Spatial modeling of wind energy potential using GIS in the Patagonian coastal plains

A wind turbine is only as productive as the site beneath it—and picking the right site in a region as wind-rich as Patagonia is less about finding wind than about finding wind where roads, power lines, and environmental constraints align. This research modelled wind energy potential across the Patagonian coastal plains of southern Argentina using GIS-based multi-criteria evaluation. Six suitability criteria—wind speed, elevation, road access, grid proximity, land use compatibility, and environmental sensitivity—were scored across three zones: Northern Plains, Central Coast, and Southern Steppe. Wind data from 18 meteorological stations (2010-2022) and ERA5 reanalysis products provided the resource assessment layer. The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) assigned criterion weights validated by expert consensus (consistency ratio < 0.08). Results showed that 34.7% of the total area qualified as highly suitable for wind farm development, with the Southern Steppe scoring highest for wind resource (mean annual wind speed 11.4 m/s at 80 m hub height) but lowest for infrastructure access. The Central Coast offered the best balance of wind resource and grid connectivity. Estimated installable capacity across all highly suitable areas reached 8,400 MW, enough to supply roughly 6.2 million households at Argentina’s average consumption rate. Monthly wind speed profiles confirmed year-round viability, with all three zones exceeding the 7 m/s minimum commercial threshold in every month. These findings provide a spatial framework for guiding wind energy investment toward sites that maximise both energy yield and development feasibility.

Illustrations explain the paper; charts are replotted from the paper's own table values.

AI-generated illustration

↗ Enlarge

Multi-Criteria Suitability FrameworkClose ×

AI-generated conceptual illustration (Patagonian coastal plains with wind turbines). It explains the idea and does not show study data.

Open full-size image ↗

Replotted from source data

↗ Enlarge

Mean WS (m/s) and Grid Dist (km): Northern Plains vs Central Coast vs Southern SteppeClose ×

Replotted from Table 1 (page 2) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.

Open full-size image ↗

Replotted from source data

↗ Enlarge

Suitable (%): Northern Plains vs Central Coast vs Southern SteppeClose ×

Replotted from Table 1 (page 2) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.

Open full-size image ↗

Introduction

Wind turbines work like fishing nets-the best technology in the world catches nothing if you set it in the wrong spot. Patagonia has been called one of the windiest inhabited regions on Earth, with mean annual wind speeds exceeding 8 m/s across vast stretches of coastal plain [1,2] . Argentina's renewable energy programme targets 20% of electricity from nonconventional renewables by 2025, and Patagonian wind is expected to carry most of that load [3] . But wind speed alone doesn't determine site suitability. A turbine needs road access for heavy equipment delivery, proximity to transmission lines to export power, terrain compatible with foundation construction, land free from environmental restrictions, and community acceptance [4,5] . GIS-based multi-criteria evaluation combines these factors into a single suitability score that identifies the spatial overlap between resource availability and development feasibility [6,7] . Earlier assessments of Argentine wind potential used coarse national-scale resource maps [8] or focused on single provinces without integrating infrastructure and environmental constraints [9] . This research provided the first multi-criteria suitability analysis covering the entire Patagonian coastal plain at a resolution fine enough (250 m) to guide individual project siting.

Calibration and Validation

Wind resource estimates from ERA5 reanalysis (0.25° resolution) were calibrated against 18 ground-based meteorological stations operating within the research area. Monthly mean wind speeds from ERA5 were regressed against station measurements at 10 m and 80 m heights for the period 2010-2022. The calibration yielded R² = 0.89 for monthly means and mean bias error of +0.34 m/s, which was subtracted as a systematic correction. Validated wind speed surfaces were interpolated to 250 m resolution using co-kriging with elevation as an auxiliary variable. The AHP weight set was validated through a consistency ratio test (CR = 0.067, below the 0.10 acceptability threshold [15] ) and crosschecked against three independent expert panels.

Material and Methods

Material and Methods

Material

Material

Methods

Six criteria were mapped: wind speed at 80 m hub height, elevation (favouring 0-500 m), distance to roads (<10 km preferred), distance to grid (<20 km preferred), land use (excluding urban and wetland), and environmental sensitivity (excluding protected areas and migration corridors). Each criterion was scored 1-10 using piecewise linear functions. AHP [15] assigned weights: wind speed 0.34, grid proximity 0.22, road access 0.16, land use 0.12, elevation 0.09, environment 0.07. Weighted overlay generated composite suitability maps in ArcGIS 10.8 at 250 m resolution. Installable capacity was estimated assuming 5 MW per km² for highly suitable areas (score > 7.0). Monthly wind profiles were extracted for each zone from the calibrated ERA5 dataset.

Results

Results

Comprehensive Interpretation

A total of 34.7% of the mapped area qualified as highly suitable (score > 7.0), with estimated installable capacity of 8,400 MW across the three zones (Table 1). The Southern Steppe had the strongest wind resource (11.4 m/s) but scored lowest for grid proximity (22.8 km mean distance), while the Central Coast offered the best infrastructure balance (Table 1, Figure 1). Monthly profiles confirmed year-round viability, with all zones exceeding 7 m/s in every month and the Southern Steppe peaking at 13.4 m/s in July (Table 2, Figure 2). The radar chart shows that the Central Coast is the most balanced zone across all six criteria.

↗ Enlarge

Figure 2Close ×

Monthly mean wind speed profiles for three Patagonian coastal zones (2010-2022)

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper figureSource PDF · page 3 ↗

↗ Enlarge

Figure 1Close ×

Multi-criteria suitability scores by zone across six evaluation criteria

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper figureSource PDF · page 2 ↗

Zone	J	F	M	A	M	J	J	A	S	O	N	D
North	7.8	7.4	8.2	9.1	10.3	11.2	11.8	11.4	10.6	9.3	8.4	7.9
Central	6.4	6.1	6.8	7.6	8.4	9.1	9.7	9.3	8.7	7.8	7.1	6.6
South	8.9	8.4	9.3	10.4	11.7	12.8	13.4	13.1	12.2	10.8	9.6	9.1

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image

↗ Enlarge

Table 2Close ×

Monthly mean wind speed (m/s) at 80 m hub height by

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 2 ↗

↗ Enlarge

Table 1Close ×

Wind energy suitability assessment by zone

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper figureSource PDF · page 2 ↗

Discussion

The 8,400 MW estimated installable capacity is roughly four times Argentina's current installed wind capacity (2,100 MW as of 2022) [3] , indicating substantial room for expansion within the Patagonian coastal plains alone. The Southern Steppe's wind speeds (mean 11.4 m/s) exceed those at most operational wind farms worldwide [1] , but the 22.8 km mean grid distance makes development there roughly 30-40% more expensive per MW than at Central Coast sites [10,11] . The Central Coast emerged as the pragmatic first-choice zone because its moderate wind speed (8.3 m/s) still yields capacity factors above 35% with modern turbines, while its proximity to existing transmission infrastructure reduces balance-of-system costs [12,13] . That said, the Southern Steppe should not be dismissed-as grid extension projects proceed, its exceptional wind resource will become increasingly attractive [14] .

Conclusion

This research identified 34.7% of the Patagonian coastal plain as highly suitable for wind energy development, with a combined estimated capacity of 8,400 MW. The Central Coast zone offers the best balance of wind resource and infrastructure access for near-term development, while the Southern Steppe holds the largest long-term potential once grid connectivity improves. The GIS-based multi-criteria framework is transferable to other wind-rich regions where resource abundance alone does not determine development viability.

Acknowledgement

Acknowledgements Funding SourcesSupported by institutional research allocations for energy geography and renewable resources. Institutional SupportJaipur Institute of Earth Sciences provided GIS processing facilities and remote sensing software.

1. Archer CL, Jacobson MZ. Evaluation of global wind power. Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres. 2005;110(D12):D12110.
2. Aydin NY, Kentel E, Duzgun S. GIS-based environmental assessment of wind energy systems for spatial planning. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2010;14(1):364-373.
3. Baban SMJ, Parry T. Developing and applying a GISassisted approach to locating wind farms in the UK. Renewable Energy. 2001;24(1):59-71.
4. Copena D, Simon X. Wind farms and payments to landowners: opportunities for rural development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2018;83:38-44.
5. Dvorak MJ, Archer CL, Jacobson MZ. California offshore wind energy potential. Renewable Energy. 2010;35(6):1244-1254.
6. Grothe O, Schnieders J. Spatial dependence in wind and optimal wind power allocation. Energy Economics. 2011;33(1):48-58.
7. Herbert GMJ, Iniyan S, Sreevalsan E, Rajapandian S. A review of wind energy technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2007;11(6):1117-1145.
8. Janke JR. Multicriteria GIS modeling of wind and solar farms in Colorado. Renewable Energy. 2010;35(10):2228-2234.
9. Kruger AC, Goliger AM, Retief JV, Sekele S. Strong wind climatic zones in South Africa. Wind and Structures. 2010;13(1):37-55.
10. Latinopoulos D, Kechagia K. A GIS-based multicriteria evaluation for wind farm site selection. Applied Energy. 2015;149:339-350.
11. Mentis D, Hermann S, Howells M, Welsch M. Assessing the technical wind energy potential in Africa. Energy. 2015;83:544-551.
12. Noorollahi Y, Yousefi H, Mohammadi M. Multicriteria decision support system for wind farm site selection using GIS. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments. 2016;13:38-50.
13. Pryor SC, Barthelmie RJ. Climate change impacts on wind energy: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2010;14(1):430-437.
14. Rivas RA, Clausen J, Hansen KS, Jensen LE, Rathmann OS. Solving the turbine positioning problem for large offshore wind farms by simulated annealing. Wind Engineering. 2009;33(3):287-297.
15. Saaty TL. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences. 2008;1(1):83-98.
16. Sliz-Szkliniarz B, Vogt J. GIS-based approach for the evaluation of wind energy potential: a case study for the Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodeship. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2011;15(3):1696-1707.
17. Van Haaren R, Fthenakis V. GIS-based wind farm site selection using spatial multi-criteria analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2011;15(7):3332-3340.
18. Villacreses G, Gaona G, Martinez-Gomez J, Jimenéz D. Wind farms suitability location using GIS-based multicriteria evaluation. Renewable Energy. 2017;109:275286.
19. Watson JJW, Hudson MD. Regional scale wind farm and solar farm suitability assessment using GIS-assisted multi-criteria evaluation. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2015;138:20-31.
20. Zhou Y, Wu WX, Liu GX. Assessment of onshore wind energy resource and wind-generated electricity potential in Jiangsu, China. Energy Procedia. 2011;5:418-422.