Austria 37
consequential risks are borne. For example, induced seismic activity may lead to
leakage and thus to (in)direct human/animal suffocation (through soil acidification). In addition to expected intermittency, there might be negative feedback
loops with climate change affecting the renewable energy supply, e.g. for hydrogen power when rivers dry up. Increasing resistance to the construction of new
overhead high- voltage power lines could be a barrier to transition projects or
impose increased costs for power supply companies along the transition pathway
via the need to install underground cables. The disposal of infrastructure, e.g. of
wind turbine rotors which are made of composite material which are not easily
disposed of, can be seen as further consequential risks along the transition
pathway which are often not considered because only the energetic flows enter
into the analysis.
Cluster 4: Consumer/acceptance
The consumer/acceptance cluster includes mainly implementation risks. The ‘not in
my backyard’ (NIMBY) effect (e.g. van der Horst, 2007) refers to the risk of residents opposing renewable energy projects (e.g. hydropower due to nature protection concerns) is seen as a main implementation risk within this cluster. The
neglect of social equity issues and the role of behavioural change along the transition pathways are further – mainly consequential – risks that should be considered.
Implementation risks opposing transition are the play- off between social
justice and climate mitigation, lacking planning or investment security, and the
role of behavioural change in transition. In Austria, PV and wind are gaining
importance. There is not much remaining potential to construct large hydro
power plants, while small power plant projects can receive opposition from
nature conservationists. Hydropower will, however, definitely play a key role in
domestic energy transition (e.g. pumped hydro). Stakeholders consider the risk
that, in the public debate, social justice and climate mitigation are seen as contradicting targets. The fact that climate mitigation strategies can make an
important contribution to social justice is not communicated sufficiently. For
households, risks around investing in or planning their energy supply can lead
to reluctance and uncertainty. For example, whether to invest in a private PV
installation or a co- generation system depends on the legal framework and clear
political commitment. In this context, there is the risk that private households
make too high or unnecessary investments in storage technologies at home due
to high feed- in tariffs. For instance, a 10 kWh battery for at- home storing costs
about €10,000, while an electric vehicle can store 40 kWh while simultaneously
being used for private mobility.
If all actors are not considered, there is the risk of energy poverty for those
who have to pay potentially higher prices or who have no access to new technologies. One example of when this may occur is through net metering (a usage
and payment scheme in which a customer generating their own power is compensated monetarily) if the additional cost of providing these schemes is borne
by other electricity customers.
consequential risks are borne. For example, induced seismic activity may lead to
leakage and thus to (in)direct human/animal suffocation (through soil acidification). In addition to expected intermittency, there might be negative feedback
loops with climate change affecting the renewable energy supply, e.g. for hydrogen power when rivers dry up. Increasing resistance to the construction of new
overhead high- voltage power lines could be a barrier to transition projects or
impose increased costs for power supply companies along the transition pathway
via the need to install underground cables. The disposal of infrastructure, e.g. of
wind turbine rotors which are made of composite material which are not easily
disposed of, can be seen as further consequential risks along the transition
pathway which are often not considered because only the energetic flows enter
into the analysis.
Cluster 4: Consumer/acceptance
The consumer/acceptance cluster includes mainly implementation risks. The ‘not in
my backyard’ (NIMBY) effect (e.g. van der Horst, 2007) refers to the risk of residents opposing renewable energy projects (e.g. hydropower due to nature protection concerns) is seen as a main implementation risk within this cluster. The
neglect of social equity issues and the role of behavioural change along the transition pathways are further – mainly consequential – risks that should be considered.
Implementation risks opposing transition are the play- off between social
justice and climate mitigation, lacking planning or investment security, and the
role of behavioural change in transition. In Austria, PV and wind are gaining
importance. There is not much remaining potential to construct large hydro
power plants, while small power plant projects can receive opposition from
nature conservationists. Hydropower will, however, definitely play a key role in
domestic energy transition (e.g. pumped hydro). Stakeholders consider the risk
that, in the public debate, social justice and climate mitigation are seen as contradicting targets. The fact that climate mitigation strategies can make an
important contribution to social justice is not communicated sufficiently. For
households, risks around investing in or planning their energy supply can lead
to reluctance and uncertainty. For example, whether to invest in a private PV
installation or a co- generation system depends on the legal framework and clear
political commitment. In this context, there is the risk that private households
make too high or unnecessary investments in storage technologies at home due
to high feed- in tariffs. For instance, a 10 kWh battery for at- home storing costs
about €10,000, while an electric vehicle can store 40 kWh while simultaneously
being used for private mobility.
If all actors are not considered, there is the risk of energy poverty for those
who have to pay potentially higher prices or who have no access to new technologies. One example of when this may occur is through net metering (a usage
and payment scheme in which a customer generating their own power is compensated monetarily) if the additional cost of providing these schemes is borne
by other electricity customers.