3.8 Article

Wave energy in Europe: Views on experiences and progress to date

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MARINE ENERGY
Volume 14, Issue -, Pages 180-197

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijome.2015.09.001

Keywords

Wave energy; Consenting; Environment; Streamlining; Barriers; Accelerators

Categories

Funding

  1. Intelligent Energy Europe [IEE/09/809/SI2.558291]
  2. Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) under the Charles Parsons Award for Ocean Energy Research [06/CP/E003]
  3. Marine Renewable Energy Ireland (MaREI)
  4. SFI Centre for Marine Renewable Energy Research [12/RC/2305]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Through the Intelligent Energy Europe-funded SOWFIA project, the experiences of developers, regulators and stakeholders in relation to consenting wave energy deployments to date was assessed and analysed. The work focussed on wave energy test centres in Europe and involved consultation with wave energy device and project developers, regulatory authorities, stakeholders, environmental consultants and others through dedicated workshops and questionnaire surveys. Themes that arise in the analysis relate to planning and consenting processes, administrative procedures, Environmental Impact Assessment and stakeholder consultation. An analysis of the barriers as perceived by those consulted is presented and discussed, and recommendations are drawn from the analysis within each of the themes. In particular the need for Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) to alleviate complex planning and consenting processes; the need for coordination of administrative procedures; the need for clearer requirements in the EIA process; and the need for early participation of stakeholders in consultation are discussed. Progress has been made in many EU countries but certain priority areas remain to be addressed if wave energy is to realise its full potential. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available