4.8 Review

Wind power planning and permitting: Comparative perspectives from the Nordic countries

期刊

RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS
卷 14, 期 9, 页码 3116-3123

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.008

关键词

Wind power planning; Permitting process; Sweden; Denmark; Norway

资金

  1. Elforsk (Market Design Program)
  2. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
  3. Swedish Energy Agency (Vindval research program)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this paper is to analyze and compare some important institutional and legal preconditions for wind power development in three Nordic countries: Denmark, Norway and Sweden. In the paper a number of historical, institutional and policy-related differences across these countries are highlighted, but most attention is paid to the various territorial planning procedures. The analysis suggests that although public economic support to wind power is necessary to promote its diffusion in the electricity system, similar policy instruments - in terms of both size and design - can induce significantly different developments depending on the legal preconditions for the location and environmental assessment of windmills. The success and failure stories of technology support policies can thus not easily be transferred across country borders. An important conclusion is that in comparison to Sweden the physical planning systems in both Denmark and Norway provide greater scope for implementing a national wind power policy at the local level. For instance, the Danish planning system is vertically integrated, and involves a designation of areas for wind power purposes in the local plans, while the municipalities in Sweden must in some way assent to (i.e., plan for) the establishment of windmills at a certain location in order for the installation to actually take place. Compared to its competitors, wind power is one of the power-generating technologies that tend to have the most to lose from the uncertainties created by planning regulations that leave much discretion to local authorities. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据