1 / 21

A step-change in wind power deployment -from national models to international convergence?

A step-change in wind power deployment -from national models to international convergence? . Joseph Szarka University of Bath. Published by Palgrave in 2007 Five nation comparison: Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, UK

fagan
Download Presentation

A step-change in wind power deployment -from national models to international convergence?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A step-change in wind power deployment -from national models to international convergence? Joseph Szarka University of Bath

  2. Published by Palgrave in 2007 Five nation comparison: Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, UK A technology whose viability and deployment is highly dependent on (national) framework conditions: - operational; - economic; - institutional; - social.

  3. Introduction Wind power is now a highly diversified phenomenon Key variables: • size of turbines • size of wind farms • support mechanisms • investment and ownership patterns • industrial structures Consequences: • specific national and international development models • alternative development paths

  4. Development models • The ‘Danish model’ - small-scale capitalism and local ownership, with utilities in the background. (Also characterises Germany) • The ‘Spanish model’ - large-scale capitalism and national ownership, with utilities in the foreground. • The ‘international utility model’ - large-scale capitalism and international ownership of wind farms in UK, USA etc. (Also global firms acquiring controlling interests in the wind power supply chain – GE, Siemens, Areva)

  5. Development paths • Path 1. ‘Bulk power’ based on fossil and nuclear sources - centralised production, large scale facilities, major infrastructures, big corporations. • Path 2. ‘Tailored energy’ - RES & EE - decentralised production, ‘small’ scale facilities, matching of sources with uses, diversified ownership.

  6. The step-change in wind power deployment involves: a change in scale – of installations a change in industrial structures – globalisation a change in public policies – but to what ends? • From small installations • To large wind farms • To offshore.

  7. The UK – a prime example of upscaling and internationalisation

  8. Size of wind farms in UK Source: BWEA data, January 2008

  9. Large wind farms in UK (BWEA data, January 2008)

  10. Upscaling and internationalisation in continental Europe

  11. Denmark Current energy agreement until 2009 • – 2 x 200 MW offshore • – 350 MW in repowering onshore Market-based tender system ensure price competition • Horns Rev II: 200MW, 69.5 euro/MWh/50.000 hours • Nysted II: 200MW, 67 euro/MWh/50.000 hours Source: DWIA, 2006 • ‘Danish model’ stagnates: major growth is offshore

  12. Germany • Onshore stagnation predicted some time ago. • Clear signs of slowdown in 2007 with 1,667MW added (decline of 25% on 2006). • Very ambitious, long-term plans for offshore: in the range of 41970 - 65922 MW. • Capital requirements are immense – large consortia only.

  13. Nr Projekt Projektträger Megawatt 9 H2-20 Geo 400 (4.000) 10 Jules Verne Plambeck 13.500 11 Ventotec Nord 1 Arcadis (Dt. Bank, GHF, Vestas) 150 (600) 12 TGB Nord Ep4 Offshore 1.005 (2.550) 13 Forseti Prokon Nord 17.500 14 Deutsche Bucht Rennert Offshore 400 (400) 15 Austergrund Rennert Offshore 400 (400) 16 Bard Offshore 1 Bard Engeneering 400 (1.600) 17 Hochsee Windpark HE dreiht EOS Offshore 536 18 Globaltech 1 Nordsee Windpower 360 (1.440) 19 Hochsee Windpark Nordsee EOS Offshore 536 (2.286) 20 Ventotec Nord 2 Arcadis (Dt. Bank, GHF, Vestas) 150 (600) 21 Nördlicher Grund GEO, ABB, GREP 360 (2.195) 22 Dan Tysk Geo 400 (1.500) 23 Uthland Geo 400 24 Weiße Bank 2010 OSB Butendiek 2.700 25 Meerwind Windland 265 (819) 26 Godewind Plambeck 320 (896) 27 Nordergründe Energiekontor 125 (270) 28 Offshore North Sea Windpower Enova 203 (1.255) 29 Riffgat Enova 400 (1.600) BWE, 2005 9 genehmigt geplant 10 1. Sandbank24 Sandbank24&Projekt GmbH 420 (4720) Megawatt 11 Esbjerg (DK) 1 12 20 22 21 13 19 2.Butendiek OSB Offshore Bürger WP 240 Megawatt 14 18 2 15 23 16 24 3.Amrumbank Winkra 400 (1250) Megawatt 17 Husum 3 30 8.Borkum West Prokon Nord 60 (1040) Megawatt 4 8 25 26 4.Amrumbank West Rennert Offshore, EON 400 Megawatt 7 7.Borkum Riffgrund West Plambeck 231 (746) Megawatt 27 6 28 6.Borkum Riffgrund Energiekontor 280 (1800) Megawatt Cuxhaven Wilhelms-haven 29 Bremerhaven 5 Wilhelmshaven Winkra, Enercon 4.5 Megawatt

  14. Nr Projekt Projektträger Megawatt 1 Skz 2000 GEO, EON 10 (100) 2 Wismar Arcadis (Dt. Bank, GHF, Vestas) 2 3 Breitling Offshore Ostsee Wind AG 2,3 4 Baltic 1 Offshore Ostsee Wind AG 51 5 Arcona ‚Becken Südost AWE (EON, Brockmüller Energy consulting) 400 (1.005) 6 Ventotec Ost 2 Arcadis (Dt. Bank, GHF, Vestas) 150 (600) 7 Adlergrund OWP 280 (720) 8 Pommersche Bucht Winkra 350 (1.000) 9 Baltsee Plambeck 75 (415) 10 Kriegers Flak Offshore Ostsee Wind AG 140 (231) BWE, 2005 BWE, 2005 genehmigt geplant 7 5 6 10 8 4 9 Kiel 1 3 Rostock 2 Lübeck

  15. Average size of wind farm: 2006: 21.6MW 2007: 22.5MW Figures distorted by 50MW ceiling for inclusion in the ‘special regime’ Top three operators own 54% of wind farms (8189MW) Top eleven own 79% ‘Small’ owners in the minority Spain Galicia, Spain Highly concentrated sector (with no offshore)

  16. So what does the future hold? Source: VDMA (2006)

  17. Convergence towards the ‘international utility model’ • The ‘Danish model’ has lost its dynamism in Denmark – offshore expansion brings the utilities back in. • The German pattern is following the same trends – but writ larger. • The ‘Spanish model’ can continue in a largely protected Spanish market; beyond Spain, the Spanish utilities are key players in the internationalisation of the sector. • The UK ESI is dominated by foreign utilities (EdF, EON, RWE) and Iberdrola has taken over ScottishPower. • In each case, the role of international consortia is becoming preponderant (bringing together manufacturers, utilities, financial institutions and sometimes energy majors). • This is the extended meaning of the expression ‘international utility model’.

  18. Linking scale of wind power deployment with investment and ownership models

  19. Summary and interim conclusions • The phenomenon known as wind power has changed and continues to change as we observe it. • A step-change is taking place from Path 2. ‘Tailored energy’ (community ownership, embedded generation) to Path 1. ‘Bulk power’ (centralised production, large scale facilities, major infrastructures, big corporations) • Discussion point: arguably a need for BOTH paths, but to get both, we need to move from current bias towards Path 1 (especially in the UK) to a genuine commitment to Path 2.

  20. Ways forward for the seminar series Our analyses need to connect with those changes – to look to the future, not to the past – to investigate not just path 2, but also path 1 – to consider how both paths can co-evolve. We need to draw the consequences in terms of: • Public policies – support mechanisms • Market regulation • Planning issues • Investment, ownership and stake-holding • Social acceptability And make recommendations for best practice in each area.

  21. Thank you for your time and attention! J.P.Szarka@bath.ac.uk

More Related