DIW Roundup

Politik im Fokus

Wind power: mitigated and imposed external costs and other indirect economic effects

27. April 2017

Since the 1990s, (onshore) wind power has become an important technology for electricity generation throughout the world. The economic rationale is the mitigation of negative externalities of conventional technologies, in particular emissions from fossil fuel combustion. However, wind power itself is not free of externalities. Wind turbines are alleged visual and noise impacts as well as threats to wildlife. Further indirect economic effects comprise costs for integrating variable wind electricity into the power system. Economic outcomes, such as employment and GDP, can be positively or negatively affected both locally and nationally. This Roundup summarizes evidence from multiple literatures on mitigated and imposed external costs and further indirect economic effects.


17 gigawatt (GW) of onshore wind turbines were installed word-wide in 2000. This number has risen to above 400 GW in 2015, with China, the US, and Germany as biggest markets (IRENA 2017). Likewise, the share of wind power among German gross electricity consumption grew from 1.5% in 2000 to 12% in 2015 (BMWi 2016). As the private economics outside support schemes may, still, be inferior to conventional alternatives, this development is driven by the public economics of wind power (Borenstein 2012).

Specifically, wind power helps to prevent external costs of conventional generation technologies. Ittargets mitigation of global climate change, health and environmental damage from regional emissions, external costs of mining, and nuclear risks. However, wind turbines must be constructed in large numbers to be effective. Such land use change raises awareness of intrusions into the environment (Pasqualetti 2000) and may thus foster opposition; likewise, it can threaten wildlife. Beyond direct external costs, the variability of wind power – its supply depends on weather conditions – may result in the need to costly adapt the power system.   

Most stated-preference studies infer a positive willingness-to-pay for renewable electricity in general (Soon and Ahmad 2016), and wind electricity in particular (Ma et al 2015). Among the correlates climate considerations stand out (Sundt and Rehdanz 2015). Going beyond stated preferences, the following provides a deeper discussion of evidence on externalities and other indirect economic effects.


Imposed externalities: landscape

Visual dis-amenities are an important driver of opposition to wind turbine developments (Mattmann et al 2016, van Rensburg et al 2015). Quantitative valuation studies of wind turbine externalities consistently find a central role for landscape deterioration; be it hedonic-pricing (Gibbons 2015), life-satisfaction (Krekel and Zerrahn 2017), or stated-preference approaches (Mattmann et al 2016). Specifically, external costs materialize for residents in closer proximity to turbines (Jones and Eiser 2010 Meyerhoff et al 2010 Guo et al 2015); evidence on habituation over time is mixed (Ladenburg et al 2013 Wheeler 2016, Wilson and Dyke 2016).

Environmental psychology provides underlying rationales: preferences for natural landscapes (Kopmann and Rehdanz 2013) and traditional idiosyncrasies stand in opposition to industrial structures such as wind turbines (Bidwell 2013). Such disruption of place-bound identities, which generate belonging, can reduce life satisfaction and evoke rejection (Cass and Walker 2009, Devine-Wright and Howes 2010, Lewicka 2011).

Against this background, a participatory turbine siting process that pays attention to early political or economic involvement, transparent information, and potential discretion at the local level can mitigate negative external effects and foster acceptance (Cowell et al 2011, Friedl and Reichl 2016, Wolsink 2007). In this context, research has come to reject plain not-in-my-back-yard (NIMBY) explanations for opposition as too superficial (Wolsink 2012). Moreover, plain NIMYism is empirically not confirmed in most studies.


Imposed externalities: noise and health

Wind turbines emit some noise from rotating blades, which several stated-preference studies found to be associated with subjectively reported annoyance (Groth and Vogt 2014, Shepherd et al 2011) and lowered sleep quality (Onakpoya et al 2015). However, no study could identify a causal impact (Dai et al 2015, McCunney et al 2014, Schmidt and Klokker 2014). Situational salience and general opposition rather cause a nocebo effect (Feder et al 2015, Knopper and Ollson 2011), which is also underlined by evidence from lab experiments (Crichton and Petrie 2015, Van Renterghem et al 2013).


Imposed externalities: wildlife

Ecological research finds increased mortality from collisions for birds and bats (Carrete et al 2009, Hayes 2013, Lehnert et al 2014, Loss 2013, Voigt 2015) However, evidence on long-term population-level effects, also concerning habitat change, is largely missing (Schuster et al 2015, Wang et al 2015). At the same time, research identified good practices to keep impacts low. Siting is key: especially vulnerable areas, for instance for breeding and hunting, should be avoided; moreover, temporary shutdowns and mitigative turbine design can help (Dai et al 2015, May et al 2015, Schuster et al 2015).


Electricity system perspective: mitigation external costs

Electricity generated by wind turbines has zero marginal costs. It shifts out the short-run market supply curve to the right, and displaces other technologies and the according external costs, notably from greenhouse gas emissions. Which plants are displaced and the extent of mitigation depend on the supply structure of an electricity system (Figure 1). 

diw_roundup_111_1.png

diw_roundup_111_2.png

Source: Own illustration

To give some notion, the German Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt) assesses that one MWh (onshore) wind energy displaced somewhat below 0.8 tons CO2 equivalents in 2013 (UBA 2014) and some 0.7 tons in 2015 (BMWi 2016, UBA 2017). Studies for Ireland, with less emission-intensive natural gas plants, determine 0.28 tons (Wheatley 2013), and for Texas 0.43 to 0.63 tons (Cullen 2013, Kaffine et al 2013, Novan 2013).

Damage estimates from CO2 emissions are highly debated. Integrated Assessment Models conclude on a broad range of values – a meta-analysis suggests a mean of 41 US Dollar and a 95% percentile of 146 Dollar per ton of CO2 emissions (Tol 2009). However, when also accounting for (i) intrinsic values of biodiversity, political stability, violent conflict, and migration flows (Doyne Farmer et al 2015, Stern 2013, Stern 2014a); (ii) insights from behavioral economics (Chambers and Melkonyan 2017) such as loss aversion; (iii) rather normative inter-generational social discounting based on ethical principles (Goulder and Williams III, Stern 2014b); and (iv) structural uncertainty and catastrophic risks (Gollier and Weitzman 2010 Roe and Baker 2007 Weitzman 2009, 2014), then damage estimates are at the upper end (Bommier et al 2015 Burke et al 2015). Addressing all points, a conservative lower bound would be 125 US Dollar per ton of CO2 (van den Bergh and Botzen 2014).

With 0.7 tons mitigated CO2 equivalents, this amounts to prevented external costs of almost 90 US Dollar per MWh wind energy in Germany in 2015. Beyond greenhouse gas emissions, also other external costs of fossil and nuclear electricity production are mitigated, such as regional airborne emissions, external costs of mining or nuclear risks and waste. Total lifecycle assessments of non-climate external costs conclude on 8 – 14 Euro per MWh for coal and 3.5 – 5 Euro for natural gas (CASES 2008), opposed to below one Euro per MWh for wind onshore. For nuclear power, estimates for external costs range between 1 - 2 Euro per MWh (CASES 2008) and, attaching a higher weight to accident costs, for which no full private insurance exists, 32 (Rabl and Rabl 2013) and 340 Euro per MWh (Meyer 2012).


Electricity system perspective: economic effects of variable wind electricity

Electricity generated by wind turbines varies with wind conditions and cannot be scheduled as needed. Figure 2 shows hourly electricity demand and simulated residual electricity demand – that is demand minus supply of variable renewable energy, such as wind – for Germany for 2050 (Zerrahn and Schill 2015). Residual demand exhibits greater variability, steeper inter-hourly changes, and partly becomes negative (periods of excess supply).

As such, electricity cannot be (economically) stored, but supply and demand must be continuously balanced. Thus, the variability of wind electricity may, in the short term, require increased flexibility within the electricity system, which can incur additional cost (Agora Energiewende 2015a): (i) costs for balancing short-term fluctuations (Abrell and Kunz 2015), (ii) higher wear and tear as well as fuel costs due to increased requirements to ramp plants up or down (Schill et al 2017); (iii) opportunity costs from over-production of wind electricity that cannot be fed in; and (iv) on a spatial scale, potentially grid costs arising from the decentral locations of wind plants (Kunz 2012).

Figure 2: Variability of hourly residual electricity demand

 diw_roundup_111_3.png

Sources: Own calculations for 2050 based on Zerrahn and Schill (2015)

Estimates for short-run integration costs depend on idiosyncratic power system features – inter alia the share of wind power and other technologies, correlation of variable supply with demand, or availability of flexibility options such as storage and interconnection with neighboring countries. Selected estimates range between 10 and 60 Euro per Megawatt hour (MWh) at 5 – 40% wind power penetration, which is the share of annual electricity demand satisfied by wind energy (Hirth et al 2015, Sijm 2014, Ueckerdt et al 2013). Whether and to which extent these costs can be ascribed to a new technology, which enters a legacy system designed for large-scale centralized fossil (and nuclear) production, is subject to debate (Agora Energiewende 2015a).

In the long-run, re-structuring the electricity system toward flexibility mitigates costs for integrating variable wind supply. Flexible thermal plants, such as natural gas and biomass units, can complement variable supply, and flexibility options such as energy storage, demand-side management (Zerrahn and Schill 2015), or coupling with other sectors can shift electricity demand to hours of high supply. Likewise, integration across borders can decrease the demand for short-term flexibility as wind power supply is considerably smoother over larger areas (Agora Energiewende 2015b).

Quantification of such costs for long-run system reshaping is not straightforward: the point of reference is not unanimous, and any assessment depends on assumptions on uncertain future costs and availabilities of technologies as well as regulatory frameworks. In many studies, costs are non-negligible (Nagl et al 2013) but not excessive (Brouwer et al 2016, Zerrahn and Schill 2015); to give some indication, for an optimized European system one study derives numbers ranging between 12 and 26 Euro per MWh (Scholz et al 2016). 

 

Estimates for short-run integration costs depend on idiosyncratic power system features – inter alia the share of wind power and other technologies, correlation of variable supply with demand, or availability of flexibility options such as storage and interconnection with neighboring countries. Selected estimates range between 10 and 60 Euro per Megawatt hour (MWh) at 5 – 40% wind power penetration, which is the share of annual electricity demand satisfied by wind energy (Hirth et al 2015, Sijm 2014, Ueckerdt et al 2013). Whether and to which extent these costs can be ascribed to a new technology, which enters a legacy system designed for large-scale centralized fossil (and nuclear) production, is subject to debate (Agora Energiewende 2015a).

In the long-run, re-structuring the electricity system toward flexibility mitigates costs for integrating variable wind supply. Flexible thermal plants, such as natural gas and biomass units, can complement variable supply, and flexibility options such as energy storage, demand-side management (Zerrahn and Schill 2015), or coupling with other sectors can shift electricity demand to hours of high supply. Likewise, integration across borders can decrease the demand for short-term flexibility as wind power supply is considerably smoother over larger areas (Agora Energiewende 2015b).

Quantification of such costs for long-run system reshaping is not straightforward: the point of reference is not unanimous, and any assessment depends on assumptions on uncertain future costs and availabilities of technologies as well as regulatory frameworks. In many studies, costs are non-negligible (Nagl et al 2013) but not excessive (Brouwer et al 2016, Zerrahn and Schill 2015); to give some indication, for an optimized European system one study derives numbers ranging between 12 and 26 Euro per MWh (Scholz et al 2016). 


Other (indirect) economic effects: electricity market, local economic and macroeconomic impacts

Due to its zero short-run marginal costs, wind power has a depressive effect on wholesale electricity market prices (see also Figure 1), which may, in turn, deter investment into conventional technologies which can deliver electricity when the wind does not blow (Cramton et al 2013, Ketterer 2014). Whether this missing money problem is in fact relevant or rather an artifact of prevailing over-capacities after liberalization, at least in many European countries, is subject to debate (Roques 2008, Schill and Diekmann 2014).

Evidence on local GDP (May and Nilsen 2015), employment (Brown et al 2012, Hartley et al 2015) and also tourism effects (Broekel and Alfken 2015, Landry et al 2012) in areas where turbines are installed is mixed, and does, in general, rather not point toward sustained positive stimulus.

Evidence on macroeconomic effects is scarce and general-equilibrium effects are not well understood (Borenstein 2012, Edenhofer et al 2012). Some ex-post econometric analyses (Apergis and Payne 2010, Tugcu et al 2012) as well as macroeconomic bottom-up simulations (Blazejczak et al 2012, Lehr et al 2012) suggest positive impacts on GDP and employment for renewable energy deployment in general, and wind power in particular. Surveys on job creation from renewable energy in the US find positive net effects (Wei et al 2010) or are inconclusive (Wiser et al 2016). Likewise, technology leadership for major manufacturing countries can trigger positive net effects on innovation (Dechezleprêtre and Glachant 2014, Lund 2009).


Conclusions

Idiosyncrasies of electricity systems and normative choices in externality valuation prevent aggregation of evidence into a single metric, let alone a comprehensive benefit-cost analysis. However, contrasting evidence on external costs and further indirect economic effects for wind power and its conventional alternatives, wind power appears as favorable.

Many negative externalities of wind turbines are in principle reversible, as well as spatially and temporally bounded. For landscape deterioration, transparent and participatory siting processes can mitigate externalities; for noise, no study can detect adverse causal effects; threats to wildlife are present, but can, to a certain degree, be mitigated through prudent siting. In the long run, power systems can be re-shaped to complement variable wind production, necessarily at a certain cost. Likewise, monetary cost estimates for external costs are relatively low, and evidence points toward transient effects.

Conversely, important negative externalities of conventional electricity generation, which are mitigated by wind power, are large and often subject to a wide spatial and temporal scope, and affect individuals (and ecosystems) at places and in times far from their origin. This not only comprises costs of climate change, but also further external costs of fossil-fuel emissions, and nuclear risks. 


References

Abrell, J. and Kunz, F. (2015). Integrating Intermittent Renewable Wind Generation - A Stochastic Multi-Market Electricity Model for the European Electricity Market. Networks and Spatial Economics 15(1): 117 – 147.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11067-014-9272-4

Agora Energiewende (2015a). The Integration Cost of Wind and Solar Power. An Overview of the Debate on the Effects of Adding Wind and Solar Photovoltaic into Power Systems. https://www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2014/integrationskosten-wind-pv/Agora_Integration_Cost_Wind_PV_web.pdf

Agora Energiewende (2015b). The European Power System in 2030: Flexibility Challenges and Integration Benefits. An Analysis with a Focus on the Pentalateral Energy Forum Region. Fraunhofer IWES, Analysis on behalf of Agora Energiewende. https://www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2014/Ein-flexibler-Strommarkt-2030/Agora_European_Flexibility_Challenges_Integration_Benefits_WEB_Rev1.pdf

Apergis N. and Payne J.E. (2010). Renewable energy consumption and growth in Eurasia, Energy Economics 32(6): 1392–1397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2010.06.001

Bidwell D. (2013). The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards commercial wind energy. Energy Policy 58: 189–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.010

Blazejczak J., Braun F.G., Edler D. and Schill W.-P. (2012). Economic effects of renewable energy expansion: a model-based analysis for Germany. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 40: 1070 – 1080. 

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.134

BMWi (2016). Zeitreihen zur Entwicklung der erneuerbaren Energien in Deutschland. Bundeministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (BMWi). http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/EE/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/zeitreihen-zur-entwicklung-der-erneuerbaren-energien-in-deutschland-1990-2015.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=11

Bommier A., Lanz B. and Zuber S. (2015). Models-as-usual for unusual risks? On the value of catastrophic climate change. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 74: 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2015.07.003

Borenstein S. (2012). The private and public economics of renewable electricity generation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 26(1): 67–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.26.1.67

Broekel T. and Alfken C. (2015). Gone with the wind? The impact of wind turbines on tourism demand. Energy Policy 86: 506–519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.08.005

Brown J.P., Pender J., Lantz E. and Hoen B. (2012). Ex post analysis of economic impacts from wind power development in U.S. counties. Energy Economics 34: 1743–1754. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2012.07.010

Burke M., Dykema J., Lobell D.B., Miguel E. and Satyanath S. (2015). Incorporating climate uncertainty into estimates of climate change impacts. Review of Economics and Statistics 97(2): 461–471.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00478

Brouwer A.S., van den Broek M., Zappa W., Turkenburg W.C. and Faaij A. (2016). Least-cost options for integrating intermittent renewables in low-carbon power systems. Applied Energy 161: 48–74.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.09.090

Carrete M., Sánchez-Zapata J.A., Bénitez J.R., Lobón M. and Donázar J.A. (2009). Large-scale risk-assessment of wind farms on population viability of a global endangered long-lived raptor. Biological Conservation 142: 2954–2961. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.07.027

CASES (2008). Full cost estimates for the use of different energy sources. CASES (Cost Assessment of Sustainable Energy Systems), D.6.1, Project No 518294 SES6. Accessed February 23, 2017 

www.feem-project.net/cases/downloads_deliverables.php

Cass N. and Walker G. (2009). Emotion and rationality: the characterisation and evaluation of opposition to renewable energy projects. Emotion, Space and Society 2: 62–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2009.05.006

Chambers R.G. and Melkonyan T. (2017). Ambiguity, reasoned determination, and climate-change policy. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 81: 74–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2016.09.007

Cowell R., Bristow G. and Munday M. (2011). Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice: the role of community benefits in wind energy development. Journal of Environmental Management and Planning 54(4): 539–557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2010.521047

Cramton P., Ockenfels A. and Stoft S. (2013). Capacity market fundamentals. Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy 2(2): 27–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.5547/2160-5890.2.2.2

Crichton F. and Petrie K.J. (2015). Health complaints and wind turbines: the efficacy of explaining the nocebo response to reduce symptom reporting. Environmental Research 140: 449–455.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2015.04.016

Cullen J. (2013). Measuring the environmental benefits of wind-generated electricity. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 5(4): 107–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/pol.5.4.107

Dai K., Bergot A., Liang C., Xiang W.-N., and Huang Z. (2015). Environmental issues associated with wind energy — a review. Renewable Energy 75: 911–921. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.074

Dechezleprêtre A. and Glachant M. (2014). Does foreign environmental policy influence domestic innovation? Evidence from the wind industry, Environmental and Resource Economics 58: 391–413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-013-9705-4

Devine-Wright P. and Howes Y. (2010). Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: a wind energy case Study. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30(3): 271–280.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.008

Doyne Farmer J., Hepburn C., Meaky P. and Teytelboym A. (2015). A third wave in the economics of climate change. Environmental and Resource Economics 62: 329–357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-015-9965-2

Edenhofer O., Hirth L., Knopf B., Pahle M., Schlömer S., Schmid E. and Ueckerdt F. (2013). On the economics of renewable energy sources. Energy Economics 40: S12–S23, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2013.09.015

ENTSO-E (2017). Consumption Data - Hourly Load Values for a Specific Country for a Specifi c Month (in MW). European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E). http://www.entsoe.eu/db-query/consumption/mhlv-a-specific-country-for-a-specific-month

Feder K., Michaud D.S., Keith S.E., Voicescu S.A., Marro L., Than J., Guay M., Denning A., Bower T.J., Lavigne E., Whelan C. and van den Bergh F. (2015). An assessment of quality of life using WHOQOL-BREF among participants living in the vicinity of wind turbines. Environmental Research 142: 227–238 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2015.06.043

Friedl C. and Reichl J. (2016). Realizing energy infrastructure projects — a qualitative empirical analysis of local practices to address social acceptance. Energy Policy 89: 184–193.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.11.027

Gibbons S. (2015). Gone with the wind: valuing the visual impact of wind turbines through house prices. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 72: 177–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2015.04.006

Gollier C. and Weitzman M.L. (2010). How should the distant future be discounted when discount rates are uncertain? Economics Letters 107: 350–353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2010.03.001

Goulder L.H. and Williams R.C., III (2012). The choice of discount rate for climate change policy evaluation. Climate Change Economics 3(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S2010007812500248

Groth T.M. and Vogt C. (2014). Residents' perceptions of wind turbines: an analysis of two townships in Michigan. Energy Policy 65: 251–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.055

Guo Y., Ru P., Su J. and Diaz Anadon L. (2015). Not in my backyard, but not far away from me: local acceptance of wind power in China. Energy 82: 722-733. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.01.082

Hartley P.R., Medlock K.B., III, Temezlides T. and Zhang X. (2015). Local employment impact from competing energy sources: shale gas versus wind generation in Texas. Energy Economics 49: 610–619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.02.023

Hayes M.A. (2013). Bats killed in large numbers at United States wind energy facilities. BioScience 63(12): 975–979. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.12.10

Hirth L., Ueckerdt F. and Edenhofer O. (2015). Integration costs revisited — an economic framework for wind and solar variability. Renewable Energy 74: 925–939. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.08.065

IRENA (2017). Renewable Energy Statistics. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/IRENA_RE_Statistics_2016.pdf

Jones C.R. and Eiser J.R. (2010). Understanding ’‘‘local’ opposition to wind development in the UK: how big is a backyard? Energy Policy 38: 3106–3117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.01.051

Kaffine D.T., McBee B.J. and Lieskovsky J. (2013). Emissions savings from wind power generation in Texas. The Energy Journal 34(1): 155–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.5547/01956574.34.1.7

Ketterer J.C. (2014). The impact of wind power generation on the electricity price in Germany. Energy Economics 44: 270–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2014.04.003

Knopper L.D. and Ollson C.A. (2011). Health effects and wind turbines: a review of the literature. Environmental Health 10(78). http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-10-78

Krekel C. and Zerrahn A. (2017). Does the presence of wind turbines have externalities for people in their surroundings? Evidence from well-being data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 82: 221-238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2016.11.009

Kopmann A. and Rehdanz K. (2013). A human well-being approach for assessing the value of natural land areas. Ecological Economics 93: 20–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.014

Kunz, F. (2012). Improving Congestion Management: How to Facilitate the Integration of Renewable Generation in Germany. The Energy Journal 34(4): 55 – 78. http://dx.doi.org/10.5547/01956574.34.4.4

Ladenburg J., Termansen M. and Hasler B. (2013). Assessing acceptability of two onshore wind power development schemes: a test of viewshed effects and the cumulative effects of wind turbines. Energy 54: 45–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.02.021

Landry C.E., Allen T., Cherry T. and Whitehead J.C. (2012). Wind turbines and coastal recreation demand. Resource and Energy Economics 34: 93–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2011.10.001

Lehnert L.S., Kramer-Schadt S., Schönborn S., Lindecke O., Niermann I. and Voigt C.C. (2014). Wind farm facilities in Germany kill noctule bats from near and far. PLOS ONE 9(8): 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103106

Lehr U., Lutz C. and Edler D. (2012). Green jobs? Economic impacts of renewable energy in Germany. Energy Policy 47: 358–364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.076

Lewicka M. (2011). Place attachment: how far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology 37: 207–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.10.001

Loss S.R., Will T. and Marra P.P. (2013). Estimates of bird collision mortality at wind facilities in the contiguous United States. Biological Conservation 168: 201–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.10.007

Lund P. (2009). Effects of energy policies on industry expansion in renewable energy. Renewable Energy 34(1): 53 – 64. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2008.03.018

Ma C., Rogers A.A., Kragt M.E., Zhang F., Polyakov M., Gibson F., Chalak M., Pandit R. and Tapsuwan S. (2015). Consumers' willingness to pay for renewable energy: a meta-regression analysis. Resource and Energy Economics 42: 93–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2015.07.003

Mattmann M., Logar I. and Brouwer R. (2016). Wind power externalities: a meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 127: 23–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.04.005

May N.G. and Nilsen Ø.A. (2015). The Local Economic Impact of Wind Power Deployment. IZA Discussion Paper 9025. http://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/handle/11250/283038

May R., Reitan O., Bevanger K., Lorentzen S.-H. and Nygaard T. (2015). Mitigating wind-turbine induced avian mortality: sensory, aerodynamic and cognitive constraints and options. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 42: 170–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.002

McCunney R.J., Mundt K.A., Colby W.D., Dobie R., Kaliski K. and Blais M. (2014). Wind turbines and health — a critical review of the scientific literature. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 56(11): 108–130.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000313

Meyer B. (2012). Externe Kosten der Atomenergie und Reformvorschlage zum Atomhaftungsrecht. Study Conducted by Green Budget Germany on Behalf of Greenpeace Energy EG and German Wind Energy Association BWE e.V. Accessed February 23, 2017 www.foes.de/pdf/2012-09-Externe_Kosten_Atomenergie.pdf

Meyerhoff J., Ohl C. and Hartje V. (2010). Landscape externalities from onshore wind power. Energy Policy 38: 82–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.08.055

Nagl S., Fürsch M. and Lindenberger D. (2013). The costs of electricity systems with a high share of fluctuating renewables: a stochastic investment and dispatch optimization model for Europe. The Energy Journal 34(4): 151–179. http://dx.doi.org/10.5547/01956574.34.4.8

Novan K. (2013). Valuing the wind. Renewable energy policies and air pollution avoided. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 7(3): 291–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/pol.20130268

Onakpoya I.J., O’Sullivan J., Thompson M.J. and Heneghan C.J. (2015). The effect of wind turbine noise on sleep and quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Environment International 82: 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2015.04.014

Pasqualetti M.J. (2000). Morality, space, and the power of wind-energy landscapes. Geographical Review 90(3): 381–394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1931-0846.2000.tb00343.x

Rabl A. and Rabl V.A. (2013). External costs of nuclear: greater or less than the alternatives? Energy Policy 57: 575 – 584. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.02.028

Roe G.H. and Baker M.B. (2007). Why is climate sensitivity so unpredictable? Science 318: 629–632. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1144735

Roques F.A. (2008). Market design for generation adequacy: healing causes rather than symptoms. Utilities Policy 16(3): 171–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2008.01.008

Schmidt J.H. and Klokker M. (2014). Health effects related to wind turbine noise exposure: a systematic review. PLOS ONE 9(12): e112183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114183

Schill W.-P., Pahle M. and Gambardella C. (2017), Start-up costs of thermal power plants in markets with increasing shares of variable renewable generation. Nature Energy 2: 17050. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2017.50

Schill W.-P. and Diekmann J. (2014). Die Kontroverse um Kapazitätsmechanismen für den deutschen Strommarkt. DIW Roundup 5. http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.435670.de/diw_roundup_5_de.pdf

Scholz Y., Gils H.C. and Pietzcker R. (2016). Application of a high-detail energy system model to derive power sector characteristics at high wind and solar shares. Energy Economics (in press). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.06.021

Schuster E., Bulling L. and Köppel J. (2015). Consolidating the state of knowledge: a synoptical review of wind energy's wildlife effects. Environmental Management 56: 300–331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0501-5

Shepherd D., McBride D., Dirks K.N. and Welch D. (2014). Annoyance and health-related quality of life: a cross-sectional study involving two noise sources. Journal of Environmental Protection 5: 400–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jep.2014.55043

Sijm J.P. (2014). Cost and revenue related impacts of integrating electricity from variable renewable energy into the power system — a review of the recent literature. ECN-E 14-022 2014. ftp://ftp.ecn.nl/pub/www/library/report/2014/e14022.pdf

Soon J.-J. and Ahmad S.-A. (2015). Willingly or grudgingly? A meta-analysis on the willingness-to-pay for renewable energy use. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 44: 877–887. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.041

Stern N. (2013). The structure of economic models of the potential impacts of climate change: grafting gross underestimation of risk onto already narrow science models. Journal of Economic Literature 51(3): 838–859. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jel.51.3.838

Stern N. (2014a). Ethics, equity and the economics of climate change — paper 1: science and philosophy. Economics and Philosophy 30: 397–444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266267114000297

Stern N. (2014b). Ethics, equity and the economics of climate change — paper 2: economic and politics. Economics and Philosophy 30: 334–501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266267114000303

Sundt S. and Rehdanz K. (2015). Consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity: a meta-analysis of the literature. Energy Economics 51: 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.06.005

Tol R.S. (2009). The economic effects of climate change. Journal of Economic Perspectives 23(2): 29-51. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.23.2.29

Tugcu C.T., Ozturk I. and Aslan A. (2012). Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and economic growth relationship revisited: evidence from G7 countries. Energy Economics 34(6): 1942–1950.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2012.08.021

UBA (2014). Emissionsbilanz erneuerbarer Energieträger. Umweltbundesamt (UBA), Climate Change 29/2014. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/378/publikationen/climate_change_29_2014_schrempf_komplett_10.11.2014_0.pdf

UBA (2017). Netto-Bilanz der vermiedenen Treibhausgas-Emissionen durch die Nutzung erneuerbarer Energien im Jahr 2015. Umweltbundesamt (UBA). https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/384/bilder/dateien/2_abb_netto-bilanz-vermied-thg-emi_2017-03-27.pdf

Ueckerdt F., Hirth L., Luderer G. and Edenhofer O. (2013). System LCOE: what are the costs of variable renewables? Energy 63: 61–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.10.072

Van den Bergh J.C. and Botzen W. (2014). A lower bound to the social cost of CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Change 4: 253–258. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n4/full/nclimate2135.html

Van Rensburg T.M., Kelley H. and Jeserich N. (2015). What influences the probability of wind farm planning approval: evidence from Ireland. Ecological Economics 111: 12–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.12.012

Van Renterghem T., Bockstael A., De Weirt V. and Botteldooren D. (2013). Annoyance, detection and recognition of wind turbine noise. Science of the Total Environment 456-457: 333–345.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.03.095

Voigt C.C., Lehnert L.S., Petersons G., Adorf F. and Bach L. (2015). Wildlife and renewable energy: German politics cross migratory bats. European Journal of Wildlife Research 61(2): 213–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10344-015-0903-y

Wang S., Wang S. and Smith P. (2015). Ecological impacts of wind farms on birds: questions, hypotheses, and research needs. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 44: 599–607. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.031

Wei M, Patadia S. and Kammen D.M. (2010). Putting renewables and energy efficiency to work: how many jobs can the clean energy industry generate in the US? Energy Policy 38(2): 919 – 931.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.10.044

Weitzman M.L. (2009). On modeling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic climate change. Review of Economics and Statistics 91: 1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/rest.91.1.1

Weitzman M.L. (2014). Fat tails and the social cost of carbon. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings 104(5): 544–546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.5.544

Wheatley J. (2013). Quantifying CO2 savings from wind power. Energy Policy 63: 89–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.123

Wheeler R. (2016). Place identity: exploring residents' attitudes to existing sites. Sociologia Ruralis. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/soru.12121

Wilson G.A. and Dyke S.L. (2016). Pre- and post-installation community perceptions of wind farm projects: the case of Roskow Barton (Cornwall, UK). Land Use Policy 52: 287–296

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.008

Wiser R., Bolinger M., Heath G., Keyser D., Lantz E., Macknick J., Mai T., and Millstein D. (2016). Long-term implications of sustained wind power growth in the United States: potential benefits and secondary impacts. Applied Energy 179: 146 – 158. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.123

Wolsink M. (2007). Planning of renewable schemes: deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusation of non-cooperation. Energy Policy 35: 2692–2704.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.002

Wolsink M. (2012). Undesired reinforcement of harmful ‘self-evident truths' concerning the implementation of wind power. Energy Policy 48: 83–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.06.010

Zerrahn A. and Schill W.-P. (2015). A greenfield model to evaluate long-run power storage requirements for high shares of renewables. DIW Discussion Paper 1457.

www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.498475.de/dp1457.pdf