Firm-level technology transfer and technology cooperation for wind energy between Europe, China and India: From North–South to South–North cooperation?

For several decades the leading wind energy nations were European, while China and India were mainly the recipients of technology transfer. This paper aims to explore the role technology transfer/cooperation from Europe played in shaping firm-level wind energy technologies in China and India and to discuss whether the recent technology cooperation between the Chinese, Indian, and European wind firms challenges the classical North–South technology cooperation paradigm. The research finds that firm-level technology transfer/cooperation shaped the leading wind energy technologies in China and to a lesser extent in India. The paper also finds that several trends towards South–North technology cooperation have been observed between China, India and Europe, such as South–North flows of capital, drivers for market access, and R&D leadership, while the origins of innovation (e.g. patents) seem to remain predominantly in the global North. The paper concludes that the technology cooperation between China, India, and Europe has become more multi-faceted and increasingly Southern-led

Thirty years of North American wind energy acceptance research: What have we learned?

Thirty years of North American research on public acceptance of wind energy has produced important insights, yet knowledge gaps remain. This review synthesizes the literature, revealing the following lessons learned. (1) North American support for wind has been consistently high. (2) The NIMBY explanation for resistance to wind development is invalid. (3) Socioeconomic impacts of wind development are strongly tied to acceptance. (4) Sound and visual impacts of wind facilities are strongly tied to annoyance and opposition, and ignoring these concerns can exacerbate conflict. (5) Environmental concerns matter, though less than other factors, and these concerns can both help and hinder wind development. (6) Issues of fairness, participation, and trust during the development process influence acceptance. (7) Distance from turbines affects other explanatory variables, but alone its influence is unclear. (8) Viewing opposition as something to be overcome prevents meaningful understandings and implementation of best practices. (9) Implementation of research findings into practice has been limited. The paper also identifies areas for future research on wind acceptance. With continued research efforts and a commitment toward implementing research findings into developer and policymaker practice, conflict and perceived injustices around proposed and existing wind energy facilities might be significantly lessened