Study on Challenges in

the commercialisation of
airborne wind energy
systems
PP-05081-2016
Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

European Commission
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Directorate G - Energy
Unit G.3 – Renewable Energy Sources
Contact Matthijs SOEDE
E-mail RTD-ENERGY-SR-AWES @ec.europa.eu
[email protected]
[email protected]
European Commission
B-1049 Brussels

Printed by Ecorys in Belgium

Manuscript completed in September 2018.
This document has been prepared for the European Commission, however it reflects the views only of the
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use, which may be made of the information
contained therein.

More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018

Print ISBN 978-92-79-80283-6 doi: 10.2777/933106 KI-01-18-188-EN-C

PDF ISBN 978-92-79-80282-9 doi: 10.2777/87591 KI-01-18-188-EN-N

© European Union, 2018.

Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. The reuse policy of European Commission
documents is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39).

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the EU copyright, permission must
be sought directly from the copyright holders.
 EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Study on Challenges in
the commercialisation of
airborne wind energy
systems
PP-05081-2016

edited by Karel van Hussen, Enno Dietrich, Job Smeltink, Koen Berentsen, Manel
van der Sleen, Robert Haffner, Lorenzo Fagiano

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation

2018 WP2016-2017
Table of contents

Abstract 7

Executive Summary 9

Document de synthèse 17

1 Introduction 25
1.1 Study background and aim 25
1.2 Methodology 28
1.3 Report outline 30

2 AWES state of play 31

2.1 Introduction 31
2.2 Overview of airborne wind energy systems 31
2.2.1 History and classification of airborne wind energy systems 35
2.2.2 Industry and research organisations 46
2.2.3 State of development (TRL) 50
2.3 Regulatory state of play 52
2.4 Overview on resource potential 55
2.4.1 Gross resource potential 55
2.4.2 Technical resource potential 56
2.4.3 Net resource potential 58
2.5 Markets 59
2.5.1 Criteria 59
2.5.2 Use-cases 62
2.6 Conclusions 65

3 Barriers to AWES development 67

3.1 Introduction 67
3.2 Exogenous conditions 70
3.3 Industry and Market barriers 72
3.4 Public Support and regulatory barriers 77
3.5 Critical analysis of key barriers 82

4 Measures to facilitate market access 85

4.1 Introduction 85
4.2 Exogenous conditions measures 85
4.3 Industry and market measures 86
4.4 Public support and regulatory measures 89

5 Pathway towards commercialisation 95

5.1 Introduction 95
5.2 Pathway design principles 95

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 5

 5.3 AWES Development Pathway 96
5.4 Market penetration strategies 103
5.5 Positioning the EU supply chain 106

6 Conclusions and recommendations 109

6.1 Conclusions 109
6.2 Recommendations 110

Bibliography 113

Annexes 115

Annex I: Overview of stakeholders involved in the study 117

Annex II: LCOE forecasts produced in recent years 119

Annex III: Focus Groups Reports 121

Annex IV: Validation Workshop Report 129

6 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

Abstract

Airborne wind energy systems (AWES) is the umbrella name for a series of potentially game-
changing concepts to convert wind energy into electricity. This study provides an overview of the
technological state of the art, assesses market potential and barriers, and outlines measures and a
pathway towards commercialisation. The study finds that the technology is still immature, and that it
remains unclear whether the technology can ultimately reach cost-competitiveness and contribute to
EU energy security and decarbonisation targets. However, the AWES case from the perspective of
EU industrial leadership is strong. Moreover, there is sufficient potential to continue exploring the
technology. The sector needs to do so under a risk-controlled technology development approach. A
framework is proposed to facilitate discussions about appropriate incentives and public support at
various development stages. In addition, the study presents specific recommendations:
1. Prove continuous operations: define, achieve and prove reliability targets.
2. Substantiate the AWES case: deepen insight in resource potential and complementarity.
3. Anchor learning: build on previous experiences and improve fundamental understanding.
4. Create a hub: concentrate testing activities.
5. Utilize technology cross-overs: invest in enabling technologies.
6. Build mutual trust: set realistic expectations and offer a conditional outlook of stable support.

Resumé

L'expression "système aéroporté de production d'énergie éolienne (Airborne Wind Energy System,
AWES)" est un nom générique désignant une série de concepts potentiellement révolutionnaires
permettant de transformer l'énergie éolienne en électricité. Cette étude présente un récapitulatif de
l'état des connaissances techniques, évalue le potentiel commercial et les obstacles au marché et
présente des mesures et une piste vers la commercialisation. L'étude conclue que ces technologies
manquent encore de maturité et qu'il n'est pas encore clairement défini si elles pourront en définitive
atteindre la compétitivité des coûts et contribuer aux objectifs européens en matière de sécurité
énergétique et de décarbonisation. Cependant, les arguments en faveur des systèmes AWES sont
importants en matière de leadership industriel européen. De plus, il existe un potentiel suffisant pour
continuer d'explorer cette technologie. Le secteur doit s'engager dans cette voie en adoptant une
approche de développement technologique contrôlant les risques. Un cadre de travail est proposé
pour faciliter les discussions sur des mesures d'incitation appropriées et un soutien public à différents
stades du développement. En outre, cette étude présente plusieurs recommandations spécifiques :
1. Démontrer la continuité du fonctionnement : définir, atteindre et démontrer les objectifs de
fiabilité.
2. Justifier les arguments en faveur des systèmes AWES : approfondir les connaissances en
matière de potentiel en ressources et de complémentarité.
3. Ancrer l'apprentissage : construire sur des expériences précédentes et améliorer la
compréhension fondamentale.
4. Créer un pôle : concentrer les activités d'essais.
5. Utiliser des croisements technologiques : investir dans des technologies habilitantes.
6. Établir une confiance mutuelle : déterminer des attentes réalistes et proposer une perspective
conditionnelle de soutien stable.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 7

Executive Summary

I. Study background and objectives

Airborne wind energy 1,2 is the umbrella name for a series of concepts to convert wind energy into
electricity, sharing one common feature: the use of one or more autonomous aerial vehicles linked to
the ground by one (or more) tether(s). The International Renewable Energy Agency mentioned
airborne wind as a potential game-changing technology in offshore wind conversion 3. Lower use of
material, expected higher capacity factors and lower production volatility are potential comparative
advantages of AWES over conventional wind energy. Notwithstanding important achievements, the
technologies are far from mature. Airborne wind energy is yet to bridge the valley of death of product
development and encompasses high-risk technologies.

The overall aim of the study is to provide clear insight into the Airborne Wind Energy sector in order
to facilitate the most efficient and effective use of research and innovation investments for the (further)
development of Airborne Wind Energy Systems (AWES). The study should also provide clarity on
whether AWES will, in the (near) future, contribute to the European energy system at a significant
scale or rather remain a niche technology. In short, the study objectives have been to provide an
overview of the state of the art of the technology, to describe relevant stakeholders, assess the future
market potential and the barriers that might prevent reaching this potential, and to outline measures
and develop a pathway towards commercialisation.

II. Approach

Starting point for the analysis was a survey of the literature relevant for the study. This led to a factual
description of the state of the art of AWES technologies, an overview of various technological
concepts that are being developed, the regulatory state of play of AWES in the context of airspace
regulation and an assessment of potential markets for AWES. We have also reviewed relevant
literature regarding development barriers.

Preliminary findings based on desk research were subsequently validated, enriched and refined in
various interactions with stakeholders. We have conducted semi-structured interviews with 38
stakeholders and attended the 2017 AWEC conference in Freiburg. Three focus groups were held in
spring 2018 in Hannover, Rotterdam and Cologne to validate findings and discuss potential measures
and ways forward for the sector. In addition, each focus group elaborated a specific topic,
respectively: 1) Overcoming design challenges through collaboration, particularly towards continuous
autonomous operation; 2) Public support in a stage-gate procedure; and 3) Regulatory aspects and
public support. Annex III contains a report of each of these focus groups. A final workshop to validate
the study’s overall findings was held on the 4th of July in Brussels. The comments received during
and after the workshop have been integrated in this final report. Annex IV contains the validation
workshop report.

1
U. Ahrens, M. Diehl, R. Schmehl (Eds.), “Airborne Wind Energy“, Springer-Verlag, 2013.
2
R. Schmehl (Ed.), “Airborne Wind Energy - Advances in Technology Development and Research”, Springer, 2017, to
appear in Fall 2017, preprint of preface available at: http://kitepower.eu/AWE2017/preface.pdf.
3
IRENA, “Innovation Outlook: Off-shore Wind”, International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi, 2016.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 9

 III. Findings of the study

State of play of technology development

Theoretical concepts for airborne wind energy were developed in the 1970s. However, significant
experimental development efforts have only taken place since the turn of the century, when enabling
technologies (sensors, communication, embedded computation, avionics, materials) increased
AWES feasibility. Different concepts are still under investigation by the sector – figure ES.1 below
presents the diversity of concepts that are being explored. We observe convergence for some
components, where developers are starting to apply the same type of technological models. This
holds for the single-tether ground station and a preliminary trend towards rigid wing for large scale
devices. The most advanced companies have reached TRL 4-5 with their respective prototypes. They
are in the process of delivering a proof of concept for a device that integrates all components that are
needed to operate at a small scale. Long-term testing in favourable and unfavourable conditions at
the intended final commercial scale still needs to take place.

Barriers to AWES development

We present a schematic overview of barriers in figure ES.2 below. Central to both technological and
non-technological barriers are the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) of AWES technologies and
the risk associated with investing in AWES projects. We outline how both LCOE and Investment risk
are influenced by a wide range of barriers, either directly or indirectly. Key barriers include achieving
automated continuous operations (to achieve system safety and reliability) , proving resource
potential (stand alone as well as within the broader energy system)and building a sector evidence
base to substantiate AWES performance and impacts.

Measures and pathway towards commercialisation

We have developed an AWES pathway towards commercialisation outlining the steps towards
addressing barriers and becoming a commercially successful technology. This pathway is a tool for
policy makers to assess the fit of proposed measures at different development stages of the
technology. The pathway, shown in figure ES.3 below, outlines development phases, objectives and
conditions. Both objectives and conditions are differentiated by development phase. The conditions
represent what should ideally be in place to facilitate risk-controlled technological development, and
become more restrictive as technology matures. The pathway distinguishes conditions in three
categories: exogenous conditions (relating to the resource potential), industry & market conditions
(the private domain) and public support conditions (the public domain). In the main text, we discuss
the pathway in more detail and provide our reflections on key ex-ante conditionality to promote risk-
controlled technology development. We provide concrete recommendations regarding measures in
section IV below.

Market penetration strategies for AWES

The figure ES.4 below presents our analysis on potential markets, the relation to device size and the
expected sequence of market penetration. Small scale devices in the range 100 kW can potentially
serve small niche markets where electricity prices are higher. Large-scale units in the range of one
MW or more offer significant resource potential, assuming that they can become competitive with the
existing renewable energy sources. We expect that all AWES can initially only be realised at
significant distance to inhabited areas, because of barriers regarding social acceptability and
regulatory approval in inhabited areas.

10 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

 Figure ES.1 Current research focus in AWES, including launch and landing concepts

Source: Fraunhofer IWES (2014). See full reference in main text.

Figure ES.2 Overview of barriers affecting the investment risk and LCOE of AWES technologies
• Kite Industry and market Public support • NIMBY effects due to shadow,
• Control system noise, visibility and safety
• Tether Social acceptability
Component • Environmental impact
• Ground station
readiness Investment risk Environmental
acceptability • Fundamental • Test facilities
• Autonomous continuous research funding • Stability of
flying • R&D Funding support
• Tak e-off and landing System safety and
Funding availability • Demonstration • Investment
• Emergency & Extreme reliability
Funding derisk ing
weather robustness • Knowledge • Mark et pull
• Availability factor LCOE management instruments
Economic Regulatory & sharing
• Understanding of cost &
performance environment • Airspace regulation
risk
• Yield & Capacity factor • Safety regulation
• Supply chain readiness • Standardization
• Economies of scale • Permitting

Extreme weather
Spatial footprint Resource potential
conditions

Exogenous conditions

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 11

 Figure ES.3 AWES Development Pathway.

Source: Study team. NB. The figure should be read from top to bottom, left to right.

12 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

Figure ES.4 Markets and sequence of potential AWES deployment

Source: Study team.

IV. Conclusions and Recommendations

The case for AWES

Airborne Wind Energy is an emerging energy technology that is still in an early stage of development.
The most advanced companies have reached TRL 4-5 with their respective prototypes, while many
concepts are still under investigation. The most important technological challenge now is to achieve
and prove device reliability through continuous automated operation. Overall, the technology still has
a long way to go before it can reach commercialisation.

Successful sector development requires alignment, cooperation and commitment from both the
public and private side. Competing established energy technologies have a head start in terms of
scale economies. Innovative technology will therefore face difficulties becoming cost-competitive
(market entry barriers), even if they would hypothetically be cost-competitive with the same scale
advantages. In addition, there is a clear role for the public domain to keep in step to overcome barriers
regarding social and environmental acceptability, funding availability and the regulatory environment.
We outline our suggested role division in the development pathway and our recommendations.

The need for extended support raises the question to what extent investments in research and
innovation efforts to further the development of AWES can be justified. Cost-competitive performance
would provide this justification, as this would introduce efficiency gains in power production. However,
the extent to which AWES can reach cost-competitiveness is unclear.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 13

 The case for AWES in the context of European societal goals
In addition to the potential cost-competitiveness case, AWES may contribute to European societal
goals: industrial leadership, energy security and decarbonisation of the energy system. The AWES
case regarding industrial leadership is strong, because of the high technological complexity that fits
well with the comparative advantage of European industry and Europe’s frontrunner position in AWES
technology development. An example is that key intellectual property will be the control system, which
is complex and difficult to copy. If AWES reaches commercialisation with Europe in the leading role,
we expect that the EU can capture a significant part of the value with limited leakage.

The AWES case for EU energy security and decarbonisation targets is unclear. It depends on the
extent to which AWES are able tap into resources that would otherwise remain unutilised. AWES
have significant spatial and airspace footprint and compete for space and resources with other land
and airspace uses and energy technologies, most notably conventional (offshore) wind. The resource
is only additional when AWES can generate electricity economically when other renewable energy
technologies cannot, e.g. by generating in areas (geographic complementarity, i.e. mountainous or
low wind speed areas) or at times (temporal complementarity, i.e. during limited wind at low altitudes)
when or where other renewable energy technologies are not able to do so. Currently, the degree of
resource complementarity is still insufficiently investigated. This is important, because lack of such
complementarity can significantly limit the deployment potential (i.e. because of direct competition for
land with conventional wind) and the case for AWES.

Moreover, there is only an AWES case for a direct impact on EU energy security and decarbonisation
targets if the technology is deployed in EU markets. The target markets of small scale systems are
predominantly located outside Europe. Deployment and exports of small scale systems will thus be
of a limited volume, and the contribution to the EU energy system will be negligible. For large scale
systems, the entry market currently envisaged by various developers is onshore outside Europe. This
suggests that a direct large scale AWES contribution to the European energy system is a long term
outlook, as it would only become reality after onshore AWES has successfully been commercialised
and proven outside Europe. We note that this point is contested by some stakeholders, who argue
that the entry market can be in Europe, given the right conditions.

Recommendations for ways forward

The case for AWES is uncertain. However, based on accomplished developments, we argue that
there is sufficient potential to continue exploring the technology. We recommend the sector and
investors to do so under a risk-controlled technology development approach, for which we have
suggested a framework in chapter 5. In addition, we present the following recommendations:

Prove continuous operations: define, achieve and prove reliability targets

At the current stage of maturity, technology developments need to be focused on achieving reliability
targets. As a first step, this requires a sector wide understanding and agreement on the main terms
used, e.g. a definition on indicators for reliability. In addition to achieving reliability targets, it is
important that developers share the underlying evidence base. This is because data on AWES
performance and impacts will be needed to address virtually all non-technological barriers. It helps
to build public support, assess environmental impacts, build trust with private and public investors
and provide an evidence base needed for regulatory approval.

Substantiate the AWES case: deepen insight in resource potential and resource complementarity
The uncertainty range of resource potential estimates with current data and knowledge is large. The
deployment potential of AWES technology therefore requires further substantiation. We recommend
the sector to collectively explore what type of site characterisations are needed. To mitigate risks of

14 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

sunken investments, we recommend the public sector to assess resource complementarity and
potential step by step, and to do so before funding 1:1 pilot scale demonstrations (phase 3).

Anchor learning: build on previous experiences and improve fundamental understanding

Failures in technology development and a shake-out of concepts are inherent to any emerging
technology. The extent to which this is a problem depends on the amount of learning that the sector
can draw from it. This highlights the importance of sharing knowledge, experience, and data in all
development phases. We recommend the private sector to jointly explore the potential of formal
exchange to validate of theoretical models, to avoid re-learning the same lessons and to incentivize
sharing of performance data. In addition, we recommend the public sector to promote informal
exchange mechanisms, e.g. in consortia (R&D programmes) or at test sites (see below).

Create a hub: concentrate testing activities in one geographic location

Developers point to the need for suitable test sites. A test site is also a promising informal exchange
mechanism. Developments in the ocean energy sector may provide a good practice, where a lot of
testing activities are done at the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) in Orkney, Scotland. We
recommend the public sector to explore the development of a European test site for AWES to facilitate
informal exchange and position Europe as a leading region in AWES development. This requires a
discussion on site characteristics and incentives to attract developers to the test site.

Utilize technology cross-overs: invest in enabling technologies

AWES technology developments have benefitted from the development of enabling technologies.
Enabling technologies include but are not necessarily limited to automation, composite materials and
to a lesser extent drone technology. Public R&D investments in these technologies are low-risk,
because they will also provide a return if AWES developments fall behind or do not materialise at all.

Build mutual trust: set realistic expectations and offer a conditional outlook of stable support
There is a sector-wide interest to improve the AWES case and build mutual trust between potential
investors and developers. We recommend a public-private sector dialogue on realistic development
milestones, performance indicators and methods for verification to enable public investors to provide
a stable outlook of support, indicating which support can become available under which conditions.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 15

Document de synthèse

I. Contexte de l'étude et objectifs

L'énergie éolienne aéroportée 4,5 est le nom générique d'une série de concepts permettant de
transformer l'énergie éolienne en électricité et partageant une caractéristique commune : l'utilisation
d'un ou plusieurs véhicules aériens autonomes reliés au sol par une ou plusieurs longes. L'Agence
internationale pour les énergies renouvelables (International Renewable Energy Agency, IRENA)
présente la production d'énergie éolienne aéroportée comme une technologie révolutionnaire
potentielle dans la conversion de l'énergie éolienne offshore 6. Une consommation moindre de
matériaux, la prévision de facteurs de capacité supérieurs et une instabilité de production inférieure
constituent des avantages comparatifs potentiels des systèmes AWES par rapport aux systèmes
d'énergie éolienne conventionnels. En dépit d'importantes réalisations, les technologies manquent
encore beaucoup de maturité. L'énergie éolienne aéroportée doit encore surmonter les nombreux
dangers du développement de produit et comporte des technologies à risques élevés.

Cette étude a pour objectif général de fournir des informations claires sur le secteur de l'énergie
éolienne aéroportée, afin de faciliter l'utilisation la plus efficiente et efficace d'investissements dans
la recherche et l'innovation pour le développement et la suite du développement de systèmes de
production d'énergie éolienne aéroportée (AWES). Cette étude doit en outre indiquer si les systèmes
AWES contribueront, dans un avenir (proche), au système énergétique européen à un niveau
important ou s'ils resteront plutôt une niche technologique. Pour résumer, cette étude s'est fixé
comme objectifs de fournir un récapitulatif de l'état des connaissances techniques, de décrire les
acteurs concernés, d'évaluer le potentiel commercial futur et les obstacles susceptibles d'empêcher
de concrétiser ce potentiel, et de présenter des mesures et développer une piste vers la
commercialisation.

II. Approche

L'analyse a commencé par un examen de la documentation pertinente pour l'étude. Cet examen a
permis d'obtenir une description concrète de l'état des connaissances en matière de technologies
AWES, une vue d’ensemble des différents concepts technologiques en cours de développement, un
état de la situation réglementaire des systèmes AWES dans le contexte de la réglementation de
l'espace aérien et une évaluation des marchés potentiels pour les systèmes AWES. Nous avons
également étudié la documentation pertinente en matière d'obstacles au développement.

Les constatations préliminaires fondées sur l'analyse documentaire ont été ensuite validées,
enrichies et approfondies durant différentes interactions avec les parties prenantes. Nous avons
effectué des entretiens semi-structurés auprès de 38 acteurs concernés et avons assisté à la
conférence AWEC 2017 de Fribourg. Trois groupes de discussion ont été organisés au printemps
2018 à Hanovre, Rotterdam et Cologne, pour valider les constatations et parler de mesures
potentielles et de voies pour aller de l'avant, pour le secteur. En outre, chaque groupe de discussion
a élaboré un thème spécifique, respectivement : 1) Surmonter les défis conceptuels par la
collaboration, en particulier concernant le fonctionnement autonome continu ; 2) Soutien public dans

4
U. Ahrens, M. Diehl, R. Schmehl (Eds.), “Airborne Wind Energy“, Springer-Verlag, 2013.
5
R. Schmehl (Ed.), “Airborne Wind Energy - Advances in Technology Development and Research”, Springer, 2017, à
paraître à l'automne 2017, préimpression de préface disponible à : http://kitepower.eu/AWE2017/preface.pdf.
6
IRENA, “Innovation Outlook: Off-shore Wind”, Agence internationale pour les énergies renouvelables, Abu Dhabi, 2016.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 17

 une procédure "étape-porte" ; et 3) Questions réglementaires et soutien public. L'annexe III présente
un compte rendu de chacun de ces groupes de discussion. Un dernier atelier s'est tenu le 4 juillet à
Bruxelles, pour valider les conclusions générales de l'étude. Les commentaires reçus durant et après
cet atelier ont été intégrés dans le présent rapport final. L'annexe IV présente le compte rendu de
l'atelier de validation.

III. Conclusions de l'étude

État des lieux du développement technologique

Des concepts théoriques pour l'énergie éolienne aéroportée ont été développés dans les années
1970. Cependant, ce n'est qu'à partir du tournant du siècle que d'importants efforts de
développement expérimental ont eu lieu, lorsque des technologies habilitantes (capteurs,
communications, informatique embarquée, avionique, matériels) ont augmenté la faisabilité des
systèmes AWES. Différents concepts sont encore à l'étude dans ce secteur – la figure ES.1 ci-
dessous présente la diversité des concepts qui sont en cours d'exploration. Nous observons une
convergence pour certains composants, les développeurs commençant à utiliser le même type de
modèles technologiques. C'est le cas pour la station au sol à longe unique et une tendance
préliminaire à l'aile rigide pour les appareils de grand format. Les entreprises les plus avancées ont
atteint un niveau de maturité technologique (Technology readiness level, TRL) de 4-5 avec leurs
prototypes respectifs. Elles sont en voie de fournir une démonstration de faisabilité pour un appareil
qui intègre tous les composants nécessaires pour fonctionner à petite échelle. Des essais à long
terme en conditions favorables et défavorables à l'échelle commerciale finale prévue sont encore à
effectuer.

Obstacles au développement des systèmes AWES

Nous présentons une vue d’ensemble schématique des obstacles, à la figure ES.2 ci-dessous. Au
centre des barrières technologiques comme non technologiques, on trouve le coût actualisé de
l’énergie (Levelized Cost of Electricity, LCOE) des technologies AWES et le risque associé à
l'investissement dans des projets AWES. Nous précisons de quelle manière le coût LCOE et le risque
d'investissement sont tous deux influencés par une vaste gamme d'obstacles, directement ou
indirectement. Parmi les principales barrières : parvenir à un fonctionnement continu automatisé
(pour obtenir la sécurité et la fiabilité du système), démontrer le potentiel en ressources (autonome
comme au sein du système énergétique plus large) et établir une base concrète fondée sur des
preuves pour le secteur afin de prouver les performances et les impacts des systèmes AWES.

Mesures et piste vers une commercialisation

Nous avons développé une piste AWES vers la commercialisation, en présentant les mesures en
vue de surmonter les obstacles et de parvenir à une technologie à succès commercial. Cette piste
est un outil permettant aux décideurs politiques d'évaluer l'adéquation des mesures proposées à
différents stades du développement de la technologie. La piste, présentée dans la figure ES.3 ci-
dessous, montre les phases, les objectifs et les conditions du développement. Une distinction par
phase de développement est effectuée pour les objectifs comme pour les conditions. Les conditions
représentent ce qui devrait être en place idéalement pour faciliter un développement technologique
contrôlant les risques, et elles deviennent plus restrictives lorsque la technologie mûrit. La piste
distingue des conditions dans trois catégories : conditions exogènes (liées au potentiel en
ressources), conditions de l'industrie et du marché (domaine privé) et conditions du soutien publique
(domaine publique). Dans le texte principal, nous présentons la piste de manière plus détaillée et
fournissons nos réflexions sur la principale conditionnalité ex ante pour promouvoir un
développement technologique contrôlant les risques. Nous fournissons des recommandations
concrètes concernant les mesures au paragraphe IV ci-dessous.

18 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

Stratégies de pénétration de marché pour les systèmes AWES
La figure ES.4 ci-dessous présente notre analyse des marchés potentiels, la relation avec la taille de
l'appareil et le déroulement prévu de la pénétration du marché. Les appareils de taille réduite dans
la gamme de 100 kW peuvent potentiellement servir des petits marchés de niche dans lesquels les
prix de l'électricité sont plus élevés. Les unités de grande échelle dans la gamme d'un MW ou plus
offrent un important potentiel en ressources, en supposant qu'elles peuvent devenir compétitives
avec les sources d'énergie renouvelable existantes. Nous prévoyons que tout système AWES ne
pourra initialement être réalisé qu'à distance importante de zones habitées, en raison d'obstacles en
termes d'acceptabilité sociale et d'autorisation réglementaire en zones habitées.

Figure ES.1 Axe de recherche actuel en systèmes AWES, y compris le lancement et l'atterrissage de
concepts.

Source : Fraunhofer IWES (2014). Voir la référence intégrale dans le texte principal.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 19

 Figure ES.2 Vue d'ensemble des barrières touchant le risque d'investissement et le coût LCOE des
technologies AWES.
• Kite Industry and market Public support • NIMBY effects due to shadow,
• Control system noise, visibility and safety
• Tether Social acceptability
Component • Environmental impact
• Ground station
readiness Investment risk Environmental
acceptability • Fundamental • Test facilities
• Autonomous continuous research funding • Stability of
flying • R&D Funding support
• Tak e-off and landing System safety and
Funding availability • Demonstration • Investment
• Emergency & Extreme reliability
Funding derisk ing
weather robustness • Knowledge • Mark et pull
• Availability factor LCOE management instruments
Economic Regulatory & sharing
• Understanding of cost &
performance environment • Airspace regulation
risk
• Yield & Capacity factor • Safety regulation
• Supply chain readiness • Standardization
• Economies of scale • Permitting

Extreme weather
Spatial footprint Resource potential
conditions

Exogenous conditions

Figure ES.4 Marchés et déroulement du déploiement potentiel des systèmes AWES

Source : Équipe de l'étude.

20 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

Figure ES.3 Piste de développement des systèmes AWES.

Source : Équipe de l'étude. N.B. La figure est à lire de haut en bas et de gauche à droite.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 21

 IV. Conclusions et recommandations

Les arguments en faveur des systèmes AWES

L'énergie éolienne aéroportée est une technologie énergétique émergente qui est encore à un stade
précoce de son développement. Les entreprises les plus avancées ont atteint un niveau de maturité
technologique TRL 4-5 avec leurs prototypes respectifs, alors que de nombreux concepts sont
encore à l'étude. Le principal défi technologique est désormais d'atteindre et de prouver la fiabilité
de l'appareil par fonctionnement automatisé continu. D'une manière générale, la technologie a
encore un long chemin à parcourir avant de pouvoir atteindre la commercialisation.

La réussite du développement du secteur requiert l'harmonisation, la coopération et l'engagement de

la partie publique comme de la partie privée. Les technologies énergétiques établies concurrentes
ont une longueur d'avance en termes d'économies d'échelle. Une technologie novatrice sera donc
confrontée à des difficultés pour devenir compétitive (obstacles à l'entrée sur le marché), même si
elle serait hypothétiquement compétitive avec les mêmes avantages d'échelle. En outre, il est clair
que le domaine public a pour rôle de suivre l'évolution, afin de surmonter les obstacles en termes
d'acceptabilité sociale et environnementale, de disponibilité de financement et de cadre
réglementaire. Nous présentons notre suggestion de répartition des rôles dans la piste de
développement et nos recommandations.

Le besoin de soutien renforcé soulève la question de la mesure dans laquelle des investissements
dans des efforts de recherche et d'innovation pour favoriser le développement de systèmes AWES
peuvent être justifiés. Des performances en matière de compétitivité des coûts fourniraient cette
justification, car cela apporterait des gains d'efficacité dans la production électrique. Cependant, la
mesure dans laquelle les systèmes AWES peuvent atteindre la compétitivité des coûts reste mal
définie.

Les arguments en faveur des systèmes AWES dans le contexte des objectifs sociétaux
européens
Outre l'argument d'une compétitivité potentielle des coûts, les systèmes AWES peuvent contribuer
aux objectifs sociétaux européens : leadership industriel, sécurité énergétique et décarbonisation du
système énergétique. Les arguments en faveur des systèmes AWES concernant le leadership
industriel sont importants, en raison de la complexité technologique élevée qui cadre bien avec
l'avantage comparatif de l'industrie européenne et la position de pionnier de l'Europe dans le
développement de la technologie AWES. Exemple : la propriété intellectuelle principale sera le
système de contrôle, complexe et difficile à copier. Si les systèmes AWES parviennent à la
commercialisation, avec l'Europe dans le rôle leader, nous pensons que l'U.E. peut gagner une part
importante de la valeur, avec une perte limitée.

Les arguments en faveur des systèmes AWES pour les objectifs européens de sécurité énergétique
et de décarbonisation sont incertains. Cela dépend de la mesure dans laquelle les systèmes AWES
sont capables de puiser dans des ressources qui resteraient normalement inutilisées. Les systèmes
AWES ont une importante empreinte spatiale et aérienne et ils rivalisent pour obtenir de l'espace et
des ressources avec d'autres utilisations du sol et de l'espace aérien et d'autres technologies
énergétiques, en particulier l'énergie éolienne (offshore) conventionnelle. La ressource n'est
complémentaire que si les systèmes AWES peuvent générer de l'électricité de manière plus
économique lorsque d'autres technologies d'énergie renouvelable n'en sont pas capables, par
exemple en produisant dans des zones (complémentarité géographique, c'est-à-dire des régions
montagneuses ou à faibles vitesses des vents) ou à des moments (complémentarité temporelle,
c'est-à-dire durant des périodes de vent limité à faibles altitudes) où d'autres technologies d'énergie
renouvelable en sont incapables. Pour l'heure, le degré de complémentarité de la ressource n'a pas

22 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

encore été suffisamment étudié. Ceci est important car ce manque de complémentarité peut
considérablement limiter le potentiel de déploiement (en raison de la concurrence directe pour le sol
avec les systèmes éoliens conventionnels) et les arguments en faveur des systèmes AWES.

En outre, il n'y a d'arguments en faveur des systèmes AWES pour un impact direct sur les objectifs
de l'U.E. en matière de sécurité énergétique et de décarbonisation, que si cette technologie est
déployée sur des marchés européens. Les marchés cibles de systèmes à petite échelle sont
principalement situés hors de l'Europe. Le déploiement et les exportations de systèmes à petite
échelles seront donc d'un volume limité et la contribution au système énergétique de l'U.E. sera
négligeable. Pour les systèmes de grande échelle, le marché d'entrée actuellement envisagé par
différents développeurs se situe en dehors de l’Europe. Ceci porte à croire qu'une contribution directe
et de grande échelle des systèmes AWES au système énergétique européen est une perspective à
long terme, car elle ne deviendrait une réalité qu'après que les systèmes AWES sur terre aient été
commercialisés avec succès et qu'ils aient fait leurs preuves hors de l'Europe. Nous notons que ce
point est contesté par certaines parties prenantes qui soutiennent que le marché d'entrée peut se
situer en Europe si les conditions requises sont réunies.

Recommandations pour aller de l'avant

Les arguments en faveur des systèmes AWES ne sont pas certains. Cependant, compte tenu des
développements accomplis, nous pensons qu'il existe un potentiel suffisant pour continuer d'explorer
cette technologie. Nous conseillons au secteur et aux investisseurs de le faire en adoptant une
approche de développement technologique contrôlant les risques, pour laquelle nous avons suggéré
un cadre de travail au chapitre 5. En outre, nous présentons les recommandations suivantes :

Démontrer la continuité du fonctionnement : définir, atteindre et démontrer les objectifs de fiabilité

Au stade de maturité actuel, les développements technologiques doivent concentrer leurs efforts
pour atteindre les objectifs de fiabilité. Dans un premier temps, ceci requiert une interprétation et un
accord sectoriels sur les principaux termes utilisés, par exemple une définition des indicateurs de
fiabilité. Outre le fait d'atteindre les objectifs de fiabilité, il est essentiel que les développeurs
partagent la base concrète sous-jacente fondée sur des preuves. Ceci parce que des données sur
les performances et les impacts des systèmes AWES seront nécessaires pour surmonter
pratiquement tous les obstacles non-technologiques. Cela contribue à établir un soutien public,
évaluer les impacts environnementaux, gagner la confiance des investisseurs privés et publics et
fournir une base concrète, fondée sur des preuves, requise pour les autorisations réglementaires.

Justifier les arguments en faveur des systèmes AWES : approfondir les connaissances en matière
de potentiel en ressources et de complémentarité de ressource
Le degré d'incertitude qui entoure les estimations de potentiel en ressources, avec les données et
connaissances actuelles, est élevé. Le potentiel de déploiement de la technologie AWES requiert par
conséquent des justifications supplémentaires. Nous conseillons au secteur d'étudier de manière
collective les types de caractérisations de site qui sont nécessaires. Afin d'atténuer les risques de
gaspiller/dilapider des fonds public, nous conseillons au secteur public d'évaluer progressivement le
potentiel et la complémentarité des ressources, et de le faire avant le financement de démonstrations
à l'échelle pilote (1:1) (phase 3).

Ancrer l'apprentissage : construire sur des expériences précédentes et améliorer la compréhension

fondamentale
Les défaillances dans le développement technologique et la compression de concepts sont
inhérentes à toute technologie émergente. La mesure dans laquelle ceci constitue un problème
dépend de la part d'apprentissage que le secteur peut en tirer. Ceci souligne l'importance du partage
des connaissances, de l'expérience et des données à tous les stades du développement. Nous

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 23

 conseillons au secteur privé d'explorer conjointement le potentiel d'échange formel pour valider les
modèles théoriques, afin d'éviter de réapprendre les mêmes leçons et pour stimuler le partage des
données de performances. En outre, nous conseillons au secteur public de promouvoir des
mécanismes d'échanges informels, par exemple dans des consortiums (programmes de R&D) ou
sur des sites d'essais (lire ci-dessous).

Créer un pôle : concentrer les activités d'essais dans un site géographique unique
Les développeurs soulignent le besoin de sites d'essais adéquats. Un site d'essais constitue
également un mécanisme d'échanges informels prometteur. Les développements dans le secteur de
l'énergie marine peuvent fournir une bonne pratique, de nombreuses activités d'essais étant
effectuées au centre d'essai et de recherche européen sur l'énergie marine (European Marine Energy
Centre, EMEC) dans les îles Orcades, en Écosse. Nous conseillons au secteur public d'étudier le
développement d'un site d'essais européen pour les systèmes AWES, afin de faciliter les échanges
informels et de positionner l'Europe comme une région leader dans le développement des systèmes
AWES. Ceci requiert un débat sur les caractéristiques du site et des incitations pour attirer des
développeurs sur le site d'essais.

Utiliser des croisements technologiques : investir dans des technologies habilitantes

Les développements de la technologie AWES ont bénéficié du développement de technologies
habilitantes. Les technologies habilitantes comprennent, sans nécessairement s'y limiter,
l'automatisation, les matériaux composites et, dans une moindre mesure, la technologie des drones.
Les investissements publics de R&D dans ces technologies présentent peu de risques, car ils
fourniront des résultats même si les développements AWES sont décevants ou ne se concrétisent
pas du tout.

Établir une confiance mutuelle : déterminer des attentes réalistes et proposer une perspective
conditionnelle de soutien stable
Il est intéressant pour tout le secteur d'améliorer les arguments en faveur des systèmes AWES et
d'établir une confiance mutuelle entre les développeurs et les investisseurs potentiels. Nous
recommandons un dialogue de secteur public-privé sur des phases de développement réalistes, des
indicateurs de performances et des méthodes de vérification pour permettre aux investisseurs publics
de fournir une perspective stable de soutien, indiquant quel soutien peut devenir disponible et sous
quelles conditions.

24 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

1 Introduction

1.1 Study background and aim

Airborne wind energy 7,8 is the umbrella name for a series of concepts to convert wind energy into
electricity, sharing one common feature: the use of one or more automated 9 aerial vehicles linked to
the ground by one (or more) tether(s). The two main claimed advantages of these concepts are: low
capital costs, due to the small amount of material used and the simple construction and installation;
and a relatively large amount of generated energy, due to the stronger and more consistent high-
altitude winds blowing above 200m above ground, which are easily reachable 10. The main price to
be paid is a relatively high complexity in operation: these systems fully rely on feedback control and
smart sensors and actuators to operate.

Airborne Wind Energy Systems (AWES) are radically new concepts for electricity generation that are
attracting the attention of policy makers and stakeholders, as they bring the promise of producing
renewable electricity at competitive costs, with low variability, and in large quantity, being applicable
in many inland, offshore, and deep-offshore locations 11. The International Renewable Energy Agency
Innovation Outlook for offshore wind mentioned airborne wind as a potential game-changing
technology 12. National governments 13 have commissioned sector studies aimed to better understand
the potential of this new technological field. Companies like Google, E.ON, ABB, Siemens, GE,
Eneco, Royal Dutch Shell, EnBW, EWE, DSM and many others have invested, carried out pilot
research, or showed interest in airborne wind energy with different levels of commitment11.

First explored in theory in the late ‘70s 14, the basic principle started to be developed into the first
working demonstrators around 2006 by 2 research groups, using soft kites 15,16. Ten years later, about
60 research teams from start-ups, universities and research institutions worldwide are developing
these concepts8. A scientific/technical and industrial community has originated and is consistently

7
U. Ahrens, M. Diehl, R. Schmehl (Eds.), “Airborne Wind Energy“, Springer-Verlag, 2013.
8
R. Schmehl (Ed.), “Airborne Wind Energy - Advances in Technology Development and Research”, Springer, 2017, to
appear in Fall 2017, preprint of preface available at: http://kitepower.eu/AWE2017/preface.pdf.
9
The sector generally applies the term “Autonomous”. In this study we use the term automated, because the difference
between the two terms lies is the degree of human intervention. An automated system does not have the level of
intelligence or independence that an autonomous system has. A truly autonomous system would be capable of learning
and taking decisions. An automated system would follow specific procedures and performs the same behaviour under
given conditions, e.g. perform an automated landing under unfavourable weather conditions. Herewith, the automated
system will always be under control of an operator. As the two different concepts have different regulatory implications the
study team choose to adopt the term automated as most appropriate for AWES.

This study understand an automated system as “a system that can will always be placed under control of an operator
through intervention’.

10
Already in 2008 electricity generation flying at 800m above ground was demonstrated with a kite-based system close to
Torino, Italy, see L. Fagiano, M. Milanese, D. Piga, “High-Altitude Wind Power Generation”, IEEE Transactions on Energy
Conversion, 25-1, pp. 168-180, 2010.
11
U. Zillmann and P. Bechtle, “Emergence and Economic Dimension of Airborne Wind Energy”, in Airborne Wind Energy -
Advances in Technology Development and Research, chapter 1. Springer, 2017. Chapter available at:
http://kitepower.eu/AWE2017/ch01.pdf.
12
IRENA, “Innovation Outlook: Off-shore Wind”, International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi, 2016.
13
German Ministry of Energy: projects “Onkites” I and II, commissioned to Fraunhofer IWES.
14
M.L. Loyd, “Crosswind kite power”, Journal of Energy 4(3), pp. 106–111, 1980.
15
M Canale, L Fagiano, M Milanese, “Power kites for wind energy generation”, IEEE Control Systems Magazine 27 (6), pp.
25-38, 2007.
16
P. Williams, B. Lansdorp, W.J. Ockels: “Modeling, Simulation, and Testing of Surf Kites for Power Generation”. AIAA 2008-
6693, AIAA Modelling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 18-21 August 2008.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 25

 organizing sector conferences since 2009 17. Airborne Wind Europe, the European association of
airborne wind energy developers, was agreed to be founded in late 2017, capitalizing the experience
of the German network HWN500 18. The technology landscape still features several concepts that are
being pursued, since one or more clear winning approaches have not been fully established yet.
Scientific studies regarding many aspects have been carried out, including cost of generated energy,
primary resource availability, technical aspects, environmental impact, and financing7,8. A
combination of private and public investments has so far supported these developments.
Notwithstanding the important achievements and continuing growth of the field, the technologies are
far from mature. The investments into airborne wind energy have been so far not sufficient to bring
these systems beyond the valley of death of product development 19. AWES are still high-risk
technologies.

Against this background, the overall aim of the study is to provide clear insight into the Airborne Wind
Energy sector in order to facilitate the most efficient and effective use of research and innovation
investments for the (further) development of Airborne Wind Energy Systems. The study also provides
clarity on whether AWES is expected to significantly contribute to the European energy system in the
(near) future or rather remain a niche technology.

Overall, the study covers 6 main research objectives:

1. Providing a comprehensive overview of the state of the art AWES (which can be used in the
troposphere up to 8000 metres high) and their technology readiness level;
2. Providing a comprehensive overview, categorised by technology, of the industries and of the
research organisations involved in the development of AWES;
3. Providing a comprehensive and justified overview of the market potential for Airborne Wind
Energy Systems;
4. Providing a comprehensive overview of technological and non-technological barriers for the
different types of Airborne Wind Energy Systems to enter the energy market;
5. Proposing measures to overcome the identified technological and non-technological barriers;
6. Proposing the best pathway for the AWES technologies to reach the market, with an indication of
the necessary investment.

The figure below illustrates the relations between these six main objectives.

Figure 1.1 Relations between the main objectives

1. Overview state of
the art of AWESs and
corresponding TRLs 4. Overview
3. Justified overview 5. Measures to 6. Best pathway for
technological and
of market potential overcome the AWESs to reach the
2. Overview of main non-technological
AWES identified barriers market
industries and barriers
research organisations
per technology

With respect to these objectives, we pose the following range of concrete research questions:

17
The latest Airborne Wind Energy Conferences (AWEC) has been held in Freiburg in October 2017. Previous AWECs have
been held in 2009 (Chico, CA, USA), in 2010 (Stanford, CA, USA), in 2011 (Leuven, Belgium) in 2012 (Hampton, VA,
USA), in 2013 (Berlin, Germany) and in 2015 (Delft, The Netherlands).
18
http://www.hwn500.de/.
19
Known as the stage wherein the combination of high cost and risk make it difficult to attract investors.

26 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

1. Comprehensive overview of the state of the art AWES and their technology readiness level
a. What has been the chronological development of the various AWES technologies?
b. Which initiatives, technologies and past pathways have been abandoned and why?
c. Which different kinds of AWES technologies can be distinguished today?
d. What is the technology readiness level of these technologies?
e. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the different technologies?
f. What does the relevant supply chain look like?

2. Comprehensive overview, categorised by technology, of the industries and of the research

organisations involved in the development of AWES
Research:
a. What are the main research organisations and research networks/communities in the field
of AWES in Europe and outside Europe (and relevant historical development)?
b. What are the corresponding research investments in and outside Europe (dedicated
research)?
c. What are the strengths and weaknesses of AWES research in general and in Europe?

Industry:
d. Who are the main industrial actors active in the field of Airborne Wind Energy in Europe and
outside Europe (and relevant historical development)?
e. What level of investment is involved? (and what is the current proportion between public and
private investment?)
f. To what extent cooperation does exist between research organisations and the industry (in
Europe, outside Europe, worldwide)?

3. Comprehensive and justified overview of the market potential for Airborne Wind Energy Systems
a. What relevant markets can be identified (e.g. stand-alone (remote areas), island grid,
industrial/private grid, continental grid (large scale))?
b. What are the strengths and weaknesses of Airborne Wind Energy compared to other
renewable energy sources? In what markets can AWES have a competitive advantage over
other renewable energy technologies?
c. What is the technical resource potential of AWES?
d. What is a realistic range of future LCOE?
e. What is the (maximum) market potential? (considering (unchangeable) practical and
institutional constraints)?
f. What are important preconditions with respect to this (maximum) market potential?

4. Comprehensive overview of technological and non-technological barriers for the different types of
Airborne Wind Energy Systems to enter the energy market
a. What are the most important technological barriers (where relevant per specific AWES
technology) for further development of the sector?
b. What are the most important non-technological barriers:
- With respect to safety issues, current standards and existing legislation (on country,
European and worldwide level)?
- With respect to other non-technological barriers? (e.g. public acceptance, noise,
flickering, environmental barriers, knowledge building & sharing, economic
performance, spatial footprint and airspace use)?

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 27

 5. Measures to overcome the identified technological and non-technological barriers
a. Which other sectors are pertinent for this study?
b. With respect to which of the identified barriers can we learn from the other sectors?
c. Which possible measures can be put in place to overcome the identified technological
barriers (taking stock of the experience of other relevant technology sectors)?
d. Which possible measures can be put in place to overcome the identified barriers with respect
to safety issues, current standards and existing legislation (taking stock of the solutions
provided by other relevant sectors)?
e. Which revision of existing legislations (national, European and worldwide) and/or the
introduction of new standards could facilitate the market access of AWES?
f. Which possible measures can be put in place to overcome the other identified non-technical
barriers (taking stock of the solutions provided by other relevant sectors)?
g. Which areas of the European and international supply chain sector could assist/help the
developers and how should they do this?

6. Best pathway for the AWES technologies to reach the market

a. What is/are the optimum size/classes for technology development and for deployment?
b. What is the correct balance and transition points from technology push to market pull
mechanisms?
c. What should the supply chain look like, and how can the European industry be best
positioned?
d. Which markets should be addressed initially, and if successful, in a later stage?
e. What will be the necessary investment with respect to the foreseen pathway?
f. What is the current extent of private investments in the sector?
g. What type of public support instruments, including financial instruments, would be needed
and how should it be provided?

1.2 Methodology

The study has started with explorative desk research, including a factual description of the state of
the art of AWES technologies. An overview of technological concepts is presented, and the resource
and market potential is outlined.

Extensive subsequent stakeholder interaction forms the core of data collection in the study. We note
that the study can provide an evidence base for future R&I investments in the sector. Considering
that stakeholders have an interest in the sector and/or may suffer an optimism bias, the methodology
is shaped around stakeholder engagement and systematic confrontation of views. The figure below
schematically outlines this research strategy.

28 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

Figure 1.2 Research methodology

The table below presents the number of stakeholders with whom the study team have consulted,
mostly through semi-structured interviews. Most of the interviews were held with private stakeholders,
with a clear focus on developers. Few public stakeholders have been interviewed, partially because
they are not (yet) as involved in the sector. The share of academic stakeholders seems limited,
although we note that numerous developers were previously academics.

Table 1.1 Overview of stakeholders consulted in semi-structured interviews

Type of stakeholder Number of people consulted
Business (developers) 19
Business (other) 13
Academic 4
Public 2
Total 38

The nature of the data collected, being information-rich but therefore also unstructured, does not
allow a closed-questions survey type of analysis. To analyse the interview results, the qualitative data
analysis tool Atlas.ti has been used. The collected data is supplemented with stakeholder
characteristics, such as type of actors (main categories public, academic and business), technology
and geographic origin. This information is used to subsequently assess systematic preferences /
biases of types of stakeholder characteristics towards certain barriers.

Three focus groups were held in spring 2018 to validate findings and discuss potential measures and
ways forward for the sector. The focus groups has a specific thematic focus. One focus group
concerned system readiness and automated continuous operations was held in Hannover on 13-03-
2018. In another focus group in Rotterdam on 15-03-2018, phasing of technology development and
the potential of a stage-gate procedure for AWES development were discussed. The final focus group
was held on 20-03-2018 at the premises of European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), to discuss
regulatory permitting procedures. Annex III contains a report of each of these focus groups.

A final workshop to validate the study’s overall findings was held on the 4th of July in Brussels. The
comments received during and after the workshop have been compiled and carefully assessed.
Where appropriate, this has led to changes in the final report. Annex IV contains the validation
workshop report.

The study team expresses sincere thanks to all the stakeholders that have provided valuable inputs
to the study, of whom some at multiple occasions.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 29

 1.3 Report outline

In chapter 2, we provide the state of play of technology development. This chapter covers research
question 1 (state of the art), research question 2 (mapping of organisations) and research question
3 (market potential).

In chapter 3, we analyse the technological and non-technological barriers for AWES development,
addressing research question 4. This includes a descriptive analysis on how stakeholders view the
sector, and our own critical analysis on barriers to AWES development.

In chapter 4, we identify and elaborate measures to facilitate market access, addressing research
question 5. We follow the key challenges outlined in our critical analysis in chapter 3.

In chapter 5, we present a pathway for AWES technologies to reach the market, addressing research
question 6. This includes a reflection on market strategies and how the European supply chain can
be positioned to capture value in a potential future AWES industry.

30 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

2 AWES state of play

2.1 Introduction

In this chapter, an overview is provided regarding the different designs of AWES which have been
investigated in the past and are currently being investigated. Chapter 2.2 provides a general
introduction to the main components of any AWES, a short history and classification of the different
designs as well as an estimate on their technology readiness level. The regulatory environment for
airborne structures is investigated in 2.3 and is followed by a resource assessment in 2.4. In chapter
2.5 the different markets which may be suitable for AWES are investigated.

2.2 Overview of airborne wind energy systems

AWES consist of the following main components:

• A flying structure to harvest energy from the wind;
• A tether, which keeps the flying structure in place and transfers the generated power to the
ground, in the form of either electricity or mechanical power;
• A ground station, which keeps the tether fixed to the ground;
• An automatic control system that stabilizes the flying structure motion and optimizes the produced
energy.

At the current development stage, there is still a rather large number of specific solutions for each
one of these components across the developers. Moreover, there is variability on the functions that
each of these components carries out. An overview of the different alternatives developed for each
component is provided next, while a classification of airborne wind energy systems based on their
operating principles, which also includes the functions carried out by each component, is given in
section 2.2.1.

Flying structure
The flying structure of AWES takes different shapes depending on the overall architecture. The flying
structure may either be flexible, inflatable, or rigid. A mix of these is also possible when flexible fabric
covers a rigid frame.

The flexible and inflatable flying structures can be made from strong, flexible and thin polyamide,
polyester or polypropylene cloth. They require several lines (and/or bridles) to keep their shape in the
air, to distribute the load and to enable flight control, by differentially pulling and releasing the lines.
These flying structures may carry sensors providing input to the control system. Also, they may carry
actuators to directly influence the kites’ performance (for instance the kites by the company Kite
Power Systems). In addition, flexible and inflatable flying structures with a single tether are fitted with
a control pod underneath the aerodynamic shape (as in the concepts currently developed by e.g. the
companies Skysails Power, Kitepower, Kite Power Systems). The pod houses the control unit to steer
the kite. The pod is either powered by battery or through an electric connection in the tether. In
concepts with two or three tethers, steering is accomplished by actuators on ground, which can
change the length difference between the tethers (e.g. companies Kitenergy, Enerkite). This has the
advantage of reducing the complexity of the airborne parts (no pod or on board actuators present),
at the cost of higher complexity of the ground station and higher tether drag due to the presence of
more lines. Due to the high loads and exposure to environmental conditions including solar radiation,
the flexible and inflatable structures potentially need to be replaced at least once, probably more

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 31

 often per year in full time operation. This holds for concepts that operate at high speed of the aircraft
relative to ground (so-called crosswind conditions, see section 2.2.1), while in concepts using lighter-
than-air structures (e.g. Altaeros), which are quasi-stationary in the wind, the inflated structure is
designed to last for the whole lifetime of the system. In the latter concepts, steering (altitude and
attitude regulation) is carried out by differentially pulling the tethers as well (typically four tethers are
used, to have enough control authority to stabilize yaw, pitch and roll motions).

Figure 2.1 Flying structure designs. Upper row from left to right: flexible foil with multi-point bridle (a),
flexible foil with 2-tether bridles at the tips (b), semi-rigid wing (c), flexible leading-edge-inflated (LEI) kite
(d). Lower row, from left to right: rigid aircraft with onboard turbines (e), flying rotorcrafts (f), lighter-than-
air system with onboard turbine (g), lighter-than-air system with Magnus-effect principle (h)

Source: Fraunhofer IWES (2014) 20.

The rigid flying structures are mostly made from carbon- or glass-fibre reinforced plastics as well as
from aluminium. These rigid structures carry more components on board. Apart from sensors, they
can also carry their control system, actuators for steering, and equipment for starting and landing.
This may include small rotors and generators and gears. This approach is taken for instance by the
companies Ampyx and Kitemill. In the case of flying generators (see section 2.2.1), the generators
are also part of the payload. Due to their material properties, rigid flying structures may aim for a
design lifetime of twenty years even in their high load environment.

Suppliers for flying structures are for instance:

• North Sails for kites (Skysails);
• Orange aircraft for rigid wings (Ampyx).

Tether
Tethers need to be lightweight with low wind resistance and high tensile strength. They have several
functions and come in different configurations:
• Tethers link the flying structure to the ground station, transferring to ground the mechanical loads
exerted by the former;
• They may provide a connection for signals between the flying structure and the ground station,
possibly in addition to a wireless communication system;
• They can provide an electrical connection to power sensors and actuators on the flying structure
unless this is done using local storage;
• In case of ground based generators, they drive the generator;
• In case of flying generators, they transmit the electricity generated by the on-board generators.

20
‘Abschlussbericht OnKites: Untersuchung zu den Potentialen von Flugwindenergieanlagen (FWEA)’ (2014).

32 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

There are several different tether configurations (Figure 2.2). As mentioned above, these
configurations impact how the steering of the flying structure works. In the depicted cases a) and b),
the tether is used to transmit power (mechanical and possibly electrical, in the case of flying
generators - see section 2.2.1) and signals only. In the cases c) and d), the ropes are also used to
directly steer the flying structure. Case e) reduces the impact of tether drag to a large extent by
introducing secondary tethers on which one flying structure each is fixed 21. On the other hand, this
concept is more complex than the other concepts in AWES, since it requires precise coordination of
two tethered aircrafts linked to each other and flying in a generally unpredictable wind flow.

Figure 2.2 Different tether configurations 22

Source: Fraunhofer IWES (2014) 23.

The main material used in tethers, when no power transmission is required, is Ultra-High-Molecular-
Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE), of which the most common commercial product is DSM Dyneema.
Other materials which may be considered are Vectran, Polypropylene and Polyester. The tether
consists of several strands and in addition includes lightning protection and cabling for signals and
electricity where applicable.

The tether length, diameter and weight are strongly influencing the overall design and operational
limits (cut-in and cut-out wind speeds) of the system, as a long tether may for instance only be lifted
by a large flying structure. In addition, the relative effect of tether drag becomes smaller for larger
systems, favouring larger systems in this respect.
Due to the expected large number of operating hours per year and high loads acting on the tethers,
current designs assume that it will be necessary to exchange the tether twice or more per year.
Recent advances in material may have increased the durability and result in exchanges of less than
once per year. Suppliers of tethers or material for tethers are:
• DSM Dyneema B.V., a producer of tether technology and supporting research on AWES;
• Covestro A/S, a materials producer with interest in AWES;
• Lankhorst, Gleistein and Liros manufacturers of tethers.

21
Zanon et al., ‘Control of Dual-Airfoil Airborne Wind Energy systems based on nonlinear MPC and MHE’, 2014 European
Control Conference (ECC) (2014), 1801.
22
Fraunhofer Institut für Windenergie und Energiesystemtechnik (IWES), supra note 12.
23
Ibid.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 33

 Ground station
The ground station consists of:
• the electrical equipment for grid connection and/or an energy storage system. Some systems also
have super capacitors to store and re-use energy during pumping cycles, to make the power
output smoother;
• the winch system(s) for the tether(s), including a tether spooling system;
• a turntable to turn the unit into the correct direction relative to the wind;
• a fixed or mobile base/ foundation;
• starting and landing equipment including a pad for the flying structure when on ground;
• in the case of ground based generation, a drivetrain (generator plus mechanical transmission);
• the ground based controls (different ones depending on the system layout, to a minimum they
include tether force/reeling speed control, spooling of the tethers around their respective drums,
control of the power electronics used to interface the ground station with the grid and/or with the
system batteries);
• the ground-based sensors (wind speed and direction at ground level, tether length and direction,
ground-based aircraft positioning sensors, tether load sensors).

For first pilot systems, most parts of the ground station can be considered to be standard equipment
which does not need to be developed especially for the airborne wind use-case. For system upscaling
and performance optimization however, it is expected that ad-hoc versions of standard equipment
will be needed unless innovative solutions are found. As an example, in concepts with ground-based
electricity conversion in pumping cycles (see section 2.2.1 below) the electric machine operates with
large variations of speed and load and at partial regime, while off-the-shelf machines are typically
optimized for operation at rated power and/or rated speed. A subsystem that has to be developed
ad-hoc since the very beginning is the launching and landing mechanism. In the case that no
equipment for take-off and landing is on board the flying structure (as in vertical take-off and landing
(VTOL) concepts employed e.g. by the companies Makani Power, TwingTec, Kitemill, and E-Kite),
different approaches to implement this functionality are being explored (Figure 2.3), including:
• a linear catapult launch mechanism for take-off, and a braking mechanism for landing of rigid-
wing concepts without VTOL systems (Ampyx power);
• a rotating arm which accelerates the flying structure until lift is strong enough for take-off and
further reaching heights with wind speeds which allow standard operation (Enerkite);
• a mast and an additional guiding tether for launch and retrieval of flexible kites (Skysails power,
TU Delft).

Figure 2.3 types of take-off and landing systems installed in the ground station

Source: Fraunhofer IWES (2014) 24.

24
Ibid.

34 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

 Suppliers of ground stations and parts of ground stations are:
• New Leaf, manufacturer of ground generation stations;
• EMCE B.V. manufacturer of ground stations for AWE companies;
• Dromec B.V. manufacturer of ground stations for AWE companies;
• ABB, as producer electrical equipment. ABB Corporate Research in Switzerland has been active
in research regarding AWES;
• GE, a component supplier. The GE Global Research branch has shown interest in AWES;
• Siemens, as suppliers of different components of the electrical back-end. Siemens showed
interest in AWES.

Automatic control system

The automatic control system needs to be able to steer the AWES during any kind of operational
situation. This includes take-off and landing, standard generating operation and extreme events
(storms, failure of components). The control system consists of several sensors which provide
information on wind speed, speed and direction of the flying structure, position, attitude, tether length
and angle. Based on these inputs, the control system is required to adjust the operation of the AWES,
to monitor the system status and optimize power generation while preserving operational safety.
Current control systems of AWES are inherently distributed, since both the ground station and the
aircraft have their own local controllers, and they must be able to operate both in a centralized fashion
(when full communication between ground and aircraft is available) and in a decentralized one (if
communication is temporarily or permanently lost). As an exception, in concepts with two or more
tethers and steering actuators from ground, the control system can be installed in full in the ground
station. Moreover, AWES’ control systems are hierarchical, with one or more supervisory levels to
decide when to start and stop operation and whether to adjust the system trajectory according to
wind conditions, and low-level controllers to stabilize the motion and track the references provided
by the higher level. The challenge of the control system is to provide capabilities similar to those of
an airplane control system at cost more similar to that of a wind turbine control system. It is tried to
achieve this by using lower cost materials 25, among others. The control systems are currently still
under development with the prototypes but are likely to be standardized with little variation between
sizes within one company in the case of commercialization.

Known suppliers of control systems or parts to the control system are:

• Xsens Technologies B.V., a Producer of inertial measurement units and Partner of the AWESCO
network;
• Aenarete, a Manufacturer of AWES Flight control Systems.

2.2.1 History and classification of airborne wind energy systems

While concepts of AWES were mostly introduced in the late ‘70s, work has been very limited up to
the early 2000s. After the turn of the century, materials, computing power, software and controls had
matured to such an extent that developing AWES seemed to become feasible.

Today AWES are still in a research and development stage, with several companies and research
groups around the world pursuing different specific implementation concepts. In several aspects, like
rigid vs. flexible wing, or ground vs. on-board power conversion, a consensus on the most effective
concept has not yet been reached, meaning that several options are still on the table.

25
K. Hallamasek et al., ‘A Low-Cost Fiber Optic Avionics Network for Control of an Energy Kite’ (Freiburg, 2017).

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 35

 History
1976 Manalis published a paper on airborne windmills and communication aerostats; 26
1976 Peter R. Payne and Charles McCutchen file US patent on “self-erecting windmill” 27;
1979 Fletcher and Roberts propose electricity generation from jet stream winds;28
1979 Goela publishes work on wind power trough kites.29;
1980 Loyd publishes the description of the principle of cross wind kite power. 30

Work on airborne wind only picks up around the year 2000. The first experimental projects start
around the year 2006.

1997 Ockels patents the laddermill concept;

2001 Skysails (DE) is founded to develop a marine propulsion system with a soft kite;
2004 Ockels starts ASSET group at TUDelft
2005 Cristina Archer and Mark Z. Jacobson publish a paper evaluating the global wind power; 31
2006 Makani power (USA) is founded;
2006 Regione Piemonte funds the project “KiteGen” on high-altitude wind energy using power.
kites (budget ca 600k€). Partners: Politecnico di Torino, Sequoia Automation;
2007 KiteGen Research (IT) is founded;
2007 Boris Houska and Moritz Diehl publish a paper on potential of multiple kite systems 32;
2007 Bryan Roberts et al. publish a paper on harnessing high-altitude wind power with rotor craft
using the Jetstream in more than 4000m height; 33;
2008 Ampyx Power (NL) is founded;
2008 Kitemill (NO) is founded;
2008 Regione Piemonte funds an additional tranche to extend the KiteGen project. Additional
budget: ca 350k€. The project explores the concept of ground generation using commercial
power kites, with two tethers used for steering form ground. The project delivers theoretical
assessments, dynamical models for numerical simulations, and a small-scale prototype that
achieves manually controlled flight at above 600m from ground, with a commercial soft kite
with inflated leading edge;
2008 Project KITVES for “Airfoil-based solution for Vessel on-board energy production destined
to traction and auxiliary services” (ID 218691, 4,254,058.50€ total, 2,955,738€ EU
contribution). The project delivers a study of the use of combined traction force and power
generation onboard vessels, and the design of several system components, without
reaching final experimentation; 34
2009 Cristina Archer and Ken Caldeira publish paper on the global high-altitude wind resource; 35
2009 First PhD thesis on airborne wind energy using power kites is published, with estimates of
LCOE based on simulated power curves, measured data of wind speeds at different
locations worldwide, optimization of AWE farms and comparative assessment with
conventional wind turbines; 36

26
Manalis, ‘Airborne Windmills and Communication Aerostats’, 13 Journal of Aircraft (1976) 543.
27
P. R. Payne & C. McCutchen, ‘SELF-ERECTING WINDMILL’ (last visited 14 December 2017).
28
Fletcher and Roberts B. W., ‘Electricity generation from jet stream winds’, 3 Journal of Energy, (1979) 241.
29
Goela and J.S., ‘Wind power through kites’, 42 Mechanical Engineering (1979) 42.
30
LOYD, ‘Crosswind kite power (for large-scale wind power production)’, 4 Journal of Energy (1980) 106.
31
Archer and Jacobson, ‘Evaluation of global wind power’, 110 Journal of Geophysical Research (2005) 5385.
32
B. Houska and M. Diehl, ‘Optimal Control for Power Generating Kites’, Proceedings of the European Control Conference
2007 (2007).
33
Roberts et al., ‘Harnessing High-Altitude Wind Power’, 22 IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion (2007) 136.
34
https://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/149377_it.html
35
Archer and Caldeira, ‘Global Assessment of High-Altitude Wind Power’, 2 energies (2009) 307.
36
L. Fagiano, “Control of Tethered Airfoils for High-Altitude Wind Energy Generation - Advanced control methods as key
technologies for a breakthrough in renewable energy generation”, PhD thesis, Politecnico di Torino, 2009
http://hdl.handle.net/11311/1006424.

36 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

2009 the first Airborne Wind Energy Conference is held in Chico CA, USA. The AWEC has
established itself as the industry event for airborne wind, where the companies and research
institutes involved present their most recent findings and developments. Other AWEC: 2010
in Stanford, CA, USA; 2011 in Leuven, Belgium; 2012 in Hampton, VA, USA; 2013 in Berlin,
Germany; 2015 in Delft, The Netherlands; 2017 in Freiburg, Germany.

After 2009, the number of publications in the field of AWES has picked up significantly.

2010 Kitenergy (IT) is founded;

2010 Enerkite (DE) is founded;
2010 The company Omnidea (PT) gains funding through the EC project HAWE. This is the first
large research grant by the EC for airborne wind (ID256714, 641,370.75€). The project
investigates a ground-generation concept where the aircraft has a cylindrical shape and
exploits the Magnus effect to change the lift coefficient during operation. It delivers several
studies at system and component level, and limited experimental tests at small-scale (1 kW
mechanical power production according to the available project summary); 37
2010 Ampyx receives grant through Kansen voor West I program;
2011 ERC Starting Grant for the research project HIGHWIND, Simulation, Optimization and
Control of High-Altitude Wind Power Generators by Universities KU Leuven and Freiburg
(ID 259166, 1,499,800€). The project delivers simulation and optimization tools for AWES,
and explores the concepts of multiple aircrafts connected to a single tether and of rotational
take-off. It considers mainly rigid aircrafts; 38
2011 Kite Power Systems (KPS, UK) is founded;
2013 Google Inc. acquires Makani after proof of autonomous flight with prototype (Wing 7);
2013 TwingTec (CH) is founded;
2013 e-Kite (NL) is founded;
2013 Technical University Delft gains funding through the project NUMIWING (ID618159,
100,000€). The project delivers results on modelling the mutual interactions between the
aero- and structural- dynamics of inflatable airborne wind energy systems;
2015 Antonello Cherubini et al. published an overview on technology and status of the industry; 39
2015 The AWESCO network project is funded by the EC (ID642862, 2,999,014.68€) to train PhD
graduates through research on several aspects of AWES across a network of universities
and companies including XSENS, Ampyx, Skysails and Enerkite;
2015 Ampyx power receives funding through EC project AMPYXAP3 for the development of the
AP3 prototype (ID666793, 2,500,00€);
2015 Kitepower/ Enevate (NL) gain funding through EC project REACH (ID691173,
1,331,497.05€), aimed to develop a soft-kite, small-scale ground generation system (overall
EU contribution in the project is 2,675132.13€);
2016 Enerkite gains funding through the EC project EK200 AWESOME (ID 736399, 50,000€);
2016 Kitepower B.V. is founded;
2016 Makani conducts first tests with its 600 kW rigid wing, flying generator AWES prototype;
2016 E.ON, Schlumberger and Shell invest in Kite Power Systems (approximately 6,000,000€);
2016 Ampyx, ECN, Mocean and Marin receive national funding (ID: TEWZ116048, 436,121€) to
explore the possibility to apply the Ampyx system in deep offshore context;
2017 Kitemill gains EC funding through NextWind project (ID 774974, 50,000€) to develop its
business;T

37
https://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/175669_en.html
38
https://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/202613_en.html
39
Cherubini et al., ‘Airborne Wind Energy Systems: A review of the technologies’, 51 Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews (2015) 1461.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 37

 2017 Twingtec gains funding through the TwingPower project (Eurostars project ID 11105,
1,504,180€) to develop a small-scale ground generation system with rigid-wing aircraft, and
vertical take-off and landing;
2017 Ampyx announces cooperation with E.ON for AP3 and AP4 testing and commercialization;
2017 Ampyx holds second crowd funding round (total of 1,800,000€ in two rounds);
2017 Ampyx gains ERDF funding through Kansen voor West II, mainly for materials and
components of the AP3 prototype (2,500,000€);
2018 Airborne Wind Europe (AWE) published a scoping study on policies for airborne wind
energy 40;
2018 Skysails gains national (BMWi) funding for pilot plant (ID: 0324217A, 1,729,043€) 41
2018 University of Porto gains funding for FCT-UPWIND project (ID: 031447)

Investments in AWES
Over the years, investments in AWES have been made by many local, national and international
funding bodies as well as by large and small private investors. Information available for private
investment especially is limited. For instance it has been announced that Shell, Schlumberger and
E.ON have invested in KPS. While some developers have stopped operation, we have seen no signs
of private investors withdrawing the sector. Because of the limited available information, only a few
examples, beyond above research grand information, are provided here.

For Ampyx, the private investment is indicated to be in the range of 30 m€ 42, while public funding is
less than 10 m€ based on available information. For Kitemill, the private investment is in the range of
5 m€ with more than 3.5 m€ of public funding. In the case of the company Skysails, public funding
has only been in the marine transport sector until 2017 (2.56m€). Funding for AWES was obtained
from 2018 onwards and stands at 1.7 m€. In comparison, the overall private funding reaches 45.57m€
for the marine transport application and approximately 2.5m€ for the AWE application, transferring
much knowledge from the former.

As an example for public funding for universities, the ETH Zurich has been funded with 869,900 CHF
since 2013. Other funding includes approximately 1m£ from Innovate UK for Kite Energy, 500,000£
by DECC UK to Kite Power Systems.

Classification
When it comes to the general concept, there is an understanding, based on the principles presented
by Loyd in 1980, that crosswind flight is the way to produce significant amounts of electricity. In
crosswind operation, the constraint provided by the tether enables fast motion of the aircraft in a
plane roughly perpendicular to the absolute wind flow. The apparent wind speed seen by the aircraft
is roughly equal to the absolute wind speed times the aerodynamic efficiency, which goes from
around 6 for flexible kites to around 10-11 for rigid wings (these numbers can change depending also
on the tether length and diameter, because of tether drag). In these conditions, the maximum power
that can be generated scales with the square of the efficiency, i.e. 36 to 100 times the power that can
be obtained by a body moving in the same direction as the wind. Note that conventional horizontal-
axis wind turbine rotors also use crosswind operation, for the same reason. This results in most
companies focusing on concepts based on crosswind motion, be it with a flexible or rigid wing or with
flying generator or ground based generator. Some companies investigate the alternatives, such as
lighter-than-air technologies or turbines lifted in the air by a kite. At small scale (<100kW), lighter-
than-air systems (as developed by the company Altaeros) that lift a wind turbine at higher altitudes

40
AWE, Policies for Airborne Wind Energy (January 2018), available online at
http://www.hwn500.de/files/HWN500/AWE%20Policy%20Scoping%20Study_2018-01-10.pdf.
41
Fraunhofer Institut für Windenergie und Energiesystemtechnik (IWES), supra note 12..
42
Ampyx Power, Ampyx Power website (2017), available online at https://www.ampyxpower.com/ (last visited 19 September
2017).

38 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

appear to be interesting, however their scalability to larger power ratings appears to be not technically
or economically feasible.

Summing up, the following aspects provide a possible classification of AWE systems:
• The generation of electricity may be on the ground (GG-AWES) or airborne (FG-AWES), Figure
2.4;
• The airborne part may stay in the air due to aerostatic lift, due to rotorcraft-like lift, or due to
aerodynamics (crosswind operation);
• The airborne part may either be rigid, flexible or a combination of both;
• The ground station may be fixed or mobile.

Figure 2.4 Airborne Wind Energy Systems concepts. From left to right ground based (GG-AWES) and
airborne (FG-AWES) generator 43

Source: Fraunhofer IWES (2014) 44.

Figure 2.5 and Figure 2.6 provide an overview of the different combinations which have been
investigated. The different concepts are described below. Concepts in light grey are not investigated
at the moment. We note that this does not imply that they are abandoned completely.

Figure 2.5 Overview of different flying generator architectures of airborne wind energy systems 45

43
Fraunhofer Institut für Windenergie und Energiesystemtechnik (IWES), supra note 12.
44
Ibid.
45
Ibid.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 39

 Figure 2.6 Overview of different ground generator architectures of airborne wind energy systems 46

Source: Fraunhofer IWES (2014) 47.

Flying generator AWES

When considering FG-AWES, a tethered airborne rigid wing carries several turbines (tethered drone).
Due to the large apparent wind speed seen by the onboard turbines (crosswind operation), the latter
can be relatively small in diameter and still produce a significant amount of power. In FG-AWES, the
tether length is constant during operation, but adjustable according to the best operating altitude.
Other types of FG-AWES employ aerostatic lift, a kite, or rotorcraft-type lift.

Tethered drone
A tethered drone AWES consists of a rigid wing which carries a rotor and generator assembly in the
air. The wing is connected to the ground via a tether which also transfers the electricity produced. In
normal operation, the wing flies with constant tether length in trajectories using the crosswinds. The
rotor is turned by the fast relative winds experienced and turns the generator which produces the
electricity. In recent years, prototypes have been tested, for instance by Makani Power in the USA,
with a 30kW small-scale system including fully automated take-off and landing. Makani is currently
testing a 600kW prototype and aims for the on-grid global market.

The wing span of this prototype is 26m and the tether length is reported with 500m 48.

Aerostatic lift
Lighter than air (also proposed with ground generation)
These systems consist of a lighter than air flying structure, usually filled with helium (Figure 2.5b)..
One possible design employs a helium-inflated structure as a carrier for a rotor and generator
assembly with a diameter of 10.6 m 49. This assembly converts the energy contained in the wind into
electricity which is transferred to the ground via the tether. The tether also keeps the AWES
stationary. Prototypes have already been tested, for instance by Altaeros in 2012. Such AWES are
targeting generation of up to 100 kW and thus the off-grid or behind the meter market. Their control

46
Ibid.
47
Ibid.
48
Makani, Makani website (2017), available online at http://www.x.company/makani/ (last visited 20 April 2018).
49
Khan and Rehan, ‘Harnessing Airborne Wind Energy: Prospects and Challenges’, 27 Journal of Control, Automation and
Electrical Systems (2016) 728.

40 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

system is relatively simple due to their stationary nature. Another design exploiting aerostatic lift,
developed e.g. by the company Magenn (now inactive since several years), uses a helium-inflated
structure shaped as a Darrieus turbine rotor, which rotates around a horizontal axis perpendicular to
the wind. Two generators at its sides convert the motion into electricity, which is transferred to the
ground by the tether. The prototype of this design had a surface area of 420 m² 50.

Kite carrying a wind turbine (also proposed with ground generation)

Several concepts exist where a kite is used to lift a wind turbine into the air (Figure 2.5a and Figure
2.6d).. The wind turbine may either be a small turbine of conventional design or may itself consist of
a set of kites. Generation can take place in the air or, via transmission cables, on the ground (as
implemented by Kitewinder). This may be achieved with a circular cable which turns a generator on
the ground or via torsion (as implemented by Windswept and Interesting). These concepts do not
employ crosswind flight of the whole aircraft, which means that they only can use an apparent wind
equal to wind speed, resulting in rated power of 100 W for the Kitewinder system 51. Higher power
production would be possible with bigger systems but would still be in the range of some kilowatts.
On the upside, these concepts are much simpler when considering control-mechanisms during
standard operation. However, these concepts also need to cover very strong winds, lightning and
other extreme events, which increases the requirements in that area significantly if automated
operation is to be achieved at some point.

Rotorcraft
A rotorcraft AWES consists of several rotors fixed to a rigid structure which is tethered to the ground.
The rotors are turned by the wind with a principle similar to that of autogyros: on the one hand they
produce lift, keeping the structure in the air, and on the other hand they produce electricity which is
transferred through the tether to the ground. This type of AWES has been investigated by Sky
Windpower. However, to date there is no documented full experimental implementation of this
concept, and theoretical and numerical studies are also relatively limited. The available theoretical
work assumes that such units could reach the scale of several megawatts if all technical difficulties
were overcome, by going as high as the jet streams (about 10km from ground).

Ground generator AWES

When considering GG-AWES, four approaches have been proposed: the pumping kite, the carousel,
the laddermill and the torsion driven generator. For the pumping principle, an airborne wing reels out
a long tether which turns a generator on the ground, producing electricity. When the tether has
reached its maximum length, it is reeled-in again and during this period no electricity is produced.
This concept can be realized using cross wind or using the Magnus effect, where a lighter than air
structure reels out the tether. For the carousel principle, the airborne wing pulls a moving ground
based device, while the kinetic energy of this device will be converted to electric energy. Here the
length of the tethers can be either constant or variable during operation. In both pumping and carousel
configurations, the wing used can be either a flexible kite or a rigid body. Theoretical and numerical
studies have already shown that there is no difference between these two approaches in terms of
energy yield 52 when the same rated power is assumed, while the carousel approach has clear
disadvantages in terms of higher cost and footprint for the ground installation.

A variant with respect to the carousel is a system where the ground station moves periodically back
and forth on a linear trajectory towed by the kite. The trajectory of the ground station is perpendicular
to the prevalent wind direction, in a way similar to the motion of kite surfers at sea. The tether length

50
Ibid.
51
Kitewinder, Kitewinder website (2017), available online at https://kitewinder.fr/ (last visited 19 September 2017).
52
Fagiano, Milanese and Piga, ‘Optimization of airborne wind energy generators’, 22 International Journal of Robust and
Nonlinear Control (2012) 2055.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 41

 is constant, and power is converted by driving generators connected to the wheels of the moving
ground unit. This concept avoids the presence of phases with power consumption (which are present
in the carousel when the kite moves against the wind) but still requires a non-trivial ground
infrastructure. The use of this concept, called “commuting”, both on ground and offshore is described
in a patent 53.

All the implemented concepts of GG-AWES are pumping systems, and no realization of carousel or
commuting AWES has been reported so far with significant experimental demonstration 54. The third
option for ground based generators is the laddermill, a concept for a loop of kites. However, this has
not been implemented in a prototype yet 55. One final concept is the wind turbine carrying kite where
a kite lifts some kind of wind turbine into the air. The turbine may transmit the mechanical energy
captured to the ground for instance via torsion (developed for example by Windswept and
Interesting).

Pumping kite
Pumping kite AWES (Figure 2.6b) exist in several designs, with a rigid wing, a flexible kite or a semi-
rigid wing which also has flexible parts, see also Figure 2.1. The principle of operation during power
production is shown in Figure 2.7.

Figure 2.7 pumping kite energy generation concept considering a single-tether flexible kite. The
production concept is similar for rigid aircrafts and multi-tethered kites

Source: Fraunhofer IWES (2014) 56.

The wing transfers the forces to the ground station using the tether(s), see Figure 2.7 (a). The latter
drives a ground generator, producing electricity. When the tether has reached the prescribed length
(which can be changed to optimally adapt to the wind conditions), it is reeled- in again, while the wing
is steered in such a way as to minimize its aerodynamic force in order to reduce the power consumed
in this recovery phase, see Figure 2.7 (b). Optimization of this “pumping” cycle is one important point
for the efficiency of the overall concept. For a utility scale, 2 MW rigid wing unit, wing spans of 36 m
are envisioned, weighing about 3.5 tons. 57 Flexible kites are envisioned in the same scale, plans
reaching 33 m wing span and approximately 400m² for 1 MW units. 58

53
L. Fagiano and M. Milanese (inventors), “System for converting wind energy into electrical energy through the flight of
power wing profiles tethered to the ground by cables of a fixed length, without passive phases, and with automatic
adaptation to wind conditions”, EP20120720580, Filing date: 22/32012, Publication date: 21/12/2016.
54
Gambier et al., supra note 12.
55
Ibid.
56
Ibid.
57
Ampyx Power et al., ‘The Sea-Air-Farm Project DEMONSTRATING THE POTENTIAL OF FAR OFFSHORE FLOATING
AIRBORNE WINDFARMS’ (2018).
58
SkySails Power, SkySails Power website (2017), available online at http://www.skysails.info/index.php?id=11&L=0 (last
visited 20 April 2018).

42 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

The pumping technology is the most commonly pursued in Europe. Almost all of the existing
companies working with pumping systems have demonstrated, on a small scale and for limited time,
automated cycles and energy production. For instance, the company Enerkite has a prototype with
several hundred hours of operation 59, the company Ampyx has two prototypes with the necessary
capabilities 60, the company Kitemill is operating one prototype and the company Twingtec also one
prototype 61. However, for almost all of these systems there is still no convincing demonstration of
fully automated take-off and landing and, in part as a consequence, of long-term fully automated
operation. For flexible kite systems, Skysails Power has shown an approach for automated launch
and landing. However, controllability of flexible kites is lower at low speeds (as is that of rigid aircrafts
without had-hoc propellers to stabilize a hovering motion, like that of Ampyx power). This makes take-
off and landing during low wind phases an issue. Rigid wing systems with conventional airplane
design, like the one pursued by Ampyx Power in the Netherlands, feature automated take-off and
landing, however using a winch launch and a conventional landing approach that require an area of
130 by 100 m area on the ground to cover all wind directions. 62 To minimize the required area, the
currently under development AP3 is planned to feature a rotating platform of 20m diameter and the
winch system or a catapult 63. A research activity carried out at ABB Corporate Research in 2015-
2016 has demonstrated the feasibility of a fully automated take-off of rigid-aircraft systems in very
compact space, but still the reverse automated landing manoeuvre has not been shown
experimentally. Other concepts, like the ones pursued by KiteMill in Norway or TwingTec in
Switzerland, employ vertical-axis propellers to take-off and land. The resulting aircraft is a
combination of multi-copter drone and rigid aircraft, and its operation can be fully automated.

Magnus effect
In Magnus-effect AWES, the aircraft is shaped like a beam with circular cross-section that is rotated
fast thanks to on-board motors (Figure 2.6a). The rotational axis is perpendicular to the wind flow and
parallel to ground. The rotation induces a lift force on the buoyant structure thanks to the difference
of relative wind flow (hence of pressure) between its upper and lower sides. This lift is used to pull
the tether, driving a generator on ground with a pumping operation as described above. The tether
transfers both mechanical power to ground and electricity from ground to enable rotation of the flying
structure. During the reel-in phase the rotation of the airborne structure is stopped, resulting in a net
gain in energy. This concept has been developed to a prototype by Omnidea, see Figure 2.7. The
company Magenn in Canada also planned to develop the same concept, with news dating back to
2006. 64 The few documented experimental studies on this concept indicate that the net generated
power is very small 65, and the Magenn company project has been abandoned as it appears also from
the recent IDTechEx report, where Magenn is listed among the “lessons from the past”. 66

59
EnerKite, EnerKite website (2017), available online at http://www.enerkite.de/ (last visited 20 April 2018).
60
Michiel Kruijff and Richard Ruiterkamp, ‘Chapter 26 A Roadmap Towards Airborne Wind Energy in the Utility Sector’,
Airborne Wind Energy 2017 (2017).
61
Luchsinger et al., ‘Chapter 24 Pumping Cycle Kite Power with Twings’, Airborne Wind Energy 2017 (2017).
62
Michiel Kruijff and Richard Ruiterkamp, supra note 49.
63
Ampyx Power, supra note 31.
64
Best Breezes blog, “Interview with Inventor of Magenn Kite Rotor Generator”, http://best-
breezes.squarespace.com/journal/2006/1/29/interview-with-inventor-of-magenn-kite-rotor-generator.html, last accessed
June 2018
65
Y. Gupta, J. Dumon, A. Hably, Modeling and control of a Magnus effect-based airborne wind energy system in crosswind
maneuvers, 2017 IFAC World Congress, IFAC-PapersOnLine, Volume 50, Issue 1, 2017.
66
P. Harrop, Airborne Wind Energy (AWE) 2018-2028 Report, IDTechEx,
https://www.idtechex.com/research/reports/airborne-wind-energy-awe-2018-2028-000560.asp?viewopt=contents, last
accessed June 2018.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 43

 Carousel
Carousel AWES (Figure 2.6c) have been envisioned and attempted by a few companies, like KiteGen
in Italy and NTS in Germany. In general, their design consists of several kites, which need to run
synchronized, and a larger ground station, which grows with the number of kites used and might well
reach 1500m in diameter, not covering all the land in this area, but mostly the outer circle. Based on
initial simulations, such a ground station might produce 1000MW with 100 kites of 500m² area each 67.
In the case of one design this ground station takes the shape of a track on which each kite tows a
“wagon”, which produces electricity 68. Another design has the kites turning one large generator. The
advantage of such systems is supposed to be the continuous production of electricity due to the
multiple kites employed. Existing simulation studies indicate that there are no true advantages of
carousel operation over a group of pumping systems with the same rated power in terms of energy
yield 69, while on the other hand the cost of the carousel ground structure might be as high as that of
conventional wind turbines, which has reached 740,000 €/MW for the world market leader at the end
of 2017 70. This would partially eliminate one of the main claimed advantages of AWES.

Laddermill
The concept of a laddermill has been described by W. Ockels 71 (Figure 2.6e). Laddermill AWES
consist of a tether in a long loop which is continuously turned by multiple wings attached to it. An
72
example described in the patent envisioned 500 kites with 100 m² wing area each producing
11 MW. The laddermill would be operating in heights of 5 to 9 km 73. The turning tether is acting on a
generator on ground level. This concept has not been investigated further since the early 2000s and,
due to its complexity, has never been implemented in a prototype.

Conclusion
Overall, the currently most common architectures considered by the current AWES developers and
researchers are the tethered drone and the pumping kite systems, both working in crosswind. A
gradual transition by several companies (like TwingTec, Windlift, Enerkite) from flexible to rigid wing
can be observed. These observations illustrate a degree of convergence in technologies taking place
in the sector. A summarizing overview of the concepts which are the focus of current research and
development is provided in Figure 2.8, which also presents the different related mechanisms
considered for launch and landing. We note that so far the presented solutions have only been proven
to be fully automated, including launch- and landing over short periods of time 74,75 and will need to
proof extended period operation in the future.

The current research and development by companies such as Makani Power and Ampyx Power
targets relatively large FG and GG-systems with rated power of 2 MW and more as commercial units.

Other companies, like Enerkite and TwingTec, are focusing on GG-systems with 100-200 kW rated
power, which according to their business plans would be competitive for niche markets like remote
locations, where diesel generators are employed, and the fuel cost is high.

It has to be noted that several of these companies, especially those pursuing pumping operation, do
not employ the generator’s rated power to denote their development phases, but rather the rated
power that a conventional wind turbine would need to obtain the same energy yield in a given location

67
Canale, Fagiano and Milanese, ‘KiteGen: A revolution in wind energy generation’, 34 Energy (2009) 355.
68
Cherubini et al., supra note 28.
69
Fagiano, Milanese and Piga, supra note 41.
70
Vestas, ‘Full year 2017: Vestas Wind Systems A/S’ (2018).
71
Ockels, ‘Laddermill, a novel concept to exploit the energy in the airspace’, 4 Aircraft Design (2001) 81.
72
W. J. Ockels, ‘WIND-DRIVEN DRIVING APPARATUS EMPLOYING KITES’ (last visited 3 January 2018).
73
Khan and Rehan, supra note 38.
74
EnerKite, supra note 48.
75
Michiel Kruijff and Richard Ruiterkamp, supra note 49.

44 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

(according to the current knowledge and models of power curve achievable by AWES, for instance
Enerkite EK200 with a rated power of 100 KW 76). Due to the higher capacity factor of AWES, the
actual rated power of the ground generator is smaller, with consequently lower costs which make the
comparison with conventional wind more favourable. However, there are several sources of
uncertainty in this estimation, which require more studies and extensive experimentation to be
cleared. For example, in pumping operation the realistically achievable duty cycle is around 70% (i.e.
70% time producing power, 30% time for transitions and retraction phases), which gives an average
cycle power of around 50% of the traction power. The rated power of the ground generator gives the
maximum traction power. Thus, the “rated average cycle power” is around 50% of the rated power of
the ground generator. In a good site for conventional wind turbines, the capacity factor of pumping
AWES has been calculated to be about twice that of a wind turbine with the same rated power of the
electric machine 77. Thus, if we impose the same yearly generated energy, in this case the effects of
higher capacity factor is cancelled by the effects of the pumping cycle efficiency, and the size of the
generator has to be similar between the two technologies. Still, capital cost savings are expected (of
the order of about 50%, according to the current cost breakdown of conventional wind turbines 78)
because of the absence of tower and rotor, and of lower installation costs- when the technology
reaches commercial readiness. Moreover, a higher capacity factor means more stable power
production during the year, thus possibly easier integration in the grid.

76
EnerKite, ‘Enerkite Flugwindanlagen’ (2017).
77
Fagiano, Milanese and Piga, ‘High-Altitude Wind Power Generation’, 25 IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion (2010)
168.
78
IRENA, “Renewable energy technologies: cost analysis series - Part 5: Wind Power”, June 2012, available online.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 45

 Figure 2.8 current research focus in AWES, including launch and landing concepts 79

Source: Fraunhofer IWES (2014) 80.

Non-crosswind AWES are focused on small to very small systems. Lighter than air concepts are
considered for up to 100 kW so far 81. Wind turbines lifted by a kite are considered for the ultra-mobile
use with electricity output below 1 kW 82.

2.2.2 Industry and research organisations

Industry
Companies which are actively developing AWES in Europe include Ampyx Power, Enerkite, Skysails
Power, Enevate, Kitenergy, KiteMill, E-kite, TwingTec, Skypull, and Omnidea. These companies
focus on GG-AWES. Some of them are benefitting from H2020 research and innovation grants, like
Ampyx Power (founded by former TU Delft researcher Dr. Richard Ruiterkamp) and Enevate (now
Kitepower, TU Delft spin-off co-founded by Prof. Roland Schmehl), while Enerkite (founded by Dr.
Alexander Bormann) obtained a first SME instrument grant. Private investments, in the range of 2-
10 M€ per company, have also been raised to fund development of AWES. The widespread presence
of several AWES companies in Europe is evident, with a rather competitive environment. Important
players do present themselves at the annual (now bi-annual) Airborne Wind Energy Conference

79
Fraunhofer Institut für Windenergie und Energiesystemtechnik (IWES), supra note 12.
80
Ibid.
81
Altaeros Energies, Altaeros Energies website (2017), available online at http://www.altaerosenergies.com/ (last visited 19
September 2017).
82
Kitewinder, supra note 40.

46 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

where many of the existing academic and industrial parties meet, present their development status
and try to attract further investors and interest from public funding bodies. In the USA, there is a
higher concentration with fewer companies, such as Makani Power (California-based company
founded by Saul Griffith and Corwin Hardham, since 2013 part of Google), which is developing a FG-
AWES with a rigid wing, Altaeros Energies (MIT spin-off), pursuing aerostatic FG-AWES, and Windlift
(US company founded by Robert Creighton), developing a pumping system.

In Europe, a network of companies and research groups has been established, HWN500 83, initially
at national level (Germany). In 2017, leveraging the experience of HWN500, a new European
association of the AWES industry has been agreed to be founded, Airborne Wind Europe.

Table 2.1 airborne Wind Energy companies in Europe (system integrators/final system manufacturers)

Long Experience >

Larger Teams (>7)
Wing Type Generation Tethers

5 years 84
Country

lighter than

On Ground

In the air
Company

Multiple
Single
Rigid
Soft

Ampyx Power 85 NL √ air √ √ √ √

SkySails DE √ √ √ √ √

EnerKite DE √ √ √ √ √

TwingTec 86 CH √ √ √

KPS UK √ √ √ √

Kitepower/ Enevate 87 NL √ √ √ √

Kitenergy 88 IT √ √ √ √

KiteGen 89 IT √ √ √ √ √

e-Kite NL √ √ √ √

Kitemill NO √ √ √ √

KiteWinder FR √ √ √

Omnidea PT √ √ √ √ √

Wind Fisher FR √ √ √

Skypull CH √ √ √

Blade Tips E. FR √ √ √

KiteX DK √ √ √

Skypoint-e DE √ √ √

Windswept and Interesting UK √ √ √

83
http://www.hwn500.de/.
84
Not including experience by individuals in the company.
85
Founded by TU Delft researcher Richard Ruiterkamp.
86
Founded by researchers of Swiss research institutes (Empa, FHNW, ETH and EPFL) based on the project
Swisswindpower.
87
Co-founded by TU Delft Professor Roland Schmehl.
88
Co-founded, among others, by Politecnico di Torino researchers Mario Milanese and Lorenzo Fagiano.
89
Co-founded, among others, by Politecnico di Torino professor Mario Milanese.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 47

 Table 2.2 Airborne Wind Energy companies outside Europe (system integrators/final system
manufacturers)

Long Experience > 5 years

Larger Teams (> 7-10)
Wing Type Generation Tethers

Country
Company

On Ground

In the air

Multiple
than air
lighter

Single
Rigid
Soft
Makani Power USA √ √ √ √ √

Windlift USA √ √ √

eWind USA √

Altaeros 90
USA √ √ √ √ √

Sky Windp. USA √ √

Suppliers
So far, only a limited number of specific companies could be identified which can be seen as
established suppliers to the AWES OEMs. On the one hand, there is DSM Dyneema in the
Netherlands, which supplies material for tethers and fabrics and is specifically developing and
marketing its material for the airborne wind market. On the other hand, there is Xsens, focused on
sensors, a company also an active partner in the AWESCO network. Another special case is
Aenerate, a company which offers consulting and development in the area of AWES as well as
products in the area of AWES control.

Table 2.3 Suppliers of subsystems/components (OEMs)

Institution Connection to AWEs
ABB Switzerland Producers of electrical equipment. Research activities in AWES
Xsens Technologies B.V. Producer of inertial measurement units. Partner of AWESCO network
GE Global Research Interest in AWES. Component supplier. Wind business
DSM Dyneema B.V. Producer of tether technology. Research on AWES.
Covestro A/S Materials producer. Interest in AWES
Siemens Electrical components. Wind business. Showed interest in AWES
Orange aircraft Manufacturer of aircraft for Ampyx power.
Dromec B.V. Manufacturer of ground stations for AWE companies
EMCE B.V. Manufacturer of ground stations for AWE companies
Lankhorst Manufacturer of tethers
Aenerate Manufacturer of flight control systems
New Leaf Manufacturer of ground generation stations
Liros Manufacturer of tethers
Gleistein Manufacturer of tethers

Research organizations
Currently, research in AWES technology in Europe is carried out at universities, including TU Delft,
ETH Zürich, Chalmers University, TU Munich, University of Freiburg, KU Leuven, University of
Grenoble, University of Bologna, Scuola Superiore Sant´Anna and Politecnico di Milano. Several of
these academic efforts are funded or have been funded by European grants, including a Marie Curie
Network, Horizon 2020, an ERC grant, an Individual Marie Curie Fellowship, and by national and

90
Massachusetts Institute of Technology spin-off.

48 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

regional grants. A survey of scientific contributions (and patents) in the field of AWE has been recently
published 91. Most of the research in the last decade was focused on the modelling and simulation of
AWES, on the design and testing of prototypes, and on reaching automated power generation, and
less on take-off and landing and reliability against changing wind conditions. The focus is now shifting
to the latter problems, as automated operation has been achieved by more and more groups. Outside
of Europe, several universities in the USA are researching this topic (University of Delaware,
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Worchester Polytechnic Institute) as well as some
universities in the rest of the world, for instance the University of Santa Catarina in Brazil.

Table 2.4 Universities and Research Institutions

Institution Connection to AWEs
TU Delft Research group working on AWES, mainly soft-kite systems. Several
research projects on the topic. Two prototypes built. Ampyx and Kitepower
founded by researchers of TU Delft
University of Freiburg Research group working on AWES, numerical optimization for rigid-wing
systems, rotational take-off and embedded model predictive control
Politecnico di Milano Research group working on AWES and related research topics. Partner in
this study. Affiliated people carried out several experimental activities at
Politecnico di Torino, UC Santa Barbara, ETH Zurich, and ABB Corporate
Research
University of North Carolina at Research group working on AWES, mainly lighter-than-air concepts.
Charlotte Collaborating with Altaeros Energies.
Fraunhofer IWES Research projects on high-altitude wind resource and technology
assessment. Partner in this study.
Grenoble INP Research activities on AWES. Currently focusing on Magnus-effect lighter-
than-air concept
Russian Academy of Sciences Theoretical research on pumping AWES
ETH Zürich Research activities on AWES. Collaborations with TwingTec.
EPFL Lausanne Research activities on AWES. Small-scale prototype of autonomous kite.
Institute for Drive Systems and Research activities in AWES
Power Electronics, Leibniz
University Hannover
AWESCO network academic AWESCO is a EU-H2020 Marie-Sklodowska-Curie network focused on
partners (in addition to TU airborne wind energy research
Delft. Univ. Freiburg, EPFL,
ETHZ):
Univ. Limerick
Chalmers university Research activities on AWES, partner in Marie Curie network AWESCO
KU Leuven Research activities on AWES, studying rotational take-off and optimal
control algorithms, computational fluid dynamics simulations of AWE
systems
TU Munich Research activities on AWES, mainly onboard generation (FG-AWES)
ENSTA Bretagne Research activities on ship propulsion with autonomous kites, funded by
Beyond the Sea initiative
Carlos III University Madrid Research activities on AWES, mainly simulation and flight testing with soft-
kite systems.
University of Victoria (Canada) Research activities on AWES
Oregon state University (US) Research activities on AWES

91
A. K. de Souza Mendonça et al.,”Comparing Patent and Scientific Literature in Airborne Wind Energy”, Sustainability, 9(6),
915, 2017.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 49

 Institution Connection to AWEs
Stanford University (US) Research activities on AWES
University of Delaware (US) Research activities on AWES, particularly resource assessment
Worchester Polytechnic Theoretical/simulation-based research on AWES
Institute (US)
UF Santa Catarina (Brasil) Research group on AWES, pumping system with flexible wing, built small-
scale prototype
RMIT University (Australia) Research activities on AWES
Kyushu University (Japan) Research activities on AWES
DTU-Wind Research activities on AWES
TU Berlin Research activities on AWES, partner of Enerkite
University of Applied Sciences Past research activities on AWES, in collaborative projects with ETH,
of Northwest Switzerland EMPA, EPFL. Employee of the university (Corey Houle) co-founded
TwingTec
University of Zagreb Research activities on AWES
Politecnico Torino Past research activities on AWES
Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna One completed PhD on AWES, investigating dual aircraft systems
University of Bonn Research activities on AWES

Public institutions
Regulatory agencies have been involved to a limited extend in the area of AWES so far. They have
approved fly zones for testing (for instance for Twingtec 92); in other cases, they have certified single
prototypes (Ampyx 93), further information regarding the regulatory state of play is provided in section
2.3.

Other agencies have been in contact with AWE, for instance IRENA has considered the technology
in a recent report. The Fördergesellschaft Windenergie (FGW) is currently working together with the
AWE- community to develop a first technical guideline on AWES. Since the end of 2017, the HWN500
network from Germany has evolved into Airborne Wind Europe and intends to bundle the interests of
AWE in Europe and beyond.

2.2.3 State of development (TRL)

The state of development has been assessed based on technology readiness levels (TRLs). We
have derived AWES specific TRLs based on the guidance principles for renewable energy
technologies 94. The developed TRLs are presented in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5 AWES Technology Readiness Levels

TRL General description AWES specific description
1 Basic principles observed Concept described for the first time (for instance with Loyd
(Basic research. Principles 1980).
postulated and observed but no
experimental proof available)
2 Technology concept formulated Mathematical modelling of feasibility of concept, including
(Technology formulation. Concept dynamical simulations of the system behaviour. Positive
and application have been validation by peers (e.g. published peer-reviewed research
formulated) work).

92
TwingTec, TwingTec website (2017), available online at http://twingtec.ch/ (last visited 20 April 2018).
93
Ampyx Power, supra note 31.
94
E&Y (2017) ‘Technology Readiness Level: Guidance Principles for Renewable Energy technologies Annexes’ (2017).

50 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

 TRL General description AWES specific description
3 Experimental proof of concept Detailed computational modelling of specific solution and first
(Applied research. First laboratory small prototypes for single steps of operation (e.g. take-off and
tests complete; proof of concept) landing by human operator, power generation cycle with human
operator flying the aircraft).
4 Technology validated in lab Prototype in operation where several steps of operation have
(Small scale prototype built in a been automated, not all (e.g. automated take-off, automated
laboratory environment (“ugly” power generation), human intervention 95 is still required.
prototype))
5 Technology validated in relevant Large prototype in operation which can operate in the intended
environment way (e.g. automated take-off, generation and landing triggered
(Large scale prototype tested in by a human operator) but still requires constant supervision
intended environment) (e.g. fully automated operation in normal conditions, presence
of pilot still required for unexpected events).
6 Technology demonstrated in Large prototype in operation which is proven to be able to
relevant environment perform all necessary actions (starting, landing, operation)
(Prototype system tested in safely and automated without failure. Demonstrated matching
intended environment close to between expected and measured power output (validation of
expected performance) power curve with substantial experimental data).
7 System prototype demonstration in Prototype in final scale in operation which is theoretically proven
operational environment. (or accepted by authorities) to have all necessary capabilities to
(Demonstration system operating in operate continuously and automated 96 for a year.
operational environment at pre-
commercial stage)
8 System complete and qualified Final scale prototype in operation which has operated
(Zero-series system. Manufacturing continuously and automated for more than a year. The concept
issues solved) needs to have the permits to allow commercial operation of a
full scale unit.
9 Actual system proven in operational Serial production unit has been run for at least one year
environment continuous and automated operation1 and is available for
(Final application, technology customers.
available for consumers)

The TRLs of the AWE concepts that we have derived are reported in Table 2.6. The TRLs are in
accordance with the definitions of Table 2.5. It has to be noted that effort in AWES development only
picked up after 2000, when materials, computing power, software and controls had matured to such
an extent that AWES seemed to become feasible. The focus has been on simulation and reaching
automated power production with small prototypes. These challenges have been tackled in recent
years. For the last few years, the focus has been on automated take-off and landing as well as longer
term durability and upscaling. Automated take-off and landing and the transition to energy production
operation have been solved by several companies already. Today most companies are still working
with small scale systems, typically up to around 50 kW of generated power. Usually, the companies
themselves deem such a power rating not large enough to be competitive on the targeted market
which limits most companies to TRL 4, with some in reach of TRL 5. The prototype which seems to
be most advanced is the 600 kW model by Makani, which may already even be close to TRL 6. Kites
for other commercial uses not aimed at electricity generation, for example ship propulsion, may have
higher TRLs.

95
human intervention is assumed when humans need to interact with the system for normal operation or during special
events.
96
Automated is assumed to be reached when the AWES can start, generate electricity and land again in all relevant weather
conditions without an operator. Operation and Maintenance including remote system reset in case of errors is allowed.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 51

 TRL 7 to TRL9 are focused on full scale products, which is not yet reached with full capability by any
company. For companies which focus on small scale units, the higher TRLs may be passed through
faster, compared to large scale systems, once they have completed TRL 5, as the prototypes for
testing already are in a similar size-class as the intended full-scale model. This would reduce the
challenges encountered, as only limited upscaling of the testing prototype would be required. The
focus would be on proving the capabilities of the prototype and not solving new challenges.
Companies focusing on larger units encounter a different set of challenges when moving from their
small scale proof of concept prototypes to larger units, as the design drivers change.

Table 2.6 Technology Readiness Level of AWES concepts

AWE concept Status TRL

Tethered drone, airborne generation pre-commercial unit is being tested 5

Lighter than air, airborne generation Prototypes exist 4

Kite, carrying a wind turbine Several prototypes are being tested in the field for small scale 4
energy production
Rotorcraft Prototypes have been built in the past 2

Pumping kite, rigid wing several prototypes exist and pre-commercial units are under 4
development
Pumping kite, flexible wing several prototypes exist and a pre-commercial unit under 4
development 97
Magnus effect prototypes exist 4

Carousel work on prototypes has been done, currently no progress 2

visible
Laddermill concept has been described 1
Source: Study team.

2.3 Regulatory state of play

Airborne wind energy systems can be hazardous to aviation as they pose the potential to come into
conflict with low flying aircraft. This section addresses the current aviation regulation relevant for
AWES.

The following risks are foreseen that could potentially harm airspace users, such as commercial,
recreational, or military actors, and people on the ground:
1. Mid-air collision between an airspace user and the AWES;
2. The tether could fail resulting in a fly-away. When the tether fails the AWES could fly (controlled
or uncontrolled) to areas outside its normal operation area;
3. Controlled flight is lost without tether failure.

Before the AWES can be allowed to operate in the airspace it is necessary that these risks are
sufficiently mitigated or controlled. Aviation authorities will therefore pose conditions under which
AWES operations are permitted.

97
Experience exists beyond TRL 4 in flexible wing kites for marine propulsion systems- this may allow faster development
through TRL levels to multi-megawatt units (company Skysails)

52 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

Aviation is a highly regulated industry on multiple levels. Internationally, ICAO 98 issues Standards
and Recommended Practices which are binding by incorporating them into national law. Additionally,
the European Commission and its agencies, specifically the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) issues directly binding Regulation. Finally, specific issues are regulated in national law.

Before anybody is allowed to fly, several elements need to be certified or approved. First, the aircraft
needs to be certified demonstrating its airworthiness. Second, in order to have a continued
airworthiness, the aircraft has to be maintained by certified personnel according to approved
procedures. Third, the pilot (or remote pilot) needs to be approved to operate the aircraft, often this
is done via a license. Fourth, the operation has to be approved. For example, an air operator's
certificate (AOC) is the approval granted to an aircraft operator to allow it to use aircraft for
commercial purposes. All four elements have of course to be aligned based on the operation that is
going to be performed by the pilot using the aircraft. The issuing of the certificates or approvals is
done by EASA or the national aviation authorities depending on the situation.

The airspace is split into three-dimensional chunks each assigned with a specific class ranging from
A through G based on its usage. The most restrictive class is class A. Class G is the least restrictive.
Depending on the airspace class different air traffic services are provided and different rules apply,
and different requirements are valid for its users. To illustrate the spectrum, in class A airspace all
operations must be conducted under instrument flight rules (IFR), that means that the aircraft and
pilot have to be certified for this specifically. Additionally, all aircraft are subject to air traffic control
(ATC) clearances and all flights are separated from each other by ATC. On the other end of the
spectrum, in class G airspace operations may be conducted under IFR or visual flight rules (VFR).
ATC is not provided and only traffic information may be given as far as is practical in respect of other
flights. For illustration purposes, Figure 2.9 below gives a vertical cross-section of a typical airspace.
Besides the airspace class, this figure also shows the names of the airspaces as well as the altitude
(in foot above mean sea level (ft AMSL) or flight levels (FL)).

Additionally, certain parts of the airspace can be marked as a special airspace in which additional
requirements are valid like a Danger Area (DA), Restricted Area (RA), Transponder Mandatory Zone
(TMZ). These special airspaces can be marked permanently (e.g. for military use) or temporary. The
temporary airspaces can be activated or de-activated via a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM).

Figure 2.9 A cross-section of a typical airspace illustrating the various types of airspaces

Source: NLR.

98
International Civil Aviation Organization.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 53

 Dependent on certain parameters for the AWES and its (foreseen) operation, different regulatory
bodies (EASA or the national aviation authorities) will be involved. Important parameters from a safety
and regulatory perspective include the weight of the system, the operational altitude, the duration of
the operation and the airspeed attained.

Given airspace complexity and use by other airspace users, class G is most suited, and therefore
one may expected that this airspace class would be applicable best for AWES. If not close to an
aerodrome (locations where aircraft flight operations take place), the airspace up to 2500ft (750
meter) is commonly class G 99. Operations above airspace class G are not expected by developers
to be feasible in terms of airspace regulation. It is expected that the AWES will not be operated close
to an airport. In class G airspace there are no Air Traffic Control services provided and it is open to
all airspace users.

In the current stage of development, the operation of AWES appear to be still limited to tests. It is the
responsibility of the national aviation authorities to regulate these test systems (if lighter than 150kg,
otherwise EASA becomes involved.). Typically, this could imply requirements regarding the
airworthiness of the system, requirements for the operator and the operation. Moreover, the airspace
around these tests will be temporarily closed for other airspace users using a NOTAM (Restricted
Area) or in some cases a temporary Danger Area is put in place. Due to sparseness of these tests,
there is no need for European harmonisation, hence there is a large variety in requirements posed
by the national aviation authorities.

Within Europe, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is the competent authority regarding
the European aviation regulations. Currently, regulations for RPAS, or commonly known as drones,
are under development. Within the new proposed regulations EASA for RPAS published in 2014
(NPA-2014-09), being tethered is seen as a type of operation for RPAS. This is an important
development for AWES because it is expected that AWES will fall within this type of operation.
However, in some situations a tether is used as a mitigation measure to prevent the RPAS to fly away
uncontrolled and provides a requirement for RPAS to be operated near or above crowds.

Additionally, certification specifications (CS) are being developed for a specific type of AWES in
coordination with an AWES developer. These certification specifications serve as a basis for the
certification of an AWES. The specification contains requirements for the system from an aviation
safety perspective. This involves among others the requirements for the airworthiness of the airborne
vehicle, the control station on the ground and also the datalink between them.

There is a difference in position between Europe (EASA) and the United States (the FAA). In the
United States, the FAA excludes tethered aircraft, and hence AWES, from unmanned aircraft 100. The
FAA regards AWES purely as obstacles and therefore different types of regulations apply. They
conclude that AWES deployment needs to be studied on a case-by-case basis with respect to the
surrounding aviation environment to ensure aviation safety. It is expected that this difference in
position implies that it is less effort to obtain an approval for AWES in the United States than in
Europe. This difference in position between the FAA and EASA could also become relevant when a
company wants to deploy AWES operations in Europe and also the United States. It needs to comply
with two different sets of regulations.

99
Altitudes may vary from country to country
100
Federal Aviation Administration, Integration of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System
(NAS) Roadmap”, First editiona, November 2013.and FAA, “Notification for Airborne Wind Energy Systems” FAA-2011-
1279, December 2011.

54 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

2.4 Overview on resource potential

Airborne wind energy systems have been considered for heights of several kilometres in the past 101.
In this space, no other technology is currently deployed for the generation of electricity. Conventional
wind turbines may reach heights of 200-300 m at their upper tip, but it seems likely that the size
development will level off and heights significantly beyond 300 m will not be reached with these
turbines. 102

Current prototypes of AWES fly at similar heights as large conventional wind turbines, which is due
to their relatively small size, air traffic regulations and the relationship between the size of the flying
structure and the tether- allowing effective use of long tethers only with larger flying structures.
Assuming multi-megawatt AWES are deployed 103, at some stage they will reach higher altitude levels
above ground. When all technical issues are solved, this may still be limited by the airspace made
available to AWES exploitation, see 2.3.

Airborne wind energy resources have recently been analysed by Bechtle et al. (2018). 104 The results
from this analysis have not been integrated in this report.

2.4.1 Gross resource potential

The gross resource potential of wind energy, when considering the energy contained in the wind, has
been modelled to be large enough to cover the energy needs of humanity several times over already
for heights of 80m 105. It was estimated that, when using sites with wind speeds above 6.9m/s, the
potential to be harvested is 630,720 TWh per year. For Europe it has been estimated that about
73.3% of the land area have wind speeds below 5.9m/s at this height and between 5.9m/s and 6.9m/s
on 12.5% of the land area. Only the remaining 14.2% of land area exhibit higher wind speeds and
have been considered in the estimate above 106. Sites with such wind speeds are considered to be
very good sites for development of conventional wind energy. When considering the theoretical gross
resource potential in the air column up to 10,000 m, it is by orders of magnitude larger 107. We note
that, currently, developers are not pursuing these heights and are focusing their efforts on heights of
108,109,110,111, 112).
up to 500 m (for example

Open databases of daily measurements with radiosondes exist 113 and can be used for estimates of
the potential of AWES. However, detailed measurements suitable for accurately estimating the
potential for AWES are not yet available for a relevant number of sites as most (long-term, high
resolution) measurements are limited to met masts which usually have a height of up to 100 m.

101
Archer and Caldeira, supra note 26.
102
Gambier et al., supra note 12.
103
Some developers envision altitudes >500m for early concepts of dancing kites
104
Bechtle, P., M. Schelbergen, R. Schmehl, U. Zillmann and S. Watson (2018), Airborne Wind Energy Resource Analysis,
Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (submitted), https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.07718
105
Archer and Jacobson, supra note 23.
106
Ibid.
107
Archer and Caldeira, supra note 26.
108
EnerKite, supra note 48.
109
Ampyx Power, supra note 31.
110
TwingTec, supra note 71.
111
Makani, supra note 37.
112
Kitepower, Kitepower website (2017), available online at https://kitepower.nl/ (last visited 20 April 2018).
113
NOAA/ESRL Radiosonde Database: https://ruc.noaa.gov/raobs/.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 55

 2.4.2 Technical resource potential
The technical resource potential considers the part of the gross resource potential which may be
reached by AWES currently being investigated. While 40 MW rotor craft units in the jet stream have
been considered theoretically in the past 114, current technology is focused on achieving commercial
units up to 3.5 MW utilizing crosswind. Larger units are only considered as distant future visions, for
instance by Skysails, where 7 MW are mentioned as potential unit sizes after stepping stones towards
3.5 MW 115.

Based on weather model data, AWES installed onshore could already cover the world electricity
needs when flying in heights of up to 3000 m 116. However, at least for the time being, heights of
3000 m will not be reached with the planned units. Currently, maximum heights of up to 1500 m are
envisioned by companies and research institutes., the technical resource available to functioning,
large scale AWES would be higher than for conventional wind.

It is assumed that flying heights of between 200 m and 1000 m will be the most beneficial, as
increases of the average wind speed between 1000 m and 4000 m are estimated to be limited 117,
and the drawback of having extremely long tethers becomes predominant. This is a technical reason
for the current focus on AWES which potentially would operate in heights of up to 500 m.

Fully developed AWES in the future are envisioned to be flexible with regard to their operating
altitude. This would improve the technical potential as the position and flight path of the units can be
adjusted to local wind conditions - flying in the height with the best resource. The same flexibility
potentially allows having more dense AWES farms than conventional wind farms, by exploiting
different altitude layers between any two subsequent rows of generators, in order to limit the wake
effects 118. Densities of 16 units per square kilometre are considered feasible when operation at
different heights is realised.

Preliminary studies have been conducted using daily collected wind data at selected locations over
a period of more than 10 years. These data have been processed through a predicted power curve
of AWES at large scale (considering GG-AWES with pumping cycle and 2-MW rated cycle power),
to come up with an estimate of the achievable capacity factors, reported in Table 2.7118. Part of these
results has been published in “High-Altitude Wind Power Generation” 119. As said, this analysis should
be refined and consolidated using higher-frequency data (measurements once or twice per day have
been used) and after validating the power curve against real system performance. On the other hand,
the use of ten years of daily data gives some statistical robustness to these numbers, particularly
concerning the wind speed figures. An example of empirical probability densities obtained in two of
the sites listed in Table 2.7 is shown in Figure 2.10.

114
Roberts et al., supra note 25.
115
SkySails Power, supra note 47.
116
Archer, Delle Monache and Rife, ‘Airborne wind energy: Optimal locations and variability’, 64 Renewable Energy (2014)
180.
117
Fraunhofer Institut für Windenergie und Energiesystemtechnik (IWES), supra note 12.
118
L. Fagiano, “Control of Tethered Airfoils for High-Altitude Wind Energy Generation - Advanced control methods as key
technologies for a breakthrough in renewable energy generation”, PhD thesis, Politecnico di Torino, 2009
http://hdl.handle.net/11311/1006424.
119
Fagiano, L., M. Milanese, and D. Piga. “High-Altitude Wind Power Generation.” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion
25, no. 1 (2010): 168–180.

56 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

Table 2.7 Average wind speed, in the ranges 50-150 m and 200-800 m above the ground, and estimated
Capacity Factors of a 2-MW wind turbine and of a 2-MW-average-cycle-power GG-AWES for 25 sites
around the world. Data collected daily form January 1st, 1996 to December 31st, 2006 using the
NOAA/RAOB database 120. Analysis from118
Site Average wind speed (m/s) Estimated Capacity Factor
50-150 m 200-800 m 2-MW Wind 2-MW GG-AWES
turbine
Bandar Abbas 1.5 5.6 0.02 0.32
Bodø 6.9 8.7 0.28 0.56
Brindisi 7.2 8.5 0.31 0.60
Buenos Aires 5.7 9.1 0.18 0.63
Cagliari 7.2 8.2 0.31 0.56
Calcutta 2.8 5.6 0.02 0.31
Casablanca 2.4 7.0 0.03 0.45
De Bilt 8.0 10.7 0.36 0.71
Leba 8.1 10.1 0.38 0.71
Linate 0.7 5.9 0.01 0.33
Melbourne 5.2 8.7 0.15 0.56
Misawa 4.4 7.8 0.11 0.50
Murcia 2.6 5.9 0.03 0.35
Nenjiang 2.7 5.2 0.04 0.30
Nice 4.5 5.8 0.09 0.33
Nottingham 1.3 5.3 0.01 0.31
Point Barrow 6.6 8.8 0.25 0.59
Port Elizabeth 7.5 8.9 0.20 0.58
Porto Alegre 4.9 7.5 0.13 0.52
Pratica di Mare 6.2 7.4 0.23 0.49
St. Cristobal 6.0 6.5 0.15 0.44
St. Petersburg 4.1 8.5 0.10 0.59
Taipei 1.5 5.6 0.02 0.32
Trapani 7.1 8.3 0.30 0.56
Udine 1.5 5.6 0.02 0.32

Figure 2.10 Empirical probability density functions obtained using 10 years of daily wind measurements
at de Bilt (NL, left) and Linate (IT, right) at the altitude where conventional wind turbine operate (black),
and where large-scale AWES are targeted to operate (grey). Processed data from118.

120
NOAA/ESRL Radiosonde Database: https://ruc.noaa.gov/raobs/.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 57

 Assuming that AWES are developed towards commercial deployment, the technical potential can be
roughly estimated with the following approach. When considering only onshore sites in EU-28 states
with wind speeds below 5.9m/s at 80m height, an AWES density of 16 per km² for 2 MW systems, a
system availability of 80% and a capacity factor of 30%, the yearly potential can be estimated to
121).
216,060 TWh (based on simulations in The yearly potential for the remaining areas with better
wind resource is estimated to 157,410 TWh, based on an assumed capacity factor of 60%. This
results in an overall onshore potential of 373,470 TWh for Europe. The potential for offshore
application would be a multiple of this. The potential for conventional wind turbines can be assumed
to be in a similar range, but some areas will have too low wind speeds for economic operation.

2.4.3 Net resource potential

As is described in 2.3, much of the air space is already regulated and exclusion areas exist which
limit the areas available for AWES deployment. Other exclusion areas which are applicable include:
• Inhabited areas;
• Industrial areas;
• Nature reserves and other protected areas.

Around these areas, distance requirements exist depending on local, national or international
regulations. Conventional wind turbine distance requirements require wind turbines to be sited as
much as ten times their maximum height away from the next residential area 122. Should something
similar be implemented for AWES, available space may be very limited in Europe for utility scale
onshore application considering the envisioned flight level of up to 1500 m. For conventional wind
power in Germany it has been estimated that 14.9% of the land area could be developed with wind
power when applying moderate restrictions 123. Even with very restrictive assumptions, for instance
excluding wind energy in forests, 1% of the land area could be used for wind power. Assuming that
regulatory and technical solutions are found which allow similar absolute distances between AWES
and exclusion areas as with conventional wind turbines, the space available will be in this range for
all of Europe.

When considering the technical potential, this results in an overall net potential of 3,734 TWh (1%
land use) to 55,647 TWh (14.9% land use) for onshore AWES application, covering respectively
between 19% and 300% of the total primary energy demand of EU-28, and about 120% to 1800% of
its total electricity generation as measured in 2015 124. To give an idea of the feasibility of the land
usage mentioned above, 1% to 1.3% of land-use is deemed feasible in countries like Denmark and
the Netherlands 125. Currently, the penetration of conventional wind in Denmark is estimated to be
0.9% of land use, supplying electricity equivalent to about 40% of its consumption in 2015 126. We
stress that there is a high degree of uncertainty in these figures, which still need to be proven by field
observations.

121
Archer and Jacobson, supra note 23.
122
Windenergie-Erlass, 2016; BayWEE.
123
D. Callies, ‘Analyse des Potenzials der Onshore-Windenergie in Deutschland unter Berücksichtigung von technischen und
planerischen Randbedingungen’ (2014) (Doctoral Thesisat Universität Kassel).
124
Eurostat, Electricity production, consumption and market overview in EU-28, Data extracted in June 2017.
125
EEA Technical report No 6/2009 “Europe's onshore and offshore wind energy potential”, EEA, Copenhagen, 2009.
126
Danish Energy Regulatory Authority, “National Report Denmark - Status for 2016”, 2017, available online:
http://energitilsynet.dk/fileadmin/Filer/Information/Diverse_publikationer_og_artikler/National_Report_2017_DERA.pdf.

58 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

2.5 Markets

2.5.1 Criteria
The markets which can be developed for AWES will depend on a range of criteria: the technical fit,
the market size, the regulatory fit, the cost performance and the competition. Different use cases can
be derived from these criteria.

Technical fit
AWES are currently under development in different sizes:
• With a rated power of less than 1 kW, for the use as a single units anywhere (e.g. outdoor gear);
• With a rated power between approximately 100 kW and 500 kW, for single use or in wind farm
configuration, for use in remote locations or single large consumers;
• With a rated power greater than one megawatt, with the main use in on- or offshore wind farm
configuration, for on-grid use in areas of no space constraint and with any kind of wind resource.

Market size
The market size determines the economies of scale which can be reached and thus the cost per unit
which may be achieved. It has a direct impact on the LCOE. On the other hand, different markets
may, independent of their size, have different acceptable price levels depending on the availability of
alternatives. This is true for niche markets as well as larger markets (for example coastal areas with
occasional extreme winds).

Regulatory fit
The economic potential for AWES will strongly depend on the space being made available through
legislation and regulation. This is especially true for onshore application where there is a high risk of
collateral damage in case of system failure. But it may also be true for offshore application in case of
competing uses of space.

Cost Performance
The cost of commercial AWES can thus far only be roughly estimated, as no AWES with fully
automated and continuous operation, let alone a commercial product, is yet available. Several
estimates have been published in the past years for different sizes and designs of AWES. These
estimates often come from the developers themselves or research institutions actively developing
functionalities for AWES.

LCOE has been estimated to be between 46€/MWh 127,128 and 150€/MWh 129 (for an overview of
LCOE estimates, we refer to Annex I). We stress that the uncertainty in these estimates is very high
and that some industry players state confidence in realising lower ranges for suitable sites. For larger
units and large wind farms a positive impact is expected 130,131;132. These estimates often point out
the cost savings in comparison to conventional wind power, where a large share of the cost stems
from the material that needs to be used in the foundation, the tower and the blades. In principle, this
increases the capital expenditure of conventional wind, while operational expenditure is relatively low
for conventional wind because no fuel needs to be bought and the major components of modern wind
turbines have a long lifetime.

127
EnerKite, EnerKite website (2017), available online at http://www.enerkite.de/ (last visited 19 September 2017).
128
‘Abschlussbericht OnKites II: Untersuchung zu den Potentialen von Flugwindenergieanlagen (FWEA) Phase II’ (2017).
129
Kitepower, Kitepower website (2017), available online at https://kitepower.nl/ (last visited 19 September 2017).
130
Skypull, Skypull homepage (2017), available online at http://skypull.com (last visited 28 September 2017).
131
Fagiano, L., M. Milanese, and D. Piga. “High-Altitude Wind Power Generation.” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion
25, no. 1 (2010): 168–180.
132
Faggiani and Schmehl, ‘Chapter 16 Design and Economics of a Pumping Kite Wind Park’, Airborne Wind Energy 2017
(2017).

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 59

 As no long-term operation information exists yet for AWES, a well-founded estimate of operational
cost is even more difficult than the estimate of the material cost of the initial hardware, making a split
between capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operational expenditure (OPEX) potentially even more
uncertain than a combined estimate where errors may cancel each other out.

The yearly cost of operation and maintenance, including replacement material, has been estimated
to more than 20% (equal to 22,600€/year) of the investment cost (98,800€) for the initial hardware of
a 100 kW rated power flexible kite system onshore, not considering installation and
decommissioning 133. Assuming a lifetime of 20 years, the resulting OPEX would be in a range of
50%, depending on assumed cost of capital. This estimate is based on an onshore wind farm of 49
small AWES 134.

For the Ampyx AP4 2 MW on a floating foundation, CAPEX has been estimated to approximately
3.8m€/MW 135. When comparing this to Carbon Trust estimates for floating offshore wind, it would lie
between the pre-commercial status and the commercial status of conventional wind turbines on
floating foundations, which are estimated to have CAPEX of 4.7m€/MW and 3m€/MW respectively.
OPEX has been estimated to 110,000€/MW/year 136 which would be only slightly higher than the
100,000€/MW/year which have been estimated for commercial conventional floating wind 137138. The
same study points out further cost reduction potential for floating AWES due to the early phase of
development it is in 139. Skysails has calculated CAPEX for a 2MW floating offshore unit at
1.25m€/MW, based on their experience with marine kite systems 140.

For a large scale flying generator offshore system (Makani), OPEX has been estimated to more than
20% of the lifecycle cost, due to the increased cost for the base-structure when going offshore 141.
When considering onshore application, the share would potentially rise also to approximately 50%
due to the lower cost of the foundation and thus overall lower LCOE.

Current onshore multi megawatt wind turbines in 2017 were priced in the range of 740,000 €/MW 142.
For Germany, OPEX for multi-megawatt wind turbines has been estimated to 24.1€/MWh 143, so
approximately 50,000€/MW/year. This is significantly lower than the small scale soft wing or the large
scale rigid wing AWES presented above. However, these estimates are based on the limited
information currently available and cost reduction should be possible in case the technology is
commercialized and reaches significant scale.

All of the published estimates are based on the experience of building small scale prototypes and
very limited operational experience. Due to this, the currently available LCOE estimates have a large
uncertainty attached to them and should be revised when the first large scale prototypes have proven
long-term continuous automated operation. Because of the large uncertainty attached to the current
estimates, it seems reasonable not to consider LCOE in discussions beyond a general outlook on
potential cost when AWES are commercialized.

133
Ibid.
134
Ibid.
135
Ampyx Power et al., supra note 46.
136
Ibid.
137
Ibid.
138
‘Floating Offshore Wind: Market and Technology Review’ (2015).
139
Ampyx Power et al., supra note 46.
140
Direct communication with Skysails
141
Fort Felker, ‘Progress and Challenges in Airborne Wind Energy: Keynote at AWEC2017’ (Freiburg, 2017).
142
Vestas, supra note 56.
143
DWG, ‘Weiterbetrieb von Windenergieanlagen nach 2020’ (2016).

60 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

Competition
For many on-grid applications, the competition may be conventional wind power and photovoltaic.
Prices achieved for conventional onshore wind were as low as 30$/MWh in Morocco in 2016 144. In
Germany, the first onshore tender yielded prices as low as 42€/MWh 145. Large scale photovoltaic can
reach as low prices in countries with good irradiation 146.

Based on the above LCOE estimates and these tender results, AWES will initially not be on par with
the conventional wind turbines available for deployment in large wind farms (>100 MW) in places with
good wind resource. However, for smaller projects in low wind resource areas and especially for off-
grid use where mobility is an upside, AWES in different sizes could be competitive. Assuming a typical
learning curve of new technologies, AWES might later undercut conventional wind power, although
this is still highly uncertain.

For off-grid applications, AWES aim to replace diesel generators and the fuel which needs to be
transported to the remote locations. Prices above 300€/MWh are often considered for such
applications. The renewables competition is likely to come from photovoltaic in combination with
storage due to similar mobility. However, combinations of AWES, photovoltaic and storage may be a
good solution with optimized cost due to more balanced electricity production, use of two independent
sources and lower storage needs.

AWES do have some characteristics which would make them attractive for application even in case
of higher or similar LCOE:
• AWES require significantly less material than conventional wind turbines to produce the same
amount of electricity (about 10% of the material of a similarly rated wind turbine is typically
assumed 147). Construction and installation costs might thus become lower by an extent of at least
50%;
• The capacity factor which can be reached by AWES has been calculated to be high due to the
flexibility to choose the operating height. It is expected to exceed 60% for mature systems in good
sites at low altitude 148;
• When applied in a wind farm configuration, AWES may in the future be synchronized in such a
way that the produced electricity is phase-shifted for rows of turbines, resulting in more continuous
production than conventional wind. Altitude ranges can be optimized as well, limiting the wake
effects and reaching densities of units per unit area 50% to 100% higher than conventional
wind 149;Many AWES are being designed as mobile solutions 150 151, making them interesting for
applications which only require a commitment for short or medium durations (<5 years).
• Offshore AWES require a simpler floating structure which is favourable for cost competitiveness
and may allow deployment in both deep and shallow waters. Lower exerted powers may also
allow retrofitting of existing (fixed) offshore structures.
• Onshore on grid AWES can reduce the need of transporting wind energy from coast and offshore
into land-locked areas with high-quality wind at higher altitudes

144
IRENA, ‘Renewable Energy Auctions: Analysing 2016’ (Abu Dhabi, 2017).
145
DWG, ‘Status des Windenergieausbaus an Land in Deutschland: 1. Halbjahr 2017’ (2017).
146
IRENA, supra note 73.
147
Zillmann and Bechtle, ‘Chapter 1 Emergence and Economic Dimension of Airborne Wind Energy’, Airborne Wind Energy
2017 (2017).
148
L. Fagiano, ‘Control of Tethered Airfoils for High-Altitude Wind Energy Generation: Advanced control methods as key
technologies for a breakthrough in renewable energy generation’ (2009) (at Politecnico di Torino, Turin).
149
Ibid.
150
EnerKite, supra note 64.
151
TwingTec, supra note 71.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 61

 2.5.2 Use-cases
The world electricity market is expected to grow to 47,700 TWh/year by 2050. 152 This is the overall
market in which the AWES manufacturers are interested in the long term on the course to a low
carbon energy system. Europe represents approximately 10% of this market 153. Most of this market
is on-grid.

Below, several use-cases are presented which each represent part of this overall market.

Onshore off-grid
Off-grid application has a large short-term potential as AWES would compete with diesel which needs
to be transported to generators. Thus, an LCOE of less than 300€/MWh is assumed to be needed.
In the case of off-grid solutions, the mobility of AWES is an asset, as the currently planned units
should be possible to install simply and with little additional infrastructure requirements. After the use
case has passed, the unit can be mobilized again and can be deployed elsewhere, leaving the owner
without a stranded asset. For these markets, pumping kite units with a rated power of up to several
hundred kilowatts are being developed, catering to the energy needs of such applications (Enerkite,
Kitepower, TwingTec, Kitemill).

Potential first clients are the military, emergency organisations or mines who need flexible systems
(i.e. that need to be moved after relatively short time, e.g. 2-5 years) in remote locations. Some of
these also feature fewer restrictions due to regulations. In addition, personnel is typically close,
allowing for solutions which require an operator nearby, circumventing the need for fully automated
and continuous operation over longer periods of time.

For micro- solutions, a market may also exist for such things as pumping water from wells. Here may
also the wind turbine carrying kind of AWES play a role, in case the required amount of electricity is
very small. The low initial cost of setting up the system may also be attractive for regions with high
risk of disaster, as the lower investment cost also reduces the capital at risk in case disaster strikes.
For many locations, photovoltaic is a likely competitor, as the transport to site is similarly simple.
However, installation would likely be easier for AWES and the production more distributed over the
day, reducing the storage requirements in case this plays a role.

The global market for such small scale solutions is ca. 400 GW based on installed diesel generators
for use in remote areas 154. With the move from fossil fuels to renewables, AWES might catch a
relatively large percentage of this due to their mobility and ease of installation. However, in most
cases this would likely happen in a combination with storage and other renewables to provide safety
of supply, and safety constraints might hinder deployment close to or within the built environment.

Onshore on-grid
First commercial units are envisioned by several companies in the next three years. As an example,
one of these units would be a containerized 100 kW AWES with a target levelized cost of electricity
of 85 €/MWh (the EK200-7.5 pumping kite by Enerkite). Such units would be suitable for behind the
meter installation by medium to large consumers in rural areas, as they are planned to already
compete with the consumer price for electricity. However, the potential is limited by space constraints
in such countries as Germany and the Netherlands. Application in other countries should prove to be
easier as necessary distances to living areas etc. can be kept more easily. The potential for grid
connected production is currently further limited by the very low cost of alternatives such as

152
IRENA, ‘Accelerating the Energy Transition through Innovation’ (2017).
153
EC, ‘Impact Assessment: Accompanying the document: Communication from the Commission to te Council, the European
Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Energy Roadmap 2050’
(2011).
154
IRENA, ‘Off-grid renewable energy systems: Status and methodological issues’ (2015).

62 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

photovoltaic, biogas and conventional wind. The overall market potential will only be possible to
determine when distance requirements have been defined. These distance requirements will be
defined through technical requirements on the one hand –the quantified risk to the surrounding area-
and political decisions on the other- what distances will the people living close to AWES accept?

Micro and mini grids, for instance on islands, are another market for different sizes of AWES. Usually,
electricity prices on islands are higher than on the main land, due to the use of imported fuel for
electricity production, as has been presented for Cyprus 155. This is more pronounced on small and
medium sized islands. The increased logistical effort necessary to install electricity generators on an
island would improve the business case for AWES. This is also true when comparing AWES with
conventional wind turbines due to easier installation without a large crane. In Europe alone, some
2400 inhabited islands with 15 million inhabitants 156 could provide an overall market of approximately
60 TWh/year where different sizes of AWES might capture a significant share 157. A key competitor
would be photovoltaic, but a combination of the two with storage would provide reliability benefits.

The medium-term goal for several developers is grid parity with large, multi-megawatt units. This
could provide a large impact on the electricity production by renewable resources. However, it
requires low-cost units capable of replacing conventional wind power or being built in areas where
conventional wind power could not be deployed economically, for instance in areas with low wind
resource.

Solutions are envisioned with rigid wing and flexible wing as well as for airborne generation and
ground based generation- in all cases in cross-wind operation (Ampyx, Makani, KPS, Skysails). For
most locations on the main land, conventional wind and photovoltaic are seen as the main
competitors due to their low cost. It is likely that AWES will need to provide additional benefits beyond
their cost to compete on-grid as well. The worldwide market targeted is the already mentioned
47,700 TWh/year of electricity required by 2050.

For Europe the market is estimated to some 4,800 TWh/year. Assuming competitive prices, most of
this market would be of interest. The share which AWES would finally compete for would depends
on market price developments and available space. As was presented in 2.4, wind resource
availability is not likely to be an issue. However, conflicting land use may be strongly limiting if
distance requirements and exclusion zones become more strict than for conventional wind. This will
depend on safety on the one hand but also on political and local support/ opposition. Should
restrictions be similar to conventional wind, space availability should not be a limiting factor. However,
suitable distances still need to be investigated in detail.

Repowering conventional onshore wind farms with AWES instead of new HAWT may also be of
interest onshore, in case constraints exist, for instance regarding upgrades to the previously installed
infrastructure. AWES could be installed with the infrastructure in place and provide a boost in energy
production through a higher capacity factor, where modern wind turbines would most likely require
an upgrade to the roads and potentially the electrical network as well. However, in this case distance
requirements may again be a strong limiting factor in Europe especially.

Offshore on-grid
Offshore AWES are currently being developed. The offshore environment poses additional
challenges with the corrosive environment, bio-fouling and adverse weather conditions during
installation and maintenance, increasing the system lifecycle cost significantly. For conventional

155
IRENA, ‘Renewable Energy Roadmap for the Republic of Cyprus’ (Abu Dhabi, 2015).
156
EC, ‘Clean Energy for Islands Initiative’ (2017).
157
Estimate, based on IRENA, supra note 131.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 63

 wind, this is balanced by space availability and a higher number of full load hours/ annual energy
production. Some experience of operating kites offshore exists already through the marine propulsion
kites of the company Skysails.

For the year 2023 it is envisioned that AWES can be placed on existing offshore wind foundations
after the previous conventional wind turbines have been decommissioned (AMPYX with E.ON) 158.
For this, a 2 MW rigid wing system is supposed to be developed. The advantage of this approach is
the larger distance to residential and other restricted areas in case of failures. For this specific use-
case, the market would be limited to the repowering of existing offshore wind farms. This will be in
the range of a few hundred megawatts in the coming years. The business case of this solution would
benefit from the existing foundations and delayed decommissioning costs of the initial offshore wind
farm. The advantage of this use-case is lower competition, as the alternative would be to
decommission the wind farm completely before the area can be used for other purposes.

Beyond this repowering solution, AWES could also be deployed in offshore greenfield projects
assuming they become cost competitive with conventional offshore wind power. This deployment
could either be realized with a fixed or with a floating platform, with all cross-wind kite concepts. One
additional advantage of offshore wind is the relatively short distance to load centres where space
onshore is very limited. While there are exclusion areas, space limitations are not an issue for
installations offshore. The market addressed is the same as for onshore and was estimated to
47,700TWh/year by 2050. Again, the size of the offshore AWES market will depend on the
competitiveness of offshore AWES compared to other renewable solutions on- and offshore, as the
roll-out potential will depend on competition for available space. For conventional offshore wind, it
has been estimated that all of Europe’s electricity demand could be easily covered at an LCOE below
65€/MWh 159, making this a benchmark for an LCOE of future, large scale offshore installations for
AWES:

Offshore off-grid
Plans exist to use floating wind turbines to power oil and gas platforms. This could be achieved with
floating AWES as well and would provide a near-term market for arrays of megawatt scale AWES.
Current estimates aim for an LCOE in the range of120€/MWh for floating 2 MW AWES 160.

Also, for offshore applications with AWES very far from the coast, it may become feasible to store
the produced electricity as hydrogen or in other kinds of storage. This stored energy could be
transported onshore either in pipelines or with vessels and be used to power load centres.

While the powering of platforms may be realized nearly without additional infrastructure beyond the
floating AWES, the large scale application of AWES would require additional large infrastructure. In
both cases, AWES would need to compete with conventional offshore wind turbines on a price basis.
The market size of these applications is unclear as it would depend on the storage media and their
use. The large scale application would probably only materialize when significant installations are
likely- due to the required infrastructure and associated cost. If this market materializes, it is likely to
do so only after the other markets have been successfully entered and developed.

Applications of AWES as a means to provide electricity to vessels have also been initially investigated
and may be part of a solution to decarbonize sea transport, however, it is not clear how large this
contribution could be. More promising may be the direct use of kites in propulsion of vessels, as was
developed in the past by the company Skysails.

158
Ampyx Power, supra note 30.
159
‘ Unleashing Europe’s offshore wind potential: A new resource assessment’ (2017).
160
Ampyx Power et al., supra note 46.

64 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

2.6 Conclusions

Concepts for airborne wind energy have been first developed in the 1970s. However, most effort has
only taken place since the turn of the century, when technology finally made it seem feasible to realise
this technology. Many concepts are still under investigation, but not all have even reached the
prototyping stage.

AWES technology development faces various technological and regulatory challenges. The concept
is much more innovative and its control is much more complex than for conventional wind turbines,
resulting in much longer development times and no fully automated and continuous operation yet.
The most advanced companies have reached TRL 4-5 with their respective prototypes. Technical
challenges remaining are for instance continuous, automated operation, including repeated take-off,
operation, landing cycles, and operation in adverse weather conditions. Other challenges need to be
tackled in the area of regulations, as the current regulations do not consider AWES and their specific
parameters.

Assuming AWES are proven in operation and space is made available to their deployment, the
technology seems to have the potential to produce significant amounts of electricity. There is a
qualitative case for that this could be realized at relatively low cost. This is be largely due to the fact
that AWES use a lot less material than conventional wind turbines, making the cost of the units less
dependent on resource prices. Due to their operating principle and envisioned flexibility in operating
height, AWES are expected to produce electricity for more hours per year than conventional wind
turbines, providing smoother electricity output throughout the year than conventional wind turbines.
If this would materialize, it would allow minimizing the need for storage or other balancing equipment.
The different configurations currently under development would each be likely to have advantages
for different locations, wind conditions and use cases assuming they can be commercialized. This
qualitative case will have to be substantiate further quantitatively once the technology further
matures.

Assuming that AWES are developed towards commercial use, the different use cases described
above offer substantial deployment potential. However, they need to become competitive with ever
cheaper existing renewable energy sources. Their lower use of material and expected higher capacity
factor would be key factors supporting the technology.

Table 2.8 provides an idea regarding the different markets which AWES might enter: AWES in the
range 100 kW would potentially be available first for commercial use, as they are aimed at markets
with higher electricity prices while their size class is already being tested now. However, the market
would be comparatively small. Following small remote installations, the next use-cases to materialize
would be expected to be electricity production for island grids.

Assuming that large scale units in the range of one MW and more are realized, it can be argued that
these would be first installed outside of Europe, where regulations and space availability are more
favourable. However, there is no clear consensus in the sector on the geographical location of entry
markets for large scale production, since this is affected by several factors including, among others,
possible incentives, social acceptance aspects and the availability of sites, In Europe the repowering
of old offshore wind foundations might be the first step into large, grid connected production. Onshore
deployment in Europe might happen as behind the meter installations in rural areas at a similar time
with mid-scale units. Beyond these applications would be the greenfield installation on- and offshore
with even larger units, assuming those become available. This would also dependent strongly on
proven safe operation and public acceptance. The largest units would likely be deployed offshore,
where space limitations are less pronounced.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 65

 From a regulatory perspective, AWES devices will likely operate in airspace class G. We expect that
operations above this airspace class, which is mostly around 750 meters, will not be feasible.

Table 2.8 Overview of potential markets with the expected unit sizes at which AWES might become
available assuming reliable continuous, automated operation.
Potential market Unit size
Small scale, off –grid Small units, not fully automated
Emergency relief, Military Small to medium units, fully or not fully automated
Mining operation Medium units
Micro-grid/ islands Medium units
On-grid behind the meter Medium units
On-grid onshore Large units
Re-using foundations of traditional offshore wind (on- Large units
grid)
Greenfield offshore (on-grid) Large units
O&G platforms (off-grid) Large units
Deep offshore (off-grid) Large units
Source: study team.
NB. For various markets, developers expect to realise arrays of devices.

For Europe, especially the use in offshore applications seems promising, as the available space
would allow large scale deployment of AWES wind farms with smaller safety concerns and at lower
regulatory hurdles than would be the case for onshore. However, the additional offshore environment
challenges such as corrosion and bio-fouling would need to be managed.

The onshore on-grid application would have a large potential market as well, but depends very much
on very safe operation and favourable regulations regarding distances to inhabited and protected
areas as well as conflicting use of airspace. Due to the higher availability of uninhabited areas, outside
of Europe, Onshore On-grid applications would be likely easier to realize and to a larger extent.

The off-grid application has only limited application in Europe due to the good grid availability. Off-
grid use would be more relevant on other continents.

66 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

3 Barriers to AWES development

3.1 Introduction

In this chapter, we provide an overview and analysis of technological and non-technological barriers
to AWES development. The basis for this analysis is a total of 38 non-structured interviews with
stakeholders from the sector (see section 1.2 for details). Chapter 4 will delineate the measures we
propose to address the specific challenges that follow from these barriers. Subsequently, chapter 5
and 6 will outline our recommendations on how, when, and by whom these barriers should be
addressed.

As a first step, we have structured the barriers into categories and subcategories. To this purpose,
we have developed a schematic overview of barriers (see Figure 3.1 below).

We have discerned three main categories of barriers:

1. Exogenous Conditions. These barriers relate to the potential of resource sites, and can only be
addressed indirectly through tailoring technological concepts. We have broken down these
barriers into Spatial and airspace footprint, Resource potential and Extreme weather conditions;
2. Industry and Market. Ownership of addressing these barriers lies within the private domain. We
have broken down these barriers into the subcategories Component readiness, System safety
and reliability and Economic performance;
3. Public Support and regulatory barriers. Addressing these types of barriers requires the right
conditions and/or support provided by the public domain. We have broken down these barriers
into the subcategories Social acceptability, Environmental impacts, Funding availability and
Regulatory environment.

Central to both technological and non-technological barriers are the Levelized Cost of Electricity of
AWES technologies and the risk associated with investing in AWES projects. 161 Both LCOE and
Investment risk are influenced by a wide range of barriers, either directly or indirectly. They can be
important indicators for the state of play of technology development. However, we do not analyse
these as separate categories, as they do not provide insight in underlying problems and how these
can be addressed.

As a second step, we have assessed what types of barriers stakeholders have pointed to in the
interviews. In addition, we analysed how these results vary by type of stakeholder, to see how
different types of stakeholders perceive the sector. The table below indicate the relative importance
of the seven types of barriers (based on relative frequency of answers to the question of barrier
identification), specified for several types of stakeholders.

161
LCOE calculations are of course able to discount risk into the final LCOE figure, implying that it is possible to arrive at a
single metric. In our overview of barriers, we have nonetheless separated these concepts, considering the importance of
the concept of investment risk for technologies which are not yet fully mature.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 67

 Table 3.1 Identification of types of barriers by stakeholder category, expressed as the relative frequency
(%) of identification of the barrier (N=38, semi-structured interviews)
Type of barrier Academic Business Public All
stakeholders stakeholders stakeholders stakeholders
System readiness 31% 16% 10% 17%
System safety and 8% 9% 5% 8%
reliability
Economic 38% 24% 19% 25%
Performance
Social acceptability 0% 9% 5% 7%
and environmental
impact
Funding availability 15% 12% 24% 15%
Regulatory 8% 25% 29% 24%
environment
Exogenous 0% 4% 10% 5%
conditions
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: Ecorys.

According to Table 3.2, business, including developer and industry representatives, point towards
both technological and non-technological barriers. With respect to the latter, the economic
performance of the system and the regulatory framework it should operate in, appear to be more on
their minds than the right exogenous conditions, social acceptability or funding availability. Regarding
the technological barriers, businesses appear to be predominately occupied with system readiness
(continuous autonomic operation) rather than the system’s reliability or operation in extreme weather
conditions. This is considered to reflect that most developers are currently aiming to tackle the
challenge of automated continuous operations. Similarly, academic stakeholders emphasize the
barriers related to the system’s readiness, economic performance and funding availability. Most
emphasis from academic stakeholders is on the system’s readiness as most pressing theoretical and
technological barrier. Public stakeholders on their part most often mentioned barriers related to the
regulatory environment and funding availability. Academic and public stakeholders mention funding
availability relatively more than businesses do.

68 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

Figure 3.1 Overview of categorisation barriers affecting the Investment risk and LCOE of AWES technologies

• Kite Industry and market Public support • NIMBY effects due to shadow,
• Control system noise, visibility and safety
• Tether Social acceptability
Component • Environmental impact
• Ground station
readiness Investment risk Environmental
acceptability • Fundamental • Test facilities
• Autonomous continuous research funding • Stability of
flying • R&D Funding support
• Tak e-off and landing System safety and
Funding availability • Demonstration • Investment
• Emergency & Extreme reliability
Funding derisk ing
weather robustness • Knowledge • Mark et pull
• Availability factor LCOE management instruments
Economic Regulatory & sharing
• Understanding of cost &
performance environment • Airspace regulation
risk
• Yield & Capacity factor • Safety regulation
• Supply chain readiness • Standardization
• Economies of scale • Permitting

Extreme weather
Spatial footprint Resource potential
conditions

Exogenous conditions
Source: Study team. Note: The figure shows three main categories of conditions that influence the LCOE and investment risks, These categories exist out of a sub-set of ten aspects that each could pose a
barrier in reducing LCOE and the investment risk. Subsequently, there is a range of elements for each aspects that could cause that aspect to become a barrier.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 69

 3.2 Exogenous conditions

Wind Resource
There is enough energy available in the global winds for airborne wind to be deployed successfully
and to supply a significant share of the energy mix, see also section 2.4. The wind resource which
has been modelled as available in the past has not yet been validated by measurements. In addition,
the current models have been optimized for the calculation of energy production of conventional wind
turbines. For the detailed calculation of AWES energy production, an increase in temporal resolution
would be required.

Detailed work on the resource in the heights relevant for AWES is required to de-risk the deployment
of AWES with regard to the wind resource and energy production. One specific point of interest is the
investigation of complementarity of electricity production from AWES with other energy sources, as
the share of electricity which is produced with AWES while conventional wind turbines are not
producing is likely to have a large impact on the achievable returns from AWES deployment (if
combined with time-dependent energy prices). The assessment of the suitability of AWES for a
specific site also depends on such a detailed resource assessment.

Availability
In general, the availability of wind is higher in larger heights than closer to the ground 162. However,
this is not always the case: in some areas of the world, wind speeds can be higher closer to the
ground than above at least for some periods of time. The capability of AWES to fly at different and
especially higher heights allows them to capture beneficial wind speeds more often than conventional
wind turbines. The relevant increase in availability would depend on the operating limits of AWES
with regard to minimum and maximum wind speed and minimum and maximum operating height and
the site-specific conditions.

Stability
Recent measurements have shown that the wind speed on some sites does not increase significantly
with height for large parts of the day and that wind speeds in low heights may already be optimal 163.
In the described cases, only during night time was the wind speed higher at higher altitude than at
the height of conventional wind turbines 164. For AWES to make optimal use of the available resource
this means they need to be capable to work in different heights, depending on the available resource.
When considering arrays of AWES, this may provide the opportunity to have different rows of AWES
operate at different heights during daytime and night time, providing smoother use of the tether.
However, the stability varies from region to region and site to site, requiring detailed information on
the specific site to choose the right technology, site layout and operating strategy.

Spatial and airspace footprint

AWES occupy relatively little ground on a permanent basis. Landing pads may for instance cover
some 400 m² for the next generation of prototypes (250 kW rated power) with a catapult take-off and
landing approach (Ampyx) 165. Commercial grid-connected units with 2 MW rating would have larger
pads; since these would potentially be elevated above ground level, most of the area may still be
used for agriculture. The AWES wind farm would require road access to each pad for installation and
service, but due to the relatively light weight structure, the possibility to assemble the wings in place,
and the relatively small wingspan (20 m to 40 m for larger-scale) as compared with turbine blades

162
Gambier et al., supra note 12.
163
Gambier, Bastigkeit and Nippold, supra note 104.
164
Ibid.
165
Ampyx Power, supra note 31.

70 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

(longer than 50m), roads with normal bearing capacity would be required, not heavy lift capable roads
as for conventional wind power.

AWES will occupy air space depending on their design and operational point and the wind farm
configuration. For the time being, the maximum operating height will probably be reached by lighter
than air AWES, which on the other hand will not cover significant ground. The maximum coverage
will be reached by tethered drones and pumping kites, depending on the elevation angle of their flight
pattern. Operating altitude will increase with unit size as will the radius around the ground station in
which the flying structure moves. In the beginning, the flight area of several units is unlikely to be
installed overlapping. This results in distances between the units equivalent to the maximum tether
length. As an example, this may well be a dome with a radius of 1000 m for large AWES. With
increasing experience, overlap between flight areas is likely to be introduced to reduce the airspace
required. An intermediate situation has been evaluated, where the control system of each unit
confines the operating envelope in order not to overlap with neighbouring units, see Figure 3.2 for a
conceptual representation. In the latter configuration, a density of 2-MW 16 AWES units per km2 was
estimated. To make an illustrative example of the resulting energy generation potential, in a site with
wind speed above 5.9 m/s average at 100 m from ground, such a density of units leads to an estimate
of yearly generated energy of 168.000 MWh/km2 (considering a capacity factor of 0.6 because of the
stronger wind speed, see Table 2.7. Consider now a 1.5 GW nuclear power plant. Nuclear power
plants have a no-fly zone 1000m high, with a radius of 5km. Assuming that the nuclear power plant
produces its rated power with a capacity factor of 1, the corresponding yearly energy density per km2
amounts to 167.000 MWh/km2. In other words, according to the current models (still to be validated
by substantial experimental data, see chapter 2) if the land corresponding to the no-fly zone of nuclear
power plants could be used without restrictions for AWES farms in a windy site, roughly the same
yearly generated energy would be obtained. The AWES farm would feature about 1.200 units over
an area of 78 km2. For a comparison, the Alta Wind Energy Center in the USA features 600 units with
a density of about 9 units per km2.

Figure 3.2 Study on the optimized arrangement of 2-MW units in AWES farms, with separation of the
operating envelopes. The configurations for strong wind (dashed) and for weaker wind (solid) are
shown. The figure shows a projection on a vertical plane, however the optimization was done
considering the full 3D air volume spanned by each unit with its tether and kite.119

NB. We note that the figure shows altitudes up to 1000m, while such operating heights are currently not the focus of development.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 71

 A more extreme approach would be to have overlapping operating envelope and coordinate the
actual trajectories to avoid interference, however this last scenario is technically very challenging.

Distance requirements to residential and nature reserves and other protected areas are not yet
defined and will further extend the required area for AWES applications. Based on current legislation
for conventional wind turbines, the required distance may well be in the range of three and more
tether lengths, unless safe landing of the flying structure and tether is proven to be fail-safe. This
would indicate a distance between AWES and exclusion zones of one to several kilometres.

Weather conditions
The sector still has to provide operational proof that AWES are capable to withstand adverse weather
conditions during operation 166. Testing could take place to some extent in the lab, but in the end, field
testing will be required. Especially the flying structure and the tether will for instance be subjected to:
• rain;
• ice build-up;
• lightning;
• wind speeds above standard operation.

The control system will not be able to prevent operation in such adverse conditions with absolute
certainty, which makes withstanding these conditions a design requirement for automated and long-
term operation. The readiness of all technical developments (both small and large scale) to cope with
these aspects is currently low, since there is little or no experimental evidence of successful
prolonged operation in such adverse conditions.

3.3 Industry and Market barriers

Component Readiness
The different components of AWES have their own challenges. The main challenge which they all
share is proving reliability, as they only have a limited number of hours in operation. Long-term
experience with the available designs does not exist and will need to be built up in the future. Some
companies do intensive component testing on ground 167, but not all companies do have the
necessary funding. The first milestone for this is generally assumed to be one year of continuous and
automated operation of the whole system without unplanned interference, allowing only for planned
maintenance and remote monitoring. A subsequent milestone would be the durability of materials
and the system. Little information is shared by developers on testing activities concerning the
durability of materials, which we expect to become relevant for meeting LCOE targets.

Kite
The different flying structures currently in use have not been optimized yet for energy production but
have so far been designed for proof of concept. Further iterations need to be done before designs
will approach optimized production of electricity at optimized cost of the structure, see for instance
168.

In the case of flexible kites, optimization with regard to lifetime may be an additional factor which
always needs to be seen in combination with the additional cost incurred. However, in general
functioning flying structures are available. One challenge is to design the aircraft to reach the best
trade-off in terms of efficiency and controllability. Early-on experiences e.g. by Makani power have

166
Gambier et al., supra note 12.
167
Fort Felker, supra note 121
168
Michiel Kruijff and Richard Ruiterkamp, supra note 49.

72 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

shown that maximizing aerodynamic efficiency with rigid wings results in an aircraft that is more
difficult to stabilize and requires faster and more powerful actuators. On the other hand, soft kites
have lower efficiency and easier manoeuvrability, at the expense of lower generated power for the
same effective area 169.

Control systems
Due to the complexity of the system, the control systems are still under constant development. On
the one hand the efforts are directed to sensors and actuators and electricity supply and on the other
hand to communication and most importantly the software to steer the operation in all situations.
Many prototypes in operation have not yet solved the problem of supplying the airborne parts with
electricity, limiting testing times to the duration of the battery lifetime. Also, the automated, continuous
operation (take-off, standard operation, landing) has not been fully achieved for longer periods of
time. Furthermore, fault detection, isolation, and tolerance approaches, and control reconfiguration,
are still largely not developed, at least from the knowledge available in the scientific literature.

On the positive side, it is to be expected that a functioning control system will be applicable with little
modification to different sizes of AWES, resulting in economies of scale. Moreover, many dynamical
control problems are more challenging at smaller scale than at larger scale. This is because at small
scale there is lower inertia and usually shorter tethers are used, resulting in faster system response
and more strict accuracy margins, which is more demanding for sensors, actuators and control
algorithms.

Tether
In most designs with GG-AWES, the tether which transfers the power (mechanical or electrical) from
the flying structure to the ground station is mainly made from Ultra-High-Molecular-Weight
Polyethylene. This material has seen several steps of improvement but still is expected to require
exchanging several times during the lifetime of the AWES 170. Further improvement in the area of
material strength would provide benefits with regard to tether drag and influence the height at which
different sizes of wings can fly. Transmission of signals and electricity through the tether is an option
currently only used by some companies (Makani, Skysails). If thinner tethers become available with
signal and electricity transmission included, this might solve limitations imposed by battery charge
duration. Envisioned developments include also a steady tether to which two wings are connected.
This would reduce the tether drag and thus the energy loss and would decuple the operational height
to some extend from the size of the AWES. However, the practical feasibility of this concept in terms
of control coordination has never been demonstrated even on very small scale, and the response in
presence of unexpected events, faults and adverse conditions is more challenging than for a single
tethered aircraft.

Ground station
Some ground stations have been built for larger prototypes (Makani, Kitepower). However, these
have not yet been proven in long-term operation. Others are under development for deployment in
2018. A large potential for optimization is expected in this area, for instance with regard to the used
generators/ motors to maximize the conversion efficiency. However, this optimization will only take
place when production of AWES reaches a certain scale. For systems up to pre-commercial scale in
the range of 100-200kW of installed rated power (i.e. 50 to 100kW average cycle power for pumping
GG-AWES, as targeted by several companies including Kitemill, TwingTec, Kitepower), it is likely
that off-the-shelf electric machines and electric-backend components will be used, possibly with
minor optimization.

169
Cherubini et al., supra note 28.
170
According to communications of the study team with an OEM.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 73

 System Safety & Reliability
The sector shows no convergence towards a particular level of safety & reliability. Developers are
currently applying reliability levels at own decision, as a mandatory standard is not yet prescribed by
national or multi- governmental authorities. Most developers aim to apply their systems at remote off
grid solutions at first to further test and advance the system’s reliability. For on grid solutions it is,
however, pivotal to warrant and standardize the reliability level already at the design stage, as the
system design should be deployable and replicable at a large scale. To address this, discussions
with EASA have been initiated by one developer 171. We note this to be an individual rather than a
sectorial initiative.

Automated continuous operation

While developers are generally in very different stages to prove the safety and readiness of their
systems, developers are yet to prove automated continuous operation. Most developers indicate
have demonstrated automated operation, but not for a longer period of time. Currently, flights range
from a couple of minutes to multiple hours. A main consideration of developers today is the limited
added value of additional flying hours with the small scale system when further upscaling the system.
This is compared to the added value they see in developing a larger scale prototype and solving the
challenges of upscaling. This pre-commercial prototype is then planned to be used for the
demonstration of system automation, long-term operation, and reliability. Other technological and
non-technological issues - the battery life span of the control system, aviation night lighting, and flight
permit restrictions - are also mentioned as restricting factors, but generally seen as easily
surmountable.

A few of the more advanced developers have set the ambition to achieve long-term automated
continuous – flying continuously over a year -in the next one to three years (for instance 172). Similarly
to the aviation sector, long term continuous automated operation is considered to be crucial both to
demonstrate the reliability of the system and to create trust among customers and the public.
Moreover, this is also required to experimentally verify the energy yield predicted by mathematical
models and simulations. This could in principle be carried out at small scale, but so far no developer
has achieved this. Reportedly, it requires significant time and resource efforts to achieve this at small
scale.

Take-off and landing

Automated take-off and landing is a crucial condition for automated continuous flying, as a system
needs to be able to launch and land without manual assistance. Although most developers are able
to launch and land their system successfully, only some developers have demonstrated complete
automated take-off and landing. 173174 Some others nearly reached this stage, but still need to reset
or re-locate the system for a new take-off after landing. Nevertheless, take- off and landing has so
far only been demonstrated in favourable weather conditions. Automated take- off and landing under
extreme weather or emergency conditions is viewed as an important barrier to overcome towards a
safe and reliable system.

171
Michiel Kruijff and Richard Ruiterkamp, supra note 49.
172
Ibid.
173
Fort Felker, supra note 117.
174
Michiel Kruijff and Richard Ruiterkamp, supra note 49.

74 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

Emergency & Extreme weather robustness
To operate robustly in an emergency situation or under extreme weather conditions, AWE systems
need to be controllable both in the air and during landing. To date, systems have only been tested in
designated flying zones and under favourable weather conditions to prevent emergency situations.
These exogenous factors pose a well-acknowledged barrier, as the sector aims to operate light
structures in a harsh environment.

Availability factor
AWES technology offers the flexibility to operate at different altitudes, adjusting the flight pattern and
the length of the tether. This flexibility enlarges the potential availability factors of the system as it
allows operating at the optimal altitude in the wind column. In other words, AWES are able to go
where the wind blows. Systems able to reach higher altitudes enlarge this flexibility and therefore
their availability factors. Stakeholders do mention several technological (e.g. tether drag) and non-
technological barriers (e.g. aviation regulation) limiting the flying altitude to several hundred meters
and therefore the availability factor. However, as testing (see yield and capacity factor below) does
not yet focus on energy yields or capacity factors, these discussions are still mostly theoretical and
can be expected to emerge once continuous flying is achieved and energy yields becomes the
sector’s prime target.

Economic performance
Understanding cost and risk
The high cost associated with the crash risk of airborne wind devices is a barrier to further testing
slowing down technology development. Loss or damage of a pilot device has significant financial
consequences for the parties involved and causes delays while a device is replaced. As a result,
stakeholders report that developers tend to be risk-averse; devices are only tested in mild conditions
and at small scale minimising crash risk and crash cost. Achieving reliable, safe and automated
operations are important objectives for developers, and are a precondition for other objectives such
as scaling, proofing-of-concept, addressing risks regarding NIMBY constraints and regulatory and
environmental permitting. Also in this regard, the scaling trade-off plays against the technology
development: the cost of crashes and reliability improvement at small scale is much lower than at
larger scale, however the need to upscale to achieve a marketable system pushes most developers
towards large scale devices.

Gaining insight in crash risk and damage cost under more realistic, less favourable conditions at final
scale is required to improve the technology’s safety. Over the coming years, gaining deep
understanding of operational risk will likely be an overarching barrier for the sector. To limit crash
risk, testing is done intermittently and on a small scale. However, to really build up an understanding
of the risk requires developers to take these risks, which is costly. For example, one stakeholder
mentioned the material of the wings responding very differently at larger scale. Mitigation strategies
include working in parallel on different scales (to implement lessons learned in small scale testing in
the larger system), testing under controlled conditions such as wind tunnels and simulating operations
in models.

Reportedly, the same holds for better understanding of optimal device and array sizes from a cost
perspective. Stakeholders point to the advantages of economies of scale, positively affecting plant
production volatility and the investment and O&M costs per device. However, investing in and testing
larger devices and arrays, increases the investment risk: the concept could end up being abandoned,
and the lost investment during a crash is higher. These high investment risks slow down convergence
of technology.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 75

 As with different technologies, device and array sizes, stakeholders also focus on different target
markets. Two types of approaches have emerged. One group explicitly focusses technology
development on grid-connected application. This group includes developers such as Ampyx and
Makani (who are backed by larger industrial players) and Twingtec and E-kite. Another group,
including developers such as Enerkite, Skysails and Kitepower, appears to focus on niche markets.

Taking a wider sector perspective, one stakeholder notes the diversity of approaches is a risk to
attract investment. Investors tend to be reluctant to step in, as they’re “afraid to bet on the wrong
horse”. One investor indicated to have invested in multiple technologies to diversify this risk. When
moving towards larger scale demonstrations, investors need to develop an understanding on LCOE
and risk performance, to avoid putting their eggs on the wrong basket.

Yield & Capacity Factor

It is still unclear what would be a realistic range of capacity factors. An important barrier to achieve
commercially viable yield and capacity factors is continuous and fully automated operation. At this
point in time, continuous operation time rarely exceeds half a day. Developers’ focus is not currently
on energy yield or reaching optimal capacity factors, see for instance 175. While these are widely
recognised to be important, yield and capacity factors are expected to become the main focus only
after reaching safety and reliability objectives. Stakeholders highlight that most testing has been
focussed on developing the device’s flight pattern, and not energy yields.

Supply Chain Readiness

While some developers choose to develop all components in-house, other developers are starting to
outsource hardware components. Developers indicated that for components such as soft wing kites
and tethers there is a supply chain developing, while the supply chain for rigid wing kites is not as
well established. Even for flexible wings and tethers, the existing products are not designed for the
load cycles encountered in power generation, and therefore they will need re-engineering to a certain
degree. This holds especially for the kites, of which several of the most advanced companies are
designing and manufacturing ad-hoc versions with higher load limit per unit area. For virtually all
companies, the system engineering and software – sometimes referred to as the brain of the system
– are the most important components that are developed in-house.

An important exogenous trend in this respect is the development of the drone industry. Reportedly,
developers were developing their own electronics in 2010, because these were not available in the
market. Currently, there is a whole drone industry which develops this, allowing developers to focus
on the core aspects of their technology.

For the components that are not readily available off-the-shelf, the sector is starting to show the first
signs of supply chain involvement. As an example, the specialised OEM Aenerate offers software for
a basic control system, which developers can use as a starting point in developing their own control
systems. Similarly, the software provider X-sens developed sensor systems for AWES. Another
example is the specialised OEM New Leaf, which develops AWES ground stations. Involvement of
the soft services supply chain such legal, financial and insurance services has not yet been observed.

Economies of Scale
The main issue concerning economies of scale relate to the effect of producing on small scale and
the high associated system, O&M, and Balance of Plant costs. While this is recognised to be normal
in an emerging sector, it does affect the investment risk when investing in pilot or demonstration
devices. A positive development in this respect is the development of the drone industry, providing
more components to be available off the shelf, at increasingly competitive prices.

175
Ibid.

76 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

 Provision of services is also expected to become more affordable when the sector grows. This is now
identified as an issue for regulatory issues and administration requirements, data collection services
for AWES impact on e.g. the environment and aviation radars and insurance services.

3.4 Public Support and regulatory barriers

Social Acceptability
Not in my back yard (NIMBY)
Generally speaking the NIMBY effect for AWES is expected to be of equal or even larger magnitude
than it is for on land wind turbines when built in proximity to communities. The sector expects safety
concerns and noise levels to most prominently lead to NIMBY constraints. Visually, the airborne wind
systems are expected to have a lower impact than conventional wind energy because the movement
occurs at greater heights. The visual impact is also expected to be lower than for conventional wind
turbines, as it does not occupy any airspace when in it is not in operation, and hence there is no
visual impact. As of today there are measurements on the impact of noise emissions have not yet
been done. The sector does, however, agree that noise emission could be considerable, with the
acceptation of AWES concepts that result in low air speeds. With respect to the NIMBY effect, this
could pose a barrier especially for night-time-operation.

Safety
Stakeholders perceive safety as an important, but less immediate barrier for technology development.
If the technology can first be commercially used in areas far away from human settlements and/or
offshore, this would allow developers to assess and address safety issues in the commercial stage
before use of the technology in locations where flying objects can be a safety hazard. Safety concerns
contribute to most manufacturers stating that they foresee on-grid application offshore as the first
step to establish the technology at large scale.

Taking this approach precludes short- to midterm use of airborne wind energy systems, as an
alternative to onshore wind turbines, in populated areas. However, it would also allow public safety
concerns (as part of the NIMBY effect) to fade-out over time as society becomes accustomed to non-
manned flying objects (drones) in this and other forms.

Once the safety concern of AWES become publically accepted, the safety distance can be expected
to be higher than for traditional wind. Both the tether length and the potential threat of uncontrolled
tether breaking suggests the safety distance to be of a larger order of magnitude. At this stage the
sector has not yet developed an explicit position on what could be an appropriate safety distance.

Besides on ground safety restrictions, safety concern for obstructions in the airspace could further
pose a barrier to AWES. At the local level, especially areas through which flight routes cross this
would pose a barrier. At a national level, a strong presence of the aviation lobby could further impede
the overall deployment of AWES.

Environmental Impact
The possible impact of airborne wind systems on the environment is considered a greater barrier for
AWES than it is/has been for conventional wind turbines. The biggest concern is the possible impact
on bird populations. Especially the impact of large array-scale application of AWES (multiple systems
operating in parallel in a windfarm), consisting of multiple flying objects each following a flight pattern,
is unknown. The main concern is whether birds will be able to anticipate and avoid the highly dynamic
moving systems. Another concern is the effect of the noise levels on local fauna.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 77

 The overall on-ground environmental impact is expected to be of a similar order of magnitude as
conventional wind turbines, and is not seen as a major barrier. The potentially higher impact on birds
might, however cause that AWES will face greater opposition than the conventional wind industry.

To address the concerns above the sector currently still face an overall lack of environmental impact
data. Today only one initial study has been done on the environmental impact 176, but there are no
empirical data available. The lack of impact data (also social) is still an overall constraint for the sector
as a whole. This topic is also viewed as a potential area for cooperation between developers. Early
tracking and analysing of environmental impact at test sites and sharing this data can be of benefit
to the whole sector and can be used in public communications and customer engagement activities.
Moving to commercialisation this effort would have to be extended to establish a firm evidence base
on the environmental impact.

Funding Availability
Support instruments are focussed on technology push
The sector has not expressed a common call for policy measures. However, different stakeholders
mention re-occurring issues. Firstly, the need is expressed to continue the current support for
fundamental research to ensure the further advancement of the general knowledge. Some
developers express the need for demonstration funding to move to a proof of concept. These
developers also often state public support in the form of available testing sites is still lacking. Other
developers expressed the need for public leverage capital to de-risk investments and advance the
development of the sector. To de-risk customers the development of insurance/warranty schemes
were also mentioned as a solution. Moreover, there is a call for sectorial knowledge management
and lobby. This mixed call for R&D, Demonstration and Deployment instruments reflects the spread
of technical readiness levels between developers in the sector.

Figure 3.3 Overview of research stages and push vs. pull instruments

Market Pull
Price based instruments
Information
Regulation
Tax incentives Voluntary initiatives
Standards &
Classification

Basic Research R&D Demonstration Deployment Diffusion

Cycle

Demonstration Funding
Research Funding Research Funding PPP
(Grant & Loans) (Grant, Loans, Prizes) (Grants, Loans, Awards & Prizes)
Technology
Push

Source: Study Team.

R&D Funding: Limited data availability and knowledge sharing slows down convergence
Funding for the first stages of the cycle, fundamental research and R&D, is still considered to be of
major importance. This is due to the fact that there is no agreement yet on the “best” concept or “set
of best concepts” in AWES. New concepts continue to be proposed. These new concepts focus on
solving issues encountered by existing concepts while they are being developed. An example is the
currently restricted operating height of the most advanced concepts. Due to a moving tether and
“tether drag” the systems are not yet able to take advantage of the full wind column. A solution could
be a stationary tether with multiple kites on smaller moving tethers at the end of the main tether. This
and many other new concepts are still at a very early stage and would benefit from basic research
and R&D funding.

176
Bruinzeel et al. (2018). Ecological Impact of Airborne Wind Energy Technology: Current State of Knowledge and future
Research Agenda in Schmehl et al (2018), Airborne Wind Energy (pp. 679 – 696). Springer nature, Signapore.

78 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

Moreover, it is noted that a rigorous validation of the technology based on experimental data has not
been carried out yet, even at small scale. The main reason is that such a validation would require
long-term operation (with the issues and barriers described above) in a well-instrumented and
controlled operating environment, e.g. with one or more wind measuring devices (Lidars) operating
together with the AWES system under study. On the other hand, such a validation would increase
confidence in the technology potential also at large scale, since it would provide both a quantitative
proof of the underlying physical principles and a demonstration of long-term operation.

The have shown that the sector generally agrees that there is room for improvement to advance the
sectors knowledge on the fundamental concepts of AWES. To improve the efficiency of knowledge
development in theory it would be better to find ways to fund the sector as a whole instead of funding
individual developers. Knowledge sharing and collective testing would be especially interesting in
further developing the sector knowledge about environmental effects, resource availability, and
collective design challenges not directly related to companies competitive advantage.

For many early stage developers and institutions, the potential progression from funding for basic
research and R&D to demonstration and deployment funding is seen as a threat. The risk of investing
in the development and deployment of a concept or a couple of concepts before knowing that these
are best suited is mentioned as a risk of moving away from the research stage prematurely.

In accessing R&D funding, developers point to the issue that it is challenging to form a consortium
with multiple private actors, because of IP concerns. In addition, they note that it can be difficult for
SMEs to access R&D funding, as it requires dedicated expertise and resources to do so successfully.

Demonstration Funding: Continuous access to test sites is required to gain investor confidence
Most developers are not yet at a stage in their concept development where investors can be attracted.
To reach the stage of proof of concept there is a clear demand for demonstration project funding and
the lack of test sites is widely regarded as a barrier. There are currently only a limited number of test
sites (e.g. Valkenburg test site for drones in the Netherlands, Flight Operations Center in
Kraggenburg the Netherlands, Lista AWE Center in Norway with another one under development in
the County Mayo in Ireland,) and those available often have restricting flying times and conditions.

Without sufficient test sites available that are suitable for prolonged continuous flying or repeat testing
there is a barrier to demonstrate the technology fully to potential investors/ customers and to move
into the deployment stage. Test sites also play an important role in gathering data, which, next to
solving technical and safety issues, will be needed to acquire permits in the deployment stage. Test
sites could play a role in reducing the information barrier. At the moment there is (i) a lack of data
and (ii) limited sharing of existing data due to high sector competition.

Test sites could play a role in gathering data useful to all actors regardless of their chosen concepts;
for example on exogenous conditions (resource availability at different altitudes; environmental
impact; extreme weather conditions etc.)Furthermore, test sites would enable sector competitions
with for example awards for long-term full automated flying.

When technology development advances into larger scale demonstration, development and testing
becomes more costly than in the earlier stages. At the same time, investment risks are still high at
this stage. This combination of high cost and risk is not very attractive to investors and commonly
referred to as “the valley of death”. Sharing the risk through subsidizing or co-financing, with the aim
of investment de-risking, are often mentioned by stakeholders as an instrument that can be used to
overcome this barrier. Stakeholders regard the absence of such instruments as a barrier (refer for

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 79

 example to a recent publication from the Airborne Wind Europe association, where they call for
AWES-specific policy support 177).

Market pull instruments: Competing with other technologies may become a barrier in the future
In general, stakeholders widely recognize that AWES (like many other energy technologies) will at
one point need market pull instruments to successfully diffuse the technology into the energy system.
However, the sector does not widely discuss the absence of market pull instruments nor which
instruments would be suitable. First discussions addressing feed-in tariffs are taking place, but no
shared position is formulated. Most stakeholders view these discussions as premature, they find that
first technology push instruments are needed to establish the business case. Furthermore, the
absence of product standard and classifications is a major barrier for both investors and potential
customers.

As an outlook, developers expect that the customers (often utilities) will be play an important role in
the development of the business cases for large scale deployment. Some developers aim to develop
small scale “ready to use” devices to supply off-grid markets. To develop on-grid business cases the
sector refers to the development path of other energy technologies (wind, ocean, solar) and
expresses the need for similar support. Once the stage for market pull instruments is reached it is
important that the chosen instruments are specifically focused on developing AWES technologies
until these technologies are mature enough to compete with other sustainable energy production
technologies.

Stability of support
In general, uncertainty regarding funding and support instruments for AWES has a negative effect on
the development of the sector. A shift in funding from R&D to deployment, risking that fundamental
concepts (reaching high altitudes) or promising technologies remain behind, are often mentioned by
research institutions as a barrier to scaling or speeding up programs. Similarly, uncertainty regarding
the regulatory status and future access to market pull instruments contributes to the high risk of
investing in deployment projects. Having a better understanding of the potential and barriers to
development of AWES technology and communicating this to policy makers is seen as a useful step
towards committed and stable support from the public sector.

Knowledge Management and Sharing

Knowledge sharing exists within the industry to a certain extent. The main players are linked through
research projects (especially AWESCO which has a focus on knowledge development and
dissemination) and meet on the bi-annual AWE conference. However, the knowledge sharing is again
limited due to concerns about intellectual property and commercial considerations. One stakeholder
shared the impression that AWES companies limit their publishing to successes, and thus hampering
the learning from failures.

An industry network has been growing in the form of HWN500 178, which has recently become
Airborne Wind Europe.

The industry appears to be very focused on progressing its knowledge from its own resources.
Cooperation with other industries, for instance the conventional wind industry or the mainstream
drone industry seems to be limited. Networking with industries where synergies may be achieved
could enhance the outlook for AWES by increasing the use cases available.

177
Airborne Wind Europe (2018) Policies for Airborne Wind Energy.
178
HWN500, HWN500: Netzwerk Höhenwind-Nutzung, available online at http://www.hwn500.de.

80 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

Knowledge sharing regarding specific technical aspects is taking place mainly in the related academic
communities, particularly the control engineering community. Here, there are regular invited sessions
at major conferences (American Control Conference, European Control Conference, IFAC World
Congress) where advancements are presented and shared.

Regulatory Environment
A limited number of front-runners have started to take an interest in regulatory barriers (for example
Ampyx power and Makani Power). Mainly aviation and environmental legislation are seen as
important.

In order to obtain an approval for commercial AWES operations from the aviation authorities, the
AWES operator has to know very clearly how the complete operation will look like. This needs to be
specified in a concept of operations (CONOPS). Based on the CONOPS, the applicant of the
approval has to demonstrate that the operation will not endanger other airspace users as well as
people on the ground. Therefore, an assessment of the risks has to be made accompanied by
evidence demonstrating that these risks have been sufficiently mitigated so that the AWES operations
will be safe. This requires an extensive dialogue with the national aviation authorities in order to agree
how it shall be argued that the operations are safe (the requirements) and what evidence is required
to support the argument. Part of this argument could be that the AWES is certified according to a
certain certification specifications. Additionally, evidence has to be provided that demonstrates that
the AWES meets the requirements of the certification specifications. Besides the AWES certification,
there will also be requirements on the operation (procedures), the operators (skills and training) and
the organisation (safety management and responsibilities).

Obtaining the AWES operations approval is seen as the most difficult task that would require a lot of
effort from the applicant. It is expected that the national aviation authorities are not hampering this
process, but that the AWES developers could underestimate the required effort for this process,
which could differ from country to country. This can be a barrier for the development of the sector.
AWES developers should start this dialogue with the national aviation authorities sufficiently early
and need to develop a clear and detailed CONOPS.

Currently, AWES developers are mainly in the proof of concept or pilot phase of development. In
these phases a lot of testing is done for which a number of additional measures are taken that
probably cannot be maintained during the commercial operation phase. Currently, the airspace
around an AWES test facility is mostly closed for other airspace users. This restriction will be probably
not maintained when the AWES is operated commercially 24/7 since it will be too restrictive for other
airspace users. It is foreseen that AWES will be operated in class G airspace (up to 500m altitude).
This would imply AWES could interfere with general aviation but not with commercial aviation as they
typically do not operate in this airspace. To mitigate the risk to the other airspace users (mostly
general aviation), it is foreseen that the position of the AWES will be marked as an obstacle on the
navigational charts and databases. Additionally, the AWES could be marked clearly (e.g. with flashing
lights) to improve the detectability by aircraft in the vicinity to allow them to avoid the AWES.

Moreover, developers generally plan first to operate in remote or sparsely populated areas. This
measure would minimise the risks for other airspace users as well as the people on the ground,
allowing them to demonstrate the system’s safety before the AWES will be operated in more
populated areas. It has been suggested that the AWES has to be operated in large arrays in order to
be profitable. Such large array of AWES would block large amount of airspace for other airspace
users. It is questioned by interviewees if the aviation policy makers (government) would be willing to
allow these restrictions.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 81

 3.5 Critical analysis of key barriers

After our descriptive analysis on how stakeholders perceive the barriers of the sector in the previous
sections, we move towards our own critical analysis. Applying the same structure, we draw
conclusions on what we view as the challenges to overcome the critical barriers for sector
development. Chapter 4 will subsequently delineate our view on how these challenges could be
overcome.

Exogenous conditions
The exogenous conditions influence the availability of resources, and the conditions under which
these resources can be harnessed. As indicated earlier, these barriers can only be influenced
indirectly, i.e. by tailoring technology towards suitable resource sites.

Generally speaking, from a resource perspective, mature AWES technology is expected to have
various comparative advantages over conventional wind energy. It has a higher operational altitude,
allowing higher utilisation factors. Sites that do not have sufficient wind to be suitable for low altitude
wind turbines may be, to an extent, suitable for airborne wind. In addition, airborne wind may be used
at off-shore locations with floating bases making the technology independent of water depth. In
addition, higher air columns may have different, not just amplified, wind profiles. Another expected
comparative advantage is that AWES is suitable for remote, difficult to reach and/or off-grid
applications: it is easy to move/ operate at low scale.

The actual suitability of resource of sites for AWES vis-à-vis conventional wind energy requires further
clarification. Although it is clear that wind resources are abundant, measurement and model data is
missing which would help to exactly analyse the performance of AWES in different sites. Hence, the
sector still needs to proof the actual resource potential at higher altitudes. Another important point
which still needs to be clarified through measurement and modelling is the extent to which AWES
electricity production is complementary to conventional wind and solar. Proving this resource
complementarity is relevant, because AWES may compete for land and airspace with conventional
wind energy, and in pre-commercial and early commercial stages AWES will not (yet) be cost-
competitive. In summary, at this stage the sector faces the challenges to at first proof that there is
indeed a significantly higher resource potential at higher altitudes and secondly, that this resource
complements other renewable energy technologies.

Industry and market barriers

The state of play of AWES technology development shows a varied picture. In terms of component
readiness, most components (kite, tether and ground station) in principle are ready for longer term
field testing, even though they are not optimized for energy production yet. Control systems and take-
off and landing components are not yet completely ready. Achieving technological readiness is
therefore at this stage still a key challenge for the sector.

We observe partial convergence at component level, i.e. the extent to which developers apply the
same type of technological concepts. There is convergence for the tether and ground station, where
supply chain involvement is also picking up. For the kite, control systems and take-off and landing,
convergence is not yet taking place. The absence of convergence, is a challenge for the sector’s
development, as it poses a risk to invest in a concept which may end up being abandoned.

In terms of system safety and reliability, the major technological challenge now is to develop and
prove safe and reliable continuous automated operations. To achieve this, developers focus on
optimising the kite, control systems and take-off and landing components. Continuous automated
operations are recognised to be an important precondition for AWES development. We argue that

82 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

the concept of sequentiality is crucial here. Crash risks will negatively affect the investment risk of
testing scaled up devices or even array-scale devices, suggesting that it is important to first arrive at
safe and reliable systems.

A potential barrier in this respect is the investment and lead-time required for delivering the proof of
automated continuous operations. Developers indicate that producing this proof can divert attention
and resources from developing the next generation of the concept. We identify this as a sector-wide
barrier for building confidence in AWES technology. Moreover, the kite and control systems are
considered to represent the core IP for developers. As is inherent to any new technology
development, developers’ willingness to share knowledge about these components is limited.

In addition, we observe that the sector is picking up the pace. There are various signs of supply chain
involvement, and more private investors are entering the sector. The reported accelerating effect on
technology development is both an opportunity and a risk. The sector needs to able to meet the
expectations, while the push for scaling up and reaching commercialisation increases. Failures in
technology development, which are inherent to any emerging technology, can affect public support
and long-term investor confidence in a now optimistic sector. A challenge for the sector is thus to
manage expectations an avoid cutting corners in technology development, to build sustainable trust
and confidence among investors, suppliers and the public.

In terms of economic performance, it has become clear that it is still difficult to develop a solid
understanding of costs and risks. This is normal for such a novel technology, and at the current stage
of development, we argue that it is premature to quantitatively discuss LCOE. More technological
convergence on components is needed, and the priority should be system safety and reliability.

The potential long-term cost-competitiveness is of course discussed qualitatively to highlight the

unique selling points of AWES technology. These arguments include low material costs, a lower
share of capex (making it easier to finance), stable and high energy production and high learning
curves. At the AWEC 2017 conference in Freiburg, several stakeholders argued that the focus of
AWES’ unique selling points should shift from cost-competitiveness (LCOE) towards
complementarity arguments. The complementarity arguments focus on the role of AWES in addition
to, rather than in competition with more mature renewable energy technologies.

Currently, the majority of the developers are spin-offs from universities. The professional background
of the human capacity in the sector is mostly academic. As AWES technology becomes more mature,
we expect the challenge will arise to start involving industrial and corporate management expertise
into the sector. This should, when the technology is ready to scale up, facilitate industrialisation efforts
and involvement of supply chains.

Public support and regulatory barriers

Barriers relating to public support and regulation are only just starting to materialise. These types of
barriers are, however, expected by the sector to become important.

The social acceptability of AWES technology needs to still be explored for a large part. The
expectation is that the social acceptability of AWES will be more challenging than for conventional
wind energy. Visual impacts are marginal, but because of noise and safety issues, NIMBY constraints
will likely become quite pronounced if AWES is deployed in populated regions. To avoid such
problems, various developers tend to focus on sparsely populated or offshore areas as resource
sites. We expect that this allows these barriers to be overcome, although with the side-effect of having
a smaller rollout potential. For deployment in the EU market, the sectors is challenged to demonstrate
reliable performance and framework to manage the potential social impact.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 83

 In terms of environmental impact the AWES industry may very well face greater opposition than the
conventional wind industry, as one expects birds collisions to occur more frequently. However, the
actual environmental impact of AWES has not yet been measured and remains therefore still
unknown. In general, noise and a multitude of flying objects and tethers can potentially be harmful,
but the sector is now challenged to establish a track record to explore the actual environmental
impact.

Funding availability can in principle always be considered a barrier for the development of any sector.
We therefore focus our critical analysis on both the funding needs to address the described
challenges as well as the underlying barriers that affect funding availability.

From a developer’s perspective, especially uncertainty regarding funding and support instruments for
AWES have a negative effect on the development of the sector. This is most pronounced when
required investments becomes higher in pilot and demonstration phases. Similarly, uncertainty
regarding the regulatory status and future access to market pull instruments contributes to higher
investment risks.

A shift in funding from more fundamental R&D to demonstration risks that fundamental concepts
(reaching high altitudes) or promising technologies remain behind. In addition, public funding bodies
are wary of funding concepts that repeat mistakes made earlier, while private investors typically fear
that the backed concept will not be the first to reach commercialisation.

We recognise that these risks are inherent to any public or private support to innovation. Within that
context, we argue that the sector needs to enable stable and sustainable attribution of funds to AWES
technology development. The basis for this is mutual trust and management of expectations, which
requires a fact based understanding of technology performance and a realistic view on the potential
to further develop AWES technology.

Here lies an opportunity for the sector. If the sector can find common ground to tackle data availability
and data sharing challenges where this does not infringe core IP, this can deliver the required fact
base. If the sector does not succeed in providing fact based transparent information there is a
continued risk of “cherry picking”. This feeds distrust between developers and both private and public
funding sources, which slows down sector development and reduces the willingness to invest in
AWES. We consider this risk especially important in the current development stage, with private
investors entering the sector and larger scale demonstrations expected to develop in the near future.

The regulation of airspace is the regulatory barrier that has received the most attention to date. Due
to the current configuration of airspace, it is foreseen that AWES could be operated if they remain
away from airports and below 500 meters (in airspace class G). Otherwise, AWES would seriously
interfere with other airspace users including commercial air traffic. The vast majority of concepts that
are currently being developed operate within this 500 meter limit.

Also below 500 meters, permitting procedures are still expected. Following the interaction with
stakeholders, we expect that the amount of evidence and time required to obtain such regulatory
approval poses a challenge, as it could well be underestimated by the sector. Since the AWES
operate in airspace that is open to other airspace users, national aviation authorities become
involved. In aviation, the amount of supporting evidence that needs to be presented in order to
demonstrate that a certain requirement has been met is generally substantial. A potential barrier
could be that this effort is underestimated by an operator that wants to operate an AWES on a 24/7
basis.

84 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

4 Measures to facilitate market access

4.1 Introduction

In this chapter, we identify and elaborate measures to facilitate market access. The barriers that we
view as critical, as determined in the conclusions in chapter 3, are the starting point. We take a
prospective approach, and translate the critical barriers into development challenges that the sector
faces. We specifically focus on the current phase of sector development, and what can be done by
whom to take the next step forward.

The structure of this chapter follows the categorisation of barriers as developed in chapter 3 and
discusses measures at the level of challenges. We shortly recap each challenge, after which we 1)
discuss in detail what potential measures are to address the challenge; and 2) elaborate what the
roles of relevant actors are in taking the measure.

4.2 Exogenous conditions measures

Challenge: resource potential at higher altitudes

While it is known that wind is abundant in higher altitudes, it is unclear what the resource potential
which can be actually captured by AWES is for specific sites. Wind data is usually only available for
lower altitudes and mostly only suitable for rough estimates, not for detailed calculations taking into
account the specifics of AWES.

Potential measures
A spatial and temporally sufficient resource mapping is required to provide better insight into areas
most suitable for AWES deployment. The level of detail which is needed at which stage of AWES
project development needs to be identified. This would for instance include information on wind at
higher altitudes. Additionally, as AWES depend on wind conditions also for active stabilization of their
operation (which is different from conventional wind turbines), it must be clarified whether additional
information (e.g. turbulence level, speed at which wind speed and direction change) are needed to
characterize a given site in view of implementing AWES.

Modelling and measurements could be used to upgrade existing wind atlases from the conventional
wind industry. Such projects should also provide the information necessary to make a preliminary
site assessment for AWES deployment. Methods for site assessment could be developed to give
investors more certainty regarding the business case.

Roles of relevant actors

The developers and researchers of AWES would be required to identify the necessary parameters to
describe a site sufficiently to calculate AWES performance. Research institutes and experts on wind
measurements would be involved in the development of site measurements and wind atlases.
Research institutes and developers of modelling software would be required to build models which
could calculate AWES performance based on site conditions. Such research projects could be
publically funded.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 85

 Challenge: resource complementarity
Commercial AWES are expected to be producing electricity more frequently than conventional wind
turbines, supplying wind energy based electricity in part complimentary to conventional wind. The
extent to which this will happen is likely to play a strong role in the revenue that can be realized by
AWES in the free market.

Potential measures
Following the general resource assessment for higher altitudes, the degree of complementarity can
be investigated in research projects. This would provide a better understanding which sites will yield
the largest benefit from installing AWES instead of other renewable sources. Such research projects
would need to develop common methods and models for AWES power production which are
validated in the field in a second step.

Roles of relevant actors

The developers and researchers of AWES can develop a common method to calculate energy yield.
While general models may be developed by academia without details from the manufacturers, these
models need to be validated by field measurements. For these field measurements, AWES
developers need to provide functioning prototypes to measurement campaigns. Public funding of
academia would be required.

4.3 Industry and market measures

Challenge: technological readiness and convergence at component level

AWES developers are each developing their highly individual solutions. Much of their solutions is
considered core IP by the developers, for instance the flying structure, the control system, the tether
setup and parts of the ground station up to the generator. Cooperation between developers is seen
as very hard to achieve within the sector, due to differences in concepts and due to IP. The
differences in the concepts also provide a barrier to convergence beyond a certain level.

The developers are focusing on their perceived top priority of getting their system operating in the
air, non-core topics are not covered in as much detail as they may need to. This may lead to delays
at a later stage, when the main problems have been solved but long term operation is hindered by
something which was considered to be a minor detail earlier on.

Potential measures
In a first step, the requirements for common or non-core topics could be defined. In a second step,
the identified requirements could be supported through industry-wide R&D projects by the public
sector to reduce the time required to realize operating AWES outside of dedicated test fields with no-
fly zones. Involvement of the value chain in these developments would be beneficial. An example for
such topics might for instance be night-time lighting, which currently is not yet relevant, due to missing
flights at night time. However this and other topics (for instance detection of wildlife, approaching bad
weather and airplanes) dealing with the AWES environment will need to be solved eventually for all
AWES which aim for fully automated and continuous operation. Adaption of existing solutions from
conventional wind or the drone industry may speed up the development.

The sector benefits greatly from developments in other industries such as automated driving in the
automobile industry or the development of non-tethered drones. Support in these industries and
knowledge exchange between these and the AWES industry would likely be beneficial as well.

86 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

Roles of relevant actors
Based on the interviews and the focus group dedicated to technological challenges, it has become
clear that direct collaboration between the manufacturers of AWES on technological barriers is likely
to exclude work on core IP components. Participants indicated that this includes the kite and the
control system components. Whether this also includes tethers remained contested. However, they
might provide input with regard to their requirements for auxiliary systems such as night time lighting.

The supply chain could develop defined components based on AWES industry requirements.
However, they may only become interested to do so after a market has become visible or they need
to be incentivised. Should a strong overlap with the drone industry exist for some components, this
may well provide incentive enough.

Challenge: automated continuous operations

The sector is in agreement that automatic continuous operations are currently an important objective.
However, there is not in complete agreement on the main terms. This includes for instance automated
continuous operation, rated power declaration or power curve measurement. This leads to
uncertainty in the sector what, for instance, continuous automated operation actually entails and
when it can be considered as proven.

Apart from that, AWES developers are typically small companies who cannot run component tests
on their own for all different components, slowing down sector development.

To achieve and prove automated continuous operation, AWES prototypes need to be tested.
Currently testing happens for short periods with rapidly changed configurations, later it will take place
for longer periods with the same settings. For these tests, the AWES developers require easy access
to test sites, which currently do not seem to exist for all players. Up to now, dedicated AWES test
sites have been very limited and tests often need to be approved individually in a time consuming
process.

Potential measures
A sector wide understanding and agreement on the main terms used needs to be established. As
was mentioned, the different companies use different definitions for some core concepts for instance
with regard to rated power of an AWES, the way a power curve is defined or the term “automated,
continuous operation”. An effort could be undertaken which standardizes the main parameters of
AWES development. Based on this, further progress could be measured and potentially supported.

The discussions from all three focus groups show agreement within the sector that the development
of one or more European test facilities which can cater to the needs of the AWES industry could
provide important help to the sector. In addition, we add that this may be a good solution to increase
the public availability of good data on component tests such as tether strengths. Also the issue of
defining which wind data are needed to characterize a given site could be studied much more easily
in such a facility.

So far, the number of dedicated test sites available for AWES has been very limited. This number is
currently on the rise, for instance with the test sites in Ireland and Norway. Further test sites would
however provide opportunities for more AWES developers to test their latest changes to their
prototypes. The advantage of such dedicated test sites would for instance be the reduced
bureaucracy for a single flight and ideally the capability of testing anything, from new control software
updates to safety tests and night-time flying.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 87

 Such test sites would ideally provide a fenced off area of 1km² per test plot, where material can be
stored and risk to bystanders is minimized. The airspace above the fenced off area would need to be
a no fly zone. To avoid idle time, such test sites would ideally be situated in areas with good wind
resource and allow testing 24/7. To facilitate easy testing, the test site would need to be easy to reach
and relatively close to infrastructure such as accommodation. Grid connection for take-off and feed-
in would also be required.

While these test sites would initially only be used for short flight tests where a single function is tested,
this would later on change. The next envisioned step would be the testing of fully functional medium-
scale prototypes for increasing time periods, potentially starting with daytime operation only during
set-up, moving on to 24 hours and then one and several weeks. We point out that there is
disagreement within the sector on how to scale up testing. Some developers argue that
demonstration of extended operations is not relevant for device sizes that are not yet at their final
scale (also see ‘the scaling debate’ in Annex III).

The final use would be the testing of full-scale 0-series models of the commercial AWES. Such tests
would probably last at least a year to demonstrate long-term operation.

One challenge concerning test sites is financing the basic infrastructure and measurements on site
as well as idle time, as the test sites need to be maintained even when no testing is going on.

Roles of relevant actors

The developers of AWES need to agree, for instance through Airborne Wind Europe, on an industry
wide set of standards describing the most important parameters for test sites, thus limiting the search
for suitable sites. Research institutes could be involved to support this process.

Existing test and research facilities could be expanded to make component tests possible. In addition,
existing test sites which are generally suitable could be adjusted to provide plots for AWES testing or
new test sites developed. Both of these measures require financial support and the development of
test sites also would require support from the regulatory bodies to allow the testing of AWES.

Challenge: involvement of industrial and corporate management expertise

The professional background of the human capacity of which the sector is made up is mostly
academic. As AWES technology becomes more mature, we expect that it will be important to bring
industrial and corporate management expertise into the sector. This should, when the technology is
ready to scale up, facilitate industrialisation efforts and involvement of supply chains.

Potential measures
The sector needs to increasingly recognise the breadth of types of expertise required to build an
industry. An increased awareness with developers should avoid reinventing the wheel in
industrialisation efforts. We argue that a sector wide understanding needs to be created on what
steps and expertise are required to operate commercially.

Having (informal) experience and knowledge exchange mechanisms in place will be supportive to
create such an understanding. We expect that especially the informal exchanges will be important.
Such exchange generally takes place within (research) consortia, within geographically confined
spaces such as clusters and test sites, at sector events, through the supply chain and through an
association. 179

179
Ecorys and Fraunhofer (2017) Study on Lessons for Ocean Energy Development.

88 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

 When an understanding on required expertise is in place, a possible approach could be to
differentiate C-level management when the concept is finalising its proof of concept phase and
entering into pilot phase (see chapter 5). Most of the human capacity with developers has a
background that would by nature best fit the Chief Technology Officer type of role. The Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer roles require experience that is generally less
represented in an academic background.

Another concrete measure could be to increasingly outsource component development to the supply
chain for those components that are not core IP. This would mobilise industrialisation expertise for
production of components that are distinct to AWES, but not bespoke to one concept. Furthermore,
it would help to concentrate potential economies of scale in the production process. We note that
within the focus groups, this type of measure was received sceptically by participants, most notably
developers.

Roles of relevant actors

The role of developers to address this challenge would be to increasingly consider attracting
corporate and management expertise to adequately handle upcoming non-technological challenges.

The sector as a whole can play a support role by promoting and embracing experience and
knowledge exchange. Similarly, a potential for public bodies is to provide the financial support to
platforms for such exchanges.

4.4 Public support and regulatory measures

Challenge: potential social impacts

The NIMBY effect is generally considered to be similar or even higher magnitude than for
conventional wind. Besides the visibility and noise of the system, the most prominent social concern
for AWE is the safety of the system. Safety concerns play a major role as AWES could pose a serious
hazard to people and assets when it would crash. The general understanding in the sector is that one
serious accident with an AWES would seriously endanger the public acceptance of the technology.

Potential measures
In anticipation of safety concern all developers plan to at first operate in areas where no people or
assets would be at risk. The general approach of sector is, therefore, to achieve this by either flying
in restricted or remote areas or to go offshore. This is considered as the first phase to prove the
system’s safety and reliability before AWES can be operated in more populated areas. To define the
system’s safety, stakeholders advocate adopting a risk based approach in which requirements
become more stringent once the risk is higher (i.e. more people or assets at risk). This includes that
risk assessments need to be conducted before the system is operated.

To take this next step, the sector has to build a robust track record to convince the public the system
is safe. This track record would not only be necessary to pass risks assessments, but also to have
the proof at hand to unambiguously show the safety of the system to the general public.

A sector wide safety guideline would further help to create common knowledge on what is required
to safely install and operate AWE systems. Such guideline would help to prevent any crucial step
towards safety is missed. The current phase of testing and piloting provide an opportunity for the
sector to collectively gather the data and experience to develop this guideline. Dedicated testing sites
could be a suitable place for the sector to formally and informally work towards this safety standard,
building the track record and sharing the knowledge.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 89

 Roles of relevant actors
The role of developers is to firstly build and demonstrate a safe system to establish a robust track
record of the system’s safety. Before the system is proven as safe, it is important to by all means
prevent any occurrence of collateral damage to infringe the public acceptance of the sector as a
whole. To operate at locations were the risk is limited is a sensible strategy here. At this stage the
sector could already start the dialogue on the scope of a joint public relations strategy. This would be
to prevent any unexpected or uncoordinated communications that affect the entire sector. A common
interest group, like Airborne Wind Europe, could offer a platform for such a dialogue.

Researchers can support the sector by conducting fundamental research and to anchor the
fundamental and physical soundness of the experimental results. In this regard researchers also play
a role in knowledge sharing on what concepts prove to be fundamentally sound.

Regulators at European and at member states level already started the dialogue on safety
requirements with developers. Also in cooperation with researchers, these dialogues will have to
advance further at national and European level to come to a common approach for the sector. At this
stage the public sector could facilitate the public acceptance of AWES by offering dedicated test sites
(with no to limit risk of collateral damage) to provide developers the opportunity to prove the safety of
their systems.

Challenge: exploring environmental impacts

The main environmental concerns are how the generated sound affects the surrounding environment
and whether birds will be able to anticipate and avoid the highly dynamic moving systems. An initial
study has been done on the environmental impact 180, but there is still a general lack of data to
adequately assess, regulate and mitigate the environment impact. To make this assessment a first
step would be to conduct the first environmental impact modelling and to start collect empirical data.

Potential measures
To explore the environmental impact of AWES a first step would be for the sector to define the scope
of a measuring campaign, i.e. what is needed in terms of data and modelling. This includes a
consideration on how the data should be structured in terms of different system features (e.g. wing
spam, tether length, etc.) and performance (e.g. flight time, autonomy, etc.).

To prevent duplication of efforts, there will be a need for collaboration and coordination in the sector.
The second step would therefore be for the sector to determine what can be done collaboratively and
which data can be shared. As it is important to understand the context in which a data point is
generated, the sector will need to explore to what extent data on the system features and
performance can be shared to provide this context.

A common environmental impact database to which developers and researchers can upload their
environmental impact findings would be an option. We recommend creating such a database in close
collaboration between developers, researchers, and environmental regulators to ensure it captures
the required data for an EIA for the different AWES typologies.

180
Bruinzeel et al. (2018). Ecological Impact of Airborne Wind Energy Technology: Current State of Knowledge and future
Research Agenda in Schmehl et al (2018), Airborne Wind Energy (pp. 679 – 696). Springer nature, Signapore.

90 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

Ongoing tests provide an opportunity to start collecting environmental impact data to establish the
evidence base. Initiating a measurement campaign to collect the data at this stage already, would
avoid any hold-ups when these become a requirement (e.g. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA))
for deploying the system at commercial scale. In defining the measurement campaign the sector
would, however, have to closely consider how representative these data will be for the deployment
scale at commercial viability.

With the initial data at hand, researchers and developers can start to develop and calibrate the first
environmental impact models to have these firmly established once EIA come in to play. Herewith,
developers play an important role providing empirical evidence to calibrate and validate the model.

Dedicated test sites (see above) offer the possibility for developers to operate and test the system
without having to go through the permitting procedures for commercial operation. Test sites offer
therefore a suitable platform to start collecting environmental impact data that permits for commercial
operation will require.

Roles of relevant actors

To define the scope of the measuring campaign must be a joint effort of developers, researchers and
the public sector. Developers would have to start with the actual data collection and explore what
type of data can be collected collaboratively or shared in such a manner it does not infringe business
interest or IP. Developers also have a role in developing a system, for which the environmental impact
of the system’s specific features and performance are representative for the deployment scale at
commercial viability.

Researchers can play both a role in designing and coordinating the campaign and to independently
analysis and interpret the data for academic and regulatory purpose. This database can further be
used by researchers and regulators to further advance the methodology for impact assessment (EIA).

In this joint effort, regulatory authorities would play a role in specifying the EIAs requirements EIAs
for AWES. This would facilitate the sector to timely establish the right knowledge base and prevent a
hick-ups at commercial deployment due to a data gap.

As environmental impact data are a public good there is a risk that developers either conduct
measuring campaign individually and duplicate efforts. The public sector, therefore, has a role to fund
the coordination of such a campaign. Moreover, the public sector can facilitate this process by
establishing test sites where environmental impact data can be collected before developers actually
need these for a permit.

Challenge: sustainable confidence and mutual trust

We have identified various signs of an acceleration of technology development. This acceleration is
both an opportunity and a risk. The sector needs to able to meet the expectations, while the push for
scaling up and reaching commercialisation increases. Failures in technology development may affect
public support and long-term investor confidence in a now optimistic sector. A challenge for the sector
is thus to manage expectations, and avoid cutting corners in technology development, where
currently especially continuous automated operations are key.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 91

 Potential measures
Failures in technology development are inherent to any emerging technology, and do not have to
affect confidence in the sector. It is important to position ‘failures’ as an indicator of a lessons learnt.
This requires that developers demonstrate the lessons that have been learnt. This point is contested
by some developers, who point to issues regarding IP and losing their comparative advantage over
other developers as barriers.

Moreover, from a wider sector perspective, it is important that new concepts build on previous
experiences to avoid re-learning of the same lessons. Such experience sharing is difficult to
accomplish in the forefront of technology development because of IP constraints. For abandoned
concepts, however, the rationale and underlying evidence that substantiate why it was abandoned
could be shared more freely. This should avoid that unrealistic expectations are created with investors
by new entrants who reinvestigate already abandoned concepts. Ultimately, this should facilitate the
sector as a whole, as it focuses R&I investments on the right concepts.

Overall, management of expectations will be key. This is of course a careful balancing act, as
developers depend on external investors with whom they need to spark interest. Nevertheless, it will
be crucial to set realistic targets and provide an honest outlook on the expected required time and
investments to reach commercial systems. Potential unconscious biases can be managed with
external benchmarking, comparing development outlooks with the development pathways of other
more mature renewable energy technologies.

Building of trust can be facilitated by the identification and alignment of development milestones.
Such procedures are generally already in place with developers. We highlight the need to put these
in the public domain, and to build up a public evidence base on technology development progress.
This enables potential investors to do a reality check on the development milestones that are
presented to them. Again, this will be helpful for the sector to trigger competition and allocate R&I
investments to the right concepts. Moreover, it is an investment in the reputation of the sector as a
whole. As IP constraints are clearly a barrier, the sector would need to coordinate what level of detail
can be part of the evidence base.

Roles of relevant actors

The approaches and measures outlined above concern the behaviour of developers and their general
inclination towards transparency. It is therefore primarily the developers who have a role to play here.
However, it is crucial to consider what can realistically be expected of developers. In addition to the
mentioned constraints, it takes human resources and diverts attention to put information in the public
domain. Sector-wide coordination, possibly through the Airborne Wind Europe association, can play
a role here. In addition, public bodies can incentivise these developments by reducing financial
barriers for both in-kind inputs as well as making information accessible.

Challenge: regulatory approval of operations

Before the AWES can be operated on a commercial 24/7 basis, the operator needs to obtain an
approval of the national aviation authorities. In order to obtain such an approval the operator has to
demonstrate that the operation will not endanger other airspace users as well as people on the
ground. Therefore, an assessment of the risks has to be made accompanied by evidence
demonstrating that these risks have been sufficiently mitigated so that the AWES operations will be
safe. This requires an extensive dialogue with the national aviation authorities in order to agree how
it shall be argued that the operations are safe and what evidence is required to support the argument.

92 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

Potential measures
In anticipation of the regulatory approval process, operators should timely start the dialogue with the
national aviation authorities on the evidence needed to support the claim that the AWES operation is
safe, so it will not endanger other airspace users as well as the people on the ground. As elaborated
in Section 3.4, an important starting point for this dialogue is a clear and detailed concept of operation
that is going to be used.

To obtain sufficient evidence, i.e. test data, dedicated test sites would provide developers the facilities
for collecting the required information without having to go through lengthy procedures to obtain a
permit for a specific test.

The standardisation and certification of components of the AWES would potentially shorten the
approval process. Certified components do not require additional demonstration.

In order to minimise the risks for other airspace users as well as the people on the ground, the
developers generally plan first to operate in remote or sparsely populated areas. This allows them to
demonstrate the system’s safety before the AWES will be operated in more populated areas.

Roles of relevant actors

The role of the AWES sector is that they will have to take the lead in order to obtain the required
operational approval. They will need develop a concept of operation and present the safety case, i.e.
the argument and evidence demonstrating that the AWES will not endanger other airspace users as
well as people on the ground.

Public actors involved are mainly the national aviation authorities and the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA). The national aviation authorities will have to review the presented argument and
determine if the right sufficient evidence is presented in order to grant the approval. The main role of
EASA is to guide and to standardise these approval processes across Europe. The governments
(policy bodies) could support the AWES approval process by instituting dedicated test sites.

A potential actor could be the suppliers of components for the AWES by developing standardised
components that meet a certain relevant standard and provide the certification that this standard has
been met.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 93

5 Pathway towards commercialisation

5.1 Introduction

In this chapter, we present a pathway towards commercialisation for AWES technology development.
A pathway towards commercialisation is a tool to outline the development steps towards becoming a
commercially successful technology. It can be used to structure both technology and broader sector
development, identify development milestones and align expectations. This can concern both
concrete technological as well as softer elements such as policy or cooperation.

As a first step, we translate our critical analysis of key barriers into design principles for the pathway
in section 5.2. We then present the pathway in section 5.3, where we highlight key milestones and
conditions to facilitate risk-controlled technology development. These milestones follow from the
analysis of the barriers, specific challenges, and the respective measures to address them delineated
in chapters 3 and 4. Subsequently, we outline the market penetration strategies envisaged by AWES
developers in section 5.4, and how these strategies affect the development pathway. Finally, we
present possible approaches to specifically position the EU supply chain in section 5.5, aimed at
capturing value for the European economy.

5.2 Pathway design principles

As a starting note, we recognise that any technology development process can and should be able
to fail, as this is inherent to any emerging sector. In addition, we note that the root causes behind
failures don’t necessarily have to be technological in nature, suggesting that a failure shouldn’t
automatically disqualify a concept for future funding. At the same time, the sector competes for
resources with other energy technologies. From the perspective of the sector as a whole, there is
thus a need to mitigate the risk, to ensure that any technology failures do not overly affect investor’s
perception on the sector.

Therefore, the main objective of the technology development pathway presented in this chapter is
that it can facilitate sustainable technology development progress, and help build up long term
confidence in the sector. The approach that we have taken for this is risk-controlled development, by
structuring sector development steps and suggesting ways to move through the pathway in a risk-
controlled manner.

To this purpose, we outline various design principles for the pathway:

1. Differentiation of investment needs. As the technology matures and scales up, the investment
needs increase. As failures are less costly when testing at a small scale, the investment risk can
be mitigated by first learning lessons at a small scale, prior to scaling up the device and/or the
manufacturing process.

2. Prioritisation of key barriers. The analysis on barriers for sector development shows that a wide
range of barriers can hold back the sector. This calls for a clear prioritisation, based on an
assessment of what barriers are currently key. Addressing all barriers simultaneously would risk
a loss of focus and increase the risk of sunken investment. An obvious example of a high risk of
sunken investment is to develop a full-flex environmental impact data base based on pilot systems
which are not representative to those for commercial deployment.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 95

 3. Timing: lead time to address future barriers. Barriers that are key now may become less important
as the sector matures, and conversely, new barriers will likely emerge. Most barriers will require
a lead time to be addressed, for example the establishment of aviation regulation or environmental
permitting.

We operationalise prioritisation and timing with a suggested sequentiality of barriers: we outline

what barriers we recommend to address, when to address them and to what extent, and finally in
what order to address them.

4. Alignment of public and private responsibilities. Emerging energy technologies generally face a
valley of death that is relatively wide. Competition on the energy (and most notably the electricity)
market is to a large extent price-driven. As competing technologies have a clear head start in
terms of scale economies, innovative technology may not be able to compete on price, even if
they are superior under the same deployment scale. In addition, solutions for various barriers are
clearly in the public domain. Successful sector development thus requires alignment, cooperation
and commitment from both the public and private side, each with their own responsibilities.

5. Developing an evidence base based on performance

Such commitments require a relationship based on trust. This requires management of mutual
expectations between investors and developers. For this, the sector needs to focus on delivering
proof of performance. Private investors need this to form a clear picture on development progress,
considering that they can exit the sector as fast as they can enter it, as experiences in the ocean
energy sector have shown. 181 Public investors need this for accountability purposes, to enable
them to mobilise and manage expectations on funding in the future. This is relevant, because the
investments need to come from both private and public investors. And, more importantly, the
investments need to be continuous and even progressive in size in order to cross the valley of
death.

We operationalise the alignment of responsibilities and performance evidence base with

suggested criteria to monitor performance. We present a systematic framework of relevant
indicators to monitor performance. This enables tracking of development progress along
intermediate milestones.

5.3 AWES Development Pathway

The starting point for pathway development is the differentiation of technology development activities
and progress into distinct phases. Following the rationale of the design principles, these phases
should be different in terms of investment risk and the type of barriers that the sector faces. We use
these development phases, combined with the categorisation of barriers as developed in chapter 3,
as the main structure for the pathway.

181
Ecorys and Fraunhofer IWES (2017) Study on Lessons for Ocean Energy Development.

96 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

As a further introduction, we provide a short overview on the technological characteristics per
development phase. These differences largely coincide with the scale 182 of the device that is being
tested. We have aligned these characteristics with the guidance documents and so-called ‘Guide of
Guides’ for defining Technology Readiness Levels in renewable energy, as developed by the
European Commission: 183
1. Phase 1: R&D. This phase covers all activities from TRL 1 to 4. R&D activities are focussed on
concept development and validation within a laboratory setting: through indoor testing and
simulation tools. These activities lead to validation of the technology through enhanced numerical
analysis;
2. Phase 2: Proof of concept. This phase covers TRL4 to 6. The R&D activities move towards testing
a small scale prototype integrating all components that are needed to operate. The performance
of the prototype is stable, predictable and reliable and meets the expectations. This includes
electricity production as modelled during Phase 1. In the first stage of this phase (2A), a small
scale device with an indicative 1:10 scale is tested in regular target weather conditions. In the
second stage (2B), the device is scaled up to an indicative 1:3 scale, with demonstrated automatic
continuous operations under a variety of weather conditions;
3. Phase 3: Pilot. This phase represents TRL 7, where a full scale single device is demonstrated in
the operational environment. The full scale device has complete automatic and continuous
operations under any weather conditions 184 and should already be capable of producing relevant
amounts of electricity;
4. Phase 4: Demonstration. This phase represents TRL 8 to 9. The concept is demonstrated at a
minimum deployment scale (array size) needed for commercial viability. Small scale
manufacturing has been validated as stable for low-rate production, and the upscaling potential
for upscaling manufacturing has been defined. Operation, maintenance and training procedures
are completed;
5. Phase 5: Industrial roll-out. This phase represents TRL 9, with complete commercial maturity. We
note that market pull instruments to improve the commercial performance are still included in this
phase, considering that competing renewable energy technologies often also still depend on such
instruments.

The AWES Development Pathway is presented on the next page. We subsequently discuss the
pathway, using the development phases as a structure.

The figure outlines development phases, objectives and conditions. Both objectives and conditions
are differentiated by development phase. The development phase includes a description of the
associated TRL, scale and deployment size, and a range for the needed investment. Were the first
two aspects follow from the ‘Guide of Guides’, the latter has was derived from the focus group
discussions. Here stakeholder indicated whether they expected the investment need for the different
phases to range from multiple hundred-thousands, millions, tens-of-millions, or hundred-of-millions.

182
Even though the scale of all system will grow throughout the development stages there will remain a difference between
the systems in terms of their absolute size (both in terms of their physical dimension and in power production). The size or
absolute scale of the systems is expected to differ among the various target markets.
183
EY, Rina Consulting and Technofi (2018), Technology Readiness Level: Guidance Principles for Renewable Energy
technologies.
184
This may of course include a procedure to land under extreme weather conditions.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 97

 The conditions represent what should ideally be in place to facilitate risk-controlled technological
development, and become more restrictive as technology matures. Finally, we have differentiated
the conditions in three categories: exogenous conditions (relating to the resource potential), industry
& market conditions (the private domain) and public support conditions (the public domain). The study
team derived the conditions for each of the phases by breaking down the various barriers, challenges,
and measures to establish a step wise approach, addressing the barriers delineated in chapter 3 and
4 185.

We suggest this pathway as a starting point for the sector to develop a stage gate procedure steering
the sectors development.

185
The reader might note the absence of some of the barriers described in Chapter 3 (spatial and airspace footprint, weather
conditions, availability factors conditions, economies of scale) or a different terminology (robustness and safety), as some
of the barriers were found to be outside of the sector’s sphere of influence (e.g. weather conditions) or inherently
addressed by fulfilling one of the other conditions (e.g. technical reliability and extreme weather conditions).

98 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

Figure 5.1 AWES Development Pathway.

Source: Study team. NB. The figure should be read from top to bottom, left to right.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 99

 Phase 1: R&D
The objective within this phase is to explore new concepts and to validate the theoretical
understanding of AWES technology. At this stage multiple concepts and alternative components and
configurations emerge and are explored. Typically investment risks are still low as testing is done
with simulations or small scale devices.

At this stage the theoretical rational for the technologies potential ought to be sound, but its empirical
validation can still be explored.

The pathway provides an overview of ex ante conditions that will facilitate risk-controlled technology
development. As the focus in this phase is to explore new concept and investments will tend to grow
from here onwards, we highlight the following conditions that we consider to be the most important:
• At this phase it is key to avoid technological lock-in. In other words not to strongly commit
(financially) to a certain technology or concepts which could appear subordinate at a later stage.
Therefore, existing and new concept are to be explored freely without being committed to;
• In terms of system safety and reliability is the focus on the controlling the device to limit crash and
safety risks. This is a first priority as the investment risk will increase from here onwards;
• To support case of the technology, it is important to provide proof of small scale electricity
generation;
• R&D funding is available to facilitate exploration of new concepts and improving the fundamental
(technological) understanding. In this phase the funding does not need rule out certain concepts
yet, but is rather neutral in its conditions.

Phase 2: Proof of concept

As an introductory note, we point out that we have split up the phase, considering that the size of the
device affects operation conditions, which scale up non-linearly. Furthermore, the investment needs
and in turn the crash risk can differ significantly between testing different device sizes. Finally, splitting
up the phase can help to monitor and showcase progress along milestones within this phase, which
is relevant because various developers are currently in phase 2, developing their devices to deliver
proof of concept.

Phase 2A
The main objective within phase 2A is to start validating concepts by demonstrating repeatable and
stable device performance. The technical reliability and first semi-quantitative LCOE outlooks (for
example top-down estimates comparing conventional wind LCOE with AWES) need to result in a first
selection of promising concepts.

The pathway provides an overview of ex ante conditions that will facilitate risk-controlled technology
development. As in this phase the technology has do the first validation of its technical and economic
potential, we highlight the following conditions that we consider to be the most important:
• A positive outlook for the resource potential for AWES on the basis of a first qualitative and
quantitative scoping for the different target markets. Providing a first insights in the gross and
technological resource potential;
• Technology testing and development focusses on reliable performance under normal conditions.
One works towards anticipatable and reliable operations with a small scale device, limiting the
investment risk and lock-in effects;
• The safety risk mappings are conducted as operations hazards will arise. Considering the fact
that testing will become more frequent and systems tend to grow, there is an increasing risk on
collateral damage. To adequately respond to this it is considered important to already map the
safety risks at this stage, in order to take mitigating measures in subsequent phases;

100 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

• Ongoing R&D support is needed to explore new concepts and fundamental research, while in
parallel applied R&D funding is provided to validate this data and calibrate model with
experimental data. At this stage the different concepts are at first validated empirically;
• Already ample (applied) R&D findings and empirical lessons learned being available, knowledge
sharing between public and private stakeholders is to prevent investments in failed concepts and
mistakes being made.

Phase 2B
In phase 2B, the device that is being tested becomes larger. The objective is to demonstrate proof-
of-concept under a wider range of more operating conditions that are closer to reality. Building on a
better understanding on how the device performance is affected by upscaling (e.g. non-linear
relations for loads), this should lead to the envisaged size and design for a 1:1 scale device under
commercial performance.

Moreover, at the sector level, an increased level of convergence is an important indicator that
suggests that the right concepts are being developed. Here, we define convergence as the tendency
of developers to have abandoned an AWES concept for the same other concept.

In phase 2B, it is important to achieve convergence at a concept level. At the current state of
development, different concepts are being explored regarding the generator (on-board on on-
ground), the wing (soft or rigid) and take-off and landing (manual, vertical, catapult/rotating arm,
telescopic mast).

The pathway provides an overview of ex ante conditions that will facilitate risk-controlled technology
development. As in this phase the technology has to start demonstrating its technical and economic
potential, we highlight the following conditions that we consider to be the most important:
• A positive outlook for the resource complementarity of the gross and technological resource
potential for AWES for the different target markets. This to substantiate the added value of AWES
complementing other renewable energy technologies (See section 4.2);
• Advancing towards phase 3 the evidence base for robust and reliable performance is need to
build investor confidence for 1:1 scale testing;
• Risk mitigation for safely handling system failures are identified and incorporated in design and
procedures;
• Starting a dialogue and building trust with public officials for environmental permitting, regulators
for approval procedures, and the supply chain to explore their involvement and manufacturing
processes;
• R&D support for independent impact assessments and resource assessments, to establish the
evidence base for the resource potential and the social and environmental impact assessments;
• Ongoing R&D support to increase the fundamental understanding of device performance, notably
to understand how the device scale affects performance. To do so successfully, a degree of
openness is needed to use experimental performance data for model validation;
• Incidental test facilities to provide a platform for the development towards reliable performance;
• Firmly establish mechanism to capture lessons learned from past mistakes and failed concepts.

Phase 3: Pilot
In phase 3 the objective is to proof operations in all conditions with the 1:1 scale device relevant for
commercial deployment. This implies the system proves reliable and safe continuous automated
flying. We note that the actual size of the system is expected to differ for the various target markets.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 101

 An increased level of convergence at component level will highlight the sectors development to an
optimal system design. As systems will be fully functioning at scale now, the sector will be able to
firstly demonstrate actual yield, capacity factors and LCOE.

The pathway provides an overview of ex ante conditions that will facilitate risk-controlled technology
development. As in this phase the technology has to proof its technical and economic potential, we
highlight the following conditions that we consider to be the most important:
• The net resource availability is mapped at the sites for piloting to capture the systems’
performance;
• Building evidence base for safe handling of system failures based on risk mitigation measures to
establish track record for phase 4- demonstration;
• First specialised equipment suppliers emerge for non-core IP components for which convergence
takes places and economies of scale can be realised;
• Dialogue is started with non-manufacturing supply chain actors, such as financial, legal and
insurance services to prepare for phase 4 – demonstration;
• Ongoing R&D support for independent impact assessments and resource assessments including
establishment of public data bases to integrate lessons learned and establish a publically
available data source for social, environmental, technical and economic assessments in
subsequent phases;
• Technical assistance and training to enhance human capacity required for successful business
development;
• Test facilities to support year round testing and demonstrating reliable and safe continuous
automated operation;
• Development of the concept of operation (CONOPS) for the commercial operation of the AWES
and the engagement of the national aviation authority regarding the approval process.

Phase 4: Demonstration
The objective in phase 4 is to demonstrate the scope for commercial performance at commercial
scale. In other words, the system shows to be installable and maintainable to operate reliably solely
or at array scale (depending on the target market for operation). Beyond the associated technical
requirements this also implies the necessary non-technical conditions (legal, financial, social,
environmental, etc.) are in place.

To demonstrate the scope for commercial performance, bottom-up LCOE estimates are at hand,
supported by quantitative and qualitative arguments that show cost reductions can be realised by
moving down the learning curve and economies of scale.

Moreover, as the system readiness has advanced towards commercial deployment, its design and
components will become increasingly standardised and certified. Convergence in manufacturing
approaches and suppliers is an indicator the sector is progressing towards the right designs and
processes.

The pathway provides an overview of ex ante conditions that will facilitate risk-controlled technology
development. As in this phase the technology has to demonstrate its commercial potential, we
highlight the following conditions that we consider to be the most important:
• The net resource potential is proven to realise sufficient cost reduction down the learning curve
to become cost competitive;
• Multi-year track record for safe handling of system failures is well established to provide the
evidence base for investor confidence and public acceptance;
• Components are increasingly standardised and first certified equipment suppliers are in place to
advance towards a manufacturing process at commercial scale;

102 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

 • First non-manufacturing supply chain actors, such as financial, legal and insurance services, are
involved to adapt to non-technical requirements of commercial deployment;
• Permitting procedures are in place and central public environmental impact database is available
to be equipped for commercial roll out;
• Public support via demonstration grant funding, soft-loans and de-risking instruments to lower the
threshold for private investors / launching customers to take the final step towards commercial
deployment. Ongoing applied R&D remains relevant here for the continuous development of the
systems;
• Test facilities to support developers to test and demonstrate the systems performance at array
scale to potential investors/lunching customers;
• An established safety framework, with its arguments, requirements and evidence, to provide the
market conditions for operation outside of testing locations.

Phase 5: Industrial roll-out

At phase 5 the system is technically speaking fully advanced and now needs to progress to become
manufacturable, and cost competitive at commercial scale. With an outlook of becoming cost
competitive with other renewable energy technologies, financial market pull mechanism could play a
role herein to mature the sector to that level.

Manufacturing, operational, certification, and legal processes and procedures are now fully in place
and standardised. The focus with performance and impact data shift from substantiating ex-ante
impact assessment to ex-post verification.

The general public’s social acceptance of the sector and the presence multiple suppliers in the market
are to be considered reflecting on the maturity and success of the sector.

The pathway provides an overview of ex ante conditions that will facilitate risk-controlled technology
development. As in this phase the technology has to proof its commercial potential, we highlight the
following conditions that we consider to be the most important:
• Standardisation and certification of devices, components, processes and procedures to
manufacture at commercial scale;
• Operational experiences (e.g. equipment / material failures) are shared to prevent duplication of
efforts and errors;
• Systems are manufactured at cost competitive level (supported by market pull instrument) with
other renewable energy technologies;
• Multi-year track record on yield is established providing the business case for deployment at
commercial scale;
• Multiple manufacturers and legal and risk hedging services are available in the supply chain
enabling a competitive environment;
• A socially acceptable level of concern to allow operation in target markets;
• Financial market pull instruments (Feed in Tariff, subsidies) and applied R&D are available to
mature the sector;
• Enabling infrastructure is available to provide necessary conditions for commercial deployment.

5.4 Market penetration strategies

Assuming AWES of different scale are proven to work safely as intended and are commercialized,
different markets will become of interest (chapter 2.5).

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 103

 Based on focus of current developers and without the impact of specific incentive schemes, two
groups of AWES with different target markets and penetration strategies are expected. One group
would be formed by small and medium scale AWES with rated power of up to several hundred
kilowatt. The other group would be formed by large AWES, with rated power above one megawatt
(see Figure 5.2). The different developers may move into the other markets at a later stage in both
directions.

Figure 5.2 Markets and sequence of potential AWES deployment

Source: Study team.

Small and medium scale AWES

The first market which could be catered to by small to medium scale AWES is the market of small
scale consumers at remote and off-grid onshore locations. Locations struck by disaster and
interrupted electricity supply would also be of interest. In such locations, (air-) space will only be of
secondary concern and allow for easier deployment of AWES from a regulatory perspective. AWES
for such use-cases do not necessarily require automated continuous operation- an operator may
support the system during some phases of operation instead. Due to the limited automation of such
units, they have already reached a certain maturity and further necessary design work and investment
is comparatively limited. In remote areas, people in the vicinity of the AWES will also be benefiting
from the electricity produced, which should minimize the NIMBY effect. Small scale AWES are
designed to be highly mobile and could easily be made available globally. However, the overall
market is relatively limited.

The second market for small and medium scale AWES may be medium scale consumers off-grid. As
this market is still off-grid, electricity prices are relatively high and allow for AWES which have not
reached the lowest possible cost level.

104 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

The AWES for these locations are likely to require fully automated and continuous operation.
Examples are the military and mining enterprises. In the case of mining, the scale of operations and
only personnel allowed on the premises, regulation and NIMBY effect may not pose a large barrier.
The same applies to military operations when operation of military aircraft and AWES can be
formalized.

AWES aiming for continuous automated operation will need to move through all described stages of
the development pathway, increasing time-to-market and required investment. Phases 2a to 3 of the
pathway may be shortened to some extent because full scale units can be achieved earlier.

These first two markets are overlapping to some extent. There may for instance be cases where a
small scale, off-grid consumer will only buy AWES when they are fully automated and other cases
where semi-automated AWES already cater to the needs of a mining operation.

Following off-grid deployment, small to medium scale AWES capable of fully automated and
continuous operation may be deployed in micro grids. For instance on small to medium islands with
limited infrastructure. Price pressure on island grids is not as high as on the mainland grid, but
population density will increase and thus NIMBY effects may start playing a role.

AWES proven to be capable of automated, continuous operation with a good track record with regard
to safety, environment and performance might move to on-grid behind the meter production closer to
inhabited areas. These systems would be required to be more cost efficient than the previous ones
as they would be competing in an environment where their mobility is not a unique selling point.

After developing a track record, medium scale AWES might be developed into large scale AWES, re-
using many of the components and experiences from existing designs. However, phases 3 through
5 would need to be revisited for this new design to develop the larger design, potentially even phase
2B.

Large scale AWES

Large scale AWES are being developed at higher cost with the target of reaching the large on-grid
electricity market. Some large investors are backing companies focused on this market.

Market penetration may potentially start later compared to the small scale off-grid market due to the
more complex development process. Depending on funding it may be faster after phase 2, due to the
large market beckoning.

Large scale AWES will need to move through all five phases of the development pathway due to their
target scale. Makani already has reached phase 2B. The European player Ampyx with the AP3 under
development is on the verge of reaching this level.

The first market for large scale AWES is expected to be onshore. Due to safety concerns, first larger
projects are likely to be realized in remote areas, outside Europe. The European on-grid market might
be entered through offshore- deployment. This would limit the risk of collateral damage and NIMBY
effects. The harsh offshore environment will pose new challenges which will need to be solved. It will
impact the hardware and the maintenance performance and will require adjustments. Initial
deployment might be done by reusing existing offshore wind turbine foundations, lowering the
investment cost and risk. Should installation and operation proof to be successful, greenfield offshore
deployment would be a reasonable next step, requiring design and optimization work on offshore
foundations. Potentially, this would require revisiting Phases 3 through 5 of the development pathway

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 105

 for AWES on offshore foundations. This may be followed by the development of a deep offshore
market for the production of stored energy produced through AWES.

Only after a solid track record has been build and all safety concerns have been addressed, might it
become likely to deploy large scale AWES onshore in force in Europe, due to population density.
Potentially, NIMBY effects may limit deployment even then to a minimum.

5.5 Positioning the EU supply chain

In the pathway towards commercialisation, we provide a tool to facilitate the process towards
commercialisation of AWES technology. In this section, we add the perspective of EU industrial
leadership. The primary focus of this section are approaches to increase the share of the EU supply
chain in the potential future AWES market, relative to other world regions. We start the analysis with
a short reflection on the concept of value capture (see text box below).

Value capture within a future AWES industry

From a general industrial leadership perspective, the European economy may benefit from leading in AWES
technologies through reducing net imports, either through substituting fossil imports or substituting other
renewable energy technologies that have a lower EU share in the total value capture. We note that value
can be captured by ownership of the manufacturing supply chain, but also through owning IP or key expertise.

Here, the definition of a supply chain should include operation & maintenance activities. The share of OPEX
in the total LCOE is relatively high compared to for example conventional wind energy, The rationale is that
operation & maintenance activities are generally sourced locally or regionally, suggesting that more value
can be captured in the region where AWES is commissioned.

Additionally, we note that AWES concepts for a large extent use off the shelf ready components that have
been developed for other sectors. This has been a main driver for the sector to develop in recent years and
will be continue to be an enabler for AWES development. The position of the EU supply chain in the
production of these non-AWES distinct components does affect the relative EU value capture for investments
in the AWES market.

The considerations in the textbox above are relevant for AWES, because they show that there are
multiple approaches to position the EU supply chain to capture value in a possible future AWES
market. We stress that these approaches are not necessarily exclusive.

One approach we identify is attracting AWES manufacturing activities, capturing value through
ownership of the supply chain. In general, we recommend to prioritise support to components that
are not easily outsourced, for instance components that are mostly bespoke or have a high level of
technological complexity. We expect that this is the case for system integration. One stakeholder
pointed out that winch manufacturing is generally mostly bespoke. The case is often made by
stakeholders that by nature of its technological complexity, AWES technology fits well with key
strengths of the knowledge-based European industrial supply chain.

We note that in large infrastructure projects, funders often set conditions for the minimum share of
local manufacturing. This would suggest that without the provision of pilot and demonstration grant
funding, there is a risk of a pull of manufacturing activity towards other world regions. This is a serious
risk for off-grid use cases, bearing in mind that the EU share in the global target market is relatively
low. Similarly, various developers of large scale systems expect that their entry market for large scale
on-grid use cases will also be outside the EU (see section 5.4 for more details). Finally, there might

106 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

then be a limited role for European Industries in general, as OPEX will be a relatively large share of
the total costs and are probably sourced locally. Overall, this implies that without pilot and
demonstration grant funding, a significant share of the value will not be captured by the EU.

During the focus groups, we explored opportunities for joint component development to position the
EU supply chain, which would include one or more players from the European supply chain (e.g.
Original Equipment Manufacturers). The discussions indicated a predominantly reluctant view. If this
would be initiated, then the tether component would probably be most relevant. Regarding set-up, it
was suggested to do such developments without including developers in the actual consortium.

Another approach could be to focus on EU leadership in IP and technological expertise, capturing

value through selling knowhow. We recommend to focus such an approach on EU leadership for
components that are bespoke, critical to the AWES concept and with a high degree of technological
complexity. This would limit opportunities for replication by competitors. System integration and the
control system seem to fit these criteria best.

These components lie at the heart of the IP owned by developers. This suggests that all measures
identified in chapter 4 that facilitate EU-based developers are potentially relevant. More specifically,
R&D programmes will help to build a fundamental understanding, while knowledge management
measures (test site support, cluster support and R&D programmes) will be important tools to promote
informal knowledge sharing mechanisms. For any joint development of core IP components it can be
expected that developers will be highly reluctant.

Finally, the European supply chain can also be positioned by supporting enabling technologies,
capturing value either through manufacturing or selling IP of technology that is not distinct to AWES.
We would recommend to again focus such an approach on enabling technology with a high degree
of technological complexity that is not easily outsourced, fitting with the EU’s competitive position.

Stakeholders have identified various enabling technologies for AWES. Composite technology can be
used to develop low weight and high strength material. This is a field that the EU is already supporting.
Automation technology developed for self-driving cars can be used in the context of automatic
continuous operations, for development of e.g. sensors and control systems. Drone technology has
been used to develop devices using off the shelf components, although further potential future
synergies were judged to be limited during a focus group discussion.

As a closing statement, we point out that any EU value capture first depends on the success of AWES
technology, irrespective of where the value added lands. R&I support to enabling technologies is
relatively low-risk in that respect, because other sectors can also benefit from such support if AWES
developments are delayed or do not materialise.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 107

6 Conclusions and recommendations

6.1 Conclusions

The case for AWES

Airborne Wind Energy is an emerging energy technology that is still in an early stage of development.
The most advanced companies have reached TRL 4-5 with their respective prototypes, while many
concepts are still under investigation. Two groups of developers have emerged, focusing either on
large AWES for the on-grid market or on small to medium sized AWES for niche application.
Companies are testing to deliver a proof of concept at a smaller scale than what is currently envisaged
as the final commercial size. The most important technological challenge now is to achieve and prove
device reliability through continuous automated operation. The technology still has a long way to go
before it reaches commercialisation.

Successful sector development requires alignment, cooperation and commitment from both the
public and private side. Competing established energy technologies have a head start in terms of
scale economies. Innovative technology will therefore face difficulties with becoming cost-competitive
(market entry barriers), even if they would hypothetically be cost-competitive with the same scale
advantages. In addition, there is a clear role for the public domain to keep in step to overcome barriers
regarding social and environmental acceptability, funding availability and the regulatory environment.
We outline our suggested role division in the development pathway and our recommendations.

This raises the question to what extent private and public investments in AWES can be justified. This
should be based on the long term potential of the technology. The technological case for AWES is
based on potential cost-competitiveness, based lower material cost, higher capacity factors and more
stable electricity production - offering higher average revenue per kWh. Cost-competitive
performance would provide the justification to invest, as this would introduce efficiency gains in power
production. However, the extent to which AWES can reach cost-competitiveness is unclear.

The case for AWES in the context of European societal goals

In addition to the potential cost-competitiveness case, AWES may contribute to European societal
goals. The AWES case regarding industrial leadership is strong, because of the high technological
complexity that fits well with the comparative advantage of European industry and Europe’s
frontrunner position in AWES technology development. An example is that key IP will be the control
system, which is complex and difficult to copy. If AWES reaches commercialisation with Europe in
the leading role, we expect that the EU can capture a significant part of the value with limited leakage
of value capture.

The AWES case for EU energy security and decarbonisation targets is unclear. It depends on the
extent to which AWES tap into resources that would otherwise remain unutilised. AWES have
significant spatial and airspace footprint and compete for space and resources with other land and
airspace uses and energy technologies, most notably conventional (offshore) wind. The resource is
only additional when AWES can generate electricity economically when other renewable energy
technologies cannot, e.g. by generating in areas (geographic complementarity, i.e. mountainous or
low wind speed areas) or at times (temporal complementarity, i.e. during limited wind at low altitudes)
when other renewable energy technologies would not be able to do so. Currently, the degree of
resource complementarity is still insufficiently investigated. This is important, because lack of such
complementarity can significantly limit the deployment potential (i.e. direct competition for land with
conventional wind) and the case for AWES.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 109

 Moreover, there is only an AWES case for a direct impact on EU energy security and decarbonisation
targets if the technology is deployed in EU markets. This is relevant, because developers of large
scale systems, taking into account existing incentives and regulation, do not foresee EU markets as
an entry market. The EU would still of course benefit from exports to potential future markets in other
world regions.

We note that the case for AWES depends on the envisaged deployment scale. Small and medium
scale systems target small niche markets. These markets are also predominantly located outside
Europe. Deployment and exports of small scale systems will thus be of a limited volume, and the
contribution to the EU energy system will be negligible.

Activities in niche markets may serve as a stepping stone in scaling up systems towards large scale
grid-connected markets, although this point is contested. In what we coin as ‘the scaling debate’ (see
Annex III), developers of large scale systems argue that the lessons that you need to learn are scale
dependent, and that a multi-megawatt design for AWES is different from a small scale AWES. Others
argue that at smaller scale, it is cheaper to fail and easier to mature the concept in niche markets.

Due to population density, the onshore entry market envisaged by developers of large scale systems
is on-grid outside Europe, where many risks are minimized by distance to populated areas. This
suggests that the large scale AWES contribution to the European energy system is a long term
outlook, as it would only become reality after onshore AWES has successfully been commercialised
outside Europe. We note that this point is contested by some stakeholders, who argue that the entry
market can be in Europe, given the right conditions.

We identify two additional uncertainties regarding the AWES case for offshore markets. Offshore
systems are prone to corrosion and bio-fouling and offshore operations are significantly more
expensive, which is a risk for AWES because their share of OPEX in total LCOE is relatively high. In
addition, the comparative advantage of higher operating altitudes of AWES vis-a-vis conventional
wind becomes smaller as new generations of larger offshore wind turbines enter the market. We
conclude that the case for large scale deployment of AWES in the EU is still subject to significant
uncertainty. We should again point out that irrespective of AWES’ contribution to the EU energy
system, the rationale for industrial leadership and export potential still stands, as long as the
technology can become cost-competitive.

6.2 Recommendations

The case for AWES is uncertain, but also shows sufficient potential to continue exploring the
technology. We recommend to embrace a risk-controlled approach, for which we have suggested a
framework in chapter 5. Furthermore, we present the following concrete recommendations for ways
forward for the sector, highlighting the scope for public support.

Prove continuous operations: define, achieve and prove reliability targets

At the current stage of maturity, technology developments need to be focused on achieving reliability
targets. As a first step, this requires a sector wide understanding and agreement on the main terms
used, e.g. a definition on indicators for reliability. In addition to achieving reliability targets, it is
important that developers share the underlying evidence base. This is because data on AWES
performance and impacts will be needed to address virtually all non-technological barriers. It helps
to build public support, assess environmental impacts, build trust with private and public investors
and provide an evidence base needed for regulatory approval. In short, this will help to build the
AWES case.

110 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

Substantiate the AWES case: deepen insight in resource potential and resource complementarity
(pathway phases 2b and 3)
The uncertainty range of resource potential estimates with current data and knowledge is extremely
large. The deployment potential of AWES technology therefore requires further substantiation. We
recommend the sector to collectively explore what type of site characterisations are needed. This can
include wind speed data at different altitudes and temporal resolutions, turbulence, directions
changes, geographic data and land and airspace use.

We expect that data collection will become an iterative process, where resource potential and
complementarity is mapped in more detail as technology matures and the final design and target
markets become more clear. To mitigate risks of sunken investments, we recommend to further
assess resource potential and complementarity before funding 1:1 pilot scale demonstrations (phase
3). Development of a complete wind atlas for AWES for 100 – 1000 meters altitude will likely only be
needed during or after array scale demonstrations (phase 4).

There is clear scope for public support for resource assessments. Resource data has characteristics
of a public good. Moreover, the resulting findings need to be verifiable by independent experts.

Finally, we suggest to explore potential synergies. Data collection can be done in combination with
test site support (see the recommendation ‘create a hub’). Moreover, the AWES sector may benefit
from data collection efforts done for larger new generations conventional wind turbines.

Anchor learning: build on previous experiences and improve fundamental understanding (pathway
phases 2 to 5)
Failures in technology development and a shake-out of concepts are inherent to any emerging
technology. The extent to which this is a problem depends on the amount of learning that the sector
can draw from it. This highlights the importance of sharing knowledge, experience, and data.

We recommend the private sector to jointly explore the potential of formal exchange for various
purposes:
1. sharing experimental data to be used by academic researchers to calibrate models and improve
the fundamental understanding of device behaviour;
2. sharing experiences and arguments about why certain concepts were abandoned, to avoid a
waste of resources by repeating mistakes;
3. giving incentives to share performance data for the development of a public device performance
evidence base, for example the provision of performance data as an in-kind contribution in
(research) projects.

Considering that this will always remain challenging because of IP constraints, we recommend the
public sector to promote informal exchange mechanisms. Informal exchange can be facilitated
through collaboration in consortia (R&D programmes) and at test sites (see the recommendation
below).

Create a hub: concentrate testing activities in one geographic location (pathway phases 2 to 4)
Developers point to the need for suitable test sites. A test site is also a promising informal exchange
mechanism. Development in the ocean energy sector may provide a good practice, where a lot of
testing activities are done at the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) in Orkney, Scotland. We
recommend the public sector to explore the development of a European test site for AWES. This can
facilitate informal exchange and position Europe as a leading region in AWES development.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 111

 Firstly, a discussion would need to be initiated to explore the required characteristics for a test site.
Possible elements include accessibility, resource characteristics, size, surrounding land use and grid
connectivity.

Secondly, incentives would need to be provided for developers to go to this test site. Informal
exchange mechanisms only take place when sufficient developers test at this site, while various
developers are now in the process of setting up test sites at different locations. Possible incentives
include 24/7 operational approval, (temporary) lowering of testing fees, free availability of high-
resolution site wind data and assessment of environmental impacts. At a later stage, another
incentive may be grid connectivity and measurement of power exchange with the grid.

We expect that local or regional means of support can be mobilised to realise this. Such a test sites
can attract economic activity to a remote region, providing scope for support from a Member State,
local authorities and/or structure funds.

Utilize technology cross-overs: invest in enabling technologies (pathway phases 2 to 4)

AWES technology developments have benefitted from the development of enabling technologies.
Enabling technologies include but are not necessarily limited to automation, composite materials and
to a lesser extent drone technology. Investments in these technologies is low-risk, because they will
also provide a return if AWES developments fall behind or do not materialise at all. We recommend
the public sector to continue support to enabling technologies. We recommend the private sector to
identify cross-over potential and further explore the potential of tailoring enabling technologies to
AWES.

Build mutual trust: set realistic expectations and offer a conditional outlook of stable support (pathway
phases 2 to 4)
There is a sector-wide interest to improve the AWES case and build mutual trust between potential
investors and developers. We recommend the private sector start a dialogue with the public sector
on realistic development milestones and corresponding performance indicators and methods for
verification. This should help public investors with justification of R&I investments, especially when
investment needs increase as technology matures. This should also facilitate the public sector to
provide a stable outlook of support, clarifying the type of support can be made available when certain
targets are reached. The framework that we have suggested in chapter 5 may provide a starting
point.

Within that context, we recommend the sector to address transversal challenges in a more
coordinated and structured way. This approach is often adopted in more mature sectors and can
include coordination on common issues, technology development targets (what to achieve, and how
to achieve it) and reporting back the results. Reducing the current fragmentation will facilitate the
ability of the sector to find a position in the market. The Airborne Wind Europe association may play
a role here.

112 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

Bibliography

• “Abschlussbericht OnKites: Untersuchung zu den Potentialen von Flugwindenergieanlagen

(FWEA).” Unpublished manuscript;
• “Abschlussbericht OnKites II: Untersuchung zu den Potentialen von Flugwindenergieanlagen
(FWEA) Phase II.” Unpublished manuscript;
• Ampyx Power. “Ampyx Power website.” Accessed September 19, 2017.
https://www.ampyxpower.com/;
• Archer, Cristina L., and Ken Caldeira. “Global Assessment of High-Altitude Wind Power.” energies
2, no. 2 (2009): 307–19. doi:10.3390/en20200307;
• Archer, Cristina L., Luca Delle Monache, and Daran L. Rife. “Airborne wind energy: Optimal
locations and variability.” Renewable Energy 64 (2014): 180–86.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2013.10.044;
• Archer, Cristina L., and Mark Z. Jacobson. “Evaluation of global wind power.” Journal of
Geophysical Research 110, D12 (2005): 5385. doi:10.1029/2004JD005462;
• B. Houska and M. Diehl. “Optimal Control for Power Generating Kites.” In Proceedings of the
European Control Conference 2007., 2007. Accessed December 14, 2017;
• Bechtle, P., M. Schelbergen, R. Schmehl, U. Zillmann and S. Watson (2018), Airborne Wind
Energy Resource Analysis, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (submitted);
• Best Breezes blog, “Interview with Inventor of Magenn Kite Rotor Generator”, http://best-
breezes.squarespace.com/journal/2006/1/29/interview-with-inventor-of-magenn-kite-rotor-
generator.html, last accessed June 2018;
• Bruinzeel et al. (2018). Ecological Impact of Airborne Wind Energy Technology: Current State of
Knowledge and future Research Agenda in Schmehl et al (2018), Airborne Wind Energy (pp. 679
– 696). Springer nature, Signapore;
• Windenergie-Erlass. BayWEE. Bayerische Staatsministerien. 2016;
• Callies, Doron. “Analyse des Potenzials der Onshore-Windenergie in Deutschland unter
Berücksichtigung von technischen und planerischen Randbedingungen.” Doctoral Thesis,
Fachbereich Elektrotechnik / Informatik, Universität Kassel, 2014;
• Cherubini, Antonello, Andrea Papini, Rocco Vertechy, and Marco Fontana. “Airborne Wind
Energy Systems: A review of the technologies.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 51
(2015): 1461–76. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.053;
• Ecorys and Fraunhofer IWES (2017) Study on Lessons for Ocean Energy Development;
• EnerKite. “EnerKite website.” Accessed September 19, 2017. http://www.enerkite.de/;
• EY, Rina Consulting and Technofi (2018), Technology Readiness Level: Guidance Principles for
Renewable Energy technologies;
• Faggiani, Pietro, and Roland Schmehl. “Chapter 16 Design and Economics of a Pumping Kite
Wind Park.” In Airborne Wind Energy 2017., 2017. Accessed October 27, 2017;
• Fagiano, Lorenzo. “Control of Tethered Airfoils for High-Altitude Wind Energy Generation:
Advanced control methods as key technologies for a breakthrough in renewable energy
generation.” Politecnico di Torino, 2009;
• Federal Aviation Administration, Integration of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the
National Airspace System (NAS) Roadmap”, First editiona, November 2013.and FAA,
“Notification for Airborne Wind Energy Systems” FAA-2011-1279, December 2011;
• Fletcher, C. A. J., and Roberts B. W. “Electricity generation from jet stream winds.” Journal of
Energy, 3 (1979): 241–49;
• Goela, and J.S. “Wind power through kites.” Mechanical Engineering 42 (1979): 42–43;

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 113

 • Gupta, Y., J. Dumon, A. Hably, Modeling and control of a Magnus effect-based airborne wind
energy system in crosswind maneuvers, 2017 IFAC World Congress, IFAC-PapersOnLine,
Volume 50, Issue 1, 2017;
• Hallamasek, Kurt, Eric Chin, Mike Mu, Michael Sacrito, and Eric Uhrhane. “A Low-Cost Fiber
Optic Avionics Network for Control of an Energy Kite.” Unpublished manuscript, last modified
December 5, 2017. http://awec2017.com/posters.html;
• Harrop, P., Airborne Wind Energy (AWE) 2018-2028 Report, IDTechEx,
https://www.idtechex.com/research/reports/airborne-wind-energy-awe-2018-2028-
000560.asp?viewopt=contents, last accessed June 2018HWN500. “HWN500: Netzwerk
Höhenwind-Nutzung.” http://www.hwn500.de;
• International Renewable Energy Agency. “Accelerating the Energy Transition through
Innovation.” Unpublished manuscript, last modified September 5, 2017. www.irena.org;
• Kitepower. “Kitepower website.” Accessed September 19, 2017. https://kitepower.nl/;
• LOYD, M. L. “Crosswind kite power (for large-scale wind power production).” Journal of Energy
4, no. 3 (1980): 106–11. doi:10.2514/3.48021;
• Manalis, M. S. “Airborne Windmills and Communication Aerostats.” Journal of Aircraft 13, no. 7
(1976): 543–44. doi:10.2514/3.58686;
• Ockels, Wubbo J. “Laddermill, a novel concept to exploit the energy in the airspace.” Aircraft
Design 4, 2-3 (2001): 81–97. doi:10.1016/S1369-8869(01)00002-7;
• Payne, Peter R., and Charles McCutchen. Self-erecting windmill. US3987987 A. Filed January
28, 1975. Issued October 26, 1976;
• Peschel, Johannes. “Kitepower - Commercializing a 100 kW mobile wind energy system.”
Airborne Wind Energy Conference 2017, Freiburg, 5.10.17. Accessed December 18, 2017.
http://awec2017.com/presentations/johannes-peschel;
• IRENA (2017): Renewable Energy Auctions: Analysing 2016. Edited by International Renewable
Energy Agency. Abu Dhabi, checked on 9/5/2017;
• Roberts, Bryan W., David H. Shepard, Ken Caldeira, M. E. Cannon, David G. Eccles, Albert J.
Grenier, and Jonathan F. Freidin. “Harnessing High-Altitude Wind Power.” IEEE Transactions on
Energy Conversion 22, no. 1 (2007): 136–44. doi:10.1109/TEC.2006.889603;
• Skypull. “Skypull homepage.” Accessed September 28, 2017. http://skypull.com;
• “Status des Windenergieausbaus an Land in Deutschland: 1. Halbjahr 2017.” Unpublished
manuscript, last modified August 25, 2017. http://www.windguard.de/service/knowledge-
center/windstatistik/Halbjahr-1-2017.html;
• Wind Europe (2017). 1Unleashing Europe’s offshore wind potential: A new resource assessment’;
• Zanon, Mario, Greg Horn, Sebastien Gros, and Moritz Diehl. “Control of Dual-Airfoil Airborne Wind
Energy systems based on nonlinear MPC and MHE.” In 2014 European Control Conference
(ECC), 1801–6., 2014.

114 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

Annexes

• Annex I: Overview of stakeholder involved in the study

• Annex II: LCOE forecasts produced in recent years
• Annex III: Focus Group Reports
• Annex IV: Validation Workshop Report

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 115

Annex I: Overview of stakeholders involved in
the study

We express our thanks to the stakeholders that have provided valuable inputs throughout the study.

Name Organisation
Aldo Cattano Skypull, CH
Alexander Bormann Enerkite
Aloys Nghiem WindEurope
Andrea Bartolazzi Consultant for Skypull
Anton Kaifel Zentrum für Sonnenenergie und Wasserstoff-Forschung Baden-Württemberg
Antonio Marchetto EASA
Bernard van Hemert Ampyx power
Bernd Specht Skysails
Christoph Sieg Kiteswarms Ltd.
Corey Houle Twingtec
Cristina Angulo EASA
Erik J van der Heide Ampyx power
Espen Oland Kitemill
Fabian Girrbach X-Sens
Falko Fritz Skysails
Fernando Fontes University of Porto
Fort Keller Makani
Francisco Boshell IRENA
Frédéric Bourgault New Leaf
Garrett Smith Wind Fisher
Gernot Hagemann Hannoverimpuls
Jaap Bosch Ampyx power
Joep Breur Kitepower
John Obrecht Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy
Jörg Dittrich DLR
Jos Beurskens (Ex) ECN
Julian Campe EWE
Kester Gunn E.on
Kim Harnow Klausen Covestro global wind, DE
Kristian Petrick Eco-union
Lode Carnel Kitemill
Mac Gaunaa DTU Wind Energy
Manfred Quack Skysails
Marco Mazzi E.ON
Markus Farner FOCA
Max ter Horst e-kite
Mike Blanch Consultant BVG associates
Moritz Diehl University of Freiburg
Nicola Mona Skypull, CH
Paul Hatton EASA

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 117

 Name Organisation
Peter Eecen ECN
Peter Hauge Madsen DTU Wind Energy
Philip Bechtle University of Bonn
Pietro Faggiani Kitepower
Po Wen Cheng University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart Chair of Wind Energy, Institute of Aircraft Design
Rainer Hinrichs-Rahlwes European Ren. Energies Federation, BE
Richard Ruiterkamp Ampyx power
Rigo Bosman DSM Dyneema
Roland Schmehl University of Delft
Rolf Luchsinger Twingtec
Sebastiano Sella Kitenergy
Simon Heyes KPS
Stefan Ronig EASA
Stefano Sanmartino Kitenergy
Thomas Harklau Kitemill
Udo Zillman Airborne Wind Europe
Uwe Fechner Aenarete
Yves Morier EASA

118 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

Annex II: LCOE forecasts produced in recent
years

The table below presents LCOE forecasts that have been produced in recent years by AWES OEMs
and research organisations. We stress that the uncertainty in these estimates is very high, and that
the underlying assumptions for these LCOE figures vary. This implies that although these figures can
be used for providing an order of magnitude and the potential range for LCOE, they should not be
used for comparison of LCOE between developers. Moreover, some developers argue that LCOEs
below the figures cited below can become feasible. We argue that at the current stage of
development, it seems reasonable not to consider LCOE in discussions beyond a general outlook on
potential cost when AWES are commercialized.

Table A.2.1 LCOE forecasts by AWES OEMs and research which have been produced in recent years.
These estimates are based on modelling and small prototypes without fully automated and continuous
operation with limited operating hours and should be considered to have a high uncertainty.
Source of estimate LCOE Additional information on
AWES considered
Ampyx 186 120€/MWh for 2 MW unit, floating offshore
187
EnerKite 85€/MWh for 100 kW unit
188
Enerkite 46€/MWh for 500 kW unit
Kitepower/ Enevate 189 150€/MWh for 100 kW unit
190
Kitepower/ Enevate 105€/MWh for 100 kW unit
Kite Power Systems 100€/MWh
Skypull 191 40.2€/MWh
192
Fraunhofer IWES 46€/MWh for 200 kW unit
193
Politecnico di Torino 10 to 48 €/MWh for large farms of 2-MW units
P. Faggiani and R. Schmehl 194 125€/MWh for a flexible wing, 100 kW unit and
100 m² wing area
NB. This table was developed in spring 2018.

186
Ampyx Power et al., supra note 46.
187
EnerKite, “EnerKite website.”
188
Ibid.
189
Kitepower, “Kitepower website.”
190
Pietro Faggiani and Roland Schmehl, “Chapter 16 Design and Economics of a Pumping Kite Wind Park.”
191
Skypull, “Skypull homepage.”
192
Fraunhofer Institut für Windenergie und Energiesystemtechnik, “Abschlussbericht OnKites II.”
193
Fagiano, L., M. Milanese, and D. Piga. “High-Altitude Wind Power Generation.” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion
25, no. 1 (2010): 168–180.
194
Faggiani and Schmehl (2018), Design and Economics of a Pumping Kite Wind Park, Airborne Wind Energy pp 391-411.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 119

Annex III: Focus Groups Reports

Focus Group Hannover – System Readiness

Participants
The focus group consisted of 9 participants, including 2 team members, covering a research institute,
finance, developers and an OEM.

Introductions
After a welcoming word from Enno Dietrich, the Focus Group kicked off with a round of introductions.

Presentation of study background and preliminary findings

To set the scene, Karel van Hussen presented the background and state of play of the study, and
gave an overview of the preliminary findings.

Group discussions
The group discussions focussed on potential areas for cooperation in component and system
development aiming to achieve continuous autonomous cooperation, and in general on potential
areas for cooperation within the sector. The results of these discussions are presented topic-wise
below.

In general, the participants raised the issue of IP protection and sharing of information that you’ve
already invested in. From that perspective, developers require additional encouragement, an
incentive, to cooperate. The potential for cooperation and information sharing is deemed highest in
areas with common challenges that are not core IP related.

Measures to support continuous autonomous operation

The participants felt that joint component development is not feasible to do in practice. While
components appear quite similar, the challenges turn out to be specific to a unique concept.
Moreover, it was regarded questionable to what extent a developed component is flexible for different
application scales, i.e. whether it can for example be used for both 500kW and 2MW devices.
Companies will in general not be willing to share core IP for the relevant components (that include
the control system and may exclude the tether). On a general note, one participant raised that
perhaps the discussion on continuous automated operations will be too late, as projects to achieve
this are now ongoing. Nonetheless, several potential areas for cooperation have been identified.

Firstly, an important need for achieving continuous automated operations is finding a common
language. More specifically, this concerns a clear definition of continuous automated operations,
including indicators that underpin this. Currently, companies take whatever indicator they consider
best, making comparison and proofing of achieving this milestone difficult. Single companies struggle
to do this in a meaningful way. With a common understanding within the industry, this could be used
to support specific developments, for instance continuous automated operation or system safety.

Secondly, various participants identified that testing infrastructure would facilitate technology
development and knowledge sharing.

An independent and authoritative test site operator was mentioned as a measure that can support
knowledge exchange. This should improve informal knowledge exchange, and may provide
opportunities for using anonymised data to assess and compare technologies. The developers

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 121

 stressed that it should not be possible to trace back performance statistics to a specific device, and
that it is too early to discuss what types of data could then potentially be shared. In any case, the
data sharing requirements should be phased, changing as technologies mature. In addition, the
actual degree of data sharing would be a negotiating process (sharing data for support).

Moreover, this measure could help to deliver the proof needed for permitting procedures. A constraint
here may be that tests are generally performed under suboptimal conditions, with the aim of achieving
learning.

The lack of testing infrastructure concerns both indoor and outdoor testing infrastructure. For indoor
testing infrastructure, it is hard to find suitable testing facilities for larger devices. An example here is
facilities for testing of tether strengths, for which you need indoor machinery (large drums, a motor,
a break, etc.). For outdoor testing infrastructure, regulatory permits are a significant barrier. As an
example, one developer indicated to need a permit for every single flight, wasting resources with
moving equipment in and out and not having the flexibility to fly whenever this is desirable.

Optimal site characteristics for an outdoor testing site were identified:

• Reachable (major airport close by)
• Grid-connected.
• Permission to fly 24/7 up to, for example 300 meters
• Good wind: average 8m/s wind speeds
• Some open space, it does not have to be completely clear. You need to be able to prove that you
can handle different turbulences
• 1 km2 per test plot
• Restricted access
• Independent wind measurement

It was pointed out that testing periods would increase over time, as would the size of the tested
devices. Due to this, the required size for test sites would increase over time. The changes in duration
and tested device would also have an impact on the driving parameters- where in the beginning
flexibility to test and permitting would be paramount, later financing the actual prototype would
become more important.

Cooperation set-up
The developers argued that having two competitors in one project is usually an issue. These types
of set-ups have been tried, but it was too difficult to come up with a good deal. The issue is that it is
difficult to establish value and to predict where it will land (in what region or market), which is a barrier
for making commercial agreements.

Cooperation through the supply chain is seen as a more promising angle. This may happen for the
ground station, and possibly for the tethers (although this point was contested).

Applicability of public support instruments

The suggested public support instruments include:
• Investment in test facilities
• Inducement prize for achieving various stages of continuous operations – possibly, although this
requires pre-financing
• Grant funding for pilots (at test sites)
• Buying an AWES prototype to have it operate for a year.

122 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

Other reflections concerning public support instruments:
• For the usability of public support instruments, timing is critical. You need to solve an issue when
it occurs, not when the research grant becomes available within the next 2 years. If it is important,
it has to be solved more urgent than can be done with the help of public support instruments.
• The schemes from / in the European Union almost all require co-financing. You always need to
provide 40% yourself. If you’re lucky you have a venture capitalist behind you. Most MSs don’t
have the resources to support a new technology.
• Participants consider EU funding difficult to access. You need to overcome language barriers,
find partners in other countries, finding a right call. The EU funding principles are perceived as
having a social / political background. This may not work for AWES’ economic challenges.

Other measures with scope for cooperation and public support

Throughout the discussions, various other fields for cooperation and/or public support were identified.
1. Simulation tool (software)
a. A validated and flexible tool is needed to model device capabilities and performance. Such a
model could be shared by developers, while keeping sensitive design choices confidential.
b. The aviation industry doesn’t have this type of model. Airplanes are modelled based on quasi-
static manoeuvres, and not dynamic movement.
c. Something similar was done in wind industry. Even for example for master students, allowing
them to analyse technologies.
2. Global wind data
a. Wind data beyond 100m altitude, to improve market potential analyses.
b. A grant can deliver this information.
c. You need scientific evidence for this type of information.
3. Permitting procedures
a. Regulation / permitting are a shared issue.
b. There is a lot of technology coming from the drone industry, e.g. on detecting drones
c. Automated operations are not the issue: proving it is the main issue.
d. As long as you can prove that your tether will not break, the regulatory side will be easier.
e. Certifying unmanned aircrafts in the drone industry is very expensive. It kills start-ups in the
drone industry. Only one drone developer claims that it has developed a drone that is
certifiable (NB: they haven’t actually done this, likely because it is too expensive).
f. Research question: what is the influence of AWES kites on radars? Impact of dynamic (or
radiating) systems instead of static objects on radar signals of flight safety systems.
4. Determining social and environmental impacts. This includes measurements on noise emissions,
exploring NIMBY constraints and impact on birds. As an example of cooperation, the automotive
industry collectively discusses and researches the social implications and impacts of unmanned
vehicle technology, without going into the technologies themselves.
5. Aircraft lighting for night-time operations
6. Enabling grid connectivity. Question: what quality of produced electricity is acceptable?
7. Foundation ground station: can be developed together, although it is not really a technological
challenge.
8. Lightning. The conventional wind sector has done lightning prediction activities for planning
maintenance activities. There is a lightning prediction system in place from the National Wind
Technology Centre in the USA (under NREL).

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 123

 Focus Group Rotterdam – stage-gate procedure for Airborne Wind Energy

Introduction
On 15th of March the second focus group meeting was organised at the Ecorys premises in Rotterdam
on the potential of a stage-gate procedure for AWES. The idea of a focus group is to bring together
expertise from the AWES sector as well as other sectors in a focused setting to discuss a number of
questions on a specific topic.

Goal of the focus group

One of the objectives of the current study is to explore transfer of lessons from other sectors to the
AWES sector. A promising avenue is a recent innovation in ocean energy technology development
called the Stage Gate Procedure. It is a procedure that recognises different phases of technology
development and measure and compares development progress. Metrics play an important role here
for measurement of success, management of calls, allocation of funding, demonstrate progress, build
investor confidence, avoid replication of funding and support decision making.

The central objective of the focus group was to explore the potential of the stage-gate procedure for
the AWES sector, and discuss the potential roe of public support in strengthening the sector and/or
the EU supply chain.

Questions that were discussed:

• Is the concept of the stage-gate procedure transferable to the airborne wind energy sector?
• Can AWES technology development activities be split into distinct phases, in terms of
technological readiness, scale and required investments?
• What are relevant key performance indicators to determine the progress along phases of AWES
technology development?
• What type of public support instruments would best fit the sector at the current state of AWES
technology development?
• What type of public support instruments are expected to be required in the next 5 to 10 years?
• Is there a role for supply chain involvement, within the context public support instruments?
• What type of public support instrument will facilitate strong positioning of the EU vis-à-vis non-EU
supply chain?

Participants
The focus group consisted of 7 participants, including 2 team members, covering research institutes,
developers and the AWES association.

Validation of interim conclusions

LCOE
The conclusion that it is ‘too soon to talk LCOE’ was contested. LCOE is such a fundamental issue
that all investors want to talk about LCOE. In addition, you need an optimisation target (= LCOE).
Conclusion: it is too soon for bottom-up quantification of LCOE – so it needs to be approached based
on qualitative cost reduction potential arguments. And developers should always keep LOCE
potential in mind (as this is the end goal).

Industrial and corporate management

The conclusion on the need for industrial and corporate management expertise was validated.

124 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

Sequentiality and scaling
The conclusion that autonomous continuous operations need to be proven early on, before scaling
up, was contested. An extensive discussion was held regarding the advantages and disadvantages
on scaling up quickly vis-à-vis testing extensively on a small scale. This point came back several
times, e.g. when discussing the development pathway.

Arguments for scaling up quickly to a 1:1 scale, and then testing long term continuous operations:
• The lessons that you need to learn are scale dependent. You cannot show something on a small
scale, and just scale it up. The robustness levels that you need to achieve depend on the scale;
• A multi-megawatt design for AWES is different from a small scale AWES. This is fundamentally
different compared to conventional wind;
• Design targets are different depending on large scale grid connected markets;
• Scale is needed to achieve a feasible LCOE;
• You need clear target markets / customers;
• For proving continuous autonomous operations, you need certain quality systems that are not
available off the shelf. Examples are sensors, heat systems (power systems), etc. If you work on
a small scale, you will spend 10 years to downscale a system that the industry has already proven
at larger scale;
• It is crucial to pick components of the shelf, and the scale at which such components are available
should be leading;
• The scaling is what makes proofing of concept difficult. The TRL of components in isolation is
quite high. Winges, tethers, aircraft. It is the combination and control of these elements that is the
real challenge;
• Small scale demonstration cab become a distraction, and not a sensible use of tax payers money.
It doesn’t provide the lessons we need to learn.

Arguments for working on a small scale:

• It is cheaper to fail;
• You build confidence with investors;
• Continuity of operation is something that customers will absolutely want.

Regulation
Regulation was touched upon during the discussions. It was validated that it is an important barrier.
Being allowed to do something at a larger scale (above 150kg) is the main challenge, and it is
expected that aviation regulation will always remain an issue. Understanding where AWES will be
classified is extremely important. A final potential issue is that class G may be too unregulated.

Convergence
Convergence was touched upon during the discussions. The conclusion was that parallel concepts
of varying scale can serve different markets, while at the same time convergence is still expected.

Synergies from other industries

Synergies from other industries will greatly increase. More advanced components continue to
become available.

Discussion of AWES Development phases

The study team presented draft development phases. They were discussed in detail. This resulted in
a definition of the phases, with corresponding relative scales and indicative investment needs. This
has resulted in the overview of development phases in the main report.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 125

 Role of public support instruments
Pilot and demonstration funding
Investment from the European Commission are not expected by the participants in phase 2. They
become relevant in phase 3 and phase 4, and in the end through FiT. In phase 4, you will need EIA
and permitting. Activities to prepare this process need to start earlier.

R&D support
R&D support never stops being important. The developer just knits it all together. Relevant topics
include specialist designs, component performance and aerodynamics.

Inducement prize
An inducement prize is only considered to be relevant if it is additional. It may distract developers /
introduce the wrong incentives. Reference is made to the Saltire Prize for wave and tidal energy.

Public opinion
Public opinion needs to be mobilised when the industry is ready. There is a risk of doing so too soon.

Test site
Potential support: test site. An ‘EMEC’ (test facilities for wave and tidal energy near Orkney, Scotland)
for AWES.

Supply chain positioning

The expectation is that complex components will be produced in the EU in the first 10 to 15 years
(e.g. winges, composites). Manufacturing will be sourced outside the EU when scaled production is
needed. For any component, it is required to be on board early on in the development process.

EU support to the supply chain can be focussed on enabling technologies such as composites and
the automotive sector. (the position of the EU in power electronics is weaker).

Public support instruments aimed at bringing one or more developers together with the supply chain
are perceived sceptically by the participants. If anything, instruments can focus on supply chain
involvement for the development of tethers (most other components will be bespoke). Developers
should then not be part of the consortium.

Target market
The initial market / entry market will likely be outside the EU. The participants do not see a large scale
onshore market within the EU for large scale systems. The subsequent market would be offshore
within the EU. Participants argue that for the EU it is important to keep the IP and high value
component production in the EU.

126 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

Focus Group Cologne – Regulatory aspects and public support

Introduction
On March 20th the third focus group meeting was organised at the EASA premises in Cologne on the
regulatory aspects and public support. The idea of a focus group is to bring together expertise from
the AWES sector as well as other sectors in a focused setting to discuss a number of questions on a
specific topic.

Goal of the focus group

Before AWES can be operated on a 24/7 basis, it is required that an approval is obtained from the
aviation authorities. This approval addresses not only the technical system, and its reliability, but also
to the operational aspects. The approval does not only relate to safety for other airspace users and
third party risk, but could also relate to other impacts like environmental impact.
The main objective of this focus group is to determine what is needed to obtain an approval to operate
on a 24/7 basis.

The main research questions were:

1. What are the topics relevant for regulatory approval for 24/7 commercial operations?
2. At what level / how bespoke should appropriate regulation be?
3. What are the process steps required in order to demonstrate that the AWES is approved?
4. What needs to be demonstrated by the applicant? What evidence is needed?
5. How long would such an operational approval procedure take?
6. What is the role of public support to support regulatory processes?
7. What is the role of the supply chain with respect to certification and standardisation?

Participants
The focus group consisted of 10 participants, including two team members, covering an airspace
regulators and developers.

There were four people present from the AWES industry side and 4 persons from the regulatory side
(EASA and national regulator). The meeting was moderated by two study team members.

Main conclusions
In Europe it has been decided that from an aviation perspective, the AWES is both an RPAS (a
tethered drone) as well as an obstacle. This implies that the AWES has to be approved as an RPAS
and that the requirements regarding obstacles apply.

The aviation regulations follow for the AWES a risk-based approach. The risk associated with AWES
operations depends on the location and in particular the presence of people in the vicinity. This
implies that it is more difficult to get an approval in populated (or densely populated) areas. The
acceptable risk and also boundaries of these areas is not known.

The foreseen way of getting an approval is to first develop a concept of operations (CONOPS) that
describes in detail how the AWES is going to be operated. Based on that a risk assessment (using
the SORA) is performed on which mitigating measures are implemented to ensure that all risks are
acceptable. The whole case (all evidence) that demonstrates that all risks are acceptable (the safety
case) is submitted to the national aviation authority. They will have to approve the AWES operations
based on the safety case.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 127

 It is expected that, as part of the safety case, the system (airborne part as well as the tether and
ground station) certified according to a given standard, the Certification Specification (CS), but this is
not mandatory.

The AWES developers believe that they will develop a system that is better than the minimum safety
standards due to economic reasons. A system that just meets the minimum safety standards will not
be sufficiently cost effective.

A foreseen bottleneck is the building of the organisation around a commercial 24/7 AWES operation.
This would require a sufficient amount of staff, working procedures, a safety management system,
quality control etc.

The process to come to an approved commercial AWES operation would take a number of years. It
would require that the applicant would have to go through an iterative process with the regulator until
there is an agreement on the operation and the provided evidence. Especially this will be an intensive
process for the “first movers” because the initiative for solutions and evidence will have to come from
the applicant.

It was felt by the participants that the duration of the approval process will not be the most restrictive.
There are also other procedures (with local and national governments) that the AWES company has
to go through before the AWES operation is approved, like environmental and noise hindrance.

At this phase of the AWES development, there is a need for support from the public in the form of the
availability of test sites / facilities. Additionally, support in what to test and how to perform the analysis
is seen as beneficial. This could be in the form of a text book or sharing of experiences.

A potential bottleneck is that in order for the AWES operation to be cost effective, it is foreseen that
the AWES will be set up in large array of AWESs. It is doubtful whether or not the national government
(policy makers / aviation authorities) is willing to block a large airspace for one commercial user.

128 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

Annex IV: Validation Workshop Report

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of Airborne

Wind Energy Systems
Key conclusions from the Validation workshop
of findings – ways forward for the sector

Brussels, Wednesday 4th July 2018

EC - DG R&I (CDMA Building, rooms SDR1&2), Rue du Champs de Mars 21

The “Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of Airborne Wind Energy Systems” has been launched
at the initiative of DG Research and Innovation in 2017. It is implemented by Ecorys, Fraunhofer IWES,
Politecnico di Milano and the Netherlands Airspace Institute NLR. A workshop was held with 39 stakeholders
from in- and outside the sector to validate the key findings of the study.

1. The State of Play in Airborne Wind Energy: a lot of progress in the last decade
The Airborne Wind Energy sector is young and emerging. Many concepts are still under
investigation by the sector. Since 2008, developments efforts have increased strongly. This has
led to some convergence of technological concepts and TRL levels of 4 to 5. Short term field
testing of small scale prototypes is now taking place. Medium scale prototypes are currently being
designed and built, partially funded by local and national funding. Their deployment is envisioned
within the next one to three years.
2. The case for Airborne Wind Energy Systems shows a mixed picture
Unique Selling Points of mature AWES include a high degree of mobility, low material use, high
capacity factors, relatively low up-front investments, and significant resource potential. However,
a strong development effort is still needed on various technical and non-technical aspects, and
the extent to which AWES can reach cost-competitiveness vis-à-vis other renewable energy
technologies is not clear at this stage. The case for AWES needs to be substantiated, by further
assessing resource potential and resource complementarity. The AWES case in the context of
European industrial leadership is strong, because the sector is dominated by European players
and promising opportunities for value capture along the value chain. The AWES case in the
context of decarbonisation and energy security goals is weaker, because entry markets are
envisioned to be outside of Europe. Various stakeholders argue, however, that there is still
significant technical deployment potential in the EU. Many stakeholders pointed out that support
for EU deployment is needed in order to keep manufacturing activities within Europe.
3. Sequentiality of barriers: first address automated continuous operations
To bring any AWES concept to commercialisation, automated continuous operations and
electricity production is at this stage the most important barrier. This barrier also prevents the
possibility to fully address a range of non-technical barriers. Achieving automated continuous
operations for long periods of time would require automated take-off and landing and sufficiently
ready components. Especially the control system is a complex component. Automated and
repeatable operation will allow stakeholders to access measured data of produced electricity, to
be compared with the expected values. A positive outcome can strongly contribute to build
confidence in the concept. Addressing barriers sequentially also provides a basis for the
development of milestones to control investment risks.

Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems 129

 4. A need for common agreement on performance indicators, notably for defining
continuous, automated operations
The first step for achieving continuous automated operations is to define properly the terminology.
Sector-wide coordination is needed to develop agreed standards for metrics to determine device
performance. This is relevant for reliability as well as for power production indicators. This should
create clarity and be the starting point of correction mechanisms against conscious or
unconscious overpromising of technology development progress, helping to set realistic
expectations and build mutual trust. Potential customers and stakeholders will expect that AWES
systems will work in a way similar to other renewable technologies, i.e. functioning unattended
and in all non-nominal conditions. A better understanding of potential customers and stakeholders
expectations is needed.
5. Actors from outside the sector need to be able to learn, understand and appreciate
AWES
Stakeholders from outside the sector argued that it is difficult to form a clear picture on technology
development progress and concept performance, because of a wide range of concepts and
different ways to define performance metrics. This is relevant for investors, customers, public
bodies and citizens. A case was made for public simulation tools to test performance of devices
as well as develop public repositories for resource and performance data. These can help to start
a dialogue within the sector and increase public interest in the AWES sector. This should also
help to increase the understanding of needs of potential customers.
6. Embrace formal and informal experience exchanges, with a promising role for shared
test sites
Even though developers are in direct competition for funding opportunities, cooperation in a range
of areas is possible (e.g. environmental impact assessments, standards and certificates,
knowledge and tools). Various good practices of experience sharing were identified. Furthermore,
there is significant potential and scope for public support for incentivising informal exchange
mechanisms. Creating a hub of AWES development at a shared test site and/or harmonised
testing in stable wind conditions is important.
7. Public support is critical to increase private interest in the sector
The type of support that is most useful for the sector varies by development phase. Active support
by two or three Member States would be instrumental. Support will become increasingly important
in the future, when grant funding will be needed for long term field testing of (arrays of) 1:1 scale
devices in the pilot and demonstration phases 3 and 4. For market pull instruments such as Feed
in Tariffs, developers and private investors require a conditional and stable outlook of public
support for when the technology is ready.
8. Start a dialogue between the sector and the European Commission for potential support
Various opportunities for public sector support were raised throughout the workshop. These
included challenges concerning resource potential and complementarity, social and
environmental impacts and testing facilities. The sector has been invited to start a dialogue with
the European Commission to explore these opportunities. In general, stakeholders were positive
about the concept of a risk-controlled approach where stage-gates and milestones are used to
unlock larger and larger investments as the technology development progresses.
9. Long-term outlook provides the vision to the Sector
It was highlighted by the industry participants that in their opinion Airborne Wind Energy Systems
still need substantial development and investments before reaching commercial application.
However, many stakeholders see high potential for AWES to play a significant role in realising
100% renewable power in the second half of the 21st century.

130 Study on Challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

 About Ecorys

Ecorys is a leading international research and consultancy company, addressing society's key
challenges. With world-class research-based consultancy, we help public and private clients make
and implement informed decisions leading to positive impact on society. We support our clients with
sound analysis and inspiring ideas, practical solutions and delivery of projects for complex market,
policy and management issues.

In 1929, businessmen from what is now Erasmus University Rotterdam founded the Netherlands
Economic Institute (NEI). Its goal was to bridge the opposing worlds of economic research and
business – in 2000, this much respected Institute became Ecorys.

Throughout the years, Ecorys expanded across the globe, with offices in Europe, Africa, the Middle
East and Asia. Our staff originates from many different cultural backgrounds and areas of expertise
because we believe in the power that different perspectives bring to our organisation and our clients.

Ecorys excels in seven areas of expertise:

- Economic growth;
- Social policy;
- Natural resources;
- Regions & Cities;
- Transport & Infrastructure;
- Public sector reform;
- Security & Justice.

Ecorys offers a clear set of products and services:

- preparation and formulation of policies;
- programme management;
- communications;
- capacity building;
- monitoring and evaluation.

We value our independence, our integrity and our partners. We care about the environment in which
we work and live. We have an active Corporate Social Responsibility policy, which aims to create
shared value that benefits society and business. We are ISO 14001 certified, supported by all our
staff.

132 FIK90708 KvH/OV

P.O. Box 4175
3006 AD Rotterdam
The Netherlands

Watermanweg 44
3067 GG Rotterdam
The Netherlands

T +31 (0)10 453 88 00

F +31 (0)10 453 07 68
E [email protected]
Registration no. 24316726

W www.ecorys.nl

Sound analysis, inspiring ideas

BELGIUM – BULGARIA – CROATIA – INDIA – THE NETHERLANDS – POLAND – SPAIN – TURKEY – UNITED KINGDOM
Getting in touch with the EU
IN PERSON
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct Information Centres.
You can find the address of the centre nearest you at: http://europa.eu/contact

ON THE PHONE OR BY E-MAIL

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union.
You can contact this service
– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),
– at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or
– by electronic mail via: http://europa.eu/contact

Finding information about the EU

ONLINE
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on
the Europa website at: http://europa.eu

EU PUBLICATIONS
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at:
http://bookshop.europa.eu. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting
Europe Direct or your local information centre (see http://europa.eu/contact)

EU LAW AND RELATED DOCUMENTS

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official
language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

OPEN DATA FROM THE EU

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data) provides access to datasets
from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, both for commercial and non-
commercial purposes.
 KI-01-18-188-EN-N
Airborne wind energy systems (AWES) is the umbrella name for a series of
potentially game-changing concepts to convert wind energy into electricity. This
study provides an overview of the technological state of the art, assesses market
potential and barriers, and outlines measures and a pathway towards
commercialisation. The study finds that the technology is still immature, and that
it remains unclear whether the technology can ultimately reach cost-
competitiveness and contribute to EU energy security and decarbonisation
targets. However, the AWES case from the perspective of EU industrial leadership
is strong. Moreover, there is sufficient potential to continue exploring the
technology. The sector needs to do so under a risk-controlled technology
development approach. A framework is proposed to facilitate discussions about
appropriate incentives and public support at various development stages.

Studies and reports

doi: 10.2777/87591
ISBN 978-92-79-80282-9