110 Krisztina de Bruyn-Szendrei et al.
Large- scale deployment of rooftop solar PV and ground- mounted solar parks is
likely to have different types of impact, leading to different types of risk. Similarly, as both technology options in the pathway have different implementation
characteristics (rooftops versus ground- mounted investments), their implementation risks are likely to be different too. In this section, key consequential and
implementation risks are highlighted (see Figure 7.2 for a summary), as well as
ways to mitigate these. As explained in Chapter 2 and illustrated in Figure 7.2,
both risk categories are intertwined with each other. For instance, should stakeholders be aware of a potential negative impact of a pathway, such as employment losses, and consider this a consequential risk, then this could also result in
a reduced public acceptance, which in its turn would lead to an implementation
risk (in Figure 7.2 this is referred to as ‘consequential risk as cognitive barrier’).
Where applicable, such cognitive barriers are also addressed.
While applying the same type of technology, the small and large- scale
pathway options are very different in terms of project size (e.g. small- scale
rooftop PV panels versus large- scale ground- mounted solar parks), grid stability
measures, ownership, costs, etc. Implementation risks are therefore separately
discussed for both options.
Implementation risks related to expanding rooftop solar PV in
the Netherlands
Technical aspects
For several reasons, not all residential dwellings and industrial buildings are suitable for placing solar panels on their rooftops. Ideally, a roof is sufficiently strong
to carry the weight of the solar panels, has a favourable orientation towards the
sun, while the waterproof layer on the roof tiles is suitable for placing solar
panels. Lack of these conditions can lead to implementation problems which
entail the risk that the desired scale of solar PV for meeting Dutch renewable
energy targets is not met. Moreover, even if these conditions are met, owners of
the dwelling or building may still find the investment risky or unattractive
because, for example, they find panels unattractive, cannot cover the costs, or
are concerned about the payback time. These risks are further explained below
based on inputs from stakeholders.
Industrial buildings generally have flat rooftops and are generally constructed
to support one metre of snow. Such constructions may not be strong enough to
carry a layer of solar panels and additional investments to strengthen the roof
may be required. Traditionally, most rooftop solar panels are installed on
rooftops with a southward orientation for better utilisation of solar radiation, as
these have the most attractive business cases. However, the business cases for
east- or westward- oriented buildings have recently improved due to technical
improvements with enhanced efficiency and the net- metering policy. Yet the
latter category seems to be more sensitive to a change in this policy: one of
the interviewed researchers indicated that, should net metering be abolished,
Large- scale deployment of rooftop solar PV and ground- mounted solar parks is
likely to have different types of impact, leading to different types of risk. Similarly, as both technology options in the pathway have different implementation
characteristics (rooftops versus ground- mounted investments), their implementation risks are likely to be different too. In this section, key consequential and
implementation risks are highlighted (see Figure 7.2 for a summary), as well as
ways to mitigate these. As explained in Chapter 2 and illustrated in Figure 7.2,
both risk categories are intertwined with each other. For instance, should stakeholders be aware of a potential negative impact of a pathway, such as employment losses, and consider this a consequential risk, then this could also result in
a reduced public acceptance, which in its turn would lead to an implementation
risk (in Figure 7.2 this is referred to as ‘consequential risk as cognitive barrier’).
Where applicable, such cognitive barriers are also addressed.
While applying the same type of technology, the small and large- scale
pathway options are very different in terms of project size (e.g. small- scale
rooftop PV panels versus large- scale ground- mounted solar parks), grid stability
measures, ownership, costs, etc. Implementation risks are therefore separately
discussed for both options.
Implementation risks related to expanding rooftop solar PV in
the Netherlands
Technical aspects
For several reasons, not all residential dwellings and industrial buildings are suitable for placing solar panels on their rooftops. Ideally, a roof is sufficiently strong
to carry the weight of the solar panels, has a favourable orientation towards the
sun, while the waterproof layer on the roof tiles is suitable for placing solar
panels. Lack of these conditions can lead to implementation problems which
entail the risk that the desired scale of solar PV for meeting Dutch renewable
energy targets is not met. Moreover, even if these conditions are met, owners of
the dwelling or building may still find the investment risky or unattractive
because, for example, they find panels unattractive, cannot cover the costs, or
are concerned about the payback time. These risks are further explained below
based on inputs from stakeholders.
Industrial buildings generally have flat rooftops and are generally constructed
to support one metre of snow. Such constructions may not be strong enough to
carry a layer of solar panels and additional investments to strengthen the roof
may be required. Traditionally, most rooftop solar panels are installed on
rooftops with a southward orientation for better utilisation of solar radiation, as
these have the most attractive business cases. However, the business cases for
east- or westward- oriented buildings have recently improved due to technical
improvements with enhanced efficiency and the net- metering policy. Yet the
latter category seems to be more sensitive to a change in this policy: one of
the interviewed researchers indicated that, should net metering be abolished,