Flexible Wind Farm Control: A Review of Wind Power Participation in Future Power Systems

Todd, Devon; Stock, Adam; Früh, Wolf-Gerrit

doi:10.5194/wes-2026-96

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-96

Preprints

01 Jul 2026

| 01 Jul 2026

Status: a revised version of this preprint is currently under review for the journal WES.

Flexible Wind Farm Control: A Review of Wind Power Participation in Future Power Systems

Devon Todd, Adam Stock, and Wolf-Gerrit Früh

Abstract. Conventional wind farm operation, which prioritises power maximisation, is poorly aligned with the evolving requirements of modern power systems, characterised by increased asynchronous generation and reduced dispatchable capacity. This review uses Flexible Wind Farm Control as a term that encompasses control techniques that intentionally modulate wind farm output to better integrate wind energy with the grid. Focusing on European and UK contexts, the review examines how current policy frameworks, market structures, and system-needs are driving demand for new sources of flexibility. A comprehensive review of the literature is presented, covering key application areas of Flexible Wind Farm Control including frequency control, voltage support, fault ride-through, and integration within co-located and hybrid energy systems. Particular attention is given to rotor-side control strategies enabling power set-point tracking, synthetic inertia provision, and reserve-based operation. The review highlights differences in objectives, time scales, and system interactions for Wind Farm Control strategies that prioritise grid support over power maximisation. However, inconsistencies between policy and the recognised role of wind energy in providing flexibility remain clear. At the same time, much of the existing literature relies on simplified modelling approaches, highlighting the need for higher-fidelity models of turbine and farm dynamics, including turbulence, wake effects, and component fatigue, to better asses the performance of Flexible Wind Farm Control strategies. Overall, the literature suggests a persistent gap between policy and the technical capabilities of Flexible Wind Farm Control. Although some policy makers have acknowledged the potential of wind farms to support flexibility, significant work is required to fully identify and implement these capabilities in future power systems. Going forward, increased data availability, higher-fidelity simulation results, and field studies will be essential to establish wind farms as reliable providers of power system flexibility.

Received: 09 Jun 2026 – Discussion started: 01 Jul 2026

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Devon Todd, Adam Stock, and Wolf-Gerrit Früh

Status: final response (author comments only)

RC1:
'Comment on wes-2026-96', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Jul 2026
General comments
The article tries to give an overview on the participation and support to (future) power systems. Although it's logical that not everything is treated in detail, as it is a review article, the article is very superficial (and unclear) in most parts. On the other hand, the comparison between the UK and the EU context is a positive element. The title mentions "future" power systems, but some elements described in the article are already implemented and applied in current wind farm operation. However, the current practices are hardly mentioned nor analysed.
Specific comments
The introduction section is rather good as it describes the scope of the article.
The section on flexibility (2.1) is quiet limited, e.g. industrial flexibility is not explicitly mentioned. The section does not give a good overview of the most relevant kinds of flexibility and the grid and market incentives for a flexible operation (of wind farms, in this case).
In the section on stability (2.2) it is not clear why a division is made between primary and secondary response (2.2.1) on the one hand and tertiary response and reserve services (2.2.2) on the other. Also the first category (including FCR and aFRR in EU) represents reserves. The sequence of the different responses and reserves and the relations with forecasting and energy markets (e.g. day-ahead, intra-day) and imbalance settlement are not well explained.
In 2.2.1 (explanation of Fig. 1) a "fault" is mentioned, but it is not explained what is meant by this. (The "fault" is, e.g., the loss of a production unit in this case.)
In Section 3 (Policy), Table 4 is hardly explained. E.g. in the "Hydrogen Evolution" scenario, the statement "High levels of dispatchable hydrogen plants which reduces the need for renewables and nuclear" is not explained. The production of hydrogen by means of renewable or nuclear power seems not to be considered.
In section 4, the wind turbine control options are insufficently described. The generator types considered are even not mentioned (except in one sentence in 5.1).
The phrase "necessitating adjustment of the blade pitch to achieve a target mechanical power" (line 280), that power control is only possible when (also) pitching is applied, while (in a certain operating region) the power can be controlled by torque/speed control of the generator only. There are no figures showing the topologies of the complete wind turbine system including the power-electronic converters for implementing the control strategies. The control strategies mentioned in Figure 3 are hardly described.
In section 5.3 the "event" considered in is not explicitely mentioned. What is the power imbalance (ΔP in equatiion 3) exactly? (From an elecgtrical point of view, the power injected in the grid equals the electrical power consumption.)
In sections 6 and 7, some aspects such as the possible negative impact of a control actions on mechanical loading and fatigue are shortly mentioned. However, higher maintenance costs and life time reduction due to control actions for a flexible operation are issues wind farm operators are already considering today.
Technical comments
The manuscript contains some incomplete and unclear sentences:
line 82: Before presenting the final conclusions in section 7.

line 143: Which, poses a problem for TSOs.

line 283: For below rated operation, through an increase to the minimum pitch angle.

line 326: By managing the active power (mechanical power) output in a manner that provides the necessary for power electronics to adjust reactive power (Song et al., 2025).

The quality of some figures should be improved, e.g. Figure 1.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-96-RC1
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2026-96', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Aug 2026

This review article describes the roles that wind energy systems can play in the future of the electric grid with a focus on UK and EU configurations and policies. Overall, it is a timely and relevant topic that should be of interest to readers of Wind Energy Science.
Although I do believe the article could be revised such that it is suitable for publication, I have two overarching concerns that I would request the authors to consider.
First, the review is very heavily focused on recent articles (since 2020) and omits a number of relevant papers from the mid-2010s outlining technical approaches for things like APC and power reference tracking. I certainly would not recommend to remove the most recent papers that are already cited, but I think including discussion of early implementations of some of these ideas (and, if relevant, how and why they have evolved) would strengthen the review nature of this manuscript and better “synthesize the status of knowledge based on a systematic literature review” (as described in the manuscript types page of Wind Energy Science). As one example, van Wingerden et al.’s “Active Power Control of Waked Wind Farms” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240589631730722X is authored by several researchers who were quite active in this field and cites a number of other relevant papers (I am not one of the authors of this paper/have nothing to gain from its citation). Table 5 would also benefit from the additional of relevant papers from the extended time period of the literature review.
Second, the manuscript has quite a broad scope and covers most topics only fairly superficially, which seems appropriate for a review article, but occasionally delves into much more detailed descriptions that seem a bit out of place. For example, the detailed review of the techniques available in (Abbas et al., 2024), including the figure of the various signals (Figure 3), goes well beyond the more conceptual Figure 4. I was left wondering if there is an intent to offer some specific contrast between the (Abbas et al., 2024) and (Stock and Leithead, 2022) techniques; if so, it would be more clear to the reader if similar plots were included for each. Similarly, Table 3 (EU) and Table 4 (UK) show much different levels of detail and ways of thinking about wind contributions to the grid, leaving the reader to wonder if there is some meaning in the ways the two regions are thinking about wind integration or if there is another reason for the contrast. (Presumably the same categories of technologies shown in Table 3 would apply to both.) A third example is the delving into the details of how long it takes for overall load reduction to be positive according to (Ziegler et al., 2024) around line 250; while of course this information is relevant to using FWFC, it is far more detailed than descriptions of many of the other references cited. Is there some particular reason this information is especially important to the review?
I also have some more detailed comments that could help to improve the manuscript:
-many abbreviations are defined multiple times in the manuscript or defined but then not used consistently later (e.g., the reversion to spelling out Wind Farm Control and Flexible Wind Farm Control) in the final pages instead of using WFC and FWFC.
-I am not sure if this is because some of the citations were published without years, but occasionally it is difficult to discern the reference in (Author, Year) format when there is no year provided or when a year is sometimes attached to a letter but not consistently (see (NESO, 2025c) in the caption for Table 2 and (NESO, c) on line 154 for example.)
-The image on p. 2 would benefit from a caption or key descriptors. For example I am left wondering why no signals are shown for two of the future scenarios, and why the power plant has two “lightning” (electricity) symbols now and 3(?) in the future – is there a meaning I should take from that difference?
-line 92: missing “Section” before 2.2
-Figure 1 would benefit from more information in the caption, at a minimum indicating that this is a typical curve in response to a fault
-“Which, poses a problem for TSOs” (line 143) is not a complete sentence
-in the Table 3 headings, should the 3^rd column be something like “Compensates for periods of vRES shortage”?
-lines 200-201: I am most familiar with BESS meaning battery energy storage system, not batteries *and* energy storage systems as stated
-Table 4 would benefit from a more descriptive caption, perhaps including a term like “possible” (future pathways) or “options” (for the future). Further, it was not immediately clear why Hydrogen Evolution would reduce the need for renewables; is that in comparison to the Holistic Transition and Electric Engagement (vs. compared to today)?
-line 319: do you mean “outside” or “beyond” instead of “outwith”?
-Figure 5 is missing spaces before ( in both the x and y axis labels
-I did not find Figure 6 to be especially informative; if there is an important point for the review, perhaps a revised explanation of the figure would make that more clear.
-The sentence on line 436 is incomplete
-Perhaps related to my comment about the overall synthesis of the literature, I do not agree that this review clearly outlines “the gaps in the current literature” (lines 460-461). I do believe these gaps could be made more clear in a revision.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-96-RC2
AC1: 'Author Response', Devon Todd, 02 Oct 2026

We would like to thank the reviewers for their time taken to review our submission to WES, attached is our responses to the reviewers comments.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-96-AC1

Devon Todd, Adam Stock, and Wolf-Gerrit Früh

Viewed

Total article views: 530 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
309	119	102	530	136	107

HTML: 309
PDF: 119
XML: 102
Total: 530
BibTeX: 136
EndNote: 107

Views and downloads (calculated since 01 Jul 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jul 2026	98	26	7	131
Aug 2026	75	35	4	114
Sep 2026	104	43	72	219
Oct 2026	32	15	19	66

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 01 Jul 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jul 2026	98	26	7	131
Aug 2026	75	35	4	114
Sep 2026	104	43	72	219
Oct 2026	32	15	19	66

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 463 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 463 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 17 Oct 2026

Short summary

This paper explores how wind farms could be operated to better support electricity systems as renewable energy increases. Instead of focusing on producing as much power as possible, wind farms can be controlled to support the grid. A review of existing literature shows that while promising, the role wind farms can play is not yet fully understood. Better models and real-world testing is needed to verify the performance of these strategies in order to define their role.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0