|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
113475
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The performance of feed-in tariffs and tradable certificates is assessed on criteria of efficacy, efficiency, equity and institutional feasibility. In the early stage of transition to an energy system based entirely on renewable energy supplies, renewable electricity can only thrive if support takes into account the specific technical, economic and political problems which result from embedding this electricity in conventional power systems whose technology, organizational structure, environmental responsibility and general mission differ profoundly from the emerging, renewable-based system. Support schemes need to capture the diversity of power supplies, the variable nature of some renewable supplies, and their different attributes for the purposes of public policy. They must take into account the variety of generators - including small, decentralized generation - emerging in a renewable-based system, and the new relationships between generators and customers. Renewable energy policies need a clear point of reference: because the incumbent power systems are not sustainable they must adapt to the requirements of the renewable ones, not the other way round. Incumbent systems carry the responsibility of paying the transition, something that corresponds best with the polluter pays principle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
112332
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In a recent article Mabee et al. [2012, Energy Policy 40 (1), 480-489] describe the German legislation to promote renewable electricity generation (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz). The erroneous assumption that an annual degression of feed-in tariffs for any given power generating facility are stipulated in the law leads to a wrong calculation of net present values of the revenue stream. Reduction of feed-in tariff rates only holds for new additions. There is however one exception in offshore wind energy where the operator can opt for a degression. The implications of the newly introduced option are discussed in this comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
111101
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The development of feed-in tariff (FIT) programs to support green electricity in Ontario (the Green Energy and Green Economy Act of 2009) and Germany (the Erneuerbare Energien-Gesetz of 2000) is compared. The two policies are highly comparable, offering similar rates for most renewable electricity technologies. Major differences between the policies include the level of differentiation found in the German policy, as well as the use of a price degression strategy for FIT rates in Germany compared to an escalation strategy in Ontario. The German renewable electricity portfolio is relatively balanced, compared to Ontario where wind power dominates the portfolio. At the federal level, Canada does not yet have a policy similar to the European Directive on Renewable Energy, and this lack may impact decisions taken by manufacturers of renewable technologies who consider establishing operations in the province. Ontario's Green Energy and Green Economy Act could be benefit from lessons in the German system, especially with regard to degression of feed-in tariff rates over time, which could significantly reduce payments to producers over the course of a contract, and in turn encourage greater competitiveness among renewable power providers in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
126538
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
On-site data collection, interviews, and financial models were used to determine the feed-in tariff (FIT) rate required to encourage investment in the generation of electricity from currently unused biomass from the Eastern Ontario forest industry. A financial model was adapted and run to determine the net present value, internal rate of return, and payback period associated with a 15 MW biomass-to-electricity facility. The analysis suggests that Ontario should consider a stronger incentive than the recently-offered CDN$ 0.13 kW-1 h-1 for biomass-to-electricity. If no customer for heat generated from the plant can be found, FIT rates between CDN$ 0.17-0.22 kW-1 h-1 are necessary to achieve a 15% internal rate of return and a simple payback of approximately 5 yr; achieving a price of CDN$ 0.013 kW-1 of thermal output still requires elevated FIT rates between CDN$ 0.15-0.21 kW-1 h-1 to meet economic performance criteria. Other barriers, particularly regulations regarding the use of operating engineers in steam plants, should also be addressed to facilitate development of biomass-to-electricity. Without these changes, it is likely that biomass will be significantly under-used and will not contribute to the renewable energy goals of Ontario.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
111450
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Although the benefits of distributed cogeneration are widely cited, adoption has been slow in the United States. Adoption could be encouraged by making cogeneration more economically attractive, either by increasing the expected returns or decreasing the risks of such investments. We evaluate the expected returns from demand response, capacity markets, regulation markets, accelerated depreciation, pricing CO2 emissions, and net metering. We find that (1) there is an incentive to overcommit in the capacity market due to lenient non-response penalties, (2) there is significant revenue potential in the regulation market, though demand-side resources are yet to participate, (3) a price on CO2 emissions will make cogeneration more attractive relative to conventional, utility-supplied energy, and (4) accelerated depreciation is an easy and effective mechanism for improving the economics of cogeneration. We go on to argue that uncertainty in fuel and electricity prices present a significant risk to cogeneration projects, and we evaluate the effectiveness of feed-in tariffs at mitigating these risks. We find that guaranteeing a fixed electricity payment is not effective. A two-part feed-in tariff, with an annual capacity payment and an energy payment that adjusts with fuel costs, can eliminate energy-price risks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
111322
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Dynamic efficiency has received much less attention than the effectiveness and static efficiency criteria to assess policies to support electricity from renewable energy sources (RES-E). On the other hand, the literature on RES-E support shows that the choice of design elements within RES-E support instruments is at least as important to successfully promote RES-E as the choice of specific instruments. The aim of this paper is to build a theoretical framework for dynamic efficiency analysis and assess the dynamic efficiency properties of the different design elements of feed-in tariffs. It is shown that, in fact, several design elements can have a significant impact on the different dimensions of dynamic efficiency. Particularly relevant design elements in this context are technology-specific fixed-tariffs, floor prices, degression, reductions of support over time for existing plants, long duration of support and support falling on consumers. In addition, it is shown than some design elements would be more appropriate than others to activate specific dimensions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
103413
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Faster market integration of new energy technologies can be achieved by use of proper support mechanisms that will create favourable market conditions for such technologies. The best examples of support mechanisms presented in the last two decades have been the various schemes for the promotion of renewable energy sources (RES). In the EU, the most successful supporting schemes are feed-in tariffs which have significantly increased utilisation of renewable energy sources in Germany, Spain, Portugal, Denmark and many other EU countries. Despite the successful feed-in tariffs for RES promotion, in many cases RES penetration is limited by power system requirements linked to the intermittency of RES sources and technical capabilities of grids. These problems can be solved by implementation of energy storage technologies like reversible or pumped hydro, hydrogen, batteries or any other technology that can be used for balancing or dump load. In this paper, feed-in tariffs for various energy storage technologies are discussed along with a proposal for their application in more appropriate regions. After successful application on islands and outermost regions, energy storage tariffs should be also applied in mainland power systems. Increased use of energy storage could optimise existing assets on the market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
121300
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
China, India, and South Africa have recognized the importance of renewable electricity for their future development. In this paper, we investigate the experience of the three countries in applying generation-based policies to promote renewable electricity. We show that they have developed approaches that deviate from what the European experience suggests as successful. With a special focus on feed-in tariffs and auction-based tariffs, our comparison highlights the importance of policy choice and policy design specifications in meeting specific objectives. All three emerging economies face the necessity to promote electricity from renewable energies while keeping electricity prices low. Hence, they experiment with policies and design options, and arrive at country specific solutions. Despite applying different policy instruments and designs that put strong emphasis on low cost solutions, all three countries seem able to reach their ambitious deployment targets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
112333
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In his comment on a recent paper [see Mabee, W., Mannion, J., Carpenter, T., 2012. Comparing the feed-in tariff incentives for renewable electricity in Ontario and Germany. Energy Policy 40 (1), 480-489] that compared Ontario and Germany's feed-in tariff (FIT) programs, Weitzel has identified the fact that we incorrectly assumed that the German FIT incentives were degressed within contracts. The implications of this misapprehension are explained. While savings within single projects are not as dramatic, the Ontario model is still significantly more expensive than the German model, as it includes an adjustment for inflation which applies to biomass- and wind-to-electricity projects. We stand by the assertion that adding a degression factor in the case of Ontario's FIT rate would lead to significant cost savings while maximizing return to producers during the early parts of the contract, and suggest that Weitzel's discussion on degression offers more insight into the manner in which FIT programs might be reformed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
125576
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This study investigates the merit order effect (MOE) of the recent years' implementation of solar power in Germany. Market clearing electricity prices and production levels are compared for the years 2009-2011, and a model for the relationship between the electricity price and price sensitive electricity production is developed and applied to predict electricity prices in Germany from July 2010 to July 2011 with and without solar electricity generation (SEG). The results show that the SEG has caused a 7% reduction in average electricity prices for this period. The average daily maximum price and daily price variation are also found to decrease, by 13% and 23%, respectively. When taking the MOE into account the net consumer's cost of the solar feed-in tariff (FIT) system is found to be 23% less than the charge listed in the electricity bill. The German FIT policy for solar power has been subject to considerable public debate, and a common argument brought up in disfavor of the system is the high cost for the consumers. In this study we demonstrate the importance of including the MOE when evaluating the total costs and benefits of the FIT policy mechanism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|