Benchmarking study CRPM · Part 4 of this Report provides a SWOT analysis, based on the information...
Transcript of Benchmarking study CRPM · Part 4 of this Report provides a SWOT analysis, based on the information...
1
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 2
Contents
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1. Scope of the study ............................................................................................................................. 3
1.2. Purpose and structure of this report ................................................................................................. 4
2. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1. Data sources and assumptions .......................................................................................................... 5
2.2. Overview of questionnaire topics ..................................................................................................... 5
3. MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY IN THE APC REGIONS ................................................................................ 5
3.1. Diagnosis of Regional Competences, Expertise and Strategies ......................................................... 5
3.1.1. Technology ................................................................................................................................ 5
3.1.2. Grid .......................................................................................................................................... 10
3.1.3. Finance ..................................................................................................................................... 11
3.1.4. Consents and permit process .................................................................................................. 13
3.1.5. Stakeholder Interactions ......................................................................................................... 15
3.2. Benchmarking Study on the MRE in Partner Regions ..................................................................... 15
3.3. Prospective and Long-term Strategies ............................................................................................ 19
4. ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................................. 27
5. MAIN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 27
ANNEXES .......................................................................................................................................................... 31
Annex A: Study Questionnaire ........................................................................................................................ 31
A. General Presentation ............................................................................................................................... 31
B. Diagnosis of regional competences, expertise and strategies ................................................................ 32
C. Benchmarking study on the MRE in partner Regions .............................................................................. 34
D. Prospective and long-term strategies ..................................................................................................... 36
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 3
ABSTRACT
This abstract summarises the content of the Report without going into too much detail. The scope of the
study, as well as the purpose and structure of the report, will be detailed in the introduction. Another part
is dedicated to the methodology used to draft this report (data sources and assumptions, overview of
questionnaire topics).
Part 3 of the Report deals with Marine Renewable Energy (MRE) in the APC partner regions. It is the most
developed part of the questionnaire, detailing regional competences, technological development
capabilities, manufacturing capabilities, grid connection and availability, finance (investors, companies and
research centres), incentive and funding, consents and the permit process as well as stakeholders’
interactions, with a list of the main players in the MRE field within the partner regions included in Annexes.
The sub-part 3.2 of the Report is the so called “Benchmarking Study on the MRE in Partner Regions”. This
part of the questionnaire (cf. Annex A) covers a large number of questions related to four sub-topics:
studies and strategies, MRE dedicated services in regional authorities, staff and budget, principal regional
partners and stakeholders, special interest and barriers. This part is the most developed within this general
Report.
Part 4 of this Report provides a SWOT analysis, based on the information available from the questionnaires.
The common starting point for this analysis is the abundance of similar natural resources for the installation
of Marine Renewable Energy in the partner Regions. However, the technology and benefits are still to be
proven for some technologies, so as to be accepted by different stakeholders and the public in general.
The last chapter of the questionnaire summarises the main findings and provides some conclusions to the
Report. Indeed, the study has been drafted on the basis of a considerable amount of information relating to
the current state of play and prospects of MRE in partner regions. Even if the Report cannot be considered
as exhaustive (based on 12 questionnaires), it has allowed a number of findings and conclusions enabling us
to draw up a general picture as to where the Atlantic Regions are now in terms of MRE. These points should
enable the APC partners to better define where they want to be in the near future, as well as to promote
cooperation among complementary regions.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Scope of the study
The Atlantic Power Cluster seeks to exploit the renewable energy potential of the marine and coastal
environment of the participating regions. The APC regions span the Atlantic coastline including regions
from the UK, Ireland, France, Spain and Portugal. They are represented by 16 partner organisations, some
of which are regional authorities and some research or technical centres, as shown in Fig. 1 and table,
below.
The project is supported by the Atlantic Area Operational Programme 2007 – 2013. It started in February
2012 and will run for 24 months. One of its activities is the Regional study on marine renewable energies
(MRE), conducted within the “Work Package 2”. The study addresses the present situation in the partner
regions from a strategic and political point of view. Understanding where the regions are now will enable
them to better define where they want to be in the future.
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 4
This study was put together by the Conference of Peripheral and Maritime Regions Atlantic Arc Commission
‘AAC)1 with data provided by the other APC partners through a detailed questionnaire and other
information coming from exchanges and meeting with experts. As a transnational body of regional
authorities located along the Atlantic sea shore, the Atlantic Arc Commission has been able to mobilize
Atlantic regional experts, especially through a technical working group on Marine energy gathering experts
from the 24 member Regions of the CPMR Atlantic Arc Commission.
1.2. Purpose and structure of this report
The present report presents and analyses the findings of the study, together with a synthesis of the main
findings and conclusions.
Section 2 outlines the methodology of the study. It is followed by the main part of the report (section 3 –
MRE in the APC regions) which follows closely the structure of the questionnaire used by the study (see
below).
Section 4 provides a SWOT analysis for the whole of the cluster and is followed by the closing section 5
with the main findings and conclusions.
Fig. 1: Map of Partners
NB: Partner number 17, Regen SW UK, has withdrawn from the project and had been replaced by Plymouth
University after the study was launched.
1 CPMR Atlantic Arc Commission’s website : www.arcatlantique.org
Partner Organisation Partner Region
1 SODERCAN Cantabria (ES)
2 FUAC –Foundation University of La Coruña, ES
Galicia (ES)
4 Bretagne Development Innovation, FR Bretagne (FR)
5 FAEN –Asturias Energy Agency, ES Asturias (ES)
16 CIEMAT – Spanish Environment Energy Research Centre, ES
Spain (info provided on Asturias Region) (ES)
6 Regional Council of Basse-Normandie, FR
Basse-Normandie (FR)
8 CIT – Cork Institute of Technology, IE Ireland (IE incl. N Ireland, UK) 3 Galway County Council, IE
9 EVE – Basque Government Energy Agency, ES
Basque Country (ES)
10 Wave Energy Centre, PT Portugal (North, Centre, Lisbon &
Azores) 11 INEGI, PT
12 SEGEC – Scottish European Green Energy Centre, UK
Scotland (UK)
13 Pôle des Eco-Industries de Poitou –Charentes, FR
Poitou –Charentes (FR)
14 Société Publique Régionale des Pays de la Loire, FR
Pays de la Loire (FR)
15 Regional Council of Aquitaine, FR Aquitaine (FR)
7 CPMR –Atlantic Arc Commission, FR (Study coordination)
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 5
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1. Data sources and assumptions
The data requested for this study was provided in July and August 2012 through a questionnaire sent out by
CPMR Atlantic Arc Commission to the other partner regions. The reference date for the information
provided was June 2012.
Thirteen responses (completed questionnaires) each covering one region, were received, two of which are
treated as joint responses (Portugal and Ireland) as shown in the table above. Partner 16, CIEMAT, the
Spanish Environment Energy Research Centre sent a response with answers related to the situation in
Asturias. Consequently, this answer was jointly treated with Partner 5, FAEN, from Asturias Region.
Consequently, the analysis provided below is based on data relating to 12 geographical Atlantic regions:
Portuguese Regions (North, Centre, Lisbon & Azores), Irish Regions (including Northern Ireland, UK),
Scotland, Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, Basque Country, Aquitaine, Poitou-Charentes, Pays de la Loire,
Brittany and Lower Normandy.
The data was analysed and provided the basis for a draft report which was circulated to all partners the 17th
January 2013. Some of the partners provided supplementary information in the form of revised
questionnaires and/or suggested additions or additions to the draft report.
The present report has taken into account all such contributions.
2.2. Overview of questionnaire topics
The following topics were covered through a total of 44 questions in the questionnaire:
� Diagnosis of Regional Competences, Expertise and Strategies - What are the competencies of the
partner Regions in the area of MRE?
o Technology
o Grid
o Finance
o Consents
o Stakeholder Interactions
� Benchmarking Study on the MRE in Partner Regions - Where are the Regions today?
� Prospective and Long-term Strategies - Where do Regions want to be in 10 or 20 years time?
The questionnaire can be found in Annex A. Summary tables for each of the topics covered by the
questionnaire are presented in Annex B.
3. MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY IN THE APC REGIONS
3.1. Diagnosis of Regional Competences, Expertise and Strategies
3.1.1. Technology
Technology is the first topic under the rubric of regional competences, expertise and strategy and covers
three sub-topics: regional marine renewable energy, technological development capabilities and
manufacturing capabilities.
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 6
Regional Marine Renewable Capacity
The first sub-topic concerns the regional marine renewable capacity, which is either already installed or in
the pipeline (Q1.1/2). As illustrated in Fig 2, below, nearly half of the responding regions do not have any
such capacity installed at present. Of the five regions lacking installed capacity, three (Asturias, Pays de la
Loire and Basse-Normandie) have indicated that there are projects in the pipeline to install such capacity.
The two regions which have not reported any such plans are Galicia and Poitou-Charentes.
Fig. 2: Regional Marine Renewable Capacity
The types of installed or envisaged capacity are predominantly offshore wind and wave energy, with nearly
half of the regions also having installed or planned capacity in tidal current energy (see Fig 3).
Fig 3: Types of Marine Renewable Capacity
The size of installed or envisaged capacity varies considerably between regions:
• The smallest installed wind capacity is 2MW (in Portugal) and the largest 190MW (in Scotland).
There are projects for new capacities in six regions, ranging from 27MW (in Portugal) to 10,000MW
(in Scotland).
7
5 Regions with installedcapacity
Regions without anyinstalled capacity
4
5
5
1
3
4
Current
Wave
Wind
Installed In the pipeline
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 7
• The smallest installed wave capacity is 0.05MW (in Cantabria) and the largest is 2.8MW (in
Scotland). No new capacity is envisaged in Portugal (0.3MW already installed), but new capacities
envisaged can go up to 690MW (in Scotland).
• The smallest installed tidal stream capacity is 1.2MW (in Ireland) and the largest 3MW (in
Scotland). There projects in the pipeline in two regions with a capacity of 400MW (in Bretagne) and
1,052MW (in Scotland).
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 8
Technological development capabilities
The second sub-topic covers a number of aspects regarding the technological development capabilities of
the regions (Q1.3/4/5/6 & 8). Ten of the responding partners have reported that there are test centres of
various types and characteristics and that additional such facilities are envisaged, as illustrated in Fig. 4,
below. A typical example is the range of facilities mentioned in the response of the Pays de la Loire:
• Indoor:
o Hydrodynamics and Ocean Engineering Tank (École Centrale de Nantes)
o Towing Tank (École Centrale de Nantes)
o Climatic wind tunnel of the CSTB (Scientific and Technical Centre of the Building Industry)
o Full scale tidal energy generator test rig (Alstom)
• Outdoor
o SEM-REV: marine test site for wave energy and floating wind turbines
o Onshore test site to test the 1st Alstom 6 MW offshore wind turbine prototype”.
A separate report on test facility capabilities has been completed under the sixth work package, deliverable
6.2.
Fig. 4: Regions with Test Centres
The respondents have also indicated that in practically all regions there are active technology developers,
as well as structured links between academia and industry for innovation (see Fig 5, below). There are
various types of academia/industry links, including clusters (in several regions), science and technology
parks (e.g. Cantabria), business/academia fora (e.g. the Basque Maritime Forum which brings together
companies, associations, banks, research centres and universities ), as well as project specific partnerships
(several examples have been mentioned in the response of the Pays de la Loire, including “Hydrol44,
partnership between IREENA, École Centrale de Nantes, LASQUO, Alstom Hydro that aims at developing a
prototype of tidal energy generator”).
3
7
7
9
9
1
1
1
Other
Wind tunnel
Wave tank
Outdoor
Indoor
Existing Envisaged
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 9
Fig. 5: Regions with Links between Academia and Industry
All responses mentioned at least one organisation as the main technology developer in the region (DCNS
MRE incubator in Bretagne and Eco.cinetic in Poitou-Charentes), with Cantabria and Scotland reporting
much larger numbers (13 and 26, respectively). The types of organisations include utilities, manufacturing
and specialist enterprises (based in the region or outside but working in the region), as well as
universities/research centres.
The questionnaire also included a question regarding the involvement of the regions in the development of
standards. Four regions have indicated such an involvement, typically through a national-level or regional-
level body located in the respective region (France Energies Marines in Bretagne and Aquitaine, EMEC in
Scotland, Tecnalia in the Basque Country and IPQ in Portugal). There are also some regions also
contributing to the International Electrotechnical Commission Technical Committee 114 (IEC TC114) marine
energy standards.
Manufacturing capabilities
The third sub-topic concerns the manufacturing capabilities of the regions (Q1.7) and has attracted a
consistent response across the board indicating that relevant capabilities are available in abundance. It is
illustrated in Basse-Normandie’s response: “a complete supply chain for MRE”.
In most cases the relevant manufacturing sectors and sub-sectors that are present in the region (and the
industrial traditions of the region) have been outlined briefly. In two cases additional information has been
included: the total number of enterprises and jobs per sector for the Pays de la Loire and information on
individual enterprises for Scotland.
Overall, shipbuilding and port activities represent a common denominator. Other more specific sectoral
capabilities are illustrated in the example of Cantabria’s response which refers to: “Mechanical
manufacturing / machining of large parts (Hubs, main shafts, bearing housings, main frames …); Software
development (SCADAs, TCM…); Submarine robotics; Wind Generators (direct drive, permanent magnet,
double fed); Electromechanical components; Electronic integrators”.
10
2
With links
Without links
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 10
3.1.2. Grid
A specific topic in the questionnaire has been devoted to the coastal grid connection; its availability, state
of development and capacity (Q2.1).
A majority of answers, 5 out of 12 categorised the availability of the coastal grid connection as “bad”. On
the opposite, 4 out of 12 partner regions reported a “good or sufficient” coastal grid connection, presenting
a mixed picture of grid availability as shown in Fig. 6, below. Some of the responses have elaborated their
assessment, explaining the nature of bottlenecks or shortcomings.
For instance, the situation in Portugal has been described as “Bad availability of connections but very good
grid along the coast”. As for Spain, FUAC (Galicia region) report that generally the availability of the coastal
grid connection is good. The matter is if there is a substation at the specific point, near the MRE
deployment.
Fig. 6: Coastal Grid Connection Availability
By contrast, all nine responses have indicated that significant improvements are under development. Most
of them have provided detailed descriptions of the state of play, including in most cases data on the
capacity of the connection(s) – both actual and envisaged. These descriptions are not standardised to allow
their distillation in this report. An example is provided below from Aquitaine:
• “The current state of the coastal grid connection would not be capable of storing and distributing a
large amount of electricity produced from marine energy sources”.
• More precisely, HTB1 connection would be sufficient (50MW per farm) but HTB2 (250MW per
farm) and HTB3 (>250MW per farm) would not.
• However, there are under development a RTE plan and the S3ENR (Renewable energies grid
connection plan). The last does not include the development of MRE, but could be revised if
needed”.
4
5
3
Good/sufficient
Bad/constrained
No reply or to beconfirmed
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 11
3.1.3. Finance
A further topic concerns financial aspects in terms of incentives and funding for renewable energy, and
investors, companies and research centres active in MRE in the regions.
Investors, companies and research centres
On the sub-topic of investors in the MRE sector, and enterprises and research centres and their budgetary
focus on MRE (Q3.1/4/5), there is a largely consistent pattern throughout the partner regions.
Eleven out of the twelve partner regions have reported various investors active in MRE in their region. In
the case of Poitou-Charentes, although there is no project at an advanced state, there are existing public
and private investors in the renewable energies field. Fig 7 shows that the main investors tend to come
from both the public sector and the private sector (investment companies, utilities or other enterprises).
Fig. 7: Main investors in MRE by sector
Large numbers of investors from both the public and private sectors have been reported by some regions,
notably, Scotland, Pays de la Loire, Bretagne and Cantabria. For example, Cantabria’s response has
mentioned: “Sodercan (Public), Cantabria Government (InverCantabria Investments Plan), Spanish
Government, Iberdrola Renovables, EON Renovables, European Union (R&D Programmes), IDERMAR”.
Similarly, there are enterprises active in marine energy related projects in practically all the partner regions,
and research centres in nine regions. Typically, several enterprises and research centres are active (see Fig
8, below). For instance, Companies: A. Silva Matos, EDP, ENP, Kymaner, Sea for Life, Generg, Eneólica; and
Research Centres: CENTEC, IDMEC, INEGI, MARETEC, WavEC, in the case of Portugal. Similarly, in Pays de la
Loire there are active enterprises (Alstom Wind, Alstom Hydro, STX, DCNS, Rollix) and research
establishments (Ecole Centrale de Nantes, The Jules Verne Technological Research Institute).
Moreover, in all cases, these enterprises or research centres have specific budgets dedicated to the
development of MRE.
10
1
Public & privatesectors
Private sector only
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 12
Fig. 8: Number of Enterprises and Research Centres active in MRE in Partner Regions
Incentives and funding
On the sub-topic of incentives and funding for MRE (Q3.2/3) practically all partner regions currently offer
some incentives. However, there is no clear pattern, with the exception of feed-in tariffs and other market
pull mechanisms (such as the Renewable Obligation Certificates, ROCs) which are available in eight regions,
as a national level measure. Other types of incentives reported as being in use are at national and/or
regional level but quite diverse and have been mentioned specifically by small numbers of respondents (see
below in brackets). They can be summarised, as follows:
• R&D / innovation / demonstration funding (Cantabria, Galicia, Asturias, Bretagne, Pays de la Loire,
Aquitaine and Ireland).
• Investment tax reductions or grants (Ireland, Basque Country, Pays de la Loire and Scotland).
• Various grants to pilot plants, test centres, construction of prototypes, feasibility studies (Asturias,
Basque Country, Pays de la Loire and Poitou-Charentes).
• Job creation, enterprise creation, and similar economic development schemes (Bretagne, Pays de la
Loire and Asturias).
Similarly, there is a large majority with projects bidding for EU funding, but in this instance, a much clearer
pattern can be discerned. As shown in Fig 9, funding has been sought mainly from FP7 Energy (with five
partner regions mentioning the MARINET project – Bretagne, Pays de la Loire, Ireland, Basque Country,
Scotland) and less so from NER 300, Energy Intelligent Europe and national funding calls. Nevertheless,
French partner regions have stressed that “from a French point of view, national funding calls are the main
source of public financing”. Other less common sources used included European Regional Development
Fund (ERDF) (eg. In Galicia, a project called ENERGY-MARE, in financed by ERDF) Life+/Interreg (other than
APC), DG Mare calls for proposals (European Marine and Fisheries Fund), regional funding calls (e.g. in
Cantabria) and various small-scale demonstration etc schemes (e.g. in Scotland).
3
4
5
1
5
6
0 research centres
1-3 research centres
4+ research centres
0 companies
1-5 companies
6+ companies
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 13
Fig. 9: Regions with projects bidding for EU funding
3.1.4. Consents and permit process
Another topic of the questionnaire refers to consents, covering the permit process to implement MRE in
the coastal zone and related issues.
Regional role in the permit process
The first sub-topic is focused on whether the region has adopted such a process, the amount of time the
process takes and the availability of baseline surveys (Q4.1/2/3).
Most regions have not adopted such a process (see Fig 10, below). The responses of the four regions which
have stated that a regional process has been adopted indicate that this tends to be a national process. In
some cases it is described as a “national procedure” (Bretagne, Aquitaine and all the French Regions) which
includes a “regional consultation” (Pays de la Loire). In the case of Scotland, it is largely devolved by the UK
Government to the Scottish Government, whilst in Portugal the consent procedure applies specifically to
the Portuguese Pilot Zone.
Only four regions have provided indications of the amount of time required for the permit process and
these are based on diverse experiences from which it is difficult to generalise. Cantabria’s estimate is 6
years and this is supported by a specific experience described in the Basque Country’s response, where the
process started in 2008 and has not yet been completed. In Scotland, there is a target of 9 months and a
particular case has been mentioned where this target has been met. It is worth noting that the 9 months is
the time for processing the application not the collection of data.
The questionnaire also covered the availability of baseline surveys regarding the permit process. As shown
in Fig. 11, such surveys have been reported as being available in a relatively small number of regions.
3
6
4
9
6
Other
National funding calls
Life+ & Interreg
FP7 Energy
NER 300
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 14
Fig. 10: Regions with permit process Fig. 11: Regions with baseline surveys
Most of these responses have provided a very brief reference, e.g. “bathymetric and profiling” (in Scotland)
and surveys “to identify and qualify potential offshore wind energy areas” (in the Pays de la Loire). In the
case of Portugal a fuller description has been provided for different areas, as follows:
• “Pilot Zone: Bathymetry and seabed morphology, Water circulation pattern (currents, wave
climate, tides and oceanography), Meteorology, Water quality, Sediments quality, Sediments
coverage mapping, Sediments transport and dynamics and Sea birds and marine mammals (one
campaign in June 2011).
• Peniche: Bathymetry, seismic profiling, sediment cover and type, beach morphology and sediment
dynamics.
• Aguçadoura:
o Benthos: analysis of communities structure and composition
o Fish: analysis of populations’ structure and composition
o Marine mammals: analysis of species composition and distribution.”
Similarly, the description provided by Asturias is indicative of the range of baseline surveys:
• Wave energy resources.
• Distance to the coast.
• Accessibility of grid.
• Distance to ports.
• Density of fishing.
• Environmental sustainability relative to adjacent coastal area.
• Environmental sustainability relative to adjacent marine area.
• Cultural Heritage.
• Access to the electricity grid in the coastal.
• Exploitation of marine living resources.
• Spatial Planning Constraints.
• Infrastructures present at the coast.
Constraints on the installation of MRE
4
8
Withregionalpermitprocess
Withoutregionalpermitprocess
6
3
3Surveysavailable
Surveys notavailable
No response
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 15
This sub-topic covers environmental, legal and other constraints on the installation of MRE of relevance to
the consent process (Q4.4).
A wide range of constraints have been reported, as illustrated in Fig 12 below, with environmental
constraints by far the most common. Legal constraints have been mentioned by nearly half the
respondents. “Other constraints” fall into the following categories:
• Competition with fisheries and aquaculture.
• Conflicts with port activities, navigation, shipping lanes.
• Conflicts with heritage/historic interest, tourism, recreational activities, etc.
• Lack of grid connectivity and associated financial constraints.
• National defence considerations.
Fig. 12: Constraints on the installation of MRE
3.1.5. Stakeholder Interactions
A list of Stakeholders in each partner Regions is enclosed in the Annexe C of this report. This list, classified
by Member State, Region and type of stakeholder will be useful for other partners so as to detail the
stakeholder interactions in the Atlantic Area, maybe through an interactive map.
This aspect will be further developed under WP6 of APC project “Defining a marine energy cluster for the
Atlantic”.
3.2. Benchmarking Study on the MRE in Partner Regions
The benchmarking topic of the questionnaire covered a large number of questions coming under four sub-
topics: studies and strategies; dedicated service, staff and budget; partners and stakeholders; special
interest and barriers.
2
3
2
5
6
5
9
Heritage, recreation, etc
National defence
Grid connectivity
Port activities, navigation
Fisheries and aquaculture
Legal
Environmental
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 16
Studies and strategies
The first sub-topic concerned the specific studies and strategies on MRE at regional level (Q6.1 /2).
As illustrated in Chart 13, below, there are studies on marine energy in practically all regions. For some
regions, the respondents mentioned several such studies, as in the case of Cantabria and Pays de la Loire (4
studies), Bretagne (3) and the Basque Country (“Catalogue of Offshore Wind Energy in the Basque
Country”, “Guide to wave power capacity in the Basque Country”, “An Atlas on Wave’s Energy”). Asturias
reported a large number of carried out either for the whole coast ("Atlas of wave energy in Asturias",
Industrial capabilities for offshore renewable energies in Asturias, Infrastructure study for the offshore
renewable energy in Asturias, draft Catalogue of marine energy in Asturias) or for some zones of the coast
(Study of the morphological and sedimentary characteristics of the inner continental shelf, Campaigns of
bathymetry and bottom imaging, Geophysical study: seismic reflection, Background sedimentological
studies, Geological and Environmental, Geotechnical study, Technical and economic analysis of the
electrical connection, Plan and business viability, Study of marine currents, Analysis of the
telecommunications systems to control marine stations).
Much fewer regions have adopted a specific regional strategy for the development of MRE (7 including the
Basque Country where it was a draft strategy at the time of the submission of the questionnaire (see Chart
14). These strategies have been adopted fairly recently (since 2010) and more of the regions are in the
process of developing such a strategy, for example, Aquitaine where prospective studies and research have
been carried out.
Fig. 13: Regions with Marine Energy Studies Fig.14: Regions with MRE Development Strategy
Dedicated service, staff and budget
The second sub-topic concerned the number of people who work on the development of MRE within the
Regional Administration and the existence or otherwise of a specific service for this purpose (Q6.4). It also
covered the possibility of a specific regional budget dedicated to the development of the MRE sector
(Q6.3).
Seven of the responding regions have reported that such a dedicated service exists (see Chart 15) and that
the number of people who work in that service typically ranges from 2 to 6. In Scotland a higher level of
staff is dedicated to MRE (estimated at some 30 full-time equivalent) within two services which have a
broader remit than renewable energy.
11
1 With existingstudies
Withoutexistingstudies
7
5
With specificregionalstrategy
Withoutspecificregionalstrategy
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 17
Fig. 15: MRE Service within the Regional Administration
Only four of the responding regions have indicated that there is a dedicated budget for the development of
the MRE sector. In the case of Basse-Normandie it is reported as €1M whilst for Cantabria and the Basque
Country the budget is set at €200M but with a multi-annual horizon to 2020. Pays de la Loire has reported a
€130M budget by 2020.
Partners and stakeholders
The third sub-topic relates to different types of organisation that work in this field and cooperate with the
region (Q6.5/6/7).
There is a wide range of such partners and stakeholders in practically all regions. Regarding other public or
semi-public organisations, respondents have mentioned from one to six or more organisations. For
instance, Bretagne’s response mentions Bretagne Développement Innovation, France Energies Marines,
Chambers of Commerce and Industry (4), Bretagne Pôle Naval, Pôle Mer Bretagne.
Similarly, in all cases the regions are reported as working closely with the private sector, often through
development, innovation or investment agencies, as well as through direct cooperation and support to a
technology developer. Other “models” have also been mentioned and are worth noting, e.g. clusters (wind
turbines) in Aquitaine and professional networks or organizations such as Pôle des Eco-Industries and
Grand Port Maritime de La Rochelle in Poitou-Charentes.
Business is also the largest category of “privileged discussion partners” active in all nine of the responding
regions. The other categories are civil society and other levels of governance. Environmental groups,
fishermen associations, technical bodies and research centres have been mentioned frequently under
different categories (see Chart 16 below). The response of Pays de la Loire was the most extensive listing
partners under several headings, including four “public investors” (e.g. The Nantes Saint Nazaire Port
Authority) and 11 “private investors” (e.g. Alstom Wind Power).
7
5 With dedicatedservice
Without dedicatedservice
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 18
Fig. 16: Privileged Discussion Partners of the Region
The questionnaire also asked for an estimate of the number of people employed in the MRE sector (Q6.8).
However, the relatively few responses received were not on a consistent basis to allow a deeper analysis in
this report. It is to be noted that an “Assessment of Potential Growth Patterns for the Developing European
Marine Renewable Energy Labour Market” will be prepared under Work Package 5 Activity 1.1. This
assessment will present both current and projected detailed figures.
Special interest and main barriers
The fourth sub-topic referred to the special interest that partner regions may have in particular
technologies in view of their geographical characteristics (Q6.9) and to any remaining technological,
financial and other non-technological barriers for the development of MRE (Q610/11/12/13).
The issue of special interest in any particular technologies is of strategic importance to the whole study.
The responses reveal a remarkable commonality of interest, with practically all regions regarding offshore
wind and waves technologies as of special interest (see Fig. 17 below). Four regions mentioned specifically
a special interest in floating offshore wind (Cantabria, Galicia, Basque Country and Asturias). Half of the
responding regions expressed an interest in tidal currents. A small number of regions also mentioned
salinity gradient and OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion).
Fig. 17: Special Interest in Types of Technology
6
7
9
7
Other
Other level of governance
Business
Civil society
1
2
6
11
4
9
OTEC
Salinity gradient
Tidal currents
Waves
Offshore wind (floating)
Offshore wind
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 19
With one exception (Bretagne) there is a consensus that non-technological barriers remain. The responses
range from highlighting briefly a specific barrier (e.g. “political barriers”, “formation”) to providing a long
and systematic listing of numerous such barriers (e.g by the Basque Country) or in a similar but briefer
statement in Galicia’s response, which covers the following: “Administrative (e.g. no specific procedure
established, long delays), financial (e.g. lack of support), environmental (e.g. protected areas such as Rede
galega de espazos naturais protexidos), economic (e.g. importance of the fishery in the regional economy),
political (implementation of offshore wind farms rejected by regional Parliament), land management (e.g.
the law of costs limits the construction in coastal areas) and sea management (e.g. other activities, such as
navigation and defence).”
Financial barriers are mentioned in many of the responses, often emphasising the intensity of the problem
“where technology is still being proven” (e.g. Scotland) and “all this makes the fundraising difficult” (e.g.
Basque Country). There are also some encouraging signs, as in the case of Scotland where the Scottish
Government is reported to be “in the process of adopting a more risk based approach to consenting, which
will help environmental questions as we will gain data from devices being deployed”.
There is less agreement on the issue of any remaining technological barriers with, for instance, Aquitaine
stating that “the technologies are not mature enough” while the Pays de la Loire mentions “grid
connection” and “electricity storage” among the remaining barriers. Similarly, Portugal’s response refers to
lack of “subsea cable network” and “reliability of mechanical components (especially for wave energy)”.
Suggestions on the kind of actions that could counter the reported barriers have been made, for instance,
in the response of Poitou-Charentes (“simplification of administrative authorisations and feed-in tariffs”)
and of Portugal (“Introduce stable policies with a clear and consistent target. This counts for
entrepreneurial activities, market incentives and R&D. Stakeholders (in this case mostly entrepreneurs and
researchers) find themselves in a very unstable business, research, financial and policy environment”).
The huge diversity in the regions’ assessment of “the problem” makes it very difficult to define a coherent
set of “solutions”. Nevertheless, it could be said that the main thrust of the suggestions made in the
responses points to greater simplification on administrative matters and greater stability in financial
matters.
3.3. Prospective and Long-term Strategies
Longer term strategies and expectations of partner regions are considered under this topic.
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 20
Strategic perspective
This sub-topic (Q7.1/2/4/8) covers the state of play with the regions’ global strategies towards 2020 and
beyond, the place of MRE in such strategies, and whether MRE will be part of the “Smart Specialisation
Strategy” requested by the European Commission as ex-ante conditionality for the next programming
period of EU Cohesion Funds (2014-2020).
A large majority of responses (9) have stated that the region has adopted a 2020 strategy or is in the final
approval stage (see Fig. 18). The responses of the regions without a strategy suggest that virtually all
regions will be doing so: Asturias is currently in the process of drafting such a strategy; Bretagne’s response
indicates an intention to do so. From the titles and (in a few cases) brief descriptions supplied it transpires
that there are considerable variations as to the type and scope of the adopted strategies: some are truly
“global”, some are on energy generally, some on MRE specifically, one is a national strategy). The responses
that provided strategy titles etc are, as follows:
France
all the Regions have
adopted a Regional
Scheme Climate Air
Energy (SRCAE2)
Aquitaine: SRCAE (global strategy)
Pays de la Loire: SRCAE + SREED : « Schéma
Régional de l’Economie et de l’Emploi Durable » i.e.
Regional Scheme for Economy and Sustainable Jobs,
for the 2011-2016 period.
Poitou-Charentes: SRCAE + Regional Development
Plan of Renewable Energy at horizon 2020.
Bretagne: SRCAE + Regional Strategy Economic
Development and Innovation (SRDEI)
Ireland
• Our Ocean Wealth, 2012 – Improving the commercialisation of our ocean
resources including MRE, fisheries and carbon fuel deposits.
• Ocean Energy Roadmap to 2050
• In March 2007, the Irish Government launched its Energy White Paper
entitled ‘Delivering a Sustainable Energy Future for Ireland’. The paper is a
practical action-based strategy for achieving a new energy future for
Ireland. The strategy is to be delivered in partnership with all stakeholders
and will span the timeframe 2007-2020. The strategy reflects the
Government’s tripartite goals of ensuring safe and secure energy supplies,
promoting a sustainable energy future, and delivering economically
efficient prices to Irish consumers.
The United Kingdom
Scotland • Renewable Energy Action Plan 2009,
• 2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy in
Scotland 2011 (is an updated and extended
version of the 2009 Action Plan);
• Marine Energy Group – Marine Energy Road
2 In French: SRCAE : Schéma Régional Climat Air Energie (en English : Regional Scheme Climate Air Energy)
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 21
Map 2009; Marine Energy Group – Marine
Energy Action Plan 2012 (a review and update
of the 2009 road map)
Spain
National objectives are
recorded in the PER
2011-2020 (Renewable
Energies Plan), which
contains a number of
measures that aim to
meet European
requirements (Directive
2009/28/EC).
Basque Country: 3E2020 (Energy Strategy for the
Basque Country 2020)
Cantabria: Strategic Energy Plan - PLENERCAN. 2020
Horizon
Galicia: Galicia’s Regional Government considers
fundamental to promote the use of renewable
energies, in order to cover the 95% of Galician
electric consumption in 2015 (Plan Enerxético
Estratéxico de Galicia 2010-2015) and the 20% of
the gross energy demand in 2020. However, there
are no specific objectives to RME.
Portugal
National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP): a national strategy in
accordance with Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy
from renewable sources
Regarding Regional Strategies towards 2020 and beyond, the responses received have indicated that MRE
are mentioned, even if in some cases, this mention is minor (e.g. Basque Country, Portugal, Aquitaine).
Fig. 18 Regional Strategies towards 2020 and Beyond
As regards the question on whether MRE will be part of the “Smart Specialisation Strategy3” requested by
the European Commission so as to prepare the next programming period of the European Structural
Investment Funds (ESIF) in the Regions, there have been only four affirmative responses from partner
3 About Smart Specialisation Strategies: www.s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu
9
3
With 2020 strategy
Without 2020strategy
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 22
regions (Bretagne, Basse-Normandie, Pays de la Loire, Asturias) with others indicating that “it is too early”
or that the matter is “under discussion”.
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 23
Targets, obligations and expectations
This sub-topic explored renewable energy or carbon emission targets, renewable energy supply or
generation obligations, and what the regions expect from the MRE sector.
As illustrated in Fig. 19, below, virtually all partner regions were able to specify targets applicable to the
partner regions, the only exception being Bretagne which provided a descriptive statement. However, it is
apparent that the information has not been provided in a consistent manner, as shown below.
France
National level: 23%
Renewable Energies by
2020
Bretagne:
Commitment to produce up to 3 600 MW of Renewable
Energy before 2020
Basse-Normandie:
23% of production from Renewable Energy, decrease of
CO2 emissions by 14%
Poitou-Charentes:
30% of renewable energy supply before 2020
Pays de la Loire:
3x30 = - 30% of energy consumed, use of renewable
energy to be increased by 30%, - 30% of greenhouse gas
emissions
Aquitaine:
Compliance with national and EU objectives (20/20/20)
• Grenelle de la Mer: 0,8 GW in 2020 (MRE) + 6 GW
offshore wind by 2020 to reach 23% of the energy
final consumption
• SRCAE’ set of objectives: reduction of 28,5% of
energy final consumption by 2020 (year of reference:
2008); renewable energy production equivalent to
25,4% of the final energy consumption in 2020,
reduction in 2020, reduction of 20% of the
greenhouse gas emissions (year of reference: 1990),
reduction of atmospheric pollutants.
Ireland
The indicative target set for Ireland under the Directive is 13.2%. The Irish
Government in 2006 announced that it was increasing this national target to 15%.
Separate to the Directive, a further national target of 33% has been set to be
achieved by 2020.
The UK
The UK has renewable
energy targets of 15%
renewable energy by
2020
Scotland:
• The interim target of 31% by 2011 was met and
exceeded (35%).
• A carbon emission reduction target of 42% of the
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 24
1990 levels by 2020.
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 25
Spain
Cantabria:
22.31 % of the final energy consumption from renewable sources; 5% of that with
MRE. 16.81 % of primary energy saving.
Asturias:
No specific regional target. Asturias will help Spain to reach the goal of a gross final
consumption of renewable of 20.8 % on final energy consumption
Basque Country:
• Use of renewable energy to be increased by 87% in 2020, giving renewables a
14% share of final consumption
• A 2.5 Mt reduction in CO2 emissions through implementation of the measures
set out in the energy policy 2020 for the Basque Country.
Portugal 31 % of total energy from renewable by 2020
Fig. 19: Regional RE / CE Targets Fig. 20: RE Supply or Generation Obligations
As far as national/regional renewable energy supply or generation obligations are concerned
approximately half of the partner regions have responded affirmatively (see Fig. 20, above). In some cases
the responses have provided a precise definition of such obligations:
� France:
• Poitou-Charentes: National : 21% of renewable energies before 2020
• Bretagne: Horizon 2020 (3*20)
• Pays de la Loire: 3x30 = -30% of energy consumed, use of renewable energy to be increased by
30%, -30% of greenhouse gas emissions
� Ireland:
• Our Ocean Wealth, 2012 – Improving the commercialisation of our ocean resources including
MRE, fisheries and carbon fuel deposits. Ocean Energy Roadmap to 20504.
� The UK
• Scotland: Renewable Obligation Scotland (ROS) scheme which means all suppliers are obliged
to have an increasing percentage of their electricity generated from renewable energy sources
(currently 12.4% Apr 2012/13). Prior to the banding of the ROS there was a Marine Supply
Obligation (MSO) which has since been superseded.
4http://www.seai.ie/Renewables/Ocean_Energy/Ocean_Energy_Information_Research/Ocean_Energy_Publications/Ocean_Energy
_Roadmap_to_2050.pdf
11
1 With RE/CEtargets
WithoutRE/CEtargets
7
5
Withsupply/generationobligations
Withoutsupply/generationobligations
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 26
� Spain
• Cantabria: Spanish Strategy for Renewable Energies - PER 2011-2020 (64GW renewable
installed and 850MW of marine energies)
• Asturias: Spanish Strategy for Renewable Energies - PER 2011-2020
• Basque Country: The electricity system has the obligation of acquiring the electricity generated
by the renewable plants in first place, before the one generated by the conventional centrals.
� Portugal
• Presently the mandatory target is 31% of the final energy from renewable by 2020. There are
specific targets for the major contribution:
o biomass (38% of the total renewable)
o wind energy (21%),
o reversible hydro (20%).
What does the Region expect from this sector?
“Growth and Employment” represent the common denominator of the responses from all 12 partner
regions to the question “What does the Region expect from this sector?” However, it should be noted that
there are often also additional expectations (internationalisation, business development, as well as
differences in prioritisation (e.g. Aquitaine: “innovation, growth and employment”).
A few of the respondents have also specified and quantified how these expectations are defined in terms of
employment and Gross Domestic Product (GDP), as follows:
• Cantabria: PLENERCAN 2011-2020:
o the renewables’s GDP will increase by 0.58 in 2009 to 2.44 % in 2020,
o the total number of renewable energies employees will growth from 516 employees in
2010 to 5,329 direct employees in 2020
o 400 of the employees will be MRE employees in 2020.
• Basse-Normandie: 600 direct employments in 2017/2018 + 1000 indirect employments
• Basque Country: GDP increase by 1.6% in 2020; expected creation of 14 150 jobs until 2020
• Pays de la Loire : creation of 3500 direct and indirect jobs
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 27
4. ANALYSIS
A SWOT analysis has been undertaken in terms of the full Atlantic Power Cluster on the basis of the
information available to the study through the questionnaires. Its outcome is summarised below.
Strengths Weaknesses
• Abundance of natural resources suited
to MRE
• MRE capacities already installed or in
the pipeline (s3.3.1)
• Substantial technological development
capabilities, including active technology
developers, research centres,
academia/industry links and test centres
(s3.3.1& 3.1.3)
• Substantial manufacturing capabilities
(s3.3.1)
• Studies, strategies and targets for MRE
(s3.2&3.3)
• Active public and private sector
investors and enterprises (s3.1.3)
• Bad or constraint grid connections
(s3.1.2)
• Insufficient financial incentives
• Extensive environmental, legal and other
constraints on the installation of MRE
• Lack of baseline surveys
• Slow permit process
• No dedicated MRE service or budget
within the Regional Administration
Opportunities Threats
• Commonality of interest in terms of
natural endowment and different types
of MRE, especially wind, waves and
currents
• EU funding
• Transnational cooperation in many
fields (R&D, studies, strategies, smart
specialisation, institutional solutions,
etc)
• Technological, financial and other non-
technological barriers
• Slow progress in acceptability and
“provability” of MRE
This analysis has required a number of generalisations of the specific findings of the study which have been
presented in this report. Thus it should be regarded as a first approximation and, undoubtedly, it would
require further information and debate in order to sharpen it up and validate it.
Each of the selected points in the four parts of the SWOT is cross-referenced to the relevant section of the
report. There are also three additional points of fundamental importance to the APC, not mentioned
explicitly in the report, which should be highlighted:
• The common starting point and principal strength for the cluster is the abundance of similar natural
resources (sea, rivers/estuaries, wind).
• The underlying threat to MRE in terms of the rate at which it is gaining acceptability and its
technology and benefits are “proven”.
• The multiple opportunities for transnational cooperation between the partner regions.
5. MAIN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 28
The study has obtained a considerable amount of information on the current state of play and the
prospects of MRE in the Atlantic Power Cluster but it should be accepted that the study has not been
exhaustive. Nevertheless, the information that the partners provided through the questionnaire has
allowed a number of findings and conclusions to be established as to where the regions are now in terms of
MRE. These points would also enable the partner regions to better define where they want to be in the
foreseeable future.
Summary of main findings
The main findings have been brought together and are illustrated in Fig. 21, below. This shows an
impressive degree of coverage of virtually all aspects of relevance to the development and installation of
MRE in the APC regions.
The main findings that stand out by topic or sub-topic for the whole cluster can be summarised, as follows:
• Installed and planned MRE capacities show that MRE is “real” in the cluster, although lacking in a
few regions (see below), much can be built on the existing experiences and capacities of the
cluster.
• The technological development capabilities of the cluster are significant and extensive.
• Although there are quite a few regions with grid connection issues, in practically all regions the grid
connections are under development.
• There are many investors and enterprises active in MRE, however, incentives do not appear to be
extensive or strong enough.
• A good deal of progress has already been made with the preparation of studies and adoption of
MRE and global strategies and targets.
• Practically all regions report significant constraints on MRE installation, as well as environmental,
legal and other barriers.
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 29
Fig. 21: Summary of Main Findings by Topic and Region
There are considerable similarities between partner regions and, as already noted, a strong commonality of
interest in MRE and the particular types of MRE that are being pursued. There are also some differences
that the study has highlighted. The main differences can be summarised, as follows:
• Level of advancement: four partner regions do not yet have either installed or planned MRE
capacities, thus their contributions to the cluster will be relying less on “real” MRE experience than
the other partner regions.
• Type of MRE: only a small core of partner regions (eg. Scotland) have at present installed or
planned capacities in all three principal types of MRE (wind, wave, current) and can play a pivotal
role pulling different aspects of MRE together in the cluster.
Global 2020 strategy
RE or CE targets *
RE obligations *
Barriers
Regional MRE budget
Regional MRE service
MRE strategy
MRE studies
Constraints *
Baseline surveys
Companies active
Research Centres
EU funding
Incentives availability
Under development
Good availability/sufficient
Technology developers
Test centres
Academia/industry links
*
*
APC partner 1 2 4 5&16 6 8&3 9 10&11 12 13 14 15
APC Region
Can
tab
ria
Gal
icia
Bre
tag
ne
Ast
uri
as
Bas
se-N
orm
and
ie
Irel
and
Bas
qu
e C
ou
ntr
y
Po
rtu
gal
N, C
, L, A
Sco
tlan
d
Po
ito
u-C
har
ente
s
Pay
s d
e la
Lo
ire
Aq
uit
ain
e
* information provided requires confirmation or clarification
MRE capacity in the pipeline small number MRE capacity installed large number
Techn Devlt Capabilities
Current
Wave
Wind
MRE capacity
Long-term prospects
Regions today
Consents
Finance
Grid
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 30
• Institutional aspects: most gaps (no MRE strategy or dedicated MRE service or dedicated MRE
budget) have been noted in the case of four partners (Galicia, Asturias, Ireland, Portugal) who,
therefore, could benefit most from cooperation in this field with other APC partners.
Conclusions
The study has shown that there are very strong MRE foundations in the partners regions of APC project.
There are already installed and planned wind, wave and current energy capacities, studies and strategies,
and so on so forth.
Having said that, most of the partner regions have a long way to go before they can claim to have
significant MRE capacities installed in the foreseeable future; measured against the existing European,
national or their own regional targets for MRE.
However, there are good opportunities for the cluster to advance in this direction. Many of the
preconditions for moving forward are in place, such as studies, technology development, financing,
enterprises, public/private and academia/business partnerships.
There are also major opportunities for transnational cooperation between partner regions, in many the
fields, including R&D, studies, strategies, smart specialisation, target setting, accessing EU funding,
institutional solutions and this could become a major contributory factor in progressing and progressing
faster. This could be further developed with regards to the implementation of the Atlantic sea basin
Strategy Action Plan, to be released by the European Commission as a Communication before mid-2013.
Finally, the study has shown that the Atlantic Power Cluster should not underestimate the remaining
challenges in developing MRE. Serious constraints and formidable barriers remain and it would be much
easier to be tackled them through cooperation and joint action.
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 31
ANNEXES
Annex A: Study Questionnaire
Activity 2: Benchmarking Regional Study on Marine Renewable Energy (MRE)
This questionnaire aims at collecting the data concerning the present situation of MRE in the partner
regions, from a technical, strategic and political point of view. Understanding where the regions are will
enable them to better define where they want to be in the next future.
Please complete the following tables regarding the state of art of MRE in your region and return by Friday
31 August 2012 to [email protected] and [email protected] (CC). Please provide as
much information as possible in the relevant sections.
Coordinator: CPMR Atlantic Arc Commission (APC Partner 7)
Recipients: Member Regions of APC Partnership
Questionnaire in 4 parts: Regional Study on Marine Renewable Energies
A. General Presentation
B. Diagnosis of regional competences
C. Regional strategies and actions/ identification of non-
technological barriers
D. Prospective and long-term strategies
A. General Presentation
Region
Contact Person
Address
Specific interest for Marine
Renewable Energies? (long -
term/ recent/ current?)
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 32
B. Diagnosis of regional competences, expertise and strategies
→ What are the competencies of the partner Regions in the area of MRE?
1. Technology
1.1
What is the regional Installed marine renewable capacity by
type?
Current: …….MW
Wave: ……. MW
Wind:……….MW
Other (please specify): ….. MW
1.2 What is the capacity of projects in the pipeline?
Current: …….MW
Wave: ……. MW
Wind:……….MW
Other (please specify): ….. MW
1.3
Who are the main Technology developers active in the region?
Please include website if available)
1.4
Are there defined links between academia and industry for
innovation e.g. Catapult, etc.?
1.5
Are there any test centres
in your Region?
• YES / NO
• Indoor, outdoor facility or both?
• What kind of facility ? (wave tank, wind tunnel,
etc.)
1.6
Does your Region have an Interest
to build a test centre?
• YES / NO
• Any predicted timeframe?
• What kind of facility would that be?
1.7
What are the Manufacturing capabilities of the Region?
(Mechanical, electronics, fabrication, etc.)
1.8
Is your region trying to develop standards, or are you involved
within the International Electrotechnical Commission (IETC TC
114, cf.
http://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=103:7:0::::FSP_ORG_ID:1316)
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 33
2. Grid
2.1 Please characterize the coastal grid
connection availability in your Region?
• Good/ bad availability?
• Under development?
• Please specify: ……MW, ………kV
3. Finance
3.1
Who are the main investors
(regional, national) in the MRE sector
in your Region?
• Public or private investors?
• Name of the companies?
3.2 What are the incentives (regional,
national)
• Reduction of taxes, etc…
• Feed-in Tariffs, etc.
3.3
Are there projects in you Region
bidding for European funding:
(Please include website if available)
• YES / NO
• NER 300
• FP7 Energy
• Life+, Interreg, other?
• National funding calls
• Other
3.4
Are there companies and/or research
centers particularly active in marine
energy related projects?
• YES / NO
• Companies:
• Research Centers:
3.5
If yes, do they have a specific budget
devolved to the development
of the MRE sector?
• Companies: YES / NO
• Research centrers: YES / NO
4. Consents
4.1
Has your Region adopted a permit
process to implement MRE
in the coastal zone?
• YES / NO
• Please specify(type of procedure, etc.)
4.2 If YES, how much time does the permit
process take?
• Please give either an estimation from past projects or information given by
entities in charge of this process
4.3 Are there Baseline surveys available
regarding the permit process?
• YES / NO
• Please specify: what Baseline Survey (date, theme, etc.)
4.4 Are there specific constraints
to the installation of MRE
• Environmental, legal, other ?
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 34
on the regional coast?
5. Stakeholder interactions (link with WP3 Social acceptance)
5.1
What are the competencies
of your Region in the field of MRE?
• In relation with the Regional Legal framework
5.2 Are those shared competencies?
• YES / NO
5.3 If so, with whom?
• National level? Other?
5.4
In which domain(s) is your Region
particularly active?
• Professional formation? Research and innovation? Infrastructure? Etc.
5.5
Example(s) of action(s) put in place
by your Region to support MRE?
• Seminar, conferences, creation of a new structure, one-stop-shop, etc?
5.6
Is there any type of business cluster
to facilitate the deployment of marine
renewable energy in your Region?
• YES / NO
• Is yes, please name and specify the overall objective of the cluster(s):
5.7
Identify industries in your Region
interested in marine energy projects
• (eg. Telecommunications, shipbuilding, maritime safety, manufacturing
companies, electrical or electronics, etc.)
C. Benchmarking study on the MRE in partner Regions
→ Where are the Regions today?
6.1
Is there any existing study(ies)
on Marine Energy at the regional
level?
• YES / NO
• If Yes, please specify the institution that has done this study:
• Is it available on the internet? (if yes, please provide website):
6.2
Did your Region adopt a specific
Regional Strategy for the development
of MRE?
(If so, please specify when and enclose
a copy of this Regional Strategy)
• YES / NO
• When?
6.3
Is there a specific regional budget
devolved to the development
of the MRE sector?
• YES / NO
• Budget per year or multiannual:
6.4
How many people work
for the development of MRE within
the Regional Administration?
• Specific service: YES / NO
• If YES: how many people work on that service?
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 35
6.5 What other public or semi-public
organization work in this field? • E.g. regional agency, national-regional partnership, etc.
6.6 Who are the privileged discussion
partners of the Region?
• Civil society?
• Business?
• Other level of governance?
• Other?
6.7 Does your Region work closely
with the private sector?
• YES / NO
• Ex.
6.8
If available, can you give an estimate
of the number of employees
in the MRE sector in your Region?
6.9
Is there a special interest in one
technology in particular? (Offshore
wind, thermal energy, waves and
tides, etc…) with regards the
geographical characteristics of the
region?
• YES / NO
• If yes, which technology in particular?
6.10 Are there remaining non-technological
barriers for the development of MRE? • YES / NO
6.11 If so, can you identify/give examples
of these barriers?
• Administrative barriers ?
• Lack of test site?
• Etc.
6.12
What kind of action will/could
be taken to counterbalance
these barriers?
• Simplification? In what domain?
6.13 Are there remaining technological
or financial barriers you can identify? • Lack of investment? Cost of a prototype, etc?
CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 36
D. Prospective and long-term strategies
→ Where do Regions want to be in 10 or 20 years time?
7.1
Has your Region adopted a global
strategy towards 2020 or beyond?
• YES / NO
• If yes, title of the Strategy, what horizon?
7.2
If not, precise at what stage
is your Region regarding a general long
term strategy
• Negotiating the strategy/ drafting /already adopted/ already voted/ already
implemented/partly implemented? Etc.
7.3
Do you have any regional or national
renewable energy or carbon emission
targets?
• In relation with the EU objectives (20/20/20) ?
• What target, what horizon?
7.4
If your region has adopted a Strategy,
is MRE mentioned in this strategy?
• YES / NO
• Major part of the Strategy? Small paragraph? Just mentioned?
7.5
Are there national/regional renewable
energy supply or generation
obligations?
• YES / NO
• If YES, please identify:
7.6
What does the Region expect
from this sector?
• Growth? Employment? Specialization? Internationalization?
7.7
Are these expectations defined
in terms of employment or GDP?
If so, on what basis?
• Ex. Increase of GDP by …% in 2020 / creation of … jobs before 2030, etc.
• Based on a study? Projections?
7.8
Will the MRE be part of the “Smart
Specialization Strategy”5 requested
by the European Commission
as an ex-ante conditionality
for the next programming period of EU
Cohesion Funds (2014-2020)?
• YES / NO
• Not done yet?
Any other comments? • Questions of importance that have not been tackled in this questionnaire?
• 5 Smart Specialisation is a strategic approach to economic development through targeted support to Research and
Innovation (R&I). http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/home