IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/diw/diwwpp/dp1989.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Way Off: The Effect of Minimum Distance Regulation on the Deployment and Cost of Wind Power

Author

Listed:
  • Jan Stede
  • Marc Blauert
  • Nils May

Abstract

With the expansion of onshore wind power, countries increasingly consider the introduction of minimum distance regulations between wind turbines to nearby residential areas, to increase public acceptance. In 2014, the German federal state of Bavaria introduced a minimum distance regulation that requires new wind turbines to be ten times their total height away from settlements (10-H regulation). This translates into a distance of 1,900 metres on average, which far exceeds national provisions on minimum distances. Using a difference-in-differences approach, we find that the introduction of the 10-H regulation led to a decline of the newly added wind power capacity in Bavaria of between 62 percent and 90 percent. Moreover, the legislation affected technological parameters of new wind turbines, with severe unintended consequences for the deployment and cost of wind power. The regulation triggered a reduction of the height of new turbines, which lowered energy yields and increased levelized costs of electricity (LCOE) by about 0.2 ct/kWh. Furthermore, lower energy yields also require a higher absolute number of turbines in the long term to achieve the expansion targets for onshore wind energy, counteracting the goal of increasing acceptance of wind power.

Suggested Citation

  • Jan Stede & Marc Blauert & Nils May, 2021. "Way Off: The Effect of Minimum Distance Regulation on the Deployment and Cost of Wind Power," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1989, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwwpp:dp1989
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.832973.de/dp1989.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    2. James G. MacKinnon & Matthew D. Webb, 2018. "The wild bootstrap for few (treated) clusters," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 21(2), pages 114-135, June.
    3. McKenna, R. & Hollnaicher, S. & Fichtner, W., 2014. "Cost-potential curves for onshore wind energy: A high-resolution analysis for Germany," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 103-115.
    4. Hoen, Ben & Firestone, Jeremy & Rand, Joseph & Elliot, Debi & Hübner, Gundula & Pohl, Johannes & Wiser, Ryan & Lantz, Eric & Haac, T. Ryan & Kaliski, Ken, 2019. "Attitudes of U.S. Wind Turbine Neighbors: Analysis of a Nationwide Survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    5. May, Nils, 2017. "The impact of wind power support schemes on technology choices," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 343-354.
    6. Alberto Abadie & Susan Athey & Guido W Imbens & Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2023. "When Should You Adjust Standard Errors for Clustering?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(1), pages 1-35.
    7. Ladenburg, Jacob & Dahlgaard, Jens-Olav, 2012. "Attitudes, threshold levels and cumulative effects of the daily wind-turbine encounters," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 40-46.
    8. Masurowski, Frank & Drechsler, Martin & Frank, Karin, 2016. "A spatially explicit assessment of the wind energy potential in response to an increased distance between wind turbines and settlements in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 343-350.
    9. Zerrahn, Alexander & Schill, Wolf-Peter & Kemfert, Claudia, 2018. "On the economics of electrical storage for variable renewable energy sources," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 259-279.
    10. Steven Chu & Arun Majumdar, 2012. "Opportunities and challenges for a sustainable energy future," Nature, Nature, vol. 488(7411), pages 294-303, August.
    11. Papież, Monika & Śmiech, Sławomir & Frodyma, Katarzyna, 2019. "Factors affecting the efficiency of wind power in the European Union countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 965-977.
    12. Wolsink, Maarten, 2012. "Undesired reinforcement of harmful ‘self-evident truths’ concerning the implementation of wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 83-87.
    13. Langer, Katharina & Decker, Thomas & Roosen, Jutta & Menrad, Klaus, 2016. "A qualitative analysis to understand the acceptance of wind energy in Bavaria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 248-259.
    14. James G. MacKinnon & Matthew D. Webb, 2017. "Wild Bootstrap Inference for Wildly Different Cluster Sizes," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(2), pages 233-254, March.
    15. Martin Drechsler & Jonas Egerer & Martin Lange & Frank Masurowski & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Malte Oehlmann, 2017. "Efficient and equitable spatial allocation of renewable power plants at the country scale," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 2(9), pages 1-9, September.
    16. A. Colin Cameron & Douglas L. Miller, 2015. "A Practitioner’s Guide to Cluster-Robust Inference," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 50(2), pages 317-372.
    17. Ladenburg, Jacob & Termansen, Mette & Hasler, Berit, 2013. "Assessing acceptability of two onshore wind power development schemes: A test of viewshed effects and the cumulative effects of wind turbines," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 45-54.
    18. Salomon, Hannes & Drechsler, Martin & Reutter, Felix, 2020. "Minimum distances for wind turbines: A robustness analysis of policies for a sustainable wind power deployment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    19. Jan Stede & Nils May, 2019. "Strikte Mindestabstände bremsen den Ausbau der Windenergie," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 86(48), pages 895-903.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lehmann, Paul & Tafarte, Philip, 2023. "The opportunity costs of environmental exclusion zones for renewable energy deployment," UFZ Discussion Papers 2/2023, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    2. Knauf, Jakob & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2023. "Crowdsourcing social acceptance: Why, when and how project developers offer citizens to co-invest in wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    3. Felix Reutter & Martin Drechsler & Erik Gawel & Paul Lehmann, 2024. "Social Costs of Setback Distances for Onshore Wind Turbines: A Model Analysis Applied to the German State of Saxony," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 87(2), pages 437-463, February.

    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. Jan Stede & Nils May, 2020. "Way Off: The Effect of Minimum Distance Regulation on the Deployment of Wind Power," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1867, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    2. Lehmann, Paul & Reutter, Felix & Tafarte, Philip, 2023. "Optimal siting of onshore wind turbines: Local disamenities matter," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    3. Lehmann, Paul & Tafarte, Philip, 2023. "The opportunity costs of environmental exclusion zones for renewable energy deployment," UFZ Discussion Papers 2/2023, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    4. MacKinnon, James G. & Nielsen, Morten Ørregaard & Webb, Matthew D., 2023. "Cluster-robust inference: A guide to empirical practice," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 232(2), pages 272-299.
    5. Tafarte, Philip & Lehmann, Paul, 2021. "Quantifying trade-offs for the spatial allocation of onshore wind generation capacity: A case study for Germany," UFZ Discussion Papers 2/2021, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    6. MacKinnon, James G. & Nielsen, Morten Ørregaard & Webb, Matthew D., 2023. "Testing for the appropriate level of clustering in linear regression models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 235(2), pages 2027-2056.
    7. Peri, Erez & Tal, Alon, 2021. "Is setback distance the best criteria for siting wind turbines under crowded conditions? An empirical analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    8. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    9. James G. MacKinnon & Morten Ørregaard Nielsen & Matthew D. Webb, 2021. "Wild Bootstrap and Asymptotic Inference With Multiway Clustering," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(2), pages 505-519, March.
    10. Lehmann, Paul & Reutter, Felix & Tafarte, Philip, 2021. "Optimal siting of onshore wind turbines: Local disamenities matter," UFZ Discussion Papers 4/2021, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    11. McKenna, Russell & Pfenninger, Stefan & Heinrichs, Heidi & Schmidt, Johannes & Staffell, Iain & Bauer, Christian & Gruber, Katharina & Hahmann, Andrea N. & Jansen, Malte & Klingler, Michael & Landwehr, 2022. "High-resolution large-scale onshore wind energy assessments: A review of potential definitions, methodologies and future research needs," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 659-684.
    12. James G. MacKinnon & Morten Ørregaard Nielsen & Matthew D. Webb, 2023. "Fast and reliable jackknife and bootstrap methods for cluster‐robust inference," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(5), pages 671-694, August.
    13. Hübner, Gundula & Leschinger, Valentin & Müller, Florian J.Y. & Pohl, Johannes, 2023. "Broadening the social acceptance of wind energy – An Integrated Acceptance Model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    14. Damian Clarke & Kathya Tapia-Schythe, 2021. "Implementing the panel event study," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 21(4), pages 853-884, December.
    15. James G. MacKinnon, 2019. "How cluster‐robust inference is changing applied econometrics," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 851-881, August.
    16. Hansen, Bruce E. & Lee, Seojeong, 2019. "Asymptotic theory for clustered samples," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 210(2), pages 268-290.
    17. Dorner, Matthias & Görlitz, Katja, 2020. "Training, wages and a missing school graduation cohort," IAB-Discussion Paper 202028, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].
    18. Bharti, Nitin Kumar & Roy, Sutanuka, 2023. "The early origins of judicial stringency in bail decisions: Evidence from early childhood exposure to Hindu-Muslim riots in India," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    19. Bruno Ferman, 2023. "Inference in difference‐in‐differences: How much should we trust in independent clusters?," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(3), pages 358-369, April.
    20. Sarah Schneider-Strawczynski & Jérôme Valette, 2021. "Media Coverage of Immigration and the Polarization of Attitudes," PSE Working Papers halshs-03322229, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Onshore wind power; minimum distance regulation; separation distance; panel data; difference-in-differences; causal inference;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • Q42 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Alternative Energy Sources
    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns
    • R15 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Econometric and Input-Output Models; Other Methods

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:diw:diwwpp:dp1989. 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: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.html .

    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.