4.8 Review

Europe, China and the United States: Three different approaches to the development of offshore wind energy

Journal

RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS
Volume 109, Issue -, Pages 55-70

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.025

Keywords

Offshore wind energy; Offshore wind farms regulations; EU; China; US

Funding

  1. Xunta de Galicia under the project Programa de Consolidacion e Estructuracion de Unidades de Investigacion Competitivas (Grupos de Referencia Competitiva)
  2. European Union [ED431C 2017/64]
  3. Portuguese Science Foundation (FCT) [SFRH/BPD/118142/2016]
  4. Xunta de Galicia [ED481A-2016/36]
  5. University of Vigo
  6. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BPD/118142/2016] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In those countries where wind plays a major role in the energy mix (EU, China and USA) actions have been carried out to develop offshore wind energy, albeit to varying degrees. These actions range from studying offshore wind to the development of laws and planning related to the construction of wind farms. Europe currently leads the way in offshore wind energy (with 84% of global installations), having achieved technical and commercial maturity, including the first floating wind farm to generate electricity, together with an emerging zero-subsidy culture. The Chinese wind industry has seen rapid development since 2005, however, well established laws, the use of a one-stop-shop system in the licencing process, and the establishment of higher feed-in tariffs (FITs), could all boost the Chinese offshore wind industry further. The possible future role of the USA in the offshore wind industry is now in the hands of its decision makers. A more streamlined licencing process, together with a long-term vision enshrined within stable economic incentives, could help to boost the offshore wind industry in the USA.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available