This solution meets all of Project Drawdown’s criteria for global climate solutions.

Improve Cement Production

Sector
Industry, Materials & Waste
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Improve Materials
Image
Cement factory
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Cement is a key ingredient of concrete, a manufactured material used in massive quantities around the world. Cement production generates high CO₂ emissions from the production of clinker, a binding ingredient. These emissions come from not only the chemical reaction that produces clinker, but also burning fossil fuels to provide heat for this reaction. We define the Improve Cement Production solution as reducing GHG emissions related to cement manufacturing by substituting other materials for clinker, using alternative fuels, and improving process efficiency.

Health
Air quality
Description for Social and Search
Improve Cement Production is a Highly Recommended climate solution. It involves using low GHG-emitting materials & reducing emissions from fossil-fuel burning.
Overview

Concrete production requires the manufacturing of 4 Gt of cement annually (U.S. Geological Survey, 2024). Roughly 85% of cement industry GHG emissions come from the production of a key cement component called clinker. Both the clinker formation chemical reaction and fuel combustion for high-temperature clinker kilns release GHGs (Goldman et al., 2023). Figure 1 illustrates the manufacturing steps responsible for these emissions and highlights how three approaches – clinker substitution, use of alternative fuels, and process efficiency upgrades – could mitigate emissions.

Figure 1. Cement production GHG emissions. Some 85% of GHGs emitted during cement production are released when clinker is produced in high-temperature kilns. The three approaches analyzed in this solution – clinker substitution, alternative fuels, and process efficiency upgrades – aim to mitigate such emissions. Modified from Goldman et al. (2023) via McKinsey.

Diagram of energy used in cement production process

Source: Goldman, S., Majsztrik, P., Sgro Rojas, I., Gavvalapalli, M., Gaikwad, R., Feric, T., Visconti, K., & McMurty, B. (2023). Pathways to commercial liftoff: Low-carbon cement. U.S. Department of Energy.

Clinker substitution replaces a portion of the clinker used in cement with alternative materials, thus reducing the amount of clinker manufactured. This decreases the amount of CO₂ emitted by the chemical reaction and fuel combustion. Clinker is made by heating limestone to convert it to lime. This reaction releases CO₂. Some of the CO₂ production can be eliminated by replacing some of the clinker with substitute materials such as industrial waste products, other cementitious compounds, or available minerals. Clinker substitution also reduces energy demand, lowering emissions from burning fossil fuels. Clinker fraction in cement is often expressed as a clinker-to-cement ratio, which ranges from 0 (no clinker) to 1 (entirely clinker). The most common type of cement, Portland cement, typically has a clinker-to-cement ratio of 0.95, meaning the cement is 95% clinker by mass.

Alternative fuels that can be used to heat cement kilns in place of fossil fuels are typically biomass and waste-based fuels. Cement production uses two kilns, one heated to ~700 °C and the other to ~1,400 °C (U.S. Department of Energy [U.S. DOE], 2022). The energy needed to provide this heat typically comes from burning fossil fuels such as oil, gas, or coal on-site, which emits CO₂ as well as small amounts of other GHGs, including methane and nitrous oxide, and air pollutants, including nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and particulate matter (Hottle et al., 2022; Miller & Moore, 2020). Switching to alternative fuels decreases emissions by reducing the mining and combustion of fossil fuels and recovering energy from waste streams that would have otherwise released GHG during decomposition or incineration (Georgiopoulou & Lyberatos, 2018).

Efficiency upgrades include a broad suite of technologies such as improved controls, electrically efficient equipment (e.g., mills, fans, and motors), thermally efficient and multistage kilns, and waste heat recovery. These improvements lead to less wasted heat and input energy, and therefore require less fossil fuel burning during manufacturing. In particular, upgrading kilns has the potential for high emissions mitigation (Mokhtar & Nasooti, 2020; Morrow III et al., 2014). Kiln upgrades can include processing dry raw material (which is more efficient than expending energy to remove moisture from wet feedstock), adding a preheater that uses kiln exhaust gas to dry and preheat raw material, and adding a precalciner kiln that uses some of the fuel to partially calcine raw material at a lower temperature (European Cement Research Academy, 2022; Schorcht et al., 2013). Each study included in our analysis for effectiveness and cost included a set group of technologies that were considered to be process efficiency upgrades.

The cost and avoided emissions from each approach vary depending on the other technologies in use at a particular cement plant (Glenk et al., 2023). While coupling the impacts of the approaches would provide the most accurate representation of this solution, that analysis is complex and outside the scope of this assessment. Therefore, we will consider the three approaches separately. 

Take Action Intro

Would you like to help reduce the climate impacts of cement production? Below are some ways you 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

Afsah, S. (2004). CDM potential in the cement sector: The challenge of demonstrating additionality. Performeks LLC. Link to source: https://www.performeks.com/media/downloads/CDM-Cement%20Sector_May%202004.pdf 

Cannon, C., Guido, V., & Wright, L. (2021). Concrete solutions guide: Mix it up: Supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). RMI. Link to source: https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/ConcreteGuide2.pdf 

Cao, Z., Masanet, E., Tiwari, A., and Akolawala, S. (2021). Decarbonizing concrete: Deep decarbonization pathways for the cement and concrete cycle in the United States, India, and China. Industrial Sustainability Analysis Laboratory. 

Cavalett, O., Watanabe, M. D. B., Voldsund, M., Roussanaly, S., & Cherubini, F. (2024). Paving the way for sustainable decarbonization of the European cement industry. Nature Sustainability, 7, 568–580. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01320-y 

CEMBUREAU. (n.d.) Clinker substitution. Retrieved August 7, 2024, from Link to source: https://lowcarboneconomy.cembureau.eu/5-parallel-routes/resource-efficiency/clinker-substitution/ 

Clark, G., Davis, M., Shibani, & Kumar, A. (2024). Assessment of fuel switching as a decarbonization strategy in the cement sector. Energy Conversion and Management, 312, 118585. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2024.118585 

ClimeCo. (2022). Low carbon cement production. Link to source: https://www.climateactionreserve.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Low-Carbon-Cement-Issue-Paper-05-20-2022_final.pdf 

Daehn, K., Basuhi, R., Gregory, J., Berlinger, M., Somjit, V., & Olivetti, E. A. (2022). Innovations to decarbonize materials industries. Nature Reviews Materials, 7, 275–294. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-00376-y 

de Puy Kamp, M. (2021, July 9). How marginalized communities in the South are paying the price for ‘green energy’ in Europe. CNN. Link to source: https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2021/07/us/american-south-biomass-energy-invs/ 

European Cement Research Academy. (2022). The ECRA technology papers 2022: State of the art cement manufacturing, current technologies and their future development. Link to source: https://api.ecra-online.org/fileadmin/files/tp/ECRA_Technology_Papers_2022.pdf 

Georgiopoulou, M., & Lyberatos, G. (2018). Life cycle assessment of the use of alternative fuels in cement kilns: A case study. Journal of Environmental Management, 216, 224–234. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.07.017 

Glenk, G., Kelnhofer, A., Meier, R., & Reichelstein, S. (2023). Cost-efficient pathways to decarbonizing Portland cement production. ZEW - Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper No. 23-023. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4434830 

Global Cement and Concrete Association. (2021). Concrete future: The GCCA 2050 cement and concrete industry roadmap for net zero concrete. Link to source: https://gccassociation.org/concretefuture/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/GCCA-Concrete-Future-Roadmap-Document-AW.pdf 

Goldman, S., Majsztrik, P., Sgro Rojas, I., Gavvalapalli, M., Gaikwad, R., Feric, T., Visconti, K., & McMurty, B. (2023). Pathways to commercial liftoff: Low-carbon cement. U.S. Department of Energy. 

Gómez, D. R., & Watterson, J. D., et al. (2006). Stationary combustion. In S. Eggelston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, & K. Tanabe (Eds.), 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories (Vol. 2). Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) for the IPCC. Link to source: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2_Volume2/V2_2_Ch2_Stationary_Combustion.pdf 

Griffiths, S., Sovacool, B. K., Furszyfer Del Rio, D. D., Foley, A. M., Bazilian, M. D., Kim, J., & Uratani, J. M. (2023). Decarbonizing the cement and concrete industry: A systematic review of socio-technical systems, technological innovations, and policy options. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 180, 113291. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113291 

Habert, G., Miller, S. A., John, V. M., Provis, J. L., Favier, A., Horvath, A., & Scrivener, K. L. (2020). Environmental impacts and decarbonization strategies in the cement and concrete industries. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 1, 559–573. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0093-3 

Hottle, T., Hawkins, T. R., Chiquelin, C., Lange, B., Young, B., Sun, P., Elgowainy, A., & Wang, M. (2022). Environmental life-cycle assessment of concrete produced in the United States. Journal of Cleaner Production, 363, 131834. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131834 

International Energy Agency. (2018). Technology roadmap: Low-carbon transition in the cement industry. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/technology-roadmap-low-carbon-transition-in-the-cement-industry 

International Energy Agency. (2023a). CO2 emitted and captured in the cement sector and clinker-to-cement ratio in the Net Zero Scenario, 2015–2030. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/co2-emitted-and-captured-in-the-cement-sector-and-clinker-to-cement-ratio-in-the-net-zero-scenario-2015-2030 

International Energy Agency. (2023b). Global cement production in the Net Zero Scenario, 2010–2030. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-cement-production-in-the-net-zero-scenario-2010-2030-5260 

International Energy Agency. (2023c). Global thermal energy intensity of clinker production by fuel in the Net Zero Scenario, 2010–2030. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-thermal-energy-intensity-of-clinker-production-by-fuel-in-the-net-zero-scenario-2010-2030 

Isabirye, A., & Sinha, A. (2023). Manufacturing sector: Cement manufacturing emissions. ClimateTRACE. Link to source: https://github.com/climatetracecoalition/methodology-documents/blob/main/2023/Manufacturing/Manufacturing%20and%20Industrial%20Processes%20sector-%20Cement%20Manufacturing%20Emissions%20methodology.docx.pdf 

Juenger, M. C. G., Snellings, R., & Bernal, S. A. (2019). Supplementary cementitious materials: New sources, characterization, and performance insights. Cement and Concrete Research, 122, 257–273. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2019.05.008 

Miller, S. A., & Moore, F. C. (2020). Climate and health damages from global concrete production. Nature Climate Change, 10(5), 439–443. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0733-0

Mokhtar, A., & Nasooti, M. (2020). A decision support tool for cement industry to select energy efficiency measures. Energy Strategy Reviews, 28, 100458. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2020.100458 

Morrow III, W. R., Hasanbeigi, A., Sathaye, J., & Xu, T. (2014). Assessment of energy efficiency improvement and CO2 emission reduction potentials in India's cement and iron & steel industries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 131–141. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.022 

Rissman, J., Bataille, C., Masanet, E., Aden, N., Morrow III, W. R., Zhou, N., Elliott, N., Dell, R., Heeren, N., Huckestein, B., Cresko, J., Miller, S. A., Roy, J., Fennell, P., Cremmins, B., Blank, T. K., Hone, D., Williams, E. D., de la Rue du Can, S., …Helseth, J. (2020). Technologies and policies to decarbonize global industry: Review and assessment of mitigation drivers through 2070. Applied Energy, 266, 114848. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114848 

Schorcht, F., Kourti, I., Scalet, B. M., Roudier, S., & Delgado Sancho L. (2013). Best available techniques (BAT) reference document for the production of cement, lime and magnesium oxide – Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU (integrated pollution prevention and control) (Joint Research Center publication JRC 83006). European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.2788/12850 

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

Shah, I. H., Miller, S. A., Jiang, D., & Myers, R. J. (2022). Cement substitution with secondary materials can reduce annual global CO2 emissions by up to 1.3 gigatons. Nature Communications, 13, 5758. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-33289-7 

Sinha, A., and Crane, V. (2024). Manufacturing and industrial processes sector: Cement manufacturing emissions. TransitionZero, UK, Climate TRACE Emissions Inventory. Link to source: https://climatetrace.org

Snellings, R. (2016). Assessing, understanding and unlocking supplementary cementitious materials. RILEM Technical Letters, 1, 50–55. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.21809/rilemtechlett.2016.12 

Snellings, R., Suraneni, P., & Skibsted, J. (2023). Future and emerging supplementary cementitious materials. Cement and Concrete Research, 171, 107199. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2023.107199

U.S. Department of Energy. (2022). Industrial decarbonization roadmap. Link to source: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Industrial%20Decarbonization%20Roadmap.pdf 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). Greenhouse gas inventory guidance: Direct emissions from stationary combustion sources. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-03/documents/stationaryemissions_3_2016.pdf 

U.S. Federal Highway Administration. (n.d.). Use of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) in concrete mixtures (FHWA-HIF-19-054). U.S. Department of Transportation. Link to source: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/concrete/trailer/resources/hif19054.pdf 

U.S. Geological Survey. (2024). Mineral commodity summaries 2024. https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2024 

Yang, X., Teng, F., & Wang, G. (2013). Incorporating environmental co-benefits into climate policies: A regional study of the cement industry in China. Applied Energy, 112, 1446–1453. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.03.040

Zhang, S., Ren, H., Zhou, W., Yu, Y., & Chen, C. (2018). Assessing air pollution abatement co-benefits of energy efficiency improvement in cement industry: A city level analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 185, 761–771. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.293

Zhang, S., Worrell, E., & Crijns-Graus, W. (2015). Evaluating co-benefits of energy efficiency and air pollution abatement in China’s cement industry. Applied Energy, 147, 192–213. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.02.081

Zhang, S., Xie, Y., Sander, R., Yue, H., & Shu, Y. (2021). Potentials of energy efficiency improvement and energy–emission–health nexus in Jing-Jin-Ji’s cement industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 278, 123335. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123335

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Sarah Gleeson, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • 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

Cement production currently emits 760,000 t CO₂‑eq /Mt cement produced, based on our analysis. With global cement production exceeding 4 Gt/yr (U.S. Geological Survey, 2024), the scale of emissions to be mitigated is large.

Clinker substitution is the most effective of the three approaches at reducing emissions, eliminating approximately 240,000 t CO₂‑eq /Mt cement produced. This is equivalent to 690,000 t CO₂‑eq /Mt clinker avoided (Table 1a). This estimate is based on expert predictions of GHG savings for realistic target levels of clinker replacement with material substitutes.

Alternative fuels and efficiency upgrades have carbon abatement potentials of 96,000 and 90,000 t CO₂‑eq /Mt cement produced, respectively, when calculated based on production levels (Table 1b). Since the units of adoption for process efficiency upgrades are GJ thermal energy input, when calculating climate impact we used an effectiveness per GJ of thermal energy, calculated using an emission factor for fuel combustion. This effectiveness is 0.0847 t CO₂ /GJ thermal energy input (Table 1c; Gómez & Watterson et al., 2006; International Energy Agency [IEA], 2023c). 

We calculated the effectiveness of these three approaches separately. Because the implementation of each affects the effectiveness potential of the others (Glenk et al., 2023), the actual effectiveness will be lower when the approaches are implemented together.

Emissions reductions from these approaches can be directly related to how the approach impacts GHG emissions from clinker production and fossil fuel burning. However, sourcing, processing, and transporting clinker substitutes and alternative fuels also produces GHGs. Our data sources did not always report whether such indirect emissions were accounted for, so our analysis primarily focuses on direct emissions. Further analysis of other life-cycle emissions considerations would be valuable in future research; however, indirect emission levels for both clinker substitutes and alternative fuels are reportedly small compared to direct emissions (European Cement Research Academy, 2022; Shah et al., 2022).

Additionally, cement industry members sometimes assume that there are no direct emissions from burning biomass fuels (Goldman et al., 2023). As a result, we assume that direct emissions from biomass are not fully accounted for in the data and therefore that the climate benefit of using alternative fuels may be exaggerated.

While other GHGs, including methane and nitrous oxide, are also released during cement manufacturing, these gases represent a small fraction (<3% combined) of overall CO₂‑eq emissions so we considered them negligible in our calculations (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA], 2016; Hottle et al., 2022). 

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /Mt clinker avoided, 100-year basis

25th percentile 540,000
Mean 710,000
Median (50th percentile) 690,000
75th percentile 860,000

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /Mt cement produced (100-year basis)

25th percentile 77,000
Mean 94,000
Median (50th percentile) 96,000
75th percentile 99,000

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /GJ thermal energy input (100-year basis)

Calculated value 0.0847
Cost

All three approaches to mitigating cement emissions result in cost savings by our analysis. Despite high initial costs, when considering the long technology lifetime and annual operational savings, the net lifetime and annualized costs are lower than conventional cement production.

Clinker substitution has the highest net savings of the three approaches, with US$7 million/Mt cement produced generating savings of US$30/t CO₂‑eq (Table 2a). While initial and operating costs may vary between different substitute materials, we averaged all material types for each cost estimate. Goldman et al. (2023) and the European Cement Research Academy (2022) offer breakdowns of cost by material type.

Alternative fuels generate savings of US$5 million/Mt cement, or US$50/t CO₂‑eq mitigated (Table 2b). For both clinker substitution and alternative fuels, cost and emissions will vary based on local material availability (Cannon et al., 2021). We assumed equivalent costs for all alternative fuel types.

Efficiency upgrades save US$6 million/Mt cement and have the highest cost savings per unit climate impact (US$60/t CO₂‑eq ). While process efficiency upgrades encompass many different technologies, this cost estimate incorporates the costs of two of the technologies yielding high avoided emissions – replacing long kilns with preheater/precalciner kilns and implementing efficient clinker cooler technology. Between these technologies, upgrading to preheater/precalciner kilns represents most of the initial cost increase and the operational cost savings (European Cement Research Academy, 2022).

The costs of each approach (Table 2) were calculated as amortized initial costs of upgrading plants, added to the expected changes in annual operational costs. Only very limited data are available for price premiums on low-carbon cement. Therefore, we did not include any revenues for low-carbon cement. 

While we calculated these costs separately, in reality the cost for implementing multiple approaches will be different due to interactions between technologies (Glenk et al., 2023). For example, material processing equipment could change based on the type of clinker substitute materials. We do not expect the costs to be additive as we assumed in our analysis, and limited cost data means that this estimate is based on limited sources.

Table 2: Cost per unit climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis

Clinker substitution –30

Negative values reflect cost savings.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis

Alternative fuels –50

Negative values reflect cost savings.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis

Process efficiency upgrades –60

Negative values reflect cost savings.

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

The technologies needed for all approaches in this solution are well developed and ready to deploy at scale, so we did not consider learning curves. 

We did not find any global data on cost changes related to adoption levels for equipment, including energy-efficient processing technologies, dry-process kilns, or material storage. A portion of the solution’s initial costs come from plant downtimes, which would not be impacted by the technology learning curve. For feedstock components of the solution, including alternative fuels and clinker material substitutes, the costs will be subject to material availability, market prices, and transportation, and therefore will not necessarily decrease with adoption.

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.

Improve Cement Production 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

Manufacturing emissions reductions due to clinker substitution, alternative fuels, and process efficiency upgrades are both permanent and additional. 

Permanence 

There is a low risk that the emission reductions this solution generates will be reversed in the next 100 years. This approach calls for reduced burning of fossil fuels and less calcination of limestone into clinker, thereby avoiding emissions from these activities. Meanwhile, carbon that is not released as CO₂ due to these technologies will remain stable in limestone or fossil fuel reserves indefinitely, making the emissions mitigation permanent.

Additionality 

These cement emissions reductions are additional if they are adopted in amounts higher than what is currently required and used in local or regional cement manufacturing. Afsah (2004) assessed additionality based on whether it represents “not common practice” from a national standpoint of market share or adoption. ClimeCo (2022) suggested that for clinker material substitutes to be considered additional, the substitute needs to meet two criteria: The replacement is not mandated by law, and new or emerging materials are used.

Current Adoption

Few global data are available for current adoption. Most data are from regional sources, typically the United States or Europe. As a result, we do not expect these data to be representative at the global level – China and India alone produce more than 60% of the world’s cement (U.S. Geological Survey, 2024). Therefore, we quantified adoption only from a limited number of worldwide sources, using the adoption units listed in Figure 2.

Clinker substitution is challenging to assess for adoption, since it is implemented with a broad range of materials and replacement fractions. We therefore simplified adoption in this analysis by quantifying it as the amount of global cement material that is not clinker. The adoption tonnage (Table 3a) represents Mt of clinker production avoided, using conventional Portland cement (5% non-clinker) as a baseline (CEMBUREAU, n.d.). Note that this is different from the way we considered cement tonnage for effectiveness and cost. There, we calculated emissions reductions for a Mt of cement produced including substituted material. For adoption, however, we considered tonnage to be clinker avoided (based on amount replaced with other materials).

The IEA (2023a) and the European Cement Research Academy (2022) estimated the global clinker-to-cement ratio to be approximately 0.72, meaning that 28% of cement composition is material other than clinker. This correlates to 980 Mt clinker avoided/yr used over the Portland cement baseline.

Alternative fuels are currently used to replace approximately 7% of fossil fuels in global cement production (Global Cement and Concrete Association, 2021; IEA, 2023c). We assumed this means approximately 300 Mt cement/yr are currently produced with biomass and waste fuels (Table 3b).

Efficiency upgrades encompass dozens of technological improvements, which – along with a paucity of available data – make adoption levels challenging to assess. To estimate the current state of energy usage in the cement industry, we used the IEA (2023c) estimate of 3,550,000 GJ/Mt clinker as the 2022 benchmark thermal energy input for clinker production. This value does not include electrical efficiency and can vary based on fuel mix, but approximates the current state of energy use. We converted it to GJ/yr using amounts of annual clinker production, yielding 10.5 billion GJ thermal energy consumed each year for clinker production. Since there is no baseline for efficiency, we consider this value to be the zero adoption scenario and the current adoption to be not determined (Table 3c).

For the other approaches, there is a clear baseline case of “zero adoption” where no substitutes or alternative fuels are in use. However, thermal energy input is an energy use indicator that represents a continuum with no clear baseline. We therefore had to benchmark future energy savings against an initial value, which we chose as 2022 since it provided the most recent available data. All future estimates represent annual GHG savings relative to global cement production’s 2022 GHG emissions levels.

Table 3. Current adoption level (2022).

Unit: Mt clinker avoided/yr

Median (50th percentile) 980

Unit: Mt cement produced using alternative fuels/yr

Median (50th percentile) 300

Unit: GJ thermal energy input/yr saved

Median (50th percentile) not determined
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Clinker substitution has experienced relatively unchanged adoption worldwide in recent years (Table 4a). Since 2016, there has been a small increase in clinker-to-cement ratio, indicating a slight decrease in adoption of this approach (IEA, 2023a). This corresponds to 40 Mt fewer clinker material substitutes being used each year, on average. 

Alternative fuels adoption is slowly on the rise as percent of fuel mix (Table 4b). According to the IEA (2023c), the percentage of global clinker produced by bioenergy and waste fuels increased from 6.5% in 2015 to 8.5% in 2022. This corresponds to a median annual increase of 12 Mt cement/yr produced by alternative fuels. 

The IEA (2023c) reported efficiency upgrades to have led to a median annual decrease of 5,000 GJ/Mt clinker from 2011 to 2022, representing a –0.14% annual change in energy input. This indicates that processes consuming thermal energy have become slightly more efficient in recent years. When converted to GJ/yr, this is 15 million fewer GJ thermal energy consumed each year (Table 4c).

Table 4. Adoption trend.

Unit: annual change in Mt clinker avoided/yr

Median (50th percentile) –40

2016–2022 adoption trend

Unit: annual change in Mt cement produced using alternative fuels/yr

Median (50th percentile) 12

2015–2022 adoption trend

Unit: annual change in GJ thermal energy input/yr

Median (50th percentile) –15,000,000

2011–2022 adoption trend

Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

The adoption ceiling (Table 5) is high for all approaches within this solution.

Clinker substitution adoption is likely to be limited primarily by material standards and availability. Across literature, the median adoption ceiling is considered to be 3,000 Mt clinker avoided/yr beyond the Portland cement baseline, yielding a clinker-to-cement ratio of 0.2. Snellings (2016) calculated the worldwide amount of clinker materials substitutes and found that a maximum of ~2,000 Mt/yr would be available, which would result in a clinker-to-cement ratio of approximately 0.5. In the future, some waste materials – like fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag – are likely to be less available so increasing the possible substitute amounts would require research on new materials or cement properties.

Alternative fuels are typically assumed to be applicable to roughly 90% of cement production globally, or approximately 4,000 Mt cement/yr at 2022 global production levels (Daehn et al., 2022). In theory, kilns can use 100% alternative fuels, although composition of the fuel can influence the trace elements or calorific value (European Cement Research Academy, 2022). In particular, several analyses point to the lower calorific value of alternative fuels as an adoption-limiting factor. Cavalett et al. (2024) considered 90% to be the maximum. A separate analysis of Canadian cement production determined that 65% is the threshold due to lower-calorie fuels only being applicable in a precalciner kiln – the equipment where fuel is used to begin decomposing limestone through the calcination process (Clark et al., 2024).

Efficiency upgrades have their adoption ceiling limited by the minimum thermal energy demand needed to run cement kilns. The European Cement Research Academy estimates this lower threshold of energy input to be approximately 2,300,000 GJ/Mt clinker, considering chemical reaction and evaporation energy needs (European Cement Research Academy, 2022). This converts to 6.9 billion GJ thermal energy used each year, or 3.6 billion GJ/yr saved over current thermal energy efficiency levels (Table 5c).

Table 5. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: Mt clinker avoided/yr

Median (50th percentile) 3,000

Unit: Mt cement produced using alternative fuels/yr

Median (50th percentile) 4,000

Unit: GJ thermal energy input/yr saved over current levels

Median (50th percentile) 3,600,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

Clinker substitution achievable adoption (Table 6a) is primarily limited by material availability and initial costs. Global estimates generally expect 30–50% of total substituted material to be reasonable, which correlates to a clinker-to-cement ratio of 0.4–0.6 and 1,000–2,000 Mt clinker avoided/yr (Habert et al., 2020; European Cement Research Academy, 2022). In a separate U.S.-specific analysis, the substitute amount was projected to vary from 5% to 45% depending on the availability and performance of the material substitute (Goldman et al., 2023).

Alternative fuels are projected to account for roughly 40% of the cement fuel mix in 2050 for both global and North American estimates. Taking the median of the global achievable adoption estimates, this correlates to 2,000 Mt cement/yr that would be produced using alternative kiln fuels. As a low estimate, if the current adoption trend holds, approximately 16% of global cement fuel (producing 610 Mt cement/yr) will come from biomass and waste (IEA, 2023c). A reasonable adoption range is 610–2,000 Mt cement/yr (Table 6b), although some European countries currently have ~80% adoption of alternative fuels, meaning that >40% adoption in an aggressive 2050 scenario may be feasible (Cavalett et al., 2024).

Little information exists on projected global adoption of efficiency upgrades between now and 2050. In an analysis of a fraction of cement plants in China, India, and the U.S., it was estimated that these three countries – which represent more than 70% of current cement production worldwide – could reach a thermal energy input of 3.15–3.25 million GJ/Mt clinker by 2060, or 9.30–9.59 billion GJ/yr, which is 0.886–1.18 billion GJ/yr saved over current adoption levels (Table 6c; Cao et al., 2021). Meanwhile, in a European analysis, the European Cement Research Academy (2022) found the same range to be possible by 2050. This is not significantly lower than the current state due to the fact that the highest-producing countries – China and India – have newer manufacturing facilities with more efficient equipment today. Countries with more room to improve in thermal energy efficiency – such as the U.S. – produce only a small fraction of the world’s cement. Approximately 92% of global plants are estimated to use more efficient dry kiln technology, indicating that some of the more energy-saving equipment upgrades are already highly adopted (Isabirye & Sinha, 2023). Therefore, there is less room for increased adoption in kiln technologies worldwide, although electrical efficiency measures could further improve these values.

 While the estimates for tonnage of cement impacted by these approaches are based on 2022 global production numbers, cement production will change through 2050, meaning the impacted mass of cement will also change as these emissions-reducing measures are adopted (IEA, 2023b).

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: Mt clinker avoided/yr

Current adoption 980
Achievable – low 1,000
Achievable – high 2000
Adoption ceiling 3000

Unit: Mt cement produced using alternative fuels/yr

Current adoption 300
Achievable – low 610
Achievable – high 2,000
Adoption ceiling 4,000

Unit: GJ thermal energy input/yr saved over current adoption levels

Current adoption not determined
Achievable – low 886,000,000
Achievable – high 1,180,000,000
Adoption ceiling 3,600,000,000

Note: High adoption in this case results in lower energy use for each unit of cement produced, and thus better efficiency. 

Left Text Column Width

Improved cement production has high potential for climate impact. By our estimate, cement production is responsible for >5% of global GHG emissions, so mitigating even a portion of these emissions will meaningfully reduce the world’s carbon output.

Clinker substitution has the highest current and potential GHG emissions savings of the three approaches (Table 7a). To calculate the climate impact, we used effectiveness and adoption on the basis of Mt clinker avoided. Climate impact was calculated as:

$$\frac{\textit{CO₂ abated}}{\textit{yr}} = \frac{\textit{CO₂ abated}}{\textit{clinker avoided}} \times \frac{\textit{clinker avoided}}{\textit{Year}}$$
  • Current GHG savings: 0.67 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr
  • GHG savings ceiling: 2 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr
  • Achievable GHG savings range: 0.7–1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr

Alternative fuels have a low current climate impact but possess the potential to be adopted for a much greater fraction of the global kiln fuel mix (Table 7b). However, alternative fuels’ potential GHG emissions savings are lower than those for clinker substitutes because alternative fuels have a lower CO₂ mitigation effectiveness. Climate impact is calculated as:

$$\frac{\textit{CO₂ abated}}{\textit{yr}} = \frac{\textit{CO₂ abated}}{\textit{cement produced}} \times \frac{\textit{cement produced}}{\textit{Year}}$$
  • Current GHG savings: 0.03 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr
  • GHG savings ceiling: 0.4 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr
  • Achievable GHG savings range: 0.06–0.2 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr

Switching to alternative fuels requires the use of biomass as a feedstock. Multiple climate solutions, in addition to improving cement production, 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 GHG savings range 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.

Efficiency upgrades are the most challenging to assess for climate impact because they represent a broad range of equipment upgrades with no clear baseline efficiency. We considered adoption to be energy savings from the current (2022) baseline in GJ thermal energy input/yr. We converted adoption to climate impact using the emission factor of 0.0847 t CO₂‑eq /GJ thermal energy input (calculated using data from Gómez & Watterson et al., 2006 and IEA, 2023c). The resulting calculation is as follows:

$$\frac{\textit{CO₂ abated}}{\textit{yr}} = \frac{\textit{CO₂ emissions}}{\textit{thermal energy}} \times \frac{\textit{thermal energy savings from 2022 baseline}}{\textit{yr }}$$
  • Current GHG savings: N/A (we consider the current adoption to be the baseline)
  • GHG savings ceiling: 0.31 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr less than 2022
  • Achievable GHG savings range: 0.0760–0.101 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr less than 2022

While clinker substitution, alternative fuels, and efficiency upgrades are quantified separately here, the adoption of any of these approaches will reduce the climate impact of the others. In particular, the climate impacts for technologies that reduce emissions per Mt of clinker (such as alternative fuels and process efficiency upgrades) will be lower when implemented along with technologies that reduce the amount of clinker used (such as clinker substitution), and vice versa (Glenk et al., 2023). Therefore, these impacts will not be additive, although they will contribute to reduced emissions when implemented together.

While our analysis found clinker substitution to have the highest climate impact, cement manufacturers will have to prioritize these technologies depending on their plant’s existing equipment, local availability of materials, and regional cement standards.

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.67
Achievable – low 0.7
Achievable – high 1
Adoption ceiling 2

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.03
Achievable – low 0.06
Achievable – high 0.2
Adoption ceiling 0.4

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption not determined
Achievable – low 0.075
Achievable – high 0.100
Adoption ceiling 0.31
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Health 

Miller & Moore (2020) estimated that the health damages associated with cement production amounted to approximately US$60 billion globally in 2015. These health damages are due to air pollutants produced during cement manufacturing, which would be reduced by this solution as described above. In China, one study estimated that improving energy efficiency in the Jing Jin Ji region’s cement industry could prevent morbidity in 17,000 individuals (Zhang et al., 2021). 

Air Quality 

Cement production is a major contributor to air pollution. Globally, concrete production accounts for approximately 8% of nitrogen oxide emissions, 5% of sulfur oxide emissions, and 5% of particulate matter emissions, with a significant portion of all these emissions stemming exclusively from cement production (Miller & Moore, 2020). Cement-related air pollution is especially acute in China, which produces over 50% of the world’s cement (U.S. Geological Survey, 2024). In 2009, China's cement industry emitted 3.59 Mt of particulate matter, making the industry the leading source of particulate matter emissions in the country (Yang et al., 2013). China also released 0.88 Mt of sulfur dioxide, accounting for about 4% of the national total, and emitted 1.7 Mt of nitrogen oxides (Yang et al., 2013). Process efficiency upgrades in cement manufacturing can reduce these harmful emissions. For example, implementing energy efficiency measures in China’s cement industry could reduce particulate matter by more than 3%, lower sulfur dioxide emissions by more than 15%, and decrease nitrogen oxide emissions by more than 12% by 2030 (Zhang et al., 2015). In Jiangsu province, which is the largest cement producer in China, energy and CO₂ reduction techniques could cut particulate matter and nitrogen oxide emissions by 30% and 56%, respectively, by 2030 (Zhang et al., 2018).

Risks

According to the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (n.d.), the use of clinker material substitutes in cement slows concrete curing times. Additionally, some clinker material substitutes, such as fly ash, raise ecotoxicity concerns and require safe handling (U.S. DOE, 2022). Robust research and development is needed for new compositions of cement to accelerate testing, standardization, and adoption (Griffiths et al., 2023). Since regional standards vary for cement and concrete, policy and regulatory support designed for specific locations will be necessary to influence adoption levels and rates.

Most clinker material substitutes have limited or regional availability, leading to shortages, high costs, and transportation emissions (Habert et al., 2020). Because some substitute materials are sourced from the waste streams of other industries, such as the coal and steel industries, the long-term feasibility of sourcing these materials is uncertain (Goldman et al., 2023; Juenger et al., 2019). However, one study found that most leading cement-producing countries have substitute materials available in sufficient quantities to replace at least half of their current clinker usage (Shah et al., 2022). 

In terms of risks associated with alternative fuels, they can be subject to regional scarcity. Lack of available waste fuel in particular could risk non-waste biomass burning, leading to deforestation and high net emissions (de Puy Kamp, 2021). In addition, waste fuels can have varying compositions that can lead to different heats of combustion, kiln compatibility, or emitted pollutants (Griffiths et al., 2023). Finally, the use of waste products requires cement plants to be situated near industrial waste sources, risking low adoption for cement plants that are not located near a waste source. 

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Lower-carbon cement will improve the effectiveness and enhance the net climate impact of any solutions that might require new construction. The embodied emissions from the cement and concrete used for new built structures or roads will be reduced.

Technological advancements and increased adoption of efficient cement manufacturing equipment will improve the rate and cost of scaling similar high-efficiency machinery.

Industrial electrification in cement plants will be faster and easier to adopt if the plants’ energy demands are lowered via reduced clinker production and more efficient processes.

Competing

This solution uses biomass as a feedstock (raw material) for kiln fuel or as a source of ash for clinker substitues, including wood, food, crop residues, and municipal waste.  Because the total projected demand for biomass feedstocks 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:

Dashboard

Solution Basics

Mt clinker avoided

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
0540,000690,000median
units/yr
Current 980 01,0002,000
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.67 0.71
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-30
Gradual

CO₂

Solution Basics

Mt cement produced using alternative fuels

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
077,00096,000median
units/yr
Current 300 06102,000
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.03 0.060.2
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-50
Gradual

CO₂

Solution Basics

GJ thermal energy input reduced from current levels

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
0.085
units/yr
Current Not Determined 08.86×10⁸1.18×10⁹
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current Not Determined 0.0760.1
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-60
Gradual

CO₂

Trade-offs

Wider adoption of clinker material substitutes, alternative fuels, and process efficiency upgrades could generate new GHG emissions, including emissions stemming from the transportation of clinker material substitutes and alternative fuels as well as embodied emissions from manufacturing and installing new cement plant equipment. Nevertheless, the overall solution effectiveness is not expected to be significantly impacted. In some of the largest cement-producing countries, the emissions from transport of clinker material substitutes has been calculated to be an order of magnitude less than the emissions savings from the use of those substitutes in place of clinker (Shah et al., 2022). 

In terms of environmental impact, some clinker substitutes such as calcined clays and natural pozzolans can increase water use (Juenger et al., 2019; Snellings et al., 2023). Additionally, the use of biomass as an alternative fuel source could lead to trade-offs – such as increased water use and land use, or diminished resource availability – although the risk of this outcome is low since biomass for kiln fuels tends to be agricultural by-products or other waste (Clark et al., 2024; Georgiopoulou & Lyberatos, 2018). 

Mt CO2-eq
< 2
2 - 4
4 - 6
6 - 8
8 - 10
> 10

Annual cement plant emissions, 2024

Cement production emissions are partly due to burning fossil fuels to run kilns and partly due to CO2 emissions associated with the chemistry of producing clinker, a key component of cement.

Sinha, A. and Crane, V. (2024). Manufacturing and industrial processes sector: Cement manufacturing emissions [Data set]. TransitionZero, Climate TRACE Emissions Inventory. Retrieved February 11, 2025, from Link to source: https://climatetrace.org

Mt CO2-eq
< 2
2 - 4
4 - 6
6 - 8
8 - 10
> 10

Annual cement plant emissions, 2024

Cement production emissions are partly due to burning fossil fuels to run kilns and partly due to CO2 emissions associated with the chemistry of producing clinker, a key component of cement.

Sinha, A. and Crane, V. (2024). Manufacturing and industrial processes sector: Cement manufacturing emissions [Data set]. TransitionZero, Climate TRACE Emissions Inventory. Retrieved February 11, 2025, from Link to source: https://climatetrace.org

Maps Introduction

There are no location-specific constraints to the effectiveness of the Improve Cement Production solution as there are for solutions dependent on climatic factors. However, there is geographic variation associated with current uptake of solutions and feasibility/expense of future uptake. Moreover, the distribution of cement-producing facilities around the world is non-uniform, thus the solution set naturally has the greatest applicability in regions with the greatest concentration of cement production. China and India have particularly high production of cement at 51% and 8% of global totals in 2024, respectively (Sinha & Crane, 2024).

Newer cement plants are more likely to have high thermal efficiencies, and the age of cement plants varies around the world, with average ages of cement plants less than 20 years in much of Asia, and greater than 40 years in much of the U.S. and Europe.

Uptake of alternative fuels is relatively high in Europe and low in the Americas.  

While use of clinker substitutes is in principle possible anywhere, the materials themselves are not readily available everywhere, thus transportation costs and associated emissions can place constraints on their viability (Shah et al., 2022).

Action Word
Improve
Solution Title
Cement Production
Current State Introduction

Our analysis of the current state of solutions for improved cement production included three separate approaches to reducing emissions: clinker substitution, alternative fuels, and process efficiency upgrades. Each approach had adoption units chosen based on data availability and consistency between calculated values. Figure 2 summarizes the units and conversions used for all approaches.

Figure 2. Units of quantification used in the Current State, Adoption, and Impacts analyses below.

Approach Clinker substitution Alternative fuels Process efficiency upgrades
Effectiveness

t CO₂-eq abated/Mt clinker avoided*

t CO₂ abated/Mt cement produced*

 t CO₂-eq abated/Mt cement produced

t CO₂-eq abated/GJ thermal energy input**

t CO₂-eq abated/Mt cement produced**
Cost US$/Mt cement produced US$/Mt cement produced US$/Mt cement produced
Adoption Mt clinker avoided/yr Mt cement/yr produced using alternative fuels GJ thermal energy input saved/yr
Climate impact Gt CO₂-eq/yr Gt CO₂-eq/yr Gt CO₂-eq/yr

*Clinker substitution effectiveness was calculated in two different adoption units using the same source data. Effectiveness in t CO₂‑eq abated/Mt cement produced was used to calculate cost per climate impact. Effectiveness was converted to t CO₂‑eq abated/Mt clinker avoided using the clinker-to-cement ratio for each individual study in the analysis, and this was used to calculate climate impact.

**Process efficiency upgrades effectiveness in units of t CO₂‑eq abated/Mt cement produced was used to calculate cost per climate impact. Separately, a calculated fuel emission factor effectiveness in units of t CO₂‑eq abated/GJ thermal energy was used to quantify climate impact.

Enable Download
On
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Hold cement manufacturers accountable for safety standards.
  • Regulate clinker substitution, alternative fuel usage, and process efficiency upgrades.
  • Set standards for low-carbon cement and reporting on embodied carbon for new projects.
  • Provide financial incentives such as grants, subsidies, and/or carbon taxes.
  • Set low-carbon cement standards for public procurement.
  • Implement building codes and standards that allow for the safe, tested use of low-clinker cement while accounting for regional variability in cement compositions.
  • When possible integrate low-carbon cement standards into industry standards such as LEED certification or CALGreen.
  • Increase investment in research and development of clinker material substitutes.
  • Promote a circular economy by creating reverse supply chains to collect industrial and biomass waste to be used as feedstocks for cement kilns and products.
  • Require labels for low-carbon products and materials.
  • Engage impacted communities and incorporate public feedback into policy design.
  • Ensure permit processes for mining or collecting clinker substitutes allow local supply chains to develop.
  • Integrate water management into policy planning when adopting new cement technologies, especially in drought-prone areas.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Increase the fraction of clinker substitutes in cement, which will reduce production costs.
  • Use alternative fuels as manufacturing energy sources, ideally from renewable sources when possible, which will reduce production costs.
  • Upgrade equipment and production process to be more efficient, which will reduce production costs.
  • Invest in research and development for clinker material substitutes and process improvements.
  • Work to form national and regional industrial strategies for low-carbon cement.
  • Engage with local community members and use their feedback to create safer and healthier production facilities.
  • Increase transparency and reporting around energy usage, fuel composition, and the material composition of cement products.
  • Integrate water management safeguards when adopting new cement technologies, especially in drought-prone areas.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to improving cement production.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Source from low-carbon cement producers.
  • Advocate for low-carbon cement during project design and construction.
  • Promote concrete alternatives in high-profile projects.
  • Purchase, promote, and/or invest in local manufacturing and supply chains not only for materials and equipment used to make low-carbon cement, but also for low-carbon cementitious products.
  • Create off-take agreements for emerging cement technologies.
  • Create training and capacity-building programs for industry professionals related to the use and benefits of low-carbon cement and concrete.
  • Launch education and awareness campaigns that share case studies and pilot projects with industry media and other key stakeholders.
  • Leverage carbon markets to help subsidize the cost of low-carbon cement.
  • Work with governments and financial institutions to establish standards and incentives for utilizing low-carbon materials.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Assist with monitoring and reporting related to energy usage, fuel composition, and the material composition of cement products.
  • Help design policies and regulations that support low-carbon cement production.
  • Educate the public about the urgent need for low-carbon cement while showcasing its many benefits.
  • Encourage policymakers to create ambitious targets and regulations.
  • Encourage cement manufacturers to improve their practices.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to improving cement production.

Further information:

Investors
  • Invest in low-carbon cement producers, low-carbon cement research and development, and shared recycling infrastructure for cement materials.
  • Invest in supply chains for new clinker substitutes, alternative fuels, and technologies that improve production efficiency.
  • Encourage portfolio companies to produce low-carbon cement or source from low-carbon cement producers, noting that low-carbon retrofits will save money for producers.
  • Seek impact investment opportunities, such as low-interest loans for construction or renovation projects that use low-carbon cement, or favorable loans for entities that set low-carbon cement policies or targets.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Set low-carbon cement standards for construction-related grants, loans, and awards.
  • Provide capital for local supply chains and the acquisition or production of clinker material substitutes.
  • Support global, national, and local policies that promote low-carbon cement use.
  • Explore opportunities to fund low-carbon cement start-ups.
  • Advance awareness of the public health and climate benefits of low-carbon cement.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to improving cement production.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Provide technical assistance (e.g., circular economy design) to producers, government agencies, and other entities working to reduce cement emissions.
  • Help design policies and regulations that support the adoption of low-carbon cement.
  • Educate the public through campaigns emphasizing the urgent need to reduce cement production emissions.
  • Encourage policymakers to create more ambitious targets and regulations.
  • Pressure the cement industry to improve its production practices.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to improving cement production.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Develop new separation technology for recycling cement material.
  • Assess new clinker substitutes and improve supply chains for known substitutes.
  • Improve the efficiency of processing technology and equipment.
  • Increase the safety of extraction, transport, handling, and processing of clinker material substitutes.
  • Develop on-site testing and reporting methods for tracking the energy use of manufacturing processes, fuel composition, and the material composition of cement products.
  • Examine and refine understandings of the potential revenue and price premiums of low-carbon cement products.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Purchase low-carbon cement and concrete products when possible.
  • Document your experiences if harmful cement production practices impact you. Share documentation of harmful cement production practices and/or other key messages with policymakers, the media, and your community.
  • Encourage policymakers to improve regulations related to cement production.
  • Support public education efforts to raise awareness about the urgent need to make cement production practices more environmentally sustainable.
  • Pressure the cement industry to improve its production practices.

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing cement industry emissions: High

The U.S. Department of Energy reports that the cement industry produces an estimated 7–8% of global CO₂ emissions (Goldman et al., 2023), so this is an important area to target. There is high scientific consensus that clinker substitution, alternative fuels, and process efficiency upgrades can be immediately and effectively implemented. Other emissions reduction strategies – including hydrogen kiln fuel, electrification, and carbon capture and storage technologies – have generated mixed scientific opinions on their potential for immediate impact and were not considered in this analysis. 

The U.S. Department of Energy (2022) highlighted cement as one of five high-emitting industries with potential for mitigation. The technologies identified as having the highest level of maturity and market readiness were energy efficiency measures, biomass and natural gas fuels, material efficiency measures, and blended-material cements. 

An extensive review of industrial decarbonization points to four technologies that could be implemented in the near term across global industries: electrification, material efficiency, energy efficiency, and circularity (Rissman et al., 2020). The European Cement Research Academy (2022) classified the three cement industry approaches considered in this solution – clinker substitution, alternative fuels, and process efficiency upgrades – as meeting the highest technology readiness level.

Goldman et al. (2023) identified clinker substitution, alternative fuels, and efficiency improvements as deployable today, estimating that these three approaches could abate 30% of U.S. cement industry emissions by 2030. Habert et al. (2020) proposed technologies that could reduce emissions up to 50% in the next few decades, including “cement improvements” of supplementary clinker materials, alternative fuels, and more efficient technologies. The IEA (2018) estimated that clinker material replacement, alternative fuels, and efficiency improvements could provide 37%, 12%, and 3% of cement emissions savings by 2050, respectively.

The results presented in this document summarize findings from two reviews and meta-analyses, eight original studies, nine reports, and several data sets reflecting current evidence from 33 countries, primarily high cement-producing countries in North America, Europe, and Asia. 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

Improve Landfill Management

Sector
Industry, Materials & Waste
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Cut Fugitive Emissions
Image
Methane tap valve from a landfill
Coming Soon
On
Summary

Landfill management is the process of reducing methane emissions from landfill gas (LFG). As bacteria break down organic waste in an environment without oxygen, they produce methane and release it into the atmosphere if there are no controls in place. This solution focuses on two methane abatement strategies: 1) methane capture/use/destruction and 2) biocovers. When methane is used or destroyed it is converted into CO₂ (Garland et al., 2023).

Income & work,Health,Equality
Air quality
Description for Social and Search
Improve Landfill Management is a Highly Recommended climate solution. It focuses on abating landfill methane through methane capture and biocovers.
Overview

Landfill management relies on several practices and technologies that prevent methane from being released into the atmosphere. When organic material is broken down, it creates LFG, which usually is half methane and half CO₂, and water vapor (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA], 2024a). Methane that is directly released into the atmosphere has a GWP of 81 over a 20-yr basis and a GWP of 28 over a 100-yr basis (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2023). This means methane is 81 times more effective at trapping heat than CO₂. Because methane is a short-lived climate pollutant that has a much stronger warming effect than CO₂ over a given time period, abating methane will have a relatively large near-term impact on slowing global climate change (International Energy Agency [IEA], 2023). LFG contains trace amounts of oxygen, nitrogen, sulfides, hydrogen, and other organic compounds that can negatively affect nearby environments with odors, acid rain, and smog (New York State Government, 2024).

This solution focuses on two methane abatement strategies: 1) gas collection and control systems (GCCSs) and methane use/destruction, and 2) biocovers. Figure 1 illustrates in which parts of a landfill the strategies can be used (Garland et al., 2023).

GCCS and methane capture uses pipes to route LFG to be used as an energy source or to flare. The gas can be used on-site for landfill equipment or refined into biomethane and sold; unrefined LFG can also be sold to local utilities or industries for their own use. In areas where electricity generation is carbon intensive, the LFG can help to reduce local emissions by displacing fossil fuels. Methane that cannot be used for energy is burned in a flare during system downtime or at the end of the landfill life, when LFG production has decreased and collecting it no longer makes economic sense. High-efficiency (enclosed) flares have a 99% methane destruction rate. Open flares can be used but research from Plant et al. (2022) has found that the methane destruction rate in practice is much lower than the 90% value the U.S. EPA assumes. 

Biocovers are a type of landfill cover designed to promote bacteria that convert methane to CO₂ and water. Biocovers have an organic layer that provides an environment for the bacteria to grow and a gas distribution layer to separate the landfill waste from the organic layer. Non-biocover landfill covers – made with impermeable material like clay or synthetic materials – can also be used to prevent methane from being released. The methane oxidation from these covers will be minimal – they mostly serve to limit LFG from escaping – but they can then be used in conjunction with GCCS to improve gas collection. Landfills also use daily and interim landfill covers. It is important to note that studies on biocover abatement potential and cost are limited and biocovers may not be appropriate for all situations.

Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) involves regularly monitoring for methane leaks and modifying or replacing leaking equipment. LDAR does not directly reduce emissions but is used to determine where to apply the above technology and practices and is considered a critical part of methane abatement strategies. Methane can be monitored through satellites, drones, continuous sensors, or on-site walking surveys (Carbon Mapper, 2024). LDAR is an important step in identifying where methane escapes from the gas collection infrastructure or landfill cover. Quick repairs help reduce GHG emissions while allowing more methane to be used for energy or fuel. The Appendix shows where methane can escape from landfills.

Figure 1. Areas where different on-site landfill methane abatement strategies can take place. Source: Garland et al. (2023)

Landfill Methane: Key Problems and Solutions diagram

Source: Garland E., Alves O., Frankiewicz T., & Ayandele E. (2023). Mitigating landfill methane. RMI. 

References

Abichou, T. (2020). Using methane biological oxidation to partially finance sustainable waste management systems and closure of dumpsites in the Southern Mediterranean region. Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental Integration. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41207-020-00157-z 

Auth, K., & Kincer, J. (2022). Untangling ‘stranded assets’ and ‘carbon lock-in.’ Energy for Growth Hub. Link to source: https://energyforgrowth.org/article/untangling-stranded-assets-and-carbon-lock-in/ 

Ayandele, E., Bodas, J., Gautam, S., & Velijala, V. (2024c). Sustainable organic waste management: A playbook for Lucknow, India. RMI. Link to source: https://www.teriin.org/policy-brief/sustainable-organic-waste-management-playbook-lucknow-india 

Ayandele, E., Bodas, J., Krishnakumar, A., & Orakwe, L. (2024b). Mitigating methane emissions from municipal solid waste: A playbook for Lagos, Nigeria. RMI. Link to source: https://rmi.org/insight/waste-methaneassessment-platform/

Ayandele, E., Frankiewicz, T., & Garland, E. (2024a). Deploying advanced monitoring technologies at US landfills. RMI. Link to source: https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2024/03/wasteMAP_united_states_playbook.pdf

Ayandele, E., Frankiewicz, T., & Wu, Y. (2024d). A playbook for municipal solid waste methane mitigation. RMI. Link to source: https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2024/03/wastemap_global_strategy_playbook.pdf

Barton, D. (2020). Fourth five-year review report for Fresno municipal sanitary landfill superfund site Fresno county, California. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Link to source: https://semspub.epa.gov/work/09/100021516.pdf 

Brender, J. D., Maantay, J. A., Chakraborty, J. (2011). Residential proximity to environmental hazards and adverse health outcomes. American Journal of Public Health, 101(S1). Link to source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3222489/pdf/S37.pdf 

Cai, B., Lou, Z., Wang, J., Geng, Y., Sarkis, J., Liu, J., & Gao, Q. (2018). CH4 mitigation potentials from China landfills and related environmental co-benefits. Science Advances, 4(7). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aar8400 

Carbon Mapper (2024, March 28). Study finds landfill point source emissions have an outsized impact and opportunity to tackle U.S. waste methane. Link to source: https://carbonmapper.org/articles/studyfinds-landfill 

Casey, J. A., Cushing, L., Depsky, N., & Morello-Frosch, R. (2021). Climate justice and California's methane superemitters: Environmental equity assessment of community proximity and exposure intensity. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(21), 14746–14757. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c04328 

City of Saskatoon. (2023). Landfill gas collection & power generation system. Retrieved September 2, 2024. Link to source: https://www.saskatoon.ca/services-residents/power-water-sewer/saskatoon-light-power/sustainable-electricity/landfill-gas-collection-power-generation-system 

DeFabrizio, S., Glazener, W., Hart, C., Henderson, K., Kar, J., Katz, J., Pratt, M. P., Rogers, M., Ulanov, A., & Tryggestad, C. (2021). Curbing methane emissions: How five industries can counter a major climate threat. McKinsey Sustainability. Link to source: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business%20functions/sustainability/our%20insights/curbing%20methane%20emissions%20how%20five%20industries%20can%20counter%20a%20major%20climate%20threat/curbing-methane-emissions-how-five-industries-can-counter-a-major-climate-threat-v4.pdf 

Dobson, S., Goodday, V., & Winter, J. (2023). If it matters, measure it: A review of methane sources and mitigation policy in Canada. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 16(3-4), 309–429. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000146

Fries, J. (2020, March 26). Unique landfill gas solution found. Penticton Herald. Link to source: https://www.pentictonherald.ca/news/article_874b5c9c-6fb5-11ea-87ce-2b2aedf77300.html 

Garland E., Alves O., Frankiewicz T., & Ayandele E. (2023). Mitigating landfill methane. RMI. Link to source: https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2023/06/landfill_monitoring_memo_series.pdf 

Global Climate & Health Alliance. (2024). Methane & health. Retrieved September 24, 2024. Link to source: https://climateandhealthalliance.org/initiatives/methane-health/ 

Global Methane Initiative. (2022). Policy maker’s handbook for measurement, reporting, and verification in the biogas sector. Link to source: https://www.globalmethane.org/resources/details.aspx?resourceid=5182

Global Methane Initiative (2024). 2023 accomplishments in methane mitigation, recovery, and use through U.S.-supported international efforts. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/gmi/us-government-global-methane-initiative-accomplishments 

Global Methane Pledge (2023). Lowering organic waste methane initiative (LOW-Methane). Retrieved March 6, 2025. Link to source: https://www.globalmethanepledge.org/news/lowering-organic-waste-methane-initiative-low-methane 

Gómez-Sanabria, A., & Höglund-Isaksson, L. (2024). A comprehensive model for promoting effective decision-making and sustained climate change stabilization for South Africa. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Link to source: https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/19897/1/Final_Report_SAFR.pdf

Government of Canada. (2024). Canada gazette, part I, volume 158, number 26: Regulations respecting the reduction in the release of methane (waste sector). Retrieved September 2, 2024. Link to source: https://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2024/2024-06-29/html/reg5-eng.html 

Industrious Labs. (2024a). The hidden cost of landfills. Link to source: https://cdn.sanity.io/files/xdjws328/production/657706be7f29a20fe54692a03dbedce8809721e8.pdf 

Industrious Labs. (2024b). Turning down the heat: How the U.S. EPA can fight climate change by cutting landfill emissions. Link to source: https://cdn.sanity.io/files/xdjws328/production/b562620948374268b8c6da61ec1c44960a8d5879.pdf 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2023). Sixth assessment report (AR6). Link to source: https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/ 

International Energy Agency. (2021). Global methane tracker 2021: Methane abatement and regulation. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/methane-tracker-2021/methane-abatement-and-regulation 

International Energy Agency. (2023). Net zero roadmap: A global pathway to keep the 1.5℃ goal in reach - 2023 update. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-roadmap-a-global-pathway-to-keep-the-15-0c-goal-in-reach 

International Energy Agency. (2025). Methane tracker: Data tools. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/methane-tracker 

IPCC (2006). 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories volume 5 waste. Link to source: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol5.html   

Krause, M. Kenny, S., Stephensons, J. & Singleton, A (2023). Food waste management: Quantifying methane emissions from landfilled food waste. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-10/food-waste-landfill-methane-10-8-23-final_508-compliant.pdf

Malley, C. S., Borgford-Parnell, N. Haeussling, S., Howard, L. C., Lefèvre E. N., & Kuylenstierna J. C. I. (2023). A roadmap to achieve the global methane pledge. Environmental Research: Climate, 2(1). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/2752-5295/acb4b4 

Martin Charlton Communications. (2020). Features: Landfill biocovers. APEGS. Link to source: https://www.apegs.ca/features-landfill-biocovers 

Martuzzi, M., Mitis, F., & Forastiere, F. (2010). Inequalities, inequities, environmental justice in waste management and health. European Journal of Public Health, 20(1), 21–26. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckp216 

MethaneSAT. (n.d.). Solving a crucial climate challenge. Retrieved September 2, 2024. Link to source: https://www.methanesat.org/satellite/ 

Nesser, H., Jacob, D. J., Maasakkers, J. D., Lorente, A., Chen, Z., Lu, X., Shen, L., Qu, Z., Sulprizio, M. P., Winter, M., Ma, S., Bloom, A. A., Worden, J. R., Stavins, R. N., & Randles, C. A. . (2024). High-resolution US methane emissions inferred from an inversion of 2019 TROPOMI satellite data: Contributions from individual states, urban areas, and landfills. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 24, 5069–5091. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-5069-2024 

New York State Government. (2024). Important things to know about landfill gas. Retrieved September 3, 2024. Link to source: https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/air/landfill_gas.htm 

Nisbet, E. G., Fisher, R. E., Lowry, D., France, J. L., Allen, G., Bakkaloglu, S., Broderick, T. J., Cain, M., Coleman, M., Fernandez, J., Forster, G., Griffiths, P. T., Iverach, C. P., Kelly, B. F. J., Manning, M. R., Nisbet-Jones, P. B. R., Pyle, J. A., Townsend-Small, A., al-Shalaan, A., Warwick, N., & Zazeri, G. (2020). Methane mitigation: Methods to reduce emissions,on the path to the Paris agreement. Review of Geophysics, 58(1). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000675 

Ocko, I. B., Sun, T., Shindell, D., Oppenheimer, M. Hristov, A. N., Pacala, S. W., Mauzerall, D. L., Xu, Y. & Hamburg, S. P. (2021). Acting rapidly to deploy readily available methane mitigation measures by sector can immediately slow global warming. Environmental Research, 16(5). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abf9c8 

Olaguer, E. P. (2021). The potential ozone impacts of landfills. Atmosphere, 12(7), 877. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12070877 

Plant, G., Kort, E. A., Brandt, A. R., Chen, Y., Fordice, G., Negron, A. M. G., Schwietzke, S., Smith, M., & Zavala-araiza, D. (2022). Estimates of solid waste disposal rates and reduction targets for landfill gas emissions. Science, 377(6614), 1566–1571. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abq0385 

Powell J. T., Townsend, T. G., & Zimmerman, J. B. (2015). Estimates of solid waste disposal rates and reduction targets for landfill gas emissions. Nature Climate Change, 6, 162-165. Link to source: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2804

Raniga, K., (2024). Waste Sector: Estimating CH4 Emissions from Solid Waste Disposal Sites [Data set]. WattTime, Climate TRACE Emissions Inventory. Retrieved April 21, 2025, from Link to source: https://climatetrace.org

SaveOnEnergy. (2024). Landfills: The truths about trash dumps by the numbers. Retrieved September 2, 2024, from Link to source: https://www.saveonenergy.com/resources/landfill-statistics/ 

Scarapelli, T. R., Cusworth, D. H., Duren, R. M., Kim, J., Heckler, J., Asner, G. P., Thoma, E., Krause, M. J., Heins, D., & Thorneloe, S. (2024). Investigating major sources of methane emissions at US landfills. Environmental Science & Technology. 58(29). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c07572

Scharff, H. Soon, H., Taremwa, S. R., Zegers, D., Dick, B., Zanon, T. V. B., & Shamrock, J. (2023). The impact of landfill management approaches on methane emissions. Waste Management & Research. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X231200742 

Scheutz, C., Pedersen, R. B., Petersen, P. H., Jørgensen, J. H. B., Ucendo, I. M. B., Mønster, J. G., Samuelsson, J., Kjeldsen, P. (2014). Mitigation of methane emission from an old unlined landfill in Klintholm, Denmark using a passive biocover system. Waste Management. 34(7), 1179–1190. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.03.015 

Siddiqua, A., Hahladakis, J.N. & Al-Attiya, W.A.K.A. (2022). An overview of the environmental pollution and health effects associated with waste landfilling and open dumping. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 29, 58514–58536 Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21578-z 

Sperling Hansen Associates (2020). 7 Mile landfill operational biocover study. Link to source: https://www.rdmw.bc.ca/media/2020%2003%2017%207Mile%20Landfill%20Operational%20Biocover%20Study.pdf 

Stern, J. C., Chanton, J., Ahicou, T., Powelson, D., Yuan, L., Escoriza, S. & Bogner, J.. (2007). Use of a biologically active cover to reduce landfill methane emissions and enhance methane oxidation. Waste Management 27(9), 1248–1258. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2006.07.018 

Stone, E. (2023, September 7). Landfills: 'Zombie' landfills emit tons of methane decades after shutting down. Here's why that's a big problem. LAist. Link to source: https://laist.com/news/climate-environment/zombie-landfills-emit-tons-of-methane-decades-after-shutting-down-heres-why-thats-a-big-problem 

Sweeptech. (2022). What is a landfill site’s environmental impact?. Retrieved March 7, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.sweeptech.co.uk/what-is-a-landfill-site-and-how-does-landfill-impact-the-environment/#:~:text=The%20average%20size%20of%20a,for%20these%20massive%20waste%20dumps. 

Tangri, N. (2010). Respect for recyclers: Protecting the climate through zero waste. Gaia. Link to source: https://www.no-burn.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Respect-for-Recyclers-English_1.pdf 

Towprayoon, S., Ishigaki, T., Chiemchaisri, C., & Abdel-Aziz, A. O. (2019). Chapter 3: Solid waste disposal. In 2019 refinement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. International Panel on Climate Change. Link to source: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/pdf/5_Volume5/19R_V5_3_Ch03_SWDS.pdf

Trashcans Unlimited. (2022). Biggest landfill in the world. Retrieved March 7, 2025. Link to source: https://trashcansunlimited.com/blog/biggest-landfill-in-the-world/ 

UN Environment Program. (2021). Global methane assessment: Benefits and costs of mitigating methane emissions. Link to source: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-methane-assessment-benefits-and-costs-mitigating-methane-emissions 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2019). Global non-CO2 greenhouse gas emission projections & mitigation 2015–2050. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/transitioning-low-gwp-alternatives-residential-and-commercial-air

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2024a). Basic information about landfill gas. Retrieved September 2, 2024. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-gas 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2024b). Benefits of landfill gas energy projects. Retrieved September 23, 2024. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/lmop/benefits-landfill-gas-energy-projects 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025). Accomplishments of the landfill methane outreach program. Retrieved March 5, 2025. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/lmop/accomplishments-landfill-methane-outreach-program 

Van Dingenen, R., Crippa, M., Maenhout, G., Guizzardi, D., & Dentener, F. (2018). Global trends of methane emissions and their impacts on ozone concentrations. European Commission. Link to source: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c40e6fc4-dbf9-11e8-afb3-01aa75ed71a1/language-en 

Vasarhelyi, K. (2021, April 15). The hidden damage of landfills. University of Colorado Boulder. Link to source: https://www.colorado.edu/ecenter/2021/04/15/hidden-damage-landfills#:~:text=The%20average%20landfill%20size%20is,liners%20tend%20to%20have%20leaks 

Waste Today. (2019, June 26). How landfill covers can help improve operations. Retrieved April 13, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.wastetodaymagazine.com/news/interim-daily-landfill-covers/ 

Zhang, T. (2020, May 8). Landfill earth: A global perspective on the waste problem. Universitat de Barcelona. Link to source: https://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/170328/1/Landfill%20Eart.%20A%20Global%20Perspective%20on%20the%20Waste%20Problem.pdf 

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Jason Lam

Contributors

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Erika Luna

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

Effectiveness

According to the IPCC, preventing 1 Mt of emitted methane avoids 81.2 Mt CO₂‑eq on a 20-yr basis and 27.9 Mt CO₂‑eq on a 100-yr basis (Smith et al., 2021, Table 1). If the methane is burned (converted into CO₂), the contribution to GHG emissions is still less than that of methane released directly into the atmosphere. Methane abatement can immediately limit future global climate change because of methane’s outsized impact on global temperature change, especially when looking at a 20-yr basis.

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/Mt of methane abated

100-yr GWP 27,900,000
Left Text Column Width
Cost

To abate 1 Mt of methane, GCCS and methane capture have an initial cost of around US$410 million, an operating cost of roughly US$191 million, and revenue in the neighborhood of US$383 million. The net savings over a 30-yr amortization period is US$179 million. This means capturing and selling landfill methane will be a net economic gain for most landfill operators. We included LDAR operating costs in the overall operating costs for GCCS and methane use/destruction, although LDAR can be used prior to installation or with other strategies such as biocovers. We split the median costs for GCCS and methane use/destruction between 20-yr and 100-yr GWP (Table 2a).

Biocovers have an initial cost to abate 1 Mt of methane around US$380 million, operating costs of roughly US$0.4 million, and revenue of about US$0 million, and an overall net cost over a 30-yr amortization period of US$13 million. This means that using biocovers to abate landfill methane has a net cost. If a carbon credit system is in place, biocovers can recoup the costs or generate profits. Biocovers are reported to have lower installation and operation costs than GCCS because they are simpler to install and maintain, and can be used where local regulations might limit a landfill operator’s ability to capture and use methane (Fries, 2020). Table 2b shows that the median costs for biocovers are split between 20-yr and 100-yr GWP.

We found very limited data for the baseline scenario, which follows current practices without methane abatement. We considered the baseline costs to be zero for initial costs, operational costs, and revenue because landfills without management – such as open landfills or sanitary landfills with no methane controls – release methane as part of their regular operations, do not incur added maintenance or capital costs, and lack any energy savings from capturing and using methane.

Few data were available to characterize the initial costs of implementing landfill methane capture. We referenced reports from Ayandele et al. (2024a), City of Saskatoon (2023), DeFabrizio et al. (2021), and Government of Canada (2024), but the context and underlying assumptions costs were not always clear. 

Landfills are typically 202–243 ha (Sweeptech, 2022); however, the size can vary greatly, with the world’s largest landfill covering 890 ha (Trashcans Unlimited, 2022). Because larger landfills make more methane, facility size helps determine which methane management strategies make the most sense. We assumed the average landfill covered 243 ha when converting costs to our common unit. 

Data on revenues from the sale of collected LFG are also limited. We found some reports of revenue generated at a municipal level or monetized benefits from GHG emission reductions priced according to a social cost of methane or carbon credit system (Abichou, 2020; Government of Canada, 2024). These values may not apply at a global scale, especially when the credits are supported by programs such as the United States’ use of Renewable Identification Numbers.

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq

Median (100-yr basis) -6.42
Median (20-yr basis) -2.21

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq

Median (100-yr basis) 0.47
Median (20-yr basis) 0.16
Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

Landfill GCCSs are mature; we do not foresee declining implementation costs for these solutions due to extensive use of the same installation equipment and materials in other industries and infrastructure. Automation of GCCS settings and monitoring may improve efficiencies, but installation costs will stay largely the same. 

Landfill covers are a mature technology, having been used to control odors, fires, litter, and scavenging since 1935 (Barton, 2020). Biocover landfill cover costs could decrease as recycled organic materials are increasingly used in their construction. It is not clear how the cost of biocovers might decrease as adoption grows. 

Though LDAR might provide gains around efficiencies, little research offers insights here.

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.

Improve Landfill Management 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

Approximately 61% of methane generated from food waste happens within 3.6 years of being landfilled (Krause, et al., 2023). In the United States, the EPA requires GCCS to be installed after five years of the landfill closing, meaning that much of the food waste methane will evade GCCS before it is installed (Industrious Labs, 2024b). In contrast, biocovers can quickly (up to three months) reduce methane emissions once the bacteria have established (Stern et al., 2007). GCCS and biocovers should be installed as soon as possible to capture as much of the early methane produced from food waste. Due to unstable methane production during early- and end-of-life gas production, low-calorific flares or biocovers may be needed to destroy any poor-quality gas that has collected. Strategies that prevent organic waste from being deposited at landfills are captured in other Project Drawdown solutions: Deploy Methane Digesters, Increase Composting, and Reduce Food Loss & Waste.

The effectiveness of landfill management depends on methane capture and destruction efficiency. The U.S. EPA previously assumed methane capture efficiency to be 75% and then revised it to 65%; however, the actual recovery rate in the United States is closer to 43% (Industrious Labs, 2024b). 

Our assessment does not include the impact of the CO₂ created from the destruction of methane.

Current Adoption

We found little literature quantifying the current adoption of LFG methane abatement. We estimate that methane capture/use/destruction accounts for approximately 1.6 Mt/yr of abated global methane. 

We did not find unaggregated data about current adoption of biocovers or global data for landfill methane abatement that we could use to allocate the contribution to each landfill methane abatement strategy. A large portion of data for current adoption is from sources focused on landfills in the United States. Around 70 Mt of methane is currently being emitted globally from landfills in 2024 (IEA, 2025; Ocko et al., 2021). 

Table 3a shows the statistical ranges among the sources we found for current adoption of methane capture/use/destruction. We were not able to find sources measuring the current adoption of biocovers and the amount of methane abated and therefore report it as not determined (Table 3b)."

The U.S. EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program helps reduce methane emissions from U.S. landfills. The program has worked with 535 of more than 3,000 U.S. landfills (U.S. EPA, 2024; Vasarhelyi, 2021). Global Methane Initiative (GMI) members abated 4.7 Mt of methane from 2004 to 2023 (GMI, 2024). Because GMI members cover only 70% of human-caused methane emissions overall – including wastewater and agricultural emissions this is an overestimate of current landfill methane abatement. Holley et al. (2024) determined that while some methane abatement was occuring in Mexico, only 0.13 Mt of methane was abated from 2018 to 2020, which is about 12% of Mexico’s 2021 solid waste sector methane emissions. India and Nigeria recently installed some methane capture/use/destruction systems, but these are excluded from our analysis due to unclear data (Ayandele et al., 2024b; Ayandele et al., 2024c). Industrious Labs (2024b) found that GCCS were less common than expected – the U.S. EPA assumes a 75% gas recovery rate for well-managed landfills. A study on Maryland landfills found that only half had GCCS in place, with an average collection efficiency of 59% (Industrious Labs, 2024b). 

Table 3. Current (2023) adoption level.

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

25th percentile 1.26
Mean 1.64
Median (50th percentile) 1.59
75th percentile 2.00

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

25th percentile not determined
Mean not determined
Median (50th percentile) not determined
75th percentile not determined
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Few studies explicitly quantify the adoption of methane abatement technologies over time; we estimated the adoption trend to be 0.22 Mt/yr of methane abated – mainly from methane capture/use/destruction. We were not able to find unaggregated data for the adoption trend of biocovers, so we estimated adoption from the U.S. EPA (2024), GMI (2024), Industrious Labs (2024b), and Van Dingenen et al. (2018). The U.S. EPA (2024) provided adoption data for a limited number of U.S. landfills that showed increasing methane abatement 2000–2013, a plateau 2013–2018, and slower progress 2018–2023 (Figure 2).

GMI (2024) show a gradual increase in methane abatement 2011–2022. However, these data do not differentiate landfill methane abatement from other abatement opportunities, and even include wastewater systems and agriculture. When the GMI (2024) data are used to estimate adoption trends, they result in an overestimate. Van Dingenen et al. (2018) attributed a decreasing trend in landfill methane emissions 1990–2012 to landfill regulations implemented in the 1990s. Table 4a shows statistical ranges among the sources we found for the adoption trend of landfill methane strategies. Due to a lack of sources, we assume a zero value for the adoption trend of biocovers (and the amount of methane abated) as shown in Table 4b.

Table 4. 2011–2022 adoption trend.

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

25th percentile 0.05
Mean 0.38
Median (50th percentile) 0.22
75th percentile 0.54

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

25th percentile 0
Mean 0
Median (50th percentile) 0
75th percentile 0
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

GCCS and methane capture have an estimated adoption ceiling of 70 Mt/yr of methane abated based on the IEA’s (2025) estimate for methane emissions from the landfill waste sector. We assumed that current landfill methane emissions would remain the same into the future with no changes in waste produced or waste diversion employed.

Biocovers have an estimated adoption ceiling of 70 Mt/yr of methane based on the IEA’s (2025) estimate for methane emissions from the landfill waste sector. We assumed that current landfill methane emissions would remain the same into the future with no changes in waste produced or waste diversion employed.

The maximum possible abatement of LFG methane critically depends on the efficiency of the abatement technology; Powell et al. (2015) found that closed landfills (those not actively receiving new waste) were 17% more efficient than open landfills. Even so, research from Nesser et al. (2024) found that the gas capture efficiency among United States landfills was significantly lower than U.S. EPA assumptions – closer to 50% rather than 75%. Industrious Labs (2024b) found that landfill methane emissions could be reduced by up to 104 Mt of methane 2025–2050. Using biocovers and installing GCCS earlier (with consistent operation standards) may help reduce emissions throughout the landfill’s lifespan. Tables 5a and 5b show the adoption ceiling for GCCS and methane use/destruction strategies, and for biocovers when used separately.

Table 5. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

Median (50th percentile) 70

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

Median (50th percentile) 70
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

The amount of methane that can be abated from landfills is highly uncertain due to the difficulty in quantifying where and how much methane is emitted and how much of those emissions can be abated. 

GCCS and methane capture strategies have an achievable adoption range of 5–35 Mt/yr of methane (Table 6a). These values are aligned with estimates from DeFabrizio et al. (2021) and Scharff et al. (2023) for landfill methane abatement. 

Biocovers have an achievable adoption range of 35–57 Mt/yr of methane (Table 6b). This value is aligned with estimates of biocover gas destruction efficiency from Duan et al. (2022) and Scheutz et al. (2014). 

The use of these methane abatement strategies would still release around 13–65 Mt/yr of methane into the atmosphere (IEA, 2025). The amount of methane abated from both GCCS and methane use/destruction strategies and biocovers will vary with what kind of waste reduction and organic diversion is used (which can increase or decrease depending on the amount of organics sent to landfills). 

We referenced CCAC (2024), U.S. EPA (2011), Fries (2020), Industrious Labs (2024b), Lee et al. (2017), and Sperling Hansen (2020) when looking at the achievable adoption for global landfill methane abatement. Several resources focused on landfills in Canada, Denmark, South Korea, and the United States. We based the adoption achievable for biocovers only on sources that include the percentage of gas capture (destruction) efficiency over landfill sites. We exclude studies that include the percentage of biogas oxidized because they focus on specific areas where biocovers were applied. It is important to note that biocovers do not capture methane – they destroy it through methane oxidation. In addition, biocovers’ gas capture efficiency will not reach its optimal rate until the bacteria establishes. It may take up to three months (Stern et al., 2007) for methane oxidation rates to stabilize, and – because environmental changes can impact the bacteria’s methane oxidation rate – the value presented here likely overestimates biocover methane abatement potential in practice. Stern et al. (2007) found that biocovers can be a methane sink and oxidation rates of 100% have been measured at landfills. 

Few studies have examined how methane abatement is affected when all strategies are combined. A single landfill’s total methane abatement would likely increase with each added strategy, the total methane abatement is not expected to be additive between the strategies. For example, If a GCCS system can capture a large portion of LFG methane, then adding a biocover to the same landfill will play a reduced role in methane abatement. The values presented do not consider which geographies are best suited for specific methane abatement strategies. Compared with reality, those values may appear generous. 

Long-term landfill methane abatement will be necessary to manage emissions from previously deposited organic waste. Strong regulations for waste management can encourage methane abatement strategies at landfills and/or reduce the amount of organics sent their way. The infrastructure for these methane abatement strategies can still be employed in geographies without strong regulations. Tables 6a and 6b show the statistical low and high achievable ranges for GCCS and methane use/destruction strategies and for biocovers (when used separately) based on different reported sources for adoption ceilings.

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

Current adoption 1.60
Achievable – low 4.50
Achievable – high 34.78
Adoption ceiling 69.56

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

Current adoption not determined
Achievable – low 35.13
Achievable – high 57.04
Adoption ceiling 69.56
Left Text Column Width

Landfill methane abatement has a high potential for climate impact. 

GCCS and methane capture strategies can significantly reduce landfill GHG emissions (Table 7a).

Biocovers can be a useful strategy for controlling LFG methane (Table 7b) because they can oxidize methane in areas where GCCS and methane use/destruction strategies are not applicable. In addition, this strategy can help destroy methane missed from GCCS and even remove methane from the atmosphere (Stern et al., 2007). The lower cost for installation and operation when compared to installing GCCS systems and increased applicability at landfills large and small are encouraging factors for broadening their use around the world. 

LDAR can help identify methane leaks,allowing for targeted abatement (Industrious Labs, 2024a). 

Research has not quantified how methane abatement is affected by combining these strategies. We anticipate that the total methane abatement would increase with each additional strategy, but we do not expect them to be additive. The general belief is that biocovers are useful for reducing methane emissions in areas where a GCCS cannot be installed and will also help to remove residual methane emissions from GCCS systems. If there is a large increase in waste diversion, the abatement potential could be 0.13–1.59 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr for landfill methane abatement (DeFabrizio et al, 2021; Duan et al., 2022). In this scenario there will also be reduced sources of revenue due to lower LFG methane production affecting the economics.

UNEP (2021) underscored the need for additional methane measures to stay aligned with 1.5 °C scenarios. Meeting these goals requires the implementation of landfill GCCS and biocovers as well as improved waste diversion strategies – such as composting or reducing food loss and waste – to reduce methane emissions. The amount of landfill methane available to abate will grow or shrink depending on the amount of organic waste sent to landfills. Previously deposited organic waste will still produce methane for many years and will still require methane abatement.

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.04
Achievable – low 0.13
Achievable – high 0.97
Adoption ceiling 1.94

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-yr basis

Current adoption 0.13
Achievable – low 0.37
Achievable – high 2.82
Adoption ceiling 5.65

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption not determined
Achievable – low 0.98
Achievable – high 1.59
Adoption ceiling 1.94

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-yr basis

Current adoption not determined
Achievable – low 2.85
Achievable – high 4.63
Adoption ceiling 5.65
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Income and Work

Generating electricity from LFG can create local jobs in drilling, piping, design, construction, and operation of energy projects. In the United States, LFG energy projects can create 10–70 jobs per project (EPA, 2024b).

Health

Landfill emissions can contribute to health issues such as cancer, respiratory and neurological problems, low birth weight, and birth defects (Brender et al., 2011; Industrious Labs, 2024a; Siddiqua et al. 2022). By reducing harmful air pollutants, capturing landfill methane emissions minimizes the health risks associated with exposure to these toxic landfill compounds. Capturing LFG can reduce malodorous landfill emissions – pollutants such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide – that impact human well-being (Cai et al., 2018).

Equality

Landfill management practices that reduce community exposure to air pollution have implications for environmental justice (Casey et al., 2021). A large review of waste sites in the United States and Europe found that landfills are disproportionately located near low-income communities and near neighborhoods with racially and ethnically marginalized populations (Marzutti et al., 2010). Reducing disproportionate exposures to air pollution from landfills may reduce poor health outcomes in surrounding communities (Brender et al., 2011).

Air Quality

Using LFG for energy in place of other non-renewable sources – such as coal or fuel oil – reduces emissions of air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter (EPA, 2024b; Siddiqua et al., 2022). Untreated LFG is also a source of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in low concentrations. Capturing and burning LFG to generate electricity reduces the hazards of these air pollutants. Methane emissions can contribute to landfill fires, which pose risks to the health and safety of nearby communities by releasing black carbon and carbon monoxide (Global Climate & Health Alliance [GCHA], 2024). Reducing landfill fires by capturing methane can also help improve local air quality. Landfill methane emissions can contribute to ozone pollution, particularly when other non-methane ozone precursors are present (Olaguer, 2021). 

Risks

GCCS can be voluntarily implemented with sufficient methane generated by the landfill and favorable natural gas prices, but when natural gas prices are low, it makes less economic sense (IEA, 2021). There is also a risk of encouraging organics to be sent to landfills in order to maintain methane capture rates. Reducing the amount of waste made in the first place will allow us to better utilize our resources and for the organic waste that is created; it can be better served with waste diversion strategies such as composting or methane digesters. 

Without policy support, regulation, carbon pricing mechanism, or other economic incentives – biocover adoption may be limited by installation costs. Some tools (like the United Nations’ clean development mechanism) encourage global landfill methane abatement projects. There have been criticisms of this mechanism’s effectiveness for failing to support waste diversion practices and focusing solely on GCCS and incinerator strategies (Tangri, 2010). Collected LFG methane can be used to reduce GHG emissions for hard to abate sectors but continued reliance on methane for industries where it is easier to switch to clean alternatives could encourage new natural gas infrastructure to be built which risks becoming a stranded asset and locking infrastructure to emitting forms of energy (Auth & Kincer, 2022).

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Landfill management can have a reinforcing impact on other solutions that reduce the amount of methane released to the atmosphere. By using strategies like GCCS, methane destruction, and LDAR, the landfill waste sector can help demonstrate the effectiveness and economic case for abating methane. This would build momentum for widespread adoption of methane abatement because successes in this sector can be leveraged in others as well. For example, processes and tools for identifying methane leaks are useful beyond landfills; LDAR as a key strategy for identifying methane emissions can be applied and studied more widely.

Competing

Landfill management can have a competing impact with solutions that provide clean electricity. Capturing methane uses natural gas infrastructure and can reduce the cost of using methane and natural gas as a fuel source. As a result, it could prolong the use of fossil fuels and slow down the transition to clean electricity sources.

Reducing the release of landfill methane will mean that solutions which divert organic waste from landfills will be less effective relative to landfill disposal.

Dashboard

Solution Basics

Mt methane abated

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
2.79×10⁷
units/yr
Current 1.59 04.534.78
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.04 0.130.97
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-6
Emergency Brake

CH₄, N₂O

Solution Basics

Mt methane abated

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
2.79×10⁷
units/yr
Current Not Determined 035.1357.04
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current Not Determined 0.981.59
US$ per t CO₂-eq
0
Emergency Brake

CH₄, N₂O

Trade-offs

Landfill management strategies outlined in this solution can help to reduce methane emissions that reach the atmosphere. However, the methane used as fuel or destroyed will still emit GHGs. Strategies to capture CO₂ emissions from methane use will be needed to avoid adding any GHG emissions to the atmosphere. Research on this topic takes global methane emissions from landfills in 2023, and assumes they were fully combusted and converted to CO₂ emissions.

Mt CO2–eq/yr
< 0.5
0.5–1
1–3
3–5
> 5

Annual emissions from solid waste disposal sites, 2024

Landfills release methane when organic material breaks down. Globally, municipal solid waste was responsible for about 70 Mt out of the 354 Mt of anthropogenic methane emissions in 2024. This methane contributed 18% of total anthropogenic methane emissions in 2024, and is equivalent to 1,941 Mt CO2-eq based on a 100-year time scale.

Raniga, K., (2024). Waste sector: Estimating CH4 emissions from solid waste disposal sites [Data set]. WattTime, Climate TRACE Emissions Inventory. Retrieved April 21, 2025 from Link to source: https://climatetrace.org

International Energy Agency. (2025). Global methane tracker 2025: Data tools. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/methane-tracker

Mt CO2–eq/yr
< 0.5
0.5–1
1–3
3–5
> 5

Annual emissions from solid waste disposal sites, 2024

Landfills release methane when organic material breaks down. Globally, municipal solid waste was responsible for about 70 Mt out of the 354 Mt of anthropogenic methane emissions in 2024. This methane contributed 18% of total anthropogenic methane emissions in 2024, and is equivalent to 1,941 Mt CO2-eq based on a 100-year time scale.

Raniga, K., (2024). Waste sector: Estimating CH4 emissions from solid waste disposal sites [Data set]. WattTime, Climate TRACE Emissions Inventory. Retrieved April 21, 2025 from Link to source: https://climatetrace.org

International Energy Agency. (2025). Global methane tracker 2025: Data tools. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/methane-tracker

Maps Introduction

Methane emissions from landfills can vary geographically (IPCC, 2006) since rates of organic matter decomposition and methane generation depend on climate. In practice, however, landfill management has a more significant impact on related emissions and is correlated with country income levels.  

Many high-income countries have landfills that are considered sanitary landfills (where waste is covered daily and isolated from the environment) and have high waste collection rates. Basic covers are placed on the landfills to reduce the risk of odor, scavenging, and wildlife accessing the waste, and regulations are in place to manage and capture LFG emissions. These landfills are better prepared to install GCCS and methane use/destruction infrastructure than are other landfills. 

For landfills in low- and middle-income countries, existing waste management practices and regulations vary widely. In countries such as the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Nigeria, waste may not be regularly collected; when it is, it is often placed in open landfills where waste lies uncovered, as documented by Ayandele et al. (2024d). This can harm the environment by attracting scavengers and pest animals to the landfill. When this occurs, methane is more easily released to the atmosphere or burned as waste. the latter process creates pollutants that impact the nearby environment and generate additional GHG emissions.

Overall, managing methane emissions from landfills can be improved everywhere. In high-income countries, stronger regulations can ensure the methane generated from landfills is captured with GCCS and used or destroyed. In low- and middle-income countries, regular waste collection and storage of waste in sanitary landfills need to be implemented first before GCCS technology can be installed. Biocovers can be used around the world but may have the most impact in low- and middle-income countries that lack the expertise or infrastructure to effectively use GCCS methane use or destruction strategies (Ayandele et al., 2024d).

Action Word
Improve
Solution Title
Landfill Management
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Set standards for landfill emissions and goals for reductions.
  • Improve LDAR and emissions estimates by setting industry standards and investing in public research.
  • Mandate early installation of landfill covers and/or GCCSs for new landfills; mandate immediate installation for existing landfills.
  • Set standards for landfill covers and GCCS.
  • Invest in infrastructure to support biogas production and utilization.
  • Regulate industry practices for timely maintenance, such as wellhead turning and equipment monitoring.
  • Set standards for methane destruction, such as high-efficiency flares.
  • Conduct or fund research to fill the literature gap on policy options for landfill methane.
  • Reduce public food waste and loss, invest in infrastructure to separate organic waste before reaching the landfill (see Reduce Food Loss and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Improve LDAR at landfills for surface and fugitive emissions.
  • Install landfill biocovers as well as GCCSs.
  • Invest in infrastructure to support biogas production and utilization.
  • Ensure timely maintenance, such as wellhead turning and equipment monitoring.
  • Improve methane destruction practices, such as using high-efficiency flares.
  • Set goals to reduce landfill methane emissions from operations and help set regional, national, international, and industry reduction goals.
  • Conduct, contribute to, or fund research on technical solutions (e.g., regional abatement strategies) and policy options for landfill methane.
  • Separate food and organic waste from non-organic waste to create separate disposal streams (see Reduce Food Loss & Waste, Increase Centralized Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Contract with waste collection facilities that utilize methane reduction strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, and robust monitoring systems.
  • Require suppliers to meet standards for low-carbon waste management.
  • If your company participates in the voluntary carbon market, fund high-integrity projects that reduce landfill emissions.
  • Proactively collaborate with government and regulatory actors to support policies that abate landfill methane.
  • Reduce your company’s food waste and loss (see Reduce Food Loss & Waste, Increase Centralized Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Contract with waste collection facilities that utilize methane reduction strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, and robust monitoring systems.
  • Assist with monitoring and estimating landfill emissions.
  • Help design policies and regulations that support landfill methane abatement.
  • Publish research on policy options for landfill methane abatement.
  • Join or support efforts such as the Global Methane Alliance.
  • Encourage policymakers to create ambitious targets and regulations.
  • Pressure landfill companies and operators to improve their practices.
  • Reduce your organization’s food waste and loss, separate organic waste from other forms, and compost organic waste (see Reduce Food Loss & Waste, Increase Centralized Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Investors
  • Contract with waste collection facilities that utilize methane reduction strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, and robust monitoring systems.
  • Invest in projects that abate landfill methane emissions.
  • Pressure and influence private landfill operators within investment portfolios to implement methane abatement strategies, noting that some strategies, such as selling captured methane, can be sources of revenue and add value for investors.
  • Pressure and influence other portfolio companies to incorporate waste management and landfill methane abatement into their operations and/or net-zero targets.
  • Provide capital for nascent or regional landfill methane abatement technologies and LDAR instruments.
  • Seek impact investment opportunities, such as sustainability-linked loans in entities that set landfill methane abatement targets.
  • Reduce your company’s food waste and loss, separate organic waste from other forms, and compost organic waste (see Reduce Food Loss & Waste, Increase Centralized Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Contract with waste collection facilities that utilize methane reduction strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, and robust monitoring systems.
  • Provide capital for methane monitoring, de-risking, and abatement in the early stages of implementing landfill methane reduction technologies.
  • Support global, national, and local policies that reduce landfill methane emissions.
  • Support accelerators or multilateral initiatives like the Global Methane Hub.
  • Explore opportunities to fund landfill methane abatement strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, proper methane destruction, monitoring technologies, and other equipment upgrades.
  • Advance awareness of the air quality, public health, and climate benefits of landfill methane abatement.
  • Reduce your organization’s food waste and loss, separate organic waste from other forms, and compost organic waste (see Reduce Food Loss & Waste, Increase Centralized Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • If applicable, contract with waste collection facilities that utilize methane reduction strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, and robust monitoring systems.
  • Provide technical assistance (e.g., monitoring and reporting landfill emissions) to businesses, government agencies, and landfill operators working to reduce methane emissions.
  • Help design policies and regulations that support landfill methane abatement.
  • Educate the public on the urgent need to abate landfill methane.
  • Join or support joint efforts such as the Global Methane Alliance.
  • Advocate to policymakers for more ambitious targets and regulations for landfill emissions.
  • Pressure landfill operators to improve their practices.
  • Reduce your food waste and loss, separate organic waste from other forms, and compost organic waste (see Reduce Food Loss & Waste, Increase Centralized Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Develop new LDAR technologies that reduce cost and required capacity.
  • Develop new biocover technologies sensitive to regional supply chains and/or availability of materials.
  • Improve methane destruction practices to reduce CO₂ emissions.
  • Research and improve estimates of landfill methane emissions.
  • Create new mechanisms to reduce public food waste and loss, and separate organic waste from landfill waste (see Reduce Food Loss & Waste, Increase Centralized Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • If possible, contract with waste collection facilities that utilize methane reduction strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, and robust monitoring systems.
  • If harmful landfill management practices impact you, document your experiences.
  • Share documentation of harmful practices and/or other key messages with policymakers, the press, and the public.
  • Advocate to policymakers for more ambitious targets and regulations for landfill emissions.
  • Support public education efforts on the urgency and need to address landfill methane.
  • Reduce your food waste and loss, separate organic waste from other forms, and compost organic waste (see Reduce Food Loss & Waste, Increase Centralized Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in abating landfill methane emissions: High

There is a high consensus that methane abatement technologies are effective; they can often be deployed cost effectively with an immediate mitigating effect on climate change. 

Though many strategies are universally agreed-upon as effective, waste management practices vary between countries from what we found in our research. China, India, and the United States are the three largest G20 generators of municipal solid waste, though much of the data used in our assessment are from Western countries (Zhang, 2020). Ocko et al. (2021) found that economically feasible methane abatement options (including waste diversion) could reduce 80% of landfill methane emissions from 2020 levels by 2030. Methane abatement can reduce methane emissions from existing organic waste – which Stone (2023) notes can continue for more than 30 years. 

Scharff et al. (2023) found capture efficiencies of 10–90% depending on the LFG strategy used. They compared passive methods, late control of the landfill life, and early gas capture at an active landfill. The U.S. EPA (Krause et al., 2023) found that 61% of methane generated by food waste – which breaks down relatively quickly – evades gas capture systems at landfills. This illustrates how early installation of these capture systems can greatly help reduce the total amount of methane emitted from landfills. The U.S. EPA findings also highlight the potential impact of diverting organic waste from landfills, preventing LFG from being generated in the first place. 

Ayandele et al. (2024c) found that the working face of a landfill can be a large source of LFG and suggest that timely landfill covers – biocover-style or otherwise – can reduce methane released; timing of abatement strategies is important. Daily and interim landfill covers can prevent methane escape before biocovers are installed. 

Biocovers have a reported gas destruction rate of 26–96% (U.S. EPA, 2011; Lee et al., 2017). They could offer a cost-effective way to manage any LFG that is either missed by GCCS systems or emitted in the later stages of the landfill when LFG production decreases and is no longer worth capturing and selling (Martin Charlton Communications, 2020; Nisbet et al., 2020; Sperling Hansen Associates, 2020). Biocovers can also be applied soon after organic waste is deposited at a landfill as daily or interim covers where it is not as practical to install GCCS infrastructure and gas production has not yet stabilized (Waste Today, 2019). Scarapelli et al. (2024) found in the landfills they studied that emissions from working faces are poorly monitored and 79% of the observed emissions originated from landfill work faces. Covering landfill waste with any type of landfill cover (biocover or not), will reduce the work face emissions. 

LDAR can reduce landfill methane emissions by helping to locate the largest methane leaks and so allowing for more targeted abatement strategies. LDAR can also help identify leaks in landfill covers or in the GCCS infrastructure (Industrious Labs, 2024a). 

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 24 reviews and meta-analyses and 26 original studies reflecting current evidence from six countries, Canada, China, Denmark, Mexico, South Korea, and the United States, and from sources examining global landfill methane emissions. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

Appendix

The following figures provide examples of where methane can escape from landfills and where sources of emissions have been found. This shows the difficulty in identifying where methane emissions are coming from and the importance of well maintained infrastructure to ensure methane is being abated.

Figure A1. Sources of methane emissions at landfills. Source: Garland et al. (2023).

Diagram of landfill components and emissions sources

Source: Garland E., Alves O., Frankiewicz T., & Ayandele E. (2023). Mitigating landfill methane. RMI. Link to source: https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2023/06/landfill_monitoring_memo_series.pdf 

Enable Download
On

Figure A2. Source of methane leaks at landfills. Source: Ayandele et al. (2024a).

Pie chart

Source: Ayandele, E., Frankiewicz, T., & Garland, E. (2024a). Deploying advanced monitoring technologies at US landfills. RMI. 

Enable Download
On
Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Under Revision

Deploy Offshore Wind Turbines

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

Offshore wind turbines are ocean-based machines that harness natural wind to generate electricity. These turbines use the relatively strong winds over the water to rotate their blades, which power a generator to make electricity. The electricity travels through underwater cables to reach the land. There are two main types: fixed-bottom turbines, which are attached to the seabed in shallow waters (typically up to 60 meters deep), and floating turbines, which sit on platforms anchored in deeper waters. Offshore wind farms can produce more electricity than land-based wind farms because ocean winds are usually stronger and steadier than winds on land.

Deploying additional offshore wind turbines reduces CO₂ emissions by increasing the availability of renewable energy sources to meet electricity demand, therefore reducing dependence on fossil fuel-based sources in the overall electricity grid mix.

Income & work,Health
Nature protection,Air quality
Description for Social and Search
Deploy Offshore Wind is a Highly Recommended climate solution. It offers immense clean energy potential but faces challenges of high costs and competing uses of the seas.
Overview

An estimated 23% of global GHG emissions (100-yr basis) comes from electricity generation (Clarke et al., 2022); in 2022, more than 60% of global electricity generation came from fossil fuel–based energy sources (International Energy Agency [IEA], 2024a).

Offshore wind turbines generate electricity by converting the energy from rotating turbine blades into electrical energy. The main components of offshore wind turbines include rotor blades, a tower to raise the rotor above the water, a nacelle hub that houses the generator and other key components, and a foundation that stabilizes the structure in the water. Offshore wind farms require additional infrastructure to transport generated energy through undersea cables to transformers and power substations before electricity can be supplied to consumers (Figure 1). To optimize performance, offshore turbines often use advanced control systems (e.g., yaw, pitch, and safety sensors).

Figure 1. Simplified schematic of an offshore wind power system, showing electricity flow from wind turbines through array cables, offshore and onshore substations, and transmission and distribution infrastructure to end users.

Schematic diagram of an offshore wind power system.

Source: Ørsted (n.d.) 

Offshore wind turbines are often placed far from the coast to avoid causing noise pollution or taking up space on land. Foundations can be fixed to the seafloor (fixed-bottom) or floating depending on water depth and other characteristics, such as seabed topography and operational logistics (Afridi et al., 2024). Most offshore wind turbines operating in 2023 were fixed-bottom and limited to seafloor depths around 50 meters. Floating wind farms access wind resources over deeper waters, up to 1,000 meters (de La Beaumelle et al., 2023). 

Wind speeds over water are generally higher and more consistent than over land, which allows for more reliable and increased electricity generation. Potential power generated from offshore wind turbines is directly proportional to the swept area of the rotor blades and the wind speed cubed; a doubling of wind speed corresponds to an eightfold increase in power (U.S. Energy Information Administration [U.S. EIA], 2024). The maximum electrical power a turbine can generate is its capacity in MW. The average installed offshore wind turbine rating grew from 7.7 MW in 2022 to 9.7 MW in 2023 (McCoy et al., 2024), with the total global installed capacity reaching 75.2 gigawatts (GW) in 2023 (Global Wind Energy Council [GWEC], 2024).

The global weighted average capacity factor for offshore wind turbines has reached 41% (International Renewable Energy Agency [IRENA], 2024c) – an increase from 38% a decade earlier – driven by advancements in turbine efficiency, hub height, rotor diameter, and siting optimization. Our analysis assumed an offshore wind turbine capacity factor of 41% (IRENA, 2024c). Offshore wind capacity varies across regions due to differences in policy support, coastal geography, water depths, and infrastructure readiness. Electric power output can be converted to energy generated by multiplying capacity by the time interval and the capacity factor. For annual generation, we multiply by 8,760 hours for one year.

The main siting considerations for offshore wind farms are distance from shore and water depth, but energy output can also be impacted by atmospheric wind conditions as well as the configuration of turbines within a wind farm (de La Beaumelle et al., 2023; IRENA, 2024c). Protected areas are also excluded during siting.

Since wind is a clean and renewable resource, offshore wind turbines do not contribute to GHG emissions or air pollution while generating energy. There are emissions associated with the manufacturing and transportation of turbine components. For this assessment, we did not quantify emissions during the construction of offshore wind farms; these emissions can be addressed with industry-sector solution assessments. Increased deployment of offshore wind turbines contributes to reduced CO₂ emissions when it reduces the need for electricity generation from fossil fuels.

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 and World Ecology, 27(8), 718–731. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1768171 

Afridi, S. K., Koondhar, M. A., Jamali, M. I., Alaas, Z. M., 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 

Akhtar, N., Geyer, B., Rockel, B., Sommer, P. S., & Schrum, C. (2021). Accelerating deployment of offshore wind energy alter wind climate and reduce future power generation potentials. Scientific Reports, 11(1), Article 11826. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-91283-3 

Akhtar, N., Geyer, B., & Schrum, C. (2024). Larger wind turbines as a solution to reduce environmental impacts. Scientific Reports, 14(1), Article 6608. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-56731-w 

Alsaleh, A., & Sattler, M. (2019). Comprehensive life cycle assessment of large wind turbines in the US. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 21(4), 887–903. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-019-01678-0 

Atilgan Turkmen, B., & Germirli Babuna, F. (2024). Life cycle environmental impacts of wind turbines: A path to sustainability with challenges. Sustainability, 16(13), Article 5365. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/SU16135365 

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. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, 10(5), Article e398. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/WENE.398 

Bills, G. (2021). Turbine lifetime limits require a reality check | News+ | IJGlobal. Link to source: https://www.ijglobal.com/articles/157132/turbine-lifetime-limits-require-a-reality-check 

Bosch, J., Staffell, I., & Hawkes, A. D. (2018). Temporally explicit and spatially resolved global offshore wind energy potentials. Energy, 163, 766–781. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2018.08.153 

Buonocore, J. J., Luckow, P., Fisher, J., Kempton, W., & Levy, J. I. (2016). Health and climate benefits of offshore wind facilities in the Mid-Atlantic United States. Environmental Research Letters, 11(7), Article 074019. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/7/074019 

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

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://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-091140 

Degraer, S., Carey, D. A., Coolen, J. W. P., Hutchison, Z. L., Kerckhof, F., Rumes, B., & Vanaverbeke, J. (2020). Offshore wind farm artificial reefs affect ecosystem structure and functioning: A synthesis. Oceanography, 33(4), 48–57. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2020.405 

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

E2. (2023). California’s offshore wind opportunity. Link to source: https://e2.org/reports/ca-offshore-wind-opportunity-2022/ 

Energy Sector Management Assistance Program. (n.d.). Offshore wind technical potential | Analysis and maps; Link to source: https://www.esmap.org/esmap_offshorewind_techpotential_analysis_maps 

Energy Sector Management Assistance Program. (2019). Going global: Expanding offshore wind to emerging markets. World Bank Group. Link to source: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/716891572457609829/Going-Global-Expanding-Offshore-Wind-To-Emerging-Markets 

Galparsoro, I., Menchaca, I., Garmendia, J. M., Borja, Á., Maldonado, A. D., Iglesias, G., & Bald, J. (2022). Reviewing the ecological impacts of offshore wind farms. npj Ocean Sustainability, 1, Article 1. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44183-022-00003-5 

Global Wind Energy Council. (2024). Global offshore wind report 2024.  Link to source: https://26973329.fs1.hubspotusercontent-eu1.net/hubfs/26973329/2.%20Reports/Global%20Offshore%20Wind%20Report/GOWR24.pdf 

Global Wind Energy Council. (2025). Global offshore wind report 2025. Link to source: https://26973329.fs1.hubspotusercontent-eu1.net/hubfs/26973329/2.%20Reports/Global%20Offshore%20Wind%20Report/GOWR25.pdf 

Global Wind Energy Council, & Global Wind Organization. (2021). Global wind workforce outlook 2021–2025. Link to source: https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5ce6247122f44f2bd5edebbe/60b534c0e5ca5c6c4c4705b0_GWWO%20v4.pdf 

Gonyo, S. B., Fleming, C. S., Freitag, A., & Goedeke, T. L. (2021). Resident perceptions of local offshore wind energy development: Modeling efforts to improve participatory processes. Energy Policy, 149, Article 112068; Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2020.112068

Haggett, C. (2011). Understanding public responses to offshore wind power. Energy Policy, 39(2), 503–510. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2010.10.014 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (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 (The Core Writing Team, H. Lee, & J. Romero, Eds.) [Synthesis report]. Link to source: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_FullVolume.pdf 

International Energy Agency. (2019). Offshore wind outlook 2019. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/offshore-wind-outlook-2019 

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

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

International Energy Agency, & Nuclear Energy Agency. (2020). Projected costs of generating electricity – 2020 edition [Report]. OECD Publishing. Link to source: https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-12/egc-2020_2020-12-09_18-26-46_781.pdf 

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2024a). Floating offshore wind outlook. Link to source: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2024/Jul/IRENA_G7_Floating_offshore_wind_outlook_2024.pdf 

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2024b). Renewable energy statistics 2024. Link to source: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2024/Jul/IRENA_Renewable_Energy_Statistics_2024.pdf 

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2024c). 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, & Global Wind Energy Council. (2023). Enabling frameworks for offshore wind scale up: Innovations in permitting. Link to source: https://www.energycentral.com/renewables/post/irena-enabling-frameworks-offshore-wind-scale---innovations-permitting-vZRn6mKeZ1hBX0n 

Jansen, M., Staffell, I., Kitzing, L., Quoilin, S., Wiggelinkhuizen, E., Bulder, B., Riepin, I., & Müsgens, F. (2020). Offshore wind competitiveness in mature markets without subsidy. Nature Energy, 5(8), 614–622. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-0661-2 

Kaldellis, J. K., & Apostolou, D. (2017). Life cycle energy and carbon footprint of offshore wind energy. Comparison with onshore counterpart. Renewable Energy, 108, 72–84. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2017.02.039 

Lazard. (2023, April). LCOE+ [PowerPoint slides]. Link to source: https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf

Letcher, T. M. (Ed.). (2023). Wind energy engineering : A handbook for onshore and offshore wind turbines (2nd ed.). Academic Press. Link to source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780323993531/wind-energy-engineering 

Lopez, A., Green, R., Williams, T., Lantz, E., Buster, G., & Roberts, B. (2022). Offshore wind energy technical potential for the contiguous United States [Report]. Link to source: https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/83650.pdf 

McCoy, A., Musial, W., Hammond, R., Mulas Hernando, D., Duffy, P., Beiter, P., Pérez, P., Baranowski, R., Reber, G., & Spitsen, P. (2024). Offshore wind market report: 2024 edition (NREL/TP-5000-90525) [Technical report]. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Link to source: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/90525.pdf 

Mello, G., Ferreira Dias, M., & Robaina, M. (2020). Wind farms life cycle assessment review: CO2 emissions and climate change. Energy Reports, 6, 214–219. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYR.2020.11.104 

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 

Nagababu, G., Srinivas, B. A., Kachhwaha, S. S., Puppala, H., & Kumar, S. V. V. A. (2023). Can offshore wind energy help to attain carbon neutrality amid climate change? A GIS-MCDM based analysis to unravel the facts using CORDEX-SA. Renewable Energy, 219, Article 119400; Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2023.119400 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (n.d.). Offshore wind energy: Assessing impacts to marine life. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries. Retrieved August 6, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/offshore-wind-energy/assessing-impacts-to-marine-life 

Ørsted (n.d.) How does offshore wind power work? Retrieved July 8, 2025, from Link to source: https://orsted.com/en/what-we-do/renewable-energy-solutions/offshore-wind/technology

Peach, S. (2021, June 30). What’s the carbon footprint of a wind turbine? Yale Climate Connections. Link to source: https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/06/whats-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-wind-turbine/ 

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 

Ren, Z., Zhang, S., Liu, H., Pu, L., Wang, X., Wang, Z., Wu, M., & Chen, Z. (2025). The environmental and public health benefits of offshore wind power deployment in China. Environmental Science & Technology, 59(1), 315–327. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c06125 

Rubin, E. S., Azevedo, I. M. L., Jaramillo, P., & Yeh, S. (2015). A review of learning rates for electricity supply technologies. Energy Policy, 86, 198–218. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2015.06.011 

Schlömer, S., Bruckner, T., Fulton, L., Hertwich, E., McKinnon, A., Perczyk, D., Roy, J., Schaeffer, R., Sims, R., Smith, P., & Wiser, R. (2014). Annex III: Technology-specific cost and performance parameters. In O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel, & J. C. Minx (Eds.), Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf 

Shawhan, D., Robson, S., & Russell, E. (2025). Offshore wind power examined: Effects, benefits, and costs of offshore wind farms along the US Atlantic and Gulf Coasts (Working Paper No. 24-17). Resources for the Future. Link to source: https://media.rff.org/documents/WP_24-17_2.25_Update.pdf 

Shields, M., Beiter, P., & Nunemaker, J. (2022). A systematic framework for projecting the future cost of offshore wind energy (NREL/TP-5000-81819) [Technical report]. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Link to source: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/81819.pdf 

Stefek, J., Constant, C., Clark, C., Tinnesand, H., Christol, C., & Baranowski, R. (2022). U.S. offshore wind workforce assessment (NREL/TP-5000-81798) [Technical report]. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Link to source: https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/81798.pdf 

TNO, & BLIX Consultancy. (2021). Pathways to potential cost reductions for offshore wind energy [Technical report]. Link to source: https://topsectorenergie.nl/documents/332/20210125_RAP_Pathways_to_potential_cost_reduction_offshore_wind_energy_F03.pdf 

Tumse, S., Bilgili, M., Yildirim, A., & Sahin, B. (2024). Comparative Analysis of Global Onshore and Offshore Wind Energy Characteristics and Potentials. Sustainability, 16(15), Article 6614. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/SU16156614 

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2023). Levelized costs of new generation resources in the annual energy outlook 2023. Link to source: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/pdf/AEO2023_LCOE_report.pdf 

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2024, June 12). Wind explained: Where wind power is harnessed. Link to source: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/where-wind-power-is-harnessed.php

Wilhelmsson, D., Malm, T., & Öhman, M. C. (2006). The influence of offshore windpower on demersal fish. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 63(5), 775–784. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ICESJMS.2006.02.001 

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(5), 555–565. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-021-00810-z 

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

World Economic Forum. (2025). Nature positive: Role of the offshore wind sector [Insight report]. Link to source: https://www.weforum.org/publications/nature-positive-transitions-sectors/offshore-wind-sector/ 

World Forum Offshore Wind. (2024). Global offshore wind report 2023. Link to source: https://wfo-global.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/WFO-Report-2024Q1.pdf 

Yuan, W., Feng, J.-C., Zhang, S., Sun, L., Cai, Y., Yang, Z., & Sheng, S. (2023). Floating wind power in deep-sea area: Life cycle assessment of environmental impacts. Advances in Applied Energy, 9, Article 100122. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ADAPEN.2023.100122 

Zhou, F., Tu, X., & Wang, Q. (2022). Research on offshore wind power system based on Internet of Things technology. International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, 17, 645–650. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/IJLCT/CTAC049 

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Michael Dioha, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

Internal Reviewers

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

  • Amanda Smith, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

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). To convert from MWh to MW, we used the global weighted average capacity factor for offshore wind turbines of 41% (IRENA, 2024c). We estimated offshore wind turbines to reduce 1,900 t CO₂‑eq /MW (1,900 t CO₂‑eq /MW, 20-yr basis) of installed capacity annually (Table 1).

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

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

Estimate 1900
Left Text Column Width

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

During operation, offshore wind turbines do not emit GHGs, so we assumed zero emissions per MW of installed capacity. However, emissions arise during the manufacturing of components, transportation, installation, maintenance, and decommissioning (Atilgan Turkmen & Germirli Babuna, 2024; Kaldellis & Apostolou, 2017; Mello et al., 2020; Yuan et al., 2023). Life-cycle analyses estimate that lifetime GHG emissions of offshore wind turbines are approximately 25.76 g CO₂‑eq /kWh of electricity generated (Yuan et al., 2023).

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 offshore wind turbines of US$96/MWh based on three industry reports (IEA, 2024b; IRENA, 2024c; Nuclear Energy Agency & IEA, 2020). LCOE is a widely used metric that allows for cost comparison across generation technologies, incorporating installed capital costs, operation and maintenance, project lifespan, and energy output. Between 2010–2023, the global weighted average LCOE for offshore wind fell by 63%, from US$203/MWh to US$75/MWh, reflecting improvements in turbine size, supply chains, and regulatory support (IRENA, 2024c). 

Regional costs vary significantly. Denmark had the lowest LCOE in 2023 at US$48/MWh due to favorable siting conditions and grid cost exemptions. The UK and Germany achieved the largest LCOE reductions since 2010, of 73% and 67%, respectively (IRENA, 2024c). In contrast, recent U.S. estimates exceed US$120/MWh for unsubsidized projects (McCoy et al., 2024), reflecting higher labor costs, permitting challenges, and nascent supply chains. Lazard (2023) reports a broad range of US$72–140/MWh, emphasizing how siting, project size, and technology selection influence cost outcomes.

These values mask substantial variability and project-specific risk factors. LCOEs are highly sensitive to financing terms, interest rates, permitting delays, regional grid integration requirements, and the availability of local supply chains. For context, offshore wind costs are increasingly competitive with fossil fuel–based power generation, which ranges between US$70–176/MWh (IRENA, 2024c). Offshore wind gigawatt-scale potential near load centers makes it a good potential option for decarbonizing coastal grids.

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

Offshore wind turbines exhibit a clear learning curve, with costs declining as deployment scales and the technology matures. Learning rates for offshore wind could vary from 7.2–43%, depending on the type of costs considered, study period, technological advancements, and regional conditions. Most of the cost decline is driven by reductions in capital expenditure, particularly from larger turbines, improved manufacturing, streamlined installation, and economies of scale.

According to IRENA (2024c), the global weighted-average installed cost of offshore wind between 2010–2023 reflects a learning rate of 14.2%. Modeling by the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimates capital cost reductions per doubling of installed capacity at 8.8% for fixed-bottom turbines and 11.5% for floating turbines (Shields et al., 2022). European forecasts suggest that ongoing innovation and learning by doing could reduce offshore wind’s LCOE by up to 25% by 2030 relative to 2020, with learning rates of 6–12% (TNO & BLIX, 2021).

Earlier meta-analyses found offshore wind learning rates of 5–19% between 1985–2001, driven by improved turbine design and installation methods (Rubin et al., 2015). More recent assessments focused on 2010–2016 suggest capital cost learning rates of 10–12% (Beiter et al., 2021). Looking ahead, global experts project cost reductions of 37–49% by 2050 due to continued technological progress (Wiser et al., 2021).

Learning rates also vary by geography. Mature markets like Europe benefit from robust supply chains and permitting frameworks, leading to faster cost declines. On the other hand, emerging markets face higher initial costs and slower learning trajectories. We estimated a 15.8% median global learning rate for offshore wind, implying a 15.8% reduction in LCOE for each doubling of installed capacity (Table 2).

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

Unit: %

25th percentile 11.9
Mean 15.8
Median (50th percentile) 15.8
75th percentile 19.6
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 Offshore 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

One limitation of our approach is the assumption that each additional MWh generated by offshore wind turbines displaces an equivalent MWh of the existing grid mix. This simplification implies that new offshore wind may, at times, displace other renewables such as onshore wind, 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, as emerging evidence suggests that in some cases, wind generation tends to displace a larger share of fossil-fuel output than assumed in average grid-mix methods (e.g., Millstein et al., 2024). While offshore wind avoids many of the land-use constraints associated with onshore wind, it introduces unique challenges that may limit scaling. These include high up-front capital costs, limited port infrastructure, specialized vessels, and supply-chain constraints for large components such as floating platforms and subsea cables. There is also growing competition for ocean space from fisheries, marine conservation zones, and shipping corridors (IEA, 2019).

Like all large-scale infrastructure, offshore wind systems face some risk of early retirement or component failure, which can affect their life-cycle emissions. However, because offshore wind turbines produce zero emissions during operation, any electricity they generate displaces fossil-based power and avoids associated emissions. These benefits are not reversed if a turbine is decommissioned early. Most offshore wind turbines operate for 25–30 years, with newer designs expected to exceed this lifespan (Bills, 2021; IEA, 2019). The bulk of their life-cycle emissions are front-loaded, arising from manufacturing, transportation, and installation. As a result, early retirement reduces the amount of clean electricity generated over the turbine’s lifetime, but it does not erase the emissions already avoided during its operation.

Current Adoption

As of 2023, the global installed capacity for offshore wind energy reached approximately 73,000 MW (Table 3; IRENA, 2024b). Although we used 2023 as our baseline for current adoption, in 2024 an additional 10,000 MW of offshore wind capacity was installed, bringing the global total to over 83,000 MW (GWEC, 2025).

Table 3. Current adoption level, 2023.

Unit: MW installed capacity

Total 73,000
Left Text Column Width

China currently leads in offshore wind deployment, accounting for more than 40 GW, or over half of the global installed capacity. Adoption remains negligible in many countries with several regions – particularly in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Southeast Asia – reporting minimal or no offshore wind installations to date, despite their huge potential (GWEC, 2025). For example, the United States, despite its vast technical potential, had installed only 41 MW by 2023 (IRENA, 2024b).

The global offshore wind market has gained significant momentum in recent years. A record number of new installations occurred in 2021, with continued but slower growth in 2022 and 2023. The most active markets remain concentrated in Asia and Europe, with China, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands leading in cumulative capacity. The European Union collectively reached 18.1 GW by 2023 (IRENA, 2024b), driven by favorable policy environments and advanced maritime infrastructure (IRENA, 2024a).

Adoption Trend

Global offshore wind capacity has grown rapidly, expanding from less than 1 GW in 2000 to about 73 GW by 2023 (Figure 2), reflecting technological progress, supportive policies, and accelerating investment. 

Figure 2. Global offshore wind turbine installed capacity, 2000–2023. Global offshore wind capacity expanded from less than 1 GW in 2000 to about 73 GW by 2023, reflecting rapid technological progress, supportive policies, and accelerating investment in clean energy.

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2024). Renewable capacity statistics 2024. https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2024/Mar/IRENA_RE_Capacity_Statistics_2024.pdf

Enable Download
On
Enable Download
Off

We calculated global adoption for each year 2013–2023 and took the year-to-year difference. The adoption trend of offshore wind energy from 2013–2023 reveals a rapid and accelerating growth trajectory with significant regional disparities. Globally, installed capacity expanded from 7,200 MW in 2013 to 73,000 MW in 2023, reflecting a 10-fold increase over the decade. The most dramatic acceleration occurred in 2020–2021, when global capacity jumped from 34,000 MW to 54,000 MW. Comparing year-to-year global adoption, the mean global adoption trend was adding approximately 6,000 MW of installed capacity per year (Table 4), but expansion was unevenly distributed geographically. 

Table 4. Adoption trend, 2013–2023.

Unit: MW installed capacity/yr

25th percentile 3,000
Mean 6,000
Median (50th percentile) 5,000
75th percentile 7,000
Left Text Column Width

Regionally, Asia demonstrated the most remarkable growth. This growth was particularly pronounced in 2020–2021, when capacity soared from 9,400 MW to 28,000 MW, largely driven by China’s rapid deployment. Meanwhile, Europe also experienced steady growth, with installed capacity increasing from 8,000 MW in 2014 to 33,000 MW in 2023. In contrast, North America lags behind, with only 41 MW of installed capacity recorded as of 2023, indicating slow current adoption trends. The slow adoption of offshore wind technology in North America may be attributed to various factors, including regulatory and social barriers as well as high interest rates (McCoy et al., 2024). 

Looking ahead, according to forecasts from the World Forum Offshore Wind (WFO, 2024), global offshore wind capacity is anticipated to reach 414 GW by 2032. The GWEC projects more than 350 GW of new offshore wind capacity in 2025–2034, with annual additions surpassing 30 GW by 2030 and 50 GW by 2033, bringing total capacity to about 441 GW by 2034 (GWEC, 2025).

Adoption Ceiling

The adoption ceiling for offshore wind turbines (Table 5) is determined by the technology’s global technical potential, representing the theoretical maximum deployment based on physical resource availability. Offshore wind benefits from vast oceanic areas with higher and more consistent wind speeds than onshore sites. However, its realizable potential is shaped by factors such as water depth, distance to shore, seabed conditions, regional wind patterns, and technological limitations.

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

Unit: MW installed capacity

25th percentile 58,000,000
Mean 62,000,000
Median (50th percentile) 62,000,000
75th percentile 67,000,000
Left Text Column Width

Estimates of offshore wind’s technical potential vary widely. A meta-analysis by de La Beaumelle et al. (2023) found values of 4.17–626 petawatt-hours (PWh)/year, with a median of 193 PWh/year. The World Bank’s Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) analysis (2019; n.d.) suggests over 71,000 GW of global offshore wind potential, with more than 70% located in deep waters suitable only for floating turbines. Roughly 25% of this resource lies within low- and middle-income countries, offering major opportunities for clean energy expansion.

Technical potential is typically calculated using wind speed maps, turbine power curves, and water depth data. For example, the ESMAP-IFC 2019 study identified 3.1 terawatts (TW) of potential across eight emerging markets using global wind and ocean depth data (ESMAP, 2019). These figures, however, do not reflect constraints such as economics, regulation, infrastructure, or marine uses that would compete with offshore wind (ESMAP, 2019). Challenges like ecological impact, permitting, and grid integration could significantly reduce practical deployment.

Despite these hurdles, offshore wind’s potential remains vast. For this analysis, we defined the adoption ceiling using installable capacity rather than generation output to avoid forecasting uncertainty. Based on the literature, we estimated an adoption ceiling of 62,000,000 MW. The scaling of floating wind turbines, especially in deep waters, will be critical to unlocking this resource, and will require continued innovation and policy support (Tumse et al., 2024).

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 offshore wind turbines based on the Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS) and Announced Pledges Scenario (APS) (IEA, 2024b).

Achievable – Low

The low achievable adoption level is based on STEPS, which captured the current trajectory for increased adoption of offshore wind energy as well as future projections based on existing and announced policies. Under this scenario, offshore wind capacity is projected to increase more than 13-fold from 73,000 MW to 1,000,000 MW by 2050 (Table 6). This corresponds to an average compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10.2%.

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: MW installed capacity

Current adoption 73,000
Achievable – low 1,000,000
Achievable – high 1,600,000
Adoption ceiling 62,000,000
Left Text Column Width

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, offshore wind capacity is projected to increase by a magnitude of approximately 22, from 73,000 MW to 1,600,000 MW by 2050 (Table 6). This would require a CAGR of roughly 12.1% over the same period.

Using our adoption ceiling of 62 million MW, the current adoption of offshore wind turbines constitutes approximately 0.1% of its technical potential. The achievable adoption range, as calculated, is 1.6–2.6% of this potential.

Using baseline global adoption and effectiveness, we estimated the current total climate impact of offshore wind turbines to be approximately 0.14 Gt CO₂‑eq (0.14 Gt CO₂‑eq , 20-yr basis) of reduced emissions per year (Table 7). We estimated future 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. Assuming global policies on offshore wind power – both existing and announced – are backed with adequate implementation provisions, global adoption could reach 1 million MW by 2050. This would result in an increased emissions reduction of approximately 1.9 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, offshore wind adoption could reach 1.6 million MW by 2050. This would lead to an estimated 3.0 Gt CO₂‑eq of reduced emissions per year. 

Table 7. Annual climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.14
Achievable – low 1.9
Achievable – high 3.0
Adoption ceiling 120
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). Offshore wind turbine installed capacity is unlikely to reach 62 million MW, but if current grid emissions remained constant while capacity increased, GHG emission reductions would be approximately 120 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 total income and employment in high-income and 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 & Global Wind Organization, 2021; World Bank Group, 2021). As the offshore wind sector expands, so will the demand for workers. A report from NREL estimated that U.S. offshore wind projects between 2024–2030 will require an annual average of 15,000–58,000 full-time workers (Stefek et al., 2022). In California, planned and proposed offshore wind farms would add about 5,750 jobs and US$15 billion in wages and further contribute to the local economy by generating tax revenue (E2, 2023). Offshore wind could also strengthen energy security by diversifying the power mix and reducing dependence on imported fuels.

Health

Reduction in air pollution directly translates into health benefits and avoided premature mortality. Simulations of offshore wind projects in China estimate that reductions in air pollution could prevent about 165,000 premature deaths each year (Ren et al., 2025). Proposed offshore wind farms on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States could prevent about 2,100 premature deaths annually and save money in health benefits from improved air quality (Buonocore et al., 2016; Shawhan et al., 2024). Because these offshore wind projects would lessen demand for natural gas and coal-powered electricity generation, populated communities downwind from power plants along the East Coast of the United States – such as New York City – would experience health benefits from improved air quality (Shawhan et al., 2024). Although the economic benefits of improved health associated with wind power have already increased rapidly from US$2 billion in 2014 to US$16 billion in 2022, these benefits could be maximized by replacing fossil fuel power plants in regions with higher health damages (Qiu et al., 2022). 

Nature Protection

While there are some risks through increased ship traffic and noise and light pollution, offshore wind may provide some benefits to fish and marine life (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, n.d.; Galparsoro et al., 2022; World Economic Forum, 2025). Once constructed, offshore wind farms can serve as an artificial reef, providing new habitats in the submerged portion of the turbine (Degraer et al., 2020). When these habitats are colonized by marine organisms, this increases availability of food such as zooplankton and algae, which can increase the abundance of small fish nearby (Wilhelmsson et al., 2006).

Air Quality

Offshore wind energy reduces air pollutants released from fossil fuels, thereby reducing the emissions associated with burning coal and natural gas. A recent analysis of 32 planned or proposed offshore wind farms along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts estimated these projects could reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides by 4%, sulfur dioxide by 5%, and PM 2.5 by 6% (Shawhan et al., 2024). Modeling analyses of offshore wind in China estimate these projects could reduce about 3% of air pollution from electricity by lowering emissions from coal-powered electricity generation (Ren et al., 2025).

Risks

Implementing offshore wind energy involves several risks. Technically, offshore projects face harsh marine environments that can affect long-term reliability and increase maintenance costs (IRENA, 2024a). These risks can be reduced through advanced materials, corrosion‑resistant designs, predictive maintenance systems, and improved installation practices that extend turbine lifespans and reduce downtime. High capital costs and regulatory uncertainty remain among the most significant barriers, especially in emerging markets where financing, insurance, and investor confidence are limited (ESMAP, 2019). Addressing these challenges often requires stable policy frameworks, innovative financing mechanisms such as Contracts for Difference (CFDs) and blended finance, and public‑private partnerships to de‑risk investments and attract private capital. 

There are also ecological risks associated with offshore wind farms, which can disrupt marine habitats, impact migratory birds and marine mammals, and cause seabed disturbances during installation (Galparsoro et al., 2022). Mitigation strategies such as adaptive siting, seasonal construction limits, and biodiversity offsets are increasingly used to minimize these impacts. Social resistance can arise from local communities due to factors such as visual impact, place attachment, perceived lack of benefits, and competing uses of marine space, such as fisheries and shipping lanes (Gonyo et al., 2021; Haggett, 2011).

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

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

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

Offshore wind could compete for policy attention, funding, and coastal land with other renewables, potentially slowing their deployment. Implementing or deploying offshore wind turbines requires dedicated coastal land or ocean area use which limits conservation programs and raw material and food production. Offshore wind turbines are large structures that could shade photosynthetic organisms and potentially disrupt coastal and marine ecosystems during installation.

Offshore wind turbines are large structures that could shade photosynthetic organisms and potentially disrupt coastal and marine ecosystems. Fixed-bottom offshore turbines also require infrastructure that could damage bottom sediments and habitats during installation.

Dashboard

Solution Basics

MW installed capacity

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
1,900
units
Current 73,000 01.0×10⁶1.6×10⁶
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.14 1.93.04
Gradual

CO₂ , CH₄, N₂O

Trade-offs

Offshore wind turbines do not emit GHGs during operation, but they are associated with embodied emissions from manufacturing, transport, and installation (Yuan et al., 2023). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) life-cycle assessment estimates indicate that offshore wind energy produces about 8–35 g CO₂‑eq /kWh, compared to about 400–1,000 g CO₂ --eq/kWh for fossil-based electricity generators (Schlömer et al., 2014).

Increasing steel and concrete demand for turbine construction may cause indirect emissions in the industrial sector. These trade‑offs can be mitigated through circular economy approaches such as recycling and repurposing turbine components to cut material demand and emissions. Despite these trade-offs, the emissions saved over a turbine’s 25- to 30-year lifetime greatly exceed the upfront emissions.

Fixed
Floating

Technical potential for offshore wind

Highlighted areas are suitable for offshore wind development for fixed turbines (those fixed to the seafloor, typically in waters less than 50 meters deep) and floating turbines (those anchored on platforms in waters less than 1,000 meters deep).

Energy Sector Management Assistant Program & The World Bank Group (2021). Global offshore wind technical potential (version 3) [Data set]. The World Bank Group. Link to source: https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/search/dataset/0037787 

Fixed
Floating

Technical potential for offshore wind

Highlighted areas are suitable for offshore wind development for fixed turbines (those fixed to the seafloor, typically in waters less than 50 meters deep) and floating turbines (those anchored on platforms in waters less than 1,000 meters deep).

Energy Sector Management Assistant Program & The World Bank Group (2021). Global offshore wind technical potential (version 3) [Data set]. The World Bank Group. Link to source: https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/search/dataset/0037787 

Maps Introduction

Offshore wind energy is most promising in coastal regions with high wind resources and the physical and regulatory capacity to support utility-scale deployment. It is particularly valuable for countries with limited land availability or high coastal population density, offering a scalable and increasingly cost-effective pathway toward decarbonization. Offshore wind’s effectiveness is underpinned by its strong technical fundamentals, especially its relatively high capacity factor.

We estimated global offshore wind technical potential at around 62,000,000 MW. Notably, more than 70% of the technical potential lies in waters deeper than 50 meters. As of 2023, global installed offshore wind capacity had reached 73 GW, a nearly 20-fold increase since 2010. Europe and Asia account for nearly equal shares of current capacity. Europe remains a global leader with around 30 GW, led by the United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark, and Netherlands. 

In Asia, China dominates the offshore wind space, with more than 30 GW installed and annual additions of nearly 17 GW in 2021 alone. Japan has set targets of 10 GW by 2030 and 30–45 GW by 2040, while South Korea aims for 14.3 GW by 2030 (IRENA, 2024a). The United States has vast offshore wind potential, with NREL estimating 1,476 GW for fixed‑bottom and 2,773 GW for floating installations (Lopez et al., 2022). The United States is beginning to scale up offshore wind through policy support from the Inflation Reduction Act, and large-scale projects are now under development along the East Coast. As of May 31, 2024, the country had 174 MW of offshore wind capacity installed (McCoy et al., 2024). While this installed capacity remains modest compared to Europe or China, it represents an initial step in building the domestic industry. Importantly, the U.S. offshore wind project development and operational pipeline exceeds 80,000 MW, highlighting the scale of development expected in the coming decade. Canada, with 9.3 TW of technical potential (7.2 TW of which is suitable for floating wind), has begun leasing processes in Nova Scotia targeting 5 GW by 2030 and integrating offshore wind into its green hydrogen strategy, while Australia’s Victoria state aims for 9 GW by 2040 (IRENA, 2024a).

Several emerging markets represent strong opportunities for future deployment. Brazil has more than 1,200 GW of estimated technical potential and is currently developing a national framework for offshore wind licensing. India plans to reach 37 GW by 2030, with auctions for 7.2 GW already scheduled (IRENA, 2024a). Other countries such as Vietnam and South Africa are beginning to position themselves as offshore wind markets (IRENA, 2024a).

Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Offshore Wind Turbines
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Integrate perspectives from key stakeholders into the decision-making process, including fisherfolk, coastal communities, port authorities, and other groups impacted by offshore wind development.
  • Simplify and standardize offshore environmental licensing and marine spatial planning to accelerate project approvals while preserving biodiversity safeguards.
  • Offer subsidies, grants, low-interest loans, preferential tax policies, and other incentives for developing and operating offshore wind farms and specialized port infrastructures.
  • Develop regulations, standards, and codes to ensure quality equipment production and operation – ideally, before development and adoption to prevent accidents.
  • Prioritize expansion of high-voltage subsea and coastal transmission infrastructure.
  • 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 offshore wind.
  • Set adjustments for wind power on-grid pricing through mechanisms such as feed-in tariffs, renewable energy auctions, or other guaranteed pricing methods for wind energy.
  • Provide financing for research and development to improve the performance of wind turbines, wind forecasting, and other 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 offshore wind capacity and power generation.
  • Initiate public awareness campaigns focusing on wind turbine functionality, benefits, and any public concerns.
  • Implement carbon taxes and use funds to de-risk offshore investments.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Work with external organizations to enter new markets and identify challenges early in development.
  • Plan integrated offshore logistics to anticipate specialized vessel needs and port upgrades.
  • Engage in marine spatial planning and cross-sector stakeholder dialogues to remove conflicts.
  • Investigate community-led or cooperative offshore business models to improve local acceptance.
  • Partner with academic institutions, technical institutions, vocational programs, and other external organizations to provide workforce development programs.
  • Focus research and development efforts on increasing the productivity and efficiency of turbines, improving offshore design, and supporting technology such as wind forecasting.
  • Utilize and integrate materials and designs that enhance recyclability and foster circular supply chains.
  • Participate in voluntary agreements with government bodies to increase policy support for onshore wind capacity and power generation.
  • Support and participate in public awareness campaigns focusing on wind turbine functionality, benefits, and any public concerns.
  • Stay abreast of changing policies, regulations, zoning laws, tax incentives, and other related developments.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Enter into Purchase Power Agreements (PPAs).
  • Purchase high-integrity Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs).
  • Invest in companies that provide offshore wind energy, transmission assets, shared port facilities, component manufacturers, or related technology, such as forecasting.
  • Initiate or join voluntary agreements with national or international bodies and support industry collaboration.
  • Develop workforce partnerships, offer employee scholarships, or sponsor training for careers in offshore wind or related professions such as marine engineering.
  • Support long-term, stable contracts (e.g., power purchase agreements or CFDs) that de-risk investment in floating offshore wind foundation technologies, encouraging their development and deployment.
  • Support community engagement initiatives in areas where you do business to educate and highlight the local economic benefits of offshore wind.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Advocate for favorable policies and incentives for offshore wind energy development, such as financing, preferential tax policies, guaranteed pricing methods, quotas, community engagement, and comanagement models.
  • Advocate for fair and transparent benefit-sharing with coastal communities affected by offshore wind.
  • Help conduct proactive land use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that might interfere with protected areas, biodiversity, cultural heritage, or traditional marine uses.
  • Propose or help develop regulations, standards, and codes to ensure quality equipment production and operation.
  • Conduct open-access research to improve the performance of wind turbines, wind forecasting, and other related technology.
  • Operate or assist with equipment testing and certification systems, market information disclosures, and onsite supervision.
  • Create or assist with training programs for engineers, operators, and other personnel.
  • Coordinate voluntary agreements between governments and industry to increase offshore wind capacity and power generation.
  • Initiate public awareness campaigns focusing on wind turbine functionality, benefits, and any public concerns. 

Further information:

Investors
  • Invest in the development of offshore wind farms.
  • Invest in exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) funds that hold offshore wind companies in their portfolios.
  • Consider offering flexible and low-interest loans for developing and operating offshore wind farms.
  • Invest in supporting infrastructure such as utility companies, grid development, and access roads.
  • Invest in component technology and related science, such as wind forecasting.
  • Help develop insurance products tailored to marine risks and early-stage offshore projects.
  • Invest in green bonds for companies developing offshore wind energy or supporting infrastructure.
  • Align investments with existing public-private partnerships, 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 catalytic financing for or help develop offshore wind farms.
  • Award grants to improve supporting infrastructure 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 marine wind atlases and oceanographic data systems.
  • Foster cooperation between low- and middle-income countries for floating wind and deepwater innovation in emerging economies.
  • Advocate for favorable policies and incentives for offshore wind energy development, such as financing, preferential tax policies, guaranteed pricing methods, and quotas.
  • Propose, build capacity for, or help develop regulations, standards, and codes for marine permitting, offshore market design, equipment production, and operation.
  • Initiate public awareness campaigns focusing on wind turbine functionality, benefits, and any public concerns.
  • Facilitate partnerships to share wind turbine technology and best practices between established and emerging markets, promoting energy equity and access.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Advocate for favorable policies and incentives for offshore 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 and operation.
  • Conduct research to improve the performance of wind turbines, wind forecasting, and other related technology.
  • Initiate public awareness campaigns focusing on how wind turbines function, benefits, and why they are necessary, addressing any public concerns.
  • Advocate for community engagement, respect for Indigenous rights, and preservation of cultural heritage and traditional ways of life to be included in wind power expansion efforts.

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 offshore wind forecasting.
  • 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.
  • Optimize power output, efficiency, and deployment for vertical-axis turbines.
  • Refine methods for retaining power for low-speed winds.
  • Research and develop optimal ways offshore wind can provide habitats for marine species and reduce negative impacts on biodiversity; research total impact of offshore wind on local ecosystems.
  • Develop strategies to minimize the impact of the noise of offshore wind turbines, both under and above water.
  • Develop more accurate forecasting models for the performance of fixed-base and floating offshore wind turbines.
  • Improve the aero-servo-elasticity of floating offshore wind turbines to accommodate more advanced components.
  • Improve existing – or develop new – materials and designs that can withstand marine environments.
  • Help develop designs and operational protocols to facilitate installation, minimize maintenance, improve safety, and reduce overall costs.
  • Develop materials and designs that facilitate recycling and circulate supply chains.
  • Innovate grid connections and transmission infrastructure for offshore and deep-sea wind farms.
  • Improve smart grid connections to manage integrating offshore wind farms.

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, opt into it if possible.
  • Conduct research on the benefits and development of wind energy and share the information with your friends, family, and networks.
  • Stay informed about wind development projects that impact your community and support them when possible.
  • Support the development of community wind cooperatives or shared ownership structures that allow local communities to directly benefit from offshore wind projects.
  • Participate in public consultations, licensing hearings, and awareness campaigns focused on offshore wind projects.
  • Advocate for favorable policies and incentives for offshore wind energy development, such as financing, preferential tax policies, guaranteed pricing methods, and quotas.

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing GHG emissions: High

The scientific literature on offshore wind turbines reflects high consensus regarding their potential to significantly contribute to reducing GHG emissions and supporting the transition to sustainable energy. Technological advancements, decreasing costs, and increasing efficiency have positioned offshore wind as a key player in achieving global climate targets (Jansen et al., 2020; Letcher, 2023). 

Offshore wind turbines reduce GHG emissions by displacing fossil fuel-based electricity generation, thus avoiding the release of CO₂ and other climate pollutants (Akhtar et al., 2024; Nagababu et al., 2023; Shawhan et al., 2025). The strong and consistent wind speeds found over ocean surfaces make offshore turbines especially efficient, with relatively high-capacity factors and increasingly competitive costs (Akhtar et al., 2021; Bosch et al., 2018; Zhou et al., 2022).

The technical potential of offshore wind refers to the maximum electricity generation achievable using available wind resources, constrained only by physical and technological factors. Scientific reviews highlight the significant technical potential of offshore wind to meet global electricity demand many times over, particularly through expansion in deep waters using floating technologies (de La Beaumelle et al., 2023). The World Bank estimates the global technical potential for fixed and floating offshore wind at approximately 71,000 GW globally using current technology (ESMAP, n.d.). With just 83 GW installed so far (GWEC, 2025), this indicates that offshore wind’s potential remains largely untapped. 

The IPCC also sees offshore wind as a key low-emissions technology for achieving net-zero pathways and can be integrated into energy systems at scale with manageable economic and technical challenges (IPCC, 2023). While there is broad scientific agreement on the potential of offshore wind turbines to significantly reduce GHG emissions, there are also growing concerns, including uncertainties around floating platform scalability, ecological impacts, supply chain readiness, and long-term operations. Most of these issues are captured in the Risks & Trade-Offs section of this document.

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 17 peer reviewed academic papers (including 6 reviews and 11 research articles), 2 books and 11 agency or institutional reports, reflecting current evidence from representative regions around the world. 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
Nature protection,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). 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 Distributed Solar PV

Sector
Electricity
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift Production
Image
Solar panels on house roof
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Distributed solar photovoltaic (PV) systems are small-scale solar PV systems – usually under 1 MW, and installed near the point of use, such as on homes, businesses, or local facilities – that generate electricity for on-site consumption or local grid supply. This solution reduces reliance on centralized fossil-fuel power, cutting GHG emissions and minimizing transmission losses. There are various configurations of distributed solar PV systems; our analysis includes residential systems on homes, commercial and industrial (C&I) systems on businesses or institutions, and mini-grid solar PV systems, which are often coupled with storage.

Extreme weather events
Income & work,Food security,Energy availability,Health
Air quality
Description for Social and Search
Deploy Distributed Solar PV is a Highly Recommended climate solution.
Overview

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

Distributed solar PV systems are decentralized energy systems that generate electricity from sunlight at or near the point of use. These systems are commonly installed on residential, commercial, and institutional rooftops, converting solar radiation directly into usable electricity through PV cells. These cells are grouped into modules, which in turn form panels and arrays (U.S. Department of Energy [DOE], n.d.) that deliver electricity to consumers (Figure 1). Their modular nature allows flexible system sizing, making distributed solar PV well-suited to varying energy demands, rooftop space, and financial capacity. Distributed solar PV systems are typically installed and operated by homeowners, businesses, municipalities, and third-party service providers. 

Figure 1. Distributed solar PV systems are commonly installed on residential, commercial, and institutional rooftops, converting solar radiation directly into usable electricity. Photovoltaic cells are grouped into modules, which in turn form panels and arrays that deliver electricity to consumers for on-site use. In some cases, excess generation can be exported to the grid. Modified from Engineering Discoveries (n.d.).

Diagram showing solar photovoltaic on a grid system

Source: Engineering Discoveries. (n.d.). Solar power plant main components, working, advantages and disadvantages.

The primary climate benefit of distributed solar PV is the reduction of CO₂ emissions. By generating zero-emissions electricity on-site, these systems displace electricity that would otherwise be supplied by fossil fuel–based grid power and reduce demand on electricity transmission from power plants to consumers. In doing so, distributed solar PV also avoids upstream emissions of methane and nitrous oxide associated with the extraction, transportation, and combustion of fossil fuels.

A significant number of distributed solar PV systems supply electricity directly to the buildings where they are installed, which offsets grid demand and lowers electricity bills for PV owners. In some cases, excess generation can be exported to the grid, contributing to the broader renewable electricity mix and reducing peak loads and system cost (Rahdan et al., 2024). Distributed solar PV systems therefore provide both emissions reductions and grid benefits (Tran et al., 2023; Uzum et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2025). 

Although distributed solar PV systems typically have lower capacity factors than utility-scale solar systems, they require less land, avoid transmission losses, and enable clean electricity access in urban, peri-urban, and rural areas. Implementation is primarily led by households, small businesses, public entities, and local developers. Governments and utilities often provide incentives such as subsidies, feed-in tariffs, or tax credits to stimulate deployment. Continued cost declines – especially in balance-of-system (BoS) and soft costs like labor and permitting – are expected to increase adoption. Distributed solar PV offers a scalable, low-carbon electricity solution that supports both climate mitigation and energy equity.

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

Alboaouh, K. A., & Mohagheghi, S. (2020). Impact of rooftop photovoltaics on the distribution system. Journal of Renewable Energy, 1, Article 4831434. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4831434

Al-Hanoot, A. K., Mokhlis, H., Mekhilef, S., Alghoul, M., Shareef, H., & Samatar, A. M. (2024). Distributed PV systems in Saudi Arabia: Current status, challenges, and prospects. Energy Strategy Reviews, 55, Article 101535. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESR.2024.101535

Barbose, G. L., Darghouth, N. R., O’Shaughnessy, E., & Forrester, S. (2023). Tracking the sun: Pricing and design trends for distributed photovoltaic systems in the United States [PowerPoint slides]. Link to source: https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/5_tracking_the_sun_2023_report.pdf

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

Biswas, A., Qiu, M., Braun, D., Dominici, F., & Mork, D. (2025). Quantifying effects of solar power adoption on CO2 emissions reduction. Science Advances, 11(31), Article eadq5660. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adq5660

Buonocore, J. J., Hughes, E. J., Michanowicz, D. R., Heo, J., Allen J. G., & Williams, A. (2019). Climate and health benefits of increasing renewable energy deployment in the United States. Environmental Research Letters, 14(11), Article 114010. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab49bc 

Candelise, C., Saccone, D., & Vallino, E. (2021). An empirical assessment of the effects of electricity access on food security. World Development, 141, Article 105390. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105390

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 

Cook, T., Shaver, L., & Arbaje, P. (2018). Modeling constraints to distributed generation solar photovoltaic capacity installation in the US Midwest. Applied Energy, 210, 1037–1050. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2017.08.108

Cubi, E., Zibin, N. F., Thompson, S. J., & Bergerson, J. (2016). Sustainability of rooftop technologies in cold climates: Comparative life cycle assessment of white roofs, green roofs, and photovoltaic panels. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 20(2), 249–262. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/JIEC.12269

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://doi.org/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 

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

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

Dong, C., Nemet, G., Gao, X., Barbose, G., Sigrin, B., & O’Shaughnessy, E. (2023). Machine learning reduces soft costs for residential solar photovoltaics. Scientific Reports, 13(1), Article 7213. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-33014-4 

Dong, D., Emem, O., Liu, L., Sen, B., Rasmussen, K., Edomah, N., Musango, J. K., Baninla, Y., Sergienko, O., & Liu, G. (2025). Solar photovoltaic development in West Africa will face million-ton waste challenges, and off-grid systems will dominate. Environmental Science & Technology, 59(39), 21102–21116. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5c06339 

Elshurafa, A. M., Albardi, S. R., Bigerna, S., & Bollino, C. A. (2018). Estimating the learning curve of solar PV balance–of–system for over 20 countries: Implications and policy recommendations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, 122–134. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.016 

Engineering Discoveries. (n.d.). Solar power plant main components, working, advantages and disadvantages. Retrieved April 23, 2026, from Link to source: https://engineeringdiscoveries.com/solar-power-plant-main-components-working-advantages-and-disadvantages 

ESMAP. (2022). Mini grids for half a billion people: Market outlook and handbook for decision makers. Link to source: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/32287154-1ccb-46ce-83af-08facf7a3b49/content

Gadzanku, S., Kramer, A., & Smith, B. L. (2023). An updated review of the solar PV installation workforce literature (Report No. NREL/TP-7A40-83652). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 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 (Report No. NREL/TP-6A40-91580). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Link to source: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy25osti/91580.pdf 

Gallagher, C. L., & Holloway, T. (2020). Integrating air quality and public health benefits in U.S. decarbonization strategies. Frontiers in Public Health, 8, Article 563358. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.563358 

Galvan, E., Mandal, P., & Sang, Y. (2020). Networked microgrids with roof-top solar PV and battery energy storage to improve distribution grids resilience to natural disasters. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 123, Article 106239. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2020.106239 

Gautier, A., & Jacqmin, J. (2020). PV adoption: The role of distribution tariffs under net metering. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 57(1), 53–73. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11149-019-09397-6 

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 

Gibon, T., Menacho, A. H., & Guiton, M. (2021). Life cycle assessment of electricity generation options [Report]. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Link to source: https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/LCA_final.pdf

Impram, S., Varbak Nese, S., & Oral, B. (2020). Challenges of renewable energy penetration on power system flexibility: A survey. Energy Strategy Reviews, 31, Article 100539. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESR.2020.100539

International Energy Agency. (2023). 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 balances [Data product]. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/world-energy-balances 

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

International Energy Agency, & Nuclear Energy Agency. (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 

International Energy Agency PVPS. (2022). Environmental life cycle assessment of electricity from PV systems [Fact sheet]. Link to source: https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Fact-Sheet-IEA-PVPS-T12-23-LCA-update-2022.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. (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, & International Labour Organization. (2024). Renewable energy and jobs: Annual review 2024 [Report]. Link to source: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2024/Oct/IRENA_Renewable_energy_and_jobs_2024.pdf

Jacobson, M. Z., Delucchi, M. A., Bauer, Z. A. F., Goodman, S. C., Chapman, W. E., Cameron, M. A., Bozonnat, C., Chobadi, L., Clonts, H. A., Enevoldsen, P., Erwin, J. R., Fobi, S. N., Goldstrom, O. K., Hennessy, E. M., Liu, J., Lo, J., Meyer, C. B., Morris, S. B., Moy, K. R., … Yachanin, A. S. (2017). 100% clean and renewable wind, water, and sunlight all-sector energy roadmaps for 139 countries of the world. Joule, 1(1), 108–121. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOULE.2017.07.005

Joshi, S., Mittal, S., Holloway, P., Shukla, P. R., Ó Gallachóir, B., & Glynn, J. (2021). High resolution global spatiotemporal assessment of rooftop solar photovoltaics potential for renewable electricity generation. Nature Communications, 12(1), Article 5738. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-25720-2

Jhunjhunwala, A., & Kaur, P. (2018). Solar energy, DC distribution, and microgrids: Ensuring quality power in rural India. IEEE Electrification Magazine, 6(4), 32–39. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1109/MELE.2018.2871277 

Kannan, N., & Vakeesan, D. (2016). Solar energy for future world: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 62, 1092–1105. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.022 

Kazemian, A., & Xiang, C. (2025). Synergizing photovoltaic-thermal systems with green roofs: A pathway to enhanced urban sustainability and energy efficiency. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 222, Article 116002. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2025.116002

Kumar, A., Ferdous, R., Luque-Ayala, A., McEwan, C., Power, M., Turner, B., & Bulkeley, H. (2019). Solar energy for all? Understanding the successes and shortfalls through a critical comparative assessment of Bangladesh, Brazil, India, Mozambique, Sri Lanka and South Africa. Energy Research & Social Science, 48, 166–176. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.10.005 

Lazard. (2024). Levelized cost of energy version 17.0. Link to source: https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf

Leite, N. H., Guzman Lascano, C. P., Valente Morais, H. G., & Pereira da Silva, L. C. (2024). Impact of the net-metering policies on solar photovoltaic investments for residential scale: A case study in Brazil. Renewable Energy, 231, Article 120788. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2024.120788

Lukanov, B. R., & Krieger, E. M. (2019). Distributed solar and environmental justice: Exploring the demographic and socio-economic trends of residential PV adoption in California. Energy Policy, 134, Article 110935. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2019.110935

Mahn, D., Best, R., Wang, C., & Abiona, O. (2024). What drives solar energy adoption in developing countries? Evidence from household surveys across countries. Energy Economics, 138, Article 107815. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENECO.2024.107815

Maka, A. O. M., & Alabid, J. M. (2022). Solar energy technology and its roles in sustainable development. Clean Energy, 6(3), 476–483. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/ce/zkac023 

Masson, G., de l’Epine, M., & Kaizuka, I. (2024). Trends in photovoltaic applications 2024 (Report IEA PVPS T1-43:2024). International Energy Agency PVPS. Link to source: https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/IEA-PVPS-Task-1-Trends-Report-2024.pdf

Masson, G., Van Rechem, A., de l’Epine, M., & Jäger-Waldau, A. (2025). Snapshot of global PV markets 2025. International Energy Agency PVPS. Link to source: https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Snapshot-of-Global-PV-Markets_2025.pdf

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 

Mini-Grids Partnership. (2024). State of the global mini-grids market report. Link to source: https://minigrids.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/SOTM-Report-2024_EN_vFc.pdf

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2014). Distributed solar PV for electricity system resiliency (Report No. NREL/BR-6A20-62631). Link to source: https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/62631.pdf 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2015). Renewable electricity: How do you know you are using it? (Report No. NREL/FS-6A20-64558). Link to source: https://docs.nlr.gov/docs/fy15osti/64558.pdf 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2015). Renewable electricity: How do you know you are using it? (Report No. NREL/FS-6A20-64558). Link to source: https://docs.nlr.gov/docs/fy15osti/64558.pdf

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2018). Valuing the resilience provided by solar and battery energy storage systems (Report No. NNREL/BR-6A20-70679). Link to source: https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/70679.pdf 

International Energy Agency, & Nuclear Energy Agency. (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

Oliva, E. J. D., & Atehortua Santamaria, R. (2025). Decoding solar adoption: A systematic review of theories and factors of photovoltaic technology adoption in households of developing countries. Sustainability, 17(12), Article 5494. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/su17125494 

Ovaere, M., Bolinger, B., & Gillingham, K. (2020). The value of distributed solar: Evidence from a field experiment. Yale School of the Environment. 

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, 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

Philipps, S., & Warmuth, W. (2025). Photovoltaics report. Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems and PSE Projects GmbH. Link to source: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/studies/photovoltaics-report.html

Rahdan, P., Zeyen, E., Gallego-Castillo, C., & Victoria, M. (2024). Distributed photovoltaics provides key benefits for a highly renewable European energy system. Applied Energy, 360, Article 122721. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2024.122721

Ramasamy, V., Zuboy, J., Feldman, D., Narayanaswami, M., Woodhouse, M., & Margolis, R. (2025). Documenting 15 years of reductions in U.S. solar photovoltaic system costs (Report No. NREL/TP-7A40-92536). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Link to source: https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy25osti/92536.pdf 

Roux, A., & Shanker, A. (2018). Net metering and PV self-consumption in emerging countries (Report IEA-PVPS T9-18:2018). International Energy Agency PVPS. Link to source: https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/T9_NetMeteringAndPVDevelopmentInEmergingCountries_EN_Report.pdf

Saha, S. K. (2025). Empowering rural South Asia: Off-grid solar PV, electricity accessibility, and sustainable agriculture. Applied Energy, 377, Article 124639. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124639 

Schlömer, S., Bruckner, T., Fulton, L., Hertwich, E., McKinnon, A., Perczyk, D., Roy, J., Schaeffer, R., Sims, R., Smith, P., & Wiser, R. (2014). Annex III: Technology-specific cost and performance parameters. In O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel, & J. C. Minx (Eds.), Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf 

Sengupta, M., Habte, A., Wilbert, S., Gueymard, C., Remund, J., Lorenz, E., van Sark, W., & Jensen, A. R. (2024). Best practices handbook for the collection and use of solar resource data for solar energy applications: Fourth edition 2024. International Energy Agency PVPS. Link to source: https://dx.doi.org/10.69766/ENEH5295

Sexton, S. E., Kirkpatrick, A. J., Harris, R., & Muller, N. Z. (2018). Heterogeneous environmental and grid benefits from rooftop solar and the costs of inefficient siting decisions (NBER Working Paper No. 25241). National Bureau of Economic Research. Link to source: https://www.nber.org/papers/w25241 

Shahsavari, A., & Akbari, M. (2018). Potential of solar energy in developing countries for reducing energy-related emissions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 90, 275–291. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2018.03.065

Shakeel, S. R., Yousaf, H., Irfan, M., & Rajala, A. (2023). Solar PV adoption at household level: Insights based on a systematic literature review. Energy Strategy Reviews, 50, Article 101178. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESR.2023.101178

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 (Report No. NREL/TP-7A40-87372). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Link to source: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/87372.pdf

Solano, J. C., Brito, M. C., & Caamaño-Martín, E. (2018). Impact of fixed charges on the viability of self-consumption photovoltaics. Energy Policy, 122, 322–331. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2018.07.059

Soto, E. A., Andrea Hernandez-Guzman, A., Vizcarrondo-Ortega, A., McNealey, A., & Bosman, L. B. (2022). Solar energy implementation for health-care facilities in developing and underdeveloped countries: Overview, opportunities, and challenges. Energies, 15(22), Article 8602. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/en15228602 

Sustainable Energy for All. (2024). Beyond gensets: Advancing the energy transition in Lagos State. Global Energy Alliance for People and Planet. Link to source: https://www.seforall.org/publications/beyond-gensets-advancing-the-energy-transition-in-lagos-state 

Tamimi, B., Canizares, C., & Bhattacharya, K. (2013). System stability impact of large-scale and distributed solar photovoltaic generation: The case of Ontario, Canada. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 4(3), 680–688. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2012.2235151

Tran, T. S., Vu, M. P., Pham, M.-H., Nguyen, P.-H., Nguyen, D.-T., Nguyen, D.-Q., Tran, A. T., & Dang, H.-A. (2023). Study on the impact of rooftop solar power systems on the low voltage distribution power grid: A case study in Ha Tinh province, Vietnam. Energy Reports, 10, 1151–1160. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYR.2023.07.048

Truitt, S., Elsworth, J., Williams, J., Keyser, D., Moe, A., Sullivan, J., & Wu, K. (2022). State-level employment projections for four clean energy technologies in 2025 and 2030 (Report No. NREL/TP-5500-81486). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Link to source: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81486.pdf

Ukoba, K., Yoro, K. O., Eterigho-Ikelegbe, O., Ibegbulam, C., & Jen, T. C. (2024). Adaptation of solar energy in the Global South: Prospects, challenges and opportunities. Heliyon, 10(7), Article e28009. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28009 

U.S. Department of Energy. (n.d.). Photovoltaic cell and module design. Retrieved September 23, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/photovoltaic-cell-and-module-design 

Uzum, B., Onen, A., Hasanien, H. M., & Muyeen, S. M. (2021). Rooftop solar PV penetration impacts on distribution network and further growth factors—A comprehensive review. Electronics, 10(1), Article 55. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/ELECTRONICS10010055

Vaishnav, P., Horner, N., & Azevedo, I. L. (2017). Was it worthwhile? Where have the benefits of rooftop solar photovoltaic generation exceeded the cost? Environmental Research Letters, 12(9), Article 094015. Link to source: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815e 

Venkatachalam, S. deve, Al Nadabi, A., Al Shukaili, A. A., Hinai, A. S. A., Shuaili, A. S. A., & Shukaili, I. said A. (2025). Performance and suitability analysis of rooftop solar PV in Oman: A case study of university branches. Heliyon, 11(4), Article e42578. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e42578

Wiser, R., Millstein, D., Mai, T., Macknick, J., Carpenter, A., Cohen, S., Cole, W., Frew, B., & 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 

World Bank Group. (2024). Off-grid solar market trend report 2024. Link to source: https://www.esmap.org/sites/default/files/esmap-files/2024-Off-Grid-Solar-Market-Trends-Report.pdf

Yang, J., Li, X., Peng, W., Wagner, F., & Mauzerall, D. L. (2018). Climate, air quality and human health benefits of various solar photovoltaic deployment scenarios in China in 2030. Environmental Research Letters, 13(6), Article 064002. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabe99 

Zhang, A. H., & Sirin, S. M. (2024). Overall review of distributed photovoltaic development in China: Process, dynamic, and theories. Global Sustainability, 7, Article e28. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/SUS.2024.33

Zhang, Z., Chen, M., Zhong, T., Zhu, R., Qian, Z., Zhang, F., Yang, Y., Zhang, K., Santi, P., Wang, K., Pu, Y., Tian, L., Lü, G., & Yan, J. (2023). Carbon mitigation potential afforded by rooftop photovoltaic in China. Nature Communications, 14(1), Article 2347. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/S41467-023-38079-3

Zhang, Z., Qian, Z., Chen, M., Zhu, R., Zhang, F., Zhong, T., Lin, J., Ning, L., Xie, W., Creutzig, F., Tang, W., Liu, L., Yang, J., Pu, Y., Cai, W., Pu, Y., Liu, D., Yang, H., Su, H., … Yan, J. (2025). Worldwide rooftop photovoltaic electricity generation may mitigate global warming. Nature Climate Change, 15(4), 393–402. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/S41558-025-02276-3 

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Michael Dioha, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Megan Matthews Ph.D.

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Al-Amin Bugaje, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

Based on IEA World Energy Balances, global emissions from electricity generation accounted for an estimated 530 kg CO₂‑eq /MWh (540 kg CO₂‑eq /MWh, 20-yr basis; IEA, 2024a; see Methodology: Appendix A for calculation details). To convert from MWh to MW, we used the median global average capacity factor for distributed solar PV of 14% (Jacobson et al., 2017). Distributed solar PV is estimated to reduce emissions by 650 t CO₂‑eq /MW/yr (660 t CO₂‑eq /MW/yr, 20-yr basis; Table 1).

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

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

Estimate 650
Left Text Column Width

We assumed that newly installed distributed solar PV displaces an equivalent MWh of the global electricity grid mix. We then assumed the reduction in emissions from additional distributed solar PV capacity was equal to emissions (per MWh) from the 2023 global electricity grid mix (IEA, 2024a). Since new distributed solar PV does not displace an equivalent MWh of the global grid mix, actual avoided emissions will depend on conditions of the local grid at a particular time and place, including the level of solar already deployed, regional solar radiation, and grid carbon intensity. As a result, our global effectiveness estimate may differ significantly from regional estimates. Studies in the United States show that for 2007–2015, avoided emissions from solar were approximately 0.5 t CO₂ /MWh (613 t CO₂ /MW/yr; Millstein et al., 2017), and a 15% increase in deployment avoided 8.54 Mt CO₂ /yr (Biswas et al., 2025). For regions that rely heavily on fossil-fuel generators for electricity generation, widespread adoption of distributed solar PV could cut emissions much more than estimated here (Sustainable Energy for All, 2024). 

Distributed solar PV systems have no operational emissions and low life-cycle GHG footprints. We excluded carbon payback time and embodied life-cycle emissions from manufacturing, transport, installation, and end-of-life processing in our estimates of effectiveness and climate impacts. Life-cycle emissions of rooftop solar PV systems were 25.5–42.9 g CO₂‑eq /kWh, depending on the module technology used (IEA-PVPS, 2022). This is significantly lower than fossil fuel–based electricity generation, which can exceed 1,000 g CO₂‑eq /kWh (Gibon et al., 2021).

Cost

We estimated a mean levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for distributed solar PV of US$145/MWh based on two key industry reports (International Renewable Energy Agency [IRENA], 2020; IEA & NEA, 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. International agencies have used this cost metric to estimate total costs of power generation technologies, incorporating installed capital costs, operation and maintenance, project lifespan, and energy output.

While distributed solar PV generally carries a higher cost per MWh than utility-scale solar (IRENA, 2020), rapid declines in cost have been observed across rooftop and mini-grid markets. Residential rooftop PV systems, for instance, saw their average LCOE drop from US$0.301/kWh (US$301/MWh) in 2010 to US$0.063/kWh (US$63/MWh) in 2019 – a 79% reduction driven by falling module prices, better installation methods, and policy support (IRENA, 2020). Similarly, commercial-scale rooftop PV (≤500 kW) achieved its lowest country-level LCOEs – of US$0.062/kWh (US$62/MWh) in India, and US$0.064/kWh (US$64/MWh) in China – during the same period (IRENA, 2020).

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

Distributed 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). Significant economies of scale over the past decade have driven an even steeper learning rate of 42% (Masson et al., 2024). Similarly, a historical assessment (Philipps & Warmuth, 2025) found that module prices have decreased by 25.7% per doubling over the past 44 years, reinforcing the scale-driven cost reduction dynamics in the distributed solar market. Our estimated learning rate is based on trends of the past decade, while a longer historical estimate would reveal lower learning rates.

Table 2. Learning rate: drop in cost per doubling of the installed solution base, 2010–2023.

Unit: %

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

Looking forward, the pace of module cost decline is expected to slow somewhat. According to the DNV 2024 Energy Transition Outlook (DNV, 2024), the current global learning rate for module costs is about 26%, but projections suggest this rate will slow to around 17% by 2050 as cost components stabilize and the largest gains from scaling are realized. 

In addition to modules, distributed solar PV costs are significantly influenced by BoS components, which include inverters, racking, labor, permitting, and customer acquisition. While these costs are more localized and less exposed to global manufacturing dynamics, they have also followed a learning trajectory. Elshurafa et al. (2018) analyzed BoS costs across more than 20 countries and found a global learning curve of 89%, corresponding to a BoS learning rate of 11%. This is lower than the module rate but nonetheless meaningful – especially in markets where soft costs dominate. 

In the United States, residential distributed solar PV system costs fell 76% between 2010 and 2024, while commercial rooftop PV system costs declined 84% during the same period (Ramasamy et al., 2025). These reductions reflect improvements in module efficiency, digital tools for system design and sales, streamlined installation, and, in some regions, lower permitting and inspection costs.

Still, challenges remain. In mature distributed markets such as the United States, costs other than hardware – such as labor, permitting, interconnection fees, and customer acquisition – continue to account for the majority of overall system prices (Barbose et al., 2023; Dong et al., 2023). 

Speed of Action

The term speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is separate from the 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, and delayed.

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

Caveats

One limitation is our assumption that each additional MWh from distributed solar PV displaces an equivalent MWh from the grid. In practice, without net metering or export compensation, generation from distributed systems may not be fully recognized or integrated into the grid – meaning those MWh might not contribute to net electricity flows or emissions displacement. In such cases, any solar output not exported to the grid cannot contribute to grid-level emissions benefits. Owners of distributed solar PV systems are eligible to claim renewable energy certificates (RECs), but if they don’t do so, their utility may instead claim the RECs on their behalf without reducing emissions from their electricity generation. While RECs are used most widely in the United States, this additionality concern could impact any international energy market that also has tradable renewable energy certificates (NREL, 2015). 

Our definition of distributed solar PV includes both rooftop systems and mini-grids, many of which are coupled with battery storage. However, our aggregated analysis does not fully differentiate between these diverse configurations, nor does it account for their varying operational patterns, grid interactions, or backup roles. These differences are important but difficult to capture within the scope of this analysis. Consequently, the results presented should be interpreted as a high-level approximation rather than a detailed assessment of all distributed solar PV system types.

Distributed solar PV implementation comes with several limitations and uncertainties. One concern is whether new installations meaningfully reduce emissions. In regions where the electricity grid is already low-carbon or underused, adding distributed solar may have limited climate impact.

The long-term impact of distributed solar also depends on system reliability, maintenance, and policy stability. Poorly maintained systems may underperform and sudden policy changes – such as the removal of net metering or the elimination of tax credits – can reduce uptake (Gautier & Jacqmin, 2020; Leite et al., 2024; Venkatachalam et al., 2025). In many low-income regions specifically, high up-front costs, limited access to financing, and insufficient technical capacity can hinder large-scale adoption (Ukoba et al., 2024). Even when demand exists in these regions, supply chain limitations, lack of skilled labor, and inconsistent regulatory frameworks may slow progress.

Technical challenges also arise with increasing deployment. Variability in distributed solar PV generation can lead to voltage instability in distribution networks (Cook et al., 2018; Impram et al., 2020; Tamimi et al., 2013), especially when systems are not paired with smart inverters or batteries. Although emissions from manufacturing and disposal of solar PV panels are relatively lower than those from fossil fuel power, they are not zero. Another technical caveat is the growing concern of e-waste, particularly for off-grid and rural PV deployments. A recent prospective material flow analysis across 15 West African countries estimates that cumulative PV waste could reach 2.3 to 7.8 Mt by 2050, with about 70% originating from off-grid systems (Dong et al., 2025).

Current Adoption

We estimated current adoption of distributed solar PV based on IEA reports (IEA, 2023; Masson et al., 2024). As of 2023, the global installed capacity for distributed solar PV reached approximately 708,000 MW (Table 3). Although we used 2023 as our baseline for current adoption, an estimated additional 182,000 MW of distributed solar PV capacity was installed in 2024 – bringing the global total to more than 890,000 MW (IEA, 2023).

Table 3. Current adoption level, 2023.

Unit: MW installed capacity

25th percentile 702,000
Mean 708,000
Median (50th percentile) 708,000
75th percentile 715,000
Left Text Column Width

From 2011–2016, the global distributed solar PV market remained relatively stable, with annual installations ranging between 16 and 19 GW (Masson et al., 2024). This trend shifted significantly when China expanded its domestic distributed solar PV sector, implementing policy and infrastructure measures that nearly doubled market capacity between 2016 and 2018. By 2023, global distributed solar PV installations had reached 189.0 GW annually – up from 177.7 GW of new capacity added in 2022 (Masson et al., 2024). In recent years, many countries, particularly in Europe, have adopted collective and distributed self-consumption models as a new framework for residential and commercial electricity customers. This approach increases access to self-generated renewable electricity, even for consumers unable to install their own PV systems. 

Off-grid solar PV applications are expanding too, primarily driven by rural electrification efforts across Asia, Africa, and parts of South America (World Bank Group, 2024). In many remote areas, especially in Africa and Asia, off-grid and mini-grid systems with storage serve as viable alternatives to grid extension or as interim solutions before future grid connections. For further details, see the Geographic Guidance section.

Adoption Trend

Based on the IEA’s solar PV power capacity in the Net Zero Scenario (IEA, 2023), we calculated the global adoption trend by summing global adoption for each year 2015–2023 and taking the year-to-year difference. Comparing year-to-year global adoption, the median global adoption trend was adding 54,000 MW/yr of installed capacity, but expansion was unevenly distributed geographically (Table 4, Figure 2).

Figure 2. Global adoption of distributed solar PV, 2015–2023.

Source: International Energy Agency. (2023). Solar PV power capacity in the Net Zero Scenario, 2015-2030. License: CC BY 4.0

Enable Download
Off

Table 4. Adoption trend, 2015–2023.

Unit: MW installed capacity/yr

25th percentile 40,300
Mean 72,400
Median (50th percentile) 54,000
75th percentile 80,800
Left Text Column Width

Global distributed solar PV deployment more than sextupled between 2015 and 2023, growing from 116 GW to 695 GW of installed capacity (Figure 2; IEA, 2023). Growth in the mid-2010s was relatively moderate, with yearly additions rising gradually from 19 GW in 2016 to 45 GW by 2019. However, a notable acceleration began after 2020. Annual capacity additions jumped from 63 GW in 2020 to 192 GW in 2023 – more than tripling in just three years (IEA, 2023). This surge reflects growing policy support, cost declines, and higher demand for behind-the-meter solar solutions. The rolling trendline since 2015 now averages 72 GW/yr, nearly double the average before 2020. This trend is likely to continue as distributed solar PV continues to gain ground in both developed and emerging markets.

Adoption Ceiling

For this analysis, we adopt a global median estimate of 17.4 million MW installed capacity as the adoption ceiling for distributed solar PV (Table 5). The adoption ceiling for distributed solar PV is determined by the global technical potential of rooftop surfaces, parking structures, and other built environments suitable for solar PV deployment. Unlike utility-scale systems that require dedicated land, distributed solar PV leverages existing infrastructure – primarily the rooftops of residential, commercial, and government buildings.

Estimates of the technical potential for distributed solar PV vary considerably across the literature, reflecting differences in study period, system types included, and methodological approaches. Despite these variations, recent global assessments converge on the view that rooftop and other distributed solar PV systems offer substantial potential, though they are constrained by surface area availability and system efficiencies. A meta-analysis by de La Beaumelle et al. (2023) reported rooftop solar PV technical potential ranging from 6 PWh/yr to 69 PWh/yr, with a median of 15.8 PWh/yr and an average of 21.1 PWh/yr (de La Beaumelle et al., 2023). Another study estimated the global net energy potential from rooftop PV at 7.81 PWh/yr for residential rooftops and 8.02 PWh/yr for commercial rooftops. Similarly, Deng et al. (2015) estimated the global technical potential of rooftop PV systems at 33.6 PWh/yr, with an additional 25 PWh/yr from building facades (Deng et al., 2015), while Joshi et al. (2021) identified approximately 0.2 million km2 of suitable rooftop area from 130 million km2 of global land surface, corresponding to an estimated electricity generation potential of 27 PWh/yr (Joshi et al., 2021).

Key constraints to distributed solar PV adoption include rooftop suitability (such as shading, tilt, and orientation), grid integration, permitting hurdles, and up-front costs (Sengupta et al., 2024; Masson et al., 2025). While these barriers may limit near-term deployment, innovations like building-integrated photovoltaics, virtual net metering, and smart inverters offer pathways to expand deployment.

Table 5. Adoption ceiling: upper limit for adoption.

Unit: MW installed capacity

25th percentile 12,400,000
Mean 23,400,000
Median (50th percentile) 17,400,000
75th percentile 28,500,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

The IEA’s World Energy Outlook (WEO) 2024 presented several scenarios that explored future energy pathways under different assumptions about policies, technologies, and markets (IEA, 2024b). For this analysis, we defined the adoption achievable range for distributed solar PV based on the Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS) and the Announced Pledges Scenario (APS) (IEA, 2024b). However, the WEO does not explicitly distinguish between distributed and utility-scale 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 distributed solar PV within total solar PV capacity. Our analysis suggests that by 2050, distributed solar PV could represent approximately 26% 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 26% of the IEA’s projected solar PV deployment in 2050 will come from distributed solar PV systems. This provides a reasonable basis for estimating achievable adoption, while aligning with both historical patterns and complementary international assessments.

Achievable – Low

The low achievable adoption level is based on STEPS, which reflects the current trajectory of distributed solar PV expansion under existing and announced policies. In this scenario, assuming distributed solar PV projects account for 26% of total solar PV capacity, global capacity is projected to grow about sixfold, from 708,000 MW in 2023 to approximately 4.30 million MW by 2050 (Table 6). This corresponds to an average compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7.3%.

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

 Unit: MW installed capacity

Current adoption 708,000
Achievable – low 4,300,000
Achievable – high 5,300,000
Adoption Ceiling 17,400,000
Left Text Column Width

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, distributed solar PV capacity is projected to increase approximately sevenfold from 708,000 MW in 2023 to approximately 5.30 million MW by 2050 (Table 6), requiring a CAGR of 8% over the same period.

Using our adoption ceiling of 17.4 million MW, the current adoption of distributed solar PV constitutes approximately 4.1% of its technical potential. The achievable adoption range, as calculated, is 24.8–30.3% of this potential.

Based on baseline global adoption and effectiveness, we estimated the current total climate impact of distributed solar PV to be approximately 0.46 Gt CO₂‑eq (0.47 Gt CO₂‑eq , 20-yr basis) of reduced emissions per year (Table 7). We estimated future 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. 

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.46
Achievable – low 2.8
Achievable – high 3.5
Adoption Ceiling 11
Left Text Column Width

Climate impacts are highly uncertain. They will vary depending on actual emissions intensity, as well as future development of electricity grids, markets and policies, and enabling technologies, like batteries. As solar and other renewables grow to represent an increasingly high percentage of power generation sources, grid emissions are expected to decrease (DNV, 2024; IEA, 2024b), so the climate impacts presented here are likely overestimates. Additionally, in regions with significant solar radiation where utility-scale solar PV is competitive, increased adoption of distributed solar PV could displace utility-scale PV without reducing emissions (Bistline & Watten, 2025). Assuming the existing and announced policies of countries around the world for distributed solar PV installation are backed with adequate provisions for implementation, global adoption could reach 4 million MW by 2050 – resulting in an increased emissions reduction of approximately 2.8 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (2.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-yr basis). Assuming full realization of all national energy and climate targets (including net-zero commitments) with the support of stronger clean energy investments, distributed solar PV adoption could reach 5 million MW by 2050, which would lead to an estimated 3.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (3.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-yr basis) of reduced emissions. 

We based the adoption ceiling solely on the technical potential of distributed solar PV, while neglecting social and economic constraints and realistic scenarios of future power demand (Dioha et al., 2025). Distributed solar PV installed capacity is unlikely to reach 17 million MW, but if current grid emissions remained constant while capacity increased, GHG emission reductions would be approximately 11 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (11 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-yr basis). 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

Extreme Weather Events

Rooftop PV systems and mini-grids have the potential to supply electricity when the grid is unstable, improving resilience during or after extreme weather events (Galvan et al., 2020; NREL, 2014).

Income and Work

Solar PV can have a positive effect on the economy because it accounts for 44% of renewable energy jobs globally and is the fastest-growing sector of renewable energy employment (IRENA, 2024). In the United States as of 2021, solar PV employed about 250,000 full-time workers, mainly in the installation, project development, and manufacturing sectors (Gadzanku et al., 2023). The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) projected that about 509,000–757,000 jobs for both utility- and distributed-scale solar PV will be added by 2030 in the United States (Truitt et al., 2022).

Factors such as local policies that allow for net metering, tax credits, weather, and the price of electricity can determine individual cost benefits and payback periods of distributed solar (Sexton et al., 2018; Vaishnav et al., 2017). After the initial investment, consumers see savings in their monthly electricity bills (NREL, 2018).

Distributed solar PV can provide access to electricity in rural areas of low- and middle-income countries (Kumar et al., 2019). Enhanced access to electricity in these countries can foster economic development of agricultural communities and increase farmer incomes (Candelise et al., 2021; Saha, 2025).

Food Security

Improved electricity access through distributed solar PV can also enhance food production and ensure resilience of agricultural systems in low- and middle-income countries (Ukoba et al., 2024). Improved electricity access strengthens food security by providing refrigeration for perishable food, ensuring higher food quality, and reducing food loss (Candelise et al., 2021; Ukoba et al., 2024).

Energy Availability

Distributed solar PV can provide electricity to households and communities where expanding grid electricity would prove too expensive or physically inaccessible (Kannan & Vakeesan, 2016; Kumar et al., 2019; Maka & Alabid, 2022). Using distributed mini-grids as a source of electricity is especially applicable to low- and middle-income countries with abundant solar resources (Maka & Alabid, 2022). For example, distributed rooftop solar has been an important source of electricity access in Bangladesh, where rooftop PV systems provide electricity to about 12% of the population (Kumar et al., 2019).

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 determine how far pollutants travel from emission sources (Buonocore et al., 2019). Regions with a higher proportion of coal-powered electricity generation will often see more health benefits (Buonocore et al., 2019). These health benefits often translate into cost savings associated with reductions in hospital admissions, improved respiratory and cardiovascular conditions, and work and school days that might have otherwise been missed due to illness (Millstein et al., 2017; Wiser et al., 2016). A study of the health benefits of distributed solar PV in eastern China found that reductions in air pollution were linked to a 1.2% decrease in air pollution–related premature mortality (Yang et al., 2018). Distributed solar PV can provide electricity to power electric cookstoves, which can reduce morbidities linked to poor indoor air quality (Jhunjhunwala & Kaur, 2018).

Increasing energy availability through distributed solar PV has important implications for health-care delivery in rural communities in low- and middle-income countries. By providing electricity access to health clinics located in hard-to-reach areas, mini-grid or rooftop PV systems can improve health services (Maka & Alabid, 2022; Soto et al., 2022; Ukoba et al., 2024). Electricity is essential for health-care services such as lighting during procedures, refrigeration of vaccines, sterilization of devices, and medical imaging, which can impact infection rates, neonatal mortality, and surgical outcomes (Soto et al., 2022). PV systems can deliver stable electricity to health clinics in low- and middle-income countries, which often experience power outages due to grid instability or natural disasters (Soto et al., 2022). 

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). The amount and type of air pollutants avoided will vary regionally 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). Pollutants can be transported for long distances depending on meteorological conditions, so air pollution benefits can be widespread (Millstein et al., 2024).

Risks

A significant risk of implementing distributed solar PV involves changes or instability in policy, especially pertaining to compensation schemes such as net metering and feed‑in tariffs. The economic viability of rooftop solar systems often hinges on favorable tariff or compensation rules; when these policies are reduced or withdrawn, investment returns drop markedly. For example, a 2018 report from IEA‑PVPS shows that many emerging economies have laws enabling net metering, but suffer from delays in implementation or weak compensation levels, which limit residential uptake of rooftop PV systems under self‑consumption policies (Roux & Shanker, 2018).

Another risk is the structure of electricity rates and fixed charges. A study of the impact of fixed charges on the viability of self‑consumption found that high fixed or volumetric charges in retail tariffs can dramatically reduce the financial benefit of self‑consumed PV generation, particularly when surplus PV electricity exported to the grid receives little or no compensation (Solano et al., 2018). These risks combine to lower the real output and emissions reduction potential of distributed PV. When policies incentivize self-consumption rather than exporting electricity to the grid, a greater proportion of the PV-generated electricity is used; however, policies that reduce the financial benefit of PV generation can stymie adoption.

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Increased availability of renewable energy from distributed solar PV helps reduce emissions from the electricity grid as a whole. Reduced emissions from the electricity grid leads to lower downstream emissions for solutions that rely on electricity use from the grid. Deploying distributed solar PV also supports increased integration of offshore and onshore wind turbines by diversifying the renewable energy mix, and can alleviate reliability challenges associated with variability in wind alone. Increasing deployment of variable renewable sources like solar PV can also drive procurement of firm baseload power in the form of geothermal and hydropower sources.

Electrification of transportation will be more beneficial in reducing global emissions if the underlying electricity generation mix includes a higher proportion of non-emitting power sources. 

Competing

Distributed solar PV can compete with utility-scale solar PV, agrivoltaics, and wind energy for policy attention, subsidies, and grid access. Additionally, when many distributed solar PV systems are installed, they generate power during the day when the sun is shining. This can lower electricity prices at those times because solar power is cheap to produce. As a result, utility-scale solar PV and agrivoltaic power plants can earn less money from selling electricity.

Dashboard

Solution Basics

MW installed capacity

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
650
units
Current 708,000 04.3×10⁶5.3×10⁶
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.46 2.83.5
Gradual

CO₂ , CH₄, N₂O, BC

Trade-offs

Implementing distributed solar PV involves several trade-offs. Embodied emissions from module manufacturing, transport, installation, and decommissioning are estimated at 10–36 g CO₂‑eq /kWh or approximately 2–8% of typical grid electricity emissions (~530 g CO₂‑eq /kWh), which implies over 90% net savings per kWh generated (Schlömer et al., 2014; 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). These emissions could reduce the net climate benefit, especially when displacing grid electricity from other renewables. 

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 solar PV could displace utility-scale solar generation, since both operate diurnally, resulting in no net reduction in grid emissions (Bistline & Watten, 2025). However, adoption of distributed solar can be very beneficial in low- and middle-income countries, as well as in places where utility-scale projects face interconnection constraints, permitting issues, or other challenges that limit adoption (Zhang et al., 2025). 

Another trade-off arises when limited rooftop space is used for PV infrastructure instead of alternative uses, such as cool or green roofs, or cooling/HVAC systems, which could offer thermal insulation or carbon sequestration benefits (Cubi et al., 2016; Kazemian & Xiang, 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

High-income countries such as China, Germany, and the United States are the global leaders in installed distributed solar PV capacity (Masson et al., 2024). Commercial, residential, and off-grid distributed PV systems accounted for less than half (44%) of the 2023 global PV market, but distributed deployment drove market growth in many countries, including Germany, Brazil, Italy, and Australia (Masson et al., 2024). In urban areas, consumers in multi-family buildings can benefit from increased solar PV adoption through expansion of rooftop PV or other types of  building and infrastructure integration. Mini-grids and other distributed PV systems are used to electrify areas with damaged infrastructure rather than repairing or expanding distribution networks with successful implementation in Australia (Masson et al., 2024). 

In contrast, low-income countries possess significant untapped potential for distributed solar PV, but face considerable barriers related to financing and policy (Mahn et al., 2024; Shahsavari & Akbari, 2018). In emerging markets, developing robust support mechanisms and infrastructure for distributed solar PV can encourage regional grid expansion or bypass the need for grid access altogether (Masson et al., 2024). In many regions with ample solar radiation, deployment of distributed solar PV lags significantly behind its potential. 

Countries in sub-Saharan Africa have the potential to yield substantial carbon reduction impact from solar PV installation. Capital investments in these markets could yield up to nine times the GHG emission reduction than equivalent investments in more mature markets (Peters, 2025). However, solar PV competitiveness is stifled by limited access to capital, lack of technical talent, and persistent fossil-fuel subsidies (Sustainable Energy for All, 2024). Microgrids and off-grid systems are essential for improved electricity access in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and parts of Latin America (World Bank Group, 2024). These systems expand the functional ceiling of distributed solar PV beyond rooftops, contributing to broader electrification and decarbonization goals. Off-grid residential and commercial systems are ideal for low-power electricity needs, such as lighting, water pumping, navigation, telecommunications, and vaccine refrigeration – especially in rural areas, on remote islands, and in other regions that depend on diesel generators or lack electricity grid access (Masson et al., 2024). 

Regional markets show significant cost variation. A 2024 study estimated the LCOE of rooftop solar PV in Saudi Arabia at just US$0.0445/kWh (US$44.5/MWh) under favorable solar and financing conditions (Al-Hanoot et al., 2024). According to Lazard (2024), U.S. residential rooftop PV has an LCOE of US$122–284/MWh, reflecting smaller system sizes, high soft costs, and site-specific variability. Community and Commercial & Industrial (C&I) rooftop solar PV in the United States has a lower LCOE range of US$54–191/MWh owing to economies of scale, streamlined permitting, and more consistent operating conditions. 

Labor costs, permitting complexity, market maturity, and scale of deployment influence the pace and depth of cost reductions globally (Masson et al., 2024; Ukoba et al., 2024). In regions where fossil-fuel subsidies keep retail electricity prices artificially low, cheap electricity from the local grid makes distributed solar PV less attractive to consumers (Masson et al., 2024). While distributed solar PV can lower electricity costs for system owners, the impact of increased distributed solar PV on retail electricity prices for all consumers is highly context-dependent and influenced by multiple factors, including local transmission and distribution network capacities, electrification rates, policy design, and the other energy sources available at a specific time (Borenstein, 2024; Perez-Arriaga et al., 2016). 

Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Distributed 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; design national electrification guidelines for technicians to enable renewable energy goals.
  • 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.
  • Streamline regulations such as permitting for renewable energy projects, including both distributed solar and mini-grids; standardize documents for regular engagements, such as templates for power purchase agreements.
  • Provide incentives to consumers, such as subsidies (especially to reduce up-front cost), feed-in tariffs, tax credits, grants, waived grid connection fees, and forgivable or concessional loans; simultaneously allow for grid injections and net-metering schemes; ensure policies and incentives are long term and will remain stable for at least five years; use similar financial incentives for supporting equipment manufacturers, such as those that produce batteries and inverters.
  • Offer incentives such as subsidies and tax credits to manufacturers, operators, developers, and other relevant actors; as the market matures and becomes competitive, gradually reduce these incentives to create long-term market stability.
  • Develop building codes and regulations to incentivize efficiency and self-consumption of PV-generated electricity, especially among new construction; require PV-ready buildings and infrastructure.
  • Implement carbon taxes and remove subsidies from fossil-fuel infrastructure; redirect those funds into renewable energy financing.
  • Implement or strengthen renewable portfolio standards, clean energy standards, or other similar policy mechanisms with carve-outs for distributed solar.
  • Consider using green bonds to finance mini-grids and/or de-risk markets.
  • Invest in and subsidize improvements to grid integration and flexibility, storage, and 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 for solar and related equipment such as batteries.
  • Earmark a percentage of financial incentives for low- and middle-income communities and/or countries; if relevant, provide technology transfers and capacity building in low- and middle-income countries.
  • Improve labor- and human-rights laws and standards around solar PV supply chains; enforce standards within industry – particularly for the extraction and use of critical minerals and panel manufacturing.
  • Ensure regulations allow for a variety of development models, such as build-own-operate, public-private partnerships, utility models, energy communities, and cooperatives.
  • 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.
  • Require or encourage manufacturers to provide minimum warranties; establish an independent grievance system to resolve customer disputes and help foster trust in the industry.
  • To the extent possible, regulate and standardize distributed panel components with the aim of facilitating self-installation and ensuring safety. 
  • Work with the private sector to develop workforce training programs; ensure capacity development for all stages of deployment, including end-of-life services; create certifications for the full spectrum of roles.
  • 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 industry and the public on regulations, benefits of solar, best practices for development, and other relevant information; ensure the material is both appropriate and sufficient for local contexts, paying particularly close attention to language barriers. 

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Conduct careful planning for installation, ensuring that panel tilt, maintenance, and shading are evaluated based on local climatic conditions and are accounted for properly.
  • Conduct regular maintenance and cleaning to enhance cost efficiency and energy savings, especially in arid climates.
  • Utilize geospatial and satellite data to gather information on landscape, market dynamics, and initial customer base.
  • When cost-effective, employ building-integrated photovoltaics, net metering/billing, batteries, and smart inverters.
  • Utilize pay-as-you-go, energy-as-a-service, and other financial models that offset high up-front costs for residential and off-grid customers.
  • 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.
  • Offer periodic site visits and maintenance services; facilitate reselling of PV systems on the secondhand market.
  • Design distributed solar PV and mini-grid systems to be compatible with the main grid, even in areas far from the main grid, so as to allow for future connection. 
  • Consider providing feed-in tariffs or other financial incentives if they are not provided by the government; consider lease-to-own models.
  • Investigate using green bonds to finance public projects and mini-grids, or to de-risk markets.
  • Work with regulators and other industry leaders to standardize distributed panel components with the aim of facilitating self-installation and ensuring safety. 
  • Invest in strengthening grid integration and improving flexibility through expanded energy storage, upgraded infrastructure, and deployment of smart grid technologies to effectively manage variable renewable generation.
  • Reduce soft costs of customer acquisition with prediction models that use machine learning classifiers like XGBoost, which are trained on widely available socioeconomic data to identify households likely to adopt PV.
  • When developing mini-grids, work directly with the community as well as nonprofits and relevant businesses (such as appliance retailers) to help educate the community on the mini-grid’s capabilities and how to choose suitable appliances.
  • 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.
  • 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; ensure 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.
  • Invest directly into, and help develop, recycling infrastructure for solar panels.
  • 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 deployment, technology transfers, education, de-risking markets, and other relevant areas.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Set ambitious long-term renewable energy goals and incorporate them into corporate net-zero strategies.
  • Install distributed solar panels when possible, focusing on available rooftops and parking lots.
  • Support long-term, stable contracts (e.g., Purchase Power Agreements) 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.
  • 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, such as batteries.
  • Support workforce development programs, offer employee scholarships, and/or sponsor training for careers in solar power; ensure capacity development for all stages of deployment, including end-of-life services.
  • 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 deployment, technology transfers, education, de-risking markets, and other relevant areas.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Install distributed solar panels when possible, focusing on available rooftops and parking lots.
  • Advocate for ambitious long-term national goals on solar and renewable energy; advocate to incorporate them into national climate plans and multilateral agreements; request national electrification guidelines for technicians.
  • 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.
  • Work with industry and government officials to help develop regulations and standards for distributed panel components, with the aim of facilitating self-installation and ensuring safety. 
  • 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 a streamlined permitting processes.
  • Call for government incentives for consumers such as subsidies (especially to reduce up-front cost), feed-in tariffs, tax credits, grants, waived grid connection fees, and forgivable or concessional loans; help ensure regulations allow for grid injections and net-metering schemes; advocate for long-term policies and incentives that will remain stable for at least five years; call for similar financial incentives for supporting equipment manufacturers, such as those that produce batteries and inverters.
  • Urge governments to provide incentives – such as subsidies, feed-in tariffs, auctions, tax credits, and contracts for difference – to manufacturers, operators, developers, and other relevant actors; 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 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.
  • Help create or support community solar projects using a variety of models, such as build-own-operate, public-private partnerships, utility models, energy communities, and cooperatives.
  • 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; ensure 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 deployment, technology transfers, education, de-risking markets, and other relevant areas.
  • Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to educate industry and the public on regulations, 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, customers, developers, operators, and recyclers.
  • Invest directly in the development of mini-grid projects.
  • 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 equipment, such as batteries.
  • 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.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Provide catalytic financing for or help develop, distributed solar PV projects and mini-grids.
  • Award grants to enhance grid integration, flexibility, and reliability by supporting innovations in energy storage systems, advanced grid management, transmission infrastructure, and traditional infrastructure (such as access roads) that enable effective integration of solar PV generation.
  • Work with other philanthropies, investors, and implementers to develop standardized reporting mechanisms and create monitoring and evaluation frameworks.
  • Allow for extended program timelines to allow for mini-grid sector development and cost recovery. 
  • Support the development of component technology and related equipment, such as batteries.
  • Award grants to improve 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.
  • Advocate for ambitious long-term national goals on solar and renewable energy; advocate to incorporate them into national climate plans and multilateral agreements; request national electrification guidelines for technicians.
  • Operate, fund, or support equipment testing and certification systems, and market information disclosures.
  • Conduct open-access research to improve the performance of solar PVs, forecasting, and related technologies.
  • Work with industry and government officials to help develop regulations and standards for distributed panel components, with the aim of facilitating self-installation and ensuring safety. 
  • 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 a 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.
  • Help create or support community solar projects using a variety of models, such as build-own-operate, public-private partnerships, utility models, energy communities, and cooperatives.
  • 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; ensure 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 deployment, technology transfers, education, de-risking markets, and other relevant areas.
  • Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to educate industry and the public on regulations, 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:

Thought Leaders
  • Install solar panels at home, at the office, and/or at other properties; share your experience and tips with neighbors and the broader community.
  • Advocate for ambitious long-term national goals on solar and renewable energy; advocate to incorporate them into national climate plans and multilateral agreements; request national electrification guidelines for technicians.
  • 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.
  • Work with industry and government officials to help develop regulations and standards for distributed panel components, with the aim of facilitating self-installation and ensuring safety. 
  • 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 a streamlined permitting processes.
  • Call for government incentives for consumers such as subsidies (especially to reduce up-front cost), feed-in tariffs, tax credits, grants, waived grid connection fees, and forgivable or concessional loans; help ensure regulations allow for grid injections and net-metering schemes; advocate for long-term policies and incentives that will remain stable for at least five years; call for similar financial incentives for supporting equipment manufacturers, such as those that produce batteries and inverters.
  • Urge governments to provide incentives – such as subsidies, feed-in tariffs, auctions, tax credits, and contracts for difference – to manufacturers, operators, developers, and other relevant actors; 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 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.
  • Help create or support community solar projects using a variety of models, such as build-own-operate, public-private partnerships, utility models, energy communities, and cooperatives.
  • 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 deployment, technology transfers, education, de-risking markets, and other relevant areas.
  • Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to educate industry and the public on regulations, 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.
  • Improve cooperation between building automation systems and monitoring and control of PV systems.
  • Investigate the ability of PV to assist in frequency regulation and other ancillary services to maintain grid stability as more renewables displace conventional power plants.
  • Develop a platform that provides up-to-date and publicly available data on mini-grid operations, related policies, technologies, standards, and other relevant information.
  • Advance energy-storage systems technologies, such as battery, hydrogen, and gravity-based.
  • Improve manufacturing efficiencies such as larger wafer formats, enhanced cell architectures, and advanced wafer-processing techniques.
  • Advance the use of AI or other technological means for predictive analytics, forecasting, and power system control.
  • 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 – especially deserts. 
  • Improve related mining technologies for critical minerals, making the extraction process safer, less disruptive to local communities and ecosystems, and less energy-intensive.
  • Develop ways of eliminating, reducing, reusing, and/or safely disposing of hazardous by-products of PV manufacturing.
  • Research factors that lead to community acceptance and the role of distributed solar in a fair and just energy transition. 

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Install solar panels at home, at the office, and/or at other properties; share your experience and tips with neighbors and the broader community.
  • If your community is not connected to the main grid, consider developing a local mini-grid.
  • Conduct careful planning for installation, ensuring panel tilt, maintenance, and shading are evaluated based on local climatic conditions and are accounted for properly.
  • Conduct regular maintenance and cleaning to enhance cost efficiency and energy savings, especially in arid climates.
  • Help create or support community solar projects using a variety of models, such as build-own-operate, public-private partnerships, utility models, energy communities, and cooperatives.
  • If available, take advantage of government incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, and forgivable or concessional loans for development.
  • Call for government incentives for consumers, if necessary, such as subsidies ( especially to reduce up-front cost), feed-in tariffs, tax credits, grants, waived grid connection fees, and forgivable or concessional loans; help ensure regulations allow for grid injections and net-metering schemes; advocate for long-term policies and incentives that will remain stable for at least five years; call for similar financial incentives for supporting equipment manufacturers, such as those that produce batteries and inverters.
  • 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 deployment, technology transfers, education, de-risking markets, and other relevant areas.
  • Participate in public awareness campaigns focused on solar projects; share information with your community and networks.

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Level of consensus: High

The scientific consensus surrounding distributed solar PV is strong in support of its emissions reduction potential, cost declines, and grid benefits, although nuances and regional gaps persist. Many studies have documented adoption drivers, grid impacts, performance constraints, and social equity issues, together forming a robust evidence base.

Distributed solar PV not only reduces emissions but also enhances local grid resilience, with one study demonstrating reductions in peak load and frequency interruptions (Ovaere et al., 2020). However, careful grid integration planning, smart inverter controls, and grid upgrades are required to avoid adverse effects because rooftop PV affects voltage quality, reverse power flow, frequency stability, and protection systems (Alboaouh & Mohagheghi, 2020). High penetration of rooftop PV can also lead to voltage issues and power disruptions, create protection coordination issues, and strain regional grid elements (Tran et al., 2023; Uzum et al., 2021). 

Broad solar adoption, including household-level PV, depends on many factors, including key determinants such as affordability, policy support, infrastructure, and social norms. This is especially true in rapidly growing countries (Oliva & Atehortua Santamaria, 2025; Shakeel et al., 2023). In China, distributed solar PV development is now shaped by subsidy phase-out and grid parity dynamics after a decade of evolving policy and finance mechanisms (Zhang & Sirin, 2024). However, regardless of the regional policy landscape, distributed rooftop systems face real-world performance losses due to shading, panel tilt, temperature, and maintenance constraints (Venkatachalam et al., 2025).

The literature strongly supports the notion that distributed solar PV is an effective and scalable mitigation option that can reduce emissions, improve grid reliability, and democratize energy access. There is high consensus on its value, especially when deployed with supportive policy, proper engineering, and system integration. However, unresolved issues remain around cost dynamics of non-hardware components, performance in fragile grids, and equity of deployment. For instance, studies on environmental justice point to lower PV uptake in disadvantaged communities despite high solar potential (Lukanov & Krieger, 2019).

The results discussed in our analysis draw on 10 reviews/meta-analyses, 44 research articles, and 31 institutional reports, covering evidence from different parts of the world, primarily from North America, Europe, and Asia. Many low-income and off-grid regions remain underrepresented, limiting generalizability. Further empirical research in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America is needed to understand distributed PV’s performance, policy interactions, and grid impacts in diverse contexts.

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon
Subscribe to Highly Recommended
back to top