Citation: van der Burg, S.; Jurg, M.F.M.; Tadema, F.M.; Kamp, L.M.; van de Kaa, G. Dominant Designs for Wings of Airborne Wind Energy Systems. Energies 2022, 15, 7291. https:// doi.org/10.3390/en15197291 Academic Editors: Christoph M. Hackl and Roland Schmehl Received: 31 May 2022 Accepted: 26 September 2022 Published: 4 October 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affil- iations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). energies Article Dominant Designs for Wings of Airborne Wind Energy Systems Silke van der Burg * , Maarten F. M. Jurg, Flore M. Tadema, Linda M. Kamp and Geerten van de Kaa Faculty of Technology Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands * Correspondence: silkevanderburg@gmail.com Abstract: This paper focuses on the design of the wings used in airborne wind energy systems. At the moment, two different designs are being developed: soft wings and rigid wings. This paper aimed to establish which of the two alternative design choices has the highest chance of dominance and which factors affect that. We treated this problem as a battle for a dominant design, of which the outcome can be explained by factors for technology dominance. The objective was to find weights for the factors for technology dominance for this specific case. This was accomplished by applying the best worst method (BWM). The results are based on literature research and interviews with experts from different backgrounds. It was found that the factors of technological superiority, learning orientation and flexibility are the most important for this case. In addition, it appeared that both designs still have a chance to win the battle. Keywords: standards battles; dominant design; best worst method; BWM; airborne wind energy systems; AWE 1. Introduction This paper is about high-altitude airborne wind energy systems. Since higher altitudes are characterized by increased wind speeds, this opens up the potential to harvest more energy [1]. At the beginning of the 20th century, German engineer Aloys van Gries filed patents for the use of kites to use wind turbines at high altitudes. Around the 1970s, Hermann Oberth acted upon this idea as an alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power when there was an energy crisis [2]. It took another 20 to 25 years for airborne wind energy systems (AWES) to acquire real interest because of growing awareness of global warming. Airborne wind energy systems operate at much higher altitudes than conventional wind turbines; therefore, they are designed in a completely different way. In order to harvest the potential energy from high-altitude winds, one needs to make use of aerodynamic or aerostatic lift devices that can collect this. Currently, two configurations are under development; (1) “Fly-Gen systems”, which consist of a group of tethered rotorcrafts that generate the electricity in the sky, which is then transferred through electric cables to a ground station, and (2) “Ground-Gen systems” whereby kites, gliders or wings generate power in the sky and the conversion to electricity takes place on the ground [3]. As is shown in [4], no clear “dominant design” has appeared yet for these two different generator configurations in airborne wind energy systems, and both have an equal chance of success at future market dominance. This paper targets on Ground-Gen systems and focuses on another aspect of these systems, namely the type of wings that these systems use. Currently, two configurations are under development; (1) “Soft wings”, which are flexible kites, and (2) “Rigid wings”, which are hard structures that have many similarities with airplanes or drones [3]. Regarding the type of wings, currently, no dominant design has appeared yet. This can be treated as a typical example of a battle for a dominant design. Scientists studying the strategic management of technological innovation have described various factors that can explain and even predict the outcome of such a battle [5,6]. Apart from technological characteristics, they point, for example, to factors pertaining to specific company strategies Energies 2022, 15, 7291. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15197291 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies