Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 162 (2022) 112457

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Wind repowering: Unveiling a hidden asset

H. Doukas a, A. Arsenopoulos a, *, M. Lazoglou b, A. Nikas a, A. Flamos c
a
Management & Decision Support Systems Lab (EPU-NTUA), School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), Athens,
Greece
b
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, School of Architecture, National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), Athens, Greece
c
Department of Industrial Management & Technology, University of Piraeus (UNIPI), Piraeus, Greece

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Given the abundant availability of resources, the market potential, and their cost competitiveness, onshore wind
Repowering farms and photovoltaic units are expected to drive the overall growth of renewable energy sources in the next
Renewable energy decade. However, Europe is a small and densely populated continent, which results in many countries experi­
Wind potential
encing a severe shortage of suitable land sites for installing new wind and photovoltaic facilities. This, combined
Land scarcity
Europe
with the fact that many existing wind turbines and photovoltaic units reach the end of their operational lifetime,
has laid the groundwork for ‘repowering’. Repowering includes upgrading or retrofitting renewable energy
sources’ components and exploits existing land sites, in which renewables are operating for years. This paper
intends to emphasise the multiple dimensions of repowering, also delving in its surrounding socio-economic
context in various European countries, to identify its barriers and allies as well as gather best practices and
lessons learnt from its implementation. Considering data availability, extent of spatial use and bulk equipment,
and consequent attention in literature and practice, the analysis mainly orbits around repowering of wind
projects, rather than solar photovoltaics. Finally, the paper presents key directions toward wider future
exploitation of repowering.

revisited under the European Green Deal (EGD)—with the ‘Fit for 55’
1. Introduction package, announced in summer 2021, proposing a 40% target for 2030.
What is more, the EU is expected to further upgrade the ambition to
According to a Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on even higher targets for 2040 and 2050, critically when emissions should
Climate Change (IPCC) released in 2018, curbing global warming to reach net zero according to the Union’s vision, thereby leaving no room
1.5 ◦ C renders drastic transition to Renewable Energy Sources (RES) an for experiments but to extensively utilise RES as a one-way street [13].
urgent priority [1]. Building on that, a number of sectoral studies that Regarding electricity, Eurelectric has already committed to fully
followed [2–5], reached the same conclusion and argued that, meeting decarbonise the electricity production in Europe by early 2040s.
the final energy consumption needs with RES production should Drawing from the above, a heated debate has surfaced, revolving
nowadays be highlighted as top priority, toward reducing emissions to around the following questions: (a) what renewable sources exactly will
net zero by 2040. drive such a transition?; and (b) in what ways can we achieve higher RES
The benefits of RES electricity production have been officially penetration in the energy mix?
acknowledged and promoted as early as in 1997, with the adoption of Considering the abundance of resources, the rapidly expanding
the Kyoto Protocol [6]. Since then, the penetration of renewable energy market potential, and the continuous improvement in cost competi­
into the energy mix has increased significantly, mainly due to national tiveness, onshore wind and photovoltaics (PV) are expected to lead the
and regional supporting policies, in several countries around the world way toward the expected overall growth of RES within the next decade
[7–9]. The European Union (EU) has played a pivotal role in pushing the [14].
need for the production of renewable energy in its Member States [10]. To specify, the International Energy Agency (IEA) reported that, in
A target of 20% RES share in EU final energy consumption by 2020 was 2015, wind energy production surpassed all other technologies [15].
already in place since 2009 [10]. A target of 27% RES by 2030 was in China is the dominant player in installed wind power, and has grown
place since 2014 [11], since revised to 32% [12], and expected to be rapidly from 300 MW in 2000 to almost 282 GW in 2020, currently

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: aarsenop@epu.ntua.gr (A. Arsenopoulos).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112457
Received 15 September 2021; Received in revised form 28 March 2022; Accepted 7 April 2022
Available online 15 April 2022
1364-0321/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Doukas et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 162 (2022) 112457

Nomenclature PPA Power Purchase Agreement

PV Photovoltaics
CfD Contracts for Difference RES Renewable Energy Sources
EC European Commission UK United Kingdom
EGD European Green Deal UN United Nations
EU European Union SME Small and Medium Enterprise
EWEA European Wind Energy Association
FiT Feed-in-Tariff Units
o
HEDNO Hellenic Electricity Distribution Network Operator C Celsius
IEA International Energy Agency MW MegaWatt
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change GW GigaWatt
IPTO Independent Power Transmission Operator TWh TeraWatt hours
IRENA International Renewable Energy Agency $ American dollar
NECP National Energy and Climate Plan € Euro
NIC National Infrastructure Commission

representing about 38.5% of the total installed wind power in the world
[16]. The United States come second, with approximately 117.7 GW of
installed wind capacity, followed by Germany, India, and Spain with
62.2, 39, and 27.1 GW respectively [16]. However, it is noteworthy that
there are countries featuring high wind potential, such as the United
Kingdom (UK) with 24.7 GW, France with 17.4 GW, and Italy with 10.8
GW of installed wind power, ranking lower [16].
Beyond wind power, climate change mitigation also requires larger
uptake of PV units, reaching the TW scale [17]. Based on estimations
from IEA, global energy production from PVs in 2030 is expected to
reach 2732 TWh per year, which can be translated in an annual in­
vestment of about $135 billion [18]. With a total installed PV capacity of
approximately 153 GW in 2020, the EU has lost significant ground in the
global market: in mid-2020, the EU represented 22% of the total globally
installed PV power amounting to 635 GW, following a sharp drop from
its 66% global share recorded at the end of 2012. At European level, in
Fig. 1. Age distribution of onshore wind power for eight European countries
2020, Germany marks the highest installed PV capacity (53.8 GW), far
([23] and own elaboration).
outranking other high-performing countries like Italy with 21.6 GW,
Spain with 14 GW, the UK with 13.6 GW, and France with 11.7 GW [16].
soon enough to significantly contribute to the attainment of 2030 na­
However, Europe seems to lag behind in the exploitation of its wind
tional targets [26].
potential compared to Asia and America, as well as in its global share of
The constraints imposed by land scarcity were also noted by the
photovoltaics, which recently suffered a sharp decline [16]. The main
German Federal Environment Agency, which concluded that land sites
reason for this is threefold: (a) although the EU has been a frontrunner
for the construction of onshore wind farms is a scarce resource [27], thus
for years, other regions (e.g., Asia) have now been covering ground [19];
pinpointing the need for new solutions to be explored. Adding to the
(b) Europe is a small and densely populated continent [20], and as a
aforementioned, the European Commission highlighted the need for all
result many countries are experiencing a strong progressive shortage of
European countries actively involved in the exploitation of wind and
available land sites, suitable for new wind farms and/or PV installations,
photovoltaic potential to sooner or later face the challenge of dealing
creating conflicts with opposing land use interests and thus triggering
with the problem of the numerous onshore wind turbines (Fig. 1) and
strong reactions from local communities and citizens’ groups; and (c) a
PVs reaching the end of their useful lifetime [22,28].
large share of the already installed wind turbines and photovoltaics have
A multi-faceted solution to the lack of available land sites with the
reached or are reaching the end of their operational lifetime [21,22].
necessary renewable energy potential lies within the significant progress
With regard to the latter, Fig. 1 presents the age distribution of
made in the last decade in RES technologies and focuses on increasing
onshore wind power in eight European countries, in 2021.
power in operating wind farms and PV parks through ‘repowering’.
Spain, Italy, and Denmark feature the highest shares of onshore wind
Repowering does not necessarily come hand-in-hand with an in­
power that has been in operation for over 10 years, with 85%, 66%, and
crease in the installed power of the RES installation, since the sole legal
63% respectively. On the contrary, the UK has the lowest rate in the
definition of the term [29] does not imply such a thing. Thus, repow­
same indicator (31%), with Greece ranking slightly above it (36%).
ering can—but not necessarily—increase the installed power of a RES
In an attempt to address the problem of land scarcity, in some Eu­
plant. In both cases (i.e., increasing and maintaining total installed
ropean countries with high RES penetration (e.g., Germany, United
power), the Directive [29] indicates that simplified licensing procedures
Kingdom, and Denmark), offshore sites were sought for further exploi­
should be introduced, urging Member States to facilitate the repowering
tation of wind potential, without corresponding increase in land demand
of existing RES units.
[24]. Nevertheless, offshore wind power is not yet able to fully replace
Repowering can be labelled based on the scale of implementation, in
onshore wind, due to technical, spatial, and other constraints, such as in
partial or full repowering. Full repowering includes the total replace­
countries lacking shallow water depths [25]. In such cases, including
ment of the existing RES equipment with a new one, to reach a high level
Greece, offshore wind farms will only make a decisive contribution
of energy efficiency. In the case of partial repowering, only a selected
when floating offshore wind technology reaches commercialisation level
number of RES components can be replaced. Depending on the extent of
and market competitiveness, which however is not expected to happen

2
H. Doukas et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 162 (2022) 112457

repowering to be implemented, it allows a wind farm to increase—and 2. The multi-dimensional nature of repowering
even triple— its production compared to the performance of the original
equipment built 10–20 years ago, usually using the same or slightly Repowering appears to have a positive impact on meeting national
larger area [30]. Regarding PVs, technological progress already allows climate targets (see [28] for Italy; [38] for Germany; and [39] for Spain)
repowering to significantly increase the energy produced by old PV fa­ since it allows an important increase of the renewable electricity pro­
cilities, whilst using the same plot [31]. duction from wind farms and PV stations. The latter has been verified by
The main aim of the paper is to highlight the multi-perspective na­ several relevant studies [30,31,36,40,41]. From the performance
ture of repowering beyond the technical dimension, to the socio- perspective, of particular interest in the literature are case studies where
economic context of a country. To do so, the paper delves into the sur­ repowering has doubled the electricity produced while retaining the
rounding environment of repowering within several European countries same nominal power [42]. In the same context, a case study conducted
that have made (UK, Germany, Italy, Spain) or are trying to make for a wind farm in India highlighted that energy production can be
(Greece) several steps forward toward a wider adoption of repowering, increased by as much as four times [43]. Other relevant studies have
to identify barriers and drivers as well as gather best practices and les­ reported an increase in efficiency by 10% [44].
sons learnt from its implementation so far. Therefore, the cost of replacing old RES with new, more efficient
In the literature, approaches to assessing the potential and impact of ones is offset by the benefits of increased electricity production [45].
repowering typically include highly context-specific, quantitative ana­ However, it should be noted that the increase in electricity production is
lyses that attempt to quantify the benefits of repowering—or of its partly due to better exploitation of the excellent wind and solar potential
drivers—in real use cases, partially highlighting selected aspects asso­ (i.e., in terms of more efficient RES equipment) of the land sites that
ciated with its implementation. For example, [32] listed a mix of regu­ have been selected for initial installations of wind turbines and PV
latory and political factors that may promote repowering, aiming to panels in the 1980s or 1990s [25].
quantify the contribution of each to enabling repowering projects in From a financial point of view, repowering offers solutions since it
Denmark. [33], studied the economics of repowering, using a real option allows the exploitation of existing infrastructure in its current form (e.g.,
modelling framework accompanied with a Monte Carlo simulation, to land sites, grid connection lines, equipment, road construction projects,
allow consideration of the investment costs and revenues, and to etc.), which in turn supress the need for new accompanying investments
determine the probability of repowering succeeding on a yearly basis, to support the repowering intervention [46]. The use of existing land
respectively. [34], then again, used as reference point the economic sites, along with the power increase of the RES projects that these sites
term of opportunity cost associated with repowering the existing wind already host, help avoid significant costs, in terms of both money and
farms in the Spanish Iberian Peninsula compared to fully depleting time that would otherwise have been allocated for study and develop­
them, and provided a novel repowering decision support model to ment of e.g., new transmission lines [32]. On top of that, financial
calculate the repowering potential in terms of environmental and eco­ considerations tend to favour repowering, primarily due to clearer
nomic impacts. Building on this study, [35] attempted to elicit the business visibility, in that the performance of existing wind/PV parks
optimal decision between life extension and full repowering of a wind has already been tested and confirmed throughout the years of their
farm installed in the Iberian Peninsula, under uncertainty. operation and the total investment and site-restoration cost is signifi­
In a slightly different setting, [36] emphasised the policy aspect of cantly lower [47].
repowering, presenting an overview of policy instruments to support the Technically speaking, repowering offers several advantages for the
implementation of onshore wind repowering, followed by a quantitative electricity system overall, since it leads to a reduction in reactive power
multi-criteria analysis that aimed to showcase how all policy options consumption and voltage fluctuations [48]. RES equipment has evolved
featured both advantages and disadvantages. Still at the policy level, to incorporate features that support the network in terms of stability,
[37] presented a geographic information system that permitted the such as the ‘low-voltage ride-through’ technology.
evaluation of optimal funding policies, at different spatial scales, for Modern wind farm technology entails lower rotation speeds and
ageing wind power plants. reduced noise emissions, which eventually foster milder intervention in
These indicative research studies underpin that most current scien­ terms of audio harassment for local populations than fast-rotating tur­
tific assessments of repowering revolve around quantitative analysis bines [32,36,48]. Regarding the impact of repowering on visual
frameworks, which focus on a subset of drivers to repowering in context- harassment, the indications are still contradictory. On the one hand,
specific case studies. This is further showcased in [32], which provides a there are studies indicating that installing new wind turbines with
categorisation of studies on repowering in five distinct groups, all of repowering can achieve considerable increases in power without adding
which focus on partial or full replacement of turbines on existing sites. In on the existing visual obstacles. For example, [49] presents an innova­
contrast, the aim of this paper is twofold: (a) to provide a qualitative tive methodology for measuring the visual impact of repowering, based
analysis of repowering, by reviewing the multi-faceted implications of on which a wind repowering project implemented in the Atlantic
repowering at technical, economic, market, policy, and societal level; coastland has been found to provide for sustaining the overall wind
and, drawing from this, (b) to put together best practices and lessons farm’s power increase by about 37.25%, without further burdening vi­
learnt from the repowering context in several European countries that sual harassment. Several choice experiments have also been carried out
are considered frontrunners (Germany, Spain, Italy, United Kingdom), to capture how people assess the visual impact of taller wind turbines
in order to help outline the pathway and challenges ahead in other associated with repowering [50]. Some of these concluded that people
countries, where repowering implementation is only now underway are positively disposed towards the installation of few large wind farms
(Greece). instead of many small ones, in that the visual obstacles are concentrated
Section 2 describes the multi-dimensional nature of repowering by at specific locations and thus the natural landscape is better preserved
deconstructing its socio-economic implications. Section 3 presents the elsewhere [51].
context regarding the implementation of repowering in various Euro­ On the other hand, there are studies concluding that repowering may
pean countries to showcase its real-life barriers and allies. Section 4 encompass negative impacts for local communities in terms of visibility
discusses the main insights drawn from the implementation of repow­ over long distances, primarily caused by the new taller turbines, the
ering in the described countries and finally, Section 5 summarises the rotating blades, and the flashing lights on top of the turbines. In this
main conclusions of the study and proposes some key development di­ respect, [52] explores the behavioural patterns of acceptance (or lack
rections toward achieving wider exploitation of repowering. thereof) regarding interventions on the landscape scenery in a case study
in Austria, based on which local decision makers appear cautious about
repowering, mainly due to increased industrialisation and visual

3
H. Doukas et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 162 (2022) 112457

harassment reasons. In the same context, a study conducted in three turbines associated with the repowering process increase both the
regions in Germany showed that wind repowering caused a reduction in overall swept area of the turbine’s blades and the height of the turbine
the number of wind turbines, while however doubling their height, tower, eventually leading to higher collision risks, while lower cut-in
thereby raising concerns among policymakers as to the effect of and cut-off speed of new wind turbines may also increase bird fatalities.
repowering on visual harassment [36]. Other studies (see [53] for The implementation of repowering is a first-class opportunity for the
Sweden and [54] for Scotland) also seem to converge to preference for creation of a secondary market, targeting the owners of small PVs and/
many small wind farms rather than few, larger ones. or wind turbines to proceed with the dismantling and replacement of
In the same context, [55] slightly differs and instead emphasises the their equipment, with new, more efficient units, thus renewing, if they
environmental dimension of repowering. More specifically, it presents deem so, the equipment of their production units [60].
the results of an analysis conducted in two Greek islands, where the local Finally, from a societal point of view, repowering can significantly
people seem primarily worried about the overall preservation of the support energy communities in their efforts to combat energy poverty
installation site more than about the number of turbines to be installed [61,62], within a circular economy context. This is because of the energy
or their height. communities’ ability to make full use of the wind farms’ and PV parks’
Drawing from the above, the perceived negative impact of repow­ equipment to be replaced, by purchasing it at low price or even free of
ering on visual impact due to the larger wind turbines may further charge from the RES producers, rather than disposing it. In this way,
hinder overall societal acceptance of RES installations [56] and has to be energy communities are allowed to acquire the necessary equipment to
weighed against the consequent lower number of turbines, despite the supply energy poor (or vulnerable) households with cheap renewable
latter mitigating visual harassment and land occupancy. electricity, at reasonable price [61].
When it comes to wind projects in particular, the impact of repow­ Part of the equipment can be donated to the local communities of the
ering on biodiversity raises heated debates. To evaluate the risk of bird host operational site and installed in community buildings like schools.
collisions with wind turbines, a variety of complex factors must be Also, part of the equipment can be donated to educational institutions
considered (e.g., behavioural patterns among male and female birds, for further technical training of students on renewable energy. The
adults and newborns, etc.), which can be a challenging process [32]. On latter, in addition to the economic benefits for the community, can
that reflection, several attempts have been made to quantify the impact highlight the social nature of RES, further boosting the levels of their
of wind turbines on bird mortality, leading to controversial results [57]. acceptance within these communities. These actions can also support
Some have arbitrarily assigned probabilities of collision (avoidance) the successful implementation of local energy planning [8,63].
while others have attempted to present empirical results [58]. In a case The above are summarised in Table 1 below.
study on death reduction of predators and other birds in California
concluded that repowering reduced birds’ deaths by up to 83%, whilst 3. Evaluation approach
retaining the production of energy at the same levels [59]. In the
mountainous Mediterranean ecosystems, for the same power output According to the relevant European Directive, the approval process
increase, adding wind turbines to the existing installation has been for repowering an operating RES unit cannot exceed one year at
found to significantly increase the mortality of male skylarks, compared maximum, except in cases where the application of repowering entails
to repowering [58]. In contrast, in [57] it is argued that larger and taller other consequences such as modifications to the network, where the

Table 1
Summary of the studies reviewed to establish the main principles of repowering.
Study Contribution to the repowering aspect Focal area Region

Env/mental Technical Financial Policy Societal

[28] X Development of wind repowering scenarios Italy

[30] X Analysis of wind repowering scenarios Brazil
[31] X Best Practices at the end of PV performance period –
[32] X X X Quantification of repowering’s political drivers Denmark
[33] X Repowering’s investment cost and revenues Denmark
[34] X Repowering’s opportunity cost Spain
[35] X Head-to-head comparison between life extension and repowering Spain
[36] X X X Contribution of policies in support of repowering –
[37] X Evaluation of funding policies Germany
[38] X Evaluation of wind turbine siting scenarios Germany
[39] X Assessment of repowering current wind farms Spain
[40] X Feasibility of wind repowering Spain
[41] X Feasibility of wind repowering United States
[42] X Techno-economic analysis of a real wind farm repowering Spain
[43] X Method for assessing the repowering potential India
[45] X Life cycle assessment of wind repowering Spain
[46] X Evaluation of partial repowering –
[47] X Quantification of the technological effects of wind repowering Denmark
[48] X Audio impact of wind repowering United States
[49] X Visual impact of wind repowering –
[50] X Assessing local acceptability of wind farms Germany
[51] X X Visual impact of wind repowering Norway
[52] X Investigation of behavioural patterns on wind energy Austria
[53] X Visual impact of wind repowering Sweden
[54] X Visual impact of wind repowering Scotland
[55] X Assessing local acceptability of wind farms Greece
[56] X Wind repowering effects on local communities Czech Republic
[57] X Addressing wildlife impacts from repowering –
[58] X Impact of repowering on socio-ecological change Portugal
[59] X Impact of repowering in biodiversity California
[60] X Second-hand turbine market from repowering –

4
H. Doukas et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 162 (2022) 112457

approval process can be extended for one more year [64]. the Navarre government [72].
To showcase the major importance of a stable legislative framework The installed wind power in Greece amounts to about 4 GW and the
towards a wider adoption of repowering, below are presented a few power of PV stations reaches 2.9 GW, 36% and 22% of which, respec­
examples of some European countries (UK, Germany, Italy, Spain and tively, have been in operation for more than 10 years [73,74]. Thus, the
Greece), where several attempts have been realised to promote repow­ total available power for repowering potentially amounts to 2.078 GW
ering within their national context [47], although it has yet to be suf­ (1.44 GW from wind farms – 0.638 GW from PVs). Considering that
ficiently exploited due to the rather strict existing licensing framework. repowering allows wind farms and PV stations to increase their energy
For the sake of integration, the contexts are extended beyond the production up to approximately three and two times respectively [30,
legislative dimension in order to identify other real-life allies and bar­ 31], usually using the same land area, compared to their energy pro­
riers of repowering, and are summarised in terms of country-specific duction of the original equipment built 10–20 years ago, the ‘new’
information on contextual factors relevant to repowering, based on a installed renewable power may reach 5.596 GW (4.32 GW from wind
three-pillar distinction: (a) repowering potential; (b) adequacy of the farms – 1.276 GW from PVs), assuming full repowering of all available
national regulatory framework; and (c) financial motives provided for power (2.078 GW). In more moderate scenarios, assuming a partial
repowering projects. Due to limited data availability, the cases discussed repowering of up to 40% of the available power (2.078 GW), the ‘new’
in this section mainly revolve around wind rather than solar repowering, installed renewable power may amount up to 2.23 GW, depending on
as such projects have drawn more attention in both application and the repowering percentage.
literature, considering their larger impacts in terms of spatial use and
installation equipment. 3.2. Adequacy of the regulatory framework
It is worth noting that the size of installed renewable capacity due to
full repowering in Europe is projected to increase steadily over the next Repowering planning policy in the UK is a highly complex issue since
10 years, from almost 2 GW in 2017 to 5.5 GW–8.5 GW in 2027. the regulatory frameworks can differ considerably among its countries
[75]. In England, assistance and guidance regarding the criteria that
3.1. Repowering potential should be applied when decision-makers consider a repowering appli­
cation for a wind farm is limited [75]. Considering also that the main
In 2020, the UK had 14.3 GW of installed onshore wind capacity. The principles of the English planning law require new applications to be
number of old (reaching a lifespan of 20 years) wind turbines [64] will filed by the owners of wind farms for most types of modifications
increase sharply in the coming years [65]. Consequently, producers are implemented in their installation, granting repowering permission be­
encouraged to consider repowering. Approximately 1.2 GW of onshore comes an even stricter procedure [75]. Therefore, a steep fall in appli­
wind power for repowering is currently under development in the UK, cations for planning permission for onshore wind farms in England was
almost five times the current capacity [66]. About 20 onshore wind noticed since 2016, thus forcing producers to push their units to full
farms in the UK have applied for repowering with a total capacity of 665 operation to the end of their lifetime [66]. In Scotland and Wales, on the
MW, most of them in Scotland [66]. A typical example of repowering in other hand, the regulatory framework fosters wind-related de­
the UK can be found in the case of the Delabole wind farm (originally put velopments since applications are typically handled centrally. Never­
into operation in 1991) between 2009 and 2011, which ultimately led to theless, policy in Scotland keeps rejecting calls for direct evaluation of
more than doubling the unit’s installed capacity, from 4 to 9.2 MW [67]. repowering applications, sticking to a case-by-case assessment, while
Wider utilisation of repowering in an additional 60 onshore wind farms policy planning in Wales has not provided for detailed criteria or pro­
in the country in the coming years—i.e., replacement of wind turbines of cedures to filing a repowering application [75]. Overall, the imple­
less than 1 MW with newer (2–4 MW)—could result in a net increase of mentation pace of repowering projects in the UK remains relatively
power, potentially amounting to approximately 1.3 GW [67]. slow, as the licensing framework has hitherto posed several barriers to
In Germany, following the recent change in RES legislation the widespread use of repowering.
(Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz – ‘EEG 2021’), large-scale upgrades to old The extent to which the new RES legislation in Germany will help
RES equipment will probably kick off in 2021. In the period up to 2025, promote repowering remains unclear, since 70% of the 16 GW of old
financial support based on the Feed-in-Tariff (FiT) system for 16 GW wind farms, for which the financial support based on the FiT system will
wind farms will cease [68], most of which are expected to resort to the cease, have not been able to proceed to repowering so far, due to various
solution of repowering. In the case of PVs, it is estimated that by 2025 legal restrictions [76]. In this regard, the federal government has made
approximately 176,000 plants in Germany will be excluded from the FiT specific changes to legislation on protection against environmental
regime, 85% of which are small with a power of less than 5 kW. Large PV pollution, in addition to the new RES legislation, which significantly
facilities will complete their 20-year support beyond 2025, since their facilitate the radical renewal of productive equipment for old RES pro­
construction was completed more recently. jects. Based on these changes, it is estimated that 40–60% of the projects
Italy is included in a ‘pioneering’ group of countries that deal with whose support (price and priority dispatch) under the FiT system is
the development of wind and PV facilities [16]: at the end of 2000, Italy coming to an end, may apply for repowering.
was among the five countries with the largest installed wind power [69]. In June 2020, wind farms in Italy ‘won’ a RES auction of a total
In terms of PV power, in 2019, Italy had a total installed capacity of 20.8 capacity of 425 MW, securing 406 MW of wind power [77]. It is worth
GW [18]. Today Italy has a huge repowering potential, since almost half noting that the initial planning provided for a total auctioned renewable
of the installed wind turbine fleet (10 GW) will reach the end of its useful power of 500 MW, which was eventually reduced to 425 MW due to
operational lifetime by 2030 (Fig. 1). limited participation [77], mainly tracing to the country’s
By 2030, 19 GW of renewable power in Spain will be over 20 years time-consuming, bureaucratic licensing process [78]. But, apart from
old, rendering repowering supporting policies a necessity, especially the licensing challenges, the auction failed to raise expectations, as bids
after 2025, because inter alia there are no spare parts to support their for repowering projects were not allowed.
operation [23,70]. An indicative example of repowering in Spain can be The legislative framework that drives transmission, distribution,
found in the case of the region Navarre, which recently authorised the marketing, supply, and authorisation procedures for power plants in
repowering procedures for the 16.5 MW Serralta wind farm, aiming to Spain (Royal Decree 1955/2000), together with the national electricity
reduce the number of wind turbines to nine, from the 51 currently sector law (Electricity Sector Act 24/2013), provide for an extremely
installed at the site [71]. Once the works are completed, the Serralta cumbersome process regarding the modification of electricity in­
wind farm is expected to retain its installed capacity of 16.5 MW, stallations. This essentially leaves up to each region’s authority the re­
although electricity production will increase by up to 30%, according to sponsibility to define the licenses and all relative amendments that must

5
H. Doukas et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 162 (2022) 112457

be fulfilled for an ‘old’ RES installation to be modified [79], which, in saturated HV/MV substations and distribution lines across the country.
turn, affect the repowering projects as well. Therefore, the improvement Therefore, significant sums would be spent in the coming years to
of a RES installation through repowering (regardless of whether it en­ address these challenges, especially since the National Energy and
tails an increase in power) is subject to less formalised, even subjective, Climate Plan (NECP) requires both the Independent Power Transmission
context-specific criteria. Operator (IPTO) and the Hellenic Electricity Distribution Network
In Greece, where repowering is still in its infancy, a number of Operator (HEDNO) to move beyond just accounting for electricity de­
radical, in-depth incisions are required in order for the country to be mand forecasts in the next decade, to also integrating the new RES
able to fully support and promote large-scale repowering actions, with a projects that should be connected and operate in the system. In this
possible increase in the installed capacity. As an indicative example of respect, the System Operator has planned highly costly projects for the
the bulk and cumbersome licensing procedures in Greece, when the case next decade, which involve island and international grid connections,
is for the sale of the produced energy, the current framework does not thus leaving just a limited fraction of budget available for upgrading the
provide for the necessary flexibility, for example remuneration based on internal high voltage network. Crucial in this process will be Greece’s
the existing FiT system for a part of the produced energy and sale of the Recovery and Resilience Plan funds, totalling €30.5 billion, a significant
remaining energy based on bilateral agreements. part of which will be used accordingly.
As a result, it is unclear how the transmission system will be able to
3.3. Financial motives support the connection and operation of the additional 10 GW of RES
projects, provisioned for in the revised NECP, within a time horizon until
Demand for repowering in the UK is expected to increase signifi­ 2030, without the use of repowering, unless a significant additional
cantly in the coming years. This will expectedly be greatly facilitated by funding is allocated for this purpose, which does not appear feasible
the fact that, starting in 2021, British RES producers will be able to join within the current context.
auctions and claim governmental subsidies, ending a five-year memo­
randum of price subsidy; according to government plans, onshore wind
3.4. Quantification
farms and PVs will be able to compete for ‘Contracts for Difference’
(CfD), thus creating a fertile ground for the development of repowering
Table 2 summarises and translates the information described above
[66].
into semi-quantified information for the identified quantitative and
Acknowledging that the costs of wind and PV have dropped signifi­
qualitative contextual factors.
cantly in recent years, making these technologies competitive to con­
The information presented in Table 2 is subjected to a classification
ventional fuels, in August 2020, the National Infrastructure Commission
scale (Table 3) and quantified (Table 4) on a comparative basis. To
(NIC) proposed raising the UK RES target for 2030 from 50% to 65%
clarify the quantification process, the positive performance of a country
[80].
is measured compared to the positive performance of the other countries
Specific measures and financial motives to facilitate and accelerate
in the same factor. However, the performance against the examined
the repowering of old PV units are expected to be voted by the German
factors contains both numerical and linguistic information, and hence all
Parliament by September. In the meantime, the radical renewal of RES
data must be initially transformed in a numerical scale. In this respect,
(especially wind) equipment in Germany is also developed as a separate
for each country, Table 4 presents the number of the remaining coun­
business field, which can offer prospects, especially in small and me­
tries that perform lower in a factor, drawing from the summarised
dium enterprises (SMEs) owning small wind farms, whose FiT contract
contexts described in Table 2. These values are then normalised within
expires in the coming years. In this case, companies with a large port­
the range [0,1] by applying the max-min normalisation technique [83]
folio and expertise (like Vatenfall) offer SMEs a free estimation of the
to obtain comparable input data. Given that the three performance
possibilities of further extending their park as well as customised
pillars have a positive impact on the examined countries, we consider
cooperation contracts for possible equipment renewal.
them to be of benefit nature. On that reflection, max-min normalisation
About a decade ago, a decree of the Italian legislation of 2012 on
applies a linear transformation on the original data based on the
‘burden sharing’ set strict regional targets of renewable production for
following equation:
2020, essentially forcing most of the Italian regions to increase RES
production to achieve them [28]. In this regard, repowering appeared to nij =
rij − rj min
⋅ (MV − LV) + LV (1)
draw significant attention back then as among the possible options. rj max − rj min
Following the end of the Fifth Energy Bill (Quinto Conto Energia), the
only RES support mechanisms remaining were through a where,
self-consumption scheme (Scambio sul Posto) and a tax reduction on
RES installation costs [81]. Therefore, repowering of RES facilities in i: examined country
Italy started being treated as a completely new investment. This, com­ j: performance factor
bined with its high cost, discouraged producers/operators, who nij : normalised value
preferred to undertake new projects in ‘virgin’ locations instead of rij : original value
applying repowering to old RES. rj min , rj max : minimum and maximum performance respectively
The implementation of repowering in Spain could lead to a deep against a performance factor
stalemate as the financial support from the old FiT system along with the MV, ​ LV: maximum and lower value respectively of the range, within
right of the producers to bid in new auctions are prohibited. In the same which the original values are normalised.
context, another challenge related to the implementation of repowering
in Spain stems from the preference of RES producers to turn to the Finally, the normalised values are evaluated based on a 5-level nu­
alternative of ‘lifetime extension’ of an existing wind farm rather than merical scale (Table 3), to obtain a final score for each country against
repowering, due to lower costs and a currently more flexible licensing the three key pillars, in terms of black-coloured circles. Each black circle
framework. Siemens Gamesa recently signed a contract to extend the indicates a degree of positive performance of a country against a factor.
lifetime of 238 MW of wind power in Spain from 20 to 30 years [82]; the In other words, the more the black-coloured circles of a country’s per­
lifetime extension program will include monitoring and structural up­ formance against a specific factor, the better the country is doing on that
grades to 264 wind turbines located in six wind farms in Zaragoza and front. The maximum positive performance of a country against a factor
Teruel counties, with an average age of 15 years [82]. is measured in four black-coloured circles, while the minimum in one
In Greece, the Operator is already facing significant problems with black circle. For example, Spain features the highest repowering

6
H. Doukas et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 162 (2022) 112457

Table 2
Summarised context of five European countries in terms of their performance in key pillars of repowering implementation.
Country Summarised context Key performance factors

Repowering Adequacy of regulatory Financial motives

potential framework

United 1.2 GW of onshore wind power for repowering purposes and about 20 existing RES Current situation
Kingdom projects have already applied for repowering. The implementation pace of repowering 1.2 GW Licensing framework in ‘Contracts for
projects remains relatively slow, mainly due to the current licensing framework. transition Difference’ in place
According to government plans, both wind and solar energy projects will be able to
receive financial support through ‘Contracts for Difference’ (CfD).
Germany High repowering capacity with 16 GW of ‘old’ wind power. For most of them, the Current situation
financial support of the FiT system ceases, so they are considered suitable for 16 GW Legislative constraints in FiT system ceases – New
repowering. However, this cannot be implemented at the moment, due to various revision motives expected
legislative constraints and high costs. Nevertheless, a legislation amendment that has
been announced since June 2020, will see for tailored motives to promote repowering
in the country.
Italy High repowering potential since almost half of the installed wind turbine fleet (10 GW) Current situation
will reach the end of its operational lifetime by 2030. However, the existing 10 GW Bulk regulatory Tax reduction for RES
institutional framework, combined with the absence of financial support of any kind for framework installation
repowering, has discouraged operators, who prefer to invest in new projects. The only
means of aid provided by the state is the subsidisation of the RES installation cost
through a tax reduction.
Spain 19 GW of renewable power will exceed 20 years of operation by 2030. Due to the Current situation
outdated technology of the old RES, there is a lack of spare parts to support them. 19 GW Highly cumbersome Absence of financial
National legislation framework with regard to repowering is highly cumbersome and regulatory framework motives
does not provide substantial financial support for such initiatives. The cost of
repowering is high, which is why most investors turn to the ‘lifetime extension’
alternative for their projects.
Greece The installed wind power amounts to about 4 GW and the power of PV stations reaches Current situation
2.9 GW, 36% and 22% of which, respectively, have been in operation for more than 10 2.078 GW Legislative incisions Absence of financial
years. Thus, the total available power for repowering potentially amounts to 2.078 GW. required motives
In Greece, repowering is still in premature level and several legislative incisions are
required to promote large-scale repowering actions. The System Operator has planned
costly interconnection projects for the next decade, leaving just a limited fraction of
budget available for upgrading the internal high voltage network, thus highlighting the
need for repowering.

Table 3 Table 4
Classification scale based on which the final scores are assigned to the examined Benchmarking of the five European countries.
countries. Examined Number of countries Normalised Final score
Normalised value (nij ) Score countries performing lower values (nij )

0 ≤ nij ≤ 0.25 • ο ο ο Repowering potential

0.25 < nij ≤ 0.5 • • ο ο United 0 0 • ο ο ο
0.5 < nij ≤ 0.75 • • • ο Kingdom
0.75 < nij ≤ 1 • • • • Germany 3 0.75 • • • ο
Italy 2 0.5 • • ο ο
Spain 4 1 • • • •
Greece 1 0.25
potential among the four frontrunning countries included in Table 2 • ο ο ο

(max value); therefore, the countries performing lower than Spain are 4, Adequacy of the regulatory framework
and thus the normalised value equals 1, which leads to Spain being rated United 3 1 • • • •
with four black circles in this pillar. In terms of strictly qualitative Kingdom
performance factors we draw from the discussion of Section 3 and Germany 3 1 • • • •
Italy 2 0.75
quantify based on respective developments.
• • • ο
Spain 1 0.33 • • ο ο
Greece 0 0 • ο ο ο
4. Discussion Financial motives

United 4 1
It becomes clear that in Europe, despite its multi-dimensional
• • • •
Kingdom
contribution within a country’s technical, societal, and economic Germany 3 0.75 • • • ο
context, repowering seems to be rolling out in slowly. The main reason Italy 2 0.5 • • ο ο
for this lies in the current licensing framework for repowering in several Spain 0 0 • ο ο ο
Greece 0 0
EU countries, which has not been properly harmonised with the Euro­ • ο ο ο

pean Directives, in order to release the value of repowering. However,

this is expected to change in the near future, with the transposition of the RES projects in what is now less than a decade emerges as a necessity.
new European Directive (RED II) 2018/2001/EU regarding the promo­ Drawing from the above, the RES potential of the described Euro­
tion of RES use in the national legislation of the Member States. pean countries, as well as the need for repowering stemming from their
In the same context, the recent political agreement between the EU ‘old’ RES units, cultivate the right conditions for the wide imple­
Member States and the European Parliament on a faster reduction of CO2 mentation of repowering projects. However, a thorough revision of the
emissions by 2030 (55% cuts compared to 1990) [84] appears to trigger current regulatory framework is required to lead to the appropriate in­
an upgrade of the targets set in the countries’ submitted NECPs and vestment environment and shorter licensing times, while, at the same
consequently the pressure to find suitable sites for the installation of new

7
H. Doukas et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 162 (2022) 112457

time, closely monitoring other European practices to accelerate the • New wind turbines cause reduced noise pollution compared to those
implementation of repowering. Especially in countries such as Greece, aged and being replaced.
with low expertise on that field, in order to be more prepared for the • The impact of repowering on visual harassment and biodiversity
challenges to face when implementing repowering, best practices and remains controversial, with some studies in the literature reporting
lessons learnt from other countries with long tradition in the repowering reduced risks and others highlighting augmented hazards.
front must be thoroughly analysed and adopted. • Energy communities are supported to tackle energy poverty by
It is worth noting that, in the process of reconsidering the regulatory obtaining RES equipment at lower prices than the market, to produce
frameworks, at national or European level, repowering allows possible cheap electricity.
spatial inconsistencies to be identified and reconsidered, regarding the • Energy democracy is strengthened, through the creation of a sec­
installation sites, due to stricter current institutional, spatial, and envi­ ondary market for small-scale repowering projects.
ronmental frameworks and guidelines compared to those in force during • The stability of the electrical system increases.
the initial implementation of the RES projects. It is also worth high­ • Possible spatial discrepancies associated with the older RES projects
lighting that approaches to promoting repowering can be found in so­ are identified and harmonised with the current environmental and
lutions tested or proposed in relevant contexts at national and European spatial planning legislation.
level, and can therefore be applied to foster repowering. For instance, • The need for new road construction and other accompanying pro­
[34] attempts to highlight the significance of repowering by utilising the jects is reduced.
opportunity cost to quantify the repowering potential in terms of envi­
ronmental and economic impacts compared to full depletion. In [85], However, drawing from the European experience so far, where
the major importance of participatory processes and co-creation mech­ repowering is partially applied or is under development, the large-scale
anisms focused on social licensing is highlighted toward a wider RES implementation of repowering projects, with a possible increase in the
installation, drawing from the dilemma between measuring the contri­ installed power, requires a radical revision of most Member States’
bution of a massive RES deployment in meeting a country’s climate existing regulatory frameworks, as well as harmonisation with the
targets and the threats emerging from such an action for the local respective European framework, the core pillar of which lies in simpli­
environment. Finally, [86] proposes a more radical solution to fying the repowering legislative framework.
addressing such challenges, through utilising big, cross-domain energy, In this respect, two key development guidelines toward a more
environmental, economic, and societal data, to develop a platform for extended implementation of repowering, regardless of the context upon
supporting the implementation of smart energy services. Despite their which they are applied, can be drawn. First, the integration of RES in­
different nature and focal point, these solutions seemingly converge to vestments that apply repowering with power increase must be
the in-depth institutional changes being required in the direction of strengthened. Second, the existing grid’s capacity to absorb the addi­
energy democracy, dialogue, and participatory processes for societal tional renewable energy from repowering projects must be reinforced.
authorisation.
Author contributions
5. Conclusions
H.D: Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and
In this study, we have attempted to identify best practices and lessons editing; A.A.: Conceptualisation, Formal analysis, Writing – original
learnt from the repowering experience in frontrunning countries in draft, Writing – review and editing, Project administration; M.L.:
Europe, with a view to supporting other countries in making progress Writing – original draft; A.N.: Writing – review and editing; A.F.: Writing
and addressing similar challenges when implementing repowering. – review and editing.
Multiple key factors driving or hindering the wide implementation of
repowering have been taken stock of, and a number of European
Funding
countries with long experience in repowering projects have been
assessed, based on these factors. This is done with the caveat of not of­
This research was supported by the H2020 European Commission
fering a highly detailed analysis on the European repowering landscape,
Project “PARIS REINFORCE” [under grant Agreement No. 820846]. The
but rather of drawing comparisons among selected countries against key
sole responsibility for the content of this paper lies with the authors; the
factors of relevance.
paper does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the European
To conclude, repowering is largely deemed as an innovative solution
Commission.
that can make an outstanding contribution to achieving national RES
targets and is therefore constantly gaining ground in Europe, despite its
controversial impact in some aspects. It reportedly offers adequate so­
lutions to the problem of the limited penetration of renewables in the Declaration of competing interest
existing system, due to the ever-growing difficulty in finding new suit­
able land sites for the installation of new units. It is, therefore, The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
approached as a possible answer to the social acceptance issues, interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
although its implications on this matter are still under investigation. the work reported in this paper.
Drawing from the analysis, the attributes of repowering are multi-
faceted (society, biodiversity, grid, economy, etc.) and can be sum­ References
marised in the following points:
[1] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Global Warming of 1.5◦ C. An IPCC
Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5◦ C above pre-industrial
• The land sites that would be required in the case of new RES projects levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of
are significantly reduced. strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable
• Repowering is frequently, yet arguably, framed as a way to famil­ development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. IPCC; 2018.
[2] Ansari MA, Haider S, Khan NA. Environmental Kuznets curve revisited: an analysis
iarise local communities with the presence of RES facilities and help using ecological and material footprint. Ecol Indicat 2020;115:106416.
them coexist harmoniously. [3] O’Neill K, Gibbs D. Sustainability transitions and policy dismantling: zero carbon
• Revenues for local communities can increase significantly due to housing in the UK. Geoforum 2020;108:119–29.
[4] Nikas A, Stavrakas V, Arsenopoulos A, Doukas H, Antosiewicz M, Witajewski-
increased energy production. Baltvilks J, et al. Barriers to and consequences of a solar-based energy transition in
Greece. Environ Innov Soc Transit 2020;35:383–99.

8
H. Doukas et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 162 (2022) 112457

[5] Johnsson F, Karlsson I, Rootzén J, Ahlbäck A, Gustavsson M. The framing of a [37] Piel JH, Stetter C, Heumann M, Westbomke M, Breitner MH. Lifetime extension,
sustainable development goals assessment in decarbonizing the construction repowering or decommissioning? Decision support for operators of ageing wind
industry – avoiding “Greenwashing”. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2020;131:110029. turbines. J Phys Conf Ser 2019;1222.
[6] European Commission. 2002/358/EC: council decision of 25 april 2002 concerning [38] Jung C, Schindler D, Grau L. Achieving Germany’s wind energy expansion target
the approval, on behalf of the European community, of the Kyoto Protocol to the with an improved wind turbine siting approach. Energy Convers Manag 2018;173:
united Nations framework convention on climate change and the joint fulfilment of 383-398.
commitments thereunder. Off J Eur Comm 2002;130:1–3. [39] Ramírez FJ, Honrubia-Escribano A, Gómez-Lázaro E, Pham DT. The role of wind
[7] Veum K, Bauknecht D. How to reach the EU renewables target by 2030? An energy production in addressing the European renewable energy targets: the case
analysis of the governance framework. Energy Pol 2019;127:299–307. of Spain. J Clean Prod 2018;196:1198-1212.
[8] Marinakis V, Papadopoulou AG, Psarras J. Local communities towards a [40] Colmenar-Santos A, Campíñez-Romero S, Pérez-Molina C, Mur-Pérez F.
sustainable energy future: needs and priorities. Int J Sustain Energy 2017;36(3): Repowering: an actual possibility for wind energy in Spain in a new scenario
296–312. without feed-in-tariffs. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;41:319-337.
[9] Abdmouleh Z, Alammari RAM, Gastli A. Review of policies encouraging renewable [41] Lantz E, Leventhal M, Baring-Gould I. Wind power project repowering: financial
energy integration & best practices. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;45:249–62. feasibility, decision drivers, and supply chain effects. National Renewable Energy
[10] European Parliament and Council. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Laboratory; 2013.
Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of [42] Villena-Ruiz R, Ramirez FJ, Honrubia-Escribano A, Gómez-Lázaro E. A techno-
energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing economic analysis of a real wind farm repowering experience: the Malpica case.
Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Off J Eur Union 2009;140:16–62. Energy Convers Manag 2018;172:182-199.
[11] European Commission. Communication from the commission to the European [43] Nivedh BS, Devi RPK, Sreevalsan E. Repowering of wind farms-a case study. Wind
parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the Eng 2013;37(2):137-150.
committee of the regions: a policy framework for climate and energy in the period [44] Typoltova J. Repowering opportunities in Europe. 2017.
from 2020 to 2030. 2014. [45] Martínez E, Jiménez E, Sanz F, Blanco J. Life cycle assessment of a wind farm
[12] Lichtenegger G, Rentizelas A, Trivyza N, Siegl S. Offshore and onshore wind repowering process. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;93:260-271.
turbine blade waste material forecast at a regional level in Europe until 2050. [46] Syed AH, Javed A, Feroz RMA, Calhoun R. Partial repowering analysis of a wind
Waste Manag 2020;106:120–31. farm by turbine hub height variation to mitigate neighboring wind farm wake
[13] Zappa W, Junginger M, van den Broek M. Is a 100% renewable European power interference using mesoscale simulations. Appl Energy 2020;268:115050.
system feasible by 2050? Appl Energy 2019;233–234:1027–50. [47] Lacal-Arántegui R, Uihlein A, Yusta JM. Technology effects in repowering wind
[14] Held A, Ragwitz M, del Rio P, Resch G, Klessmann C, Hassel A. Do almost mature turbines. Wind Energy 2020;23(3):660–75.
renewable energy technologies still need dedicated support towards 2030? Econ [48] Rogers A, Manwell J. Wind turbine noise issues-a white paper. Renewable Energy
Energy Environ Policy 2019;8(2):81. Research Laboratory Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; 2002.
[15] International Renewable Energy Agency. Future of Wind: deployment, investment, [49] Manchado C, Gomez-jauregui V, Lizcano PE, Iglesias A, Galvez A, Otero C. Wind
technology, grid integration and socio-economic aspects. In: A global energy farm repowering guided by visual impact criteria. Renew Energy 2019;135:
transformation paper. Abu Dhabi: IRENA; 2019. 197–207.
[16] International Renewable Energy Agency. Renewable capacity: statistics 2021. Abu [50] Meyerhoff J, Ohl C, Hartje J. Landscape externalities from onshore wind power.
Dhabi: IRENA; 2021. Energy Pol 2010;38(1):82–92.
[17] Jean J, Woodhouse M, Bulović V. Accelerating photovoltaic market entry with [51] Navrud S, Braten K. Consumers’ preferences for green and brown electricity. A
module replacement. Joule 2019;3(11):2824–41. choice modelling approach. Rev Écon Polit 2007;117:795–811.
[18] Jäger-Waldau A. PV status report 2019. Luxembourg: European Commission; 2019. [52] Scherhaufer P, Höltinger S, Salak B, Schauppenlehner T, Schmidt J. Patterns of
[19] Nikas A, Gambhir A, Trutnevyte E, Koasidis K, Lund H, Thellufsen JZ, et al. acceptance and non-acceptance within energy landscapes: a case study on wind
Perspective of comprehensive and comprehensible multi-model energy and climate energy expansion in Austria. Energy Pol 2017;109:863–70.
science in Europe. Energy 2021;215:119153. [53] Ek K. Quantifying the environmental impacts of renewable energy: the case of
[20] United Nations. World population prospects 2019 Highlights. New York: Swedish wind power. In: Pearce D, editor. Environmental valuation in developed
Department of Economic and Social Affairs; 2019. countries: case studies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2006. p. 181–210.
[21] Topham E, McMillan D, Bradley S, Hart E. Recycling offshore wind farms at [54] Bergmann A, Colombo S, Hanley N. Rural versus urban preferences for renewable
decommissioning stage. Energy Pol 2019;129:698–709. energy developments. Ecol Econ 2008;65:616–25.
[22] Mahmoudi S, Huda N, Alavi Z, Islam MdT, Behnia M. End-of-life photovoltaic [55] Dimitropoulos A, Kontoleon A. Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of
modules: a systematic quantitative literature review. Resour Conserv Recycl 2019; wind farm investment: a choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands. Energy
146:1–16. Pol 2009;37:1842–54.
[23] Reuters events. Repowering onshore wind assets in Europe: drivers and [56] Frantál B. Have local government and public expectations of wind energy project
opportunities. 2021. benefits been met? Implications for repowering schemes. J Environ Pol Plann 2015;
[24] European Wind Energy Association. The European offshore wind industry – key 17(2):217–36.
trends and statistics 2014. EWEA; 2015. [57] Smallwood KS. The challenges of addressing wildlife impacts when repowering
[25] Díaz H, Soares CG. An integrated GIS approach for site selection of floating offshore wind energy projects. In: Köppel J, editor. Wind energy and wildlife interactions.
wind farms in the Atlantic continental European coastline. Renew Sustain Energy Cham: Springer; 2017. p. 175–87.
Rev 2020;134:110328. [58] Ferreira D, Freixo C, Cabral AJ, Santos M. Is wind energy increasing the impact of
[26] Künneke R, Mehos DC, Hillerbrand R, Hemmes K. Understanding values embedded socio-ecological change on Mediterranean mountain ecosystems? Insights from a
in offshore wind energy systems: toward a purposeful institutional and modelling study relating wind power boost options with a declining species.
technological design. Environ Sci Pol 2015;53:118–29. J Environ Manag 2019;238:283–95.
[27] Plappert ML, Rudolph M, Vollmer C. Auswirkungen von Mindestabständen [59] Smallwood KS, Karas B. Avian and bat fatality rates at old-generation and
zwischen Windenergieanlagen und Siedlungen. Umweltbundesamt; 2019. repowered wind turbines in California. J Wildl Manag 2009;73(7):1062–71.
[28] Serri L, Lembo E, Airoldi D, Gelli C, Beccarello M. Wind energy plants repowering [60] Daubney K. In: Repowering trend enlivens second-hand turbine market.
potential in Italy: technical-economic assessment. Renew Energy 2018;115:382- WindPower; 2013. https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1183990/rep
390. owering-trend-enlivens-second-hand-turbine-market. [Accessed 13 December
[29] European Parliament and Council. Directive 2018/2001of the European 2021].
Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of [61] Arsenopoulos A, Marinakis V, Koasidis K, Stavrakaki A, Psarras J. Assessing
energy from renewable sources (recast). Off J Eur Union 2018;328:82–209. resilience to energy poverty in Europe through a multi-criteria analysis framework.
[30] de Bona JC, Ferreira JCE, Duran JFO. Analysis of scenarios for repowering wind Sustainability 2020;12(12):4899.
farms in Brazil. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;135:110197. [62] Doukas H, Marinakis V. Energy poverty alleviation: effective policies, best
[31] Curtis T, Heath G, Walker A, Desai J, Settle E, Barbosa C. Best practices at the end practices and innovative schemes. Energy Sources, Part B 2020;15(2):45–8.
of the photovoltaic system performance period. National Renewable Energy [63] Marinakis V, Doukas H, Xidonas P, Zopounidis C. Multicriteria decision support in
Laboratory; 2021. local energy planning: an evaluation of alternative scenarios for the Sustainable
[32] Kitzing L, Jensen MK, Telsnig T, Lantz E. Multifaceted drivers for onshore wind Energy Action Plan. Omega (United Kingdom) 2017;69:1–16.
energy repowering and their implications for energy transition. Nat Energy 2020;5: [64] Statista. In: Global onshore wind energy capacity in 2020, by country; 2021. https
1012–21. ://www.statista.com/statistics/476318/global-capacity-of-onshore-wind-en
[33] Himpler S, Madlener R. Optimal timing of wind farm repowering: a two-factor real ergy-in-select-countries/. [Accessed 13 December 2021].
options analysis. J Energy Mar 2014;7(3). [65] Rubert T, McMillan D, Niewczas P. A decision support tool to assist with lifetime
[34] de Simón-Martín M, de la Puente-Gil Á, Borge-Diez D, Ciria-Garcés T, González- extension of wind turbines. Renew Energy 2018;120:423–33.
Martínez A. Wind energy planning for a sustainable transition to a decarbonized [66] Reuters events. In: UK wind subsidy shift raises repowering hopes; 2020. https
generation scenario based on the opportunity cost of the wind energy: Spanish ://www.reutersevents.com/renewables/wind/uk-wind-subsidy-shift-raises-re
Iberian Peninsula as case study. Energy Proc 2019;157:1144–63. powering-hopes. [Accessed 12 December 2021].
[35] Abadie LM, Goicoechea N. Old wind farm life extension vs. full repowering: a [67] Tomei J. Peak wind: the social acceptance of wind energy in Cornwall. Wind2050.
review of economic issues and a stochastic application for Spain. Energies 2021;14 2017.
(12):3678. [68] Windenergie Bundesverband. Vorschläge zur Beschleunigung und Erleichterung
[36] del Río P, Silvosa AC, Gómez GI. Policies and design elements for the repowering of des Repowering von Windenergieanlagen. 2021.
wind farms: a qualitative analysis of different options. Energy Pol 2011;39(4): [69] International Energy Agency. Wind energy annual report. IEA; 2001.
1897–908.

9
H. Doukas et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 162 (2022) 112457

[70] Jäger-Waldau A, Kougias I, Taylor N, Thiel C. How photovoltaics can contribute to [79] Chance Cliford. Repowering renewable installations: regulatory implications.
GHG emission reductions of 55% in the EU by 2030. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2020.
2020;126. [80] Brown T. National infrastructure commission: updated renewables target. House of
[71] Energética. In: Inver Management inicia los trabajos de repotenciación de los Lords Library; 2020. https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/national-infrastructure
parques eólicos Serralta y San Gregorio; 2021. https://energetica21.com/notici -commission-updated-renewables-target/. [Accessed 12 December 2021].
a/inver-management-inicia-los-trabajos-de-repotenciacion-de-los-parques-eoli Accessed:.
cos-serralta-y-san-gregorio. [Accessed 12 December 2021]. [81] Abdin GC, Noussan M. Electricity storage compared to net metering in residential
[72] RenewablesNow. In: Spanish group given permit to repower old 16.5-MW wind PV applications. J Clean Prod 2018;176:175–86.
farm; 2020. https://www.renewablesnow.com/news/spanish-group-given-perm [82] Gamesa Siemens. In: Siemens Gamesa to extend the useful life of a customer’s
it-to-repower-old-165-mw-wind-farm-714969/. [Accessed 12 December 2021]. entire fleet of wind turbines in Aragon, Spain by 10 years until year 30; 2021. htt
[73] Ministry of the environment and energy (Greece). National Energy and Climate ps://www.siemensgamesa.com/newsroom/2018/11/contract-services-spain-ara
Plan; 2019. gon-wind-turbines. [Accessed 12 December 2021]. Accessed 2021.
[74] Ministry of the Environment and Energy (Greece). Long-term strategy for 2050. [83] Vafei N, Ribeiro RA, Camarinha-Matos LM. Data normalisation techniques in
2020. decision making: case study with TOPSIS method. Int J Inf Decis Sci 2018;10(1):19.
[75] Peter N. Something new in the wind: adapting consent procedures to promote the [84] Nikas A, Elia A, Boitier B, Koasidis K, Doukas H, Cassetti G, et al. Where is the EU
repowering of onshore wind installations in France and the UK. I.B.L.J.; 2021. p. 1. headed given its current climate policy? A stakeholder-driven model inter-
[76] European Wind Industry. Letter to the German Government. 2021. comparison. Sci Total Environ 2021;793:148549.
[77] WindEurope. In: Wind wins lion’s share in Italian renewable energy auction; 2020. [85] Doukas H, Nikas A, Stamtsis G, Tsipouridis I. The green versus green trap and a
https://windeurope.org/newsroom/news/wind-wins-lions-share-in-italian-renewa way forward. Energies 2020;13(20):5473.
ble-energy-auction/. [Accessed 12 December 2021]. Accessed:. [86] Marinakis V, Doukas H, Tsapelas J, Mouzakitis S, Sicilia Á, Madrazo L, et al. From
[78] Fermeglia M, Bevilacqua P, Cafaro C, Ceci P, Fardelli A. Legal pathways to coal big data to smart energy services: an application for intelligent energy
phase-out in Italy in 2025. Energies 2020;13(21):5605. management. Future Generat Comput Syst 2020;110:572–86.

10