|
Geothermal Energy Systems Assessment - A Strategic Assessment of Technical, Environmental, Institutional and Economic Potentials in Central and Eastern European Countries 9. Concluding RemarksThrough this comprehensive assessment of geothermal energy potentials in the CEECs a number of issues and challenges of relevance to future development of geothermal energy in the CEECs have been identified and analysed. It is obvious from the outcome of this study, that geothermal energy development currently is rather neglected or underestimated in relation to national energy policy reforms and planning in the CEECs. In order to promote geothermal energy development in the CEECs more focus will therefore be needed on the creation of incentives and frameworks for this particular energy source. It has been confirmed that the technical and environmental potentials of geothermal energy systems are extensive in Central and Eastern Europe. Considerable reservoirs of high-quality hot water exist under ground in most of the CEECs examined by this study and calculations and studies of environmental accounts demonstrate strong positive effects from geothermal energy plants. The study also demonstrates the major geo-political forces and environmental policy developments that will only increase the tendency to internalise more and more environmental accounts directly into the economic system that govern both economic decision makers and the "invisible" hand of the markets. From an economic point of view, and although departing from a low point, the ongoing process of changes in all focus countries was found to be creating improving future conditions for geothermal energy development. However, it was also found that the CEECs demonstrate rather different levels of preparation and needs in relation to make GE an attractive "economic business". In some countries donor funding will be required to demonstrate efficient geothermal project models, whereas in other CEECs, focus should be directed more towards how to attract private/national investors. The relative imperfections of insurance systems to cover geological risks is one important factor impeding inflow of private capital into geothermal projects. From a political and institutional point of view this report has identified the major challenge to the future of GE in the CEECs. Both politically and institutionally there is a certain amount of inertia in most of the countries investigated. GE faces, and is confronted with, established interest groups and mindsets. It also faces existing infrastructures, legislation and other rules and patterns that are not always conducive to the development of the GE sector. These challenges have been listed throughout this report and they are addressed by the strategy outlined and proposed. The geothermal projects evaluated have been launched on an individual basis as separate projects initiated from a bottom-up approach. The experiences so far from these projects have created a list of lessons learned which have been presented throughout this report. Eventually, these lessons were converted into a set of best practice criteria to be used as a base for future implementation of geothermal projects in the CEECs. Know-how and technologies built into the Danish district heating systems, and the institutional environment surrounding it, serve to make the Danish low-temperature district heating systems highly relevant for export in relation to geothermal projects in the CEECs. The effort and experiences generated by Danish geothermal experts have proved very useful in several CEECs, where geothermal energy sources have been integrated into CEECs district heating systems. One of the major outcomes of this study is that in order to achieve most value and environmental impact in the CEECs for the DANCEE funds, geothermal energy projects should in the future be considered as much more than just isolated projects. Indeed, a much more comprehensive approach is needed, both in relation to the CEECs, but also taking into consideration the various existing and potential actors and their comparative strength and weakness. The timing of this geothermal study has been excellent. The fact that for most CEECs the period of transition is gradually completed and taken over by an advanced degree of "normalisation" and European integration offers new perspectives. In this context, promotion of geothermal energy at a wider scale presents new opportunities but indeed also a range of challenges which must be faced and handled by all actors involved. Another, more unpredicted, result of this study and its timing, has been the great and active interest from international as well as Danish actors within the geothermal field, to follow the study "on the line" and contribute to the discussions and development of operational action proposals in favour of geothermal development in the CEECs. The increasing international attention on the potentials of geothermal energy was documented at the International Workshop on "The Future of Geothermal Energy in the CEECs", carried out on 8-9 October in Copenhagen, as a part of this study. The workshop was attended by representatives from international financial institutions involved in geothermal project activities, such as the EBRD, EIB and NEFCO/NIB and by other international geothermal organisations and programmes, including the UNEP/GEF Network and the Geothermal Implementing Agreement (GIA). From Denmark the workshop was assisted by representatives from DEPA, DEA, Danish Investment Funds and private companies. Further to contribute to this particular study, the workshop also paved the ground for further concerted action and contact between both international and national geothermal actors. The workshop indeed confirmed that DEPA, due to its flexibility and experience so far, could become a main player in the future in order to create a "take-off" for geothermal energy development in the CEECs. This study has documented that sustainable development of geothermal energy projects in the CEECs will not only require an optimal mix of financial and technical assistance inputs. It will also require that the institutional and policy framework will be prepared to support such inputs. Moreover, with an adequate institutional framework in place, foreign investors will be encouraged and GE projects may be implemented easier and faster than earlier. When compared to the IFIs, a major reason why DEPA has a pivotal role in promoting geothermal energy, is the "scaling problem". This problem is evident when, for instance, the European Investment Bank and the World Bank voice its preference for "large" projects. This situation creates a need for someone to fit project and promoters and help "tailor" projects, including packets of finance. Maximising the additionality of DEPA in comparison to IFIs and bilateral donor organisations is an important objective in this process. With this report, DEPA moves towards a strategic process designed to optimise the environmental impact and benefits for DEPA funds. As outlined in this study, coherent and integrated support to geothermal energy development in the CEECs presents highly positive and promising potentials for environmental investments. Through a strengthening of its central position within the geothermal field, DEPA will therefore contribute significantly to achieve the objectives of the DANCEE programme, within an area where Danish experts and companies possess relevant competences and experiences.
|