In recent years, with the depletion of conventional fossil energy, renewable energy such as wind energy has attracted more and more attention. The purpose of this paper is to apply the ecological footprint method to the evaluation and calculation of wind energy development and absorptive capacity, and then to study related major issues. First, through the in-depth analysis of the existing wind energy development and consumption theories, the current factors affecting wind energy development and consumption and the existing wind energy consumption patterns are summarized. Taking the wind farm in province M as an example, the weights of each index of wind power development project and wind power consumption capacity are calculated. The calculation results show that, among the technical factors of wind farm projects in M province, wind resources account for 39%, accounting for the largest proportion, followed by site selection and wind farm technical conditions, accounting for 12% and 3% respectively. According to the calculation results of the ecological footprint calculation method, it is estimated that wind energy can absorb 1547 MWh in summer and 1164 MWh in winter. The technical level of the wind farm is excellent, indicating that the technical level is suitable for the construction of wind farms in M province.

Aditiya Kummar. Major Issues Related to Wind Power Development and Consumption under the Ecological Footprint Method. Academic Journal of Energy (2021), Vol. 2, Issue 3: 50-58. https://doi.org/10.38007/RE.2021.020306.

[1] Sakiru, Adebola, Solarin. Convergence in CO 2 emissions, carbon footprint and ecological footprint: evidence from OECD countries.. Environmental science and pollution research international, 2019, 26(6):6167-6181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3993-8

[2] Zahid, Hussain, Hulio, et al. Site-specific technical and economic analysis of wind power potential and energy generation using Weibull parameters. World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 2018, 15(1):35-53. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJSTSD-10-2016-0058

[3] Genta C ,  Favaro S ,  Sonetti G , et al. Envisioning green solutions for reducing the ecological footprint of a university campus. International journal of sustainability in higher education, 2019, 20(3):423-440. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-01-2019-0039

[4] Mayer T ,  Semmel M ,  Morales M , et al. Techno-economic evaluation of hydrogen refueling stations with liquid or gaseous stored hydrogen. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2019, 44(47):25809-25833.

[5] Dindar A ,  Ardehali M M ,  Vakilian M . Integration of wind turbines in distribution systems and development of an adaptive overcurrent relay coordination scheme with considerations for wind speed forecast uncertainty. IET Renewable Power Generation, 2020, 14(15):2983-2992. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-rpg.2020.0786

[6] K, Moore. New York, New Jersey plan offshore wind power development. Work boat, 2018, 75(3):19-19.

[7] Knight S . Testing lags behind blade development. Windpower monthly, 2019, 35(3):30-32.

[8] Anderson J . Corporate PPAs and grid conditions could drive US onshore wind development post PTC. Platts Megawatt Daily, 2018, 23(211):2-3.

[9] Anderson J . ISO-NE studying market impacts of up to 12 GW of offshore wind power. Platts Megawatt Daily, 2019, 24(100):4-5.

[10] Jang H M ,  Kim D M ,  Paek I S . Development of an Analysis Program for Small Horizontal Wind Turbines Considering Side Furling and Optimal Torque Scheduling. Journal of the Korean Solar Energy Society, 2018, 38(2):15-31. https://doi.org/10.7836/kses.2018.38.2.015

[11] Kjaer A B ,  Korsgaard S ,  Nielsen S S , et al. Design, Fabrication, Test, and Benchmark of a Magnetically Geared Permanent Magnet Generator for Wind Power Generation. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, 2020, 35(1):24-32. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEC.2019.2951998

[12] Milborrow D . WIMDECONOMICS. Windpower Monthly, 2019, 35(5):34-35.

[13] Goyal A ,  Agrawal R ,  Chokhani R K , et al. Waste reduction through Kaizen approach: A case study of a company in India. Waste management & research, 2019, 37(1):102-107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X18796205

[14] S Bretesché,  Montavon G ,  Martin A . For an interdisciplinary approach to environmental risk. The case of uranium. Natures Sciences Sociétés, 2020, 28(1):58-65. https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2020023

[15] Usman M ,  Jahanger A . Correction to: Heterogeneous effects of remittances and institutional quality in reducing environmental deficit in the presence of EKC hypothesis: a global study with the application of panel quantile regression. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2021, 28(28):37311-37311.

[16] Mishra A K ,  Sharma A ,  Sachdeo M , et al. Development of sustainable value stream mapping (SVSM) for unit part manufacturing. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 2020, 11(3):493-514. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-04-2018-0036

[17] Crf A ,  Gbp A ,  Dlg B , et al. Conservation biology: four decades of problem- and solution-based research. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, 2021, 19( 2):121-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2021.03.003

[18] Fuentes M ,  Cadarso L ,  Vaze V , et al. The Tail Assignment Problem: A Case Study at Vueling Airlines. Transportation Research Procedia, 2021, 52(3):445-452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2021.01.052