5

Assessment of Renewable Energy Potentials in
Asia toward a Decarbonized World
Diego SILVA HERRAN*
Social Systems Division, National Institute for Environmental Studies,
16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki, 305-8506, Japan*E-mail: silva.diego@nies.go.jp

Abstract
A decarbonized global society will require expanded deployment of renewable energy in Asia more than in
any other region due to its large population and fast development compared to other world regions. Thus, thepossibility of a decarbonized society in Asia depends first on the availability of renewable energy resources,
which, in turn, depends on geographic and climatic conditions along with the status of technologies. This paper
presents estimates of two major renewable resources, solar and wind, in terms of energy potentials from amodel using georeferenced data. The outcomes are compared with current energy demand in Asian countries,
and are discussed with respect to some of the gaps to be filled to secure the expansion of the region’s renewableenergy supply.
Key words: Asian region, energy potential, onshore wind, solar PV

1. Introduction
The Asian region has considerable requirements forrenewable energy to help displace fossil fuels, increaseenergy security and prevent dangerous climate change.
The region is home to close to half of global greenhouseemissions (UNEP, 2019), 40% of global energy
consumption and 46% of fossil fuel consumption(UNDESA, 2021). Replacing such amounts of fossil fuels
will require a scale-up of renewables in the future.
Currently, solar PV and onshore wind represent the major
renewable resources, besides conventional hydropower,that have the largest prospects for fulfilling energy
demand while contributing to decarbonization.
The past two decades have seen unprecedented
growth in the solar PV and wind power industries in the
Asian region. The installed capacity of solar and wind
power in the region, grew from just 9.6 GW and 66 GW,
respectively, in 2011, to over 331 GW and 332 GW,
respectively, in 2019 (IRENA, 2021a). China alone
increased its installed solar power capacity during that
period (2011–2019) by more than sixty-fold, and that ofwind power by around five-fold (IRENA, 2021a). This
progress has been supported by advances in technological
performance and production, which have led to significant
cost reductions. In 2020, the costs of electricity supply
from solar PV and onshore wind power (global-weighted
Global Environmental Research
26/2022 005−010
printed in Japanaverage) were 0.057 and 0.039 $/kWh, respectively. Thisis equivalent to a reduction of 85% and 56%, respectively,
compared to the cost back in 2010 (IRENA, 2021b). Also,
several policies have complemented the expansion ofthese technologies, and schemes for financially
supporting the adoption of these technologies are in placein several countries.
Decarbonization of the supply and demand of energy
poses multiple questions about the feasibility of deploying
renewable energies at large scale. If renewable energies
are the centerpiece of a decarbonized society, are theseresources plentiful enough to fulfill current and futureenergy demands? What are the geographic andtechnological gaps that need to be addressed to enable awidespread, large-scale deployment of these energy
resources? In addition to these questions, other issues
exist that are related to the feasibility of implementing therelevant technologies with respect to economic
performance, policy, institutional capability and social
acceptability, among other factors. This paper limits its
focus to the first set of questions (related to geographic
and technological aspects), and will bring up some of the
key factors related to other aspects.
This paper explains the value of renewable energy
for achieving the decarbonization of energy use in the
Asian region, with respect to the availability of energy
resources. For this, the paper first presents the available©2022 AIRIES

6

D. SILVA HERRAN

renewable energy resources, namely solar PV and onshore
wind power, estimated using a model with georeferenced
data, and expressed as technical energy potentials. It thenexplains the value of renewable resources in the context
of current energy demand.

The input data sets and main assumptions are listed
in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. The conversion
efficiency of the solar panels is assumed to be 20%, andcapacity density of the wind turbines, 10 MW/km2.
Table 1

2. Model for Estimating Renewable Energy
Potentials
This study is based on a model for estimating theavailability of solar and wind resources as energy
potentials at the global scale using georeferenced data.
This model is documented in Silva Herran (2012) and has
been applied for global assessments (Silva Herran et al.,2016). The model’s outputs are used in integrated
assessment models evaluating global GHG emission
mitigation scenarios (Fujimori et al., 2017; Dai et al.,2016). The estimates presented in this paper use updated
values for technology parameters (conversion efficiency
and capacity density). The paper also analyzes the energy
potentials of 13 countries and regions, in contrast to theprevious study which considered only three Asian
countries, with the remaining countries aggregated into
three regions, with no analysis with respect to national
electricity consumption levels.
The model includes as inputs the georeferenced
datasets (as gridded data) on climate (solar radiation,wind speed), geography (elevation, slope) and landfeatures (protected areas, land cover), along withparameters related to the techno-economic features of thetechnologies assumed in the model and restrictions forland suitability (i.e., type and fraction of land available for
installing solar or wind power technologies). The model
combines multiple georeferenced datasets andassumptions from the parameters, and calculates estimatesof energy potential by country after accounting for
geographic, land use and technical restrictions. The model
also considers distance to the closest urban area toaccount for visibility restrictions on wind turbines.
The technologies assumed in the model for solar PV
are multi-crystalline panels mounted as arrays on rooftops
or as solar farms in empty land plots with a fixed
inclination angle. For onshore wind, the technologies
assumed are large-scale horizontal axis turbines groupedin wind farms, turbine height of 80 meters and rotor
diameter of 90 meters. The main equations used toestimate the technical energy potential are listed below.
Details on the calculations can be found in the author’s
manual (Silva Herran, 2012) and relevant publications(Silva Herran et al., 2016).
QPV = AG * rLC_PV * n * qrad / Interv
QWind = AG * rLC_Wind * ρcpc * cfturb * 8760

Input data sets used in the assessment.

Data set

Remarks {resolution}

Reference

Solar
Monthly average solar insolation on
insolation
horizontal surface {1 arc degree}
Wind speed Monthly average at 50 meters above
ground {1 arc degree}.

NASA LaRC(2008)
NASA LaRC(2005)

Land cover 17 types according to IGBP
classification {0.5 arc-minute}

USGS (2005)

Elevation

Land altitude and ocean depth{0.5 arc-minute}

Slope

Meters of change in verticaldirection per 100 meters{0.5 arc-minute}Wilderness Areas away from human activitiesareas(6 km from roads and settlements,
larger than 400,000 ha){0.5 arc-minute}Landscapeangle

Angle between horizontal plane andlandscape line within 30 km{0.5 arc-minute}.
OptimalInclination angle of PV panels
inclination corresponding to optimal insolation
angle
rate {0.5 arc-minute}.
Distance to Distance to the closest urban area
urban area {0.5 arc-minute}Protected
Terrestrial and marine protected
areas
areas {0.5 arc-minute}

NOOA (2005),
Hastings andDunbar (1999),
GEBCO (2006)
Burrough and
McDonell(1998)The Sierra Cluband World Bank
(1993)
Ikegami (2009)

Ikegami (2009)

Silva Herran
et al. (2016)
IUCN and
UNEP (2009)

QPV: technical energy potential of solar PV [MWh/yr]
QWind: technical energy potential of onshore wind power [MWh/yr]
AG: area of grid cell [km2]rLC: land suitability factor for each land cover type [ - ]n: conversion efficiency of solar panels [ - ]qrad: annual average energy flux as solar radiation over inclined
panel [MWh/km2/yr]
Interv: factor accounting for spacing between adjacentpanels [ - ]cfturb: annual average capacity factor of wind turbine [%]ρcpc: capacity density of wind power farm [MW/km2]

Table 2

Assumptions for land exclusions and land suitability.

Assumptions
Wind: onshore Solar PV
Exclusions
Elevation [m above sea level]> 2000> 2000Slope [%]
>3
>3
Wilderness and protected areas
Excluded Excluded
Land suitability factor (rLC) [%]Forest, mixed forest, woody savannas
00Savannas, grasslands, open shrublands
50
5
Croplands, cropland/natural30
5vegetation mosaic
Urban and built-up, closed shrublands
05
Barren or sparsely vegetated50
2.5
Water bodies, wetlands, snow/ice
00Renewable Energy Potentials in Asia

3. Renewable Energy Potentials and Their
Contribution to Energy Demand
The estimated technical energy potentials for solar
PV and onshore wind in Asian countries are presented inTable 3. Given that solar and wind resources are directly
related to the surface area available for installing solar
panels and wind turbines, respectively, the energy
potentials can be expressed as densities in terms of eachcountry’s total surface area to give a clearer comparison
among countries. Figure 1 shows the energy potential
densities, equivalent to each energy potential divided by
the country’s surface area and expressed as a ratio to theworld value (which is estimated from the same model
used in this analysis). These estimates should be viewed
as the result of a set of assumptions based on “central
values” for the parameters used in the model. Assuming
upper or lower values for the parameters, which arewithin a range of plausible values, will influence final
outcomes by increasing or decreasing the results (a“sensitivity analysis” would demonstrate the range ofoutcomes from assuming a different set of values for theparameters, but such an analysis is left for another study).
The results for solar PV show that a considerable
quantity of resources exist in India and China, given theirlarge surface areas. These two countries alone account for
two thirds of all the solar resources in the Asian region.
Thailand and Indonesia also have significant amounts ofsolar resources. From the results of the energy potential
density, it becomes clear that considerable solar resources(larger than the world average) exist in Singapore, India
and Thailand. In contrast, countries such as Japan,
Malaysia and Indonesia, have relatively small potentials
as a result of an annual regime of low insolation, andlarge areas restricted for installation of solar panels (suchas forests and protected areas).
The results for onshore wind energy reveal that theenergy potential of the entire Asian region is similar to7

that for solar PV, but it is distributed very differently
across the region. Around half of the onshore wind energy
resources in the Asian region are in China. Other regionswith important amounts of wind resources are in other
Southeast Asia, other South Asia and India. In terms ofenergy densities, only the countries in other South Asiaand Other East Asia have values larger than the world
average. In the latter group of countries, Mongolia
contributes the most to this outcome. Besides these tworegions and China, all the other regions have smaller windenergy potential densities compared to solar energy.
Solar and wind energies produce electricity, therefore,
it is important to evaluate their energy potential withrespect to electricity consumption. Figure 2 shows theestimated energy potentials of each region plotted against
the electricity demand in year 2018 (both values areplotted in logarithmic scale for ease of evaluation). The
figure indicates that regions with values above theequality line (bold diagonal line in the plots) have higher
amounts of the energy resource (either solar PV or
onshore wind) than the electricity that is consumed atpresent. Conversely, regions with values below theequality line indicate higher consumption than theavailable resource.

Fig. 1 Density of technical energy potential in terms of eachcountry’s surface area, expressed as the ratio to the world
value (3,740 TWh/yr/km2 and 3,360 TWh/yr/km2 for PV
and onshore wind, respectively). World values estimatedfrom the same model are applied in this study.

Table 3 Technical energy potential for solar PV and onshore wind, and electricity demand in Asian countries and the world (TWh/yr).
Energy potential [TWh/yr]
Electricity demand in 2018 [TWh/yr]
PV
Wind
Japan
JPN
392
347
946
China
CHN
15,662
27,100
6,002
India
IND
24,625
4,319
1,157
Indonesia
IDN
2,439
404
252
Korea
KOR
168
106
531
Thailand
THA
3,433
233
188
Malaysia
MYS
518
29
153
Viet Nam
VNM
985
343
193
Other Southeast Asia
XSE
2,683
345
35
Philippines
PHL
731
360
83
Singapore
SGP
6
0
50
Other South Asia
XSA
6,638
8,203
206
Other East Asia
XEA
3,044
10,60618
Taiwan
TWN
97
56
247
Asian region total
61,42252,454
10,061
World
506,452
455,219
22,226
Other Southeast Asia includes Brunei, Cambodia, Myanmar and Timor Leste. Other South Asia includes Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan,
Maldives, Nepal and Pakistan. Other East Asia includes Korea DPR and Mongolia.
RegionCode8

D. SILVA HERRAN

The solar PV potentials, showed in Figure 2a, cansupply at least 10% of the electricity demand, and at most
more than 100 times larger electricity amounts. In regionsthat include less developed countries, such as other East
Asia (which includes Mongolia and North Korea), other
Southeast Asia (which includes Laos, Cambodia and
Myanmar) and other South Asia (which includes Sri
Lanka and Afghanistan) have solar resources more thanten times larger than their electricity demand. In contrast,in the industrialized countries of the Asian region, theavailable potential is only a fraction of the demand due tohigh energy consumption per capita and relatively low
annual insolation rates. It is also worth noting thatcountries with small solar energy potentials are in asurplus condition (for example Malaysia and Vietnam).
Moreover, the largest potential, located in China, is only a
few times larger than the electricity demand in that
region.
The energy potential of onshore wind, shown in
Figure 2b, can cover between 0.6% (Singapore) to around
600 times (other East Asia) the current electricity demand.
Similar to solar resources, low income regions possesslarge resource surpluses compared to their electricity
demand. Also, middle income regions, such as Indonesia,
Thailand and Vietnam, have resource levels similar totheir demand, while industrialized regions have limited
resources (around 20%–40% of electricity demand, or lessin the case of Singapore).
The analysis above suggests that the supply ofelectricity from solar and wind resources can be an
opportunity for low-income regions, as they have large
surpluses that could be provided to other regions withhigh energy demand and small renewable energy potential,
in particular to industrialized regions such as Japan or
Korea.
However, the energy potentials estimated in thisstudy only include major geographic, technical andecological restrictions, and lack any representation of
economic or social restrictions (besides visibility
restrictions in the case of onshore wind). Solar and windresources are abundant, but they will remain with little orno value unless measures are in place for deploying them.
What matters is how much of that resource can be utilized
after accounting for, and overcoming, restrictions imposedby compatibility with the environment, development
agendas and societies’ values.
The outcomes of this study are subject to theassumptions and datasets adopted, which involve several
uncertainties. The outcomes are compared to otherestimates from global models for the Asian region. The
solar PV potential is slightly smaller than that reported inanother two studies (61 PWh/yr compared to 74–130
PWh/yr) (de Vries et al., 2007; Pietzcker et al., 2014),
presumably due to the different solar resource datasets
used, as well as lower values assumed for land suitability(50%–90% across land cover categories). For onshore
wind energy, the potential is larger than that reported inother studies (52 PWh/yr against 2–47 PWh/yr in otherstudies) (de Vries et al., 2007; Bosch et al., 2017). Again,
differences in the resource dataset have an effect, while
higher values for capacity density (10 MW/km2 in thisstudy in contrast to 4–5 MW/km2 in other studies) may
play an important role. An important limitation of thisstudy is the coarse spatial resolution of the datasets used
when compared to single country studies. For example, anassessment of Japan using national-scale datasets (MOEJ,
2022) suggests that the energy potential of solar PV(3,222 TWh/yr) is considerably larger than in this study(392 TWh/yr). For onshore wind, this study’s estimate(347 TWh/yr) is smaller than that of the national-scale
study (686 TWh/yr). These differences may result fromthe high spatial resolution of the national-scale study (0.5
km for solar radiation, wind speed and land cover), which
may allow areas of intense solar radiation and windspeeds to be accounted for that are overlooked in global
datasets (~121 km resolution for solar radiation and windspeed). It must be noted that the datasets of these studies
are dated. Therefore, the outcomes are likely to beaffected by changes in recent decades in land cover
patterns (such as urbanization and agricultural land
expansion), and in resource flows due to climate change.
For instance, some studies have reported an impact from

(a)

(b)

Fig. 2 Comparison of estimated energy potential with electricity demand (as of 2018) in each region: a) solar PV; b) onshore wind.
The bold line indicates equal values for energy demand and energy potential; the dashed and dotted lines indicate energy
potentials ten times higher and ten times smaller than electricity demand, respectively. The code names of countries and regions
are explained in Table 3. Based on energy demand data from UN energy statistics pocketbook (UNDESA, 2021).

Renewable Energy Potentials in Asia

climate change on solar PV and wind power generation in
Europe (Jerez et al., 2015; Tobin et al., 2014).
The trends in the renewable energy market in recent
decades herald a continued expansion of the solar andwind industry, but, at the same time, give evidence ofshortcomings arising from experience gained throughlarge-scale deployment. One of these is compatibility withthe environment. At the local scale, the introduction oflarge-scale solar and wind farms can disrupt local
ecosystems, for example by obstructing migration routesof certain birds, and fragmenting the areas of influence ofsome wild animals. At the broad scale, the exploitation of
raw materials, such as rare metals, needed for theconstruction of solar and wind technologies, is arousing
concerns over the disruption and pollution of wild
environments due to the expansion and intensification ofmining activities. Moreover, the proper disposal andrecycling of materials from many installations that will be
decommissioned after the end of their operational life in
the future poses an important challenge.
Another shortcoming observed from large-scale
deployment of solar and wind energies, is the integrationof fluctuating supply from these sources into the powersystem. Handling the variable supply will require multiple
measures to balance the mismatch between supply anddemand within hourly timespans. These measures include
the use of batteries for storage, complemented with fast
response power plants (such as natural gas turbines),
trading of electricity among neighboring regions anddemand-side responses. Implementing these measures in
the Asian region is a fundamental challenge given the lackof experience and large reliance on thermal power plants.
This is especially true in low income (such as Cambodia
and Laos) and middle income (such as Thailand andIndonesia) countries where stability and reliability of theelectricity supply are still far from accomplished. At thesame time, tackling these issues along with promoting
solar and wind power may bring benefits, as the growing
demand from new users in residential, commercial andindustrial sectors, can be covered directly withdecentralized systems. These systems can incorporate
smart metering and a more robust transmission anddistribution network. Accordingly, they can enable direct
implementation of demand-side response measures andbalancing of the system through electricity supply among
distant areas under grids that are newer and wellconnected.
It also must be noted that the energy demand,
especially that for electricity, in the Asian region will
increase considerably in the near future. Increased accessto electricity is expected for more than 100 million people
currently lacking access to the service in the region (IEA
et al., 2020). Also, continued growth in consumption is
expected, driving energy consumption per capita upwards.
Projections of energy consumption from integrated
assessment models suggest an increase of 44%–92% in

9the Asian region (excluding Japan) by 2030 compared to2010, in contrast to an increase of 26%–45% worldwide(COMMIT consortium, 2021; van Soest et al., 2021).
Therefore, the balance between solar and wind energy
resources and energy demand will change. Making use ofnovel technologies, infrastructure (such as high voltage
transmission lines and electricity storage) and policies
will be needed to foster the penetration of renewableenergy at a pace that secures decarbonization without
undermining the stability and affordability of the energy
supply.
Assessments of renewable energy resources mustalso evolve to reflect the changes mentioned above. As
new technologies emerge, assessments will need toinclude other schemes for electricity generation fromsolar and wind resources. Currently, assessments assume asingle dominant technology. In the case of wind power,
the assumed technology is a horizontal axis turbine.
However, currently there are numerous technologies
based on different schemes, such as vertical axis turbinesand high-altitude turbines, that can harness electricity
under conditions not possible with conventional turbines.
For the case of solar PV, the assumed technology is a flat
polycrystalline module mounted on a rigid frame, usually
installed over a roof or an open plot of land. In contrast,
several alternatives exist that generate power using panels
mounted on walls or other surfaces, or that have a flexible
structure, or that can be installed on croplands using anelevated frame with enough spacing so that plants cangrow underneath.
Finally, it is necessary to verify the feasibility ofthese potentials in terms of their economic value and theircompatibility with environmental and social conditions in
the region. The economic aspect can be analyzed bymeans of supply-cost curves, which characterize theenergy potential against the cost of the supply. The
environmental aspect has been covered in this study by
excluding wilderness and protected areas from theestimates, but it can be enhanced by studying the areas ofnegative influence of solar and wind power installations
with more detailed datasets and restrictions (such as thoserelated to migratory routes of birds). The social aspect canbe approached by setting land suitability restrictions inrelation to proximity to human settlements and byconsidering cases that present different levels andrationales for acceptability of expanding renewableenergy installations.

4. Conclusion
Overall, this study showed that there are plenty ofsolar and wind resources in the Asian region, but they are
unequally distributed among countries. The estimatedtechnical energy potentials of solar PV and onshore windin the region were 61,422 TWh/yr and 52,454 TWh/yr,
respectively. These potentials are equivalent to six and10

D. SILVA HERRAN

five times the current electricity demand (as of 2018).
There are surplus energy potentials in low-income
countries, that can range from more than half to several
times the current electricity demand in each respective
country. These countries could balance the large deficits
in high-income countries, where energy potentials only
amount to 40% of current electricity demand.
Further analyses are needed to verify the feasibilityof these energy potentials with respect to economic,
environmental and social restrictions. Also, it is important
to improve the present assessment to consider theevolution of technologies, as well as the lessons fromcontinued deployment of large-scale solar and wind
installations.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by the Environment
Research and Technology Development Fund (JPMEERF
20221002) of the Environmental Restoration andConservation Agency provided by the Ministry of theEnvironment of Japan.
References
Bosch, J., Staffell, I. and Hawkes, A.D. (2017) Temporally explicit
and spatially resolved global offshore wind energy potentials.
Energy, 163: 766–781.
Burrough, P.A. and McDonell, R.A. (1998) Principles ofGeographical Information System, Oxford University Press, New
York, 190.
COMMIT Consortium (2021) COMMIT Scenario Explorer version
1.1. https://doi.org/5281/zenodo.5163587 (accessed 4 October
2022)
Dai, H., Silva Herran, D., Fujimori, S. and Masui, T. (2016) Key
factors affecting long-term penetration of global onshore windenergy integrating top-down and bottom-up approaches.
Renewable Energy, 85: 19–30.
De Vries, B.J., Van Vuuren, D.P. and Hoogwijk, M.M. (2007)
Renewable energy sources: Their global potential for the
first-half of the 21st century at a global level: An integrated
approach. Energy Policy, 35(4): 2590–2610.
Fujimori, S., Hasegawa, T., Masui, T., Takahashi, K., Silva Herran,D., Dai, H., Hijioka, Y. and Kainuma, M. (2017) SSP3: AIM
implementation of shared socioeconomic pathways. Global
Environmental Change, 42: 268–283.
GEBCO (2006) One Minute Grid - Version 1.02, 2006: General
Bathymetric Chart of Oceans (GEBCO). Retrieved fromhttp://www.gebco.net/data_and_products/gridded_bathymetry_data/ (accessed 4 October 2022).
Hastings, D.A. and Dunbar, P.K. (1999) Global Land One-km BaseElevation (GLOBE) Digital Elevation Model Documentation,
Boulder, Colorado, NOAA National Geophysical Data Center,
Publication KGRD 34.
IEA, IRENA, UNSD, World Bank and WHO (2020) Tracking SDG
7: The Energy Progress Report, World Bank, Washington DC.
Ikegami, T. (2009) Methodology for estimation of the renewableenergy potential (in Japanese). Internal Report, AIM. NIES.
IRENA (2021a) Renewable Energy Statistics 2021, International
Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi.
IRENA (2021b) Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2020,
International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi.
IUCN and UNEP (2009) The World Database on Protected Areas(WDPA), UNEP-WCMC. Cambridge, UK.
Jerez, S., Tobin, I., Vautard, R., Montávez, J.P., López-Romero,
J.M. Thais, F., et al. (2015) The impact of climate change
on photovoltaic power generation in Europe. Nature
Communications, 6(1): 1–8.

Ministry of the Environment, Japan (MOEJ) (2022) Renewableenergy potential
system (REPOS).
Retrieved fromhttps://www.renewable-energy-potential.env.go.jp/RenewableEnergy/index.html (accessed 20 September 2022).
NASA LaRC (2005) Wind Speed At 50m above The Surface of
The Earth (10-year Monthly & Annual Average for July 1983–
June 1993), 2005: Surface meteorology and Solar Energy (SSE)
Release 5, Data Set, Atmospheric Science Data Center, NASA
Langley
ResearchCenter(LaRC).
Retrievedfrom
http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/sse/ (accessed 31 October 2008).
NASA LaRC (2008) Insolation Incident on A Horizontal
Surface (22-year Monthly & Annual Average for July 1983–
June 2005), 2008: Surface Meteorology and Solar Energy(SSE) Release 6.0, Data Set, Atmospheric Science Data
Center, NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC). Retrieved
from http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/sse/ (accessed 31 October2008).
NOAA (2005) GLOBE: The Global Land One-km Base Elevation
30-sec, DEM, National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC),NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved
from http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/topo/globe.html, (accessed
31 October 2008).
Pietzcker, R.C., Stetter, D., Manger, S. and Luderer, G. (2014)
Using the sun to decarbonize the power sector: The economic
potential of photovoltaics and concentrating solar power. Applied
Energy, 135: 704–720.
Silva Herran, D. (2012) Renewable energy potential model. Manual(Solar, Wind) version of 2012/01/16. Internal Report, AIM,
NIES.
Silva Herran, D., Dai, H., Fujimori, S. and Masui, T. (2016) Global
assessment of onshore wind power resources considering the
distance to urban areas. Energy Policy, 91: 75–86.
The Sierra Club and World Bank (1993) World Wilderness Areas,
The Sierra Club and World Bank, as integrated by UNEP/GRID.
http://www.grid.unep.ch/data/data.php (accessed 31 October2008).
Tobin, I., Vautard, R., Balog, I., Bréon, F. M., Jerez, S., Ruti, P.M.,
Thais, F., Vrac, M. and Yiou, P. (2015) Assessing climate change
impacts on European wind energy from ENSEMBLES highresolution climate projections. Climatic Change, 128(1): 99–112.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs(UNDESA) (2021) 2021 Energy Statistics Pocketbook, UN, NewYork.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2019) Emissions
Gap Report 2019, UNEP, Nairobi.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (2005) MODIS/Terra Land Cover
Type Yearly L3 Global 1 km SIN Grid, 2005: Land Processes
Distributed Active Archive Center (LPDAAC). Retrieved
from http://edcdaac.usgs.gov/modis/mod12q1v4.asp (accessed 31
October 2008).
van Soest, H., Reis, L.A., Baptista, L.B., Bertram, C., et al. (2021)
Global roll-out of comprehensive policy measures may aid in
bridging emissions gap. Nature Communications, 12(1): 1–10.

Diego SILVA HERRAN
Diego Silva Herran, Ph.D., is a senior researcher
in the Social Systems Division of the National
Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES). He
graduated from the doctoral course of the
Graduate School of Engineering, Department ofManagement Science and Technology in 2010, receiving his Ph.D. in
Engineering. He specializes in energy system analysis for sustainable
development and environmental issues, focusing on climate change
mitigation. His work as part of the team developing the Asia-PacificIntegrated Model (AIM) focuses on assessment of renewable energy
resources by means of models using georeferenced data, and on analysis ofnational and global scenarios for climate change mitigation using an
integrated assessment model.

(Received 4 April 2022, Accepted 4 October 2022)