A 400–600 MW onshore wind portfolio in Serbia behaves fundamentally differently from a solar-dominated build-out once projects reach system-material size. The difference is not cosmetic or theoretical. It shows up directly in annual generation stability, capture prices, curtailment behavior, and—most importantly for investors—equity IRR resilience under grid stress and delays.
Wind’s advantage begins with physics. Onshore wind in Serbia consistently delivers capacity factors of 32–38%, far above utility-scale solar. A 400 MW wind portfolio produces roughly 1,120–1,330 GWh per year, while a 600 MW portfolio reaches 1,680–2,000 GWh. In energy terms, this means a relatively modest MW footprint can anchor a very large share of annual electricity supply without flooding the same hours every day. That temporal dispersion is the single biggest reason wind behaves better than solar once penetration rises.
This output profile translates into stronger capture prices. Wind generation is less synchronized across hours and seasons and is better aligned with evening, night-time, and winter demand, when prices are structurally higher. As a result, wind capture prices typically trade 5–15% above solar capture prices at comparable penetration levels. Under contracted or semi-contracted structures, a realistic realized price band for wind sits at €70–90/MWh, while long-run merchant capture prices tend to cluster around €75–100/MWh, with meaningfully lower intraday volatility than solar.
The revenue implications are immediate. A 400 MW wind base case generates annual revenues in the €85–115 million range. Scaling to 600 MW lifts that envelope to roughly €130–180 million, without the same degree of price cannibalization that solar experiences as volumes rise. Importantly, these revenues remain comparatively robust even as additional capacity enters the system, because wind does not concentrate output into a narrow midday window.
From a capital-intensity perspective, wind carries higher unit CAPEX than solar, but delivers far more usable energy per MW and imposes a lower hidden tax on the grid. Delivered onshore wind costs in Serbia typically fall in the €1.20–1.80 million per MW range, depending on terrain, access roads, turbine class, and distance to high-voltage connection points. Where storage is added, two-hour battery systems generally price at €0.35–0.55 million per MWh. This places total portfolio CAPEX at approximately €480–720 million for a 400 MW storage-light wind build-out, and €900 million to €1.3 billion for a 600 MW storage-heavy configuration. Crucially, grid-related CAPEX per incremental MW rises much more slowly for wind than for solar, because wind farms are geographically dispersed rather than clustered around a few saturated nodes.
Grid integration is where the divergence becomes structural. Solar output is highly synchronized, producing system-wide midday peaks that rapidly collapse prices and create steep late-afternoon ramps. Wind output is stochastic and spatially diversified, which spreads stress across time and geography. Modern wind turbines also contribute reactive power support and synthetic inertia, reducing voltage stress rather than amplifying it. Ramping requirements are smoother and less predictable than solar’s sharp daily drop-off, making them easier to absorb with existing hydropower flexibility.
These differences show up most clearly in curtailment behavior. In a well-sited Serbian wind portfolio, curtailment typically remains event-driven rather than structural. A realistic assumption for a 400 MW base case is 1–2% curtailment. Even at 600 MW, curtailment without storage is more likely to sit around 3–4%, and can be reduced to 2% or less with a modest storage layer of 100–150 MW / 200–300 MWh. At ~1,800 GWh of annual generation, each 1% of curtailment corresponds to about 18 GWh of lost energy, or €1.3–1.7 million of annual revenue at prevailing capture prices. Compare that with large solar portfolios, where 8–10% curtailment can become structural at similar system impact.
The effect on equity returns is decisive. Unlevered equity IRRs for a 400 MW storage-light wind portfolio typically fall in the 8–10% range under stable offtake structures. Scaling to 600 MW with a storage-heavy configuration supports 9–12% unlevered returns, with a much tighter downside distribution than solar. Equivalent solar portfolios delivering similar GWh volumes often sit in the 6–9% range, with materially higher downside risk once curtailment and capture-price erosion are fully modeled.
Grid-delay stress tests reinforce this conclusion. If 200 MW of wind capacity is delayed by 12–18 months, deferred generation reaches roughly 850–1,000 GWh, implying €65–95 million of postponed revenue. Yet the equity IRR impact is typically limited to 80–150 basis points, materially lower than the 150–250 basis points often observed in large solar portfolios under comparable delays. Wind projects are more likely to enter partial operation, suffer localized rather than system-wide constraints, and retain stronger capture prices even when commissioning slips.
Storage plays a different role in wind economics than in solar. Wind does not require storage to be bankable. A storage-light configuration already works financially and systemically. Adding storage enhances optionality—improving reserve provision, peak shaping, and merchant upside—but it is not a value-rescue mechanism. In solar, storage often prevents value destruction. In wind, it primarily creates incremental value.
Taken together, a 400–600 MW onshore wind platform in Serbia emerges as a structurally more resilient investment than an equivalently sized solar build-out. Higher capacity factors mean fewer MW are needed for the same energy output. Less synchronized generation slows capture-price erosion. Grid services are additive rather than destabilizing. Curtailment remains manageable. The result is a narrower IRR distribution and far greater tolerance to grid friction and timing risk.
In Serbia’s power system, wind functions as the stability asset, solar as the volume asset, and storage as the insurance layer. Treating them as interchangeable technologies leads to systematic mispricing of risk. Modeling them separately is not a stylistic preference—it is a financial necessity.
Elevated by virtu.energy