It's just a clause in a bill for a long time, but it's enough to stir up fears in a whole industry: Economy Minister Peter Altmaier (CDU) wants to set a flat minimum distance of 1000 meters to settlements from five houses for the construction of new wind turbines ashore , This would also affect existing locations where old wind turbines are being replaced by new, more efficient turbines.
The proposal meets with broad criticism. Green Co-CEO Anton Hofreiter warns against the "destruction of a key industry". Environment Minister Svenja Schulze (SPD) complains that the regulation "does not fit at all" to the goal of expanding renewable energy. And the environmental movement "Fridays for Future" spreads a crimson map of Germany in social media, according to which there would hardly be room for new windmills if the distance clause became law.
The excitement is not surprising. Wind power on land is currently by far the most important energy transition technology. More than 40 percent of the green electricity generated in the current year was generated by them. And that, despite the fact that the industry is in crisis - because of burgeoning bureaucracy, ill-fated funding policies and plaintive citizens.
Altmaier's spacer law - just fixed in the climate package of the Federal Government - threatens to exacerbate the already miserable situation in the wind industry. How risky this is for the industry and the entire German energy transition is shown by a closer analysis of the bill.
1. Dwindling spaces for new wind turbines
The effect of blanket margins on wind energy has already been studied in detail several times, most recently in a recently published study by the Federal Environmental Agency (UBA).
According to the government's highest environmental authority, a flat-rate distance of 1,000 meters would reduce available planning and construction space by almost 50 percent. The potential for new wind turbines would almost halve in the worst case - from about 80 to about 43 gigawatts.
The Fraunhofer Institute for Energy Economics and Energy Systems and the consulting firm Navigant came to a similar conclusion: A flat-rate distance rule of 1000 meters would reduce the available space for wind turbines by up to 40 percent, according to a study from early October for the Federal Ministry of Economics.
Where exactly surfaces would disappear can only be approximated. The card that spreads "Fridays for Future" is one such attempt. On the graph, it looks like at first, as left for the wind power only tiny areas.
That's what it looks like when the federal government finally bids farewell to the Paris climate targets.
If it goes to @peteraltmaier, wind turbines may only be built at the white points - absurd. #NeustartKlima
Source: @wahlatlas pic.twitter.com/Q7Ah7hcmfr
A closer look shows that this map does not exactly reflect the specifications of the discussed distance control. Because there are no freely available geodata that could show where there are settlements in Germany from five houses.
In the map, which is passed around in the social media, data from the 2011 Census were used as a substitute: Red colored are all areas in Germany, at that time within a radius of 1000 meters to grid cells with at least two inhabitants were (not three as indicated in the sub-line of the graph).
This interpretation is thus stricter than Altmaier's planned distance rule. In the end, more land would probably be available for wind power than the crimson map suggests.
There are other data that can be used to capture the consequences of the distance rule. Depending on which record you choose, the following scenarios result:
Four approaches to mapping clearance surfaces
1000 meters distance around areas with at least two inhabitants.
This map uses the same data base as in the tweet that was distributed by Fridays for Future. All areas that are located in a 1000 meter radius around grid cells of the 2011 Census in which at least two inhabitants were counted are marked in red. Since the criterion represents a harder hurdle than the wording in the bill "contiguous development with more than five dwellings", this map is likely to overestimate the exclusion areas.
1000 meters distance around areas with at least ten inhabitants.
The same data foundation was used again for this map. However, here 1000 meters were drawn around grid cells with at least ten inhabitants . Given the average household size of 2.0 people, this would be closer to the criterion of "more than five residential buildings" than the population of two. The red areas still dominate the map, but are slightly lighter than in the previous example. In both cases, however, the data is somewhat outdated. New construction projects that were built after 2011 as well as current construction projects are not included here.
1000 meters distance to areas with more than five residential buildings
The census included not only residents, but also residential buildings. At first glance, the criterion chosen here "more than five residential buildings" corresponds exactly to the wording in the bill. Nevertheless, there are also blurring points here: According to the bill, general and pure residential areas must be kept at a distance of 1000 meters, regardless of the number of buildings. Very thin-built areas, peripheral locations or even areas with a few very large residential buildings are thus not included in this presentation. Just the edges of settlements are falsely colored red in this map in this way.
1000 meters distance to settlement areas
This example uses a different data foundation. The digital landscape model is based on surveying data from the federal states. Freely available here, however, is only a limited spatial resolution in which very small villages and scattered settlements are not or only partially contained. The red marked exclusion areas should therefore be significantly larger in reality than shown here.
The graphics shown are only approximations to the actual situation. They only reflect those restrictions that would result from a flat-rate settlement to settlements. In practice, however, there are numerous other hurdles for new wind turbines : For example, nature conservation areas , airports or military use areas must meet certain minimum distances - which further minimizes available space.
2. Threat to existing locations
Altmaier's proposed law would not only make the space for new wind turbines narrow, but also threaten some of the approximately 30,000 installations that have already been set up in Germany. Because the draft applies in its current version also for the so-called Repowering: the replacement of old wind turbines by new, more efficient plants.
According to the Federal Environment Agency, repowering is already possible at only 53 percent of existing locations, because it is not possible to erect higher-quality tower towers cost-effectively and in line with regulations. A 1000-meter distance rule would reduce the share of repowering space to below 35 percent , wrote the UBA in March.
The German Wind Energy Association considers this highly problematic. "The government risks leaving long-established wind turbine sites," says a spokesman. This also applies to places where the population has long become accustomed to the facilities. "In the worst case, wind energy will not only be slowed down, there is even the danger that the available capacities for producing wind power will decrease."
peno-photo / imago images
The Ministry of Economy points out that the bill is not yet final; The Federal Ministry of the Interior is responsible for the repowering question. On request, the Ministry of the Interior did not comment on whether there is still room for negotiation in repowering.
3rd loophole for federal states
Despite circumcision: Altmaier's distance rule leaves wind energy a so-called opt-out opportunity. Federal states may voluntarily set smaller distances for wind turbines than provided for by law. Willing state governments can thus become active themselves and enable more repowering and the designation of larger new areas.
Why then such a sharp law anyway? Background is apparently an attempt by the CDU to push back the AfD in some countries. Right-wing populists are now working closely with wind power opponents, especially in eastern Germany. In the state elections in Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia, the AfD had more or less successfully tried to make the anti-wind protest campaign topic.
The distance rule should apparently send a clear signal to the citizens that their protests are heard. The opt-out clause, however, allows federal states where the AfD is not strong enough to benefit further from wind power by voluntarily reducing the minimum distance.
At least some countries seem ready to do that. Schleswig-Holstein, for example, announced immediately after the climate package became known that it was making use of the opt-out clause for repowering. "If communities have been wind turbines at a distance of 800 meters for years, we assume that the population has gotten used to it and continue to plan," says Minister of Energy Jan Philipp Albrecht (Green) on demand. "Provided that noise, nature and species protection regulations allow this."
For Schleswig-Holstein, wind power is a real economic factor; she provides jobs and generates business tax revenues. The black-green-yellow Jamaica government has stipulated in its coalition agreement to devote two percent of its territory to wind power generation. "With a uniform 1000-meter distance rule, we can not manage the two percent," says Albrecht.
The environment ministers of all other federal states share Albrecht's concerns: They objected to the distance rule unanimously last Friday. The action was initiated by the government of the state of Baden-Württemberg , which is governed by the Green Party - and experts also see opportunities to opt for the opt-out clause.
The state of Lower Saxony , another beneficiary of wind energy, also wants to voluntarily reduce the distances. In the state of Rhineland-Palatinate , this option is considered conceivable.
Bavaria , meanwhile, ruled by the CSU and the Free Voters, sticks to its regulation, which has been in place since 2014. It reads: "10 H" - ten times the height of a windmill as a minimum distance to settlements. With a 200 meter high wind turbine makes the two kilometers, making it the highest distance control in Germany. The German Wind Energy Association calculated that with this and other legal restrictions on just 0.05 percent of the Bavarian territory can be turbines.
In all other federal states, industry experts also regard the chances for shorter intervals due to the political balance of power as rather bad.
Conclusion: brake for the energy turnaround
Altmaier's distance rule would, if it comes in the current form, a heavy blow to the already battered wind power industry. It would not only reduce the space for new facilities, but also threaten the survival of long-standing sites.
Although federal states can oppose the blanket rule, so far it does not look as if many countries would like to use the opt-out clause. And those state governments that are planning to do so will probably still set further distances than those currently in force.
photo gallery
6 pictures
Bürgerwille contra Energiewende: on the upswingThe energy turnaround would probably come to a halt with such a regulation. The plan to increase the share of renewables in power generation to 65 percent by 2030 is unlikely to be successful. Because a convincing alternative to wind energy on land is not shown in the climate protection package.
The Federal Government makes itself vulnerable. If Altmaier's law is implemented as planned, then the AfD can boast soon to have slowed the energy transition. The Minister of Economic Affairs - the qua Office is mainly responsible for the energy transition - would then have to be accused of having kissed the right-wing populist.
