114 Krisztina de Bruyn-Szendrei et al.
Therefore, consulted stakeholders recommend that the design of the panels be
considered as a factor when taking a decision on providing subsidies, and that
spatial plans are modified so that solar parks are also eligible for rural areas.
An example of a concept where social acceptance is more naturally considered in the project planning is that of energy co- operatives, which are generally formed by locals who are familiar with regional issues and preferences. Trust
in energy co- operatives is therefore higher than in government bodies because
they offer the opportunity for locals to be part of the decision making on preference for energy source, to have a voice, to be critical, and to raise questions
regarding their spatial environment.
Further to risks related to implementation of both solar PV options and how
these may block or slow down expansion of solar PV in the Netherlands, this
section focuses on potentially negative impacts of the options (consequential
risks) for economic sectors and areas of society. Contrary to the former section,
where implementation risks are discussed separately for scaling up rooftop solar
PV and ground- mounted solar parks, the potential consequential risks that
follow are discussed mostly simultaneously for both options as the risks are
largely similar. Where differences in consequential risks exist, these are explicitly mentioned.
Consequential risks of expanding rooftop solar PV and solar parks in
the Netherlands
Impact on the electricity grid
Presently, the Dutch electricity grid is designed to handle peak demand but,
with an increased share of distributed renewable energy such as solar PV, the
current peak handling capacity will become insufficient or at least come under
pressure. Distribution grids are sized around average demands of 1 kW per dwelling and become insufficient if (instead) dwellings are feeding 4–8 kW (peak)
into the grid (DSO, 2017). Technically, modifying the grid is not a complex
task but there will be costs involved, which are covered by the distribution grid
operator. As these costs do not directly accrue to solar PV panel owners, they
are usually not considered by households when deciding on whether or not to
invest in rooftop panels.
Grid operators are not involved in small- scale rooftop solar PV projects and
therefore do not have influence on where and how many panels are installed. If
all suitable homes (around four million, as discussed earlier) were equipped with
solar panels, about 16 GW of solar power could be generated per year. Operators
interviewed in our stakeholder consultation indicated that the grid could cope
with this amount of solar power with only small adjustments but, in order to avoid
grid- balancing issues, large neighbourhood batteries may be needed to store generated electricity that cannot be used momentarily due to insufficient demand.
From the households’ point of view, net metering is an attractive instrument,
but from a grid- balancing perspective it is more complex and not the preferred
Therefore, consulted stakeholders recommend that the design of the panels be
considered as a factor when taking a decision on providing subsidies, and that
spatial plans are modified so that solar parks are also eligible for rural areas.
An example of a concept where social acceptance is more naturally considered in the project planning is that of energy co- operatives, which are generally formed by locals who are familiar with regional issues and preferences. Trust
in energy co- operatives is therefore higher than in government bodies because
they offer the opportunity for locals to be part of the decision making on preference for energy source, to have a voice, to be critical, and to raise questions
regarding their spatial environment.
Further to risks related to implementation of both solar PV options and how
these may block or slow down expansion of solar PV in the Netherlands, this
section focuses on potentially negative impacts of the options (consequential
risks) for economic sectors and areas of society. Contrary to the former section,
where implementation risks are discussed separately for scaling up rooftop solar
PV and ground- mounted solar parks, the potential consequential risks that
follow are discussed mostly simultaneously for both options as the risks are
largely similar. Where differences in consequential risks exist, these are explicitly mentioned.
Consequential risks of expanding rooftop solar PV and solar parks in
the Netherlands
Impact on the electricity grid
Presently, the Dutch electricity grid is designed to handle peak demand but,
with an increased share of distributed renewable energy such as solar PV, the
current peak handling capacity will become insufficient or at least come under
pressure. Distribution grids are sized around average demands of 1 kW per dwelling and become insufficient if (instead) dwellings are feeding 4–8 kW (peak)
into the grid (DSO, 2017). Technically, modifying the grid is not a complex
task but there will be costs involved, which are covered by the distribution grid
operator. As these costs do not directly accrue to solar PV panel owners, they
are usually not considered by households when deciding on whether or not to
invest in rooftop panels.
Grid operators are not involved in small- scale rooftop solar PV projects and
therefore do not have influence on where and how many panels are installed. If
all suitable homes (around four million, as discussed earlier) were equipped with
solar panels, about 16 GW of solar power could be generated per year. Operators
interviewed in our stakeholder consultation indicated that the grid could cope
with this amount of solar power with only small adjustments but, in order to avoid
grid- balancing issues, large neighbourhood batteries may be needed to store generated electricity that cannot be used momentarily due to insufficient demand.
From the households’ point of view, net metering is an attractive instrument,
but from a grid- balancing perspective it is more complex and not the preferred