Surface, ground, and rainwater used for ecological and human use.

Icon

Deploy Industrial Green Hydrogen

Sector
Industry, Materials & Waste
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Improve Processes
Image
Industrial Green Hydrogen Feedstock
Coming Soon
Off

Key Takeaways

  • Green hydrogen made with on-site renewable electricity can replace fossil fuel–based hydrogen for use as a feedstock for producing chemicals such as ammonia and methanol. 
  • Green hydrogen met less than 1% of industrial hydrogen demand in 2024. 
  • Green hydrogen is 1.5–6 times more expensive to produce than hydrogen from fossil fuels, but scaling can reduce that differential. 
  • Green hydrogen could supply an estimated 53–100% of today’s total demand for industrial hydrogen (50 billion kg/yr) by 2050.
  • Supplying all of today’s industrial hydrogen demand with green hydrogen would reduce GHG emissions by 0.6 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr.  
Summary

In this solution, green hydrogen replaces fossil fuel–based hydrogen for use as a feedstock in the production of more complex molecules such as ammonia for fertilizers and methanol for the production of other commodity chemicals. Green hydrogen production in this solution uses on-site renewable electricity or off-site renewable electricity that directly supplies the facility. It replaces hydrogen produced from fossil fuels. This solution does not include the use of green hydrogen as a fuel or as a feedstock in the production of hydrogen-based fuels.

Income & work,Health
Water resources,Air quality
Description for Social and Search
Green hydrogen is a Highly Recommended climate solution. It cuts GHG emissions by replacing hydrogen made from fossil fuels for use as an industrial feedstock.
Overview

Green hydrogen in this solution is hydrogen produced from water by electrolysis using renewable electricity generated on-site or directly supplied from an off-site location. It can reduce emissions when replacing hydrogen made from fossil fuels as an industrial feedstock. 

Today, most hydrogen is produced through a chemical reaction of methane or coal with water that generates hydrogen and CO₂. Green hydrogen, made by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity generated from renewables, accounts for less than 1% of current production (International Energy Agency [IEA], 2025a). The process of making green hydrogen generates no direct GHGs. Therefore, replacing fossil fuel–derived hydrogen with green hydrogen avoids all direct GHGs from the hydrogen production process. 

Hydrogen prolongs the lifespan and abundance of GHGs in the atmosphere when it leaks, and so can indirectly contribute to climate change. However, because this solution substitutes one source of hydrogen for another, it will have little to no effect on this indirect climate impact. 

The manufacture of industrial hydrogen from fossil fuels for all applications was responsible for 680 Mt of emissions in 2023 (IEA, 2024), nearly all of which could be eliminated by substituting green hydrogen.

In 2023, roughly 60% of industrial feedstock hydrogen was used to produce ammonia, a vital ingredient in nitrogen fertilizers while 30% was used to produce methanol (IEA, 2024), an ingredient in the manufacture of a wide range of chemicals, including plastics, building materials, and car parts (International Renewable Energy Agency [IRENA] & Methanol Institute, 2021). Although alternative low-carbon pathways exist for ammonia and methanol, these are difficult to scale, still under development, or reliant on biomass, which is a finite resource associated with potential land-use change and competing demand (IRENA & Methanol Institute, 2021; Rodriguez, 2025). 

While there are other ways to make low-carbon hydrogen, none has demonstrated potential to cut emissions from hydrogen production as effectively as this solution. For example, harvesting naturally occurring hydrogen is a nascent industry with lots of uncertainties (The Royal Society, 2025), and hydrogen made from biomass must compete for biomass with other hard-to-abate sectors. 

The greatest hurdle to green hydrogen deployment is cost. Green hydrogen is one-and-a-half to six times more expensive to produce than hydrogen from fossil fuels (IEA, 2024). Regulatory and demand uncertainty, licensing and permitting issues, and challenges with operational scale-up are also barriers to green hydrogen projects (IEA, 2024). Nevertheless, production capacity has started to grow: installed electrolyzer capacity doubled in 2023, supported by policies and incentives (Pavan et al., n.d.). 

References

Ademollo, A., Calabrese, M., & Carcasci, C. (2025). An up-to-date perspective of levelized cost of hydrogen for PV-based grid-connected power-to-hydrogen plants across all Italy. Applied Energy, 379, 124958. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124958  

Anand, C., Chandraja, B., Nithiya, P., Akshaya, M., Tamizhdurai, P., Shoba, G., Subramani, A., Kumaran, R., Yadav, K. K., Gacem, A., Bhutto, J. K., Alreshidi, M. A., & Alam, M. W. (2025). Green hydrogen for a sustainable future: A review of production methods, innovations, and applications. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 111, 319–341. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2025.02.257  

Cho, H. H., Strezov, V., & Evans, T. J. (2022). Environmental impact assessment of hydrogen production via steam methane reforming based on emissions data. Energy Reports, 8, 13585–13595. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.10.053  

Douglas, M., Trilho, M., & Pellegrinelli, T. (2025). Hydrogen: The outlook to 2050. Wood Mackenzie. Link to source: https://www.woodmac.com/news/opinion/hydrogen-the-outlook-to-2050/  

Du, L., Yang, Y., Bai, X., Xu, S., Lin, L., & Liu, M. (2024). Water scarcity footprint and water saving potential for large-scale green hydrogen generation: Evidence from coal-to-hydrogen substitution in China. Science of The Total Environment, 940, 173589. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.173589  

European Parliament, & Council of the European Union. (2023). Directive (EU) 2023/2413 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 amending directive (EU) 2018/2001, regulation (EU) 2018/1999 and directive 98/70/EC as regards the promotion of energy from renewable sources, and repealing council directive (EU) 2015/652 (No. 2023/2413). Link to source: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202302413 

Ganter, A., Lonergan, K. E., Büchi, H. M., & Sansavini, G. (2024). Shifting to low-carbon hydrogen production supports job creation but does not guarantee a just transition. One Earth, 7(11), 1981–1993. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2024.10.009  

Gasparotto, J., & Da Boit Martinello, K. (2021). Coal as an energy source and its impacts on human health. Energy Geoscience, 2(2), 113–120. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engeos.2020.07.003  

Gulli, C., Heid, B., Noffsinger, J., Waardenburg, M., & Wilthaner, M. (2024). Global energy perspectives 2023: Hydrogen outlook. McKinsey & Company. Link to source: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/oil-and-gas/our-insights/global-energy-perspective-2023-hydrogen-outlook  

Henneman, L., Choirat, C., Dedoussi, I., Dominici, F., Roberts, J., & Zigler, C. (2023). Mortality risk from United States coal electricity generation. Science, 382(6673), 941–946. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adf4915  

Henriksen, M. S., Matthews, H. S., White, J., Walsh, L., Grol, E., Jamieson, M., & Skone, T. J. (2024). Tradeoffs in life cycle water use and greenhouse gas emissions of hydrogen production pathways. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 49, 1221–1234. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.08.079  

Hermesmann, M., & Müller, T. E. (2022). Green, turquoise, blue, or grey? Environmentally friendly hydrogen production in transforming energy systems. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 90, 100996. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2022.100996  

International Energy Agency. (2023). Towards hydrogen definitions based on their emissions intensity. Link to source: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/acc7a642-e42b-4972-8893-2f03bf0bfa03/Towardshydrogendefinitionsbasedontheiremissionsintensity.pdf  

International Energy Agency. (2024). Global hydrogen review 2024. Link to source: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/89c1e382-dc59-46ca-aa47-9f7d41531ab5/GlobalHydrogenReview2024.pdf 

International Energy Agency. (2025a). Global hydrogen review 2025. Link to source: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/12d92ecc-e960-40f3-aff5-b2de6690ab6b/GlobalHydrogenReview2025.pdf  

International Energy Agency. (2025b). Hydrogen production and infrastructure projects database March 2025 [Dataset]. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/hydrogen-production-and-infrastructure-projects-database  

International Energy Agency. (2025c). Hydrogen production and infrastructure projects database September 2025 [Dataset]. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/hydrogen-production-and-infrastructure-projects-database  

Irarrazaval, F., Albornoz, C., & Bogolasky, F. (2026). The troubled geography of green jobs: Examining the estimations and expectations of green hydrogen development in regional labor markets in Chile. Applied Geography, 186, 103828. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2025.103828 

International Renewable Energy Agency, & Bluerisk. (2023). Water for hydrogen production. Link to source: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2023/Dec/IRENA_Bluerisk_Water_for_hydrogen_production_2023.pdf  

International Renewable Energy Agency & Methanol Institute. (2021). Innovation outlook: Renewable methanol. International Renewable Energy Agency. Link to source: https://www.methanol.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/IRENA_Innovation_Renewable_Methanol_2021.pdf  

Iyer, R. K., Prosser, J. H., Kelly, J. C., James, B. D., & Elgowainy, A. (2024). Life-cycle analysis of hydrogen production from water electrolyzers. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 81, 1467–1478. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.06.355  

Johnson, N., Liebreich, M., Kammen, D. M., Ekins, P., McKenna, R., & Staffell, I. (2025). Realistic roles for hydrogen in the future energy transition. Nature Reviews Clean Technology, 1(5), 351–371. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44359-025-00050-4  

Kim, H., Song, G., & Ha, Y. (2025). Green hydrogen export potential in each Southeast Asian country based on exportable volumes and levelized cost of hydrogen. Applied Energy, 383, 125371. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2025.125371  

Li, Y., Hao, J., & Zhou, Y. (2025). Economic analysis of different hydrogen production routes under a CO2 pricing mechanism – A levelized cost of hydrogen based study. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 128, 47–67. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2025.04.185  

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2021). Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation: update. Link to source: https://docs.nlr.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf  

Odenweller, A., & Ueckerdt, F. (2025). The green hydrogen ambition and implementation gap. Nature Energy, 10(1), 110–123. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-024-01684-7  

Paardekooper, S., Lund, H., Chang, M., Nielsen, S., Moreno, D., & Thellufsen, J. Z. (2020). Heat Roadmap Chile: A national district heating plan for air pollution decontamination and decarbonisation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 272, 122744. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122744  

Pavan, F., Bermudez, J. M., Pizarro, A., Remme, U., & Blanco, H. (n.d.). Electrolysers. International Energy Agency. Retrieved October 10, 2025 from Link to source: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/low-emission-fuels/electrolysers  

Rodriguez, E. (2025, January 30). Low-carbon ammonia technology: Blue, green, and beyond. Rocky Mountain Institute. Link to source: https://rmi.org/low-carbon-ammonia-technology-blue-green-and-beyond/  

Smolinka, T., Bergmann, H., Garche, J., & Kusnezoff, M. (2022). The history of water electrolysis from its beginnings to the present. In Smolinka & Garche (Eds.), Electrochemical power sources: Fundamentals, systems, and applications (pp. 83–164). Elsevier. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819424-9.00010-0  

The Royal Society. (2025). Natural hydrogen: Future energy and resources Policy briefing. Link to source: https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/natural-hydrogen/natural-hydrogen-policy-briefing.pdf  

U.S. Department of Energy. (n.d.). Hydrogen production: Electrolysis. Retrieved October 10, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-electrolysis  

US Environmental Protection Agency. (2025). Power sector programs—Progress report. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/power-sector/progress-report  

Vartiainen, E., Breyer, C., Moser, D., Román Medina, E., Busto, C., Masson, G., Bosch, E., & Jäger-Waldau, A. (2022). True cost of solar hydrogen. Solar RRL, 6(5), 2100487. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/solr.202100487  

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Heather McDiarmid, Ph.D. 

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Nina-Francesca Farac, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

Our analysis showed that replacing hydrogen made from fossil fuels with green hydrogen made using renewable electricity can reduce 0.012 t CO₂‑eq /kg hydrogen (20-yr and 100-yr basis, Table 1). 

This analysis does not include the emissions associated with manufacturing and installing electrolyzer equipment or the energy and emissions impacts of storing or transporting hydrogen if needed. 

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /kg green hydrogen, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 0.010
Mean 0.014
Median (50th percentile) 0.012
75th percentile 0.016
Left Text Column Width
Cost

Our estimates put the levelized cost of making hydrogen (LCOH) from coal and natural gas without any form of carbon emissions capture at US$1.90/kg hydrogen, while we estimated the LCOH of green hydrogen from renewable electricity at US$3.60/kg green hydrogen. LCOH represents the average cost to make a kilogram of hydrogen over the facility’s lifetime and includes all installation, operating, and equity costs. These values are in line with the IEA’s estimate that renewable hydrogen costs one-and-a-half to six times more than unabated fossil-fuel based production (IEA, 2024), with most of the higher cost attributed to the upfront costs (IEA, 2025a). 

The LCOH for green hydrogen shows significant variability, ranging from US$1.40/kg for hydrogen from solar in Chile (Vartiainen et al., 2022) to US$10.60/kg for hydrogen from solar in Italy (Ademollo et al., 2025). This reflects geographic differences in renewable energy generation potential and costs as well as differences in electrolyzer technologies, financing terms, and project scales (Kim et al., 2025; Li et al., 2025). Variation also arises from how renewable electricity is produced. Some modeled green hydrogen LCOH values may be underestimates due to the higher cost of operating electrolyzers at less than full capacity when intermittent renewable generation is used (Ademollo et al., 2025). 

We do not report the cost per climate impact because most of our cost data are based on theoretical values, not real projects, and because LCOH values do not include revenues. 

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

Our data show a median learning rate of 18% for the electrolyzer technologies used to make green hydrogen (Table 2) based on five studies. In other words, for every doubling of electrolyzer capacity, the equipment costs decrease by 18%. This is a median value for many electrolyzer types, each of which varies in its technological maturity and rate of cost decline. Research is ongoing to reduce the capital cost of electrolyzers, improve the energy efficiency of the process, and increase operational lifetimes of the equipment (U.S. Department of Energy, n.d.). While these studies consistently indicate declining electrolyzer costs with cumulative electrolyzer capacity, IEA (2025a) reported that costs have recently risen, largely due to inflation. 

The fundamental technology for splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity was developed more than 230 years ago (Smolinka et al., 2022). The process is simple enough that it is used in high school science classes around the world, but more complex equipment is needed to make and collect hydrogen on an industrial scale. 

The production of green hydrogen requires additional equipment beyond electrolyzers, such as renewable power generators, water purification plants, and equipment to process hydrogen, all of which have their own learning rates. 

Table 2. Learning rate: drop in cost per doubling of installed electrolyzer.

Unit: %

25th percentile 15
Mean 20
Median (50th percentile) 18
75th percentile 24
Left Text Column Width
Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as emergency brake, gradual, or delayed.

Deploy Industrial Green Hydrogen Feedstock is a GRADUAL climate solution. It has a steady, linear impact on the atmosphere. 

Caveats

This analysis defines green hydrogen as hydrogen made through electrolysis using onsite renewable electricity. However, many sources only provide data for electrolytic hydrogen, clean hydrogen, or low-carbon hydrogen. Each of these includes green hydrogen but may also include electrolytic hydrogen made using grid electricity, hydrogen made from biomass, or hydrogen made from fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage. We have clearly labeled when the data refer to the more generalized low-carbon electrolytic hydrogen rather than green hydrogen.

Adoption of green hydrogen as a feedstock depends on policy support for green hydrogen, regulations to drive demand for low-carbon end products made from hydrogen (Odenweller & Ueckerdt, 2025), and standardized certification for green hydrogen, including methodologies for GHG emissions monitoring (IEA, 2025a). Regulation and permitting issues can also delay green hydrogen projects and increase overall costs. 

We assumed that manufacture of methanol, ammonia, and other industrial products currently using hydrogen as a feedstock will not shift to new processes (e.g., biological) for their production. We also assumed that naturally occurring hydrogen (sometimes called white hydrogen) and other forms of very-low-carbon hydrogen will not compete with green hydrogen for use as an industrial feedstock. 

Green hydrogen requires a supply of purified water. Removing impurities, minerals, and ions from water has a carbon footprint (Henriksen et al., 2024); that cost is not included in this analysis. 

Current Adoption

Based on IEA (2025c), we estimate that operational projects are currently making 130 million kg of green hydrogen for use as an industrial feedstock per year (Table 3). This represents less than 1% (55 Mt) of all industrial hydrogen demand in 2024 (IEA, 2025a). It may be an underestimate because we only included projects that we were able to confirm to use on-site renewable electricity or off-site renewable electricity that directly supplies the facility. 

The higher cost of green hydrogen relative to hydrogen made from fossil fuels is a major barrier to adoption, along with uncertain demand and regulatory environments (IEA, 2025a). 

Table 3. Current (2025) adoption level of green hydrogen as feedstock.

Unit: kg green hydrogen/yr

Estimate (from IEA (2025c)) 130,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

The IEA (2025a) has historical data on the production of low-carbon hydrogen using electrolysis for industrial applications; this includes green hydrogen but could also include hydrogen made from grid electricity. The data give an average annual rate of increase of 8.1 million kg/yr electrolytic hydrogen for use as an industrial feedstock and are likely an overestimate for purely green hydrogen (Table 4). Much of the added industrial low-carbon hydrogen from electrolysis was produced in China (IEA, 2025a). 

This rate of adoption is slower than expected; only 7% of anticipated 2023 projects have materialized, owing in part to high costs, limited demand, and lack of supportive policies (Odenweller & Ueckerdt, 2025). However, while there has been a decline overall in hydrogen offtake agreements, more than half of agreements signed are dedicated to the manufacture of ammonia and methanol, the two main industrial products that rely on hydrogen as a feedstock (IEA, 2025a). Between March 2025 and September 2025, the estimated production volume from operational industrial green hydrogen feedstock projects increased from 32 million kg/yr to 130 million kg/yr (data extracted from IEA, 2025b, 2025c).

Table 4. Low-carbon electrolytic hydrogen as feedstock, 2021–2024 adoption trend.

Unit: kg low-carbon electrolytic hydrogen/yr/yr

Estimate (from IEA 2025a) 8,100,000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

Current demand for hydrogen as an industrial feedstock is 50 billion kg/yr (Table 5), all of which technically could be supplied with green hydrogen. This value is based on the IEA (2025a)’s estimate of 2024 industrial hydrogen demand, with 90% allocated to its use as a feedstock for ammonia and methanol production. Since demand for industrial hydrogen for ammonia production increased by 3.4% and for methanol production by 2.0% in 2023 (IEA, 2025a), the actual adoption ceiling will increase as the production of industrial hydrogen increases. 

Table 5. Green hydrogen as a feedstock adoption ceiling.

Unit: kg green hydrogen/yr

Estimate (from IEA 2025a) 50,000,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

We estimated that 26–50 billion kg/yr of fossil-based hydrogen could be replaced with green hydrogen as an industrial feedstock by 2050, which is 53–100% of today’s total demand (Table 6).

The Achievable – Low adoption level is an average of McKinsey & Company and Wood Mackenzie’s estimated percent of hydrogen supplied by “clean” or “low-carbon” hydrogen in 2050, which presumably includes hydrogen made from fossil fuels with capture of carbon emissions (Douglas et al., 2025; Gulli et al., 2024). Wood Mackenzie projects that only 33% of traditional carbon-intensive hydrogen will be replaced with low-carbon hydrogen, while McKinsey & Company expects at least 73% of hydrogen demand to be met with clean hydrogen. These estimates may be low, given that the EU has committed to deriving 42% of industrial hydrogen from renewable sources by 2030 and 60% by 2035 (European Parliament & Council of the European Union, 2023). 

The Achievable – High adoption level is set at 100% of today’s industrial feedstock hydrogen, consistent with McKinsey & Company’s upper-end projection that all hydrogen demand could be met by clean hydrogen by 2050 (Gulli et al., 2024). 

Table 6. Green hydrogen as a feedstock range of achievable adoption levels (kg hydrogen/yr).

Table 6. Green hydrogen as a feedstock range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: kg green hydrogen/yr

Current adoption 130,000,000
Achievable – low 26,000,000,000
Achievable – high 50,000,000,000
Adoption ceiling 50,000,000,000
Left Text Column Width

Current adoption of green hydrogen as an alternative is too low to have a globally meaningful climate impact (less than 0.002 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr estimated on both 20- and 100-year basis). We estimate that green hydrogen could reduce 0.31 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100- and 20-year basis) of emissions at the Achievable – Low level and 0.60 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100- and 20-year basis) at the Achievable – High level (Table 7). This outcome is closely aligned with the IEA’s estimate that in 2023, industrial hydrogen use was responsible for 680 Mt CO₂‑eq/yr, 90% (0.61 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ) of which is used as a feedstock for ammonia and methanol production (IEA, 2024). 

Table 7. Green hydrogen as a feedstock climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.00
Achievable – low 0.31
Achievable – high 0.60
Adoption ceiling 0.60
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Income and Work

Research on the direct linkages of green hydrogen with employment is limited; however, the development and adoption of this technology is expected to create jobs (Anand et al., 2025). One study of the expansion of green hydrogen in Europe projected that by 2050, shifting to low-carbon hydrogen would directly create 18,000–50,000 jobs (Ganter et al., 2024). This is mostly driven by the higher labor demand of the electrolysis process. Some jobs associated with green hydrogen are in the construction sector and would not be permanent (Irarrazaval et al., 2026).

Health

Reducing air pollution by switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy decreases exposure to pollutants such as lead and fine particulate matter generated when hydrogen is made from fossil fuels, thereby improving the health of nearby communities (Cho et al., 2022; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA], 2025). These pollutants have been linked to increased morbidity from cardiovascular and respiratory disease, asthma, infections, and cancer (Gasparotto & Martinello, 2021) and to increased risk of premature mortality (Henneman et al., 2023).

Water Resources

Green hydrogen production is more water-efficient than most other types of hydrogen production, but water resource benefits can vary based on geography and renewable energy source (IRENA & Bluerisk, 2023; Du et al., 2024).

Air Quality

Displacing fossil fuel–based hydrogen with renewable energy–based hydrogen will reduce climate and air pollutants associated with burning higher-carbon fuels, such as CO₂, nitrogen oxides, methane, lead, and fine particulate matter (Anand et al., 2025; Cho et al., 2022; Paardekooper et al., 2020; U.S. EPA, 2025).

Risks

Investments in green hydrogen policies and programs to support its use as a feedstock can also support its use as a fuel. Many potential applications for green hydrogen as a fuel, however, are less practical, cost-effective, and efficient than direct electrification, and investments in green hydrogen infrastructure risk diverting efforts away from these better alternatives (Johnson et al., 2025). 

Green hydrogen production requires a water supply. Many existing and planned green hydrogen projects are in water-stressed regions, including China, India, the Gulf States, and parts of the European Union (IRENA & Bluerisk, 2023). However, hydrogen production by other processes also requires a water supply and can exceed the water demand for green hydrogen (Henriksen et al., 2024). 

Interactions with Other Solutions

Competing

Methanol made from industrial green hydrogen could compete with biomass-derived methanol, a product of the Deploy Low-Emission Industrial Feedstocks solution, thereby reducing that solution’s impact. 

Dashboard

Solution Basics

kg of hydrogen produced

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
00.010.012median
units/yr
Current 1.3×10⁸ 02.6×10¹⁰5.0×10¹⁰
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0 0.310.6
Gradual

CO₂ ,CH₄, N₂O

Trade-offs

There are embodied emissions associated with manufacturing and installing any industrial equipment, including the equipment used to make hydrogen of all kinds and renewable energy. Such emissions are not included in the analysis here, but they can be significant and their value depends on a variety of factors (Hermesmann & Müller, 2022; Iyer et al., 2024, National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL], 2021).

Operational projects

Operational green hydrogen projects, 2025

Operational green hydrogen projects where we have been able to independently confirm that renewable electricity is used directly rather than via a credit mechanism.

International Energy Agency. (2025). Hydrogen production and infrastructure projects database September 2025 [Dataset]. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/hydrogen-production-and-infrastructure-projects-database

Operational projects

Operational green hydrogen projects, 2025

Operational green hydrogen projects where we have been able to independently confirm that renewable electricity is used directly rather than via a credit mechanism.

International Energy Agency. (2025). Hydrogen production and infrastructure projects database September 2025 [Dataset]. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/hydrogen-production-and-infrastructure-projects-database

Maps Introduction

Notable low-carbon electrolytic hydrogen production sites in 2024 included ones in China, Europe, and the United States. Latin America, Australia, Canada, India, and the Middle East are projected to also become major producers by 2030 based on announced projects (IEA, 2025a). Driving some of this uptake are government targets for renewable hydrogen production in China, the European Union, India, the United Kingdom, Oman, and Namibia (IEA, 2025a).

China is poised to become a world leader in green hydrogen production for industrial use and other applications. The country leads in electrolyzer manufacturing, with most units deployed within its borders (IEA, 2025a). China also has some of the lowest costs for renewable electricity, which is the largest factor affecting the final cost of green hydrogen. In addition, it has the highest demand for industrial hydrogen and produced more than half of the world’s low-carbon electrolytic hydrogen in 2024 (IEA, 2025a). 

Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Industrial Green Hydrogen
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Evaluate and implement green hydrogen feedstock proposals and policies independently of other green hydrogen solutions, such as green hydrogen fuels (see Mobilize Green Hydrogen for Aviation and Trucking).
  • Before approval, conduct thorough reviews of project proposals to ensure statistical rigor and feasibility of business plans; consider requiring beneficiaries of public incentives to have offtake agreements in place; create legal tools to claw back financial incentives if products fail to achieve targeted emissions intensities.
  • Ensure laws and regulations related to green hydrogen use as a feedstock are data-driven and adaptive with short review cycles to remain timely and relevant to the markets; avoid delays leading to loss of investments and project failures.
  • Use both demand- and supply-side interventions to help create stable markets for products made from green hydrogen, ensuring those products are suitable uses for green hydrogen given the alternatives available.
  • Seek to streamline permitting processes while aligning regulations with social and environmental safeguards.
  • Set into place policies to develop strong domestic renewable energy industries concurrently with policies promoting green hydrogen as a feedstock.
  • Offer incentives to relevant actors such as subsidies, grants, guarantees, concessional finance, public investments, tax credits, and contracts for difference for green hydrogen production for use as a feedstock and their derivatives; as the market matures and becomes competitive, gradually reduce these incentives to create long-term market stability.
  • Set into place demand-side policies such as sectoral quotas and mandates for products such as ammonia and methanol made with green hydrogen, but avoiding subsidies for uses that are better served by other low-carbon solutions.
  • Create or improve robust certification schemes for green hydrogen; include clear governance models, standards for how hydrogen would be tested, systems and timelines for evaluation, and enforcement and verification mechanisms.
  • Set deadlines for the retirement of fossil-fuel hydrogen plants for ammonia and methanol production.
  • Work with industry to develop domestic and/or diverse supply chains for electrolyzers and related components.
  • Help establish robust certification systems for low-carbon versions of common hydrogen products such as ammonia and methanol; develop information campaigns to help foster demand.
  • Design incentives and policies to stimulate local or regional production and advance R&D – particularly, to reduce costs and boost efficiency of commercial-scale electrolyzers.
  • Carefully conduct water supply and stress analyses for potential green hydrogen production sites to determine the impact a plant might have on the surrounding communities before approving; require green hydrogen facilities to regularly report on water use metrics.
  • Seek to locate green hydrogen plants near end users to facilitate transport and reduce costs.
  • Implement carbon taxes and remove subsidies from fossil fuel hydrogen.
  • Create regulations that limit the potential for hydrogen leaks and institute monitoring systems to reduce and/or eliminate leakage from infrastructure.
  • Consider creating market platforms and digital product passports that coordinate supply and demand and facilitate uptake for products made with green hydrogen such as ammonia and methanol.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Design green hydrogen feedstock proposals independent of other green hydrogen solutions, such as green hydrogen fuels (see Mobilize Green Hydrogen for Aviation and Trucking).
  • Stay abreast of policies, regulations, developments to the enabling infrastructure, and the cost-competitiveness of green hydrogen to ensure your company is well positioned to take advantage of incentives, stays in compliance, and is able to respond to changing market conditions.
  • Take advantage of government incentives such as subsidies, grants, guarantees, concessional loans, public investments, tax credits, and contracts for difference; as the market matures and becomes competitive, gradually reduce your reliance on these incentives to create long-term market stability.
  • Take advantage of demand-side policies such as sectoral quotas and mandates.
  • Consider using green bonds to finance public projects or to de-risk markets.
  • Seek long-term flexible offtake agreements with both public and private actors; aim to establish the agreement before seeking publicly offered financial incentives.
  • Carefully conduct water supply and stress analyses for potential green hydrogen production sites to determine the impact a plant might have on the surrounding communities before approving; regularly report on water use metrics.
  • Seek to locate green hydrogen feedstock plants near end users to facilitate transport and reduce costs.
  • Identify and help foster markets in which consumers are willing to pay a premium for low-emissions products made from green hydrogen.
  • Establish programs to detect and repair leaks; invest in R&D to better detect, mitigate, and repair leaks.
  • Ensure project proposals are data-driven and statistically rigorous; do not announce green hydrogen feedstock projects prematurely or without commitments to follow through.
  • Join, help create, or improve existing certification schemes for green hydrogen, include clear governance models, standards for how hydrogen would be tested, systems and timelines for evaluation, and enforcement and verification mechanisms; voluntarily certify your operations if it is not required.
  • Commit to transparent business practices and provide publicly available data on aspects of production such as emissions intensity, cost, compliance, product life cycle, and other relevant components to facilitate policy and investment; help create open databases for hydrogen producers to share this information; verify data with third-party auditors.
  • Work with policymakers to develop domestic and/or diverse supply chains for electrolyzers and related components.
  • Invest in R&D, particularly to reduce costs and boost efficiency of commercial-scale electrolyzers.
  • Regularly monitor impacts of production facilities, – especially when using seawater for cooling, to minimize risks and harms to human well-being and/or nature.
  • Help standardize analysis for life-cycle impacts of green hydrogen to improve global comparisons.
  • Voluntarily use market platforms and digital product passports to coordinate supply and demand and facilitate uptake for products made with green hydrogen, such as ammonia and methanol.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Evaluate and implement green hydrogen feedstock proposals and policies independently of other green hydrogen solutions, such as green hydrogen fuels (see Mobilize Green Hydrogen for Aviation and Trucking).
  • Set realistic goals for green hydrogen as a feedstock, if relevant; incorporate them into corporate net-zero strategies.
  • Enter into long-term offtake agreements with green hydrogen producers or manufacturers that use green hydrogen; consider forming consortia to allow offtakers to act as equity partners.
  • Help cultivate demand by advertising the use of green hydrogen in your products, including end-use products such as food grown with fertilizers produced by green hydrogen.
  • Seek to de-risk green hydrogen production by investing in domestic and/or diverse supply chains, supportive infrastructure, and related equipment such as renewable energy production.
  • Take advantage of government incentives such as tax credits, if possible; seek to gradually reduce reliance on these incentives to create long-term market stability.
  • Join, help create, or improve existing certification schemes for green hydrogen, include clear governance models, standards for how hydrogen would be tested, systems and timelines for evaluation, and enforcement and verification mechanisms; voluntarily certify your operations and supply chain if certification is not required.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Propose green hydrogen feedstock programs and policies independent of other green hydrogen solutions, such as green hydrogen fuels (see Mobilize Green Hydrogen for Aviation and Trucking).
  • Operate or help with equipment testing and certification systems, market information disclosures, and onsite monitoring.
  • Urge governments to set into place long-term regulations, using both demand- and supply-side interventions to help create stable markets for products made from green hydrogen; when possible, urge policymakers to align regulations with international standards to facilitate trade – particularly for equipment needed to produce green hydrogen.
  • Advocate for policies that develop strong domestic renewable energy industries concurrently with policies promoting green hydrogen as a feedstock.
  • Join, help create, or improve existing certification schemes for green hydrogen, include clear governance models, standards for how hydrogen would be tested, systems and timelines for evaluation, and enforcement and verification mechanisms.
  • Advocate for financial incentives and favorable policies for products such as ammonia and methanol made from green hydrogen; urge policymakers to gradually reduce subsidies and replace them with market mechanisms such as fixed pricing or contracts for difference as the market matures.
  • Advocate for deadlines for the retirement of fossil-fuel hydrogen plants.
  • Help establish robust certification systems for common products such as ammonia and methanol; develop information campaigns to help foster demand.
  • Advocate for public incentives and policies to advance R&D, particularly to reduce costs and boost efficiency of commercial-scale electrolyzers; carry out open-access research on relevant topics to improve adoption, safety, cost, and efficiency.
  • Conduct water supply and stress analyses for potential green hydrogen production sites to determine the impact a plant might have on the surrounding communities.
  • Regularly monitor impacts of production facilities, especially when using seawater for cooling, to minimize risks and harms to human well-being and/or nature.
  • Advocate for carbon taxes and the removal of subsidies from fossil fuel hydrogen.
  • Create requirements, standards, and programs for digital product passports that coordinate supply and demand and facilitate uptake for products such as ammonia and methanol made with green hydrogen.

Further information:

Investors
  • Invest in green hydrogen feedstock projects independently of other green hydrogen solutions, such as green hydrogen fuels (see Mobilize Green Hydrogen for Aviation and Trucking).
  • Invest directly in the development of green hydrogen feedstock projects.
  • Offer low-interest loans, guarantees, and concessional financing for manufacturers, developers, and operators of green hydrogen feedstock projects; extend these investments to related technology such as renewable energy and water purification; offer these investments to products such as ammonia and methanol made from green hydrogen feedstock.
  • Directly invest in companies that produce end-use products such as food produced with fertilizers made from green hydrogen.
  • Invest in R&D, component technology, and related science, especially in areas that reduce costs, boost efficiency, improve longevity, and decrease material inputs; invest in projects or companies that improve the modularity for electrolyzers and related components to improve mass production.
  • Help de-risk green hydrogen feedstock production in low- and middle-income countries by offering low-interest loans, concessional financing, and/or favorable terms.
  • Align investments with existing voluntary agreements or voluntary guidance that might apply in the location of the investment (including those that apply to biodiversity).

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Provide financing directly for the development of green hydrogen feedstock projects and ensure they are independent of other green hydrogen solutions, such as green hydrogen fuels (see Mobilize Green Hydrogen for Aviation and Trucking).
  • Help de-risk green hydrogen feedstock production in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) by offering grants or access to concessional financing for green hydrogen feedstock production.
  • Offer similar grants and financing for related technologies such as renewable energy and water purification; offer the same support for production of end-use products such as ammonia and methanol.
  • Operate or support efforts for equipment testing and certification systems, market information disclosures, and onsite monitoring.
  • Enter into long-term offtake agreements with manufacturers that use green hydrogen.
  • Urge governments to set into place long-term regulations, using both demand- and supply-side interventions to help create stable markets for products of green hydrogen; when possible, urge policymakers to align regulations with international standards to facilitate trade – particularly for equipment needed to produce green hydrogen.
  • Advocate for policies that develop strong domestic renewable energy industries concurrently with policies promoting green hydrogen as a feedstock.
  • Join, help create, or improve existing certification schemes for green hydrogen, include clear governance models, standards for how hydrogen would be tested, systems and timelines for evaluation, and enforcement and verification mechanisms.
  • Advocate for financial incentives and favorable policies for equipment needed to produce green hydrogen such as renewable power generators and water purification plants.
  • Advocate for financial incentives and favorable policies for products such as ammonia and methanol made from green hydrogen; urge policymakers to gradually reduce subsidies and replace them with market mechanisms such as fixed pricing or contracts for difference as the market matures.
  • Advocate for deadlines for the retirement of fossil-fuel hydrogen plants.
  • Help establish robust certification systems for common products such as ammonia and methanol; develop information campaigns to help foster demand.
  • Advocate for public incentives and policies to advance R&D, particularly to reduce costs and boost efficiency of commercial-scale electrolyzers; carry out open-access research on relevant topics to improve adoption, safety, cost, and efficiency.
  • Fund projects that provide water supply and stress analysis for potential green hydrogen production sites to determine the impact a plant might have on the surrounding communities.
  • Provide funding or assistance to projects that regularly monitor impacts of production facilities, especially when using seawater for cooling, to minimize risks and harms to human well-being and/or nature.
  • Advocate for carbon taxes and the removal of subsidies from fossil-fuel hydrogen.
  • Help establish international standards for measuring hydrogen leaks and help collect related data.
  • Create requirements, standards, and programs for digital product passports that coordinate supply and demand and facilitate uptake of products made with green hydrogen such as ammonia and methanol.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Promote green hydrogen feedstock programs and policies independently of other green hydrogen solutions, such as green hydrogen fuels (see Mobilize Green Hydrogen for Aviation and Trucking).
  • Operate or help with equipment testing and certification systems, market information disclosures, and onsite monitoring.
  • Urge governments to set into place long-term regulations, using both demand- and supply-side interventions to help create stable markets for products of green hydrogen; when possible, urge policymakers to align regulations with international standards to facilitate trade – particularly for equipment needed to produce green hydrogen.
  • Advocate for policies that develop strong domestic renewable energy industries concurrently with policies promoting green hydrogen as a feedstock.
  • Join, help create, or improve existing certification schemes for green hydrogen, include clear governance models, standards for how hydrogen would be tested, systems and timelines for evaluation, and enforcement and verification mechanisms.
  • Advocate for financial incentives and favorable policies for equipment needed to produce green hydrogen feedstocks such as renewable power generators and water purification plants.
  • Advocate for financial incentives and favorable policies for products such as ammonia and methanol made from green hydrogen; urge policymakers to gradually reduce subsidies and replace them with market mechanisms such as fixed pricing or contracts for difference as the market matures.
  • Advocate for deadlines for the retirement of fossil-fuel hydrogen plants.
  • Help establish robust certification systems for common products such as ammonia and methanol; develop information campaigns to help foster demand.
  • Advocate for public incentives and policies to advance R&D, particularly to reduce costs and boost efficiency of commercial-scale electrolyzers; carry out open-access research on relevant topics to improve adoption, safety, cost, and efficiency.
  • Advocate for and/or conduct water supply and stress analysis for potential green hydrogen production sites and advocate for measures to avoid or redress harm to surrounding communities.
  • Regularly monitor impacts of production facilities, especially when using seawater for cooling, to minimize risks and harms to human well-being and/or nature.
  • Advocate for carbon taxes and removal of subsidies from fossil-fuel hydrogen.
  • Help standardize analysis for life-cycle impacts of green hydrogen to improve global comparisons.
  • Create requirements, standards, and programs for digital product passports that coordinate supply and demand and facilitate uptake for products such as ammonia and methanol made with green hydrogen.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Develop electrolyzer technology for commercial-scale equipment to reduce costs, boost efficiency, improve longevity, and decrease material inputs; help improve modularity for electrolyzers and related components to improve mass production.
  • Improve cooling technology to increase water efficiency, reduce costs, and mitigate impacts on human well-being and the environment.
  • Develop and further improve upon air-cooling technologies.
  • Develop more sensitive leak detection equipment to identify smaller leaks that often go undetected by current technology.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Promote green hydrogen feedstock programs and policies independently of other green hydrogen solutions, such as green hydrogen fuels (see Mobilize Green Hydrogen for Aviation and Trucking).
  • Advocate for thorough reviews of project proposals to ensure statistical rigor and feasibility of business plans; consider requiring beneficiaries of public incentives to have offtake agreements in place; suggest legal tools to claw back financial incentives if products fail to achieve targeted emissions intensities.
  • Advocate for policies that develop strong domestic renewable energy industries concurrently with policies promoting green hydrogen as a feedstock.
  • Advocate for financial incentives and favorable policies for equipment needed to produce green hydrogen such as renewable power generators and water purification plants.
  • Advocate for deadlines for the retirement of fossil-fuel hydrogen plants.
  • Advocate for carbon taxes and removal of subsidies for fossil fuel hydrogen.

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing emissions: High

Green hydrogen that replaces fossil fuel–based hydrogen is widely regarded as an important approach for reducing emissions from this industrial feedstock. Blue hydrogen, made from fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, competes with green hydrogen as a feedstock. However, incomplete carbon capture alongside methane leaks from natural gas extraction and transportation give blue hydrogen a notably higher carbon footprint (IEA, 2023). 

The IEA publishes an annual report on global hydrogen, including updates to global demand for hydrogen by sector, production routes, trade, investments, and policies (IEA, 2024, 2025a). These reports highlight how low-carbon electrolytic hydrogen production is increasing, albeit at a slower pace than previously expected. With 65 countries now having a hydrogen strategy and new policies being implemented in key regions, low-carbon hydrogen demand is expected to grow, with most new investments focused on low-carbon hydrogen as an industrial feedstock. 

Accelerating this growth is critically important to meet established GHG emission targets. Odenweller and Ueckerdt (2025) highlighted how plans for green hydrogen should focus on hard-to-electrify sectors, including industrial hydrogen feedstocks. They also emphasized the need for policymakers to use demand-side policies such as quotas and mandates along with developing plans to transition subsidies to market mechanisms such as fixed pricing mechanisms for green hydrogen and contracts for difference. 

The results presented in this document summarize findings from four reviews and meta-analyses, two databases, three reports, and 11 original studies reflecting current evidence from 10 countries, primarily China and the United States. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Deploy Alternative Insulation Materials

Sector
Buildings & Industry
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Improve Materials
Image
Worker sprays insulation in building frame.
Coming Soon
Off

Key Takeaways

  • Using biomass or waste as building insulation instead of conventional insulation materials can reduce GHG emissions.
  • The climate impact primarily comes from avoiding the use of F-gas blowing agents to manufacture or install foam insulation.
  • Cellulose is a widely available, low-cost, and effective alternative insulation material, potentially reducing 83–99% of emissions from producing and installing conventional materials.
  • Better data around the current use of insulation materials globally would boost understanding of the impact of deploying alternative insulation as a climate solution.
Summary

Deploy Alternative Insulation Materials is defined as using alternative building insulation materials in place of conventional ones. In particular, we highlight the impact of using cellulose instead of glass, mineral, or plastic insulation in new and retrofit buildings. Cellulose insulation manufacture and installation emits fewer GHGs to reach the same operational insulating performance than does manufacture and installation of conventional materials.

Income & work,Health
Water resources
Description for Social and Search
Deploy Alternative Insulation Materials is a Highly Recommended climate solution. It reduces GHGs emitted during insulation manufacturing and installation.
Overview

Thermal insulation materials are used in the walls, roofs, and floors of buildings to help maintain comfortable indoor temperatures. However, manufacture and installation of insulation materials produces GHG emissions. These are called embodied emissions because they occur before the insulation is used in buildings. Insulation embodied emissions offset a portion of the positive climate impacts from using insulation to reduce heating and cooling demand. A Canadian study found that over 25% of residential embodied emissions from manufacturing building materials can be due to insulation (Magwood et al., 2022). Using cellulose insulation made primarily from recycled paper avoids some embodied emissions associated with conventional insulation.

Insulation is manufactured in many different forms, including continuous blankets or boards, loose fill, and sprayed foam (Types of Insulation, n.d.). Most conventional insulation materials are nonrenewable inorganic materials such as stone wool and fiberglass. These require high temperatures (>1,300 °C) to melt the raw ingredients, consuming thermal energy and releasing CO₂ from fossil fuel combustion or grid power generation (Schiavoni et al., 2016). Other common insulations are plastics, including expanded polystyrene (EPS), extruded polystyrene (XPS), polyurethane (PUR), and polyisocyanurate (PIR). Producing these plastics requires the extraction of fossil fuels – primarily petroleum – for feedstocks, as well as high amounts of energy for processing (Harvey, 2007). 

F-gases are often used as blowing agents to manufacture rigid foam board insulation or install sprayed foam insulation. F-gases are GHGs with GWPs that can be hundreds or thousands of times higher than CO₂. High-GWP F-gases used in foam production are released into the atmosphere during all subsequent stages of the foam’s life cycle (Biswas et al., 2016; Waldman et al., 2023). The climate benefits of this solution during the installation stage are primarily due to avoiding these blowing agents. 

Alternative insulation is produced from plant or animal biomass (bio-based materials) or waste products (recycled materials). Alternative insulation materials provide climate benefits by consuming less manufacturing energy, using renewable materials in place of fossil fuels, and eliminating high-GWP blowing agents (Sustainable Traditional Buildings Alliance, 2024). 

Figure 1 compares a variety of conventional and alternative insulation materials. While many bio-based and recycled materials could be used as alternatives to these conventional materials, this solution focuses on cellulose due to its effectiveness in avoiding emissions, low cost, and wide availability. Cellulose insulation is made primarily from recycled paper fibers, newsprint, and cardboard. These products are made into fibers and blended with fire retardants to produce loose or batt cellulose insulation (Waldman et al., 2023; Wilson, 2021).

Figure 1. Properties and adoption of conventional and alternative insulation materials. Costs and emissions will vary from the values here depending on the insulation form (board, blanket, loose-fill, etc.).

Category Material High-GWP F-gases used? Median manufacturing and installation emissions* Mean product and installation cost** Estimated market share
(% by mass)
Conventional materials Stone wool No 0.31 623 20
Glass wool (fiberglass) No 0.29 508 34
EPS No 0.38 678 22
XPS Yes, sometimes 9.44 702 7
PUR/PIR Yes, sometimes 6.14 1,000 11
Alternative materials Cellulose No 0.05 441 2–13
Cork No 0.30 1,520 Commercially available, not widely used
Wood fiber No 0.13 814 Commercially available, not widely used
Plant fibers (kenaf, hemp, jute) No 0.18 467 Commercially available, not widely used
Sheep’s wool No 0.14 800 Commercially available, not widely used
Recycled PET plastic No 0.12 2,950 Commercially available, not widely used

*t CO₂‑eq (100-yr) to insulate 100m² to 1m²·K/W

**2023 US$ to insulate 100m² to 1m²·K/W. We use mean values for cost analysis to better capture the limited data and wide range of reported costs.

Although we are estimating the impact of using cellulose insulation in all buildings, the unique circumstances of each building are important when choosing the most appropriate insulation material. In this solution, we do not distinguish between residential and commercial buildings, retrofit or new construction, different building codes, or different climates, but these would be important areas of future study.

In this solution, the effectiveness, cost, and adoption are calculated over a specified area (100 m²) and thermal resistance (1 m²·K/W). The chosen adoption unit ensures that all data are for materials with the same insulating performance. Due to limited material information, we assumed that insulation mass scales linearly with thermal resistance.

To better understand the adoption unit, a one-story residential building of 130 m² floor area would require approximately 370 m² of insulation area (RSMeans, & The Gordian Group, 2023). For a cold climate like Helsinki, Finland, code requires insulation thermal resistance of 11 m²·K/W (The World Bank Group, n.d.). For a warm climate like Jerusalem, Israel, envelope thermal resistance requirements average 1.1 m²·K/W (The World Bank Group, n.d.). Therefore, depending on the location, anywhere from approximately 4–40 adoption units insulating 100 m² to 1 m²·K/W may be needed to insulate a small single-story home to the appropriate area and insulation level.

Take Action Intro

Would you like to help deploy alternative insulation? Below are some ways you can make a difference, depending on the roles you play in your professional or personal life.

These actions are meant to be starting points for involvement and may or may not be the most important, impactful, or doable actions you can take. We encourage you to explore, get creative, and take a step that is right for you!

References

Adams, M., Burrows, V., & Richardson, S. (2019). Bringing embodied carbon upfront: Coordinated action for the building and construction sector to tackle embodied carbon. World Green Building Council, Advancing Net Zero, Ramboll, & C40 Cities. Link to source: https://worldgbc.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/22123951/WorldGBC_Bringing_Embodied_Carbon_Upfront.pdf 

Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. (2016, October 15). Link to source: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2016/10/20161015%2003-23%20PM/Ch_XXVII-2.f-English%20and%20French.pdf 

Andersen, B., & Rasmussen, T. V. (2025). Biobased building materials: Moisture characteristics and fungal susceptibility. Building and Environment, 112720. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.112720 

Asdrubali, F., D’Alessandro, F., & Schiavoni, S. (2015). A review of unconventional sustainable building insulation materials. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, 4, 1–17. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2015.05.002 

Biswas, K., Shrestha, S. S., Bhandari, M. S., & Desjarlais, A. O. (2016). Insulation materials for commercial buildings in North America: An assessment of lifetime energy and environmental impacts. Energy and Buildings, 112, 256–269. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.12.013 

Cabeza, L. F., Boquera, L., Chàfer, M., & Vérez, D. (2021). Embodied energy and embodied carbon of structural building materials: Worldwide progress and barriers through literature map analysis. Energy and Buildings, 231, 110612. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110612 

Carbon Removals Expert Group Technical Assistance. (2023, December). Review of certification methodologies for long-term biogenic carbon storage in buildings. European Commission. Link to source: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-12/policy_carbon_expert_biogenic_carbon_storage_in_buildings_en.pdf 

Deer et al. (2007). Alaska Residential Building Manual. Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. Link to source: https://www.ahfc.us/application/files/2813/5716/1325/building_manual.pdf 

Esau et al. (2021). Reducing Embodied Carbon in Buildings: Low-Cost, High-Value Opportunities. RMI. Link to source: http://www.rmi.org/insight/reducing-embodied-carbon-in-buildings 

The Freedonia Group. (2024). Global insulation report. Link to source: https://www.freedoniagroup.com/industry-study/global-insulation 

Fabbri, M., Rapf, O., Kockat, J., Fernández Álvarez, X., Jankovic, I., & Sibileau, H. (2022). Putting a stop to energy waste: How building insulation can reduce fossil fuel imports and boost EU energy security. Buildings Performance Institute Europe. Link to source: https://www.bpie.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Putting-a-stop-to-energy-waste_Final.pdf 

Forestry production and trade. (2023). [Dataset]. FAOSTAT. Link to source: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FO 

Füchsl, S., Rheude, F., & Röder, H. (2022). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of thermal insulation materials: A critical review. Cleaner Materials, 5, 100119. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clema.2022.100119 

Gelowitz, M. D. C., & McArthur, J. J. (2017). Comparison of type III environmental product declarations for construction products: Material sourcing and harmonization evaluation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 157, 125–133. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.133 

Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, International Energy Agency, and the United Nations Environment Programme. (2020). GlobalABC roadmap for buildings and construction: Towards a zero-emission, efficient and resilient buildings and construction sector. International Energy Agency. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/globalabc-roadmap-for-buildings-and-construction-2020-2050 

Grazieschi, G., Asdrubali, F., & Thomas, G. (2021). Embodied energy and carbon of building insulating materials: A critical review. Cleaner Environmental Systems, 2, 100032. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2021.100032 

Harvey, L. D. D. (2007). Net climatic impact of solid foam insulation produced with halocarbon and non-halocarbon blowing agents. Building and Environment, 42(8), 2860–2879. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.10.028 

Insulation choices revealed in new study. (2019, June 19). Home Innovation Research Labs. Link to source: https://www.homeinnovation.com/trends_and_reports/trends/insulation_choices_revealed_in_new_study 

International Energy Agency. (2023). Building envelopes. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/buildings/building-envelopes 

International Energy Agency, International Renewable Energy Agency, & United Nations Climate Change High-Level Champions. (2023). Breakthrough agenda report 2023. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/breakthrough-agenda-report-2023 

Jelle, B. P. (2011). Traditional, state-of-the-art and future thermal building insulation materials and solutions – Properties, requirements and possibilities. Energy and Buildings, 43(10), 2549–2563. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.05.015 

Kumar, D., Alam, M., Zou, P. X. W., Sanjayan, J. G., & Memon, R. A. (2020). Comparative analysis of building insulation material properties and performance. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 131, 110038. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110038 

Magwood et al. (2022). Emissions of materials benchmark assessment for residential construction report. Passive Buildings Canada and Builders for Climate Action.

Malhotra, A., & Schmidt, T. S. (2020). Accelerating Low-Carbon Innovation. Joule, 4(11), 2259–2267. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.09.004

Mályusz, L., & Pém, A. (2013). Prediction of the learning curve in roof insulation. Automation in Construction, 36, 191–195. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.04.004 

Maskell, D., Da Silva, C., Mower, K., Rana, C., Dengel, A., Ball, R., Ansell, M., Walker, P., & Shea, A. (2015, June 22). Properties of bio-based insulation materials and their potential impact on indoor air quality. First International Conference on Bio-based Building Materials, Clermont-Ferrand, France.

McGrath et al. (2023). Embodied carbon and material health in insulation. Healthy Building Network, Perkins&Will. Link to source: https://habitablefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/96-Carbon-Health-Insulation.pdf 

Naldzhiev, D., Mumovic, D., & Strlic, M. (2020). Polyurethane insulation and household products: A systematic review of their impact on indoor environmental quality. Building and Environment, 169, 106559. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106559 

Northeast Bio-based Materials Collective 2023 summit proceedings. (2023). Link to source: https://massdesigngroup.org/sites/default/files/file/2024/Northeast%20Bio-Based%20Materials%20Collective%202023%20Summit%20Proceedings.pdf 

Petcu et al. (2023). Research on thermal insulation performance and impact on indoor air quality of cellulose-based thermal insulation materials. Materials, 16(15), Article 15. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16155458 

Rabbat, C., Awad, S., Villot, A., Rollet, D., & Andrès, Y. (2022). Sustainability of biomass-based insulation materials in buildings: Current status in France, end-of-life projections and energy recovery potentials. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 156, 111962. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111962 

Riverse. (2024, August). Methodology: Biobased construction materials. Link to source: https://www.riverse.io/methodologies/biobased-construction-materials 

RSMeans, & The Gordian Group. (2023, September). Installed cost of residential siding comparative study – September 2023 [Report]. The Brick Industry Association. Link to source: https://www.gobrick.com/content/userfiles/files/RSMeans%20Residential%20Siding%20Comparative%20Cost%20Wall%20System%20Study%20Final%202023-09-15.pdf

SaravanaPrabhu et al. (2021). Comparative analysis of learning curve models on construction productivity of diaphragm wall and pile. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 1197(1), 012004. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1197/1/012004 

Schiavoni, S., D׳Alessandro, F., Bianchi, F., & Asdrubali, F. (2016). Insulation materials for the building sector: A review and comparative analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 62, 988–1011. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.045 

Schulte, M., Lewandowski, I., Pude, R., & Wagner, M. (2021). Comparative life cycle assessment of bio-based insulation materials: Environmental and economic performances. GCB Bioenergy, 13(6), 979–998. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12825 

Searchinger, T., Peng, L., Zionts, J., & Waite, R. (2024). The global land squeeze: Managing the growing competition for land. World Resources Institute. Link to source: https://www.wri.org/research/global-land-squeeze-managing-growing-competition-land

Stamm et al. (2022). Chemical and environmental justice impacts in the life cycle of building insulation. Energy Efficiency for All, Healthy Building Network. Link to source: https://informed.habitablefuture.org/resources/research/20-chemical-and-environmental-justice-impacts-in-the-life-cycle-of-building-insulation-report-brief 

Sustainable Traditional Buildings Alliance. (2024, March). The use of natural insulation materials in retrofit. Link to source: https://stbauk.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/The-use-of-natural-insulation-materials-in-retrofit.pdf 

The World Bank Group. (n.d.). Mapping energy efficiency: A global dataset on building code effectiveness and compliance: Country profiles. Link to source: https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/sites/buildinggreen/doc/building_green_country_profile.pdf

Types of insulation. (n.d.). U.S. Department of Energy. Link to source: https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/types-insulation 

Waldman et al. (2023). 2023 Carbon Leadership Forum North American material baselines. Carbon Leadership Forum, University of Washington. Link to source: https://carbonleadershipforum.org/clf-material-baselines-2023/ 

Wang et al. (2023). Can paper waste be utilised as an insulation material in response to the current crisis. Sustainability, 15(22), Article 22. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215939 

Wi, S., Kang, Y., Yang, S., Kim, Y. U., & Kim, S. (2021). Hazard evaluation of indoor environment based on long-term pollutant emission characteristics of building insulation materials: An empirical study. Environmental Pollution, 285, 117223. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117223 

Wilson. (2021). The BuildingGreen guide to thermal insulation: What you need to know about performance, health, and environmental considerations. BuildingGreen, Inc.

Zabalza Bribián, I., Valero Capilla, A., & Aranda Usón, A. (2011). Life cycle assessment of building materials: Comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Building and Environment, 46(5), 1133–1140. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.12.002 

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Sarah Gleeson, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D. 

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

To insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W using entirely cellulose insulation in place of the current baseline mix of insulation materials is expected to avoid 1.59 t CO₂‑eq on a 100-yr basis (Table 1). Since many of the avoided emissions are F-gases, the 20-yr effectiveness is higher, avoiding 4.07 t CO₂‑eq per unit of insulation. Effectiveness for this solution measures the one-time reduced emissions from manufacturing and installing insulation. Insulation also reduces the energy used while a building is operating, but those emissions are addressed separately in the Improve Building Envelopes solution. 

Conventional insulation effectiveness was considered to be a weighted average effectiveness of the current baseline insulation mix, including a small amount of cellulose insulation currently in use.

The largest contributor to conventional insulation embodied emissions is using high-GWP blowing agents to manufacture or install XPS, PUR, or PIR foam. We assumed the use of F-gas blowing agents for all foams, although these are already being regulated out of use globally (Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, 2016) and an unknown amount of low-GWP blowing agents are currently used (such as hydrocarbons or CO₂). Therefore, we anticipate the effectiveness of this solution will decrease as F-gases are used less in the future. We assumed that 100% of blowing agents are emitted over the product lifetime.

Cellulose has the greatest avoided emissions of all of the alternative materials we evaluated (Figure 1). The next most effective materials were recycled PET, wood fibers, and sheep’s wool. Conventional materials like XPS, PUR, and PIR that are foamed with F-gases had the highest GHG emissions. For bio-based materials, we did not consider biogenic carbon as a source of carbon sequestration due to quantification and permanence concerns. 

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /insulation required to insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 0.98
Mean 1.34
Median (50th percentile) 1.59
75th percentile 1.81
Left Text Column Width
Cost

Available cost data are variable for all materials, particularly those in early-stage commercialization. The mean cost of purchasing and installing cellulose insulation is less than that of any other conventional or alternative insulation material (Figure 1). Compared with the average cost of conventional insulation, the mean cost savings for cellulose insulation is US$193/100 m² insulated to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W. Since most buildings are insulated over greater areas to higher thermal resistances, these savings would quickly add up. When considering the mean cost per median climate impact, cellulose insulation saves US$121/t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis), making it an economically and environmentally beneficial alternative (Table 2).

We considered conventional insulation cost to be a weighted average cost of the current baseline insulation mix, including a small amount of cellulose insulation currently in use.

For conventional insulation, material costs of purchasing the insulation are higher than costs for installation (US$540 and US$97, respectively, to insulate 100 m2 to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W). Cellulose has a lower product cost and comparable installation costs to conventional materials. We considered all costs to be up front and not spread over the lifetime of the material or building. For each material type, cost will vary based on the form of the insulation (board, loose, etc.), and this should be accounted for when comparing insulation options for a particular building. 

We determined net costs of insulation materials by adding the mean cost to purchase the product and the best estimation of installation costs based on available information. Installation costs were challenging to find data on and therefore represent broad assumptions of installation type and labor. Cost savings were determined by subtracting the weighted average net cost of conventional materials to the net cost of an alternative material. Although we used median values for other sections of this assessment, the spread of data was large for product cost estimates and the mean value was more appropriate in the expert judgment of our reviewers. 

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq, 100-yr basis

Estimate -121
Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

Little information is available about the learning rate for new insulation materials. Mályusz and Pém (2013) evaluated how labor time decreased with repetitive cycles for installing roof insulation. They found a learning rate of ~90%, but only for this specific insulation scenario, location, and material. Additionally, this study does not include any product or manufacturing costs that may decrease with scale.

In general, labor time for construction projects decreases with repetitive installation, including improved equipment and techniques and increased construction crew familiarity with the process (SaravanaPrabhu & Vidjeapriya, 2021). However, Malhotra and Schmidt (2020) classify building envelope retrofits as technologies that are highly customized based on user requirements, regulations, physical conditions, and building designs, likely leading to learning rates that are slow globally but where local expertise could reduce installation costs.

Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as emergency brake, gradual, or delayed.

Deploy Alternative Insulation Materials is an EMERGENCY BRAKE climate solution. It has the potential to deliver a more rapid impact than gradual and delayed solutions. Because emergency brake solutions can deliver their climate benefits quickly, they can help accelerate our efforts to address dangerous levels of climate change. For this reason, they are a high priority.

Caveats

Manufacturing and installation emissions reductions due to the use of alternative building thermal insulation materials are both permanent and additional. 

Permanence

There is a low risk of the emissions reductions for this solution being reversed. By using cellulose insulation instead of inorganic or plastic-based insulation, a portion of the manufacturing and installation emissions are never generated in the first place, making this a permanent reduction. Emissions from high-temperature manufacturing, petroleum extraction, and blowing agent use are all reduced through this approach.

Additionality

The GHG emissions reductions from alternative insulation materials are additional because we calculated them relative to a baseline insulation case. This includes a small amount of cellulose materials included in baseline building insulation. Therefore, avoided emissions represent an improvement of the current emissions baseline that would have occurred in the absence of this solution. 

Current Adoption

Adoption data are extremely limited for alternative insulation materials. All adoption data and estimates are assumed to apply to both residential and commercial buildings, although in reality the uptake of alternative insulation materials will vary by building type due to differences in structures, climate, use type, and regulations. We assume that future uptake of alternative insulation is used only during retrofit or new construction, or when existing insulation is at the end of its functional lifetime.

European sources report that 2–13% of the insulation market is alternative materials. Depending on the source, this could include renewable materials, bio-based insulation, or recycled materials. In 2018 in the United States, 5% of total insulation area in new single-family homes was insulated with cellulose (Insulation Choices Revealed in New Study, 2019).

To convert estimated cellulose adoption percentage into annual insulation use, we estimated 26 Mt of all installed global insulation materials in 2023 based on a report from The Freedonia Group (2024). We calculated an annual use of approximately 1.7 billion insulation units of 100 m² at a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W. Therefore, the median cellulose adoption is 14 million units/yr at 100 m² at 1 m²·K/W, calculated from the median of the 2–13% adoption range. 

Since this calculation is based on more alternative materials than just cellulose and is heavily reliant on European data where we assume adoption is higher, this estimate of current adoption (Table 3) is most likely an overestimate.

The little adoption data that were considered in this section are mostly for Europe, and some for the United States. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

Table 3. Current (2017–2022) adoption level.

Unit: units of insulation/yr installed to insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W

25th percentile 9000000
Mean 13000000
Median (50th percentile) 14000000
75th percentile 17000000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Very few data are available that quantify adoption trends. In a regional study of several bio-based insulation materials, Rabbat et al. (2022) estimated French market annual growth rates of 4–10%, with cellulose estimated at 10%. Petcu et al. (2023) estimated the European adoption of recycled plastic and textile insulation, biomass fiber insulation, and waste-based insulation to have increased from 6% to 10% between 2012 and 2020.

When accounting for the calculated current adoption, these growth rates mean a median estimated annual increase of 500,000 insulation units/yr required to insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W. The increasing adoption of bio-based insulation decreases the use of conventional insulation materials in those regions.

This adoption trend (Table 4) is likely an overestimate, as it is biased by high European market numbers and based on the likely high estimate we made for current adoption. 

Table 4. 2012–2020 adoption trend.

Unit: annual change in units of insulation/yr installed to insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W

25th percentile 500000
Mean 800000
Median (50th percentile) 500000
75th percentile 1300000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

No estimates have been found for the adoption ceiling of this solution, although we expect it to be high given low rates of current adoption and projected increases in building construction in the coming decades (International Energy Agency [IEA], International Renewable Energy Agency, & United Nations Climate Change High-Level Champions, 2023). Two physical factors that could influence adoption are availability of alternative materials and thickness of insulation.

For cellulose insulation, availability does not seem to limit adoption. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2023) reports that there is a much higher annual production of cellulose-based materials (>300 Mt annually of cartonboard, newsprint, and recycled paper) than the overall demand for insulation globally (>25 Mt annual demand; Global Insulation Report, 2024). However, other uses for cellulose products may create competition for this supply.

Increased thickness of insulation could also be a limiting factor because this would reduce adoption by decreasing building square footage, in particular making retrofits more challenging and expensive. Deer et al. (2007) reported that the average cellulose thermal resistance is similar to mineral and glass wool, and lower than plastic insulations made of polystyrene and other foams. If we assume that 50% of plastic insulation cannot be replaced with cellulose due to thickness limitations, this would represent ~20% of current insulation that could not be replaced without structural changes to the building. Therefore, we calculated the adoption ceiling to be 80% of the current insulation that would be reasonably replaceable, or 140 million units/yr required to insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W (Table 5).

Uptake of cellulose insulation could also be limited by its susceptibility to absorbing moisture, limiting its use in wet climates or structures that retain moisture, such as flat roofs. Commercialization of alternative insulation materials beyond cellulose and in many different forms (e.g., board, loose-fill) will increase the adoption ceiling across more building types.

Table 5. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: units of insulation/yr installed to insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W

25th percentile N/A
Mean N/A
Estimate 140000000
75th percentile N/A
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

We found no estimates for feasible global adoption of this solution. Rabbat et al. (2022) estimated the adoption levels of several bio-based insulation materials in France in 2050. For cellulose wadding, this was estimated to be 2.1 times the commercialized volume in France in 2020. Although we do not expect France to be representative of the rest of the world, if the predicted adoption trend holds across the world then we expect low adoption in 2050 to be 2.1 times greater than 2023 adoption. This is 29 million units/yr to insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W (Table 6).

The IEA (2023) claims that building envelopes need to have their retrofit rate increase by 2.5 times over the current rate in order to meet net zero targets (2023). This is a reasonable high-adoption scenario. Assuming that more retrofits of buildings occur and greater amounts of alternative insulation are installed in new buildings, we estimate that high future adoption of new insulation could occur at 2.5 times the rate of the low-adoption scenario. This is 73 million units/yr to insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W (Table 6).

Adoption will be facilitated or limited by local regulations around the world. Building codes will determine the location and extent of use of cellulose or other bio-based insulation. We expect uptake to be different between residential and commercial buildings, but due to insufficient data, we have grouped them in our adoption estimates.

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: units of insulation/yr installed to insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W

Current adoption 14000000
Achievable – low 29000000
Achievable – high 73000000
Adoption ceiling 140000000
Left Text Column Width

The climate impacts for this solution are modest compared to current global GHG emissions. Not all conventional insulations have a high environmental impact due to the use of a wide range of materials, forms, and installation methods as well as the recent adoption of lower-GWP blowing agents. Therefore, the potential for further emissions savings is limited.

We quantified the effectiveness and adoption of cellulose insulation, which has the lowest emissions and, therefore, the highest climate impacts of the insulation materials we evaluated. With high adoption, 1.2 Gt CO₂‑eq on a 100-yr basis could be avoided over the next decade (Table 7).

While we only considered the adoption of cellulose insulation in this analysis, a realistic future for lowering the climate impact of insulation may include other bio-based materials, too. Utilizing a greater range of materials should increase adoption and climate impact due to more available forms, sources, and thermal resistance values of bio-based insulation.

Producing and deploying cellulose and other bio-based insulation requires the use of biomass as a feedstock. Multiple climate solutions, in addition to alternative insulation materials, require biomass, and projected demand across solutions greatly exceeds supply. The deforestation that would be required to meet demand would produce emissions far greater than any mitigation gains from full deployment of these solutions (Searchinger, 2024). In addition to deforestation, there would also be costs and emissions incurred to transport biomass from where it is produced to where it can be processed and used. Thus, the achievable climate impacts presented here is only possible if feedstocks are prioritized for this solution. If feedstocks are instead prioritized for other climate solutions (see Interactions for examples), adoption and impact will be lower for this solution. It is not possible to set all biomass-dependent solutions to high adoption levels, add up their impacts, and determine an accurate combined emissions impact.

Note that we calculated the current climate impact using a current materials baseline that includes a small fraction of cellulose. This means that the reported current adoption impact is a slight underestimate compared with the impacts for replacing entirely conventional insulation with the current amount of cellulose insulation in use.

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.022
Achievable – high 0.046
Achievable – low 0.12
Achievable ceiling 0.22
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Income and Work

Some alternative insulations can be cheaper than conventional materials. Although there is large variation in evaluation methods and reported costs, our analysis found that cellulose and plant fibers are cheaper than conventional insulation materials such as stone wool, glass wool, and EPS (Figure 1). Depending on the applicable climate conditions and insulation form, switching to alternative insulation materials can result in cost savings for consumers, including homeowners and business owners.

Health

Conventional insulation materials may contribute to poor indoor air quality, especially during installation, and contribute to eye, skin, and lung irritation (Naldzhiev et al., 2020; Stamm et al., 2022; Wi et al., 2021). Additionally, off-gassing of flame retardants and other volatile organic compounds and by-products of conventional insulation can occur shortly after installation (Naldzhiev et al., 2020). Using bio-based alternative insulation products can minimize the health risks during and after installation (McGrath et al., 2023).

Water Resources

Although there is not a scientifically consistent approach to compare the environmental impacts of conventional and alternative insulation materials, a review analysis of 47 studies on insulation concluded that bio-based insulation materials generally have lower impacts as measured through acidification, eutrophication, and photochemical ozone creation potentials than do conventional materials (Füchsl et al., 2022). Other alternative materials such as wood fiber and miscanthus also tend to have a lower environmental footprint (Schulte et al., 2021). The water demand for wood and cellulose is significantly lower than that for EPS (about 2.8 and 20.8 l/kg respectively compared with 192.7 l/kg for EPS) (Zabalza Bribián et al., 2011). While the limited evidence suggests that the alternative material tends to be better environmentally, there is an urgent need to conduct life cycle assessments using a consistent approach to estimate the impact of these materials.

Risks

Cellulose insulation is susceptible to water absorption, which can lead to mold growth in wet or humid environments (Andersen & Rasmussen, 2025; Petcu et al., 2023). Reducing this risk either requires an antifungal treatment for the material or limits adoption to particular climates. The thermal performance of cellulose insulation can decrease over time due to water absorption, settling, or temperature changes, but installing it as dense-packed or damp-spray can alleviate this problem (Wang & Wang, 2023; Wilson, 2021).

Bio-based insulation materials tend to be combustible, meaning they contribute more to the spread of a fire than non-combustible stone or glass insulation. Some bio-based materials are classified as having minimal contribution to a fire, such as some cellulose forms, rice husk, and flax (Kumar et al., 2020). These materials are less likely to contribute to a fire than very combustible plastic insulation such as EPS, XPS, and PUR. Fire codes – as well as other building and energy codes – could limit adoption, risking a lack of solution uptake due to regulatory setbacks (Northeast Bio-Based Materials Collective 2023 Summit Proceedings, 2023). 

Additives such as fire retardants and anti-fungal agents are added to bio-based insulation along with synthetic binders, which can lead to indoor air pollution from organic compounds, although likely in low concentrations (Maskell et al., 2015; Rabbat et al., 2022).

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Upgrading insulation to lower-cost and lower-emitting alternative materials should increase the adoption of other building envelope solutions as they can be installed simultaneously to optimize cost and performance. 

Increasing the manufacturing of cellulose insulation, which contains large amounts of recycled paper, could increase the revenues for paper recycling.

Competing

This solution uses wood as a feedstock (raw material), including wood, and crop residues. Because the total projected demand for woody biomass for climate solutions exceeds the supply, not all of these solutions will be able to achieve their potential adoption. This solution is in competition with the following solutions for raw material:

Reducing the demand for conventional insulation products and instead making insulation that produces fewer GHGs during manufacturing would slightly reduce the global climate impact of other industrial manufacturing solutions. This is because less energy overall would be used for manufacturing, and therefore other technologies for emissions reductions would be less impactful for insulation production.

Dashboard

Solution Basics

insulation units of 100 m² and 1 m²·K/W

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
00.981.59median
units/yr
Current 1.4×10⁷ 02.9×10⁷7.3×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.022 0.0460.12
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-121
Emergency Brake

CO₂, F-gas

Trade-offs

Bio-based insulation materials including cellulose often have lower thermal resistance than some conventional insulation materials. In particular, bio-based materials may require a thicker layer than plastic insulation to reach the same insulating performance (Esau et al., 2021; Rabbat et al., 2022). Usable floor area within a building would need to be sacrificed to accommodate thicker insulation, which would potentially depreciate the structure or impact the aesthetic value (Jelle, 2011). This would be a more significant trade-off for retrofit construction and buildings in densely developed urban areas.

Sourcing bio-based materials has environmental trade-offs that come from cultivating biomass, such as increased land use, fertilizer production, and pesticide application (Schulte et al., 2021). Using waste or recycled materials could minimize these impacts. Binders and flame-retardants may also be required in the final product, leading to more processing and material use (Sustainable Traditional Buildings Alliance, 2024).

Maps Introduction

The effectiveness of deploying alternative insulation is not inherently dependent on geographic factors since it addresses emissions embodied in the manufacture and deployment of insulation materials. However, due to a lack of related data, we assumed a consistent global breakdown of currently used insulation materials when in reality, the exact mix of insulation currently used in different geographic locations will affect the emissions impact of switching to alternative materials.

Building insulation is used in higher quantities in cold or hot climates, so deploying alternative insulation is more likely to be relevant and adopted in such climates. Other geographic factors also impact adoption: Areas with higher rates of new construction will be better able to design for cellulose or other alternative insulation materials, and drier climates will face a lower risk of mold growth on these materials. Local building codes, including fire codes, can also affect the adoption of alternative materials.

There are no maps for the Deploy Alternative Insulation Materials solution. It is intended to address emissions embodied in the manufacture and deployment of insulation materials and has no intrinsic dependence on geographic factors.

Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Alternative Insulation Materials
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Enact comprehensive policy plans that utilize all levers, including financial incentives, improved building and fire code regulations, and educational programs to advance the transition to alternative insulation.
  • Create government procurement policies that become stricter over time and mandate the use of alternative insulation or implement GWP limits in government buildings.
  • Update insulation installation regulations to encourage more sustainable practices and materials.
  • Offer financial incentives such as subsidies, tax credits, and grants for manufacturers, start-ups, and alternative insulation installers.
  • Remove financial and regulatory incentives for conventional insulation.
  • Create and enforce embodied carbon disclosure requirements for new commercial construction.
  • Create energy efficiency standards that periodically increase for insulation materials and buildings.
  • Regulate demolition of old buildings to require proper disposal of conventional insulation to ensure emissions are avoided and gases are destroyed.
  • Create reference standards for the performance and properties of alternative insulation materials.
  • Invest in R&D to improve alternative insulation materials’ manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Create green building certification schemes and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for alternative insulation.
  • Offer educational resources, one-stop shops for retrofitting and weatherization, installation demonstrations, and tours of model builds for commercial and private developers, highlighting the cost savings, environmental benefits, and health benefits of alternative insulation.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Finance or develop only new construction and retrofits that use alternative insulation and other low-carbon practices.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as subsidies, tax credits, and grants for installing alternative insulation.
  • Seek or negotiate preferential loan agreements for developers using alternative insulation and other climate-friendly practices.
  • Whenever possible, install insulation that does not use F-gas blowing agents.
  • During demolition, ensure proper disposal of conventional insulation to avoid emissions and destroy residual F-gases.
  • Integrate alternative insulation materials into construction databases, listing prices, and environmental benefits.
  • Enact company policies that disclose embodied carbon of commercial construction.
  • Create new contractual terms that require embodied emissions data from materials and methods from suppliers.
  • Advocate for financial incentives, improved building and fire codes, and educational programs for alternative insulation.
  • Use educational resources, one-stop shops for retrofitting and weatherization, installation demonstrations, and tours of model builds.
  • Conduct research to improve alternative insulation materials’ manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Create or join green building certification schemes, green building councils, and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for alternative insulation.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Finance only new construction and retrofits that utilize alternative insulation and other low-carbon practices.
  • Expand product lines to include alternative insulation materials.
  • Integrate alternative insulation materials into construction databases, listing prices and environmental benefits.
  • Create new contractual terms that require embodied emissions data from materials and methods.
  • Invest in R&D to improve alternative insulation materials’ manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Advocate for financial incentives, improved building and fire codes, and educational programs for alternative insulation.
  • Join green building certification schemes and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for alternative insulation.
  • Create long-term purchasing agreements with alternative insulation manufacturers to support stable demand and improve economies of scale.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Advocate for financial incentives, improved building and fire codes, and educational programs for alternative insulation.
  • Conduct research to improve alternative insulation materials’ manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Offer educational resources, one-stop shops for retrofitting and weatherization, installation demonstrations, and tours of model builds for commercial and private developers, highlighting the cost savings and environmental benefits of alternative insulation.
  • Create, join, or administer green building certification schemes and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for alternative insulation.

Further information:

Investors
  • Finance only new construction and retrofits that utilize alternative insulation and other low-carbon practices.
  • Invest in R&D and start-ups to improve alternative insulation materials’ manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Issue green bonds to invest in projects that use alternative insulation.
  • Offer preferential loan agreements for developers utilizing alternative insulation and other climate-friendly practices.
  • Create new contractual terms that require embodied emissions data from materials and methods.
  • Join green building certification schemes and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for alternative insulation.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Finance only new construction and retrofits that utilize alternative insulation and other low-carbon practices.
  • Offer grants for developers using alternative insulation and other climate-friendly practices.
  • Create financing programs for private construction in low-income or under-resourced communities.
  • Create new contractual terms that require embodied emissions data from materials and methods.
  • Advocate for financial incentives, improved building and fire codes, and educational programs for alternative insulation.
  • Fund research to improve alternative insulation materials’ manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Offer educational resources, one-stop shops for retrofitting and weatherization, installation demonstrations, and tours of model builds for commercial and private developers, highlighting the cost savings and environmental benefits of alternative insulation.
  • Create or join green building certification schemes and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for alternative insulation.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Advocate for financial incentives, improved building and fire codes, and educational programs for alternative insulation.
  • Conduct research to improve alternative insulation materials’ manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Offer or amplify educational resources, one-stop shops for retrofitting and weatherization, installation demonstrations, and tours of model builds for commercial and private developers, highlighting the cost savings and environmental benefits of alternative insulation.
  • Create, join, or administer green building certification schemes and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for alternative insulation.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Develop and improve existing alternative insulation materials or innovate new materials with enhanced insulation performance.
  • Investigate ways to increase the durability of alternative insulation, such as resistance to moisture, pests, and fire.
  • Find uses for recycled materials in alternative insulation and ways to improve the circular economy.
  • Innovate new manufacturing methods that reduce electricity use and emissions.
  • Design new application systems for alternative insulation that can be done without much additional training or licensing/certification.
  • Create new methods of disposal for conventional insulation during demolitions.
  • Research adoption rates of alternative insulation materials across regions and environments.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Finance or develop only new construction and retrofits that utilize alternative insulation and other low-carbon practices.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as subsidies, tax credits, and grants for installing alternative insulation.
  • Whenever possible, install insulation that does not use F-gas blowing agents.
  • Advocate for financial incentives, improved building and fire codes, and educational programs for alternative insulation.
  • Conduct local research to improve alternative insulation materials’ manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Organize local “green home tours” and open houses to showcase climate-friendly builds and foster demand by highlighting cost savings and environmental benefits of alternative insulation.
  • Create or join green building certification schemes, green building councils, and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for alternative insulation.
  • Capture community feedback and share it with local policymakers to address barriers such as permitting logistics or upfront costs, helping to share policies that drive adoption.

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing building sector emissions: Mixed

There is scientific consensus that using building insulation with lower embodied emissions will reduce GHG emissions, but expert opinions about the magnitude of possible emissions reductions as well as the accuracy of determining these reductions are mixed. 

Biswas et al. (2016) determined that, for insulation, avoided emissions from reduced heating and cooling energy tend to outweigh the embodied emissions. However, others emphasize that as buildings become more energy-efficient, material embodied emissions become a larger factor in their carbon footprint (Cabeza et al., 2021; Grazieschi et al., 2021). Embodied emissions from insulation can be substantial: Esau et al. (2021) analyzed a mixed-use multifamily building and found that selecting low-embodied-carbon insulation could reduce building embodied emissions by 16% at no cost premium.

Multiple studies have found that some sustainable insulation materials have lower manufacturing emissions than traditional insulation materials (Asdrubali et al., 2015; Füchsl et al., 2022; Kumar et al., 2020; Schiavoni et al., 2016). However, researchers have highlighted the difficulty in evaluating environmental performance of different insulation materials (Cabeza et al., 2021; Grazieschi et al., 2021). Gelowitz and McArthur (2017) found that construction product Environmental Product Declarations contain many errors and discrepancies due to self-contradictory or missing data. Füschl et al. (2022) conducted a meta-analysis and cautioned that “it does not appear that a definitive ranking [of insulation materials] can be drawn from the literature.” In our analysis, we attempted to compare climate impact between materials, but we acknowledge that this can come from flawed and inconsistent data.

Despite the difficulties in comparing materials, there is high consensus that cellulose is a strong low-emissions insulation option due to its low embodied carbon, high recycled content, and good thermal insulating performance (Wilson, 2021).

The results presented in this document summarize findings from four reviews and meta-analyses, 14 original studies, three reports, 27 Environmental Product Declarations, and two commercial websites reflecting current evidence from eight countries as well as data representing global, North American, or European insulation materials. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Deploy Onshore Wind Turbines

Sector
Electricity
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift Production
Image
Onshore wind turbines
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Onshore wind turbines are land-based machines that harness natural wind to generate electricity. Electricity generation from wind turbines depends on many factors, including natural wind speeds, consistency, and directionality. The Deploy Onshore Wind Turbines solution focuses on utility-scale electricity generation above 1 MW in rated capacity, generally from fields of turbines called wind farms. Deploy Micro Wind Turbines and Deploy Offshore Wind Turbines are discussed as separate solutions.

Deploying onshore wind turbines contributes to reduced CO₂ emissions by increasing the availability of renewable energy sources to meet electricity demand, thereby reducing dependence on fossil fuel–based sources in the overall electricity grid mix.

Income & work,Health
Water resources,Air quality
Description for Social and Search
Deploy Onshore Wind Turbines is a Highly Recommended climate solution. It reduces emissions from electricity generation by expanding production of clean and renewable wind energy.
Overview

An estimated 23% of global GHG emissions on a 100-yr basis comes from electricity generation annually (Clarke et al., 2022), and in 2022 more than 60% of global electricity generation came from fossil fuel–based energy sources (International Energy Agency [IEA], 2024c). Since wind is a clean and renewable resource, onshore wind turbines do not contribute to GHG emissions or air pollution while generating energy. The Deploy Onshore Wind Turbines solution reduces the need for electricity generation from fossil fuels, which reduces emissions of CO₂ as well as of smaller amounts of methane and nitrous oxide. 

An onshore wind turbine has a tower with a rotor mounted at the top, connected to a generator. Wind pressure on the turbine blades rotates the rotor, and the generator converts that motion into electrical power. Power potentially generated is directly proportional to the swept area of the rotor blades and the wind speed cubed. Utility-scale turbines require an annual average wind speed of at least 5.8 meters/second (Energy Information Administration [EIA], 2024b). Wind characteristics and technical aspects have a critical impact on electricity generation. Factors include, but are not limited to, wind speed, turbulence, site-specific effects, rotor size, turbine height, generator efficiency, and wind farm layout (Diógenes et al., 2020). Onshore wind farms are often sited where fewer obstacles lead to more consistent wind speeds (Maguire et al., 2024). 

The maximum electrical power a turbine can generate is its installed capacity in MW. Due to changing wind characteristics and operational decisions, onshore wind turbines do not always operate at maximum capacity. The capacity factor of a turbine captures the actual amount of power generated compared with maximum generation if the turbine always operated at its rated capacity. Due to technological improvements over the past decade, global weighted average capacity factors increased from 27% in 2010 to 36% in 2023 and can exceed 50% in some countries (International Renewable Energy Agency [IRENA], 2024a).

Utility-scale wind farms are connected to the grid to provide electricity. Electric power output can be converted to energy generated by multiplying capacity by the capacity factor and a specified time interval. For annual generation, we multiplied by one year and used our estimated median global capacity factor (37%). In 2023, onshore wind turbines generated 2,089 TWh of electricity, approximately 7% of global electricity generation (IEA, 2024c).

Onshore wind turbines can be classified according to their orientation. Horizontal-axis turbines need to face their rotors into the wind to generate power, while vertical-axis turbines operate independently of wind direction. Utility-scale onshore wind turbines are mostly horizontal-axis rotors with three blades, but smaller scale turbines (see Deploy Micro Wind Turbines) can have more complex rotor designs for a variety of applications. The International Electrical Commission (IEC) standardizes wind turbine classifications with distinct designs to maximize energy capture for different sites (IEC, 2019). Wind farms also require distribution systems to transport electricity to locations of electricity demand. 

References

Adeyeye, K., Ijumba, N., & Colton, J. (2020). Exploring the environmental and economic impacts of wind energy: A cost-benefit perspective. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 27(8), 718–731. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1768171 

Albanito, F., Roberts, S., Shepherd, A., & Hastings, A. (2022). Quantifying the land-based opportunity carbon costs of onshore wind farms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 363(132480), 0959–6526. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132480 

Angliviel de La Beaumelle, N., Blok, K., de Chalendar, J. A., Clarke, L., Hahmann, A. N., Huster, J., Nemet, G. F., Suri, D., Wild, T. B., & Azevedo, I. M. L. (2023). The global technical, economic, and feasible potential of renewable electricity. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 48, 419–449. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-091140 

Agra Neto, J., González, M. O. A., Castro, R. L. P. D., Melo, D. C. D., Aiquoc, K. M., Santiso, A. M., Vasconcelos, R. M. D., Souza, L. H. D., & Cabral, E. L. D. S. (2024). Factors influencing the decision-making process at the end-of-life cycle of onshore wind farms: A systematic review. Energies, 17(4), Article 848. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/en17040848 

Barthelmie, R. J., & Pryor, S. C. (2021). Climate change mitigation potential of wind energy. Climate, 9(9), Article 136. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/cli9090136 

Beiter, P., Cooperman, A., Lantz, E., Stehly, T., Shields, M., Wiser, R., Telsnig, T., Kitzing, L., Berkhout, V., & Kikuchi, Y. (2021). Wind power costs driven by innovation and experience with further reductions on the horizon. WIREs Energy and Environment, 10(5), Article e398. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.398 

Clarke, L., Wei, Y.-M., De La Vega Navarro, A., Garg, A., Hahmann, A. N., Khennas, S., Azevedo, I. M. L., Löschel, A., Singh, A. K., Steg, L., Strbac, G., & Wada, K. (2022). Energy Systems. In P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, & J. Malley (Eds.), Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 613–746). Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.008 

da Silva, V. P., & Galvão, M. L. d. M. (2022). Onshore wind power generation and sustainability challenges in northeast Brazil: A quick scoping review. Wind, 2(2), 192–209. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/wind2020011 

Diógenes, J. R. F., Claro, J., Rodrigues, J. C., & Loureiro, M. V. (2020). Barriers to onshore wind energy implementation: A systematic review. Energy Research & Social Science, 60, Article 101337. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101337 

Dioha, M. O. (2025). How can we finance a fair energy transition in Africa? Link to source: https://drawdown.org/insights/how-can-we-finance-a-fair-energy-transition-in-africa

Energy Information Administration. (2022). Levelized costs of new generation resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2022. U.S. Department of Energy. Link to source: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf 

Energy Information Administration. (2024a). Capital cost and performance characteristics for utility-scale electric: Power generating technologies. U.S. Department of Energy. Link to source: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost/pdf/capital_cost_AEO2025.pdf

Energy Information Administration. (2024b). Where wind power is harnessed. U.S. Department of Energy. Link to source: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/where-wind-power-is-harnessed.php 

Global Wind Energy Council. (2024). Global wind report 2024. Link to source: https://www.gwec.net/reports/globalwindreport/2024 

Global Wind Energy Council. (2025). Global wind report 2025. Link to source: https://www.gwec.net/reports/globalwindreport 

Global Wind Organization & Global Wind Energy Council. (2021). Global wind workforce outlook 2021–2025. Link to source: https://www.globalwindsafety.org/statistics/global-wind-workforce-forecast-2021-2025 

Global Wind Organization & Global Wind Energy Council. (2023). Global wind workforce outlook 2023–2027. Link to source: https://www.globalwindsafety.org/statistics/global-wind-workforce-outlook-2023-2027 

Gorayeb, A., Brannstrom, C., de Andrade Meireles, J., & de Sousa Mendes, J. (2018). Wind power gone bad: Critiquing wind power planning processes in northeastern Brazil. Energy Research & Social Science, 40, 82–88. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.027 

Haces-Fernandez, F., Cruz-Mendoza, M., & Li, H. (2022). Onshore wind farm development: Technologies and layouts. Energies, 15(7), Article 2381. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/en15072381 

Hartman, L. (2024). Wind Turbines: The Bigger, the Better. Link to source: https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/wind-turbines-bigger-better 

International Electrotechnical Commission. (2019). TC 88 wind energy generation systems. Link to source: https://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=103:7:0::::FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_LANG_ID:1282,25 

International Energy Agency. (2020). Projected costs of generating electricity 2020. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020

International Energy Agency. (2022a). Electricity generation sources, Asia Pacific, 2022. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/regions/asia-pacific/electricity 

International Energy Agency. (2022b). Electricity generation sources, Europe, 2022. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/regions/europe/electricity 

International Energy Agency. (2024a). COP28 tripling renewable capacity pledge: Tracking countries’ ambitions and identifying policies to bridge the gap. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/cop28-tripling-renewable-capacity-pledge

International Energy Agency. (2024b). Renewables 2024. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2024 

International Energy Agency. (2024c). World energy balances—Data product. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/world-energy-balances 

International Energy Agency. (2024d). World energy outlook 2024. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2024 

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2024a). Renewable power generation costs in 2023. Link to source: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2024/Sep/IRENA_Renewable_power_generation_costs_in_2023.pdf 

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2024b). Renewable energy capacity statistics 2024—Data product. Link to source: https://www.irena.org/Publications/2024/Mar/Renewable-capacity-statistics-2024 

Jacobson, M. Z., & Archer, C. L. (2012). Saturation wind power potential and its implications for wind energy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(39), 15679–15684. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1208993109 

Jung, C. (2024). Recent development and future perspective of wind power generation. Energies, 17(21), Article 5391. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/en17215391 

Jung, C., & Schindler, D. (2023). Efficiency and effectiveness of global onshore wind energy utilization. Energy Conversion and Management, 280, Article 116788. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2023.116788 

Kaldellis, J. K., & Zafirakis, D. (2011). The wind energy (r)evolution: A short review of a long history. Renewable Energy, 36, 1887–1901. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.01.002 

Kati, V., Kassara, C., Vrontisi, Z., & Moustakas, A. (2021). The biodiversity-wind energy-land use nexus in a global biodiversity hotspot. Science of The Total Environment, 768, Article 144471. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144471 

Khan Afridi, S., Ali Koondhar, M., Ismail Jamali, M., Muhammed Alaas, Z., Alsharif, M. H., Kim, M. K., Mahariq, I., Touti, E., Aoudia, M., & Ahmed, M. M. R. (2024). Winds of progress: An in-depth exploration of offshore, floating, and onshore wind turbines as cornerstones for sustainable energy generation and environmental stewardship. IEEE Access, 12, 66147–66166. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3397243 

Maguire, K., Tanner, S., Winikoff, J.B., & Williams, R. (2024). Utility-scale solar and wind development in rural areas: Land cover change (2009–20) (Report No. ERR-330). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.32747/2024.8374829.ers 

Marashli, A., Gasaymeh, A-M., & Shalby, M. (2022). Comparing the global warming impact from wind, solar energy, and other electricity generating systems through life cycle assessment methods (a survey). International Journal of Renewable Energy Research, 12(2), 899–920. ​​Link to source: https://doi.org/10.20508/ijrer.v12i2.13010.g8474 

Mathis, W., & Saul, J. (2024, October 23). A wind power crisis is holding back the world’s green energy goal. Bloomberg. Link to source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-10-23/wind-power-crisis-is-threat-to-world-s-renewable-energy-target 

McKenna, R., Pfenninger, S., Heinrichs, H., Schmidt, J., Staffell, I., Bauer, C., Gruber, K., Hahmann, A. N., Jansen, M., Klingler, M., Landwehr, N., Larsén, X. G., Lilliestam, J., Pickering, B., Robinius, M., Tröndle, T., Turkovska, O., Wehrle, S., Weinand, J. M., & Wohland, J. (2022). High-resolution large-scale onshore wind energy assessments: A review of potential definitions, methodologies and future research needs. Renewable Energy, 182, 659–684. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.10.027 

McKenna, R., Lilliestam, J., Heinrichs, H. U., Weinand, J. M., Schmidt, J., Staffell, I., Bauer, C., Hahmann, A. N., Burgherr, P., Burdack, A., Bucha, M., Chen, R., Klingler, M., Lehmann, P., Lowitzsch, J., Novo, R., Price, J., Sacchi, R., Scherhaufer, P.,  … Camargo, L. R. (2025). System impacts of wind energy developments: Key research challenges and opportunities. Joule, 9(1), Article 101799. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2024.11.016 

Meldrum, J., Nettles-Anderson, S., Heath G., & Macknick, J. (2013). Life cycle water use for electricity generation: a review and harmonization of literature estimates. Environmental Research Letters, 8, Article 015031. Link to source: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015031 

Millstein, D., O'Shaughnessy, E., & Wiser, R. (2024). Climate and air quality benefits of wind and solar generation in the United States from 2019 to 2022. Cell Reports Sustainability, 1(6), Article 100105. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsus.2024.100105 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2021). Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation: Update [Fact sheet]. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Link to source: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf 

Nordman, E. (2013). Wind power and air quality: Reducing air pollution and carbon emissions in Michigan. Link to source: https://www.michiganseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Wind-Brief-7-Air-Quality.pdf 

Qiu, M., Zigler, C. M., & Selin, N. E. (2022). Impacts of wind power on air quality, premature mortality, and exposure disparities in the United States. Science Advances, 8(48), Article eabn8762. Link to source: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abn8762 

Sander, L., Jung, C., & Schindler, D. (2024). Global review on environmental impacts of onshore wind energy in the field of tension between human societies and natural systems. Energies, 17, Article 3098. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/en17133098 

Shafiullah, G. M., Amanullah, M. T., Oo, A. B. M., Shawkat, A., & Wolfs, P. (2013). Potential challenges of integrating large-scale wind energy into the power grid–A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 20, 306–321. Link to source: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.057 

Shah, S., & Bazilian, M. (2020). LCOE and its limitations. Energy for Growth Hub. Payne Institute. Link to source: https://energyforgrowth.org/article/lcoe-and-its-limitations/ 

Smith, A. D. (2024, August 8). To unlock clean power’s potential, timing is key. Project Drawdown. Link to source: https://drawdown.org/insights/to-unlock-clean-powers-potential-timing-is-key 

Tafarte, P., & Lehmann, P. (2021). Quantifying trade-offs for the spatial allocation of onshore wind generation capacity: A case study for Germany [White paper]. Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung (UFZ). Link to source: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/234329 

Timilsina, G. R., van Kooten, G. C., & Narbel, P. A. (2013). Global wind power development: Economics and policies. Energy Policy, 61, 642–652. Link to source: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.062 

Tolvanen, A., Routavaara, H., Jokikokko, M., & Rana, P. (2023). How far are birds, bats, and terrestrial mammals displaced from onshore wind power development? – A systematic review. Biological Conservation, 288, Article 110382. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110382 

Williams, E., Hittinger, E., Carvalho, R., & Williams, R. (2017). Wind power costs expected to decrease due to technological progress. Energy Policy, 106, 427–435. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.032 

Wiser, R., Yang, Z., Hand, M., Hohmeyer, O., Infield, D., Jensen, P. H., Nikolaev, V., O’Malley, M., Sinden, G., & Zervos, A. (2011). Wind energy. In O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, & C. von Stechow (Eds.), IPCC special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation (pp. 535–608). Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139151153.011 

Wiser, R., Bolinger, M., & Lantz, E. (2019). Assessing wind power operating costs in the United States: Results from a survey of wind industry experts. Renewable Energy Focus, 30, 46–57, Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ref.2019.05.003 

Wiser, R., Rand, J., Seel, J., Beiter, P., Baker, E., Lantz, E., & Gilman, P. (2021). Expert elicitation survey predicts 37% to 49% declines in wind energy costs by 2050. Nature Energy, 6, 555–565. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-021-00810-z 

Wiser, R. H., Millstein, D., Hoen, B., Bolinger, M., Gorman, W., Rand, J., Barbose, G. L., Cheyette, A., Darghouth, N. R., Jeong, S., Kemp, J. M., O'Shaughnessy, E., Paulos, B., & Joachim Seel, J. (2024). Land-based wind market report: 2024 Edition. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Link to source: https://emp.lbl.gov/wind-technologies-market-report 

World Bank. (2021). Key factors for successful development of offshore wind in emerging markets. Energy Sector Management Assistance Program, World Bank. Link to source: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/343861632842395836/pdf/Key-Factors-for-Successful-Development-of-Offshore-Wind-in-Emerging-Markets.pdf 

Xue, B., Ma, Z., Geng, Y., Heck, P., Ren, W., Tobias, M., Maas, A., Jiang, P., de Oliveira, J. A. P., & Fujita, T. (2015). A life cycle co-benefits assessment of wind power in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 41, 338–346. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.056 

Zhang, H., Yang, J., Ren, X., Wu, Q., Zhou, D., & Elahi, E. (2020). How to accommodate curtailed wind power: A comparative analysis between the US, Germany, India and China. Energy Strategy Reviews, 32, Article 100538. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2020.100538

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

  • Michael Dioha, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Zoltan Nagy, Ph.D.

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

Based on IEA data, global emissions from electricity generation accounted for an estimated 530 kg CO₂‑eq /MWh (540 kg CO₂‑eq /MWh, 20-year basis). To convert from MWh to MW, we used the median global average capacity factor for onshore wind turbines of 37% (IRENA, 2024a). We estimated onshore wind turbines to reduce 1,700 t CO₂‑eq /MW (1,700 t CO₂‑eq /MW, 20-year basis) of installed capacity annually (Table 1).

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions. 

Unit: t CO₂‑eq (100-year basis)/MW installed capacity/yr

Estimate 1,700
Left Text Column Width

To estimate the effectiveness of onshore wind turbines, we assumed that electricity generated by new installations displaces an equivalent MWh of the global electricity grid mix. Then, the reduction in emissions from additional onshore wind capacity was equal to emissions (per MWh) from the 2023 global electricity grid mix (IEA, 2024c). We then used the onshore wind capacity factor to convert to annual emissions per MW of installed capacity.

During operation, onshore wind turbines do not emit GHGs. Life-cycle analyses for onshore wind turbines have estimated lifetime GHG emissions as very low, 7–20 g CO₂‑eq per kWh (100-year) of electricity generated (Barthelmie et al., 2021; Wiser et al., 2011). Emissions from manufacturing, transportation, installation, and decommissioning are commonly paid back in less than two years of wind farm operation (Diógenes et al., 2020; Haces-Fernandez et al., 2022; Kaldellis & Zafirakis, 2011). 

Our analysis focused solely on emissions produced during electricity generation; emissions associated with construction and installation of onshore wind are attributed to the Industry, Materials & Waste sector. Thus, we did not include carbon payback time and embodied life-cycle emissions in our estimates of effectiveness, even though this may overestimate climate impacts. We qualitatively discuss life-cycle emissions in Caveats below.

Cost

We estimated a mean levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for onshore wind turbines of US$52/MWh based on three industry reports (IEA, 2024d; IEA, 2020; IRENA, 2024a). LCOE is commonly used to compare costs across electricity generation technologies because it provides a single metric that combines total installed costs, costs of capital, operating and maintenance costs, the capacity factor, and lifetime of the project (EIA, 2022; Shah & Bazilian, 2020). 

In many global markets, wind power is one of the cheapest ways to generate electricity per MWh (IEA, 2024d); in 2023, newly commissioned onshore wind projects had lower electricity costs than the weighted average LCOE for fossil fuels, which was US$70–176/MWh (IRENA, 2024a). According to IRENA, the global weighted average LCOE for onshore wind turbines declined 91% between 1984–2023 (IRENA, 2024a). Although turbine prices increase with height, revenue from increased power generation available to larger turbines can offset increases in upfront costs, reducing LCOE (Beiter et al., 2021). Additional factors influencing cost-competitiveness of onshore wind include regional energy market fluctuations, social costs of carbon, and subsidies. These factors are not included in our analysis, but some policy levers are discussed in Take Action below. 

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

Learning rates for onshore wind vary widely due to different underlying assumptions, geographies, and performance metrics. Past learning rate estimates for wind power ranged from –3%, implying that wind power is more expensive over time, to 33% (Beiter et al., 2021). Learning-by-doing rates, based on experience accumulated as capacity increases, ranged from 1–17%, while learning-by-research rates, based on innovation and technological development, ranged from 5–27% (Williams et al., 2017).

More recent LCOE-based learning rate estimates suggest a 10%–20% reduction in LCOE when cumulative global capacity is doubled (Wiser et al., 2021). Since upfront costs are the largest component of LCOE for onshore wind, the reduction in LCOE was driven by a 9–18% decrease in capital expenditures between 2014–2019 due to “turbine price declines, economies of size, technology innovation, and siting choices” (Beiter et al., 2021). Between 2008–2020, onshore wind turbine prices declined by 50% (Wiser et al., 2024). Additionally, installed costs per megawatt decreased with increasing project size, and wind farms above 200 MW had the lowest installed costs (Wiser et al., 2024). Supply chain bottlenecks and higher material costs caused project cost increases between 2020–2022, but in 2023 prices flattened or dropped compared to the previous year (Wiser et al., 2024). Industry experts predicted a 37–49% reduction in wind turbine costs by 2050 (Wiser et al., 2021).

Although learning rates vary from country to country and site to site, we used two high-quality global studies that provided LCOEs for onshore wind to estimate a global learning rate for onshore wind. This resulted in a 28% median global learning rate between 2014–2019 for onshore wind, implying a 28% reduction in LCOE for each doubling of installed capacity during that time period (Table 2). 

Table 2. Learning rate: drop in LCOE per doubling of the installed solution base.

 Unit: %

25th percentile 21
Mean 28
Median (50th percentile) 28
75th percentile 34
Left Text Column Width
Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as emergency brake, gradual, or delayed.

Deploy Onshore Wind Turbines is a GRADUAL climate solution. It has a steady, linear impact on the atmosphere. The cumulative effect over time builds as a straight line.

Caveats

Emissions from fossil fuel–based electricity generation can be reduced with increased deployment of wind power. One limitation of our approach is assuming that each additional MWh of installed capacity displaces one MWh of the existing grid mix. This implies that new onshore wind may, at times, displace other renewables, rather than fossil-based sources. In reality, the extent of avoided emissions varies based on regional grid dynamics, marginal generation sources, and the timing and location of electricity production. This approach could be refined in the future, since wind generation could displace a larger share of fossil-fuel output than assumed in average grid-mix methods (e.g., Millstein et al., 2024). We may overestimate the achievable range of climate impacts because grid-average emissions would decrease over time as more renewables are added to the grid mix. In regions where utility-scale wind farms contribute significantly to the electricity grid, continued expansion also faces socio-ecological challenges due to limited available land with good wind conditions (da Silva and Galvão, 2022). 

Increasing the speed of adoption of onshore wind turbines could lead to issues such as lack of financing, supply chain bottlenecks, land and permit availability, social acceptance, and necessary grid and infrastructure expansion (GWEC, 2024). Globally, bottlenecks in supply chains alongside increased commodity prices for steel and other turbine materials in recent years led to a slowdown in wind power installations compared to solar (Mathis & Saul, 2024). Poor governance and low stakeholder engagement from utilities can also limit future adoption.

Due to the successful adoption of onshore wind in the past, many existing wind farms will reach the end of their average 20- to 25-year project lifetime before 2050 (IEA, 2024b; IRENA, 2024a; Wiser et al., 2024). Global wind energy capacity could decrease as wind farms are decommissioned, which involves dismantling and disposal of turbines and related infrastructure (Agra Neto et al., 2024). However, it is unlikely that a wind farm would be replaced with a nonrenewable energy source (Maguire et al., 2024). Although 85–90% of turbine raw materials can be recycled, including steel and cement, composite materials are still landfilled, with environmental consequences (Barthelmie et al., 2021; GWEC, 2024). Wind farms can also be retrofitted or repowered at the end of their design lifetimes.

GHGs are emitted during construction, installation, operation, decommissioning, and disposal of onshore wind turbines, but full life-cycle emissions are an order of magnitude lower than emissions from fossil fuel–based energy sources (Barthelmie et al., 2021; National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL], 2021). Nonoperational emissions are attributed to solutions in the Industry, Materials & Waste sector.

Current Adoption

Current adoption of onshore wind power is well documented by international agencies; we based our estimate on reported installed capacity in 2023 from IRENA, IEA, and the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC). Globally, onshore wind turbines exceeded 940,000 MW of installed capacity in 2023 (Table 3), based on the median across three global wind energy reports (GWEC, 2024; IEA, 2024d; IRENA, 2024b). Although we used 2023 as our baseline for current adoption, in 2024 an additional 109 GW of onshore wind capacity was installed, bringing the global total to over 1 million MW (GWEC, 2025).

Table 3. Current adoption level (2023).

Unit: MW installed capacity

Median 940,000
Left Text Column Width

Based on data from IRENA, onshore wind turbines generated electricity in 133 countries (IRENA, 2024b). At the country level, China led the market with more than 400,000 MW, and the lowest current adoption was in Trinidad and Tobago with 0.01 MW. Median country-level adoption was in Mongolia with 160 MW of installed capacity. Countries with less than 1 MW of installed capacity each were excluded from analysis, but their combined installed capacity was 6.4 MW across 16 countries. See Geographic Guidance for more regional details.

Adoption Trend

Based on the IRENA’s 2024 Renewable Energy Statistics, we calculated the global adoption trend by summing adoption across countries for each year between 2013–2023 and taking the year-to-year difference. Comparing year-to-year global adoption, the median global adoption trend was adding 54,000 MW of installed capacity per year (Table 4, Figure 1), but expansion was unevenly distributed geographically. 

Table 4. Adoption trend (2013–2023).

Unit: MW installed capacity per year

25th percentile 46,000
Mean 62,000
Median (50th percentile) 54,000
75th percentile 70,000
Left Text Column Width

Figure 1. Global adoption of onshore wind turbines, 2000–2023. Copyright © IRENA 2024

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2024b). Renewable energy capacity statistics 2024—Data product.

Enable Download
Off

Between 2010–2023, global cumulative onshore wind installed increased more than fourfold (IRENA, 2024a). Globally new onshore wind deployment declined between 2020–2022, but this trend reversed in 2023 with record global additions of 108,000 MW for a single year (GWEC, 2024; IEA, 2024b). GWEC projected that average annual installations would continue to increase, with 653,000 MW predicted to be added in 2024–2028 (GWEC, 2024).

Adoption Ceiling

The availability of wind resources sets the absolute upper limit of the adoption ceiling for onshore wind turbines with additional constraints due to land availability. However, wind resources are not evenly distributed around the world, so there will also be regional adoption ceilings for different countries (Wiser et al., 2011). In the literature, the global technical potential for onshore wind energy is calculated using power curves for turbines, statistical wind speed maps, and simulations (Jacobson & Archer, 2012; Jung, 2024). Land availability constrains the adoption ceiling because siting includes assessments of land cover type and exclusions of protected areas, bodies of water, and urban areas (Angliviel de La Beaumelle et al., 2023). 

At COP28 in 2023, nearly 200 countries pledged to triple renewable energy capacity by 2030 (IEA, 2024a). For onshore wind turbines, tripling capacity would mean accelerating adoption to nearly 270,000 MW installed annually. If that accelerated adoption trend is maintained between 2030–2050, the tripling pledge would result in more than 8.2 million MW of onshore wind turbine installed capacity by 2050. Additionally, the Net Zero Emissions by 2050 scenario in IEA’s World Energy Outlook projected 7.9 million MW of installed capacity for onshore and offshore wind power combined (IEA, 2024d), but we do not include combined wind power estimates in our adoption ceiling. For our analysis, we use the median technical potential to get an adoption ceiling of 12 million MW installed capacity for onshore wind turbines (Table 5).

Table 5. Adoption ceiling: upper limit for adoption level.

Unit: MW installed capacity

25th percentile 7,700,000
Mean 28,000,000
Median (50th percentile) 12,000,000
75th percentile 32,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

The IEA’s World Energy Outlook (WEO) 2024 includes several key scenarios that explore different energy futures based on varying levels of policy intervention, technological development, and market dynamics. We define the adoption achievable range for onshore wind turbines based on the Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS) and Announced Pledges Scenario (APS) (IEA, 2024d).

Achievable – Low

The Achievable – Low adoption level is based on STEPS, which captured the current trajectory for increased adoption of onshore wind energy as well as future projections based on existing and announced policies. Under this scenario, onshore wind capacity is projected to increase more than threefold from 940,000 MW to 3,200,000 MW by 2050 (Table 6). 

Achievable – High

The Achievable – High adoption level is based on APS, which assumes the same policy framework as STEPS, plus full realization of announced national energy and climate targets, including net-zero commitments supported by stronger clean energy investments. Under this scenario, onshore wind capacity is projected to increase more than fourfold from 940,000 MW to 4,400,000 MW by 2050 (Table 6).

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: MW installed capacity

Current adoption 940,000
Achievable – low 3,200,000
Achievable – high 4,400,000
Adoption ceiling 12,000,000
Left Text Column Width

Current adoption of onshore wind turbines was nearly 8% of our estimated 12 million MW adoption ceiling and the achievable range is between 27% and 37%.

Based on baseline global adoption and effectiveness, we estimate the current total climate impact of onshore wind turbines to be 1.6 Gt CO₂‑eq (1.6 Gt CO₂‑eq , 20-year basis) of reduced emissions per year. We estimated the achievable range of climate impacts using the emissions from the 2023 baseline electricity grid; actual emissions reductions could differ depending on how the emissions intensity of electricity generation changes over time. The IEA Stated Policies Scenario projected that global adoption would reach 3.2 million MW by 2050 (IEA, 2024d), resulting in an increased emissions reduction of 5.4 Gt CO₂‑eq (5.4 Gt CO₂‑eq , 20-year basis) per year. The IEA Announced Pledges Scenario projected 4.4 million MW of installed capacity by 2050 (IEA, 2024d), implying an estimated 7.5 Gt CO₂‑eq (7.5 Gt CO₂‑eq , 20-year basis) of reduced emissions per year (Table 7).

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq (100-year basis) per year

Current adoption 1.6
Achievable – low 5.4
Achievable – high 7.5
Adoption ceiling 20
Left Text Column Width

We based the adoption ceiling solely on the technical potential and wind resources, while neglecting social and economic constraints and realistic scenarios of future power demand (Dioha et al, 2025). The electricity sector in 2023 emitted 15.6 Gt CO₂ ‑eq (International Energy Agency [IEA], 2024b); emissions reductions cannot surpass this value without increased demand. Onshore wind turbine installed capacity is unlikely to reach 12 million MW, but if current grid emissions remained constant while capacity increased, GHG emission reductions would be approximately 20 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. This maximum is unrealistic as a forward-looking climate impact because it treats grid carbon intensity as permanently fixed at 2023 levels and ignores future decarbonization and corresponding decreases in marginal avoided emissions.

Additional Benefits

Income and Work

Wind power has a strong positive impact on the economy. Wind energy projects have been shown to increase both total income and employment in high-, low-, and middle-income countries, although the costs of new projects may be higher in emerging markets until the market develops (Adeyeye et al., 2020; GWEC & GWO, 2021; World Bank, 2021). According to the GWEC & GWO (2023), the wind industry will need more than half a million new technicians to reach renewable energy goals. Technical roles will also be supported by additional jobs for engineers, manufacturers, analysts, and managers. Many of these jobs are in the construction sector. They also include technicians, engineers, manufacturers, analysts, and managers. In the United States, wind energy employed more than 125,000 workers in 2022 (Hartman, 2024). Onshore wind could also strengthen energy security by diversifying the power mix and reducing dependence on imported fuels. 

Health

Improvements in air quality offer health benefits from reduced air pollution exposure, including reduced premature mortality. The magnitude and distribution of these benefits depends on the local electricity grid mix and the fuels used to generate electricity (Qiu et al., 2022). In 2022, the air quality health benefits from wind power amounted to US$16 billion at a rate of US$36 per megawatt-hour (Millstein et al., 2024). Health benefits of onshore wind can be greater for racial and ethnic minority groups and low-income populations, who often face higher exposure burdens from fossil-fuel electricity generation; however these benefits also depend on the existing grid and on how pollutants are transported in the atmosphere (Qiu et al., 2022). In the United States, economic benefits of improved health outcomes have already increased from US$2 billion in 2014 to US$16 billion in 2022, but these benefits could be maximized by replacing fossil-fuel power plants in regions with higher health damages (Qiu et al., 2022). 

Nature Protection

While some wind power systems could displace species through habitat loss, careful planning and development could reduce some of these risks and conserve biodiversity (Kati et al., 2021; Tolvanen et al., 2023). Wind-powered electricity generation can benefit the environment by requiring less water than fossil fuel–powered electricity. According to a life-cycle analysis by Meldrum et al. (2013), wind power has the lowest water consumption of all electricity generation methods. 

Water Resources

For a description of water resources benefits, please refer to the Nature Protection section.

Air Quality

Wind energy significantly reduces air pollutants released from fossil-fuel energy generation, thereby avoiding the emission of pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter associated with burning coal and natural gas. In the U.S. Midwest, each MWh of wind energy added to the grid can avoid 4.9 pounds of sulfur dioxide and 2.0 pounds of nitrous oxides (Nordman, 2013). A life-cycle analysis of wind power in China found that wind farms could reduce sulfur dioxide,, nitrous oxides, and PM10 emissions by 80.38%, 57.31%, and 30.91%, respectively, compared with emissions from coal-based power plants (Xue et al., 2015). 

Risks

Several key risks could prevent growth in installed capacity of onshore wind turbines. Electricity generation from onshore wind turbines inherently fluctuates because wind speeds vary temporally and spatially. Onshore wind turbines face challenges integrating into regional electricity grids (Diógenes et al., 2020; Shafiullah et al., 2013), depending on their location. To reliably meet demand, many grid mixes rely on backup power from coal and natural gas (Haces-Fernandez et al., 2022; Millstein et al., 2024) – although advances in smart grids, storage, and grid flexibility can help reduce reliance on backup fossil-fuel power. Times of high wind generation can create instability (Smith, 2024), leading turbine operators to curtail power output to prevent overloading the electricity grid. Curtailment can also occur due to infrastructure limitations or market conditions (Hartman, 2024). However, we found that curtailment was often small: In 2018, less than 2% of wind power was curtailed in the United States and Germany (Zhang et al., 2020). Intermittency in wind energy could also drive increases in electricity costs, but this can be reduced through a variety of generation-side, demand-side, and storage technologies (Ren et al., 2017).

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing 

Increased availability of renewable energy from onshore wind turbines helps reduce emissions from the electricity grid as a whole. Reduced emissions from the electricity grid lead to lower downstream emissions for solutions that rely on electricity use. Deploying onshore wind turbines also supports increased integration of solar PV by diversifying the renewable energy mix and reducing overreliance on solar variability.

Automated and more efficient use of electricity in buildings can shift energy use to times of high renewable generation and reduce electricity demand to help balance intermittency challenges of onshore wind energy.

Electrification of transportation systems will be more beneficial in reducing global emissions if the underlying grid includes a higher proportion of non-emitting power sources. Electric transportation systems can also reduce curtailment of wind energy through controlled-time charging and other load-shifting technologies.

Competing

Deploying onshore wind energy requires dedicated land use which limits land availability for other renewable energy technologies, raw material and food production, and conservation programs. Deploy Onshore Wind Turbines competes with the following solutions for land:

Dashboard

Solution Basics

MW installed capacity

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
1,700
units
Current 940,000 03.2×10⁶4.4×10⁶
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 1.6 5.47.5
Gradual

CO₂ , CH₄, N₂O

Trade-offs

Siting, transportation, and transmission challenges involve trade-offs between electricity generation requirements, cost, and impacts to people and the environment (Tarfarte & Lehmann, 2023). Construction delays occur due to regulatory and permitting challenges (McKenna et al., 2025; Timilsina et al., 2013). Larger turbines, which provide more power, also exacerbate logistical challenges of construction, transportation, installation, and optimization (Afridi et al., 2024). Construction and siting of new onshore wind farms could threaten land used for agriculture, Indigenous land rights, cultural landscapes, and ecosystems if not carefully assessed during project planning phases, including minimizing visual disturbances and vibrations (Gorayeb et al., 2018; McKenna et al., 2025; Tolvanen et al., 2023). There are emissions associated with land use change (LUC) for new wind farms because sequestered carbon is released as CO₂ when soil is disturbed during construction. The magnitude of LUC emissions depends on the land cover type that the wind farm replaces. LUC emissions caused by constructing on pastureland, cropland, and forests were 6–17% of annual emissions savings from deploying the wind turbines (Albanito et al., 2022; Marashli et al., 2022), and constructing on peatlands could cause emissions greater than the emission savings (Albanito et al., 2022). 

m/s
0≥ 10

Mean Wind Speed at 100 meters above surface

This map shows average wind speeds at 100 meters above the surface, roughly the height of modern turbine towers. Wind speeds above 6 meters per second (m/s) are generally suitable for onshore wind farms, while 9–10 m/s and higher are considered excellent for power generation. The color scale highlights differences: lighter areas show weaker winds, while darker areas indicate strong winds that make onshore projects most efficient.

Global Wind Atlas (2025). Mean wind speed (version 4.0) [Data set]. Technical University of Denmark (DTU). Link to source: https://globalwindatlas.info/

m/s
0≥ 10

Mean Wind Speed at 100 meters above surface

This map shows average wind speeds at 100 meters above the surface, roughly the height of modern turbine towers. Wind speeds above 6 meters per second (m/s) are generally suitable for onshore wind farms, while 9–10 m/s and higher are considered excellent for power generation. The color scale highlights differences: lighter areas show weaker winds, while darker areas indicate strong winds that make onshore projects most efficient.

Global Wind Atlas (2025). Mean wind speed (version 4.0) [Data set]. Technical University of Denmark (DTU). Link to source: https://globalwindatlas.info/

Maps Introduction

China, the United States, and Germany lead the market for installed onshore wind capacity, with 60% of global capacity in the United States and China. Installed capacity in China alone was greater than installed capacity across the rest of the world, excluding the United States (IRENA, 2024b). 

Capacity factors vary geographically. In 2023, Brazil had the sixth-highest installed capacity globally (29,000 MW) and reported the highest capacity factors, 54%, while capacity factors in China were only 34%, below the global median capacity factor of 37% (IRENA, 2024b). Higher capacity factors lead to better performance and increased electricity output from clean energy sources.

Regions with fossil fuel–dominated grid mixes use onshore wind turbines to diversify electricity sources and cut emissions from electricity generation. Although China led the onshore wind market in 2023, wind energy from both offshore and onshore turbines only accounted for 6% of electricity generation in Asia and the Pacific, while 56% came from coal (IEA, 2022a). Germany and Spain had the highest installed capacity in Europe as of 2023 with combined onshore and offshore energy contributing 14% of total electricity generation, the highest percentage of any regional grid (IEA, 2022b). 

While expanding onshore wind in established markets such as Europe is important, targeting regions with little to no electricity generation from renewables could have a larger impact on emissions reductions by providing a clean energy alternative to fossil fuels. It is also critical to ensure that as wind power expands into low- and middle-income countries, the transition to a more renewable electricity grid is done equitably and benefits local communities (Gorayeb et al., 2018).

In 2023, China, the United States, Brazil, Germany, and India cumulatively made up 82% of new global additions to onshore wind capacity (Global Wind Energy Council [GWEC], 2024). Across all countries with new onshore wind installations in 2023, the median global trend was adding 39 MW of installed capacity per year, but expansion was unevenly distributed around the world. China and India were examples of rapidly expanding markets, with adoption trends of more than 32,000 MW per year and 2,600 MW per year, respectively. Despite a reduction in installations in 2023 compared with 2022, previous installations in the United States contributed to a high 10-year adoption trend of 8,800 MW per year (IRENA, 2024b). The slowest expanding countries, Denmark and the Netherlands, were adding 130–430 MW of onshore wind turbine capacity per year, most likely due to highly saturated existing markets for wind power. 

There is ample technical potential for onshore wind adoption in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and the Pacific, although current installed capacity is relatively low in those regions (IRENA, 2024b; Wiser et al., 2011). The Global Wind Energy Council highlighted Australia, Azerbaijan, Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Japan, Kenya, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, the United States, and Vietnam as markets to watch for growth (GWEC, 2024).

Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Onshore Wind Turbines
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Coordinate wind power policies horizontally (e.g., across agencies) and vertically (e.g., across subnational, national, and international efforts), ensuring an inclusive process for impacted communities and consumers.
  • Develop regulations, standards, and codes to ensure quality equipment production, safe operation, and quick deployment – ideally, before development and adoption to prevent accidents and delays.
  • Offer equipment testing and certification systems, market information disclosures, and assistance with onsite supervision
  • Set quotas for power companies and offer expedited permitting processes for renewable energy production, including onshore wind, while maintaining environmental safeguards.
  • Set adjustments for wind power on-grid pricing through schemes such as feed-in tariffs, renewable energy auctions, or other guaranteed pricing methods for wind energy.
  • Offer subsidies, grants, low-interest loans, and preferential tax policies for manufacturers, developers, and operators of onshore wind farms.
  • Invest in and develop grid infrastructure – particularly, high-voltage transmission capacity.
  • Provide financing for research and development (R&D) to improve the performance of wind turbines, wind forecasting, and related technology.
  • Mandate onsite wind power forecasting and set standards for data integrity.
  • Create training programs for engineers, operators, and other personnel.
  • Coordinate voluntary agreements with industry to increase onshore wind capacity and power generation.
  • Initiate public awareness campaigns focusing on how wind turbines function, their benefits, and any public concerns.
  • Disincentivize fuel-based power generation and use funds to subsidize new onshore wind investments.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Work with external organizations to enter new markets and identify challenges early in development.
  • Participate in, offer, or explore coinvestments in, electricity infrastructure (e.g., shared transmission).
  • Partner with academic institutions and other external organizations to provide workforce development programs.
  • Focus R&D on increasing the productivity and efficiency of turbines, especially in areas with lower wind conditions, and on supporting technology such as wind forecasting.
  • Consider leasing usable land for onshore wind development.
  • Participate in voluntary agreements with government bodies to increase policy support for onshore wind capacity and power generation.
  • Conduct integrated logistics planning to anticipate transport challenges for large turbine components.
  • Strengthen local workforce skills through partnerships with technical schools and vocational programs.
  • Support and participate in public awareness campaigns focusing on how wind turbines function, their benefits, and any public concerns.
  • Stay abreast of and engage with changing policies, regulations, zoning laws, tax incentives, and related developments to help remove commercial barriers.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Enter into Purchase Power Agreements (PPAs), long-term contracts between a company (the buyer) and a renewable energy producer (the seller).
  • Purchase high-integrity renewable energy certificates (RECs), which track ownership of renewable energy generation.
  • Support long-term, stable contracts (e.g., PPAs or Contracts for Difference) that de-risk investment in onshore wind technologies and incentivize local supply chain development.
  • Invest in companies that provide onshore wind energy, those that make components for onshore wind, or those that develop related technology, such as forecasting.
  • Initiate or join voluntary agreements with national or international bodies and support industry collaboration.
  • Support workforce development programs and/or offer employee scholarships or sponsor training for careers in onshore wind.
  • Support community engagement initiatives in areas where you do business to educate and highlight the local economic benefits of onshore wind.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Advocate for favorable policies and incentives for onshore wind energy development, such as financing, preferential tax policies, guaranteed pricing methods, and quotas.
  • Propose or help develop regulations, standards, and codes to ensure quality equipment production, safe operation, and quick deployment.
  • Advocate for equitable sharing of revenue and taxes in areas that produce wind power.
  • Support fair benefit-sharing arrangements and conflict resolution mechanisms to settle land use disputes.
  • Conduct open-access research to improve the performance of wind turbines, wind forecasting, and related technology.
  • Operate or help with equipment testing and certification systems, market information disclosures, and onsite supervision.
  • Create or help with training programs for engineers, operators, and other personnel.
  • Coordinate voluntary agreements between governments and industry to increase onshore wind capacity and power generation.
  • Initiate public awareness campaigns focusing on how wind turbines function, their benefits, and any public concerns.

Further information:

Investors
  • Invest in the development of onshore wind farms.
  • Consider offering flexible and low-interest loans for developing and operating onshore wind farms.
  • Invest in supporting infrastructures such as utility companies, grid development, and access roads.
  • Invest in component technology and related science, such as wind forecasting.
  • Invest in green bonds and/or explore blended finance structures to mobilize capital for companies developing onshore wind energy or supporting infrastructure.
  • Help develop insurance products for onshore wind in emerging markets.
  • Align investments with existing public-private partnerships, voluntary agreements, or voluntary guidance that may apply in the location of the investment (including those that apply to biodiversity).

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Provide catalytic financing for, or help develop, onshore wind farms.
  • Award grants to improve supporting infrastructures such as utility companies, grid development, and access roads.
  • Support the development of component technology and related science, such as wind forecasting.
  • Fund updates to high-resolution wind atlases and data platforms to improve resource assessment and project planning.
  • Facilitate partnerships to share wind turbine technology and best practices between established and emerging markets, promoting energy equity and access.
  • Foster cooperation and technology transfer between low- and middle-income countries with emerging wind sectors.
  • Advocate for favorable policies and incentives for onshore wind energy development, such as financing, preferential tax policies, guaranteed pricing methods, and quotas.
  • Propose or help develop regulations, standards, and codes to ensure quality equipment production, safe operation, and quick deployment.
  • Initiate public awareness campaigns focusing on how wind turbines function, their benefits, and any public concerns.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Advocate for favorable policies and incentives for onshore wind energy development, such as financing, preferential tax policies, guaranteed pricing methods, and quotas.
  • Propose or help develop regulations, standards, and codes to ensure quality equipment production, safe operation, and quick deployment.
  • Conduct research to improve the performance of wind turbines, wind forecasting, and related technology.
  • Initiate public awareness campaigns focusing on how wind turbines function, their benefits, why they are necessary, and any public concerns.
  • Advocate for inclusion of community engagement, respect for Indigenous rights, and preservation of cultural heritage and traditional ways of life in wind power expansion efforts.
  • Advance academic and/or public discourse on fully pricing fossil-fuel externalities to improve fair competition for renewables.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Improve the productivity and efficiency of wind turbines.
  • Improve battery capacity for electricity storage.
  • Develop more accurate, timely, and cost-effective means of wind forecasting.
  • Develop siting maps that highlight exclusion zones for Indigenous lands, cultural heritage sites, and biodiversity hot spots.
  • Engineer new or improved means of manufacturing towers and components – ideally with locally sourced materials.
  • Enhance design features such as wake steering, bladeless wind power, and quiet wind turbines.
  • Develop materials and designs that facilitate recycling and circulate supply chains.
  • Optimize power output, efficiency, and deployment for vertical axis turbines.
  • Refine methods for retaining power for low-speed winds.
  • Research the cumulative social, environmental, and climate impacts of the onshore wind industry.
  • Explore smart transmission and advanced grid management to address future connection bottlenecks.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Purchase high-integrity RECs, which track ownership of renewable energy generation.
  • Advocate for equitable sharing of revenue and taxes in areas that produce wind power.
  • Participate in public consultations and licensing hearings for wind projects.
  • Stay informed about wind development projects that impact your community and support them when possible.
  • Conduct research on the benefits and development of wind energy and share the information with your friends, family, and other networks.
  • Support the development of community wind cooperatives or shared ownership structures that allow local communities to directly benefit from onshore wind projects.
  • Participate in public awareness campaigns focused on onshore wind projects.
  • Advocate for favorable policies and incentives for onshore wind energy development, such as financing, preferential tax policies, guaranteed pricing methods, and quotas.
  • If your utility company offers transparent green pricing, which charges a premium to cover the extra cost of renewable energy, and if it fits your budget, opt into it.

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of overall effectiveness of onshore wind turbines: High

Onshore wind energy is inherently renewable and well established as an efficient and effective electricity source. Increasing availability of wind energy reduces the need for fossil fuel–derived energy sources such as coal and gas, leading to lower GHG emissions from the global electricity sector. Through reduced emissions, deploying onshore wind turbines also leads to climate and air quality benefits (Afridi et al., 2024; Millstein et al., 2024). Wind energy is widely adopted around the world, and in 2023 “the country weighted average turbine capacity ranged from 2.5 MW to 5.8 MW” across 133 countries (IRENA, 2024a).

Ongoing innovation is necessary for broader global adoption of onshore wind. Estimates of technical adoption potential depend on site characteristics and socioeconomic conditions (Jung & Schindler 2023; McKenna et al., 2022). According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “at low to medium levels of wind electricity penetration (up to 20% of total electricity demand), the integration of wind energy generally poses no insurmountable technical barriers and is economically manageable” (Wiser et al., 2011). Potentially exploitable wind resources are 20–30 times higher than 2017 global electricity demand (Clarke et al., 2022).

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 8 reviews and meta-analyses, 29 original studies, 18 agency reports, and 4 articles reflecting current evidence from 133 countries. We prioritized global data, but some research primarily focuses on trends in the United States, Brazil, China, and Germany. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Deploy Utility-Scale Solar PV

Sector
Electricity
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift Production
Image
Utility-scale solar photovoltaic array
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Utility-scale solar PV refers to large solar power systems, typically installed on open land and connected directly to a central electric grid, that generate electricity for widespread distribution. These systems generally have an installed capacity above 1 MW. There are various configurations of utility-scale solar PV systems and we include fixed-tilt and tracking systems in this solution. Systems on cropland are also considered in this solution, but dual production of crops and solar energy on the same land area is analyzed as a separate agrivoltaics solution.

Income & work,Health
Land resources,Water resources,Air quality
Description for Social and Search
Deploy Utility-Scale Solar PV is a Highly Recommended climate solution. It reduces the need to generate electricity from fossil fuels and so reduces GHG emissions.
Overview

An estimated 23% of GHG emissions on a 100-year basis comes from electricity generation annually (Clarke et al., 2022), and in 2022, more than 60% of global electricity generation came from fossil fuel–based energy sources (International Energy Agency [IEA], 2024b). Since solar is a clean, renewable resource, utility-scale solar PV does not contribute to GHG emissions or air pollution while generating energy. Deploying utility-scale solar PV reduces the need for electricity generation from fossil fuels, which reduces CO₂ emissions, as well as smaller amounts of methane and nitrous oxide. 

Utility-scale solar PV systems generate electricity by converting sunlight directly into electrical energy through the photovoltaic effect. These systems typically consist of large arrays of solar panels made from semiconductor materials (most commonly crystalline silicon), inverters that convert direct current (DC) electricity to alternating current (AC), structural mounting systems, and transformers. When sunlight strikes the surface of a solar panel, light energy is absorbed and transferred to electrons in the semiconductor material. If the energy is high enough, electrons then move between semiconductor layers producing a flow of electric current (US EIA, 2024). This electricity is routed through inverters, converted into grid-compatible AC power, and delivered to substations and transmission lines (Figure 1). The amount of electricity generated depends on the system size, the intensity of sunlight at the location (solar irradiance), panel efficiency, and the system’s capacity factor. Utility-scale solar PV achieves capacity factors of 9–35%, depending on geography, seasonal variation, and system design (Bolinger et al., 2023). 

There are two main categories of utility-scale systems – fixed-tilt installations, where solar panels are mounted in a static position, and tracking systems, which rotate to follow the sun’s path across the sky, improving energy yield. Newer advances in module design, including bifacial modules and cell technologies such as perovskite-silicon tandem cells, continue to improve system efficiency and lower overall costs of utility-scale solar PV (Gu et al., 2020; Mdallal et al., 2025). 

Utility-scale solar PV generates additional benefits, such as reduced air pollution, lower water use compared to thermal power plants, and relatively fewer public health impacts from energy production. While there are emissions associated with the manufacturing, transportation, and installation of utility-scale solar PV panels, these life-cycle emissions are more than 10 times lower than emissions from fossil fuel–based electricity generation (National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL], 2021). These life-cycle emissions are not quantified in this assessment but are typically addressed under industry- or supply chain-focused solutions. Because utility-scale solar PV produces no emissions during operation, the technology contributes significantly to clean energy transitions. 

Figure 1. (a) Anatomy of a solar cell. Two layers of semiconductor material – most commonly crystalline silicone – are sandwiched between electrodes. Both layers together create a silicon wafer. The layers of this silicon wafer are oppositely charged, which creates an electric field at the material interface. When energy from the sun is absorbed, electrons with sufficient energy cross the electric field and flow towards the electrodes, creating an electric current. (b) Solar panels are built by combining multiple solar cells into modules; multiple panels are used in a solar array. After electricity generation, inverters and transmission systems deliver power to consumers. Modified from (a) Husain et al. and (b) Renew Wisconsin.

Diagrams demonstrating components of a solar cell and a utility-scale transmission system

Sources: Husain, A.A., Hasan, W.Z.W., Shafie, S., Hamidon, M.N., & Pandey, S.S. (2018). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 94, 779–791; (b) Renew Wisconsin. (2018). Utility-scale solar in Wisconsin.

References

Abel, D., Holloway, T., Harkey, M., Rrushaj, A., Brinkman, G., Duran, P., Janssen, M., Denholm, P. (2018). Potential air quality benefits from increased solar photovoltaic electricity generation in the Eastern United States. Atmospheric Environment, 175, 65–74. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.11.049 

Adeh, E. H., Good, S. P., Calaf, M., & Higgins, C. W. (2019). Solar PV power potential is greatest over croplands. 9(1), Article 11442. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47803-3

Ahmad, A., Power, N., & Finegan, E. (2025). Maximising solar PV potential: A comprehensive review of factors affecting photovoltaic installation and generation in a mild temperate oceanic climate. Solar Energy Advances, 5, Article 100111. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SEJA.2025.100111 

Ahmad, M., Zeeshan, M., & Khan, J. A. (2023). Life cycle multi-objective (geospatial, techno-economic, and environmental) feasibility and potential assessment of utility scale photovoltaic power plants. Energy Conversion and Management, 291. Article 117260. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2023.117260

Badza, K., Soro, Y. M., & Sawadogo, M. (2023). Life cycle assessment of a 33.7 MW solar photovoltaic power plant in the context of a developing country. Sustainable Environment Research, 33(1), Article 38. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1186/S42834-023-00201-X

Baik, E., Chawla, K. P., Jenkins, J. D., Kolster, C., Patankar, N. S., Olson, A., Benson, S. M., Long, J. C. S. (2021). What is different about different net-zero carbon electricity systems? Energy and Climate Change, 2, Article 100046. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egycc.2021.100046

Bajagain, R., Panthi, G., An, Y.-J., & Jeong, S.-W. (2020). Current practices on solar photovoltaic waste management: An overview of the potential risk and regulatory approaches of the photovoltaic waste. Journal of Korean Society of Environmental Engineers, 42(12) 690-708. Link to source: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4491/KSEE.2020.42.12.690

Bamisile, O., Acen, C., Cai, D., Huang, Q., & Staffell, I. (2025). The environmental factors affecting solar photovoltaic output. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 208, Article 115073. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2024.115073 

Beiter, P., Guillet, J., Jansen, M., Wilson, E., & Kitzing, L. (2024). The enduring role of contracts for difference in risk management and market creation for renewables. Nature Energy, 9, 20–26. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01401-w 

Bistline, J.E.T., Watten, A. (2025). Emissions reductions of rooftop solar are overstated by approaches that inadequately capture substitution effects. Nature Climate Change, 15, 1173–1175. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02459-y

Bolinger, M., Seel, J., Kemp, J. M., Warner, C., Katta, A., & Robson, D. (2023). Utility-scale solar, 2023 edition: Empirical trends in deployment, technology, cost, performance, PPA pricing, and value in the United States. Link to source: https://emp.lbl.gov/publications/utility-scale-solar-2023-edition

Bolinger, M., Wiser, R., & O’Shaughnessy, E. (2022). Levelized cost-based learning analysis of utility-scale wind and solar in the United States. iScience, 25(6). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ISCI.2022.104378

Brown, T. & Reichenberg, L. (2021). Decreasing market value of variable renewables can be avoided by policy action. Energy Economics, 100, Article 105354. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105354

Buonocore, J. J., Hughes, E. J., Michanowicz, D. R., Heo, J., Allen, J. G., and Williams, A. (2019). Climate and health benefits of increasing renewable energy deployment in the United States. Environmental Research Letters, 14, Article 114010. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab49bc

Chopdar, R. K., Sengar, N., Giri, N. C., & Halliday, D. (2024). Comprehensive review on agrivoltaics with technical, environmental and societal insights. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 197. Article 114416. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114416

Chowdhury, M. S., Rahman, K. S., Chowdhury, T., Nuthammachot, N., Techato, K., Akhtaruzzaman, M., Tiong, S. K., Sopian, K., & Amin, N. (2020). An overview of solar photovoltaic panels’ end-of-life material recycling. Energy Strategy Reviews, 27, Article 100431. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESR.2019.100431

Clarke, L., Wei, Y.-M., De La Vega Navarro, A., Garg, A., Hahmann, A. N., Khennas, S., Azevedo, I. M. L., Löschel, A., Singh, A. K., Steg, L., Strbac, G., & Wada, K. (2022). Energy Systems. In P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, & J. Malley (Eds.), Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 613–746). Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.008

Dato, P., Dioha, M., Hessou, H., Houenou, B., Mukhaya, B., Okyere, M. A., & Odarno, L. (2025). Computation of weighted average cost of capital (WACC) in the power sector for African countries and the implications for country-specific electricity technology cost. Applied Energy, 397, Article 126333. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2025.126333

de La Beaumelle, N. A., Blok, K., de Chalendar, J. A., Clarke, L., Hahmann, A. N., Huster, J., Nemet, G. F., Suri, D., Wild, T. B., & Azevedo, I. M. L. (2023). The global technical, economic, and feasible potential of renewable electricity. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 48, 419–449. Link to source: https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-091140

Deng, Y. Y., Haigh, M., Pouwels, W., Ramaekers, L., Brandsma, R., Schimschar, S., Grözinger, J., & de Jager, D. (2015). Quantifying a realistic, worldwide wind and solar electricity supply. Global Environmental Change, 31, 239–252. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2015.01.005

Diffendorfer, J. E., Sergi, B., Lopez, A., Williams, T., Gleason, M., Ancona, Z., & Cole, W. (2024). The interplay of future solar energy, land cover change, and their projected impacts on natural lands and croplands in the US. Science of The Total Environment, 947, Article 173872. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2024.173872

Dimanchev, E., Gabriel, S. A., Reichenberg, L., & Korpås, M. (2024). Consequences of the missing risk market problem for power system emissions. Energy Economics, 136, Article 107639. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2024.107639 

Dioha, M. O. (2025). How can we finance a fair energy transition in Africa?Link to source: https://drawdown.org/insights/how-can-we-finance-a-fair-energy-transition-in-africa

DNV. (2024). Energy transition outlook 2024. Link to source: https://brandcentral.dnv.com/original/gallery/10651/files/original/5c2470ac-597c-43f9-87dd-4e6b238d7845.pdf 

Dupont, E., Koppelaar, R., & Jeanmart, H. (2020). Global available solar energy under physical and energy return on investment constraints. Applied Energy, 257, Article 113968. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2019.113968

Firoozi, A. A., Firoozi, A. A., & Maghami, M. R. (2025). Harnessing photovoltaic innovation: Advancements, challenges, and strategic pathways for sustainable global development. Energy Conversion and Management: X, 27, Article 101058. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECMX.2025.101058

Frew, B., Sergi, B., Denholm, P., Cole, W., Gates, N., Levie, D., & Margolis, R. (2021). The curtailment paradox in the transition to high solar power systems. Joule, 5(5), 1143–1167. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOULE.2021.03.021

Gadzanku, S., Kramer, A., and Smith, B., L. (2023). An updated review of the solar PV installation workforce literature. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-7A40-83652. Link to source: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/83652.pdf

Gagnon, P. & O’Shaughnessy, E. (2024). Consequential analysis of the greenhouse gas emissions impacts of actions that influence the electric grid: The theory and practice of using marginal emissions rates. NREL/TP-6A40-91580. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Link to source: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy25osti/91580.pdf

Gallagher, C. L. and Tracey, H. (2020). Integrating air quality and public health benefits in U.S. decarbonization strategies. Frontiers in Public Health, 8. Link to source: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.563358

Giri, N. C., & Mohanty, R. C. (2022). Agrivoltaic system: Experimental analysis for enhancing land productivity and revenue of farmers. Energy for Sustainable Development, 70, 54–61. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESD.2022.07.003

Gan, Y., Elgowainy, A., Lu, Z., Kelly, J. C., Wang, M., Boardman, R. D., & Marcinkoski, J. (2023). Greenhouse gas emissions embodied in the U.S. solar photovoltaic supply chain. Environmental Research Letters, 18(10), Article 104012. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ACF50D

Gorman, W., Kemp, J. M., Rand, J., Seel, J., Wiser, R., Manderlink, N., Kahrl, F., Porter, K., & Cotton, W. (2025). Grid connection barriers to renewable energy deployment in the United States. Joule, 9(2), Article 101791. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2024.11.008

Gu, W., Ma, T., Ahmed, S., Zhang, Y., & Peng, J. (2020). A comprehensive review and outlook of bifacial photovoltaic (bPV) technology. Energy Conversion and Management, 223. Article 113283. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2020.113283

Haas, R., Sayer, M., Ajanovic, A., & Auer, H. (2023). Technological learning: Lessons learned on energy technologies. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, 12(2), Article e463. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/WENE.463

Hernandez, R. R., Easter, S. B., Murphy-Mariscal, M. L., Maestre, F. T., Tavassoli, M., Allen, E. B., Barrows, C. W., Belnap, J., Ochoa-Hueso, R., Ravi, S., & Allen, M. F. (2014). Environmental impacts of utility-scale solar energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 29, 766–779. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2013.08.041

Hoogwijk, M. M. (2004). On the global and regional potential of renewable energy sources. Utrecht University. Link to source: https://research-portal.uu.nl/en/publications/on-the-global-and-regional-potential-of-renewable-energy-sources/

International Energy Agency. (2022). Solar PV global supply chains. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/solar-pv-global-supply-chains 

International Energy Agency. (2023a). Solar PV power capacity in the net zero scenario, 2015-2030. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/solar-pv-power-capacity-in-the-net-zero-scenario-2015-2030 

International Energy Agency. (2024a). World energy outlook 2024. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2024

International Energy Agency. (2024b). World energy balances—Data product. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/world-energy-balances 

International Energy Agency PVPS. (2023). Trends in photovoltaic applications 2023. Link to source: https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/PVPS_Trends_Report_2023_WEB.pdf

International Energy Agency PVPS. (2024a). Best practices handbook for the collection and use of solar resource data for solar energy applications: Fourth edition 2024. Link to source: https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Best-Practices-Handbook-for-the-Collection-and-Use-of-Solar-Resource-Data-for-Solar-Energy-Applications-Fourth-Edition-.pdf

International Energy Agency PVPS. (2024b). Trends in photovoltaic applications 2024. Link to source: https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/IEA-PVPS-Task-1-Trends-Report-2024.pdf

International Energy Agency-ETSAP and IRENA. (2015). Renewable energy integration in power grids: Technology brief. Link to source: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2015/IRENA-ETSAP_Tech_Brief_Power_Grid_Integration_2015.pdf

IPCC. (2023). Climate change 2023: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Link to source: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf 

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2019). Future of solar photovoltaic: Deployment, investment, technology, grid integration and socio-economic aspects (A global energy transformation: paper). Link to source: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2019/Nov/IRENA_Future_of_Solar_PV_2019.pdf

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2024a). Renewable power generation costs in 2023. Link to source: https://www.irena.org/Publications/2024/Sep/Renewable-Power-Generation-Costs-in-2023

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2024b). Renewable energy capacity statistics 2024—Data product. Link to source: https://www.irena.org/Publications/2024/Mar/Renewable-capacity-statistics-2024

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2025). Renewable power generation costs in 2024. Link to source: https://www.irena.org/Publications/2025/Jun/Renewable-Power-Generation-Costs-in-2024

International Renewable Energy Agency and International Labour Organization. (2024). Renewable energy and jobs: Annual review 2024. Link to source: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2024/Oct/IRENA_Renewable_energy_and_jobs_2024.pdf 

International Renewable Energy Agency & International Energy Agency-PVPS. (2016). End-of-life management: Solar photovoltaic panels. Link to source: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2016/IRENA_IEAPVPS_End-of-Life_Solar_PV_Panels_2016.pdf

Lafitte, A., Sordello, R., Ouédraogo, D. Y., Thierry, C., Marx, G., Froidevaux, J., Schatz, B., Kerbiriou, C., Gourdain, P., & Reyjol, Y. (2023). Existing evidence on the effects of photovoltaic panels on biodiversity: a systematic map with critical appraisal of study validity. Environmental Evidence, 12(1), Article 25. Link to source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39294828/

Mdallal, A., Yasin, A., Mahmoud, M., Abdelkareem, M. A., Alami, A. H., & Olabi, A. G. (2025). A comprehensive review on solar photovoltaics: Navigating generational shifts, innovations, and sustainability. Sustainable Horizons, 13, Article 100137. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HORIZ.2025.100137

Mehedi, T. H., Gemechu, E., & Kumar, A. (2022). Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy footprints of utility-scale solar energy systems. Applied Energy, 314, Article 118918. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2022.118918

Millstein, D., Wiser, R., Bolinger, M., & Barbose, G. (2017). The climate and air-quality benefits of wind and solar power in the United States. Nature Energy, 2(9), Article 17134. Link to source: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2017.134

Millstein, D., O'Shaughnessy, E., & Wiser, R. (2024). Climate and air quality benefits of wind and solar generation in the United States from 2019 to 2022. Cell Reports Sustainability, 1(6), Article 100105. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsus.2024.100105

NEA & IEA. (2020). Projected costs of generating electricity. Link to source: https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-12/egc-2020_2020-12-09_18-26-46_781.pdf

NREL. (2021). Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation: Update. Link to source: https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf

Ovaitt, S., Mirletz, H., Seetharaman, S., & Barnes, T. (2022). PV in the circular economy, a dynamic framework analyzing technology evolution and reliability impacts. iScience, 25(1). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ISCI.2021.103488

Pehl, M., Arvesen, A., Humpenöder, F., Popp, A., Hertwich, E. G., & Luderer, G. (2017). Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling. Nature Energy 2017, 2(12), 939–945. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-017-0032-9

Peters, I. M. (2025). Strategic global deployment of photovoltaic technology: Balancing economic capacity and decarbonization potential. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 42, 261–268. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-024-4176-9

Pincelli, I. P., Hinkley, J., & Brent, A. (2024). Carbon, materials and energy footprint of a utility-scale solar plant in Aotearoa New Zealand. Solar Energy, 273, Article 112535. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOLENER.2024.112535

Reinsch, W. A., & Arrieta-Kenna, S. (2021). A dark spot for the solar energy industry: Forced labor in Xinjiang. Link to source: https://www.csis.org/analysis/dark-spot-solar-energy-industry-forced-labor-xinjiang

Rivera, N. M., Ruiz-Tagle, J. C., and Spiller, E. (2024). The health benefits of solar power generation: Evidence from Chile. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 126, Article 102999. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2024.102999

Shyu, C. W., & Yang, T. I. (2025). Socio-technical tensions from community acceptance, energy transition, and energy justice: Lessons from solar photovoltaic projects in Taiwan. Applied Energy, 384, Article 125415. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2025.125415

Smith, B. L., Sekar, A., Mirletz, H., Heath, G., & Margolis, R. (2024). An updated life cycle assessment of utility-scale solar photovoltaic systems installed in the United States. Link to source: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/87372.pdf

SolarPower Europe. (2025). Global market outlook for solar power 2025-2029. Link to source: https://api.solarpowereurope.org/uploads/Global_Market_Outlook_2025_v1_aaebd9698b.pdf

Suri, D., de Chalendar, J. & Azevedo, I.M.L. (2025). Assessing the real implications for CO2 as generation from renewables increases. Nature Communications, 16, Article 7124. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-59800-4

Susskind, L., Chun, J., Gant, A., Hodgkins, C., Cohen, J., & Lohmar, S. (2022). Sources of opposition to renewable energy projects in the United States. Energy Policy, 165, Article 112922. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2022.112922

Tambari, I. T., Dioha, M. O., & Failler, P. (2020). Renewable energy scenarios for sustainable electricity supply in Nigeria. Energy and Climate Change, 1, Article 100017. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYCC.2020.100017

Tawalbeh, M., Al-Othman, A., Kafiah, F., Abdelsalam, E., Almomani, F., & Alkasrawi, M. (2021). Environmental impacts of solar photovoltaic systems: A critical review of recent progress and future outlook. Science of The Total Environment, 759, Article 143528. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2020.143528

Truitt, S., Elsworth, J., Williams, J., Keyser, D., Moe, A., Sullivan, J., and Wu, K. (2022). State-level employment projections for four clean energy technologies in 2025 and 2030. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5500-81486. Link to source: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81486.pdf

US EIA. (2024). Photovoltaics and electricity - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Link to source: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/solar/photovoltaics-and-electricity.php 

van de Ven, D. J., Capellan-Peréz, I., Arto, I., Cazcarro, I., de Castro, C., Patel, P., & Gonzalez-Eguino, M. (2021). The potential land requirements and related land use change emissions of solar energy. Scientific Reports, 11(1), Article 2907. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/S41598-021-82042-5

Wiser, R., Millstein, D., Mai, T., Macknick, J., Carpenter, A., Cohen, S., Cole, W., Frew, B., and Heath, G. (2016). The environmental and public health benefits of achieving high penetrations of solar energy in the United States. Energy, 113, 472–486. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.07.068

Wolak, F. A. (2022). Long-term resource adequacy in wholesale electricity markets with significant intermittent renewables. Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy, 3, 155–220. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1086/717221 

Xu, Z., Li, Y., Qin, Y., & Bach, E. (2024). A global assessment of the effects of solar farms on albedo, vegetation, and land surface temperature using remote sensing. Solar Energy, 268, Article 112198. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOLENER.2023.112198

Yavari, R., Zaliwciw, D., Cibin, R., & McPhillips, L. (2022). Minimizing environmental impacts of solar farms: a review of current science on landscape hydrology and guidance on stormwater management. Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability, 2(3), Article 032002. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/2634-4505/AC76DD

Zubi, G., Parag, Y., & Wald, S. (2024). Implications of large-scale PV integration on grid operation, costs, and emissions: Challenges and proposed solutions. Energies, 18(1), Article 130. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/EN18010130 

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Michael Dioha, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Al-Amin Bugaje, Ph.D.

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/MW installed capacity/yr, 100-yr basis

Estimate 760
Left Text Column Width

Based on data provided by the IEA, global emissions from electricity generation accounted for an estimated 530 kg CO₂‑eq /MWh (540 kg CO₂‑eq /MWh, 20-yr basis) (IEA, 2024b; see Methodology: Appendix A for calculation details). To convert from MWh to MW, we used the global weighted average capacity factor for utility-scale solar PV of 16.2% (International Renewable Energy Agency [IRENA], 2024a). Utility-scale solar PV is estimated to reduce 760 t CO₂‑eq /MW (760 t CO₂‑eq /MW, 20-yr basis) of installed capacity annually (Table 1). 

To estimate the effectiveness of utility-scale solar PV, we assumed that newly installed utility-scale solar PV displaces an equivalent MWh of the global electricity grid mix. We then assumed the reduction in emissions from additional utility-scale solar PV capacity was equal to emissions (per MWh) from the 2023 global electricity grid mix (IEA, 2024b). Finally, we used the utility-scale solar PV capacity factor to convert to annual emissions per MW of installed capacity.

Actual avoided emissions will depend on the condition of the local grid at a particular time and place, including the level of solar already deployed (see Methodology, Appendix A). However, the relative emissions benefit from increased solar deployment depends on the energy sources it potentially displaces. Because solar energy output varies diurnally, demand peaks in the evenings need to be met by stored energy or other energy sources that can provide power as demand increases. In coal-dominated markets, increasing utility-scale solar PV generation could lead to overall increased emissions per MWh, even if coal plants operate less often because coal plants emit more during suboptimal operation and ramp-up/ramp-down phases (Suri et al., 2025). 

During operation, utility-scale solar PV emits negligible GHGs, so we assumed zero emissions per MW of installed capacity. However, emissions arise during manufacturing of components, transportation, installation, maintenance, and decommissioning, and are paid back within approximately 1–2 years (Ahmad et al., 2023; Badza et al., 2023; Mehedi et al., 2022; Pincelli et al., 2024; Smith et al., 2024). Studies from many different countries show that total emissions remain far below those of fossil fuel generation (Badza et al., 2023; Pincelli et al., 2024; NREL, 2021; Smith et al., 2024). Manufacturing using coal-intensive grids increases embodied emissions, highlighting the necessity of decarbonizing supply chains (Gan et al., 2023; Pehl et al., 2017).

In our analysis, we focused solely on emissions produced during electricity generation, so carbon payback time and embodied life-cycle emissions were not included in our estimates of effectiveness or climate impacts. 

Cost

We estimated a mean levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for utility-scale solar PV of US$53/MWh based on three industry reports (IEA, 2024a; IRENA, 2025; NEA & IEA, 2020; see Methodology: Appendix A for details). LCOE values represent the average cost of producing one MWh of electricity over the operational lifetime of a power plant, allowing investors to compare their expected revenue to a standard set of costs. This cost metric has been used by international agencies for cost comparison across generation technologies, incorporating installed capital costs, operation and maintenance (O&M), project lifespan, and energy output. According to IRENA, between 2010 and 2024 the global weighted average LCOE for utility-scale solar PV fell by 90%, from US$417/MWh to US$43/MWh. This decline was driven by cost reductions across the PV value chain, with module and inverter price declines accounting for 55% of the LCOE drop (IRENA, 2025). Technological advances such as larger wafer sizes, improved ingot growth methods, diamond wire wafering, and new cell architectures supported these changes. Balance-of-system (BoS) hardware contributed another 8%, while engineering, procurement, construction, installation, development, and other soft costs accounted for 28% of the reduction in LCOE (IRENA, 2025). Better financing conditions, improved capacity factors, and lower O&M costs also played a role.

Recent macroeconomic conditions have slightly reversed the downward trend. Between 2023 and 2024, the global weighted average LCOE for utility-scale solar PV increased by 0.6%, with 13 of the 15 largest markets experiencing cost increases ranging from 7% in Poland to 36% in Australia. Higher financing costs from inflation and elevated interest rates helped drive these shifts. Despite these headwinds, utility-scale solar PV remains one of the cheapest options worldwide for generating electricity. Our estimated global mean LCOE (US$53/MWh) is lower than the 2023 weighted average LCOE for fossil fuels, which was US$70–176/MWh (IRENA, 2024a). However, since LCOE excludes revenue, real-world costs of utility-scale solar generation could be higher than estimated here.

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

Table 2. Learning rate: drop in cost per doubling of the installed utility-scale solar PV production capacity.

Unit: %

25th percentile 30
Mean 34
Median (50th percentile) 34
75th percentile 38
Left Text Column Width

Utility-scale solar PV exhibits a pronounced learning curve, most clearly reflected in the steady decline of solar module prices as global deployment expands. The median learning rate for PV modules is estimated at 34%, meaning module prices fall by roughly one-third with every doubling of installed capacity (Table 2). Our estimated learning rate is based on trends in the past decade, while a longer historical estimate would be lower. According to a single source, significant economies of scale over the last decade have driven an even steeper learning rate of 42% (Masson et al., 2023). According to DNV’s Energy Transition Outlook 2024, the current global learning rate for module costs is about 26%, but projections suggest this will slow to around 17% by 2050 as cost components stabilize and the largest gains from scaling are realized (DNV, 2024). 

While module prices have seen the most dramatic reductions, similar trends are evident in total system costs. Studies tracking installed costs and LCOE for PV in the United States since 2007 report a 24% learning rate based on normalized LCOE for utility-scale PV, with an accelerated 45% between 2014 and 2020 (Bolinger et al., 2022). Between 2010 and 2023, IRENA (2024a) found that utility-scale solar PV achieved the highest global weighted-average learning rate for total installed costs among major renewables at 33.4%. Haas et al. (2023) similarly estimated a 33% learning rate for installed costs between 2010 and 2019. Meanwhile, operational expenditure (OPEX) is also expected to benefit from incremental learning, with DNV (2024) projecting a 9% OPEX-based learning rate through 2050, supported by advances in digital monitoring and maintenance practices. 

The drivers of these declines include economies of scale, technology improvements, and manufacturing efficiencies such as larger wafer formats, improved cell architectures, and advanced wafer processing techniques. Given this strong and sustained learning dynamic, continued global deployment is likely to further reduce costs. However, the pace of cost decline will vary depending on the time period, geographic market conditions, and whether costs are measured at the module level or across the full system.

Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as emergency brake, gradual, or delayed.

Deploy Utility-Scale Solar PV is a GRADUAL climate solution. It has a steady, linear impact on the atmosphere. As installed capacity of utility-scale PV increases over time, emissions from electricity generation are expected to decrease, assuming solar and other renewables displace fossil-fuel sources.

Caveats

One limitation of our approach is the assumption that each additional MWh generated by utility-scale solar PV displaces an equivalent MWh of the existing grid mix. This simplification implies that new utility-scale solar PV may at times displace other renewables such as onshore wind, rather than fossil fuel–based sources. In reality, the extent of avoided emissions varies based on regional grid dynamics, marginal generation sources, and the timing and location of electricity production. Utility-scale solar PV displaces a relatively high share of fossil fuel generation in grids where renewables are supported by flexible energy sources, such as natural gas (Suri et al., 2025). However, fossil fuel displacement is lower in coal-dominated grids, grids with significant nuclear or geothermal capacity, or regions where existing renewable capacity is already high (Baik et al., 2021; Bistline & Watten, 2025). 

Implementing utility-scale solar PV involves several caveats. Technically, projects require large areas of suitable land and strong grid connections. Poor siting can reduce output due to shading, dust, or suboptimal solar resource (Bamisile et al., 2025; Sengupta et al., 2024). These challenges can be reduced through careful site selection, use of bifacial modules, use of tracking systems, and improved maintenance practices such as dry-cleaning technologies in arid regions. Another technical caveat is end-of-life management. Cumulative global PV waste is expected to reach 60–78 million metric tons by 2050 (IRENA & IEA-PVPS, 2016), so scaling up recycling infrastructure and circular design is essential (Ovaitt et al., 2022). 

High capital intensity and financing constraints remain important barriers, particularly in emerging markets where high interest rates, policy uncertainty, and limited investor confidence increase project risk. Addressing these challenges often requires stable regulatory frameworks, concessional finance, and public–private partnerships to de-risk investments (Dioha, 2025). Supply-chain concentration also presents a caveat, as China dominates polysilicon and module production (IEA, 2022). 

There are also ecological and social caveats. Large solar farms may compete with agriculture or alter local ecosystems, particularly in sensitive desert or grassland habitats (Hernandez et al., 2014; Lafitte et al., 2023; Xu et al., 2024). Mitigation strategies such as agrivoltaics and siting on degraded land are increasingly used to minimize conflicts and deliver additional benefits (Adeh et al., 2019; Giri & Mohanty, 2022; Tawalbeh et al., 2021; Yavari et al., 2022). Social resistance can also emerge around land rights, visual impacts, or perceived inequitable distribution of project benefits, highlighting the importance of community engagement and benefit-sharing (Shyu & Yang, 2025; Susskind et al., 2022).

Current Adoption

Table 3. Current adoption level, 2023.

Unit: MW installed capacity

25th percentile 917,000
Mean 918,000
Median (50th percentile) 918,000
75th percentile 918,000
Left Text Column Width

As of 2023, the global installed capacity for utility-scale solar PV reached approximately 918,000 MW (Table 3). We estimated current adoption of utility-scale solar PV based on IEA reports (IEA, 2023a; Masson et al., 2024). Although we use 2023 as our baseline for current adoption, in 2024 an estimated additional 308,300 MW of utility-scale solar PV capacity was installed, bringing the global total to 1,226,000 MW or more than 1 TW (IEA, 2023a). 

In 2023, utility-scale solar PV accounted for 269.9 GW of new capacity additions, representing 59% of total global solar PV installed capacity that year (Masson et al., 2024). China continues to lead by a wide margin, with more than 435 GW of installed capacity, more than half the global total (Masson et al., 2024). Utility-scale solar PV systems are driving the majority of new additions in several key markets where large projects dominate deployment, including the U.S., India, Spain, and South Korea. By contrast, other regions such as the Middle East and Africa are progressing more slowly, with relatively limited large-scale deployments despite vast solar energy potential (SolarPower Europe, 2025). These disparities highlight the uneven pace of adoption across markets. For further details, see the Geographic Guidance section.

Adoption Trend

Figure 2. Global adoption of utility-scale solar PV, 2015–2023

Source: International Energy Agency. (2023). Solar PV power capacity in the Net Zero Scenario, 2015-2030. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/solar-pv-power-capacity-in-the-net-zero-scenario-2015-2030 Licence: CC BY 4.0

Enable Download
On

Table 4. Adoption trend, 2015–2023.

Unit: MW installed capacity/yr

25th percentile 65,000
Mean 101,000
Median (50th percentile) 82,000
75th percentile 99,000
Left Text Column Width

Global utility-scale solar PV capacity has grown rapidly, expanding from 113 GW in 2015 to about 918 GW by 2023 (Figure 2), reflecting technological progress, supportive policies, and accelerating investment. 

We calculated the global adoption trend by summing global adoption for each year between 2015 and 2023 and taking the year-to-year difference. Comparing year-to-year global adoption, the median global adoption trend was adding 82,000 MW of installed capacity per year, but expansion was unevenly distributed geographically (Table 4, Figure 2). 

Global utility-scale solar PV capacity expanded more than eightfold between 2015 and 2023 (IEA, 2023a). Growth was steady during the mid-2010s, averaging about 60–70 GW added per year, but adoption accelerated sharply in 2020, with annual additions climbing from 90 GW to 243 GW in 2023 (IEA, 2023a). This means that in 2023 alone, installations were more than double the yearly average of the previous five years, pushing the mean trendline to ~100 GW of annual growth since 2015. The data show a clear shift from incremental to exponential deployment, with utility-scale solar PV now accounting for the majority of global new renewable capacity (IRENA, 2024b).

Adoption Ceiling

Table 5. Adoption ceiling: upper limit for adoption level.

Unit: MW installed capacity

25th percentile 224,000,000
Mean 252,000,000
Median (50th percentile) 252,000,000
75th percentile 279,000,000
Left Text Column Width

The adoption ceiling for utility-scale solar PV is determined by the technology’s global technical potential, based primarily on solar resource availability. Since sunlight is geographically widespread and virtually inexhaustible, solar PV has one of the highest technical potentials of all renewable energy technologies. However, realistic deployment could vary across regions depending on land use, transmission access, and electricity demand. 

Estimates of utility-scale solar PV potential vary widely across the literature. A meta-analysis found global technical potential ranging from 1.01 × 10² PWh/yr to 1.36 × 10⁴ PWh/yr, spanning two orders of magnitude; the median value was 4.65 × 10² PWh/yr while the average was 2.20 × 10³ PWh/yr (de La Beaumelle et al., 2023). Dupont et al. (2020) estimated the global net potential at 225 PWh/yr for poly-Si PV and 332 PWh/yr for mono-Si PV, while Deng et al. (2015), using a 1 km² global grid analysis, estimated realistic long-term potentials of 88–782 PWh/yr. 

Despite the abundant solar resource, the adoption ceiling is unlikely to be reached due to other constraints. Land availability as well as competition with agriculture, urbanization, and protected ecosystems can restrict deployment (Diffendorfer et al., 2024; van de Ven et al., 2021). Grid integration poses another challenge, as high penetration of variable solar requires substantial investment in storage, flexible generation, and transmission to ensure system reliability. Regional solar resource quality, siting regulations, and access to capital further influence adoption (Ahmad et al., 2025; Bamisile et al., 2025). Emerging technologies such as agrivoltaics and floating PV can help overcome some of these barriers, bringing practical adoption levels closer to the ceiling (Adeh et al., 2019). 

For our analysis, we estimated the median technical potential, which corresponds to an adoption ceiling of 252 million MW of installed capacity for utility-scale solar PV (Table 5). 

Achievable Adoption

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: MW installed capacity

Current adoption 918,000
Achievable – low 12,000,000
Achievable – high 15,000,000
Adoption ceiling 252,000,000
Left Text Column Width

The IEA’s World Energy Outlook (WEO) 2024 presents several scenarios that explore future energy pathways under different assumptions about policies, technologies, and markets. For this analysis, we define the adoption achievable range for utility-scale solar PV based on the Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS) and the Announced Pledges Scenario (APS) (IEA, 2024a). However, the WEO does not explicitly distinguish between utility-scale and distributed solar PV in its projections. To bridge this gap, we conducted a simple linear projection using historical deployment trends to estimate the likely share of utility-scale PV within total solar PV capacity. Our analysis suggests that by 2050, utility-scale solar PV could represent approximately 74% of all solar PV deployment. This finding is consistent with IRENA’s REmap analysis, which projects that utility-scale systems will account for 60–80% of global solar PV capacity by mid-century (IRENA, 2019). Accordingly, for our study we assume that 74% of the IEA’s projected solar PV deployment in 2050 will come from utility-scale systems. This provides a reasonable basis for estimating adoption levels, while aligning with both historical patterns and complementary international assessments.

Achievable – Low 

The low achievable adoption level is based on the Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS), which reflects the current trajectory of utility-scale solar PV expansion under existing and announced policies. In this scenario, assuming utility-scale projects account for 74% of total solar PV capacity, global capacity is projected to grow more than 13-fold; from 918,000 MW in 2023 to approximately 12 million MW by 2050 (Table 6). This corresponds to an average compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10%.

Achievable – High 

The high achievable adoption level is based on APS, which assumes the same policy framework as STEPS, plus full realization of announced national energy and climate targets, including net-zero commitments supported by stronger clean energy investments. Under this scenario, utility-scale solar PV capacity is projected to increase approximately 16-fold from 918,000 MW in 2023 to approximately 15 million MW by 2050 (Table 6), requiring a CAGR of 10.8% over the same period. 

Using our adoption ceiling of 252 million MW, the current adoption of utility-scale solar PV constitutes approximately 0.4% of its technical potential. The achievable adoption range, as calculated, lies between 4.8% and 5.9% of this potential.

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.69
Achievable – low 9.2
Achievable – high 11.2
Adoption ceiling 190
Left Text Column Width

Using baseline global adoption and effectiveness, we estimated the current total climate impact of utility-scale solar PV to be approximately 0.70 Gt CO₂‑eq of reduced emissions per year (Table 7). 

We estimated climate impacts using the emissions from the 2023 baseline electricity grid. Actual emissions reductions could differ depending on how the emissions intensity of electricity generation changes over time. As solar and other renewables grow to represent an increasingly high percentage of power generation sources, grid emissions are expected to decrease over time (DNV, 2024; IEA, 2024a). As a result, the climate impacts presented here are likely overestimates. Assuming global policies on utility-scale solar PV – both existing and announced – are backed with adequate implementation provisions, global adoption could reach 12 million MW by 2050. This would result in an increased emissions reduction of approximately 9.2 Gt CO₂ ‑eq per year. If every nation’s energy and climate targets (including net-zero commitments backed by stronger clean energy investments) are realized, utility-scale solar PV adoption could reach 15 million MW by 2050, leading to an estimated 11 Gt CO₂ ‑eq of reduced emissions per year. 

We based the adoption ceiling solely on the technical potential of utility-scale solar PV, while neglecting social and economic constraints and realistic scenarios of future power demand (Dioha et al, 2025). The electricity sector in 2023 emitted 15.6 Gt CO₂ ‑eq (International Energy Agency [IEA], 2024b); emissions reductions cannot surpass this value without increased demand. Utility-scale solar PV installed capacity is unlikely to reach 252 million MW, but if current grid emissions remained constant while capacity increased, GHG emission reductions would be approximately 190 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. This maximum is unrealistic as a forward-looking climate impact because it treats grid carbon intensity as permanently fixed at 2023 levels and ignores future decarbonization and corresponding decreases in marginal avoided emissions.

Additional Benefits

Income and Work

Solar PV can have a strong positive effect on the economy, as it accounts for 44% of renewable energy jobs globally and is the fastest-growing sector of renewable energy employment (IRENA & ILO, 2024). The majority of direct and indirect jobs in solar PV are found in China, followed by the European Union (IRENA & ILO, 2024). In the United States as of 2021, it was estimated that solar PV accounted for about 250,000 full-time jobs, with the majority of these jobs in the installation, project development, and manufacturing sectors (Gadzanku et al., 2023). While about half of solar PV jobs are in the distributed PV sector, utility-scale PV accounts for about 20% of these jobs and is expected to grow as installed capacities grow (Gadzanku et al., 2023). According to a report from NREL, about 509,000–757,000 jobs for both utility- and distributed-scale solar PV are projected to be added in the U.S. by 2030 (Truitt et al., 2022).

Health

Improvements in air quality offer health benefits from reduced air pollution exposure, including reduced premature mortality. The magnitude and distribution of these benefits depend on the local electricity grid mix, the fuels used to generate electricity, and atmospheric conditions that affect how far pollutants travel from emission sources (Buonocore et al., 2019). Regions with a higher proportion of coal-powered electricity generation will see more health benefits when utility-scale PV is deployed (Buonocore et al., 2019). These health benefits often translate into cost savings associated with reductions in hospital admissions, improved respiratory and cardiovascular conditions, and avoidance of lost work and school days (Millstein et al., 2017; Wiser et al., 2016). For example, a study from Chile found that when utility-scale solar PV projects were deployed, there was a reduction in hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory conditions in cities downwind of fossil fuel–powered electricity plants (Rivera et al., 2024). 

Water Resources

Utility-scale solar PV systems have lower rates of water withdrawals and consumption than other fossil fuel–based electricity generation (Wiser et al., 2016). The majority of water use for PV electricity is for washing and dust suppression on the panels (Hernandez et al., 2014).

Land Resources

Although utility-scale PV projects require large areas of suitable land (see Caveats and Interactions), these projects can utilize degraded lands that may not be suitable for other uses (Diffendorfer et al., 2024; Hernandez et al., 2014).

Air Quality

Solar PV reduces air pollutants released from fossil fuel energy generation, thereby avoiding the emission of pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and PM2.5 associated with burning coal and natural gas (Abel et al., 2018; Millstein et al., 2024; Millstein et al., 2017; Wiser et al., 2016). Regional differences in the amount and type of air pollutants avoided will vary depending on the fossil fuel type that PV displaces (Gallagher & Holloway, 2020). For example, since coal has different emissions than gas, regions with higher levels of coal-powered electricity will experience different air quality benefits than regions with more gas-powered electricity (Millstein et al., 2017). Depending on meteorological conditions, pollutants can be transported for long distances after they are emitted, so air pollution benefits can be widespread (Millstein et al., 2024).

Risks

Several risks accompany the large-scale rollout of utility-scale solar PV. Rapid deployment without adequate storage, grid flexibility, or transmission can elevate curtailment rates, undermining both financial returns and emissions reductions (Firoozi et al., 2025; Zubi et al., 2024). However, financial risk from high solar deployment and integration can be avoided with various policy levers, such as carbon taxes (Brown & Reichenberg, 2021). Different policy levers are necessary at different levels of adoption. The combined impact of higher shares of renewables generating electricity and increased electrification of consumer services can lead to greater risk of the intermittent supply from renewables being unable to meet electricity demand at all hours of the year (Wolak, 2022). Since long-term forecasting of supply is more challenging for technologies like wind and solar, stable electricity prices are not always guaranteed. This higher investment risk can discourage generators from investing in clean energy deployment (Dimanchev et al., 2024) in the absence of policy mechanisms such as contracts for difference that can manage investment risks by supporting creation of electricity markets with stable long-term prices (Beiter et al., 2024). 

Concentrated supply chains also create vulnerabilities to trade disruptions, geopolitical tensions, and ethical risks, including documented concerns concerning forced labor in parts of the supply chain (IEA, 2022; Reinsch & Arrieta-Kenna, 2021). Environmental and health risks arise if end-of-life infrastructure and policies are inadequate; billions of metric tons of PV waste could otherwise end up in landfills, with additional concerns in some areas over water usage for panel cleaning or habitat disruption due to poorly sited installations (Bajagain et al., 2020; Chowdhury et al., 2020; IRENA & IEA-PVPS, 2016).

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Increased availability of renewable energy from utility-scale solar PV helps reduce emissions from the electricity grid as a whole. Reduced emissions from the electricity grid lead to lower downstream emissions for solutions that rely on electricity use. Deploying utility-scale solar PV also supports increased integration of wind power technologies by diversifying the renewable energy mix and reducing exposure to wind variability.

High penetration of utility-scale PV could incentivize increased adoption of automation systems that take advantage of times of high solar generation and lower electricity prices.

Electrification of transportation systems will be more beneficial in reducing global emissions if the underlying grid includes a higher proportion of non-emitting power sources. Electric transportation systems can also reduce curtailment of solar energy through controlled-time charging and other load-shifting technologies.

Competing

In regions where grid expansion is slow, prioritizing large-scale solar PV plants may delay distributed PV systems that are essential for rural or last-mile electrification.

Since wind and solar can generate electricity at the same times of day, deploying utility-scale solar PV could create competition for grid connections, reduce daytime electricity revenues, and suppress adoption of additional wind power.

Increased development and installation of utility-scale solar PV requires dedicated land use which limits land availability for other renewable energy technologies, raw material and food production, and conservation programs. For example, utility-scale solar PV competes with the following solutions for land:

Dashboard

Solution Basics

MW installed capacity

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
760
units
Current 918,000 01.2×10⁷1.5×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.69 9.211
Gradual

CO₂ , CH₄, N₂O

Trade-offs

Utility-scale solar PV delivers substantial net emissions savings, but significant trade-offs persist. Curtailment often reflects economic policy outcomes and grid integration constraints rather than a technical necessity. Limited integration infrastructure may also necessitate reliance on backup fossil-powered plants, thereby shifting emissions elsewhere in the energy system (Frew et al., 2021). Land use also involves trade-offs, as large projects can disrupt ecosystems or agricultural land, though co-location strategies such as agrivoltaics and usage of degraded lands can help offset these impacts (Chopdar et al., 2024; Giri & Mohanty, 2022). 

The temporal variability of solar energy also creates trade-offs. When demand peaks in evening hours, non-solar energy sources ramp up generation, which could lead to increases in marginal emissions (Gagnon & O’Shaughnessy, 2024). In regions with high solar deployment, increased adoption of distributed PV could displace utility-scale solar generation, since both operate diurnally, resulting in no net reduction in grid emissions (Bistline & Watten, 2025).

kWh/m2/yr
5502400

Annual global horizontal irradiance (GHI)

Global horizontal irradiance (GHI) measures the intensity (energy per area per year) of all solar radiant energy on a horizontal surface. GHI limits the power output of fixed solar PV systems; however, panels can capture additional solar energy if tracking systems are incorporated. Here we show annual GHI averaged over the decade ending in 2025.

Copernicus Climate Change Service. (2022). ERA5-Land monthly averaged data from 1950 to present [Data set]. Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS). Retrieved May 4, 2026, from Link to source: https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.adbb2d47 

kWh/m2/yr
5502400

Annual global horizontal irradiance (GHI)

Global horizontal irradiance (GHI) measures the intensity (energy per area per year) of all solar radiant energy on a horizontal surface. GHI limits the power output of fixed solar PV systems; however, panels can capture additional solar energy if tracking systems are incorporated. Here we show annual GHI averaged over the decade ending in 2025.

Copernicus Climate Change Service. (2022). ERA5-Land monthly averaged data from 1950 to present [Data set]. Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS). Retrieved May 4, 2026, from Link to source: https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.adbb2d47 

Maps Introduction

Utility-scale solar PV deployment is driven by a variety of factors, some of which are spatial (such as total incident solar radiation) and some which may indirectly depend on geography, such as socioeconomic and market conditions.

More than 30 countries had more than 1 GW installed by the end of 2023 including new markets in the Middle East and Africa. Ten countries represented 84% of total solar markets in 2023, including distributed solar PV, with China, the United States, and India at the top of the list (IEA PVPS, 2023). Utility-scale solar PV dominated 2023 solar PV installations in both China and the United States, accounting for 65% and 70% of the Chinese and U.S. solar markets respectively (IEA PVPS, 2023).

In many regions, deployment of utility-scale solar PV lags significantly behind the economic and decarbonization potential, and large-scale deployment does not typically align with regions of maximal potential, as can be seen by comparing maps of installed capacity and irradiance. Brazil and Australia are notable exceptions, having significant deployment and high levels of GHI (Bamisile et al., 2025). However, utility-scale solar PV markets in Brazil and Australia are much smaller than in China and the United States. In emerging markets, solar PV competitiveness is stifled by limited access to capital, lack of technical talent, and persistent fossil-fuel subsidies. Targeted capital investments in sub-Saharan Africa can yield up to nine times the GHG emissions reduction of equivalent investments in more mature markets (Peters, 2025). In more mature markets like the U.S., barriers are primarily structural, including long grid interconnection timelines and high costs (Gorman et al., 2025). 

The emissions benefit from increased solar PV deployment depends on the energy sources it displaces. Displacing sources of electricity that emit more GHGs leads to greater emissions reductions. However, real-world emissions reductions also depend on which sources are able to provide power when solar PV is unable to meet peaks in demand. In addition to targeting regions with dirtier grids, increasing utility-scale solar PV in regions with more dispatchable power sources and robust storage infrastructure could increase emissions reductions (Bistline & Watten, 2025). Here we show a map of avoided emissions with each incremental addition of solar PV, calculated by WattTime (watttime.org).

Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Utility-Scale Solar PV
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Set ambitious long-term renewable energy goals, and incorporate them into national climate plans and multilateral agreements.
  • Ensure regulatory frameworks around solar are strong and enforced, while also being accessible and timely; coordinate solar power policies horizontally (e.g., across agencies) and vertically (e.g., across subnational, national, and international efforts); seek to align social and environmental safeguards and streamline permitting processes.
  • Adopt and progressively raise renewable energy procurement standards for the public sector to expand demand and investment in utility-scale solar PV.
  • Set renewable energy quotas for power companies; offer expedited permitting processes for renewable energy production, including solar where competitive, while maintaining social and environmental safeguards.
  • Develop long-term, flexible partnership frameworks with industry to align power supply contracts (such as adaptable or aggregated Purchase Power Agreements (PPAs) with national decarbonization targets and timelines.
  • Set adjustments for solar power on-grid pricing through schemes such as feed-in tariffs, renewable energy auctions, or other guaranteed pricing methods for solar energy.
  • Offer incentives to manufacturers, operators, developers, and other relevant actors, such as subsidies, feed-in tariffs, auctions, tax credits, and contracts-for-difference; as the market matures and becomes competitive, gradually reduce these incentives to create long-term market stability.
  • Implement carbon taxes and remove subsidies from fossil fuel infrastructure; redirect those funds into renewable energy.
  • Consider using green bonds to finance public projects and/or de-risk markets.
  • Invest in and subsidize improvements to grid integration and flexibility, storage, and transmission infrastructure to manage variable generation; deploy smart grid technologies.
  • Work with industry to diversify supply chains; design incentives and policies to stimulate local or regional production and advance R&D.
  • Provide incentives for consumers to adjust energy use in response to renewable availability and grid conditions, such as through dynamic or demand-responsive pricing models that complement solar PV generation and support decarbonization.
  • Earmark a percentage of financial incentives for low- and middle-income communities and/or countries.
  • Improve labor and human rights laws and environmental standards around solar PV supply chains; enforce standards with industry – particularly for the extraction and use of critical minerals and panel manufacturing.
  • Co-design utility-scale solar projects with the local community; ensure the community engagement process starts early and is transparent, inclusive, and ongoing; solicit feedback from the local community – including from opposition groups – on location, design, finance, and mitigation; ensure finalized projects address relevant sociological, agricultural, and ecological considerations.
  • Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under free, prior, and informed consent; codify free, prior, and informed consent into legal systems.
  • Encourage utility-scale solar projects to distribute benefits to the local community, such as reduced utility rates; encourage developers to use Community Benefit Agreements (CBAs).
  • Create and/or incentivize pathways for community solar projects, such as community-shared and cooperative business models.
  • Regulate zoning and distance from existing houses, communities, and villages to prevent enclosing these spaces or interfering with the quality of life for local residents; avoid developing on sensitive ecosystems, such as wetlands and forests; require assessments and techniques to protect against negative impacts on biodiversity.
  • Ensure strong quality control requirements for all stages of deployment including resource extraction, manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and end-of-life service; create certification programs for each stage of the process.
  • Work with the private sector to develop workforce training programs, ensuring capacity development for all stages of deployment – including end-of-life services.
  • Ensure strong regulations are in place for end-of-life services; enact Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for manufacturers; work with industry to foster a market for used, refurbished, and recycled panels.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to de-risking markets, deployment, technology transfers, education, and other relevant areas.
  • Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to educate the industry and public on regulations, the benefits of solar, best practices for development, and other relevant information: ensure the material is sufficient and appropriate for local contexts, paying particularly close attention to language barriers. 

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Enter into long-term flexible industry agreements, such as PPAs, with both public and private sectors.
  • If possible, work with government bodies, companies, and large institutions to provide renewable energy directly to their operations.
  • Take advantage of government incentives such as subsidies, feed-in tariffs, auctions, tax credits, and contracts-for-difference; as the market matures and becomes competitive, seek to gradually reduce reliance on these incentives to create long-term market stability.
  • Consider using green bonds to finance public projects or de-risk markets.
  • Invest in strengthening grid integration and flexibility through expanded energy storage, upgraded transmission infrastructure, and the deployment of smart grid technologies to effectively manage variable renewable generation.
  • Work with the public sector to diversify supply chains; take advantage of incentives and policies that stimulate local or regional production and advance R&D.
  • Ensure supply chains comply with international labor and human rights laws and standards – particularly, for the extraction of critical minerals and panel manufacturing.
  • Co-design utility-scale solar projects with the local community; ensure the community engagement process starts early and is transparent, inclusive, and ongoing; solicit feedback from the local community – including from opposition groups – on location, design, finance, and mitigation; ensure finalized projects address relevant sociological, agricultural, and ecological considerations.
  • Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under free, prior, and informed consent; incorporate free, prior, and informed consent into bylaws and/or procedures.
  • Design utility-scale solar projects to support the development of the local community such as reduced utility rates; utilize CBAs.
  • Ensure development is a safe distance from existing houses, communities, and villages to prevent enclosing these spaces or interfering with the quality of life for local residents; avoid developing on sensitive ecosystems, such as wetlands and forests; conduct assessments and deploy techniques to protect negative impacts on biodiversity.
  • Seek to decarbonize the full life cycle including supply chains, production, installation, recycling, and disposal as much as possible.
  • Ensure strong quality control for all stages of deployment, including resource extraction, manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and end-of-life service.
  • Work with the public sector and private organizations to develop workforce training programs, ensuring capacity development for all stages of deployment – including end-of-life services.
  • Adhere to regulations regarding end-of-life servicing; adopt extended producer responsibility and high-integrity end-of-life servicing standards if no policy framework exists.
  • Use bifacial modules, tracking systems, and improved maintenance practices, such as dry-cleaning, when beneficial.
  • Invest directly into and help develop recycling infrastructure for solar panels.
  • Participate in, offer, or explore co-investments in electricity infrastructure (e.g., shared transmission).
  • Grant access to researchers and offer data, when possible, to advance deployment and refine best practices.
  • Participate in voluntary agreements with government bodies to increase policy support for solar capacity and power generation.
  • Stay abreast of and engage with changing policies, regulations, zoning laws, tax incentives, and related developments to help remove commercial barriers.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to de-risking markets, deployment, technology transfers, education, and other relevant areas.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Set ambitious long term renewable energy goals, incorporate them into corporate net zero strategies.
  • Enter into PPAs, long-term contracts between a company (the buyer) and a renewable energy producer (the seller).
  • Support long-term, stable contracts (e.g., PPAs or contracts for difference) that de-risk investment in solar technologies and incentivize local supply chain development.
  • Take advantage of government incentives, such as tax credits, if possible; seek to gradually reduce reliance on these incentives to create long-term market stability.
  • Purchase high-integrity renewable energy certificates (RECs) for solar energy; help create transparent, verified, and reliable REC markets.
  • Invest in companies that produce, deploy, or provide end-of-life servicing for solar panels; seek to diversify and localize supply chains.
  • Invest in R&D and related technology.
  • Support workforce development programs, offer employee scholarships, and/or sponsor training for careers in solar power; ensuring capacity development for all stages of deployment – including end-of-life services.
  • Participate in community engagement processes and co-design utility-scale solar projects with the local community; help educate the public and highlight the local economic benefits of solar and renewable energy.
  • Offer pro bono business advice or general support for community solar projects, such as community-shared and cooperative business models.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to de-risking markets, deployment, technology transfers, education, and other relevant areas.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Advocate for ambitious long-term national goals on solar and renewable energy; advocate to incorporate them into national climate plans and multilateral agreements.
  • Operate or help with equipment testing and certification systems, market information disclosures, and onsite supervision.
  • Coordinate voluntary agreements between governments and industry to increase utility-scale solar capacity and power generation.
  • Conduct open-access research to improve the performance of solar PVs, forecasting, and related technologies.
  • Advocate for strong regulatory frameworks that are also accessible and timely; recommend coordinated solar power policies – both horizontally (e.g., across agencies) and vertically (e.g., across subnational, national, and international efforts); help align social and environmental safeguards and pursue streamlined permitting processes.
  • Urge governments to provide incentives to manufacturers, operators, developers, and other relevant actors, such as subsidies, feed-in tariffs, auctions, tax credits, and contracts-for-difference; recommend gradual reductions of these incentives to create long-term market stability.
  • Campaign for public investments in improvements to grid integration and flexibility, storage, and transmission infrastructure to manage variable generation.
  • Call for a percentage of public financing to be earmarked for low- and middle-income communities and/or countries.
  • Help improve enforcement of labor and human rights laws and standards around solar PV supply chains – particularly for the extraction and use of critical minerals.
  • Call on governments and developers to use transparent, inclusive, and ongoing community engagement processes to co-design utility-scale solar installations; help solicit community feedback on location, design, finance, mitigation, and distribution of benefits; help ensure finalized projects address relevant sociological, agricultural, and ecological considerations.
  • Advocate and/or support for the use of free, prior, and informed consent with projects operating in or with Indigenous communities; advocate to codify free, prior, and informed consent into legal systems.
  • Advocate for distributed benefits to the local community from utility-scale solar projects, such as reduced utility rates; encourage developers to use CBAs.
  • Help create or support community solar projects, such as community-shared, third-party-owned, and cooperative business models.
  • Advocate for zoning laws to prevent enclosing communities or interfering with the quality of life for local residents; help developers avoid sensitive ecosystems, such as wetlands and forests; conduct site assessments and offer recommendations to prevent or mitigate negative impacts on biodiversity.
  • Create resources and/or standards to improve quality control for all stages of deployment, including resource extraction, manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and end-of-life service; create and/or administer certification programs for each stage of the process.
  • Work with the public and private sectors to develop workforce training programs, ensuring capacity development for all stages of deployment – including end-of-life services.
  • Urge governments and industry to adopt strong regulations for end-of-life services; call for extended producer responsibility; work with industry to foster a market for used, refurbished, or recycled panels.
  • Advocate for carbon taxes and the removal of subsidies from fossil fuel infrastructure; recommend those funds be redirected into renewable energy.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to de-risking markets, deployment, technology transfers, education, and other relevant areas.
  • Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to educate the industry and public on regulations, the benefits of solar, best practices for development, and other relevant information; ensure the material is sufficient and appropriate for local contexts, paying particularly close attention to language barriers. 

Further information:

Investors
  • Offer low-interest loans and concessional financing for manufacturers, developers, operators, and recyclers.
  • Invest directly in the development of utility-scale solar projects; ensure projects include community engagement processes, seek to distribute benefits, and operate under free, prior, and informed consent when working with Indigenous communities.
  • Invest in companies that produce, deploy, or provide end-of-life servicing for solar panels; seek to diversify and localize supply chains.
  • Invest in supporting infrastructures, such as utility companies, grid development, and access roads.
  • Invest in green bonds and/or explore blended finance structures to mobilize capital for companies developing solar energy or supporting infrastructure.
  • Invest in the recycling infrastructure for solar panels and circular supply chains.
  • Invest in R&D, component technology, and related science, such as forecasting.
  • Help de-risk energy transitions in low- and middle-income countries by offering low-interest loans, concessional financing, and/or favorable terms.
  • Align investments with existing public-private partnerships, voluntary agreements, or voluntary guidance that may apply in the location of the investment (including those that apply to biodiversity).

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Provide catalytic financing for, or help develop, utility-scale solar projects.
  • Award grants to improve supporting infrastructures, such as utility companies, grid development, and access roads.
  • Support the development of component technology and related science, such as forecasting.
  • Award grants to improve the recycling infrastructure for solar panels and build circular supply chains.
  • Facilitate partnerships to share solar technology and best practices between established and emerging markets, promoting energy equity and access.
  • Foster cooperation and technology transfer between low- and middle-income countries with emerging solar sectors.
  • Award grants to enhance grid integration, flexibility, and reliability by supporting innovations in energy storage systems, advanced grid management, and transmission infrastructure that enable effective integration of solar PV generation.
  • Advocate for ambitious long-term national goals on solar and renewable energy; advocate to incorporate them into national climate plans and multilateral agreements.
  • Operate, fund, or support equipment testing and certification systems, market information disclosures, and onsite supervision.
  • Coordinate voluntary agreements between governments and industry to increase utility-scale solar capacity and power generation.
  • Conduct open-access research to improve the performance of solar PVs, forecasting, and related technologies.
  • Advocate for strong regulatory frameworks that are also accessible and timely; recommend coordinated solar power policies – both horizontally (e.g., across agencies) and vertically (e.g., across subnational, national, and international efforts); help align social and environmental safeguards and pursue streamlined permitting processes.
  • Advocate for a percentage of public financing to be earmarked for low- and middle-income communities and/or countries.
  • Help improve enforcement of labor and human rights laws and standards around solar PV supply chains – particularly for the extraction and use of critical minerals.
  • Call on governments and developers to use transparent, inclusive, and ongoing community engagement processes to co-design utility-scale solar installations; help solicit community feedback on location, design, finance, mitigation, and distribution of benefits; help ensure finalized projects address relevant sociological, agricultural, and ecological considerations.
  • Champion and/or support for the use of free, prior, and informed consent with projects operating in or with Indigenous communities; advocate to codify free, prior, and informed consent into legal systems.
  • Advocate for distributed benefits to the local community from utility-scale solar projects, such as reduced utility rates; encourage developers to use CBAs.
  • Help create or support community solar projects, such as community-shared and cooperative business models.
  • Create resources and/or standards to improve quality control for all stages of deployment, including resource extraction, manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and end-of-life service; create and/or administer certification programs for each stage of the process.
  • Work with the public and private sectors to develop workforce training programs; ensuring capacity development for all stages of deployment – including end-of-life services.
  • Urge governments and industry to adopt strong regulations for end-of-life services; call for extended producer responsibility; work with industry to foster a market for used, refurbished, or recycled panels.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to de-risking markets, deployment, technology transfers, education, and other relevant areas.
  • Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to educate the industry and public on regulations, the benefits of solar, best practices for development, and other relevant information; ensure the material is sufficient and appropriate for local contexts, paying particularly close attention to language barriers. 

Further information:

Further information: 

Thought Leaders
  • Advocate for ambitious long-term national goals on solar and renewable energy; advocate to incorporate them into national climate plans and multilateral agreements.
  • Operate or help with equipment testing and certification systems, market information disclosures, and onsite supervision.
  • Conduct open-access research to improve the performance of solar PVs, forecasting, and related technologies.
  • Advocate for strong regulatory frameworks that are also accessible and timely; recommend coordinated solar power policies – both horizontally (e.g., across agencies) and vertically (e.g., across subnational, national, and international efforts); help align social and environmental safeguards and pursue streamlined permitting processes.
  • Urge governments to provide incentives to manufacturers, operators, developers, and other relevant actors, such as subsidies, feed-in tariffs, auctions, tax credits, and contracts-for-difference; recommend gradual reductions of these incentives to create long-term market stability.
  • Campaign for public investments in improvements to grid integration and flexibility, storage, and transmission infrastructure to manage variable generation.
  • Advocate for a percentage of public financing to be earmarked for low- and middle-income communities and/or countries.
  • Help improve enforcement of labor and human rights laws and standards around solar PV supply chains – particularly for the extraction and use of critical minerals.
  • Call on governments and developers to use transparent, inclusive, and ongoing community engagement processes to co-design utility-scale solar installations; help solicit community feedback on location, design, finance, mitigation, and distribution of benefits; help ensure finalized projects address relevant sociological, agricultural, and ecological considerations.
  • Champion and/or support for the use of free, prior, and informed consent with projects operating in or with Indigenous communities; advocate to codify free, prior, and informed consent into legal systems.
  • Advocate for distributed benefits to the local community from utility-scale solar projects, such as reduced utility rates; encourage developers to use CBAs.
  • Help create or support community solar projects, such as community-shared, third-party-owned, and cooperative business models.
  • Advocate for strong regulations for end-of-life services; advocate for extended producer responsibility; work with industry to foster a market for used, refurbished, or recycled panels.
  • Advocate for carbon taxes and the removal of subsidies from fossil fuel infrastructure; recommend those funds be redirected into renewable energy.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to de-risking markets, deployment, technology transfers, education, and other relevant areas.
  • Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to educate the industry and public on regulations, the benefits of solar, best practices for development, and other relevant information; ensure the material is sufficient and appropriate for local contexts, paying particularly close attention to language barriers. 

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Continue advancing the performance of monocrystalline and polycrystalline silicon cells.
  • Continue advancing bifacial module designs and next-generation solar cell technologies, including perovskite-silicon tandem cells, organic photovoltaics, dye-sensitized solar cells, and passivated emitter and rear contact cells.
  • Advance energy storage systems technologies, such as battery, hydrogen, gravity-based, and other energy storage systems.
  • Improve manufacturing efficiencies, such as larger wafer formats, improved cell architectures, and advanced wafer processing techniques.
  • Continue developing agrivoltaics; improve scientific understanding of water drainage, runoff, and erosion under and near utility-scale solar PV; develop relevant best practices.
  • Advance technologies for floating solar PV installations; seek scalable solutions relevant for utility-scale.
  • Improve recycling infrastructure and scalable technologies to repair, reuse, or recover materials from solar panels.
  • Create more heat-tolerant PV technologies and systems to reduce heat exposure and/or absorption.
  • Create better protection and cleaning systems for PV to preserve functionality during extreme weather and in extreme environments, particularly in deserts.
  • Improve related mining technologies for critical minerals to be safer, less disruptive to local communities and ecosystems, and less energy-intensive.
  • Develop ways of eliminating, reducing, reusing, and/or safely disposing of hazardous byproducts of the PV manufacturing process.
  • Research and develop analytical tools for land allocation and development, taking into account human rights, environmental concerns, energy needs, agricultural demands, and other relevant factors, such as changing weather patterns.
  • Research factors that lead to community acceptance and energy justice for utility-scale solar.
  • Research the impact of utility-scale solar on biodiversity – particularly mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and microorganisms; examine methods to mitigate impacts on biodiversity; research optimal land allocation strategies, comparisons between installation methods and operations, best practices, and the potential for solar installations to provide habitats to some native species; examine relationship with and impacts on invasive species.
  • Research the impacts of floating PV installations on biodiversity – particularly terrestrial or semi-aquatic species.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Purchase high-integrity RECs, which track ownership of renewable energy generation.
  • If your utility company offers transparent green pricing – which charges a premium to cover the extra cost of renewable energy – and if it fits your budget, opt into it.
  • Help create or support community solar projects, such as community-shared, third-party-owned, and cooperative business models.
  • Call on governments and developers to use transparent, inclusive, and ongoing community engagement processes; participate in these processes when possible to co-design utility-scale solar installations; provide and help collect feedback on location, design, finance, mitigation, and distribution of benefits; help ensure finalized projects address relevant sociological, agricultural, and ecological considerations.
  • Advocate for a percentage of public financing to be earmarked for low- and middle-income communities and/or countries.
  • Champion and/or support for the use of free, prior, and informed consent with projects operating in or with Indigenous communities; advocate to codify free, prior, and informed consent into legal systems.
  • Advocate for distributed benefits to the local community from utility-scale solar projects, such as reduced utility rates; encourage developers to use CBAs.
  • Participate in public awareness campaigns focused on solar projects; share information with your community and networks.

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness of utility-scale solar PV in reducing greenhouse gas emissions: High

Utility-scale solar PV is firmly established as an efficient and effective electricity source. Increasing availability of energy produced from PV reduces the need for fossil fuel–derived energy sources such as coal and gas, leading to lower GHG emissions from the global electricity sector. The evidence base for utility-scale solar PV is robust and a wide range of peer-reviewed studies, international energy outlooks, and meta-analyses converge on the conclusion that solar PV is a cornerstone of sustainable global energy production. The IPCC (IPCC, 2023) identifies solar PV as indispensable in all mitigation scenarios, while the IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2024 (IEA, 2024a) highlights PV as the largest single source of electricity in net-zero aligned pathways. Similarly, IRENA documents how rapid cost declines, performance improvements, and policy support have enabled utility-scale solar PV to become one of the cheapest sources of new electricity in many regions (IRENA, 2025). Utility-scale solar PV projects have particularly benefited from economies of scale and competitive auctions, accelerating their role in global electricity markets (DNV, 2024; Masson et al., 2024).

The technical potential of solar PV refers to the maximum electricity generation achievable given solar resource availability, constrained only by physical and technological factors. Meta-analyses reveal wide ranges from 101 PWh/yr to more than 13,600 PWh/yr (de La Beaumelle et al., 2023). With only 1.29 PWh generated from solar PV in 2023, the sector is still far from its potential ceiling due to multiple barriers (IEA, 2024b). 

Integration into power systems requires significant investment in grid flexibility, storage, and transmission infrastructure to manage variable generation (Frew et al., 2021; IEA-ETSAP & IRENA, 2015; Tambari et al., 2020). Financing barriers, particularly in Africa and parts of the Global South, remain critical, with high capital costs and policy uncertainty slowing adoption despite abundant solar resource (Dato et al., 2025). 

Notwithstanding, there is high scientific agreement on the effectiveness of utility-scale solar PV as a core climate solution. The results presented here summarize findings from 11 reviews/meta-analyses, 45 research articles, and 25 institutional reports, covering evidence from different parts of the world. We acknowledge potential underrepresentation of insights from sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, which could introduce regional bias in those regions where utility-scale solar PV deployment potential remains substantially underdeveloped.

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon
Subscribe to Water resources
back to top