Final Rep Solar Cooperatives

Solar Cooperatives - Linking North and South -

Final Report

This study was realised on behalf of the European Commission, Directorate General XVII for Energy German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Contents Executive Summary

4

1

Introduction

29

2

The study

31

3

Potential for participation 3.1 Germany 3.1.1 The questionnaire 3.1.2 Results 3.2 Greece 3.3 Italy 3.4 Comparison 3.5 Summary and conclusion

33 33 33 34 44 47 51 54

4

Legal and economic options for Investment in Germany

56

5

Legal and economic options for investment in Greece 5.1 Current laws, regulations and initiatives fostering electricity generation from renewable energy sources in Greece 5.2 Economic situation for renewable energy technologies in Greece 5.2.1 Investment costs 5.2.2 Demand 5.3 Obstacles to the dissemination of renewable energy technologies

61 61

Legal and economic options for investment in Italy 6.1 Current laws, regulations and initiatives fostering electricity generation from renewable energy sources in Italy 6.2 Economic situation for renewable energy technologies in Italy 6.2.1 Investment costs 6.2.2 Demand 6.3 Obstacles to the dissemination of renewable energy technologies

74 74

7

Organisational aspects 7.1 Applicability of Solar Cooperatives for Greece 7.1.1 Technical aspects and potential in Greece 7.1.2 Infrastructural aspects in Greece 7.2 Applicability of Solar Cooperatives for Italy 7.2.1 Technical aspects and potential in Italy 7.2.2 Infrastructural aspects in Italy

79 79 79 80 82 82 82

8

Site selection 8.1 Site selection in Greece 8.2 Site selection in Italy

84 84 85

6

65 65 65 71

75 75 77 77

2

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

9

Cost/return calculations

87

10 Conclusions

89

Annex 1 Solar radiation map of Western Europe Annex 2 Wind map of Western Europe Annex 3 Evaluation of the Austrian/German questionnaire Annex 4 Italian Questionnaire "Solar Cooperatives" Annex 5 Amortisation calculation / cumulated reflux of capital Annex 6 Cost/return calculations for certain sites in Greece Annex 7 The potential for PV technologies in Greece Annex 8 The potential for wind technologies in Greece Annex 9 The potential for renewable energy technologies in Italy

93 94 95 134 135 139 156 173 179

3

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Executive Summary Introduction Austria and Germany in particular have been at the forefront of modern initiatives in Europe to encourage people to participate in developing and supporting large photovoltaic (PV) plants and wind-parks by purchasing share certificates. The rapid expansion of environmental consciousness, as well as the recent advancement of technological developments in the area of PV and wind energy that have manifested in northern European countries in particular, have had an impact throughout Europe. This also stimulated greater interest in this concept of utilising renewable energy initiatives in the southern European region – an area that has even more favourable climatic conditions in general. Thus „Solar Cooperatives“ could be established and encouraged, thereby linking people in the North to partners in the South as shareholders of solar- and wind-power plants. In expanding the concept of Solar Cooperatives, there are different reasons for focussing on involving countries in the south of Europe: The profitability of PV and wind depends largely, except for required legal regulations, on prevailing local climatic conditions. An example of the impact which radiation has on the output of a PV module is shown in the table below, providing a comparative overview for four different European cities. The data reflects one of the fundamental ideas behind Solar Cooperatives, namely that European investors could become shareholders of a PV plant that works much more effective in Southern Europe than would be the case in Central Europe. Table 1 illustrates that Athens (Greece) and Rome (Italy) enjoy considerably more sunshine on an annual basis than the cities of Hamburg and Freiburg in Germany. It should be noted that best sites in Southern Europe have an annual daily global irradiation of 4,6 kWh/m2. This means an irradiation level that is at least 70% higher than in Germany. 2

Table 1: Daily global radiation G in kWh per m over a 10 year period (1966-1975)

Hamburg (Northern Germany)

G = 2.68

(100%)

Freiburg (Southern Germany)

G = 3.24

(121%)

Rome (Italy)

G= 4.19

(156%)

Athens (Greece)

G= 4.34

(162%)

1

For wind power plants the potential is more difficult to estimate, in particular as obstacles to wind or speed-up effects may considerably alter the conditions at a regional level. Large parts of Greece and Italy have the same favourable conditions for wind energy as in northern Germany. Solar plants on the other hand achieve a much higher yield in these southern areas. The energetic, and possibly also the economic, pay-back period is shorter for the southern areas, which makes it an ideal geographical location for establishing solar power plants. This is also true for the wind potential at specific locations in the south. Thus 1

Source: European Solar Radiation Atlas, European Commission, 1996.

4

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

applying and developing the concept of Solar Cooperatives in Southern Europe is an interesting option from many perspectives. An additional advantage to this concept is the transfer of technology and expertise developed in the different areas, both north and south, which will support the European scientific community involved in the development and refinement of renewable energy techniques. From a political-cultural perspective the increased interaction, through the expansion of Solar Cooperatives, provides a bottom-up contribution to the European NorthSouth-cohesion, as citizens from countries in central Europe would be linked to partners in the South by purchasing share certificates. An aspect that is particularly attractive is the fact that both the North and the South will contribute to the success of the project. All these aspects can contribute to the development of trans-continental solidarity and of joint European purpose, especially in addressing environmental issues, an area where Europe is taking the lead.

The study The concept of providing share certificates for wind turbines and photovoltaic plants is well established in some countries of Europe. Now people from Middle Europe shall be enabled to purchase certificates for plants in Southern Europe, which show much better wind patterns and radiation than their home.. The principle of share certificates can work along the following lines: An organisation sets up a plan to build a medium to large scale PV-plant and/or a wind park. A refined concept will be created and then marketed through appropriate channels of information. Individuals are thereby invited to contribute by purchasing a share of the plant equivalent to a specific wattage. The minimal order of a share will be determined (e.g. 0,1 kW). A brochure containing important information about the construction and operation of the plants will be created and sent to interested individuals. This work will be accomplished by the Solar Cooperative acting as the trustee. A sales contract between the trustee and a purchaser/shareholder may be signed fixing the order of the share. The trustee provides information and administrational support to the shareholder. Furthermore the trustee looks after financial support through the government and the responsible utility. Finally it negotiates the concept and aspects of costing with an engineering consultant. The latter signs a site-use contract with the owner of an estate and/or roof, and acquires a workshop to install the photovoltaic plant and/or the wind turbines. The purchaser gets a financial return on a bank account according to the generated electricity of his share. This procedure will be managed by the trustee. The electricity may be fed into the grid.

5

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Purchaser Sales contract

Solar Cooperative

Shareholder Information/administration/ payment

Support (Government, Utility)

Concept/costing

Income Engineering Consultant

generated from

Solar Electricity Workshop

Site Usage

Owner of Estate/Roof

Photovoltaic-Plant Wind-Park

Figure 2.1: Model of a Solar Cooperative

Aims and objectives Goals of the project can be summarised as follows: •

• • •

to clearly analyse the potential of and the conditions for the participation of individuals as investors from Central Europe in Solar Cooperatives in Greece and Southern Italy (For this purpose ISES addressed a questionnaire to its membership in Austria, Germany, Italy and Greece). to elucidate the prerequisites, requirements and options for the establishment of Solar Cooperatives in those countries via a holistic, interdisciplinary approach. to investigate the economic feasibility of the proposed Solar Cooperatives. to achieve a bottom-up-contribution to the North-South-cohesion within the European Union.

The action was to clarify the viability of a transfer of Solar Cooperatives from Austria and Germany to Greece and Southern Italy, and thus pave the way for the realisation of Solar Cooperatives in regions with excellent climatic conditions for wind and PV power plants.

6

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Work plan The project (Module I) was subdivided into the following phases: • Potential for participation in Austria and Germany • Analysing basic patterns, requirements and options • Survey of site-related issues • Paving the way for realisation • Final report / dissemination.

Potential for participation As a first step it was investigated what the general state of readiness for participation in such a concept is. The aims were to define the general conditions under which potential participants would be more inclined to invest. Therefore, three surveys were carried through among potential participants in Germany/Austria, Greece and Italy. The figures below provide information for comparison, based on the questions raised and answers received from participants of the Italian, Greek and German surveys. This direct comparison assisted the project focus as it clearly indicated the motivation of potential participants. Would you in principle consider becoming a shareholder in Italy or Greece? (Question 1) 1,60

1,40

1,35 1,26

mean values: -2=no; 2=definitely

1,20

1,00

1,00

D IT GR

0,80

0,60 0,44

0,43 0,40

0,35

0,36 0,24

0,20 0,01 0,00 wind

PV

hybrid

Figure 3.1: Inclination to participate in a project in different counties

Figure 3.1 shows that Italians as a group are clearly more enthusiastic about the idea of investing in wind or solar energy than the Greeks or Austrians/Germans are. With the analysis of this information it has been taken into account that there are different cultural 7

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

mentalities, with the Italians known to express their feelings in a more vigorous manner than for example the Austrians would. The figure further illustrates that whereas Austrians/Germans seem to prefer wind power plants, Italians and Greek are more positive about PV. This is attributed to the expanding development of wind plants through public stock companies in Germany, where people have had the opportunity to buy share certificates. Thus it is an accepted concept, also known to be a profitable investment - all of which influences the attitude towards this type of power plant. In Italy and Greece, there is a more positive attitude towards PV, which, in Italy, may stem from the visibility and promotion of the 10,000 roofs programme. Should the plants be grid-connected or in rural areas not yet electrified? (Question 3) 60%

57%

50%

50%

40%

38%

38%

29%

30%

27% 24%

D IT GR

23%

20% 14% 10%

0% grid-connected

non grid-connected

does not matter

Figure 3.2: Preference for grid or off-grid options

Figure 3.2 shows that in Italy most people who answered the questionnaire voted for gridconnected applications, whereas the Greek and Austrian/German participants seem to prefer the off-grid version. In this case, two different perceptions of the questionnaire may be the cause of the visibly different results: The Greeks and Austrians/Germans were probably thinking of the development of regions not yet connected to the grid, whereas Italians were focusing on the economic component. Further, once again the 10,000 roofs programme, which was relatively recent during the time the questionnaire was released, may have caused greater enthusiasm for grid options. Figure 3.3 shows that there is a general consensus among the three countries that the best place for PV is to install it on existing buildings, to protect available agricultural land for other purposes.

8

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Where should PV-plants be installed? (Question4) 2 1,72

1,7

mean values: -2=no support at all; 2=very strong support

1,5 1,28

1,2

1,17

1 0,64 0,5

0,39

0,3

0,34

D IT GR

0 roofs/facades

noise protection barriers

waste land

agricultural areas/pasture

-0,5

-0,9

-1

-1,5

Figure 3.3: Preferred installation places for PV

The diagram below mirrors the fact that Austrians/Germans seem to be prepared to invest more money than people in the other two countries. However, in all countries, people are mostly interested in projects of a short duration and with a high return on investment, thus investor economics remain an important factor to consider in the development of power plants. Further, looking at the feedback, it is obvious that projects could not be financed with donated money, due to the small amounts people are prepared to give. Can you imagine acquiring shares of a PV/wind/hybrid plant in Greece or Italy, considering the following options? (Question 5) GR donation

IT D GR

ROI: 3%

IT D GR

ROI: 6%

50 € 250 € 500 € 2500 € 5000 € 10000 € more

IT D GR

duration:5 years

IT D GR

duration: 10 years

IT D GR

duration: 20years

IT D 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Figure 3.4: Potential investment in Solar Cooperatives

9

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Would you participate in a plant in the following location/countries? (Question 6) 1,6

1,4

1,34

1,2 1,04 0,95

mean value: -2=no; 2=certainly

1 0,85 0,8 0,66

D IT GR

0,6

0,35

0,4

0,3

0,28

0,2 0,08 0 my own community

Germany

Greece

Italy

Austria

Argentina

South Africa

-0,2 -0,24

-0,24

-0,25

-0,4

Figure 3.5: Inclination to participate in a project in different regions

Survey summary and conclusions From the feedback received on the survey it can be concluded that there is a real interest, from the side of the Greek, Italian and German/Austrian participants, to participate in a solar cooperatives scheme. The exact preferences, however, differ in the three countries. Whereas Greeks and Italians prefer the PV option, Austrians/Germans would rather select wind power plants. On the question whether to supply grid-connections or off-grid locations, the Greek and German/Austrian respondents voted for off-grid, whereas the Italians preferred the grid-connected option. From the results to the question on potential investment in solar cooperatives (ROI, duration), it is clear that the respondents preferred economically viable projects with a high return on investment. It was also indicated that it would be impossible to finance projects with donated money. Further it is necessary to point out that the time frame people preferred was much shorter than the time usually taken by a plant to yield actual profits (five years as the stated preferred time frame against the usual 20 years required for profitability). Creation of Links The survey questions relating to the creation of links to generate increasing cohesion between people in Southern and Central Europe did not provide a particularly positive response. Comments such as: "Do hotels in Turkey link the German/British and Turkish people?" illustrate this. It is postulated that this will probably rather occur at a scientific and industry interaction level, with the exchange of technology and expertise supporting this. It may possibly expand to include the general public once large-scale European cross10

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

country projects are implemented, linked to growing awareness of environment and energy issues. Taking into account the overall results of the survey, it seems that the project could focus on Solar Cooperatives that are established primarily on an economically viable basis. The question of whether the off-grid option, which was preferred by the German and Greek respondents, could be an option consistent with the desired profitability, needed to be addressed during the course of the project. It is also clear that it is important to involve people from the South. This is needed to ensure that they receive some benefits from power plants established in their countries thereby establishing a situation of mutual advantage.

Legal and economic options for investment in Germany Existing models of Cooperatives (wind, solar and hydro) have been analysed with regard to the amortisation of the invested capital. The results presented give an overview of existing models in Germany with possible and feasible implications for Solar Cooperatives in Greece and Italy. Comparing the amortisation and profitability of the invested deposit (see Figure 4.1 below), there is a remarkable difference between the schemes of repayment of wind on the one hand, and PV on the other. Whereas the wind cooperatives repay the invested capital within a period ranging from 13 to 16 years with nearly identical schemes of repayment, the repayments for the investors in PV cooperatives differ widely due to the varying underlying assumptions. The outconmes for the PV option are due to the acknowledgement or denial of loss allocation for Solar Cooperatives. In many cases there is no depreciation allowance for PV cooperatives in Germany because one cannot assume profit goals. The “Freiburg PV Cooperatives” and the Cooperatives “Bürgersolarstrombeteiligung” (citizen participation) represent rather idealistic investments. However, the outstanding schemes of repayment of cooperatives with cost-covering tariffs and the solar stock exchange may attract a large audience.

11

Capital

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

220% 200% 180% 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% -40% -60% -80% -100%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Year German saving bonds Bundesschatzbrief 1998/13 -A Hydro power Murg (Ökologik Ecovest AG Erlangen, 1998) Wind park Ihlewitz (Ökofinanz Frankfurt, 1998) Wind park Frauenberg (WSB Frauenberg, 1998) Wind park Grünow (Ventus Wiesbaden, 1998) Wind park Krempel (EnergieKontor Bremerhaven, 1998) Freiburg PV cooperative (FESA, 1998)

Solar stock exchange for >30 kW (BEWAG, 1997) PV "Bürgersolarstrombeteiligung" (Bayernwerk, 1997) PV cooperative, payment of "cost-covering tariff" for 15 years (HEW, 1998)

Figure 4.1: Amortisation schedule / scheme of repayment

In comparison with a conventional long term capital investment in Germany like the “Bundesschatzbrief” (Federal saving bond) with a maximum duration of 6 or 7 years, all cooperative models are based on a long term scenario, with a minimum contract duration of 20 years. Whereas the “Bundesschatzbrief” as a German saving bond repays the invested capital with a fixed rate of interest at maturity, the amortisation of the invested capital takes in case of wind cooperatives at least 13 to 16 years. These facts influence the decision making process of potential investors in cooperatives.

Legal and economic options for investment in Greece Current Legislation in Greece Greece is a country with extremely high potential of PV and wind, mainly due to the following reasons: • high insolation/strong winds all year round (among the highest levels in Europe) • electricity requirements on islands are mostly covered by diesel/heavy oil generation units, resulting in high operation costs and environmental pollution • significant tourism activity during the summer (pollution on some islands increases by more than 100%), thus showing significant seasonal correlation between energy demand and PV power generation. However, compared with other EU markets, the PV market in Greece is not very developed. In order to improve the situation, a positive legislative and financing framework is 12

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

being formed (e.g. deregulation of the energy market, new development law, operation programme for energy). There are a number of legislative measures or programmes supporting Renewable Energy Sources (RES), which comprise actions related to PV and wind energy systems. The Centre for Renewable Energy Sources (CRES) - the national centre for the promotion and dissemination of renewable energy sources in Greece – also supports the increased utilisation of renewable energies. National Development Law 2601/98 (on private investment) The objective of this law is the reinforcement of private investment in Greece with a view to promote regional development targets, increasing employment, Greek enterprise competitiveness, production sector restructuring, exploitation of existing opportunities for the secondary sector in Greece and abroad, environmental protection, and energy conservation. This is to be achieved through a new framework to provide subsidies for productive investments. The subsidies are in the form of partial funding of the cost of capital expense, loan interest or leasing, or, alternatively, as partial funding of the loan interest and tax breaks. Subsidies depend on geographical region, but there are a few exceptions, where they are uniformly applicable in the whole country. Among those exceptions are investments and equipment leasing for electricity production from renewable energy or cogeneration - the maximum subsidy rates apply in these cases, irrespective of the region. For the remaining renewable energy applications, subsets depend on the region, but even then the applicable rates are better than those generally used. Special incentives for investments over 10 and 25-60 million Drachma for expansion of existing units and establishment of new units (the latter depends on the type of enterprise) in specific sectors. Investments and/or leasing programmes on renewable energy sources are not subject to general limitations on funding (15 million Drachma per new job position). Law 2244/94 (Law for Electricity production from Renewable Energy Sources) The “Renewable Energy Law” was adopted in 1994. It addresses topics on electricity production from renewable sources. In April 1995 a Ministerial Decree (8295/19.4.1995) was issued, clarifying the administrative process, tackling the issues related to licenses for installation and operation of electricity producing plants. In the same decree, a sample contract between the Public Power Corporation (PPC) and the electricity producers is presented, where the details regarding the buying-back rate and the grid connection terms are included. Two categories of electricity producers are defined: Auto-Producers (AP), which generate electricity to cover their own consumption and sell only their surplus energy to the PPC, and Independent Producers (IP), who sell all their production to the PPC. The law removes previous restrictions for the independent production of electricity from renewable energy sources, with a new maximum capacity of up to 50MW for IPs. The PPC is obliged to buy all energy produced by IPs under a ten year contract, while retaining the exclusive right to supply third parties with electricity. The law also explicitly defines

13

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

the essential components of the payback tariff system followed for the power producers, correlating it with the PPC’s kWh selling price. Law 2364/95 article 7, paragraph 17 (National Tax Deduction Scheme for Renewables and Natural Gas) At present, the only available incentive for individuals to install PV systems is the exemption of 75% of the purchase and installation cost of renewable energy systems from their taxable income. This measure is important only when the individual is taxed in the higher tax brackets of 30 to 45%. For those tax brackets, there is a PV system cost reduction of 22% to 34% respectively. Although this measure is welcome, it does not provide a serious incentive, as it is dependent on the taxable income bracket. The associated PV system cost reduction with respect to equivalent programmes that promote renewable energy introduction is considered low. For companies and other legal entities, the above mentioned percentage or 100% is amortised from their profits over a period of years. Operational programme for energy The Operational Programme for Energy was established 1996. It covers investment support in the area of renewables and rational use of energy. The public subsidies come from the European Fund for Regional Development and the Greek government. The Programme was implemented for 4 years (1996-1999), and was then replaced by the new operational programme, which is to run from 2000 to 2006. A minimum total budget limit of 20 million Drachmas exists, for proposals made for PV systems. The PV systems are financed by 55% of their total cost, while the rest of the amount is covered by private funds. A part of the programme budget of the order of 10 billion Drs has been put aside to fund renewable energy applications in the public sector. Operational programme for research and technology Through the Operational Programme for Research and Technology and Sub-programme 2, actions related to the “Promotion of the R&T activities in the field of the environment and environmentally sound technologies” (Sub-programme 1, measure 1.1) and “Industrial research, technology transfer and innovation” (Sub-programme 2) the state supports research activities in the field. Regional Operational Programmes Greece is divided into 57 prefectures, which in turn are grouped into 13 administrative regions, with each region having its own regional programme. The basic lines of these programmes are the following: 1) 2) 3)

Infrastructures: road networks, railway system, telecommunication, energy, natural gas Living conditions: urban development, health, environment Competitiveness: industry and services, research and development, tourism, culture, agriculture, fisheries 14

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

4)

Human resources: education and continuous training, modernisation of public services.

Depending on the region and the priorities set, certain actions are being formulated and launched. Areas 2) & 3) of Environment and Research & Development concern among others the deployment of Renewable Energy Sources in the regional context. Again, no specific programme is dedicated to PV.

Economic situation for renewable energy technology in Greece Investment costs and retail prices PV - The investment costs for PV in Greece are currently estimated to be in the range of 300 million Drs./kW. Wind - The investment costs for wind energy plants are estimated to lie between 350 to 400 million Drs./MW. Hydro - In the case of hydro power plants, investment costs are between 550 to 600 million Drs./MW. The table below gives an overview over the payback tariffs of different energy generation systems. th

Table 2: The payback tariffs, valid since July 15 1998

APs Energy payback 70% of kWh selling price, in Drachma

IPs Energy payback 90% of kWh selling price, in Drachma

Autonomous Island Grids

all voltages

energy

18.62

23.94

Interconnected systems

low voltage (220/380V) med. voltage (6.6, 15, 20, 22 kV)

energy

18.62

---

energy capacity

15.057 ---

high voltage (150kV)

peak zone med. zone low zone capacity (peak zone)

9.835 6.818 5.054 ---

19.359 497 X ı (50%of selling tariff) 12.645 8.766 6.498 1128.5 X ı (50%of selling tariff)

Note 1:

The value ı takes the following values. 0.5 for wind and solar units

15

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Note 2:

0.7 for small hydro units 0.9 for geothermal and biomass units The capacity credit is calculated on the basis of the peak-measured power output between two successive measurement periods.

Demand

External lighting

Households Connected Agricultural Transceivers Navigation 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

%

Figure 5.1: The most attractive applications (% demand )

The houses and settlements on isolated areas (islands-continental), are presented as the most attractive applications (29%), followed by the transceivers (19%), the agricultural applications (16%), grid-connected applications (14%) and navigation applications (13%). Even though no more than twenty wind energy units corresponding to 20 MW have been installed over the last five years, rapid development is foreseen over the next years. Official data shows that about 0,3% of the nation’s energy needs are accommodated by wind power. Data on wind energy availability indicates that about 12-15% of the national energy demand could come from wind. The total Greek market for renewable energy equipment was about US$175 million in 1997. Imports supply approximately 90,4% of the market. Based on positive but realistic scenarios made by the government and market experts, the total Greek market for wind generators was estimated to be US$520 million in the year 2000. The current capacity of wind energy generators, (which is presented in figure 5.2), is provided through PPC and autoproducers.

16

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Generation (kW)

30000 25000 20000

Generation by PPC

15000

Generation by autoproducers

10000

TOTAL

5000 0

1990

1992

1994

1996

Years

Figure 5.2: Electricity generation from wind-energy converters

2

The first category represents 87,5% of the total installed wind power (24,300kW), something which depicts the monopoly on electric power production by the PPC. The number of such units is about 130 and their net electricity generation considered about 34,150MWh. By autoproducers, the installed power approaches 3,490kW, 25 units with net electricity generation about 2,770MWh. An end-user analysis separates the market demand in two segments: • Public sector demand Municipalities, ministries, airports, hospitals and military installations are the government-controlled entities that are the main purchasers of wind products through tenders. • Private sector demand Uses for wind farms in this sector are the pharmaceutical industry, poultry farming, remote homes, water pumping and demonstration projects. The wind energy market in Greece is particularly promising. Over the next years, the dramatic market liberalisation and solid growth in demand will together create significant opportunities in this industry sector. The Greek policy concerning investment activity is contained in a number of laws which establish a variety of financing mechanisms and incentives for investors in the public and private sectors. Grants for machinery and buildings, interest rate subsidies, tax-free allowances, extra depreciation rates, lower social security contributions and favourable tax rates are some of the provided incentives.

Obstacles to dissemination of renewable energy technologies in Greece The most important barriers existing for the dissemination of PV applications in Greece were identified during the project and are summarised as follows: • •

2

high cost of PV systems lack of small demonstration projects (completed and in operation) in different geographical areas, which would operate as examples

Unpublished data, CRES, 1995-1998

17

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

• •

• • • • •

lack of cost-benefit studies for the realisation of various projects, which would be operated by specialists as practical guides inadequate financing sources and relevant programmes (national or regional) for the realisation of small demonstration projects – in certain cases, a significant strengthening of the financial support has to take place at regional and local level inadequate economic motives for the purchase and installation of PV applications for individuals limited information of users (personal contacts, lack of training seminars) need for more information on the study and the supervision of PV systems on local level (centralisation of experiences and know-how in urban centres) weakness of a legislative framework to support the obligatory use of renewable energy sources in public projects need for further cooperation between government bodies, regions and market actors (information for European national-regional programmes)

Legal and economic options for investment in Italy Current legislation in Italy The current laws and the regulations formulated for the technical development of renewable energy sources are funded essentially on the “Energetic National Plan” of 1998 (Piano Energetico Nazionale – 1998 PEN 98) based on the laws No.9 and No.10 of 1992 and on the PROVVEDIMENTO CIP 6/92. The most important principle of these laws is the one contained in Article 1 of the law No.9: “the renewable energy sources have to be considered a public usefulness and benefit”. And in an operative sense, Article 2 describes the actuation of PEN, Article 3 describes the agreement between the Ministry of Industry (MICA) and ENEA regarding the use of renewable energy sources, and Article 5 indicating that regional institutions have to organise the regional plan on renewable energy sources, in collaboration with ENEA. The law No.9 allows the self-production of electricity and the transfer thereof to ENEL (Art. 22). This is possible after a notification to MICA and drafting a convention with ENEA. The selling prices are established by CIP 6/92, according to the energetic index of the plant. The energetic index is a function of electricity - self-produced, heat produced and primary fuel supply. ENEL charges customers just for supplying electricity and not according to the source which ENEL uses for energy production. The above description shows that the laws presented provide regulation and financial support, but do not provide an organic strategy of action in developing the use of renewable energy sources. In other words, the policies foster private initiatives, but they do not co-ordinate those initiatives. As a matter of fact the law No.9 and CIP 6/92 have not

18

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

achieved the expected results, which is one of the reasons that led to the decision of cessation of this legislation. A new formulation of regulation on renewable energy sources development appears to be required, as shown in the conclusive document of the “Carpi Commission” (Points 1.5 and 3.7): “the renewable energy sources are the most important target policy of energy and environment…so, the supporting issues are to be reviewed in order to correct the limitations which appeared during the past four years”. In the Italian legislation the most important and suitable support initiative for the renewable energy sources development was law 29/12/1997. It included fiscal reductions amounting to 41% of the investment in the realisation of energy systems implementing renewable energy sources. The maximum cost allowed amounts to Lira 150.000.000 (77.470 €) including VAT. This initiative had a duration period of two years, from 1998 to 1999.

Economic situation for renewable energy technologies in Italy Investment costs PV - The investment cost of PV can be considered, in a conservative way, 4.648.110 8.263.310 €/MW (9-16⋅109 Lit/MW). In 2010 it should be reduced to 2.582.280 - 3.098.740 €/MW (5-6⋅109 Lit/MW), thanks to progress in the development of the technology. Wind - The investment costs can be considered to decrease with the growth of the market sector. Actually they amount to 774.690 €/MW (1,5⋅109 Lit/MW). Hydro - At the end of 1996, the hydropower installed was 13900 MW for power plants of more than 10 MW and 2150 MW for power plants of less than 10 MW (375 MW of them for power plants less than 1 MW). Conventional Power Stations: The investment costs range from 774.690-1.032.910 €/MW (1,5-2⋅109 Lit/MW). A law of 1988 excluded the electricity production with nuclear power plants. Production costs and retail prices PV – The electricity production cost of grid-connected PV plants is in the range of 0,260,52 €/kWh (500-1000 Lit/kWh) and the possibilities of reducing them in the short term seem to be very low. This assumption refers mainly to the large plants. The development of the PV market in the stand-alone plants (houses and urban infrastructures), however seems to be faster. Wind – The wind energy market actors in Italy come from the national industry, but there is also a significant presence of foreign operators, in particular from Denmark, who have reduced production costs by the constant increase in the middle class power range up to 600kW. The production costs amount to 0,08-0,1 €/kWh (150-200 Lit/kWh). Hydro – In the last years, the attention has been addressed to the low power hydro plants (less than 10 MW). In fact, now they are considered economically convenient because

19

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

today there is a real difficulty in finding sites suitable for high and medium power hydro plants. The production costs are about 0,02-0,04 €/kWh (40-80 Lit/kWh). Conventional power stations - In the evaluation of the power production with conventional plants - amounting to 0,04-0,08 €/kWh (80 – 150 Lit/kWh) - one has to take into account the cost generated by the environmental damage, amounting to 0,03-0,05 €/kWh (65-106Lit/kWh) for oil plants and 0,01-0,03 €/kWh (28-51 Lit/kWh) for gas plants. Demand: A real variety of demand can be observed, especially for PV applications. The most important are: • So-called professional applications, such as remote sensing, telecommunications, cathodic protection of metallic devices. In these applications the PV technology is convenient and competitive. • Electrification of villages non grid-connected. • Power devices of 0.5-3 kW. • Illumination of remote areas (archaeological sites, airports in little islands). • Desalinisation devices. • High power plants (100 kW-3 MW) grid-connected.

Obstacles to the dissemination of renewable energy technologies in Italy Depending on the technology, there are various obstacles to the wider implementation of renewable energies in Italy. The following list provides a short overview: PV • Investment cost still too high • Lack of a supporting policy. Wind • The complexity of the geographical areas related to the wind power plant determines a difficult evaluation of suitable sites • Suitable sites are often in remote areas, non grid-connected • Lack of a national certification system • Requirement of a large amount of investment for the development of a national market. Hydro • Complexity of the authorisation path, due to the particular situation of the plant in regions (mountainous ones) often characterised by environmental restrictions. • Large amounts of investment, especially for low power plants in which there is not a convenient return on investment.

20

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Applicability of Solar Cooperatives in Southern Europe Greece

12000

Generation (kW)

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0 C R E TE

S.AEG EAN

N .AEG EAN

MA IN LA N D

Re g io n s

Figure 7.1: Wind energy converters by region in Greece

3

Greece is an ideal area for harnessing wind energy. It has over 1000 islands - representing 20% of Greece’s total area - sea wind speed exceeding 7,5 m/s, and in some areas 10 m/s. Wind energy has been used in Greece for centuries to grind grain and for irrigation. The distribution of wind energy installations by region is presented figure 7.1. The implementation of Law 2244/94 of October 1994 ended a forty-five year monopoly on electric power production by the state-controlled PPC. This law allows the private sector and industrial companies to establish and operate power stations to produce electric power from renewable sources either for their own use or for resale to the PPC. The idea of solar cooperatives has to overcome some barriers in order to be successful in Greece, and careful planning of the development of this concept has to be done. Critical issues: • • • • •

3

the acquisition of the required license (in some geographic areas it is very difficult to obtain) the purely economic attractiveness of the investments for the investors cooperation with the local authorities in all the phases of the project the exploitation of potential incentives, such as the Development Law and the Structural Funds for energy (up to 50% of the investment) training of the personnel.

Unpublished data, CRES, 1990-1998

21

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Examples of potential Solar Cooperatives •

• •

Use of the PV and/or wind energy supply systems for eco-tourism enterprises (e.g. hotels). Promotion of the green character of this activity, especially for environmentally sensitive tourists. Green funds are recommended to be used for this purpose Cooperation with building construction enterprises, real estate enterprises and big chains supplying buildings in tourism areas (e.g. time-share vacations) Cooperation with industrial/professional associations to promote the concept in their membership.

Italy Italian regulations are based on the National Energy Plan (PEN) issued in 1988, strengthened by law 9/91 and 10/91, whose application was assured by the PROVVEDIMENTO CIP 6/92. Several other agreements, legislation and disposals were concluded. However, these resolutions mainly encouraged diffusion, realisation and exploitation of renewable energy sources including cogeneration plants, whose “utilisation is considered of public interest and utility” (Art. 1, Law 10/91). Projects should rather be proposed to an official commission which makes its selection according to some energy index previously decided on. From the local perspective, regions are obliged to plan the use of renewables, i. e. identifying target areas and searching for financial resources. Financial aid is provided by the government, but is in practise implemented by the Regions, that are also in charge of developing local regulations in support of government legislation. Law 9/91 gives the right to autoproduce electricity and sell it to the national grid at certain prices and conditions detailed in CIP 6/92. Recently (January 1998) this CIP 6 was suspended, thereby freezing the growing free market of energy. To address the matter the EU directive 96/92/CEE must be implemented as soon as possible. There are some restrictions especially for wind plants: Legislation tends to protect the landscape and environment through the release of authorisation for land use, building, landscape impact, seismic stability, flying safety, etc... To obtain the correct authorisation to establish a wind power plant takes two or three years. Solar Cooperatives operating with wind energy plants will have to adhere to this long procedure, while these will mostly not be applicable to PV plants. Most of the Italian wind plants are installed in two basins - Sardinia and the coast along the Southern Adriatic sea (i. d. Apulia, Basilicata, and Abruzzo Regions), where wind characteristics make the operation of such plants economically feasible. As far as irradiation is concerned, the best target areas are located in Southern Italy (Sicily, Calabria and the Apulia Region) as well as the lower Central area. In those areas summer temperatures reach up to 40°C and the climate is warm throughout the year. In 22

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Italy there are a number of small islands in the Tyrrhenian Sea, which are potential sites for several projects, that could also be linked to desalination plants. The identified islands in question are Eolie, Lipari, Lampedusa, Pantelleria and Tremiti. According to the psychological point of view, Italy today is a country ready for implementing non-grid solutions, as people are looking for common services offered by new “societies” that are detached from the previous monopolies, generally following the spirit of global markets. Table 3 gives an overview of aspects that argue for or against a certain location. Table 3: Pros and cons of different locations for plants

Urban areas

Rural areas

Noise level

May be disturbing. Problems especially at night.

Not disturbing if far away from populated areas

Visual impact

Merging with industrialised city

Strong

People

Short daily home-work travel

Maybe long home-work travel

Facilities supply (electricity, water, etc.)

Already present

May need to be installed

Future enlarging process

Hard

Easy

Cost/return calculations Based on parameters compiled during the project, an economic evaluation of PV-plants and wind turbines was carried out to quantify the profitability of possible projects. The calculations are realized with a software tool for financing limited partnership companies in Germany, which is used by banks and trustees. The required input parameter such as plant size, energy yield and investment costs are based on national values in Greece. Installation, operation and maintenance costs have been assumed from international and German experiences. All annual costs are increased by an inflation rate. Initial financial parameters (revenue rate, interest rate and depreciation mode) are based on Greek values, annual financing costs for trustee, legal and tax consultants must be fixed for each project. Incentives, such as investment subsidy and soft loans, are fixed according to the current situation in Greece or international projects with Germany. In the following part, an example of a wind power plant is described. The graph below gives the cash flow of a wind turbine installed at Cyclades without any subsidies. As the IRR shows, it would be a very attractive investment even if 75% must be 23

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

credit financed (at the local interest rate of 14%). The increase in revenues of the electricity sales is caused by a nominal inflation rate of 3%. The company makes losses only in the first 4 years, as the turbine may be depreciated within this period. Afterwards, trade tax has to be paid (about 15% of the total revenues). Consequently, the state would also profit from an installation. Wind turbine in Greece (Cyclades) 400.000 300.000

100.000

19

20 20

17

16

18

20

20

20

14

13

15

20

20

20

12

20

20

10

09

08

07

06

05

04

03

02

01

11 20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

-100.000

20

00

0 20

Values in €/year

200.000

-200.000 -300.000 Year Expenditures incl depr. Depreciation wind turbine

- Payments Pre-tax result

Total Revenues

Figure 8.1: Cash flow of a wind turbine installed in Greece

For this calculation, the following parameters were chosen: • equity capital 25% • debt capital 75% • no investment subsidy • international soft costs total payments on dividends 1.979.799 DM rel. to equity cap. • 1374.9% IRR (rel. to payments w/o. taxes) 37.07%. This case will most probably be realised in the future. The official investment subsidy of 40% results in "wind fall" profits, which means a misallocation of resources. However, there have been only a few projects realised in Greece. The authors assume that the required actions for realisation are long-term processes with an unpredictable time schedule.

Conclusions and outlook Summarising, it can be said that through different mechanisms the concept of solar cooperatives may serve to promote the implementation of renewable energies: First, it could through its advertising and demonstration effect – be a catalyst for other projects in the

24

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

south. Further, the exploitation of a high energy potential will contribute to the profitability of such projects and boost the further development of technology. Socially, the concept of solar cooperatives may be slowed down as the identification of potential investors with the plant is made difficult by long distances between the location of the plant and the potential shareholders. Therefore the "fun effect" may be missing, since shareholders cannot easily visit their plants or consume their “own” energy. Possible remedies for this problem might be a connection with tourism. Distance is not as important, as accessibility, thus for example the vicinity of the power plant to a charter airport may help. Certain disadvantages have to be taken into account and carefully dealt with, if the concept of solar cooperatives is to be a success. Amongst others the political situation plays an important role – it could be used as a reason by governments and utilities in the north not to support the diffusion of renewable energy technologies in their own countries, as the export of technology which has not reached a high diffusion in the north seems to imply that such energy sources cannot work economically there. However, since especially wind power technology in Germany has expanded visibly, this argument is invalidated. A further concern is that the participation of Central Europeans through buying shares in countries that are ‘far away’ could reduce the pressure on them to support sustainable energy provision in their own countries, which may give the impression that Central Europeans do not have to change their behaviour. It is therefore necessary that the Northern European countries set an example, from a practical, political and psychological perspective. Although the possibility for increased cohesion between southern and central Europe exists this was not reflected in feedback received from the survey respondents. However, a linking character is likely to develop if people from the south and north participate and are made aware of the benefits through an awareness generating action. Participation of the local population is absolutely necessary to ensure a successful implementation and the spreading of benefits: If they do not have a relation to the plant which is installed in their neighbourhood they may not accept the implications such plants may have (e.g. change of landscape). It is therefore extremely important that the project be carried through in accordance with the wishes of the local population. Further it needs to be made sure that the solar cooperatives concept will not give the impression of development aid, which Southern Europe definitely does not need. This could be accomplished through an economic justification for the project. From the results of the survey, in particular the question on how much money people would be willing to invest in which sort of concept (return on investment, duration of the contract), it can be seen that the respondents clearly preferred economically viable projects. Further, it turned out that it would definitely be impossible to finance projects with donated money. Therefore, it is necessary to establish profitable projects. Whether the participation in a solar cooperative could be a profitable investment is contemplated in chapter 8. As can be seen from the results of the cash flow calculations, even with most favourable conditions, this will not be possible for PV plants. The focus 25

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

should therefore be on wind power generation. This however stands in contrast to the results of the surveys in Greece and Italy, where the majority of respondents showed preference for the PV option. If it comes to decision-making on investment, however, profitability weighs higher than the general preference of a certain technology, so that only wind powered plants are regarded as a feasible option for solar cooperatives. This decision is in line with the requirements on role models of the north and economic justification for a project, which were described earlier in this chapter. From the survey it can be seen, that there is sufficient interest in Italy and Greece to participate in projects in their own countries. Austrians and Germans are further inclined to invest in either of these two countries, so that the basic concept in general could be realised. Different interests that the Italians, Greeks and Austrians/Germans had with regard to the application of the power plants, whether they should be grid-connected or off-grid, used in schools, private homes or hospitals, etc. need not be considered if the main focus of a project is profitability. In this case only grid-connected wind power plants come into question, which will not supply any specific application anyway. From these reflection it can be concluded that the solar cooperatives project needs to happen on a purely economic basis. As explained in chapter 8, PV therefore is currently not an option, so the focus should be on wind power plants. The financial attractiveness of these is that large that commercial wind park operators have already entered the arena. Thus German companies like Energiekontor, UnitEnergy, Umweltkontor and WindStar, already offer investment in plants in foreign countries, e.g. in Greece. Still, in spite of the economic attractiveness of the investment so far not a lot of plants have been implemented. This is partly due to slow process of obtaining certification and licenses for the establishment of renewable power plants – an aspect that needs to be urgently addressed if a significant contribution of renewable energies to the generation structure in Greece and Italy is to be achieved. It is suggested, that instead of the establishment of a clearing agency for the realisation of solar cooperatives, which was planned for module two of this project, further investigation and activities on incentives for the realisation of a higher share of renewable energy plants should be carried through. Seminars should be arranged to allow an exchange of information at an Inter-European level to discuss existing policy mechanisms successfully used in other countries, to further the deployment of renewable energies, e.g., the German feed-in law. This could speed up the process to develop applicable regulations in all the countries. The idea of cooperatives should be introduced and discussed at such seminars, since it is not a known concept in all countries in Europe. Awareness raising activities should also form part of a basic strategy to ensure the participation of people, both from the North and Southern European countries, as their participation is indispensable. The Next Steps: Transferring Acquired Know-How to Third Countries It had been foreseen in the original proposal for this project that work should also focus on transferring relevant experience gained within this project to developing countries, hence 26

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

forging a link between north and south. Due to a contractual constraint it was not possible to include Third Countries in the project. One particularly relevant avenue for follow-up activities based on the knowledge generated in this project is the promotion of investment mechanisms in the context of Kyoto Protocol instruments designed to assist with climate change mitigation. In particular, instruments such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) need to draw from the type of experience gained within projects such as this one. While climate change and its mitigation is one of the most urgent challenges facing mankind, the past few months have demonstrated that considerable renewed efforts have to be expended to deliver real, tangible and rapid results on this critical issue. The last minute agreement at COP-6+ in Bonn on 23rd July 2001 now opens the door to making real progress in establishing the various emission trading mechanisms which should form one pillar of the Kyoto Protocol. The last two major climate change conferences, COP-6, held in The Hague in 2000, and COP-6+ illustrated the importance of the active involvement of the renewable energy industry and financing institutions and other bodies in the climate change debate. While conventional energy technologies have been heavily involved in these issues for some time, the renewable energy sector must now play a leading role in helping to define the agenda with respect to the related energy issues. Over the past few years the PV and wind energy sectors in Europe have experienced the largest net growth in their history, propelled by a combination of European and national initiatives, and the commitment of industry and customers. This growth must be sustained through a combination of actively opening up new markets and major new investments in production facilities. The European PV and wind energy industries are investing heavily in new technologies and production facilities. However it is crucial that the frontiers of these markets continue to advance, since only in this way will these sectors achieve sustained commercial viability. This implies that we must ensure that the vast potential of markets in developing countries are realised. Kyoto Protocol instruments such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) will be crucial to this goal. The G8 Renewable Energy Task Force released its report on 17th July 2001. The report predicts that concerted action by G8, other countries, the private sector, international financial institutions and others could result in 1 billion people (80% of whom are located in developing countries) gaining access to electricity and/or more efficient energy supply in the next 10 years. The report concludes that "such an outcome of serving up to a billion people in the next decade with renewables should be our goal and aspiration". Solar electricity and wind power, together with the basket of other renewables, represent the most suitable clean energy technology to achieve these goals since its highly modular power supply characteristics are well matched to the needs in rural areas of developing countries. The impetus provided by the G8 report, coupled with the go-ahead for ratification of the Kyoto protocol, must be exploited by a combined action of European and developing country actors. This will not just help bring more clean power to developing countries, but will result in job creation both in Europe and in the developing world.

27

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

To achieve this we must learn from the mainstream energy sector, and forge new, innovative alliances amongst leading players in other industrial and financial sectors, while simultaneously full exploiting global instruments designed to support environmentally-friendly energy technologies such as PV and wind energy. It is crucial to ensure that the views of European and developing country policy makers and renewable energy industries are taken into account during the process of finalising the characteristics relevant Kyoto Protocol instruments. Instruments such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) are well suited to off-grid applications in developing countries. Unfortunately the European renewable energy industry has, as yet, had little opportunity to exploit these instruments and, as such, a second step will be the raising of awareness amongst European and developing country industry of the potential of mechanisms such as the Clean Development Mechanism. Thirdly, we will need to forge alliances and partnerships which could lead to the formation of various partnerships to undertake projects incorporating Kyoto Protocol instruments. The experiences gained in the Solar Cooperatives project point to how such alliances could be established, in particular in the innovative financing scheme area. The lessons learnt from the Solar Cooperatives project will prove valuable in assisting with the building of viable collaborations between industrialised and developing countries. That should be the next step following the conclusion of this project.

28

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

1 Introduction Austria and Germany are renowned for initiatives where people can take part in establishing large PV-plants and wind parks through purchasing share certificates. Considering the spreading environmental consciousness in industrialized countries, one can assume that there is a readiness to extend such initiatives to regions in southern areas with even more favourable climatic conditions. Thus „Solar Cooperatives“ could be established with people in the North being linked to their partners in the South as shareholders of solar- and wind-plants. Expanding the concept of „Solar Cooperatives“, there are different reasons for narrowing the focus on countries in the south: The profitability of PV and wind depends strongly, besides legal regulations, on the local climatic conditions. The impact which radiation has on the output of a PV module is shown in the table below for four different European cities. The data reflect one of the fundamental ideas behind Solar Cooperatives: European investors could become shareholders of a PV plant which works much more effective in Southern Europe than in Central Europe. The map in annex 1 provides an overview of the radiation conditions. Table 1 illustrates that Athens (Greece) and Rome (Italy) enjoy on a yearly basis more sunshine than do Hamburg and Freiburg in Germany. It should be noted that best sites in Southern Europe have an „Annual Daily Global Irradiation“ of 4,6 kWh/m2. This means an irradiation which is at least 70% higher than in Germany. For more information see annex 1. 2

Table 1: Daily global radiation G in kWh per m in a 10 years means (1966-1975)

Hamburg (Northern Germany) Freiburg (Southern Germany) Rome (Italy) Athens (Greece)

G = 2.68

(100%)

G = 3.24

(121%)

G= 4.19 G= 4.34

(156%) (162%)

4

For wind power plants the potential is more difficult to estimate, since obstacles to the wind or speed up effects may considerably alter the conditions on regional level. Still, from the rough map in annex 2 it can be seen that in large parts of Greece and Italy there are the same favourable conditions for wind energy as in Northern Germany. Solar-plants achieve a much higher yield in these southern areas. The energetic and possibly also the economic pay-back period is shorter. This is also true for the wind potential at specific locations in the South. Thus „Solar Cooperatives“ in the Southern Europe are an interesting option. Finally through the project a bottom-up-contribution to the North-South-Dialogue can be achieved. People from Central Europe would be linked to their partners in the South by purchasing share certificates. This should be a good opportunity to develop a feeling of transcontinental solidarity and togetherness. Particularly attractive should be the fact that both the North and the South are able to contribute to the success of the project which 4

Source: European Solar Radiation Atlas, European Commission, 1996.

29

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

means in simplified terms: The North’s part is its relatively affluent people being enthusiastic about solar energy and concerned about protecting the environment on a global scale, and the South’s its favourable climate.

30

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

2 The study The concept of share certificates for wind turbines and photovoltaic plants is well established in some countries of Europe. Finally people from Middle Europe shall be enabled to purchase certificates for plants in Southern Europe, which show much better wind patterns and radiation than their home. The principle of share certificates can work along the following lines: An organization sets up a plan to build a medium to large scale PV-plant and/or a wind park. A refined concept will be created and then mediated on appropriate channels of information. Individual people are thereby invited to contribute in purchasing a share of the plant equivalent to a specific wattage. A minimal order of a share will be determined (e.g. 0,1 kW). A brochure containing vital information about the construction and operation of the plants will be created and sent to interested individuals. This work will be accomplished by the „Solar Cooperatives“ acting as a trustee. A sales contract between a trustee and a purchaser/shareholder may be signed fixing the order of the share. The trustee gives information and administrational support to the shareholder. Furthermore the trustee looks after financial support through the government and the utility. Finally it negotiates the concept and aspects of costing with an engineering consultant. The latter signs a site use contract with the owner of an estate and/or roof, and looks for a workshop to install the photovoltaic plant and/or the wind turbines. The purchaser gets a financial return on a bank account according to the generated electricity of his share. This procedure will be managed by the trustee. The electricity may be fed into the grid.

Purchaser Sales contract

Solar Cooperative

Shareholder Information/administration/ payment

Support (Government, Utility)

Concept/costing

Income Engineering Consultant

generated from

Solar Electricity Workshop

Site Usage

Owner of Estate/Roof

Photovoltaic-Plant Wind-Park

Figure 2.1: Model of Solar Cooperative

31

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Aims and objectives Goals of the project can be summarised as follows: • to clearly analyse the potential of and the conditions for the participation of individuals as investors from Central Europe in „Solar Cooperatives“ in Greece and Southern Italy. ISES has for this purpose included its membership in Austria, Germany, Italy and Greece in a questionnaire. • to elucidate the prerequisites, requirements and options for the establishment of „Solar Cooperatives“ in those countries via a holistic, interdisciplinary approach. • to investigate the feasibility of the proposed “Solar Cooperatives” • to achieve a bottom-up-contribution to the North-South-Cohesion within the European Union. The action was to clarify the viability of a transfer of "Solar Cooperatives" from Austria and Germany to Greece and Southern Italy, thus to pave the way for the realisation of „Solar Cooperatives“ in regions with excellent climatic conditions. Work plan The project (Module I) was subdivided into the following phases: Potential for participation in Austria and Germany Analysing basic patterns, requirements and options Survey of site-related issues Paving the way for realisation Final report / dissemination

32

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

3 Potential for participation In a first step it was investigated what the general readiness for participation in such a concept is. Aims were to define the general conditions under which potential participants would be more inclined to invest: Therefore, three surveys were carried through among potential participants in such a concept in Germany/Austria, Greece and Italy. The first survey was carried out in Germany and Austria among ISES members in these countries.

3.1 Germany The concept of ”Solar Cooperatives” is based on linking individuals form Central Europe to their partners in Southern Europe by purchasing share certificates of photovoltaic- and wind plants in Greece and Southern Italy. Hence, the first step of the feasibility studies was to comprise the determination of the likelihood and the conditions under which individuals from Austria and Germany are ready to participate in ”Solar Cooperatives” in Greece and Southern Italy. As first inquiries had shown there is interest in participating in ”Solar Cooperatives” abroad. However, this needed to be defined and determined more precisely. As a consequence it was vital to conduct and evaluate a questionnaire on a scientific basis, which addressed individuals that are already members of ”Solar Cooperatives” in Austria and Germany and/or have a basic interest in the use of solar and wind energy. The decision to focus on the two countries mentioned above is due to the fact that the concept of ”Solar Cooperatives” is well known there. This does of course not mean that people form other countries cannot participate in ”Solar Cooperatives”. On the contrary, it is considered as vital that also people from the Southern Europe take part in the "Solar Cooperatives"-scheme. The ISES membership base in Austria and Germany had been defined as an appropriate entity to which the questionnaire should be related. This entity, dealing with issues of solar energy on mainly a professional or business level, was assumed to be familiar with the principle of "Solar Cooperatives" as they are run in their countries. 3.1.1 The questionnaire A questionnaire (see translated version in annex 3) had been created and mailed with a letter to all ISES members in Austria and Germany. The letter had outlined the concept of the study and the idea underlying "Solar Cooperatives". The evaluation had taken place with the statistical program SPSS. The ISES membership in Austria and Germany comprises 560 people. In order to achieve reliable results it was aimed at getting a return rate of the questionnaire of 30% (168 persons). 186 questionnaires (33%) were included in the evaluation below. 33

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Characterisation of respondents Profession: 37,1% Engineers 22,6% Scientists 10,8% Civil servants/University employees 10,2% Students 7,0% Architects 12,3% Else Average age: 38,5 years Sex: Male (94,5%) Female (5,5%) More than a third of the respondents were engineers. A very high degree of the people had an academic background. Both characteristics reflect the ISES membership in general. In the following, the evaluation of the questionnaire will be presented according to the order in which the questions were raised. The figures are mean values ("-2" is equivalent to "5" in the questionnaire, "0" is equivalent to "3", and "2" is equivalent to "1" in the questionnaire). 3.1.2 Results In annex 3, figures related to the questions discussed below, are presented. Would you in principle consider becoming a shareholder? Would you in principle consider becom ing a shareholder in Italy or Greece? (Question 1) 0,50 0,45

0,43

0,40 0,36 0,35 0,30 0,24

0,25 0,20 0,15 0,10 0,05 0,00 wind

PV

hybr id

Figure 3.1: Potential for participation in a Solar Cooperative

34

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

This question aimed at testing the basic readiness of the members to participate in a solar and/or wind cooperative5 in Italy or Greece by becoming a shareholder. The results (figure. 3.1) show that the respondents have a positive attitude towards participation, which is at this stage, however, not very strongly pronounced. People still seem to be irresolute with regard to a decision as the mean values of the responses are fairly near to zero. Yet they do not reject the idea. The positive attitude is most strongly expressed in the case of wind turbines, which might mirror both the wide diffusion of the cooperatives-concept in the wind sector and the relatively high "return on investment" which wind turbines can have in a supportive policy environment6. Photovoltaics instead does not reach so high "return on investment" due to the fact that this technology is far more expensive than wind turbines. Furthermore irradiation in Central Europe is too low to balance the high investment costs with appropriate income derived from the operation of a PV plant7. How convincing do you find the idea to run »Solar Cooperatives« in Southern Europe financed by people from Northern or Central Europe? The results show that the vast majority (70%) of the respondents find the idea either "convincing" or "very convincing". Only 12,6% of the people gave a negative response. The mean value of all responses is N = 0,8 (x = 2,0 means "very convincing"). Altogether the ISES members have a strongly positive attitude towards the idea of "Solar Cooperatives". The idea is more positively perceived than the consideration of actually becoming a shareholder. There is a difference between the assessment of an idea and the consideration of a personal participation in a project. Could, in your opinion, "Solar Cooperatives" contribute to stronger links between people from Northern and Southern Europe? Only 10% of the respondents seem to be convinced that "Solar Cooperatives" can contribute to increasing cohesion between people from Northern and Southern Europe. The mean value of all responses to this question is N = 0,1 (x = 2,0 means "very much"). The relative majority of the respondents, roughly one third, has chosen a neutral answer. Another 30% of the respondents do not see any contribution to stronger links between Northern and Southern Europe. It is interesting to note the difference between the degree to which people are convinced of the idea of "Solar Cooperatives" on the one hand and the extent to which they think "Solar Cooperatives" could contribute to stronger links on the other hand. How strong do you support the supply of the following facilities by a "Solar Cooperative"? The aim of this question was to clarify to which facilities the electricity supply through "Solar Cooperatives" should preferably be related. In case grid-connected versions are chosen, PV plants and wind turbines here should not just generate clean electricity but this electricity can, as in the case of non grid-connected versions, be considered for the supply 5

In the following the term "Solar Cooperatives" will be used referring both to photovoltaics and wind turbines.

6

The German "Electricity Feeding-in Law", which guarantees the payment of a fixed price for electricity from renewables has most strongly contributed to the wide diffusion of wind turbines in this country.

7

This does not apply to currently 25 cities in Germany the utilities of which pay the operators of PV plants "cost covering tariffs" resulting in rates of presently up to 1,89 DM/kWh solar electricity.

35

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

of certain facilities or communities. The share of electricity not used by the facility or community can then be fed into the grid. The economic feasibility of this concept and as a consequence the "return on investment" for shareholders depends on the difference between the conventional electricity tariff charged by the utility and the tariff paid to the "Solar Cooperatives" for solar electricity by the utility. It is a central aspect of this project to raise awareness for issues centering around energy. This can be achieved if the PV and wind plants are made visible to people (of a community). How strong do you support the supply of the following facilities by a "Solar Cooperative"? (Question2)

mean values: -2=no support at all; 2=very strong support

1,6

1,5 1,4

1,4

1,4

1,4

1,2

1,2

1

1

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0,1

0

schools

water pumps

water purification

hospitals

villages

telecommunication

private houses

Figure 3.2: Potential support for the supply of different applications

Figure 3.2 shows that the strongest vote was for schools (N = 1,5), followed by water pipes, water purification, and hospitals (all N = 1,4). Villages (N = 1,2) and telecommunications (N = 1,0) receive less support. There is a clear rejection of private houses (N = 0,1). One can state a marked trend towards public facilities at the expense of private houses. No negative mean values were recorded which means that all of the listed facilities are, to a varying extent, accepted as supply options for "Solar Cooperatives". Should the plants being realised be grid-connected or non grid-connected in rural areas not yet electrified? The responses to this question show a relatively equal distribution (see figure 3.3). More than a third (38%) prefer non grid-connected plants. However, for the same proportion of respondents the decision between grid-connection and non grid-connection does surprisingly not matter. Altogether there is an obvious preference for non grid-connected plants, a fact on which attention should be drawn in the future course of the project, e.g. to determine suitable sites for "Solar Cooperatives". One has to keep in mind, however, that in Italy nearly 100% of the customers are connected to a grid.

36

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Should the plants be grid-connected or in rural areas not yet electrified? (Question 3) 40%

38%

38%

35%

30%

24%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

grid-connected

non grid-connected

does not matter

Figure 3.3: Preference for grid or off-grid options

Roughly a quarter (24%) of the ISES members voted for a grid-connected plant, which might be a surprising result. Grid-connection is synonymous for sophisticated infrastructure and reliability, both of them being features which should be assessed as important in the context of making investments abroad. Regarding photovoltaic plants: Where should those be installed? Where should PV-plants be installed? (Question4) 2

mean values: -2=no support at all; 2=very strong support

1,7 1,5 1,2 1

0,5 0,3

0

roofs/facades

noise protection barriers

waste land

agricultural areas/pasture

-0,5

-1

-0,9

-1,5

Figure 3.4: Preferred installation places for PV

37

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Considering the results of this question, the respondents prefer a multifunctional use of the plants, e.g. the protective and electricity generating function which roofs and facades (N = 1,7) or noise protection barriers (N = 1,2) equipped with PV can have (figure 3.4). This preference indicates advanced environmental consciousness of the respondents as space is effectively used here. Particularly in the case of roofs it also reflects a decision for the most commonly applied PV-concept. An important issue is the intensity of land utilisation. Waste land (N = 0,3), which is attractive also for nature conservation areas, and especially agricultural areas/pasture (N = -0,9) have a comparatively low ranking. For these options large areas of land would have to be utilised, a fact which is sometimes mentioned as criticism against the application of PV. At this point specific social and cultural patterns gain importance, e.g. the fact that Greece hardly has noise protection barriers. Therefore the different perception of space, the density of population as well as ecological and socio-cultural aspects had to be analysed for each country separately. This was the reason to conduct a modified and smaller version of the questionnaire also in Italy and Greece. Considering the following options, can you imagine acquiring shares of a PV plant, wind power plant or a hybrid plant located in Italy or Greece? Figure 3.5 reflects the general readiness to acquire shares of a "Solar Cooperative" under different financial and legal conditions. These mirror to some extent the conditions of already existing "Solar Cooperatives" in Germany.

donation

IT

100DM

ROI: 3%

500DM 1000DM 5000DM 10000DM

duration: 5 years

20000DM 30000DM

duration: 20years 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Figure 3.5: Potential investment in Solar Cooperatives

An outstanding result is the fact that nearly half (47%) of the respondents could imagine a one-off or limited donation: A very large share of the respondents (30%) are ready to donate DM 100,--, 12% of them could imagine a donation of DM 500,-- whereas nearly 5% are willing to donate DM 1.000,-- up to DM 10.000,--. This result can be an important hint to show a way in which an investment base for "Solar Cooperatives" can be established. The pilot-character of this particular "Solar Coopertives" - project lets people be inclined to 38

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

consider small donations rather than to consider significant mid to long-term investments. A concrete appeal for donations could, in conjunction with targeted marketing activities, mobilise this potential for donations. The higher the "return on investment" the greater is of course the readiness to invest in such a model. Almost 70% of the respondents are for instance ready to acquire shares in case of a 6% "return on investment". However, it is interesting to note that for smaller levels of support (500 to 1000 DM) the 3% option has more often been chosen than the 6% option. For higher levels of support (> 10 000 DM) the greater attractiveness of the latter option is strongly pronounced. The shorter the duration of a contract the greater the readiness to invest. The Austrian and German ISES members prefer a duration of 5 years (60,2%) and 10 years (58,6%). A marked drop in the readiness takes place for a 20 year contract option (34,9%). Two decades are a long period of time which has inherent many incalculabilities also with regard to financial considerations. As a consequence it might seem appropriate to work with returns of investment well above 10% (and then perhaps no return of the original investment) to make the 20 year option attractive. These results give first indications only. The challenge will be to transfer the "imagination to acquire shares" to an actual purchase. How important would the following aspects be for you as a potential shareholder? The following issues represent important environmental, social, financial and organisational aspects of a participation in "Solar Cooperatives". Environmental aspects The environmental aspects were addressed by the arguments of a "support of renewable energy", an "important contribution to environmental protection" and a "selection of an ecologically acceptable location". The first two arguments are of general nature and the last one refers more concretely to the selection of a site. Environmental aspects are in comparison to the others considered most important (mean values range from N = 1,8 to N = 1,4). The central motivation of a potential shareholder is to support the idea of renewable energy and environmental protection. However, it is also important for them that due attention would be paid to environmental aspects for the selection of a site. This points to the vital role which the conduction of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) would play preparatory to the realisation of plants. Social aspects The social aspects comprise the arguments of "links with people in another country", "financial participation of the population in the South" as abstract questions, and "selection of a socially acceptable location" as a more detailed question. The latter aspect achieved the highest score. This emphasises again the great importance which is attributed to a careful planning process. Compared to the siting issue, the financial participation of the South is considered as significantly less decisive. It has, however, been stressed repeatedly in remarks of the respondents that with the project no imperialism over southern countries should be exerted and that those and its people should be included in its realisation. The linkage character of "Solar Cooperatives" is not a central aspect for a potential shareholder. It has been stated above that a possible contribution through "Solar Cooperatives" to stronger links between people from Northern and Southern Europe is obviously not clearly evident for the respondents. It has now become clear that the idea of linking people apparently is not particularly important for them. Social issues are behind environmental ones second in ranking of importance for the respondents. Both are fun39

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

damental aspects to which the model of "Solar Cooperatives" has to find satisfying responses. Financial aspects The financial aspects were covered by the arguments of a "freely disposable minimum investment" and a "return on investment in the event of a claim". It is obvious that the potential investor is more interested in financial security than in a freely disposable investment. Compared to environmental and social ones, financial aspects are not very essential for potential shareholders of a "Solar Cooperative". Organisational aspects The organisational aspects or the question how to run the plant comprises the issues of "regular provision with information", "continued advice through a scientific institute" and the "operation of the plant by a reliable German or Austrian institution". The organisational aspects were not as important as they were assumed to be for the respondents, especially the operation of the plant by a reliable partner is not considered an essential issue for a potential shareholder. This contradicts to some extent the results of questions 9 and 10 where aspects of reliability, security and control were implicitly addressed. Though most of the respondents have an academic background, the ongoing supervision of the cooperative through a scientific institute seems not to be a very important aspect. The regular provision of the investor with information is considered slightly more important. How would you assess the following factors with regard to your participation? This question tries to identify factors which are supportive or hindering to the realisation of "Solar Cooperatives". It checks again the importance of the issue that "Solar Cooperatives" would be located far removed/abroad for Austrian and German investors. It turns out that the far away location of the plant speaks tendentiously against participation. This is corresponding with the results of the following question. The most decisive factor that speaks very well for participation is the character of a model project. This is an unexpected result because a new project like this implies a financial risk in the sense of mobilising venture capital. Fairly unimportant for a participation is the 10 year duration of a contract. The analysis of the standard deviation shows that the responses vary to a significant extent. Table 2:

Mean values, standard deviation and missing values with regard to factors for and against a participation.

Aspects Character of a model project Duration of contract approx. 10 years Location of the plant abroad Plant far removed from immediate community

Mean values 0,60 0,13 0,01 -0,39

Standard deviation 1,0 0,9 1,0 0,8

Missing ues 13 20 15 16

val-

Would you participate in a plant in the following locations/countries? The respondents clearly prefer their own community as location of the plant followed by "Germany" (figure 3.5). An outstanding result is the marked difference in readiness to invest in "Germany" and "Austria". This may be due to facts like the small number of Aus40

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

trian ISES members and the lack of wind potential in Austria compared to German coastal locations. Locations on the Southern hemisphere like Argentina and/or South Africa are not interesting for potential investors which may mirror a lack of stability in those countries or a discomfort about the even greater distance to ones home in Central Europe. Would you participate in a plant in the following location/countries? (Question 6) 1,2 1,04 1

0,8 me an val ue: 0,6 2=n o; 2=c ert 0,4 ainl y

0,66

0,35 0,28

0,2 0,08 0

my own community

Germany

Greece

Italy

Austria

Argentina

South Africa

-0,2 -0,24

-0,25

-0,4

Figure 3.5: Inclination to participate in a project in different counties

To put it into a nutshell, the investors tend to participate in schemes as near as possible to their own community. Non-European locations of plants are negatively assessed by potential investors. There is, however, a difference between "donators" and "nondonators". In case of the "donators" the mean value for readiness in participation is positive for each of the optional countries. Do you have further remarks? Which advantages or disadvantages do you perceive in the "Solar Cooperatives" - concept presented? Technical aspects There was a tendency to recommend PV as non grid-connected version and wind turbines as grid-connected one. The distance to the grid is considered an important aspect for making a decision about a possible grid connection. Continued control and maintenance of the plants is considered being more important than ongoing scientific advice. Some respondents have asked to extend the focus of the project to solar thermal power plants and micro hydro power plants. Exploring possibilities for local production of the plants finally to be installed was recommended. Social aspects Many comments were made related to social aspects. Most of them referred to the need that local people in Greece and Italy should participate in the Cooperatives with regard to the planning, financing, operation and maintenance of the plants. For many it was crucial to avoid a neo-imperialistic approach through simply imposing concepts created in Central Europe on Southern Europe. Financial participation from people of the South would express their interest in the project and build a relationship between the local people and the 41

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

nearby plants. It was also mentioned that people should understand the concept of the plants. Some respondents stress the opportunity which "Solar Cooperatives" could provide to "increase cohesion between European people in cultural, economic, ecological and scientific regard". Financial aspects The arguments were here centred around the "return on investment". Some said that a "return on investment" lower than 6% would not be profitable. Also the need to run "Solar Cooperatives" economically sound and through a qualified institution was addressed. The operational affairs should be controlled by a Board and made transparent to the shareholders. Cooperation with the South Concerns were expressed about the feasibility to plan and operate plants in a "Solar Cooperative" in the South (lack of environmental awareness and interest, corruption, bad maintenance etc.). To tackle these disadvantages, exerting a strong control function was recommended. It was mentioned that "Solar Cooperatives" - plants could contribute to raise awareness amongst the population in the South. Advantages and disadvantages of the "Solar Cooperatives" - concept8 In addition to the comments implicitly made on the pros and cons of the concept in the above paragraphs, the following ones seem to be outstanding: Advantages • Contribution to decentralised and environmentally friendly energy supply. • Acting as a catalyst for other projects in the South. • Perhaps less resistance against wind turbines than in Germany. • Setting a particular example for "Activities Implemented Jointly" - Projects (AIJ): Central Europe has more capital and higher CO2-emissions per capita than Southern Europe / these emissions cause problems also in the South - the South, however, has higher kWh/kW values etc.. • Exploitation of a high energy potential. Disadvantages • "Solar Cooperatives" in the South can be an excuse for governments and utilities in the North not to support the diffusion of renewable energy technologies (RET) in their own area. The export of a technology like PV which has not yet seen a significant diffusion into the electricity market in Central Europe favours the opinion that those plants cannot work economically in this region. • The long distance between the location of the plant and the home of shareholders in the North impacts negatively on the feeling of identity with the concept and plant. • The development of electricity prices in Europe is not predictable due to the liberalisation of the electricity market. • Language and communication problems.

4

The contribution of the Fraunhofer Institute to Phase 1 (see annex 3) contains, in a German version, a more comprehensive list of the arguments.

42

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Further remarks • "Solar Cooperatives" should not create competition with local planning for RETs. • "Solar Cooperatives" should be extended to Spain and Portugal. • Micro Hydro Power Plants should be included as they can be run very reliably and cost effective. • "Solar Cooperatives" should enable the participation of people from all over Europe. What experience do you have with renewable energy plants or environmental tariff models? Altogether there are 22 % of the 186 respondents who have experience with PV plants in one way or another, most of them possessing an own one. In the case of wind turbines, altogether 14 % of the 186 responding ISES members have personal experience with wind turbines, most of them (10%) as shareholders. Experiences with "hydro", "collectors" and "biomass/gas" are much less developed than for "PV" and "wind", except the high portion of respondents operating an own solar collector. The running of own plants concentrates on "PV" or "collectors". Tariff models are in general not very well-known in comparison with other experiences. This is due to the fact that innovative tariff models have been implemented only more recently by some utilities. To sum up, a lot of ISES members have a positive attitude towards the idea of "Solar Cooperatives". There are no clear preferences between wind, PV or hybrid plants. For many of them it is not obvious that "Solar Cooperatives" can link people from northern and southern parts of Europe. Paying attention to environmental and social aspects is crucial in the process of realising "Solar Cooperatives". German and Austrian ISES-members prefer the supply of social facilities (schools, hospitals) through "Solar Cooperatives". The readiness to acquire shares of a "Solar Cooperative" exists but potential investors prefer locations in their own community or in Germany. A special group of investors - let us call them "Solar Cooperatives"-supporters - have a comparatively strong interest in the linking character of this pilot model. They can imagine to invest in a plant located in Greece or Italy. In case of a 10 year contract they are the ones to choose the highest amount of investment. Other interesting groups are the "donators" and "non-donators". Many ISESmembers are ready to make donations to a "Solar Cooperative". A comparison of those two groups shows interesting options and opinions. Whereas the "donators" show the willingness to support the project over a long period of time, the "non-donators" are more critical against an installation of the plants abroad. In general it became clear that many respondents can imagine a participation if financially attractive contracts are offered able to counteract the risk inherent in investing abroad.

43

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

3.2 Greece A brief survey was also carried out in Greece. The questionnaire developed for the German survey was shortened to the most important questions so as to identify the possibilities for the establishment of solar cooperatives in Southern Europe. The questionnaire was sent to all ISES members in Greece. The response was satisfactory, roughly 30% of the active members replied. Would you in principle consider becoming a shareholder? According to the feedback, the idea of participation as an investor in the installation of wind, PV and hybrid parks in Greece appears to be of great interest. It can be seen that investments in wind parks, are more favourably considered (figure 3.6). 50% 40% yes perhaps no no answer

30% 20% 10% 0%

wind parks

PV parks

hybrid parks

Figure 3.6: Potential for participation in a Solar Cooperative

Important outputs are that 43% of the respondents answered positively for a participation in wind parks. This number is rather high (especially considering that 21% did not answer the question) and shows the interest in such a concept. The number of ISES members in Greece who are in favour of the installation of PV parks is roughly equal to the number of those who reject it (28%). Negative feedback was given for the participation in hybrid parks (38%). On the whole, 36% of all respondents had a positive attitude towards participating in such cooperative schemes. How strong do you support the supply of the following facilities by a "Solar Cooperative"? The second question in the Greek survey asked for facilities, which should be supplied through solar cooperatives. Figure 3.7 shows that there is a large support for power supply in schools (64%), hospitals (79%), in households (72%) and in telecommunication installations (64%). However, there is a reservation to supply villages and pumps.

44

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

100% 80% very much

60%

fair no

40%

no answer

20% 0%

schools hospitals

houses

villages

pumps

telecom.

Figure 3.7: Potential support for the supply of different applications

Should the plants being realised be grid-connected or non grid-connected in rural areas not yet electrified? The dominant belief is that the parks should be located in non-grid connected isolated regions (57%). 29% support the idea of supplying rural areas in general, independently of whether this is grid or non-grid connected. Figure 3.8 depicts these aspects.

grid-connected 14,0%

off-grid areas 57,0%

does not matter 29,0%

Figure 3.8: Preference for grid or off-grid options

Regarding photovoltaic plants: Where should those be installed? For PV installations, it was voted that their proper installation places are terraces/roofs of buildings (78%). Other locations (office units or households with an emphasis on architecture, etc.) and installations in agricultural areas follow.

45

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report 70% 60% 50% very much 40%

fair no

30%

no answer 20% 10% 0% terraces

agricultural areas

else

Figure 3.9: Preferred installation places for PV

Considering the following options, can you imagine acquiring shares of a PV plant, wind power plant or a hybrid plant located in Italy or Greece? The interest for obtaining some participial titles on installations of wind, PV, and hybrid parks is depicted in table 3 below. Table 3: Potential investment in Solar Cooperatives

MINIMUM AMOUNT DRACHMA small support /charity 3%annual average performance 6%annual average performance bond duration 5 years bond duration 10 years bond duration 20 years

15000

75000

7,25%

150000

750000

1500000

7,25%

14%

3000000

MORE THAN 3000000

7,25%

7,25%

7,25%

14%

7,25%

7,25%

14%

7,25%

46

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Would you participate in a plant in the following locations/countries? The interest for participating in these parks is stronger in areas closer to the home of the Greek ISES members, however, participation is likely in all Greek regions. The following diagram (figure 3.10), reflects these aspects. 40

30 yes perhaps

20

no no answer

10

0

own community

wherever in Greece

Figure 3.10: Inclination to participate in a project in different regions

On the whole, this is an idea of great interest. Nevertheless, its promotion seems to be necessary, provided that some issues are clarified (aims, legislation, structure, oversight, etc.). The lack of information on the experience of such cooperatives, as well as on previously made statutes of establishment are important barriers to which attention must be paid. However, the operation must be flexible and pioneering, with individual initiative standards and visible long-term plans. The need for cooperation between the members and their effective participation in taking decisions is obvious. The solar cooperatives are favourable only in regions where the charge - economic or environmental- is prohibitive. It is believed that an installation survey is necessary, especially in isolated islands, farm households and for isolated agricultural utilization.

3.3 Italy In Italy, a short version of the Austrian/German questionnaire was distributed among Italian ISES members. On the whole, about 600 questionnaires were sent out and around 100 were sent back. The following gives a brief overview over the results of the survey. The numbers on the blue line gives the percentage of people who answered this particular question. Would you in principle consider becoming a shareholder? As can be seen from the figure above, there is a distinct preparedness in Italy to invest in solar cooperatives, whether wind, PV or hybrid power plants. 47

100%

2 90%

90%

84%

1,5

1,35

1,26

80%

80%

1

1

70%

0,5

60% 50%

0

40%

-0,5

% of aswers

mean values: -2 = no support at all; 2 = very strong support

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

30% -1 20% -1,5

10% 0%

-2

wind power plant

photovoltaic plant

hybrid plant

Figure 3.11: Potential for participation in a Solar Cooperative

88% 1,5

1,52

1

90%

86%

100%

90%

88%

88%

1,7

82%

1,32 1,09

1

1,25 0,9

0,5

90% 80% 70% 60% 50%

0

40%

-0,5

% of aswers

2

30%

-1

20%

-1,5

10% 0%

w at er pu rif ic at io dr n in ki ng w at er te le pu co m m ps m un ic at io ns fa ci lit ie s

dr in ki ng

vi lla ge s

s ho us e pr iv at e

ho sp ita ls

s

-2

sc ho ol

mean values: -2 = no support at all; 2 = very strong support

How strong do you support the supply of the following facilities by a "Solar Cooperative"?

Figure 3.12: Potential support for the supply of different applications

The diagram above shows that ISES members in Italy are strongly in favour of the supply of villages through solar cooperatives, closely followed by schools and hospitals. Provision of drinking water or the supply of private homes seem to be least interesting, although there is still a definite interest in these applications.

48

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Should the plants being realised be grid-connected or non grid-connected in rural areas not yet electrified?

does not matter 23%

grid-connected 50%

non grid-connected 27%

Figure 3.13: Preference for grid or off-grid options

For this question, a strong preference for grid-connected plants can be seen. 50% voted for these, whereas only 27%, almost half, voted for off-grid.

2

1,5

100%

96% 1,72

88%

88%

88%

80%

1,17

1

90%

70% 0,39

0,5 0,34

60% 50%

0

40%

-0,5

% of aswers

mean values: -2 = no support at all; 2 = very strong support

Regarding photovoltaic plants: Where should those be installed?

30% -1 20% -1,5

10%

-2

0%

roofs/facades

noise protection barriers

agricultural areas/pasture

wasteland

Figure 3.14: Preferred installation places for PV

The graph above shows a distinct preference for installation of PV plants in the built environment. It is assumed that this is due to environmental considerations.

49

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Considering the following options, can you imagine acquiring shares of a PV plant, wind power plant or a hybrid plant located in Italy or Greece?

duration of contract approx. 20 years

6%

duration of contract approx. 10 years

7%

2%

2%

4%

11%

2%

15%

4%

17%

levels of support

duration of contract approx. 5 years

19%

10%

13%

100.000 Lit

7%

6%

500.000 Lit 1.000.000 Lit

return on investment 6%

15%

6%

29%

10%

7%

5.000.000 Lit

2%

10.000.000 Lit 20.000.000 Lit 30.000.000 Lit

return on investment 3%

23%

11%

6%

2%

2%

1%

donation

2% 17% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Figure 3.15: Potential investment in Solar Cooperatives

The figure shows that there is a clear preference for investment in installations with high return on investment and a short duration of the contract. Also, Italians are in general more likely to invest smaller amounts of money, which may also be due to the novelty of the concept. Would you participate in a plant in the following locations/countries? As in the other two countries, in Italy, too, people would rather invest in power plants in their direct surroundings that in power plants anywhere else.

100% 90%

88%

90%

1,5 1,34

79%

80%

1 0,95

70%

0,5

60% 0,3 50%

0

40%

-0,5

% of aswers

mean values: -2 = no support at all; 2 = very strong support

2

30% -1 20% -1,5

10%

-2

0%

in my own community

Italy

Greece

Figure 3.16: Inclination to participate in a project in different regions

50

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

3.4 Comparison In the following, a comparison of those questions and answers that were included in the Italian, Greek and Austrian/German survey, is given. This direct comparison gave more information on the direction that was to be taken in the project, and also on the motivation for these answers. Would you in principle consider becoming a shareholder in Italy or Greece? (Question 1) 1,60

1,40

1,35 1,26

mean values: -2=no; 2=definitely

1,20

1,00

1,00

D IT GR

0,80

0,60 0,44

0,43 0,40

0,35

0,36 0,24

0,20 0,01 0,00 wind

PV

hybrid

Figure 3.17: Inclination to participate in a project in different counties

The figure above shows that obviously Italians are by far more enthusiastic about the idea of investing in wind or solar energy than Greeks or Austrians/Germans. This is attributed on the one hand to a real stronger interest in investing in such plants, on the other hand it is assumed that it is a matter of mentality, that Italians express their feelings stronger. The figure further illustrates that whereas Austrians/Germans seem to prefer wind power plants, Italians and Greek are more positive about PV. This is attributed to the strong development of wind plants through public limited companies where people can buy share certificates, in Germany. This is known to be a profitable investment, and people therefore have positive attitude towards this kind of plants. In Italy and Greece, there is a more positive attitude towards PV, which in Italy may also stem from the promotion of the 10,000 roofs programme. Question 3 shows that in Italy most people who answered the questionnaire voted for gridconnected applications, whereas Greeks and Austrians/Germans seem to prefer the offgrid version. In this case, two different perceptions of the questionnaire may be the cause of the different results: Greek and Austrians/Germans were probably thinking of the development of regions not yet connected to the grid, whereas Italians were focusing on the economic component. Further, once again the then newly developed 10,000 roofs programme may have caused enthusiasm for grid options. 51

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Should the plants be grid-connected or in rural areas not yet electrified? (Question 3) 60%

57%

50%

50%

40%

38%

38%

D IT GR

29%

30%

27% 24%

23%

20% 14% 10%

0% grid-connected

non grid-connected

does not matter

Figure 3.18: Preference for grid or off-grid options

Figure 3.19 shows that there is a general consensus among the three countries that PV should best be installed on already existing buildings, whereas agricultural lands should be spared. Where should PV-plants be installed? (Question4) 2

mean values: -2=no support at all; 2=very strong support

1,7

1,72

1,5 1,28

1,2

1,17

1 0,64 0,5 0,3

0,39

0,34

D IT GR

0 roofs/facades

noise protection barriers

waste land

agricultural areas/pasture

-0,5

-1

-0,9

-1,5

Figure 3.19: Preferred installation places for PV

52

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

The diagram below mirrors the fact that Austrians/Germans seem to be prepared to invest more money than people in the other two countries. However, in all countries, people are most interested in projects with short running times and a high return on investment. Further it is obvious that projects could not be financed with donated money. Can you imagine acquiring shares of a PV/wind/hybrid plant in Greece or Italy, considering the following options? (Question 5) GR donation

IT D GR

ROI: 3%

IT D GR

ROI: 6%

50 € 250 € 500 € 2500 € 5000 € 10000 € more

IT D GR

duration:5 years

IT D GR

duration: 10 years

IT D GR

duration: 20years

IT D 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Figure 3.20: Potential investment in Solar Cooperatives

Would you participate in a plant in the following location/countries? (Question 6) 1,6

1,4

1,34

1,2 1,04 0,95

mean value: -2=no; 2=certainly

1 0,85 0,8 0,66

D IT

0,6

GR 0,35

0,4

0,3

0,28

0,2 0,08 0 my own community

Germany

Greece

Italy

Austria

Argentina

South Africa

-0,2 -0,24

-0,24

-0,25

-0,4

Figure 3.21: Inclination to participate in a project in different regions

53

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

3.5 Summary and conclusions From the survey it can be concluded that there is an interest, on the Greek, Italian and the Austrian/German side, to participate in a solar cooperatives scheme. The exact preferences, however, are somewhat different in the three countries: Whereas Greeks and Italians prefer the PV option, Austrians/Germans would rather go for wind. On the question, of whether to supply grid-connected or off-grid locations, Greeks and Austrians/Germans voted for off-grid, whereas Italians preferred the grid-connected option. From the results of the question on potential investment in solar cooperatives (ROI, duration), it could be seen that the respondents clearly preferred economic projects with a high return on investment. It also became clear that it would definitely be impossible to finance projects with donated money. Further it is necessary to point out that the time frame people preferred was way shorter than the time usually taken by a plant to yield profits (five years as the preferred time frame against 20 years for profitability). Several comments were made in the survey, concerning the impact the project will have on the promotion of renewable energies. These remarks should be kept in mind when deciding on the strategies that are to be employed. Advantages (according to the survey) • Catalyst for other projects in the south • possibly less aversion against wind turbines than in Germany • Exploitation of high energy potential Disadvantages (according to the survey) politically: • could be an excuse for governments and utilities in the north not to support diffusion of RET in their own countries: the export of a technology which has not reached a high diffusion in the North seems to imply that such energy sources cannot work economically in the North • participation of Central Europeans with their money in far away countries reduces the pressure to change something in their own countries • the impression that Central Europe does not have to change anything in their behaviour arises • the advertising effect for renewable energies is wider when used in highly industrialized countries • the North should set a good example (politically and psychologically) • be careful not to take over responsibilities of governments/ministries socially: • identification with concept and plant are made difficult by long distance between location of plant and home of shareholders - "fun effect" missing: shareholders cannot simply go there to take a look at their plant, will not consume their "own" energy possible remedies like connection with tourism - not distance is important but accessibility - e.g. vicinity to a charter airport

54

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

•

local population will not have any relation to plant which is installed in their neighbourhood • energy colonialism? • project gives the impression of development aid - Southern Europe does not need that Therefore it is highly important that the project be carried through in accordance with the wishes and needs of people living in potential installation regions. economically: • development of energy prices in Europe unpredictable because of liberalization of market • careful not to tie up disproportionately much money, now that plants are expensive Creation of Links In the survey it became clear that the possibility for an increased cohesion between Southern and Central Europe can usually not be seen. Comments like: "Do hotels in Turkey link the German/British and the Turkish people?" illustrated this. In any case, a linking character of the project will only develop if people from south and north are taking part in the project. The participation of people from the South therefore is essential for the realisation of the concept. Taking into account the results and comments given in the survey, it seems that the project should happen on a purely economic basis. It has turned out to be essential that people from the respective countries, where the plants will be set up, take part in the cooperative. The question of whether the off-grid option, which was preferred by the German and Greek respondents, could be an option consistent with the desired profitability, needed to be solved during the further course of the project.

55

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

4. Legal and economic options for investment in Germany Existing models of Cooperatives (wind, solar, hydro) have been analysed with regard to the amortisation of the invested capital. The results presented here do not claim to be exhaustive, but they give an overview of existing models in Germany with possible and feasible implications for "Solar Cooperatives" in Greece and Italy.

9

Figure 4.1: Existing wind parks in Germany

As Cooperatives have been selected 4 wind parks, 4 PV cooperatives and one hydro power plant in Germany. The data is based on flyers and published investment information. To achieve comparability we do not assume reinvestment of the payments on dividends (no internal rate of interest). Table 4 shows the basic assumptions and details about the Cooperatives discussed. Comparing the amortisation and profitability of the invested deposit (see Figure 4.1 below), there is a remarkable difference between the schemes of repayment of wind on the one hand and PV on the other hand. Whereas the wind cooperatives repay the invested capital within a period ranging from 13 to 16 years with nearly identical schemes of repayment, the repayments for the investors in PV cooperatives differ widely due to the varying assumptions underlying. These results are due to the acknowledgement or deny of loss allocation for Solar Cooperatives. In many cases there is no depreciation allowance for PV cooperatives in Germany because one cannot assume profit goals. The “Freiburg PV Cooperatives” and the Cooperatives “Bürgersolarstrombeteiligung” represent rather idealistic investments. However, the outstanding schemes of repayment of cooperatives with “cost-covering tariffs” and the solar stock exchange may attract a big audience.

9

Photography: H.P. Gruber

56

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report Table 4:

Hydro Wind park power Murg Ihlewitz

22 years

22 years

Wind park Wind park Frauenberg Grünow

Basic financial data on German cooperatives

Minimum deposit

Tax rate for personal result 22 years

Wind park Krempel

DM 10.000,-- DM 20.000,-- DM 20.000,-- DM 25.000,-- DM 20.000,-Regional Exceptions Regional Regional investors for regional investors investors DM 5.000,-- investors DM 5.000,-- DM 5.000,-50% tax rate 35% tax rate 35% tax rate 35% tax rate 30% tax rate, 5,5% Solidaritätszuschlag 21 years

Duration of 30 years the contract Remarks Disposal of the plant after 30 years, otherwise the r.o.i. is 14,03% per year

PV Coop. Freiburg

DM 6.544,--

Solar stock exchange

Without any depreciation allowance; not relevant 20 years assumed Administrative costs and trustee’s fees 10%

DM 9.000,--

Without any depreciation allowance; not relevant 30 years Administrative costs and trustee’s fees 10%

PV Coop. "Bürgersolarstrombeteilig." DM 13.000,-

PV Coop. "costcovering tariff" DM 1.000,--

Without any Without any depreciation depreciation allowance; allowance; not not relevant relevant 20 years 20 years asassumed sumed No adminis- Administrative trative costs costs and trustee’s fees 10%

57

Capital

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

220% 200% 180% 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% -40% -60% -80% -100%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Year German saving bonds Bundesschatzbrief 1998/13 -A Hydro power Murg (Ökologik Ecovest AG Erlangen, 1998) Wind park Ihlewitz (Ökofinanz Frankfurt, 1998) Wind park Frauenberg (WSB Frauenberg, 1998) Wind park Grünow (Ventus Wiesbaden, 1998) Wind park Krempel (EnergieKontor Bremerhaven, 1998) Freiburg PV cooperative (FESA, 1998)

Solar stock exchange for >30 kW (BEWAG, 1997) PV "Bürgersolarstrombeteiligung" (Bayernwerk, 1997) PV cooperative, payment of "cost-covering tariff" for 15 years (HEW, 1998)

Assumptions • If possible, potential tax refunds or payments as well as payment on dividends are balanced • The personal results are based on a tax rate of 35 % at the payment on dividends (without church tax and special taxes like the "Solidaritätszuschlag" as a tax for the German reunion) • Minimum deposit of DM 500,-- to DM 100.000,-• No reinvestment assumption (no internal rate of interest) • The data is based on flyers and published investment information • All PV cooperatives are without any depreciation allowance for the investor. The profitability depends on the acknowledge or deny of loss allocations. All PV cooperatives assume administrative costs and trustee’s fees of 10 %. The duration of contract is ex ante not defined • Therefore, we assume 20 years. Exceptions • Wind park Krempel assumes a 30 % tax rate and a 5,5 %"Solidaritätszuschlag" • Hydro power Murg assumes a 50 % tax rate • Bayernwerk assumes no administrative costs • FESA the duration of contract is 30 years.

Figure 4.2: Amortisation schedule / scheme of repayment

In comparison with a conventional long term capital investment in Germany like the “Bundesschatzbrief” with a maximum duration of 6 or 7 years, all cooperative models are based on a long term scenario with a minimum duration of contract of 20 years. Whereas the “Bundesschatzbrief” as a German saving bond repays the invested capital with a fixed rate of interest at maturity, the amortisation of the invested capital takes in case of wind cooperatives at least 13 to 16 years. These facts influence the decision making process of potential investors in cooperatives. To address socio-cultural aspects to some extent at least, some cooperatives permit lower minimum deposits to local investors (see table 4).

58

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Table 5: Comparison of the organisational options "GmbH & Co.KG" and "AG" in Germany

Kind of company Liability

Minimum deposit

Capitalisation Trade of shares Division of profits

GmbH & Co. KG (private limited partnership with limited partnership) private company limited to the property of the GmbH (private limited company) as the general or unlimited partner and the sum of the special partner’s capital. min. DM 50.000,-- in case of the private limited company(GmbH), the minimum deposit of a special partner ("Kommanditist") is DM 500,--. outside/loan capital

AG (stock company) commercial corporation limited to the stock deposit or capital stock

DM 100.000,-- as a minimum capital stock

equity capital (shareholder’s equity) not or restricted saleable saleable / negotiable according to the GmbH & Co.KG dividend payment according contract the stock deposit and the national regulations concerning surplus or reserves

...in contrast to Greece and Italy Greece A.E. (Anonimos Etairia) (stock company) Kind of company Liability

Italy S.p.A. (Societa per Azioni) (stock company)

commercial corporation limited to the stock deposit or capital stock DR 10 Mill. as a minimum capital stock equity capital (shareholder’s equity) saleable / negotiable dividend payment according the stock deposit and the national regulations concerning surplus or reserves

commercial corporation limited to the stock deposit or capital stock Minimum deposit Lire 200 Mill. as a minimum capital stock Capitalisation equity capital (shareholder’s equity) Trade of shares saleable / negotiable Division of profits dividend payment according the stock deposit and the national regulations concerning surplus or reserves The wind parks in Germany are mainly organised in form of limited partnership companies (GmbH & Co.KG) as closed funds. In Greece and Italy there is no corresponding form of

59

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

business organisation like the German "GmbH & Co.KG" or a comparable form in which an artificial person like the "GmbH" is the general and unlimited partner. Therefore, it is suggested to compare the stock company as a form of business organisation in Greece and Italy in contrast to the German "AG".

60

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

5 Legal and economic options for investment in Greece Greece is a country with extremely high potential of PV and wind, mainly due to the following reasons: • high insolation/strong winds all year round (among the highest in Europe) • electricity needs on islands mostly covered by diesel/heavy oil generation units, resulting in high operation costs and environmental pollution • significant tourism activity during the summer (pollution on some islands increases by more than 100%), thus showing significant seasonal correlation between energy demand and PV power generation However, compared with other EU markets, the PV market is not very developed. In order to improve the situation, a positive legislative and financing framework is forming today (e.g. deregulation of the energy market, new development law, operation programme for energy).

5.1 Current laws, regulations and initiatives fostering electricity generation from renewable energy sources in Greece In Greece, there is a number of legislative measures or programmes supporting Renewable Energy Sources, which comprise actions related to PV and wind energy systems. Additionally, CRES, the national centre for the promotion and dissemination of renewable energy sources in Greece, supports the use of renewable energies. The Ministry of National Economy manages the Second Framework Support Programme for Greece (19941999) financed by national and E.U. funds, within which a number of actions are being included. The table below gives an overview over the different actions. Table 6: National management scheme for RES funds appropriation

Ministry of National Economy manages the Second Framework Support Programme for Greece (1994-1999) E.U. Funds

National Funds GRANTING FUNDS TO MINISTRIES Ministry of Development

Operational Programme for Energy Operational Programme for Industry Operational Programme for Research & Technology

RUNNING Measures 3.2 and 2.3 for RES

Ministry of Interior

Regional Operational Programmes (ROP), divided in the 13 regions of Greece

(RES) (ȆǹǺǼ,ȆǼȃǼǻ, ȆǼȆǼȇ,ȊȆǼȇ, Re61

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Investment Subsidies (including RES)

search Network) Law(2601/98)

National Development Law 2601/98 (on private investment) Administration level: National Scope/objectives: Reinforcement of private investment in Greece with a view to promote regional development targets, increase in employment, Greek enterprise competitiveness, production sector restructuring, exploitation of existing opportunities for the secondary sector in Greece and abroad, environmental protection, and energy conservation. Mechanism: New framework for the provision of subsidies for productive investments. Subsidies in the form of partial funding of the cost of capital expense, loan interest or leasing, or, alternatively, as partial funding of the loan interest and tax breaks. Subsidies depend on geographical region, but there are a few exceptions, where they are uniform over the entire country. Among those exceptions are investments and equipment leasing for electricity production from RES or cogeneration; the maximum subsidy rates apply in these cases irrespective of the region. For the remaining RES applications, subsets depend on the region, but even then the applicable rates are better than those generally applicable. Special incentives for investments over 10 and 25-60 million drs for expansion of existing units and establishment of new units, respectively (the latter depends on the type of enterprise) in specific sectors. Investments and/or leasing programmes on RES are not subject to general limitations on funding (15 million drs per new job position). Beneficiaries/Sector: A wide range of enterprises in various sectors. Applies for RES, energy or biomass producing enterprises, and enterprises in the secondary sector that use RES to cover their energy needs. Timing: In force from April 1998 Remarks: In addition to basically replacing Law 1892/90 & Law 2234/94, it amends a number of other laws on measures for the support and development of e.g. the national economy, tax matters.

Law 2244/94 (Law for Electricity production from Renewable Energy Sources) The “Renewable Energy Law” was effected in 1994. It covers subjects regarding the electricity production from renewable sources. In April 1995 a Ministerial Decree (8295/19.4.1995) was issued, clarifying the administrative process, tackling the issues related to the licenses for installation and operation of electricity producing plants. In the same decree, a sample contract between the Public Power Corporation and the electricity producers is presented, where the details regarding the buying-back rate and the grid connection terms are included. Two categories of electricity producers are defined: Auto-Producers (AP), which generate electricity to cover their own consumption and sell only their surplus energy, to the PPC and Independent Producers (IP), who sell all their production to the PPC. The law removes previous restrictions for the independent production of electricity from RES, with a new maximum capacity of up to 50MW for IPs. PPC is obliged to buy all energy produced by IPs under a ten year contract, while retaining the exclusive right to sup62

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

ply third parties with electricity. The law also defines explicitly the essential components of the payback tariff system followed for the power producers, correlating it with PPC’s kWh selling price. th

Table 7: The payback tariffs, valid since July 15 1998

APs Energy payback 70% of kWh selling price, in Drachma

IPs Energy payback 90% of kWh selling price, in Drachma

Autonomous Island Grids

all voltages

energy

18.62

23.94

Interconnected systems

low voltage (220/380V) med. voltage (6.6, 15, 20, 22 kV)

energy

18.62

---

energy capacity

15.057 ---

high voltage (150kV)

peak zone med. zone low zone capacity (peak zone)

9.835 6.818 5.054 ---

19.359 497 X ı (50%of selling tariff) 12.645 8.766 6.498 1128.5 X ı (50%of selling tariff)

Note 1:

Note 2:

The value ı takes the following values. 0.5 for wind and solar units 0.7 for small hydro units 0.9 for geothermal and biomass units The capacity credit is calculated on the basis of the peak-measured power output between two successive measurement periods.

Law 2364/95 article 7, paragraph 17 (National Tax Deduction Scheme for Renewables and Natural Gas) At present, the only available incentive for individuals to install PV systems, is the exemption of 75% of the purchase and installation cost of RES systems from the taxable income. This measure is important only when the individual is taxed in the higher tax brackets of 30 to 45%. For those tax brackets, there is a PV system cost reduction of 22% to 34% respectively. Although this measure is welcome, it does not provide a serious incentive as it is dependent on the taxable income bracket. The associated PV system cost reduction with respect to equivalent programmes that promote RES introduction is considered low. For companies and other legal entities, the above mentioned percentage or 100% is amortised from their profits over a period of years.

63

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Operational programme for energy The Operational Programme for Energy was established 1996. It covers investment support in the area of renewables and rational use of energy. The public subsidies come from the European Fund for Regional Development and the Greek government. The Programme ran for 4 years (1996-1999), and has then been replaced by the new operational programme, which runs from 2000 to 2006. A minimum total budget limit of 20 million Drachmas exists, for proposals made for PV systems. The PV systems are financed by 55% of their total cost, while the rest of the amount is covered by private funds. A part of the programme budget of the order of 10 billion Drs has been put aside to fund RES applications in the public sector. Operational programme for research and technology Through the Operational Programme for Research and Technology and Sub-programme 2, actions related to the “Promotion of the R&T activities in the field of the environment and environmentally sound technologies” (Sub-programme 1, measure 1.1) and “Industrial research, technology transfer and innovation” (Sub-programme 2) the state supports research activities in the field. Sub-programme 1, Measure 1.1 supports actions in 7 thematic areas, namely 1) Pollution and anti-pollution technology 2) Natural disasters 3) Renewable energy technologies and rational use of energy including solar technologies (solar thermal, active or passive systems and PV) 4) Protection of quality of living conditions 5) Water resources 6) Renewable energy in the treatment of water effluents 7) Anti-seismic constructions The aim of Sub-programme 2 is to encourage industrial research, technology transfer and innovation both from inside the country (e.g. universities, research centres) and from abroad. An important aim of the programme is to develop the ability for supplying consultation and technological services to enterprises through technology research and development agencies, company incubators, scientific and technology parks, technology transfer parks, quality control, certification labs and other related entities, such as ELOT, OBI, EOMMEX or ELKEPA. Sub-programme 2 is implemented through a number of activities, such as Industrial Research Development Programme (PAVE), scholarships of oriented research (YPER), co-financing programme (SYN) or liaison offices. Regional Operational Programmes Greece is divided into 57 prefectures, which in turn are grouped into 13 administrative regions. There are then 13 regional programmes, one for each region. The basic lines of these programmes are the following: 1) Infrastructures: Road networks, railway network, telecommunication, energy, natural gas 2) Living conditions: urban development, health, environment 3) Competitiveness: Industry and services, research and development, tourism, culture, agriculture, fisheries 64

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

4)

Human resources: Education and continuous training, modernisation of public services

Depending on the region and the priorities set, certain actions are being formulated and launched. Areas 2)&3) (Environment and Research & Development) concern among others the deployment of Renewable Energy Sources in the regional context. Again, no specific programme is dedicated to PV.

5.2 Economic situation for renewable energy technology in Greece 5.2.1 Investment Costs PV - The investment costs for PV in Greece are currently estimated to be in the range of 300 million Drs./kW. WIND – The investment costs for wind energy plants are estimated to lie between 350 to 400 million Drs/MW. HYDRO – In the case of hydro power plants, investment costs are between 550 to 600 million Drs./MW.

5.2.2 Demand PV Autonomous Houses/Settlements: There is a range of such PV systems in terms of installed peak power. Many of these systems are made of a few panels (<500Wp) and support basic needs such as lighting, small appliances and refrigerators. Most of the systems, usually the small ones, provide DC service, some provide AC. The market segment above 500Wp is still relatively small due to the cost and the buying power of the potential users. In the population census by the National Statistical Service in 1991, electrified houses were considered those having an electricity source, i.e. utility grid, diesel generator, PV, wind generator, etc. Non-electrified houses were included that were seasonally or permanently occupied, scattered over the whole country, isolated, or built in areas where building is not permitted. Most of the non-electrified houses are located in rural areas. Those houses, along with most of those located in semi-urban areas, can be considered the actual potential market of PV. A number of non-electrified houses are not scattered throughout the country but they belong to small villages (settlements). These houses are occupied seasonally or permanently and are located in areas far away from the national electricity grid. Taking into account the trend in electrifying non-grid-connected houses during the decade 1981-1991 and the results obtained from the analysis concerning the electrification of re65

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

mote settlements, it can be concluded that the number of non-grid-connected houses since 1991 has been reduced by 20%. This means, that today there are 115,000 off-grid houses. Amongst these, 20,000 are permanently inhabited, 46,000 are seasonally inhabited and 49,000 are abandoned. Table 8: Non electrified houses in Greece

Non-electrified houses in Greece Permanently inhabited Seasonally inhabited Abandoned Total

1991 census 24,824 57,922 60,428 14,3174

1995 estimation 19,742 45,816 49,252 11,4540

On the basis of the 1991 census data, the total number of inhabited non-electrified houses is 24,824, i.e. 0.79% of the total number of inhabited houses in Greece, while the number of non-electrified houses is 143,174 i.e. 3% of the total number of houses (see table 9). This last number includes permanently and seasonally inhabited houses, also week-end and abandoned houses. Table 9: Housing classifications

1991 Census

Total electrified houses Quantity

%

Inhabited electrified houses Quantity

%

Total nonelectrified houses Quantity

Inhabited nonelectrified houses

%

Quantity

%

Agricultural

1,340,962

29.8

840,549

26.7

91,728

64

16,509

66.5

Semi-urban

608,036

13.5

375,893

12

27,860

19.5

4,663

18.8

Urban

2,559,730

56.7

1,925,886

61.3

23,586

16.5

3,652

14.7

Total

4,508,728

100

3,142,328

100

143,174

100

24,824

100

In the last 27 years, the number of houses far away from the electricity grid has been reduced from 1,400 in 1981, to 873 in 1991 and recently (end of 1995) in 607 (see table 10). Of those settlements, 373 are inhabited by 8,651 people (1991 census), 100 of them have been already included in the future electrification program but most of them will remain without electricity as access by heavy duty vehicle is not possible. The total estimated number of houses in those settlements is 14,000 and among those there are 2,800 inhabited.

66

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Table 10: Permanently/Seasonally inhabited settlements

permanently or seasonally inhabited Settlements

1981 Census 1400 (total estimated number of houses 14000, 2800 inhabited)

1991 Census 873 (373 inhabited by 8651 people)

1995 (estimation) 607 heavy vehicle access problem faced by 14000 houses (2800 houses of those inhabited) (100 settlements already included in future electrification program)

Autonomous Small/Rocky Islands with Development Potential: In this category of islands we include all those islands that have about 500 inhabitants or less, or are uninhabited for the winter season. There are at least 50 such islands that are inhabited and several hundreds that are not inhabited and have the potential for development in a environmentally friendly way. The main activities that may be maintained on these islands are eco-tourism, agriculture and fishing. The development of such islands using environmentally friendly technologies is very important for the improvement of the inhabitants' lifestyle. The creation of a more stable economic environment will keep the inhabitants on the islands, reversing the alarming abandonment trend. There are already approximately 250kWp of PV installed on such islands. Several of these islands have a local grid, powered by a diesel generator. An estimation of the permanent population in this category is 5000 people. During the summer months, the population on such islands may be two to three times higher than the permanent population. The power service of the local grid is usually poor and power cuts are frequent. PV systems may improve the power service, increase the income of the islanders and stabilise their population. Assuming an average introduction of 200Wp per permanent inhabitant, there is a potential PV market of one MWp. If the islanders are to provide services to the summer tourists, the potentially installed capacity may be a few times larger. Telecommunications: The telecommunication market is generally economically viable around the world. In Greece, there are a few applications by the national telecommunications company, HTO. HTO has been installing seven relay stations on the Dirfi mountain series of Evia, which comprise a total power 12KWp. In 1995, HTO installed on Agio Oros 19 PV powered telephone relay stations to serve the monasteries, of a total peak power of 12.5 kWp. There is also an HTO relay station in Arkadia serving eight villages of a total power of 2 kWp. In 1987, a 25 kWp station was installed to power HTO telephones on the island Antikythira, financed partly by an E.U. demonstration program. The potential of this market segment in Greece is not bright according to a PV system installer. In most of the sites, where HTO is planning to install relay stations, PV systems compete with the cost of electrification by grid line extension, except for the sites the grid is too far or that cannot be reached by trucks and the cost of opening new roads is too high. 67

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Exterior lighting of roads, signalling, billboards, small devices: This market is practically non-existent in Greece, although in other countries such as USA, Germany and Egypt, there is a number of companies that are active in this field. Exterior road and park lighting and signalling The viability of such systems can be justified if a possible grid extension would need digging out several meters. The associated cost of such an undertaking may be higher than an autonomous PV lighting/signalling system that could later be moved again with minimal cost. The estimated market potential can be significant, if PV lighting is regarded as one of the possible solutions by municipalities, wherever the lighting of roads, parks, squares, boat marinas and docks is being planned. PV lighting will not always be the most appropriate solution, due to cost and to the possible combination of high power lighting application and limited area availability of PV surface on a pole. A PV system for street lighting, with two 50-55Wp modules, a 18 to 36W low pressure Sodium or fluorescent lamp and the associated electronics, battery, and pole, costs from 900,000 to 1,000,000 Dra. Advertising board lighting This is a market with considerable potential. Any given site that has potential for promotion of products and does not have reasonably easy access to the grid can be a money making location for the advertising companies if lighted by a PV system. Such PV systems could have a significant potential if the advertising companies become aware of such possibilities. Small devices Possible candidates to be powered by PV are small devices like parking ticket machines and lighting of public HTO (national telecommunications company) card-phones. If for example HTO decides to light 10,000 card-phones by PV, with an installed power of 30Wp per card-phone, the total PV power would be 300kWp. The PV powered parking ticket machine introduction is a possible application that frees the local authorities from the electric grid and all the necessary ground work to power the machines. The economic viability of many of the above PV applications has to be determined on a case by case basis.

External lighting

Households Connected Agricultural Transceivers Navigation 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

%

Figure 5.1: The most attractive applications (% demand )

68

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

The houses and settlements on isolated areas (islands-continental), are presented as the most attractive application for the users (29%), followed by the transceivers (19%), the agricultural applications (16%), grid-connected applications (14%) and navigation applications (13%). The above shown demand arises from the needs and the motives of users, which are: electrification for isolated, faraway areas…………………... 48% ecological awareness……………………………...........…… 20% electrification-connection with grid………………………...... 12% independence from PPC (e.g. power failures, taxes)…….. 8% energy saving……………………………………………...….. 8% attractive financing………………………………………..…...4% The total installed power is about 635 kW.

Wind Even though no more than twenty wind energy units corresponding to 20 MW have been installed over the last five years, rapid development is foreseen over the next years. Official data show that about 0,3% of the nation’s energy needs are accommodated by wind power. Data on wind energy availability indicate that about 12-15% of the national energy demand could come from wind. The total Greek market for renewable energy equipment was about US$175 million in 1997. Imports supply approximately 90,4% of the market. Based on positive but realistic scenarios made by the government and market experts, the total Greek market for wind generators was estimated to be US$520 million in the year 2000. The current capacity of wind energy generators, (which is presented in figure 5.2), is provided through PPC and autoproducers.

Generation (kW)

30000 25000 20000

Generation by PPC

15000

Generation by autoproducers TOTAL

10000 5000 0

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

Years Figure 5.2: Electricity generation from wind-energy converters

10

10

Unpublished data, CRES, 1995-1998

69

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

The first category represents 87,5% of the total installed wind power (24,300kW), something which depicts the monopoly on electric power production by the PPC. The number of such units is about 130 and their net electricity generation considered about 34,150MWh. By autoproducers, the installed power approaches 3,490kW, 25 units with net electricity generation about 2,770MWh. During 1998, an additional three wind energy production units were installed (Table 11): Table 11: Electricity generation from wind energy converters during 1998

REGION

POWER (MW)

CRETE

10,000

SAMOS

0,750

SIROS

0,500

TOTAL

11,250

11

An end-user analysis separates the market demand in two segments: • Public sector demand Municipalities, ministries, airports, hospitals and military installations are the government-controlled entities that are the main purchasers of wind products through the tenders. • Private sector demand Uses for wind farms in this sector are pharmaceutical, poultry farming, remote homes, water pumping and demonstration projects. The wind energy market in Greece is very promising. Over the next years, the dramatic market liberalisation and solid growth in demand will together create significant opportunities in this industry sector. The Greek government and the European Union have financially supported the development and promotion of wind energy installations. The Greek government has a policy of attracting foreign investment and technology in order to increase the quality of domestically produced products. According to the data of the Ministry of National Economy, US $25 million of new investments in Renewable Energy equipment and manufacturing were approved by the Greek government in 1995 and 1996 (Crete, Rhodes, Evia, Lakonia). This includes investments in buildings, land and equipment. During 1998 an additional 6 licenses for wind energy supported were issued by the Operational Programme for Energy (OPE, measure 3.2). The amount of each project budget and the finance of the Ministry of Development is being shown in table 12.

11

Unpublished data, CRES, 1995-1998

70

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Table 12: Licenses approved by OPE in 1998 - finance/budget in Drs.

12

FIRM

BUDGET

FINANCE

Aeolian Neoriou BC

924.000.000

369.600.000

EN TE KA Wind Parks BC

494.457.000

197.782.800

Energy Net LTD

136.769.000

54.707.600

Rokas Wind SA

8.760.000.000

3.504.000.000

Rokas Wind Evia SA

8.641.500.000

3.456.600.000

Terna Energy SA

3.868.552.000

1.547.420.800

TOTAL

22.825.278.000

9.130.111, 200

The Greek policy concerning investment activity is contained in a number of laws which establish a variety of financing mechanisms and incentives for investors in the public and private sectors. Grants for machinery and buildings, interest rate subsidies, tax-free allowances, extra depreciation rates, lower social security contributions and favourable tax rates are some of the provided incentives. Within the context of existing provisions of Law 2244/94, Law 2601/98 and EU financial incentives (Second Framework Support Programme), the annual growth of the total market of wind energy equipment and products over the 1995-1997 was approximately 5-7%. However, a significant increase is expected by taking into account the operation of some approved windparks during 1999.

5.3

Obstacles to the dissemination of renewable energy technologies

The most important barriers existing for the dissemination of PV applications in Greece were identified during the project and are summarised as follows: • high cost of PV systems • lack of small PV demonstration projects (completed and in operation) in different geographical areas, which would operate as examples • lack of cost-benefit studies for the realisation of various PV projects, which would be operated by specialists as practical guides • inadequate financing sources and relevant programmes (national or regional) for the realisation of small demonstration projects – in certain cases, a significant strengthening of the financial support has to take place at regional and local level

12

Energy & Development newsletter - OPE, 6th edition, August 1998

71

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

• • • • •

inadequate economic motives for the purchase and installation of PV applications for individuals limited information of users (lack of training seminars, personal contacts) need for more information on the study and the supervision of PV systems on local level (centralisation of experiences and know-how in urban centres) weakness of a legislative framework to support the obligatory use of RES in public projects need for further cooperation between government bodies, regions and market actors (information for European national-regional programmes)

The PV market research in Greece, including the Regional Energy Agencies' reports and the current situation even on international level, indicates the major parameters for a further PV market penetration: Assured Quality: The issue of quality of PV products and systems is very important. Many PV component and system failures have been reported, especially in off-grid rural electrification projects. This inconsistency of quality thus became an important issue, affecting not only the financing, but also the future of the entire PV business. This issue was realised by the PV industry and its major customers, who established the PV Global Approval Programme. Advertising, Training, Promotion, and Education: There is a great need for advertising of PV, as well as for training, promotion and education. In the oil-crisis era of the 1970s, when the terrestrial PV business began, the quantity of media attention focused on the then minuscule PV business was significant and helped the establishment of PV in many market segments. However, the media attention stopped in the 1980s, and today the public is not aware of the extent to which PV is already being utilised. The general belief is that PV is for the future. It is not widely known that without PV, there would be no global communication, no global email, Internet, TV, telephone, fax, because all the satellites used for these functions are 100% powered by PV. There are no exact figures on how much the entire PV industry is spending on advertising, but it is estimated that the relevant budget is much less than 5 million dollars per year, less than 0,5% of the total revenues. If it was clear that the PV market is not primarily price sensitive, and that large market shares could be obtained by advertising rather than by lowering prices, the PV industry would be in a better position. The PV industry today is not in the position to invest the necessary funds in advertising and in public awareness campaigns. Yet this is a crucial issue for the future of the PV business and should be addressed urgently. The creativity of the PV industry, and also of other interested parties, is needed to mobilise resources for advertising, promotion, education and training. A discussion on the issue needs to take place and solutions need to be found. Market Another major government task in the electric energy field is to open the Greek market within the framework of EU market liberalisation. By 2001, Greece had to allow competi-

72

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

tion for the production of 22% of the electric energy consumed by industries, with over 40 GWh annual consumption. Financing of PV Products and Systems: It was established a few years ago that financing of PV installations is crucial for their future. The urban grid-connected and, to some extent, the off-grid markets are also dependent on subsidies. The merits and demerits of subsidies can be debated endlessly. If they are for the long term, subsidies are necessary and beneficial. However, short-term subsidies would be detrimental for the PV business. It is urgent to develop financing mechanisms for PV systems. The lack of financing available for customers is an enormous handicap to the development of the PV business. Much PV business in the developed countries and two billion potential customers in the developing countries need financing. This means that the matter of financing PV is very complex. Several interesting approaches are being tried out or planned, and various meetings have focused on this very complicated issue and try to find solutions.

73

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

6 Legal and economic options for investment in Italy 6.1

Current laws, regulations and initiatives fostering electricity generation from renewable energy sources in Italy

The current laws and the regulations formulated for the technical development of NRES are funded essentially on the “Energetic National Plan” of 1998 (Piano Energetico Nazionale – 1998 PEN 98) based on the laws n. 9 and n. 10 of 1992 and on the PROVVEDIMENTO CIP 6/92. The most important principle of these laws is the one contained in the art. 1 of the law n.9: “the NRES have to be considered a public usefulness and benefit”. In an operative sense, it can be considered the art. 2, describing the actuation of PEN, the art. 3 in which is programmed the agreement between the Ministry of Industry (MICA) and ENEA about the NRES use, the art. 5 says that the regional Institutions have to organise the regional plan of NRES, in collaboration with ENEA. The laws n.9 allows the self-production of electricity and the transfer to ENEL (art. 22). This is possible after a notification to MICA and a convention with ENEA. The selling prices are established by CIP 6/92, according to the energetic index of the plant. The energetic index is function of electricity self-produced, heat produced and primary fuel supply. ENEL charges customers just for supplying electricity and not according to the source which ENEL uses for production. The above description shows that the laws presented give regulation and financial support, but do not provide an organic strategy of action in developing the use of NRES. In other words, the policies foster the private initiatives, but they do not co-ordinate those initiatives. As a matter of fact the law n. 9 and CIP 6/92 have not achieved the expected results, which is one of the reasons that led to the decision of cessation of these issues. Thus a new formulation of the regulation on NRES development appears appropriate, as shown in the conclusive document of the “Carpi Commission” (points 1.5 and 3.7): “the NRES are the most important target policy of energy and environment…so, the supporting issues are to be reviewed in order to correct the limitations which appeared during the past four years”. In any case, in the Italian legislation the most important and suitable support initiative for the NRES development was law 29/12/1997. It included fiscal reductions amounting to 41% of the investment in the realisation of energy systems implementing NRES. The maximum cost allowed amounts to Lit 150.000.000 (77.470 €) including VAT. This initiative had a duration period of two years, from 1998 to 1999.

74

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

6.2

Economic situation for renewable energy technologies in Italy

6.2.1 Investment costs (value 1997) PV - The investment cost of PV can be considered, in a conservative way, 4.648.1108.263.310 €/MW (9-16⋅109 Lit/MW). In 2010 it should be reduced to 2.582.280-3.098.740 €/MW (5-6⋅109 Lit/MW), thanks to progress in the development of the technology. WIND – The investment costs can be considered to decrease with the growth of the market sector. Actually they amount to 774.690 €/MW (1,5⋅109 Lit/MW). HYDRO – At the end of 1996, the hydropower installed was 13900 MW for power plants of more than 10 MW and 2150 MW for power plants of less than 10 MW (375 MW of them for power plants less than 1 MW). CONVENTIONAL POWER STATIONS – The investment costs range from 774.6901.032.910 €/MW (1,5-2⋅109 Lit/MW). A law of 1988 excluded the electricity production with nuclear power plants. In the following table, the power plants' investment costs for Italy until 2010 are reported. The PV investment costs are evaluated, in the most realistic way, in the range 4.648.1108.263.310 €/MW (9-16⋅109 Lit/MW). Table 13: Power plant investment costs

Technology

Investm. Cost

Power Costs 19962000

€/MW

MW

Total power 19962010 MW

670

619.750 2.250 [1.200]

1.755.950 2900 [3.400]

450

1.291.1 40 [2.500] 877.980 850 [1.700]

-

24

Hydro > 10 MW Hydro <= 10 MW

2.840.510 [5,5]

311

13

Costs

103 € [109Lit] 1.187.850 270 [2.300]

4.648.1108.263.310 [9-16] 929.620774.690 [1,8-1,5] 2.840.510 [5,5]

Wind

Power 20012010

103 € MW 9 [10 Lit] 206.480 250 [400]

[109Lit/MW] PV

13

450

2.375.700 1.150 [4.600]

Total Costs

103 € [109Lit] 1.394.4 30 [2.700] 2.375.7 00 [4.600] 1.291.1 40 [2.500] 3.253.6 80 [6.300]

Source: ENEA Libro Verde sulle Fonti Rinnovabili di Energia, 1998

75

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Production costs and retail prices PV – The electricity production cost of grid-connected PV plants is in the range of 0,260,52 €/kWh (500-1000 Lit/kWh) and the possibilities of reducing them in the short term seem to be very low. This assumption refers mainly to the large plants. The development of the PV market in the “stand alone” plants (houses and urban infrastructures), however seems to be more quick. Wind – The wind energy market actors in Italy come from the national industry, but there is also a significant presence of foreign operators, in particular from Denmark, who have reduced production costs by the constant increase in the middle class power range up to 600kW. The production costs amount to 0,08-0,1 €/kWh (150-200 Lit/kWh). In the following tables the production values are evaluated, they seem to be still quite low. Table 14: Production values for wind power plants in Italy

14

WIND POWER PLANT IN ITALY 1995 Power (MW) 21,9 Electricity production 9 900 (MWh)

1996 69,7 32 700

On the basis of Law CIP6/92, wind plant projects amounting to 740 MW were started, but at the end of 1997 only 80 MW of that power were actually in operation. Hydro – In the last years, the attention has been addressed to the low power hydro plants (less than 10 MW). In fact, now they are considered economically convenient because today there is a real difficulty in finding sites suitable for high and medium power hydro plants. The production costs are about 0,02-0,04 €/kWh (40-80 Lit/kWh). The following table shows the regional diffusion of hydro power plants (after APEI): 8

Table 15: Regional diffusion of hydro power plants in Italy

Region Abruzzo Basilicata Calabria Campania Emilia-Romagna Friuli-Venezia Giulia Lazio Liguria Lombardia Marche Molise 14

Power<3MW Power >3MW N° ent. N° imp. N° ent. N° imp. 4 2 5 4 9 43 6 5 62 11 5

4 2 6 4 9 68 14 7 89 18 7

2

2

2

2

4 2 2

9 2 3

Total N° ent. 6 2 5 4 9 45 6 9 64 13 5

N° imp. 6 2 6 4 9 70 14 16 91 21 7

Source: ENEA Libro Verde sulle Fonti Rinnovabili di Energia, 1998

76

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Piemonte Toscana Trentino-AltoAdige Sardegna Umbria Valle D’Aosta Veneto Interregional Total

123 22 117

186 23 143

5 10 40 6 479

5 14 56 13 668

11 1 6 1

25 1 12 2

1 4 36

22 68 148

134 23 123 1 5 10 41 10 515

211 24 155 2 5 14 78 81 816

N° ent. = Number of enterprises operating in each field N° imp. = Number of power plants in each field Conventional power stations - In the evaluation of the power production with conventional plants - amounting to 0,04-0,08 €/kWh (80 – 150 Lit/kWh) - one has to take into account the cost generated by the environmental damage, amounting to 0,03-0,05 €/kWh (65-106Lit/kWh) for oil plants and 0,01-0,03 €/kWh (28-51 Lit/kWh) for gas plants.

6.2.2 Demand A real variety of demand can be observed, especially for PV applications. The most important are: •

• • • • •

6.3

So-called professional applications, such as remote sensing, telecommunications, cathodic protection of metallic devices. In these applications the PV technology is convenient and competitive. Electrification of villages non grid-connected. Power devices of 0.5-3 kW. Illumination of remote areas (archaeological sites, airports in little islands). Desalinisation devices. High power plants (100 kW-3 MW) grid-connected.

Obstacles to the dissemination of renewable energy technologies

Depending on the technology, there are various obstacles to the dissemination of renewable energies in Italy. The following list gives a short overview: PV • Investment cost still too high • Lack of a supporting policy Wind • The complexity of the geographical areas related to the wind power plant determines a difficult evaluation of the suitable sites • The suitable sites are often in remote areas, non grid-connected • Lack of a national certification system 77

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

•

Requirement of a large amount of investment for the development of a national market

Hydro • Complexity of the authorisation path, due to the particular situation of the plant in regions (mountainous ones) often characterised by environmental restrictions. • Large amounts of investment, especially for low power plants in which there is not a convenient return on investment.

78

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

7 Organisational aspects 7.1 Applicability of solar cooperatives for Greece 7.1.1 Technical aspects and potential in Greece Greece is a nearly ideal area for harnessing wind energy. It has over 1000 islands, (representing 20% of Greece’s total area), sea wind speed exceeding 7,5 m/s, and in some areas 10 m/s. Wind energy has been used in Greece for centuries to grind grain and for irrigation. The distribution of wind energy installations by region is presented figure 7.1.

12000

Generation (kW)

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0 C R ETE

S.AEGEAN

N .AEGEAN

MAIN LAN D

Regio ns

Figure 7.1: Wind energy converters by region in Greece

15

Extensive wind measurements were carried out in Greece during the 1980s and 1990s by the Public Power Corporation (PPC) and the Centre for Renewable Energy Sources (CRES). These demonstrated that substantial amounts of electricity could be generated largely from wind resources, especially in the Aegean islands and Crete. In 1993, PPC and CRES used these measurements to prepare the Wind Atlas of Greece, showing the regions that offered the best opportunities for wind power generation. PPC holds the exclusive right to transmit and distribute electricity, and produces 99,1% of the total production of electricity. The generating systems of PPC consist of lignite-fired and hydro-electric units on the mainland, and almost entirely of oil-fired units in Crete, Rhodes and the rest of the Greek islands. Recently renewable energy sources and mainly wind energy, have gained ground in the production of electricity on the Aegean islands.

15

Unpublished data, CRES, 1990-1998

79

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

The implementation of Law 2244/94 of October 1994 ended a forty-five year monopoly on electric power production by the state-controlled PPC. This law allows the private sector and industrial companies to establish and operate power stations to produce electric power from renewable sources either for their own use or for resale to the PPC (table 16). Table 16: Licenses for electricity generation from wind energy converters based on 16 Law 2244/94

Region Crete

Power (MW) 59,900

South Aegean

18,740

North Aegean

1,825

Mainland

105,500

Total

185,965

This idea of solar cooperatives has to overcome some barriers in order to be fruitful in Greece. In any case a very careful plan of the development of this concept has to be done. Critical issues: • the existence of the necessary license (in some geographic areas it is very difficult to receive it) • the pure economic attractiveness of the investments for the investors • the cooperation with the local authorities in all the phases of the project • the exploitation of potential incentives, such as the Development Law and the Structural Funds for energy (up to 50% of the investment) • the training of the personnel

7.1.2 Infrastructural aspects in Greece Based on CRES’ experience in Greece, the most common PV applications are represented on Table 17.

16

Unpublished data, CRES, 1990-1998

80

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Table 17: Current market segments

according to PV system type

grid-connected systems autonomous systems

according to end-user (application) type

centralised, medium to large scale systems (for electrification of villages, islands, or connected to a large grid) residential buildings (single houses, multistorey buildings, etc.) commercial buildings (hotels, ‘demo’/ promotional systems, etc.) electrification of small (possibly uninhabited) islands tourist sector (small hotels, archeologic sites, cantinas, etc) ecological applications special (forests, shelters, etc) special applications: - lighthouses - desalination - telecommunication - school kits according to geographical region mainland islands according to ownership / decision making / public market control regime private according to user’s (or opinion leader’s) already aware or user of PV previous PV experience not aware of PV according to % of coverage of user’s en- full (autonomous systems) ergy needs partial (e.g. small hotels in electrified islands) low (PV system serves mainly for demonstration or image purposes, for example PV in large commercial buildings) Examples of potential Solar Cooperatives • Use of the PV and/or wind energy supply systems for eco-tourism enterprises (e.g. hotels). Promotion of the green character of this activity, especially for environmentally sensitive tourists. Green funds are recommended to be used for this purpose • Cooperation with building construction enterprises, real estate enterprises and big chains supplying buildings in touristic areas (e.g. time sharing) • Cooperation with industrial/professional associations to promote the concept in their members

81

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

7.2

Applicability of Solar Cooperatives for Italy

7.2.1 Technical aspects and potential in Italy Italian regulations are based on the National Energy Plan (PEN) issued in 1988, strengthened by law 9/91 and 10/91, whose appliance was assured by the PROVVEDIMENTO CIP 6/92. Several other agreements, laws and disposals were stated, even if the threshold for the laws analysis is represented by the ones above mentioned. Those resolutions mainly encourage diffusion, realisation and exploitation of renewable energy sources including cogeneration plants, whose “utilisation is considered of public interest and utility” (art. 1, law 10/91). Projects must be proposed to a commission which makes its selection according to some energy index previously chosen. On the local view, regions are obliged to plan the use of renewables, i. e. pointing at target areas and looking for financial resources. Financial aid is supported by the State but practically worked by Regions, which are also in charge of stating local rules to apply Government laws. Law 9/91 gives the right to auto-produce electricity and/or sell it to the national grid at certain prices and conditions detailed in CIP 6/92. Recently (January 98) this CIP 6 was stalled, freezing the growing free market of energy. Anyway the E.U. directive 96/92/CEE must be receipted as soon as possible. There are some restrictions especially for wind plants: Laws tend to protect landscape and environment, through the release of authorisations for soil use, building, landscape impact, seismic stability, flying safety. To obtain those authorisations two or three years are required. Solar Cooperatives operating with wind energy plants will be fully enclosed in this long procedure, while for PV plants there would not be those problems. Most of the Italian wind plants are installed in two basins: Sardinia and the coast along the Southern Adriatic sea (i. d. Apulia, Basilicata, and Abruzzo Regions), whose wind characteristics make the operation of those kind of plants economically feasible. As far as irradiation is concerned, the best target areas are located in Southern Italy (Sicily, Calabria and Apulia Region) and the lower Central area. In those areas Summer temperatures reach up to 40°C and the climate along the year is warm. In Italy there are quite a number of small islands in the Tyrrhenian Sea. In those areas several projects could be implemented, even linked with some desalination plants. More detailed studies will be needed to assure pay-outs. Islands targets are Eolie, Lipari, Lampedusa, Pantelleria and Tremiti.

7.2.2 Infrastructural aspects in Italy According to the psychological point of view, Italy today is a fertile land for exploiting non grid solutions, as people are looking for the common services offered by new “societies” 82

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

detached from previous monopolies, following the spirit of global markets. Table 18 gives an overview of aspects that argue for or against a certain location. Table 18: Pros and cons of different locations for plants

Noise level Visual impact People

Urban areas High or low according to the present one. Problems especially at night. Merging with industrialised city Short daily home-work travel

Facilities supply (electricity, water, Already present etc.) Future enlarging proHard cess

Rural areas Not disturbing if far away from populated areas Strong Maybe long homework travel Maybe to be taken Easy

83

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

8 Site selection For site selection, the project partners in Greece and Italy were asked to give recommendations, where solar cooperatives could be established in their countries. These suggestions, as well as factors that lead to the corresponding decisions, are described in the paragraphs below.

8.1 Site selection in Greece First, appropriate applications for the different technologies were sought, which gave a first indication on where to establish solar cooperatives in Greece. Ideas that might be realised were: • to develop a fund in cooperation with international branches of hotels, e.g. Grecotel (50% Greek, 50% TUI, also in Egypt and Turkey) • stocks (European stock market) • involvement of locals which may result in the benefits of • employment of local people • taxes to municipality • cooperation with an association or network (e.g. group of installers => improved quality of installation, education/training As criteria for the selection of suitable sites were used: • annual energy production in kWh • grid connection (high energy production cost in not connected) • potential investors’ attitude (including touristic attractiveness) PV technologies Houses • economically a problem • PV used on illegal houses, otherwise for fun • timesharing houses/eco-tourism a possibility • hotels Islands • on isolated islands off-grid • people pay same price as in Athens (everywhere in Greece) • subsidised • island of Creta structural fund subsidised 70% (average 40%-50%) Legal aspects: • PPC monopoly on distribution • in future no more monopoly on generation/production • Regulatory Energy Authority (REA) decides whether feeding in is allowed • licences may be needed (from forestry, archaeology, air...), the acquisition of which may take longer than one year 84

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

• • •

not sure whether electricity may be sold (REA decides on a regular basis, e.g. daily) penetration of renewables upper limit: 30% (daily-short term) the process is simpler for auto-producers, e.g. combined investment in hotels with PVplant Taking everything into account it seems that PV in Greece would best be used for autoproduction. From these reflections, the following best suited areas for PV application in Greece can be identified: • Creta (high insolation, off-grid, tourist attractions) • Cyclades (relatively high insolation, off-grid, tourist attraction) • Attica-Athens (good insolation, grid connected, metropolitan area)

Wind technologies The following best suited areas for wind applications in Greece can be identified: • Creta (excellent wind potential in selected sites, off-grid, tourist attraction) • Cyclades (very good wind potential in selected sites, off-grid, tourist attraction) • Attica-Athens (good wind potential in selected sites, grid connected, metropolitan area).

8.2 Site selection in Italy The question of where PV plants in Italy should be installed is answered by the table below. As is clearly shown, a significant portion of the electricity produced is supplied to isolated houses in rural areas. The largest share, however, have grid-connected plants. 17

Table 19: PV applications in Italy

Area

Category

N/on housing Applications

Pumping water Professional Agricultural Other Total

Rural houses Electrification

Isolated Houses

Other Total

Placed on Gridconnected Roofs 17

1996 Installed ProPower duced (kWp) Energy (MWh) 1 000 1 056 1 900 1 306 1 350 1 402 400 400 4 650 4 164 4 400 4 454 300 360 4 700 4 814 260 150

Source: ENEA Libro Verde sulle Fonti Rinnovabili di Energia, 1998

85

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

plants

Placed on <100 kWp other sites 100÷1000 kWp > 1000 kWp Total

TOTAL

80

65

3100

1350

2970 6150 15760

3438 4853 13981

Especially facilities related to the improvement of living conditions such as for instance, the supply of water in the south through hybrid solutions (wind, PV and desalinisation plant) should be considered when looking for applications for solar cooperatives. Schools, hospitals, private houses, hotels are main targets that could and should in these areas be supplied.

86

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

9 Cost/return calculations Based on parameters compiled during the project, an economic evaluation of PV-plants and wind turbines was carried out to quantify the profitability of possible projects. The calculations are realized with a software tool for financing limited partnership companies in Germany, which is used by banks and trustees. The required input parameter such as plant size, energy yield and investment costs are based on national values in Greece. Installation, operation and maintenance costs have been assumed from international and German experiences. All annual costs are increased by an inflation rate. Initial financial parameters (revenue rate, interest rate and depreciation mode) are based on Greek values, annual financing costs for trustee, legal and tax consultants must be fixed for each project. Incentives, such as investment subsidy and soft loans, are fixed according to the current situation in Greece or international projects with Germany. In the following, two examples for PV and wind power plants are described. For more details see Annex 6. Wind power The graph below gives the cash flow of a wind turbine installed at Cyclades without any subsidies. As the IRR shows, it would be a very attractive investment even if 75% must be credit financed (at the local interest rate of 14%). The increase in revenues of the electricity sales is caused by a nominal inflation rate of 3%. The company makes losses only in the first 4 years, as the turbine may be depreciated within this period. Afterwards, trade tax has to be paid (about 15% of the total revenues). Consequently, the state would also profit from an installation. Wind turbine in Greece (Cyclades) 400.000 300.000

100.000

19

20 20

17

16

18

20

20

20

14

13

15

20

20

20

12

20

20

10

09

08

07

06

05

04

03

02

01

11 20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

-100.000

20

00

0 20

Values in €/year

200.000

-200.000 -300.000 Year Expenditures incl depr. Depreciation wind turbine

- Payments Pre-tax result

Total Revenues

Figure 9.1: Cash flow of a wind turbine installed in Greece

For this calculation, the following parameters were chosen: • equity capital 25% 87

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

• debt capital 75% • no investment subsidy • international soft costs total payments on dividends 1.979.799 DM rel. to equity cap. • 1374.9% IRR (rel. to payments w/o. taxes) 37.07%. This case will most probably be realised in the future. PV The figure below shows that even assuming very favourable input data, a PV plant cannot be operated cost-covering in Greece as revenues are too low. The economic situation for wind power is very different. Wind power seems economically attractive without any subsidy, if the feed-in tariff is only 0.10 €/kWh. This is even true if the soft costs are assumed to be threefold more than in projects realised in Germany. PV plant in Greece (Crete): best case 10.000

0 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20

Values in €/year

5.000

-5.000

Expenditures incl depr. Payments Total Revenues Depreciation PV plant Pre-tax result

-10.000

DG XVII

-15.000

SOLAR-COOPERATIVES

Year

Figure 9.2: Cash flow of a PV plant installed in Greece

For this calculation, the following parameters were chosen: • IRR: -5.5% • 103,000 € investment versus 50,500 € payments • 100% equity capital • no soft costs, no administration Conclusions The official given investment subsidy of 40% results in "wind fall" profits, which means a miss-allocation of resources. However, still few projects are realised in Greece. The authors assume, that the required actions for realisation are long-term processes with unpredictable time schedule.

88

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

10 Conclusions and outlook Summarising, it can be said that through different mechanisms the concept of solar cooperatives may serve to promote the implementation of renewable energies: First, it could through its advertising and demonstration effect – be a catalyst for other projects in the south. Further, the exploitation of a high energy potential will contribute to the profitability of such projects and boost the further development of technology. Socially, the concept of solar cooperatives may be slowed down as the identification of potential investors with the plant is made difficult by long distances between the location of the plant and the potential shareholders. Therefore the "fun effect" may be missing, since shareholders cannot easily visit their plants or consume their “own” energy. Possible remedies for this problem might be a connection with tourism. Distance is not as important, as accessibility, thus for example the vicinity of the power plant to a charter airport may help. Certain disadvantages have to be taken into account and carefully dealt with, if the concept of solar cooperatives is to be a success. Amongst others the political situation plays an important role – it could be used as a reason by governments and utilities in the north not to support the diffusion of renewable energy technologies in their own countries, as the export of technology which has not reached a high diffusion in the north seems to imply that such energy sources cannot work economically there. However, since especially wind power technology in Germany has expanded visibly, this argument is invalidated. A further concern is that the participation of Central Europeans through buying shares in countries that are ‘far away’ could reduce the pressure on them to support sustainable energy provision in their own countries, which may give the impression that Central Europeans do not have to change their behaviour. It is therefore necessary that the Northern European countries set an example, from a practical, political and psychological perspective. Although the possibility for increased cohesion between southern and central Europe exists this was not reflected in feedback received from the survey respondents. However, a linking character is likely to develop if people from the south and north participate and are made aware of the benefits through an awareness generating action. Participation of the local population is absolutely necessary to ensure a successful implementation and the spreading of benefits: If they do not have a relation to the plant which is installed in their neighbourhood they may not accept the implications such plants may have (e.g. change of landscape). It is therefore extremely important that the project be carried through in accordance with the wishes of the local population. Further it needs to be made sure that the solar cooperatives concept will not give the impression of development aid, which Southern Europe definitely does not need. This could be accomplished through an economic justification for the project. From the results of the survey, in particular the question on how much money people would be willing to invest in which sort of concept (return on investment, duration of the contract), it can be seen that the respondents clearly preferred economically viable pro89

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

jects. Further, it turned out that it would definitely be impossible to finance projects with donated money. Therefore, it is necessary to establish profitable projects. Whether the participation in a solar cooperative could be a profitable investment is contemplated in chapter 8. As can be seen from the results of the cash flow calculations, even with most favourable conditions, this will not be possible for PV plants. The focus should therefore be on wind power generation. This however stands in contrast to the results of the surveys in Greece and Italy, where the majority of respondents showed preference for the PV option. If it comes to decision-making on investment, however, profitability weighs higher than the general preference of a certain technology, so that only wind powered plants are regarded as a feasible option for solar cooperatives. This decision is in line with the requirements on role models of the north and economic justification for a project, which were described earlier in this chapter. From the survey it can be seen, that there is sufficient interest in Italy and Greece to participate in projects in their own countries. Austrians and Germans are further inclined to invest in either of these two countries, so that the basic concept in general could be realised. Different interests that the Italians, Greeks and Austrians/Germans had with regard to the application of the power plants, whether they should be grid-connected or off-grid, used in schools, private homes or hospitals, etc. need not be considered if the main focus of a project is profitability. In this case only grid-connected wind power plants come into question, which will not supply any specific application anyway. From these reflection it can be concluded that the solar cooperatives project needs to happen on a purely economic basis. As explained in chapter 8, PV therefore is currently not an option, so the focus should be on wind power plants. The financial attractiveness of these is that large that commercial wind park operators have already entered the arena. Thus German companies like Energiekontor, UnitEnergy, Umweltkontor and WindStar, already offer investment in plants in foreign countries, e.g. in Greece. Still, in spite of the economic attractiveness of the investment so far not a lot of plants have been implemented. This is partly due to slow process of obtaining certification and licenses for the establishment of renewable power plants – an aspect that needs to be urgently addressed if a significant contribution of renewable energies to the generation structure in Greece and Italy is to be achieved. It is suggested, that instead of the establishment of a clearing agency for the realisation of solar cooperatives, which was planned for module two of this project, further investigation and activities on incentives for the realisation of a higher share of renewable energy plants should be carried through. Seminars should be arranged to allow an exchange of information at an Inter-European level to discuss existing policy mechanisms successfully used in other countries, to further the deployment of renewable energies, e.g., the German feed-in law. This could speed up the process to develop applicable regulations in all the countries. The idea of cooperatives should be introduced and discussed at such seminars, since it is not a known concept in all countries in Europe. Awareness raising activities should also form part of a basic strat90

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

egy to ensure the participation of people, both from the North and Southern European countries, as their participation is indispensable. The Next Steps: Transferring Acquired Know-How to Third Countries It had been foreseen in the original proposal for this project that work should also focus on transferring relevant experience gained within this project to developing countries, hence forging a link between north and south. Due to a contractual constraint it was not possible to include Third Countries in the project. One particularly relevant avenue for follow-up activities based on the knowledge generated in this project is the promotion of investment mechanisms in the context of Kyoto Protocol instruments designed to assist with climate change mitigation. In particular, instruments such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) need to draw from the type of experience gained within projects such as this one. While climate change and its mitigation is one of the most urgent challenges facing mankind, the past few months have demonstrated that considerable renewed efforts have to be expended to deliver real, tangible and rapid results on this critical issue. The last minute agreement at COP-6+ in Bonn on 23rd July 2001 now opens the door to making real progress in establishing the various emission trading mechanisms which should form one pillar of the Kyoto Protocol. The last two major climate change conferences, COP-6, held in The Hague in 2000, and COP-6+ illustrated the importance of the active involvement of the renewable energy industry and financing institutions and other bodies in the climate change debate. While conventional energy technologies have been heavily involved in these issues for some time, the renewable energy sector must now play a leading role in helping to define the agenda with respect to the related energy issues. Over the past few years the PV and wind energy sectors in Europe have experienced the largest net growth in their history, propelled by a combination of European and national initiatives, and the commitment of industry and customers. This growth must be sustained through a combination of actively opening up new markets and major new investments in production facilities. The European PV and wind energy industries are investing heavily in new technologies and production facilities. However it is crucial that the frontiers of these markets continue to advance, since only in this way will these sectors achieve sustained commercial viability. This implies that we must ensure that the vast potential of markets in developing countries are realised. Kyoto Protocol instruments such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) will be crucial to this goal. The G8 Renewable Energy Task Force released its report on 17th July 2001. The report predicts that concerted action by G8, other countries, the private sector, international financial institutions and others could result in 1 billion people (80% of whom are located in developing countries) gaining access to electricity and/or more efficient energy supply in the next 10 years. The report concludes that "such an outcome of serving up to a billion people in the next decade with renewables should be our goal and aspiration". Solar electricity and wind power, together with the basket of other renewables, represent the most suitable clean energy technology to achieve these goals since its highly modular power supply characteristics are well matched to the needs in rural areas of developing coun91

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

tries. The impetus provided by the G8 report, coupled with the go-ahead for ratification of the Kyoto protocol, must be exploited by a combined action of European and developing country actors. This will not just help bring more clean power to developing countries, but will result in job creation both in Europe and in the developing world. To achieve this we must learn from the mainstream energy sector, and forge new, innovative alliances amongst leading players in other industrial and financial sectors, while simultaneously full exploiting global instruments designed to support environmentally-friendly energy technologies such as PV and wind energy. It is crucial to ensure that the views of European and developing country policy makers and renewable energy industries are taken into account during the process of finalising the characteristics relevant Kyoto Protocol instruments. Instruments such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) are well suited to off-grid applications in developing countries. Unfortunately the European renewable energy industry has, as yet, had little opportunity to exploit these instruments and, as such, a second step will be the raising of awareness amongst European and developing country industry of the potential of mechanisms such as the Clean Development Mechanism. Thirdly, we will need to forge alliances and partnerships which could lead to the formation of various partnerships to undertake projects incorporating Kyoto Protocol instruments. The experiences gained in the Solar Cooperatives project point to how such alliances could be established, in particular in the innovative financing scheme area. The lessons learnt from the Solar Cooperatives project will prove valuable in assisting with the building of viable collaborations between industrialised and developing countries. That should be the next step following the conclusion of this project.

92

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Annex 1 – Solar Radiation map of Western Europe

Solar radiation (average global radiation)1:

1

http://www.energie-atlas.ch/so001-i.htm The original map can be found at www.meteotest.ch.

93

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Annex 2 – Wind map of Western Europe

94

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Annex 3 – Evaluation of the Austrian/German questionnaire 1 Die Befragung Für die Gestaltung, Formulierung und Versendung des Fragebogens war das ISES Headquarters zuständig. Die Ausarbeitung des Fragebogens sowie des Anschreibens (siehe Anhang) erfolgte unter Anleitung der sozialwissenschaftlichen Arbeitsgruppe am Fraunhofer ISE. Aufgrund gemeinsamer Überlegungen (Fraunhofer ISE und Headquarters ISES) und finanziellen Kürzungen seitens der Europäischen Kommission, wurde die Untersuchungsgruppe auf die ISES Mitglieder in Deutschland und Österreich begrenzt. Dies umfaßt eine Gesamtheit von 560 Personen. Angestrebt wurde eine Beteiligung von ca. 30%, was 168 Personen entspricht. Der Fragebogen wurde am 22.06.1998 versandt. Einsendeschluß war der 11.07.1998. Dem Fragebogen lag ein Schreiben des ISES-Headquarters bei (siehe Anhang), in dem die Idee »Solar Cooperatives« kurz dargestellt war. Bis zum 11.07.1998 waren 162 Fragebögen eingegangen. Aufgenommen wurden alle Fragebögen der ersten Befragungsrunde, die bis zum 24.07.1998 eingegangen waren (n = 186). Dies entspricht einer Beteiligung von 33,2%. An dieser Stelle sei den beiden Psychologiestudenten, Alexander Hölsch und Esther Burgard, am Fraunhofer ISE gedankt, die sich sowohl bei der Überarbeitung des Fragebogens als auch bei der Auswertung mit viel Engagement eingebracht haben. Im Folgenden sind die Ergebnisse der Befragung dargestellt.

2 Charakterisierung der Stichprobe Die folgenden Unterkapitel sollen kurz einen Eindruck davon vermitteln, wer den Fragebogen zurückgesandt hat und durch welche Eigenschaften sich diese Personen auszeichnen. 2.1 Beschreibung der Antwortenden Die Personen, welche den Fragebogen rechtzeitig zurückgesandt haben und in die Auswertung aufgenommen wurden, zeichnen sich im Schnitt durch die folgenden Merkmale aus: Der Großteil der Befragten sind Männer (94,5%, nur 5,5% Frauen), das Durchschnittsalter beträgt 38,5 Jahre. Die befragten ISES Mitglieder verteilen sich auf die dargestellten Berufsgruppen wie folgt: 37,1% Ingenieure, 22,6% Naturwissenschaftler, 10,8% Beamte/Universitätsangestellte, 10,2% Studenten, 7,0% Architekten, 12,3% Sonstige. Damit sind über ein Drittel der Befragten Ingenieure. Ein weiteres Fünftel Naturwissenschaftler und je ein Zehntel entweder Beamte bzw. Universitätsangestellte oder Studenten.

95

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

2.2 Eigene Produktion von regenerativem Strom Die folgende Graphik zeigt wie viele der Befragten bereits eine eigene PV-Anlage bzw. Windkraftanlage besitzen, bzw. sich daran beteiligen und/oder deren Strom nutzen (siehe Abb. 1).

16 14

14

12 10

10

8 6

7

investment

percent

4

shareholder

2

2

1

0

PV

Abbildung 1:

2

wind energy convert.

own plant tariff-modells

Anzahl der ISES-Mitglieder, die PV- und/oder Windstrom produzieren (n=186)

Insgesamt sind 22 Personen in irgendeiner Weise am Betrieb einer PV-Anlage beteiligt, die meisten davon sind im Besitz einer solchen Anlage (siehe auch Tabelle 1). Anders sieht dies bei Windkraft aus: dort sind 14 Personen beteiligt, die meisten davon durch Anteilscheine. 30

24 20

investment

10 percent

shareholder

0

Abbildung 2:

3

own plant

4

3

2 water

collector

2 biogas/-mass

tariff-modells

Anzahl der ISES-Mitglieder, die Wasserkraft, Solarkollektoren oder Biomasse-Anlagen (mit-)betreiben (n=186)

Abbildung 2 zeigt, wie viele Personen andere regenerative Energieträger fördern. Hier zeigt 96

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

sich ein eindeutiger Trend zur Solarkollektoranlage hin; 24 Personen besitzen eine eigene Solaranlage zur Erzeugung von warmem Wasser (siehe auch Tabelle 1).

shareholder own plant tariff-modells

PV

Wind

7 14 1

10 2 2

Water 3 4 2

collector Biogas/mass 1 1 24 3 1 2

Tabelle 1: Bisherige Beteiligung an regenerativen Energien

3 Ergebnisse der gesamten Stichprobe In den folgenden Unterkapiteln sind die Ergebnisse aus den 186 in die Untersuchung aufgenommenen Fragebögen dargestellt. 3.1 Prinzipielle Erwägung einer Beteiligung Die erste Frage zielte darauf ab ,festzustellen, ob sich die ISES-Mitglieder prinzipiell eine Beteiligung an einem Windkraftwerk, einer PV-Anlage oder einer Hybridanlage in Italien oder Griechenland vorstellen könnten. Die Ergebnisse (siehe Abb. 3) zeigen, daß die Befragten sich dies durchaus vorstellen können, zumindest nicht abgeneigt sind.

2=definitly

2,0 1,5 1,0 ,5

,4

0,0

,3

,2

Mean: -2=no

-,5 -1,0 -1,5 -2,0

Abbildung 3:

turbine

PV

hybrid system

Mittelwerte der prinzipiellen Erwägung sich an »Solar Cooperatives« zu beteiligen (n =173, bei 13 zurückgeschickten Fragebögen fehlt diese Antwort

Alle drei angebotenen Möglichkeiten werden eher positiv gesehen (etwas mehr als »vielleicht«). Die Windkraft liegt dabei mit +0,4 leicht vorne bei der Vorstellung einer eigenen Beteiligung, gefolgt von der PV-Anlage (+0,3) und dann von der Hybridanlage (+0,2). Insgesamt liegen die Mittwerte jedoch nicht sehr im positiven Bereich, es bildet sich eher eine Unentschiedenheit ab. 97

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

3.2 Bewertung der »Solar Cooperatives«-Idee Die zweite Frage beschäftigte sich damit, wie die Teilnehmerinnen bzw. Teilnehmer die Idee »Solar Cooperatives« bewerten: Gemeinschaftsanlagen, die aus nord- und mitteleuropäischen Ländern bezahlt werden, im Süden Europas aufzustellen.

Abbildung 4 zeigt, daß 70% diese Idee für gut bis sehr gut halten.

very bad 3,3% bad very good 27,9%

9,3% neutral 17,5%

good 42,1%

Abbildung 4:

Prozentzahl derer, welche die Idee »Solar Cooperative« sehr gut bis gar nicht gut bewerten (n=183)

27% halten die Idee »Gemeinschaftsanlagen, die aus nord- und mitteleuropäischen Ländern bezahlt werden, im Süden Europas aufzustellen« für sehr gut. 41% halten die Idee für gut. 17% zeigen sich neutral und 12% finden die Idee nicht gut. Im Schnitt bewerten die Befragten die Idee als gut ( N = 0,8). Damit stehen die Mehrheit der ISES-Mitglieder der Idee »Solar Cooperatives« positiv gegenüber. Nur wenige äußern sich negativ. 3.3 Verbindung der Menschen in Nord- und Südeuropa durch »Solar Cooperatives« Auf die Frage, ob »Solar Cooperatives« die Menschen aus in Nord- und Südeuropa stärker miteinander verbinden könne, antworteten die ISES-Mitglieder wie folgt (siehe Abb. 5): very much

not at all

10,3%

9,2%

much

21,2%

little 27,7%

medium 31,5%

Abbildung 5: Bewertung des Potentials von »Solar Cooperatives« die Menschen in Südund Nordeuropa stärker zu verbinden, in Prozent (N=184)

98

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

10% halten eine verbindungsstiftende Funktion von »Solar Cooperatives« für sehr gegeben und 27% für gegeben. 31% sind mittel davon überzeugt, daß »Solar Cooperatives« Verbindungen zwischen den Menschen in Nord- und Südeuropa schaffen kann. 30% sehen keine Potentiale für Verbindungen zwischen Nord- und Südeuropa in der »Solar Cooperatives«Aktion. Der Mittelwert aller Antworten liegt bei N = 0,1. D.h., die ISES-Mitglieder sind noch nicht sehr überzeugt von der Idee, daß »Solar Cooperatives« Verbindungen zwischen den Menschen in Nord- und Südeuropa schaffen könnte. 3.4 Befürwortung zur Versorgung bestimmter Einrichtungen Mit der Frage 5 sollte herausgefunden werden, ob und wenn ja welche Einrichtungen als Objekte zur Versorgung mit Gemeinschaftsanlagen bevorzugt werden.

mean -2=very disagree 2=very agree

Abbildung 6 zeigt, daß im Mittel keine der genannten Einrichtungen abgelehnt wird. 2,0 1,5 1,0

1,5

1,4

1,4

1,4 1,2

1,0

,5 0,0 -,5 -1,0 -1,5 -2,0

Abbildung 6:

schools water purification villages private houses water pipes hospitals telecommunications Mittelwert der Befürwortung der Versorgung bestimmter Einrichtungen mit Gemeinschaftsanlagen (n = 186)

Am stärksten wurden Schulen befürwortet ( N = 1,5), dicht gefolgt von Krankenhaus, Wasseraufbereitung und Wasserpumpe (N je 1,4). Danach wird das Dorf ( N = 1,2) und dann eine Fernmeldeeinrichtung ( N = 1,0) für gut befunden. Am schlechtesten kommt das Privathaus (mit N = 0,1) weg. Insgesamt werden alle genannten Einrichtungen als Versorgungsobjekte von Gemeinschaftsanlagen akzeptiert. Gemeinschaftlich genutzte Einrichtungen - hier besonders Erziehungs- und Gesundheitseinrichtungen - stehen im Vordergrund und private Einrichtungen hintan. 3.5 Präferenzen bezüglich Netzkoppelung bzw. Insellage Die Frage nach der Koppelung der Anlagen mit dem Netz wird relativ neutral beantwortet. Etwas mehr als ein Drittel (36,6%) sind definitiv für eine Inselanlage (siehe auch Abb. 7).

99

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Fast genau so vielen (37,1%) ist es egal, ob die Anlage in einer Insellage oder ans Netz gekoppelt steht. 23% entscheiden sich bei dieser Frage für eine Netzkoppelung.

grid-connected 23,9%

does not matter 38,3%

non grid-connected 37,8%

Abbildung 7:

Prozentuale Aufteilung der Präferenzen Gemeinschaftsanlagen (n=186)

bezüglich

der

Ankoppelung

Damit findet im Schnitt keine eindeutige Bevorzugung einer speziellen Anschlußart von Gemeinschaftsanlagen bezüglich Netzkoppelung oder Insellage statt. 3.6 Installationsorte Die gewünschten Installationsorte für Gemeinschaftsanlagen zeigen eindeutige Tendenzen (siehe Abb. 8).

mean: 2: very agree -2: v. disagree

2,0 1,5

1,7 1,2

1,0 ,5

,3

0,0 -,5

-,9

-1,0 -1,5 -2,0

roof/front

waste land sound barrier

Abbildung 8:

meadow

Mittelwerte der Bewertung der Installationsflächen (n=186)

Weiden werden als eher nicht zu bevorzugende Installationsorte angegeben. Ödland liegt (mit N = 0,3) knapp auf der positiven Seite. Schallschutzwände werden im Schnitt schon eher 100

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

als gute Installationsorte angesehen, die eindeutigen Gewinner sind Dächer und Fassaden. Insgesamt finden die Installationsorte Schallschutzwände, Dächer und Fassaden bei den ISES-Mitgliedern den besten Anklang bezüglich der Installation von Gemeinschaftsanlagen. 3.7 Geäußerte Bereitschaft zum Erwerb von Anteilscheinen Die geäußerte Vorstellung, sich Anteilscheine unter bestimmten Bedingungen im Rahmen von “Solar Cooperatives” erwerben zu können, ist in der folgenden Abbildung dargestellt.

donation

30

return on invest. 3%

12

12

25

17

levels of support return on invest. 6%

14

duration 5 years

15

duration 10 years

16

22

22

22

9

20000 DM 10000 DM

15

5000 DM

duration 20 years

20

10

10

10

20

1000 DM 500 DM 100 DM

0

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100

percent Abbildung 9: Prozentualer Anteil der vorstellbaren Beteiligung an verschiedenen möglichen Bedingungen im Rahmen von »Solar Cooperatives« (n=186)

Eine einmalige Spende von DM 100,-- können sich 30% der Befragten vorstellen, eine Spende von DM 500,-- 12%. 5% können sich sogar eine Spende von DM 1000,- bis zu 10.000,-- vorstellen (n=8). 47% aller Beteiligten können sich eine Spende für »Solar Cooperatives« vorstellen. Bei einer Rendite von 3% geben 61,3% an, daß sie sich vorstellen könnten, sich zu beteiligen, bei einer Rendite von 6% sogar 72%. Die Höhe der Beteiligung ist dabei gleichmäßig verteilt; es besteht eine Tendenz zu DM 5.000,-- bzw. 10.000,-- Anteilscheine bei 6% und DM 1.000,-- bis 5.000,-- bei 3%. D.h. bei einer Rendite von 6% sind mehr ISES-Mitglieder dazu bereit 10.000,- zu investieren als bei 3%. Bezüglich der Vertragslaufzeit bevorzugen die Befragten eine Laufzeit von 5 Jahren (60,2%). Eine Laufzeit von 10 Jahren ist für 58,6% der Befragten vorstellbar und 20 Jahre für 34,9%. Zusammengefaßt kann festgehalten werden, daß die ISES-Mitglieder eine mittlere1 Beteiligungsbereitschaft bezüglich “Solar Cooperatives” äußern (von 50% mit einer Spende bis hin zu 70% bei einer Rendite von 6%). Bei kürzeren Laufzeiten könnten sich mehr Personen 1

Das Allensbacher-Institut ermittelte bei einer repräsentativen Umfrage im Sommer 1997 eine Bereitschaft von 33% der Befragten, höhere Strompreise bei einem Ausstieg aus der Kernenergie zu akzeptieren (siehe Energiewirtschaftliche Tagesthemen, 1998, Heft 1/2). FORSA hat im Auftrag der RWE das Potential für die Bereitschaft zur Teilnahme am Grünen Tarif ermittelt. Die FORSA-Studie im Auftrag der RWE Energie zur Bereitschaft der Bürger grünen Strom zu kaufen das Potential für die Bereitschaft zur Teilnahme am Grünen Tarif ermittelt kam auf eine Rate von 70%.

101

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

vorstellen mitzumachen. Hier besteht ein Beteiligungspotential, das allerdings – wie wir aus anderen Bereichen wissen - nur durch geeignete Aktionen aktiviert werden kann. Interessant ist vor allem, daß sich selbst bei einer sehr guten Rendite von 6% nur ca. zwei Drittel für eine Beteiligung entscheiden können. Dies deutet darauf hin, daß im Falle der Durchführung starke Werbemaßnahmen für “Solar Cooperatives” notwendig sind. Was bei diesen Werbemaßnahmen besonders wichtig sein könnte, zeigen die folgenden Unterkapitel. 3.8 Wichtige Aspekte für eine Beteiligung an »Solar Cooperatives« Hier wurden Aspekte vorgegeben, die von den Befragten bewertet werden konnten. Bemerkenswert ist hier, daß nicht jeder in allen Zeilen Kreuze verteilt hat. Dies läßt darauf schließen, daß die Befragten zu einigen Aspekten keine Vorstellungen entwickeln konnten bzw. der Aspekt nicht wichtig ist (siehe Anhang 9.2).

Die folgenden Aspekte wurden erfragt und bewertet: 3.8.1 Umweltrelevante Aspekte Für den Umweltbereich relevante Aspekte umfaßten die Förderung erneuerbarer Energien, den Beitrag zum Umweltschutz und die Auswahl eines umweltverträglichen Standorts. Hierbei beziehen sich die beiden ersten Argumente auf die Beteiligung und das letzte auf die Aufstellung der Anlage. Abbildung 10 zeigt deutlich, daß den umweltrelevanten Aspekten eine große Bedeutung für die Beteiligung an einer Gemeinschaftsanlage gemäß den Vorgaben bei »Solar Cooperatives« zugeschrieben werden.

2,0

Environmental

1,5

1,8 1,4

1,4

protection

acceptable location

1,0 ,5 0,0 -,5

mean

-1,0 -1,5 -2,0

Abbildung 10:

renewable

Wichtigkeit verschiedener umweltrelevanter Aspekte für eine Beteiligung (n=186)

102

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

mean -2=very disagree 2=very agree

Umweltaspekte spielen die wichtigste Rolle für eine Beteiligung an »Solar Cooperatives«. 3.8.2 Soziale Aspekte Die sozialen Aspekte umfaßten die Verbindung zwischen Menschen, die finanzielle Beteiligung der Menschen im Süden und die Auswahl eines sozialverträglichen Standorts. Hierbei beziehen sich die ersten beiden Argumente auf die zwischenmenschliche Beziehung und letzte auf die Aufstellung der Anlage.

2,0

Social

1,5 1,3

1,0 ,7

,5 0,0 -,5 -1,0 -1,5 -2,0

Abbildung 11:

connection

acceptable location financial particip.

Wichtigkeit verschiedener sozialer Aspekte für eine Beteiligung (n=186)

Abbildung 11 zeigt, daß auch bei dieser Frage im Schnitt die verbindungsschaffende Wirkung von »Solar Cooperatives« kein wichtiges Argument für die Beteiligung darstellt. Wichtiger dagegen ist, daß sich die Menschen im Süden auch beteiligen und daß die Anlage dort keinen sozialen Schaden, z. B. Unfrieden, anrichtet. Die soziale Akzeptanz der »Solar Cooperatives«-Gemeinschaftsanlage am Aufstellungsort ist dem durchschnittlichen ISES-Mitglieder ebenfalls sehr wichtig (folgt in der Wichtigkeit gleich nach dem Umweltaspekt). Eine finanzielle Beteiligung der Anlieger wäre aus Sicht der befragten ISES-Mitgliede wünschenswert. 3.8.3 Finanzielle Aspekte Die finanziellen Aspekte bezogen die folgenden Argumente mit ein: Rückerstattung der Einlage im Schadensfall und die problemlose Verfügbarkeit der Mindesteinlage.

103

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

2,0

Financial

1,5 1,0 ,9

,5 0,0 -,5

mean

-1,0 -1,5 -2,0

disp. of deposits

reimburse f. damages

Abbildung 12: Wichtigkeit verschiedener finanzieller Aspekte für eine Beteiligung (n=186)

Wie Abbildung 12 zeigt, spielt die Rückerstattung der Einlage im Schadensfall eine wichtige Rolle, als mittelwichtig wird die problemlose Verfügbarkeit der Mindesteinlage gesehen. 3.8.4 Aspekte bezüglich des Anlagenbetriebs Die Aspekte bezüglich des Anlagenbetriebs bezogen sich auf die regelmäßige Versorgung mit Informationen, technische Begleitung des Projektes durch eine naturwissenschaftlichtechnische Institution und Betrieb durch eine solide, deutsche oder österreichische Institution. Das erste Argument spricht dabei den Anteilseigner an, die beiden letzten Argumente gehen auf die Anlage und deren Betrieb ein. 2,0

Organisational

1,5 1,0 ,5

,7

,6

0,0 -,5

mean

-1,0 -1,5 -2,0

Abbildung 13:

regular information scientific advice

reliable institution

Wichtigkeit verschiedener organisatorischer Aspekte für eine Beteiligung (n=186)

Eine regelmäßige Information über die Gemeinschaftsanlage spielt für den Durchschnitt der befragten ISES-Mitglieder eine nicht unbedeutende Rolle ebenso wie die Begleitung der An104

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

lage durch eine wissenschaftlich-technische Organisation. Weniger wichtig, aber auch nicht unwichtig für die Beteiligung an »Solar Cooperatives« wird der Betrieb der Anlage durch eine deutsche bzw. österreichische Institution angesehen. 3.8.5 Zusammenfassung Insgesamt wurde keiner der genannten Aspekte im Schnitt als unwichtig bezeichnet. An erster Stelle seht jedoch eindeutig die Unterstützung der Erneuerbaren Energien, welche die ISES-Mitglieder im Durchschnitt zu einer Beteiligung bewegen könnte, gleich gefolgt vom Willen zum Umweltschutz. Ebenso wichtig wie der Umweltschutz ist die Auswahl eines umweltverträglichen Standortes. Dicht gefolgt werden diese Beweggrund zur Beteiligung von sozialen Aspekten: der sozialen Integration der Anlage und der Auswahl eines sozialverträglichen Standorts.

Etwas weniger wichtig, ist die Rückerstattung der Einlage im Schadensfall. Die finanzielle Beteiligung der Menschen im Süden ist ungefähr so wichtig wie eine regelmäßige Information über die Gemeinschaftsanlage und die technische Begleitung durch eine wissenschaftlich-technische Institution. Geringfügig wichtig ist der Aspekt der Verbindung von Menschen zwischen Nord und Süd. Als mittel wichtig wird der Betrieb der Anlage durch eine deutsche bzw. österreichische Institution und die Verfügbarkeit der Mindesteinlage angesehen. 3.9 Fördernde und hindernde Faktoren für eine Beteiligung an »Solar Cooperatives« In der Frage 12 wurden noch einmal speziell der Standort der Anlage, die Idee »Solar Cooperative« als Modellprojekt und gewünschte Vertragslaufzeit von 10 Jahren erfragt. Auf die vorgegebenen Argumente, antworteten die Befragten wie folgt (siehe Abb. 14):

mean -2=very disagree

2=very agree

2,0 1,5 1,0 ,5

,6

0,0 -,4

-,5 -1,0 -1,5 -2,0

Abbildung 14:

model

10 years

abroad

far

Mittelwerte der Bewertung verschiedener Argumente durch die Befragten (n=186).

Im Schnitt wurden die Argumente ausgeglichen bewertet. Daß die Anlage weit weg liegt wird 105

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

eher als negatives Argument gesehen, also gegen eine Beteiligung gewertet. Daß es sich um ein Modellprojekt handelt, spricht eher für eine Beteiligung aus der Sicht der Befragten. Die Standardabweichungen (siehe Tabelle 2) zeigen jedoch, daß es hier starke Unterschiede gibt. Tabelle 2:

Mittelwerte, Standardabweichungen und fehlende Werte bezüglich der Bewertung von Argumenten die für oder gegen eine Beteiligung sprechen

Aspekt

Mittelwer- Standartte abweichung Charakter eines Modellprojek- 0,6 1,0 tes Vertragslaufzeit etwa 10 Jahre 0,1 0,9 Standort d. Anlage im Ausland 0,0 1,0 Anlage weit weg vom Wohnort -0,4 0,8

fehlende Werte 13 20 15 16

Gewagt argumentiert könnte gesagt werden, daß die ISES-Mitglieder im Schnitt eine Vorreiterrolle einnehmen und als Modell für andere vorangehen wollen. Dieses Modell sollte jedoch eher in ihrer Nähe liegen, am besten in der eigenen Gemeinde. Dies bestätigen auch die Ergebnisse aus der nächsten Frage. 3.10 Beteiligungstendenzen abhängig vom Standort der Gemeinschaftsanlage Betrachten wir die Tendenz, sich an einer Anlage zu beteiligen, abhängig vom Ort, an der sie aufgestellt ist, so zeigt sich das folgende Bild (siehe Abb. 15):

2=very agree

2,0 1,5 1,0

1,0 ,7

,5

mean -2=very disagree

,3

0,0

,3 -,2

-,3

-,5 -1,0 -1,5 -2,0

community

Greece Germany

Abbildung 15:

Austria Italy

Southafrica Argentine

Mittelwerte der Tendenz zur Beteiligung bei verschiedenen Anlagenstandorte (n=186)

Eindeutig bevorzugt, wird der Standort der Gemeinschaftsanlage in der eigenen Gemeinde. Auch Deutschland wird häufig gewählt, gefolgt von Griechenland und Italien. Leicht negativ fallen im Mittel die Bewertungen der Anlagenstandorte in Argentinien und Südafrika aus. Auf 106

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

die Frage, ob sich die Befragten beteiligen würden bei Anlagen in verschiedenen Ländern, antwortete der folgende Prozentsatz mit “auf jeden Fall”: bei der eigenen Gemeinde bei Deutschland bei Österreich bei Italien bei Griechenland bei Argentinien bei Südafrika

n=67 n=29 n=152 n=21 n=22 n=27 n=15

36% 15,6% 8,1% 11,3% 11,8% 14,5% 8,1%

Das bedeutet, bei einem Projekt wie es »Solar Cooperatives« vorschlägt geben über ein Drittel der Personen an, daß sie sich sofort daran beteiligen würden, wenn die Gemeinschaftsanlage in der eigenen Gemeinde installiert würde. Insgesamt zeigt sich die eindeutige Tendenz, die Gemeinschaftsanlage so nahe wie möglich am eigenen Wohnort zu installieren. Ins Negative wendet sich die Bewertung im Mittel, wenn die Anlagen außerhalb Europas aufgebaut werden sollen.

4 Ergebnisse einzelner Untergruppen In den folgenden Unterkapiteln sind einzelne Zusammenhänge herausgegriffen, um Wünsche und Vorstellungen einzelner Untergruppen genauer herauszuarbeiten.

4.1 Einfache Zusammenhänge 4.1.1 Verbindung von Menschen und Spendenbereitschaft Es zeigt sich kein Zusammenhang zwischen den Einschätzungen, daß »Solar Cooperatives« eine verbindungsschaffende Wirkung zwischen Nord- und Südeuropa haben könnte und der Spendenbereitschaft der ISES-Mitglieder. Weder hängt diese Beurteilung zusammen mit der Höhe der angegebenen Spende, noch mit der Bereitschaft zur Beteiligung bei 3% oder 6% Rendite und auch nicht mit der Höhe der Geldbeträge bei verschiedenen Laufzeiten (5-20 Jahre). 4.1.2 Zusammenhänge bei der Zahlungsbereitschaft Es gibt hoch signifikante Zusammenhänge bei der Angabe der Zahlungsbereitschaft (sowohl bei 3 als auch bei 6% Rendite); zum einen zur Bereitschaft sich jeweils auch bei der anderen Rendite zu beteiligen als auch zur Bereitschaft sich mit demselben Betrag für 5, 10 oder 20 Jahre festzulegen. Diese Zusammenhänge sind jedoch höher bei geringeren Laufzeiten, was bedeutet, daß die Bereitschaft die gleiche Höhe eines Geldbetrags anzulegen, mit zunehmenden Dauer der Vertragslaufzeit abnimmt (siehe Anhang 9.1). 4.1.3 Zusammenhänge Anlagenkoppelung und Geldeinsatz Die folgenden drei Graphiken verdeutlichen, welche Zusammenhänge bestehen zwischen der Bereitschaft Geld zu spenden bzw. zu investieren, abhängig von der Koppelung der An2

Die Stichprobe der österreichischen ISES-Mitglieder war kleiner als die der deutschen ISES-Mitglieder.

107

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

lage. 60 50

50 50

40

40 34

30

percent

20 10 0

grid-connected

9 5

DM 100

5

3

3

DM 1.000 DM 10.000 DM 500 DM 5.000

non grid-connected

donation Abbildung 16: Häufigkeit verschiedener Spendenbeträge in Abhängigkeit von der Anlagenkoppelung (n=186)

Die Höhe der Beträge verschiebt sich - wie zu erwarten - mit der Steigerung des Gewinns, bzw. mit der Reduzierung des Verlustes (siehe Abb. 16, 17 und 18). Interessant ist jedoch zu sehen, daß sich einige ISES-Mitglieder vorstellen können für Inselanlagen (siehe Abb. 16) bis zu MD 10.000,-- zu spenden; bei einer 3% Rendite liegen ebenfalls die Inselanlagen vorne mit einer vorstellbaren Summe von DM 20.000,-- (siehe Abb. 17). Unter der 6% Bedingung liegt die netzgekoppelte Anlage ebenfalls vorne; hier können sich mehrere ISESMitglieder vorstellen DM 20.000,-- und mehr in Insel- oder Netzkoppelung zu investieren (siehe Abb. 18). 60

40 38

28

34

33

28

percent

20 10

10

0

DM 500

13

grid-connected 8

DM 5.000 DM 20.000 DM 1.000 DM 10.000

non grid-connected

return on investment of 3%

Abbildung 17:

Häufigkeit verschiedener Mindesteinlagen mit 3% Rendite in Abhängigkeit von der Anlagenkoppelung (n=186)

108

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

40

30

30 26

20

21

19

16

percent

10 0

10

2

3

9 2

grid-connected 2

DM 500 DM 5.000 DM 20.000 DM 1.000 DM 10.000 DM max

non grid-connected

return on investment of 6%

Abbildung 18:

Häufigkeit verschiedener Mindesteinlagen mit 6% Rendite in Abhängigkeit von der Anlagenkoppelung (n=186)

4.2 Beteiligung in Italien und Griechenland mit höheren Geldsummen bei 10 Jahren Laufzeit Bemerkenswert ist ein Zusammenhang, der auch zufällig zustande gekommen sein könnte, sich jedoch als sehr signifikant zeigt: Die Personen, die sich in Frage 10 für eine Beteiligung an einer Gemeinschaftsanlage in Griechenland oder Italien ausgesprochen haben, gaben auch höhere Geldwerte in der Frage 7 an, in dem Fragebereich mit einer Laufzeit von 10 Mit einer Fehlerwahrscheinlichkeit <1% deuten die Ergebnis darauf hin, daß dies die poten tiellen Kunden für die »Solar Cooperative« Idee sind.

Das folgenden Unterkapitel beschäftigt sich mit der Stichprobe derjenigen, die sich entweder in Griechenland oder in Italien eine Beteiligung gut vorstellen könnten.

4.3 Relevante Untergruppen 4.3.1 Potentielle »Solar Cooperative« Kunden Aus den Antworten auf Frage 10 läßt sich ablesen, daß sich eine Gruppe von 92 Personen, das entspricht 49,5%, vorstellen könnte, sich entweder in Griechenland oder in Italien an einer Gemeinschaftsanlage zu beteiligen (Kreuze im positiven/zustimmenden Bereich). Diese Gruppe setzt sich wie folgt zusammen:

»Solar Cooperative« Interessierte für Griechenland Nicht Interessierte »Solar Cooperativer« für Griechenland

»Solar Cooperative« Interessierte für Italien

Nicht Interessierte »Solar Cooperativer« für Italien

71

15

86

4

85

89

75

100

175 109

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Wenn wir uns die Antworten der Gruppe genauer ansehen, dann ergibt sich das folgende Bild: Diese Gruppe, die sowohl an Griechenland als auch an Italien interessiert ist (N=71), bewertet die Idee »Solar Cooperatives« sehr positiv (dies ist sehr signifikant; siehe Anhang 9.3.1). Eine Präferenz für Wind, PV oder Hybrid läßt sich nicht erkennen, was bedeutet, daß alle Optionen gleich akzeptiert sind. Einen Unterschied gibt es in der Frage der Anlagenkoppelung (siehe Abb. 19) dieser ist bei einer statistischen Analyse allerdings nicht signifikant.

netzgekoppelt 22,2%

egal 36,7%

Inselanlage 41,1%

Abbildung 19:

Prozentuale Verteilung der “Solar Cooperatives” sehr positiv gestimmten ISES-Mitglieder bezüglich der Frage der Netzkoppelung der Anlage (n=71)

Die ausgewählte Gruppe präferiert hier mehr als die Gesamtgruppe die Insellage (41,1%), nur 22,2% geben eine gewünschte Netzkoppelung an. Weitere (statistisch signifikante ) Unterschiede finden sich bei der Verbindung der Menschen von Nord und Süd (Frage 3), die Versorgung der Institutionen Krankenhaus, Dorf und Schule (Frage 4), Standort der Anlage im Ausland (Frage 9) und in Deutschland (Frage 10). Dies bedeutet, daß die »Solar-Cooperative«-Interessierten, (a) die verbindungsschaffende Wirkung von »Solar Cooperatives« höher einschätzen als die Gruppe der nicht so stark Interessierten, (b) die Krankenhäuser, Dörfer und Schulen eher versorgt wissen wollen, (c) die Anlage eher auch im Ausland befürworten und (d) die »Solar Cooperative« stärker als Beitrag für den Umweltschutz sehen als die anderen.

110

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

donation

30

return on inv. of 3%

12

Italy

return on inv. of 6%

14

5 years

15

10 years

16

20 years

10

23

14 15

10 years

17

20 years

10

0

max...DM

15 15

20000 DM 10000 DM

13 26

5 years

9

11

12

return on inv. of 6%

21

20

30

return on inv. of 3%

17

23

donation

Greece

13 26

17

23 23 20

5000 DM 21

9

1000 DM

15 15

500 DM

11

20

100 DM 40

60

80

100

percent Abbildung 20:

Prozentuale Verteilung der für Italien (oben) und für Griechenland-Interessierten (unten) über die verschiedenen Renditeund Laufzeiten hinweg (n=71)

Abbildung 20 zeigt im Vergleich mit Abbildung 7, daß sich die Personen, die der Idee »Solar Cooperatives« nahe stehen, bei der finanziellen Beteiligung nicht von der Gesamtgruppe unterscheiden. Dies lediglich in dem bereits angesprochenen Punkt der stärkeren Beteiligung mit höheren Beträgen bei einer 10-jährigen Laufzeit (Beispielzeit in Frage 9). 4.3.2 Spender und Nicht-Spender Die Stichprobe kann in zwei fast gleich große und für das »Solar Cooperatives«-Projekt interessante Gruppen aufgeteilt werden: 99 Nicht-Spender und 87 Spender. Diese beiden Gruppen unterscheiden sich nicht in der Frage der Netzkoppelung, nicht bei der Frage ob Wind-, PV- oder Hybridsysteme zum Einsatz kommen sollen und auch nicht bei der Einschätzung ob »Solar Cooperatives« Verbindungen zwischen den Menschen in Nord- und Südeuropa schaffen kann. Die Nicht-Spender unterscheiden sich von den Spendern vor allem in zwei Punkten: 4.3.2.1 Unterschiede bezüglich finanzieller Beteiligungsbereitschaft Wie in Abbildung 21 zu sehen, zeigt sich hier ein eindeutiger Unterschied bei den beiden Gruppen: Die Abbildung 21 zeigt dabei die finanzielle Beteiligungsbereitschaft der Spender im oberen Teil und die der Nicht-Spender im unteren Teil.

111

donation

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

return on inv. of 3%

15

return on inv. of 6%

16

5 years

15

32

28

20 years

9

return on inv. of 3%

9

14

5 years

15

15

10 years

13

9

20 years

20000 DM

8

17

12

>20000 DM

13

13 23

return on inv. of 6%

18

28

23

8

20

29

10 years

no donation

26

28

13

10000 DM

9

10

5000 DM

12

1000

8

500 DM 0

20

40

60

80

100

percent

Abbildung 21:

Prozentuale Verteilung der Spender (oben, n=87) und Nicht-Spender (unten, n=99) über die verschiedenen Renditeund Laufzeiten hinweg

Es ist deutlich zu erkennen, daß die Spender auch in diesem finanziellen Bereich eher dazu bereit sind das Geld länger festzulegen. Bei der Rendite zeigt sich das folgende Bild (siehe Anhang 9.11): Rechnen wir die Anzahl der genannten Geldbeträge zusammen, so ergibt sich bei eine Rendite von 3% bei den Spendern eine höhere Bereitschaft mehr zu investieren, bei 6% liegen die Nicht-Spender leicht vorne. 4.3.2.2 Unterschiedliche Zustimmung zu Installationsorten Auch bei der Frage, wo die Gemeinschaftsanlagen installiert werden sollten, unterscheiden sich diese beiden Gruppen, wie in Abbildung 21 zu sehen. 2,0

2=very agree

1,5 1,1

1,0 ,9

,5

,6

,6

,6

,3

0,0 mean -2=very disagree

community ,8

Austria Italy

-,5 -,6

-,5

Germany

Greece -1,0 Argentine -1,5 -2,0

Abbildung 22:

Southafrica no donation

donation

Mittelwerte der Nicht-Spender (links, n=99) und Spender (rechts, n=87) bezüglich des Aufstellungsortes der Anlage im Vergleich

Hier zeigt sich, daß die ISES-Mitglieder, die sich eine Spende vorstellen könnten, auch 112

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Standorten im Ausland eher zustimmen.

5 Überprüfung weiterer Zusammenhänge Auf Wunsch des ISES Headquarters wurden verschiedene Zusammenhänge überprüft, die auf eine konsistente bzw. inkonsistente Bewertung der Fragebögen hindeuten könnten. Diese sind in den folgenden Unterkapiteln dargestellt.

5.1 Überprüfung: Wahl eines ökologisch sinnvollen Standorts und Umweltschutz Es besteht eine sehr hohe Korrelation zwischen den bewerteten Aspekten aus Frage 8, die sich auf die Umwelt beziehen: »Wichtiger Beitrag zum Umweltschutz« mit »Umweltverträglicher Standort« .35, mit »Förderung erneuerbarer Energie«: .45, beide hoch signifikant (siehe Anhang 9.5). Der vermutete Zusammenhang zwischen der umweltbezogenen Bewertung des Projektes und der gewünschten Vermeidung der Verbauung von Grünflächen “Ödland” und “Weide” (Frage 6 nach dem Standort) konnte statistisch nicht nachgewiesen werden (siehe Anhang 9.10).

5.2 Überprüfung: Verbindung von Menschen und Standort im Ausland Bezüglich der Frage ob die Personen, die in »Solar Cooperatives« eine Chance sehen Menschen zu verbinden und solchen, die auch den Standort der Gemeinschaftsanlage im Ausland zustimmen, besteht eine statistischer Zusammenhang, der hoch signifikant ist (siehe Anhang 9.6).

5.3 Überprüfung: Verfügung über Mindesteinlage und Laufzeit Die Variable »Problemlose Verfügbarkeit der Mindesteinlage« korreliert hochsignifikant mit einer Laufzeit von 10 Jahren (.24), das bedeutet: die Personen, die sagen, eine Verfügbarkeit ist wichtig, stufen ihre Beteiligung bei einer 10-jährigen Laufzeit signifikant geringer ein (jedoch nicht mit Laufzeiten von 5 und 20 Jahren (siehe Anhang 9.7).

6 Bemerkungen der Befragten Im folgenden sind die qualitativen Bemerkungen der ISES-Mitglieder dargestellt. Diese wurden vor allem am Ende des Fragebogens in den dafür vorgegebenen Raum eingetragen. Zum anderen befanden sich die Kommentare aber auch direkt bei den Fragen. Im folgenden sind alle Bemerkungen zusammengefaßt.

6.1 Technische Aspekte Die technischen Bemerkungen konzentrieren sich auf vier Bereiche: PV wird als eher nicht netzgekoppelt empfohlen und Wind als eher netzgekoppelt. Die Netzkoppelung sollte von der Entfernung des Ortes zum Netz abhängig gemacht werden. Mehrmals wird PV in Verbindung mit der Insellage gebracht. 113

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Bei PV wird darauf hingewiesen, daß Module entwendet werden könnten (Diebstahlgefahr). Eine ständige Überwachung und Wartung wird für beide Anlagen empfohlen mit Verweis auf eine kompetente technische Begleitung, die wichtiger sei als Wissenschaft. Solarthermische Anlagen werden von einigen aufgegriffen und die Frage gestellt, warum diese nicht in dem Programm enthalten seien. Eine Person fragt sich, ob der Transfer der Technik gut sei oder ob nicht die Produktion vor Ort angestrebt werden sollte.

6.2 Soziale Aspekte Sehr viele Anmerkungen wurden zu sozialen Aspekten geäußert. Die meisten davon beziehen sich auf die Beteiligung der Menschen vor Ort. Dies zum einen bei der Entscheidung als auch bei der Finanzierung bis hin zur Nutzung und Wartung der Anlage (“Anlage muß von den Menschen bedien-/wart-/ und verstehbar sein”). Die finanzielle Beteiligung der Menschen im Süden wird als wichtig angesehen. Sie drücke zum einen das Interesse aus, ermögliche eine gleichberechtigte Beteiligung von Nord und Süd und schaffe einen stärkeren Bezug zwischen der Anlage und den Anwohnern (“gleichberechtigt planen und finanzieren”). Einige betonen auch die verbindende Wirkung dieser Projektidee, es könnte einen persönlichen Bezug zu den Menschen vor Ort schaffen. Das europäische Konzept könnte dadurch verstärkt werden und Europa könnte dadurch “kulturell, ökonomisch, ökologisch und wissenschaftlich stärker zusammenwachsen”. Nur eine Person äußert vollkommenes Unverständnis gegenüber dem Gedanken der Verbindung zwischen Süd und Nord; sie hält auch das Argument im Süden sei die Einstrahlung höher für vorgeschoben und plädiert eindeutig für einen Aufbau derartiger Anlagen in Deutschland (“Die Sonne in Deutschland reicht!”). Bezüglich der Sozialverträglichkeit wird in mehreren Beiträgen darauf hingewiesen, daß die Anlage den Menschen vor Ort nicht einfach “vor die Nase gestellt” werden darf. Viele nennen die Anmerkung, daß auf neokoloniale Einstellungen geachtet werden müsse und diese zu verhindern seinen. Als Ideallösung nennt eine Person die “Bildung vieler lokaler/regionaler Betreibergesellschaften mit starker persönlicher Identifikation der Anteilseigner”. Die Trägerinstitution müsse eine “internationale Führungsstruktur” haben trägt ein anderer bei. Wieder eine andere Person, nennt die Idee einen Fond zu betreiben, in dem Betroffene aus der Umgebung die Anlagenanteile mit der Zeit überschrieben werden.

6.3 Finanzielle Aspekte Bezüglich der Finanzen beziehen sich viele Bemerkungen auf die Rendite. Hier gehen einige davon aus, daß sich eine Rendite kleiner 6% auf keinen Fall lohnen würde; eine Person nennt eine Mindesthöhe der Rendite von 10%. Zusätzlich wird auf die Möglichkeit einer Abschreibung hingewiesen. Das Risiko wird von einigen angesprochen. Sie betonen, daß die Wirtschaftlichkeit der Anlagen im Mittelpunkt stehen solle, Kontrolle und Transparenz gewährleistet sein solle und eine kompetente Firma die Überwachung übernehmen solle. Zum anderen sprechen auch einige von ‘Venture Capital’ und deuten darauf hin, daß gerade in diesem Zusammenhang die Rendite besonders hoch sein müsse. 114

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Wichtig bei diesen Bemerkungen ist, daß immer wieder betont wird, wie wichtig die wirtschaftliche Betrachtung der »Solar Cooperatives« sei für den Erfolg des Projektes, da sonst nur »finanzkräftige Idealisten im Norden« mitmachen würden. Besonders wichtig scheint einer Person, der Bezug zwischen Betreibern und Finanziers.

6.4 Zusammenarbeit mit dem Süden Als weiterer Themenbereich wurde die Zusammenarbeit mit dem Süden aufgegriffen, hier konzentrierten sich die Punkte auf die folgenden Bereiche: Zweifel, ob die Strukturen im Süden, den integrierten Aufbau und den dauerhaften Betrieb der Anlage ermöglichen (mangelndes Umweltbewußtsein, Korruption, Desinteresse, schlechte Pflege der Anlagen, Gesamtnutzen). Als Empfehlung wird hier eine starke “Kontrolle und Überwachung” angesprochen. Grundsätzlich stellt sich hier für einige die Frage, wie eine Gemeinschaftsanlage auf Dauer betriebsfähig gehalten werden kann. Ein anderer angesprochener Bereich bezieht sich auf die Möglichkeit mit dieser Anlage eine Art “Sensibilisierung” im Süden für derartige Anlagen zu erreichen. Die Anlage könnte “Modellcharakter” haben. Wenige betonen den Hilfscharakter, den ein derartiges Projekt vom Norden für den Süden haben könnte. Andere Warnen vor Überheblichkeit des Nordens gegenüber dem Süden.

6.5 Vor- und Nachteile der Idee »Solar Cooperative« An dieser Stelle werden lediglich die Vor- und Nachteile so aufgelistet, wie in den Fragebögen niedergeschrieben: 6.5.1 Vorteile • Vorteil: Inseln sind der optimale Einsatzort für Windkraft! • Vorteil: höhere Ausbeute an gutem Standort, Kooperation besserer Ausgleich von Spitzenlasten + geringe Einstrahlung/Wind an einem Standort • Standort der Anlage im 'sommerreichen' Ausland • Vorteil: bessere Rentabilität durch mehr Sonne / Wind, Klimatisierung über Solarwärme sollte unbedingt mit in Betracht gezogen werden. Die Rentabilität dürfte für die Laufzeit nur vom Wetter abhängen, von sonst nichts (keine Vertragsveränderungen etc.) • Vorteil: effiziente Nutzung des eingesetzten Geldes durch Aufbau der jeweiligen Anlagen am jeweilig günstigen Standort • Vorteil: Schaffung dezentraler, umweltfreundlicher Energieversorgung -> bessere Entwicklungspotentiale bei geringeren Infrastrukturkosten; (ökonomisch) -> objektiv • Vorteil: evtl. höhere Energieerträge (PV), günstigerer Anwendungsfall (Bewässerung, netzfern) • Vorteil: Erschließung von vorhandenen wirtschaftlichen Potential für regenerative Energien; Anschub für landeseigene Projekte • Förderung des Umweltbewußtseins in diesen Ländern • Vorteile: Möglicherweise bessere Akzeptanz von WKA als hier; höhere Strahlung; ge-

115

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • •

ringere Lohnkosten; Sensibilisierung der südeuropäischen Länder für Klimaschutz; Demonstration der Möglichkeiten; Beschäftigungseffekte in strukturschwachen Regionen; Vorbild Joint Implementation! Vorteil: hier u.U. mehr Kapital, außerdem hier höhere CO2-Produktion pro Kopf, die auch dort Probleme bereitet; hier dagegen geringere kWh/kWp Vorteile: Nutzung hoher Energiepotentiale; Mobilisierung von Kapital; Markteinführung Vorteil: gute Nutzung der Anlagen durch reichlich vorhandene Ressourcen Vorteil: bessere Verfügbarkeit erneuerbarer Energien, z.B. Sonneneinstrahlung Vorteile: Teamarbeit, Kooperation. Weiterentwicklung. Das Wetter. Vorteile: Europäischer Gedanke wird gefördert. Anlage ist noch nah genug, daß man sie selber in Augenschein nehmen kann. Vorteil: höhere Effizienz Vorteil: die Markteinführung von Photovoltaikstromanlagen durch die 40%ig höhere Sonneneinstrahlung in den Mittelmeerländern gegenüber Deutschland wird wesentlich erleichtert, da so Kosten für die Markteinführung gespart werden und mehr PVStrom von Anfang an erzeugt werden kann, bevor auch in Deutschland PV-Strom marktkonkurrenzfähig wird. Vorteile der regenerativen Energieanlagen in Deutschland: zwar schlechtere Erträge und Kosteneffizienz, aber: Demonstrations- und Multiplikatorwirkung bessere Erfolgskontrolle vor Ort Einbeziehung des regierenden Handwerks Gleichzeitigkeit von Energieerzeugung und -verbrauch Integration in Gebäudearchitektur günstige klimatische Voraussetzungen großer Bedarf ‘Entwicklungshilfe’, Entschädigung des Nord-Süd-Konflikts

6.5.2 Nachteile • Nachteil: wenig Aufstellungsmöglichkeiten • Nachteil: am Bewußtsein der breiten Öffentlichkeit geht so etwas völlig vorbei sie kann weiterhin wähnen, bei uns müsse sich nichts ändern. Ich halte das ‘Projekt’ für völlig verfehlt, aber sehr typisch! • Nachteil: sich selbst ein Bild von der Anlage zu machen ist durch die räumlichen Entfernung erschwert. Zahlen aus Meßwerttabellen etc. der einen Anlage sind zwar erwünscht, nicht weniger wichtig jedoch ist die Identifizierung mit der Anlage durch Besuch dieser. Mögliche Lösung: Mittelsmann. • Nachteile: Pflege, Transport und weitere Kosten • Nachteil: weniger ausgebautes öffentliches Versorgungssystem • Nachteil: die Mittel fehlen zur Förderung von Anlagen im Inland. Der Export von Technologie bevor sie hier richtig Fuß gefaßt hat leistet dem Vorurteil Vorschub, daß sich solche Anlagen hier sowieso nicht lohnen, bzw. nur unter Optimalbedingungen funktionieren. • Nachteile: unsichere Strompreisentwicklung (Liberalisierung des Strommarktes?); gesetzlich festgelegte Einspeisevergütung? Technisches Know-how ausreichend? 116

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

• • • •

•

• • • • •

Nachteil: zu große Entfernung; Sprach- und Verständigungsprobleme Nachteil: Der Anlagestandort ist für viele Leute in Deutschland zu weit weg - es fehlt der Bezug. Nachteil: kaum Bezug zur Anlage, da 'weit weg' und nicht hier zum Anfassen Nachteile: Gefahr, daß ‘reicher’ Westen in ‘armen’ Süden versucht Einfluß zu gewinnen (besonders in Entwicklungsländern) -> Ziel einer Verbindung Nord <--> Süd kann scheitern; Kapitalsicherheit gefährdet/gering Nachteil: Verlagerung regenerativer Energieerzeugung in den Süden (in den Köpfen) schafft falsche Einstellung zum Einsatz bei uns (z.B. PV) -> nördliche Industrieländer sollten erst mal mit gutem Beispiel vorausgehen! (politisch/psychologisch -> subjektive Wahrnehmung) Nachteil: räumliche und damit 'emotionale' Distanz, Komplexität der Organisationsund Betriebsstruktur Nachteil: Identifizierung im Vergleich zu ortsnaher Anlage schwierig Nachteile: Rechtliche Seite: Gibt es dort ein Einspeisegesetz? Eine Mindestvergütung muß garantiert sein! Nachteil: u.U. - wenn nicht sinnvoll eingeführt - Gefahr der “Geber-Nehmer”Problematik Vorteile nur für hiesige EVUs (sie bleiben ihrer satten Gewinne ungeschoren) und für die Regierungen der nord- u. mitteleuropäischen Staaten (sie können darauf hinweisen, daß (a) etwas für die regenerativen Energien getan wird, was b) mehr bringt als bei gleichem Aufwand weiter nördlich - und sie brauchen c) selbst nichts zu tun).

6.6 Weitere Anmerkungen • •

•

• • • • • • • • • •

Anlagebetreiber ist nicht wichtig. Aber ausreichende Kontrolle! Sinnvoller Standort aufgrund 40% höherer Sonneneinstrahlung. Falls durch dieses Projekt neue Arbeitsplätze entstehen, sollten alle beteiligen Länder etwas davon haben. Wenn die Euro-Kommissare etwas tun wollen, sollen sie gefälligst auch selbst bezahlen und nicht die Kosten auf einzelne gutwillige Bürger abwälzen. Mit einem solchen Projekt wird das CO2-Problem verharmlost. gibt es genug passende Standorte für Inselanlagen? solange die erneuerbare Energie im eigenen Land bedeutungslos ist, wird auch der Export in sonnenreichere Länder nicht gelingen Geschäfte mit dem Süden Italiens werden sicher sehr schwierig! Die 'betroffene' Bevölkerung sollte auf jeden Fall beteiligt werden um eine hohe Akzeptanz der Anlage zu gewährleisten. Gefahr: niemand ist verantwortlich für die Anlagen Welchen Nutzen für den, der sich beteiligt? Es gibt sehr viele Negativ-Beispiele von geförderten Anlagen in Südamerika, Afrika usw. Allgemein: Aktion gut, sie trifft nur nicht den Kernpunkt, warum sich alternative Energie so schwer durchsetzt. Schaffung von Versorgungsstrukturen, Know-how und Technologietransfer Rechtliche Unsicherheiten speziell in Italien (Mafia) und Griechenland (Vertragstreue!). Ich würde sofort etwas ähnliches mit Spanien oder Portugal machen ggf. 117

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

• • • • • •

•

• • • • •

•

• • •

• • •

auch Ungarn! Meinung beruht auf früheren Erfahrungen mit Italien und Griechenland. wichtigster Punkt für mich ist Frage 8 letzter Punkt Solidität des Betreibers. Vorteile: höhere Energieausbeute (vielleicht?), neuer Markt Sollte nicht in Konkurrenz zu lokalen Anlageninstallationen treten! Betrieb der Anlage durch seriöse (ital. oder griech.) Betreiber wäre sehr wünschenswert -> Know how Transfer vermisse Spanien als Standort! Die Kleinwasserkraftnutzung sollte auf alle Fälle in die SOLAR COOPERATIVES integriert sein. Dies besonders vor dem Hintergrund eines investment-freundlichen, wirtschaftlichen Betriebs solcher Anlagen. Besonders bei Frage 7 würde sich wahrscheinlich das Antwortprofil entscheidend ändern. Frage 4) macht keine Angaben zur Größenordnung der öffentlichen/privaten Einrichtungen. Unter Krankenhaus z.B. kann ein städtisches Krankenhaus oder ein Dorfkrankenhaus angesprochen sein. Die Unterschiede sind gravierend. Auch hier würde sich unterschiedliche Antwortprofile ergeben. Kein Prestigeobjekt, keine Subvention von Showeffekten. Als Kooperation verkaufen, aber nicht als Freikaufen der Nordländer. attraktive Architektur ohne »Design« Know-how-Transfer in das Land muß erfolgen Wissenschaftliche Betreuung zur Optimierung der speziellen Anlagentechnik und des Vorgehens allgemein Wir müssen - sozusagen als Vorreiter - im eigenen Land demonstrieren, daß Solartechnik funktioniert und einen erheblichen Anteil an der Energieversorgung übernehmen kann! Wegen des höheren Wirkungsgrades scheint mir der Aufbau von Gemeinschafts Solaranlagen im Süden natürlich sinnvoller. Andererseits sollte auch in Deutschland mehr an neuen Energiekonzepten gearbeitet werden, da Projekte vor der eigenen Haustür sicher mehr bewirken, als irgendwo auf der Welt. “Global denken - lokal handeln” heißt, im eigenen Land etwas verändern und mit den Menschen in anderen Ländern in Erfahrungsaustausch treten. Nur große Anlagen, technisch (Wartung) und wirtschaftlich von einer bedeutenden Firma betreut, machen Sinn. Fragebogen teilweise nicht konsistent, z.B. Frage 9: PV-Anlagen in Wohnortnähe unproblematisch, Wind u.U. nicht. Frage 2: warum nicht bezahlt durch Bürger Europas egal woher? Durch die Begleitung des Projektes durch eine renommierte Institution könnte Vertauen aufgebaut und Interesse geweckt werden. Wichtiger Aspekt ist die Versorgung der Beteiligten mit Informationen, sowohl technischer als auch finanzieller Art. Neben dem ökologischen Aspekt müssen finanzielle Vorteile in den Vordergrund gestellt werden, damit das Projekt nicht in die “ökologische Nische” geschoben wird (Problem: Jede Beteiligung mit unserem Geld in fernen Ländern mindert den Druck, bei uns selbst etwas zu ändern: Feigenblattfunktion, für Energiewende kontraproduktiv.

118

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

7 Kommentare 7.1 Zusammenfassung Zusammenfassend kann gesagt werden, daß viele ISES-Mitglieder der Idee »Solar Cooperatives« sehr positiv gegenüber stehen. Dabei gibt es keine Präferenz zwischen Wind, PV oder einer Hybridanlage. Eine verbindungsschaffende Wirkung von »Solar Cooperatives« zwischen den Menschen zwischen Nord und Süd können viele nicht erkennen. Eher besteht die Befürchtung, daß den Menschen im Süden “etwas vor die Nase gesetzt wird”, was diese vielleicht gar nicht wollen. Für viele spielt der Umweltsapekt eine bedeutende Rolle für das Interesse der Beteiligung an Gemeinschaftsanlagen. Die Bereitschaft zum Erwerb von Anteilscheinen ist vorhanden, viele bevorzugen jedoch eine Lage der Gemeinschaftsanlage in der eigenen Gemeinde. Hier spielen Bedenken eine Rolle, wie: kann die Anlage in der Entfernung dauerhaft funktionieren, besteht die Möglichkeit des Kontaktes zwischen Finanziers und Betreiber, richtet die Anlage im Zielort auch keinen Schaden an u.s.w. Eine Gruppe konnte herausgefiltert werden, die als »Solar Cooperatives«-Interessierte zu bezeichnen sind. Sie haben ein größeres Interesse an der Verbindung zwischen Menschen in Nord und Süd und könnten sich eine Anlage in Italien und Griechenland gut vorstellen. Sie geben auch für den vorgeschlagenen Zeitraum von 10 Jahren Laufzeit die höchsten Geldbeträge an. Eine andere interessante Gruppe kristallisierte sich heraus, wenn Spender und NichtSpender mit einander verglichen werden. Die Spender sind zwar nicht stärker an der Idee »Solar Cooperatives« interessiert und bewerten auch die verbindungsschaffende Wirkung zwischen Nord und Süd nicht höher, aber sie zeigen deutlich höhere Bereitschaft, in Gemeinschaftsanlagen für längere Zeit zu investieren. Zudem stehen sie der Idee, Gemeinschaftsanlagen im Ausland zu installieren, aufgeschlossener gegenüber als die NichtSpender.

7.2 Empfehlungen Insgesamt besteht ein gewisses Potential unter den ISES-Mitglieder zur Beteiligung an Gemeinschaftsanlagen wie sie in »Solar Cooperatives« vorgesehen sind. Dabei zeigen sich viele zu Spenden bereit, bis hin zur Beteiligung mit höheren Summen, die sich erhöhen, wenn die Rendite steigt. Die Idee »Solar Cooperatives« muß jedoch klar transportiert werden, bei der Aufstellung der Anlage und Auswahl des Standortes sollte auf eine umweltfreundliche und sozialverträgliche Art geachtet werden. Die Menschen aus dem Süden sollten auf jeden Fall finanziell (wenn möglich darüber hinaus bei Aufbau, Nutzung und Wartung) beteiligt werden. Soziale Einrichtungen (wie Krankenhäuser und Schulen) sind bevorzugt zu versorgen. Auf eine technisch gute Realisierung (ohne “Neokolonialisierungstendenzen”, d.h. im Einklang mit den Wünschen und Bedürfnissen der lokalen Bevölkerung), und eine möglichst gute Risikominimierung sollte geachtet werden.

119

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Eine gewisse Skepsis hinsichtlich der Beteiligung der ISES-Mitglieder ist bei der Einschränkung der Laufzeiten zu sehen (eher kürzere werden bevorzugt). Hier müssen sicherheitsschaffende Maßnahmen durchgeführt und an die potentiellen Beteiliger vermittelt werden. Wenn eine finanziell lukrative Lösung gefunden wird (einige sprechen hier von über 10% Rendite), dann können sich viele vorstellen sich zu beteiligen. Ob sie dies dann auch tun, hängt im wesentlichen von der geeigneten Vermarktung der Idee und Werbung für »Solar Cooperatives« ab.

7.3 Schlußbemerkung Schließen soll dieser Bericht mit dem Zitat aus einem Fragebogen: “Vielen Dank für das große Engagement, Herr Berger und alle Mithelfer. Hoffentlich werden bald viele, viele Gemeinschaftsanlagen errichtet.”

120

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

9 Anhang 9.1 Korrelation Rendite-Laufzeit

RENDITE3

RENDITE6

RENDITE3 1,0000 (114) P= ,

ZEIT5 6690 (87) P= ,000

ZEIT20 4253 (57) P= ,001

ZEIT10 6154 (90) P= ,000

RENDITE6 1,0000, (134) P= ,

ZEIT5 7777, (106) P= ,000

ZEIT10 7040, (93) P= ,000

ZEIT20 3766 (64) P= ,002

9.2 Fehlende Werte bei Beteiligungsaspekten Abkürz. INFO Regelmäßige Versorgung mit Informationen MINDEST Problemlose Verfügbarkeit der Mindestein, SOZIAL Wahl eines sozialverträglichen Standorts SUEDEN Finanzielle Beteiligung der Bevölkerung GELDBACK Rückerstattung der Einlage im Schadensfall UMWELTV Wahl eines umweltverträglichen Standorts, BETRIEB solide, deutsche Organisation, BEGLEIT Begleitung durch ein naturwiss.techn. Inst., UMWELT Wichtiger Beitrag zum Umweltschutz, ENERGIE Förderung erneuerbarer Energien, VERBINDE Verbinden von Menschen

Anzahl 15 15 15 15 14 13 13 12 11 7 2

Prozent 8,1% 8,1% 8,1% 8,1% 7,5% 7,0% 7,0% 6,5% 5,9% 3,8% 1,1%

9.3 Varianzanalysen 9.3.1 Unterschiede der »Solar Cooperative«-Zugeneigten zu den anderen im Bereich »Solar-Cooperatives«-Idee (Frage 2)

Variable

IDEE

Bewertung der Idee, Gemeinschaftsanlagen

By Variable

SOCOI

Solar Cooperativer Italy

121

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Analysis of Variance

Source

Sum of D.F.

Betw. Groups 1 Within Groups 152 Total 153

Mean Squares

F Squares

F Ratio

Prob.

16,9697 149,5238 166

16,9697 9837 4935

17,2507

,0001

Standard Standard Group Count

Mean

Deviation Error

95 Pct Conf Int for Mean

Grp 1 70 1,8571 9213 1101 1,6375 TO Grp 2 84 2,5238 1,0468 1142 2,2966 TO Total 154 2,2208 1,0432 0841 2,0547 TO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2,0768 2,7510 2,3868

9.3.2 Unterschiede der »Solar Cooperative«-Zugeneigten zu den anderen im Bereich Verbindung zwischen Nord und Süd (Frage 3)

Variable VERBINDE Verbinden von Menschen in Süd- und Nordeuropa By Variable SOCOI Solar Cooperativer Italy Analysis of Variance

Source

Sum of D.F

Mean Squares

F Squares

F Ratio

Between Groups Within Groups Total

1 152 153

17,4580 173,2238 190,6818

17,4580 1,1396

15,3190 0001

Prob.

Standard Standard Group Count

Mean

Deviation Error

95 Pct Conf Int for Mean

Grp 1 70 2,5857 1,0285 1229 2,3405 TO Grp 2 84 3,2619 1,0989 1199 3,0234 TO Total 154 2,9545 1,1164 0900 2,7768 TO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2,8309 3,5004 3,1323

9.3.3 Unterschiede der »Solar Cooperative«-Zugeneigten zu den anderen bezüglich der Versorgung verschiedener Einrichtungen (Frage 4)

122

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

9.3.2.1 Krankenhaus Variable KRANK Versorgung eines Krankenhauses mit einer By Variable SOCOI Solar Cooperativer Italy Analysis of Variance

Source

Sum of D.F

Mean Squares

F Squares

F Ratio

Between Groups Within Groups Total

1 149 150

5,1951 107,4937 112,6887

5,1951 7214

7,2011 0081

Prob.

Standard Standard Group Count

Mean

Deviation Error95

PctConf Int for Mean

Grp 1 Grp 2 Tota

1,4429 1,8148 1,6424

7350 9369 8668

2676 TO 1,6076 TO 5030 TO

70 81 151

08781 1041 07051

1,6181 2,0220 1,7818

9.3.2.2 Dorf

Variable DORF

Versorgung eines Dorfs mit einer Gemeinschaftsanlage

By Variable SOCOI

Solar Cooperativer Italy

Analysis of Variance

Source

Sum of D.F.

Mean Squares

F Squares

F Ratio

Between Groups Within Groups Total

1 148 149

10,1505 141,2429 151,3933

10,1505 9543

10,6361 0014

Prob.

Standard Standard Group Count

Mean

Deviation Error

95 Pct Conf Int for Mean

Grp 1 Grp 2 Total

1,5286 2,0500 1,8067

7366 1,1463 1,0080

1,3529 TO 1,7949 TO 1,6440 TO

70 80 150

0880 1282 ,0823

1,7042 2,3051 1,9693 123

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

9.3.2.3 Schule

Variable SCHULE Versorgung einer Schule mit einer Gemeinschaftsanlage By Variable SOCOI Solar Cooperativer Italy Analysis of Variance

Source

Sum of D.F.

Mean Squares

F Squares

F Ratio

Between Groups Within Groups Total

1 151 152

6,5041 95,7442 102,2484

6,5041 6341

10,2578 ,0017

Prob.

Standard Standard Group Count

Mean

Deviation Error

95 Pct Conf Int for Mean

Grp 1 71 1,2817 5122 0608 1,1604 TO Grp 2 82 1,6951 9774 1079 1,4804 TO Total 153 1,5033 8202 0663 1,3723 TO -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1,4029 1,9099 1,6343

9.3.4 Unterschiede der »Solar Cooperative«-Zugeneigten zu den anderen bezüglich des Aufstellungsstandorts

9.3.4.1 Deutschland

Variable DEUTSCH Beteiligung an einer Anlage in Deutschland By Variable SOCOI Solar Cooperativer Italy

Analysis of Variance

Source

Sum of D.F.

Mean Squares

F Squares

F Ratio

Between Groups Within Groups Total

1 150 151

5,3142 128,3634 133,6776

5,3142 8558

6,2099 0138

Prob.

124

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Standard Standard

Group Count

Mean

Deviation

Error

95 Pct Conf Int for Mean

Grp 1 68 2,0882 9262 1123 1,8641 Grp 2 84 2,4643 9242 1008 2,2637 Total 152 2,2961 9409 0763 2,1453 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Variable AUSLAND

TO TO TO

2,3124 2,6648 2,4468

Prob.

Standort der Anlage im Ausland

By Variable SOCOI

Solar Cooperativer Italy

Analysis of Variance

Source

Sum of D.F.

Mean Squares

F Squares

F Ratio

Between Groups Within Groups Total

1 145 146

14,0652 117,4994 131,5646

14,0652 8103

17,3571 0001

Standard Standard Group Count

Mean

Deviation Error

95 Pct Conf Int for Mean

Grp 1 67 2,7164 8670 1059 2,5049 TO 2,9279 Grp 2 80 3,3375 9270 1036 3,1312 TO 3,5438 Total 147 3,0544 9493 0783 2,8997 TO 3,2092 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9.3.4.3 Italien

Variable UMWELT

By Variable SOCOI

Wichtiger Beitrag zum Umweltschutz

Solar Cooperativer Italy Analysis of Variance

Source

Sum of D.F.

Mean Squares

F Squares

F Ratio Prob.

125

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Between Groups Within Groups Total

1 148 149

2,1058 77,2875 79,3933

2,1058 5222

4,0325 ,0465

Standard Standard Group Count

Mean

Deviation Error

95 Pct Conf Int for Mean

Grp 1 Grp 2 Total

1,4000 1,6375 1,5267

5748 8305 7300

1,2629 TO 1,4527 TO 1,4089 TO

70 80 150

0687 0929 0596

1,5371 1,8223 1,6444

9.4 Korrelationsanlayse: Bereitschaft zur Beteiligung in Italien/Griechenland mit finanziellen Vorstellungen -

GRIECHEN

ITALIEN

- Correlation Coefficients - SPENDE ,-1122 ( 84) P= ,310

RENDITE3 -,1361 ( 110) P= ,156

RENDITE6 -,1533 ( 127) P= ,085

ZEIT5 -,0434 ( 109) P= ,654

ZEIT10 -,2593 ( 104) P= ,008

ZEIT20 -,1840 ( 64) P= ,146

-,0845 ( 84) P= ,445

-,0923 ( 111) P= ,335

-,1256 ( 128) P= ,158

0033 ( 110) P= ,972

-,2456 ( 106) P= ,011

-,1302 ( 64) P= ,305

(Coefficient / (Cases) / 2-tailed Significance) " , " is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed

9.5 Korrelation Umweltaspekte (alle Frage 8)

UMWELT

UMWELT 1,0000 ( 175) P=

UMWELTV 3501 ( 172) P= ,000

ENERGIE 4121 ( 175) P= ,000

126

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

9.6 Korrelation Verbindung von Menschen und Standort der Anlage

VERBINDE

VERBINDE 1,0000 ( 184) P= ,

AUSLAND 2285 ( 169) P= ,003

ARGENT 2663 ( 172) P= ,000

DEUTSCH 1159 ( 172) P= ,130

9.7 Korrelation Verfügbarkeit der Mindesteinlage- Laufzeiten

MINDEST

MINDEST 1,0000 ( 171) P=

ZEIT5 1353 ( 111) P= ,157

ZEIT10 2426 ( 104) P= ,013

ZEIT20 1265 ( 65) P= ,315

9.8 Korrelation Idee gut mit Spende, mit Rendite3%, Rendite 6%

IDEE

IDEE 1,0000 ( 183) P= ,

SPENDE -,0744 ( 86) P= ,496

RENDITE3 -,0813 ( 113) P= ,392

RENDITE6 -,0860 ( 132) P= ,327

9.9 Fehlender Zusammenhang von Umwelteinstellung und Installationsstandort auf Grünflächen OEDLAND UMWELT WEIDE OEDLAND

UMWELT

WEIDE

1,0000 ( 182) P= , ,0361 ( 172) P= ,639 ,4936 ( 180) P= ,000

0361 ( 172) P= ,639 1,0000 ( 175) P= , -,0275 ( 173) P= ,719

4936 ( 180) P= ,000 -,0275 ( 173) P= ,719 1,0000 ( 181) P= ,

127

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

9.10 Geldbeträge von Spendern und Nicht-Spendern bei 3 und 6% Rendite

Spender Rendite 3% DM 500,1.000 5.000 10.000 20.000 Summe: Rendite 6% DM 500,1.000 5.000 10.000 20.000 40.000 Summe: Nicht-Spender Rendite 3% DM 500,1.000 5.000 10.000 20.000 Summe: Rendite 6% DM 500,1.000 5.000 10.000 20.000 30.000 1.000.000 Summe:

N 13 24 23 5 2

6.500 24.000 115.000 50.000 40.000 235.500

N 14 24 28 7 1

N 9 23 8 5 2

N 6 12 17 13 19 2 1

14.000 120.000 280.000 140.000 40.000 594.000

4500 23.000 40.000 50.000 40.000 198.000

3.000 12.000 85.000 130.000 380.000 60.000 670.000

128

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

9.11 Anschreiben ISES Ÿ Wiesentalstraße 50 Ÿ D-79115 Freiburg

Herrn Sebastian Sonnenschein Regenbogenstraße 67 88 913 Lichterswalde Freiburg, den 22. Juni 1998 Gemeinschaftsanlagen für Sonnen- und Windkraftnutzung Sehr geehrte/r ................... Bei uns werden zunehmend Photovoltaikanlagen und Windkraftwerke nach dem Prinzip von Gemeinschaftsanlagen verwirklicht. Dabei ermöglichen die Bürger deren Finanzierung durch Anteilscheine. Die finanzielle und energetische Amortisation von Sonnen- und Windkraftwerken hängt wesentlich von den klimatischen Bedingungen eines Standortes ab. Im Mittelmeerraum ist die Energie der Sonnenstrahlung im Jahresmittel um etwa 40% höher als in Deutschland. Auch für die Windkraftnutzung gibt es noch zahlreiche Standorte mit sehr gutem Potential (z. B. auf den griechischen Inseln). Vor diesem Hintergrund betreibt die International Solar Energy Society e.V. (ISES) das Projekt „Solar Cooperatives". Dabei sollen, zunächst in Italien und Griechenland, Sonnenund Windkraftwerke durch Anteilscheine von Bürgern finanziert werden. Als erster Baustein dieses Projektes wird im Auftrag der Europäischen Kommission eine Studie erstellt, welche die Bedingungen für eine erfolgreiche Umsetzung der Idee untersucht. Dazu wollen wir Sie gerne um Ihre Meinung bitten. Durch Ihre Beteiligung an dieser Umfrage können Sie das Projekt von Anfang an aktiv mitgestalten. Daher bitten wir Sie, den beigelegten Fragebogen möglichst sofort, spätestens aber bis 11. Juli 1998 ausgefüllt im vorbereiteten Umschlag an uns zurück-zusenden. Ihre Daten werden selbstverständlich vertraulich behandelt (die Nummern auf den Fragebögen werden vor Beginn der Auswertung abgetrennt). Die Ergebnisse der Befragung werden wir im SUNWORLD-Journal veröffentlichen. Für Rückfragen stehen wir Ihnen unter Tel. 0049/761/45906-45 (Herr W. Berger) gerne zur Verfügung. Ihrer Antwort sehen wir mit großem Interesse entgegen. Schon jetzt danken wir Ihnen herzlich für Ihre Mitarbeit. Mit freundlichen Grüßen INTERNATIONAL SOLAR ENERGY SOCIETY e.V.

Wolfgang Berger (Wissenschaftlicher Projektleiter) Anlage

129

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

9.12 Fragebogen 1) Would you in principle consider becoming a shareholder in a wind power plant, a photovoltaic plant (PV) or a hybrid plant (PV-wind-diesel) in Italy or Greece? (1 = definitely, 3 = perhaps, 5 = no)

wind power plant photovoltaic plant hybrid plant

1

2

3

4

5

❒ ❒ ❒

❒ ❒ ❒

❒ ❒ ❒

❒ ❒ ❒

❒ ❒ ❒

2) How convincing do you find the idea to run "Solar Cooperatives" in Southern Europe financed by people from Northern or Central Europe? (1 = very, 3 = fairly, 5 = not at all)

1 ❒

2 ❒

3 ❒

4 ❒

5 ❒

3) Could, in your opinion, “Solar Cooperatives” contribute to stronger links between people from Northern and Southern Europe? (1 = very much, 3 = somewhat, 5 = not at all)

1 ❒

2 ❒

3 ❒

4 ❒

5 ❒

4) How strong do you support the supply of the following facilities by a "Solar Cooperative"? (1 = very strong support, 3 = medium support, 5 = no support at all)

schools hospitals private houses villages drinking water purification drinking water pipes telecommunications facilities

1 ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

2 ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

3 ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

4 ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

5 ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

130

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

5)

Should the plants being realised be grid-connected or non grid-connected in rural areas not yet electrified? ❒ ❒

❒

grid-connected does not matter

non grid-connected

6) Regarding photovoltaic plants: Where should those be installed? (1 = very strong support, 3 = medium support, 5 = no support at all)

roofs/facades noise protection barriers agricultural areas/pasture wasteland

1

2

3

4

5

❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

7) Considering the following options, can you imagine acquiring shares of a PV plant, wind power plant or a hybrid plant located in Italy or Greece? minimum investment (in DM) support as a kind of donation annual return on investment of 3% annual return on investment of 6% duration of contract approx. 5 years duration of contract approx. 10 years duration of contract approx. 20 years

100 ❒

500 ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

1.000 ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

5.000 ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

10.000 ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

20.000 ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

max DM ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

131

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

8) How important would the following aspects be for you as a potential shareholder? (1 = very important, 3 = fairly important, 5 = unimportant).

support of renewable energy regular provision with information freely disposable minimum investment selection of a socially acceptable location important contribution to environmental protection return of investment in the event of a claim continued advice through a scientific institute selection of an ecologically acceptable location links with people in another country financial participation of the population in the South operation of the plant by a reliable German or Austrian institution

9)

1

2

3

4

5

❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

❒

❒

❒

❒

❒

How would you assess the following factors with regard to your participation? (1 = speaks very well for participation , 3 = ambivalent, 5 = speaks very much against participation)

location of the plant abroad plant far removed from immediate community character of a model project duration of contract approx. 10 years

1

2

3

4

5

❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

10) Would you participate in a plant in the following locations/countries? (1 = certainly, 3 = perhaps, 5 = no)

in my own community Germany Austria Italy Greece Argentina South Africa

1

2

3

4

5

❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

11) Do you have further remarks? Which advantages or disadvantages do you perceive in the “Solar Cooperatives”- concept presented? (if there is not 132

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

enough space for remarks please use an extra sheet) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12) What experience do you have with renewable energy plants or environmental tariff models?

PV operation of an own plant ❒ possession of own shares in plants ❒ participation in a “green” tariff ❒

wind

hydro collectors biomass/gas

❒ ❒ ❒

❒ ❒ ❒

❒ ❒ ❒

❒ ❒ ❒

Now we would like to ask you for some personal details: Year of birth 19.... male ❒ female ❒ profession: ..............................................

133

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

25 

Annex 4 – Italian Questionnaire "Solar Cooperatives" 1) Would you in principle consider becoming a shareholder in a wind power plant, a photovoltaic plant (PV) or a hybrid plant (PV-wind-diesel) in Italy or Greece? (1 = definitely, 3 = perhaps, 5 = no) wind power plant photovoltaic plant hybrid plant

1 ❒ ❒ ❒

2 ❒ ❒ ❒

3 ❒ ❒ ❒

4 ❒ ❒ ❒

5 ❒ ❒ ❒

2) How strong do you support the supply of the following facilities by a "Solar Cooperative"? (1 = very strong support, 3 = medium support, 5 = no support at all) 1 2 schools ❒ ❒ hospitals ❒ ❒ private houses ❒ ❒ villages ❒ ❒ drinking water purification ❒ ❒ drinking water pipes ❒ ❒ telecommunications facilities ❒ ❒

3 ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

4 ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

5 ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

3) Should the plants being realised be grid-connected or non grid-connected in rural areas not yet electrified? ❒

grid-connected

❒

non grid-connected

❒

does not matter

4) Regarding photovoltaic plants: Where should those be installed? (1 = very strong support, 3 = medium support, 5 = no support at all) 1 2 roofs/facades ❒ ❒ noise protection barriers ❒ ❒ agricultural areas/pasture ❒ ❒ wasteland ❒ ❒

3 ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

4 ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

5 ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

5) Considering the following options, can you imagine acquiring shares of a PV plant, wind power plant or a hybrid plant located in Italy or Greece? minimum investment (in MLit) 100 support as a kind of donation ❒ annual return on investment of 3% ❒ annual return on investment of 6% ❒ duration of contract approx. 5 years ❒ duration of contract approx. 10 years ❒ duration of contract approx. 20 years ❒

6)

500 ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

1.000 ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

5.000 ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

10.000 20.000 max...MLit ❒ ❒ ... ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

Would you participate in a plant in the following locations/countries? (1 = certainly, 3 = perhaps, 5 = no) in my own community Italy Greece

7)

1 ❒ ❒ ❒

2 ❒ ❒ ❒

3 ❒ ❒ ❒

4 ❒ ❒ ❒

5 ❒ ❒ ❒

Do you have further remarks? Which advantages or disadvantages do you perceive in the ”Solar Cooperatives”- concept presented? (if there is not enough space for remarks please use an extra sheet)

134

Windpark Jacobsdorf (Ventus Wiesbaden, 1998)

60%

-100%

-90%

-80%

-70%

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

0% -10% 0

10%

20%

30%

40%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Year

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Wasserkraft Murg (Ökologik Ecovest AG Erlangen, 1998)

Windpark Krempel (EnergieKontor Bremerhaven, 1998)

Windpark Grünow (Ventus Wiesbaden, 1998)

Windpark Frauenberg (WSB Frauenberg, 1998)

50%

Windkraftfonds Bockelwitz (Bobikiewicz Freiburg/Ökobank Frankfurt, 1998)

70%

Wasserkraft Ettringen (EBV Oldenburg, 1999)

Bundesschatzbrief 1998/13 -A

Windpark Ihlewitz (Ökofinanz Frankfurt, 1998)

80%

90%

100%

135

Capital

Annex 5 - Amortisation calculation / cumulated reflux of capital

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Jahr Wind Ihlewitz Bundesschatzbrief Wasser Ettringen Wasser Murg Wind Bockelwitz Wind Frauenberg Wind Jacobsdorf Windpark Grünow Windpark Krempel 1 -51,8% -97,5% -90,2% -84,9% -63,1% -65,0% -58,0% -57,8% -84,5%

2 -28,3% -94,0% -78,4% -68,7% -45,9% -65,0% -50,7% -46,3% -74,4%

3 -14,9% -90,5% -73,1% -65,1% -28,2% -52,8% -40,4% -36,9% -68,7%

Annahmen: - Steuererstattungen/-zahlungen sowie Ausschüttungen/Einlagen wurden verrechnet - Persönliches Ergebnis bei einem Steuersatz auf den Ergebnisanteil von 35% (ohne Berücksichtigung Kirchensteuer und Solidaritätszuschlag) (Ausnahmen: Wasserkraftfonds Ettringen und Windpark Krempel: 30% Steuersatz, 5,5% Solidaritätszuschlag; Wasserkraft Murg 50% Steuersatz) - Mindesteinlagen von DM 20.000,-- bis DM 100.000,-- Keine Wiederlageprämisse

0 -100,0% -100,0% -100,0% -100,0% -100,0% -100,0% -100,0% -100,0% -100,0%

4 -14,1% -86,3% -68,3% -61,7% -27,4% -42,6% -30,1% -27,5% -57,0%

5 -12,7% -81,8% -64,0% -58,2% -26,5% -39,3% -20,1% -19,0% -47,7%

6 -12,7% 22,8% -60,4% -54,3% -25,7% -33,1% -16,0% -19,6% -39,2%

8 -17,7% -54,8% -46,1% -24,0% -26,4% -14,5% -20,3% -26,4%

7 -14,3% -57,4% -50,4% -24,9% -29,9% -15,7% -19,9% -32,2%

136

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

10 -25,0%

-49,6% -37,1% -20,9% -19,8% -12,8% -22,1% -16,7%

9 -21,3%

-52,5% -41,6% -23,2% -23,5% -13,5% -21,1% -21,4%

-47,0% -32,3% -14,2% -16,4% -12,3% -23,7% -11,5%

11 -20,0% -44,7% -27,7% -5,1% -11,9% -10,2% -19,5% -5,7%

12 -12,4% -42,5% -23,1% -0,1% -5,0% -5,9% -15,0% -1,9%

13 -8,1% -40,6% -18,7% 4,3% 0,2% -2,6% -11,5% 10,8%

14 3,0% -38,1% -14,4% 16,3% 5,3% -0,7% -8,0% 23,4%

15 19,1% -35,8% -10,3% 32,7% 21,4% 2,9% -4,6% 37,0%

16 35,3% -33,4% -6,5% 49,0% 44,6% 12,7% 6,5% 52,7%

17 51,7% -30,9% -2,8% 65,2% 63,9% 24,6% 17,6% 68,5%

18 68,3% -28,6% 0,7% 81,4% 80,3% 36,4% 28,5% 84,3%

19 85,0%

137

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

21 118,8%

7,3% 115,2% 113,3% 59,6% 58,3% 119,3%

20 101,8%

140,0% 4,1% 97,7% 96,8% 48,0% 43,4% 100,3%

122,6% 73,8% 71,6%

10,3%

22 136,6%

13,0%

23

15,1%

24

16,6%

25

17,7%

26

18,4%

27

19,5%

28

20,2%

29

184,2%

30

138

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Annex 6 – Cost/return calculations for certain sites in Greece Input data In the following, an economic evaluation of PV-plants and wind turbines in Greece is presented. The calculations are carried out in EXCEL spread sheets based on a software tool for financing limited partnership companies in Germany, which is used by banks and trustees for evaluation.

Plant size PV The basis for the following calculations are a 30 kW p plant installed in Greece in three different places. • Athens: Expected energy yield for this location is 1,200 kWh/(kW p*a) • Cyclades: Expected energy yield for this location is 1,400 kWh/(kW p*a) • Crete: Expected energy yield for this location is 1,500 kWh/(kW p*a) Wind power The basis for the following calculations is a 500 kW wind three different places. • Athens: Expected energy yield for this location is • Crete: Expected energy yield for this location is • Cyclades: Expected energy yield for this location is

turbine installed in Greece in 2,500 kWh/(kW*a) 2,850 kWh/(kW*a) 3,200 kWh/(kW*a)

Energy yield Expected energy yield of a 30 kWp PV plant for the best location is 45,000 kWh/a. Expected energy yield of a 500 kW wind turbine for the best location (Cyclades) is 1,600,000 kWh/a.

Initial costs PV The Greek partners delivered total investment costs for PV plants in Greece: 2.3 million Drachma (at an exchange rate of 334 Drachma/€), equivalent. to 6884 € /kW p for all sites in Greece. This includes 15% installation costs, of which 75% are spend for personnel costs. This value is important, as the dismantling of the plant after 20 years must be considered. It is assumed, that the total cost for dismantling are equivalent to the personnel cost for installation. Initial financing costs for trustee, legal and tax consultants are fixed for each project. Wind power The Greek partners delivered specific investment costs for wind turbine plants in Greece: The investment costs are 1046 € /kW installed (at an exchange rate of 334 Drachma/€), equivalent to 524,000 for all sites in Greece.

139

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Based on realised projects in Germany it was assumed that this includes 9.5% installation costs, of which 30% are spend for personnel costs. This value is important, as the dismantling of the plant after 20 years must be considered. It is assumed, that 15,000 € for dismantling must be spend, distributed over the last 10 years as reserves. Initial financing costs for trustee, legal and tax consultants are fixed for each project.

Operation and maintenance costs PV Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are equivalent to 1591 €/year. • maintenance [€ per year] 494 • replacement [€ per year] 1097 Insurances are taken from a tender recently given. It includes: - Haftpflichtversicherung (third party personal (liability) insurance – usually 10 million on persons and 100,000 on property) - Ausfallkosten (time without operation, example: 1.5 € per / kW p / day during summer and 0.7 during winter) - Elektronikversicherung (electronic insurance: it covers damages at the plant and its components against natural events such as lightning, earthquakes, mal-installing, malconstruction, etc. This results in annual insurance costs of approx. 559 € per year. Annual financing costs for trustee, legal and tax consultants must be fixed for each project. Note: All O&M costs are increased by an inflation rate of 3%/year. Wind power Operation and maintenance (O&M) cost are equivalent to 11,000 €/year. • maintenance [€ per year] 2851 • replacement [€ per year] 5274 • rent of transformer station [€ per year] 2300 • blades full service [€ per year] 650 • insurance ( taken from a recent tender) [ per year] 2340 Annual financing costs for trustee, legal and tax consultants are fixed for each project, either at national level or for an international project. Note: All O&M costs are increased by an inflation rate of 3%/year.

Financial parameters Depreciation According to the Greek tax regulations, PV plants must be depreciated within 5 to 10 years according the linear method, wind turbines within 4 years. Taxes Whereas in Germany the tax system changed in 2001, the Greek situation is more stable. • Germany: The federal corporate income tax (Körperschaftssteuer) was reduced from 40% to 25% in 2001. Additionally solidarity surcharge1 of 5.5% on top. Note: this tax has only to be paid by capital companies. 1

Introduced after the German re-unification and still in value

140

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

•

The local trade tax (Gewerbesteuer) has to be paid by both capital companies and partnerships / special forms of entities (e.g. Solar co-operatives). It is difficult to calculate. For companies tax losses can be carried forward to a certain extent. Greece: The taxes for energy projects are about 30-40% of the net income without tax allowances. For companies, tax losses can be carried forward to a certain extent.

Revenues PV • In Germany the Erneuerbare Energie Gesetz EEG (Renewable Energy Law) pays 99 Pf/kWh (equiv. 0.507 €/kWh) constant for 20 years for installing in 2000 or 2001. • In Greece the avoided costs are the revenues. The tariff (group 22) is relevant: 0.5 Drachma/kWh (equiv. 0.10772 €/kWh) In Germany 5.5 times more is paid for PV electricity. Wind power • In Greece the avoided costs are the revenues. The tariff (group 22) is relevant: 30.5 Drachma/kWh (equiv. 0.10772 €/kWh) with an annual increase of 3%.

Financing •

The German 100 000-Roofs-Programme by the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau KfW is only eligible for PV-plants installed in Germany (reduced interest rate by 4.5% to now 1.9% p.a. fixed for ten years; first two years redemption-free).

•

Another option is the German Umweltprogramm (environmental program) offered by the Deutsche Ausgleichsbank DtA. The current conditions are:

Credit duration Redemption-free Current interest rate or Credit duration Redemption-free Current interest rate

10 years 2 years 4.25 nominal (5.11 effective) 20 years 3 years 4.5 nominal (new interest rate after 10 years)

Discount Collateral minimum credit volume maximum

96% usual 5,000 DM 10 Mio DM

Note: The clients personal bank will get a commission fee (for DtA: 1% margin) as the banks mentioned above do not have a branch network. Besides investments for hardware and installation planning costs, other related investments can be financed. •

In Greece the long-term interest rate is 14%, a redemption-free period of three years is assumed (as it is the case in Germany).

141

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Subsidies PV Revenues in Germany: cost-oriented tariffs combined with soft loans are the chosen way of subsidy for PV. In Greece the initial investment is subsidised with a rate of 55%. Wind power Wind power in Greece is subsidised. The initial investment is reduced by 40% through an investment subsidy.

Calculation of the cash flow of a joint ownership of a PV-plant respectively a wind park In the following some of the detailed input data and results are described. • • •

• •

•

•

•

•

•

2

Investment costs for a PV plant consists of module, inverter, wiring; for a wind turbine it includes the blades, the tower and the nacelle. Installation: To hook-up the generators to the interconnected grid costs arise. In the case of windpark this share on the total costs is considerably higher as for PV-plants Initiation and marketing costs: The financial design of a joint ownership includes various steps: most important are the development and management of the financial part, the flyer production and initial fiscal and legal consulting. Liquidity: a minimum reserve to pay ongoing bills. Financing: the total capital is mostly subdivided in equity capital, delivered by the limited partners and debt capital, delivered by credits. The credit conditions must be known in detail to calculate the cash-flow. Revenues: They are determined by the annual electricity production of the plant and the revenues paid. They are fixed here to 0.10 €/kWh minimum tariffs in the case of a PV-plant Rent: The areas where the wind turbines are installed will either be rented or purchased by the project. In this case renting is assumed for either zero costs or 1% of the annual electricity sales (1,700 € per year). For PV no costs for rent - of a buildings roof - is regarded. Taxes: In this case (of the German legal entity of a GmbH&CO KG) the company has to pay mainly the trade tax, which is fixed according to the form shown here. The limited partners must allocate the payments to the annual income tax declaration. Internal rate of return before taxes: This value and the total payments, related to the equity capital2, are the most important terms to rank the profitability of a company respectively an investment. The cash-flow and internal rate-of-return (IRR) are calculated according to the regulations proved by auditors and/or legal consultants3.

Equity capital is invested in a business by (private) persons. They are acting like entrepreneurs.

3 3

This does not reflect the critics of this method. They are mainly: a) The IRR calculation assumes always constant and unique interest rates during the project duration b) interest rates for dept service and savings are identical.

142

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

PV plant The following figure 1 shows, that a PV plant cannot be operated cost-covering in Greece as revenues are to low. Even neglecting soft costs as well as administration costs only 50% of the initial investment are reimbursed during 20 years. This results in an internal rate of return before taxes of –5.5%. To achieve at least an IRR of 0 the investment subsidy must exceed 75%.

PV plant in Greece (Crete): best case IRR: -5.5%; 103,000 € investment versus 50,500 € payments 100% equity capital, no soft costs, no administration 10.000 5.000

20 20

20 19

20 18

20 17

20 16

20 15

20 14

20 13

Expenditures incl depr. Payments Total Revenues Depreciation PV plant Pre-tax result

-10.000 -15.000 -20.000 -25.000

20 12

20 11

20 10

20 09

20 08

20 07

20 06

20 05

20 04

20 03

20 02

-5.000

20 01

20 00

Values in €/year

0

DG XVII

SOLAR-COOPERATIVES

Year

Figure 1: Cash flow of a PV-plant installed in Greece

Wind power The following figure shows a cash flow of a turbine installed at Cyclades without any subsidies. As the IRR shows it would be a very attractive investment even if 75% must be credit financed (at the local interest rate of 14%). The increase in revenues of the electricity sales is caused by a nominal inflation rate of 3%. The company makes losses only in the first 4 years, as the turbine may be depreciated within this period. Afterwards, trade taxes have to be paid (about 15% of the total revenues). Consequently, the state would also profit from an installation.

Both assumptions do not reflect the economic reality. However, the IRR is always used as one benchmark for profitability /Hille 1997/

143

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Wind turbine in Greece (Cyclades) IRR 37,1 %; payments 13.7 folds the investment; 25% equity capital, tariff 0.10 €, international soft costs 400.000

200.000 100.000 0 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20

Values in €/year

300.000

-100.000 -200.000 -300.000

Year Expenditures incl depr. Depreciation wind turbine

- Payments Pre-tax result

DG XVII

SOLAR-COOPERATIVES

Total Revenues

Figure 2: Cash flow of a wind turbine installed in Greece (variation 8) Several parameters influence the profitability. Therefore a sensitivity analysis have been carried out which is shown in the following figure 3. It shows a series of variations to cover the most sensible factors: • Reference case: equity capital 100%, investment subsidy 40%, national soft costs; total payments on dividends 3,400,719 DM rel. to equity cap. 1018.2% IRR (rel. to payments w/o. taxes) 43.71% • Variation 2: equity cap. 25%, debt cap. 75%, invest. subsidy 40%, national soft costs; total payments on dividends 2.987.907 DM rel. to equity cap. 3643.8% IRR (rel. to payments w/o. taxes) 125.32% • Variation 3: see reference case, costs (30% of hardware); total payments on dividends 2.753.883 DM rel. to equity cap. 722.8% IRR (rel. to payments w/o. taxes) 31.71% • Variation 4: see reference case, costs (30% of hardware), 25% equity capital & 75% debt capital; total payments on dividends 3.400.719 DM rel. to equity cap. 2448.4% IRR (rel. to payments w/o. taxes) 71.70% • Variation 5: see reference case, without investment subsidy (40%); total payments on dividends 2.977.103 DM rel. to equity cap. 535.5% IRR (rel. to payments w/o. taxes) 24.11% • Variation 6: see case 2, without investment subsidy (40%); total payments on dividends 2.210.039 DM rel. to equity cap. 1661.7% IRR (reel to payments w/o taxes) 46.31% • Variation 7: see case 6, site Athens (wind yield -22%); total payments on dividends 1.466.814 DM rel. to equity cap. 1102.9% IRR (reel to payments w/o. taxes) 27.77% • Variation 8: equity capital 25%, debt capital 75%, without investment subsidy, international soft costs. Total payments on dividends 1,979,799 DM rel. to equity cap.

144

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

1374.9% IRR (rel. to payments w/o taxes) 37.07%. This case will most probably be realised in the future.

Sensitivity analysis reference case IRR = 3.53%, total payment in 20 years eqiv. to 138.3% of investment Total payments related to investment

40 35

125,0%

30

IRR in %

100,0%

25 20

75,0%

15

50,0%

10 25,0%

5

0,0%

Variation of total payments in [ ]

IRR

150,0%

0

1 Reference

2

3

4

5 Variations

6

7

8

Figure 3: Sensitivity analysis of the most relevant parameters

Conclusions Even assuming very favourable input data, a PV plant cannot be operated cost-covering in Greece as revenues are too low. The economic situation for wind power is very different. Wind power seems economically attractive without any subsidy, if the feed-in tariff is 0.10 €/kWh. This is even true if the soft costs are assumed to be threefold more than in projects realised in Germany. Consequently, the official given investment subsidy of 40% results in "wind fall" profits, which means a miss-allocation of resources. However, still few projects are realised in Greece. The authors assume, that the required actions for realisation are long-term processes with un-predictable time schedule. Bottlenecks At this moment the major obstacles hindering the investment of banks in international grid connected PV and wind power projects are: • project structure: complex which causes high transaction costs • project size: in particular for small residential systems the project volumes are too small to apply tailor-made financial services, or to develop a standard financing product • limited securities: financing small residential systems through a second mortgages provides the bank too little securities • limited return on investment and cash-flow 145

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

General recommendations to improve the dissemination of PV and wind power in Greece • Sales side (feed-in tariffs) subsidies should get preference over subsidies of investment costs. • Feed-in tariffs should be harmonised in Europe. • Cross border generation and delivery of renewable generated energy should be made possible. • Further credit guarantee sources such as from the European Investment Fund (EIF) must be tailored for PV and wind power investments.

Calculation of a PV-plant Investment 30 kWp plant Investment (hardware) costs Investment costs Installation costs Sub total Investment subsidies Share of investment costs Share of installation costs Sub total Eligible fixed assets: Investment costs minus subsidies Investment costs Installation costs Sub total

Exchange to 1 Euro 334,1

Share of total costs

184.390 22.135 206.525

89,28% 10,72% 100,00%

92.195 11.067 103.262

78,58% 9,43%

92.195 11.067 103.262

89,28% 10,72% 100,00%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%

Exc

Initiation costs Flyer layout and production Project development and management Interim financing Bank margins Placing guarantee Trustee Fiscal and legal consultance Liquidity reserve Flyer approvement Sub total

Capital procurement costs Sales provision in % of equity capital fixed sales costs

0%

146

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Current costs and revenues Depreciation Depreciation begin duration in years depreciation method used Simplification accord. Abschn. 44 EStR degressiv in %

Current costs from Management in % of electricity sales Mangement in Euro Technical management in % of electricity sales from 2011 Technical management in % of electricity sales until 2011 Technical mangement in Euro Ongoing tax consultant, trustee and registration costs rent 2000-2005 rent from 2006 Minimum rent 2000 - 2005 Mindimum rent from 2006 General partner payments Operation costs Maintenance, replacement Euro from date Insurance Rent of transformer station Blades full service Other costs

Jan 2001 5 1 linear wird angewendet 10%

2001 Following years Inflation Jan 2001 0,00% 0 0,00%

0,00%

0,00%

0,00%

0

0

3% 3%

0 Jan 2001 Jan 2001 Jan 2001

0% 3% 3% 3%

Jan 2001 0

2% 3%

0% 0% 0 0 0 454 1.097 559 0 0

3% 0,00%

Revenues Expected energy yield kWh/a Feed-in rate Scenario for electricity price development Feed-in (Hook-up) from Electricity price decrease from year / in % Electricity price increase from year / in %

Intererest rate for re-investment in % as cash rate

45.000 0,09129 Euro/KWh 2 3% increase Jan 2001 Jan 2001 0,00% Jan 2008 0,00%

0,00%

Financing

147

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Equity capital Equity capital in %

100,0%

Debt capital Loan DtA environmental Discount in % interest rate in % duration in months Payment date First redemption

4% 5,18% 240 Jan 2001 Jan 2004

Redemption and interest rate periods

2 12=monthly 4=quarter-yearly 2= half-yearly

Loan KfW 100 000 roof % of total investment Discount in % Depreciation method interest rate in % duration in months Payment date First redemption Redemption and interest rate periods

Loan external financing Discount in % interest rate in % duration in months Payment date First redemption Redemption and interest rate periods

Permanent liqidity reserve until complete redemption in % of dept service of the following year Permanent liqidity reserve during project duration Guarantee for dismantling Guarantee for dismantling from 2005 Guarantee for dismantling from 2011 Reserves for dismantling (75% ofpersonal costs for installation distributed on last 5 a)

100 0% linear/digital 2,50% 120 Jan 2001 Jan 2003 2 12=monthly 4=quarter-yearly 2= half-yearly 100% 0% 5,18% 240 Jan 2001 Jan 2004 1 12=monthly 4=quarter-yearly 2= half-yearly 55% 3.000 0 0 1.245

1,00% 1,00% Jan 2016

148

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Taxes 600% Note: this is equiv. To a net income tax of 30%

Multiple for fixing trade tax Exemption of trade tax Tax rate limit until income of Tax rate limit until income of Tax rate limit until income of Tax rate limit until income of Tax rate limit until income of Tax rate limit from income of General partner payments

Year

1 2 3

Expected results

4 5

48.000 72.000 96.000 120.000 144.000 144.000 0

Revenues

6

2000

2001

2002

2003

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

7

Electricity sales

0

4.231

4.358

4.489

4.624

4.762

4.905

5.052

5.204

8

Others Interest revenues

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total Revenues

0

4.231

4.358

4.489

4.624

4.762

4.905

5.052

5.204

9 10 11 12

Expenditures

13

Initiation costs

14 15

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6.180

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Technical Management

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Management

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

16

Ongoing trustee, legal

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

17

and fiscal consultance costs

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

18

Lease

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

19

Operation

0

454

468

482

496

511

526

542

558

20

Maintenance

0

1.097

1.097

1.130

1.164

1.199

1.235

1.272

1.310

21

Reserves for dismantling

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

23

Insurance

280

576

593

611

629

648

667

687

708

27

Others

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

28 29

Long-term interest payments

0

0

14

14

14

13

12

11

10

30

ERP loan

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

31

DtA loan

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

32

Loan 3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

33 34

Depreciation PV plant

0

-19.416

-19.416

-19.416

-19.416

-19.416

0

0

0

35

Depreciation Discount DtA

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-21.545

-21.590

-21.655

-21.721

-21.788

-2.441

-2.513

-2.587

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-17.232

-17.166

-17.097

-17.026

2.464

2.539

2.617

36

Total Expenditures

-6.461

39

Pre-tax result

-6.461

-17.314

40

Internal rate of return

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

41

Trade tax

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

37

0

38

42 43

Operating income statement

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-6.461

-17.314

-17.232

-17.166

-17.097

-17.026

2.464

2.539

2.617

44 100

Liquidity of the company

101 102

Status begin of year

103

Operating income statement*)

0

-280

1.825

3.007

3.016

3.016

3.015

3.015

3.015

-280

-36.728

-36.647

-36.581

-36.512

-36.441

2.465

2.540

2.617

104

Redemption of loan

0

0

0

-1

16

16

16

16

16

105

Payments

0

0

1.004

2.244

2.305

2.376

2.449

2.524

2.602

-103.000

0

1.004

2.244

2.305

2.376

2.449

2.524

2.602

0,0%

0,0%

1,0%

2,2%

2,2%

2,3%

2,4%

2,5%

2,5%

-280 0

1.825 0

3.007 0

3.016 0

3.016 0

3.015 0

3.015 0

3.015 0

3.014 0

106 107

Payments in % of equity capital 109 Status end of year 108

149

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report 2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Total

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5.360

5.521

5.687

5.857

6.033

6.214

6.400

6.592

6.790

6.994

7.203

7.420

113.696

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5.360

5.521

5.687

5.857

6.033

6.214

6.400

6.592

6.790

6.994

7.203

7.420

113.696

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6.180

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

575

592

610

628

647

667

687

707

729

750

773

796

12.199

1.349

1.390

1.431

1.474

1.519

1.564

1.611

1.659

1.709

1.760

1.813

1.868

28.650

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1.245

1.245

1.245

1.245

1.245

6.225

729

751

774

797

821

846

871

897

924

952

980

1.010

15.751

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

10

9

8

7

6

5

5

4

3

2

1

0

149

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

97.082

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

11

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-2.663

-2.742

-2.823

-2.907

-2.993

-3.082

-3.173

-4.513

-4.610

-4.710

-4.813

-4.919

166.248

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2.697

2.779

2.863

2.950

3.040

3.132

3.227

2.080

2.180

2.284

2.391

2.501

-52.552

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2.697

2.779

2.863

2.950

3.040

3.132

3.227

2.080

2.180

2.284

2.391

2.501

-52.552 0 0 0

3.014

3.014

3.013

3.013

3.012

3.012

3.011

3.011

3.010

3.010

3.010

3.009

55.769

2.697

2.779

2.863

2.950

3.040

3.132

3.227

2.080

2.180

2.284

2.391

2.501

-143.443

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

16

271

2.681

2.763

2.848

2.935

3.024

3.117

3.211

2.064

2.165

2.268

2.375

5.494

50.451

2.681

2.763

2.848

2.935

3.024

3.117

3.211

2.064

2.165

2.268

2.375

5.494

-52.549

0 2,6%

2,7%

2,8%

2,8%

2,9%

3,0%

3,1%

2,0%

2,1%

2,2%

2,3%

5,3%

0

3.014 0

3.013 0

3.013 0

3.012 0

3.012 0

3.011 0

3.011 0

3.010 0

3.010 0

3.010 0

3.009

0

55.769

150

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Calculation of a wind turbine Investment 500 kWp plant Investment (hardware) costs Investment costs Installation costs Sub total Investment subsidies Share of investment costs Share of installation costs Sub total Eligible fixed assets: Investment costs minus subsidies Investment costs Installation costs Sub total

Exchange to 1 Euro 334,1

Share of total costs

474.035 49.761 523.795

90,50% 9,50% 100,00%

0 0 0

78,58% 9,43%

474.035 49.761 523.795

90,50% 9,50% 100,00%

6.292 1.049 10.848 0 3.390 524 3.670 5.891 16.848 159.406

0,40% 0,07% 0,70% 0,00% 0,22% 0,03% 0,24% 0,38% 1,08% 3,12%

Exc

0 0

Initiation costs Flyer layout and production Project development and management Interim financing Bank margins Placing guarantee Trustee Fiscal and legal consultance Liquidity reserve Flyer approvement Sub total

3,95% 0,66% 6,81% 0,00% 2,13% 0,33% 2,30% 3,70% 10,57% 30,43%

Capital procurement costs Sales provision in % of equity capital fixed sales costs

5%

Current costs and revenues Depreciation begin duration in years depreciation method used Simplification accord. Abschn. 44 EStR degressiv in %

Current costs from

Jan 2001 4 1 linear wird angewendet 10%

2001 Following years Inflation Jan 2001 151

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report

Management in % of electricity sales Mangement in Euro Technical management in % of electricity sales from 2011 Technical management in % of electricity sales until 2011 Technical mangement in Euro Ongoing tax consultant, trustee and registration costs rent 2000-2005 rent from 2006 Minimum rent 2000 - 2005 Mindimum rent from 2006 General partner payments Operation costs Maintenance, replacement Euro from date Insurance Rent of transformer station Blades full service Other costs

5,00% 0 5,00%

5,00% 0 5,00%

5,00%

5,00%

10476

10.476

3% 3%

1% 1% 0 0 2619 2851 5274 2496 2344 646 23

1% 1%

3% 3%

2619 Jan 2001 Jan 2001 Jan 2001 2344 Jan 2001 10

0% 3% 3% 3%

3%

3% 3%

Revenues Expected energy yield kWh/a Feed-in rate (incl. 18% VAT) Scenario for electricity price development Feed-in (Hook-up) from Electricity price decrease from year / in % Electricity price increase from year / in %

Intererest rate for re-investment in % as cash rate

1.600.000 0,10772 Euro/KWh 2 3% increase Jan 2001 Jan 2001 0,00% Jan 2008 0,00%

2,75%

Financing Equity capital Equity capital in %

25,0%

Debt capital Loan DtA environmental Discount in % interest rate in % duration in months Payment date First redemption

0% 14,00% 240 Jan 2001 Jan 2001

152

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report Redemption and interest rate periods

2 12=monthly 4=quarter-yearly 2= half-yearly

Loan KfW 100 000 roof % of total investment Discount in % Depreciation method interest rate in % duration in months Payment date First redemption Redemption and interest rate periods

Loan external financing Discount in % interest rate in % duration in months Payment date First redemption Redemption and interest rate periods

Permanent liqidity reserve until complete redemption in % of dept service of the following year Permanent liqidity reserve during project duration Guarantee for dismantling Guarantee for dismantling from 2005 Guarantee for dismantling from 2011 Reserves for dismantling

100 0% linear/digital 2,50% 120 Jan 2001 Jan 2003 2 12=monthly 4=quarter-yearly 2= half-yearly 100% 0% 5,18% 240 Jan 2001 Jan 2004 1 12=monthly 4=quarter-yearly 2= half-yearly 100% 7.850 0 0 1.554

1,00% 1,00% Jan 2009

Taxes Multiple for fixing trade tax Exemption of trade tax General partner payments

600% 0

153

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report Year

1 2 3

Expected results

4 5

Revenues

6

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

177.526

182.852

188.338

193.988

199.807

205.802

211.976

218.335

7

Electricity sales

8

Others Interest revenues

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-39

1.691

3.147

3.146

3.147

2.998

2.718

2.703

2.690

Total Revenues

-39

179.217

185.999

191.484

197.135

202.805

208.520

214.679

221.025

9 10 11 12

Expenditures

13

Initiation costs

14 15 16

Ongoing trustee, legal

17

and fiscal consultance costs

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

18

Rent

0

1.775

1.829

1.883

1.940

1.998

2.058

2.120

2.183

19

Operation

0

2.851

2.936

3.024

3.115

3.209

3.305

3.404

3.506

20

Maintenance

0

5.274

5.274

5.432

5.595

5.763

5.936

6.114

6.297

21

Reserves for dismantling

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

23

Insurance

1.248

2.571

2.648

2.727

2.809

2.894

2.980

3.070

3.162

27

Others

5

10

11

11

11

12

12

12

13

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

19.488

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Technical Management

0

8.876

9.143

9.417

9.699

9.990

10.290

10.599

10.917

Management

0

8.876

9.143

9.417

9.699

9.990

10.290

10.599

10.917

10.476

10.790

11.114

11.447

11.791

12.144

12.509

12.884

13.271

0

28 29

Long-term interest payments

0

-1.793

55.591

52.005

48.418

44.832

41.245

37.659

34.072

30

ERP loan

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

31

DtA loan

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

32

Loan 3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

33 34

Depreciation wind turbine

0

-135.820

-135.820

-135.820

-135.820

0

0

0

0

35

Depreciation Discount DtA

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-180.660

-239.136

-236.832

-234.567

-96.522

-94.337

-92.194

-90.095

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-53.137

-45.349

-37.433

106.283

114.183

122.485

130.930

36

Total Expenditures

-36.180

39

Pre-tax result

-36.219

-1.442

40

Internal rate of return

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

41

Trade tax

0

0

0

0

0

11.975

34.350

35.975

37.625

37

0

38

42 43

Operating income statement

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-36.219

-1.442

-53.137

-45.349

-37.433

94.308

79.833

86.510

93.305

44 100

Liquidity of the company

101 102

Status begin of year

103

Operating income statement*)

104 105

5.891

-10.449

89.059

85.472

81.886

78.300

74.713

71.127

67.540

-16.731

-137.262

-188.957

-181.169

-173.253

94.308

79.833

86.510

93.305

- Redemption of loan

0

25.618

25.618

25.617

25.618

25.618

25.618

25.618

25.618

- Payments

0

9.251

60.652

68.440

76.356

72.277

57.802

64.479

71.274

-144.000

9.251

60.652

68.440

76.356

72.277

57.802

64.479

71.274

0,0%

6,4%

42,1%

47,5%

53,0%

50,2%

40,1%

44,8%

49,5%

-10.449 0

89.059 0

85.472 0

81.886 0

78.300 0

74.713 0

71.127 0

67.540 0

63.953 0

106 107

Payments in % of equity capital 109 Status end of year 108

154

Solar Cooperatives - Final Report 2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Total

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

224.885

231.631

238.580

245.738

253.110

260.703

268.524

276.580

284.878

293.424

302.227

311.293

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2.683

2.716

2.750

2.786

2.823

2.861

2.902

2.944

2.988

2.716

2.823

2.932

56.123

227.568

234.347

241.330

248.523

255.933

263.564

271.426

279.524

287.865

296.140

305.050

314.226

4.826.320

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4.770.197

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

19.488

11.244

11.582

11.929

12.287

12.655

13.035

13.426

13.829

14.244

14.671

15.111

15.565

238.510

11.244

11.582

11.929

12.287

12.656

13.035

13.426

13.829

14.244

14.671

15.111

15.565

238.510

13.669

14.079

14.501

14.936

15.384

15.846

16.321

16.811

17.315

17.835

18.370

18.921

300.412

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2.249

2.316

2.386

2.457

2.531

2.607

2.685

2.766

2.849

2.934

3.022

3.113

47.702

3.611

3.720

3.831

3.946

4.065

4.187

4.312

4.442

4.575

4.712

4.853

4.999

76.604

6.486

6.681

6.881

7.088

7.300

7.519

7.745

7.977

8.217

8.463

8.717

8.979

137.738

1.554

1.554

1.554

1.554

1.554

1.554

1.554

1.554

1.554

1.554

1.554

1.554

18.653

3.257

3.354

3.455

3.559

3.666

3.775

3.889

4.005

4.126

4.249

4.377

4.508

70.330

13

13

14

14

15

15

16

16

17

17

18

18

282

30.486

26.899

23.312

19.726

16.139

12.553

8.966

5.380

1.793

0

0

0

457.283

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

543.280

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-89.594

-87.586

-85.624

-83.712

-81.849

-80.038

-78.281

-76.578

-74.932

-75.137

-77.196

-79.316

2.270.366

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

137.974

146.762

155.706

164.812

174.084

183.526

193.145

202.946

212.933

221.002

227.854

234.909

2.555.954

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

38.950

40.700

42.475

44.300

46.175

48.100

50.050

52.050

54.100

55.900

57.600

59.375

709.700

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

99.024

106.062

113.231

120.512

127.909

135.426

143.095

150.896

158.833

165.102

170.254

175.534

1.846.254 0 0 0

63.953

60.367

56.780

53.194

49.607

46.021

42.434

38.848

35.261

7.850

7.850

7.850

1.013.554

99.024

106.062

113.231

120.512

127.909

135.426

143.095

150.896

158.833

165.102

170.254

175.534

1.322.462

25.618

25.618

25.618

25.618

25.618

25.618

25.618

25.618

25.618

0

0

0

435.505

76.992

84.030

91.200

98.480

105.877

113.395

121.064

128.864

160.626

165.102

170.254

183.384

1.979.799

76.992

84.030

91.200

98.480

105.877

113.395

121.064

128.864

160.626

165.102

170.254

183.384

1.835.799

0 53,5%

58,4%

63,3%

68,4%

73,5%

78,7%

84,1%

89,5%

111,5%

114,7%

118,2%

127,4%

14

60.367 0

56.780 0

53.194 0

49.607 0

46.021 0

42.434 0

38.848 0

35.261 0

7.850 0

7.850 0

7.850

0

1.007.663

155

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Annex 7 – The potential for PV technologies in Greece 1.

INTRODUCTION

Greece is a country with extremely high potential of PV, mainly, due to the following reasons: • high insolation all year round (among the highest in Europe) • electricity needs in the islands mostly covered by diesel/heavy oil generation units, thus resulting in high operation costs and environmental pollution • significant tourism activity during the summer (pollution in some islands increases by more than 100%), thus offering significant seasonal correlation between energy demand and photovoltaic power generation However PV market is very low developed, compared with other EU markets. In order to improve the situation, in our days a positive legislative and financing framework is formulating (deregulation of the energy market, new development Law, Operation Programme for Energy, etc).

2.

CURRENT PV TECHNOLOGIES

2.1.THE CURRENT PV WORLD-MARKET ( Sources: 1,2) • The “traditional” PV market This market, which includes applications for communications, water pumping, remote power and government demonstration projects, has an average annual growth of 15% over the past 20 years, independent of the price of PV. This market segment is therefore obviously not price sensitive. Factors other than price, such as marketing and distribution, are much more important. Some companies in the past have not understood this and have lowered their prices in order to create rapid market expansion and enlarge their market share. However, instead of achieving faster growth, they frequently made tremendous losses and most of them went out of business, doing a great disservice to the PV business. This market segment needs to be seen as a cash market. It needs no subsidies, yet the availability of credit could substantially increase the size of the market. • The “off-grid” PV market This market is not primarily price sensitive either, and its expansion depends on the available credit, rather than on prices or on the interest rates charged on loans. This market segment could experience explosive growth if credit for customers were available, and much effort is going into developing the financing of this segment. The expansion of the “traditional” and “off-grid” PV markets is strongly dependent on the global marketing and distribution of PV. The development of a conventional distribution 156

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

system started about 15 years ago. Up to then PV manufacturers had to open their own offices in most areas of the world to procure business. Today, a broad global PV industrial infrastructure exists and solar cells and panels are being manufactured as commodities. A great number of specialized companies have developed during this time, specialized in components, system design, installations or building integration; a large number of these also became specialized installers, representatives, dealers, catalogue houses, etc. The marketing and distribution of PV, like those of any other product - automobiles, electrical appliances or clothing - can only be effective and expand if proper inventory financing is available. This is important everywhere, but especially so in the developing countries. • The “urban grid-connected” PV market This market can be separated into two segments: • building facades • rooftop systems Aesthetics and utility, rather than price, are usually the primary issues in the selection of materials for building facades. Since some of the companies specializing in this area realized that the issue is not dollars/W p, but aesthetics and utility, this has become one of the fastest growing areas of the PV business. The problem is to obtain the proper mortgage and insurance facilities, not only for the buildings, but also for transportation and installation. Subsidies could certainly play a role in the expansion of this market. PV urban rooftop systems have become a fast-growing market, which exists as a result of subsidies, government regulations or peopleǯs interest in “green” energy. In this case - in the same way as for the building-facade market - the availability of subsidies and financing are more important than pricing. • The “centralized utility” market Unlike the other three market segments, the central utility market is price sensitive and therefore, while the other three PV market segments can increase on the basis of current technologies, it is believed that the centralized utility market will not do so. It will only be viable when a new, very large-scale PV production technology emerges, guaranteeing a much lower price for PV. When these lower prices are achieved, the central utilities will have no problem financing PV power plants.

2.2. CURRENT PV MARKET SEGMENTATION (Source 1) Based on CRES’ experience in Greece, the most common PV applications are represented on Table 2.1. These are the typical systems, which used for the need of the current market research.

157

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Table 2.1: “Current market segments” According to PV system type

• Grid connected systems • Autonomous systems

According to end-user (application) type

• Centralized, medium-to-large scale systems(for electrification of villages, islands, or connected to a large grid) • Residential buildings (single houses, multistore buildings, etc.) • Commercial buildings (hotels, ‘demo’ / promotional systems, etc.) • Electrification of small (possibly uninhabited) islands • Tourist sector (small hotels, archeological sites, cantinas, etc) • Ecological applications • Special (forests, shelters, etc) • Special applications: - Lighthouses - Desalination - Telecommunications - School kits

According to geographical region

• Mainland • Islands

According to ownership / decision making / • Public market control regime • Private According to user’s (or opinion leader’s) • Already aware or user of PVs previous PV experience • Not aware of PVs According to % of coverage of user’s • Full (autonomous systems) energy needs • Partial (e.g small hotels in electrified islands) • Low (PV system serves mainly for demonstration or image purposes, for example PVs in large commercial buildings)

3. The Situation A. GENERAL (Sources : 1, 3, 9 ) Although there is not a specific programme in support of PVs in Greece, there is a number of legislative measures or programmes supporting Renewable Energy Sources, whose part comprise actions related to photovoltaic systems. Additionally, CRES is the National 158

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

center for the promotion and dissemination of renewable energy sources in Greece. The Ministry of National Economy manages the Second Framework Support Programme for Greece (1994-1999) financed by national and E.U. funds within which a number of actions are being included. Table 3.1: “National management scheme for RES funds appropriation” Ministry of National Economy MANAGES the Second Framework Support Programme for Greece (1994-1999) E.U. Funds GRANTING MINISTRIES

National Funds FUNDS TO

Ministry of Development

Ministry of Interior

RUNNING Operational Energy

Programme

Operational Programme Industry Operational Programme Research & Technology

for Measures 3.2 and 2.3 for RES

Regional Operational Programmes (ROP) Divided in the 13 regions of Greece

for (RES)

for (ȆǹǺǼ,ȆǼȃǼǻ, ȆǼȆǼȇ,ȊȆǼȇ, Research Network) Investment Subsidies (including Law(2601/98) RES)

In what follows an overview of the existing programmes is given. The following laws/programmes are reviewed: Legislation (3.1- Part B) • National Development Law 2601/98 • Law 2244/94 for Renewable Energy Sources and related Presidential Decree 8295/19.4.95 • Taxable Income Rebate Programme, Law 2364/95 (Ref: article 7, paragraph 17) Programmes (3.1-Part C) • Operational Programme for Energy • Operational Programme for Research & Technology • Regional Operational Programmes 159

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Furthermore, the results of the previous study “ Quantification of non-grid-connected houses in Greece”, according the Electric Home (APAS) Programme, are presented on part D.

B. LEGISLATION • National Development Law 2601/98 (on private investment) ( Source :4) Administration level: National Scope-objectives: Reinforcement of Private Investment in Greece with a view to achieve/promote: Regional development targets; increase in employment; Greek enterprise competitiveness; production sector restructuring; exploitation of existing opportunities for the secondary sector in Greece and abroad; environmental protection and energy conservation. Mechanism: New framework for the provision of subsidies for productive investments. Subsidies in the form of partial funding of the cost of capital expense, loan interest or leasing, or, alternatively, as partial funding of the loan interest and tax breaks. Subsidies depend on geographical region, but there are few exception where they are uniform over the entire country. Among those exceptions are investments and equipment leasing for electricity production from RES or cogeneration; the maximum subsidy rates apply in these cases irrespective of the region. For the remaining RES applications subsets depend on the region, but even then the applicable rates are better than those generally applicable. Special incentives for investments over 10 and 25-60 million drs for expansion of existing units and establishment of new units, respectively (the latter depends on type of enterprise) in specific sectors. Investments and/or leasing programmes on RES are not subject to general limitations on funding ( 15 million drs per new job position). Beneficiaries / Sector: A wide range of enterprises, in various sectors. With respect to RES: energy or biomass producing enterprises, and enterprises in the secondary sector that use RES to cover their energy needs. Timing: In force from April 1998 Remarks: In addition to basically replacing L. 1892/90 & L. 2234/94, it amends a number of other laws on measures for the support and development of the national economy, tax matters, etc.

160

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

• Law 2244/94 (Source: 5) (Law for Electricity production from Renewable Energy Sources) The “Renewable Energy Law” was effected in 1994. It covers subjects regarding the electricity production from renewable sources. In April 1995 a Ministerial Decree (8295/19.4.1995) was issued, clarifying the administrative process, tackling the issues related to the licenses for installation and operation of electricity producing plants. In the same decree, a sample contract between the Public Power Corporation and the electricity producers is presented, where the details regarding the buying-back rate and the grid connection terms are included. Two categories of electricity producers are defined: Autoproducers (AP), which generate electricity to cover for their own consumption and sell only their surplus energy, if any, to the PPC. Independent power producers (IP), who sell all their production to PPC. The law removes previous restrictions for the independent production of electricity from RES, with a new maximum capacity of up to 50MW for IPs. PPC is obliged to buy all energy produced by IPs under a 10 year contract, while retaining the exclusive right to supply third parties with electricity. The law also defines explicitly the essential components of the payback tariff system followed for the power producers, correlating it with PPC’s KWh selling price. Table 3.2 : “The payback tariffs, valid since July 15th 1998” APs Energy payback 70% of KWH selling price, in Drachma

IPs Energy payback 90% of KWH selling price, in Drachma

Autonomous Island Grids

18.62

23.94

18.62

---

15.057

19.359

Interconnected system

Energy

(all Voltages)

Low Voltage Energy (220/380V) Med. Energy Voltage (6.6, 15, 20, 22 KV) Capacity

High Voltage (150KV)

Peak zone Med. zone Low zone Capacity (pea zone)

--9.835 6.818 5.054 ---

497 X ı (50%of selling tariff) 12.645 8.766 6.498 1128.5 X ı (50%of selling tariff)

Note 1: The value ı takes the following values. 0.5 for wind and solar units 161

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

0.7 for small hydro units 0.9 for geothermal and biomass units Note 2: The capacity credit is calculated on the basis of the peak-measured power output between two successive measurement periods.

• Law 2364/95 article 7, paragraph 17 (Source 6) (National Tax Deduction Scheme for Renewables and Natural Gas) At present, the only available incentive for individuals, to install photovoltaic systems, is the exemption of 75% of the purchase and installation cost of RES systems from the taxable income. This measure is important only when the individual is taxed in the higher tax brackets of 30 to 45%. For those tax brackets there is a PV system cost reduction of 22 to 34% respectively. Although this measure is welcome, it does not provide a serious incentive as it is dependent on the taxable income bracket. The associated PV system cost reduction with respect to equivalent programmes that promote RES system introduction is considered low. For companies and other legal entities the above mentioned percentage or 100% is amortized from their profits over a period of years.

C. PROGRAMMES • Operational Programme for Energy The Operational Programme for Energy was established 1996. It covers investment support in the area of renewables and rational use of energy. The public subsidies come from the European Fund for Regional Development and the Greek government. The Programme runs for 4 years (1996-1999). A minimum total budget limit of 20 million Drachmas (MDrs) exists, for proposals made for Photovoltaic systems. The photovoltaic systems are financed by 55% of their total cost, while the rest of the amount is covered by private funds. A part of the programme budget of the order of 10 billion Drs (BDrs) has been put aside to fund RES applications in the Public sector. During the first call for proposals (it expired on March 3rd 1997) there were 8 proposals regarding Photovoltaic systems, adding up to total amount of 10.16 BDrs. The total budget allocated to all RES projects over the entire programme period is 50 BDrs. Three projects were selected for financing of a total budget of 4.762 billion drachmas. A 5 MWp central system for Crete(4.7 BDrs), a PV system for a tourist business in the island of Paros (32.5 MDrs)and a PV system mounted on an industrial building (30 MDrs). The second call for proposals of the operational programme for energy expires on the 31st of October 1997.

• OPRT (Operational Programme for Research and Technology) Through the Operational Programme for Research and Technology and Subprogramme 2, actions related to the “Promotion of the R & T Activities in the field of the Environment 162

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

and environmentally sound Technologies” (Subprogramme 1, measure 1.1) and “Industrial research, technology transfer and innovation” (Subprogramme 2) the State supports research activities in the field. Subprogramme 1, Measure 1.1 supports actions in 7 thematic areas, namely 1Pollution and anti-pollution technology 2Natural disasters 3Renewable Energy Technologies and rational use of energy including solar technologies (solar thermal, active or passive systems and photovoltaics) 4Protection of quality of living conditions 5Water resources 6Renewable energy in the treatment of water effluents 7Anti-seismic constructions. The aim of Subprogramme 2 is to encourage industrial research, technology transfer and innovation both from inside the country (e.g. Universities, research centers) and from abroad. An important aim of the programme is to develop the ability for supplying consultation and technological services to enterprises through technology research and development agencies, company incubators, scientific and technology parks, technology transfer parks, quality control and certification labs and other related entities, such as ELOT, OBI, EOMMEX or ELKEPA. Subprogramme 2 is implemented through a number of activities, such as Industrial Research Development Programme (PAVE), Scholarships of Oriented Research (YPER), Cofinancing Programme (SYN) or Liaison Offices.

• Regional Operational Programmes Greece is divided into 57 prefectures, which in turn are grouped into 13 administrative regions. There are then thirteen regional programmes, one for each region. The basic lines of these programmes are the following: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Infrastructures: Road networks, Railway network, Telecomunications, Energy, Natural Gas. Living conditions: Urban development, Health, Environment Competitiveness: Industry and services, Research and Development. Tourism, Culture, Agriculture, Fisheries Human resources: Education and continuous training, modernization of Public Services

Depending on the region and the priorities set, certain actions are being formulated and launched. Areas 2 & 3 (Environment and Research & Development) concern among others the deployment of Renewable Energy Sources in the regional context. Again, no specific programme is dedicated to Photovoltaics.

163

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

D. PV ELECTRICITY MARKET SEGMENTATION (Source : 7) ( mention: APAS Programme Electric Home) 1.Autonomous houses/settlements : There is a range of such PV systems in terms of installed peak power. At this time many of those systems are made of a few panels (<500Wp) and support basic needs such as lighting, small appliances and refrigerators. Most of these systems are providing DC service, usually the small ones and some AC. The market segment above 500Wp is quite small, at this time, due to PV system cost relatively to the buying power of the potential users. In the population census by the National Statistical Service in 1991, electrified houses were considered those having an electricity source, i.e. utility grid, diesel generator, photovoltaics, wind generator, etc. Non-electrified houses were included that were seasonally or permanently occupied, scattered over the whole country, isolated, or built in areas where building is not permitted. Most of the non-electrified houses are located in rural areas. Those houses along with most of those located in semi-urban areas can be considered as the actual potential market of photovoltaics. A number of non-electrified houses are not scattered throughout the country but they belong to small villages (settlements). These houses are occupied seasonally or permanently and are located in areas far away from the national electricity grid. Taking into account the trend in electrifying non-grid-connected houses during the decade 1981-1991 an the results obtained from the analysis concerning the electrification of remote settlements, it can be concluded that the number of non-grid-connected houses since 1991 should be reduced by 20%. This means, that today there are 115000 non-grid connected houses. Amongst these, 20000 are permanently inhabited, 46000 are seasonally inhabited and 49000 are abandoned houses. Table 3.3: “Non electrified houses in Greece” Non-electrified houses in Greece 1991 census Permanently inhabited 24824 Seasonally inhabited 57922 Abandoned 60428 Total 143174

1995 estimation 19742 45816 49252 114540

On the basis of the 1991 census data, the total number of inhabited non-electrified houses is 24824, i.e. 0.79% of the total number of inhabited houses in Greece, while the number of non-electrified houses is 143174 i.e. 3% of the total number of houses (see Table 4.4). This last number includes permanently and seasonally inhabited houses an also weekend and abandoned houses. 164

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Table 3.4: “Housing classifications” 1991 Total electrified Inhabited Census houses electrified houses Quantity % Quantity %

Total non- Inhabited nonelectrified houses electrified houses Quantity

%

Quantity

%

Agricultural

1340962

29.8 840549

26.7

91728

64

16509

66.5

Semi-urban

608036

13.5 375893

12

27860

19.5

4663

18.8

Urban

2559730

56.7 1925886

61.3

23586

16.5

3652

14.7

Total

4508728

100

100

143174

100

24824

100

3142328

Most of the non-electrified houses are located in rural areas. Those houses along with most of those located in semi-urban areas can be considered as the actual potential market of photovoltaics. A number of non-electrified houses are not scattered throughout the country but they belong to small villages (settlements). These houses are occupied seasonally or permanently and are located in areas far away from the national electricity grid In the last 27 years, the number of such settlements has been reduced from 1400 in 1981, to 873 in 1991 and recently (end of 1995) in 607 (see Table 4.5). Of those settlements 373 are inhabited by 8651 people (1991 census), 100 of them have been already included in the future electrification program but most of them will remain without electricity because access by heavy duty vehicle is not possible. The total estimated number of houses in those settlements is 14000 and among those the inhabited are 2800. Table 3.5: “Permanently/Seasonally inhabited settlements” 1981 Census 1991 Census 1400 873 Permanently or (total estimated (373 inhabited Seasonally number of houses 8651 people) inhabited 14000, 2800 Settlements inhabited)

1995 (estimation) 607 by Heavy vehicle access problem faced by 14000 houses (2800 houses of those inhabited) (100 settlements already included in future electrification program)

2.Autonomous Small/Rocky islands with development potential: In this category of islands we include all those islands that have about 500 inhabitants or less, or are uninhabited for the winter season. There are at least 50 such islands that are inhabited and several hundreds that are not inhabited and have the potential for development in a environmental friendly way. The main activities that may be maintained in these islands is the ecotourism, agriculture and fishing. The development of such islands using environmental friendly technologies is very important for the improvement of 165

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

the inhabitants lifestyle. The creation of a more stable economic environment will keep the inhabitants in their islands reversing the alarming abandoning trend. There is already approximately 250 KWp of PV installed in such islands. Several of these have a local grid powered by a diesel generator. An estimation of the permanent population in this category is 5000 people. During the summer months the population in these islands may be 2 to 3 times higher than the permanent population. The power service of the local grid is usually poor and power cuts are frequent. PV systems may improve the power service, increase the income of the islanders and stabilize their population. Assuming an average introduction of 200Wp per permanent inhabitant, there is a potential PV market of 1 MWp. If the islanders are to provide services to the summer tourists then the potentially installed capacity may be a few times larger.

3.Telecommunications : This is a market that has been already economically viable around the world. In Greece, there are a few applications by the National Telecommunications company, HTO. At this time, HTO is installing 7 relay stations on Dirfi mountain series of Evia, of total power 12KWp. In 1995, HTO installed on Agio Oros 19 PV powered telephone relay stations to serve the monasteries, of total peak power 12.5 Kwp. There is also an HTO relay station in Arkadia serving 8 villages of total power 2 KWp. In 1987, a 25 KWp station was installed to power HTO telephones on the island Antikythira, financed partly by an E.U. demonstration program. The potential of this market segment in Greece is not bright according to a PV system installer. In most of the sites, where HTO is planning to install relay stations, PV systems compete with the cost of electrification by grid line extension, except for the sites that grid lines are too far or cannot be reached by trucks and the cost of opening new roads is too high.

4. Exterior lighting of roads, signaling, billboards, powering small devices etc.: This market is practically non-existent in Greece, although in other countries such as USA, Germany and Egypt there is a number of companies that are active in this field. Exterior road and park lighting and signaling The viability of such systems can be justified by: • the possible extension of the grid by digging out several meters, • bringing the grounds to their previous condition The associated cost of the above actions may be too high with respect to an autonomous PV lighting/signaling system that could be later moved again with minimal cost.

166

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

The estimated market potential can be significant, if PV lighting is examined as one of the possible solutions by municipalities, whenever the lighting of roads, parks, squares, boat marinas, docks etc. is being planned. PV lighting will not always be the most appropriate solution, due to cost and to the possible combination of high power lighting application and limited area availability of PV surface on a pole. A PV system for street lighting, with two 50-55Wp modules, a 18 to 36W low pressure Sodium or fluorescent lamp and the associated electronics, battery, pole etc., costs from 900.000 to 1.000.000 Dra. Advertising board lighting This is a market with considerable potential. Any given site that has potential for promotion of products and does not have reasonably easy access to the grid can be a money making location for the advertising companies when lighted by a PV system. Such PV systems could have a significant potential if the advertising companies become aware of such a possibility. Small devices Possible candidates to be powered by photovoltaics are small devices such as : parking ticket issuing machines, lighting of public HTO (national telecommunications company)card-phones etc. If for example, HTO decides to light 10.000 card-phones by PV, with an installed power of 30Wp per card-phone, then the total PV power would be 300kWp. The PV powered parking ticket machine introduction is possible application that frees the local authorities from the electric grid and all the necessary ground work to power the parking ticket machines. The economic viability of many of the above PV applications have to be determined on a case by case basis.

4. Conclusions 4.1 General Most of the non-grid-connected houses, permanently inhabited, are located in remote mountainous regions where the access is very difficult due to the lack of accessible roads. They are old houses, made of stones, bricks or concrete blocks and covered by tiles, flagstones, metal sheets or a concrete terrace. Most of them are south facing, nonshaded and have available roof area for a PV system or enough free space for ground installation. They are occupied by their proprietors who are poor people, mainly dealing with stock farming or agriculture, have a poor knowledge of photovoltaic systems and cannot afford a PV system. Conventional electric appliances are used when a diesel generator is available. DC appliances are used in combination with PV systems and batteries. The most important electricity needs to be satisfied are : lighting, refrigeration and TV operating in DC mode. The theoretical potential for the application of photovoltaics in nongrid-connected houses in Greece is estimated to be about 32 MWp, assuming an average 167

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

occupation of 3 inhabitants per house and 200Wp per inhabitant (the abandoned houses are not included). Although the theoretical potential is considerably high, the actual potential is lower considering that a significant number of non-grid-connected houses may be electrified after legitimization and that most of the owners cannot afford the cost of a PV system without financial support.

4.2. Critical issues ( Sources: 1,2) The PV market research in Greece, included the Regional Energy Agencies reports and the current situation even on international level, indicates the major parameters for the farther PV market penetration: • assured quality • advertising, training, promotion, and education • financing of PV products and systems ǹ. Quality of products and systems The issue of quality of PV products and systems is very important. Many PV component and system failures have been reported, especially in off-grid rural electrification projects. This inconsistency of quality thus became an important issue, affecting not only the financing, but also the future of the entire PV business. This issue was realized by the PV industry and its major customers, who established the PV Global Approval Programme.

Ǻ. Public awareness and creating markets There is a great need for advertising of PV, as well as for training, promotion and education. In the oil-crisis era of the 1970s, when the terrestrial PV business began, the quantity of media attention, focused on the then-minuscule PV business, was significant and helped the establishment of PV in many market segments. However, the media attention stopped in the 1980s and today the public is not aware of the extent to which PV is already being utilized. The general belief is that PV is for the future. Ii is not wide known that without PV, there would be no global communication, no global email, Internet, TV, telephone, fax, because all the satellites used for these functions are 100% powered by PV. There are no exact figures on how much the entire PV industry is spending on advertising, but as a first estimation that the relevant budget is much less than 5 million dollars per year, less than 0,5% of the total revenues. If it was clear that the PV market is not primarily price sensitive, and that large market share could be obtained by advertising rather than by lowering prices, the PV industry would be now in a better condition. The PV industry today is not in the position to invest 168

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

the necessary funds in advertising and in public awareness campaigns. Yet this is a crucial issue for the future of the PV business and should be addressed urgently. The creativity of the PV industry, and also of other interested parties, is needed to mobilize resources for advertising, promotion and education/training. A discussion on the issue is to take place as well as solutions are to be found.

C. Finance and future It was established a few years ago that financing of PV installations would be crucial for their future. The urban grid-connected and, to some extent, the off-grid markets are also dependent on subsidies. The merits and demerits of subsidies can be debated endlessly. If they are for the long term, subsidies are necessary and beneficial. However, short-term subsidies would be detrimental for the PV business. It is urgent to develop financing mechanisms for photovoltaic systems. The lack of financing available for customers is an enormous handicap to the development of the PV business. Much PV business in the developed countries and two billion potential customers in the developing countries need financing. This means that the matter of financing PV is very complex. Several interesting approaches are being tried and are planed and various meetings have focused on this very complicated issue and try to find solutions

4.3 The potential (Sources: 1, 8) The Greek PV market has rapidly grown during the last few years. The existing of European, National and Regional Programmes (THERMIE, VALOREN, ALTENER, ǼȆǼ, ǼȆǼȉ, etc.), reinforces the promotion of PV applications. These Programmes provide support and information for the dissemination of know-how. Similarly, the establishment of a favorable institutional and legislative framework (Energy Law 2244/94, the new Development Law 2601/98, etc.), has created very positive conditions for the PV technology and investments. The current demand of PV applications in Greece is presented on D.1.

169

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

D.1: The most attractive applications (% demand ) External lighting Households

10% 29% 14% 16% 19% 13%

Connected Agricultural Transceivers Navigation 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

The houses/settlements on isolated areas (islands-continental), are presented as the most attractive application for the users (29%). Followed by the transceivers (19%), the agricultural applications (16%), the connected with the grid (14%) and the navigation applications (13%).

The above demand arises from the needs and the motives of users, which are: • electrification for isolated-faraway areas………………………48% • ecological sensitization…………………………….…………..20% • electrification-connection with grid……………………………12% • independence from PPC (power failure, taxes, etc.)…………….8% • energy saving……………………………………………………8% • attractive finance………………………………………………..4%

The total installed power is about 635 kW.

4.4 The barriers (Sources: 1, 8) The most important barriers existing for the dissemination of PV applications are identified during the project and summarized as follows: • The high cost of PV systems. • The lack of small PV demonstration projects (completed and under operation) in different geographical areas, which would operate as an example. • The lack of cost-utility studies for the realization of various PV projects which would be operated by specialists as practical guides. 170

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

• The inadequate financing sources and relevant programmes (national or regional) for the realization of small demonstration projects. In certain cases a significant strengthening of the financing support must take place at regional and local level. • The inadequate economic motives for the purchase and installation of PV applications from individuals. • The limited information of users (lack of training seminars, personal contacts, etc.). • The need for more information for the study and the supervision of a PV construction in local level (the centralization of experience and know-how in urban centers). • The weaknesses of a legislative framework to support the obligatory use of RES in public projects. • The need for farther cooperation between government bodies, regions and market actors (information for European-National-Regional Programmes).

4.5 Recommendations (Sources: 1, 2, 8) The PV market has been and will be expanded rapidly in the future in its major market segments. The main obstacle to the explosive expansion of the PV market is neither technology nor price. It may be focused on the financing and advertising. D .2 : D is se m ina tio n fa c to rs (% o f utility ) A d ver tisin g E n vir on m en t

23% 13% 25% 23% 11% 2% 3%

F in a n cin g su p p or t B a n k in g L icen ses L ow ta x a tion B u r ea u cr a cy 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

The need to develop financing methods, distribution mechanisms and infrastructure was realized a few years ago and the complex problems have been discussed in various studies and meetings with the result that some progress is being achieved. However, the need for advertising, training, promotion, and education is only now being recognized. The lack of these basic elements is a formidable obstacle to the future of PV, and the PV community must focus on this matter urgently.

171

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

6

REFERENCES

1. Unpublished data, CRES, 1995-1998 2.“Renewable ENERGY World Journal”, November 1998 3. S. Tselepis, “PV support and promotion mechanisms in Greece”, pages 3352-3355, Proceedings of “2nd World Conference on PV Solar Energy”, Vienna, July 1998 4.“National Development Law 2601/98” 5.“Law 2244/94-For Electricity Production from RES” 6.“Law 2364/95-National Tax Deduction Scheme for RES and Natural Gas” 7.“Quantification of non-grid-connected houses in Greece, Electric Home (APAS)” - Contract No. RENA-CT94-0045 8.“Market research for the PV systems in Greece”, I. Mavrogiannis, T. Tsoutsos, S. Tselepis, 6th National Congress for the optimization of energy procedures, Volos, 3-5 November 1999 9.“PV Dissemination Strategy Group”, THERMIE STR -0429-95-DE

172

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Annex 8 – The potential for wind technologies in Greece

1. Current situation (sources 1,2) Greece is a nearly ideal area for harnessing wind energy. It has over 1000 islands, (representing 20% of Greece’s total area), sea wind speed exceeding 7,5 m/s and in some areas 10 m/s. Wind energy has been used in Greece for centuries to grind grain and for irrigation. The distribution of wind energy installations by region is presented on Table 1.1.

12000

10000

Regions

8000

6000

4000

2000

0 CRETE

S.AEGEAN

N.AEGEAN

MAINLAND

Generation (kW)

Table 1.1: “Wind energy converters by region in Greece” (source 1) 173

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Extensive wind measurements were carried out in Greece during the 1980’s and 1990’s by the Public Power Corporation (PPC) and the Centre for Renewable Energy Sources (CRES). These demonstrated that substantial amounts of electricity could be generated largely from wind resources especially in the Aegean islands and Crete. In 1993, PPC and CRES used these measurements to prepare the Wind Atlas of Greece, showing the regions that offered the best opportunities for wind power generation. PPC holds the exclusive right to transmit and distribute electricity, and produces 99,1% of the total production of electricity. The generating systems of PPC consist of lignite-fired and hydro-electric units in the mainland and almost entirely of oil-fired units in Crete, Rhodes and the rest of the Greek islands. Recently renewable energy sources and mainly wind energy, have gained ground in the production of electricity in Aegean islands. The implementation of Law 2244/94 of October 1994 ended a forty-five year monopoly on electric power production by the state-controlled PPC. This law allows the private sector and industrial concerns to establish and operate power stations to produce electric power from renewable sources either for their own use or for resale to the PPC ( Table 1.2). REGION

POWER (MW)

CRETE

59,900

SOUTH AEGEAN

18,740

NORTH AEGEAN

1,825

MAINLAND

105,500

TOTAL

185,965

Table 1.2: “Licenses for electricity generation from wind energy converters based on Law 2244/94” (source 1) As a result of this Law and its implementing Presidential Decrees and Ministerial Decisions, many and especially foreign manufacturers of wind generators have been attracted to this newly-opened market. Many are now trying to identify local joint-venture partners for the creation of wind parks in Greece. Another major government task in the electric energy field is to open the Greek market within the framework of EU market liberalization. By 2001, Greece will have to allow competition for the production of 22% of the electric energy consumed by industries with over 40 GWh annual consumption. Even though no more than twenty units corresponding to 20 MW have been installed over the last five years, rapid development is foreseen over the next years. Experts believe that new projects in the private sector will add a further capacity of 100 MW by the year 2000. Official data show that about 0,3% of the nation’s energy needs are accommodated by wind power. Data on wind energy availability indicate that about 12-15% of the national energy demand could come from wind. 174

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

The total Greek market for renewable energy equipment was about US $175 million in 1997. Imports supply approximately 90,4% of the market. Based on positive, but realistic scenarios made by the government and market experts, the total Greek market for wind generators is estimated to reach US $520 million by the year 2000. The current capacity of wind energy generators, (which presented on Figure 1.3), separated as follows: • Generation by the PPC • Generation by autoproducers

30000

Generation (kW)

25000 20000 Generation by PPC Generation by autoproducers TOTAL

15000 10000 5000 0 1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

Years

Figure 1.3: “Electricity generation from wind-energy converters” (source 1) The first category represents the 87,5% of the total installed wind power (24.300 kW), something which depicts the monopoly on electric power production by the PPC. The number of such units is about 131 and their net electricity generation considered about 34.145 MWh. By autoproducers, the installed power approaches the 3.490 KW, by 25 units with net electricity generation about 2.771 MWh. During 1998, additional three wind energy production units were installed (Table 1.4): REGION

POWER (MW)

CRETE

10,000

SAMOS

0,750

SIROS

0,500

175

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

TOTAL

11,250

Table 1.4: “Electricity generation from wind energy converters during 1998” (source 1) An end -user analysis separates the market demand in two segments: • Public sector demand Municipalities, ministries, airports, hospitals and military installations are the governmentcontrolled entities that are the main purchasers of wind products through the tenders. • Private sector demand Uses for wind farms, pharmaceutical, poultry farm, ceramic, remote homes, water pumping and demonstration projects are the major wind energy needs by this sector. The wind energy market in Greece is very promising. Over the next years the dramatic market liberalization and solid growth in demand will together create significant opportunities in this industry sector. The Greek government and the European Union has financially supported the development and promotion of wind energy installations The Greek government has a policy of attracting foreign investment and technology in order to increase the quality of domestically produced products. According to the data of the Ministry of National Economy, US $25 million in new investments in Renewable Energy equipment and manufacturing was approved by the Greek government in 1995-1996 (Crete, Rhodes, Evia, Lakonia). This includes investments in buildings, land and equipment. During 1998 have additionally issued 6 licenses for wind energy supported by the Operational Programme for Energy (OPE, measure 3.2). The amount of each project budget and the finance of the Ministry of Development is being attached (Table 2.1) FIRM

BUDGET

FINANCE

Aeolian Neoriou BC

924.000.000

369.600.000

EN TE KA Wind Parks BC

494.457.000

197.782.800

Energy Net LTD

136.769.000

54.707.600

Rokas Wind SA

8.760.000.000

3.504.000.000

Rokas Wind Evia SA

8.641.500.000

3.456.600.000

Terna Energy SA

3.868.552.000

1.547.420.800

22.825.278.000

9.130.111.200

TOTAL

Table 2.1.: “Licenses approved by OPE on 1998 - finance / budget on Drs.” (source 4) The Greek policy concerning investment activity is contained in a number of laws which establish a variety of financing mechanisms and incentives for investors in the public and private sectors. Grants for machinery and buildings, interest rate subsidies, tax-free 176

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

allowances, extra depreciation rates, lower social security contributions and favorable tax rates indicates the provided incentives. Within the context of existing provisions of Law 2244/94, Law 2601/98 and EU financial incentives (Second Framework Support Programme), the annual growth of the total market of wind energy equipment and products over the 1995-1997 was approximately 5-7%. In the contrary, a significant increase is expected by taking into account the operation of some approved windparks during 1999. The greatest portions in the EU wind market are presented on Figure 2.2 Greece possess just the 0,6% of the total installed capacity in EU, when the 2/3 of this market almost monopolized by Germany (43,5%) and Denmark (23,3%).

Germany 43,5% Greece 0,6%

Denmark 23,3% Netherlands UK 6,9% 6,9%

Rest Europe 5,6% Spain 10,7% Sweden 2,5%

Fig. 2.2.”Portions of EU/Wind market (MW) by 1997” (source 3) The average annual growth of the EU/Wind market during 1993-1997 estimated about 38% (source BTM Consult ApS, own calculations). 2. Objectives of the wind industry/suppliers (sources 1.2) In Greek wind energy market there are approximately 45 commercial enterprises dealing with the import, supply and servicing of wind energy products. From them, only one is wind generator manufacturer. The other firms, manufacture the metallic parts and supports for the wind generators under license. These are SMEs with modern production units, well organized with their own local sales network. The industry has around 800 employees. Domestic production of wind energy equipment will continue to grow during the next years as manufacturers reassess their business strategy and improve their product quality. Recently all major manufacturers have started to upgrade their products to ISO 9000 standards to comply with EU standards. Raw material costs are the most significant production cost for the wind products, followed by labor, transportation and energy costs. Greece depends considerably on the imports of raw materials for the production of wind generators. The most companies are equipped with up-to-date equipment, follow the

177

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

developments of recent technology and take the necessary steps to comply with EU product specifications. Geographic position, product quality, established marketing arrangements and preferential tariff treatment have enabled the EU to acquire a major share of the Greek market. Scandinavian, German, French and British wind energy products dominant the market, supplying more than 70% of total imports. Their market strength lies in their knowledge of market, the use of the metric measurement system, the offer of financial support to Greek importers in product promotion, the frequent on-sight visits and the assistance in obtaining certification of their products and a number of other services. The key for someone to success in the Greek wind-industry is to have an experienced agent or joint venture partner with a suitable background, experience and extensive sales network, who can offer full customer support, including after sales service. The most important competitive factor that influences the sales of wind products is the close relation between the manufacturer, agent, distributor and the end-user. Important innovation strategies in enterprises is also required. Innovation is the commercial exploitation of an investment. An invention mainly involves a technical development. Innovation on the other hand requires a broaden range of business skills including marketing, management, training, financial and legal skills. Innovative enterprises derive their technology from a wide range of sources, they collaborate more, they have a more formal innovation support structure, they employ a higher proportion of graduates and they can make more effective use of the higher education sector . The need to develop financing methods, distribution mechanisms and infrastructure were realized a few years ago and the complex problems are being addressed in various studies and meetings with the result that some progress is being achieved. However, the need for advertising, training, promotion, and education is only now being recognized, The lack of these, is a formidable obstacle to the future of wind energy, and the “Wind community” must focus on this matter urgently. 3. References

1. CRES’ data, 1990-1998 2. “Wind energy equipment market report”, prepared by American Embassy in Athens, May 1997

3. Renewable Energy World journal, January 1999 th 4. Energy & Development newsletter - OPE, 6 edition, August 1998

178

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Annex 9 – The potential for renewable energy technologies in Italy 1.

Analysing basic patterns, requirements and options 1.1 The electricity sector in Italy and the role of renewables Organisation / institutional issues In which way is the electricity supply in Italy and Greece organised (role of utilities, role of governments, role of independent power producers etc.)? For more than 25 years Italian customers have been supplied by ENEL (Ente Nazionale per l’Energia Elettrica), turned two years ago a private company. This change was decided by the Italian Government in order to accomplish U.E. regulations about monopolies. Even before this change, Italy had some independent producers which could generate electricity somehow for their internal consumption, somehow for selling to the national company. A variety a laws rejecting or helping the sell of auto-produced electricity have come out in the last months. On one hand U.E. directives are heading to maximum liberalisation, on the other, their effective employment is not so immediate. In the course of the last ten years or so, has there been a growing recognition of solar and wind electricity by politics, utilities and the general public in your country? Is this reflected in the implementation of programmes and initiatives? Italian national company for electricity (ENEL) has developed in the last years programs and projects to realise renewable power plants, mainly exploiting hydro power (which nowadays represent about 20% of all the Italian electricity production). Wind energy has been taken into consideration, too, and applied in some target areas, reaching good results, though not even comparable with the hydro ones. Private consumers, instead, have looked for and applied solar energy on their own construction and exclusively for self-consuming. Demand side How has the consumption developed over the last decades (1960, 1970, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 1997)? Statistical analyses show how Italian energy consumption has strongly increased during the last years, with more than one hundred per cent rate. As the graph below remarks, most of the local consumption is due to industry, whose energy demand has become three times greater and represents half of the whole consumption.

179

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Electricity consumption in Italy (GWh) 57217 51973 4518

1990

52730 42271

4228 29910 3280

1980

23169 2600

1646

1970

1960

99818

578

Tertiary

100040

Industry

81281

19395 15719

9429 9560

Domestic Use

37836

27697 18015

12154 11154

119471

44501

Agricultural

69416

1107

741

129700

48466

43202

Source: ENEL annual report, 1996 Domestic use, tertiary and agricultural have increased, from the 60’s up to now [as it is shown in the figure above], as well by a 500 per cent growth rate, though the last one still constraints just a small percentage of the all demand. What is the future trend for electricity consumption? Projections for the future are based on some assertions, whose certainty is rarely unpredictable. Anyway, considering technology improves and the major request of electricity for living and working, the growth rate should be constant or slightly higher. One of the area mainly interested might be the tertiary. Supply side What is the structure of the electricity supply in Italy (share of fuels (gas, fossil, nuclear, renewables))? According to the ENEL statistics (1996) the share of fuels is represented in the chart below. Share

FUEL Solid fuels Oil products Gas Renewables Total

Value Mtoe 6.4 25.4 9.4 10.0 51.2

Share % 18.4 49.6 12.5 19.5 100

Rnwbls

Gas

Solid fuels

Oil prdcts

Source: ENEL annual report, 1996 It’s clearly shown the relevance of oil products among all and the big role played by renewables, (mainly hydroelectricity). 180

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

As far as nuclear is concerned, Italian policies banned it after a population vote, held ten years ago. How can the electricity share of renewables be subdivided (PV, wind, hydro, biomass etc.)? More than 90% of the share of the renewables in Italy is due to hydropower. Italy has a long and old tradition in obtaining electricity from water as the land has always been generous in rivers and men smart enough to use them. MW 16054,4 18,6 5,4 495 167,8

Hydro Wind PV Geothermical Biomass

GWh 37780,8 9,9 4,2 3435,6 387,1

Source: ENEL annual report, 1996 Wind, PV and all the other are gaining ground, of course, but their potentialities are few compared with hydro (that does not mean: no need to investigate and use them) How has the share of renewables developed over the last years? Italy has exploited its potential for hydropower since the very beginning. That’s why this share has been around 10% for many years. All other renewables, though incentivated, are becoming available, but at the same time are unable to grow high in share for the limited plant capacities compared to Italian hydroelectricity. How has the number and capacity of PV and wind plants developed over the last years? A useful comparison has outline the difference between today and 5 years ago. Going back before the 1990 is not useful as PV as wind plant were mere topics for academic conferences rather than for working plants. As the picture below shows the increase in wind power has been continuous and wide, letting hope for a positive future.

PV and Wind power production (GWh) 40,0 30,0 PV

20,0

Wind plant

10,0 0,0

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

Source: ENEL annual report, 1996 What is the future trend for the diffusion of renewables? Which changes do you expect here with regard to the liberalisation of the electricity market in Europe? Italy is going to become a fertile land for energy investors. Monopoly will 181

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

disappear and free market will rule. Private companies will produce electricity, will use it and will sell it to anyone who would buy it. Reminding that Italy signed Kyoto agreements and is striving to manage high efficiency plant with minimum environmental impact, all renewable forms of energy will be sustained. 1.2 Elucidation of the legal and economic situation 1.2.1 Current laws, regulations and initiatives fostering electricity generation from Renewable Energy Sources (RES) The current laws and the regulations formulated for the technical development of NRES are funded essentially on the “Energetic National Plan” of 1998 (Piano Energetico Nazionale – 1998 PEN 98) based on the laws n. 9 and n. 10 of 1992 and on the PROVVEDIMENTO CIP 6/92. The most important principle of these laws is the one contained in the art. 1 of the law n. 9: “the NRES have to be considered a public usefulness and benefit”. In a operative sense, it can be considered the art. 2, describing the actuation of PEN, the art. 3 in which is programmed the agreement between the Ministry of Industry (MICA) and ENEA about the NRES use, the art. 5 says that the regional Institutions have to organise the regional plan of NRES, in collaboration with ENEA. The laws n. 9 allows the self-production of electricity and the transfer to ENEL (art. 22). This is possible after a notification to MICA and a convention with ENEA. The selling prices are established by CIP 6/92, according to the energetic index of the plant. The energetic index is function of electricity self-produced, heat produced and primary fuel supply. ENEL charges customers just for supplying electricity and not according to the source ENEL uses to produce it. The above description shows that the laws presented give regulation and financial support, but don’t provide and organic strategy of action in developing the use of NRES. In other words the issues foster the private initiatives, but they don’t co-ordinate those initiatives. As a matter of fact the law n. 9 and CIP 6/92 hasn’t succeed the expected results so that, this is one of the reason that brought to the decision of cessation of these issues. Thus a new formulation of the regulation on NRES development appear appropriate, as shown in the conclusive document of the “Carpi Commission” (points 1.5 and 3.7): “the NRES are the most important target policy of energy and environment…so, the supporting issues are to be reviewed in order to correct the limitations appeared during the past four years”. In any case, in the Italian legislation the most important and suitable support initiative for the NRES development is the law 29/12/1997. It foresees fiscal reductions amounting to the 41% of the investment in the realisation of energy systems implementing NRES. The maximum cost allowed amounts to Lit 150.000.000 (77.470 EURO) including VAT This initiative has a duration period of two year, from 1998 to 1999. 1.2.2 Economic situation for RET in Greece and Italy Investment costs (value 1997) PV - The investment cost of PV can be considered, in a conservative way, 9 4.648.110-8.263.310 EURO/MW (9-16⋅10 Lit/MW). In 2010 it should be reduced 9 to 2.582.280-3.098.740 EURO/MW (5-6⋅10 Lit/MW), thank to the development of technology. 182

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

WIND – The investment costs can be considered decreasing with the growth of 9 the market sector. Actually they amount to 774.690 EURO/MW (1,5⋅10 Lit/MW). HYDRO – At the end of 1996, the hydropower installed was 13900 MW for power plants more than 10 MW and 2150 MW for power plant less than 10 MW (375 MW of them for power plant less than 1 MW). CONVENTIONAL POWER STATIONS – The investment costs 774.6909 1.032.910 EURO/MW (1,5-2⋅10 Lit/MW). A law of 1988 excluded the electricity production with nuclear power plants. In the following table the power plants investment costs for Italy until 2010 are reported. The PV investment cost are evaluated, in the most realistic way, in the 9 range 4.648.110-8.263.310 EURO/MW (9-16⋅10 Lit/MW). Technology

Invest. Cost EURO/MW 9 [10 Lit/MW]

PV

4.648.1108.263.310 [9-16] Wind 929.620774.690 [1,8-1,5] Hydro > 10 MW 2.840.510 [5,5] Hydro <= 10 2.840.510 MW [5,5]

Power 19962000 MW 24

Costs 103 EURO 9 [10 Lit] 206.480 [400]

670

619.750 [1.200]

450

1.291.140 [2.500] 877.980 [1.700]

311

Power 20012010 MW 250 2.250 850

Costs 103 EURO 9 [10 Lit] 1.187.85 0 [2.300] 1.755.95 0 [3.400] -

Total power 1996-2010 MW 270 2900 450

2.375.70 1.150 0 [4.600] Source: ENEA Libro Verde sulle Fonti Rinnovabili di Energia, 1998.

Total Costs 103 EURO 9 [10 Lit] 1.394.430 [2.700] 2.375.70 0 [4.600] 1.291.140 [2.500] 3.253.680 [6.300]

Production costs and retail prices PV – Actually the electricity production cost from PV plants grid-connected is in the range 0,26-0,52 EURO/kWh (500-1000 Lit/kWh) and the possibilities of reducing them in the short time seem to be very low, mainly referring to the large plant. So, the large PV power plants grid-connected are not appropriate at the moment. On the other hand, the development of the PV market in the “stand alone” plants (houses and urban infrastructures) seems to be more quick. WIND – The wind energy market actors in Italy come from the national industry, but there is also a significant presence of foreign operator, in particular the Danish ones, who have reduced the production costs by the constant increasing the middle class power range up to 600kW. The production costs amount to 0,08-0,1 EURO/kWh (150-200 Lit/kWh). In the following tables the production values are evaluated, they seem to be still quite low.

183

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

WIND POWER PLANT IN ITALY 1995 Power (MW)

1996

21,9

69,7

Electricity production (MWh) 9 900 32 700 Source: ENEA Libro Verde sulle Fonti Rinnovabili di Energia, 1998. On the basis of Law CIP6/92, wind plants projects amounting to 740 MW were started, but at the end of 1997 only 80 MW of that power were really functioning. HYDRO – In the last years, the attention has been addressed to the low power hydro plants (less than 10 MW). In fact, now they are considered economically convenient because today there is a real difficulty in finding sites suitable for high and medium power hydro plants. Actually the production costs is about 0,02-0,04 EURO/kWh (40-80 Lit/kWh). The following table shows the regional diffusion of hydro power plants (after APEI). Region Abruzzo Basilicata Calabria Campania Emilia-Romagna Friuli-Venezia Giulia Lazio Liguria Lombardia Marche Molise Piemonte Toscana Trentino-AltoAdige Sardegna Umbria Valle D’Aosta Veneto Interregional

Power<3MW N° ent. N° imp. 4 4 2 2 5 6 4 4 9 9 43 68 6 14 5 7 62 89 11 18 5 7 123 186 22 23 117 143

Power >3MW N° ent. N° imp. 2 2

2

2

4 2 2

9 2 3

11 1 6 1

25 1 12 2

5 5 10 14 40 56 1 6 13 4 Total 479 668 36 N° ent. = Number of enterprises operating in each field N° imp. = Number of power plants in each field

22 68 148

Total N° ent. N° imp. 6 6 2 2 5 6 4 4 9 9 45 70 6 14 9 16 64 91 13 21 5 7 134 211 23 24 123 155 1 2 5 5 10 14 41 78 10 81 515 816

Source: ENEA Libro Verde sulle Fonti Rinnovabili di Energia, 1998. CONVENTIONAL POWER STATIONS - In the evaluation of the power production with conventional plants, amounting to 0,04-0,08 EURO/kWh (80 – 150 Lit/kWh), it has to take in account the cost generated by the environmental damage, amounting to 0,03-0,05 EURO/kWh (65-106Lit/kWh) for oil plant and 0,01-0,03 EURO/kWh (28-51 Lit/kWh) for gas plants.

184

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Obstacles to the dissemination of RET PV • Investment cost still too high • Lack of a supporting policy WIND • The complexity of the geographical areas related to the wind power plant determines a difficult evaluation of the suitable sites. • The suitable sites are often in remote areas, non grid-connected • Lack of a national certification system • Requirement of a large amount of investment for the development of a national market HYDRO • Complexity of the authorization path, due to the particular situation of the plant in regions (mountainous ones) often characterized by environmental restrictions. • Large amount of investment, especially for low power plants in which there isn’t a convenient return on investment. Demand A real variety of demand can be granted especially in PV applications. The most important are: • So-called professional application, such as remote sensing, telecommunications, cathodic protection of metallic devices. In these applications the PV technology is convenient and competitive. • Electrification of villages non grid-connected. Power devices of 0.5-3 kW. • Illumination of remote areas (archaeological sites, airports in little islands). • Desalinisation devices. • High power plant (100 kW-3 MW) grid-connected. 1.3 Clarification of technical, infrastructural and socio-cultural features 1.3.1 Technical aspects Italian regulations are based on the National Energetic Plan (PEN) issued in 1988, strengthen by law 9/91 and 10/91 whose appliance was assured by the PROVVEDIMENTO CIP 6/92. Other several agreements, laws and disposals were stated, even if the threshold for the laws analysis is represented by the ones above mentioned. Those resolutions mainly encourage diffusion, realisation and exploitation of renewable energy sources including cogeneration plants, whose “utilisation is considered of public interest ad utility” (art. 1, law 10/91). Projects must be proposed to a commission which decides the ones to put on work according to some energy index previously chosen. On the local view, Regions are obliged to plan the use of renewable, i. e. pointing at goal areas and looking for financial resources. Financial aid is supported by the State but practically worked by Regions, which are also in charge of stating local rules to apply Government laws. Law 9/91 gives the right to self-produce electricity and/or sell to the national grid at certain prices and conditions detailed in CIP 6/92. Recently (January 98) this CIP 6 was stalled, freezing the growing free market of energy. Anyway the E.U. directive 96/92/CEE must be receipted as soon as possible. 185

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

Do they restrict it? There are some restrictions especially for wind plant: laws tend to protect landscape and environment, through the release of authorisations for soil use, building, landscape impact, seismic stability, flying safety. To obtain those authorisations two or three years are taken. How would they affect the realisation of "Solar Cooperatives"? Solar Cooperatives operating with wind energy plant will be fully enclosed in this long procedure, while for PV plants there would not be those problems. Actually are being studied some integrated project for PV applications in building facilities. For grid-connected options: Are there areas which cannot be considered for larger scale "Solar and Wind Cooperatives" (capacity of more than ... MW) without upgrading the grid first? Not really. Technical potential Considering prevailing irradiation and wind patterns: Which geographic areas should primarily be considered (e.g. proven record of a wind speed that makes exploitation of this resource economically viable). Most of Italian wind plants are installed in two basins: Sardinia and the coast along Southern Adriatic sea (i. d. Apulia, Basilicata, and Abruzzo Regions), whose wind characteristics make economically feasible those kind of plants. As far irradiation is concerned, the best target is represented by South Italy (Sicily, Calabria and Apulia Region) and the lower Central. In those areas Summer temperatures reach as high as 40°C and the climate along the year is warm. Is there a technical potential for the realisation of "Solar Cooperatives" in remote, non grid-connected areas (see first interim report "3.2.5" and Fig. 5) (Italy: there are quite a number of small islands in the Tyrrhenian Sea. Can we consider them?)? In those areas could be implemented several projects of energy from renewable, hybrid plants, even joined with some desalinisation plants. Anyway more detailed studies will be needed to assure pay outs. Islands targets: Eolie, Lipari, Lampedusa, Pantelleria, Tremiti Could "Solar Cooperatives"-plants in those areas be related to the supply of community facilities (hospitals, schools) in their surroundings? Small islands or communities could research integrated supplies of water and electricity. Have some community facilities in your country got a supply from RET to which we could refer? Please make a first check. No. With regard to your own survey/questionnaire: Do people in your country also prefer “non grid-options” for “Solar Cooperatives”? According to the psychological point of view, Italy today is a fertile land for exploiting non grid solutions, as people are looking for the common services offered by new “societies” detached from previous monopolies, following the spirit of globalisation markets.

186

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

1.3.2 Infrastructural aspects Weigh up the pros and cons of locating plants for "Solar and Wind Cooperatives" in: Urban areas Rural areas High or low according to Not disturbing if far away Noise level the present one. Problems from populated areas especially at night. Merging with industrialised Strong Visual impact city Short daily home-work Maybe long home-work People travel travel Facilities supply Already present Maybe to be taken (electricity, water, etc.) Future repowering Hard Easy (enlarging process) Regarding photovoltaic plants: Where should those be installed (roofs/facades, noise protection barriers, meadows etc.; see interim report item "3.2.6" and Fig. 6)? Please combine results from the first questionnaire and your own survey in Italy. The situation in1996 is represented in the table below. As it’s clearly shown, most of the electricity produced is supplied to non electrified houses and given to the grid. The biggest plants are installed among wide spaces, while small ones are optimi for little utilities. As small utilities can not generally afford an investment in self-use wind plant (long pay-back time periods mainly) wind cooperatives could get simple users needs and satisfy them with an investment divided into a variety of promoters. 1996 Area Category Installed Produce Power d Energy (kWp) (MWh) N/on housing Pumping water 1 000 1 056 Applications Professional 1 900 1 306 Agricultural 1 350 1 402 Other 400 400 Total 4 650 4 164 Rural houses Isolated Houses 4 400 4 454 Electrification Other 300 360 Total 4 700 4 814 GridPlaced on 260 150 connected Roofs plants Placed on <100 kWp 80 65 other sites 3100 1350 100÷1000 kWp > 1000 kWp 2970 3438 Total 6150 4853 TOTAL 15760 13981 Source: ENEA Libro Verde sulle Fonti Rinnovabili di Energia, 1998.

187

Solar Cooperatives – Final Report

→ Which facilities could and should in those areas be mainly supplied (schools, remote villages, plants for drinking water purification, drinking water pipes, telecommunication facilities; see Fig. 4 of interim report and results of your own survey)? Especially facilities related to promote an improving living conditions such as solving, for instance, the lack of water in the south through a very hybrid solution (wind, PV and desalinisation plant). Schools, hospitals, private houses, hotels are the main targets.

References - ENEL Dati statistici sull’energia in Italia, 1996. - ISES ITALIA Stato dell’arte delle fonti energetiche e rinnovabili in Italia, 1996 - ISES ITALIA Le barriere alla diffusione delle fonti energetiche rinnovabili: come th superarle, Workshop proceedings, Rome 4 June 1997. - ISES ITALIA – ENEA Le applicazioni fotovoltaiche per usi civili e rurali nei Comuni rd d’Italia, Workshop proceedings, Gubbio 23 June 1997. - ENEA Libro Verde sulle Fonti Rinnovabili di Energia, 1998. - ISES ITALIA – ENEA Energia elettrica dal sole, 1998. - Paolo Oliva Il ruolo del distributore di energia per la diffusione delle soluzioni sostenibili, ISES ITALIA Quaderni del sole, n. 4, April-June 1998. -Paolo Vaccari Fonti rinnovabili ed incentivi all’edilizia, ISES ITALIA Quaderni del sole, n. 3, January-March 1998. -Guido Missoni Risorse energetiche rinnovabili: necessità o opportunità?, ISES ITALIA Quaderni del sole, n. 3, January-March 1998. - AA.VV. Compatibilità delle centrali eoliche con il paesaggio, ISES ITALIA Quaderni del sole, n. 4, April-June 1998. - ISES ITALIA Ilsoleatrecentosessantagradi, Newsletter

188