humidity, surface sensible, and latent heat uxes. But their result is valid
only for relatively humid and cool soil conditions. Moreover, a paper of
2018 by Keith (Keith, 2018) claimed that the thermal impacts from WTs
are about ten times stronger than solar photovoltaic systems. From the
aforementioned studies, it is evident that WTs affect the meteorological
characteristics of their vicinities. Nevertheless, a detailed study pub-
lished in 2018, by Moravec et al. (2018) suggests that the spatial and
N.E. Chowdhury et al.
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 7 (2022) 100415
8
temporal impacts of WTs are relatively minor, and the land topography
impacts more than WTs. They claimed that the WT farms are commonly
installed in such places where the impacts from topography are already
profound. From the review of old and current studies, it is concluded
that to the date the combination of topographical, climactic, and other
natural effects makes it challenging to accurately measure the specic
impact from WTs.
5. Alternative technologies for wind energy harnessing
In light of the aforementioned impacts of conventional WTs, a sig-
nicant number of studies have been conducted so far to develop sus-
tainable solutions and technical alternatives.
5.1. Airborne wind energy systems
The total potential power that can be obtained by any wind-
harnessing technology can be expressed as P =1
2
ρ
Av
3
. Here,
ρ
is the
air density, A is the cross-sectional area of the WT, and v is the wind
speed. As a result, the total wind energy per unit area increases with the
wind speed and cross-sectional area. The WT hub height has been
increased from 20 meters (in the 1980s) to 100 meters in the last few
decades, allowing the blade to be elongated greatly. While it has greatly
increased the cross-sectional area, the tip of the blades has also reached
a height of about 200 meters (Canale et al., 2009). The problem with the
tall WTs is that the increasing ow speed through the rotor and the large
force arm create a great bending moment that demands heavy base
construction (Zhang and Zhang, 2013). On the other hand, with the
increase of height, the wind gets stronger and steadier due to the
absence of boundary-layer effect and fewer obstructions from ground
landscapes (Sommerfeld and Crawford, 2018), (see in Fig. 6).
As a result, the performance of the WTs may be increased dramati-
cally as the height increases (Archer and Jacobson, 2005; Diehl, 2013).
As for the altitude above which the boundary-layer effect diminishes,
several studies have reported a rich wind energy source, in a range from
100 to 400 m (Bechtle et al., 2019; Sommerfeld et al., 2019). For
structural and economic reasons, the conventional WTs are unlikely to
be built higher than these altitudes. The Airborne wind energy system
(AWES) concept is targeted at resolving the limitation of WTs, resulting
from the boundary-layer effect (Haas et al., 2017); as it can harness wind
energy at a very high altitude without creating huge bending stresses on
the tower and on the base. As all the modern AWES concepts are based
on the kite-driven system, it may also be referred to as “kite wind
power”. Before the advancement of aerodynamics in the 1900s, con-
trolling an airborne module without an autopilot was a challenging job
(Yan, 2017). Later on, Loyd, in 1980, rst introduced a practical
approach in AWES (Loyd, 1980). The fundamental idea was to connect a
kite with a pulley by a tether. The kite will go higher with the wind and
the pulley will rotate and this rotation will be used to generate elec-
tricity. Afterward, when the velocity of the wind decreases, a motor will
rotate the pulley in the opposite direction, winding up the tether and
reducing the altitude of the kite to start the cycle again. Which will cause
the mechanism to face less drag in the winding phase, delivering a net
power output. This way the kite can hover within a specied range
(Zhang and Zhang, 2013).
Airborne wind energy systems can mainly be classied into two types
(Cherubini et al., 2015): the Ground-Gen and the Fly-Gen systems, based
on whether the conversion from the kinetic energy of wind to electric
energy takes place in the alternator settled on the ground or in the
alternator, installed in the airborne module. Computational studies have
also played a role in understanding AWES, as the model of Vlugt et al.
(Vlugt et al., 2019) has shown satisfactory results in predicting the
power generated by such systems. The recent successful operations of
the 20-kW utility-scale Fly-Gen prototype by Makani Power have shown
the potential of the model in the electricity market, which motivated the
company to work on a 600 kW Fly-Gen model, expected to power about
300 homes (MakaniPower, 2019).
It seems with the advancement of research many farfetched concepts
have been abandoned. For instance, Tigner had proposed a concept
called ‘multi-tether crosswind kite power’ (Tigner, 2011). The model has
helped to attain crosswind speed, which helped to produce power far
greater than the conventional Ladder Mill (Lunney et al., 2017). The
system has one kite with many tethers connected to separate alternators.
For a full revolution of the kite, different generators are in operation for
specic periods. Another concept was proposed by Canale et al. (2009)
where a set of kites were arranged in a circular pattern in the open air.
The generator was installed on the single common base and all the
tethers of the kites were connected to it. Among all the models two of
them are worth mentioning-
a. Point mass kite model, which represents the kite as a discrete mass
moving under the action of an aerodynamic force vector (Diehl,
2013).
b. Four-point kite model (4p model), in which the rotational inertia of
the kite is considered making the model more practical in the
development and optimization of ight-path control algorithms.
(Fechner et al., 2015).
Numerous efforts have been made towards the commercial elec-
tricity production of AWES. In addition to the aforementioned KiteGen
(KiteGen Research, 2019), a company named KPS has come up with a
dual-kite power concept, where during any time one kite will be in
power mode and the other is in retracting mode, delivering relatively
less uctuating electricity than the single-kite models(KPS Energy,
2019b). Another interesting concept is to power ships via AWES in
high-altitude winds. In terms of actual applications, the company Ene-
vate has shown convincing results with its 100-kW commercial model, as
an alternative to diesel generators for remote rural areas. An AWES
model with a 40 m
2
kite designed by Kitepower with a capacity of 100 kW
has already been tested (Schmehl, 2018). In comparison, the successful
operation of EK30 by EnerKíte with an average output of 30 kW for
hundreds of hours is closer to actual production (EnerKite, 2019). Apart
from these technical advantages, the kite wind power concept seems to
possess ecologically and socially friendly aspects, as the deployment of
the model does not impose signicant environmental or societal pres-
sures (Chang, 2018). It was also pointed out by Langley et al.(R. Langley
and Go, 2015) that by its nature the kite wind power generates fewer
noises and visual interferences. They further emphasized that as most
birds mostly y below 500m, the chance of collision between aves and
AWES is signicantly lower. This claim has also been conrmed by
Bruinzeel et al.(Leo Bruinzeel Jaap Bosch, 2018).
From the previously reviewed literature, several basic advantages of
kite power have been found over the traditional WTs:
Fig. 6. A schematic presentation of the boundary-layer effect (University of
Sydney, 2005).
N.E. Chowdhury et al.
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 7 (2022) 100415
9
Fig. 7. Changing of wind speeds with altitude (Malz et al., 2020a, 2020b).
Fig. 8. Size comparison between typical AWES and conventional HAWT (a) (Vermillion et al., 2021). The volume occupied by typical AWES in ight (b)(c) (Rushdi
et al., 2020).
N.E. Chowdhury et al.
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 7 (2022) 100415
10
a. The kite operates at a much higher altitude (around 500m) which
enables it to cover a vast area. Due to less inuence of boundary-layer
effect at high altitudes, it receives stronger wind than conventional
WTs.
b. The kite can operate over a wide range of altitudes, allowing it to
harness the maximum potential wind power. With this technique, the
wind power density can potentially be increased by a factor of two,
for 95% of the operation time (Bechtle et al., 2019). The study of
Fechner et al.(Fechner and Schmehl, 2018) has shown convincing
results regarding the increase of efciency by improving ight con-
trol logic.
c. Its mechanisms are less complex than conventional WT, resulting in
less maintenance (Fechner et al., 2015).
A remarkable aspect of an air-borne system is that it can harness
winds of different directions and of a wide range of altitudes. Moreover,
kites hovering around the height of 500 meters can avoid stalls by
avoiding zero velocity wind with slight compensation of altitude, as
found in the survey of Philip et al.(Bechtle et al., 2019). Although, the
paper of G¨
oransson et al.(Malz et al., 2020a, 2020b) showed that the
power harnessing capability of the airborne system is not very advan-
tageous, as its power output is similar and, in some cases, lower than
conventional WTs; the wind data was limited to the height of 400 m. An
air-borne system can reach a much higher altitude utilizing better wind
speed (Bechtle et al., 2019); even the old model of Makani Power, named
Wing 7, released in 2011; could rich a height of 550m (newatlas, 2011).
Moreover, the paper (Malz et al., 2020a, 2020b) used a simplied
equation for calculating the power output, the proposed equation of
Gaunaa et al.(Trevisi et al., 2020) is more convenient in this regard.
Even if both vertical and horizontal wind speeds are considered, it is
apparent that wind speed dramatically increases with altitude, as illus-
trated in Fig. 7 (the color is only for differentiating among the various
values of horizontal component.
The control dynamics of the kite is a critical issue for its higher de-
gree of freedom of motion as compared to conventional WTs. This makes
the computation of the motion of the kite a challenging task. To speed up
the task, Malz and her team (Malz et al., 2020a, 2020b) presented a
specic Homotopy-following-path algorithm (HPbd) that allows solving
a set of non-linear programs with a single initialization, which is an
Optimal Control Problem (OCP) solving model. The model is at least 20
times faster than the Homotopy-Path-initialization algorithm, as pre-
sented in the study of Malz et al.(Malz et al., 2020a, 2020b). Moreover,
variational integration is another faster tool for simulating the control
dynamics, as Kakavand et al.(Kakavand and Nikoobin, 2021) suggested.
The study has also shown the computation to be much faster in case of
discretizing the tether into multiple small linear segments. On the con-
trary, E. Schmidt et al. (2020) used the Kalman lter in an online
real-time responsive model for the same prospect. Although the driven
result has been validated against an unveried simulation from the
research of Fagiano et al.(Canale et al., 2009), the attempt is a good step
forward in using real-time models (M Cobb et al., 2019). Because the
uncertainties in the wind behavior lead to major deviation in the out-
comes of pre-estimation-based OCP solving models. A robust control
logic, comprising of the winch control has been presented by Sebastian
et al.(Rapp et al., 2019). However, one shortcoming in the approach is
that the tension of the tether is the only variable of the winch controller,
resulting in signicant deviation; since due to the wind prole difference
the drag on the tether can rich much higher than drag on the kite.
Although much development has been made regarding the control,
the colossal space covered by the airborne system is a pressing concern.
Because the airborne system cannot be simply arranged in rows with
optimum clearance, as wrongly assumed in the genetic algorithm-based
research of Roquea et al.(Roque et al., 2020). Wind motion varies with
location and these irregular wind motions can easily cause entanglement
to the tethers (Aull et al., 2020). As a result, the whole airborne system
covers a rather vast space, compared to conventional WTs, which is
wrongly presented in the review of Vermillion et al. (Vermillion et al.,
2021); not considering the space hovered by the kite (shown in Fig. 8
(a)). According to the presented data, though in steady wind speed the
trajectory typical occupies a narrow space of around 20m in height and
of around 600m in length, still it vastly exceeds the space covered by
conventional WTs (shown in Fig. 8(b)). In the case of turbulent wind, the
ight path takes a gure-of-eight pattern, widening the occupied space;
decreasing the kite population further (shown in Fig. 8(c)).
Besides, the induction of the wakes of upstream kites on the winds,
heading towards the successive kites is another challenge in control
dynamics, which has rarely been taken into account in designing models
(T. Haas et al., 2019). In this regard, a dedicated space of semi-sphere
with a radius equal to the length of the tether should be considered in
designing multi unites model (Vermillion et al., 2021). In this prospect,
the online trajectory optimization algorithm, like the one of Barton et al.
(M K Cobb et al., 2020) is very demanding, as it can offer the optimum
compact layout for clustered airborne systems. Moreover, the recent
model, similar to the Daisy Kite model, proposed by Beaupoil et al.
(Beaupoil, 2020) can solve the issue, as the model is fur more compact.
The comprehensive observation on Daisy Kite of Amiri et al.(Tulloch
et al., 2020) is worth mentioning for detail. Apart from this, the irreg-
ularities in the timing of switching between the traction and the
retraction phase lead to adversities in power generation. However, Elena
et al.(Malz et al., 2018) have presented a demanding solution by xing
the orbit time, the performance loss does not exceed 4%. Besides, the
pumping mode, not exceeding the loss of 1.4%, is less sensitive in xing
the orbiting times than the drag mode.
Another aspect rarely considered in control dynamics is the
launching and landing phase. Although the phase covers a little portion
of the whole ight time, to date no matured technique has been
addressed. To date, all the prescribed methods require human inter-
vention, making the control system semi-automated (Vermillion et al.,
2021), except the model of Schnez et al.(Fagiano and Schnez, 2017). The
comparative research of Schnez et al.(Fagiano and Schnez, 2017) sug-
gested that the linear take-off method is both economic and technically
effective, where a winch is used for both accelerating the launching pad
of the kite and harnessing the power. Although the model requires
on-board propulsion for assisting the take-off and control of the kite, the
paper claimed that the overall cost and the energy consumption are
within the acceptance.
Apart from the sensitivity of the control, the kite aerodynamics also
plays a key role in harnessing power, as the study of Filippo et al.(Trevisi
et al., 2021) suggested. A remarkable outcome of the study is the
insignicant impact of wind conditions on aerodynamics. Similarly, the
aspect ratio also plays a vital role in the performance, as being inversely
proportional to the power generation, shown by the machine
learning-based non-linear inverse model of Aull et al. (2020). Elsewhere,
a robust experiment by Wijnja et al. (2018) represented a direct rela-
tionship between the tether tension and the uttering behavior of the
kite. Although, for simplication they have ignored the curvature of the
tether, the discovered relationship has insignicant effects for the
simplicity. The issue of uttering gets more complicated in the case of
the soft kite, since the research of Oehler et al.(Oehler and Schmehl,
2019) claimed that uttering deforms in the shape of the kite, causing a
severe change in aerodynamics. As the kite needs to withstand the
uttering (Wijnja et al., 2018), its joints need to be exible, apart from
being durable enough to withstand the drag and the tension. The
durability of the kite, the proposal of 3d printed point-fused joint with
spikes, seems appealing; as the test of Ali Khaheshi et al. (2021) showed
that the load-bearing capacity of any exible joint can be increased three
times by introducing gap contacts and spikes. Although the tether has
been assumed to be straight for simplicity, the algorithm used in the
model has been found effective in nding out an optimized design for
the kite, which uses trial and error technique to draw the relationship
among the geometric parameters based on the characteristics of wind
and the power output. Although the prole of the cable plays a vital role
N.E. Chowdhury et al.
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 7 (2022) 100415
11
in reducing drag, the prole of the boarding lines is another rarely
investigated aspect. The research of Dunker et al. (2015) (Dunker, 2018)
illustrates that a helical strake braiding yields less drag than a thinner
line with a round cross-section. The tether has often been assumed as a
straight elasticity rod for simplicity. However, due to gravity, the tether
can never be straight and this curvature of the tether exhibits elasticity
along with its elasticity, as prominent in the study of Vermillion et al.
(Vermillion et al., 2021) and Aull et al.(Aull and Cohen, 2021). Another
poor assumption is the consideration of the tether and kite junction to be
close to the center of gravity of the kite, which might not be always
possible for the suitability of controlling the angle of attack (Rapp et al.,
2019). Another overlooking element is the gravity itself, which causes a
major aw in the result; as the simulated result of Rolf et al.(Vlugt et al.,
2019) suggested. Being veried against the data from the 20 KW model
of ’kite power’, hovering at the altitude of 720m; the simulation model is
reliable.
Eventually, the above-discussed mathematical models can be
implemented in transducer operated control logics, mentioned in the
study of Bauer et al. (2019) and Rushdi et al.(Rushdi et al., 2020).
Moreover, the models can further be used in the recently developed
simulators, like the one proposed by Kakavand et al.(Kakavand and
Nikoobin, 2021), which can measure power transmission with 98%
accuracy. As the airborne models are scaling up, the failure analysis is
getting demanding. In this context, a rare predictive failure analysis by
Salma et al. (2020) is worth mentioning. Although the presented result
for a 100 KW ground generation-based system is very limited, the work
can pave the future research.
The literature predicts that the AWES concept will be commercially
accepted by the investors in near future. Which necessitates a thorough
investigation to bring forth the possible optimization, before mistakenly
implementing in abundance, as it happened in the case of conventional
WTs (Khan and Rehan, 2016). Moreover, it poses serious safety concerns
on the nearby passengers and transport system. For example, the UK Air
Navigation Order raised a concern with the visual acquisition of cables,
which can be a great hazard for airplanes (Mariano, 2019; Lunney et al.,
2017). A reliable automated control system of kite wind power may be
able to solve the safety problem. The recent studies on stability in the
ight path (S´
anchez-Arriaga et al., 2019; Li et al., 2018; Malz et al.,
2018) and the studies on the fuzzy control method of the kite ight, like
the study of Dief et al. (2018) and of Mayouf et al. (2014), have suc-
cessfully contributed to the development of a robust control system.
Some studies are only applicable to the Ground-Gen system (Licitra
et al., 2019; EnerKite, 2019) and the Fly-Gen system (Zanelli et al.,
2018)(Zanelli et al., 2017) respectively, while the studies of Malz et al.
(2018) and Sanchez-Arriagaet al(S´
anchez-Arriaga et al., 2019). cover
both types of AWES. For avoiding tether collision with the ground, the
modeling of the landing of the kite wind power by Koenemann et al.
(2017) is a novel approach for kite ight control. The small-scale pro-
totype of Fagiano et al.also showed a remarkable result of successful
repetition of take-offs in a very compact space (Fagiano et al., 2017). The
moving horizon scheme presented by Girrbachet al(Girrbach et al.,
2019). can help in designing an efcient calibration for the ight path.
Moreover, the reference model given by Malz et al. (2019) has provided
a benchmark and guideline for future studies on the kite ight controls.
With all these efforts, there are still some critical issues that are needed
to be addressed. The AWES face a high possibility of a thunder attack for
its operating height. The study of the noise and impacts of the kite on the
radar is yet to be carried out (Megahed, 2014). Once these issues are
solved, kite power can be a breakthrough in mass-scale power genera-
tion (Bechtle et al., 2019).
5.2. Bladeless wind power
The vortex generated by the wind passing through a rigid body can
cause oscillation to a rigid body (Elshaer et al., 2017). The vortex,
generated during WT operation, can adversely inuence the other
turbines downstream and is one of the reasons to have restrictions on the
minimum distance between the WTs (Jourieh et al., 2009). Wake can
also affect the yaw mechanism and can drastically decrease the ef-
ciency of WTs (power losses of more than 80%), even in very low tur-
bulence (Schepers et al., 2012). Several classical studies, like the study
of Lvanell et al.(Ivanell et al., 2010), Jourieh et al. (2009) and Troldborg
et al. (2010) showed that the WTs need to be spread over a large distance
to avoid turbulence and wake effect, as shown in Fig. 9. However,
sparsely located WTs add a huge cost to the installation price for a WF
power plant.
A new technology named vortex bladeless wind power has been
introduced by Y´
a˜
nez, which effectively uses these undesirable vortexes
to generate electricity (Y´
a˜
nez, 2018). Some studies, like the one of
Chizfahm et al. (2018) and of Yuet al.(Yu et al., 2017), have referred to
this technology as promising for future wind energy. The core mecha-
nism of the bladeless wind power system is a vertical column that is
oscillated by the vortexes in the wind and the column reciprocates as a
linear alternator to generate electricity. Another remarkable advantage
of the technology is that the efciency increases noticeably if the devices
are located closer to each other, as the devices themselves also generate
eddies that cause more oscillation for the other devices nearby. Y´
a˜
nez
managed to match up the natural frequency of the model with the fre-
quency of the swirling wind to create the “constructive interference"
(Y´
a˜
nez, 2018), which maximizes the ow-induced oscillations in the
structures (Y´
a˜
nez, 2018). To make it feasible for the domestic sector, in
their recent design, the column oats in the magnet eld which reduces
friction as well as eliminates the use of lubrication, lowering the main-
tenance cost. Moreover, this streamlined model, as shown in Fig. 10, has
fewer moving parts making it less noisy, as compared to the HAWTs and
VAWTs.
The European Union’s Commission’s Executive Agency for Small and
Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) funded a research team for the
concept of bladeless WTs in its Horizon 2020 program to save energy
and protect bird populations (EASME, 2020). Besides, the concept has
drawn attention from the companies like Barcelona Supercomputing
Center (BSC), Altair, and Microgravity Institute of the Universidad
Polit´
ecnica of Madrid (vortex, 2019). Although it may appear that the
device cannot produce signicant power due to its size, see in Fig. 11,
Yazdi asserted that with the gain-scheduling nonlinear model predictive
Fig. 9. Power loss as a function of WTs spacing. D is the diameter of the WTs
and ((P1–P2)/P1) ×100 represents the percentage of power gained by the WT
from the wind velocity. P1 and P2 are the power of the upstream and the
downstream turbines, respectively (Jourieh et al., 2009).
N.E. Chowdhury et al.
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 7 (2022) 100415
12
controller (GS-NMPC), the power output of a single device can reach up
to 1 kW, without enlarging the conventional size of the device (Yazdi,
2018). The study of Hu et al.(Hu et al., 2018) and Chizfahm et al. (2018)
showed that the efciency of the technology can be enhanced by further
modications, which makes it even closer to practical applications. The
study of El-Shahat et al. (2018) showed that the model could be inte-
grated into the Nano grid. Moreover, the model is expected to produce
more energy in a congested arrangement. However, inventor David
Yanez predicted that the model is not suitable for low-velocity wind
(directindustry, 2021). However, introducing piezoelectric devices in
the bladeless system showed an effective result in producing electricity
in the recent experiment of Tianyi et al.(Shi et al., 2021). However,
structural modication of the vibrating body can be vital in increasing
performance, as claimed by the studies of Zewei et al.(Ren et al., 2021);
where ultra-stretchable electrode lm has been implemented in the
convex-shaped triboelectric nanogenerator for wind power harnessing.
Moreover, by perforating the structure they have achieved nearly
56.3% more electric power output under certain wind conditions. Be-
sides, the concept can be redened for better harnessing the low-speed
wind, as the model of new patent of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers;
where the model can feasibly harness energy from slow-moving breeze
(TechLink, 2019). The bladeless wind energy model is considered,
theoretically, to be visually less intrusive and safer for aves, than the
conventional turbines. Consequently, the concept has attracted positive
attentions from two of the UK wind energy industry’s most vocal critics,
the RSPB and the CPRE (Bates, 2015). Due to no spinning blades and
fewer moving parts, the model poses smaller collision risks for birds and
less CO
2
footprints, as studies of Martin et al.(Martin, 2016) and of
Demirbas et al. (Demirbas and Andejany, 2017), have suggested. Be-
sides, the concept requires less maintenance than conventional WTs
(Demirbas and Andejany, 2017). From the review, the concept seems to
be viable for micro power generation, as its power output has been
recorded near 1 KW (Yazdi, 2018),(Martin, 2016). The main focus of
further research should be on scaling up the model, and on the studies,
like life cycle assessment and impacts on health.
iii. Small-scale VAWT
The study of Ishugah et al. (2014) proposed to use of small VAWTs
for backup power generation in the urban area. In addition to that, the
initial research (Li et al., 2021) and the subsequent research (Xu, Li,
Zheng, et al., 2021a, 2021b) of Wenhao, focused on the feasibility of
installation of different congurations of small VAWTs in urban build-
ings. Jie et al.(Shi et al., 2021) suggested that the harness can be more
effective for off-shore VAWTs, as with proper pitching the power output
can increase by 115%. However, the higher maintenance cost of
off-shore WT can reach up to 5–10 times that of on-shore WFs (Bussel
Fig. 10. Mechanism of a bladeless WT (Tiwari and Mishra, 2012).
Fig. 11. Schematic representation of the vortex-bladeless experimental device
(Cajas et al., 2016).
N.E. Chowdhury et al.
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 7 (2022) 100415
13
et al., 2001). From a couple of studies, VAWT and HAWT have been
found to have both advantages and disadvantages in different aspects.
The following points are provided to analyze its feasibility as an
alternative.
● VAWTs are quieter than HAWTs. VAWTs make sounds measuring
around 38 dB, which can be compared to a whispered conversation.
On the other hand, HAWTs normally generate sounds around 95 dB,
which can be compared to sounds that one listens from a car passing
by (Saad and Asmuin, 2014).
● A large VAWT needs long guide wires for stability, especially for
those having the so-called “egg beater” design, as shown in Fig. 12. A
VAWT WF of commercial-scale requires more materials in con-
struction, to compete in power generation with a conventional farm
equipped with HAWTs (Danao et al., 2013).
● Generally, HAWTs are used where the wind is relatively steady, as
reported in the study of Eriksson et al. (2008) and Islam et al. (2013).
In comparison, VAWTs can utilize highly unsteady and turbulent
wind ows (Danao et al., 2013). VAWTs are more suitable for resi-
dential applications, where the wind is mainly turbulent, as promi-
nent from the study of Kumar et al. (2016) and Tummala et al.
(2016).
● Small VAWTs, which can be classied as SWTs, are considered to be
not harmful to birds according to studies of Minderman et al. (2012)
and Krijgsveld et al. (2009).
● VAWTs can be more energy-consuming and emission-intensive,
compared to HAWTs; according to studies of Lombardi et al.
(2018)and Uddin et al.(Uddin and Kumar, 2014). However, the
embodied energy of VAWTs could be reduced to 36% with the
thermoplastic turbine and 40% with berglass turbine, reducing
environmental impacts to more than 15% on average (Uddin and
Kumar, 2014).
Fig. 12. France’s vertical WT (Danao et al., 2013).
Table 2
Summary of the drawbacks of the present technology and the possible solutions.
Drawbacks Impacts Possible Research Pathways
Hazardous
manufacturing
process.
The manufacturing of the
WT affects the ecosystem (
Gkantou et al., 2020).
The practice of proper
recycling of materials should
be emphasized and inspired.
However, a robust LCA of the
airborne concept is very
demanding in this regard.
Because, the materials that are
required to manufacture the
model, with the same power
output, are much less, as the
kite system is much small in
comparison to conventional
WTs, as shown in Fig. 8 (
Vermillion et al., 2021).
Harmful to the aves
and mammals.
While passing by the WTs,
the aves often collide with
the rotors (May et al.,
2015). The WF also harms
the breeding process (
Shaffer et al., 2016).
Because of fewer moving parts
and smaller cross-section
along aves line of ight,
bladeless wind energy
generators (wind kites) are
less intrusive to birds and lead
to fewer collisions as attested
by Martin et al.(Martin, 2016)
and of Demirbas et al. (
Demirbas and Andejany,
2017). Its increased efciency
through modications may
make it an economically
competitive option as well (
Hu et al., 2018)(Chizfahm
et al., 2018).
Miao et al.(Miao et al., 2019)
pointed out the positive
impact of the tower height and
the negative inuence of
blade length on the breeding
bird population. This study
asserts: as higher altitude
allows for greater wind
velocity, it may potentially
facilitate the generation of the
same amount of power with a
smaller blade length. This
study proposes the conduction
of research on the
technological and economic
viability of higher WTs with
smaller blade lengths.
Less energy density,
due to the wake
effect.
For economic reasons, WTs
are located close to each
other in the WF (Ivanell
et al., 2010). However, the
wakes of a WT negatively
inuence the efciency of
other downstream WTs.
This limits the maximum
density for the WTs in a
WF.
Though the energy loss by
wakes can be mitigated by
altering the alignment of WTs
(Cossu, 2021), research is
needed to quantify the energy,
missed by this alteration. The
vortex bladeless model can be
a feasible solution, as it can
utilize the wake to produce
power (Rostami and
Armandei, 2017). The
research on the integration of
piezoelectric devices can
enhance the feasibility of the
model (Shi et al., 2021),
making the model a potential
research topic.
Noise pollution. The noise of the WTs has
an impact on human
health, such as sleep
disorders, visual
disturbances, etc (Lee
et al., 2011). However,
from the recent studies, it
seems that the noise
emission from Wts has
been wrongly exaggerated,
The small-size VAWTs are less
noisy than HAWTs (Saad and
Asmuin, 2014). However,
commercialization of the
model requires enhancing the
energy production to a
standard level, which requires
more study on its
performance. Besides, the
airborne model and the
(continued on next page)
N.E. Chowdhury et al.
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 7 (2022) 100415
14
The bottom line is that according to current reviews, similar to the
concept of bladeless wind, the VAWTs are best suited for small-scale
domestic power generation. The study of Dominicus et al. (Tjahjana
et al., 2021) showed that there is yet scope for development in the
optimization of the blade, as the slotted blades showed a signicant
increase in performance compared to the conventional counterpart. In
fact, optimized blade design for the cold region is very demanding, as
study shows that the northern part of ’Tropic of Cancer’ is high in wind
power index (Jung and Schindler, 2021) and icing severely hampers the
blade performance (Manatbayev et al., 2021). Besides, survey on wind
index in densely constructed urban areas is also limited (Pellegrini et al.,
2021), which is a key element in the feasibility of the micro wind
concept.
6. Drawbacks and possible solutions
In this section, some of the most comprehensive research has been
discussed to summarize the review. Table 2 briey illustrates only the
outstandingly promising pathways among the mitigation approaches.
7. Conclusions
The installations of WFs have substantially increased in the past few
decades to meet the growing market need for renewable energy.
However, conventional wind harness technologies possess drawbacks
and environmental impacts, as marked in this study. For paving the
future research in mitigating the issues, this review has identied some
research gaps, in the basis of the comprehensive studies on environ-
mental impacts. Moreover, it has also shown that signicant tasks are
also required to formulate more standard protocols and regulations.
Eventually, it is expected from both researchers and policy makers that,
based on the mentioned pathways, further investigation and studies will
be carried out to come up with more environment-friendly wind power
generation technologies and protocols that are more robust.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to inuence
the work reported in this paper.
References
A, A., J, C., 2000. Applications of the Contingent Valuation Method in Developing
Countries. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Italy from.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/X8955E/x8955e03.htm.
A Lute, C.D., 2011. ASR-11 radar performance assessment over a wind turbine farm. In:
2011 IEEE RadarCon (RADAR).
Abbasi, S.A., Abbasi, T., 2016. Impact of wind-energy generation on climate: a rising
spectre. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 59, 1591–1598.
Abbasi, M., Monnazzam, M.R., Zakerian, S., Yousefzadeh, A., 2015. Effect of wind
turbine noise on workers’ sleep disorder: a case study of Manjil wind farm in
northern Iran. Fluctuation Noise Lett. 14 (2), 1550020.
Ackermann, T., S¨
oder, L., 2002. An overview of wind energy-status 2002. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 6 (1), 67–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-0321(02)
00008-4.
Agudelo, M.S., Mabee, T.J., Palmer, R., Anderson, R., June 1, 2021. Post-construction
bird and bat fatality monitoring studies at wind energy projects in Latin America: a
summary and review. Heliyon 7 (6), e07251. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
HELIYON.2021.E07251.
Alhmoud, L., Wang, B., 2018. A review of the State-of-the-art in wind-energy reliability
analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 81, 1643–1651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2017.05.252.
Archer, C.L., Jacobson, M.Z., 2003. Spatial and temporal distributions of US winds and
wind power at 80 m derived from measurements. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 108 (D9).
Archer, C.L., Jacobson, M.Z., 2005. Evaluation of global wind power. J. Geophys. Res.
Atmos. 110 (D12) https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005462 n/a–n/a.
Ardente, F., Beccali, M., Cellura, M., Brano, V. lo, 2008. Energy performances and life
cycle assessment of an Italian wind farm. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 12 (1),
200–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2006.05.013.
Arnett, E.B., May, R.F., 2016. Mitigating wind energy impacts on wildlife: approaches for
multiple taxa. Human–Wildlife Interact. 10 (1), 5.
Arnett, E.B., Brown, W.K., Erickson, W.P., Fiedler, J.K., Hamilton, B.L., Henry, T.H.,
Jain, A., Johnson, G.D., Kerns, J., Koford, R.R., 2008. Patterns of bat fatalities at
wind energy facilities in North America. J. Wildl. Manag. 72 (1), 61–78.
Arnett, E.B., Huso, M.M.P., Schirmacher, M.R., Hayes, J.P., 2011. Altering turbine speed
reduces bat mortality at wind-energy facilities. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9 (4), 209–214.
https://doi.org/10.1890/100103.
Aull, M., Cohen, K., 2021. A nonlinear inverse model for airborne wind energy system
Analysis, control, and design optimization. Wind Energy 24 (2), 133–148. https://
doi.org/10.1002/we.2562.
Aull, M., Stough, A., Cohen, K., 2020. Design optimization and sizing for y-gen airborne
wind energy systems. Automation 1 (1), 1–16.
Baidya Roy, S., Pacala, S.W., Walko, R.L., 2004. Can large wind farms affect local
meteorology? J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 109 (D19).
Bates, D., 2015. Can Bladeless Wind Turbines Mute Opposition?.
Bauer, F., Petzold, D., Kennel, R.M., Campagnolo, F., Schmehl, R., 2019. Control of a
drag power kite over the entire wind speed range. J. Guid. Control Dynam. 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.g004207, 0, no. 0. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.
2514/1.G004207. from.
Beaupoil, C., 2020. Practical Experiences with a Torsion Based Rigid Blade Rotary
Airborne Wind Energy System with Ground Based Power Generation.
Bechtle, P., Schelbergen, M., Schmehl, R., Zillmann, U., Watson, S., 2019. Airborne wind
energy resource analysis. Renew. Energy 141, 1103–1116.
Berg, F. Van Den, Pedersen, E., Bakker, R., Bouma, J., 2008. Wind farm aural and visual
impact in the Netherlands. In: 7th European Conference on Noise Control,
EURONOISE, June 29th-July 4th, 2008, Paris, France.
Bergstr¨
om, L., Kautsky, L., Malm, T., Rosenberg, R., Wahlberg, M., Åstrand Capetillo, N.,
Wilhelmsson, D., 2014. Effects of offshore wind farms on marine wildlife—a
generalized impact assessment. Environ. Res. Lett. 9 (3), 34012. https://doi.org/
10.1088/1748-9326/9/3/034012.
Bonou, A., Laurent, A., Olsen, S.I., 2016. Life cycle assessment of onshore and offshore
wind energy-from theory to application. Appl. Energy 180, 327–337. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.058.
Table 2 (continued )
Drawbacks Impacts Possible Research Pathways
as the real noise from Wts
is much less than wrongly
guessed by the observer (
Nguyen et al., 2019).
bladeless model can also be
viable research topics in this
regard.
Interference with
the radar
systems.
WTs disturb the reading of
nearby radars and other
signal transmission
systems (A Lute, 2011).
According to the observation
of this paper, to some extent,
the problem has already been
solved, as no recent studies
have been encountered
concerning the issue.
Low ground wind
speeds.
The wind speed is
drastically reduced near
the earth’s surface by the
boundary-layer effect. This
hinders the attainment of
optimal performance by
the WTs (Diehl, 2013).
The airborne wind power
technology may solve this
problem as it hovers at a high
altitude and can operate in the
high-velocity wind (
Sommerfeld et al., 2019).
Although Haas et al.
previously suggested the
impact of kites on wake
formation not to be
insignicant (Haas et al.,
2017), their subsequent study
claimed the impact can be
neglected (T. Haas et al.,
2019). The concept requires
further studies for achieving
commercial-scale power
generation.
Lightning strikes WTs are highly vulnerable
to lightning strikes (Goud
et al., 2018).
For lightning protection, the
blades of the WTs are needed
to be reinforced (Mat Daud
et al., 2018). Besides, the
basement needs a good
earthling system, as it
experiences severe lighting
impacts (Goud et al., 2018).
Environmental
factors on Blades
Design
The icing on the blade can
drastically decrease the
performance (Pellegrini
et al., 2021). Besides, as
wind energy is more
available in the cold region
of the Northern
Hemisphere, the factor is
worth considering (
Manatbayev et al., 2021).
Environmental factors should
be considered in the studies of
blade optimization (Tjahjana
et al., 2021).
N.E. Chowdhury et al.
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 7 (2022) 100415
15
Bussel, G. J. W. Van, Zaaijer, M.B., 2001. Reliability, availability and maintenance
aspects of large-scale offshore wind farms, a concepts study. Proc. MAREC, 2001.
Cajas, J.C., Houzeaux, G., Y´
a˜
nez, D.J., Mier-Torrecilla, M., 2016. SHAPE Project Vortex
Bladeless : Parallel Multi-Code Coupling for Fluid-Structure Interaction in Wind
Energy Generation.
Canale, M., Fagiano, L., Milanese, M., 2009. KiteGen: a revolution in wind energy
generation. Energy 34 (3), 355–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2008.10.003.
Caporale, D., Lucia, C. De, 2015. Social acceptance of on-shore wind energy in Apulia
region (Southern Italy). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 52, 1378–1390.
Chang, E., 2018. Airborne Wind Energy.
Chen, Y., Cai, G., Zheng, L., Zhang, Y., Qi, X., Ke, S., Gao, L., Bai, R., Liu, G., October
2020. Modeling waste generation and end-of-life management of wind power
development. In: Guangdong, China until 2050, Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105533, 2021. htt
ps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921344921001403.
(Accessed 3 December 2021).
Cherubini, A., Papini, A., Vertechy, R., Fontana, M., 2015. Airborne wind energy
systems: a review of the technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 51, 1461–1476.
Chipindula, J., Botlaguduru, V.S.V., Du, H., Kommalapati, R.R., Huque, Z., 2018. Life
cycle environmental impact of onshore and offshore wind farms in Texas.
Sustainability (Switzerland) 10 (6), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10062022.
Chizfahm, A., Yazdi, E.A., Eghtesad, M., 2018. Dynamic modeling of vortex induced
vibration wind turbines. Renew. Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2018.01.038 from. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0960148118300387.
Cobb, M., Barton, K., Fathy, H., Vermillion, C., 2019. An iterative learning approach for
online ight path optimization for tethered energy systems undergoing cyclic
spooling motion. In: 2019 American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 2164–2170.
Cobb, M.K., Barton, K., Fathy, H., Vermillion, C., 2020. Iterative learning-based path
optimization for repetitive path planning, with application to 3-D crosswind ight of
airborne wind energy systems. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 28 (4),
1447–1459. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCST.2019.2912345.
Cossu, C., April 1, 2021. Replacing wakes with streaks in wind turbine arrays. Wind
Energy 24 (4), 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1002/WE.2577.
Cuadra, L., Ocampo-Estrella, I., Alexandre, E., Salcedo-Sanz, S., 2019. A study on the
impact of easements in the deployment of wind farms near airport facilities. Renew.
Energy 135, 566–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.12.038 from. http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148118314691.
Dai, K., Bergot, A., Liang, C., Xiang, W.-N., Huang, Z., 2015. Environmental issues
associated with wind energy – a review. Renew. Energy 75, 911–921. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.074.
Danao, L.A., Eboibi, O., Howell, R., 2013. An experimental investigation into the
inuence of unsteady wind on the performance of a vertical Axis wind turbine. Appl.
Energy 107, 403–411.
Demir, N., Tas¸kin, A., 2013. Life cycle assessment of wind turbines in PInarbas¸ I-Kayseri.
J. Clean. Prod. 54, 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.016.
Demirbas, A., Andejany, M.I., 2017. Optimization of wind power generation using
shaking energy. Energy Sources B Energy Econ. Plann. 12 (4), 326–331.
Dief, T., Fechner, U., Schmehl, R., Yoshida, S., Ismaiel, A., Halawa, A., 2018. System
identication, fuzzy control and simulation of a kite power system with xed tether
length. Wind Energy Sci. 3, 275–291. https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-3-275-2018.
Diehl, M., 2013. Airborne wind energy: basic concepts and physical foundations. In:
Airborne Wind Energy. Springer, pp. 3–22.
Drewitt, A.L., Langston, R.H.W., 2006. Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis
148, 29–42.
Dunker, S., 2018. Tether and bridle line drag in airborne wind energy applications. In:
Schmehl, R. (Ed.), Airborne Wind Energy: Advances in Technology Development and
Research. Springer Singapore, Singapore, pp. 29–56.
Dunker, S., Meile, W., Brenn, G., 2015. Experiments in line vibration and associated drag
for kites. In: 23rd AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology Conference
from. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2015-2154.
EASME, E.C, 2020. Bladeless Wind Turbines to Save Energy and Protect Bird Populations.
EcoBusinessLinks, 2018. Vertical Axis Wind Turbine Manufacturers.
El-Shahat, A., Hasan, M., Wu, Y., 2018. Vortex bladeless wind generator for nano-grids.
In: 2018 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC), pp. 1–2.
Elshaer, A., Gairola, A., Adamek, K., Bitsuamlak, G., 2017. Variations in wind load on tall
buildings due to Urban development. Sustain. Cities Soc. 34, 264–277.
EnerKite, 2019. EK30 - Demonstrator.
Eriksson, S., Bernhoff, H., Leijon, M., 2008. Evaluation of different turbine concepts for
wind power. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 12 (5), 1419–1434.
Fagiano, L., Schnez, S., 2017. On the take-off of airborne wind energy systems based on
rigid wings. Renew. Energy 107, 473–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2017.02.023.
Fagiano, L., Nguyen-Van, E., Rager, F., Schnez, S., Ohler, C., 2017. Automatic take-off of
a tethered aircraft for airborne wind energy: control design and experimental results.
IFAC-PapersOnLine 50 (1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.1456,
11932–37.
Fechner, U., Schmehl, R., 2018. Flight path planning in a turbulent wind environment.
In: Airborne Wind Energy. Springer Singapore, pp. 361–390.
Fechner, U., van der Vlugt, R., Schreuder, E., Schmehl, R., 2015. Dynamic model of a
pumping kite power system. Renew. Energy 83, 705–716.
Fern´
andez-Bellon, D., Wilson, M.W., Irwin, S., O’Halloran, J., 2019. Effects of
development of wind energy and associated changes in land use on bird densities in
upland areas. Conserv. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13239.
Garrett, P., Rønde, K., 2013. Life cycle assessment of wind power: comprehensive results
from a state-of-the-art approach. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (1), 37–48. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11367-012-0445-4.
Garus, K., 2015. Vattenfall Wins Concession for Horns Rev 3. VDE VERLAG GMBH,
December.
Girrbach, F., Zandbergen, R., Kok, M., Hageman, T., Bellusci, G., Diehl, M., 2019.
Towards in-eld and online calibration of inertial navigation systems using moving
horizon estimation. In: 2019 18th European Control Conference (ECC), IEEE,
pp. 4338–4343.
Gkantou, M., Rebelo, C., Baniotopoulos, C., 2020. Life cycle assessment of tall onshore
hybrid steel wind turbine towers. Energies 13 (15). https://doi.org/10.3390/
en13153950.
Gomaa, M.R., Rezk, H., Mustafa, R.J., Al-Dhaifallah, M., August 24 2019. Evaluating the
environmental impacts and energy performance of a wind farm system utilizing the
life-cycle assessment method: a practical case study, 2019 Energies 12 (17), 3263.
https://doi.org/10.3390/EN12173263. Vol. 12, Page 3263.
Goud, R.D., Rayudu, R., Moore, C.P., Auditorey, T., 2018. An evaluation of potential rise
in a wind turbine generator earthing system during a direct lightning strike. In: 2018
International Conference and Utility Exhibition on Green Energy for Sustainable
Development. ICUE, pp. 1–7.
Guezuraga, B., Zauner, R., P¨
olz, W., 2012. Life cycle assessment of two different 2 MW
class wind turbines. Renew. Energy 37 (1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2011.05.008.
Guinee, J., Heijungs, R., 1993. A proposal for the classication of toxic substances
withing the framework of life cycle assessment of products. Chemosphere 1
(August), 117–125.
Haas, Tobias, 2019. Struggles in European Union energy politics: a gramscian
perspective on power in energy transitions. Energy Res. Social Sci. 48, 66–74.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.09.011.
Haas, Thomas, Meyers, J., 2017. Comparison study between wind turbine and power kite
wakes, Journal of physics: conference series. IOP Publ. 854 (1), 12019.
Haas, T., Schutter, J. De, Diehl, M., Meyers, J., July 22, 2019. Wake characteristics of
pumping mode airborne wind energy systems. J. Phys. Conf. 1256 (1), 10.1088/
1742-6596/1256/1/012016 eia.
Hossain, M.M., Ali, M.H., 2015. Future research directions for the wind turbine generator
system. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 49, 481–489.
Hu, G., Tse, K.T., Wei, M., Naseer, R., Abdelke, A., Kwok, K.C.S., 2018. Experimental
investigation on the efciency of circular cylinder-based wind energy harvester with
different rod-shaped attachments. Appl. Energy 226, 682–689. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.06.056.
Hu, B., Stumpf, P., van der Deijl, W., 2019. Offshore Wind Access 2019. TNO.
International Organization for Standardization, 2021. ISO.
Ishugah, T.F., Li, Y., Wang, R.Z., Kiplagat, J.K., 2014. Advances in wind energy resource
exploitation in Urban environment: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 37,
613–626.
Islam, M.R., Mekhilef, S., Saidur, R., 2013. Progress and recent trends of wind energy
technology. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 21, 456–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2013.01.007.
ISO 9612, 2009. Acoustics — Determination of Occupational Noise Exposure —
Engineering Method.
Ivanell, S., Mikkelsen, R., Sørensen, J.N., Henningson, D., 2010. Stability analysis of the
tip vortices of a wind turbine. Wind Energy 13 (8), 705–715. https://doi.org/
10.1002/we.391.
Ivanova, L.A., Nadyozhina, E.D., 2000. Numerical simulation of wind farm inuence on
wind ow. Wind Eng. 24 (4), 257–269.
F, J.C, S, H.F., et al., 1991. Biochemical, physiological and structural effects of excess
copper in plants. Bot. Rev. 57 (3), 246–273 from. https://link.springer.com/articl
e/10.1007%2FBF02858564. (Accessed 3 December 2021).
Jenn, D., Ton, C., 2012. Wind turbine radar cross section. Int. J. Antenn. Propag. 14.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/252689, 2012.
Jenn, D., Grande, O., Ca˜
nizo, J., Angulo, I., Danoon, L.R., Guerra, D., la Vega, D. de,
2014. Simplied formulae for the estimation of offshore wind turbines clutter on
marine radars. Sci. World J. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/982508.
Jin, X., Zhao, G., Gao, K., Ju, W., 2015. Darrieus vertical Axis wind turbine: basic
research methods. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 42, 212–225. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.021.
Johns, M.W., 1992. Reliability and factor Analysis of the Epworth sleepiness scale. Sleep
15 (4), 376–381.
Jourieh, M., Massouh, F., Kuszla, P., Dobrev, I., Maalouf, B., 2009. Impact of wind
turbines interactions on power production. In: 19`
eme Congr`
es Français de
M´
ecanique, Marseille.
Jung, C., Schindler, D., September 15, 2021. A global wind farm potential index to
increase energy yields and accessibility. Energy 231, 120923. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.ENERGY.2021.120923.
Kakavand, M., Nikoobin, A., 2021. Numerical simulation of tethered–wing power
systems based on variational integration. J. Comput. Sci. 51, 101351. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jocs.2021.101351.
Karanikas, N., Steele, S., Bruschi, K., Robertson, C., Kass, J., Popovich, A.,
MacFadyen, C., November 1, 2021. Occupational health hazards and risks in the
wind industry. Energy Rep. 7, 3750–3759. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
EGYR.2021.06.066. (Accessed 3 August 2021).
Katzner, T.E., Nelson, D.M., Braham, M., Doyle, J.M., Fernandez, N.B., Duerr, A.E.,
Bloom, P.H., et al., 2017. Golden eagle fatalities and the continental-scale
consequences of local wind-energy generation. Conserv. Biol. 31 (2), 406–415.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12836.
N.E. Chowdhury et al.
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 7 (2022) 100415
16
Keith, M., 2018. Climatic impacts of wind power. Joule 2 (12), 2618–2632. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.09.009 from. (Accessed 5 October 2021).
Keith, D.W., DeCarolis, J.F., Denkenberger, D.C., Lenschow, D.H., Malyshev, S.L.,
Pacala, S., Rasch, P.J., 2004. The inuence of large-scale wind power on global
climate. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101 (46), 16115–16120.
Kelsey, E.C., Felis, J.J., Czapanskiy, M., Pereksta, D.M., Adams, J., 2018. Collision and
displacement vulnerability to offshore wind energy infrastructure among marine
birds of the Pacic outer continental shelf. J. Environ. Manag. 227, 229–247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.08.051.
Khaheshi, A., Tramsen, H.T., Gorb, S.N., Rajabi, H., 2021. Against the wind: a load-
bearing, yet durable, kite inspired by insect wings. Mater. Des. 198, 109354. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2020.109354 from. https://www.sciencedirect.com/sci
ence/article/pii/S026412752030890X.
Khan, Z., Rehan, M., 2016. Harnessing airborne wind energy: prospects and challenges.
J. Control Automation Electr. Syst. 27 (6), 728–740. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40313-016-0258-y.
Kingsley, A., Whittam, B., 2005. Wind Turbines and Birds: A Background Review for
Environmental Assessment. Canadian Wildlife Service.
KiteGen Research, 2019. Agreement with Saipem for Production and Deployment.
Klain, S.C., Sattereld, T., Sinner, J., Ellis, J.I., Chan, K.M.A., 2018. Bird killer, industrial
intruder or clean energy? Perceiving risks to ecosystem services due to an offshore
wind farm. Ecol. Econ. 143, 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2017.06.030.
Koenemann, J., Williams, P., Sieberling, S., Diehl, M., July 2017. Modeling of an airborne
wind energy system with a exible tether model for the optimization of landing
trajectories. IFAC-PapersOnLine 50 (1), 11944–11950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ifacol.2017.08.1037.
Korner-Nievergelt, F., Brinkmann, R., Niermann, I., Behr, O., 2013. Estimating bat and
bird mortality occurring at wind energy turbines from covariates and carcass
searches using mixture models. PLoS One 8 (7), e67997. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0067997.
KPS Energy, 2019.
Krijgsveld, K.L., Akershoek, K., Schenk, F., Dijk, F., Dirksen, S., October 2009. Collision
risk of birds with modern large wind turbines. Ardea 97 (3), 357–366. https://doi.
org/10.5253/078.097.0311.
Kumar, Y., Ringenberg, J., Depuru, S.S., Devabhaktuni, V.K., Lee, J.W., Nikolaidis, E.,
Andersen, B., Afjeh, A., 2016. Wind energy: trends and enabling technologies.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 53, 209–224.
Kunz, T.H., Arnett, E.B., Erickson, W.P., Hoar, A.R., Johnson, G.D., Larkin, R.P.,
Strickland, M.D., Thresher, R.W., Tuttle, M.D., 2007. Ecological impacts of wind
energy development on bats: questions, research needs, and hypotheses. Front. Ecol.
Environ. 5 (6), 315–324.
Langley, R., Go, W., 2015. Fly a kite: the promises (and Perils) of airborne wind-energy
systems. Tex. Law Rev. 94.
Lee, S., Kim, K., Choi, W., Lee, S., 2011. Annoyance caused by amplitude modulation of
wind turbine noise. Noise Control Eng. J. 59 (1), 38–46.
Leo Bruinzeel Jaap Bosch, E.K.B., 2018. Ecological Impact of Airborne Wind Energy
Technology: Current State of Knowledge and Future Research Agenda, Airborne
Wind Energy. Green Energy and Technology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-981-10-1947-0_28 from. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.
1007/978-981-10-1947-0_28.
Leung, D.Y.C., Yang, Y., 2012. Wind energy development and its environmental impact:
a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (1), 1031–1039.
Li, H., Olinger, D.J., Demetriou, M.A., 2018. Attitude tracking control of an airborne
wind energy system. Airborne Wind Energy 215–239.
Li, Q., Duan, H., Xie, M., Kang, P., Ma, Y., Zhong, R., Gao, T., et al., 2021. Life cycle
assessment and life cycle cost analysis of a 40 MW wind farm with consideration of
the infrastructure. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 138 (September 2020) https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110499.
Licitra, G., Koenemann, J., Bürger, A., Williams, P., Ruiterkamp, R., Diehl, M., April
2019. Performance assessment of a rigid wing airborne wind energy pumping
system. Energy 173, 569–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.02.064.
Lombardi, L., Mendecka, B., Carnevale, E., Stanek, W., 2018. Environmental impacts of
electricity production of micro wind turbines with vertical Axis. Renew. Energy 128,
553–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.07.010.
Loyd, M.L., 1980. Crosswind kite power (for large-scale wind power production).
J. Energy 4 (3), 106–111. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.48021.
Lunney, E., Ban, M., Duic, N., Foley, A., 2017. A State-of-the-art review and feasibility
analysis of high altitude wind power in northern Ireland. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 68, 899–911.
Magnusson, M., 1999. Near-wake behaviour of wind turbines. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod.
80 (1–2), 147–167.
MakaniPower, 2019. Makani-Journey.
Malz, E.C., Zanon, M., Gros, S., 2018. A quantication of the performance loss of power
averaging in airborne wind energy farms. In: 2018 European Control Conference
(ECC), Limassol, Cyprus. IEEE, pp. 58–63.
Malz, E.C., Koenemann, J., Sieberling, S., Gros, S., September 2019. A reference model
for airborne wind energy systems for optimization and control. Renew. Energy 140,
1004–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.03.111.
Malz, E.C., Hedenus, F., G¨
oransson, L., Verendel, V., Gros, S., 2020a. Drag-mode airborne
wind energy vs. Wind turbines: an analysis of power production, variability and
geography. Energy 193, 116765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116765.
Malz, E.C., Verendel, V., Gros, S., 2020b. Computing the power proles for an airborne
wind energy system based on large-scale wind data. Renew. Energy 162, 766–778.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.06.056.
Manatbayev, R., Baizhuma, Z., Bolegenova, S., Georgiev, A., June 1, 2021. Numerical
simulations on static vertical Axis wind turbine blade icing. Renew. Energy 170,
997–1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2021.02.023.
Mariano, A., July 2019. Airborne Wind Turbines, a Potential Problem for Air Trafc
Control. PagerPower, Urban & Renewables.
Marques, J., Rodrigues, S., Ferreira, R., Mascarenhas, M., 2018. Wind industry in
Portugal and its impacts on wildlife: special focus on spatial and temporal
distribution on bird and bat fatalities. In: Mascarenhas, M., Marques, A.T.,
Ramalho, R., Santos, D., Bernardino, J., Fonseca, C. (Eds.), Biodiversity and Wind
Farms in Portugal: Current Knowledge and Insights for an Integrated Impact
Assessment Process. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 1–22.
Martin, M., 2016. Technologies for the No subsidy imperative. In: Building the Impact
Economy: Our Future, Yea or Nay. Springer International Publishing, Cham. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25604-7_9 from. (Accessed 5 October 2021), 101–7.
Martínez, E., Sanz, F., Pellegrini, S., Jim´
enez, E., Blanco, J., 2009. Life-cycle assessment
of a 2-MW rated power wind turbine: CML method. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14 (1),
52.
Mat Daud, S.Z., Mustapha, F., Adzis, Z., 2018. Lightning strike evaluation on composite
and biocomposite vertical-Axis wind turbine blade using structural health
monitoring approach. J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 29 (17), 3444–3455. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1045389x17754259.
May, R., Reitan, O., Bevanger, K., Lorentsen, S.H., Nygård, T., 2015. Mitigating wind-
turbine induced avian mortality: sensory, aerodynamic and cognitive constraints and
options. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 42, 170–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2014.10.002.
Mayouf, F., Djahli, F., Mayouf, A., Devers, T., 2014. A new coordinated fuzzy controller
for exciter and governor systems of a SMIB power system. In: 2014 14th
International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering. IEEE,
pp. 397–401.
Megahed, N.A., 2014. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Perspectives and Issues
with Flying Wind, 3. Architecture and Urban Planning Department, Faculty of
Engineering, Port Said University, Port Said, Egypt. Issue 4.
Merino-Martínez, R., Pieren, R., Sch¨
affer, B., September 1, 2021. Holistic approach to
wind turbine noise: from blade trailing-edge modications to annoyance estimation.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 148, 111285. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
RSER.2021.111285.
Miao, R., Ghosh, P.N., Khanna, M., Wang, W., Rong, J., 2019. Effect of wind turbines on
bird abundance: a national scale Analysis based on xed effects models. Energy Pol.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.04.040.
Millon, L., Colin, C., Brescia, F., Kerbiriou, C., 2018. Wind turbines impact bat activity,
leading to high losses of habitat use in a biodiversity hotspot. Ecol. Eng. 112, 51–54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.12.024.
Minderman, J., Pendlebury, C.J., Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Park, K.J., 2012. Experimental
evidence for the effect of small wind turbine proximity and operation on bird and bat
activity. PLoS One 7 (7), e41177. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041177.
Mirasgedis, S., Tourkolias, C., Tzovla, E., Diakoulaki, D., 2014. Valuing the visual impact
of wind farms: an application in South Evia, Greece. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 39,
296–311.
Mishra, P., December 3, 2017. Types of wind turbines – horizontal Axis and vertical Axis
wind turbines. Mech. Booster.
Moravec, D., Bart´
ak, V., Puˇ
s, V., Wild, J., 2018. Wind turbine impact on near-ground air
temperature. Renew. Energy 123, 627–633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2018.02.091 from. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0960148118302350.
Nazir, M.S., Mahdi, A.J., Bilal, M., Sohail, H.M., Ali, N., Iqbal, H.M.N., 2019.
Environmental impact and pollution-related challenges of renewable wind energy
paradigm–A review. Sci. Total Environ. 683, 436–444.
Nguyen, D.P., Hansen, K., Zajamsek, B., 2019. Human perception of wind farm vibration.
J. Low Freq. Noise Vib. Act. Control. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461348419837115.
Nguyen, P.D., Hansen, K.L., Catcheside, P., Hansen, C.H., Zajamsek, B., September 1,
2021. Long-term quantication and characterisation of wind farm noise amplitude
modulation. Measurement 182, 109678. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
MEASUREMENT.2021.109678.
Nilsson, M.E., 2007. A-weighted sound pressure level as an indicator of short-term
loudness or annoyance of road-trafc sound. J. Sound Vib. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jsv.2006.11.010.
Norin, L., 2017. Wind turbine impact on operational weather radar I/Q data:
characterisation and ltering. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 10 (5), 1739.
Norin, Lars, Haase, G., 2012. Doppler Weather Radars and Wind Turbines. InTech.
Oehler, J., Schmehl, R., 2019. Aerodynamic characterization of a soft kite by in situ ow
measurement. Wind Energ. Sci. 4 (1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-4-1-2019.
Park, J., Kim, B., 2019. An analysis of South Korea’s energy transition policy with
regards to offshore wind power development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 109,
71–84.
Pasqualetti, M.J., 2011. Opposing wind energy landscapes: a search for common cause.
Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 101 (4), 907–17.
Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Douse, A., Langston, R.H.W., 2012. Greater impacts of
wind farms on bird populations during construction than subsequent operation:
results of a multi-site and multi-species analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 49 (2), 386–394.
Pedersen, E., Bouma, J., Bakker, R., Berg, F. Van Den, 2008. Response to wind turbine
noise in the Netherlands. In: 7th European Conference on Noise Control,
EURONOISE, June 29th-July 4th, 2008, Paris, France, pp. 4049–4054.
Pellegrini, M., Guzzini, A., Saccani, C., November 1, 2021. Experimental measurements
of the performance of a micro-wind turbine located in an Urban Area. Energy Rep. 7,
3922–3934. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYR.2021.05.081.
N.E. Chowdhury et al.
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 7 (2022) 100415
17
Pielke, R.A., Cotton, W.R., Walko, R.L., a1, e, Tremback, C.J., Lyons, W.A., Grasso, L.D.,
Nicholls, M.E., Moran, M.D., Wesley, D.A., Lee, T.J., 1992. A comprehensive
meteorological modeling system—RAMS. Meteorol. Atmos. Phys. 49 (1–4), 69–91.
Piorkowski, M.D., Farnsworth, A.J., Fry, M., Rohrbaugh, R.W., Fitzpatrick, J.W.,
Rosenberg, K.V., 2012. Research priorities for wind energy and migratory wildlife.
J. Wildl. Manag. 76 (3), 451–456.
Poulsen, A.H., Raaschou-Nielsen, O., Pe˜
na, A., Hahmann, A.N., Nordsborg, R.B.,
Ketzel, M., Brandt, J., Sørensen, M., 2019. Impact of Long-Term Exposure to Wind
Turbine Noise on Redemption of Sleep Medication and Antidepressants: A
Nationwide Cohort Study. Environmental Health Perspectives. https://doi.org/
10.1289/EHP3909.
Powlesland, R.G., 2009. Impacts of wind farms on birds: a review. Sci. Conserv. 289.
Rahimizadeh, A., Kalman, J., Fayazbakhsh, K., Lessard, L., 2019. Recycling of berglass
wind turbine blades into reinforced laments for use in additive manufacturing.
Compos. B Eng. 175 (July), 107101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compositesb.2019.107101.
Rapp, S., Schmehl, R., Oland, E., Smidt, S., Haas, T., Meyers, J., 2019. A Modular Control
Architecture for Airborne Wind Energy Systems. AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum, p. 1419.
Rashid, L., Brown, A., 2010. Partial treatment of wind turbine blades with radar
absorbing materials (RAM) for RCS reduction, antennas and propagation (EuCAP).
In: 2010 Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on. IEEE, pp. 1–5.
Ren, Z., Wang, Z., Wang, F., Li, S., Wang, Z.L., May 1, 2021. Vibration behavior and
excitation mechanism of ultra-stretchable triboelectric nanogenerator for wind
energy harvesting. Extreme Mech. Lett. 45, 101285. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
EML.2021.101285.
Rogers, A.L., Manwell, J.F., Wright, S., 2006. Wind Turbine Acoustic Noise, Renewable
Energy Research Laboratory. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Roque, L.A.C., Paiva, L.T., Fernandes, M.C.R.M., Fontes, D.B.M.M., Fontes, F.A.C.C.,
2020. Layout optimization of an airborne wind energy farm for maximum power
generation. Energy Rep. 6, 165–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2019.08.037.
Rostami, A.B., Armandei, M., 2017. Renewable energy harvesting by vortex-induced
motions: review and benchmarking of technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 70,
193–214.
Rotela Junior, P., Fischetti, E., Araújo, V.G., Peruchi, R.S., Aquila, G., Rocha, L.C.S.,
Lacerda, L.S., June 2019. Wind power economic feasibility under uncertainty and
the application of ANN in sensitivity analysis. Energies 12 (12), 2281. https://doi.
org/10.3390/en12122281.
Rushdi, M. A., Dief, T. N., Yoshida, S. and Schmehl, R., Towing Test Data Set of the
Kyushu University Kite System, Data, vol. 5, no. 3, p. 69, from https://www.mdpi.
com/2306-5729/5/3/69, December 5, 2020.
Saad, M.M.M., Asmuin, N., 2014. Comparison of horizontal Axis wind turbines and
vertical Axis wind turbines. IOSR J. Eng. 4 (8), 27–30.
Salma, V., Friedl, F., Schmehl, R., 2020. Improving reliability and safety of airborne wind
energy systems. Wind Energy 23 (2), 340–356. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.2433.
S´
anchez-Arriaga, G., Pastor-Rodríguez, A., Sanjurjo-Rivo, M., Schmehl, R., May 2019.
A Lagrangian ight simulator for airborne wind energy systems. Appl. Math. Model.
69, 665–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2018.12.016.
Schepers, J.G., Obdam, T.S., Prospathopoulos, J., 2012. Analysis of wake measurements
from the ECN wind turbine test site wieringermeer, EWTW. Wind Energy 15 (4),
575–591. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.488.
Schmehl, R., 2018. Milestone Achieved: 100 KW Peakpower with 40 M2 Kite and KCU
2.0.
Schmidt, E., Oliveira, M. D. L. C. de, Silva, R. S. da, Fagiano, L., Neto, A.T., 2020. In-ight
estimation of the aerodynamics of tethered wings for airborne wind energy. IEEE
Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 28 (4), 1309–1322. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TCST.2019.2907663.
Sch¨
oll, E.M., Nopp-Mayr, U., April 1, 2021. Impact of wind power plants on mammalian
and avian wildlife species in shrub- and woodlands. Biol. Conserv. 256, 109037.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOCON.2021.109037. (Accessed 3 August 2021).
Sengupta, D.L., Senior, T.B.A., 1979. Electromagnetic interference to television reception
caused by horizontal Axis windmills. Proc. IEEE 67 (8), 1133–1142.
Shaffer, J.A., Buhl, D.A., 2016. Effects of wind-energy facilities on breeding grassland
bird distributions. Conserv. Biol. 30 (1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/
cobi.12569, 10.1111/cobi.12569.
Shepherd, D., McBride, D., Welch, D., Dirks, K., Hill, E., 2011. Evaluating the impact of
wind turbine noise on health-related quality of life. Noise Health 13 (54), 333–339.
https://doi.org/10.4103/1463-1741.85502.
Shi, T., Hu, G., Zou, L., Song, J., Kwok, K.C.S., 2021. Performance of an Omnidirectional
Piezoelectric Wind Energy Harvester. Wind Energy. https://doi.org/10.1002/
WE.2624 from. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/we.2624.
(Accessed 3 August 2021).
Sommerfeld, M., Crawford, C., 2018. Wind inow modeling for airborne wind energy
systems. In: EAWE PhD Seminar 2018, European Academy of Wind Energy, 14th
EAWE..
Sommerfeld, M., Crawford, C., Monahan, A., Bastigkeit, I., April 2019. LiDAR-based
Characterization of Mid-altitude Wind Conditions for Airborne Wind Energy
Systems. Wind Energy. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.2343 we.2343.
Sommerfeld, M., Crawford, C., Steinfeld, G., D¨
orenk¨
amper, M., 2019b. Improving Mid-
altitude Mesoscale Wind Speed Forecasts Using LiDAR-Based Observation Nudging
for AirborneWind Energy Systems, vols. 1–30.
Song, N., Xu, H., Zhao, S., Liu, N., Zhong, S., Li, B., Wang, T., June 1, 2021. Effects of
wind farms on the nest distribution of Magpie (Pica Pica) in agroforestry systems of
chongming island, China. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 27, e01536. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.GECCO.2021.E01536.
Szychowska, M., Hafke-Dys, H., Preis, A., Koci´
nski, J., Kleka, P., 2018. The Inuence of
Audio-Visual Interactions on the Annoyance Ratings for Wind Turbines. Applied
Acoustics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2017.08.003.
The Science Team, 2017. James Blyth and the World’s First Wind-Powered Generator -
Science Blog. The British Library Board.
Therkildsen, Ole Roland, Elmeros, Morten, Asferg, Tommy, 2015. First Year Post-
Construction Monitoring of Bats and Birds at Wind Turbine Test Centre, 133. Danish
Centre for Environment and Energy.
Tigner, B., 2011. Multi-tether Cross-Wind Kite Power, Issued.
Tim, M., 2015. A Brief History of Human Energy Use, the Atlantic.
Tiwari, G.N., Mishra, R.K., 2012. Advanced Renewable Energy Sources. Royal Society of
Chemistry from. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/ebook/978-1-84973-380-9.
(Accessed 1 January 2022).
Tjahjana, D.D.D.P., Arin, Z., Suyitno, S., Juwana, W.E., Prabowo, A.R., Harsito, C.,
2021. Experimental study of the effect of slotted blades on the Savonius wind turbine
performance. Theor. Appl. Mech. Lett. 11 (3), 100249. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
TAML.2021.100249. March 1.
Topham, E., McMillan, D., Bradley, S., Hart, E., 2019. Recycling offshore wind farms at
decommissioning stage. Energy Pol. 129, 698–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2019.01.072.
Tremeac, B., Meunier, F., 2009. Life cycle analysis of 4.5 MW and 250 W wind turbines.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (8), 2104–2110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2009.01.001.
Trevisi, F., Gaunaa, M., McWilliam, M., 2020. Unied engineering models for the
performance and cost of ground-gen and y-gen crosswind airborne wind energy
systems. Renew. Energy 162, 893–907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2020.07.129.
Trevisi, F., McWilliam, M., Gaunaa, M., 2021. Conguration optimization and global
sensitivity analysis of ground-gen and y-gen airborne wind energy systems. Renew.
Energy 178, 385–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.06.011.
Trockel, D., Rodriguez-Alegre, I., Barrick, D., Whelan, C., Vesesky, J.F., Roarty, H., 2018.
Mitigation of Offshore Wind Turbines on High-Frequency Coastal Oceanographic
Radar. OCEANS 2018 MTS/IEEE Charleston, OCEAN, p. 2019.
Troldborg, N., Sorensen, J.N., Mikkelsen, R., 2010. Numerical simulations of wake
characteristics of a wind turbine in uniform inow. Wind Energy 13 (1), 86–99.
https://doi.org/10.1002/we.345.
Tsoutsos, T., Gouskos, Z., Karterakis, S., Peroulaki, E., 2006. Aesthetic Impact from Wind
Parks. European Wind Energy Conference EWEC.
Tulloch, O., Amiri, A.K., Yue, H., Feuchtwang, J., Read, R., 2020. Tensile rotary power
transmission model development for airborne wind energy systems. J. Phys. Conf.
1618, 32001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1618/3/032001.
Tummala, A., Velamati, R.K., Sinha, D.K., Indraja, V., Krishna, V.H., 2016. A review on
small scale wind turbines. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 56, 1351–1371.
Turunen, A.W., Tiittanen, P., Yli-Tuomi, T., Taimisto, P., Lanki, T., June 1, 2021. Self-
reported health in the vicinity of ve wind power production areas in Finland.
Environ. Int. 151, 106419. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVINT.2021.106419.
Uddin, M.S., Kumar, S., 2014. Energy, emissions and environmental impact analysis of
wind turbine using life cycle assessment technique. J. Clean. Prod. 69, 153–164.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.073 from. http://www.sciencedirect.co
m/science/article/pii/S0959652614000973.
University of Sydney, 2005. Boundary Layer Flow, Aerospace. Mechanical &
Mechatronic Engg.
van den Berg, G.P., 2004. Effects of the wind prole at night on wind turbine sound.
J. Sound Vib. 277 (4), 955–970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2003.09.050.
Varun Kumar, December 3, 2015. 9 Ancient Examples of Green Architecture and
Technology. RankRed Media Private Limited.
Vermillion, C., Cobb, M., Fagiano, L., Leuthold, R., Diehl, M., Smith, R.S., Wood, T.A.,
et al., 2021. Electricity in the air: insights from two decades of advanced control
research and experimental ight testing of airborne wind energy systems, annual
Reviews in control. April, 24. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ARCONTROL.2021.03.002.
Vlugt, R. van der, Bley, A., Noom, M., Schmehl, R., 2019. Quasi-steady model of a
pumping kite power system. Renew. Energy 131, 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2018.07.023.
Vortex, 2019. Vortex Bladeless Biography & Current Stage. Vortex Bladeless:Biography&
Current Stage.
Wang, S., Wang, S., Smith, P., 2015. Ecological impacts of wind farms on birds:
questions, hypotheses, and research needs. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 44,
599–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.031.
Wijnja, J., Schmehl, R., Breuker, R. De, Jensen, K., Lind, D. Vander, 2018. Aeroelastic
analysis of a large airborne wind turbine. J. Guid. Control Dynam. 41 (11),
2374–2385. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.g001663.
WindEurope, 2020. Offshore wind in Europe – key trends and statistics. February 8,
2021b.
World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 2011. Preserve the Ozone Layer. Protect the
Global Climate System.
Worldwide Wind Capacity Reaches, 2020. Worldwide Wind Capacity Reaches 744
Gigawatts – an Unprecedented 93 Gigawatts Added in 2020. World Wind Energy
Association.
Xu, W., Li, G., Zheng, X., Li, Y., Li, S., Zhang, C., Wang, F., November 1, 2021. High-
resolution numerical simulation of the performance of vertical Axis wind turbines in
Urban area: Part I, wind turbines on the side of single building. Renew. Energy 177,
461–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2021.04.071.
Xu, W., Li, Y., Li, G., Li, S., Zhang, C., Wang, F., October 1, 2021. High-resolution
numerical simulation of the performance of vertical Axis wind turbines in Urban
area: Part II, array of vertical Axis wind turbines between buildings. Renew. Energy
176, 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2021.05.011.
N.E. Chowdhury et al.
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 7 (2022) 100415
18
Yan, H. (Ashley), 2017. Modelling and control of surng kites for power generation.
Tuwhera from. https://openrepository.aut.ac.nz/handle/10292/10656. (Accessed 7
December 2021).
Y´
a˜
nez, D.J., 2018. VIV Resonant Wind Generators. Vortex Bladeless.
Yazdi, E.A., 2018. Nonlinear model predictive control of a vortex-induced vibrations
bladeless wind turbine. Smart Mater. Struct. 27 (7), 75005. https://doi.org/
10.1088/1361-665x/aac0b6.
Yu, Y.S.W., Sun, D., Zhang, J., Xu, Y., Qi, Y., 2017. Study on a pi-type mean ow acoustic
engine capable of wind energy harvesting using a CFD model. Appl. Energy 189,
602–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.12.022.
Zanelli, A., Horn, G., Diehl, M., 2017. Nonlinear Model Predictive Control of a Large-
Scale Quadrotor. Airborne Wind Energy Conference.
Zanelli, A., Horn, G., Frison, G., Diehl, M., 2018. Nonlinear model predictive control of a
human-sized quadrotor. In: 2018 European Control Conference (ECC), Limassol,
Cyprus. IEEE, pp. 1542–1547.
Zhang, H., Zhang, H., September 2, 2013. Kite modeling for higher altitude wind energy.
Energy Power Eng. 5 (7), 481–488. https://doi.org/10.4236/EPE.2013.57052 from.
http://www.scirp.org/Html/6-6201555_37005.htm. (Accessed 7 December 2021).
Zhu, Y., Wang, J., Qu, B., 2014. Multi-objective economic emission dispatch considering
wind power using evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition. Int. J. Electr.
Power Energy Syst. 63, 434–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2014.06.027.
N.E. Chowdhury et al.
