Transcript A step-change in wind power deployment? From national
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 A technology whose viability and deployment is highly dependent on (national) framework conditions: - operational; - economic; - institutional; - social.
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
Development models
1.
2.
3.
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)
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.
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.
The UK – a prime example of upscaling and internationalisation
Size of wind farms in UK
Operational wind farms (1991-2007) Under construction Consented Projects in planning Grand total (Total offshore)
Source: BWEA data, January 2008
number 156 39 114 222 531 capacity average MW 2298 capacity 15 1372 4550 9840 18060 35 40 44 34 (5000)
Large wind farms in UK
(BWEA data, January 2008) 90 199MW 50-89MW over 200MW Total 1991-2002 2003-2007 Under construction Consented Projects in planning Grand total 0 6 2 3 25 0 4 4 6 8 large farms Total as % capacity of category 1 5 11 0 0 MW 0 726 MW 0 2298 808 3260 6792 1372 4550 9840 18060 0% 31% 59% 72% 69%
Upscaling and internationalisation in continental Europe
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
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.
Nr Projekt
9 H2-20 10 Jules Verne 11 Ventotec Nord 1 12 TGB Nord 13 Forseti 14 Deutsche Bucht 15 Austergrund 16 Bard Offshore 1 17 Hochsee Windpark HE dreiht
Projektträger
Geo Plambeck Arcadis (Dt. Bank, GHF, Vestas) Ep4 Offshore Prokon Nord Rennert Offshore Rennert Offshore Bard Engeneering EOS Offshore
Megawatt
400 (4.000) 13.500
150 (600) 1.005 (2.550) 17.500
400 (400) 400 (400) 400 (1.600) 536 18 19 Globaltech 1 Hochsee Windpark Nordsee 29 Riffgat Nordsee Windpower EOS Offshore 360 (1.440) 536 (2.286) 20 Ventotec Nord 2 Arcadis (Dt. Bank, GHF, Vestas) 21 22 Nördlicher Grund Dan Tysk 23 24 Uthland Weiße Bank 2010 GEO, ABB, GREP Geo Geo 25 Meerwind 26 27 Godewind Nordergründe OSB Butendiek Windland Plambeck Energiekontor 28 Offshore North Sea Windpower Enova 150 (600) 360 (2.195) 400 (1.500) 400 2.700
265 (819) 320 (896) 125 (270) 203 (1.255) Enova 400 (1.600)
BWE, 2005
9 genehmigt geplant
10 1. Sandbank24
Sandbank24&Projekt GmbH 420 (4720) Megawatt
11 12
1
Esbjerg (DK) 20 13 14 15 19 18 21 22 23
2
2.Butendiek
OSB Offshore Bürger WP 240 Megawatt
16 17 8.Borkum West
Prokon Nord 60 (1040) Megawatt
7.Borkum Riffgrund West
Plambeck 231 (746) Megawatt 7
6.Borkum Riffgrund
Energiekontor 280 (1800) Megawatt 6 8
29 28 30 24 3.Amrumbank
Winkra 400 (1250) Megawatt
25 26
3 4
27 Husum 4.Amrumbank West
Rennert Offshore, EON 400 Megawatt
Cuxhaven Wilhelms haven Bremerhaven
5
Wilhelmshaven
Winkra, Enercon 4.5 Megawatt
genehmigt geplant
Nr Projekt
1 2 Skz 2000 Wismar 3 Breitling 4 Baltic 1 5 Arcona ‚Becken Südost 6 Ventotec Ost 2 7 8 Adlergrund Pommersche Bucht 9 Baltsee 10 Kriegers Flak
Projektträger Megawatt
GEO, EON Arcadis (Dt. Bank, GHF, Vestas) 10 (100) 2 Offshore Ostsee Wind AG 2,3 Offshore Ostsee Wind AG 51 AWE (EON, Brockmüller Energy consulting) 400 (1.005) Arcadis (Dt. Bank, GHF, Vestas) 150 (600) OWP Winkra Plambeck 280 (720) 350 (1.000) 75 (415) Offshore Ostsee Wind AG 140 (231)
Kiel Lübeck
9 1 2 3
Rostock
4 10 5 6 7 8
Galicia, Spain
Spain
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
Highly concentrated sector (with no offshore)
So what does the future hold?
Source: VDMA (2006)
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’.
Linking scale of wind power deployment with investment and ownership models Scale Category Investment motivation Investors Finance and ownership Industry model Small Standalone or ‘clumps’ Personal needs; hobbyists; green ideals.
Individual Local ‘Alternative energy’; decentralisation; ‘soft path’ Medium Clusters Personal investment; sustainability enthusiasts; green ideals.
Co-operative / community Local and national ‘Alternative energy’; embedded generation; ‘soft path’ Large / Very large Wind farms Wind power stations Business investment; energy diversification; emission caps; profits.
Utilities and other large companies / consortia National and international Bulk power; ‘hard path’.
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.
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.