IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v39y2011i4p1897-1908.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Policies and design elements for the repowering of wind farms: A qualitative analysis of different options

Author

Listed:
  • del Río, Pablo
  • Calvo Silvosa, Anxo
  • Iglesias Gómez, Guillermo

Abstract

Repowering of a wind farm is the process of replacing existing wind turbines with new turbines that either have a larger nameplate capacity or more efficiency, resulting in a net increase of the power generated. Although repowering brings, both, social and private benefits, there are also several obstacles to repowering which justify public support. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview and a qualitative analysis of instruments and design options to support repowering of on-shore wind farms. The multicriteria analysis carried out in this paper shows that all instruments have their advantages and drawbacks. However, feed-in tariffs and investment subsidies seem to be particularly appropriate instruments in this regard. Furthermore, we provide an assessment of different design options to promote repowering according to key assessment criteria. The relevance of design elements hinges on the fact that these are the ones directly affecting the variables that are relevant in the decision to repower (capacity factors and investment costs).

Suggested Citation

  • del Río, Pablo & Calvo Silvosa, Anxo & Iglesias Gómez, Guillermo, 2011. "Policies and design elements for the repowering of wind farms: A qualitative analysis of different options," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 1897-1908, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:39:y:2011:i:4:p:1897-1908
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301-4215(10)00935-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Blanco, María Isabel, 2009. "The economics of wind energy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(6-7), pages 1372-1382, August.
    2. Neij, Lena, 2008. "Cost development of future technologies for power generation--A study based on experience curves and complementary bottom-up assessments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 2200-2211, June.
    3. Goyal, Mohit, 2010. "Repowering--Next big thing in India," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 1400-1409, June.
    4. Junginger, M. & Faaij, A. & Turkenburg, W. C., 2005. "Global experience curves for wind farms," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 133-150, January.
    5. Dimitropoulos, Alexandros & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2009. "Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of wind-farm investment: A choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1842-1854, May.
    6. Ståle Navrud & Kirsten Grønvik Bråten, 2007. "Consumers' Preferences for Green and Brown Electricity : a Choice Modelling Approach," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 117(5), pages 795-811.
    7. Bergmann, Ariel & Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nick, 2008. "Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 616-625, April.
    8. Agnolucci, Paolo, 2007. "Wind electricity in Denmark: A survey of policies, their effectiveness and factors motivating their introduction," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 11(5), pages 951-963, June.
    9. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Ohl, Cornelia & Hartje, Volkmar, 2010. "Landscape externalities from onshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 82-92, January.
    10. Nielsen, Lene & Jeppesen, Tim, 2003. "Tradable Green Certificates in selected European countries--overview and assessment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 3-14, January.
    11. Munksgaard, Jesper & Morthorst, Poul Erik, 2008. "Wind power in the Danish liberalised power market--Policy measures, price impact and investor incentives," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 3940-3947, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cerdá, Emilio & López-Otero, Xiral & Quiroga, Sonia & Soliño, Mario, 2024. "Willingness to pay for renewables: Insights from a meta-analysis of choice experiments," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    2. Andrew D. Krueger & George R. Parsons & Jeremy Firestone, 2011. "Valuing the Visual Disamenity of Offshore Wind Power Projects at Varying Distances from the Shore: An Application on the Delaware Shoreline," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(2), pages 268-283.
    3. Doukas, H. & Arsenopoulos, A. & Lazoglou, M. & Nikas, A. & Flamos, A., 2022. "Wind repowering: Unveiling a hidden asset," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    4. Brennan, Noreen & Van Rensburg, Thomas M, 2016. "Wind farm externalities and public preferences for community consultation in Ireland: A discrete choice experiments approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 355-365.
    5. Ladenburg, Jacob & Möller, Bernd, 2011. "Attitude and acceptance of offshore wind farms—The influence of travel time and wind farm attributes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(9), pages 4223-4235.
    6. Vecchiato, Daniel & Tempesta, Tiziano, 2015. "Public preferences for electricity contracts including renewable energy: A marketing analysis with choice experiments," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 168-179.
    7. van Rensburg, Thomas M. & Kelley, Hugh & Jeserich, Nadine, 2015. "What influences the probability of wind farm planning approval: Evidence from Ireland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 12-22.
    8. Petter Gudding & Gorm Kipperberg & Craig Bond & Kelly Cullen & Eric Steltzer, 2018. "When a Good Is a Bad (or a Bad Is a Good)—Analysis of Data from an Ambiguous Nonmarket Valuation Setting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, January.
    9. Landry, Craig E. & Allen, Tom & Cherry, Todd & Whitehead, John C., 2012. "Wind turbines and coastal recreation demand," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 93-111.
    10. Kim, Kyung Jae & Lee, Hwarang & Koo, Yoonmo, 2020. "Research on local acceptance cost of renewable energy in South Korea: A case study of photovoltaic and wind power projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    11. Caporale, Diana & De Lucia, Caterina, 2015. "Social acceptance of on-shore wind energy in Apulia Region (Southern Italy)," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1378-1390.
    12. Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mura, Marina & Contu, Davide, 2012. "Combining choice experiments with psychometric scales to assess the social acceptability of wind energy projects: A latent class approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 334-347.
    13. Picchi, Paolo & van Lierop, Martina & Geneletti, Davide & Stremke, Sven, 2019. "Advancing the relationship between renewable energy and ecosystem services for landscape planning and design: A literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 241-259.
    14. Philipp Beiter & Aubryn Cooperman & Eric Lantz & Tyler Stehly & Matt Shields & Ryan Wiser & Thomas Telsnig & Lena Kitzing & Volker Berkhout & Yuka Kikuchi, 2021. "Wind power costs driven by innovation and experience with further reductions on the horizon," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(5), September.
    15. Sonnberger, Marco & Ruddat, Michael, 2017. "Local and socio-political acceptance of wind farms in Germany," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 56-65.
    16. Zaunbrecher, Barbara S. & Linzenich, Anika & Ziefle, Martina, 2017. "A mast is a mast is a mast…? Comparison of preferences for location-scenarios of electricity pylons and wind power plants using conjoint analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 429-439.
    17. Janhunen, Sari & Hujala, Maija & Pätäri, Satu, 2014. "Owners of second homes, locals and their attitudes towards future rural wind farm," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 450-460.
    18. Ehlers, Melf-Hinrich & Sutherland, Lee-Ann, 2016. "Patterns of attention to renewable energy in the British farming press from 1980 to 2013," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 959-973.
    19. Joselin Herbert, G.M. & Iniyan, S. & Amutha, D., 2014. "A review of technical issues on the development of wind farms," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 619-641.
    20. Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Ohl, Cornelia & Hartje, Volkmar, 2010. "Landscape externalities from onshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 82-92, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:39:y:2011:i:4:p:1897-1908. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.