Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Energy
Democracy
COMMUNITY
POWER
Local
Development
Local
Acceptance
1/16
Introduction
Denmark
Norway
Sweden
DENMARK
Copenhagen
Germany
3/16
Introduction
The Town of Hanstholm
Introduction
Hanstholm Harbour Expansion Plan
5/16
Introduction
Hanstholm Harbour Expansion Plan
Harbour Company cannot own the wind farm.
Local resistance against wind power.
In 2006, a commercial developer wanted to replace its 3 WTs by 6 new
ones.
More than 1,200 complains.
The building permission was denied and the project was cancelled.
6/16
The Objectives
1. To quantify the economic contribution of wind power projects in
combination with different ownership models to local
development.
2. To find out if and how the ownership model of wind farms
impacts on local opposition/acceptance of the installation.
80% ownership
100% ownership
Company
Local Cooperative (or guild)
Municipal Company
Community Fund
8/16
Economic Analysis
The Wind Project Economy
Number of WTs
Total Capacity
Average Annual Production
30.6 MW
138 GWh
73 EUR/MWh
38 EUR/MWh
22,819
Total Investment
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Land Rent
Interest rate
Municipal Company
All Others
2.37%
4.5%
Inflation
Economic Analysis
Harbour Income from the Wind Turbines
over a 20-year Period
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Local Cooperative
(guild)
Company
10/16
Acceptance Analysis
Interviewed Actors
11/16
Acceptance Analysis
Results
POOL effect (Please On Our Land). The wind project is not only
accepted, but welcome.
As long as the wind turbines provide enough income to be able to
realise the harbour project, I do not mind who the owner will be
Hanstholm Harbour Company, Hanstholm inhabitants and Thisted
Municipality inhabitants are the three (and the only three) actors that
are accepted by the society as owners for this project.
The Community Fund Ownership model is the only one that fulfils this
will and, therefore, it is considered to be the most accepted ownership
model.
12/16
Research Conclusions
Unlike the private (or commercial) ownership models, the community
fund model and the municipal company model provide additional
income for local development projects.
Distribution of benefits throughout the community, i.e. common
good, in form of local development is seen as the key for local
acceptance of onshore wind projects.
It is the purpose (not the ownership) of wind project what makes a
difference for the local community. But, at the same time, the
purpose is clearly reflected in the choice of ownership model.
13/16
15/16
Final Remarks
It is necessary to include specific targets for Community Power
(FOR COMMON GOOD) in national, regional and local energy
policies in order to make the most of the potential for
socio-economic benefits of renewable energies.
This will be specially relevant for rural areas.
16/16
Communities for RE
COMMUNITY POWER
Defined by Its Common Good Purpose
Leire Gorroo
Community Power Expert
lg@folkecenter.dk