Centre for Responsible Banking and Financehttps://hdl.handle.net/10023/19492024-03-28T19:41:41Z2024-03-28T19:41:41ZFirm type, feed-in tariff, and wind energy investment in Germany : An investigation of decision making factors of energy producers regarding investing in wind energy capacityWerner, LoneScholtens, Lambertus Johannes Regnerushttps://hdl.handle.net/10023/138702023-04-25T23:47:20Z2017-04-19T00:00:00ZThe development of renewable and sustainable energy is advanced by public financial support. Particularly so in the German Energiewende, which seeks to replace nuclear and fossil electricity generation with wind, sun, and biomass. We study the impact of the (changes in the) feed-in tariff policy on the investment in wind electricity generation capacity in Germany in the period 2000-2014. We estimate a generic investment model which includes this support mechanism, the cost of capital, investment risks like wind and price volatility, and manufacturing costs. We discuss specific features for different types of wind energy investors, such as the incumbents, small private investors, diversified companies, and independent power producers. We find that a change in the feed-in tariff has a negative impact on investment capacity regarding the generation of wind energy: a one monetary unit increase in the variation of the tariff is to be associated with a decrease by 0.17 MW wind capacity installed. We argue it is policy uncertainty that makes investors shy away from making real investments. We also argue that the drivers for wind energy investment can differ along different types of firms. For the traditional power producers, especially electricity price volatility, construction costs, and carbon prices seem to matter. But for the other investor types, the feed-in tariff is crucial indeed.
2017-04-19T00:00:00ZWerner, LoneScholtens, Lambertus Johannes RegnerusThe development of renewable and sustainable energy is advanced by public financial support. Particularly so in the German Energiewende, which seeks to replace nuclear and fossil electricity generation with wind, sun, and biomass. We study the impact of the (changes in the) feed-in tariff policy on the investment in wind electricity generation capacity in Germany in the period 2000-2014. We estimate a generic investment model which includes this support mechanism, the cost of capital, investment risks like wind and price volatility, and manufacturing costs. We discuss specific features for different types of wind energy investors, such as the incumbents, small private investors, diversified companies, and independent power producers. We find that a change in the feed-in tariff has a negative impact on investment capacity regarding the generation of wind energy: a one monetary unit increase in the variation of the tariff is to be associated with a decrease by 0.17 MW wind capacity installed. We argue it is policy uncertainty that makes investors shy away from making real investments. We also argue that the drivers for wind energy investment can differ along different types of firms. For the traditional power producers, especially electricity price volatility, construction costs, and carbon prices seem to matter. But for the other investor types, the feed-in tariff is crucial indeed.A plant-level analysis of the spill-over effects of the German EnergiewendeMulder, MachielScholtens, Berthttps://hdl.handle.net/10023/117702023-04-25T23:46:46Z2016-12-01T00:00:00ZIn order to analyse international effects of national energy policies, we investigate the spill-over effects of the German Energiewende on the Dutch power market, which is closely connected to the German market. We estimate the impact of the German supply of wind and solar electricity on the Dutch day-ahead price of electricity and the utilisation of the conventional power plants. We take cross-border capacity constraints into account and use hourly plant-level data over 2006–2014. We find that the price elasticity of German wind on Dutch day-ahead prices is −0.03. However, this effect vanishes when the cross-border capacity is fully utilised. We find a modest negative impact on the utilisation of the Dutch power plants. As such, we conclude that the German Energiewende has had modest spill-over effects to the Dutch market. The recent dramatic performance of the Dutch gas-fired plants can be attributed to the changes in the relative prices of coal versus natural gas. We conclude that national energy policies in one country do not necessarily strongly affect neighbouring markets in case of constrained cross-border capacities.
2016-12-01T00:00:00ZMulder, MachielScholtens, BertIn order to analyse international effects of national energy policies, we investigate the spill-over effects of the German Energiewende on the Dutch power market, which is closely connected to the German market. We estimate the impact of the German supply of wind and solar electricity on the Dutch day-ahead price of electricity and the utilisation of the conventional power plants. We take cross-border capacity constraints into account and use hourly plant-level data over 2006–2014. We find that the price elasticity of German wind on Dutch day-ahead prices is −0.03. However, this effect vanishes when the cross-border capacity is fully utilised. We find a modest negative impact on the utilisation of the Dutch power plants. As such, we conclude that the German Energiewende has had modest spill-over effects to the Dutch market. The recent dramatic performance of the Dutch gas-fired plants can be attributed to the changes in the relative prices of coal versus natural gas. We conclude that national energy policies in one country do not necessarily strongly affect neighbouring markets in case of constrained cross-border capacities.Less cognitive conflict does not imply choice of the default option : Commentary on Kieslich and Hilbig (2014)Myrseth, Kristian OveWollbrant, Connyhttps://hdl.handle.net/10023/67882022-09-25T11:30:13Z2015-05-01T00:00:00ZKieslich and Hilbig (2014) employ a mouse-tracking technique to measure decision conflict in social dilemmas. They report that defectors exhibit more conflict than do cooperators. They infer that cooperation thus is the reflexive, default behavior. We argue, however, that their analysis fails to discriminate between reflexive versus cognitively controlled behavioral responses. This is because cognitive conflict can emanate from resisting impulse successfully—or unsuccessfully.
2015-05-01T00:00:00ZMyrseth, Kristian OveWollbrant, ConnyKieslich and Hilbig (2014) employ a mouse-tracking technique to measure decision conflict in social dilemmas. They report that defectors exhibit more conflict than do cooperators. They infer that cooperation thus is the reflexive, default behavior. We argue, however, that their analysis fails to discriminate between reflexive versus cognitively controlled behavioral responses. This is because cognitive conflict can emanate from resisting impulse successfully—or unsuccessfully.