New EU Member States (EU12) and Candidate - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – New EU Member States (EU12) and Candidate PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: eb1d5-ZDc1Z



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

New EU Member States (EU12) and Candidate

Description:

New EU Member States (EU12) and Candidate. Countries (CC) ... General overview of SHP sector of the new Member States (EU10) and Candidate Countries (CC5) ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:13
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 31
Provided by: petras9
Learn more at: http://www.esha.be
Category:
Tags: candidate | eu12 | member | new | states

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: New EU Member States (EU12) and Candidate


1
Granada, Spain 15 17 October 2007
Part 2 New EU Member States (EU12) and
Candidate Countries (CC) (Status of small
hydropower policy framework and
market development in the old and new EU Member
States and selected EFTA countries)
Petras PUNYS Lithuanian Hydropower Association /
University of Agriculture
2
OVERVIEW
  • Background
  • Methodology of analysis
  • General overview of SHP sector of the new
    Member States (EU10) and Candidate Countries
    (CC5)
  • Barriers and burdens for further SHP deployment
  • Conclusions

3
Background
4
Ongoing project Small Hydro Energy Efficient
Promotion Campaign Action (SHERPA) Coordinator
ESHA 2006-2008, Funded by Intelligent Energy
for Europe programme Work package 2 Status of
SHP policy framework and market development in
EU27 to be completed by September 2008
Swedish Renewable Energies Association (SERO)
Old EU Member States (EU15) Lithuanian
Hydropower Association New EU Member States
(EU12) Candidate countries (CC)
5
The activities covered in the project have been
  • Assessing the potential for future SHP
    development, both in terms of upgrading the old
    existing plants and building new sites.
  • Gathering data on the actual state-of-theart of
    the SHP development in the EU12 CC5.
  • Analyzing the economics of SHP sources in order
    to understand how competitive SHP is today with
    respect to the other principal power generation
    technologies.

6
  • Analysing the policy framework in each country,
    putting emphasis on the constraints that are
    hindering the development of SHP plants.
  • Analysing the situation and competitiveness of
    the EU manufacturing industry in the SHP sector.
  • Give some concrete recommendations in promoting
    SHP development in the short and medium term,
    suggesting some good policies and best
    practices to achieve this goal.

7
Yellow - Pre-May 1, 2004 EU Members (EU15) Blue
- May 1, 2004 and January 1, 2007 New Member
States (EU12) Lavender - Post-January 1, 2007
Candidate Countries (CC5).
8
Methodology of analysis
9
  • Survey of SHP situation
  • 10 new EU MS (except Cyprus and Malta) 5
    Candidate countries . Reference year 2005/2006
  • Already existing studies
  • BlueAGE (Blue Energy for a Green Europe) 2001,
  • TNSHP (2004, Small Hydropower (SHP) situation
    in Accession countries
  • ESHA data base, EuroStat, International Journal
    on Hydropower Dams (2006), World Energy Council
    (2004), IEA (2004) , EREC (2004), ECOFYS (2006),
    EBRD (2005) ect.

Information sources of the study
10
Outline questionnaire (69 questions)
11
General overview of SHP sector of the new Member
States (EU10) and Candidate Countries (CC5)
12
1 st
Small hydropower specific energy (economically
feasible potential) in GWh/year/km2 (annual
energy divided by the area of a country)
13
2nd
1 st
Small hydropower potential (gross theoretical,
technically and economically feasible potential)
in GWh/year
14
Number of SHP plants and installed capacity
15
Young plants
Old plants
SHP plants age
16
Slovenia Macedonia
SHP contribution to gross electricity generation
17
Other renewables
Share of large and small hydro, and other
renewable energy sources in the total renewable
electricity generation
18
Average
SHP buy-back rates and electricity prices for
household consumers
19
Barriers and burdens for further SHP deployment
20
Administrative and regulatory barriers
  1. high number of authorities involved (no onestop
    shop for SHP developers in all countries)
  2. lack of co-ordination between different
    authorities
  3. long lead-times to obtain permits or licenses
  4. spatial planning
  5. low awareness of benefits of RES at local and
    regional authorities.

21
The length of validation of power generation
licenses 5 years (Estonia), 10 years (Latvia,
Macedonia), 20-30 (the Czech Republic, Bosnia
and Herzegovina), 35 (Bulgaria) and 49 years
(Turkey) The whole process to get licenses
takes from 3-6 months in Poland and Estonia
(without the time required to carry out EIA) to
1-2 years in the remaining countries.
22
Market barriers (out of 12 listed barriers on
the 5 point scale 1no barrier.5very high
barrier )
  • Most significant
  • Lack of experience among decision makers - 3.6
    (not a problem in Turkey -2)
  • Lack of experience / trust among banks or
    investors -3.4 (Lithuania -2)
  • Lack of funding or financing - 3.2 (Croatia -1,
    Lithuania -2)
  • Administrative barriers -3.3 (Estonia and
    Latvia -2)
  • Low buy-back rates -3.2 (Estonia and Croatia
    -1).

23
  • Less significant
  • Social acceptance and/or public awareness - 2.8
    (the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovenia - 4)
  • Market perception of the costs of electricity -
    2.6 (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia - 4),
  • Lack of experience in the renewable/SHP
    electricity industry - 2.4 (Macedonia - 5)
  • Remoteness of electricity from areas of high
    electricity demand -2.1 (Bosnia and Herzegovina
    -4).

24
Environmental barriers
Fishery
Visual impact
Resistances to SHP development (1no impact,
5severe impact)
25
EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) and SHP
  • No fears Hungary and Turkey
  • No information Bulgaria, the Czech Republic,
    Romania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia and
    Turkey
  • List or rivers exempt from damming, reduction
    of SHP production Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania

26
  • Majority of respondents SHP development and
    the WFD requirements can be reconciled.
  • WFD should be considered as an opportunity for
    the sector the chance to show how SHP
    developments can be integrated into the
    ecosystems of the rivers with a minimum of
    environmental impact.
  • SHP operators agree to augment environmental
    flow providing the resulting losses in
    electricity production do not exceed 5 .
  • Only a few respondents think that large hydro,
    i.e large reservoirs would undermine the
    achievements of the WFD objectives.

27
Social and public acceptance
  • Politicians (e.g. Parliament)
  • Support SHP development
  • Less active in Croatia, Latvia and Montenegro
  • General public
  • positive in almost all countries
  • Reserved (Croatia, Latvia, Slovenia)
  • Officials in charge for environment
    protection
  • Big opposition in Lithuania
  • Neutral in Estonia, Latvia and Croatia
  • Positive in Poland, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
    Macedonia, and Montenegro

28
  • Officials in charge of promoting RES
  • Good or very good support
  • NGOs
  • Neutral (except Bulgaria, Latvia)
  • Positive (Croatia, Montenegro)

29
CONCLUSIONS
Only a fragmental overview on small hydropower
policy and market development has been presented
in 15 surveyed countries. The next step will be
to combine this information with one obtained
from the old Member States (EU15) in order to
depict a global picture on SHP developments all
over Europe
30
Granada, Spain 15 17 October 2007
Thank you for attention !
About PowerShow.com