Final Rep Solar Cooperatives

Solar Cooperatives
- Linking North and South -
Final Report
This study was realised on behalf of the
European Commission,
Directorate General XVII for Energy
German Federal Ministry for the Environment,

Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety
Solar Cooperatives – Final Report
Contents
Executive Summary 4
1 Introduction 29
2 The study 31
3 Potential for participation 33

3.1 Germany 33
3.1.1 The questionnaire 33
3.1.2 Results 34
3.2 Greece 44
3.3 Italy 47
3.4 Comparison 51
3.5 Summary and conclusion 54
4 Legal and economic options for Investment in Germany 56
5 Legal and economic options for investment in Greece 61

5.1 Current laws, regulations and initiatives fostering electricity 61
generation from renewable energy sources in Greece
5.2 Economic situation for renewable energy technologies in Greece 65
5.2.1 Investment costs 65
5.2.2 Demand 65
5.3 Obstacles to the dissemination of renewable energy technologies 71
6 Legal and economic options for investment in Italy 74

6.1 Current laws, regulations and initiatives fostering electricity 74
generation from renewable energy sources in Italy
6.2 Economic situation for renewable energy technologies in Italy 75
6.2.1 Investment costs 75
6.2.2 Demand 77
6.3 Obstacles to the dissemination of renewable energy technologies 77
7 Organisational aspects 79
7.1 Applicability of Solar Cooperatives for Greece 79
7.1.1 Technical aspects and potential in Greece 79
7.1.2 Infrastructural aspects in Greece 80
7.2 Applicability of Solar Cooperatives for Italy 82
7.2.1 Technical aspects and potential in Italy 82
7.2.2 Infrastructural aspects in Italy 82
8 Site selection 84
8.1 Site selection in Greece 84
8.2 Site selection in Italy 85
2
9 Cost/return calculations 87
10 Conclusions 89
Annex 1 Solar radiation map of Western Europe 93

Annex 2 Wind map of Western Europe 94
Annex 3 Evaluation of the Austrian/German questionnaire 95
Annex 4 Italian Questionnaire "Solar Cooperatives" 134
Annex 5 Amortisation calculation / cumulated reflux of capital 135
Annex 6 Cost/return calculations for certain sites in Greece 139
Annex 7 The potential for PV technologies in Greece 156
Annex 8 The potential for wind technologies in Greece 173
Annex 9 The potential for renewable energy technologies in Italy 179
3
Executive Summary
Introduction
Austria and Germany in particular have been at the forefront of modern initiatives in
Europe to encourage people to participate in developing and supporting large photovoltaic
(PV) plants and wind-parks by purchasing share certificates. The rapid expansion of envi-
ronmental consciousness, as well as the recent advancement of technological develop-
ments in the area of PV and wind energy that have manifested in northern European
countries in particular, have had an impact throughout Europe. This also stimulated
greater interest in this concept of utilising renewable energy initiatives in the southern
European region – an area that has even more favourable climatic conditions in general.
Thus „Solar Cooperatives“ could be established and encouraged, thereby linking people in
the North to partners in the South as shareholders of solar- and wind-power plants.
In expanding the concept of Solar Cooperatives, there are different reasons for focussing
on involving countries in the south of Europe: The profitability of PV and wind depends
largely, except for required legal regulations, on prevailing local climatic conditions. An
example of the impact which radiation has on the output of a PV module is shown in the
table below, providing a comparative overview for four different European cities. The data
reflects one of the fundamental ideas behind Solar Cooperatives, namely that European
investors could become shareholders of a PV plant that works much more effective in
Southern Europe than would be the case in Central Europe.
Table 1 illustrates that Athens (Greece) and Rome (Italy) enjoy considerably more sun-
shine on an annual basis than the cities of Hamburg and Freiburg in Germany. It should
be noted that best sites in Southern Europe have an annual daily global irradiation of 4,6
kWh/m2. This means an irradiation level that is at least 70% higher than in Germany.
2 1
Table 1: Daily global radiation G in kWh per m over a 10 year period (1966-1975)
Hamburg (Northern Germany) G = 2.68 (100%)

Freiburg (Southern Germany) G = 3.24 (121%)
Rome (Italy) G= 4.19 (156%)
Athens (Greece) G= 4.34 (162%)
For wind power plants the potential is more difficult to estimate, in particular as obstacles
to wind or speed-up effects may considerably alter the conditions at a regional level.
Large parts of Greece and Italy have the same favourable conditions for wind energy as in
northern Germany. Solar plants on the other hand achieve a much higher yield in these
southern areas. The energetic, and possibly also the economic, pay-back period is shorter
for the southern areas, which makes it an ideal geographical location for establishing solar
power plants. This is also true for the wind potential at specific locations in the south. Thus
1
Source: European Solar Radiation Atlas, European Commission, 1996.
4
applying and developing the concept of Solar Cooperatives in Southern Europe is an in-
teresting option from many perspectives.
An additional advantage to this concept is the transfer of technology and expertise devel-
oped in the different areas, both north and south, which will support the European scien-
tific community involved in the development and refinement of renewable energy tech-
niques. From a political-cultural perspective the increased interaction, through the expan-
sion of Solar Cooperatives, provides a bottom-up contribution to the European North-
South-cohesion, as citizens from countries in central Europe would be linked to partners in
the South by purchasing share certificates. An aspect that is particularly attractive is the
fact that both the North and the South will contribute to the success of the project. All
these aspects can contribute to the development of trans-continental solidarity and of joint
European purpose, especially in addressing environmental issues, an area where Europe
is taking the lead.
The study
The concept of providing share certificates for wind turbines and photovoltaic plants is well
established in some countries of Europe. Now people from Middle Europe shall be en-
abled to purchase certificates for plants in Southern Europe, which show much better wind
patterns and radiation than their home..
The principle of share certificates can work along the following lines:
An organisation sets up a plan to build a medium to large scale PV-plant and/or a wind
park. A refined concept will be created and then marketed through appropriate channels
of information. Individuals are thereby invited to contribute by purchasing a share of the
plant equivalent to a specific wattage. The minimal order of a share will be determined
(e.g. 0,1 kW).
A brochure containing important information about the construction and operation of the
plants will be created and sent to interested individuals. This work will be accomplished by
the Solar Cooperative acting as the trustee. A sales contract between the trustee and a
purchaser/shareholder may be signed fixing the order of the share. The trustee provides
information and administrational support to the shareholder. Furthermore the trustee looks
after financial support through the government and the responsible utility.
Finally it negotiates the concept and aspects of costing with an engineering consultant.
The latter signs a site-use contract with the owner of an estate and/or roof, and acquires a
workshop to install the photovoltaic plant and/or the wind turbines. The purchaser gets a
financial return on a bank account according to the generated electricity of his share. This
procedure will be managed by the trustee. The electricity may be fed into the grid.
5
Purchaser Shareholder
Sales contract Information/administration/

payment
Solar Support
(Government, Utility)
Cooperative
Concept/costing
Income
Engineering generated from
Consultant
Solar Electricity
Workshop
Site Usage
Owner
of
Photovoltaic-Plant
Estate/Roof Wind-Park
Figure 2.1: Model of a Solar Cooperative
Aims and objectives
Goals of the project can be summarised as follows:
• to clearly analyse the potential of and the conditions for the participation of individuals
as investors from Central Europe in Solar Cooperatives in Greece and Southern Italy
(For this purpose ISES addressed a questionnaire to its membership in Austria, Ger-
many, Italy and Greece).
• to elucidate the prerequisites, requirements and options for the establishment of Solar
Cooperatives in those countries via a holistic, interdisciplinary approach.
• to investigate the economic feasibility of the proposed Solar Cooperatives.
• to achieve a bottom-up-contribution to the North-South-cohesion within the European
Union.
The action was to clarify the viability of a transfer of Solar Cooperatives from Austria and
Germany to Greece and Southern Italy, and thus pave the way for the realisation of Solar
Cooperatives in regions with excellent climatic conditions for wind and PV power plants.
6
Work plan
The project (Module I) was subdivided into the following phases:

• Potential for participation in Austria and Germany
• Analysing basic patterns, requirements and options
• Survey of site-related issues
• Paving the way for realisation
• Final report / dissemination.
Potential for participation
As a first step it was investigated what the general state of readiness for participation in
such a concept is. The aims were to define the general conditions under which potential
participants would be more inclined to invest. Therefore, three surveys were carried
through among potential participants in Germany/Austria, Greece and Italy.
The figures below provide information for comparison, based on the questions raised and
answers received from participants of the Italian, Greek and German surveys. This direct
comparison assisted the project focus as it clearly indicated the motivation of potential
participants.
Would you in principle consider becoming a shareholder in Italy or Greece? (Question 1)
1,60
1,40 1,35
1,26
1,20
mean values: -2=no; 2=definitely
1,00
1,00
D
0,80 IT
GR
0,60
0,43 0,44
0,40 0,35 0,36
0,24
0,20
0,01
0,00
wind PV hybrid
Figure 3.1: Inclination to participate in a project in different counties
Figure 3.1 shows that Italians as a group are clearly more enthusiastic about the idea of
investing in wind or solar energy than the Greeks or Austrians/Germans are. With the
analysis of this information it has been taken into account that there are different cultural
7
mentalities, with the Italians known to express their feelings in a more vigorous manner
than for example the Austrians would.
The figure further illustrates that whereas Austrians/Germans seem to prefer wind power
plants, Italians and Greek are more positive about PV. This is attributed to the expanding
development of wind plants through public stock companies in Germany, where people
have had the opportunity to buy share certificates. Thus it is an accepted concept, also
known to be a profitable investment - all of which influences the attitude towards this type
of power plant. In Italy and Greece, there is a more positive attitude towards PV, which, in
Italy, may stem from the visibility and promotion of the 10,000 roofs programme.
Should the plants be grid-connected or in rural areas not yet electrified? (Question 3)
60%
57%
50%
50%
40% 38% 38%
D
30% 29% IT
27%
GR
24%
23%
20%
14%
10%
0%
grid-connected non grid-connected does not matter
Figure 3.2: Preference for grid or off-grid options
Figure 3.2 shows that in Italy most people who answered the questionnaire voted for grid-
connected applications, whereas the Greek and Austrian/German participants seem to
prefer the off-grid version. In this case, two different perceptions of the questionnaire may
be the cause of the visibly different results: The Greeks and Austrians/Germans were
probably thinking of the development of regions not yet connected to the grid, whereas
Italians were focusing on the economic component. Further, once again the 10,000 roofs
programme, which was relatively recent during the time the questionnaire was released,
may have caused greater enthusiasm for grid options.
Figure 3.3 shows that there is a general consensus among the three countries that the
best place for PV is to install it on existing buildings, to protect available agricultural land
for other purposes.
8
Where should PV-plants be installed? (Question4)
1,7 1,72
1,5
mean values: -2=no support at all; 2=very strong support
1,28
1,2 1,17
0,64
0,5 0,39
0,3 0,34
D
IT
GR
0
roofs/facades noise protection barriers waste land agricultural areas/pasture
-0,5
-1 -0,9
-1,5
Figure 3.3: Preferred installation places for PV
The diagram below mirrors the fact that Austrians/Germans seem to be prepared to invest
more money than people in the other two countries. However, in all countries, people are
mostly interested in projects of a short duration and with a high return on investment, thus
investor economics remain an important factor to consider in the development of power
plants. Further, looking at the feedback, it is obvious that projects could not be financed
with donated money, due to the small amounts people are prepared to give.
Can you imagine acquiring shares of a PV/wind/hybrid plant in Greece or Italy, considering
the following options? (Question 5)
GR
donation IT
GR
ROI: 3% IT
GR
50 €
ROI: 6% IT 250 €
D 500 €
2500 €
GR
5000 €
duration:5 years IT 10000 €
more
D
GR
duration: 10 years IT
GR
duration: 20years IT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure 3.4: Potential investment in Solar Cooperatives
9
Would you participate in a plant in the following location/countries? (Question 6)
1,6
1,4 1,34
1,2
1,04
1 0,95
mean value: -2=no; 2=certainly
0,85
0,8
0,66
D
0,6 IT
GR
0,4 0,35
0,3 0,28
0,2
0,08
0
my own Germany Greece Italy Austria Argentina South Africa
community
-0,2
-0,24 -0,24 -0,25
-0,4
Figure 3.5: Inclination to participate in a project in different regions
Survey summary and conclusions
From the feedback received on the survey it can be concluded that there is a real interest,
from the side of the Greek, Italian and German/Austrian participants, to participate in a
solar cooperatives scheme. The exact preferences, however, differ in the three countries.
Whereas Greeks and Italians prefer the PV option, Austrians/Germans would rather select
wind power plants. On the question whether to supply grid-connections or off-grid loca-
tions, the Greek and German/Austrian respondents voted for off-grid, whereas the Italians
preferred the grid-connected option. From the results to the question on potential invest-
ment in solar cooperatives (ROI, duration), it is clear that the respondents preferred eco-
nomically viable projects with a high return on investment. It was also indicated that it
would be impossible to finance projects with donated money. Further it is necessary to
point out that the time frame people preferred was much shorter than the time usually
taken by a plant to yield actual profits (five years as the stated preferred time frame
against the usual 20 years required for profitability).
Creation of Links
The survey questions relating to the creation of links to generate increasing cohesion be-
tween people in Southern and Central Europe did not provide a particularly positive re-
sponse. Comments such as: "Do hotels in Turkey link the German/British and Turkish
people?" illustrate this. It is postulated that this will probably rather occur at a scientific and
industry interaction level, with the exchange of technology and expertise supporting this. It
may possibly expand to include the general public once large-scale European cross-
10
country projects are implemented, linked to growing awareness of environment and en-
ergy issues.
Taking into account the overall results of the survey, it seems that the project could focus
on Solar Cooperatives that are established primarily on an economically viable basis. The
question of whether the off-grid option, which was preferred by the German and Greek
respondents, could be an option consistent with the desired profitability, needed to be
addressed during the course of the project.
It is also clear that it is important to involve people from the South. This is needed to en-
sure that they receive some benefits from power plants established in their countries -
thereby establishing a situation of mutual advantage.
Legal and economic options for investment in Germany
Existing models of Cooperatives (wind, solar and hydro) have been analysed with regard
to the amortisation of the invested capital. The results presented give an overview of exist-
ing models in Germany with possible and feasible implications for Solar Cooperatives in
Greece and Italy.
Comparing the amortisation and profitability of the invested deposit (see Figure 4.1 be-
low), there is a remarkable difference between the schemes of repayment of wind on the
one hand, and PV on the other.
Whereas the wind cooperatives repay the invested capital within a period ranging from 13
to 16 years with nearly identical schemes of repayment, the repayments for the investors
in PV cooperatives differ widely due to the varying underlying assumptions. The outcon-
mes for the PV option are due to the acknowledgement or denial of loss allocation for So-
lar Cooperatives. In many cases there is no depreciation allowance for PV cooperatives in
Germany because one cannot assume profit goals.
The “Freiburg PV Cooperatives” and the Cooperatives “Bürgersolarstrombeteiligung” (citi-

zen participation) represent rather idealistic investments. However, the outstanding
schemes of repayment of cooperatives with cost-covering tariffs and the solar stock ex-
change may attract a large audience.
11
220%
200%
180%
160%
140%
120%
100%
80%
Capital
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
-40%
-60%
-80%
-100%
Year
German saving bonds Bundesschatzbrief 1998/13 -A

Hydro power Murg (Ökologik Ecovest AG Erlangen, 1998)
Wind park Ihlewitz (Ökofinanz Frankfurt, 1998)
Wind park Frauenberg (WSB Frauenberg, 1998)
Wind park Grünow (Ventus Wiesbaden, 1998)
Wind park Krempel (EnergieKontor Bremerhaven, 1998)
Freiburg PV cooperative (FESA, 1998)
Solar stock exchange for >30 kW (BEWAG, 1997)
PV "Bürgersolarstrombeteiligung" (Bayernwerk, 1997)
PV cooperative, payment of "cost-covering tariff" for 15 years (HEW, 1998)
Figure 4.1: Amortisation schedule / scheme of repayment
In comparison with a conventional long term capital investment in Germany like the
“Bundesschatzbrief” (Federal saving bond) with a maximum duration of 6 or 7 years, all
cooperative models are based on a long term scenario, with a minimum contract duration
of 20 years. Whereas the “Bundesschatzbrief” as a German saving bond repays the in-
vested capital with a fixed rate of interest at maturity, the amortisation of the invested capi-
tal takes in case of wind cooperatives at least 13 to 16 years. These facts influence the
decision making process of potential investors in cooperatives.
Legal and economic options for investment in Greece
Current Legislation in Greece
Greece is a country with extremely high potential of PV and wind, mainly due to the follow-
ing reasons:
• high insolation/strong winds all year round (among the highest levels in Europe)
• electricity requirements on islands are mostly covered by diesel/heavy oil generation
units, resulting in high operation costs and environmental pollution
• significant tourism activity during the summer (pollution on some islands increases by
more than 100%), thus showing significant seasonal correlation between energy de-
mand and PV power generation.
However, compared with other EU markets, the PV market in Greece is not very devel-
oped. In order to improve the situation, a positive legislative and financing framework is
12
being formed (e.g. deregulation of the energy market, new development law, operation
programme for energy). There are a number of legislative measures or programmes sup-
porting Renewable Energy Sources (RES), which comprise actions related to PV and
wind energy systems. The Centre for Renewable Energy Sources (CRES) - the national
centre for the promotion and dissemination of renewable energy sources in Greece – also
supports the increased utilisation of renewable energies.
National Development Law 2601/98 (on private investment)
The objective of this law is the reinforcement of private investment in Greece with a view
to promote regional development targets, increasing employment, Greek enterprise com-
petitiveness, production sector restructuring, exploitation of existing opportunities for the
secondary sector in Greece and abroad, environmental protection, and energy conserva-
tion.
This is to be achieved through a new framework to provide subsidies for productive in-
vestments. The subsidies are in the form of partial funding of the cost of capital expense,
loan interest or leasing, or, alternatively, as partial funding of the loan interest and tax
breaks. Subsidies depend on geographical region, but there are a few exceptions, where
they are uniformly applicable in the whole country. Among those exceptions are invest-
ments and equipment leasing for electricity production from renewable energy or cogene-
ration - the maximum subsidy rates apply in these cases, irrespective of the region.
For the remaining renewable energy applications, subsets depend on the region, but even
then the applicable rates are better than those generally used. Special incentives for in-
vestments over 10 and 25-60 million Drachma for expansion of existing units and estab-
lishment of new units (the latter depends on the type of enterprise) in specific sectors.
Investments and/or leasing programmes on renewable energy sources are not subject to
general limitations on funding (15 million Drachma per new job position).
Law 2244/94 (Law for Electricity production from Renewable Energy Sources)
The “Renewable Energy Law” was adopted in 1994. It addresses topics on electricity pro-
duction from renewable sources. In April 1995 a Ministerial Decree (8295/19.4.1995) was
issued, clarifying the administrative process, tackling the issues related to licenses for
installation and operation of electricity producing plants. In the same decree, a sample
contract between the Public Power Corporation (PPC) and the electricity producers is pre-
sented, where the details regarding the buying-back rate and the grid connection terms
are included. Two categories of electricity producers are defined: Auto-Producers (AP),
which generate electricity to cover their own consumption and sell only their surplus en-
ergy to the PPC, and Independent Producers (IP), who sell all their production to the PPC.
The law removes previous restrictions for the independent production of electricity from
renewable energy sources, with a new maximum capacity of up to 50MW for IPs. The
PPC is obliged to buy all energy produced by IPs under a ten year contract, while retain-
ing the exclusive right to supply third parties with electricity. The law also explicitly defines
13
the essential components of the payback tariff system followed for the power producers,
correlating it with the PPC’s kWh selling price.
Law 2364/95 article 7, paragraph 17

(National Tax Deduction Scheme for Renewables and Natural Gas)
At present, the only available incentive for individuals to install PV systems is the exemp-
tion of 75% of the purchase and installation cost of renewable energy systems from their
taxable income. This measure is important only when the individual is taxed in the higher
tax brackets of 30 to 45%. For those tax brackets, there is a PV system cost reduction of
22% to 34% respectively. Although this measure is welcome, it does not provide a serious
incentive, as it is dependent on the taxable income bracket. The associated PV system
cost reduction with respect to equivalent programmes that promote renewable energy
introduction is considered low. For companies and other legal entities, the above men-
tioned percentage or 100% is amortised from their profits over a period of years.
Operational programme for energy
The Operational Programme for Energy was established 1996. It covers investment sup-
port in the area of renewables and rational use of energy. The public subsidies come from
the European Fund for Regional Development and the Greek government. The Pro-
gramme was implemented for 4 years (1996-1999), and was then replaced by the new
operational programme, which is to run from 2000 to 2006. A minimum total budget limit of
20 million Drachmas exists, for proposals made for PV systems. The PV systems are fi-
nanced by 55% of their total cost, while the rest of the amount is covered by private funds.
A part of the programme budget of the order of 10 billion Drs has been put aside to fund
renewable energy applications in the public sector.
Operational programme for research and technology
Through the Operational Programme for Research and Technology and Sub-programme
2, actions related to the “Promotion of the R&T activities in the field of the environment
and environmentally sound technologies” (Sub-programme 1, measure 1.1) and “Industrial
research, technology transfer and innovation” (Sub-programme 2) the state supports re-
search activities in the field.
Regional Operational Programmes
Greece is divided into 57 prefectures, which in turn are grouped into 13 administrative
regions, with each region having its own regional programme. The basic lines of these
programmes are the following:
1) Infrastructures: road networks, railway system, telecommunication, energy, natural

gas
2) Living conditions: urban development, health, environment
3) Competitiveness: industry and services, research and development, tourism, culture,
agriculture, fisheries
14
4) Human resources: education and continuous training, modernisation of public ser-

vices.
Depending on the region and the priorities set, certain actions are being formulated and
launched. Areas 2) & 3) of Environment and Research & Development concern among
others the deployment of Renewable Energy Sources in the regional context. Again, no
specific programme is dedicated to PV.
Economic situation for renewable energy technology in Greece
Investment costs and retail prices
PV - The investment costs for PV in Greece are currently estimated to be in the range of
300 million Drs./kW.
Wind - The investment costs for wind energy plants are estimated to lie between 350 to
400 million Drs./MW.
Hydro - In the case of hydro power plants, investment costs are between 550 to 600 mil-
lion Drs./MW.
The table below gives an overview over the payback tariffs of different energy generation
systems.
th
Table 2: The payback tariffs, valid since July 15 1998
APs IPs
Energy payback Energy payback
70% of kWh sell- 90% of kWh
ing price, in selling price, in
Drachma Drachma
Autonomous all voltages energy 18.62 23.94
Island Grids
Interconnected low voltage energy 18.62 ---
systems (220/380V)
med. voltage energy 15.057 19.359
(6.6, 15, 20, capacity --- 497 X ı
22 kV) (50%of selling
tariff)
high voltage peak zone 9.835 12.645
(150kV) med. zone 6.818 8.766
low zone 5.054 6.498
capacity --- 1128.5 X ı
(peak zone) (50%of selling
tariff)
Note 1: The value ı takes the following values.

0.5 for wind and solar units
15
0.7 for small hydro units

0.9 for geothermal and biomass units
Note 2: The capacity credit is calculated on the basis of the peak-measured power output be-
tween two successive measurement periods.
Demand
External lighting
Households
Connected
Agricultural
Transceivers
Navigation
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 %
Figure 5.1: The most attractive applications (% demand )
The houses and settlements on isolated areas (islands-continental), are presented as the
most attractive applications (29%), followed by the transceivers (19%), the agricultural
applications (16%), grid-connected applications (14%) and navigation applications (13%).
Even though no more than twenty wind energy units corresponding to 20 MW have been
installed over the last five years, rapid development is foreseen over the next years. Offi-
cial data shows that about 0,3% of the nation’s energy needs are accommodated by wind
power. Data on wind energy availability indicates that about 12-15% of the national energy
demand could come from wind. The total Greek market for renewable energy equipment
was about US$175 million in 1997. Imports supply approximately 90,4% of the market.
Based on positive but realistic scenarios made by the government and market experts, the
total Greek market for wind generators was estimated to be US$520 million in the year
2000.
The current capacity of wind energy generators, (which is presented in figure 5.2), is pro-
vided through PPC and autoproducers.
16
Generation (kW) 30000

25000
20000 Generation by PPC
15000 Generation by autoproducers
10000
TOTAL
5000
0
1990 1992 1994 1996
Years
2
Figure 5.2: Electricity generation from wind-energy converters
The first category represents 87,5% of the total installed wind power (24,300kW), some-
thing which depicts the monopoly on electric power production by the PPC. The number of
such units is about 130 and their net electricity generation considered about 34,150MWh.
By autoproducers, the installed power approaches 3,490kW, 25 units with net electricity
generation about 2,770MWh.
An end-user analysis separates the market demand in two segments:

• Public sector demand
Municipalities, ministries, airports, hospitals and military installations are the govern-
ment-controlled entities that are the main purchasers of wind products through ten-
ders.
• Private sector demand
Uses for wind farms in this sector are the pharmaceutical industry, poultry farming,
remote homes, water pumping and demonstration projects.
The wind energy market in Greece is particularly promising. Over the next years, the dra-
matic market liberalisation and solid growth in demand will together create significant op-
portunities in this industry sector. The Greek policy concerning investment activity is con-
tained in a number of laws which establish a variety of financing mechanisms and incen-
tives for investors in the public and private sectors. Grants for machinery and buildings,
interest rate subsidies, tax-free allowances, extra depreciation rates, lower social security
contributions and favourable tax rates are some of the provided incentives.
Obstacles to dissemination of renewable energy technologies in Greece
The most important barriers existing for the dissemination of PV applications in Greece
were identified during the project and are summarised as follows:
• high cost of PV systems

• lack of small demonstration projects (completed and in operation) in different geo-
graphical areas, which would operate as examples
2
Unpublished data, CRES, 1995-1998
17
• lack of cost-benefit studies for the realisation of various projects, which would be op-
erated by specialists as practical guides
• inadequate financing sources and relevant programmes (national or regional) for the
realisation of small demonstration projects – in certain cases, a significant strengthen-
ing of the financial support has to take place at regional and local level
• inadequate economic motives for the purchase and installation of PV applications for
individuals
• limited information of users (personal contacts, lack of training seminars)
• need for more information on the study and the supervision of PV systems on local
level (centralisation of experiences and know-how in urban centres)
• weakness of a legislative framework to support the obligatory use of renewable en-
ergy sources in public projects
• need for further cooperation between government bodies, regions and market actors
(information for European national-regional programmes)
Legal and economic options for investment in Italy
Current legislation in Italy
The current laws and the regulations formulated for the technical development of renew-
able energy sources are funded essentially on the “Energetic National Plan” of 1998 (Pi-
ano Energetico Nazionale – 1998 PEN 98) based on the laws No.9 and No.10 of 1992
and on the PROVVEDIMENTO CIP 6/92.
The most important principle of these laws is the one contained in Article 1 of the law
No.9: “the renewable energy sources have to be considered a public usefulness and
benefit”. And in an operative sense, Article 2 describes the actuation of PEN, Article 3
describes the agreement between the Ministry of Industry (MICA) and ENEA regarding
the use of renewable energy sources, and Article 5 indicating that regional institutions
have to organise the regional plan on renewable energy sources, in collaboration with
ENEA.
The law No.9 allows the self-production of electricity and the transfer thereof to ENEL (Art.
22). This is possible after a notification to MICA and drafting a convention with ENEA. The
selling prices are established by CIP 6/92, according to the energetic index of the plant.
The energetic index is a function of electricity - self-produced, heat produced and primary
fuel supply. ENEL charges customers just for supplying electricity and not according to the
source which ENEL uses for energy production.
The above description shows that the laws presented provide regulation and financial
support, but do not provide an organic strategy of action in developing the use of renew-
able energy sources. In other words, the policies foster private initiatives, but they do not
co-ordinate those initiatives. As a matter of fact the law No.9 and CIP 6/92 have not
18
achieved the expected results, which is one of the reasons that led to the decision of ces-
sation of this legislation.
A new formulation of regulation on renewable energy sources development appears to be

required, as shown in the conclusive document of the “Carpi Commission” (Points 1.5 and
3.7): “the renewable energy sources are the most important target policy of energy and
environment…so, the supporting issues are to be reviewed in order to correct the limita-
tions which appeared during the past four years”.
In the Italian legislation the most important and suitable support initiative for the renewable
energy sources development was law 29/12/1997. It included fiscal reductions amounting
to 41% of the investment in the realisation of energy systems implementing renewable
energy sources. The maximum cost allowed amounts to Lira 150.000.000 (77.470 €) in-
cluding VAT. This initiative had a duration period of two years, from 1998 to 1999.
Economic situation for renewable energy technologies in Italy
Investment costs
PV - The investment cost of PV can be considered, in a conservative way, 4.648.110 -

8.263.310 €/MW (9-16⋅109 Lit/MW). In 2010 it should be reduced to 2.582.280 - 3.098.740
€/MW (5-6⋅109 Lit/MW), thanks to progress in the development of the technology.
Wind - The investment costs can be considered to decrease with the growth of the market
sector. Actually they amount to 774.690 €/MW (1,5⋅109 Lit/MW).
Hydro - At the end of 1996, the hydropower installed was 13900 MW for power plants of
more than 10 MW and 2150 MW for power plants of less than 10 MW (375 MW of them
for power plants less than 1 MW).
Conventional Power Stations: The investment costs range from 774.690-1.032.910
€/MW (1,5-2⋅109 Lit/MW). A law of 1988 excluded the electricity production with nuclear
power plants.
Production costs and retail prices
PV – The electricity production cost of grid-connected PV plants is in the range of 0,26-

0,52 €/kWh (500-1000 Lit/kWh) and the possibilities of reducing them in the short term
seem to be very low. This assumption refers mainly to the large plants. The development
of the PV market in the stand-alone plants (houses and urban infrastructures), however
seems to be faster.
Wind – The wind energy market actors in Italy come from the national industry, but there
is also a significant presence of foreign operators, in particular from Denmark, who have
reduced production costs by the constant increase in the middle class power range up to
600kW. The production costs amount to 0,08-0,1 €/kWh (150-200 Lit/kWh).
Hydro – In the last years, the attention has been addressed to the low power hydro plants
(less than 10 MW). In fact, now they are considered economically convenient because
19
today there is a real difficulty in finding sites suitable for high and medium power hydro
plants. The production costs are about 0,02-0,04 €/kWh (40-80 Lit/kWh).
Conventional power stations - In the evaluation of the power production with conven-
tional plants - amounting to 0,04-0,08 €/kWh (80 – 150 Lit/kWh) - one has to take into ac-
count the cost generated by the environmental damage, amounting to 0,03-0,05 €/kWh
(65-106Lit/kWh) for oil plants and 0,01-0,03 €/kWh (28-51 Lit/kWh) for gas plants.
Demand:
A real variety of demand can be observed, especially for PV applications. The most impor-
tant are:
• So-called professional applications, such as remote sensing, telecommunications,
cathodic protection of metallic devices. In these applications the PV technology is
convenient and competitive.
• Electrification of villages non grid-connected.
• Power devices of 0.5-3 kW.
• Illumination of remote areas (archaeological sites, airports in little islands).
• Desalinisation devices.
• High power plants (100 kW-3 MW) grid-connected.
Obstacles to the dissemination of renewable energy technologies in Italy
Depending on the technology, there are various obstacles to the wider implementation of
renewable energies in Italy. The following list provides a short overview:
PV
• Investment cost still too high
• Lack of a supporting policy.
Wind
• The complexity of the geographical areas related to the wind power plant determines
a difficult evaluation of suitable sites
• Suitable sites are often in remote areas, non grid-connected
• Lack of a national certification system
• Requirement of a large amount of investment for the development of a national mar-
ket.
Hydro
• Complexity of the authorisation path, due to the particular situation of the plant in re-
gions (mountainous ones) often characterised by environmental restrictions.
• Large amounts of investment, especially for low power plants in which there is not a
convenient return on investment.
20
Applicability of Solar Cooperatives in Southern Europe
Greece
12000
10000
8000
Generation (kW)
6000
4000
2000
0
C R E TE S.AEG EAN N .AEG EAN MA IN LA N D
Re g io n s
3
Figure 7.1: Wind energy converters by region in Greece
Greece is an ideal area for harnessing wind energy. It has over 1000 islands - represent-
ing 20% of Greece’s total area - sea wind speed exceeding 7,5 m/s, and in some areas 10
m/s. Wind energy has been used in Greece for centuries to grind grain and for irrigation.
The distribution of wind energy installations by region is presented figure 7.1.
The implementation of Law 2244/94 of October 1994 ended a forty-five year monopoly on
electric power production by the state-controlled PPC. This law allows the private sector
and industrial companies to establish and operate power stations to produce electric
power from renewable sources either for their own use or for resale to the PPC.
The idea of solar cooperatives has to overcome some barriers in order to be successful in
Greece, and careful planning of the development of this concept has to be done.
Critical issues:
• the acquisition of the required license (in some geographic areas it is very difficult to
obtain)
• the purely economic attractiveness of the investments for the investors
• cooperation with the local authorities in all the phases of the project
• the exploitation of potential incentives, such as the Development Law and the Struc-
tural Funds for energy (up to 50% of the investment)
• training of the personnel.
3
21
Examples of potential Solar Cooperatives
• Use of the PV and/or wind energy supply systems for eco-tourism enterprises (e.g.
hotels). Promotion of the green character of this activity, especially for environmen-
tally sensitive tourists. Green funds are recommended to be used for this purpose
• Cooperation with building construction enterprises, real estate enterprises and big
chains supplying buildings in tourism areas (e.g. time-share vacations)
• Cooperation with industrial/professional associations to promote the concept in their
membership.
Italy
Italian regulations are based on the National Energy Plan (PEN) issued in 1988, strength-
ened by law 9/91 and 10/91, whose application was assured by the PROVVEDIMENTO
CIP 6/92. Several other agreements, legislation and disposals were concluded. However,
these resolutions mainly encouraged diffusion, realisation and exploitation of renewable
energy sources including cogeneration plants, whose “utilisation is considered of public
interest and utility” (Art. 1, Law 10/91). Projects should rather be proposed to an official
commission which makes its selection according to some energy index previously decided
on.
From the local perspective, regions are obliged to plan the use of renewables, i. e. identi-
fying target areas and searching for financial resources. Financial aid is provided by the
government, but is in practise implemented by the Regions, that are also in charge of de-
veloping local regulations in support of government legislation.
Law 9/91 gives the right to autoproduce electricity and sell it to the national grid at certain
prices and conditions detailed in CIP 6/92. Recently (January 1998) this CIP 6 was sus-
pended, thereby freezing the growing free market of energy. To address the matter the
EU directive 96/92/CEE must be implemented as soon as possible.
There are some restrictions especially for wind plants: Legislation tends to protect the
landscape and environment through the release of authorisation for land use, building,
landscape impact, seismic stability, flying safety, etc... To obtain the correct authorisation
to establish a wind power plant takes two or three years. Solar Cooperatives operating
with wind energy plants will have to adhere to this long procedure, while these will mostly
not be applicable to PV plants.
Most of the Italian wind plants are installed in two basins - Sardinia and the coast along
the Southern Adriatic sea (i. d. Apulia, Basilicata, and Abruzzo Regions), where wind
characteristics make the operation of such plants economically feasible.
As far as irradiation is concerned, the best target areas are located in Southern Italy (Sic-
ily, Calabria and the Apulia Region) as well as the lower Central area. In those areas
summer temperatures reach up to 40°C and the climate is warm throughout the year. In
22
Italy there are a number of small islands in the Tyrrhenian Sea, which are potential sites
for several projects, that could also be linked to desalination plants. The identified islands
in question are Eolie, Lipari, Lampedusa, Pantelleria and Tremiti.
According to the psychological point of view, Italy today is a country ready for implement-
ing non-grid solutions, as people are looking for common services offered by new “socie-
ties” that are detached from the previous monopolies, generally following the spirit of
global markets. Table 3 gives an overview of aspects that argue for or against a certain
location.
Table 3: Pros and cons of different locations for plants
Urban areas Rural areas
May be disturbing. Prob- Not disturbing if far away

Noise level
lems especially at night. from populated areas
Merging with industrial- Strong

Visual impact
ised city
Short daily home-work Maybe long home-work

People
travel travel
Facilities supply (electricity,

Already present May need to be installed
water, etc.)
Future enlarging process Hard Easy
Cost/return calculations
Based on parameters compiled during the project, an economic evaluation of PV-plants

and wind turbines was carried out to quantify the profitability of possible projects. The cal-
culations are realized with a software tool for financing limited partnership companies in
Germany, which is used by banks and trustees. The required input parameter such as
plant size, energy yield and investment costs are based on national values in Greece.
Installation, operation and maintenance costs have been assumed from international and
German experiences. All annual costs are increased by an inflation rate. Initial financial
parameters (revenue rate, interest rate and depreciation mode) are based on Greek val-
ues, annual financing costs for trustee, legal and tax consultants must be fixed for each
project. Incentives, such as investment subsidy and soft loans, are fixed according to the
current situation in Greece or international projects with Germany. In the following part, an
example of a wind power plant is described.
The graph below gives the cash flow of a wind turbine installed at Cyclades without any
subsidies. As the IRR shows, it would be a very attractive investment even if 75% must be
23
credit financed (at the local interest rate of 14%). The increase in revenues of the electric-
ity sales is caused by a nominal inflation rate of 3%. The company makes losses only in
the first 4 years, as the turbine may be depreciated within this period. Afterwards, trade
tax has to be paid (about 15% of the total revenues). Consequently, the state would also
profit from an installation.
Wind turbine in Greece (Cyclades)

400.000
300.000
200.000
Values in €/year
100.000
0
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
-100.000
-200.000
-300.000
Year
Expenditures incl depr. - Payments Total Revenues
Depreciation wind turbine Pre-tax result
Figure 8.1: Cash flow of a wind turbine installed in Greece
For this calculation, the following parameters were chosen:

• equity capital 25%
• debt capital 75%
• no investment subsidy
• international soft costs total payments on dividends 1.979.799 DM rel. to equity cap.
• 1374.9% IRR (rel. to payments w/o. taxes) 37.07%.
This case will most probably be realised in the future.
The official investment subsidy of 40% results in "wind fall" profits, which means a mis-
allocation of resources. However, there have been only a few projects realised in Greece.
The authors assume that the required actions for realisation are long-term processes with
an unpredictable time schedule.
Conclusions and outlook
Summarising, it can be said that through different mechanisms the concept of solar coop-
eratives may serve to promote the implementation of renewable energies: First, it could -
through its advertising and demonstration effect – be a catalyst for other projects in the
24
south. Further, the exploitation of a high energy potential will contribute to the profitability
of such projects and boost the further development of technology.
Socially, the concept of solar cooperatives may be slowed down as the identification of
potential investors with the plant is made difficult by long distances between the location
of the plant and the potential shareholders. Therefore the "fun effect" may be missing,
since shareholders cannot easily visit their plants or consume their “own” energy. Possible
remedies for this problem might be a connection with tourism. Distance is not as impor-
tant, as accessibility, thus for example the vicinity of the power plant to a charter airport
may help.
Certain disadvantages have to be taken into account and carefully dealt with, if the con-
cept of solar cooperatives is to be a success. Amongst others the political situation plays
an important role – it could be used as a reason by governments and utilities in the north
not to support the diffusion of renewable energy technologies in their own countries, as
the export of technology which has not reached a high diffusion in the north seems to im-
ply that such energy sources cannot work economically there. However, since especially
wind power technology in Germany has expanded visibly, this argument is invalidated. A
further concern is that the participation of Central Europeans through buying shares in
countries that are ‘far away’ could reduce the pressure on them to support sustainable
energy provision in their own countries, which may give the impression that Central
Europeans do not have to change their behaviour. It is therefore necessary that the
Northern European countries set an example, from a practical, political and psychological
perspective.
Although the possibility for increased cohesion between southern and central Europe ex-
ists this was not reflected in feedback received from the survey respondents. However, a
linking character is likely to develop if people from the south and north participate and are
made aware of the benefits through an awareness generating action. Participation of the
local population is absolutely necessary to ensure a successful implementation and the
spreading of benefits: If they do not have a relation to the plant which is installed in their
neighbourhood they may not accept the implications such plants may have (e.g. change
of landscape). It is therefore extremely important that the project be carried through in
accordance with the wishes of the local population. Further it needs to be made sure that
the solar cooperatives concept will not give the impression of development aid, which
Southern Europe definitely does not need. This could be accomplished through an eco-
nomic justification for the project.
From the results of the survey, in particular the question on how much money people
would be willing to invest in which sort of concept (return on investment, duration of the
contract), it can be seen that the respondents clearly preferred economically viable pro-
jects. Further, it turned out that it would definitely be impossible to finance projects with
donated money. Therefore, it is necessary to establish profitable projects.
Whether the participation in a solar cooperative could be a profitable investment is con-

templated in chapter 8. As can be seen from the results of the cash flow calculations,
even with most favourable conditions, this will not be possible for PV plants. The focus
25
should therefore be on wind power generation. This however stands in contrast to the
results of the surveys in Greece and Italy, where the majority of respondents showed
preference for the PV option. If it comes to decision-making on investment, however, prof-
itability weighs higher than the general preference of a certain technology, so that only
wind powered plants are regarded as a feasible option for solar cooperatives. This deci-
sion is in line with the requirements on role models of the north and economic justification
for a project, which were described earlier in this chapter.
From the survey it can be seen, that there is sufficient interest in Italy and Greece to par-
ticipate in projects in their own countries. Austrians and Germans are further inclined to
invest in either of these two countries, so that the basic concept in general could be real-
ised. Different interests that the Italians, Greeks and Austrians/Germans had with regard
to the application of the power plants, whether they should be grid-connected or off-grid,
used in schools, private homes or hospitals, etc. need not be considered if the main focus
of a project is profitability. In this case only grid-connected wind power plants come into
question, which will not supply any specific application anyway.
From these reflection it can be concluded that the solar cooperatives project needs to
happen on a purely economic basis. As explained in chapter 8, PV therefore is currently
not an option, so the focus should be on wind power plants. The financial attractiveness of
these is that large that commercial wind park operators have already entered the arena.
Thus German companies like Energiekontor, UnitEnergy, Umweltkontor and WindStar,
already offer investment in plants in foreign countries, e.g. in Greece.
Still, in spite of the economic attractiveness of the investment so far not a lot of plants
have been implemented. This is partly due to slow process of obtaining certification and
licenses for the establishment of renewable power plants – an aspect that needs to be
urgently addressed if a significant contribution of renewable energies to the generation
structure in Greece and Italy is to be achieved.
It is suggested, that instead of the establishment of a clearing agency for the realisation of
solar cooperatives, which was planned for module two of this project, further investigation
and activities on incentives for the realisation of a higher share of renewable energy plants
should be carried through.
Seminars should be arranged to allow an exchange of information at an Inter-European

level to discuss existing policy mechanisms successfully used in other countries, to further
the deployment of renewable energies, e.g., the German feed-in law. This could speed up
the process to develop applicable regulations in all the countries. The idea of cooperatives
should be introduced and discussed at such seminars, since it is not a known concept in
all countries in Europe. Awareness raising activities should also form part of a basic strat-
egy to ensure the participation of people, both from the North and Southern European
countries, as their participation is indispensable.
The Next Steps: Transferring Acquired Know-How to Third Countries

It had been foreseen in the original proposal for this project that work should also focus on
transferring relevant experience gained within this project to developing countries, hence
26
forging a link between north and south. Due to a contractual constraint it was not possible
to include Third Countries in the project.
One particularly relevant avenue for follow-up activities based on the knowledge gener-
ated in this project is the promotion of investment mechanisms in the context of Kyoto
Protocol instruments designed to assist with climate change mitigation. In particular, in-
struments such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) need to draw from the type
of experience gained within projects such as this one.
While climate change and its mitigation is one of the most urgent challenges facing man-
kind, the past few months have demonstrated that considerable renewed efforts have to
be expended to deliver real, tangible and rapid results on this critical issue. The last min-
ute agreement at COP-6+ in Bonn on 23rd July 2001 now opens the door to making real
progress in establishing the various emission trading mechanisms which should form one
pillar of the Kyoto Protocol. The last two major climate change conferences, COP-6, held
in The Hague in 2000, and COP-6+ illustrated the importance of the active involvement of
the renewable energy industry and financing institutions and other bodies in the climate
change debate. While conventional energy technologies have been heavily involved in
these issues for some time, the renewable energy sector must now play a leading role in
helping to define the agenda with respect to the related energy issues.
Over the past few years the PV and wind energy sectors in Europe have experienced the
largest net growth in their history, propelled by a combination of European and national
initiatives, and the commitment of industry and customers. This growth must be sustained
through a combination of actively opening up new markets and major new investments in
production facilities. The European PV and wind energy industries are investing heavily in
new technologies and production facilities. However it is crucial that the frontiers of these
markets continue to advance, since only in this way will these sectors achieve sustained
commercial viability. This implies that we must ensure that the vast potential of markets in
developing countries are realised. Kyoto Protocol instruments such as the Clean Devel-
opment Mechanism (CDM) will be crucial to this goal.
The G8 Renewable Energy Task Force released its report on 17th July 2001. The report
predicts that concerted action by G8, other countries, the private sector, international fi-
nancial institutions and others could result in 1 billion people (80% of whom are located in
developing countries) gaining access to electricity and/or more efficient energy supply in
the next 10 years. The report concludes that "such an outcome of serving up to a billion
people in the next decade with renewables should be our goal and aspiration". Solar elec-
tricity and wind power, together with the basket of other renewables, represent the most
suitable clean energy technology to achieve these goals since its highly modular power
supply characteristics are well matched to the needs in rural areas of developing coun-
tries. The impetus provided by the G8 report, coupled with the go-ahead for ratification of
the Kyoto protocol, must be exploited by a combined action of European and developing
country actors. This will not just help bring more clean power to developing countries, but
will result in job creation both in Europe and in the developing world.
27
To achieve this we must learn from the mainstream energy sector, and forge new, innova-
tive alliances amongst leading players in other industrial and financial sectors, while simul-
taneously full exploiting global instruments designed to support environmentally-friendly
energy technologies such as PV and wind energy.
It is crucial to ensure that the views of European and developing country policy makers
and renewable energy industries are taken into account during the process of finalising
the characteristics relevant Kyoto Protocol instruments. Instruments such as the Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) are well suited to off-grid
applications in developing countries. Unfortunately the European renewable energy in-
dustry has, as yet, had little opportunity to exploit these instruments and, as such, a sec-
ond step will be the raising of awareness amongst European and developing country in-
dustry of the potential of mechanisms such as the Clean Development Mechanism.
Thirdly, we will need to forge alliances and partnerships which could lead to the formation
of various partnerships to undertake projects incorporating Kyoto Protocol instruments.
The experiences gained in the Solar Cooperatives project point to how such alliances
could be established, in particular in the innovative financing scheme area.
The lessons learnt from the Solar Cooperatives project will prove valuable in assisting with
the building of viable collaborations between industrialised and developing countries. That
should be the next step following the conclusion of this project.
28
1 Introduction
Austria and Germany are renowned for initiatives where people can take part in establish-
ing large PV-plants and wind parks through purchasing share certificates. Considering the
spreading environmental consciousness in industrialized countries, one can assume that
there is a readiness to extend such initiatives to regions in southern areas with even more
favourable climatic conditions. Thus „Solar Cooperatives“ could be established with peo-
ple in the North being linked to their partners in the South as shareholders of solar- and
wind-plants.
Expanding the concept of „Solar Cooperatives“, there are different reasons for narrowing
the focus on countries in the south: The profitability of PV and wind depends strongly,
besides legal regulations, on the local climatic conditions. The impact which radiation has
on the output of a PV module is shown in the table below for four different European cit-
ies. The data reflect one of the fundamental ideas behind Solar Cooperatives: European
investors could become shareholders of a PV plant which works much more effective in
Southern Europe than in Central Europe. The map in annex 1 provides an overview of the
radiation conditions. Table 1 illustrates that Athens (Greece) and Rome (Italy) enjoy on a
yearly basis more sunshine than do Hamburg and Freiburg in Germany. It should be
noted that best sites in Southern Europe have an „Annual Daily Global Irradiation“ of 4,6
kWh/m2. This means an irradiation which is at least 70% higher than in Germany. For
more information see annex 1.
2 4
Table 1: Daily global radiation G in kWh per m in a 10 years means (1966-1975)
Hamburg (Northern Ger- G = 2.68 (100%)
many)
Freiburg (Southern Ger- G = 3.24 (121%)
many)
Rome (Italy) G= 4.19 (156%)
Athens (Greece) G= 4.34 (162%)
For wind power plants the potential is more difficult to estimate, since obstacles to the
wind or speed up effects may considerably alter the conditions on regional level. Still, from
the rough map in annex 2 it can be seen that in large parts of Greece and Italy there are
the same favourable conditions for wind energy as in Northern Germany. Solar-plants
achieve a much higher yield in these southern areas. The energetic and possibly also the
economic pay-back period is shorter. This is also true for the wind potential at specific
locations in the South. Thus „Solar Cooperatives“ in the Southern Europe are an interest-
ing option.
Finally through the project a bottom-up-contribution to the North-South-Dialogue can be

achieved. People from Central Europe would be linked to their partners in the South by
purchasing share certificates. This should be a good opportunity to develop a feeling of
transcontinental solidarity and togetherness. Particularly attractive should be the fact that
both the North and the South are able to contribute to the success of the project which
4
Source: European Solar Radiation Atlas, European Commission, 1996.
29
means in simplified terms: The North’s part is its relatively affluent people being enthusi-
astic about solar energy and concerned about protecting the environment on a global
scale, and the South’s its favourable climate.
30
2 The study
The concept of share certificates for wind turbines and photovoltaic plants is well estab-
lished in some countries of Europe. Finally people from Middle Europe shall be enabled to
purchase certificates for plants in Southern Europe, which show much better wind pat-
terns and radiation than their home.
The principle of share certificates can work along the following lines: An organization sets
up a plan to build a medium to large scale PV-plant and/or a wind park. A refined concept
will be created and then mediated on appropriate channels of information. Individual peo-
ple are thereby invited to contribute in purchasing a share of the plant equivalent to a spe-
cific wattage. A minimal order of a share will be determined (e.g. 0,1 kW). A brochure con-
taining vital information about the construction and operation of the plants will be created
and sent to interested individuals. This work will be accomplished by the „Solar Coopera-
tives“ acting as a trustee. A sales contract between a trustee and a purchaser/shareholder
may be signed fixing the order of the share. The trustee gives information and administra-
tional support to the shareholder. Furthermore the trustee looks after financial support
through the government and the utility. Finally it negotiates the concept and aspects of
costing with an engineering consultant. The latter signs a site use contract with the owner
of an estate and/or roof, and looks for a workshop to install the photovoltaic plant and/or
the wind turbines. The purchaser gets a financial return on a bank account according to
the generated electricity of his share. This procedure will be managed by the trustee. The
electricity may be fed into the grid.
Purchaser Shareholder
Sales contract Information/administration/

payment
Solar Support
(Government, Utility)
Cooperative
Concept/costing
Income
Engineering generated from
Consultant Solar Electricity
Workshop
Site Usage
Owner
of
Photovoltaic-Plant
Estate/Roof Wind-Park
Figure 2.1: Model of Solar Cooperative
31
Aims and objectives

Goals of the project can be summarised as follows:
• to clearly analyse the potential of and the conditions for the participation of individuals
as investors from Central Europe in „Solar Cooperatives“ in Greece and Southern It-
aly. ISES has for this purpose included its membership in Austria, Germany, Italy and
Greece in a questionnaire.
• to elucidate the prerequisites, requirements and options for the establishment of „So-
lar Cooperatives“ in those countries via a holistic, interdisciplinary approach.
• to investigate the feasibility of the proposed “Solar Cooperatives”
• to achieve a bottom-up-contribution to the North-South-Cohesion within the European
Union.
The action was to clarify the viability of a transfer of "Solar Cooperatives" from Austria and
Germany to Greece and Southern Italy, thus to pave the way for the realisation of „Solar
Cooperatives“ in regions with excellent climatic conditions.
Work plan
The project (Module I) was subdivided into the following phases:
Potential for participation in Austria and Germany
Analysing basic patterns, requirements and options
Survey of site-related issues
Paving the way for realisation
Final report / dissemination
32
3 Potential for participation
In a first step it was investigated what the general readiness for participation in such a
concept is. Aims were to define the general conditions under which potential participants
would be more inclined to invest: Therefore, three surveys were carried through among
potential participants in such a concept in Germany/Austria, Greece and Italy.
The first survey was carried out in Germany and Austria among ISES members in these
countries.
3.1 Germany
The concept of ”Solar Cooperatives” is based on linking individuals form Central Europe to
their partners in Southern Europe by purchasing share certificates of photovoltaic- and
wind plants in Greece and Southern Italy. Hence, the first step of the feasibility studies
was to comprise the determination of the likelihood and the conditions under which indi-
viduals from Austria and Germany are ready to participate in ”Solar Cooperatives” in
Greece and Southern Italy.
As first inquiries had shown there is interest in participating in ”Solar Cooperatives”

abroad. However, this needed to be defined and determined more precisely. As a conse-
quence it was vital to conduct and evaluate a questionnaire on a scientific basis, which
addressed individuals that are already members of ”Solar Cooperatives” in Austria and
Germany and/or have a basic interest in the use of solar and wind energy.
The decision to focus on the two countries mentioned above is due to the fact that the
concept of ”Solar Cooperatives” is well known there. This does of course not mean that
people form other countries cannot participate in ”Solar Cooperatives”. On the contrary, it
is considered as vital that also people from the Southern Europe take part in the "Solar
Cooperatives"-scheme.
The ISES membership base in Austria and Germany had been defined as an appropriate
entity to which the questionnaire should be related. This entity, dealing with issues of solar
energy on mainly a professional or business level, was assumed to be familiar with the
principle of "Solar Cooperatives" as they are run in their countries.
3.1.1 The questionnaire

A questionnaire (see translated version in annex 3) had been created and mailed with a
letter to all ISES members in Austria and Germany. The letter had outlined the concept of
the study and the idea underlying "Solar Cooperatives". The evaluation had taken place
with the statistical program SPSS.
The ISES membership in Austria and Germany comprises 560 people. In order to achieve
reliable results it was aimed at getting a return rate of the questionnaire of 30% (168 per-
sons). 186 questionnaires (33%) were included in the evaluation below.
33
Characterisation of respondents
Profession:
37,1% Engineers
22,6% Scientists
10,8% Civil servants/University employees
10,2% Students
7,0% Architects
12,3% Else
Average age: 38,5 years

Sex: Male (94,5%)
Female (5,5%)
More than a third of the respondents were engineers. A very high degree of the people
had an academic background. Both characteristics reflect the ISES membership in gen-
eral.
In the following, the evaluation of the questionnaire will be presented according to the or-
der in which the questions were raised. The figures are mean values ("-2" is equivalent to
"5" in the questionnaire, "0" is equivalent to "3", and "2" is equivalent to "1" in the ques-
tionnaire).
3.1.2 Results
In annex 3, figures related to the questions discussed below, are presented.
Would you in principle consider becoming a shareholder?
Would you in principle consider becom ing a shareholder in Italy or Greece?

(Question 1)
0,50
0,45 0,43
0,40
0,36
0,35
0,30
0,24
0,25
0,20
0,15
0,10
0,05
0,00
wind PV hybr id
Figure 3.1: Potential for participation in a Solar Cooperative
34
This question aimed at testing the basic readiness of the members to participate in a solar
and/or wind cooperative5 in Italy or Greece by becoming a shareholder. The results (fig-
ure. 3.1) show that the respondents have a positive attitude towards participation, which is
at this stage, however, not very strongly pronounced. People still seem to be irresolute
with regard to a decision as the mean values of the responses are fairly near to zero. Yet
they do not reject the idea. The positive attitude is most strongly expressed in the case of
wind turbines, which might mirror both the wide diffusion of the cooperatives-concept in
the wind sector and the relatively high "return on investment" which wind turbines can
have in a supportive policy environment6. Photovoltaics instead does not reach so high
"return on investment" due to the fact that this technology is far more expensive than wind
turbines. Furthermore irradiation in Central Europe is too low to balance the high invest-
ment costs with appropriate income derived from the operation of a PV plant7.
How convincing do you find the idea to run »Solar Cooperatives« in Southern
Europe financed by people from Northern or Central Europe?
The results show that the vast majority (70%) of the respondents find the idea either "con-
vincing" or "very convincing". Only 12,6% of the people gave a negative response. The
mean value of all responses is N = 0,8 (x = 2,0 means "very convincing"). Altogether the
ISES members have a strongly positive attitude towards the idea of "Solar Cooperatives".
The idea is more positively perceived than the consideration of actually becoming a
shareholder. There is a difference between the assessment of an idea and the considera-
tion of a personal participation in a project.
Could, in your opinion, "Solar Cooperatives" contribute to stronger links between

people from Northern and Southern Europe?
Only 10% of the respondents seem to be convinced that "Solar Cooperatives" can con-
tribute to increasing cohesion between people from Northern and Southern Europe. The
mean value of all responses to this question is N = 0,1 (x = 2,0 means "very much"). The
relative majority of the respondents, roughly one third, has chosen a neutral answer. An-
other 30% of the respondents do not see any contribution to stronger links between
Northern and Southern Europe. It is interesting to note the difference between the degree
to which people are convinced of the idea of "Solar Cooperatives" on the one hand and
the extent to which they think "Solar Cooperatives" could contribute to stronger links on
the other hand.
How strong do you support the supply of the following facilities by a "Solar Coop-
erative"?
The aim of this question was to clarify to which facilities the electricity supply through "So-
lar Cooperatives" should preferably be related. In case grid-connected versions are cho-
sen, PV plants and wind turbines here should not just generate clean electricity but this
electricity can, as in the case of non grid-connected versions, be considered for the supply
5
In the following the term "Solar Cooperatives" will be used referring both to photovoltaics and wind turbines.
6
The German "Electricity Feeding-in Law", which guarantees the payment of a fixed price for electricity from
renewables has most strongly contributed to the wide diffusion of wind turbines in this country.
7
This does not apply to currently 25 cities in Germany the utilities of which pay the operators of PV plants
"cost covering tariffs" resulting in rates of presently up to 1,89 DM/kWh solar electricity.
35
of certain facilities or communities. The share of electricity not used by the facility or
community can then be fed into the grid. The economic feasibility of this concept and as a
consequence the "return on investment" for shareholders depends on the difference be-
tween the conventional electricity tariff charged by the utility and the tariff paid to the "So-
lar Cooperatives" for solar electricity by the utility. It is a central aspect of this project to
raise awareness for issues centering around energy. This can be achieved if the PV and
wind plants are made visible to people (of a community).
How strong do you support the supply of the following facilities by a "Solar
Cooperative"? (Question2)
1,6
1,5
1,4 1,4 1,4

1,4
1,2
1,2
1
1
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,1
0
schools water pumps water purification hospitals villages telecommunication private houses
Figure 3.2: Potential support for the supply of different applications
Figure 3.2 shows that the strongest vote was for schools (N = 1,5), followed by water
pipes, water purification, and hospitals (all N = 1,4). Villages (N = 1,2) and telecommunica-
tions (N = 1,0) receive less support. There is a clear rejection of private houses (N = 0,1).
One can state a marked trend towards public facilities at the expense of private houses.
No negative mean values were recorded which means that all of the listed facilities are, to
a varying extent, accepted as supply options for "Solar Cooperatives".
Should the plants being realised be grid-connected or non grid-connected in rural

areas not yet electrified?
The responses to this question show a relatively equal distribution (see figure 3.3). More
than a third (38%) prefer non grid-connected plants. However, for the same proportion of
respondents the decision between grid-connection and non grid-connection does surpris-
ingly not matter. Altogether there is an obvious preference for non grid-connected plants,
a fact on which attention should be drawn in the future course of the project, e.g. to de-
termine suitable sites for "Solar Cooperatives". One has to keep in mind, however, that in
Italy nearly 100% of the customers are connected to a grid.
36
40%
38% 38%
35%
30%
25% 24%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Roughly a quarter (24%) of the ISES members voted for a grid-connected plant, which
might be a surprising result. Grid-connection is synonymous for sophisticated infrastruc-
ture and reliability, both of them being features which should be assessed as important in
the context of making investments abroad.
Regarding photovoltaic plants: Where should those be installed?
1,7
1,5
1,2
0,5
0,3
0
-0,5
-1 -0,9
-1,5
37
Considering the results of this question, the respondents prefer a multifunctional use of
the plants, e.g. the protective and electricity generating function which roofs and facades
(N = 1,7) or noise protection barriers (N = 1,2) equipped with PV can have (figure 3.4). This
preference indicates advanced environmental consciousness of the respondents as space
is effectively used here. Particularly in the case of roofs it also reflects a decision for the
most commonly applied PV-concept.
An important issue is the intensity of land utilisation. Waste land (N = 0,3), which is attrac-
tive also for nature conservation areas, and especially agricultural areas/pasture (N = -0,9)
have a comparatively low ranking. For these options large areas of land would have to be
utilised, a fact which is sometimes mentioned as criticism against the application of PV. At
this point specific social and cultural patterns gain importance, e.g. the fact that Greece
hardly has noise protection barriers. Therefore the different perception of space, the den-
sity of population as well as ecological and socio-cultural aspects had to be analysed for
each country separately. This was the reason to conduct a modified and smaller version
of the questionnaire also in Italy and Greece.
Considering the following options, can you imagine acquiring shares of a PV plant,
wind power plant or a hybrid plant located in Italy or Greece?
Figure 3.5 reflects the general readiness to acquire shares of a "Solar Cooperative" under
different financial and legal conditions. These mirror to some extent the conditions of al-
ready existing "Solar Cooperatives" in Germany.
donation IT
100DM
ROI: 3%
500DM
1000DM
5000DM
10000DM
duration: 5 years
20000DM
30000DM
duration: 20years
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
An outstanding result is the fact that nearly half (47%) of the respondents could imagine a
one-off or limited donation: A very large share of the respondents (30%) are ready to do-
nate DM 100,--, 12% of them could imagine a donation of DM 500,-- whereas nearly 5%
are willing to donate DM 1.000,-- up to DM 10.000,--. This result can be an important hint
to show a way in which an investment base for "Solar Cooperatives" can be established.
The pilot-character of this particular "Solar Coopertives" - project lets people be inclined to
38
consider small donations rather than to consider significant mid to long-term investments.
A concrete appeal for donations could, in conjunction with targeted marketing activities,
mobilise this potential for donations. The higher the "return on investment" the greater is
of course the readiness to invest in such a model. Almost 70% of the respondents are for
instance ready to acquire shares in case of a 6% "return on investment". However, it is
interesting to note that for smaller levels of support (500 to 1000 DM) the 3% option has
more often been chosen than the 6% option. For higher levels of support (> 10 000 DM)
the greater attractiveness of the latter option is strongly pronounced. The shorter the dura-
tion of a contract the greater the readiness to invest. The Austrian and German ISES
members prefer a duration of 5 years (60,2%) and 10 years (58,6%). A marked drop in the
readiness takes place for a 20 year contract option (34,9%). Two decades are a long pe-
riod of time which has inherent many incalculabilities also with regard to financial consid-
erations. As a consequence it might seem appropriate to work with returns of investment
well above 10% (and then perhaps no return of the original investment) to make the 20
year option attractive. These results give first indications only. The challenge will be to
transfer the "imagination to acquire shares" to an actual purchase.
How important would the following aspects be for you as a potential shareholder?
The following issues represent important environmental, social, financial and organisa-
tional aspects of a participation in "Solar Cooperatives".
Environmental aspects
The environmental aspects were addressed by the arguments of a "support of renewable
energy", an "important contribution to environmental protection" and a "selection of an
ecologically acceptable location". The first two arguments are of general nature and the
last one refers more concretely to the selection of a site. Environmental aspects are in
comparison to the others considered most important (mean values range from N = 1,8 to N
= 1,4). The central motivation of a potential shareholder is to support the idea of renew-
able energy and environmental protection. However, it is also important for them that due
attention would be paid to environmental aspects for the selection of a site. This points to
the vital role which the conduction of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) would
play preparatory to the realisation of plants.
Social aspects
The social aspects comprise the arguments of "links with people in another country", "fi-
nancial participation of the population in the South" as abstract questions, and "selection
of a socially acceptable location" as a more detailed question. The latter aspect achieved
the highest score. This emphasises again the great importance which is attributed to a
careful planning process. Compared to the siting issue, the financial participation of the
South is considered as significantly less decisive. It has, however, been stressed repeat-
edly in remarks of the respondents that with the project no imperialism over southern
countries should be exerted and that those and its people should be included in its realisa-
tion. The linkage character of "Solar Cooperatives" is not a central aspect for a potential
shareholder. It has been stated above that a possible contribution through "Solar Coop-
eratives" to stronger links between people from Northern and Southern Europe is obvi-
ously not clearly evident for the respondents. It has now become clear that the idea of
linking people apparently is not particularly important for them. Social issues are behind
environmental ones second in ranking of importance for the respondents. Both are fun-
39
damental aspects to which the model of "Solar Cooperatives" has to find satisfying re-
sponses.
Financial aspects
The financial aspects were covered by the arguments of a "freely disposable minimum
investment" and a "return on investment in the event of a claim". It is obvious that the po-
tential investor is more interested in financial security than in a freely disposable invest-
ment. Compared to environmental and social ones, financial aspects are not very essen-
tial for potential shareholders of a "Solar Cooperative".
Organisational aspects
The organisational aspects or the question how to run the plant comprises the issues of
"regular provision with information", "continued advice through a scientific institute" and
the "operation of the plant by a reliable German or Austrian institution". The organisational
aspects were not as important as they were assumed to be for the respondents, espe-
cially the operation of the plant by a reliable partner is not considered an essential issue
for a potential shareholder. This contradicts to some extent the results of questions 9 and
10 where aspects of reliability, security and control were implicitly addressed. Though
most of the respondents have an academic background, the ongoing supervision of the
cooperative through a scientific institute seems not to be a very important aspect. The
regular provision of the investor with information is considered slightly more important.
How would you assess the following factors with regard to your participation?
This question tries to identify factors which are supportive or hindering to the realisation of
"Solar Cooperatives". It checks again the importance of the issue that "Solar Coopera-
tives" would be located far removed/abroad for Austrian and German investors. It turns
out that the far away location of the plant speaks tendentiously against participation. This
is corresponding with the results of the following question. The most decisive factor that
speaks very well for participation is the character of a model project. This is an unex-
pected result because a new project like this implies a financial risk in the sense of mobi-
lising venture capital. Fairly unimportant for a participation is the 10 year duration of a con-
tract. The analysis of the standard deviation shows that the responses vary to a significant
extent.
Table 2: Mean values, standard deviation and missing values with regard to factors
for and against a participation.
Aspects Mean Standard Missing val-
values deviation ues
Character of a model project 0,60 1,0 13
Duration of contract approx. 10 years 0,13 0,9 20
Location of the plant abroad 0,01 1,0 15
Plant far removed from immediate community -0,39 0,8 16
Would you participate in a plant in the following locations/countries?

The respondents clearly prefer their own community as location of the plant followed by
"Germany" (figure 3.5). An outstanding result is the marked difference in readiness to in-
vest in "Germany" and "Austria". This may be due to facts like the small number of Aus-
40
trian ISES members and the lack of wind potential in Austria compared to German coastal
locations. Locations on the Southern hemisphere like Argentina and/or South Africa are
not interesting for potential investors which may mirror a lack of stability in those countries
or a discomfort about the even greater distance to ones home in Central Europe.
1,2
1,04
0,8
me
an
val 0,66
ue:
- 0,6
2=n
o;
2=c
ert 0,4
0,35
ainl
y 0,28
0,2
0,08
0
my own community Germany Greece Italy Austria Argentina South Africa
-0,2
-0,24 -0,25
-0,4
To put it into a nutshell, the investors tend to participate in schemes as near as possible to
their own community. Non-European locations of plants are negatively assessed by
potential investors. There is, however, a difference between "donators" and "non-
donators". In case of the "donators" the mean value for readiness in participation is
positive for each of the optional countries.
Do you have further remarks? Which advantages or disadvantages do you perceive

in the "Solar Cooperatives" - concept presented?
Technical aspects
There was a tendency to recommend PV as non grid-connected version and wind turbines
as grid-connected one. The distance to the grid is considered an important aspect for
making a decision about a possible grid connection. Continued control and maintenance
of the plants is considered being more important than ongoing scientific advice. Some
respondents have asked to extend the focus of the project to solar thermal power plants
and micro hydro power plants. Exploring possibilities for local production of the plants fi-
nally to be installed was recommended.
Social aspects
Many comments were made related to social aspects. Most of them referred to the need
that local people in Greece and Italy should participate in the Cooperatives with regard to
the planning, financing, operation and maintenance of the plants. For many it was crucial
to avoid a neo-imperialistic approach through simply imposing concepts created in Central
Europe on Southern Europe. Financial participation from people of the South would ex-
press their interest in the project and build a relationship between the local people and the
41
nearby plants. It was also mentioned that people should understand the concept of the
plants. Some respondents stress the opportunity which "Solar Cooperatives" could pro-
vide to "increase cohesion between European people in cultural, economic, ecological and
scientific regard".
Financial aspects
The arguments were here centred around the "return on investment". Some said that a
"return on investment" lower than 6% would not be profitable. Also the need to run "Solar
Cooperatives" economically sound and through a qualified institution was addressed. The
operational affairs should be controlled by a Board and made transparent to the share-
holders.
Cooperation with the South

Concerns were expressed about the feasibility to plan and operate plants in a "Solar Co-
operative" in the South (lack of environmental awareness and interest, corruption, bad
maintenance etc.). To tackle these disadvantages, exerting a strong control function was
recommended. It was mentioned that "Solar Cooperatives" - plants could contribute to
raise awareness amongst the population in the South.
Advantages and disadvantages of the "Solar Cooperatives" - concept8

In addition to the comments implicitly made on the pros and cons of the concept in the
above paragraphs, the following ones seem to be outstanding:
Advantages
• Contribution to decentralised and environmentally friendly energy supply.
• Acting as a catalyst for other projects in the South.
• Perhaps less resistance against wind turbines than in Germany.
• Setting a particular example for "Activities Implemented Jointly" - Projects (AIJ):
Central Europe has more capital and higher CO2-emissions per capita than South-
ern Europe / these emissions cause problems also in the South - the South, how-
ever, has higher kWh/kW values etc..
• Exploitation of a high energy potential.
Disadvantages
• "Solar Cooperatives" in the South can be an excuse for governments and utilities
in the North not to support the diffusion of renewable energy technologies (RET) in
their own area. The export of a technology like PV which has not yet seen a sig-
nificant diffusion into the electricity market in Central Europe favours the opinion
that those plants cannot work economically in this region.
• The long distance between the location of the plant and the home of shareholders
in the North impacts negatively on the feeling of identity with the concept and plant.
• The development of electricity prices in Europe is not predictable due to the
liberalisation of the electricity market.
• Language and communication problems.
4
The contribution of the Fraunhofer Institute to Phase 1 (see annex 3) contains, in a German
version, a more comprehensive list of the arguments.
42
Further remarks
• "Solar Cooperatives" should not create competition with local planning for RETs.
• "Solar Cooperatives" should be extended to Spain and Portugal.
• Micro Hydro Power Plants should be included as they can be run very reliably and
cost effective.
• "Solar Cooperatives" should enable the participation of people from all over
Europe.
What experience do you have with renewable energy plants or environmental tariff
models?
Altogether there are 22 % of the 186 respondents who have experience with PV plants in
one way or another, most of them possessing an own one. In the case of wind turbines,
altogether 14 % of the 186 responding ISES members have personal experience with
wind turbines, most of them (10%) as shareholders.
Experiences with "hydro", "collectors" and "biomass/gas" are much less developed than
for "PV" and "wind", except the high portion of respondents operating an own solar collec-
tor.
The running of own plants concentrates on "PV" or "collectors". Tariff models are in gen-
eral not very well-known in comparison with other experiences. This is due to the fact that
innovative tariff models have been implemented only more recently by some utilities.
To sum up, a lot of ISES members have a positive attitude towards the idea of "Solar Co-
operatives". There are no clear preferences between wind, PV or hybrid plants. For many
of them it is not obvious that "Solar Cooperatives" can link people from northern and
southern parts of Europe. Paying attention to environmental and social aspects is crucial
in the process of realising "Solar Cooperatives". German and Austrian ISES-members
prefer the supply of social facilities (schools, hospitals) through "Solar Cooperatives". The
readiness to acquire shares of a "Solar Cooperative" exists but potential investors prefer
locations in their own community or in Germany. A special group of investors - let us call
them "Solar Cooperatives"-supporters - have a comparatively strong interest in the linking
character of this pilot model. They can imagine to invest in a plant located in Greece or
Italy. In case of a 10 year contract they are the ones to choose the highest amount of in-
vestment. Other interesting groups are the "donators" and "non-donators". Many ISES-
members are ready to make donations to a "Solar Cooperative". A comparison of those
two groups shows interesting options and opinions. Whereas the "donators" show the
willingness to support the project over a long period of time, the "non-donators" are more
critical against an installation of the plants abroad. In general it became clear that many
respondents can imagine a participation if financially attractive contracts are offered able
to counteract the risk inherent in investing abroad.
43
3.2 Greece
A brief survey was also carried out in Greece. The questionnaire developed for the Ger-
man survey was shortened to the most important questions so as to identify the possibili-
ties for the establishment of solar cooperatives in Southern Europe.
The questionnaire was sent to all ISES members in Greece. The response was satisfac-
tory, roughly 30% of the active members replied.

According to the feedback, the idea of participation as an investor in the installation of
wind, PV and hybrid parks in Greece appears to be of great interest. It can be seen that
investments in wind parks, are more favourably considered (figure 3.6).
50%
40%
30% yes
perhaps
no
20% no answer
10%
0%
wind parks PV parks hybrid parks
Important outputs are that 43% of the respondents answered positively for a participation
in wind parks. This number is rather high (especially considering that 21% did not answer
the question) and shows the interest in such a concept. The number of ISES members in
Greece who are in favour of the installation of PV parks is roughly equal to the number of
those who reject it (28%). Negative feedback was given for the participation in hybrid
parks (38%). On the whole, 36% of all respondents had a positive attitude towards partici-
pating in such cooperative schemes.
erative"?
The second question in the Greek survey asked for facilities, which should be supplied
through solar cooperatives. Figure 3.7 shows that there is a large support for power sup-
ply in schools (64%), hospitals (79%), in households (72%) and in telecommunication in-
stallations (64%). However, there is a reservation to supply villages and pumps.
44
100%
80%
60% very much

fair
no
40% no answer
20%
0%
schools hospitals houses villages pumps telecom.

The dominant belief is that the parks should be located in non-grid connected isolated
regions (57%). 29% support the idea of supplying rural areas in general, independently of
whether this is grid or non-grid connected. Figure 3.8 depicts these aspects.
grid-connected
off-grid areas 14,0%
57,0%
does not matter

29,0%

For PV installations, it was voted that their proper installation places are terraces/roofs of
buildings (78%). Other locations (office units or households with an emphasis on architec-
ture, etc.) and installations in agricultural areas follow.
45
70%
60%
50%
very much
40%
fair
no
30%
no answer
20%
10%
0%
terraces agricultural areas else
The interest for obtaining some participial titles on installations of wind, PV, and hybrid
parks is depicted in table 3 below.
Table 3: Potential investment in Solar Cooperatives

MINIMUM 15000 75000 150000 750000 1500000 3000000 MORE
AMOUNT THAN
DRACHMA 3000000
small 7,25% 7,25%
support
/charity
3%annual
average
performance
6%annual 7,25% 7,25% 14%
average
performance
bond 7,25% 14%
duration
5 years
bond 7,25% 14%
duration
10 years
bond 7,25% 7,25%
duration
20 years
46

The interest for participating in these parks is stronger in areas closer to the home of the
Greek ISES members, however, participation is likely in all Greek regions. The following
diagram (figure 3.10), reflects these aspects.
40
30
yes
perhaps
20
no
no answer
10
0
own community wherever in Greece
On the whole, this is an idea of great interest. Nevertheless, its promotion seems to be
necessary, provided that some issues are clarified (aims, legislation, structure, oversight,
etc.). The lack of information on the experience of such cooperatives, as well as on previ-
ously made statutes of establishment are important barriers to which attention must be
paid.
However, the operation must be flexible and pioneering, with individual initiative standards
and visible long-term plans. The need for cooperation between the members and their
effective participation in taking decisions is obvious. The solar cooperatives are favourable
only in regions where the charge - economic or environmental- is prohibitive. It is believed
that an installation survey is necessary, especially in isolated islands, farm households
and for isolated agricultural utilization.
3.3 Italy
In Italy, a short version of the Austrian/German questionnaire was distributed among Ital-
ian ISES members. On the whole, about 600 questionnaires were sent out and around
100 were sent back. The following gives a brief overview over the results of the survey.
The numbers on the blue line gives the percentage of people who answered this particular
question.

As can be seen from the figure above, there is a distinct preparedness in Italy to invest in
solar cooperatives, whether wind, PV or hybrid power plants.
47
2 100%
mean values: -2 = no support at all; 2 = very strong support
90%
84% 90%
1,5
1,35
1,26 80% 80%
1
1
70%
0,5
60%
% of aswers
0 50%
40%
-0,5
30%
-1
20%
-1,5
10%
-2 0%
wind power plant photovoltaic plant hybrid plant
erative"?
2 100%
88% 90% 90% 88% 88%
86% 90%
1,5 1,7 82%
1,52
1,32 1,25 80%
1 1,09
1 70%
0,9
0,5
% of aswers
60%
0 50%
40%
-0,5
30%
-1
20%
-1,5
10%
-2 0%
s
ps
s
ls
s
ge
e
ol
ie
io
ita
m
us
ho
lit
at
lla
sp
pu
ci
ho
ic
sc
vi
fa
ho
rif
er
e
pu
ns
at
at
iv
io
w
er
pr
at
ng
at
ic
w
ki
un
in
ng
m
dr
ki
m
in
co
dr
le
te
The diagram above shows that ISES members in Italy are strongly in favour of the supply
of villages through solar cooperatives, closely followed by schools and hospitals. Provision
of drinking water or the supply of private homes seem to be least interesting, although
there is still a definite interest in these applications.
48

does not matter

23%
grid-connected
50%
non grid-connected
27%

For this question, a strong preference for grid-connected plants can be seen. 50% voted
for these, whereas only 27%, almost half, voted for off-grid.
2 100%
96%
1,72 88% 88% 90%
1,5 88%
80%
1,17
1
70%
0,5 0,39
60%
% of aswers
0,34
0 50%
40%
-0,5
30%
-1
20%
-1,5
10%
-2 0%
roofs/facades noise protection barriers agricultural wasteland

areas/pasture

The graph above shows a distinct preference for installation of PV plants in the built envi-
ronment. It is assumed that this is due to environmental considerations.
49
duration of contract
6% 7% 2%
approx. 20 years
2% 2%
duration of contract
4% 11% 15% 17% 4%
approx. 10 years
levels of support
duration of contract 100.000 Lit

10% 19% 13% 6% 7%
approx. 5 years 500.000 Lit
1.000.000 Lit
5.000.000 Lit
return on investment 6% 6% 15% 29% 7% 10% 2%
10.000.000 Lit
20.000.000 Lit
30.000.000 Lit
return on investment 3% 11% 23% 6% 2%
2% 1%
donation 2%
17%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
The figure shows that there is a clear preference for investment in installations with high
return on investment and a short duration of the contract. Also, Italians are in general
more likely to invest smaller amounts of money, which may also be due to the novelty of
the concept.

As in the other two countries, in Italy, too, people would rather invest in power plants in
their direct surroundings that in power plants anywhere else.
2 100%
88% 90%
90%
1,5
1,34 80%
79%
1
0,95
70%
0,5
60%
% of aswers
0,3
0 50%
40%
-0,5
30%
-1
20%
-1,5
10%
-2 0%
in my own community Italy Greece
50
3.4 Comparison
In the following, a comparison of those questions and answers that were included in the
Italian, Greek and Austrian/German survey, is given. This direct comparison gave more
information on the direction that was to be taken in the project, and also on the motivation
for these answers.
Would you in principle consider becoming a shareholder in Italy or Greece? (Question 1)
1,60
1,40 1,35
1,26
1,20
mean values: -2=no; 2=definitely
1,00
1,00
D
0,80 IT
GR
0,60
0,43 0,44
0,40 0,35 0,36
0,24
0,20
0,01
0,00
wind PV hybrid
The figure above shows that obviously Italians are by far more enthusiastic about the idea
of investing in wind or solar energy than Greeks or Austrians/Germans. This is attributed
on the one hand to a real stronger interest in investing in such plants, on the other hand it
is assumed that it is a matter of mentality, that Italians express their feelings stronger.
The figure further illustrates that whereas Austrians/Germans seem to prefer wind power
plants, Italians and Greek are more positive about PV. This is attributed to the strong de-
velopment of wind plants through public limited companies where people can buy share
certificates, in Germany. This is known to be a profitable investment, and people therefore
have positive attitude towards this kind of plants. In Italy and Greece, there is a more
positive attitude towards PV, which in Italy may also stem from the promotion of the
10,000 roofs programme.
Question 3 shows that in Italy most people who answered the questionnaire voted for grid-
connected applications, whereas Greeks and Austrians/Germans seem to prefer the off-
grid version. In this case, two different perceptions of the questionnaire may be the cause
of the different results: Greek and Austrians/Germans were probably thinking of the de-
velopment of regions not yet connected to the grid, whereas Italians were focusing on the
economic component. Further, once again the then newly developed 10,000 roofs pro-
gramme may have caused enthusiasm for grid options.
51
60%
57%
50%
50%
40% 38% 38%
D
30% 29% IT
27%
GR
24%
23%
20%
14%
10%
0%
Figure 3.19 shows that there is a general consensus among the three countries that PV
should best be installed on already existing buildings, whereas agricultural lands should
be spared.
1,7 1,72
1,5
1,28
1,2 1,17
0,64
0,5 0,39
0,3 0,34
D
IT
GR
0
-0,5
-1 -0,9
-1,5
52
The diagram below mirrors the fact that Austrians/Germans seem to be prepared to invest
more money than people in the other two countries. However, in all countries, people are
most interested in projects with short running times and a high return on investment. Fur-
ther it is obvious that projects could not be financed with donated money.
Can you imagine acquiring shares of a PV/wind/hybrid plant in Greece or Italy, considering
the following options? (Question 5)
GR
donation IT
GR
ROI: 3% IT
GR
50 €
ROI: 6% IT 250 €
D 500 €
2500 €
GR
5000 €
duration:5 years IT 10000 €
more
D
GR
duration: 10 years IT
GR
duration: 20years IT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1,6
1,4 1,34
1,2
1,04
1 0,95
mean value: -2=no; 2=certainly
0,85
0,8
0,66
D
0,6 IT
GR
0,4 0,35
0,3 0,28
0,2
0,08
0
my own Germany Greece Italy Austria Argentina South Africa
community
-0,2
-0,24 -0,24 -0,25
-0,4
53
3.5 Summary and conclusions
From the survey it can be concluded that there is an interest, on the Greek, Italian and the
Austrian/German side, to participate in a solar cooperatives scheme. The exact prefer-
ences, however, are somewhat different in the three countries: Whereas Greeks and Ital-
ians prefer the PV option, Austrians/Germans would rather go for wind. On the question,
of whether to supply grid-connected or off-grid locations, Greeks and Austrians/Germans
voted for off-grid, whereas Italians preferred the grid-connected option. From the results of
the question on potential investment in solar cooperatives (ROI, duration), it could be seen
that the respondents clearly preferred economic projects with a high return on investment.
It also became clear that it would definitely be impossible to finance projects with donated
money. Further it is necessary to point out that the time frame people preferred was way
shorter than the time usually taken by a plant to yield profits (five years as the preferred
time frame against 20 years for profitability).
Several comments were made in the survey, concerning the impact the project will have
on the promotion of renewable energies. These remarks should be kept in mind when
deciding on the strategies that are to be employed.
Advantages (according to the survey)

• Catalyst for other projects in the south
• possibly less aversion against wind turbines than in Germany
• Exploitation of high energy potential
Disadvantages (according to the survey)

politically:
• could be an excuse for governments and utilities in the north not to support diffusion
of RET in their own countries: the export of a technology which has not reached a
high diffusion in the North seems to imply that such energy sources cannot work eco-
nomically in the North
• participation of Central Europeans with their money in far away countries reduces the
pressure to change something in their own countries
• the impression that Central Europe does not have to change anything in their behav-
iour arises
• the advertising effect for renewable energies is wider when used in highly industrial-
ized countries
• the North should set a good example (politically and psychologically)
• be careful not to take over responsibilities of governments/ministries
socially:
• identification with concept and plant are made difficult by long distance between loca-
tion of plant and home of shareholders - "fun effect" missing: shareholders cannot
simply go there to take a look at their plant, will not consume their "own" energy
possible remedies like connection with tourism - not distance is important but acces-
sibility - e.g. vicinity to a charter airport
54
• local population will not have any relation to plant which is installed in their neigh-
bourhood
• energy colonialism?
• project gives the impression of development aid - Southern Europe does not need
that
Therefore it is highly important that the project be carried through in accordance with the
wishes and needs of people living in potential installation regions.
economically:
• development of energy prices in Europe unpredictable because of liberalization of
market
• careful not to tie up disproportionately much money, now that plants are expensive
Creation of Links
In the survey it became clear that the possibility for an increased cohesion between
Southern and Central Europe can usually not be seen. Comments like: "Do hotels in Tur-
key link the German/British and the Turkish people?" illustrated this. In any case, a linking
character of the project will only develop if people from south and north are taking part in
the project. The participation of people from the South therefore is essential for the reali-
sation of the concept.
Taking into account the results and comments given in the survey, it seems that the pro-
ject should happen on a purely economic basis. It has turned out to be essential that peo-
ple from the respective countries, where the plants will be set up, take part in the coopera-
tive. The question of whether the off-grid option, which was preferred by the German and
Greek respondents, could be an option consistent with the desired profitability, needed to
be solved during the further course of the project.
55
4. Legal and economic options for investment in Germany
Existing models of Cooperatives (wind, solar, hydro) have been analysed with regard to
the amortisation of the invested capital. The results presented here do not claim to be
exhaustive, but they give an overview of existing models in Germany with possible and
feasible implications for "Solar Cooperatives" in Greece and Italy.
9
Figure 4.1: Existing wind parks in Germany
As Cooperatives have been selected 4 wind parks, 4 PV cooperatives and one hydro
power plant in Germany. The data is based on flyers and published investment informa-
tion. To achieve comparability we do not assume reinvestment of the payments on divi-
dends (no internal rate of interest). Table 4 shows the basic assumptions and details
about the Cooperatives discussed.
Comparing the amortisation and profitability of the invested deposit (see Figure 4.1 be-
low), there is a remarkable difference between the schemes of repayment of wind on the
one hand and PV on the other hand.
Whereas the wind cooperatives repay the invested capital within a period ranging from 13
to 16 years with nearly identical schemes of repayment, the repayments for the investors
in PV cooperatives differ widely due to the varying assumptions underlying. These results
are due to the acknowledgement or deny of loss allocation for Solar Cooperatives. In
many cases there is no depreciation allowance for PV cooperatives in Germany because
one cannot assume profit goals.
The “Freiburg PV Cooperatives” and the Cooperatives “Bürgersolarstrombeteiligung” rep-

resent rather idealistic investments. However, the outstanding schemes of repayment of
cooperatives with “cost-covering tariffs” and the solar stock exchange may attract a big
audience.
9
Photography: H.P. Gruber
56
57
Table 4: Basic financial data on German cooperatives

Hydro Wind park Wind park Wind park Wind park PV Coop. Solar PV Coop. PV Coop.
power Murg Ihlewitz Frauenberg Grünow Krempel Freiburg stock ex- "Bürgerso- "cost-
change larstrom- covering tar-
beteilig." iff"
Minimum DM 10.000,-- DM 20.000,-- DM 20.000,-- DM 25.000,-- DM 20.000,-- DM 9.000,-- DM 6.544,-- DM 13.000,- DM 1.000,--
deposit Regional Exceptions Regional Regional -
investors for regional investors investors
DM 5.000,-- investors DM 5.000,-- DM 5.000,--
Tax rate for 50% tax rate 35% tax rate 35% tax rate 35% tax rate 30% tax Without any Without any Without any Without any
personal rate, 5,5% depreciation depreciation depreciation depreciation
result Solidaritäts- allowance; allowance; not allowance; allowance; not
zuschlag not relevant relevant not relevant relevant
Duration of 30 years 22 years 22 years 22 years 21 years 30 years 20 years as- 20 years 20 years as-
the contract sumed assumed sumed
Remarks Disposal of Administra- Administrative No adminis- Administrative
the plant tive costs costs and trative costs costs and
after 30 and trustee’s trustee’s fees trustee’s fees
years, oth- fees 10% 10% 10%
erwise the
r.o.i. is
14,03% per
year
Solar Cooperatives - Final Report
220%
200%
180%
160%
140%
120%
100%
80%
Capital
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
-40%
-60%
-80%
-100%
Year
German saving bonds Bundesschatzbrief 1998/13 -A

Hydro power Murg (Ökologik Ecovest AG Erlangen, 1998)
Wind park Ihlewitz (Ökofinanz Frankfurt, 1998)
Wind park Frauenberg (WSB Frauenberg, 1998)
Wind park Grünow (Ventus Wiesbaden, 1998)
Wind park Krempel (EnergieKontor Bremerhaven, 1998)
Freiburg PV cooperative (FESA, 1998)
Solar stock exchange for >30 kW (BEWAG, 1997)
PV "Bürgersolarstrombeteiligung" (Bayernwerk, 1997)
PV cooperative, payment of "cost-covering tariff" for 15 years (HEW, 1998)
Assumptions
• If possible, potential tax refunds or payments as well as payment on dividends are balanced
• The personal results are based on a tax rate of 35 % at the payment on dividends (without
church tax and special taxes like the "Solidaritätszuschlag" as a tax for the German reunion)
• Minimum deposit of DM 500,-- to DM 100.000,--
• No reinvestment assumption (no internal rate of interest)
• The data is based on flyers and published investment information
• All PV cooperatives are without any depreciation allowance for the investor. The profitability de-
pends on the acknowledge or deny of loss allocations. All PV cooperatives assume administra-
tive costs and trustee’s fees of 10 %. The duration of contract is ex ante not defined
• Therefore, we assume 20 years.
Exceptions
• Wind park Krempel assumes a 30 % tax rate and a 5,5 %"Solidaritätszuschlag"
• Hydro power Murg assumes a 50 % tax rate
• Bayernwerk assumes no administrative costs
• FESA the duration of contract is 30 years.
Figure 4.2: Amortisation schedule / scheme of repayment
In comparison with a conventional long term capital investment in Germany like the “Bun-
desschatzbrief” with a maximum duration of 6 or 7 years, all cooperative models are
based on a long term scenario with a minimum duration of contract of 20 years. Whereas
the “Bundesschatzbrief” as a German saving bond repays the invested capital with a fixed
rate of interest at maturity, the amortisation of the invested capital takes in case of wind
cooperatives at least 13 to 16 years. These facts influence the decision making process of
potential investors in cooperatives.
To address socio-cultural aspects to some extent at least, some cooperatives permit lower
minimum deposits to local investors (see table 4).
58
Table 5: Comparison of the organisational options "GmbH & Co.KG" and "AG" in Germany
GmbH & Co. KG AG
(private limited partnership with (stock company)
limited partnership)
Kind of company private company commercial corporation
Liability limited to the property of the limited to the stock deposit
GmbH (private limited company) or capital stock
as the general or unlimited partner
and the sum of the special part-
ner’s capital.
Minimum deposit min. DM 50.000,-- in case of the DM 100.000,-- as a mini-
private limited company(GmbH), mum capital stock
the minimum deposit of a special
partner ("Kommanditist") is DM
500,--.
Capitalisation outside/loan capital equity capital (shareholder’s
equity)
Trade of shares not or restricted saleable saleable / negotiable
Division of profits according to the GmbH & Co.KG dividend payment according
contract the stock deposit and the
national regulations
concerning surplus or
reserves
...in contrast to Greece and Italy
Greece Italy
A.E. (Anonimos Etairia) S.p.A. (Societa per Azioni)
(stock company) (stock company)
Kind of company commercial corporation commercial corporation

Liability limited to the stock deposit or capi-
limited to the stock deposit
tal stock or capital stock
Minimum deposit DR 10 Mill. as a minimum capital Lire 200 Mill. as a minimum
stock capital stock
Capitalisation equity capital (shareholder’s eq- equity capital (shareholder’s
uity) equity)
Trade of shares saleable / negotiable saleable / negotiable
Division of profits dividend payment according the dividend payment according
stock deposit and the national the stock deposit and the
regulations concerning surplus or national regulations
reserves concerning surplus or
reserves
The wind parks in Germany are mainly organised in form of limited partnership companies
(GmbH & Co.KG) as closed funds. In Greece and Italy there is no corresponding form of
59
business organisation like the German "GmbH & Co.KG" or a comparable form in which
an artificial person like the "GmbH" is the general and unlimited partner.
Therefore, it is suggested to compare the stock company as a form of business organisa-

tion in Greece and Italy in contrast to the German "AG".
60
5 Legal and economic options for investment in Greece
Greece is a country with extremely high potential of PV and wind, mainly due to the follow-
ing reasons:
• high insolation/strong winds all year round (among the highest in Europe)
• electricity needs on islands mostly covered by diesel/heavy oil generation units, re-
sulting in high operation costs and environmental pollution
• significant tourism activity during the summer (pollution on some islands increases by
more than 100%), thus showing significant seasonal correlation between energy de-
mand and PV power generation
However, compared with other EU markets, the PV market is not very developed. In order
to improve the situation, a positive legislative and financing framework is forming today
(e.g. deregulation of the energy market, new development law, operation programme for
energy).
5.1 Current laws, regulations and initiatives fostering electricity generation

from renewable energy sources in Greece
In Greece, there is a number of legislative measures or programmes supporting Renew-

able Energy Sources, which comprise actions related to PV and wind energy systems.
Additionally, CRES, the national centre for the promotion and dissemination of renewable
energy sources in Greece, supports the use of renewable energies. The Ministry of Na-
tional Economy manages the Second Framework Support Programme for Greece (1994-
1999) financed by national and E.U. funds, within which a number of actions are being
included. The table below gives an overview over the different actions.
Table 6: National management scheme for RES funds appropriation

Ministry of National Economy
manages
the Second Framework Support Programme for Greece
(1994-1999)
E.U. Funds National Funds

GRANTING FUNDS TO MINISTRIES
Ministry of Development Ministry of Interior
RUNNING
Operational Programme for Measures 3.2 and Regional Operational Pro-
Energy 2.3 for RES grammes (ROP), divided in
the 13 regions of Greece
Operational Programme for (RES)
Industry
Operational Programme for (ȆǹǺǼ,ȆǼȃǼǻ,
Research & Technology ȆǼȆǼȇ,ȊȆǼȇ, Re-
61
search Network)
Investment Subsidies (in- Law(2601/98)
cluding RES)
National Development Law 2601/98 (on private investment)

Administration level: National
Scope/objectives: Reinforcement of private investment in Greece with a view to promote
regional development targets, increase in employment, Greek enterprise competitiveness,
production sector restructuring, exploitation of existing opportunities for the secondary
sector in Greece and abroad, environmental protection, and energy conservation.
Mechanism: New framework for the provision of subsidies for productive investments.
Subsidies in the form of partial funding of the cost of capital expense, loan interest or leas-
ing, or, alternatively, as partial funding of the loan interest and tax breaks. Subsidies de-
pend on geographical region, but there are a few exceptions, where they are uniform over
the entire country. Among those exceptions are investments and equipment leasing for
electricity production from RES or cogeneration; the maximum subsidy rates apply in
these cases irrespective of the region. For the remaining RES applications, subsets de-
pend on the region, but even then the applicable rates are better than those generally
applicable. Special incentives for investments over 10 and 25-60 million drs for expansion
of existing units and establishment of new units, respectively (the latter depends on the
type of enterprise) in specific sectors. Investments and/or leasing programmes on RES
are not subject to general limitations on funding (15 million drs per new job position).
Beneficiaries/Sector: A wide range of enterprises in various sectors. Applies for RES,
energy or biomass producing enterprises, and enterprises in the secondary sector that
use RES to cover their energy needs.
Timing: In force from April 1998
Remarks: In addition to basically replacing Law 1892/90 & Law 2234/94, it amends a
number of other laws on measures for the support and development of e.g. the national
economy, tax matters.
Law 2244/94
(Law for Electricity production from Renewable Energy Sources)
The “Renewable Energy Law” was effected in 1994.
It covers subjects regarding the electricity production from renewable sources. In April
1995 a Ministerial Decree (8295/19.4.1995) was issued, clarifying the administrative proc-
ess, tackling the issues related to the licenses for installation and operation of electricity
producing plants. In the same decree, a sample contract between the Public Power Cor-
poration and the electricity producers is presented, where the details regarding the buy-
ing-back rate and the grid connection terms are included. Two categories of electricity
producers are defined: Auto-Producers (AP), which generate electricity to cover their own
consumption and sell only their surplus energy, to the PPC and Independent Producers
(IP), who sell all their production to the PPC.
RES, with a new maximum capacity of up to 50MW for IPs. PPC is obliged to buy all en-
ergy produced by IPs under a ten year contract, while retaining the exclusive right to sup-
62
ply third parties with electricity. The law also defines explicitly the essential components of
the payback tariff system followed for the power producers, correlating it with PPC’s kWh
selling price.
th
Table 7: The payback tariffs, valid since July 15 1998
APs IPs
Energy payback Energy pay-
70% of kWh sell- back 90% of
ing price, in kWh selling
Drachma price, in
Drachma
Autonomous all voltages energy 18.62 23.94
Island Grids
Interconnected low voltage energy 18.62 ---
systems (220/380V)
med. voltage energy 15.057 19.359
(6.6, 15, 20, capacity --- 497 X ı
22 kV) (50%of selling
tariff)
high voltage peak zone 9.835 12.645
(150kV) med. zone 6.818 8.766
low zone 5.054 6.498
capacity --- 1128.5 X ı
(peak zone) (50%of selling
tariff)

Note 2: The capacity credit is calculated on the basis of the peak-measured power out-
put between two successive measurement periods.
Law 2364/95 article 7, paragraph 17

At present, the only available incentive for individuals to install PV systems, is the exemp-
tion of 75% of the purchase and installation cost of RES systems from the taxable income.
This measure is important only when the individual is taxed in the higher tax brackets of
30 to 45%. For those tax brackets, there is a PV system cost reduction of 22% to 34%
respectively. Although this measure is welcome, it does not provide a serious incentive as
it is dependent on the taxable income bracket. The associated PV system cost reduction
with respect to equivalent programmes that promote RES introduction is considered low.
For companies and other legal entities, the above mentioned percentage or 100% is am-
ortised from their profits over a period of years.
63
Operational programme for energy

The Operational Programme for Energy was established 1996. It covers investment sup-
port in the area of renewables and rational use of energy. The public subsidies come from
the European Fund for Regional Development and the Greek government. The Pro-
gramme ran for 4 years (1996-1999), and has then been replaced by the new operational
programme, which runs from 2000 to 2006. A minimum total budget limit of 20 million
Drachmas exists, for proposals made for PV systems. The PV systems are financed by
55% of their total cost, while the rest of the amount is covered by private funds. A part of
the programme budget of the order of 10 billion Drs has been put aside to fund RES ap-
plications in the public sector.
Operational programme for research and technology

Through the Operational Programme for Research and Technology and Sub-programme
2, actions related to the “Promotion of the R&T activities in the field of the environment
and environmentally sound technologies” (Sub-programme 1, measure 1.1) and “Industrial
research, technology transfer and innovation” (Sub-programme 2) the state supports re-
search activities in the field.
Sub-programme 1, Measure 1.1 supports actions in 7 thematic areas, namely

1) Pollution and anti-pollution technology
2) Natural disasters
3) Renewable energy technologies and rational use of energy including solar tech-
nologies (solar thermal, active or passive systems and PV)
4) Protection of quality of living conditions
5) Water resources
6) Renewable energy in the treatment of water effluents
7) Anti-seismic constructions
The aim of Sub-programme 2 is to encourage industrial research, technology transfer and

innovation both from inside the country (e.g. universities, research centres) and from
abroad. An important aim of the programme is to develop the ability for supplying consul-
tation and technological services to enterprises through technology research and devel-
opment agencies, company incubators, scientific and technology parks, technology trans-
fer parks, quality control, certification labs and other related entities, such as ELOT, OBI,
EOMMEX or ELKEPA. Sub-programme 2 is implemented through a number of activities,
such as Industrial Research Development Programme (PAVE), scholarships of oriented
research (YPER), co-financing programme (SYN) or liaison offices.
Regional Operational Programmes

regions. There are then 13 regional programmes, one for each region. The basic lines of
these programmes are the following:
1) Infrastructures: Road networks, railway network, telecommunication, energy, natural
gas
2) Living conditions: urban development, health, environment
3) Competitiveness: Industry and services, research and development, tourism, cul-
ture, agriculture, fisheries
64
4) Human resources: Education and continuous training, modernisation of public ser-

vices
launched. Areas 2)&3) (Environment and Research & Development) concern among oth-
ers the deployment of Renewable Energy Sources in the regional context. Again, no spe-
cific programme is dedicated to PV.
5.2 Economic situation for renewable energy technology in Greece
5.2.1 Investment Costs
PV - The investment costs for PV in Greece are currently estimated to be in the range of
300 million Drs./kW.
WIND – The investment costs for wind energy plants are estimated to lie between 350 to
400 million Drs/MW.
HYDRO – In the case of hydro power plants, investment costs are between 550 to 600
million Drs./MW.
5.2.2 Demand
PV
Autonomous Houses/Settlements:
There is a range of such PV systems in terms of installed peak power. Many of these sys-
tems are made of a few panels (<500Wp) and support basic needs such as lighting, small
appliances and refrigerators. Most of the systems, usually the small ones, provide DC
service, some provide AC. The market segment above 500Wp is still relatively small due
to the cost and the buying power of the potential users.
In the population census by the National Statistical Service in 1991, electrified houses
were considered those having an electricity source, i.e. utility grid, diesel generator, PV,
wind generator, etc. Non-electrified houses were included that were seasonally or perma-
nently occupied, scattered over the whole country, isolated, or built in areas where build-
ing is not permitted. Most of the non-electrified houses are located in rural areas. Those
houses, along with most of those located in semi-urban areas, can be considered the ac-
tual potential market of PV. A number of non-electrified houses are not scattered through-
out the country but they belong to small villages (settlements). These houses are occu-
pied seasonally or permanently and are located in areas far away from the national elec-
tricity grid.
Taking into account the trend in electrifying non-grid-connected houses during the decade
1981-1991 and the results obtained from the analysis concerning the electrification of re-
65
mote settlements, it can be concluded that the number of non-grid-connected houses

since 1991 has been reduced by 20%. This means, that today there are 115,000 off-grid
houses. Amongst these, 20,000 are permanently inhabited, 46,000 are seasonally inhab-
ited and 49,000 are abandoned.
Table 8: Non electrified houses in Greece

Non-electrified houses in Greece 1991 census 1995 estimation
Permanently inhabited 24,824 19,742
Seasonally inhabited 57,922 45,816
Abandoned 60,428 49,252
Total 14,3174 11,4540
On the basis of the 1991 census data, the total number of inhabited non-electrified houses
is 24,824, i.e. 0.79% of the total number of inhabited houses in Greece, while the number
of non-electrified houses is 143,174 i.e. 3% of the total number of houses (see table 9).
This last number includes permanently and seasonally inhabited houses, also week-end
and abandoned houses.
Table 9: Housing classifications

1991 Cen- Total electrified Inhabited electri- Total non- Inhabited non-
sus houses fied houses electrified electrified
houses houses
Quantity % Quantity % Quantity % Quantity %
Agricultural 1,340,962 29.8 840,549 26.7 91,728 64 16,509 66.5
Semi-urban 608,036 13.5 375,893 12 27,860 19.5 4,663 18.8
Urban 2,559,730 56.7 1,925,886 61.3 23,586 16.5 3,652 14.7
Total 4,508,728 100 3,142,328 100 143,174 100 24,824 100
In the last 27 years, the number of houses far away from the electricity grid has been re-
duced from 1,400 in 1981, to 873 in 1991 and recently (end of 1995) in 607 (see table 10).
Of those settlements, 373 are inhabited by 8,651 people (1991 census), 100 of them have
been already included in the future electrification program but most of them will remain
without electricity as access by heavy duty vehicle is not possible. The total estimated
number of houses in those settlements is 14,000 and among those there are 2,800 inhab-
ited.
66
Table 10: Permanently/Seasonally inhabited settlements

1981 Census 1991 Census 1995 (estimation)
permanently or 1400 873 607
seasonally in- (total estimated (373 inhabited by heavy vehicle access
habited Settle- number of houses 8651 people) problem faced by 14000
ments 14000, 2800 inhab- houses (2800 houses of
ited) those inhabited)
(100 settlements already
included in future electri-
fication program)
Autonomous Small/Rocky Islands with Development Potential:

In this category of islands we include all those islands that have about 500 inhabitants or
less, or are uninhabited for the winter season. There are at least 50 such islands that are
inhabited and several hundreds that are not inhabited and have the potential for develop-
ment in a environmentally friendly way. The main activities that may be maintained on
these islands are eco-tourism, agriculture and fishing. The development of such islands
using environmentally friendly technologies is very important for the improvement of the
inhabitants' lifestyle. The creation of a more stable economic environment will keep the
inhabitants on the islands, reversing the alarming abandonment trend.
There are already approximately 250kWp of PV installed on such islands. Several of

these islands have a local grid, powered by a diesel generator. An estimation of the per-
manent population in this category is 5000 people. During the summer months, the popu-
lation on such islands may be two to three times higher than the permanent population.
The power service of the local grid is usually poor and power cuts are frequent. PV sys-
tems may improve the power service, increase the income of the islanders and stabilise
their population. Assuming an average introduction of 200Wp per permanent inhabitant,
there is a potential PV market of one MWp. If the islanders are to provide services to the
summer tourists, the potentially installed capacity may be a few times larger.
Telecommunications:
The telecommunication market is generally economically viable around the world. In
Greece, there are a few applications by the national telecommunications company, HTO.
HTO has been installing seven relay stations on the Dirfi mountain series of Evia, which
comprise a total power 12KWp. In 1995, HTO installed on Agio Oros 19 PV powered tele-
phone relay stations to serve the monasteries, of a total peak power of 12.5 kWp. There is
also an HTO relay station in Arkadia serving eight villages of a total power of 2 kWp. In
1987, a 25 kWp station was installed to power HTO telephones on the island Antikythira,
financed partly by an E.U. demonstration program.
The potential of this market segment in Greece is not bright according to a PV system
installer. In most of the sites, where HTO is planning to install relay stations, PV systems
compete with the cost of electrification by grid line extension, except for the sites the grid
is too far or that cannot be reached by trucks and the cost of opening new roads is too
high.
67
Exterior lighting of roads, signalling, billboards, small devices:

This market is practically non-existent in Greece, although in other countries such as
USA, Germany and Egypt, there is a number of companies that are active in this field.
Exterior road and park lighting and signalling

The viability of such systems can be justified if a possible grid extension would need dig-
ging out several meters. The associated cost of such an undertaking may be higher than
an autonomous PV lighting/signalling system that could later be moved again with minimal
cost. The estimated market potential can be significant, if PV lighting is regarded as one of
the possible solutions by municipalities, wherever the lighting of roads, parks, squares,
boat marinas and docks is being planned. PV lighting will not always be the most appro-
priate solution, due to cost and to the possible combination of high power lighting applica-
tion and limited area availability of PV surface on a pole. A PV system for street lighting,
with two 50-55Wp modules, a 18 to 36W low pressure Sodium or fluorescent lamp and
the associated electronics, battery, and pole, costs from 900,000 to 1,000,000 Dra.
Advertising board lighting

This is a market with considerable potential. Any given site that has potential for promo-
tion of products and does not have reasonably easy access to the grid can be a money
making location for the advertising companies if lighted by a PV system. Such PV systems
could have a significant potential if the advertising companies become aware of such pos-
sibilities.
Small devices
Possible candidates to be powered by PV are small devices like parking ticket machines
and lighting of public HTO (national telecommunications company) card-phones. If for
example HTO decides to light 10,000 card-phones by PV, with an installed power of 30Wp
per card-phone, the total PV power would be 300kWp. The PV powered parking ticket
machine introduction is a possible application that frees the local authorities from the elec-
tric grid and all the necessary ground work to power the machines. The economic viability
of many of the above PV applications has to be determined on a case by case basis.
External lighting
Households
Connected
Agricultural
Transceivers
Navigation
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 %
Figure 5.1: The most attractive applications (% demand )
68
The houses and settlements on isolated areas (islands-continental), are presented as the
most attractive application for the users (29%), followed by the transceivers (19%), the
agricultural applications (16%), grid-connected applications (14%) and navigation applica-
tions (13%).
The above shown demand arises from the needs and the motives of users, which are:
electrification for isolated, faraway areas…………………... 48%
ecological awareness……………………………...........…… 20%
electrification-connection with grid………………………...... 12%
independence from PPC (e.g. power failures, taxes)…….. 8%
energy saving……………………………………………...….. 8%
attractive financing………………………………………..…...4%
The total installed power is about 635 kW.
Wind
Even though no more than twenty wind energy units corresponding to 20 MW have been
installed over the last five years, rapid development is foreseen over the next years. Offi-
cial data show that about 0,3% of the nation’s energy needs are accommodated by wind
power. Data on wind energy availability indicate that about 12-15% of the national energy
demand could come from wind. The total Greek market for renewable energy equipment
was about US$175 million in 1997. Imports supply approximately 90,4% of the market.
Based on positive but realistic scenarios made by the government and market experts, the
total Greek market for wind generators was estimated to be US$520 million in the year
2000.
The current capacity of wind energy generators, (which is presented in figure 5.2), is pro-
vided through PPC and autoproducers.
30000
25000
Generation (kW)
20000 Generation by PPC

15000 Generation by
autoproducers
10000 TOTAL
5000
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Years
10
Figure 5.2: Electricity generation from wind-energy converters
10
69
The first category represents 87,5% of the total installed wind power (24,300kW), some-
thing which depicts the monopoly on electric power production by the PPC. The number of
such units is about 130 and their net electricity generation considered about 34,150MWh.
By autoproducers, the installed power approaches 3,490kW, 25 units with net electricity
generation about 2,770MWh. During 1998, an additional three wind energy production
units were installed (Table 11):
11
Table 11: Electricity generation from wind energy converters during 1998
REGION POWER (MW)
CRETE 10,000
SAMOS 0,750
SIROS 0,500
TOTAL 11,250
An end-user analysis separates the market demand in two segments:

Municipalities, ministries, airports, hospitals and military installations are the govern-
ment-controlled entities that are the main purchasers of wind products through the
tenders.
Uses for wind farms in this sector are pharmaceutical, poultry farming, remote homes,
water pumping and demonstration projects.
The wind energy market in Greece is very promising. Over the next years, the dramatic
market liberalisation and solid growth in demand will together create significant opportuni-
ties in this industry sector. The Greek government and the European Union have finan-
cially supported the development and promotion of wind energy installations. The Greek
government has a policy of attracting foreign investment and technology in order to in-
crease the quality of domestically produced products. According to the data of the Ministry
of National Economy, US $25 million of new investments in Renewable Energy equipment
and manufacturing were approved by the Greek government in 1995 and 1996 (Crete,
Rhodes, Evia, Lakonia). This includes investments in buildings, land and equipment. Dur-
ing 1998 an additional 6 licenses for wind energy supported were issued by the Opera-
tional Programme for Energy (OPE, measure 3.2). The amount of each project budget
and the finance of the Ministry of Development is being shown in table 12.
11
70
12
Table 12: Licenses approved by OPE in 1998 - finance/budget in Drs.
FIRM BUDGET FINANCE
Aeolian Neoriou BC 924.000.000 369.600.000
EN TE KA Wind Parks BC 494.457.000 197.782.800
Energy Net LTD 136.769.000 54.707.600
Rokas Wind SA 8.760.000.000 3.504.000.000
Rokas Wind Evia SA 8.641.500.000 3.456.600.000
Terna Energy SA 3.868.552.000 1.547.420.800
TOTAL 22.825.278.000 9.130.111, 200
The Greek policy concerning investment activity is contained in a number of laws which
establish a variety of financing mechanisms and incentives for investors in the public and
private sectors. Grants for machinery and buildings, interest rate subsidies, tax-free allow-
ances, extra depreciation rates, lower social security contributions and favourable tax
rates are some of the provided incentives.
Within the context of existing provisions of Law 2244/94, Law 2601/98 and EU financial
incentives (Second Framework Support Programme), the annual growth of the total mar-
ket of wind energy equipment and products over the 1995-1997 was approximately 5-7%.
However, a significant increase is expected by taking into account the operation of some
approved windparks during 1999.
5.3 Obstacles to the dissemination of renewable energy technologies
The most important barriers existing for the dissemination of PV applications in Greece
were identified during the project and are summarised as follows:
• high cost of PV systems
• lack of small PV demonstration projects (completed and in operation) in different geo-
graphical areas, which would operate as examples
• lack of cost-benefit studies for the realisation of various PV projects, which would be
operated by specialists as practical guides
• inadequate financing sources and relevant programmes (national or regional) for the
realisation of small demonstration projects – in certain cases, a significant strengthen-
ing of the financial support has to take place at regional and local level
12
Energy & Development newsletter - OPE, 6th edition, August 1998
71
• inadequate economic motives for the purchase and installation of PV applications for
individuals
• limited information of users (lack of training seminars, personal contacts)
• need for more information on the study and the supervision of PV systems on local
level (centralisation of experiences and know-how in urban centres)
• weakness of a legislative framework to support the obligatory use of RES in public
projects
• need for further cooperation between government bodies, regions and market actors
(information for European national-regional programmes)
The PV market research in Greece, including the Regional Energy Agencies' reports and
the current situation even on international level, indicates the major parameters for a fur-
ther PV market penetration:
Assured Quality:
The issue of quality of PV products and systems is very important. Many PV component
and system failures have been reported, especially in off-grid rural electrification projects.
This inconsistency of quality thus became an important issue, affecting not only the
financing, but also the future of the entire PV business. This issue was realised by the PV
industry and its major customers, who established the PV Global Approval Programme.
Advertising, Training, Promotion, and Education:

There is a great need for advertising of PV, as well as for training, promotion and educa-
tion. In the oil-crisis era of the 1970s, when the terrestrial PV business began, the quantity
of media attention focused on the then minuscule PV business was significant and helped
the establishment of PV in many market segments. However, the media attention stopped
in the 1980s, and today the public is not aware of the extent to which PV is already being
utilised. The general belief is that PV is for the future. It is not widely known that without
PV, there would be no global communication, no global email, Internet, TV, telephone,
fax, because all the satellites used for these functions are 100% powered by PV.
There are no exact figures on how much the entire PV industry is spending on advertising,
but it is estimated that the relevant budget is much less than 5 million dollars per year,
less than 0,5% of the total revenues. If it was clear that the PV market is not primarily
price sensitive, and that large market shares could be obtained by advertising rather than
by lowering prices, the PV industry would be in a better position. The PV industry today is
not in the position to invest the necessary funds in advertising and in public awareness
campaigns. Yet this is a crucial issue for the future of the PV business and should be ad-
dressed urgently. The creativity of the PV industry, and also of other interested parties, is
needed to mobilise resources for advertising, promotion, education and training. A discus-
sion on the issue needs to take place and solutions need to be found.
Market
Another major government task in the electric energy field is to open the Greek market
within the framework of EU market liberalisation. By 2001, Greece had to allow competi-
72
tion for the production of 22% of the electric energy consumed by industries, with over 40
GWh annual consumption.
Financing of PV Products and Systems:

It was established a few years ago that financing of PV installations is crucial for their fu-
ture. The urban grid-connected and, to some extent, the off-grid markets are also de-
pendent on subsidies. The merits and demerits of subsidies can be debated endlessly. If
they are for the long term, subsidies are necessary and beneficial. However, short-term
subsidies would be detrimental for the PV business.
It is urgent to develop financing mechanisms for PV systems. The lack of financing avail-
able for customers is an enormous handicap to the development of the PV business.
Much PV business in the developed countries and two billion potential customers in the
developing countries need financing. This means that the matter of financing PV is very
complex. Several interesting approaches are being tried out or planned, and various
meetings have focused on this very complicated issue and try to find solutions.
73
6 Legal and economic options for investment in Italy
6.1 Current laws, regulations and initiatives fostering electricity generation from
renewable energy sources in Italy
The current laws and the regulations formulated for the technical development of NRES
are funded essentially on the “Energetic National Plan” of 1998 (Piano Energetico Nazi-
onale – 1998 PEN 98) based on the laws n. 9 and n. 10 of 1992 and on the PROVVEDI-
MENTO CIP 6/92.
The most important principle of these laws is the one contained in the art. 1 of the law n.9:
“the NRES have to be considered a public usefulness and benefit”. In an operative sense,
it can be considered the art. 2, describing the actuation of PEN, the art. 3 in which is pro-
grammed the agreement between the Ministry of Industry (MICA) and ENEA about the
NRES use, the art. 5 says that the regional Institutions have to organise the regional plan
of NRES, in collaboration with ENEA.
The laws n.9 allows the self-production of electricity and the transfer to ENEL (art. 22).
This is possible after a notification to MICA and a convention with ENEA. The selling
prices are established by CIP 6/92, according to the energetic index of the plant. The en-
ergetic index is function of electricity self-produced, heat produced and primary fuel sup-
ply. ENEL charges customers just for supplying electricity and not according to the source
which ENEL uses for production.
The above description shows that the laws presented give regulation and financial sup-
port, but do not provide an organic strategy of action in developing the use of NRES. In
other words, the policies foster the private initiatives, but they do not co-ordinate those
initiatives. As a matter of fact the law n. 9 and CIP 6/92 have not achieved the expected
results, which is one of the reasons that led to the decision of cessation of these issues.
Thus a new formulation of the regulation on NRES development appears appropriate, as

shown in the conclusive document of the “Carpi Commission” (points 1.5 and 3.7): “the
NRES are the most important target policy of energy and environment…so, the supporting
issues are to be reviewed in order to correct the limitations which appeared during the
past four years”.
In any case, in the Italian legislation the most important and suitable support initiative for
the NRES development was law 29/12/1997. It included fiscal reductions amounting to
41% of the investment in the realisation of energy systems implementing NRES. The
maximum cost allowed amounts to Lit 150.000.000 (77.470 €) including VAT. This initia-
tive had a duration period of two years, from 1998 to 1999.
74
6.2 Economic situation for renewable energy technologies in Italy
6.2.1 Investment costs

(value 1997)
PV - The investment cost of PV can be considered, in a conservative way, 4.648.110-

8.263.310 €/MW (9-16⋅109 Lit/MW). In 2010 it should be reduced to 2.582.280-3.098.740
€/MW (5-6⋅109 Lit/MW), thanks to progress in the development of the technology.
WIND – The investment costs can be considered to decrease with the growth of the mar-
ket sector. Actually they amount to 774.690 €/MW (1,5⋅109 Lit/MW).
HYDRO – At the end of 1996, the hydropower installed was 13900 MW for power plants
of more than 10 MW and 2150 MW for power plants of less than 10 MW (375 MW of them
for power plants less than 1 MW).
CONVENTIONAL POWER STATIONS – The investment costs range from 774.690-

1.032.910 €/MW (1,5-2⋅109 Lit/MW). A law of 1988 excluded the electricity production with
nuclear power plants.
In the following table, the power plants' investment costs for Italy until 2010 are reported.
The PV investment costs are evaluated, in the most realistic way, in the range 4.648.110-
8.263.310 €/MW (9-16⋅109 Lit/MW).
13
Table 13: Power plant investment costs
Technology Investm. Power Costs Power Costs Total Total
Cost 1996- 2001- power Costs
2000 2010 1996-
2010
€/MW MW 103 € MW 103 € MW 103 €
[109Lit/MW] 9
[10 Lit] [109Lit] [109Lit]
PV 4.648.110- 24 206.480 250 1.187.850 270 1.394.4
8.263.310 [400] [2.300] 30
[9-16] [2.700]
Wind 929.620- 670 619.750 2.250 1.755.950 2900 2.375.7
774.690 [1.200] [3.400] 00
[1,8-1,5] [4.600]
Hydro > 10 2.840.510 450 1.291.1 - - 450 1.291.1
MW [5,5] 40 40
[2.500] [2.500]
Hydro <= 10 2.840.510 311 877.980 850 2.375.700 1.150 3.253.6
MW [5,5] [1.700] [4.600] 80
[6.300]
13
Source: ENEA Libro Verde sulle Fonti Rinnovabili di Energia, 1998
75
PV – The electricity production cost of grid-connected PV plants is in the range of 0,26-

0,52 €/kWh (500-1000 Lit/kWh) and the possibilities of reducing them in the short term
seem to be very low. This assumption refers mainly to the large plants. The development
of the PV market in the “stand alone” plants (houses and urban infrastructures), however
seems to be more quick.
Wind – The wind energy market actors in Italy come from the national industry, but there
is also a significant presence of foreign operators, in particular from Denmark, who have
reduced production costs by the constant increase in the middle class power range up to
600kW. The production costs amount to 0,08-0,1 €/kWh (150-200 Lit/kWh). In the follow-
ing tables the production values are evaluated, they seem to be still quite low.
14
Table 14: Production values for wind power plants in Italy
WIND POWER PLANT IN ITALY
1995 1996
Power (MW) 21,9 69,7
Electricity production 9 900 32 700
(MWh)
On the basis of Law CIP6/92, wind plant projects amounting to 740 MW were started, but
at the end of 1997 only 80 MW of that power were actually in operation.
Hydro – In the last years, the attention has been addressed to the low power hydro plants
(less than 10 MW). In fact, now they are considered economically convenient because
today there is a real difficulty in finding sites suitable for high and medium power hydro
plants. The production costs are about 0,02-0,04 €/kWh (40-80 Lit/kWh). The following
table shows the regional diffusion of hydro power plants (after APEI):
8
Table 15: Regional diffusion of hydro power plants in Italy
Region Power<3MW Power >3MW Total
N° ent. N° imp. N° ent. N° imp. N° ent. N° imp.
Abruzzo 4 4 2 2 6 6
Basilicata 2 2 2 2
Calabria 5 6 5 6
Campania 4 4 4 4
Emilia-Romagna 9 9 9 9
Friuli-Venezia Giulia 43 68 2 2 45 70
Lazio 6 14 6 14
Liguria 5 7 4 9 9 16
Lombardia 62 89 2 2 64 91
Marche 11 18 2 3 13 21
Molise 5 7 5 7
14
76
Piemonte 123 186 11 25 134 211

Toscana 22 23 1 1 23 24
Trentino-AltoAdige 117 143 6 12 123 155
Sardegna 1 2 1 2
Umbria 5 5 5 5
Valle D’Aosta 10 14 10 14
Veneto 40 56 1 22 41 78
Interregional 6 13 4 68 10 81
Total 479 668 36 148 515 816
N° ent. = Number of enterprises operating in each field
N° imp. = Number of power plants in each field
Conventional power stations - In the evaluation of the power production with conven-
tional plants - amounting to 0,04-0,08 €/kWh (80 – 150 Lit/kWh) - one has to take into ac-
count the cost generated by the environmental damage, amounting to 0,03-0,05 €/kWh
(65-106Lit/kWh) for oil plants and 0,01-0,03 €/kWh (28-51 Lit/kWh) for gas plants.
6.2.2 Demand
A real variety of demand can be observed, especially for PV applications. The most impor-
tant are:
• So-called professional applications, such as remote sensing, telecommunications,

cathodic protection of metallic devices. In these applications the PV technology is
convenient and competitive.
• Electrification of villages non grid-connected.
• Power devices of 0.5-3 kW.
• High power plants (100 kW-3 MW) grid-connected.
6.3 Obstacles to the dissemination of renewable energy technologies
Depending on the technology, there are various obstacles to the dissemination of renew-
able energies in Italy. The following list gives a short overview:
PV
• Lack of a supporting policy
Wind
• The complexity of the geographical areas related to the wind power plant determines
a difficult evaluation of the suitable sites
• The suitable sites are often in remote areas, non grid-connected
77
• Requirement of a large amount of investment for the development of a national mar-

ket
Hydro
• Complexity of the authorisation path, due to the particular situation of the plant in re-
gions (mountainous ones) often characterised by environmental restrictions.
• Large amounts of investment, especially for low power plants in which there is not a
convenient return on investment.
78
7 Organisational aspects
7.1 Applicability of solar cooperatives for Greece
7.1.1 Technical aspects and potential in Greece

Greece is a nearly ideal area for harnessing wind energy. It has over 1000 islands, (repre-
senting 20% of Greece’s total area), sea wind speed exceeding 7,5 m/s, and in some ar-
eas 10 m/s. Wind energy has been used in Greece for centuries to grind grain and for
irrigation. The distribution of wind energy installations by region is presented figure 7.1.
12000
10000
8000
Generation (kW)
6000
4000
2000
0
C R ETE S.AEGEAN N .AEGEAN MAIN LAN D
Regio ns
15
Figure 7.1: Wind energy converters by region in Greece
Extensive wind measurements were carried out in Greece during the 1980s and 1990s by
the Public Power Corporation (PPC) and the Centre for Renewable Energy Sources
(CRES). These demonstrated that substantial amounts of electricity could be generated
largely from wind resources, especially in the Aegean islands and Crete. In 1993, PPC
and CRES used these measurements to prepare the Wind Atlas of Greece, showing the
regions that offered the best opportunities for wind power generation.
PPC holds the exclusive right to transmit and distribute electricity, and produces 99,1% of
the total production of electricity. The generating systems of PPC consist of lignite-fired
and hydro-electric units on the mainland, and almost entirely of oil-fired units in Crete,
Rhodes and the rest of the Greek islands. Recently renewable energy sources and mainly
wind energy, have gained ground in the production of electricity on the Aegean islands.
15
79
electric power production by the state-controlled PPC. This law allows the private sector
and industrial companies to establish and operate power stations to produce electric
power from renewable sources either for their own use or for resale to the PPC (table 16).
Table 16: Licenses for electricity generation from wind energy converters based on
16
Law 2244/94
Region Power
(MW)
Crete 59,900
South Aegean 18,740
North Aegean 1,825
Mainland 105,500
Total 185,965
This idea of solar cooperatives has to overcome some barriers in order to be fruitful in
Greece. In any case a very careful plan of the development of this concept has to be
done.
Critical issues:
• the existence of the necessary license (in some geographic areas it is very difficult to
receive it)
• the pure economic attractiveness of the investments for the investors
• the cooperation with the local authorities in all the phases of the project
• the exploitation of potential incentives, such as the Development Law and the Struc-
tural Funds for energy (up to 50% of the investment)
• the training of the personnel
7.1.2 Infrastructural aspects in Greece
Based on CRES’ experience in Greece, the most common PV applications are repre-
sented on Table 17.
16
80
Table 17: Current market segments

according to PV system type grid-connected systems
autonomous systems
according to end-user (application) type centralised, medium to large scale systems

(for electrification of villages, islands, or con-
nected to a large grid)
residential buildings (single houses, multi-
storey buildings, etc.)
commercial buildings (hotels, ‘demo’/ promo-
tional systems, etc.)
electrification of small (possibly uninhabited)
islands
tourist sector (small hotels, archeologic sites,
cantinas, etc)
ecological applications
special (forests, shelters, etc)
special applications:
- lighthouses
- desalination
- telecommunication
- school kits
according to geographical region mainland
islands
according to ownership / decision making / public
market control regime private
according to user’s (or opinion leader’s) already aware or user of PV

previous PV experience not aware of PV
according to % of coverage of user’s en- full (autonomous systems)

ergy needs partial (e.g. small hotels in electrified islands)
low (PV system serves mainly for demonstra-
tion or image purposes, for example PV in
large commercial buildings)
Examples of potential Solar Cooperatives

• Use of the PV and/or wind energy supply systems for eco-tourism enterprises (e.g.
hotels). Promotion of the green character of this activity, especially for environmen-
tally sensitive tourists. Green funds are recommended to be used for this purpose
• Cooperation with building construction enterprises, real estate enterprises and big
chains supplying buildings in touristic areas (e.g. time sharing)
• Cooperation with industrial/professional associations to promote the concept in their
members
81
7.2 Applicability of Solar Cooperatives for Italy
7.2.1 Technical aspects and potential in Italy
Italian regulations are based on the National Energy Plan (PEN) issued in 1988, strength-
ened by law 9/91 and 10/91, whose appliance was assured by the PROVVEDIMENTO
CIP 6/92. Several other agreements, laws and disposals were stated, even if the threshold
for the laws analysis is represented by the ones above mentioned.
Those resolutions mainly encourage diffusion, realisation and exploitation of renewable
energy sources including cogeneration plants, whose “utilisation is considered of public
interest and utility” (art. 1, law 10/91). Projects must be proposed to a commission which
makes its selection according to some energy index previously chosen.
On the local view, regions are obliged to plan the use of renewables, i. e. pointing at target
areas and looking for financial resources. Financial aid is supported by the State but prac-
tically worked by Regions, which are also in charge of stating local rules to apply Govern-
ment laws.
Law 9/91 gives the right to auto-produce electricity and/or sell it to the national grid at cer-
tain prices and conditions detailed in CIP 6/92. Recently (January 98) this CIP 6 was
stalled, freezing the growing free market of energy. Anyway the E.U. directive 96/92/CEE
must be receipted as soon as possible.
There are some restrictions especially for wind plants: Laws tend to protect landscape and
environment, through the release of authorisations for soil use, building, landscape im-
pact, seismic stability, flying safety. To obtain those authorisations two or three years are
required. Solar Cooperatives operating with wind energy plants will be fully enclosed in
this long procedure, while for PV plants there would not be those problems.
Most of the Italian wind plants are installed in two basins: Sardinia and the coast along the
Southern Adriatic sea (i. d. Apulia, Basilicata, and Abruzzo Regions), whose wind charac-
teristics make the operation of those kind of plants economically feasible.
As far as irradiation is concerned, the best target areas are located in Southern Italy (Sic-
ily, Calabria and Apulia Region) and the lower Central area. In those areas Summer tem-
peratures reach up to 40°C and the climate along the year is warm.
In Italy there are quite a number of small islands in the Tyrrhenian Sea. In those areas
several projects could be implemented, even linked with some desalination plants. More
detailed studies will be needed to assure pay-outs. Islands targets are Eolie, Lipari,
Lampedusa, Pantelleria and Tremiti.
7.2.2 Infrastructural aspects in Italy

According to the psychological point of view, Italy today is a fertile land for exploiting non
grid solutions, as people are looking for the common services offered by new “societies”
82
detached from previous monopolies, following the spirit of global markets. Table 18 gives
an overview of aspects that argue for or against a certain location.
Table 18: Pros and cons of different locations for plants

High or low according to Not disturbing if far
Noise level the present one. Prob- away from populated
lems especially at night. areas
Merging with industrial- Strong
Visual impact
ised city
Short daily home-work Maybe long home-
People
travel work travel
Facilities supply
(electricity, water, Already present Maybe to be taken
etc.)
Future enlarging pro-
Hard Easy
cess
83
8 Site selection
For site selection, the project partners in Greece and Italy were asked to give recommen-
dations, where solar cooperatives could be established in their countries. These sugges-
tions, as well as factors that lead to the corresponding decisions, are described in the
paragraphs below.
8.1 Site selection in Greece
First, appropriate applications for the different technologies were sought, which gave a
first indication on where to establish solar cooperatives in Greece. Ideas that might be
realised were:
• to develop a fund in cooperation with international branches of hotels, e.g. Grecotel
(50% Greek, 50% TUI, also in Egypt and Turkey)
• stocks (European stock market)
• involvement of locals which may result in the benefits of
• employment of local people
• taxes to municipality
• cooperation with an association or network (e.g. group of installers => improved qual-
ity of installation, education/training
As criteria for the selection of suitable sites were used:

• annual energy production in kWh
• grid connection (high energy production cost in not connected)
• potential investors’ attitude (including touristic attractiveness)
PV technologies
Houses
• economically a problem
• PV used on illegal houses, otherwise for fun
• timesharing houses/eco-tourism a possibility
• hotels
Islands
• on isolated islands off-grid
• people pay same price as in Athens (everywhere in Greece)
• subsidised
• island of Creta structural fund subsidised 70% (average 40%-50%)
Legal aspects:
• PPC monopoly on distribution
• in future no more monopoly on generation/production
• Regulatory Energy Authority (REA) decides whether feeding in is allowed
• licences may be needed (from forestry, archaeology, air...), the acquisition of which
may take longer than one year
84
• not sure whether electricity may be sold (REA decides on a regular basis, e.g. daily)
• penetration of renewables upper limit: 30% (daily-short term)
• the process is simpler for auto-producers, e.g. combined investment in hotels with PV-
plant
Taking everything into account it seems that PV in Greece would best be used for auto-
production.
From these reflections, the following best suited areas for PV application in Greece can be
identified:
• Creta (high insolation, off-grid, tourist attractions)
• Cyclades (relatively high insolation, off-grid, tourist attraction)
• Attica-Athens (good insolation, grid connected, metropolitan area)
Wind technologies
The following best suited areas for wind applications in Greece can be identified:
• Creta (excellent wind potential in selected sites, off-grid, tourist attraction)
• Cyclades (very good wind potential in selected sites, off-grid, tourist attraction)
• Attica-Athens (good wind potential in selected sites, grid connected, metropolitan
area).
8.2 Site selection in Italy
The question of where PV plants in Italy should be installed is answered by the table be-
low. As is clearly shown, a significant portion of the electricity produced is supplied to iso-
lated houses in rural areas. The largest share, however, have grid-connected plants.
17
Table 19: PV applications in Italy
1996
Area Category Installed Pro-
Power duced
(kWp) Energy
(MWh)
N/on housing Pumping water 1 000 1 056
Applications Professional 1 900 1 306
Agricultural 1 350 1 402
Other 400 400
Total 4 650 4 164
Rural houses Isolated Houses 4 400 4 454
Electrification Other 300 360
Total 4 700 4 814
Grid- Placed on 260 150
connected Roofs
17
85
plants Placed on <100 kWp 80 65

other sites
100÷1000 kWp 3100 1350
> 1000 kWp 2970 3438
Total 6150 4853
TOTAL 15760 13981
Especially facilities related to the improvement of living conditions such as for instance,
the supply of water in the south through hybrid solutions (wind, PV and desalinisation
plant) should be considered when looking for applications for solar cooperatives. Schools,
hospitals, private houses, hotels are main targets that could and should in these areas be
supplied.
86
9 Cost/return calculations
Based on parameters compiled during the project, an economic evaluation of PV-plants

and wind turbines was carried out to quantify the profitability of possible projects. The cal-
culations are realized with a software tool for financing limited partnership companies in
Germany, which is used by banks and trustees. The required input parameter such as
plant size, energy yield and investment costs are based on national values in Greece.
Installation, operation and maintenance costs have been assumed from international and
German experiences. All annual costs are increased by an inflation rate. Initial financial
parameters (revenue rate, interest rate and depreciation mode) are based on Greek val-
ues, annual financing costs for trustee, legal and tax consultants must be fixed for each
project. Incentives, such as investment subsidy and soft loans, are fixed according to the
current situation in Greece or international projects with Germany.
In the following, two examples for PV and wind power plants are described. For more de-
tails see Annex 6.
Wind power
The graph below gives the cash flow of a wind turbine installed at Cyclades without any
subsidies. As the IRR shows, it would be a very attractive investment even if 75% must be
credit financed (at the local interest rate of 14%). The increase in revenues of the electric-
ity sales is caused by a nominal inflation rate of 3%. The company makes losses only in
the first 4 years, as the turbine may be depreciated within this period. Afterwards, trade
tax has to be paid (about 15% of the total revenues). Consequently, the state would also
profit from an installation.

400.000
300.000
200.000
Values in €/year
100.000
0
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
-100.000
-200.000
-300.000
Year
Figure 9.1: Cash flow of a wind turbine installed in Greece

• equity capital 25%
87
• debt capital 75%

• no investment subsidy
• international soft costs total payments on dividends 1.979.799 DM rel. to equity cap.
• 1374.9% IRR (rel. to payments w/o. taxes) 37.07%.
This case will most probably be realised in the future.
PV
The figure below shows that even assuming very favourable input data, a PV plant cannot
be operated cost-covering in Greece as revenues are too low. The economic situation for
wind power is very different. Wind power seems economically attractive without any sub-
sidy, if the feed-in tariff is only 0.10 €/kWh. This is even true if the soft costs are assumed
to be threefold more than in projects realised in Germany.
PV plant in Greece (Crete): best case

10.000
5.000
Values in €/year
0
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
-5.000 Expenditures incl depr.
Payments
Total Revenues
Depreciation PV plant
-10.000
Pre-tax result
DG XVII SOLAR-COOPERATIVES
-15.000 Year
Figure 9.2: Cash flow of a PV plant installed in Greece

• IRR: -5.5%
• 103,000 € investment versus 50,500 € payments
• 100% equity capital
• no soft costs, no administration
Conclusions
The official given investment subsidy of 40% results in "wind fall" profits, which means a
miss-allocation of resources. However, still few projects are realised in Greece. The au-
thors assume, that the required actions for realisation are long-term processes with un-
predictable time schedule.
88
10 Conclusions and outlook
Summarising, it can be said that through different mechanisms the concept of solar coop-
eratives may serve to promote the implementation of renewable energies: First, it could -
through its advertising and demonstration effect – be a catalyst for other projects in the
south. Further, the exploitation of a high energy potential will contribute to the profitability
of such projects and boost the further development of technology.
Socially, the concept of solar cooperatives may be slowed down as the identification of
potential investors with the plant is made difficult by long distances between the location
of the plant and the potential shareholders. Therefore the "fun effect" may be missing,
since shareholders cannot easily visit their plants or consume their “own” energy. Possible
remedies for this problem might be a connection with tourism. Distance is not as impor-
tant, as accessibility, thus for example the vicinity of the power plant to a charter airport
may help.
Certain disadvantages have to be taken into account and carefully dealt with, if the con-
cept of solar cooperatives is to be a success. Amongst others the political situation plays
an important role – it could be used as a reason by governments and utilities in the north
not to support the diffusion of renewable energy technologies in their own countries, as
the export of technology which has not reached a high diffusion in the north seems to im-
ply that such energy sources cannot work economically there. However, since especially
wind power technology in Germany has expanded visibly, this argument is invalidated. A
further concern is that the participation of Central Europeans through buying shares in
countries that are ‘far away’ could reduce the pressure on them to support sustainable
energy provision in their own countries, which may give the impression that Central
Europeans do not have to change their behaviour. It is therefore necessary that the
Northern European countries set an example, from a practical, political and psychological
perspective.
Although the possibility for increased cohesion between southern and central Europe ex-
ists this was not reflected in feedback received from the survey respondents. However, a
linking character is likely to develop if people from the south and north participate and are
made aware of the benefits through an awareness generating action. Participation of the
local population is absolutely necessary to ensure a successful implementation and the
spreading of benefits: If they do not have a relation to the plant which is installed in their
neighbourhood they may not accept the implications such plants may have (e.g. change
of landscape). It is therefore extremely important that the project be carried through in
accordance with the wishes of the local population. Further it needs to be made sure that
the solar cooperatives concept will not give the impression of development aid, which
Southern Europe definitely does not need. This could be accomplished through an eco-
nomic justification for the project.
From the results of the survey, in particular the question on how much money people
would be willing to invest in which sort of concept (return on investment, duration of the
contract), it can be seen that the respondents clearly preferred economically viable pro-
89
jects. Further, it turned out that it would definitely be impossible to finance projects with
donated money. Therefore, it is necessary to establish profitable projects.
Whether the participation in a solar cooperative could be a profitable investment is con-

templated in chapter 8. As can be seen from the results of the cash flow calculations,
even with most favourable conditions, this will not be possible for PV plants. The focus
should therefore be on wind power generation. This however stands in contrast to the
results of the surveys in Greece and Italy, where the majority of respondents showed
preference for the PV option. If it comes to decision-making on investment, however, prof-
itability weighs higher than the general preference of a certain technology, so that only
wind powered plants are regarded as a feasible option for solar cooperatives. This deci-
sion is in line with the requirements on role models of the north and economic justification
for a project, which were described earlier in this chapter.
From the survey it can be seen, that there is sufficient interest in Italy and Greece to par-
ticipate in projects in their own countries. Austrians and Germans are further inclined to
invest in either of these two countries, so that the basic concept in general could be real-
ised. Different interests that the Italians, Greeks and Austrians/Germans had with regard
to the application of the power plants, whether they should be grid-connected or off-grid,
used in schools, private homes or hospitals, etc. need not be considered if the main focus
of a project is profitability. In this case only grid-connected wind power plants come into
question, which will not supply any specific application anyway.
From these reflection it can be concluded that the solar cooperatives project needs to
happen on a purely economic basis. As explained in chapter 8, PV therefore is currently
not an option, so the focus should be on wind power plants. The financial attractiveness of
these is that large that commercial wind park operators have already entered the arena.
Thus German companies like Energiekontor, UnitEnergy, Umweltkontor and WindStar,
already offer investment in plants in foreign countries, e.g. in Greece.
Still, in spite of the economic attractiveness of the investment so far not a lot of plants
have been implemented. This is partly due to slow process of obtaining certification and
licenses for the establishment of renewable power plants – an aspect that needs to be
urgently addressed if a significant contribution of renewable energies to the generation
structure in Greece and Italy is to be achieved.
It is suggested, that instead of the establishment of a clearing agency for the realisation of
solar cooperatives, which was planned for module two of this project, further investigation
and activities on incentives for the realisation of a higher share of renewable energy plants
should be carried through.
Seminars should be arranged to allow an exchange of information at an Inter-European

level to discuss existing policy mechanisms successfully used in other countries, to further
the deployment of renewable energies, e.g., the German feed-in law. This could speed up
the process to develop applicable regulations in all the countries. The idea of cooperatives
should be introduced and discussed at such seminars, since it is not a known concept in
all countries in Europe. Awareness raising activities should also form part of a basic strat-
90
egy to ensure the participation of people, both from the North and Southern European
countries, as their participation is indispensable.
The Next Steps: Transferring Acquired Know-How to Third Countries

It had been foreseen in the original proposal for this project that work should also focus on
transferring relevant experience gained within this project to developing countries, hence
forging a link between north and south. Due to a contractual constraint it was not possible
to include Third Countries in the project.
One particularly relevant avenue for follow-up activities based on the knowledge gener-
ated in this project is the promotion of investment mechanisms in the context of Kyoto
Protocol instruments designed to assist with climate change mitigation. In particular, in-
struments such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) need to draw from the type
of experience gained within projects such as this one.
While climate change and its mitigation is one of the most urgent challenges facing man-
kind, the past few months have demonstrated that considerable renewed efforts have to
be expended to deliver real, tangible and rapid results on this critical issue. The last min-
ute agreement at COP-6+ in Bonn on 23rd July 2001 now opens the door to making real
progress in establishing the various emission trading mechanisms which should form one
pillar of the Kyoto Protocol. The last two major climate change conferences, COP-6, held
in The Hague in 2000, and COP-6+ illustrated the importance of the active involvement of
the renewable energy industry and financing institutions and other bodies in the climate
change debate. While conventional energy technologies have been heavily involved in
these issues for some time, the renewable energy sector must now play a leading role in
helping to define the agenda with respect to the related energy issues.
Over the past few years the PV and wind energy sectors in Europe have experienced the
largest net growth in their history, propelled by a combination of European and national
initiatives, and the commitment of industry and customers. This growth must be sustained
through a combination of actively opening up new markets and major new investments in
production facilities. The European PV and wind energy industries are investing heavily in
new technologies and production facilities. However it is crucial that the frontiers of these
markets continue to advance, since only in this way will these sectors achieve sustained
commercial viability. This implies that we must ensure that the vast potential of markets in
developing countries are realised. Kyoto Protocol instruments such as the Clean Devel-
opment Mechanism (CDM) will be crucial to this goal.
The G8 Renewable Energy Task Force released its report on 17th July 2001. The report
predicts that concerted action by G8, other countries, the private sector, international fi-
nancial institutions and others could result in 1 billion people (80% of whom are located in
developing countries) gaining access to electricity and/or more efficient energy supply in
the next 10 years. The report concludes that "such an outcome of serving up to a billion
people in the next decade with renewables should be our goal and aspiration". Solar elec-
tricity and wind power, together with the basket of other renewables, represent the most
suitable clean energy technology to achieve these goals since its highly modular power
supply characteristics are well matched to the needs in rural areas of developing coun-
91
tries. The impetus provided by the G8 report, coupled with the go-ahead for ratification of
the Kyoto protocol, must be exploited by a combined action of European and developing
country actors. This will not just help bring more clean power to developing countries, but
will result in job creation both in Europe and in the developing world.
To achieve this we must learn from the mainstream energy sector, and forge new, innova-
tive alliances amongst leading players in other industrial and financial sectors, while simul-
taneously full exploiting global instruments designed to support environmentally-friendly
energy technologies such as PV and wind energy.
It is crucial to ensure that the views of European and developing country policy makers
and renewable energy industries are taken into account during the process of finalising
the characteristics relevant Kyoto Protocol instruments. Instruments such as the Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) are well suited to off-grid
applications in developing countries. Unfortunately the European renewable energy in-
dustry has, as yet, had little opportunity to exploit these instruments and, as such, a sec-
ond step will be the raising of awareness amongst European and developing country in-
dustry of the potential of mechanisms such as the Clean Development Mechanism.
Thirdly, we will need to forge alliances and partnerships which could lead to the formation
of various partnerships to undertake projects incorporating Kyoto Protocol instruments.
The experiences gained in the Solar Cooperatives project point to how such alliances
could be established, in particular in the innovative financing scheme area.
The lessons learnt from the Solar Cooperatives project will prove valuable in assisting with
the building of viable collaborations between industrialised and developing countries. That
should be the next step following the conclusion of this project.
92
Annex 1 – Solar Radiation map of Western Europe
Solar radiation (average global radiation)1:
1
http://www.energie-atlas.ch/so001-i.htm
The original map can be found at www.meteotest.ch.
93
Annex 2 – Wind map of Western Europe
94
Annex 3 – Evaluation of the Austrian/German questionnaire
1 Die Befragung
Für die Gestaltung, Formulierung und Versendung des Fragebogens war das ISES Head-
quarters zuständig. Die Ausarbeitung des Fragebogens sowie des Anschreibens (siehe An-
hang) erfolgte unter Anleitung der sozialwissenschaftlichen Arbeitsgruppe am Fraunhofer
ISE.
Aufgrund gemeinsamer Überlegungen (Fraunhofer ISE und Headquarters ISES) und finan-
ziellen Kürzungen seitens der Europäischen Kommission, wurde die Untersuchungsgruppe
auf die ISES Mitglieder in Deutschland und Österreich begrenzt. Dies umfaßt eine Gesamt-
heit von 560 Personen. Angestrebt wurde eine Beteiligung von ca. 30%, was 168 Personen
entspricht. Der Fragebogen wurde am 22.06.1998 versandt. Einsendeschluß war der
11.07.1998.
Dem Fragebogen lag ein Schreiben des ISES-Headquarters bei (siehe Anhang), in dem die
Idee »Solar Cooperatives« kurz dargestellt war. Bis zum 11.07.1998 waren 162 Fragebögen
eingegangen. Aufgenommen wurden alle Fragebögen der ersten Befragungsrunde, die bis
zum 24.07.1998 eingegangen waren (n = 186). Dies entspricht einer Beteiligung von 33,2%.
An dieser Stelle sei den beiden Psychologiestudenten, Alexander Hölsch und Esther Bur-
gard, am Fraunhofer ISE gedankt, die sich sowohl bei der Überarbeitung des Fragebogens
als auch bei der Auswertung mit viel Engagement eingebracht haben.
Im Folgenden sind die Ergebnisse der Befragung dargestellt.
2 Charakterisierung der Stichprobe

Die folgenden Unterkapitel sollen kurz einen Eindruck davon vermitteln, wer den Fragebogen
zurückgesandt hat und durch welche Eigenschaften sich diese Personen auszeichnen.
2.1 Beschreibung der Antwortenden

Die Personen, welche den Fragebogen rechtzeitig zurückgesandt haben und in die Auswer-
tung aufgenommen wurden, zeichnen sich im Schnitt durch die folgenden Merkmale aus:
Der Großteil der Befragten sind Männer (94,5%, nur 5,5% Frauen), das Durchschnittsalter
beträgt 38,5 Jahre.
Die befragten ISES Mitglieder verteilen sich auf die dargestellten Berufsgruppen wie folgt:
- 37,1% Ingenieure,
- 22,6% Naturwissenschaftler,
- 10,8% Beamte/Universitätsangestellte,
- 10,2% Studenten,
- 7,0% Architekten,
- 12,3% Sonstige.
Damit sind über ein Drittel der Befragten Ingenieure. Ein weiteres Fünftel Naturwissenschaft-
ler und je ein Zehntel entweder Beamte bzw. Universitätsangestellte oder Studenten.
95
2.2 Eigene Produktion von regenerativem Strom

Die folgende Graphik zeigt wie viele der Befragten bereits eine eigene PV-Anlage bzw.
Windkraftanlage besitzen, bzw. sich daran beteiligen und/oder deren Strom nutzen (siehe
Abb. 1).
16
14
14
12
10
10
8
7
6 investment
4 shareholder
percent
2 own plant
2 2
0 1 tariff-modells
PV wind energy convert.
Abbildung 1: Anzahl der ISES-Mitglieder, die PV- und/oder Windstrom
produzieren (n=186)
Insgesamt sind 22 Personen in irgendeiner Weise am Betrieb einer PV-Anlage beteiligt, die
meisten davon sind im Besitz einer solchen Anlage (siehe auch Tabelle 1). Anders sieht dies
bei Windkraft aus: dort sind 14 Personen beteiligt, die meisten davon durch Anteilscheine.
30
24
20
10 investment
shareholder
percent
own plant
4
3 3
0 2 2 tariff-modells
water collector biogas/-mass
Abbildung 2: Anzahl der ISES-Mitglieder, die Wasserkraft, Solarkollektoren
oder Biomasse-Anlagen (mit-)betreiben (n=186)
Abbildung 2 zeigt, wie viele Personen andere regenerative Energieträger fördern. Hier zeigt
96
sich ein eindeutiger Trend zur Solarkollektoranlage hin; 24 Personen besitzen eine eigene
Solaranlage zur Erzeugung von warmem Wasser (siehe auch Tabelle 1).
PV Wind Wa- collector Biogas/-

ter mass
shareholder 7 10 3 1 1
own plant 14 2 4 24 3
tariff-modells 1 2 2 1 2
Tabelle 1: Bisherige Beteiligung an regenerativen Energien
3 Ergebnisse der gesamten Stichprobe

In den folgenden Unterkapiteln sind die Ergebnisse aus den 186 in die Untersuchung aufge-
nommenen Fragebögen dargestellt.
3.1 Prinzipielle Erwägung einer Beteiligung

Die erste Frage zielte darauf ab ,festzustellen, ob sich die ISES-Mitglieder prinzipiell eine
Beteiligung an einem Windkraftwerk, einer PV-Anlage oder einer Hybridanlage in Italien oder
Griechenland vorstellen könnten. Die Ergebnisse (siehe Abb. 3) zeigen, daß die Befragten
sich dies durchaus vorstellen können, zumindest nicht abgeneigt sind.
2,0
2=definitly
1,5
1,0
,5
,4
,3
,2
0,0
-,5
Mean: -2=no
-1,0
-1,5
-2,0
turbine PV hybrid system
Abbildung 3: Mittelwerte der prinzipiellen Erwägung sich an »Solar
Cooperatives« zu beteiligen (n =173, bei 13 zurückge-
schickten Fragebögen fehlt diese Antwort
Alle drei angebotenen Möglichkeiten werden eher positiv gesehen (etwas mehr als »viel-
leicht«). Die Windkraft liegt dabei mit +0,4 leicht vorne bei der Vorstellung einer eigenen Be-
teiligung, gefolgt von der PV-Anlage (+0,3) und dann von der Hybridanlage (+0,2).
Insgesamt liegen die Mittwerte jedoch nicht sehr im positiven Bereich, es bildet sich eher
eine Unentschiedenheit ab.
97
3.2 Bewertung der »Solar Cooperatives«-Idee

Die zweite Frage beschäftigte sich damit, wie die Teilnehmerinnen bzw. Teilnehmer die Idee
»Solar Cooperatives« bewerten: Gemeinschaftsanlagen, die aus nord- und mitteleuropäi-
schen Ländern bezahlt werden, im Süden Europas aufzustellen.
Abbildung 4 zeigt, daß 70% diese Idee für gut bis sehr gut halten.
very bad
3,3%
bad
very good 9,3%
27,9%
neutral
17,5%
good
42,1%
Abbildung 4: Prozentzahl derer, welche die Idee »Solar Cooperative«

sehr gut bis gar nicht gut bewerten (n=183)
27% halten die Idee »Gemeinschaftsanlagen, die aus nord- und mitteleuropäischen Ländern
bezahlt werden, im Süden Europas aufzustellen« für sehr gut. 41% halten die Idee für gut.
17% zeigen sich neutral und 12% finden die Idee nicht gut. Im Schnitt bewerten die Befrag-
ten die Idee als gut ( N = 0,8).
Damit stehen die Mehrheit der ISES-Mitglieder der Idee »Solar Cooperatives« positiv gegen-
über. Nur wenige äußern sich negativ.
3.3 Verbindung der Menschen in Nord- und Südeuropa durch »Solar Cooperatives«
Auf die Frage, ob »Solar Cooperatives« die Menschen aus in Nord- und Südeuropa stärker
miteinander verbinden könne, antworteten die ISES-Mitglieder wie folgt (siehe Abb. 5):
very much not at all

10,3% 9,2%
little
much 21,2%
27,7%
medium
31,5%
Abbildung 5: Bewertung des Potentials von »Solar Cooperatives« die Menschen in Süd-
und Nordeuropa stärker zu verbinden, in Prozent (N=184)
98
10% halten eine verbindungsstiftende Funktion von »Solar Cooperatives« für sehr gegeben
und 27% für gegeben. 31% sind mittel davon überzeugt, daß »Solar Cooperatives« Verbin-
dungen zwischen den Menschen in Nord- und Südeuropa schaffen kann. 30% sehen keine
Potentiale für Verbindungen zwischen Nord- und Südeuropa in der »Solar Cooperatives«-
Aktion.
Der Mittelwert aller Antworten liegt bei N = 0,1. D.h., die ISES-Mitglieder sind noch nicht sehr
überzeugt von der Idee, daß »Solar Cooperatives« Verbindungen zwischen den Menschen
in Nord- und Südeuropa schaffen könnte.
3.4 Befürwortung zur Versorgung bestimmter Einrichtungen

Mit der Frage 5 sollte herausgefunden werden, ob und wenn ja welche Einrichtungen als
Objekte zur Versorgung mit Gemeinschaftsanlagen bevorzugt werden.
Abbildung 6 zeigt, daß im Mittel keine der genannten Einrichtungen abgelehnt wird.
2,0
mean -2=very disagree 2=very agree
1,5 1,5
1,4 1,4 1,4
1,0 1,2
1,0
,5
0,0
-,5
-1,0
-1,5
-2,0
schools water purification villages private houses
water pipes hospitals telecommunications
Abbildung 6: Mittelwert der Befürwortung der Versorgung bestimmter
Einrichtungen mit Gemeinschaftsanlagen (n = 186)
Am stärksten wurden Schulen befürwortet ( N = 1,5), dicht gefolgt von Krankenhaus, Was-
seraufbereitung und Wasserpumpe (N je 1,4). Danach wird das Dorf ( N = 1,2) und dann eine
Fernmeldeeinrichtung ( N = 1,0) für gut befunden. Am schlechtesten kommt das Privathaus
(mit N = 0,1) weg.
Insgesamt werden alle genannten Einrichtungen als Versorgungsobjekte von Gemein-

schaftsanlagen akzeptiert. Gemeinschaftlich genutzte Einrichtungen - hier besonders Erzie-
hungs- und Gesundheitseinrichtungen - stehen im Vordergrund und private Einrichtungen
hintan.
3.5 Präferenzen bezüglich Netzkoppelung bzw. Insellage

Die Frage nach der Koppelung der Anlagen mit dem Netz wird relativ neutral beantwortet.
Etwas mehr als ein Drittel (36,6%) sind definitiv für eine Inselanlage (siehe auch Abb. 7).
99
Fast genau so vielen (37,1%) ist es egal, ob die Anlage in einer Insellage oder ans Netz ge-
koppelt steht. 23% entscheiden sich bei dieser Frage für eine Netzkoppelung.
grid-connected
23,9%
does not matter
38,3%
non grid-connected
37,8%
Abbildung 7: Prozentuale Aufteilung der Präferenzen bezüglich der Ankoppelung

Gemeinschaftsanlagen (n=186)
Damit findet im Schnitt keine eindeutige Bevorzugung einer speziellen Anschlußart von Ge-
meinschaftsanlagen bezüglich Netzkoppelung oder Insellage statt.
3.6 Installationsorte
Die gewünschten Installationsorte für Gemeinschaftsanlagen zeigen eindeutige Tendenzen
(siehe Abb. 8).
2,0
mean: 2: very agree -2: v. disagree
1,7
1,5
1,2
1,0
,5
,3
0,0
-,5
-,9
-1,0
-1,5
-2,0
roof/front waste land
sound barrier meadow
Abbildung 8: Mittelwerte der Bewertung der Installationsflächen (n=186)
Weiden werden als eher nicht zu bevorzugende Installationsorte angegeben. Ödland liegt
(mit N = 0,3) knapp auf der positiven Seite. Schallschutzwände werden im Schnitt schon eher
100
als gute Installationsorte angesehen, die eindeutigen Gewinner sind Dächer und Fassaden.
Insgesamt finden die Installationsorte Schallschutzwände, Dächer und Fassaden bei den
ISES-Mitgliedern den besten Anklang bezüglich der Installation von Gemeinschaftsanlagen.
3.7 Geäußerte Bereitschaft zum Erwerb von Anteilscheinen

Die geäußerte Vorstellung, sich Anteilscheine unter bestimmten Bedingungen im Rahmen
von “Solar Cooperatives” erwerben zu können, ist in der folgenden Abbildung dargestellt.
donation 30 12
return on invest. 3% 12 25 17
levels of support
return on invest. 6% 14 22 22 9
20000 DM
duration 5 years 15 22 15 10000 DM
5000 DM
duration 10 years 16 20
1000 DM
duration 20 years 10 10 500 DM
100 DM
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
percent
Abbildung 9: Prozentualer Anteil der vorstellbaren Beteiligung an verschiede-

nen möglichen Bedingungen im Rahmen von »Solar Cooperatives« (n=186)
Eine einmalige Spende von DM 100,-- können sich 30% der Befragten vorstellen, eine
Spende von DM 500,-- 12%. 5% können sich sogar eine Spende von DM 1000,- bis zu
10.000,-- vorstellen (n=8). 47% aller Beteiligten können sich eine Spende für »Solar Coope-
ratives« vorstellen.
Bei einer Rendite von 3% geben 61,3% an, daß sie sich vorstellen könnten, sich zu beteili-
gen, bei einer Rendite von 6% sogar 72%. Die Höhe der Beteiligung ist dabei gleichmäßig
verteilt; es besteht eine Tendenz zu DM 5.000,-- bzw. 10.000,-- Anteilscheine bei 6% und
DM 1.000,-- bis 5.000,-- bei 3%. D.h. bei einer Rendite von 6% sind mehr ISES-Mitglieder
dazu bereit 10.000,- zu investieren als bei 3%.
Bezüglich der Vertragslaufzeit bevorzugen die Befragten eine Laufzeit von 5 Jahren (60,2%).
Eine Laufzeit von 10 Jahren ist für 58,6% der Befragten vorstellbar und 20 Jahre für 34,9%.
Zusammengefaßt kann festgehalten werden, daß die ISES-Mitglieder eine mittlere1 Beteili-
gungsbereitschaft bezüglich “Solar Cooperatives” äußern (von 50% mit einer Spende bis hin
zu 70% bei einer Rendite von 6%). Bei kürzeren Laufzeiten könnten sich mehr Personen
1
Das Allensbacher-Institut ermittelte bei einer repräsentativen Umfrage im Sommer 1997 eine Bereitschaft von 33% der Befrag-
ten, höhere Strompreise bei einem Ausstieg aus der Kernenergie zu akzeptieren (siehe Energiewirtschaftliche Tagesthemen,
1998, Heft 1/2). FORSA hat im Auftrag der RWE das Potential für die Bereitschaft zur Teilnahme am Grünen Tarif ermittelt. Die
FORSA-Studie im Auftrag der RWE Energie zur Bereitschaft der Bürger grünen Strom zu kaufen das Potential für die Bereitschaft
zur Teilnahme am Grünen Tarif ermittelt kam auf eine Rate von 70%.
101
vorstellen mitzumachen.
Hier besteht ein Beteiligungspotential, das allerdings – wie wir aus anderen Bereichen wis-
sen - nur durch geeignete Aktionen aktiviert werden kann. Interessant ist vor allem, daß sich
selbst bei einer sehr guten Rendite von 6% nur ca. zwei Drittel für eine Beteiligung entschei-
den können. Dies deutet darauf hin, daß im Falle der Durchführung starke Werbemaßnah-
men für “Solar Cooperatives” notwendig sind.
Was bei diesen Werbemaßnahmen besonders wichtig sein könnte, zeigen die folgenden
Unterkapitel.
3.8 Wichtige Aspekte für eine Beteiligung an »Solar Cooperatives«

Hier wurden Aspekte vorgegeben, die von den Befragten bewertet werden konnten. Bemer-
kenswert ist hier, daß nicht jeder in allen Zeilen Kreuze verteilt hat. Dies läßt darauf schlie-
ßen, daß die Befragten zu einigen Aspekten keine Vorstellungen entwickeln konnten bzw.
der Aspekt nicht wichtig ist (siehe Anhang 9.2).
Die folgenden Aspekte wurden erfragt und bewertet:
3.8.1 Umweltrelevante Aspekte

Für den Umweltbereich relevante Aspekte umfaßten die Förderung erneuerbarer Energien,
den Beitrag zum Umweltschutz und die Auswahl eines umweltverträglichen Standorts. Hier-
bei beziehen sich die beiden ersten Argumente auf die Beteiligung und das letzte auf die
Aufstellung der Anlage.
Abbildung 10 zeigt deutlich, daß den umweltrelevanten Aspekten eine große Bedeutung für
die Beteiligung an einer Gemeinschaftsanlage gemäß den Vorgaben bei »Solar Cooperati-
ves« zugeschrieben werden.
Environmental
2,0
1,8
1,5
1,4 1,4
1,0
,5
0,0
-,5
-1,0
mean
-1,5
-2,0
renewable protection acceptable location
Abbildung 10: Wichtigkeit verschiedener umweltrelevanter Aspekte für eine

Beteiligung (n=186)
102
Umweltaspekte spielen die wichtigste Rolle für eine Beteiligung an »Solar Cooperatives«.
3.8.2 Soziale Aspekte
Die sozialen Aspekte umfaßten die Verbindung zwischen Menschen, die finanzielle Beteili-
gung der Menschen im Süden und die Auswahl eines sozialverträglichen Standorts. Hierbei
beziehen sich die ersten beiden Argumente auf die zwischenmenschliche Beziehung und
letzte auf die Aufstellung der Anlage.
Social
mean -2=very disagree 2=very agree
2,0
1,5
1,3
1,0
,7
,5
0,0
-,5
-1,0
-1,5
-2,0
connection acceptable location
financial particip.
Abbildung 11: Wichtigkeit verschiedener sozialer Aspekte für eine Beteili-

gung (n=186)
Abbildung 11 zeigt, daß auch bei dieser Frage im Schnitt die verbindungsschaffende Wir-
kung von »Solar Cooperatives« kein wichtiges Argument für die Beteiligung darstellt. Wichti-
ger dagegen ist, daß sich die Menschen im Süden auch beteiligen und daß die Anlage dort
keinen sozialen Schaden, z. B. Unfrieden, anrichtet.
Die soziale Akzeptanz der »Solar Cooperatives«-Gemeinschaftsanlage am Aufstellungsort

ist dem durchschnittlichen ISES-Mitglieder ebenfalls sehr wichtig (folgt in der Wichtigkeit
gleich nach dem Umweltaspekt). Eine finanzielle Beteiligung der Anlieger wäre aus Sicht der
befragten ISES-Mitgliede wünschenswert.
3.8.3 Finanzielle Aspekte

Die finanziellen Aspekte bezogen die folgenden Argumente mit ein: Rückerstattung der Ein-
lage im Schadensfall und die problemlose Verfügbarkeit der Mindesteinlage.
103
Financial
2,0
1,5
1,0
,9
,5
0,0
-,5
-1,0
mean
-1,5
-2,0
disp. of deposits reimburse f. damages
Abbildung 12: Wichtigkeit verschiedener finanzieller Aspekte für eine Beteiligung (n=186)
Wie Abbildung 12 zeigt, spielt die Rückerstattung der Einlage im Schadensfall eine wichtige
Rolle, als mittelwichtig wird die problemlose Verfügbarkeit der Mindesteinlage gesehen.
3.8.4 Aspekte bezüglich des Anlagenbetriebs

Die Aspekte bezüglich des Anlagenbetriebs bezogen sich auf die regelmäßige Versorgung
mit Informationen, technische Begleitung des Projektes durch eine naturwissenschaftlich-
technische Institution und Betrieb durch eine solide, deutsche oder österreichische Instituti-
on. Das erste Argument spricht dabei den Anteilseigner an, die beiden letzten Argumente
gehen auf die Anlage und deren Betrieb ein.
Organisational
2,0
1,5
1,0
,5 ,7 ,6
0,0
-,5
-1,0
mean
-1,5
-2,0
regular information scientific advice reliable institution
Abbildung 13: Wichtigkeit verschiedener organisatorischer Aspekte für eine

Beteiligung (n=186)
Eine regelmäßige Information über die Gemeinschaftsanlage spielt für den Durchschnitt der
befragten ISES-Mitglieder eine nicht unbedeutende Rolle ebenso wie die Begleitung der An-
104
lage durch eine wissenschaftlich-technische Organisation. Weniger wichtig, aber auch nicht
unwichtig für die Beteiligung an »Solar Cooperatives« wird der Betrieb der Anlage durch eine
deutsche bzw. österreichische Institution angesehen.
3.8.5 Zusammenfassung
Insgesamt wurde keiner der genannten Aspekte im Schnitt als unwichtig bezeichnet. An ers-
ter Stelle seht jedoch eindeutig die Unterstützung der Erneuerbaren Energien, welche die
ISES-Mitglieder im Durchschnitt zu einer Beteiligung bewegen könnte, gleich gefolgt vom
Willen zum Umweltschutz. Ebenso wichtig wie der Umweltschutz ist die Auswahl eines um-
weltverträglichen Standortes. Dicht gefolgt werden diese Beweggrund zur Beteiligung von
sozialen Aspekten: der sozialen Integration der Anlage und der Auswahl eines sozialverträg-
lichen Standorts.
Etwas weniger wichtig, ist die Rückerstattung der Einlage im Schadensfall. Die finanzielle
Beteiligung der Menschen im Süden ist ungefähr so wichtig wie eine regelmäßige Informati-
on über die Gemeinschaftsanlage und die technische Begleitung durch eine wissenschaft-
lich-technische Institution.
Geringfügig wichtig ist der Aspekt der Verbindung von Menschen zwischen Nord und Süd.
Als mittel wichtig wird der Betrieb der Anlage durch eine deutsche bzw. österreichische Insti-
tution und die Verfügbarkeit der Mindesteinlage angesehen.
3.9 Fördernde und hindernde Faktoren für eine Beteiligung an »Solar Cooperatives«
In der Frage 12 wurden noch einmal speziell der Standort der Anlage, die Idee »Solar Coo-
perative« als Modellprojekt und gewünschte Vertragslaufzeit von 10 Jahren erfragt. Auf die
vorgegebenen Argumente, antworteten die Befragten wie folgt (siehe Abb. 14):
2,0
1,5
2=very agree
1,0
,5 ,6
0,0
mean -2=very disagree
-,4
-,5
-1,0
-1,5
-2,0
model 10 years abroad far
Abbildung 14: Mittelwerte der Bewertung verschiedener Argumente durch

die Befragten (n=186).
Im Schnitt wurden die Argumente ausgeglichen bewertet. Daß die Anlage weit weg liegt wird
105
eher als negatives Argument gesehen, also gegen eine Beteiligung gewertet. Daß es sich
um ein Modellprojekt handelt, spricht eher für eine Beteiligung aus der Sicht der Befragten.
Die Standardabweichungen (siehe Tabelle 2) zeigen jedoch, daß es hier starke Unterschiede
gibt.
Tabelle 2: Mittelwerte, Standardabweichungen und fehlende Werte bezüglich der Bewertung

von Argumenten die für oder gegen eine Beteiligung sprechen
Aspekt Mittelwer- Standart- fehlende Wer-

te abweichung te
Charakter eines Modellprojek- 0,6 1,0 13
tes
Vertragslaufzeit etwa 10 Jahre 0,1 0,9 20
Standort d. Anlage im Ausland 0,0 1,0 15
Anlage weit weg vom Wohnort -0,4 0,8 16
Gewagt argumentiert könnte gesagt werden, daß die ISES-Mitglieder im Schnitt eine Vorrei-
terrolle einnehmen und als Modell für andere vorangehen wollen. Dieses Modell sollte jedoch
eher in ihrer Nähe liegen, am besten in der eigenen Gemeinde. Dies bestätigen auch die
Ergebnisse aus der nächsten Frage.
3.10 Beteiligungstendenzen abhängig vom Standort der Gemeinschaftsanlage

Betrachten wir die Tendenz, sich an einer Anlage zu beteiligen, abhängig vom Ort, an der sie
aufgestellt ist, so zeigt sich das folgende Bild (siehe Abb. 15):
2,0
1,5
2=very agree
1,0 1,0
,5 ,7
,3 ,3
0,0 -,2
-,3
-,5
-1,0
-1,5
-2,0
community Greece Austria Southafrica
Germany Italy Argentine
Abbildung 15: Mittelwerte der Tendenz zur Beteiligung bei verschiedenen

Anlagenstandorte (n=186)
Eindeutig bevorzugt, wird der Standort der Gemeinschaftsanlage in der eigenen Gemeinde.
Auch Deutschland wird häufig gewählt, gefolgt von Griechenland und Italien. Leicht negativ
fallen im Mittel die Bewertungen der Anlagenstandorte in Argentinien und Südafrika aus. Auf
106
die Frage, ob sich die Befragten beteiligen würden bei Anlagen in verschiedenen Ländern,
antwortete der folgende Prozentsatz mit “auf jeden Fall”:
bei der eigenen Gemeinde n=67 36%

bei Deutschland n=29 15,6%
bei Österreich n=152 8,1%
bei Italien n=21 11,3%
bei Griechenland n=22 11,8%
bei Argentinien n=27 14,5%
bei Südafrika n=15 8,1%
Das bedeutet, bei einem Projekt wie es »Solar Cooperatives« vorschlägt geben über ein
Drittel der Personen an, daß sie sich sofort daran beteiligen würden, wenn die Gemein-
schaftsanlage in der eigenen Gemeinde installiert würde.
Insgesamt zeigt sich die eindeutige Tendenz, die Gemeinschaftsanlage so nahe wie möglich
am eigenen Wohnort zu installieren. Ins Negative wendet sich die Bewertung im Mittel, wenn
die Anlagen außerhalb Europas aufgebaut werden sollen.
4 Ergebnisse einzelner Untergruppen

In den folgenden Unterkapiteln sind einzelne Zusammenhänge herausgegriffen, um Wün-
sche und Vorstellungen einzelner Untergruppen genauer herauszuarbeiten.
4.1 Einfache Zusammenhänge

4.1.1 Verbindung von Menschen und Spendenbereitschaft
Es zeigt sich kein Zusammenhang zwischen den Einschätzungen, daß »Solar Cooperatives«
eine verbindungsschaffende Wirkung zwischen Nord- und Südeuropa haben könnte und der
Spendenbereitschaft der ISES-Mitglieder. Weder hängt diese Beurteilung zusammen mit der
Höhe der angegebenen Spende, noch mit der Bereitschaft zur Beteiligung bei 3% oder 6%
Rendite und auch nicht mit der Höhe der Geldbeträge bei verschiedenen Laufzeiten (5-20
Jahre).
4.1.2 Zusammenhänge bei der Zahlungsbereitschaft

Es gibt hoch signifikante Zusammenhänge bei der Angabe der Zahlungsbereitschaft (sowohl
bei 3 als auch bei 6% Rendite); zum einen zur Bereitschaft sich jeweils auch bei der anderen
Rendite zu beteiligen als auch zur Bereitschaft sich mit demselben Betrag für 5, 10 oder 20
Jahre festzulegen. Diese Zusammenhänge sind jedoch höher bei geringeren Laufzeiten, was
bedeutet, daß die Bereitschaft die gleiche Höhe eines Geldbetrags anzulegen, mit zuneh-
menden Dauer der Vertragslaufzeit abnimmt (siehe Anhang 9.1).
4.1.3 Zusammenhänge Anlagenkoppelung und Geldeinsatz

Die folgenden drei Graphiken verdeutlichen, welche Zusammenhänge bestehen zwischen
der Bereitschaft Geld zu spenden bzw. zu investieren, abhängig von der Koppelung der An-
2
Die Stichprobe der österreichischen ISES-Mitglieder war kleiner als die der deutschen ISES-Mitglieder.
107
lage.
60
50 50 50
40 40
34
30
20
percent
10 grid-connected
9
5 5
0 3 3 non grid-connected
DM 100 DM 1.000 DM 10.000
DM 500 DM 5.000
donation
Abbildung 16: Häufigkeit verschiedener Spendenbeträge in Abhängigkeit von

der Anlagenkoppelung (n=186)
Die Höhe der Beträge verschiebt sich - wie zu erwarten - mit der Steigerung des Gewinns,
bzw. mit der Reduzierung des Verlustes (siehe Abb. 16, 17 und 18). Interessant ist jedoch zu
sehen, daß sich einige ISES-Mitglieder vorstellen können für Inselanlagen (siehe Abb. 16)
bis zu MD 10.000,-- zu spenden; bei einer 3% Rendite liegen ebenfalls die Inselanlagen vor-
ne mit einer vorstellbaren Summe von DM 20.000,-- (siehe Abb. 17). Unter der 6% Bedin-
gung liegt die netzgekoppelte Anlage ebenfalls vorne; hier können sich mehrere ISES-
Mitglieder vorstellen DM 20.000,-- und mehr in Insel- oder Netzkoppelung zu investieren
(siehe Abb. 18).
60
40
38
34
33
28 28
20
13
grid-connected
percent
10 10
8
0 non grid-connected
DM 500 DM 5.000 DM 20.000
DM 1.000 DM 10.000
return on investment of 3%
Abbildung 17: Häufigkeit verschiedener Mindesteinlagen mit 3% Rendite in Abhängig-

keit von der Anlagenkoppelung (n=186)
108
40
30 30
26
20 21
19
16
10 10
9
grid-connected
percent
0 2 3 2 2 non grid-connected
DM 500 DM 5.000 DM 20.000
DM 1.000 DM 10.000 DM max
return on investment of 6%
Abbildung 18: Häufigkeit verschiedener Mindesteinlagen mit 6% Rendite in Abhängig-

keit von der Anlagenkoppelung (n=186)
4.2 Beteiligung in Italien und Griechenland mit höheren Geldsummen bei 10 Jahren
Laufzeit
Bemerkenswert ist ein Zusammenhang, der auch zufällig zustande gekommen sein könnte,
sich jedoch als sehr signifikant zeigt: Die Personen, die sich in Frage 10 für eine Beteiligung
an einer Gemeinschaftsanlage in Griechenland oder Italien ausgesprochen haben, gaben
auch höhere Geldwerte in der Frage 7 an, in dem Fragebereich mit einer Laufzeit von 10
Mit einer Fehlerwahrscheinlichkeit <1% deuten die Ergebnis darauf hin, daß dies die poten
tiellen Kunden für die »Solar Cooperative« Idee sind.
Das folgenden Unterkapitel beschäftigt sich mit der Stichprobe derjenigen, die sich entweder
in Griechenland oder in Italien eine Beteiligung gut vorstellen könnten.
4.3 Relevante Untergruppen

4.3.1 Potentielle »Solar Cooperative« Kunden
Aus den Antworten auf Frage 10 läßt sich ablesen, daß sich eine Gruppe von 92 Personen,
das entspricht 49,5%, vorstellen könnte, sich entweder in Griechenland oder in Italien an
einer Gemeinschaftsanlage zu beteiligen (Kreuze im positiven/zustimmenden Bereich).
Diese Gruppe setzt sich wie folgt zusammen:
»Solar Cooperative« Nicht Interessierte

Interessierte »Solar Cooperativer«
für Italien für Italien
»Solar Cooperative«
71 15 86
Interessierte für Griechenland
Nicht Interessierte »Solar
4 85 89
Cooperativer« für Griechenland
75 100 175
109
Wenn wir uns die Antworten der Gruppe genauer ansehen, dann ergibt sich das folgende
Bild:
Diese Gruppe, die sowohl an Griechenland als auch an Italien interessiert ist (N=71), bewer-
tet die Idee »Solar Cooperatives« sehr positiv (dies ist sehr signifikant; siehe Anhang 9.3.1).
Eine Präferenz für Wind, PV oder Hybrid läßt sich nicht erkennen, was bedeutet, daß alle
Optionen gleich akzeptiert sind.
Einen Unterschied gibt es in der Frage der Anlagenkoppelung (siehe Abb. 19) dieser ist bei
einer statistischen Analyse allerdings nicht signifikant.
netzgekoppelt
22,2%
egal
36,7%
Inselanlage
41,1%
Abbildung 19: Prozentuale Verteilung der “Solar Cooperatives” sehr positiv gestimmten
ISES-Mitglieder bezüglich der Frage der Netzkoppelung der Anlage (n=71)
Die ausgewählte Gruppe präferiert hier mehr als die Gesamtgruppe die Insellage (41,1%),
nur 22,2% geben eine gewünschte Netzkoppelung an.
Weitere (statistisch signifikante ) Unterschiede finden sich bei der Verbindung der Menschen
von Nord und Süd (Frage 3), die Versorgung der Institutionen Krankenhaus, Dorf und Schule
(Frage 4), Standort der Anlage im Ausland (Frage 9) und in Deutschland (Frage 10). Dies
bedeutet, daß die »Solar-Cooperative«-Interessierten, (a) die verbindungsschaffende Wir-
kung von »Solar Cooperatives« höher einschätzen als die Gruppe der nicht so stark Interes-
sierten, (b) die Krankenhäuser, Dörfer und Schulen eher versorgt wissen wollen, (c) die An-
lage eher auch im Ausland befürworten und (d) die »Solar Cooperative« stärker als Beitrag
für den Umweltschutz sehen als die anderen.
110
donation 30 13
return on inv. of 3% 12 26 17
return on inv. of 6% 14 23 21 9
5 years 15 23 15 max...DM
10 years
Italy
16 20 15
20000 DM
20 years 10 11
donation 30 13 10000 DM
5000 DM
5 years 15 23 15 1000 DM
Greece
10 years 17 20 15 500 DM
20 years 10 11
100 DM
0 20 40 60 80 100
percent
Abbildung 20: Prozentuale Verteilung der für Italien (oben) und für Griechen-
land-Interessierten (unten) über die verschiedenen Rendite-
und Laufzeiten hinweg (n=71)
Abbildung 20 zeigt im Vergleich mit Abbildung 7, daß sich die Personen, die der Idee »Solar
Cooperatives« nahe stehen, bei der finanziellen Beteiligung nicht von der Gesamtgruppe
unterscheiden. Dies lediglich in dem bereits angesprochenen Punkt der stärkeren Beteili-
gung mit höheren Beträgen bei einer 10-jährigen Laufzeit (Beispielzeit in Frage 9).
4.3.2 Spender und Nicht-Spender

Die Stichprobe kann in zwei fast gleich große und für das »Solar Cooperatives«-Projekt inte-
ressante Gruppen aufgeteilt werden: 99 Nicht-Spender und 87 Spender. Diese beiden Grup-
pen unterscheiden sich nicht in der Frage der Netzkoppelung, nicht bei der Frage ob Wind-,
PV- oder Hybridsysteme zum Einsatz kommen sollen und auch nicht bei der Einschätzung
ob »Solar Cooperatives« Verbindungen zwischen den Menschen in Nord- und Südeuropa
schaffen kann.
Die Nicht-Spender unterscheiden sich von den Spendern vor allem in zwei Punkten:
4.3.2.1 Unterschiede bezüglich finanzieller Beteiligungsbereitschaft

Wie in Abbildung 21 zu sehen, zeigt sich hier ein eindeutiger Unterschied bei den beiden
Gruppen: Die Abbildung 21 zeigt dabei die finanzielle Beteiligungsbereitschaft der Spender
im oberen Teil und die der Nicht-Spender im unteren Teil.
111
donation
5 years 15 29 20
10 years 23 28 18
>20000 DM
20 years 9 14 13 13
return on inv. of 3% 9 23 8 20000 DM
return on inv. of 6% 12 17 13 9 10000 DM

no donation
5 years 15 15 10
5000 DM
10 years 9 13 12
1000
20 years 8
500 DM
0 20 40 60 80 100
percent
Abbildung 21: Prozentuale Verteilung der Spender (oben, n=87) und
Nicht-Spender (unten, n=99) über die verschiedenen Rendite-
und Laufzeiten hinweg
Es ist deutlich zu erkennen, daß die Spender auch in diesem finanziellen Bereich eher dazu
bereit sind das Geld länger festzulegen. Bei der Rendite zeigt sich das folgende Bild (siehe
Anhang 9.11): Rechnen wir die Anzahl der genannten Geldbeträge zusammen, so ergibt sich
bei eine Rendite von 3% bei den Spendern eine höhere Bereitschaft mehr zu investieren, bei
6% liegen die Nicht-Spender leicht vorne.
4.3.2.2 Unterschiedliche Zustimmung zu Installationsorten

Auch bei der Frage, wo die Gemeinschaftsanlagen installiert werden sollten, unterscheiden
sich diese beiden Gruppen, wie in Abbildung 21 zu sehen.
2,0
1,5
2=very agree
1,0 1,1
,9 community
,8
,5 ,6 ,6 ,6 Germany
,3
0,0 Austria
-,5 -,6 Italy

-,5
Greece
-1,0
Argentine
-1,5
-2,0 Southafrica
no donation donation
Abbildung 22: Mittelwerte der Nicht-Spender (links, n=99) und Spender

(rechts, n=87) bezüglich des Aufstellungsortes der Anlage
im Vergleich
Hier zeigt sich, daß die ISES-Mitglieder, die sich eine Spende vorstellen könnten, auch
112
Standorten im Ausland eher zustimmen.
5 Überprüfung weiterer Zusammenhänge

Auf Wunsch des ISES Headquarters wurden verschiedene Zusammenhänge überprüft, die
auf eine konsistente bzw. inkonsistente Bewertung der Fragebögen hindeuten könnten. Die-
se sind in den folgenden Unterkapiteln dargestellt.
5.1 Überprüfung: Wahl eines ökologisch sinnvollen Standorts und Umwelt-

schutz
Es besteht eine sehr hohe Korrelation zwischen den bewerteten Aspekten aus Frage 8, die
sich auf die Umwelt beziehen: »Wichtiger Beitrag zum Umweltschutz« mit »Umweltverträgli-
cher Standort« .35, mit »Förderung erneuerbarer Energie«: .45, beide hoch signifikant (siehe
Anhang 9.5).
Der vermutete Zusammenhang zwischen der umweltbezogenen Bewertung des Projektes

und der gewünschten Vermeidung der Verbauung von Grünflächen “Ödland” und “Weide”
(Frage 6 nach dem Standort) konnte statistisch nicht nachgewiesen werden (siehe Anhang
9.10).
5.2 Überprüfung: Verbindung von Menschen und Standort im Ausland

Bezüglich der Frage ob die Personen, die in »Solar Cooperatives« eine Chance sehen Men-
schen zu verbinden und solchen, die auch den Standort der Gemeinschaftsanlage im Aus-
land zustimmen, besteht eine statistischer Zusammenhang, der hoch signifikant ist (siehe
Anhang 9.6).
5.3 Überprüfung: Verfügung über Mindesteinlage und Laufzeit

Die Variable »Problemlose Verfügbarkeit der Mindesteinlage« korreliert hochsignifikant mit
einer Laufzeit von 10 Jahren (.24), das bedeutet: die Personen, die sagen, eine Verfügbar-
keit ist wichtig, stufen ihre Beteiligung bei einer 10-jährigen Laufzeit signifikant geringer ein
(jedoch nicht mit Laufzeiten von 5 und 20 Jahren (siehe Anhang 9.7).
6 Bemerkungen der Befragten

Im folgenden sind die qualitativen Bemerkungen der ISES-Mitglieder dargestellt. Diese wur-
den vor allem am Ende des Fragebogens in den dafür vorgegebenen Raum eingetragen.
Zum anderen befanden sich die Kommentare aber auch direkt bei den Fragen. Im folgenden
sind alle Bemerkungen zusammengefaßt.
6.1 Technische Aspekte

Die technischen Bemerkungen konzentrieren sich auf vier Bereiche:
PV wird als eher nicht netzgekoppelt empfohlen und Wind als eher netzgekoppelt. Die Netz-
koppelung sollte von der Entfernung des Ortes zum Netz abhängig gemacht werden. Mehr-
mals wird PV in Verbindung mit der Insellage gebracht.
113
Bei PV wird darauf hingewiesen, daß Module entwendet werden könnten (Diebstahlgefahr).
Eine ständige Überwachung und Wartung wird für beide Anlagen empfohlen mit Verweis auf
eine kompetente technische Begleitung, die wichtiger sei als Wissenschaft.
Solarthermische Anlagen werden von einigen aufgegriffen und die Frage gestellt, warum
diese nicht in dem Programm enthalten seien.
Eine Person fragt sich, ob der Transfer der Technik gut sei oder ob nicht die Produktion vor
Ort angestrebt werden sollte.
6.2 Soziale Aspekte

Sehr viele Anmerkungen wurden zu sozialen Aspekten geäußert. Die meisten davon bezie-
hen sich auf die Beteiligung der Menschen vor Ort. Dies zum einen bei der Entscheidung als
auch bei der Finanzierung bis hin zur Nutzung und Wartung der Anlage (“Anlage muß von
den Menschen bedien-/wart-/ und verstehbar sein”). Die finanzielle Beteiligung der Men-
schen im Süden wird als wichtig angesehen. Sie drücke zum einen das Interesse aus, er-
mögliche eine gleichberechtigte Beteiligung von Nord und Süd und schaffe einen stärkeren
Bezug zwischen der Anlage und den Anwohnern (“gleichberechtigt planen und finanzieren”).
Einige betonen auch die verbindende Wirkung dieser Projektidee, es könnte einen persönli-
chen Bezug zu den Menschen vor Ort schaffen. Das europäische Konzept könnte dadurch
verstärkt werden und Europa könnte dadurch “kulturell, ökonomisch, ökologisch und wissen-
schaftlich stärker zusammenwachsen”. Nur eine Person äußert vollkommenes Unverständ-
nis gegenüber dem Gedanken der Verbindung zwischen Süd und Nord; sie hält auch das
Argument im Süden sei die Einstrahlung höher für vorgeschoben und plädiert eindeutig für
einen Aufbau derartiger Anlagen in Deutschland (“Die Sonne in Deutschland reicht!”).
Bezüglich der Sozialverträglichkeit wird in mehreren Beiträgen darauf hingewiesen, daß die
Anlage den Menschen vor Ort nicht einfach “vor die Nase gestellt” werden darf. Viele nennen
die Anmerkung, daß auf neokoloniale Einstellungen geachtet werden müsse und diese zu
verhindern seinen.
Als Ideallösung nennt eine Person die “Bildung vieler lokaler/regionaler Betreibergesellschaf-
ten mit starker persönlicher Identifikation der Anteilseigner”. Die Trägerinstitution müsse eine
“internationale Führungsstruktur” haben trägt ein anderer bei. Wieder eine andere Person,
nennt die Idee einen Fond zu betreiben, in dem Betroffene aus der Umgebung die Anlagen-
anteile mit der Zeit überschrieben werden.
6.3 Finanzielle Aspekte

Bezüglich der Finanzen beziehen sich viele Bemerkungen auf die Rendite. Hier gehen einige
davon aus, daß sich eine Rendite kleiner 6% auf keinen Fall lohnen würde; eine Person
nennt eine Mindesthöhe der Rendite von 10%. Zusätzlich wird auf die Möglichkeit einer Ab-
schreibung hingewiesen.
Das Risiko wird von einigen angesprochen. Sie betonen, daß die Wirtschaftlichkeit der Anla-
gen im Mittelpunkt stehen solle, Kontrolle und Transparenz gewährleistet sein solle und eine
kompetente Firma die Überwachung übernehmen solle. Zum anderen sprechen auch einige
von ‘Venture Capital’ und deuten darauf hin, daß gerade in diesem Zusammenhang die
Rendite besonders hoch sein müsse.
114
Wichtig bei diesen Bemerkungen ist, daß immer wieder betont wird, wie wichtig die wirt-
schaftliche Betrachtung der »Solar Cooperatives« sei für den Erfolg des Projektes, da sonst
nur »finanzkräftige Idealisten im Norden« mitmachen würden. Besonders wichtig scheint
einer Person, der Bezug zwischen Betreibern und Finanziers.
6.4 Zusammenarbeit mit dem Süden

Als weiterer Themenbereich wurde die Zusammenarbeit mit dem Süden aufgegriffen, hier
konzentrierten sich die Punkte auf die folgenden Bereiche:
Zweifel, ob die Strukturen im Süden, den integrierten Aufbau und den dauerhaften Betrieb
der Anlage ermöglichen (mangelndes Umweltbewußtsein, Korruption, Desinteresse, schlech-
te Pflege der Anlagen, Gesamtnutzen). Als Empfehlung wird hier eine starke “Kontrolle und
Überwachung” angesprochen. Grundsätzlich stellt sich hier für einige die Frage, wie eine
Gemeinschaftsanlage auf Dauer betriebsfähig gehalten werden kann.
Ein anderer angesprochener Bereich bezieht sich auf die Möglichkeit mit dieser Anlage eine
Art “Sensibilisierung” im Süden für derartige Anlagen zu erreichen. Die Anlage könnte “Mo-
dellcharakter” haben.
Wenige betonen den Hilfscharakter, den ein derartiges Projekt vom Norden für den Süden
haben könnte. Andere Warnen vor Überheblichkeit des Nordens gegenüber dem Süden.
6.5 Vor- und Nachteile der Idee »Solar Cooperative«

An dieser Stelle werden lediglich die Vor- und Nachteile so aufgelistet, wie in den Fragebö-
gen niedergeschrieben:
6.5.1 Vorteile
• Vorteil: Inseln sind der optimale Einsatzort für Windkraft!
• Vorteil: höhere Ausbeute an gutem Standort, Kooperation besserer Ausgleich von
Spitzenlasten + geringe Einstrahlung/Wind an einem Standort
• Standort der Anlage im 'sommerreichen' Ausland
• Vorteil: bessere Rentabilität durch mehr Sonne / Wind, Klimatisierung über Solar-
wärme sollte unbedingt mit in Betracht gezogen werden. Die Rentabilität dürfte für die
Laufzeit nur vom Wetter abhängen, von sonst nichts (keine Vertragsveränderungen
etc.)
• Vorteil: effiziente Nutzung des eingesetzten Geldes durch Aufbau der jeweiligen An-
lagen am jeweilig günstigen Standort
• Vorteil: Schaffung dezentraler, umweltfreundlicher Energieversorgung -> bessere
Entwicklungspotentiale bei geringeren Infrastrukturkosten; (ökonomisch) -> objektiv
• Vorteil: evtl. höhere Energieerträge (PV), günstigerer Anwendungsfall (Bewässerung,
netzfern)
• Vorteil: Erschließung von vorhandenen wirtschaftlichen Potential für regenerative
Energien; Anschub für landeseigene Projekte
• Förderung des Umweltbewußtseins in diesen Ländern
• Vorteile: Möglicherweise bessere Akzeptanz von WKA als hier; höhere Strahlung; ge-
115
ringere Lohnkosten; Sensibilisierung der südeuropäischen Länder für Klimaschutz;

Demonstration der Möglichkeiten; Beschäftigungseffekte in strukturschwachen Regi-
onen; Vorbild Joint Implementation!
• Vorteil: hier u.U. mehr Kapital, außerdem hier höhere CO2-Produktion pro Kopf, die
auch dort Probleme bereitet; hier dagegen geringere kWh/kWp
• Vorteile: Nutzung hoher Energiepotentiale; Mobilisierung von Kapital; Markteinfüh-
rung
• Vorteil: gute Nutzung der Anlagen durch reichlich vorhandene Ressourcen
• Vorteil: bessere Verfügbarkeit erneuerbarer Energien, z.B. Sonneneinstrahlung
• Vorteile: Teamarbeit, Kooperation. Weiterentwicklung. Das Wetter.
• Vorteile: Europäischer Gedanke wird gefördert. Anlage ist noch nah genug, daß man
sie selber in Augenschein nehmen kann.
• Vorteil: höhere Effizienz
• Vorteil: die Markteinführung von Photovoltaikstromanlagen durch die 40%ig höhere
Sonneneinstrahlung in den Mittelmeerländern gegenüber Deutschland wird wesent-
lich erleichtert, da so Kosten für die Markteinführung gespart werden und mehr PV-
Strom von Anfang an erzeugt werden kann, bevor auch in Deutschland PV-Strom
marktkonkurrenzfähig wird.
• Vorteile der regenerativen Energieanlagen in Deutschland: zwar schlechtere Erträge
und Kosteneffizienz, aber:
• Demonstrations- und Multiplikatorwirkung
• bessere Erfolgskontrolle vor Ort
• Einbeziehung des regierenden Handwerks
• Gleichzeitigkeit von Energieerzeugung und -verbrauch
• Integration in Gebäudearchitektur
• günstige klimatische Voraussetzungen
• großer Bedarf
• ‘Entwicklungshilfe’, Entschädigung des Nord-Süd-Konflikts
6.5.2 Nachteile
• Nachteil: wenig Aufstellungsmöglichkeiten
• Nachteil: am Bewußtsein der breiten Öffentlichkeit geht so etwas völlig vorbei sie
kann weiterhin wähnen, bei uns müsse sich nichts ändern. Ich halte das ‘Projekt’ für
völlig verfehlt, aber sehr typisch!
• Nachteil: sich selbst ein Bild von der Anlage zu machen ist durch die räumlichen Ent-
fernung erschwert. Zahlen aus Meßwerttabellen etc. der einen Anlage sind zwar er-
wünscht, nicht weniger wichtig jedoch ist die Identifizierung mit der Anlage durch Be-
such dieser. Mögliche Lösung: Mittelsmann.
• Nachteile: Pflege, Transport und weitere Kosten
• Nachteil: weniger ausgebautes öffentliches Versorgungssystem
• Nachteil: die Mittel fehlen zur Förderung von Anlagen im Inland. Der Export von
Technologie bevor sie hier richtig Fuß gefaßt hat leistet dem Vorurteil Vorschub, daß
sich solche Anlagen hier sowieso nicht lohnen, bzw. nur unter Optimalbedingungen
funktionieren.
• Nachteile: unsichere Strompreisentwicklung (Liberalisierung des Strommarktes?);
gesetzlich festgelegte Einspeisevergütung? Technisches Know-how ausreichend?
116
• Nachteil: zu große Entfernung; Sprach- und Verständigungsprobleme

• Nachteil: Der Anlagestandort ist für viele Leute in Deutschland zu weit weg - es fehlt
der Bezug.
• Nachteil: kaum Bezug zur Anlage, da 'weit weg' und nicht hier zum Anfassen
• Nachteile: Gefahr, daß ‘reicher’ Westen in ‘armen’ Süden versucht Einfluß zu gewin-
nen (besonders in Entwicklungsländern) -> Ziel einer Verbindung Nord <--> Süd
kann scheitern; Kapitalsicherheit gefährdet/gering
• Nachteil: Verlagerung regenerativer Energieerzeugung in den Süden (in den Köpfen)
schafft falsche Einstellung zum Einsatz bei uns (z.B. PV) -> nördliche Industrieländer
sollten erst mal mit gutem Beispiel vorausgehen! (politisch/psychologisch -> subjekti-
ve Wahrnehmung)
• Nachteil: räumliche und damit 'emotionale' Distanz, Komplexität der Organisations-
und Betriebsstruktur
• Nachteil: Identifizierung im Vergleich zu ortsnaher Anlage schwierig
• Nachteile: Rechtliche Seite: Gibt es dort ein Einspeisegesetz? Eine Mindestvergütung
muß garantiert sein!
• Nachteil: u.U. - wenn nicht sinnvoll eingeführt - Gefahr der “Geber-Nehmer”-
Problematik
• Vorteile nur für hiesige EVUs (sie bleiben ihrer satten Gewinne ungeschoren) und für
die Regierungen der nord- u. mitteleuropäischen Staaten (sie können darauf hinwei-
sen, daß (a) etwas für die regenerativen Energien getan wird, was b) mehr bringt als
bei gleichem Aufwand weiter nördlich - und sie brauchen c) selbst nichts zu tun).
6.6 Weitere Anmerkungen

• Anlagebetreiber ist nicht wichtig. Aber ausreichende Kontrolle!
• Sinnvoller Standort aufgrund 40% höherer Sonneneinstrahlung. Falls durch dieses
Projekt neue Arbeitsplätze entstehen, sollten alle beteiligen Länder etwas davon ha-
ben.
• Wenn die Euro-Kommissare etwas tun wollen, sollen sie gefälligst auch selbst bezah-
len und nicht die Kosten auf einzelne gutwillige Bürger abwälzen. Mit einem solchen
Projekt wird das CO2-Problem verharmlost.
• gibt es genug passende Standorte für Inselanlagen?
• solange die erneuerbare Energie im eigenen Land bedeutungslos ist, wird auch der
Export in sonnenreichere Länder nicht gelingen
• Geschäfte mit dem Süden Italiens werden sicher sehr schwierig!
• Die 'betroffene' Bevölkerung sollte auf jeden Fall beteiligt werden um eine hohe Ak-
zeptanz der Anlage zu gewährleisten.
• Gefahr: niemand ist verantwortlich für die Anlagen
• Welchen Nutzen für den, der sich beteiligt?
• Es gibt sehr viele Negativ-Beispiele von geförderten Anlagen in Südamerika, Afrika
usw.
• Allgemein: Aktion gut, sie trifft nur nicht den Kernpunkt, warum sich alternative Ener-
gie so schwer durchsetzt.
• Schaffung von Versorgungsstrukturen, Know-how und Technologietransfer
• Rechtliche Unsicherheiten speziell in Italien (Mafia) und Griechenland (Vertrags-
treue!). Ich würde sofort etwas ähnliches mit Spanien oder Portugal machen ggf.
117
auch Ungarn! Meinung beruht auf früheren Erfahrungen mit Italien und Griechenland.
• wichtigster Punkt für mich ist Frage 8 letzter Punkt Solidität des Betreibers.
• Vorteile: höhere Energieausbeute (vielleicht?), neuer Markt
• Sollte nicht in Konkurrenz zu lokalen Anlageninstallationen treten!
• Betrieb der Anlage durch seriöse (ital. oder griech.) Betreiber wäre sehr wünschens-
wert -> Know how Transfer
• vermisse Spanien als Standort!
• Die Kleinwasserkraftnutzung sollte auf alle Fälle in die SOLAR COOPERATIVES in-
tegriert sein. Dies besonders vor dem Hintergrund eines investment-freundlichen,
wirtschaftlichen Betriebs solcher Anlagen. Besonders bei Frage 7 würde sich wahr-
scheinlich das Antwortprofil entscheidend ändern.
• Frage 4) macht keine Angaben zur Größenordnung der öffentlichen/privaten Einrich-
tungen. Unter Krankenhaus z.B. kann ein städtisches Krankenhaus oder ein Dorf-
krankenhaus angesprochen sein. Die Unterschiede sind gravierend. Auch hier würde
sich unterschiedliche Antwortprofile ergeben.
• Kein Prestigeobjekt, keine Subvention von Showeffekten. Als Kooperation verkaufen,
aber nicht als Freikaufen der Nordländer.
• attraktive Architektur ohne »Design«
• Know-how-Transfer in das Land muß erfolgen
• Wissenschaftliche Betreuung zur Optimierung der speziellen Anlagentechnik und des
Vorgehens allgemein
• Wir müssen - sozusagen als Vorreiter - im eigenen Land demonstrieren, daß Solar-
technik funktioniert und einen erheblichen Anteil an der Energieversorgung überneh-
men kann!
• Wegen des höheren Wirkungsgrades scheint mir der Aufbau von Gemeinschafts So-
laranlagen im Süden natürlich sinnvoller. Andererseits sollte auch in Deutschland
mehr an neuen Energiekonzepten gearbeitet werden, da Projekte vor der eigenen
Haustür sicher mehr bewirken, als irgendwo auf der Welt.
• “Global denken - lokal handeln” heißt, im eigenen Land etwas verändern und mit den
Menschen in anderen Ländern in Erfahrungsaustausch treten.
• Nur große Anlagen, technisch (Wartung) und wirtschaftlich von einer bedeutenden
Firma betreut, machen Sinn.
• Fragebogen teilweise nicht konsistent, z.B. Frage 9: PV-Anlagen in Wohnortnähe un-
problematisch, Wind u.U. nicht. Frage 2: warum nicht bezahlt durch Bürger Europas -
egal woher?
• Durch die Begleitung des Projektes durch eine renommierte Institution könnte Ver-
tauen aufgebaut und Interesse geweckt werden.
• Wichtiger Aspekt ist die Versorgung der Beteiligten mit Informationen, sowohl techni-
scher als auch finanzieller Art.
• Neben dem ökologischen Aspekt müssen finanzielle Vorteile in den Vordergrund ge-
stellt werden, damit das Projekt nicht in die “ökologische Nische” geschoben wird
(Problem: Jede Beteiligung mit unserem Geld in fernen Ländern mindert den Druck,
bei uns selbst etwas zu ändern: Feigenblattfunktion, für Energiewende kontraproduk-
tiv.
118
7 Kommentare
7.1 Zusammenfassung
Zusammenfassend kann gesagt werden, daß viele ISES-Mitglieder der Idee »Solar Coopera-
tives« sehr positiv gegenüber stehen. Dabei gibt es keine Präferenz zwischen Wind, PV oder
einer Hybridanlage. Eine verbindungsschaffende Wirkung von »Solar Cooperatives« zwi-
schen den Menschen zwischen Nord und Süd können viele nicht erkennen. Eher besteht die
Befürchtung, daß den Menschen im Süden “etwas vor die Nase gesetzt wird”, was diese
vielleicht gar nicht wollen. Für viele spielt der Umweltsapekt eine bedeutende Rolle für das
Interesse der Beteiligung an Gemeinschaftsanlagen.
Die Bereitschaft zum Erwerb von Anteilscheinen ist vorhanden, viele bevorzugen jedoch eine
Lage der Gemeinschaftsanlage in der eigenen Gemeinde. Hier spielen Bedenken eine Rolle,
wie: kann die Anlage in der Entfernung dauerhaft funktionieren, besteht die Möglichkeit des
Kontaktes zwischen Finanziers und Betreiber, richtet die Anlage im Zielort auch keinen
Schaden an u.s.w.
Eine Gruppe konnte herausgefiltert werden, die als »Solar Cooperatives«-Interessierte zu

bezeichnen sind. Sie haben ein größeres Interesse an der Verbindung zwischen Menschen
in Nord und Süd und könnten sich eine Anlage in Italien und Griechenland gut vorstellen. Sie
geben auch für den vorgeschlagenen Zeitraum von 10 Jahren Laufzeit die höchsten Geldbe-
träge an.
Eine andere interessante Gruppe kristallisierte sich heraus, wenn Spender und Nicht-
Spender mit einander verglichen werden. Die Spender sind zwar nicht stärker an der Idee
»Solar Cooperatives« interessiert und bewerten auch die verbindungsschaffende Wirkung
zwischen Nord und Süd nicht höher, aber sie zeigen deutlich höhere Bereitschaft, in Ge-
meinschaftsanlagen für längere Zeit zu investieren. Zudem stehen sie der Idee, Gemein-
schaftsanlagen im Ausland zu installieren, aufgeschlossener gegenüber als die Nicht-
Spender.
7.2 Empfehlungen
Insgesamt besteht ein gewisses Potential unter den ISES-Mitglieder zur Beteiligung an Ge-
meinschaftsanlagen wie sie in »Solar Cooperatives« vorgesehen sind. Dabei zeigen sich
viele zu Spenden bereit, bis hin zur Beteiligung mit höheren Summen, die sich erhöhen,
wenn die Rendite steigt.
Die Idee »Solar Cooperatives« muß jedoch klar transportiert werden, bei der Aufstellung der
Anlage und Auswahl des Standortes sollte auf eine umweltfreundliche und sozialverträgliche
Art geachtet werden. Die Menschen aus dem Süden sollten auf jeden Fall finanziell (wenn
möglich darüber hinaus bei Aufbau, Nutzung und Wartung) beteiligt werden. Soziale Einrich-
tungen (wie Krankenhäuser und Schulen) sind bevorzugt zu versorgen. Auf eine technisch
gute Realisierung (ohne “Neokolonialisierungstendenzen”, d.h. im Einklang mit den Wün-
schen und Bedürfnissen der lokalen Bevölkerung), und eine möglichst gute Risikominimie-
rung sollte geachtet werden.
119
Eine gewisse Skepsis hinsichtlich der Beteiligung der ISES-Mitglieder ist bei der Einschrän-
kung der Laufzeiten zu sehen (eher kürzere werden bevorzugt). Hier müssen sicherheits-
schaffende Maßnahmen durchgeführt und an die potentiellen Beteiliger vermittelt werden.
Wenn eine finanziell lukrative Lösung gefunden wird (einige sprechen hier von über 10%
Rendite), dann können sich viele vorstellen sich zu beteiligen. Ob sie dies dann auch tun,
hängt im wesentlichen von der geeigneten Vermarktung der Idee und Werbung für »Solar
Cooperatives« ab.
7.3 Schlußbemerkung
Schließen soll dieser Bericht mit dem Zitat aus einem Fragebogen:
“Vielen Dank für das große Engagement, Herr Berger und alle Mithelfer. Hoffentlich werden
bald viele, viele Gemeinschaftsanlagen errichtet.”
120
9 Anhang
9.1 Korrelation Rendite-Laufzeit
RENDITE3 ZEIT5 ZEIT20 ZEIT10

RENDITE3 1,0000 6690 4253 6154
(114) (87) (57) (90)
P= , P= ,000 P= ,001 P= ,000
RENDITE6 ZEIT5 ZEIT10 ZEIT20

RENDITE6 1,0000, 7777, 7040, 3766
(134) (106) (93) (64)
P= , P= ,000 P= ,000 P= ,002
9.2 Fehlende Werte bei Beteiligungsaspekten
Abkürz.
Anzahl Prozent
INFO Regelmäßige Versorgung mit Informationen 15 8,1%
MINDEST Problemlose Verfügbarkeit der Mindestein, 15 8,1%
SOZIAL Wahl eines sozialverträglichen Standorts 15 8,1%
SUEDEN Finanzielle Beteiligung der Bevölkerung 15 8,1%
GELDBACK Rückerstattung der Einlage im Schadensfall 14 7,5%
UMWELTV Wahl eines umweltverträglichen Standorts, 13 7,0%
BETRIEB solide, deutsche Organisation, 13 7,0%
BEGLEIT Begleitung durch ein naturwiss.techn. Inst., 12 6,5%
UMWELT Wichtiger Beitrag zum Umweltschutz, 11 5,9%
ENERGIE Förderung erneuerbarer Energien, 7 3,8%
VERBINDE Verbinden von Menschen 2 1,1%
9.3 Varianzanalysen
9.3.1 Unterschiede der »Solar Cooperative«-Zugeneigten zu den anderen im Bereich

»Solar-Cooperatives«-Idee (Frage 2)
Variable IDEE Bewertung der Idee, Gemeinschaftsanlagen
By Variable SOCOI Solar Cooperativer Italy
121
Analysis of Variance
Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F. Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Betw. Groups 1 16,9697 16,9697 17,2507 ,0001

Within Groups 152 149,5238 9837
Total 153 166 4935
Standard Standard
Group Count Mean Deviation Error 95 Pct Conf Int for Mean
Grp 1 70 1,8571 9213 1101 1,6375 TO 2,0768

Grp 2 84 2,5238 1,0468 1142 2,2966 TO 2,7510
Total 154 2,2208 1,0432 0841 2,0547 TO 2,3868
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.3.2 Unterschiede der »Solar Cooperative«-Zugeneigten zu den anderen im Bereich

Verbindung zwischen Nord und Süd (Frage 3)
Variable VERBINDE Verbinden von Menschen in Süd- und Nordeuropa

Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 1 17,4580 17,4580 15,3190 0001

Within Groups 152 173,2238 1,1396
Total 153 190,6818
Standard Standard
Grp 1 70 2,5857 1,0285 1229 2,3405 TO 2,8309

Grp 2 84 3,2619 1,0989 1199 3,0234 TO 3,5004
Total 154 2,9545 1,1164 0900 2,7768 TO 3,1323
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.3.3 Unterschiede der »Solar Cooperative«-Zugeneigten zu den anderen bezüglich

der Versorgung verschiedener Einrichtungen (Frage 4)
122
9.3.2.1 Krankenhaus
Variable KRANK Versorgung eines Krankenhauses mit einer
Sum of Mean F F
Source D.F Squares Squares Ratio Prob.
Between Groups 1 5,1951 5,1951 7,2011 0081

Within Groups 149 107,4937 7214
Total 150 112,6887
Standard Standard
Group Count Mean Deviation Error95 PctConf Int for Mean
Grp 1 70 1,4429 7350 08781 2676 TO 1,6181

Grp 2 81 1,8148 9369 1041 1,6076 TO 2,0220
Tota 151 1,6424 8668 07051 5030 TO 1,7818
9.3.2.2 Dorf
Variable DORF Versorgung eines Dorfs mit einer Gemeinschaftsanlage
Sum of Mean F F
Between Groups 1 10,1505 10,1505 10,6361 0014

Within Groups 148 141,2429 9543
Total 149 151,3933
Standard Standard
Grp 1 70 1,5286 7366 0880 1,3529 TO 1,7042

Grp 2 80 2,0500 1,1463 1282 1,7949 TO 2,3051
Total 150 1,8067 1,0080 ,0823 1,6440 TO 1,9693
123
9.3.2.3 Schule
Variable SCHULE Versorgung einer Schule mit einer Gemeinschaftsanlage

Sum of Mean F F
Between Groups 1 6,5041 6,5041 10,2578 ,0017

Within Groups 151 95,7442 6341
Total 152 102,2484
Standard Standard
Grp 1 71 1,2817 5122 0608 1,1604 TO 1,4029

Grp 2 82 1,6951 9774 1079 1,4804 TO 1,9099
Total 153 1,5033 8202 0663 1,3723 TO 1,6343
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.3.4 Unterschiede der »Solar Cooperative«-Zugeneigten zu den anderen bezüglich

des Aufstellungsstandorts
9.3.4.1 Deutschland
Variable DEUTSCH Beteiligung an einer Anlage in Deutschland

Sum of Mean F F
Between Groups 1 5,3142 5,3142 6,2099 0138

Within Groups 150 128,3634 8558
Total 151 133,6776
124
Standard Standard
Grp 1 68 2,0882 9262 1123 1,8641 TO 2,3124

Grp 2 84 2,4643 9242 1008 2,2637 TO 2,6648
Total 152 2,2961 9409 0763 2,1453 TO 2,4468
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variable AUSLAND Standort der Anlage im Ausland
Sum of Mean F F
Between Groups 1 14,0652 14,0652 17,3571 0001

Within Groups 145 117,4994 8103
Total 146 131,5646
Standard Standard
Grp 1 67 2,7164 8670 1059 2,5049 TO 2,9279

Grp 2 80 3,3375 9270 1036 3,1312 TO 3,5438
Total 147 3,0544 9493 0783 2,8997 TO 3,2092
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.3.4.3 Italien
Variable UMWELT Wichtiger Beitrag zum Umweltschutz
Sum of Mean F F
125
Between Groups 1 2,1058 2,1058 4,0325 ,0465

Within Groups 148 77,2875 5222
Total 149 79,3933
Standard Standard
Grp 1 70 1,4000 5748 0687 1,2629 TO 1,5371

Grp 2 80 1,6375 8305 0929 1,4527 TO 1,8223
Total 150 1,5267 7300 0596 1,4089 TO 1,6444
9.4 Korrelationsanlayse: Bereitschaft zur Beteiligung in Italien/Griechenland

mit finanziellen Vorstellungen
- - Correlation Coefficients - -
SPENDE RENDITE3 RENDITE6 ZEIT5 ZEIT10 ZEIT20

GRIECHEN ,-1122 -,1361 -,1533 -,0434 -,2593 -,1840
( 84) ( 110) ( 127) ( 109) ( 104) ( 64)
P= ,310 P= ,156 P= ,085 P= ,654 P= ,008 P= ,146
ITALIEN -,0845 -,0923 -,1256 0033 -,2456 -,1302

( 84) ( 111) ( 128) ( 110) ( 106) ( 64)
P= ,445 P= ,335 P= ,158 P= ,972 P= ,011 P= ,305
(Coefficient / (Cases) / 2-tailed Significance)

" , " is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed
9.5 Korrelation Umweltaspekte (alle Frage 8)
UMWELT UMWELTV ENERGIE

UMWELT 1,0000 3501 4121
( 175) ( 172) ( 175)
P= P= ,000 P= ,000
126
9.6 Korrelation Verbindung von Menschen und Standort der Anlage
VERBINDE AUSLAND ARGENT DEUTSCH

VERBINDE 1,0000 2285 2663 1159
( 184) ( 169) ( 172) ( 172)
P= , P= ,003 P= ,000 P= ,130
9.7 Korrelation Verfügbarkeit der Mindesteinlage- Laufzeiten
MINDEST ZEIT5 ZEIT10 ZEIT20

MINDEST 1,0000 1353 2426 1265
( 171) ( 111) ( 104) ( 65)
P= P= ,157 P= ,013 P= ,315
9.8 Korrelation Idee gut mit Spende, mit Rendite3%, Rendite 6%
IDEE SPENDE RENDITE3 RENDITE6

IDEE 1,0000 -,0744 -,0813 -,0860
( 183) ( 86) ( 113) ( 132)
P= , P= ,496 P= ,392 P= ,327
9.9 Fehlender Zusammenhang von Umwelteinstellung und Installationsstandort auf

Grünflächen
OEDLAND UMWELT WEIDE
OEDLAND 1,0000 0361 4936

( 182) ( 172) ( 180)
P= , P= ,639 P= ,000
UMWELT ,0361 1,0000 -,0275
( 172) ( 175) ( 173)
P= ,639 P= , P= ,719
WEIDE ,4936 -,0275 1,0000
( 180) ( 173) ( 181)
P= ,000 P= ,719 P= ,
127
9.10 Geldbeträge von Spendern und Nicht-Spendern bei 3 und 6% Rendite
Spender
Rendite 3%
DM N
500,- 13 6.500
1.000 24 24.000
5.000 23 115.000
10.000 5 50.000
20.000 2 40.000
Summe: 235.500
Rendite 6%
DM N
500,-
1.000 14 14.000
5.000 24 120.000
10.000 28 280.000
20.000 7 140.000
40.000 1 40.000
Summe: 594.000
Nicht-Spender
Rendite 3%
DM N
500,- 9 4500
1.000 23 23.000
5.000 8 40.000
10.000 5 50.000
20.000 2 40.000
Summe: 198.000
Rendite 6%
DM N
500,- 6 3.000
1.000 12 12.000
5.000 17 85.000
10.000 13 130.000
20.000 19 380.000
30.000 2 60.000
1.000.000 1
Summe: 670.000
128
9.11 Anschreiben
ISES Wiesentalstraße 50 D-79115 Freiburg
Herrn Sebastian Sonnenschein

Regenbogenstraße 67
88 913 Lichterswalde
Freiburg, den 22. Juni 1998
Gemeinschaftsanlagen für Sonnen- und Windkraftnutzung
Sehr geehrte/r ...................
Bei uns werden zunehmend Photovoltaikanlagen und Windkraftwerke nach dem Prinzip
von Gemeinschaftsanlagen verwirklicht. Dabei ermöglichen die Bürger deren Finanzierung
durch Anteilscheine. Die finanzielle und energetische Amortisation von Sonnen- und
Windkraftwerken hängt wesentlich von den klimatischen Bedingungen eines Standortes
ab. Im Mittelmeerraum ist die Energie der Sonnenstrahlung im Jahresmittel um etwa 40%
höher als in Deutschland. Auch für die Windkraftnutzung gibt es noch zahlreiche Standor-
te mit sehr gutem Potential (z. B. auf den griechischen Inseln).
Vor diesem Hintergrund betreibt die International Solar Energy Society e.V. (ISES) das Pro-
jekt „Solar Cooperatives". Dabei sollen, zunächst in Italien und Griechenland, Sonnen-
und Windkraftwerke durch Anteilscheine von Bürgern finanziert werden. Als erster Bau-
stein dieses Projektes wird im Auftrag der Europäischen Kommission eine Studie erstellt,
welche die Bedingungen für eine erfolgreiche Umsetzung der Idee untersucht. Dazu wol-
len wir Sie gerne um Ihre Meinung bitten.
Durch Ihre Beteiligung an dieser Umfrage können Sie das Projekt von Anfang an aktiv mit-
gestalten. Daher bitten wir Sie, den beigelegten Fragebogen möglichst sofort, spätestens
aber bis 11. Juli 1998 ausgefüllt im vorbereiteten Umschlag an uns zurück-zusenden. Ihre
Daten werden selbstverständlich vertraulich behandelt (die Nummern auf den Fragebögen
werden vor Beginn der Auswertung abgetrennt). Die Ergebnisse der Befragung werden wir
im SUNWORLD-Journal veröffentlichen.
Für Rückfragen stehen wir Ihnen unter Tel. 0049/761/45906-45 (Herr W. Berger)
gerne zur Verfügung. Ihrer Antwort sehen wir mit großem Interesse entgegen.
Schon jetzt danken wir Ihnen herzlich für Ihre Mitarbeit.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
INTERNATIONAL SOLAR ENERGY SOCIETY e.V.
Wolfgang Berger
(Wissenschaftlicher Projektleiter)
Anlage
129
9.12 Fragebogen
1) Would you in principle consider becoming a shareholder in a wind power plant,

a photovoltaic plant (PV) or a hybrid plant (PV-wind-diesel) in Italy or Greece?
(1 = definitely, 3 = perhaps, 5 = no)
1 2 3 4 5
wind power plant ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

photovoltaic plant ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
hybrid plant ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
2) How convincing do you find the idea to run "Solar Cooperatives" in Southern
Europe financed by people from Northern or Central Europe? (1 = very, 3 = fairly, 5 =
not at all)
1 2 3 4 5
❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
3) Could, in your opinion, “Solar Cooperatives” contribute to stronger links between

people from Northern and Southern Europe? (1 = very much, 3 = somewhat, 5 = not at
all)
1 2 3 4 5
❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
4) How strong do you support the supply of the following facilities by a "Solar Coop-
erative"?
(1 = very strong support, 3 = medium support, 5 = no support at all)
1 2 3 4 5
schools ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
hospitals ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
private houses ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
villages ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
drinking water purification ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
drinking water pipes ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
telecommunications facilities ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
130
5) Should the plants being realised be grid-connected or non grid-connected in rural

❒ grid-connected ❒ non grid-connected

❒ does not matter
6) Regarding photovoltaic plants: Where should those be installed?

1 2 3 4 5
roofs/facades ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
noise protection barriers ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
agricultural areas/pasture ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
wasteland ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
7) Considering the following options, can you imagine acquiring shares of a PV plant,
minimum investment (in DM) 100 500 1.000 5.000 10.000 20.000 max DM
support as a kind of donation ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
annual return on investment of 3% ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
annual return on investment of 6% ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
duration of contract approx. 5 years ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
131
8) How important would the following aspects be for you as a potential shareholder?
(1 = very important, 3 = fairly important, 5 = unimportant).
1 2 3 4 5
support of renewable energy ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

regular provision with information ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
freely disposable minimum investment ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
selection of a socially acceptable location ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
important contribution to environmental protection ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
return of investment in the event of a claim ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
continued advice through a scientific institute ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
selection of an ecologically acceptable location ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
links with people in another country ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
financial participation of the population in the South ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
operation of the plant by a reliable German
or Austrian institution ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
9) How would you assess the following factors with regard to your participation?
(1 = speaks very well for participation , 3 = ambivalent, 5 = speaks very much against
participation)
1 2 3 4 5
location of the plant abroad ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

plant far removed from immediate community ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
character of a model project ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
duration of contract approx. 10 years ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
10) Would you participate in a plant in the following locations/countries?

(1 = certainly, 3 = perhaps, 5 = no)
1 2 3 4 5
in my own community ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
Germany ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
Austria ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
Italy ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
Greece ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
Argentina ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
South Africa ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
11) Do you have further remarks? Which advantages or disadvantages do you

perceive in the “Solar Cooperatives”- concept presented? (if there is not
132
enough space for remarks please use an

extra sheet)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
12) What experience do you have with renewable energy plants or environmental tariff
models?
PV wind hydro collectors biomass/gas
operation of an own plant ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒

possession of own shares in plants ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
participation in a “green” tariff ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
Now we would like to ask you for some personal details:

Year of birth 19.... male ❒ female ❒ profession: ..............................................
133
Solar Cooperatives – Final Report 25
Annex 4 – Italian Questionnaire "Solar Cooperatives"
1) Would you in principle consider becoming a shareholder in a wind power plant, a

photovoltaic plant (PV) or a hybrid plant (PV-wind-diesel) in Italy or Greece?
(1 = definitely, 3 = perhaps, 5 = no)
1 2 3 4 5
wind power plant ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
photovoltaic plant ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
hybrid plant ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
2) How strong do you support the supply of the following facilities by a "Solar
Cooperative"?
1 2 3 4 5
schools ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
hospitals ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
private houses ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
villages ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
drinking water purification ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
drinking water pipes ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
telecommunications facilities ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
3) Should the plants being realised be grid-connected or non grid-connected in

rural areas not yet electrified?
❒ grid-connected ❒ non grid-connected ❒ does not matter
4) Regarding photovoltaic plants: Where should those be installed?

1 2 3 4 5
roofs/facades ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
noise protection barriers ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
agricultural areas/pasture ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
wasteland ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
5) Considering the following options, can you imagine acquiring shares of a PV

plant, wind power plant or a hybrid plant located in Italy or Greece?
minimum investment (in MLit) 100 500 1.000 5.000 10.000 20.000 max...MLit
support as a kind of donation ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ... ❒
annual return on investment of 3% ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
annual return on investment of 6% ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
duration of contract approx. 5 years ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
6) Would you participate in a plant in the following locations/countries?

(1 = certainly, 3 = perhaps, 5 = no)
1 2 3 4 5
in my own community ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
Italy ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
Greece ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒ ❒
7) Do you have further remarks? Which advantages or disadvantages do

you perceive in the ”Solar Cooperatives”- concept presented?
(if there is not enough space for remarks please use an extra sheet)
134
135
Windpark Ihlewitz (Ökofinanz Frankfurt, 1998)

100%
Bundesschatzbrief 1998/13 -A
90% Wasserkraft Ettringen (EBV Oldenburg, 1999)
80% Windkraftfonds Bockelwitz (Bobikiewicz Freiburg/Ökobank Frankfurt, 1998)
70% Windpark Frauenberg (WSB Frauenberg, 1998)
60% Windpark Jacobsdorf (Ventus Wiesbaden, 1998)
Windpark Grünow (Ventus Wiesbaden, 1998)
50%
Windpark Krempel (EnergieKontor Bremerhaven, 1998)

40% Wasserkraft Murg (Ökologik Ecovest AG Erlangen, 1998)
30%
20%
10%
0%
Capital
-10% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%
-60%
-70%
-80%
-90%
-100%
Year
Annex 5 - Amortisation calculation / cumulated reflux of capital

136
Jahr 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Wind Ihlewitz -100,0% -51,8% -28,3% -14,9% -14,1% -12,7% -12,7% -14,3% -17,7%
Bundesschatzbrief -100,0% -97,5% -94,0% -90,5% -86,3% -81,8% 22,8%
Wasser Ettringen -100,0% -90,2% -78,4% -73,1% -68,3% -64,0% -60,4% -57,4% -54,8%
Wasser Murg -100,0% -84,9% -68,7% -65,1% -61,7% -58,2% -54,3% -50,4% -46,1%
Wind Bockelwitz -100,0% -63,1% -45,9% -28,2% -27,4% -26,5% -25,7% -24,9% -24,0%
Wind Frauenberg -100,0% -65,0% -65,0% -52,8% -42,6% -39,3% -33,1% -29,9% -26,4%
Wind Jacobsdorf -100,0% -58,0% -50,7% -40,4% -30,1% -20,1% -16,0% -15,7% -14,5%
Windpark Grünow -100,0% -57,8% -46,3% -36,9% -27,5% -19,0% -19,6% -19,9% -20,3%
Windpark Krempel -100,0% -84,5% -74,4% -68,7% -57,0% -47,7% -39,2% -32,2% -26,4%

Annahmen:
- Steuererstattungen/-zahlungen
sowie Ausschüttungen/Einlagen
wurden verrechnet
- Persönliches Ergebnis bei einem
Steuersatz auf den Ergebnisanteil
von 35% (ohne Berücksichtigung
Kirchensteuer und Solidaritäts-
zuschlag)
(Ausnahmen: Wasserkraftfonds
Ettringen und Windpark Krempel:
30% Steuersatz, 5,5% Solidaritäts-
zuschlag; Wasserkraft Murg 50% Steuersatz)
- Mindesteinlagen von DM 20.000,-- bis DM 100.000,--
- Keine Wiederlageprämisse
137
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
-21,3% -25,0% -20,0% -12,4% -8,1% 3,0% 19,1% 35,3% 51,7% 68,3% 85,0%
-52,5% -49,6% -47,0% -44,7% -42,5% -40,6% -38,1% -35,8% -33,4% -30,9% -28,6%
-41,6% -37,1% -32,3% -27,7% -23,1% -18,7% -14,4% -10,3% -6,5% -2,8% 0,7%
-23,2% -20,9% -14,2% -5,1% -0,1% 4,3% 16,3% 32,7% 49,0% 65,2% 81,4%
-23,5% -19,8% -16,4% -11,9% -5,0% 0,2% 5,3% 21,4% 44,6% 63,9% 80,3%
-13,5% -12,8% -12,3% -10,2% -5,9% -2,6% -0,7% 2,9% 12,7% 24,6% 36,4%
-21,1% -22,1% -23,7% -19,5% -15,0% -11,5% -8,0% -4,6% 6,5% 17,6% 28,5%
-21,4% -16,7% -11,5% -5,7% -1,9% 10,8% 23,4% 37,0% 52,7% 68,5% 84,3%

138
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
101,8% 118,8% 136,6%
140,0%
4,1% 7,3% 10,3% 13,0% 15,1% 16,6% 17,7% 18,4% 19,5% 20,2% 184,2%
97,7% 115,2%
96,8% 113,3% 122,6%
48,0% 59,6% 73,8%
43,4% 58,3% 71,6%
100,3% 119,3%

Annex 6 – Cost/return calculations for certain sites in Greece
Input data
In the following, an economic evaluation of PV-plants and wind turbines in Greece is
presented. The calculations are carried out in EXCEL spread sheets based on a software
tool for financing limited partnership companies in Germany, which is used by banks and
trustees for evaluation.
Plant size
PV
The basis for the following calculations are a 30 kW p plant installed in Greece in three
different places.
• Athens: Expected energy yield for this location is 1,200 kWh/(kW p*a)
• Cyclades: Expected energy yield for this location is 1,400 kWh/(kW p*a)
• Crete: Expected energy yield for this location is 1,500 kWh/(kW p*a)
Wind power
The basis for the following calculations is a 500 kW wind turbine installed in Greece in
three different places.
• Athens: Expected energy yield for this location is 2,500 kWh/(kW*a)
• Crete: Expected energy yield for this location is 2,850 kWh/(kW*a)
• Cyclades: Expected energy yield for this location is 3,200 kWh/(kW*a)
Energy yield
Expected energy yield of a 30 kWp PV plant for the best location is 45,000 kWh/a.
Expected energy yield of a 500 kW wind turbine for the best location (Cyclades) is
1,600,000 kWh/a.
Initial costs
PV
The Greek partners delivered total investment costs for PV plants in Greece:
2.3 million Drachma (at an exchange rate of 334 Drachma/€), equivalent. to 6884 € /kW p
for all sites in Greece.
This includes 15% installation costs, of which 75% are spend for personnel costs. This
value is important, as the dismantling of the plant after 20 years must be considered. It is
assumed, that the total cost for dismantling are equivalent to the personnel cost for
installation. Initial financing costs for trustee, legal and tax consultants are fixed for each
project.
Wind power
The Greek partners delivered specific investment costs for wind turbine plants in Greece:
The investment costs are 1046 € /kW installed (at an exchange rate of 334 Drachma/€),
equivalent to 524,000 for all sites in Greece.
139
Based on realised projects in Germany it was assumed that this includes 9.5% installation
costs, of which 30% are spend for personnel costs. This value is important, as the
dismantling of the plant after 20 years must be considered. It is assumed, that 15,000 €
for dismantling must be spend, distributed over the last 10 years as reserves. Initial
financing costs for trustee, legal and tax consultants are fixed for each project.
Operation and maintenance costs

PV
Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are equivalent to 1591 €/year.
• maintenance [€ per year] 494
• replacement [€ per year] 1097
Insurances are taken from a tender recently given. It includes:
- Haftpflichtversicherung (third party personal (liability) insurance – usually 10 million on
persons and 100,000 on property)
- Ausfallkosten (time without operation, example: 1.5 € per / kW p / day during summer
and 0.7 during winter)
- Elektronikversicherung (electronic insurance: it covers damages at the plant and its
components against natural events such as lightning, earthquakes, mal-installing, mal-
construction, etc.
This results in annual insurance costs of approx. 559 € per year. Annual financing costs
for trustee, legal and tax consultants must be fixed for each project.
Note: All O&M costs are increased by an inflation rate of 3%/year.
Wind power
Operation and maintenance (O&M) cost are equivalent to 11,000 €/year.
• maintenance [€ per year] 2851
• replacement [€ per year] 5274
• rent of transformer station [€ per year] 2300
• blades full service [€ per year] 650
• insurance ( taken from a recent tender) [ per year] 2340
Annual financing costs for trustee, legal and tax consultants are fixed for each project,
either at national level or for an international project.
Note: All O&M costs are increased by an inflation rate of 3%/year.
Financial parameters
Depreciation
According to the Greek tax regulations, PV plants must be depreciated within 5 to 10
years according the linear method, wind turbines within 4 years.
Taxes
Whereas in Germany the tax system changed in 2001, the Greek situation is more stable.
• Germany: The federal corporate income tax (Körperschaftssteuer) was reduced from
40% to 25% in 2001. Additionally solidarity surcharge1 of 5.5% on top. Note: this tax
has only to be paid by capital companies.
1
Introduced after the German re-unification and still in value
140
The local trade tax (Gewerbesteuer) has to be paid by both capital companies and
partnerships / special forms of entities (e.g. Solar co-operatives). It is difficult to
calculate. For companies tax losses can be carried forward to a certain extent.
• Greece: The taxes for energy projects are about 30-40% of the net income without tax
allowances. For companies, tax losses can be carried forward to a certain extent.
Revenues
PV
• In Germany the Erneuerbare Energie Gesetz EEG (Renewable Energy Law) pays
99 Pf/kWh (equiv. 0.507 €/kWh) constant for 20 years for installing in 2000 or 2001.
• In Greece the avoided costs are the revenues. The tariff (group 22) is relevant:
0.5 Drachma/kWh (equiv. 0.10772 €/kWh)
In Germany 5.5 times more is paid for PV electricity.
Wind power
• In Greece the avoided costs are the revenues. The tariff (group 22) is relevant:
30.5 Drachma/kWh (equiv. 0.10772 €/kWh) with an annual increase of 3%.
Financing
• The German 100 000-Roofs-Programme by the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau KfW is
only eligible for PV-plants installed in Germany (reduced interest rate by 4.5% to now
1.9% p.a. fixed for ten years; first two years redemption-free).
• Another option is the German Umweltprogramm (environmental program) offered by

the Deutsche Ausgleichsbank DtA. The current conditions are:
Credit duration 10 years

Redemption-free 2 years
Current interest rate 4.25 nominal (5.11 effective)
or
Credit duration 20 years
Redemption-free 3 years
Current interest rate 4.5 nominal (new interest rate after 10 years)
Discount 96%
Collateral usual
minimum credit volume 5,000 DM
maximum 10 Mio DM
Note: The clients personal bank will get a commission fee (for DtA: 1% margin) as the
banks mentioned above do not have a branch network. Besides investments for hardware
and installation planning costs, other related investments can be financed.
• In Greece the long-term interest rate is 14%, a redemption-free period of three years is
assumed (as it is the case in Germany).
141
Subsidies
PV
Revenues in Germany: cost-oriented tariffs combined with soft loans are the chosen way
of subsidy for PV.
In Greece the initial investment is subsidised with a rate of 55%.
Wind power
Wind power in Greece is subsidised. The initial investment is reduced by 40% through an
investment subsidy.
Calculation of the cash flow of a joint ownership of a PV-plant respectively a

wind park
In the following some of the detailed input data and results are described.
• Investment costs for a PV plant consists of module, inverter, wiring; for a wind turbine
it includes the blades, the tower and the nacelle.
• Installation: To hook-up the generators to the interconnected grid costs arise. In the
case of windpark this share on the total costs is considerably higher as for PV-plants
• Initiation and marketing costs: The financial design of a joint ownership includes
various steps: most important are the development and management of the financial
part, the flyer production and initial fiscal and legal consulting.
• Liquidity: a minimum reserve to pay ongoing bills.
• Financing: the total capital is mostly subdivided in equity capital, delivered by the
limited partners and debt capital, delivered by credits. The credit conditions must be
known in detail to calculate the cash-flow.
• Revenues: They are determined by the annual electricity production of the plant and
the revenues paid. They are fixed here to 0.10 €/kWh minimum tariffs in the case of a
PV-plant
• Rent: The areas where the wind turbines are installed will either be rented or
purchased by the project. In this case renting is assumed for either zero costs or 1% of
the annual electricity sales (1,700 € per year). For PV no costs for rent - of a buildings
roof - is regarded.
• Taxes: In this case (of the German legal entity of a GmbH&CO KG) the company has
to pay mainly the trade tax, which is fixed according to the form shown here. The
limited partners must allocate the payments to the annual income tax declaration.
• Internal rate of return before taxes: This value and the total payments, related to the
equity capital2, are the most important terms to rank the profitability of a company
respectively an investment.
• The cash-flow and internal rate-of-return (IRR) are calculated according to the
regulations proved by auditors and/or legal consultants3.
2
Equity capital is invested in a business by (private) persons. They are acting like entrepreneurs.
3 3
This does not reflect the critics of this method. They are mainly:
a) The IRR calculation assumes always constant and unique interest rates during the project duration
b) interest rates for dept service and savings are identical.
142
PV plant
The following figure 1 shows, that a PV plant cannot be operated cost-covering in Greece
as revenues are to low. Even neglecting soft costs as well as administration costs only
50% of the initial investment are reimbursed during 20 years. This results in an internal
rate of return before taxes of –5.5%. To achieve at least an IRR of 0 the investment
subsidy must exceed 75%.
PV plant in Greece (Crete): best case

IRR: -5.5%; 103,000 € investment versus 50,500 € payments
100% equity capital, no soft costs, no administration
10.000
5.000
0
Values in €/year
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
-5.000
Expenditures incl depr.

-10.000 Payments
Total Revenues
-15.000 Depreciation PV plant
Pre-tax result
-20.000 DG XVII SOLAR-COOPERATIVES
-25.000 Year
Figure 1: Cash flow of a PV-plant installed in Greece
Wind power
The following figure shows a cash flow of a turbine installed at Cyclades without any
subsidies. As the IRR shows it would be a very attractive investment even if 75% must be
credit financed (at the local interest rate of 14%). The increase in revenues of the
electricity sales is caused by a nominal inflation rate of 3%. The company makes losses
only in the first 4 years, as the turbine may be depreciated within this period. Afterwards,
trade taxes have to be paid (about 15% of the total revenues). Consequently, the state
would also profit from an installation.
Both assumptions do not reflect the economic reality. However, the IRR is always used as one benchmark for profitability
/Hille 1997/
143

IRR 37,1 %; payments 13.7 folds the investment;
25% equity capital, tariff 0.10 €, international soft costs
400.000
300.000
200.000
Values in €/year
100.000
0
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
-100.000
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
-200.000
-300.000
DG XVII SOLAR-COOPERATIVES
Year
Figure 2: Cash flow of a wind turbine installed in Greece (variation 8)
Several parameters influence the profitability. Therefore a sensitivity analysis have been
carried out which is shown in the following figure 3. It shows a series of variations to cover
the most sensible factors:
• Reference case: equity capital 100%, investment subsidy 40%, national soft costs;
total payments on dividends 3,400,719 DM rel. to equity cap. 1018.2% IRR (rel. to
payments w/o. taxes) 43.71%
• Variation 2: equity cap. 25%, debt cap. 75%, invest. subsidy 40%, national soft costs;
total payments on dividends 2.987.907 DM rel. to equity cap. 3643.8% IRR (rel. to
payments w/o. taxes) 125.32%
• Variation 3: see reference case, costs (30% of hardware); total payments on
dividends 2.753.883 DM rel. to equity cap. 722.8% IRR (rel. to payments w/o. taxes)
31.71%
• Variation 4: see reference case, costs (30% of hardware), 25% equity capital & 75%
debt capital; total payments on dividends 3.400.719 DM rel. to equity cap. 2448.4%
IRR (rel. to payments w/o. taxes) 71.70%
• Variation 5: see reference case, without investment subsidy (40%); total payments
on dividends 2.977.103 DM rel. to equity cap. 535.5% IRR (rel. to payments w/o.
taxes) 24.11%
• Variation 6: see case 2, without investment subsidy (40%); total payments on
dividends 2.210.039 DM rel. to equity cap. 1661.7% IRR (reel to payments w/o taxes)
46.31%
• Variation 7: see case 6, site Athens (wind yield -22%); total payments on dividends
1.466.814 DM rel. to equity cap. 1102.9% IRR (reel to payments w/o. taxes) 27.77%
• Variation 8: equity capital 25%, debt capital 75%, without investment subsidy,
international soft costs. Total payments on dividends 1,979,799 DM rel. to equity cap.
144
1374.9% IRR (rel. to payments w/o taxes) 37.07%. This case will most probably be
realised in the future.
Sensitivity analysis
reference case IRR = 3.53%,
total payment in 20 years eqiv. to 138.3% of investment
150,0% IRR Total payments related to investment 40
Variation of total payments in [ ]

35
125,0%
30
100,0%
25
IRR in %
75,0% 20
15
50,0%
10
25,0%
5
0,0% 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Reference Variations
Figure 3: Sensitivity analysis of the most relevant parameters
Conclusions
Even assuming very favourable input data, a PV plant cannot be operated cost-covering
in Greece as revenues are too low.
The economic situation for wind power is very different. Wind power seems economically
attractive without any subsidy, if the feed-in tariff is 0.10 €/kWh. This is even true if the soft
costs are assumed to be threefold more than in projects realised in Germany.
Consequently, the official given investment subsidy of 40% results in "wind fall" profits,
which means a miss-allocation of resources.
However, still few projects are realised in Greece. The authors assume, that the required
actions for realisation are long-term processes with un-predictable time schedule.
Bottlenecks
At this moment the major obstacles hindering the investment of banks in international grid
connected PV and wind power projects are:
• project structure: complex which causes high transaction costs
• project size: in particular for small residential systems the project volumes are too
small to apply tailor-made financial services, or to develop a standard financing
product
• limited securities: financing small residential systems through a second mortgages
provides the bank too little securities
• limited return on investment and cash-flow
145
General recommendations to improve the dissemination of PV and wind power in

Greece
• Sales side (feed-in tariffs) subsidies should get preference over subsidies of
investment costs.
• Feed-in tariffs should be harmonised in Europe.
• Cross border generation and delivery of renewable generated energy should be made
possible.
• Further credit guarantee sources such as from the European Investment Fund (EIF)
must be tailored for PV and wind power investments.
Calculation of a PV-plant
Investment 30 kWp plant

Exchange to 1 Euro Share of
Investment (hardware) costs 334,1 total costs Exc
Investment costs 184.390 89,28%
Installation costs 22.135 10,72%
Sub total 206.525 100,00%
Investment subsidies
Share of investment costs 92.195 78,58%
Share of installation costs 11.067 9,43%
Sub total 103.262
Eligible fixed assets: Investment costs minus
subsidies
Sub total 103.262 100,00%
Initiation costs
Flyer layout and production 0 0,00%

Project development and management 0 0,00%
Interim financing 0 0,00%
Bank margins 0 0,00%
Placing guarantee 0 0,00%
Trustee 0 0,00%
Fiscal and legal consultance 0 0,00%
Liquidity reserve 0 0,00%
Flyer approvement 0 0,00%
Sub total 0 0,00%
Capital procurement costs
Sales provision in % of equity capital 0%

fixed sales costs
146
Current costs and revenues
Depreciation
Depreciation begin Jan 2001
duration in years 5
depreciation method used 1 linear
Simplification accord. Abschn. 44 EStR wird angewendet
degressiv in % 10%
Current costs 2001 Following years Inflation
from Jan 2001
Management in % of electricity sales 0,00% 0,00%

Mangement in Euro 0 3%
Technical management in % of electricity sales 0,00% 0,00%
from 2011
until 2011
Technical mangement in Euro 3%
Ongoing tax consultant, trustee and registration 0 0 3%
costs
rent 2000-2005 0%
rent from 2006 0%
Minimum rent 2000 - 2005 0
Mindimum rent from 2006 0
General partner payments 0 0 0%
Operation costs 454 Jan 2001 3%
Maintenance, replacement Euro from date 1.097 Jan 2001 3%
Insurance 559 Jan 2001 3%
Rent of transformer station 0
Blades full service 0 Jan 2001 2%
Other costs 0 3%
Revenues
Expected energy yield kWh/a 45.000

Feed-in rate 0,09129 Euro/KWh
Scenario for electricity price development 2 3% increase
Feed-in (Hook-up) from Jan 2001
Electricity price decrease from year / in % Jan 2001 0,00%
Electricity price increase from year / in % Jan 2008 0,00%
Intererest rate for re-investment in % as cash rate 0,00%
Financing
147
Equity capital
Equity capital in % 100,0%
Debt capital
Loan DtA environmental

Discount in % 4%
interest rate in % 5,18%
duration in months 240
Payment date Jan 2001
First redemption Jan 2004
Redemption and interest rate periods 2 12=monthly

4=quarter-yearly
2= half-yearly
Loan KfW 100 000 roof % of total investment 100

Discount in % 0%
Depreciation method linear/digital

4=quarter-yearly
2= half-yearly
Loan external financing 100%

Discount in % 0%

4=quarter-yearly
2= half-yearly
Permanent liqidity reserve until complete 55%

redemption in % of dept service of the following
year
Permanent liqidity reserve during project duration 3.000
Guarantee for dismantling
Guarantee for dismantling from 2005 0 1,00%
Reserves for dismantling 1.245 Jan 2016
(75% ofpersonal costs for installation distributed
on last 5 a)
148
Taxes
Multiple for fixing trade tax 600% Note: this is equiv. To a net
income tax of 30%
Exemption of trade tax
Tax rate limit until income of 48.000 0%
Tax rate limit from income of 144.000 5%
General partner payments 0
1 Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 Expected results 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 Revenues 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 Electricity sales 0 4.231 4.358 4.489 4.624 4.762 4.905 5.052 5.204
8 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 Interest revenues 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 Total Revenues 0 4.231 4.358 4.489 4.624 4.762 4.905 5.052 5.204
11
12 Expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 Initiation costs 6.180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 Technical Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 Ongoing trustee, legal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 and fiscal consultance costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 Lease 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 Operation 0 454 468 482 496 511 526 542 558
20 Maintenance 0 1.097 1.097 1.130 1.164 1.199 1.235 1.272 1.310
21 Reserves for dismantling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 Insurance 280 576 593 611 629 648 667 687 708
27 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
28 0
29 Long-term interest payments 0 0 14 14 14 13 12 11 10
30 ERP loan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31 DtA loan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
32 Loan 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
34 Depreciation PV plant 0 -19.416 -19.416 -19.416 -19.416 -19.416 0 0 0
35 Depreciation Discount DtA 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0
36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
37 Total Expenditures -6.461 -21.545 -21.590 -21.655 -21.721 -21.788 -2.441 -2.513 -2.587
38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
39 Pre-tax result -6.461 -17.314 -17.232 -17.166 -17.097 -17.026 2.464 2.539 2.617
40 Internal rate of return 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
41 Trade tax 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
43 Operating income statement -6.461 -17.314 -17.232 -17.166 -17.097 -17.026 2.464 2.539 2.617
44
100 Liquidity of the company
101
102 Status begin of year 0 -280 1.825 3.007 3.016 3.016 3.015 3.015 3.015
103 Operating income statement*) -280 -36.728 -36.647 -36.581 -36.512 -36.441 2.465 2.540 2.617
104 Redemption of loan 0 0 0 -1 16 16 16 16 16
105 Payments 0 0 1.004 2.244 2.305 2.376 2.449 2.524 2.602
106
107 -103.000 0 1.004 2.244 2.305 2.376 2.449 2.524 2.602
108 Payments in % of equity capital 0,0% 0,0% 1,0% 2,2% 2,2% 2,3% 2,4% 2,5% 2,5%
109 Status end of year -280 1.825 3.007 3.016 3.016 3.015 3.015 3.015 3.014
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
149
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5.360 5.521 5.687 5.857 6.033 6.214 6.400 6.592 6.790 6.994 7.203 7.420 113.696
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5.360 5.521 5.687 5.857 6.033 6.214 6.400 6.592 6.790 6.994 7.203 7.420 113.696
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.180
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
575 592 610 628 647 667 687 707 729 750 773 796 12.199
1.349 1.390 1.431 1.474 1.519 1.564 1.611 1.659 1.709 1.760 1.813 1.868 28.650
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.245 1.245 1.245 1.245 1.245 6.225
729 751 774 797 821 846 871 897 924 952 980 1.010 15.751
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
10 9 8 7 6 5 5 4 3 2 1 0 149
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97.082
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-2.663 -2.742 -2.823 -2.907 -2.993 -3.082 -3.173 -4.513 -4.610 -4.710 -4.813 -4.919 166.248
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.697 2.779 2.863 2.950 3.040 3.132 3.227 2.080 2.180 2.284 2.391 2.501 -52.552
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.697 2.779 2.863 2.950 3.040 3.132 3.227 2.080 2.180 2.284 2.391 2.501 -52.552
0
0
0
3.014 3.014 3.013 3.013 3.012 3.012 3.011 3.011 3.010 3.010 3.010 3.009 55.769
2.697 2.779 2.863 2.950 3.040 3.132 3.227 2.080 2.180 2.284 2.391 2.501 -143.443
16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 271
2.681 2.763 2.848 2.935 3.024 3.117 3.211 2.064 2.165 2.268 2.375 5.494 50.451
0
2.681 2.763 2.848 2.935 3.024 3.117 3.211 2.064 2.165 2.268 2.375 5.494 -52.549
2,6% 2,7% 2,8% 2,8% 2,9% 3,0% 3,1% 2,0% 2,1% 2,2% 2,3% 5,3% 0
3.014 3.013 3.013 3.012 3.012 3.011 3.011 3.010 3.010 3.010 3.009 0 55.769
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
150
Calculation of a wind turbine
Investment 500 kWp plant

Exchange to 1 Euro Share of
Investment (hardware) costs 334,1 total costs Exc
Sub total 523.795 100,00%
Investment subsidies
Share of investment costs 0 78,58% 0
Share of installation costs 0 9,43% 0
Sub total 0
Eligible fixed assets: Investment costs minus
subsidies
Sub total 523.795 100,00%
Initiation costs
Flyer layout and production 6.292 0,40% 3,95%

Project development and management 1.049 0,07% 0,66%
Interim financing 10.848 0,70% 6,81%
Bank margins 0 0,00% 0,00%
Placing guarantee 3.390 0,22% 2,13%
Trustee 524 0,03% 0,33%
Fiscal and legal consultance 3.670 0,24% 2,30%
Liquidity reserve 5.891 0,38% 3,70%
Flyer approvement 16.848 1,08% 10,57%
Sub total 159.406 3,12% 30,43%
Capital procurement costs
Sales provision in % of equity capital 5%

fixed sales costs
Current costs and revenues

Depreciation begin Jan 2001
duration in years 4
depreciation method used 1 linear
Simplification accord. Abschn. 44 EStR wird angewendet
degressiv in % 10%
Current costs 2001 Following years Inflation
from Jan 2001
151
Management in % of electricity sales 5,00% 5,00%

Mangement in Euro 0 0 3%
from 2011
until 2011
Technical mangement in Euro 3%
Ongoing tax consultant, trustee and registration 10476 10.476 3%
costs
rent 2000-2005 1% 1% 3%
rent from 2006 1% 1% 3%
Minimum rent 2000 - 2005 0
Mindimum rent from 2006 0
General partner payments 2619 2619 0%
Operation costs 2851 Jan 2001 3%
Maintenance, replacement Euro from date 5274 Jan 2001 3%
Insurance 2496 Jan 2001 3%
Rent of transformer station 2344 2344
Blades full service 646 Jan 2001 3%
Other costs 23 10 3%
Revenues
Expected energy yield kWh/a 1.600.000

Feed-in rate (incl. 18% VAT) 0,10772 Euro/KWh
Scenario for electricity price development 2 3% increase
Feed-in (Hook-up) from Jan 2001
Electricity price decrease from year / in % Jan 2001 0,00%
Electricity price increase from year / in % Jan 2008 0,00%
Intererest rate for re-investment in % as cash 2,75%

rate
Financing
Equity capital
Equity capital in % 25,0%
Debt capital
Loan DtA environmental

Discount in % 0%
152

4=quarter-yearly
2= half-yearly
Loan KfW 100 000 roof % of total investment 100

Discount in % 0%
Depreciation method linear/digital

4=quarter-yearly
2= half-yearly
Loan external financing 100%

Discount in % 0%

4=quarter-yearly
2= half-yearly
Permanent liqidity reserve until complete 100%

redemption in % of dept service of the following
year
Permanent liqidity reserve during project duration 7.850
Guarantee for dismantling
Reserves for dismantling 1.554 Jan 2009
Taxes
Multiple for fixing trade tax 600%

Exemption of trade tax
General partner payments 0
153
1 Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 Expected results 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 Revenues 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 Electricity sales 0 177.526 182.852 188.338 193.988 199.807 205.802 211.976 218.335
8 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 Interest revenues -39 1.691 3.147 3.146 3.147 2.998 2.718 2.703 2.690
10 Total Revenues -39 179.217 185.999 191.484 197.135 202.805 208.520 214.679 221.025
11
12 Expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 Initiation costs 19.488 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 Technical Management 0 8.876 9.143 9.417 9.699 9.990 10.290 10.599 10.917
15 Management 0 8.876 9.143 9.417 9.699 9.990 10.290 10.599 10.917
16 Ongoing trustee, legal 10.476 10.790 11.114 11.447 11.791 12.144 12.509 12.884 13.271
17 and fiscal consultance costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 Rent 0 1.775 1.829 1.883 1.940 1.998 2.058 2.120 2.183
19 Operation 0 2.851 2.936 3.024 3.115 3.209 3.305 3.404 3.506
20 Maintenance 0 5.274 5.274 5.432 5.595 5.763 5.936 6.114 6.297
21 Reserves for dismantling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 Insurance 1.248 2.571 2.648 2.727 2.809 2.894 2.980 3.070 3.162
27 Others 5 10 11 11 11 12 12 12 13
28 0
29 Long-term interest payments 0 -1.793 55.591 52.005 48.418 44.832 41.245 37.659 34.072
30 ERP loan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
31 DtA loan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
32 Loan 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
34 Depreciation wind turbine 0 -135.820 -135.820 -135.820 -135.820 0 0 0 0
35 Depreciation Discount DtA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
37 Total Expenditures -36.180 -180.660 -239.136 -236.832 -234.567 -96.522 -94.337 -92.194 -90.095
38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
39 Pre-tax result -36.219 -1.442 -53.137 -45.349 -37.433 106.283 114.183 122.485 130.930
40 Internal rate of return 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
41 Trade tax 0 0 0 0 0 11.975 34.350 35.975 37.625
42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
43 Operating income statement -36.219 -1.442 -53.137 -45.349 -37.433 94.308 79.833 86.510 93.305
44
100 Liquidity of the company
101
102 Status begin of year 5.891 -10.449 89.059 85.472 81.886 78.300 74.713 71.127 67.540
103 Operating income statement*) -16.731 -137.262 -188.957 -181.169 -173.253 94.308 79.833 86.510 93.305
104 - Redemption of loan 0 25.618 25.618 25.617 25.618 25.618 25.618 25.618 25.618
105 - Payments 0 9.251 60.652 68.440 76.356 72.277 57.802 64.479 71.274
106
107 -144.000 9.251 60.652 68.440 76.356 72.277 57.802 64.479 71.274
108 Payments in % of equity capital 0,0% 6,4% 42,1% 47,5% 53,0% 50,2% 40,1% 44,8% 49,5%
109 Status end of year -10.449 89.059 85.472 81.886 78.300 74.713 71.127 67.540 63.953
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
154
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
224.885 231.631 238.580 245.738 253.110 260.703 268.524 276.580 284.878 293.424 302.227 311.293 4.770.197
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.683 2.716 2.750 2.786 2.823 2.861 2.902 2.944 2.988 2.716 2.823 2.932 56.123
227.568 234.347 241.330 248.523 255.933 263.564 271.426 279.524 287.865 296.140 305.050 314.226 4.826.320
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19.488
11.244 11.582 11.929 12.287 12.655 13.035 13.426 13.829 14.244 14.671 15.111 15.565 238.510
11.244 11.582 11.929 12.287 12.656 13.035 13.426 13.829 14.244 14.671 15.111 15.565 238.510
13.669 14.079 14.501 14.936 15.384 15.846 16.321 16.811 17.315 17.835 18.370 18.921 300.412
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.249 2.316 2.386 2.457 2.531 2.607 2.685 2.766 2.849 2.934 3.022 3.113 47.702
3.611 3.720 3.831 3.946 4.065 4.187 4.312 4.442 4.575 4.712 4.853 4.999 76.604
6.486 6.681 6.881 7.088 7.300 7.519 7.745 7.977 8.217 8.463 8.717 8.979 137.738
1.554 1.554 1.554 1.554 1.554 1.554 1.554 1.554 1.554 1.554 1.554 1.554 18.653
3.257 3.354 3.455 3.559 3.666 3.775 3.889 4.005 4.126 4.249 4.377 4.508 70.330
13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 282
0
30.486 26.899 23.312 19.726 16.139 12.553 8.966 5.380 1.793 0 0 0 457.283
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 543.280
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-89.594 -87.586 -85.624 -83.712 -81.849 -80.038 -78.281 -76.578 -74.932 -75.137 -77.196 -79.316 2.270.366
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
137.974 146.762 155.706 164.812 174.084 183.526 193.145 202.946 212.933 221.002 227.854 234.909 2.555.954
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
38.950 40.700 42.475 44.300 46.175 48.100 50.050 52.050 54.100 55.900 57.600 59.375 709.700
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
99.024 106.062 113.231 120.512 127.909 135.426 143.095 150.896 158.833 165.102 170.254 175.534 1.846.254
0
0
0
63.953 60.367 56.780 53.194 49.607 46.021 42.434 38.848 35.261 7.850 7.850 7.850 1.013.554
99.024 106.062 113.231 120.512 127.909 135.426 143.095 150.896 158.833 165.102 170.254 175.534 1.322.462
25.618 25.618 25.618 25.618 25.618 25.618 25.618 25.618 25.618 0 0 0 435.505
76.992 84.030 91.200 98.480 105.877 113.395 121.064 128.864 160.626 165.102 170.254 183.384 1.979.799
0
76.992 84.030 91.200 98.480 105.877 113.395 121.064 128.864 160.626 165.102 170.254 183.384 1.835.799
53,5% 58,4% 63,3% 68,4% 73,5% 78,7% 84,1% 89,5% 111,5% 114,7% 118,2% 127,4% 14
60.367 56.780 53.194 49.607 46.021 42.434 38.848 35.261 7.850 7.850 7.850 0 1.007.663
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
155
Annex 7 – The potential for PV technologies in Greece
1. INTRODUCTION
Greece is a country with extremely high potential of PV, mainly, due to the following
reasons:
• high insolation all year round (among the highest in Europe)

• electricity needs in the islands mostly covered by diesel/heavy oil generation units, thus
resulting in high operation costs and environmental pollution
• significant tourism activity during the summer (pollution in some islands increases by
more than 100%), thus offering significant seasonal correlation between energy
demand and photovoltaic power generation
However PV market is very low developed, compared with other EU markets. In order to
improve the situation, in our days a positive legislative and financing framework is
formulating (deregulation of the energy market, new development Law, Operation
Programme for Energy, etc).
2. CURRENT PV TECHNOLOGIES
2.1.THE CURRENT PV WORLD-MARKET ( Sources: 1,2)
• The “traditional” PV market
This market, which includes applications for communications, water pumping, remote
power and government demonstration projects, has an average annual growth of 15%
over the past 20 years, independent of the price of PV. This market segment is therefore
obviously not price sensitive. Factors other than price, such as marketing and distribution,
are much more important. Some companies in the past have not understood this and
have lowered their prices in order to create rapid market expansion and enlarge their
market share. However, instead of achieving faster growth, they frequently made
tremendous losses and most of them went out of business, doing a great disservice to the
PV business. This market segment needs to be seen as a cash market. It needs no
subsidies, yet the availability of credit could substantially increase the size of the market.
• The “off-grid” PV market
This market is not primarily price sensitive either, and its expansion depends on the
available credit, rather than on prices or on the interest rates charged on loans. This
market segment could experience explosive growth if credit for customers were available,
and much effort is going into developing the financing of this segment.
The expansion of the “traditional” and “off-grid” PV markets is strongly dependent on the
global marketing and distribution of PV. The development of a conventional distribution
156
system started about 15 years ago. Up to then PV manufacturers had to open their own
offices in most areas of the world to procure business. Today, a broad global PV industrial
infrastructure exists and solar cells and panels are being manufactured as commodities. A
great number of specialized companies have developed during this time, specialized in
components, system design, installations or building integration; a large number of these
also became specialized installers, representatives, dealers, catalogue houses, etc. The
marketing and distribution of PV, like those of any other product - automobiles, electrical
appliances or clothing - can only be effective and expand if proper inventory financing is
available. This is important everywhere, but especially so in the developing countries.
• The “urban grid-connected” PV market
This market can be separated into two segments:

• building facades
• rooftop systems
Aesthetics and utility, rather than price, are usually the primary issues in the selection of
materials for building facades. Since some of the companies specializing in this area
realized that the issue is not dollars/W p, but aesthetics and utility, this has become one of
the fastest growing areas of the PV business. The problem is to obtain the proper
mortgage and insurance facilities, not only for the buildings, but also for transportation and
installation. Subsidies could certainly play a role in the expansion of this market.
PV urban rooftop systems have become a fast-growing market, which exists as a result of
subsidies, government regulations or peopleǯs interest in “green” energy. In this case - in
the same way as for the building-facade market - the availability of subsidies and
financing are more important than pricing.
• The “centralized utility” market
Unlike the other three market segments, the central utility market is price sensitive and
therefore, while the other three PV market segments can increase on the basis of current
technologies, it is believed that the centralized utility market will not do so. It will only be
viable when a new, very large-scale PV production technology emerges, guaranteeing a
much lower price for PV. When these lower prices are achieved, the central utilities will
have no problem financing PV power plants.
2.2. CURRENT PV MARKET SEGMENTATION (Source 1)
Based on CRES’ experience in Greece, the most common PV applications are

represented on Table 2.1. These are the typical systems, which used for the need of the
current market research.
157
Table 2.1: “Current market segments”

According to PV system type • Grid connected systems
• Autonomous systems
According to end-user (application) type • Centralized, medium-to-large scale

systems(for electrification of villages,
islands, or connected to a large grid)
• Residential buildings (single houses, multi-
store buildings, etc.)
• Commercial buildings (hotels, ‘demo’ /
promotional systems, etc.)
• Electrification of small (possibly
uninhabited) islands
• Tourist sector (small hotels, archeological
sites, cantinas, etc)
• Ecological applications
• Special (forests, shelters, etc)
• Special applications:
- Lighthouses
- Desalination
- Telecommunications
- School kits
According to geographical region • Mainland
• Islands
According to ownership / decision making / • Public
market control regime • Private
According to user’s (or opinion leader’s) • Already aware or user of PVs

previous PV experience • Not aware of PVs
According to % of coverage of user’s • Full (autonomous systems)

energy needs • Partial (e.g small hotels in electrified
islands)
• Low (PV system serves mainly for
demonstration or image purposes, for
example PVs in large commercial buildings)
3. The Situation
A. GENERAL (Sources : 1, 3, 9 )
Although there is not a specific programme in support of PVs in Greece, there is a number
of legislative measures or programmes supporting Renewable Energy Sources, whose
part comprise actions related to photovoltaic systems. Additionally, CRES is the National
158
center for the promotion and dissemination of renewable energy sources in Greece. The
Ministry of National Economy manages the Second Framework Support Programme for
Greece (1994-1999) financed by national and E.U. funds within which a number of actions
are being included.
Table 3.1: “National management scheme for RES funds appropriation”

Ministry of National Economy
MANAGES
the Second Framework Support Programme for Greece
(1994-1999)
E.U. Funds National Funds

GRANTING FUNDS TO
MINISTRIES
Ministry of Development Ministry of Interior
RUNNING
Operational Programme for Measures 3.2 and 2.3 Regional Operational

Energy for RES Programmes (ROP)
Divided in the 13 regions of
Greece
Operational Programme for (RES)
Industry
Operational Programme for (ȆǹǺǼ,ȆǼȃǼǻ,
Research & Technology ȆǼȆǼȇ,ȊȆǼȇ,
Research Network)
Investment Subsidies (including Law(2601/98)
RES)
In what follows an overview of the existing programmes is given. The following

laws/programmes are reviewed:
Legislation (3.1- Part B)

• National Development Law 2601/98
• Law 2244/94 for Renewable Energy Sources and related Presidential Decree
8295/19.4.95
• Taxable Income Rebate Programme, Law 2364/95 (Ref: article 7, paragraph 17)
Programmes (3.1-Part C)
• Operational Programme for Energy
• Operational Programme for Research & Technology
• Regional Operational Programmes
159
Furthermore, the results of the previous study “ Quantification of non-grid-connected

houses in Greece”, according the Electric Home (APAS) Programme, are presented on
part D.
B. LEGISLATION
• National Development Law 2601/98 (on private investment)

( Source :4)
Administration level: National
Scope-objectives:
Reinforcement of Private Investment in Greece with a view to achieve/promote: Regional
development targets; increase in employment; Greek enterprise competitiveness;
production sector restructuring; exploitation of existing opportunities for the secondary
sector in Greece and abroad; environmental protection and energy conservation.
Mechanism: New framework for the provision of subsidies for productive investments.
Subsidies in the form of partial funding of the cost of capital expense, loan interest or
leasing, or, alternatively, as partial funding of the loan interest and tax breaks.
Subsidies depend on geographical region, but there are few exception where they are
uniform over the entire country. Among those exceptions are investments and equipment
leasing for electricity production from RES or cogeneration; the maximum subsidy rates
apply in these cases irrespective of the region. For the remaining RES applications
subsets depend on the region, but even then the applicable rates are better than those
generally applicable.
Special incentives for investments over 10 and 25-60 million drs for expansion of existing
units and establishment of new units, respectively (the latter depends on type of
enterprise) in specific sectors.
Investments and/or leasing programmes on RES are not subject to general limitations on
funding ( 15 million drs per new job position).
Beneficiaries / Sector: A wide range of enterprises, in various sectors. With respect to

RES: energy or biomass producing enterprises, and enterprises in the secondary sector
that use RES to cover their energy needs.
Timing: In force from April 1998
Remarks: In addition to basically replacing L. 1892/90 & L. 2234/94, it amends a number

of other laws on measures for the support and development of the national economy, tax
matters, etc.
160
• Law 2244/94 (Source: 5)

(Law for Electricity production from Renewable Energy Sources)
The “Renewable Energy Law” was effected in 1994.

It covers subjects regarding the electricity production from renewable sources. In April
1995 a Ministerial Decree (8295/19.4.1995) was issued, clarifying the administrative
process, tackling the issues related to the licenses for installation and operation of
electricity producing plants. In the same decree, a sample contract between the Public
Power Corporation and the electricity producers is presented, where the details regarding
the buying-back rate and the grid connection terms are included.
Two categories of electricity producers are defined: Autoproducers (AP), which generate
electricity to cover for their own consumption and sell only their surplus energy, if any, to
the PPC. Independent power producers (IP), who sell all their production to PPC.
RES, with a new maximum capacity of up to 50MW for IPs. PPC is obliged to buy all
energy produced by IPs under a 10 year contract, while retaining the exclusive right to
supply third parties with electricity. The law also defines explicitly the essential
components of the payback tariff system followed for the power producers, correlating it
with PPC’s KWh selling price.
Table 3.2 : “The payback tariffs, valid since July 15th 1998”
APs IPs
Energy payback Energy payback
70% of KWH 90% of KWH
selling price, in selling price, in
Drachma Drachma
Autonomous Energy (all
Island Grids Voltages) 18.62 23.94
Low Voltage Energy 18.62 ---
(220/380V)
Med. Energy 15.057 19.359
Voltage
Interconnected (6.6, 15, 20, 497 X ı
system 22 KV) Capacity --- (50%of selling
tariff)
Peak zone 9.835 12.645
High Med. zone 6.818 8.766
Voltage Low zone 5.054 6.498
(150KV) Capacity (pea 1128.5 X ı
zone) --- (50%of selling tariff)

161

Note 2: The capacity credit is calculated on the basis of the peak-measured power output
between two successive measurement periods.
• Law 2364/95 article 7, paragraph 17 (Source 6)

At present, the only available incentive for individuals, to install photovoltaic systems, is
the exemption of 75% of the purchase and installation cost of RES systems from the
taxable income. This measure is important only when the individual is taxed in the higher
tax brackets of 30 to 45%. For those tax brackets there is a PV system cost reduction of
22 to 34% respectively. Although this measure is welcome, it does not provide a serious
incentive as it is dependent on the taxable income bracket. The associated PV system
cost reduction with respect to equivalent programmes that promote RES system
introduction is considered low.
For companies and other legal entities the above mentioned percentage or 100% is
amortized from their profits over a period of years.
C. PROGRAMMES
• Operational Programme for Energy
The Operational Programme for Energy was established 1996. It covers investment
support in the area of renewables and rational use of energy. The public subsidies come
from the European Fund for Regional Development and the Greek government. The
Programme runs for 4 years (1996-1999). A minimum total budget limit of 20 million
Drachmas (MDrs) exists, for proposals made for Photovoltaic systems. The photovoltaic
systems are financed by 55% of their total cost, while the rest of the amount is covered by
private funds. A part of the programme budget of the order of 10 billion Drs (BDrs) has
been put aside to fund RES applications in the Public sector.
During the first call for proposals (it expired on March 3rd 1997) there were 8 proposals
regarding Photovoltaic systems, adding up to total amount of 10.16 BDrs. The total budget
allocated to all RES projects over the entire programme period is 50 BDrs.
Three projects were selected for financing of a total budget of 4.762 billion drachmas. A 5
MWp central system for Crete(4.7 BDrs), a PV system for a tourist business in the island
of Paros (32.5 MDrs)and a PV system mounted on an industrial building (30 MDrs).
The second call for proposals of the operational programme for energy expires on the
31st of October 1997.
• OPRT (Operational Programme for Research and Technology)
Through the Operational Programme for Research and Technology and Subprogramme
2, actions related to the “Promotion of the R & T Activities in the field of the Environment
162
and environmentally sound Technologies” (Subprogramme 1, measure 1.1) and “Industrial

research, technology transfer and innovation” (Subprogramme 2) the State supports
research activities in the field.
Subprogramme 1, Measure 1.1 supports actions in 7 thematic areas, namely

1Pollution and anti-pollution technology
2Natural disasters
3Renewable Energy Technologies and rational use of energy including solar technologies
(solar thermal, active or passive systems and photovoltaics)
4Protection of quality of living conditions
5Water resources
6Renewable energy in the treatment of water effluents
7Anti-seismic constructions.
The aim of Subprogramme 2 is to encourage industrial research, technology transfer and

innovation both from inside the country (e.g. Universities, research centers) and from
abroad. An important aim of the programme is to develop the ability for supplying
consultation and technological services to enterprises through technology research and
development agencies, company incubators, scientific and technology parks, technology
transfer parks, quality control and certification labs and other related entities, such as
ELOT, OBI, EOMMEX or ELKEPA. Subprogramme 2 is implemented through a number of
activities, such as Industrial Research Development Programme (PAVE), Scholarships of
Oriented Research (YPER), Cofinancing Programme (SYN) or Liaison Offices.
• Regional Operational Programmes
regions. There are then thirteen regional programmes, one for each region. The basic
lines of these programmes are the following:
1. Infrastructures: Road networks, Railway network, Telecomunications, Energy,

Natural Gas.
2. Living conditions: Urban development, Health, Environment
3. Competitiveness: Industry and services, Research and Development. Tourism,
Culture, Agriculture, Fisheries
4. Human resources: Education and continuous training, modernization of Public
Services
launched. Areas 2 & 3 (Environment and Research & Development) concern among
others the deployment of Renewable Energy Sources in the regional context. Again, no
specific programme is dedicated to Photovoltaics.
163
D. PV ELECTRICITY MARKET SEGMENTATION (Source : 7)

( mention: APAS Programme Electric Home)
1.Autonomous houses/settlements :
There is a range of such PV systems in terms of installed peak power. At this time many
of those systems are made of a few panels (<500Wp) and support basic needs such as
lighting, small appliances and refrigerators.
Most of these systems are providing DC service, usually the small ones and some AC.
The market segment above 500Wp is quite small, at this time, due to PV system cost
relatively to the buying power of the potential users.
In the population census by the National Statistical Service in 1991, electrified houses
were considered those having an electricity source, i.e. utility grid, diesel generator,
photovoltaics, wind generator, etc. Non-electrified houses were included that were
seasonally or permanently occupied, scattered over the whole country, isolated, or built in
areas where building is not permitted.
Most of the non-electrified houses are located in rural areas. Those houses along with
most of those located in semi-urban areas can be considered as the actual potential
market of photovoltaics. A number of non-electrified houses are not scattered throughout
the country but they belong to small villages (settlements). These houses are occupied
seasonally or permanently and are located in areas far away from the national electricity
grid.
Taking into account the trend in electrifying non-grid-connected houses during the decade
1981-1991 an the results obtained from the analysis concerning the electrification of
remote settlements, it can be concluded that the number of non-grid-connected houses
since 1991 should be reduced by 20%. This means, that today there are 115000 non-grid
connected houses. Amongst these, 20000 are permanently inhabited, 46000 are
seasonally inhabited and 49000 are abandoned houses.
Table 3.3: “Non electrified houses in Greece”

Non-electrified houses in Greece 1991 1995 estimation
census
Permanently inhabited 24824 19742
Seasonally inhabited 57922 45816
Abandoned 60428 49252
Total 143174 114540
On the basis of the 1991 census data, the total number of inhabited non-electrified houses
is 24824, i.e. 0.79% of the total number of inhabited houses in Greece, while the number
of non-electrified houses is 143174 i.e. 3% of the total number of houses (see Table 4.4).
This last number includes permanently and seasonally inhabited houses an also week-
end and abandoned houses.
164
Table 3.4: “Housing classifications”

1991 Total electrified Inhabited Total non- Inhabited non-
Census houses electrified electrified houses electrified houses
houses
Quantity % Quantity % Quantity % Quantity %
Agricultural 1340962 29.8 840549 26.7 91728 64 16509 66.5
Semi-urban 608036 13.5 375893 12 27860 19.5 4663 18.8
Urban 2559730 56.7 1925886 61.3 23586 16.5 3652 14.7
Total 4508728 100 3142328 100 143174 100 24824 100
Most of the non-electrified houses are located in rural areas. Those houses along with
most of those located in semi-urban areas can be considered as the actual potential
market of photovoltaics.
A number of non-electrified houses are not scattered throughout the country but they
belong to small villages (settlements). These houses are occupied seasonally or
permanently and are located in areas far away from the national electricity grid In the last
27 years, the number of such settlements has been reduced from 1400 in 1981, to 873 in
1991 and recently (end of 1995) in 607 (see Table 4.5). Of those settlements 373 are
inhabited by 8651 people (1991 census), 100 of them have been already included in the
future electrification program but most of them will remain without electricity because
access by heavy duty vehicle is not possible. The total estimated number of houses in
those settlements is 14000 and among those the inhabited are 2800.
Table 3.5: “Permanently/Seasonally inhabited settlements”

1981 Census 1991 Census 1995 (estimation)
1400 873 607
Permanently or (total estimated (373 inhabited by Heavy vehicle access
Seasonally number of houses 8651 people) problem faced by 14000
inhabited 14000, 2800 houses (2800 houses of
Settlements inhabited) those inhabited)
(100 settlements already
included in future
electrification program)
2.Autonomous Small/Rocky islands with development potential:
In this category of islands we include all those islands that have about 500 inhabitants or
less, or are uninhabited for the winter season. There are at least 50 such islands that are
inhabited and several hundreds that are not inhabited and have the potential for
development in a environmental friendly way. The main activities that may be maintained
in these islands is the ecotourism, agriculture and fishing. The development of such
islands using environmental friendly technologies is very important for the improvement of
165
the inhabitants lifestyle. The creation of a more stable economic environment will keep the
inhabitants in their islands reversing the alarming abandoning trend.
There is already approximately 250 KWp of PV installed in such islands. Several of these
have a local grid powered by a diesel generator. An estimation of the permanent
population in this category is 5000 people. During the summer months the population in
these islands may be 2 to 3 times higher than the permanent population.
The power service of the local grid is usually poor and power cuts are frequent. PV
systems may improve the power service, increase the income of the islanders and
stabilize their population. Assuming an average introduction of 200Wp per permanent
inhabitant, there is a potential PV market of 1 MWp. If the islanders are to provide
services to the summer tourists then the potentially installed capacity may be a few times
larger.
3.Telecommunications :
This is a market that has been already economically viable around the world. In Greece,
there are a few applications by the National Telecommunications company, HTO. At this
time, HTO is installing 7 relay stations on Dirfi mountain series of Evia, of total power
12KWp. In 1995, HTO installed on Agio Oros 19 PV powered telephone relay stations to
serve the monasteries, of total peak power 12.5 Kwp. There is also an HTO relay station
in Arkadia serving 8 villages of total power 2 KWp. In 1987, a 25 KWp station was
installed to power HTO telephones on the island Antikythira, financed partly by an E.U.
demonstration program.
The potential of this market segment in Greece is not bright according to a PV system
installer. In most of the sites, where HTO is planning to install relay stations, PV systems
compete with the cost of electrification by grid line extension, except for the sites that grid
lines are too far or cannot be reached by trucks and the cost of opening new roads is too
high.
4. Exterior lighting of roads, signaling, billboards, powering small devices etc.:
This market is practically non-existent in Greece, although in other countries such as

USA, Germany and Egypt there is a number of companies that are active in this field.
Exterior road and park lighting and signaling

The viability of such systems can be justified by:
• the possible extension of the grid by digging out several meters,
• bringing the grounds to their previous condition
The associated cost of the above actions may be too high with respect to an autonomous
PV lighting/signaling system that could be later moved again with minimal cost.
166
The estimated market potential can be significant, if PV lighting is examined as one of the
possible solutions by municipalities, whenever the lighting of roads, parks, squares, boat
marinas, docks etc. is being planned. PV lighting will not always be the most appropriate
solution, due to cost and to the possible combination of high power lighting application
and limited area availability of PV surface on a pole. A PV system for street lighting, with
two 50-55Wp modules, a 18 to 36W low pressure Sodium or fluorescent lamp and the
associated electronics, battery, pole etc., costs from 900.000 to 1.000.000 Dra.
Advertising board lighting

This is a market with considerable potential. Any given site that has potential for
promotion of products and does not have reasonably easy access to the grid can be a
money making location for the advertising companies when lighted by a PV system. Such
PV systems could have a significant potential if the advertising companies become aware
of such a possibility.
Small devices
Possible candidates to be powered by photovoltaics are small devices such as : parking
ticket issuing machines, lighting of public HTO (national telecommunications
company)card-phones etc.
If for example, HTO decides to light 10.000 card-phones by PV, with an installed power of
30Wp per card-phone, then the total PV power would be 300kWp.
The PV powered parking ticket machine introduction is possible application that frees the
local authorities from the electric grid and all the necessary ground work to power the
parking ticket machines.
The economic viability of many of the above PV applications have to be determined on a

case by case basis.
4. Conclusions
4.1 General
Most of the non-grid-connected houses, permanently inhabited, are located in remote

mountainous regions where the access is very difficult due to the lack of accessible roads.
They are old houses, made of stones, bricks or concrete blocks and covered by tiles,
flagstones, metal sheets or a concrete terrace. Most of them are south facing, non-
shaded and have available roof area for a PV system or enough free space for ground
installation. They are occupied by their proprietors who are poor people, mainly dealing
with stock farming or agriculture, have a poor knowledge of photovoltaic systems and
cannot afford a PV system. Conventional electric appliances are used when a diesel
generator is available. DC appliances are used in combination with PV systems and
batteries.
The most important electricity needs to be satisfied are : lighting, refrigeration and TV
operating in DC mode. The theoretical potential for the application of photovoltaics in non-
grid-connected houses in Greece is estimated to be about 32 MWp, assuming an average
167
occupation of 3 inhabitants per house and 200Wp per inhabitant (the abandoned houses
are not included).
Although the theoretical potential is considerably high, the actual potential is lower
considering that a significant number of non-grid-connected houses may be electrified
after legitimization and that most of the owners cannot afford the cost of a PV system
without financial support.
4.2. Critical issues ( Sources: 1,2)
The PV market research in Greece, included the Regional Energy Agencies reports and
the current situation even on international level, indicates the major parameters for the
farther PV market penetration:
• assured quality
• advertising, training, promotion, and education
• financing of PV products and systems
ǹ. Quality of products and systems
The issue of quality of PV products and systems is very important. Many PV component
and system failures have been reported, especially in off-grid rural electrification projects.
This inconsistency of quality thus became an important issue, affecting not only the
financing, but also the future of the entire PV business. This issue was realized by the PV
industry and its major customers, who established the PV Global Approval Programme.
Ǻ. Public awareness and creating markets
There is a great need for advertising of PV, as well as for training, promotion and
education. In the oil-crisis era of the 1970s, when the terrestrial PV business began, the
quantity of media attention, focused on the then-minuscule PV business, was significant
and helped the establishment of PV in many market segments. However, the media
attention stopped in the 1980s and today the public is not aware of the extent to which PV
is already being utilized. The general belief is that PV is for the future. Ii is not wide known
that without PV, there would be no global communication, no global email, Internet, TV,
telephone, fax, because all the satellites used for these functions are 100% powered by
PV.
There are no exact figures on how much the entire PV industry is spending on advertising,
but as a first estimation that the relevant budget is much less than 5 million dollars per
year, less than 0,5% of the total revenues.
If it was clear that the PV market is not primarily price sensitive, and that large market
share could be obtained by advertising rather than by lowering prices, the PV industry
would be now in a better condition. The PV industry today is not in the position to invest
168
the necessary funds in advertising and in public awareness campaigns. Yet this is a
crucial issue for the future of the PV business and should be addressed urgently. The
creativity of the PV industry, and also of other interested parties, is needed to mobilize
resources for advertising, promotion and education/training. A discussion on the issue is
to take place as well as solutions are to be found.
C. Finance and future
It was established a few years ago that financing of PV installations would be crucial for
their future. The urban grid-connected and, to some extent, the off-grid markets are also
dependent on subsidies. The merits and demerits of subsidies can be debated endlessly.
If they are for the long term, subsidies are necessary and beneficial. However, short-term
subsidies would be detrimental for the PV business.
It is urgent to develop financing mechanisms for photovoltaic systems. The lack of

financing available for customers is an enormous handicap to the development of the PV
business. Much PV business in the developed countries and two billion potential
customers in the developing countries need financing. This means that the matter of
financing PV is very complex. Several interesting approaches are being tried and are
planed and various meetings have focused on this very complicated issue and try to find
solutions
4.3 The potential (Sources: 1, 8)
The Greek PV market has rapidly grown during the last few years.
The existing of European, National and Regional Programmes (THERMIE, VALOREN,

ALTENER, ǼȆǼ, ǼȆǼȉ, etc.), reinforces the promotion of PV applications. These
Programmes provide support and information for the dissemination of know-how.
Similarly, the establishment of a favorable institutional and legislative framework (Energy

Law 2244/94, the new Development Law 2601/98, etc.), has created very positive
conditions for the PV technology and investments.
The current demand of PV applications in Greece is presented on D.1.
169
D.1: The most attractive applications

(% demand )
External lighting
Households
10%
29%
Connected
14%
16%
Agricultural
19%
13%
Transceivers
Navigation
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
The houses/settlements on isolated areas (islands-continental), are presented as the most

attractive application for the users (29%). Followed by the transceivers (19%), the
agricultural applications (16%), the connected with the grid (14%) and the navigation
applications (13%).
The above demand arises from the needs and the motives of users, which are:
• electrification for isolated-faraway areas………………………48%
• ecological sensitization…………………………….…………..20%
• electrification-connection with grid……………………………12%
• independence from PPC (power failure, taxes, etc.)…………….8%
• energy saving……………………………………………………8%
• attractive finance………………………………………………..4%
The total installed power is about 635 kW.
4.4 The barriers (Sources: 1, 8)
The most important barriers existing for the dissemination of PV applications are identified
during the project and summarized as follows:
• The high cost of PV systems.

• The lack of small PV demonstration projects (completed and under operation) in
different geographical areas, which would operate as an example.
• The lack of cost-utility studies for the realization of various PV projects which would be
operated by specialists as practical guides.
170
• The inadequate financing sources and relevant programmes (national or regional) for
the realization of small demonstration projects. In certain cases a significant
strengthening of the financing support must take place at regional and local level.
• The inadequate economic motives for the purchase and installation of PV applications
from individuals.
• The limited information of users (lack of training seminars, personal contacts, etc.).
• The need for more information for the study and the supervision of a PV construction in
local level (the centralization of experience and know-how in urban centers).
• The weaknesses of a legislative framework to support the obligatory use of RES in
public projects.
• The need for farther cooperation between government bodies, regions and market
actors (information for European-National-Regional Programmes).
4.5 Recommendations (Sources: 1, 2, 8)
The PV market has been and will be expanded rapidly in the future in its major market
segments. The main obstacle to the explosive expansion of the PV market is neither
technology nor price. It may be focused on the financing and advertising.
D .2 : D is se m ina tio n fa c to rs
(% o f utility )
A d ver tisin g
E n vir on m en t
23%
F in a n cin g su p p or t 13%
25%
B a n k in g 23%
11%
L icen ses 2%
3%
L ow ta x a tion
B u r ea u cr a cy
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
The need to develop financing methods, distribution mechanisms and infrastructure was
realized a few years ago and the complex problems have been discussed in various
studies and meetings with the result that some progress is being achieved. However, the
need for advertising, training, promotion, and education is only now being recognized.
The lack of these basic elements is a formidable obstacle to the future of PV, and the PV
community must focus on this matter urgently.
171
6 REFERENCES
1. Unpublished data, CRES, 1995-1998
2.“Renewable ENERGY World Journal”, November 1998
3. S. Tselepis, “PV support and promotion mechanisms in Greece”, pages 3352-3355,

Proceedings of “2nd World Conference on PV Solar Energy”, Vienna, July 1998
4.“National Development Law 2601/98”
5.“Law 2244/94-For Electricity Production from RES”
6.“Law 2364/95-National Tax Deduction Scheme for RES and Natural

Gas”
7.“Quantification of non-grid-connected houses in Greece, Electric

Home (APAS)” - Contract No. RENA-CT94-0045
8.“Market research for the PV systems in Greece”, I. Mavrogiannis, T. Tsoutsos,

S. Tselepis, 6th National Congress for the optimization of energy procedures, Volos, 3-5
November 1999
9.“PV Dissemination Strategy Group”, THERMIE STR -0429-95-DE
172
Annex 8 – The potential for wind technologies in Greece
1. Current situation (sources 1,2)
Greece is a nearly ideal area for harnessing wind energy. It has over 1000 islands,
(representing 20% of Greece’s total area), sea wind speed exceeding 7,5 m/s and in some
areas 10 m/s. Wind energy has been used in Greece for centuries to grind grain and for
irrigation. The distribution of wind energy installations by region is presented on Table 1.1.
12000
10000
8000
Regions
6000
4000
2000
0
CRETE S.AEGEAN N.AEGEAN MAINLAND
Generation (kW)
Table 1.1: “Wind energy converters by region in Greece” (source 1)
173
Extensive wind measurements were carried out in Greece during the 1980’s and 1990’s by
the Public Power Corporation (PPC) and the Centre for Renewable Energy Sources (CRES).
These demonstrated that substantial amounts of electricity could be generated largely from
wind resources especially in the Aegean islands and Crete. In 1993, PPC and CRES used
these measurements to prepare the Wind Atlas of Greece, showing the regions that offered
the best opportunities for wind power generation.
PPC holds the exclusive right to transmit and distribute electricity, and produces 99,1% of the
total production of electricity. The generating systems of PPC consist of lignite-fired and
hydro-electric units in the mainland and almost entirely of oil-fired units in Crete, Rhodes and
the rest of the Greek islands. Recently renewable energy sources and mainly wind energy,
have gained ground in the production of electricity in Aegean islands.
electric power production by the state-controlled PPC. This law allows the private sector and
industrial concerns to establish and operate power stations to produce electric power from
renewable sources either for their own use or for resale to the PPC ( Table 1.2).
REGION POWER
(MW)
CRETE 59,900
SOUTH AEGEAN 18,740
NORTH AEGEAN 1,825
MAINLAND 105,500
TOTAL 185,965
Table 1.2: “Licenses for electricity generation from wind energy converters based on
Law 2244/94” (source 1)
As a result of this Law and its implementing Presidential Decrees and Ministerial Decisions,
many and especially foreign manufacturers of wind generators have been attracted to this
newly-opened market. Many are now trying to identify local joint-venture partners for the
creation of wind parks in Greece.
Another major government task in the electric energy field is to open the Greek market within
the framework of EU market liberalization. By 2001, Greece will have to allow competition for
the production of 22% of the electric energy consumed by industries with over 40 GWh
annual consumption.
Even though no more than twenty units corresponding to 20 MW have been installed over
the last five years, rapid development is foreseen over the next years. Experts believe that
new projects in the private sector will add a further capacity of 100 MW by the year 2000.
Official data show that about 0,3% of the nation’s energy needs are accommodated by wind
power. Data on wind energy availability indicate that about 12-15% of the national energy
demand could come from wind.
174
The total Greek market for renewable energy equipment was about US $175 million in 1997.
Imports supply approximately 90,4% of the market. Based on positive, but realistic scenarios
made by the government and market experts, the total Greek market for wind generators is
estimated to reach US $520 million by the year 2000.
The current capacity of wind energy generators, (which presented on Figure 1.3), separated
as follows:
• Generation by the PPC
• Generation by autoproducers
30000
25000
20000
Generation (kW)
Generation by PPC
15000 Generation by autoproducers
TOTAL
10000
5000
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Years
Figure 1.3: “Electricity generation from wind-energy converters” (source 1)
The first category represents the 87,5% of the total installed wind power (24.300 kW),
something which depicts the monopoly on electric power production by the PPC. The number
of such units is about 131 and their net electricity generation considered about 34.145 MWh.
By autoproducers, the installed power approaches the 3.490 KW, by 25 units with net
electricity generation about 2.771 MWh.
During 1998, additional three wind energy production units were installed (Table 1.4):
REGION POWER (MW)
CRETE 10,000
SAMOS 0,750
SIROS 0,500
175
TOTAL 11,250
Table 1.4: “Electricity generation from wind energy converters during 1998” (source 1)
An end -user analysis separates the market demand in two segments:

Municipalities, ministries, airports, hospitals and military installations are the government-
controlled entities that are the main purchasers of wind products through the tenders.

Uses for wind farms, pharmaceutical, poultry farm, ceramic, remote homes, water pumping
and demonstration projects are the major wind energy needs by this sector.
The wind energy market in Greece is very promising. Over the next years the dramatic
market liberalization and solid growth in demand will together create significant opportunities
in this industry sector. The Greek government and the European Union has financially
supported the development and promotion of wind energy installations
The Greek government has a policy of attracting foreign investment and technology in order
to increase the quality of domestically produced products. According to the data of the
Ministry of National Economy, US $25 million in new investments in Renewable Energy
equipment and manufacturing was approved by the Greek government in 1995-1996 (Crete,
Rhodes, Evia, Lakonia). This includes investments in buildings, land and equipment. During
1998 have additionally issued 6 licenses for wind energy supported by the Operational
Programme for Energy (OPE, measure 3.2). The amount of each project budget and the
finance of the Ministry of Development is being attached (Table 2.1)
FIRM BUDGET FINANCE
Aeolian Neoriou BC 924.000.000 369.600.000
EN TE KA Wind Parks BC 494.457.000 197.782.800
Energy Net LTD 136.769.000 54.707.600
Rokas Wind SA 8.760.000.000 3.504.000.000
Rokas Wind Evia SA 8.641.500.000 3.456.600.000
Terna Energy SA 3.868.552.000 1.547.420.800
TOTAL 22.825.278.000 9.130.111.200
Table 2.1.: “Licenses approved by OPE on 1998 - finance / budget on Drs.” (source 4)
The Greek policy concerning investment activity is contained in a number of laws which
establish a variety of financing mechanisms and incentives for investors in the public and
private sectors. Grants for machinery and buildings, interest rate subsidies, tax-free
176
allowances, extra depreciation rates, lower social security contributions and favorable tax
rates indicates the provided incentives.
Within the context of existing provisions of Law 2244/94, Law 2601/98 and EU financial
incentives (Second Framework Support Programme), the annual growth of the total market
of wind energy equipment and products over the 1995-1997 was approximately 5-7%. In the
contrary, a significant increase is expected by taking into account the operation of some
approved windparks during 1999.
The greatest portions in the EU wind market are presented on Figure 2.2 Greece possess
just the 0,6% of the total installed capacity in EU, when the 2/3 of this market almost
monopolized by Germany (43,5%) and Denmark (23,3%).
Germany
43,5%
Greece
0,6%
Rest Europe
Denmark 5,6%
23,3% Spain
10,7%
Netherlands UK Sweden
6,9% 2,5%
6,9%
Fig. 2.2.”Portions of EU/Wind market (MW) by 1997” (source 3)
The average annual growth of the EU/Wind market during 1993-1997 estimated about 38%
(source BTM Consult ApS, own calculations).
2. Objectives of the wind industry/suppliers (sources 1.2)
In Greek wind energy market there are approximately 45 commercial enterprises dealing with
the import, supply and servicing of wind energy products. From them, only one is wind
generator manufacturer. The other firms, manufacture the metallic parts and supports for the
wind generators under license. These are SMEs with modern production units, well organized
with their own local sales network. The industry has around 800 employees.
Domestic production of wind energy equipment will continue to grow during the next years as
manufacturers reassess their business strategy and improve their product quality. Recently
all major manufacturers have started to upgrade their products to ISO 9000 standards to
comply with EU standards. Raw material costs are the most significant production cost for
the wind products, followed by labor, transportation and energy costs.
Greece depends considerably on the imports of raw materials for the production of wind
generators. The most companies are equipped with up-to-date equipment, follow the
177
developments of recent technology and take the necessary steps to comply with EU product
specifications.
Geographic position, product quality, established marketing arrangements and preferential

tariff treatment have enabled the EU to acquire a major share of the Greek market.
Scandinavian, German, French and British wind energy products dominant the market,
supplying more than 70% of total imports.
Their market strength lies in their knowledge of market, the use of the metric measurement
system, the offer of financial support to Greek importers in product promotion, the frequent
on-sight visits and the assistance in obtaining certification of their products and a number of
other services.
The key for someone to success in the Greek wind-industry is to have an experienced agent
or joint venture partner with a suitable background, experience and extensive sales network,
who can offer full customer support, including after sales service. The most important
competitive factor that influences the sales of wind products is the close relation between the
manufacturer, agent, distributor and the end-user.
Important innovation strategies in enterprises is also required. Innovation is the commercial

exploitation of an investment. An invention mainly involves a technical development.
Innovation on the other hand requires a broaden range of business skills including
marketing, management, training, financial and legal skills. Innovative enterprises derive
their technology from a wide range of sources, they collaborate more, they have a more
formal innovation support structure, they employ a higher proportion of graduates and they
can make more effective use of the higher education sector .
The need to develop financing methods, distribution mechanisms and infrastructure were
realized a few years ago and the complex problems are being addressed in various studies
and meetings with the result that some progress is being achieved. However, the need for
advertising, training, promotion, and education is only now being recognized, The lack of
these, is a formidable obstacle to the future of wind energy, and the “Wind community” must
focus on this matter urgently.
3. References
1. CRES’ data, 1990-1998
2. “Wind energy equipment market report”, prepared by American Embassy in Athens, May
1997
3. Renewable Energy World journal, January 1999

th
4. Energy & Development newsletter - OPE, 6 edition, August 1998
178
Annex 9 – The potential for renewable energy technologies in Italy
1. Analysing basic patterns, requirements and options
1.1 The electricity sector in Italy and the role of renewables
Organisation / institutional issues

In which way is the electricity supply in Italy and Greece organised (role of
utilities, role of governments, role of independent power producers etc.)?
For more than 25 years Italian customers have been supplied by ENEL
(Ente Nazionale per l’Energia Elettrica), turned two years ago a private
company. This change was decided by the Italian Government in order to
accomplish U.E. regulations about monopolies. Even before this change,
Italy had some independent producers which could generate electricity
somehow for their internal consumption, somehow for selling to the national
company. A variety a laws rejecting or helping the sell of auto-produced
electricity have come out in the last months.
On one hand U.E. directives are heading to maximum liberalisation, on the
other, their effective employment is not so immediate.
In the course of the last ten years or so, has there been a growing
recognition of solar and wind electricity by politics, utilities and the general
public in your country? Is this reflected in the implementation of programmes
and initiatives?
Italian national company for electricity (ENEL) has developed in the last
years programs and projects to realise renewable power plants, mainly
exploiting hydro power (which nowadays represent about 20% of all the
Italian electricity production). Wind energy has been taken into
consideration, too, and applied in some target areas, reaching good results,
though not even comparable with the hydro ones. Private consumers,
instead, have looked for and applied solar energy on their own construction
and exclusively for self-consuming.
Demand side
How has the consumption developed over the last decades (1960, 1970,
1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 1997)?
Statistical analyses show how Italian energy consumption has strongly
increased during the last years, with more than one hundred per cent rate.
As the graph below remarks, most of the local consumption is due to
industry, whose energy demand has become three times greater and
represents half of the whole consumption.
179
Electricity consumption in Italy (GWh)

57217
51973
129700
4518
52730
42271
1990 4228
119471
44501
29910
99818
3280
37836
Domestic Use
23169
1980 2600
100040
Tertiary
27697
18015
81281 Industry
1646
19395
15719 Agricultural
1970 1107
69416
12154
11154
48466
741
9429
9560
1960 578
43202
Source: ENEL annual report, 1996
Domestic use, tertiary and agricultural have increased, from the 60’s up to
now [as it is shown in the figure above], as well by a 500 per cent growth
rate, though the last one still constraints just a small percentage of the all
demand.
What is the future trend for electricity consumption?

Projections for the future are based on some assertions, whose certainty is
rarely unpredictable. Anyway, considering technology improves and the
major request of electricity for living and working, the growth rate should be
constant or slightly higher. One of the area mainly interested might be the
tertiary.
Supply side
What is the structure of the electricity supply in Italy (share of fuels (gas,
fossil, nuclear, renewables))?
According to the ENEL statistics (1996) the share of fuels is represented in
the chart below.
Share
Value Share
FUEL Solid
Mtoe %
fuels
Solid fuels 6.4 18.4 Rnwbls
Oil products 25.4 49.6
Gas 9.4 12.5
Gas
Renewables 10.0 19.5 Oil
prdcts
Total 51.2 100
It’s clearly shown the relevance of oil products among all and the big role
played by renewables, (mainly hydroelectricity).
180
As far as nuclear is concerned, Italian policies banned it after a population

vote, held ten years ago.
How can the electricity share of renewables be subdivided (PV, wind, hydro,
biomass etc.)?
More than 90% of the share of the renewables in Italy is due to hydropower.
Italy has a long and old tradition in obtaining electricity from water as the
land has always been generous in rivers and men smart enough to use
them.
MW GWh
Hydro 16054,4 37780,8
Wind 18,6 9,9
PV 5,4 4,2
Geothermical 495 3435,6
Biomass 167,8 387,1
Wind, PV and all the other are gaining ground, of course, but their
potentialities are few compared with hydro (that does not mean: no need to
investigate and use them)
How has the share of renewables developed over the last years?
Italy has exploited its potential for hydropower since the very beginning.
That’s why this share has been around 10% for many years. All other
renewables, though incentivated, are becoming available, but at the same
time are unable to grow high in share for the limited plant capacities
compared to Italian hydroelectricity.
How has the number and capacity of PV and wind plants developed over the
last years?
A useful comparison has outline the difference between today and 5 years
ago. Going back before the 1990 is not useful as PV as wind plant were
mere topics for academic conferences rather than for working plants. As the
picture below shows the increase in wind power has been continuous and
wide, letting hope for a positive future.
PV and Wind power production (GWh)
40,0
30,0
20,0 PV
Wind plant
10,0
0,0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
What is the future trend for the diffusion of renewables?

Which changes do you expect here with regard to the liberalisation of the
electricity market in Europe?
Italy is going to become a fertile land for energy investors. Monopoly will
181
disappear and free market will rule. Private companies will produce
electricity, will use it and will sell it to anyone who would buy it. Reminding
that Italy signed Kyoto agreements and is striving to manage high efficiency
plant with minimum environmental impact, all renewable forms of energy will
be sustained.
1.2 Elucidation of the legal and economic situation
1.2.1 Current laws, regulations and initiatives fostering electricity

generation from Renewable Energy Sources (RES)
The current laws and the regulations formulated for the technical development of
NRES are funded essentially on the “Energetic National Plan” of 1998 (Piano
Energetico Nazionale – 1998 PEN 98) based on the laws n. 9 and n. 10 of 1992
and on the PROVVEDIMENTO CIP 6/92.
The most important principle of these laws is the one contained in the art. 1 of
the law n. 9: “the NRES have to be considered a public usefulness and benefit”.
In a operative sense, it can be considered the art. 2, describing the actuation of
PEN, the art. 3 in which is programmed the agreement between the Ministry of
Industry (MICA) and ENEA about the NRES use, the art. 5 says that the regional
Institutions have to organise the regional plan of NRES, in collaboration with
ENEA.
The laws n. 9 allows the self-production of electricity and the transfer to ENEL
(art. 22). This is possible after a notification to MICA and a convention with
ENEA. The selling prices are established by CIP 6/92, according to the energetic
index of the plant. The energetic index is function of electricity self-produced,
heat produced and primary fuel supply.
ENEL charges customers just for supplying electricity and not according to the
source ENEL uses to produce it.
The above description shows that the laws presented give regulation and
financial support, but don’t provide and organic strategy of action in developing
the use of NRES. In other words the issues foster the private initiatives, but they
don’t co-ordinate those initiatives. As a matter of fact the law n. 9 and CIP 6/92
hasn’t succeed the expected results so that, this is one of the reason that
brought to the decision of cessation of these issues.
Thus a new formulation of the regulation on NRES development appear
appropriate, as shown in the conclusive document of the “Carpi Commission”
(points 1.5 and 3.7): “the NRES are the most important target policy of energy
and environment…so, the supporting issues are to be reviewed in order to
correct the limitations appeared during the past four years”.
In any case, in the Italian legislation the most important and suitable support
initiative for the NRES development is the law 29/12/1997. It foresees fiscal
reductions amounting to the 41% of the investment in the realisation of energy
systems implementing NRES. The maximum cost allowed amounts to Lit
150.000.000 (77.470 EURO) including VAT This initiative has a duration period
of two year, from 1998 to 1999.
1.2.2 Economic situation for RET in Greece and Italy
Investment costs (value 1997)
PV - The investment cost of PV can be considered, in a conservative way,

9
4.648.110-8.263.310 EURO/MW (9-16⋅10 Lit/MW). In 2010 it should be reduced
9
to 2.582.280-3.098.740 EURO/MW (5-6⋅10 Lit/MW), thank to the development
of technology.
182
WIND – The investment costs can be considered decreasing with the growth of
9
the market sector. Actually they amount to 774.690 EURO/MW (1,5⋅10 Lit/MW).
HYDRO – At the end of 1996, the hydropower installed was 13900 MW for power
plants more than 10 MW and 2150 MW for power plant less than 10 MW (375
MW of them for power plant less than 1 MW).
CONVENTIONAL POWER STATIONS – The investment costs 774.690-

9
1.032.910 EURO/MW (1,5-2⋅10 Lit/MW). A law of 1988 excluded the electricity
production with nuclear power plants.
In the following table the power plants investment costs for Italy until 2010 are
reported. The PV investment cost are evaluated, in the most realistic way, in the
9
range 4.648.110-8.263.310 EURO/MW (9-16⋅10 Lit/MW).
Technology Invest. Power Costs Power Costs Total Total

Cost 1996- 2001- power Costs
2000 2010 1996-2010
EURO/MW MW 103 MW 103 MW 103
9
[10 Lit/MW] EURO EURO EURO
9 9 9
[10 Lit] [10 Lit] [10 Lit]
PV 4.648.110- 24 206.480 250 1.187.85 270 1.394.430
8.263.310 [400] 0 [2.700]
[9-16] [2.300]
Wind 929.620- 670 619.750 2.250 1.755.95 2900 2.375.70
774.690 [1.200] 0 0
[1,8-1,5] [3.400] [4.600]
Hydro > 10 MW 2.840.510 450 1.291.140 - - 450 1.291.140
[5,5] [2.500] [2.500]
Hydro <= 10 2.840.510 311 877.980 850 2.375.70 1.150 3.253.680
MW [5,5] [1.700] 0 [6.300]
[4.600]
Source: ENEA Libro Verde sulle Fonti Rinnovabili di Energia, 1998.
PV – Actually the electricity production cost from PV plants grid-connected is in

the range 0,26-0,52 EURO/kWh (500-1000 Lit/kWh) and the possibilities of
reducing them in the short time seem to be very low, mainly referring to the large
plant. So, the large PV power plants grid-connected are not appropriate at the
moment. On the other hand, the development of the PV market in the “stand
alone” plants (houses and urban infrastructures) seems to be more quick.
WIND – The wind energy market actors in Italy come from the national industry,
but there is also a significant presence of foreign operator, in particular the
Danish ones, who have reduced the production costs by the constant increasing
the middle class power range up to 600kW.
The production costs amount to 0,08-0,1 EURO/kWh (150-200 Lit/kWh). In the
following tables the production values are evaluated, they seem to be still quite
low.
183
WIND POWER PLANT IN ITALY

1995 1996
Power (MW) 21,9 69,7
Electricity production (MWh) 9 900 32 700
On the basis of Law CIP6/92, wind plants projects amounting to 740 MW were
started, but at the end of 1997 only 80 MW of that power were really functioning.
HYDRO – In the last years, the attention has been addressed to the low power
hydro plants (less than 10 MW). In fact, now they are considered economically
convenient because today there is a real difficulty in finding sites suitable for high
and medium power hydro plants. Actually the production costs is about 0,02-0,04
EURO/kWh (40-80 Lit/kWh).
The following table shows the regional diffusion of hydro power plants (after
APEI).
Region Power<3MW Power >3MW Total

N° ent. N° imp. N° ent. N° imp. N° ent. N° imp.
Abruzzo 4 4 2 2 6 6
Basilicata 2 2 2 2
Calabria 5 6 5 6
Campania 4 4 4 4
Emilia-Romagna 9 9 9 9
Friuli-Venezia Giulia 43 68 2 2 45 70
Lazio 6 14 6 14
Liguria 5 7 4 9 9 16
Lombardia 62 89 2 2 64 91
Marche 11 18 2 3 13 21
Molise 5 7 5 7
Piemonte 123 186 11 25 134 211
Toscana 22 23 1 1 23 24
Trentino-AltoAdige 117 143 6 12 123 155
Sardegna 1 2 1 2
Umbria 5 5 5 5
Valle D’Aosta 10 14 10 14
Veneto 40 56 1 22 41 78
Interregional 6 13 4 68 10 81
Total 479 668 36 148 515 816
N° ent. = Number of enterprises operating in each field
N° imp. = Number of power plants in each field
CONVENTIONAL POWER STATIONS - In the evaluation of the power

production with conventional plants, amounting to 0,04-0,08 EURO/kWh (80 –
150 Lit/kWh), it has to take in account the cost generated by the environmental
damage, amounting to 0,03-0,05 EURO/kWh (65-106Lit/kWh) for oil plant and
0,01-0,03 EURO/kWh (28-51 Lit/kWh) for gas plants.
184
Obstacles to the dissemination of RET
PV
• Lack of a supporting policy
WIND
• The complexity of the geographical areas related to the wind power plant
determines a difficult evaluation of the suitable sites.
• The suitable sites are often in remote areas, non grid-connected
• Requirement of a large amount of investment for the development of a
national market
HYDRO
• Complexity of the authorization path, due to the particular situation of the
plant in regions (mountainous ones) often characterized by environmental
restrictions.
• Large amount of investment, especially for low power plants in which there
isn’t a convenient return on investment.
Demand
A real variety of demand can be granted especially in PV applications. The most
important are:
• So-called professional application, such as remote sensing,
telecommunications, cathodic protection of metallic devices. In these
applications the PV technology is convenient and competitive.
• Electrification of villages non grid-connected. Power devices of 0.5-3 kW.
• High power plant (100 kW-3 MW) grid-connected.
1.3 Clarification of technical, infrastructural and socio-cultural features
1.3.1 Technical aspects
Italian regulations are based on the National Energetic Plan (PEN) issued
in 1988, strengthen by law 9/91 and 10/91 whose appliance was assured
by the PROVVEDIMENTO CIP 6/92. Other several agreements, laws and
disposals were stated, even if the threshold for the laws analysis is
represented by the ones above mentioned.
Those resolutions mainly encourage diffusion, realisation and exploitation
of renewable energy sources including cogeneration plants, whose
“utilisation is considered of public interest ad utility” (art. 1, law 10/91).
Projects must be proposed to a commission which decides the ones to put
on work according to some energy index previously chosen.
On the local view, Regions are obliged to plan the use of renewable, i. e.
pointing at goal areas and looking for financial resources. Financial aid is
supported by the State but practically worked by Regions, which are also in
charge of stating local rules to apply Government laws.
Law 9/91 gives the right to self-produce electricity and/or sell to the national
grid at certain prices and conditions detailed in CIP 6/92. Recently (January
98) this CIP 6 was stalled, freezing the growing free market of energy.
Anyway the E.U. directive 96/92/CEE must be receipted as soon as
possible.
185
Do they restrict it?

There are some restrictions especially for wind plant: laws tend to protect
landscape and environment, through the release of authorisations for soil
use, building, landscape impact, seismic stability, flying safety. To obtain
those authorisations two or three years are taken.
How would they affect the realisation of "Solar Cooperatives"?
Solar Cooperatives operating with wind energy plant will be fully enclosed
in this long procedure, while for PV plants there would not be those
problems. Actually are being studied some integrated project for PV
applications in building facilities.
For grid-connected options: Are there areas which cannot be considered

for larger scale "Solar and Wind Cooperatives" (capacity of more than ...
MW) without upgrading the grid first?
Not really.
Technical potential
Considering prevailing irradiation and wind patterns: Which geographic
areas should primarily be considered (e.g. proven record of a wind speed
that makes exploitation of this resource economically viable).
Most of Italian wind plants are installed in two basins: Sardinia and the
coast along Southern Adriatic sea (i. d. Apulia, Basilicata, and Abruzzo
Regions), whose wind characteristics make economically feasible those
kind of plants.
As far irradiation is concerned, the best target is represented by South Italy
(Sicily, Calabria and Apulia Region) and the lower Central. In those areas
Summer temperatures reach as high as 40°C and the climate along the
year is warm.
Is there a technical potential for the realisation of "Solar Cooperatives" in

remote, non grid-connected areas (see first interim report "3.2.5" and Fig.
5) (Italy: there are quite a number of small islands in the Tyrrhenian
Sea. Can we consider them?)?
In those areas could be implemented several projects of energy from
renewable, hybrid plants, even joined with some desalinisation plants.
Anyway more detailed studies will be needed to assure pay outs.
Islands targets: Eolie, Lipari, Lampedusa, Pantelleria, Tremiti
Could "Solar Cooperatives"-plants in those areas be related to the supply

of community facilities (hospitals, schools) in their surroundings?
Small islands or communities could research integrated supplies of water
and electricity.
Have some community facilities in your country got a supply from RET to
which we could refer? Please make a first check.
No.
With regard to your own survey/questionnaire: Do people in your country

also prefer “non grid-options” for “Solar Cooperatives”?
According to the psychological point of view, Italy today is a fertile land for
exploiting non grid solutions, as people are looking for the common
services offered by new “societies” detached from previous monopolies,
following the spirit of globalisation markets.
186
1.3.2 Infrastructural aspects
Weigh up the pros and cons of locating plants for "Solar and Wind Cooperatives"
in:
High or low according to Not disturbing if far away
Noise level the present one. Problems from populated areas
especially at night.
Merging with industrialised Strong
Visual impact
city
Short daily home-work Maybe long home-work
People
travel travel
Facilities supply
Already present Maybe to be taken
(electricity, water, etc.)
Future repowering
Hard Easy
(enlarging process)
Regarding photovoltaic plants: Where should those be installed

(roofs/facades, noise protection barriers, meadows etc.; see interim report
item "3.2.6" and Fig. 6)? Please combine results from the first
questionnaire and your own survey in Italy.
The situation in1996 is represented in the table below. As it’s clearly
shown, most of the electricity produced is supplied to non electrified
houses and given to the grid. The biggest plants are installed among wide
spaces, while small ones are optimi for little utilities. As small utilities can
not generally afford an investment in self-use wind plant (long pay-back
time periods mainly) wind cooperatives could get simple users needs and
satisfy them with an investment divided into a variety of promoters.
1996
Area Category Installed Produce
Power d Energy
(kWp) (MWh)
N/on housing Pumping water 1 000 1 056
Applications Professional 1 900 1 306
Agricultural 1 350 1 402
Other 400 400
Total 4 650 4 164
Rural houses Isolated Houses 4 400 4 454
Electrification Other 300 360
Total 4 700 4 814
Grid- Placed on 260 150
connected Roofs
plants Placed on <100 kWp 80 65
other sites
100÷1000 kWp 3100 1350
> 1000 kWp 2970 3438
Total 6150 4853
TOTAL 15760 13981
187
→ Which facilities could and should in those areas be mainly supplied

(schools, remote villages, plants for drinking water purification, drinking
water pipes, telecommunication facilities; see Fig. 4 of interim report
and results of your own survey)?
Especially facilities related to promote an improving living conditions
such as solving, for instance, the lack of water in the south through a
very hybrid solution (wind, PV and desalinisation plant). Schools,
hospitals, private houses, hotels are the main targets.
References
- ENEL Dati statistici sull’energia in Italia, 1996.
- ISES ITALIA Stato dell’arte delle fonti energetiche e rinnovabili in Italia, 1996
- ISES ITALIA Le barriere alla diffusione delle fonti energetiche rinnovabili: come
th
superarle, Workshop proceedings, Rome 4 June 1997.
- ISES ITALIA – ENEA Le applicazioni fotovoltaiche per usi civili e rurali nei Comuni
rd
d’Italia, Workshop proceedings, Gubbio 23 June 1997.
- ENEA Libro Verde sulle Fonti Rinnovabili di Energia, 1998.
- ISES ITALIA – ENEA Energia elettrica dal sole, 1998.
- Paolo Oliva Il ruolo del distributore di energia per la diffusione delle soluzioni sostenibili,
ISES ITALIA Quaderni del sole, n. 4, April-June 1998.
-Paolo Vaccari Fonti rinnovabili ed incentivi all’edilizia, ISES ITALIA Quaderni del sole, n.
3, January-March 1998.
-Guido Missoni Risorse energetiche rinnovabili: necessità o opportunità?, ISES ITALIA

Quaderni del sole, n. 3, January-March 1998.
- AA.VV. Compatibilità delle centrali eoliche con il paesaggio, ISES ITALIA Quaderni del
sole, n. 4, April-June 1998.
- ISES ITALIA Ilsoleatrecentosessantagradi, Newsletter
188

Final Rep Solar Cooperatives

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Rep Solar Cooperatives

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Solar Cooperatives

- Linking North and South -

This study was realised on behalf of the

German Federal Ministry for the Environment,

3 Potential for participation 33

4 Legal and economic options for Investment in Germany 56

5 Legal and economic options for investment in Greece 61

6 Legal and economic options for investment in Italy 74

Annex 1 Solar radiation map of Western Europe 93

Hamburg (Northern Germany) G = 2.68 (100%)

Sales contract Information/administration/

Figure 2.1: Model of a Solar Cooperative

Aims and objectives

Goals of the project can be summarised as follows:

The project (Module I) was subdivided into the following phases:

Potential for participation

Would you in principle consider becoming a shareholder in Italy or Greece? (Question 1)

Figure 3.1: Inclination to participate in a project in different counties

40% 38% 38%

Figure 3.2: Preference for grid or off-grid options

Where should PV-plants be installed? (Question4)

Figure 3.3: Preferred installation places for PV

Figure 3.4: Potential investment in Solar Cooperatives

Would you participate in a plant in the following location/countries? (Question 6)

Figure 3.5: Inclination to participate in a project in different regions

Survey summary and conclusions

Legal and economic options for investment in Germany

The “Freiburg PV Cooperatives” and the Cooperatives “Bürgersolarstrombeteiligung” (citi-

German saving bonds Bundesschatzbrief 1998/13 -A

Figure 4.1: Amortisation schedule / scheme of repayment

Legal and economic options for investment in Greece

Current Legislation in Greece

National Development Law 2601/98 (on private investment)

Law 2364/95 article 7, paragraph 17

Operational programme for energy

Operational programme for research and technology

Regional Operational Programmes

1) Infrastructures: road networks, railway system, telecommunication, energy, natural

4) Human resources: education and continuous training, modernisation of public ser-

Economic situation for renewable energy technology in Greece

Investment costs and retail prices

Note 1: The value ı takes the following values.

0.7 for small hydro units

Generation (kW) 30000

An end-user analysis separates the market demand in two segments:

Obstacles to dissemination of renewable energy technologies in Greece

• high cost of PV systems

Legal and economic options for investment in Italy

Current legislation in Italy

A new formulation of regulation on renewable energy sources development appears to be

Economic situation for renewable energy technologies in Italy

PV - The investment cost of PV can be considered, in a conservative way, 4.648.110 -

Production costs and retail prices

PV – The electricity production cost of grid-connected PV plants is in the range of 0,26-

Obstacles to the dissemination of renewable energy technologies in Italy

Applicability of Solar Cooperatives in Southern Europe

Examples of potential Solar Cooperatives

Table 3: Pros and cons of different locations for plants

Urban areas Rural areas

May be disturbing. Prob- Not disturbing if far away

Merging with industrial- Strong

Short daily home-work Maybe long home-work

Facilities supply (electricity,

Future enlarging process Hard Easy