This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.
The revised EU Renewable Energy Directive first introduced renewable energy communities into the EU policy framework and requires Member States to implement a support framework for them. Given the broad scientific evidence showing the benefits of community energy for a just energy transition, a successful implementation across all Member States is essential. However, the preconditions for developing support frameworks differ largely between EU nations, as some countries have long-term experiences with supporting renewable energy communities (i.e., Germany and Denmark), while in other Member States, renewable energy communities are notably non-existent (i.e., Eastern European nations). With the purpose of providing scientific evidence to support the development of a policy framework for renewable energy communities in Eastern European Member States, this article compares key factors for the development of such communities in Bulgaria and Germany, combining a literature review with expert interviews to collect primary information on Bulgaria. A country analysis puts these factors into the contexts of both countries, while a cross-country comparison demonstrates that there are significant gaps in the support framework of Bulgaria, although these gaps are, to a lesser extent, also present in Germany. We discuss these shortcomings, derive policy recommendations and identify further research needs.
Deyana Spasova; Sibylle Braungardt. Building a Common Support Framework in Differing Realities—Conditions for Renewable Energy Communities in Germany and Bulgaria. Energies 2021, 14, 4693 .
AMA StyleDeyana Spasova, Sibylle Braungardt. Building a Common Support Framework in Differing Realities—Conditions for Renewable Energy Communities in Germany and Bulgaria. Energies. 2021; 14 (15):4693.
Chicago/Turabian StyleDeyana Spasova; Sibylle Braungardt. 2021. "Building a Common Support Framework in Differing Realities—Conditions for Renewable Energy Communities in Germany and Bulgaria." Energies 14, no. 15: 4693.
In order to calculate the financial return of energy efficiency measures, a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) is a proven tool for investors. Generally, however, most CBAs for investors have a narrow focus, which is—simply speaking—on investment costs compared with energy cost savings over the life span of the investment. This only provides part of the full picture. Ideally, a comprehensive or extended CBA would take additional benefits as well as additional costs into account. The objective of this paper is to reflect upon integrating into a CBA two important cost components: transaction costs and energy efficiency services—and how they interact. Even though this concept has not been carried out to the knowledge of the authors, we even go a step further to try to apply this idea. In so doing, we carried out a meta-analysis on relevant literature and existing data and interviewed a limited number of energy experts with comprehensive experience in carrying out energy services. Even though data is hardly available, we succeeded in constructing three real-world cases and applied an extended CBA making use of information gathered on transaction costs and energy services costs. We were able to show that, despite these additional cost components, the energy efficiency measures are economically viable. Quantitative data was not available on how energy services reduce transaction costs; more information on this aspect could render our results even more positive. Even though empirical and conceptual research must intensify efforts to design an even more comprehensive CBA, these first-of-its-kind findings can counterargue those that believe energy efficiency is not worth it (in monetary terms) due to transaction costs or energy services costs. In fact, this is good news for energy efficiency and for those that seek to make use of our findings to argue in favor of taking up energy efficiency investments in businesses.
Thomas Adisorn; Lena Tholen; Johannes Thema; Hauke Luetkehaus; Sibylle Braungardt; Katja Huenecke; Katja Schumacher. Towards a More Realistic Cost–Benefit Analysis—Attempting to Integrate Transaction Costs and Energy Efficiency Services. Energies 2020, 14, 152 .
AMA StyleThomas Adisorn, Lena Tholen, Johannes Thema, Hauke Luetkehaus, Sibylle Braungardt, Katja Huenecke, Katja Schumacher. Towards a More Realistic Cost–Benefit Analysis—Attempting to Integrate Transaction Costs and Energy Efficiency Services. Energies. 2020; 14 (1):152.
Chicago/Turabian StyleThomas Adisorn; Lena Tholen; Johannes Thema; Hauke Luetkehaus; Sibylle Braungardt; Katja Huenecke; Katja Schumacher. 2020. "Towards a More Realistic Cost–Benefit Analysis—Attempting to Integrate Transaction Costs and Energy Efficiency Services." Energies 14, no. 1: 152.
The EU Renewable Energy Directive (RES-Directive) establishes a policy framework for the promotion of renewable energy in the EU. Under the framework of the RES-Directive, EU Member States have adopted national renewable energy action plans including sectorial targets for electricity, heating and cooling, and transport. While the RES-Directive outlines the methodology for calculating the renewable energy shares for electricity, heating and transport, it does not offer any indications on how to account for renewable cooling. Due to the lacking methodological guidelines, Member States can currently not report renewable cooling and cooling does therefore not play a role for target achievement. At the same time, the energy demand for cooling is growing rapidly and the inclusion of renewable cooling can potentially have a large impact on the renewable energy shares that Member States report. Based on an overview of available cooling technologies, this article explores various strategies for including cooling in the RES-Directive and investigates the impact on target achievement. We find that the potential impact of including cooling is considerable and conclude that ambitious minimum efficiency requirements are needed in order to maintain the ambition of the RES-Directive and to stimulate the development of policies to support low-carbon cooling technologies.
Sibylle Braungardt; Veit Bürger; Jana Zieger; Lex Bosselaar. How to include cooling in the EU Renewable Energy Directive? Strategies and policy implications. Energy Policy 2019, 129, 260 -267.
AMA StyleSibylle Braungardt, Veit Bürger, Jana Zieger, Lex Bosselaar. How to include cooling in the EU Renewable Energy Directive? Strategies and policy implications. Energy Policy. 2019; 129 ():260-267.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSibylle Braungardt; Veit Bürger; Jana Zieger; Lex Bosselaar. 2019. "How to include cooling in the EU Renewable Energy Directive? Strategies and policy implications." Energy Policy 129, no. : 260-267.
The strategy of fossil fuel divestment has attracted considerable attention in recent years, particularly in the press and social media. Spearheaded as a movement based on ethical principles, divestment has been suggested to play a potential role in shaping public opinion and policymaking on climate change. The growing size of the movement has prompted debate about the extent of its impact on fossil fuel companies and climate change mitigation efforts. This article investigates the potential effectiveness of the divestment movement according to the end goal of climate campaigners – to bring about a complete break from fossil fuels. We collect and qualify the key arguments as found mainly in the informal debate, and to a lesser extent in the academic literature. This will help readers to make an informed judgement that can contribute to a constructive debate about the effectiveness of divestment. We organize the literature into arguments for and against divestment, and explain how these relate to each other. In addition, we derive suggestions for further research on divestment.
Sibylle Braungardt; Jeroen Van Den Bergh; Tessa Dunlop. Fossil fuel divestment and climate change: Reviewing contested arguments. Energy Research & Social Science 2018, 50, 191 -200.
AMA StyleSibylle Braungardt, Jeroen Van Den Bergh, Tessa Dunlop. Fossil fuel divestment and climate change: Reviewing contested arguments. Energy Research & Social Science. 2018; 50 ():191-200.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSibylle Braungardt; Jeroen Van Den Bergh; Tessa Dunlop. 2018. "Fossil fuel divestment and climate change: Reviewing contested arguments." Energy Research & Social Science 50, no. : 191-200.