Nations today are urgently challenged with achieving a significant increase in the deployment of renewable energies. In Europe that need has given rise to a debate about the most effective and efficient support strategy. Whilst the different interests debate whether full European harmonisation or strengthening of national support policies for electricity from renewable energy sources (RES-E) is the best way forward, individual national support schemes are rapidly evolving. This study investigates how the EU member states have applied support policy types over the last decade. By identifying predominant developments in the application of feed-in tariffs, premiums, tradeable green certificates, tax incentives, investment grants, and financing support for specific technologies (wind, biomass, PV), this study shows that Europe is currently experiencing certain tendencies towards a 'bottom-up' convergence of how national policy-makers design RES-E policy supports. While some outliers remain, the policy supports of most countries become more similar in the policy types applied (dominance of feed-in tariffs) and in their scope of implementation (differentiation for installation sizes and 'stacking' of multiple instruments). These trends in national decision-making, which show tendencies of convergence, could make an EU-driven 'top-down' harmonisation of support either dispensable or at least (depending on the agreement) less controversial.
Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
The costs of wind power have declined to levels on par with or below those of conventional sources in many parts of the world. Wind power has become one of the fastest‐growing sources of new electricity generation. We take stock of wind power cost evolution over the past 20 years, review methodologies commonly used for cost assessment, discuss the potential for continued cost reduction, and identify anticipated cost and value drivers. Our scope includes both onshore and offshore wind technologies. We draw from a vast body of literature on these topics to highlight key trends, approaches, and limitations. Furthermore, we discuss strategies for wind power assets to enhance their marginal economic value to the broader power system and consumers. We identify a myriad of factors that are expected to influence the future cost and value of wind power, including siting, project scale, turbine size, operational synergies, commodity prices, advancements in turbine technologies, enhanced management of the wind resource, and novel control technologies that provide value for the electricity grid. Because the common methods for forecasting future costs each have their own strengths and weaknesses, we find the best insights are elicited from a combination of methods. Overall, researchers and analysts anticipate further sizable cost reductions for onshore and offshore wind. Midrange forecasts for levelized cost of energy in 2050 are generally between $20 and $30/MWh for onshore wind and $40 and $60/MWh for offshore wind, a reduction to approximately half of today's levels. Optimistic forecasts anticipate these levels as early as 2030.
This article is categorized under:
Wind Power > Economics and Policy
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.