Sir, – Sylvia Thompson in her "Power to the People" article (January 30th) rightly encourages communities to engage with sustainable energy, moving from passive consumers to active energy citizens, and so achieve local benefits from their generated energy.
Your reporter highlights the virtues of the Danish energy experience. This Danish model of wind acceptance is a relatively new phenomenon, driven by legislation.
Denmark has a co-operative tradition and, similar to Ireland today, in recent years experienced public opposition to wind energy. Over 3,000MW were installed by 2003, while only 40MW were installed from 2004 to 2006.
The Danish government responded with a strategy for enhanced public involvement in the planning phase and established a community energy ownership programme.
In terms of community energy promotion, Denmark legislated to enable local citizens the option to purchase wind turbine shares, delivered a green scheme to enhance local recreational values and established a guarantee fund to support financing of preliminary investigations (by local wind turbine owners’ associations).
In terms of the distribution of wealth in communities, the wind purchase option has resulted in significant inequity within Danish society. It favours wealthy citizens that can purchase such shares and has led to profiteering in the reselling of wind shares.
This inequitable redistribution is not benefitting local communities.
The green scheme, involving a financing of projects that enhance recreational areas, has resulted in nature pathways and educational materials that benefit all of society.
Communities need to consider the costs and financing aspects of community energy projects and especially understand what business model best suits local needs.
Options include a split ownership with a commercial developer, a joint venture or a shared revenue model. The profitability of any energy project depends on two factors: the costs (interest rates, taxes, operating costs) and the annual revenues.
In terms of community energy, developments tend to be located near the community in question, often in locations that are unlikely to be optimal regarding commercial developments.
So communities need to consider whether to subsidise projects in unfavourable locations or encourage community involvement in favourable locations (through shared ownership). The availability of predictable price incentives and supports, more favourable rates to communities, free technical support and longer development time supports can help to shape the decision for communities.
Our Government’s vision is to reduce emissions by 80 per cent to 95 per cent by 2050, so ending the subsidising of fossil fuels. Community energy and commercial energy will both be required to meet Government objectives.
Further regulation will be required, and here Ireland can look to Denmark.
Denmark has banned oil and natural gas for space heating (for new build), is making new oil furnaces illegal to install from this year, and has a consistent approach to heat planning. Undoubtedly, more clean energy allies will be required.
Organisations such as Friends of the Earth, an advocate for decarbonisation, and the Tipperary Energy Agency, in developing viable energy solutions with communities, are acting to meet future objectives.
Communities’ perception of projects within their locality is hugely important as communities are seeking justice in the distribution of wind.
Energy projects need to be integrated into the social, economic and cultural fabric of communities.
Ireland needs to learn from both good and bad international experience when it comes to community energy, ensure that reward exceeds risk, and apply the best model that benefits the unique characteristics of Irish communities.
This approach can deliver community equity and make energy more affordable. – Yours, etc,
Dr MATTHEW KENNEDY,
International Energy
Research Centre,
Tyndall Institute,
Cork.