15 CONCLUSIONS
389
of smart meters (completed by 2020) and by advancing smart grid solutions. These were solutions that belonged to the future back in 2014,
to some extent for technological reasons, but mostly because back then,
these were not yet problems that needed solving.
In 2014, we posed questions about the stability of Danish wind power
policies (Moe 2014b). There had been a lull in installations between 2003
and 2008 because a new and more market-friendly government insisted
on wind power needing to be competitive without subsidies, and at the
time of writing, another market-oriented government had just come into
power. Thus, we wondered if this would mean a series of stops and starts
for Danish wind power, ending the relative stability and consensus that
had characterized the previous 25 years. However, Denmark has seen
an almost 50% rise in installations since 2013, and a 2018 energy policy
agreement will see another 2.4 GW of offshore wind installed by 2030.
Thus, wind power’s 47% share of the power mix will keep increasing.
In 2014, we also noted that the Danish ownership structure, seen by
many scholars as crucial to the success of Danish wind, and an ownership structure that has made wind power far less controversial than for
instance in Norway, might be under threat. However, as Boscan et al.
write, the ownership structure is still vital. The roots of energy sector
success in Denmark are deeply social and tied to self-driven community development. Communities have ample room to innovate and design
their projects, and the local government is likely to support them. In most
respects, Denmark of 2020 would also have looked familiar to someone
from 2014.
The four new countries, included in this present volume only, are
all at different stages of development and with very different geographical situations. Completing the Nordic section of this book, Finland
aims for carbon neutrality (by 2035). But where Norway is plentiful in
hydropower and Denmark in wind, this third Nordic country instead
relies on biomass for 27% of its final energy consumption and has a
large forestry industry. At 22% of the power mix and 4% of final energy,
hydropower is significant as well, but it is really the share of biomass
that makes Finland different. Beyond providing context about Finland’s
slightly peculiar energy mix, Kilpeläinen et al. provide another chapter
that goes straight to the core of the theme of this book, describing
how the influx of renewables will move the Finnish energy system from
production-centric to consumption-centric, forcing it to become more
flexible because of new electrified demands in heating and transport.
389
of smart meters (completed by 2020) and by advancing smart grid solutions. These were solutions that belonged to the future back in 2014,
to some extent for technological reasons, but mostly because back then,
these were not yet problems that needed solving.
In 2014, we posed questions about the stability of Danish wind power
policies (Moe 2014b). There had been a lull in installations between 2003
and 2008 because a new and more market-friendly government insisted
on wind power needing to be competitive without subsidies, and at the
time of writing, another market-oriented government had just come into
power. Thus, we wondered if this would mean a series of stops and starts
for Danish wind power, ending the relative stability and consensus that
had characterized the previous 25 years. However, Denmark has seen
an almost 50% rise in installations since 2013, and a 2018 energy policy
agreement will see another 2.4 GW of offshore wind installed by 2030.
Thus, wind power’s 47% share of the power mix will keep increasing.
In 2014, we also noted that the Danish ownership structure, seen by
many scholars as crucial to the success of Danish wind, and an ownership structure that has made wind power far less controversial than for
instance in Norway, might be under threat. However, as Boscan et al.
write, the ownership structure is still vital. The roots of energy sector
success in Denmark are deeply social and tied to self-driven community development. Communities have ample room to innovate and design
their projects, and the local government is likely to support them. In most
respects, Denmark of 2020 would also have looked familiar to someone
from 2014.
The four new countries, included in this present volume only, are
all at different stages of development and with very different geographical situations. Completing the Nordic section of this book, Finland
aims for carbon neutrality (by 2035). But where Norway is plentiful in
hydropower and Denmark in wind, this third Nordic country instead
relies on biomass for 27% of its final energy consumption and has a
large forestry industry. At 22% of the power mix and 4% of final energy,
hydropower is significant as well, but it is really the share of biomass
that makes Finland different. Beyond providing context about Finland’s
slightly peculiar energy mix, Kilpeläinen et al. provide another chapter
that goes straight to the core of the theme of this book, describing
how the influx of renewables will move the Finnish energy system from
production-centric to consumption-centric, forcing it to become more
flexible because of new electrified demands in heating and transport.