Innovative Solutions for Wind Energy Integration in Urban Areas
SWIP project introduces new solutions, components, and tools for integrating wind energy in urban and peri-urban settings. From small wind turbines to stakeholder perceptions, it covers a wide range of aspects to enhance sustainable energy practices. Explore the profile of respondents, agreement with renewable energy statements, and the potential of wind energy co-ownership. The project aims to inform communication efforts and drive positive change in the field of wind energy integration.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
SWIP New innovative solutions, components and tools for the integration of wind energy in urban and peri-urban areas SWIP DNV GL Koen Broess; Bart in t Groen; Alma Tiggelman, Greenovate! Europe Simon Hunkin CIRCE Leo Subias Thanks: Nikos Lelis, Anastasia Nikolopoulou
SWTs in urban and industrial areas International IEC definition: Rotor swept area less than 200 m2 Residential 0.3 - 5 kW Agricultural 10 - 50 kW Industrial 10 50 kW Community sites 1 10 kW
Questionnaire Questionnaire consisting of 20 questions available in English, French, German, Polish and Spanish Online Questionnaire at: http://swipproject.eu/ Aim To inform communications efforts by illuminating perceptions of SWTs and differences amongst stakeholder groups
Profile of respondents RES Knowledge Age 19-25 52 26-35 126 36-45 52 45-60 42 60+ 10 Gender Male 197 Female 85 Poor Average Good Very Good Education 160 Profession Policy maker 2 Business owner 13 Energy prof./student 61 Agriculture 2 None of the above - 27 Environment Rural 52 Urban 230 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Profile of respondents Austria, 5 Sweden , 1 Belgium, 2 Bulgaria, 2 Portugal, 1 Slovenia, 1 France , 7 Romania, 1 Germany, 5 Lithuania, 11 Hungary, 1 Ireland, 10 Italy, 8 Netherlands, Greece, 16 9 Switzerland, 1 Norway, 1 UK, 34 Non-EU, 24 Poland, 18 Spain, 124
Agreement with RES & Wind Statements Important response to Energy needs Important for Economic Development Important for Env. & Climate Good Investments How much do you agree with the following statements on renewable energies? A Lot 231 231 221 221 242 242 116 116 A bit 47 47 55 55 34 34 133 133 Not at all 3 3 6 6 5 5 31 31 Harmful to wildlife Attractive Noisy Cost Competitive & Reliable 112 112 How much do you agree with the following statements about wind turbines? A Lot 17 17 91 91 24 24 A bit 144 144 125 125 161 161 137 137 Not at all 120 120 65 65 95 95 31 31 Would potential co-ownership of a turbine with neighbours or your community increase your interest in wind energy generation? Yes 100 No 3
SWTs Reaction to wind turbine in your neighbourhood? Reaction to SWT in neighbourhood? SWT Installation Preference Industrial sites 234 Roofs in residential areas 187 Ground level 125 Integrated in building facades 117 Nowhere 9 Negative 32 Indifferent 56 Positive 194 Negative 15 Indifferent 45 Positive 220 Reduced noise Integration into architecture Reduced vibration Improved performance Reduced costs Would the following developments increase your interest in Small Wind Turbines? Yes 250 250 224 224 252 252 261 261 263 263 No 31 31 62 62 28 28 19 19 17 17
SWTs How much do you agree with the following statements for explaining what prevents you from investing in a Small Wind Turbine? Safety Performance Vibrations Insufficient information Investment is too high Concerned about Noise Visual impact Flicker A lot 96 95 74 51 12 37 104 69 A bit 111 137 117 84 33 84 124 100 Not at all 84 48 89 145 19 122 55 111
Interest in Competing Solutions How interested would you be in the following decentralised energy solutions for your home? SWTs Solar PV Solar Thermal Collectors 197 Combined Heat & Power 187 A lot 168 207 A bit 89 62 70 66 Not at all 23 11 15 25
Conclusions questionnaire Investment boundaries: Not seen as good investments; Image of poor performance; Lack of awareness. Turbines only partly seen as cost competitive and reliable; Limited concern about visual impact for SWTs; People view prospect of SWTs in their region slightly more favourably than large turbines; Preference is for installation of SWTs in industrial sites and on roofs; Other energy solutions, e.g. Solar PV, looked upon more favourably.
Why SWTs? + CO2savings + Decentralization of energy Constraints + Independence from energy providers + Complementarity to solar energy - Cost of technology + Green symbol - Wind resource evaluation - Regulation - Social acceptance and safety - Aesthetic, noise & vibration - User friendliness
Value propositions SWTs Capital costs and support schemes determine the energy production cost. Financial output 1 Higher energy production than PV systems per m2 and kWp. Energy yield 2 More stable and durable energy production throughout the year. Synergy with PV modules 3 Symbol for environmental consciousness for both building owners and companies. Green symbol 4
SWT LCOE for different economic lifetimes 9000 0.40 8000 0.35 7000 Annual Energy production [kWh] 0.30 6000 LCOE [ /kWh] 0.25 5000 4000 0.20 3000 0.15 2000 0.10 1000 0 0.05 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 Average wind speed [m/s] Energy production LCOE for 10 years LCOE for 15 years LCOE for 20 years Discount rate: 2% Capital costs: 12000 Power: 1.9 kWp
Cumulative cash-flow for different average wind speeds 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Cummulative cash-flow [ ] 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Year -2,000 -4,000 -6,000 -8,000 -10,000 5 m/s 7 m/s 8 m/s -12,000 -14,000
Financial output in selected locations UK Glasgow NL - Schiermonnikoog Wind speed: 4,6 m/s Wind speed: 7,5 m/s LCOE: 0,17 /kWh LCOE: 0,12 /kWh PBP: 17 years* PBP: 12 years* PT- Lagos FR - Brest Wind speed: 7,2 m/s Wind speed: 6,1 m/s LCOE: 0,12 /kWh LCOE: 0,17 /kWh PBP: 12 years* PBP: 12 years* GR - Kos IT - Lecce Wind speed: 7,1 m/s Wind speed: 4,3 m/s LCOE: 0,09 /kWh LCOE: 0,17 /kWh PBP: 13 years* PBP: 17 years* *Generally, support schemes vary significantly between countries. This results in different financial outputs from one country to another under similar wind resources.
Indicative autarky rate of households in selected locations of different countries 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT PV PV PV PV PV PV PV PV+SWT PV PV+SWT PV+SWT PV+SWT PV+SWT PV+SWT PV+SWT PV+SWT DE FR GR IT NL PT SE UK Storage In all case studies: Annual electricity consumption = Annual production by PV and SWT technology. Energy storage is a fixed value
Business models for SWT The SWT market is less attractive than the PV market. 1 The research verifies that SWTs are not economically appealing High capital costs, no targeted legislations Price competitiveness does not depend on a single factor. 2 Wind speed, electricity prices and subsidies SWTs >10 kW can be profitable, but more suitable for industrial and rural areas SWTs need financial support to be an attractive investment. 3 Policy driven technology Not distinguished from large turbines regarding support schemes SWTs can be used for increased autarky. 4 SWT+PV systems can economically compete with PV+ storage systems for increased electricity autarky
Thanks! koen.broess@dnvgl.com Tel: +31263566290
