IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i16p4824-d610319.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Addressing the Effect of Social Acceptance on the Distribution of Wind Energy Plants and the Transmission Grid in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Franziska Flachsbarth

    (Öko-Institut e.V., Merzhauser Straße 173, 79100 Freiburg, Germany)

  • Marion Wingenbach

    (Öko-Institut e.V., Merzhauser Straße 173, 79100 Freiburg, Germany)

  • Matthias Koch

    (Öko-Institut e.V., Merzhauser Straße 173, 79100 Freiburg, Germany)

Abstract

Social acceptance is increasingly becoming a limiting factor in implementing the energy transition in Germany. From today’s perspective, the expansion of wind energy and future transmission grids is only somewhat a technical or economic challenge rather than a social one. Since political decisions on the energy system transformation are often derived from findings of energy system modeling, it seems necessary to increasingly integrate the effects of socio-ecological aspects, such as acceptance issues in energy models. In this paper, an approach is introduced to address effects of social acceptance in energy system models by comparing the influence of different distribution scenarios of wind energy in Germany on the expansion need for future transmission lines. The results show that a socio-ecologic distribution of onshore wind installations according to a balanced burden of the German society does not reduce the grid expansion need significantly compared to an economic siting. An actual reduction of planned transmission grids could just be achieved by a more decentral scenario, including decentral market design. The sensitivity of regionalization is an opportunity to consider local acceptance issues within energy system models and should move more into focus inside the procedure of the current grid development process in Germany.

Suggested Citation

  • Franziska Flachsbarth & Marion Wingenbach & Matthias Koch, 2021. "Addressing the Effect of Social Acceptance on the Distribution of Wind Energy Plants and the Transmission Grid in Germany," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-18, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:16:p:4824-:d:610319
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/16/4824/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/16/4824/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Enevoldsen, Peter & Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2016. "Examining the social acceptance of wind energy: Practical guidelines for onshore wind project development in France," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 178-184.
    2. Varho, Vilja & Tapio, Petri, 2013. "Combining the qualitative and quantitative with the Q2 scenario technique — The case of transport and climate," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 611-630.
    3. Pfenninger, Stefan & Hirth, Lion & Schlecht, Ingmar & Schmid, Eva & Wiese, Frauke & Brown, Tom & Davis, Chris & Gidden, Matthew & Heinrichs, Heidi & Heuberger, Clara & Hilpert, Simon & Krien, Uwe & Ma, 2018. "Opening the black box of energy modelling: Strategies and lessons learned," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 19, pages 63-71.
    4. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    5. Hughes, Nick & Strachan, Neil & Gross, Robert, 2013. "The structure of uncertainty in future low carbon pathways," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 45-54.
    6. Aitken, Mhairi, 2010. "Why we still don't understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 1834-1841, April.
    7. Jebaraj, S. & Iniyan, S., 2006. "A review of energy models," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 281-311, August.
    8. Emmanuel Fragnière & Roman Kanala & Francesco Moresino & Adriana Reveiu & Ion Smeureanu, 2017. "Coupling techno-economic energy models with behavioral approaches," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 633-647, July.
    9. Ommen, Torben & Markussen, Wiebke Brix & Elmegaard, Brian, 2014. "Comparison of linear, mixed integer and non-linear programming methods in energy system dispatch modelling," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 109-118.
    10. Lopion, Peter & Markewitz, Peter & Robinius, Martin & Stolten, Detlef, 2018. "A review of current challenges and trends in energy systems modeling," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 156-166.
    11. Laugs, Gideon A.H. & Moll, Henri C., 2017. "A review of the bandwidth and environmental discourses of future energy scenarios: Shades of green and gray," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 520-530.
    12. Bauknecht, Dierk & Funcke, Simon & Vogel, Moritz, 2020. "Is small beautiful? A framework for assessing decentralised electricity systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    13. Bale, Catherine S.E. & Varga, Liz & Foxon, Timothy J., 2015. "Energy and complexity: New ways forward," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 150-159.
    14. Fink, Simon & Bartels, Jan-Eric & Hagendorf, Winona & Klinger, Niklas, 2019. "Determinants of subnational party positions on electricity grid expansion in Germany: Economic over political interests," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 145-157.
    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. Thimet, P.J. & Mavromatidis, G., 2022. "Review of model-based electricity system transition scenarios: An analysis for Switzerland, Germany, France, and Italy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    2. David Huckebrink & Valentin Bertsch, 2021. "Integrating Behavioural Aspects in Energy System Modelling—A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-26, July.
    3. Cousse, Julia, 2021. "Still in love with solar energy? Installation size, affect, and the social acceptance of renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    4. Blanco, Herib & Leaver, Jonathan & Dodds, Paul E. & Dickinson, Robert & García-Gusano, Diego & Iribarren, Diego & Lind, Arne & Wang, Changlong & Danebergs, Janis & Baumann, Martin, 2022. "A taxonomy of models for investigating hydrogen energy systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    5. Fodstad, Marte & Crespo del Granado, Pedro & Hellemo, Lars & Knudsen, Brage Rugstad & Pisciella, Paolo & Silvast, Antti & Bordin, Chiara & Schmidt, Sarah & Straus, Julian, 2022. "Next frontiers in energy system modelling: A review on challenges and the state of the art," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    6. Helena Schmidt & Gerdien de Vries & Reint Jan Renes & Roland Schmehl, 2022. "The Social Acceptance of Airborne Wind Energy: A Literature Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-24, February.
    7. Landeta-Manzano, Beñat & Arana-Landín, Germán & Calvo, Pilar M. & Heras-Saizarbitoria, Iñaki, 2018. "Wind energy and local communities: A manufacturer’s efforts to gain acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 314-324.
    8. Suškevičs, M. & Eiter, S. & Martinat, S. & Stober, D. & Vollmer, E. & de Boer, C.L. & Buchecker, M., 2019. "Regional variation in public acceptance of wind energy development in Europe: What are the roles of planning procedures and participation?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 311-323.
    9. Yazdanie, M. & Orehounig, K., 2021. "Advancing urban energy system planning and modeling approaches: Gaps and solutions in perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    10. Caporale, Diana & Sangiorgio, Valentino & Amodio, Alessandro & De Lucia, Caterina, 2020. "Multi-criteria and focus group analysis for social acceptance of wind energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    11. Md. Nasimul Islam Maruf, 2019. "Sector Coupling in the North Sea Region—A Review on the Energy System Modelling Perspective," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-35, November.
    12. Scherhaufer, Patrick & Höltinger, Stefan & Salak, Boris & Schauppenlehner, Thomas & Schmidt, Johannes, 2017. "Patterns of acceptance and non-acceptance within energy landscapes: A case study on wind energy expansion in Austria," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 863-870.
    13. Mouter, Niek & de Geest, Auke & Doorn, Neelke, 2018. "A values-based approach to energy controversies: Value-sensitive design applied to the Groningen gas controversy in the Netherlands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 639-648.
    14. Ahl, A. & Yarime, M. & Goto, M. & Chopra, Shauhrat S. & Kumar, Nallapaneni Manoj. & Tanaka, K. & Sagawa, D., 2020. "Exploring blockchain for the energy transition: Opportunities and challenges based on a case study in Japan," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    15. Xexakis, Georgios & Hansmann, Ralph & Volken, Sandra P. & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2020. "Models on the wrong track: Model-based electricity supply scenarios in Switzerland are not aligned with the perspectives of energy experts and the public," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    16. Nadejda Komendantova & Marco Vocciante & Antonella Battaglini, 2015. "Can the BestGrid Process Improve Stakeholder Involvement in Electricity Transmission Projects?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-27, August.
    17. Savvidis, Georgios & Siala, Kais & Weissbart, Christoph & Schmidt, Lukas & Borggrefe, Frieder & Kumar, Subhash & Pittel, Karen & Madlener, Reinhard & Hufendiek, Kai, 2019. "The gap between energy policy challenges and model capabilities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 503-520.
    18. Gerrit Erichsen & Tobias Zimmermann & Alfons Kather, 2019. "Effect of Different Interval Lengths in a Rolling Horizon MILP Unit Commitment with Non-Linear Control Model for a Small Energy System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-24, March.
    19. Martin, Nigel & Rice, John, 2015. "Improving Australia's renewable energy project policy and planning: A multiple stakeholder analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 128-141.
    20. Walsh, Bríd & van der Plank, Sien & Behrens, Paul, 2017. "The effect of community consultation on perceptions of a proposed mine: A case study from southeast Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 163-171.

    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:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:16:p:4824-:d:610319. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.