A Methodology for Deriving a Renewable Energy Market Competence Index with Application to CSP Technology By Hatem Elsayed Hany Elrefaei submitted to Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University and Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Kassel in partial fulfillment of the requirements for M.Sc. degree in Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency for the MENA Region REMENA Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University Giza, Egypt March 2012
150
Embed
A Methodology for Deriving a Renewable Energy Market ... · A Methodology for Deriving a Renewable Energy Market Competence Index with Application to CSP Technology By Hatem Elsayed
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
A Methodology for Deriving a Renewable Energy
Market Competence Index with Application to
CSP Technology
By
Hatem Elsayed Hany Elrefaei
submitted to
Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University
and
Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Kassel
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for M.Sc. degree in Renewable Energy and
Energy Efficiency for the MENA Region
REMENA
Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University
Giza, Egypt
March 2012
A Methodology for Deriving a Renewable Energy
Market Competence Index with Application to
CSP Technology
By
Hatem Elsayed Hany Elrefaei submitted to
Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University
and
Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Kassel
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for M.Sc. degree in Renewable Energy and
Energy Efficiency for the MENA Region
REMENA
Under supervision of
Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University
Giza, Egypt
2012
Mohamed ElSobki Mohab Hallouda Professor
in Electrical Power and Machines Department Faculty of Engineering
Cairo University
Professor in Electrical Power and Machines Department
Faculty of Engineering Cairo University
A Methodology for Deriving a Renewable Energy
Market Competence Index with Application to
CSP Technology By
Hatem Elsayed Hany Elrefaei submitted to
Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University
and
Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Kassel
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for M.Sc. degree in Renewable Energy and
Energy Efficiency for the MENA Region
REMENA
Approved by the Examining Committee:
Dr. Hany Nokrashy, Member
Professor Dirk Dahlhaus, Member
Professor Mohamed ElSobki, Thesis Advisor
Professor Mohab Hallouda, Thesis Advisor
Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University
Giza, Egypt 2012
i
Contents
List of Tables............................................................................................................................. iv
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... vii
List of Symbols ......................................................................................................................... viii
List of Abbreviations................................................................................................................ ix
Acknowledgment ...................................................................................................................... xi
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... xii
Figure (2.2) World color map for the Political Instability Index covering the period 2009/2010, Economist Intelligence Unit [5].
This index is a forward index that ranges from “0” (no vulnerability) to “10” (highest
vulnerability) where Norway, Denmark, Canada have lowest vulnerability with scores 1.2, 2.2,
and 2.8 respectively. The indices scores for 165 countries for 2009/2010 are shown as a color
map for the whole world in Figure (2.2) [5].
It is most interesting to see from the color map of Figure (2.2) that countries like Tunisia,
Libya, and Egypt are put on the same risk category as USA and China (moderate risk). This
reveals that in the 2009/2010 period no one had any expectations of the spring revolutions in
these countries. Qualitatively, Libya’s score is 4.3, and Tunisia is 4.6, even making them more
stable than China with a score 4.8, and USA with 5.3 as shown in Table (2.1) where RCREEE
Arab countries are shown in gray background. The author of the index admits that while it
relays on the work of the Political Instability Task Force (PITF) of George Mason University in
the US, this PITF has a success rate over 80% in identifying serious outbreak for data extending
back till 1955 [6].
Political, Economic, Social, and Energy Indices
9
Table (2.1) Score and rank for RCREEE and 10 benchmark countries for the Political Instability Index 2009/2010 [4].
Rank Country Political Instability Index
150 Germany 3.8
137 Libya 4.3
135 India 4.5
134 Tunisia 4.6
124 China 4.8
110 USA 5.3
106 Egypt 5.4
106 Jordan 5.4
105 Brazil 5.4
104 Spain 5.5
99 Bahrain 5.5
98 Morocco 5.6
94 Syria 5.8
79 Yemen 6.1
71 Greece 6.3
64 Malaysia 6.5
61 Algeria 6.6
55 Turkey 6.8
39 South Africa 7
39 Lebanon 7
6 Iraq 7.9
4 Sudan 8
Chapter 2
10
2.3.1.2 Corruption Perceptions Index
The Corruption Perception Index (CPI) is developed by Transparency International
which is a global NGO that works to globally fight corruption [7]. As the name stands, this
index ranks the countries “in terms of the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist
among public officials and politicians” [8]. The index is based on common questionnaire
assessment made by 10 reputable international organizations. Each question in the
questionnaire has a list of possible answers with certain number of points corresponding to each
answer. The score of the country is calculated by taking the simple arithmetic average of the
points of the same question coming from different surveys and then taking the simple
arithmetic average of all questions of the country (much more details of the data processing is
available in [8]).
The CPI is a backward index that ranges from “0” indicating a highly corrupted country
up to “10” for clean government and politicians where Denmark, New Zealand, and Singapore
are on the top of the list at scores 9.3 for all of them. Figure (2.3) shows a world color map for
the CPI for 2010 [9]. The result of that year indicates that only one fourth of the 178 countries
studied – mainly the developed countries – have score above five. This reveals that most of the
citizens in the world are governed by highly corrupted governments, and corruption is a
common practice across the globe.
Figure (2.3) World color map for the Corruption Perception Index for 2010 [9].
Political, Economic, Social, and Energy Indices
11
Table (2.2) shows the score and rank for RCREEE and benchmark countries in the CPI for 2010
which reveal that all RCREEE countries have score below “5”, indicating high corruption.
Table (2.2) Score and rank of RCREEE and 10 benchmark countries for the Corruption Perception Index for 2010 [10].
Rank Country CPI Score
15 Germany 7.9
22 USA 7.1
30 Spain 6.1
48 Bahrain 4.9
50 Jordan 4.7
54 South Africa 4.5
56 Malaysia 4.4
56 Turkey 4.4
59 Tunisia 4.3
69 Brazil 3.7
78 China 3.5
78 Greece 3.5
85 Morocco 3.4
87 India 3.3
98 Egypt 3.1
105 Algeria 2.9
127 Lebanon 2.5
127 Syria 2.5
146 Libya 2.2
146 Yemen 2.2
172 Sudan 1.6
175 Iraq 1.5
Chapter 2
12
2.3.1.3 Freedom Country Index
The Freedom Country Index (FCI) is developed by Freedom House and it measures the
freedom of individual citizen as they experience in their daily life [11]. The index relies on two
main indices:
• Political Rights Index (PRI).
• Civil Liberties Index (CLI).
The FCI is a forward index where the scale ranges from “1” (most free) to “7”, (least
free) on half point intervals. Finally the countries are categorized into one of three groups; Free,
Partly Free, and Not Free as shown in Table (2.3).
Table (2.3) Categorization of country freedom status [12].
Freedom Country Index Country Status
1.0 to 2.5 Free
3.0 to 5.0 Partly Free
5.5 to 7.0 Not Free
The FCI for 2010 reports 194 countries and 14 territories and are color mapped in
Figure (2.4) [13]. The status of the RCREEE and benchmark countries is listed in Table (2.4)
where they are ranked according to PRI first then CLI. While this table shows that all RCREEE
countries except Lebanon and Morocco are not free, it is believed that after the spring
revolutions and with fare and transparent elections, the statuses of the relevant countries will be
changed.
Figure (2.4) World color map for the Freedom Country Index for 2011 [13].
Political, Economic, Social, and Energy Indices
13
Table (2.4) Score and status of RCREEE and benchmark countries for the Freedom Country Index for 2010 [14] [15].
Country PRI CLI Country Status
Germany 1 1 Free
Spain 1 1 Free
USA 1 1 Free
Greece 1 2 Free
Brazil 2 2 Free
South Africa 2 2 Free
India 2 3 Free
Turkey 3 3 Partially Free
Malaysia 4 4 Partially Free
Lebanon 5 3 Partially Free
Morocco 5 4 Partially Free
Iraq 5 6 Not Free
Algeria 6 5 Not Free
Bahrain 6 5 Not Free
Egypt 6 5 Not Free
Jordan 6 5 Not Free
Yemen 6 5 Not Free
Palestine1 6 6 Not Free
Tunisia 7 5 Not Free
China 7 6 Not Free
Syria 7 6 Not Free
Libya 7 7 Not Free
Sudan 7 7 Not Free
1 The latest data for Palestine is that of 2009.
Chapter 2
14
2.3.1.4 Press Freedom Index
The Press Freedom Index (PFI) is developed by Reporters Without Borders which is a
French registered international non-profit organization [16]. The Index measures the freedom
enjoyed by journalists and news organizations in different countries, and thus it neither measure
the level of the freedom of the country itself, nor how oppressive the regime of the country
understudy. The index accounts for any emotion or physical violence that may be imposed on
journalists or from mere threats to imprisonment and murders. It also accounts for any freedom
violation imposed on media outlets such as censorship, confiscation of equipment, and
harassment [17].
The PFI is a questionnaire-based forward index that is calculated based on a survey of
43 questions [18]. A pointing system is devised to give certain number of points according to
the answer to each question. The score starts from “0” for most press freedom country and
counts up according to a point system that maps the answers of the questions [19]. The world
color map shown in Figure (2.5) is based on data collected from 178 countries between
September 2009 and September 2010 [20]. The questionnaire and the pointing system of the
Press Freedom Index will be discussed in much more details in Chapter 3. The score and rank
of the RCREEE and benchmark countries according to the PFI are listed in Table (2.5) [21].
Figure (2.5) World color map for the Press Freedom Index for 2010 [20].
Political, Economic, Social, and Energy Indices
15
Table (2.5) Score and rank of RCREEE and benchmark countries for the Press Freedom Index for 2010 [21].
Rank Country Press Freedom Index
17 Germany 4.25
20 USA 6.75
38 South Africa 12
39 Spain 12.25
58 Brazil 16.6
73 Greece 19
78 Lebanon 20.5
120 Jordan 37
122 India 38.75
127 Egypt 43.3
130 Iraq 45.58
133 Algeria 47.33
135 Morocco 47.40
138 Turkey 49.25
141 Malaysia 50.75
144 Bahrain 51.38
150 Palestine 56.13
160 Libya 63.5
164 Tunisia 72.5
170 Yemen 82.13
171 China 84.67
172 Sudan 85.33
173 Syria 91.5
Chapter 2
16
2.3.2 Economics
2.3.2.1 Gini Index
The Gini Index (GI) (some reports it as Gini coefficient) was originally developed by
the Italian statistician and sociologist Corrado Gini in 1912 [22]. Currently, it is calculated and
maintained by the Central Intelligent Agency [23]. The GI measures the degree of family
income inequality in the country. The Gini Index is type of indices that depend on direct
mathematical equations based on statistical data representing the wealth distribution of the
country. The description of the GI and the equation used to calculate it will be presented in
detail in Chapter 3. It is a backward Index where its scale ranges from “0” for perfect equal
income distribution among all families and “100” for perfect unequal income distribution where
all the income of the country is owned – theoretically – by only one family while all the rest
have zero income. The 2009 version lists 136 countries where Sweden, Hungary, and Norway
have the most equal income distribution with scores 23, 24, and 25 respectively. Figure (2.6)
presents a world color map for the Gini Index [24].
Figure (2.6) World color map for the Gini Index [24].
Political, Economic, Social, and Energy Indices
17
Table (2.6) Score and rank of RCREEE and benchmark countries for the Gini Index [23].
Rank Country Gini Index Date of Information
130 Germany 27 2006
106 Spain 32 2005
101 Greece 33 2005
92 Egypt 34.4 2001
90 Algeria 35.3 1995
83 India 36.8 2004
76 Yemen 37.7 2005
65 Jordan 39.7 2007
64 Turkey 39.7 2008
63 Tunisia 40 2005 (estimate)
58 Morocco 40.9 2007 (estimate)
53 China 41.5 2007
40 USA 45 2007
34 Malaysia 46.2 2009
13 Brazil 53.9 2009
3 South Africa 65 2005
Table (2.6) lists RCREEE and benchmark countries (Libya, Palestine, Syria, and
Lebanon data are missing from the original source) according to their GI. Unfortunately the
data are not available at the same year, and thus the rank does not exactly representative to the
current relative situation among these countries.
Chapter 2
18
2.3.2.2 Index of Economic Freedom
The Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) is developed by The Heritage Foundation and
the Wall Street Journal and it measures individual rights to have full control over his/her labor
and property [25]. Economically free countries are characterized by the freedom of its citizens
to work, produce, consume, and invest as they want without restriction from the government or
state, off course within the framework set by the state to protect the environment and without
infringing others liberties. The IEF combines the following 10 measures:
• Business freedom
• Trade freedom
• Monetary freedom
• Government size/spending
• Fiscal freedom
• Property rights
• Investment freedom
• Financial freedom
• Freedom from corruption
• Labor freedom
The index is a backward one with scale that ranges from “0”, meaning no freedom, up
to “100”, meaning maximum freedom. The 2011 index covers 183 countries where the leading
ones are Hong Kong, Singapore, and Australia with scores 89.7, 87.2, and 82.5 respectively.
Table (2.7) lists RCREEE and benchmark countries according to their IEF where Palestine
information is missing from the source.
Political, Economic, Social, and Energy Indices
19
Table (2.7) Score and rank of RCREEE and benchmark countries for the Index of Economic Freedom for 2011 [26].
Rank Country Index of Economic Freedom
9 USA 77.8
10 Bahrain 77.7
23 Germany 71.8
31 Spain 70.2
38 Jordan 68.9
53 Malaysia 66.3
67 Turkey 64.2
74 South Africa 72.7
88 Greece 60.3
89 Lebanon 60.1
93 Morocco 59.6
96 Egypt 59.1
100 Tunisia 58.5
113 Brazil 56.3
124 India 54.6
127 Yemen 54.2
132 Algeria 52.4
135 China 52
140 Syria 51.3
173 Libya 38.6
Chapter 2
20
2.3.2.3 Global Competitive Index
The Global Competitive Index (GCI) was developed by the World Economic Forum
under the supervision and leadership of Professor Xavier Sala-i-Martin in 2004 at Columbia
University [27] [28]. The World Economic Forum was founded as a non-profit organization in
1971 by Professor Klaus Schwab in Switzerland under the name European Management Forum
and changed its name to the current one in 1987 [27]. The GCI comprises 12 dimensions that
cover very wide spectrum of societal performance; from infrastructure, education, and health, to
labor market, and innovation.
• Institutions
• Infrastructure
• Microeconomic environment
• Health and primary education
• Higher education and training
• Good market efficiency
• Labor market efficiency
• Financial market development
• Technical readiness
• Market size
• Business sophistication
• Innovation
It is one of the most complex indices covered in this thesis. The latest GCI of 2010-2011
covers 139 countries. The index is a backward one with its scale ranges form “1” for the least
competitive economy to “7” for the most competitive one where Switzerland, Sweden, and
Singapore are the leading countries with scores 5.63, 5.56, and 5.48 respectively. Table (2.8)
lists RCREEE and benchmark countries according to their GCI where Palestine and Yemen
data are not reported for 2010-2011 results [30]. It is worth noticing that though Tunisia has a
relatively advanced place as an economically competitive society, Tunisia ranks badly in the
Economic Freedom (Table (2.7)), Gini Index (Table (2.6)), Press Freedom Index (Table (2.5)),
and Freedom Country Index (Table (2.3)). This reveals that being an economically competitive
society doesn’t necessarily mean that the market is free, the wealth is fairly distributed, or the
country is free from the media or political censorship. At the end, being economically
competitive did not save the old ruling regime in Tunisia a revolution that overthrew it.
Political, Economic, Social, and Energy Indices
21
Table (2.8) Score and rank of the RCREEE and benchmark countries for the Global Competitive Index for 2010-2011 [30].
Rank Country Global Competitive Index
4 USA 5.43
5 Germany 5.39
26 Malaysia 4.88
27 China 4.84
32 Tunisia 4.65
37 Bahrain 4.54
42 Spain 4.49
51 India 4.33
54 South Africa 4.32
58 Brazil 4.28
61 Turkey 4.25
65 Jordan 4.21
75 Morocco 4.08
81 Egypt 4.00
83 Greece 3.99
86 Algeria 3.96
92 Lebanon 3.89
97 Syria 3.79
100 Libya 3.74
Chapter 2
22
2.3.3 Human development
2.3.3.1 Human Development Index
The Human Development Index (HDI) is developed by United Nation Development
Program (UNDP) and it combines three pillars into one measure [31]:
• Life expectancy.
• Educational attainment.
• Income.
HDI is calculating by taking the arithmetic average of the three components indices. As
so, it is a compound index, which scale range from “0”, for the least developed, to “1” for the
most developed country. A world color map for the HDI is shown in Figure (2.7) [32], while a
list of the RCREEE and benchmark countries with their score and rank is given in
Table (2.9) [33].
It is worth mentioning that the countries where the first 3 spring revolutions erupted in
the Arab world; namely Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen, belong to 3 different levels under the HDI,
from High (Tunisia), Medium (Egypt), to low (Yemen).
Figure (2.7) World color map for the Human Development Index for 2010 [32].
Political, Economic, Social, and Energy Indices
23
Table (2.9) Score and rank of RCREEE and benchmark countries for the Human Development Index for 2010 [33].
Rank Country Human Development Index
4 USA 0.902
10 Germany 0.885
20 Spain 0.863
22 Greece 0.855
39 Bahrain 0.801
55 Libya 0.755
57 Malaysia 0.744
73 Brazil 0.699
81 Tunisia 0.683
82 Jordan 0.681
83 Turkey 0.679
84 Algeria 0.677
89 China 0.663
97 Palestine 0.645
101 Egypt 0.62
110 South Africa 0.597
111 Syria 0.589
114 Morocco 0.567
119 India 0.519
133 Yemen 0.439
154 Sudan 0.379
Chapter 2
24
2.3.3.2 Global Gender Gap Index
The Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI) is developed by the World Economic Forum and
it was introduced for the first time in 2006. It aims to measure the differences between genders
in different countries based on four indices [34]:
• Economic participation and opportunity index.
• Educational attainment index.
• Health and survival index.
• Political empowerment index.
The index measures the disparity between different genders in how much they enjoy
these four aspects of life. Three important concepts were adopted for the Index to be
representative of the gap between genders; namely [34]:
• It measures the gaps between genders rather than absolute levels.
• It measures the gaps in the outcomes but not the gaps in the means.
• Country rank is based on gender equality not on women’s empowerment.
The GGGI is a backward one, with its scale ranges from “0” for the country of least
equality between genders up to “1” for the country if most equality. The results of 2010 analyze
134 countries where Iceland, Norway, and Finland are on the top of the list with scores 0.8496,
0.8404, and 0.8260 respectively. Table (2.10) lists the score and rank of RCREEE and
benchmark countries for the GGGI for 2010 [34]. It shows that the RCREEE countries are far
from the top 100 countries, where Yemen is at the bottom of the list. Investigating RCREEE
countries’ profiles in the final GGGI report, one notices that the lacking behind for these
countries is due to the large gap in economic and political factors, not in health or education.
Normally men earn more than women in Arab countries, and normally women are not
participating in the political life. This is understandable in the sense that in the Arab countries’
men are responsible for family wellbeing, and women “willingly” are more dedicated for house
keeping. If the gap in the economic and political factors were based on a societal discriminatory
behavior, it would have shown the same characteristic in the education and health indicators as
Political, Economic, Social, and Energy Indices
25
well, but this is not the case. At the end, the GGGI just measures the gap in the outcome rather
than the reasons for that.
Table (2.10) Score and rank of RCREEE and benchmark countries for the Global Gender Gap Index for 2010 [34].
Rank Country Global Gender Gap Index
11 Spain 0.7554
12 South Africa 0.7537
13 Germany 0.753
19 USA 0.7411
58 Greece 0.6908
85 Brazil 0.6655
98 Malaysia 0.6479
107 Tunisia 0.6266
110 Bahrain 0.6217
112 India 0.6155
116 Lebanon 0.6084
119 Algeria 0.6052
120 Jordan 0.6048
124 Syria 0.5926
125 Egypt 0.5899
126 Turkey 0.5876
127 Morocco 0.5767
134 Yemen 0.4603
Chapter 2
26
2.3.3.3 Global Wellbeing Index
The Global Wellbeing Index (GWI) is developed by Gallup Incorporation, an
international consultancy firm specialized in conducting surveys and offering studies about
people opinion, and living conditions that help decision makers in companies and government
make informed decisions [35]. The GWI is based on Cantril Self-Anchoring Striving Scale
which measures individual’s life satisfaction on a scale from “0”, indicating worst possible life,
up to “10” indicating best possible life. This scaling measure is carried for the current
individual situation and for how he/she thinks the future will be. Then individuals are
categorized into three categories; thriving, struggling, and suffering as shown in the Table
(2.11) [36].
Table (2.11) Definition of Thriving, Struggling, and Suffering according to Cantril Self-Anchoring Striving Scale [36].
Thriving Struggling Suffering
Current situation 7-10 4 7 0-4
Perception of the future 8-10 4 8 0-4
GWI reports also an average daily experience on a scale from “0”, meaning worst
experience, up to “10”, meaning best experience, based on 10 factors [34]:
• Feeling well-rested
• Being treated with respect
• Smiling/laughter
• Learning/interest
• Enjoyment
• Physical pain
• Worry
• Sadness
• Stress
• Anger
Table (2.12) lists the score of RCREEE and benchmark countries for the GWI for 2010
[36]. Unfortunately the original source and rank groups the countries on continental bases, so it
was difficult to get a rank for the RCREEE and benchmark countries in Table (2.12), but
instead they are ordered according to the daily experience score. It is interesting to see that
though the first country after Germany, the Sudan, has much more struggling and suffering and
Political, Economic, Social, and Energy Indices
27
less thriving people; the score of daily experience of the people in both Germany and the Sudan
are the same, 7.4. This can be attributed to the fact the many of Sudanese people – as in the rest
of the Arab countries – are more inclined to accept what life gives them as a will of God, and so
they tend to appreciate and enjoy what they have even if it is little. Their future prosperity is as
attached to God’s willing after doing the maximum efforts they do.
Chapter 2
28
Table (2.12) Score of RCREEE and benchmark countries for the Global Wellbing Index for 2010 [36].
Country Thriving (%) Struggling (%) Suffering (%) Daily experience
Malaysia 15 80 5 8.1
China 9 77 14 7.6
Brazil 58 40 2 7.5
Germany 43 50 7 7.4
Sudan 7 81 12 7.4
South Africa 21 71 8 7.3
USA 57 40 3 7.3
Bahrain 32 45 23 7
Greece 31 57 11 7
Morocco 10 80 10 7
Spain 36 58 6 7
India 10 69 21 6.9
Tunisia 14 77 9 6.8
Syria 10 66 24 6.8
Jordan 30 61 8 6.7
Algeria 18 77 6 6.7
Lebanon 21 64 15 6.3
Yemen 14 62 24 6.3
Egypt 10 71 19 6.1
Libya 24 68 8 6
Turkey 13 67 20 6
Palestine 14 70 15 5.8
Iraq 11 71 18 5.2
Political, Economic, Social, and Energy Indices
29
2.3.4 Energy
2.3.4.1 Fossil Fuel Sustainability Index
The Fossil Fuel Sustainability Index (FFSI) was developed by Volkan Ş. Ediger et al. to
introduce a criterion to measure the sustainability of fossil resources [37]. The proposed index
combines three indicators:
• The Reserve to Production ratio of the fossil fuel (RP ratio).
• The annual Production to annual Consumption of each fossil fuels (PC ratio).
• The Carbon Emission ratio (CE ratio).
The FFSI is a backward index with scale that varies from “0”, meaning worst possible
sustainability, up to “1”, meaning highest possible sustainability. The study covers 62 countries
where Qatar, Norway, and Kuwait are on the top of the list with scores 0.4393, 0.3972, and
0.3953 respectively. Unfortunately only two RCREEE countries (Algeria and Egypt) appear in
this index and are shown in Table (2.13) along with other 8 studied benchmark countries. This
index also is a very good example of an index that is solely based on statistical data and direct
application of equations. The construction of FFSI and the equations used will be studied in
more details in Chapter 3.
Chapter 2
30
Table (2.13) Score and rank of Algeria, Egypt and 9 benchmark countries according to Fossil Fuel Sustainability Index for 2005 [37].
Rank Country Fossil Fuel Sustainability Index
10 Algeria 0.1656
15 Brazil 0.101
20 Egypt 0.0763
21 Malaysia 0.0701
35 India 0.0467
45 USA 0.0336
49 Greece 0.0303
53 China 0.0233
55 Turkey 0.0155
59 Germany 0.0074
60 Spain 0.0072
2.3.4.2 Renewable Energy Countries Attractiveness Indices
These indices are developed by E&Y, an international consulting firm for business
development, which has been producing it since 2003 [38]. The indices track the attractiveness
of different countries markets across different renewable energy technologies namely; wind
(onshore and offshore), solar PV, solar CSP, biomass, geothermal, and Tidal and Waves. It also
has an index for infrastructure and another one that combines all of them together.
The indices are of the backward type with scale that ranges from “0”, for least attractive,
to “100”, for most attractive country. November 2011 issue contains 40 countries, where only
Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia out of all RCREEE countries were included. The indices for these
three countries along with 9 studied benchmark countries are listed in Table (2.14) [39].
Political, Economic, Social, and Energy Indices
31
Table (2.14) Score and rank Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia along with 9 benchmark countries for the Renewable Energy Countries Attractiveness Index for November 2011 issue [39].
Rank Country All Renewable
Wind Index
Onshore Wind
Offshore Wind
Solar Index
Solar PV
Solar CSP
Biomass /other Geothermal Infrastructure
1 China 70 76 78 70 61 66 47 58 51 75
2 USA 66 66 69 55 72 71 74 61 67 61
3 Germany 65 69 65 78 51 70 0 65 75 70
4 India 63 63 71 42 64 69 53 95 45 66
9 Spain 51 50 54 39 58 56 63 46 30 47
10 Brazil 50 53 57 40 42 46 32 51 23 49
21 Greece 43 44 48 33 46 51 33 34 25 32
23 South Africa 42 44 47 35 42 39 47 36 33 46
27 Egypt 40 41 45 32 41 39 45 35 25 34
30 Turkey 39 41 43 32 37 40 28 34 41 37
30 Morocco 39 38 42 25 48 47 52 35 21 42
34 Tunisia 34 35 38 27 45 44 48 19 27 41
The work presented in this thesis is compared to this index, and thus it will be discussed
in much more details in Chapter 3.
2.4 Conclusion
A definition for the word “Index” is presented, which will be used throughout the thesis.
In the context of this thesis, the word “Index” refers to political, economic, and social indices
that are commonly used to quantitatively express the relative ranking of countries for a certain
aspect. We explored 12 important indices from which few are also relevant to the scope of work
of this thesis. This exploration shows, in general, the different methods used to design and
calculate indices, thus provide a good background to be used in the formation of the proposed
Renewable Energy Market Competence Index. Scores and rank for RCREEE and benchmark
countries are shown for these various indices. From the 12 presented indices in this chapter, 4
indices are going to be discussed in details in Chapter 3; namely the Gini index, Fossil Fuel
Chapter 2
32
Sustainability Index, Press Freedom Index, and Renewable Energy Countries Attractiveness
Indices. These indices present different construction methods; either mere analytically based or
questionnaire based indices, from which lessons will be learned to design the proposed index in
this thesis.
Index Construction
33
Chapter 3
Index Construction
3.1 Introduction
In light of Figure (2.1) in Chapter (2), the process of constructing an index can be
summarized – in general – into 5 steps as follows:
• Statistical data or questionnaire: The starting point of an index could be either a mere
statistical data from which, through an analytical formula and some data processing, it is
converted into a normalized dimensionless index. Or alternatively, the stating point
could be a questionnaire with a set of predefined answers that cover all possible
situations where each answer corresponds to a certain points. Then, after possibly some
other steps, these points are aggregated to give the final index score.
• Data processing or questionnaire conversion process: Data processing could only be
a normalization procedure where goalposts (minimum and maximum values) are
introduced, or it may include more complicated operations like data fitting to a
mathematical function or some other mathematical operations. Alternatively, in
questionnaire-based index, the questionnaire answers are quantitatively expressed by a
predefined method.
• Indicator(s) formation: After the preceding quantitative expression step, indicators are
formed to compress data that measure various qualities. It is worth mentioning that in
some cases indicator formation step precedes the normalization step.
• Index formation: Indicators are merged together to form the required index. In most
cases this includes arithmetic of geometrical averaging. This aggregation of indicators
could be based on equal or on unequal weighting. This depends on the way the index
designer wants to value each quantity with respect to the other.
Some indices are very simple that they can be constructed in only 3 steps like the Gini
Index, while others may need some detailed operations (e.g. normalizing the standard deviation
Chapter 3
34
in Global Gender Gap Index). Here, the construction details of few indices that give good
representation of the different possible ways of index formation are going to be explored.
3.2 Gini Index
The GI is one of the simplest indices encountered in this study. The construction of the
GI is performed in only 3 steps as follows.
Statistical data: The GI is based on statistical data of the family income in a country.
Data processing: The number of families with certain income is divided by the total number of
families in the country and the family income is divided by the total income of all families in
the country. These normalized statistical data are arranged from the poorest families to the
richest ones. Then accumulation number of families and accumulation of family income are
calculated from the previous data [21]. Upon plotting these normalized and ordered
accumulative number of families on the abscissa and the accumulative income on the ordinate,
one gets what is called Lorenz curve as shown in Figure (3.1). The straight line of equality
represents the ideal case where all families in the country have the same income. The more the
Lorenz curve concavity increases the more it reveals the income inequality among the different
families. The most extreme case occurs when the curve is composed of two linear piecewise
segments; a horizontal line on the abscissa from 0 to 1, and then a vertical line at 1. This
represents the case where all families have zero income except one family that has all the
income of the country.
Index formation: The GI is defined as the ratio between the area “A” and the area “A+B”;
where the area “A” is the area between the equality line and the Lorenz curve, and the area “B”
is the area under the Lorenz curve as shown in Figure (3.1) [21].
BAAGI+
= (3.1)
Since the data are normalized, thus the area A+B=0.5
AGI 2= (3.2)
Index Construction
35
Figure (3.1) Lorenz curve and the Gini Index.
BGI 21−= (3.3)
If the data forming Lorenz curve can be fitted to a mathematical function F(x), then the GI can
by calculated using the formula
∫−=1
0
)(21 dxxFGI (3.4)
The resulted Gini Index has a maximum value of 1, but it can be renormalized to have a
maximum of 100.
3.3 Fossil Fuel Sustainability Index
This index is also based on statistical data, but it is much more complicated than the GI
and gives a very good example of data-based index. The FFSI is formed in 5 steps as follows:
Statistical data: The raw data needed to construct this index are:
• The amount of national reserve of oil, natural gas, and coal.
• The amount of national production of oil, natural gas, and coal.
• The amount of national consumption of oil, natural gas, and coal.
0% 0%
100%
100%
Accumulated population %
Accumulated income %
Line of equality
Lorenz curve
A
B
Chapter 3
36
Indicator formation: Based on these raw data for any country, three indicators are formed for
each fossil resource (oil, natural gas, and coal). These indicators are:
• The Reserve to Production ratio of the fossil fuel (RP) which is an indication of the
In each of equations (4.1), (4.2), and (4.3), corresponding goalposts from the published scores of
each index are used. Table (4.1) shows the originally published scores of Global competitive
Index (for 2010-2011), Political Instability Index (covering the period 2009-2010), Corruption
Perception Index (for 2010), the goalposts, and their adjusted index score – according to the pre-
mentioned equations – that will be used in the final index.
Driving a Methodology for Renewable Energy Market Competence Index
49
Table (4.1) Original scores, goalposts, and adjusted values for Global competitive Index (for 2010), Political Instability Index (covering the period 2009-2010), Corruption Perception Index (for 2010).
where goalposts are used. Table (4.2) shows the energy intensity values of the countries as
reported by IEA, the goalposts, and the Energy Intensity Indicator as calculated by equation (4.5).
Driving a Methodology for Renewable Energy Market Competence Index
51
Table (4.2) Energy intensity values of the countries as reported by IEA, the goalposts, and the Energy Intensity Indicator Score as calculated by equation (4.5).
Tunisia 0.1 94 Brazil 0.15 65 Turkey 0.12 82 Spain 0.13 76 Greece 0.11 88 South Africa 0.25 6 Malaysia 0.24 12 India 0.14 71 China 0.2 35 USA 0.19 41 B
ench
mar
k C
ount
ries
Germany 0.14 71
Min 0.09 Goalposts Max 0.26
4.8.2 Non Electricity Final Indicator Since in the coming few decades (2-3 decades) world oil and natural gas will be depleted,
and humanity will have to relay almost solely on RE resources, and since RE resources only
produce electricity except biomass that can produce electricity and liquid fuel, then the difference
between the Total Final energy Consumed (TFC) and the total electricity consumption represents
the size of the needed RE electricity production in the country in the coming near future. The
larger this difference now, the larger the market for RE projects. With the good governance
assumption in mind, this makes this country more open for local and foreign investments in the
RE sector. Accordingly, this indicator value is calculated as follows:
respectively with the help of goalposts values, where electricity consumption is defined as:
Electricity consumption =
Gross production + imports – exports – transmission/distribution losses
(4.10)
The electricity consumption in 2007 and 2009 are available from IEA Key World Energy
Statistics reports [45][46] respectively. Electricity consumptions in these 2 years, average
electricity consumption growth at year 2008, and the Electricity Consumption Growth Indicator
are shown in Table (4.4). It is obvious how – by far – the Chinese market is large compared to
other world players.
Chapter 4
54
Table (4.4) Electricity consumptions in 2007 and 2009, average electricity consumption growth at year 2008, and the Electricity Consumption Growth Indicator Score.
Tunisia 15234 0 Brazil 73100 2 Turkey 163920 4 Spain 248509 6 Greece 57143 1 South Africa 253946 6 Malaysia 89932 2 India 700098 18 China 2856113 72 USA 3938765 100 B
ench
mar
k C
ount
ries
Germany 536038 13
Min 10253 Goalposts Max 3938765
4.8.6 Oil and Gas Insecurity Indicator Though according to environmentally friendly government assumption all governments
should switch to RE resources, this switch is much more urgent for countries that don’t have
much oil and natural gas reserve to meet their energy needs in the near future than those countries
with much reserve. Large or small reserve of a country is a relative number and must be
measured with respect to its consumption. A simple measure of the country’s supply security of
oil and gas is defined by the number of years the current proven reserve can meet the country
needs assuming the same annual consumption in the future. This is given by the relation:
4.9 Financial and Environmental Indicators (2 indicators) 4.9.1 Financial Indicator This indicator aims to measure the existence of the different means of financial incentives
to support, encourage and enable the expansion of RE market. REN21-2011 global status report
categorizes these means into 3 groups as follows [56]:
• Regulatory Policies
i. Quota Obligation
ii. Net Metering
iii. Tradable REC
• Fiscal Incentives
i. Capital Subsidy, Grant, Rebate
Driving a Methodology for Renewable Energy Market Competence Index
65
ii. Investment/prod. Tax Cr.
iii. Reduction in sales, energy, Tax
iv. Energy Production Payment
• Public Financing
i. Public Investments Loans, Grants
ii. Public Competitive Bidding
By nature, the data covered in this indicator includes legislative measures, laws, and
decrees that shapes the policies of the countries in favor of expanding RE production. Though,
the original REN21-2011 report includes 3 more policies under the Regulatory category, namely:
Feed-in Tariff, Biofuels Obligation, and Heat Obligation, they are not included here. Since the
Feed-in Tariff changes from a technology to another (a country with very good wind resources
and very low solar resources most probably will issue a Feed-in Tariff for wind energy project
but not for CSP ones), it is more appropriate to separately include it under technology specific
indicators (CSP in this case), which has been done as will be shown later on in this chapter.
Biofuels Obligation is also technology specific, so it was removed from the list, and to be added
separately when creating a Biofuel Market Competence Index. Finally, since the MENA region is
relatively very warm across the year compared to the benchmark countries, it was removed from
the list, so the final index will not be biased.
Table (2) of the REN21-2011 report qualitatively gives a status for the country regarding
these policies only by checking “ ” or leaving it blank for each policy [56]. This qualitative
measure is converted into a quantitative one by giving a score of “5” for a checked item, and “0”
for a blank item. Since there are 9 policy items, thus the total score of the country is given by
∑×=9
145100
iItemPolicyIndicatorFinancial (4.24)
Table (4.10) gives the countries’ scores for the different policies and the Financial Indicator
Score according to equation (4.24) where countries with “x” sign (Lebanon, Libya, and Syria)
indicate that they are not listed in REN21-2011 report, and thus their values are set to zero.
Chapter 4
66
Table (4.10) Countries’ scores for the different policies and the Financial Indicator Score according to equation (4.24).
Regulatory Policies Fiscal Incentives Public Financing
Country Quota Obligation
Net Metering
Tradable REC
Capital Subsidy, Grant, Rebate
Investment/ prod. Tax Cr.
Reduction in sales,
energy,…Tax
Energy Production Payment
Public Investments
Loans, Grants
Public Competitive
Bidding
Financial Indicator
Algeria 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Egypt 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 5 44 Jordan 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 22 Lebanon x x x x x x x x x 0 Libya x x x x x x x x x 0 Morocco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 11 Syria x x x x x x x x x 0 M
Tunisia 2.01 4 Brazil 1.9 4 Turkey 3.71 14 Spain 6.97 33 Greece 8.31 41 South Africa 6.93 33 Malaysia 6.7 32 India 1.25 0 China 4.91 21 USA 18.38 100 B
ench
mar
k C
ount
ries
Germany 9.79 50
Min 1.25 Goalposts Max 18.38
Chapter 4
68
4.10 Logarithmic Scale of Some Indicators For 5 of the developed indicators, it is obvious that there is huge difference among the
scores of the difference countries. These indicators are:
• Non Electricity Final Indicator
• Electricity Consumption Growth Indicator
• Net Imported Electricity Indicator
• Non-RE Electricity Production Indicator
• RE Target Indicator
By checking each indicator values (e.g. Table (4.3) for Non Electricity Final Indicator),
one notices that the ratio between the max and min values (the goalposts) is few orders of
magnitude (e,g. max value ≈13780 and min value ≈ 32 for Non Electricity Final Indicator). For
the first 4 indicators, the size of the industrial base, population, and energy demand of USA,
China, and Brazil make their indicators values much greater than most of all other countries. In
case of the RE Target Indicator, the very ambitious plan of Germany overshadows what other
countries are planning. This huge biasing in the indicators values and scores results in certain
countries dominating the index. In order to reduce the difference between the countries values
and scores while still appreciate the countries with greater scores with respect to other countries,
the natural logarithm of the indicators values are taken, then new goalposts are determined, and
finally the indicators scores are calculated using the same equations shown previously. Tables
(4.12) to (4.16) shows the new values and scores for the 5 mentioned indicators.
Driving a Methodology for Renewable Energy Market Competence Index
69
Table (4.12) Non electricity final value in TWh as given by equation (4.6), its natural logarithm values, and the Non Electricity Final Indicator Score using natural logarithm values.
Tunisia 63.06888 4.1442 11 Brazil 1843.74614 7.5196 67 Turkey 694.45103 6.5431 51 Spain 864.41595 6.7621 54 Greece 182.08318 5.2045 29 South Africa 513.10181 6.2405 46 Malaysia 408.67098 6.0129 42 India 4094.69606 8.3174 80 China 12689.26338 9.4485 99 USA 13780.38935 9.5310 100 B
ench
mar
k C
ount
ries
Germany 2153.86699 7.6750 69
Min 3.462744872 Goalposts Max 9.531001799
Chapter 4
70
Table (4.13) Average electricity consumption growth at year 2008, its natural logarithm value, and the Electricity Consumption Growth Indicator Score using natural logarithm values.
Tunisia 0.46 6.1312 50 Brazil 6.825 8.8283 72 Turkey 0.87 6.7685 55 Spain 0 0.0000 0 Greece 0 0.0000 0 South Africa 0 0.0000 0 Malaysia 1.805 7.4983 61 India 39.9 10.5941 86 China 215.365 12.2801 100 USA 0 0.0000 0 B
ench
mar
k C
ount
ries
Germany 0 0.0000 0
Min 0 Goalposts Max 12.2801
Driving a Methodology for Renewable Energy Market Competence Index
71
Table (4.14) Net imported electricity values in Ktoe as reported by IEA [47], its natural logarithm value, and the Net Imported Electricity Indicator Score using natural logarithm values.
Tunisia -1 0 0 Brazil 3630 8.1970 100 Turkey -29 0 0 Spain -949 0 0 Greece 483 6.1800 75 South Africa -309 0 0 Malaysia -41 0 0 India 762 6.6359 81 China -1101 0 0 USA 2833 7.9491 97 B
ench
mar
k C
ount
ries
Germany -1729 0 0
Min 0 Goalposts Max 8.1970
Chapter 4
72
Table (4.15) Non RE electricity production values in (GWh), its natural logarithm value, and the Non RE Electricity Production Indicator Score using natural logarithm values.
Tunisia 9244 5 9.1317 76 Brazil 1702.9754 1 7.4401 62 Turkey 131 0 4.8752 41 Spain 1278 1 7.1531 59 Greece 4 0 1.3863 12 South Africa 52 0 3.9512 33 Malaysia 0 0 0 0 India 800 0 6.6846 56 China 3800 2 8.2428 68 USA 1000 1 6.9078 57 B
ench
mar
k C
ount
ries
Germany 0 0 0.0000 0
Min 0 0 Goalposts Max 168972 12.0375
It is worth mentioning that the CSP economic potential of Brazil is roughly estimated
based on the best solar irradiance [67] and 10% utilization of the area of Brazil based on its solar
map [68], and that of the USA is reported based on building CSP plants on only 3% of the
possible usable land of the best sites [70]. In case of India and Chain [71], their data may not
exactly follow the same definition as the majority of the data coming from DLR study. This may
result in some discrepancies in the final score of the index and thus the final ranking of these
countries.
5.2.3 CSP Institute Indicator According to the research carried to answer the questionnaire given in Chapter 4 suing the
point system devised in Table (4.17), the Institute Indicator Score is calculated and listed in Table
(5.4).
Chapter 5
88
Table (5.4) CEP Institute Indicator Score.
Country
CSP Institute Indicator
Score Algeria 60 Egypt 60 Jordan 60 Lebanon 60 Libya 60 Morocco 100 Syria 20 M
ENA
Cou
ntrie
s
Tunisia 60 Brazil 0 Turkey 0 Spain 20 Greece 0 South Africa 0 Malaysia 0 India 100 China 20 USA 100 B
ench
mar
k C
ount
ries
Germany 100
5.2.4 CSP Target Indicator Table (R9) in REN21-2011 report lists CSP capacity targets at certain years for the
countries that already had announced that commitment [56]. Table (5.5) shows the i, f, CSPi,
CSPf, the expected annual new installed CSP capacity, and CSP Target Indicator Score as
defined in Chapter 4. Countries with “X” sign in target year capacity column indicates that it is
not listed in the report, while countries with “0” indicates that the country made targets for other
RE technologies but not for CSP one. Applying equations (4.27) and (4.28), one gets the CSP
Target Indicator Score as shown in the far right column in Table (5.5).
A CSP Market Competence Index
89
Table (5.5) Initial and target years, current installed CSP capacity, targeted CSP capacity, expected annual new installed CSP capacity, and CSP Target Indicator Score.
Similarly, when there is a high correlation between X2 and X3 data sets for the group of countries
as shown in Table (5.11), the final scores, and consequently their ranks, becomes very weakly
dependent on α.
The reason for the oddness of the case of Algeria is that it is one of the rare developing
countries that has a Feed-in Tariff law for CSP. Being a developing country correlate to the fact
that its X3 score is low (21), while having a Feed-in Tariff law gives it a high value for X2 (57).
Actually, because of the generous Feed-in Tariff in Algeria compared to all other counties that
issued the law, Algeria has the highest Feed-in Tariff Indicator Score of 75.
More quantitative analysis is shown in the far right column in Tables (5.9) which gives
the absolute difference between scores of the two extreme cases of α=0, and α=1. Except for
Algeria, Brazil, and Syria the absolute difference for the remaining 15 countries is less than or
equal to 10 points, and for 11 countries this difference is less than or equal to only 3 points.
Similarly for Table (5.10), between the two extreme cases of α=0, and α=1, the rank does
not change for 5 countries, changes by only 1 position for 7 countries, 2 positions for 1 country, 3
positions for 4 countries, and 7 positions for 1 country (Algeria).
From this comparison and analysis, one concludes that there is a good correlation
between the average value of 3 CSP indicators (X2) and the average value of the 13 general
indicators (X3). Accordingly it is sufficiently representative to calculate the CSP Market
Competence Index using only 5 indicators and apply the simple equation (5.1) instead of 18
indicators and equation (4.35). Though this has been concluded from the study of only 18
countries, the variety in the nature of these countries covering developed and developing
countries, and countries with various CSP potential and targets, it is believed that this conclusion
will apply to other counties in the world, though; further confirmation is still needed to be
performed by investigating more countries.
Similar investigation has also to be carried out for other RE technologies (wind, PV,
biomass, geothermal, wave and tidal) to check that similar behavior also exists.
A CSP Market Competence Index
97
5.4 CSP Market Competence Index versus CSP Countries
Attractiveness Index In order to compare the result of the proposed index with that of the Countries
Attractiveness Index, and for fare comparison, it is crucial to be sure that we compare similar
things against each other. Accordingly, the following few points have to be considered:
• Firstly, since the proposed index only studies 18 countries, while the Countries Attractiveness
Index studies more than 30 countries (30 countries in Nov 2010 issue, increasing to reach 40
countries in Nov 2011 issue), only common countries will be considered in the comparison.
From these common countries, USA has been excluded because of the low confidence in the
values of few of its indicators – as it has been mentioned before –; specifically RE Target
Indicator and CSP Economic Potential Indicator. Thus, the comparison is carried out for the
following 11 countries only: Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Brazil, Turkey, Spain, Greece,
South Africa, India, China, and Germany.
• Secondly, because the data used to calculate the proposed CSP Market Competence Index
Scores were not available for a single year but rather over a period of time that extends from
2008 to 2011, thus the final index score and rank measure the countries’ competence over that
period of time. On the other hand the CSP component of the Countries Attractiveness Index is
published on quarterly bases; February, May, August, November of each year [73]. Thus, the
comparison should be done with the average of the Countries Attractiveness Index taken over
the mentioned period from 2008 to 2011. Unfortunately only the available reports are those
published in Nov 2010, and Feb, May, August, and Nov of 2011 (the internet links of the
older reports are not working) [73]. It is worth mentioning that while most of the 11 common
countries exist in the 5 mentioned reports, Morocco only started to appear in May 2011 issue,
while Tunisia was just lately added to the index in Nov 2011 issue. Thus Morocco’s score is
averaged over 3 reports representing the period from May to Nov 2011, while the score of
Tunisia of Nov 2011 issue is taken as is.
• Thirdly, and accordingly, countries rank for the Countries Attractiveness Index is done for the
exclusive group of the 11 common countries understudy using their calculated average scores
not according to the averaging of their ranking in these reports.
Chapter 5
98
Table (5.12) CSP Index Scores for the 11 common countries as reported in the RE Countries Attractiveness Index reports, their scores average, and their ranking.
CSP Countries Attractiveness Index Score Country Nov-10 Feb-11 May-11 Aug-11 Nov-11 Average Score Rank
Questionnaire for compiling the 2010 Press Freedom Index
The period runs from 1 September 2009 to 31 August 2010
Give as many examples as possible. Answers must be limited to events that took place during
this period.
Physical Violence
Answer Yes or No to each question. During this period, were there any cases of journalists:
1. Being tortured or mistreated during detention?
2. Being kidnapped or disappearing?
3. Being illegally detained (without an arrest warrant, for longer than the maximum period of
police custody, without a court appearance etc)?
4. Fleeing the country as a result of threats?
During this period, were there (Yes/No):
5. Armed militias or clandestine organisations regularly targeting journalists?
6. Journalists who had to have bodyguards or use security measures (such as wearing bullet-proof
vests or using armour-plated vehicles) in the course of their work?
Number Of Journalists Murdered, Detained, Physically Attacked Or
Threatened, And Role Of Authorities In This
During this period, how many journalists, media assistants or press freedom activists:
7. Were killed in connection with their work?
8. Were killed in situations in which authorities (police, soldiers, central or local government
officials, ruling party activists etc) were involved?
9. Were detained or jailed (for more than 24 hours)?
Appendix A
116
10. Were still in prison at the end of this period as a result of receiving a long jail sentence (more
than a year) for a press offence?
11. Were physically attacked or injured?
12. Did representatives of the state carry out any or all of these acts of violence?
- Yes
- No
13. In the above cases, did the authorities do their best to punish those responsible for these press
freedom violations? Give a score from 0 (no effort by the authorities to punish those
responsible) to 5 (determined efforts by the authorities to punish those responsible).
14. Or did the authorities take steps to prevent those responsible for these press freedom
violations from being prosecuted (for example, by blocking investigations or postponing
trials indefinitely)? Give examples.
Indirect Threats, Harassment And Access To Information
During this period, were there any cases of (Yes/No):
15. Surveillance of journalists by the state (were any journalists’ phones tapped, were any
journalists followed etc)?
16. Journalists employed by privately-owned media being forced to stop working because of
political pressure or threats?
17. Journalists being prevented from working because of their gender, origin, sexual orientation
or religion ?
18. Serious difficulty accessing public or official information (such as a refusal by officials to
provide information, information being provided selectively, according to the media’s
editorial position)?
19. Restrictions on access to or coverage of any region or regions in the country (including an
outright ban or strict government controls)?
20. Foreign journalists deported or prevented from entering the country?
Appendix A
117
Censorship And Self-Censorship
21. How many news media were censored, had issues seized or had their premises ransacked?
22. Were all the media subjected to systematic prior censorship (control before publication)? And
if so, name the body that exercised this censorship function: During this period, was there
(Yes/No).
23. Widespread self-censorship in the privately-owned media? Give a score from 0 (no self-
censorship) to 5 (a great deal of self-censorship) ?
24. Important news that was suppressed or not covered because of political or business pressure?
Give examples.
25. Frequent investigative reporting on sensitive subjects?
CONTROL OF MEDIA
26. a) Are there privately-owned TV stations in your country?
b) If so, are they free to determine their own editorial policies?
27. a) Are there privately-owned radio stations in your country?
b) If so, are they free to determine their own editorial policies?
28. Are there privately-owned printing and distribution companies? During this period, was there
or were there (Yes/No)
29. Government control of what the state-owned media publish or broadcast?
30. Unjustified dismissals of journalists in the state-owned media?
31. Opposition access to state-owned media? Give a score from 0 (no access at all) to 5 (free and
fair access).
Give an estimate of the number of:
32. Independent news media operating in the country (excluding media based abroad).
- 0
- 0 to 5
Appendix A
118
- 6 to 50
- More than 50
Judicial, Business And Administrative Pressure
During this period, was there or were there (Yes/No):
33. Unjustified or improper use of fines, summonses or legal action against journalists or media
outlets?
34. Violations of the confidentiality of journalistic sources (by such means as investigation,
interrogation or legal action)?
35. Use of the withdrawal of advertising to pressure media (in which the government or state
agencies stop buying advertising space or the authorities pressure private firms into doing
this)?
36. A requirement to obtain a government licence in order to start up a newspaper or magazine?
37. A transparent and fair process for allocating broadcast frequencies?
38. Serious threats to news diversity, including threats resulting from narrow ownership of media
outlets? Give a score from 0 (no threat) to 5 (very serious threat to media diversity).
39. A government takeover of any privately-owned media during this period, either directly or
through government-controlled firms?
Internet And New Media
40. Do the authorities control Internet service providers directly or indirectly? During this period,
was there or were there (Yes/No).
41. Cases of access to websites being blocked by filtering mechanisms or being closed down by
the authorities? Evaluate the level of this censorship on a scale of 0 (no censorship) to 5 (total
censorship).
42. Cases of cyber-dissidents or bloggers being detained for more than a day? How many?
43. Cases of independent websites being the target of cyber-attack or counter-information
campaigns?
Appendix A
119
Are there any points not included in this questionnaire that might be relevant for assessing the
press freedom situation in your country? Please mention them.
If there are questions that give rise to doubts on your part (about their applicability to your
country or the accuracy of your answer), please list them and say why (for example, lack of data,
wording that seems ambiguous or wording that does not correspond to the situation in your
country).
Appendix B
120
Appendix B
Appendix C
121
Appendix C COUNTRY ATTRACTIVENESS INDICES
NEW COUNTRY RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE
IMPORTANT– Each response should begin on the line underneath the ‘Response:’ heading for each question, and should automatically appear in blue font. The size of the response box DOES NOT provide an indicator of the length of the response or the level of detail required – this is purely a template. Your response should be as detailed as possible relative to the information available in respect of each parameter, and it is absolutely fine to go into multiple pages, since page breaks are in place to separate the sections. .
It is also important that responses include dates / sources where possible (in brackets after the relevant part of the response). If necessary, you can also create a separate document which lists the sources (e.g. report names / website links) which have been used throughout the research task.
NAME OF COUNTRY:
GENERAL PARAMETERS ELECTRICITY MARKET REGULATORY RISK Potential risks inherent in generating renewable energy; e.g. what type of electricity market exists; is it fully deregulated, stable, and reliable? Who manages the electricity market in the country? Response:
Outline what, if any, support mechanisms or financial incentives are available in excess of the wholesale electricity price for renewable energy, without going into technology-specific detail (covered in ‘Power-offtake’). Response: POLITICAL RISK
How strong is the government’s commitment to developing the local renewable energy industry? What role has government played so far in promoting and developing the industry?
Response:
Are there any delays from the government’s side that are stalling the market? Response:
What legislation is in place to govern the country’s renewable energy industry?
Response:
PLANNING ENVIRONMENT Is it necessary to obtain planning permission for new renewable projects? Please specify which technologies is it necessary to obtain planning permission for. Response: Who does the planning permission need to be obtained from? What are the costs involved in obtaining planning permission? What documentation needs to be submitted? Response:
Appendix C
122
Is there any legislation governing the granting of planning permission? Response: How long does it take to obtain planning permission for renewable energy projects? Response: Is an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) necessary? If so, for which technologies? How long does it take to conduct an EIA for the different technologies? Response: Overall, are the more or fewer planning delays and restrictions compared to other countries (if known, or any indications)? How strong is local opposition to RE development? Response: GRID CONNECTION ISSUES What is the coverage of suitable grid infrastructure? Does existing technology allow for effective connection of renewable energy projects to the national grid? Response: Are there incentives for grid providers? Who carries the cost for connection to the grid? Response: Does renewable energy have “priority dispatch”? Response: How long does it take to be connected to the grid? Are there any restrictions / minimum requirements placed on renewable energy projects that apply for connection to the national grid? Response: ACCESS TO FINANCE Who are the main providers of finance for renewable energy projects in the country? Response: Is finance equally available for all technologies? If not, which technologies are favoured by financiers? Response:
Are there easy and / or cheap financing opportunities from local / international banks?
Response: How mature is the renewable energy financing market? Response:
Appendix C
123
TECHNOLOGY PARAMETERS – ONSHORE WIND
POWER OFFTAKE Are there any power off take incentives /subsidies in place for this technology? (This excludes direct tax benefits or tax breaks granted for a given technology which cannot be sold on to another entity). Response:
Please give details of the price, longevity, and conditions associated with any support mechanism (e.g. feed-in tariff, green certificate, RPS mechanisms, etc.), and include in databook where appropriate. Response: TAX CLIMATE What tax breaks or tax-related incentives are in place for the specific technology? (e.g. accelerated depreciation, no import duties on RE components etc) Response: GRANT / SOFT LOAN AVAILABILITY Please provide details of any grants, government backed loans or other financial support (e.g. low-interest loans) that is made available in respect of this technology. Response: RESOURCE QUALITY Details of the resource quality available for this specific technology (e.g. wind speed, strong wind areas, any other conditions making the country a suitable / non-suitable location for the development of this technology). [Note - Unlikely to change over time unless a new resource becomes available or following dramatic climate shifts] Response: CURRENT INSTALLED BASE What is the total current installed capacity (MW/GW and/or MWh/GWh)? Give figure as at end of previous calendar year, and any more recent updates if available. Enter figures in databook if appropriate. Response: How does the installed capacity for the specific technology compare to the total energy requirements of the country? What proportion of total energy / power does this technology capacity represent? Response: MARKET GROWTH POTENTIAL What is the expected future capacity (per targets) or estimated maximum potential (in MW/GW or MWh/GWh if possible)? Response: Provide details of any other indications / government targets, which indicate the future growth potential of the technology. What is the potential for large projects? Response: Is there an established supply / manufacturing base for the specific technology? Response: PROJECT SIZE What is the average project / facility size for this technology? If appropriate, give examples of operating and/or planned projects. Response:
Appendix C
124
TECHNOLOGY PARAMETERS – OFFSHORE WIND
POWER OFFTAKE Are there any power off take incentives /subsidies in place for this technology? (This excludes direct tax benefits or tax breaks granted for a given technology which cannot be sold on to another entity). Response:
Please give details of the price, longevity, and conditions associated with any support mechanism (e.g. feed-in tariff, green certificate, RPS mechanisms, etc.), and include in databook where appropriate. Response: TAX CLIMATE What tax breaks or tax-related incentives are in place for the specific technology? (e.g. accelerated depreciation, no import duties on RE components etc) Response: GRANT / SOFT LOAN AVAILABILITY Please provide details of any grants, government backed loans or other financial support (e.g. low-interest loans) that is made available in respect of this technology. Response: RESOURCE QUALITY Details of the resource quality available for this specific technology (e.g. wind speed, strong wind areas, any other conditions making the country a suitable / non-suitable location for the development of this technology). [Note - Unlikely to change over time unless a new resource becomes available or following dramatic climate shifts] Response: CURRENT INSTALLED BASE What is the total current installed capacity (MW/GW and/or MWh/GWh)? Give figure as at end of previous calendar year, and any more recent updates if available. Enter figures in databook if appropriate. Response: How does the installed capacity for the specific technology compare to the total energy requirements of the country? What proportion of total energy / power does this technology capacity represent? Response: MARKET GROWTH POTENTIAL What is the expected future capacity (per targets) or estimated maximum potential (in MW/GW or MWh/GWh if possible)? Response: Provide details of any other indications / government targets, which indicate the future growth potential of the technology. What is the potential for large projects? Response: Is there an established supply / manufacturing base for the specific technology? Response: PROJECT SIZE What is the average project / facility size for this technology? If appropriate, give examples of operating and/or planned projects. Response:
Appendix C
125
TECHNOLOGY PARAMETERS – SOLAR PV
POWER OFFTAKE Are there any power off take incentives /subsidies in place for this technology? (This excludes direct tax benefits or tax breaks granted for a given technology which cannot be sold on to another entity). Response:
Please give details of the price, longevity, and conditions associated with any support mechanism (e.g. feed-in tariff, green certificate, RPS mechanisms, etc.), and include in databook where appropriate. Response: TAX CLIMATE What tax breaks or tax-related incentives are in place for the specific technology? (e.g. accelerated depreciation, no import duties on RE components etc) Response: GRANT / SOFT LOAN AVAILABILITY Please provide details of any grants, government backed loans or other financial support (e.g. low-interest loans) that is made available in respect of this technology. Response: RESOURCE QUALITY Details of the resource quality available for this specific technology (e.g. solar irradiation, hours of sun, any other conditions making the country a suitable / non-suitable location for the development of this technology). [Note - Unlikely to change over time unless a new resource becomes available or following dramatic climate shifts] Response: CURRENT INSTALLED BASE What is the total current installed capacity (MW/GW and/or MWh/GWh)? Give figure as at end of previous calendar year, and any more recent updates if available. Enter figures in databook if appropriate. Response: How does the installed capacity for the specific technology compare to the total energy requirements of the country? What proportion of total energy / power does this technology capacity represent? Response: MARKET GROWTH POTENTIAL What is the expected future capacity (per targets) or estimated maximum potential (in MW/GW or MWh/GWh if possible)? Response: Provide details of any other indications / government targets, which indicate the future growth potential of the technology. What is the potential for large projects? Response: Is there an established supply / manufacturing base for the specific technology? Response: PROJECT SIZE What is the average project / facility size for this technology? If appropriate, give examples of operating and/or planned projects. Response:
Appendix C
126
TECHNOLOGY PARAMETERS – SOLAR CSP (only relevant for some countries – mainly southern)
POWER OFFTAKE Are there any power off take incentives /subsidies in place for this technology? (This excludes direct tax benefits or tax breaks granted for a given technology which cannot be sold on to another entity).
Response: Please give details of the price, longevity, and conditions associated with any support mechanism (e.g. feed-in tariff, green certificate, RPS mechanisms, etc.), and include in databook where appropriate.
Response: TAX CLIMATE What tax breaks or tax-related incentives are in place for the specific technology? (e.g. accelerated depreciation, no import duties on RE components etc) Response: GRANT / SOFT LOAN AVAILABILITY Please provide details of any grants, government backed loans or other financial support (e.g. low-interest loans) that is made available in respect of this technology. Response: RESOURCE QUALITY Details of the resource quality available for this specific technology (e.g. solar irradiation, hours of sun, any other conditions making the country a suitable / non-suitable location for the development of this technology). [Note - Unlikely to change over time unless a new resource becomes available or following dramatic climate shifts] Response: CURRENT INSTALLED BASE What is the total current installed capacity (MW/GW and/or MWh/GWh)? Give figure as at end of previous calendar year, and any more recent updates if available. Enter figures in databook if appropriate. Response: How does the installed capacity for the specific technology compare to the total energy requirements of the country? What proportion of total energy / power does this technology capacity represent? Response: MARKET GROWTH POTENTIAL What is the expected future capacity (per targets) or estimated maximum potential (in MW/GW or MWh/GWh if possible)? Response: Provide details of any other indications / government targets, which indicate the future growth potential of the technology. What is the potential for large projects? Response: Is there an established supply / manufacturing base for the specific technology? Response: PROJECT SIZE What is the average project / facility size for this technology? If appropriate, give examples of operating and/or planned projects. Response:
Appendix C
127
TECHNOLOGY PARAMETERS – BIOMASS
POWER OFFTAKE Are there any power off take incentives /subsidies in place for this technology? (This excludes direct tax benefits or tax breaks granted for a given technology which cannot be sold on to another entity).
Response: Please give details of the price, longevity, and conditions associated with any support mechanism (e.g. feed-in tariff, green certificate, RPS mechanisms, etc.), and include in databook where appropriate.
Response: TAX CLIMATE What tax breaks or tax-related incentives are in place for the specific technology? (e.g. accelerated depreciation, no import duties on RE components etc) Response: GRANT / SOFT LOAN AVAILABILITY Please provide details of any grants, government backed loans or other financial support (e.g. low-interest loans) that is made available in respect of this technology. Response: RESOURCE QUALITY Details of the resource quality available for this specific technology (e.g. forest areas, indigenous feedstock, any other conditions making the country a suitable / non-suitable location for the development of this technology). [Note - Unlikely to change over time unless a new resource becomes available or following dramatic climate shifts] Response: CURRENT INSTALLED BASE What is the total current installed capacity (MW/GW and/or MWh/GWh)? Give figure as at end of previous calendar year, and any more recent updates if available. Enter figures in databook if appropriate. Response: How does the installed capacity for the specific technology compare to the total energy requirements of the country? What proportion of total energy / power does this technology capacity represent? Response: MARKET GROWTH POTENTIAL What is the expected future capacity (per targets) or estimated maximum potential (in MW/GW or MWh/GWh if possible)? Response: Provide details of any other indications / government targets, which indicate the future growth potential of the technology. What is the potential for large projects? Response: Is there an established supply / manufacturing base for the specific technology? Response: PROJECT SIZE What is the average project / facility size for this technology? If appropriate, give examples of operating and/or planned projects. Response:
Appendix C
128
TECHNOLOGY PARAMETERS –GEOTHERMAL
POWER OFFTAKE Are there any power off take incentives /subsidies in place for this technology? (This excludes direct tax benefits or tax breaks granted for a given technology which cannot be sold on to another entity).
Response: Please give details of the price, longevity, and conditions associated with any support mechanism (e.g. feed-in tariff, green certificate, RPS mechanisms, etc.), and include in databook where appropriate.
Response: TAX CLIMATE What tax breaks or tax-related incentives are in place for the specific technology? (e.g. accelerated depreciation, no import duties on RE components etc) Response: GRANT / SOFT LOAN AVAILABILITY Please provide details of any grants, government backed loans or other financial support (e.g. low-interest loans) that is made available in respect of this technology. Response: RESOURCE QUALITY Details of the resource quality available for this specific technology (e.g... geothermal fields, volcanic activity, any other conditions making the country a suitable / non-suitable location for the development of this technology). [Note - Unlikely to change over time unless a new resource becomes available or following dramatic climate shifts] Response: CURRENT INSTALLED BASE What is the total current installed capacity (MW/GW and/or MWh/GWh)? Give figure as at end of previous calendar year, and any more recent updates if available. Enter figures in databook if appropriate. Response: How does the installed capacity for the specific technology compare to the total energy requirements of the country? What proportion of total energy / power does this technology capacity represent? Response: MARKET GROWTH POTENTIAL What is the expected future capacity (per targets) or estimated maximum potential (in MW/GW or MWh/GWh if possible)? Response: Provide details of any other indications / government targets, which indicate the future growth potential of the technology. What is the potential for large projects? Response: Is there an established supply / manufacturing base for the specific technology? Response: PROJECT SIZE What is the average project / facility size for this technology? If appropriate, give examples of operating and/or planned projects. Response:
Appendix C
129
TECHNOLOGY PARAMETERS –SMALL SCALE HYDRO (<30MW)
POWER OFFTAKE Are there any power off take incentives /subsidies in place for this technology? (This excludes direct tax benefits or tax breaks granted for a given technology which cannot be sold on to another entity).
Response: Please give details of the price, longevity, and conditions associated with any support mechanism (e.g. feed-in tariff, green certificate, RPS mechanisms, etc.), and include in databook where appropriate.
Response: TAX CLIMATE What tax breaks or tax-related incentives are in place for the specific technology? (e.g. accelerated depreciation, no import duties on RE components etc) Response: GRANT / SOFT LOAN AVAILABILITY Please provide details of any grants, government backed loans or other financial support (e.g. low-interest loans) that is made available in respect of this technology. Response: RESOURCE QUALITY Details of the resource quality available for this specific technology (e.g. .rivers, mountainous areas, any other conditions making the country a suitable / non-suitable location for the development of this technology). [Note - Unlikely to change over time unless a new resource becomes available or following dramatic climate shifts] Response: CURRENT INSTALLED BASE What is the total current installed capacity (MW/GW and/or MWh/GWh)? Give figure as at end of previous calendar year, and any more recent updates if available. Enter figures in databook if appropriate. Response: How does the installed capacity for the specific technology compare to the total energy requirements of the country? What proportion of total energy / power does this technology capacity represent? Response: MARKET GROWTH POTENTIAL What is the expected future capacity (per targets) or estimated maximum potential (in MW/GW or MWh/GWh if possible)? Response: Provide details of any other indications / government targets, which indicate the future growth potential of the technology. What is the potential for large projects? Response: Is there an established supply / manufacturing base for the specific technology? Response: PROJECT SIZE What is the average project / facility size for this technology? If appropriate, give examples of operating and/or planned projects. Response:
Appendix C
130
TECHNOLOGY PARAMETERS –WAVE & TIDAL
POWER OFFTAKE Are there any power off take incentives /subsidies in place for this technology? (This excludes direct tax benefits or tax breaks granted for a given technology which cannot be sold on to another entity).
Response: Please give details of the price, longevity, and conditions associated with any support mechanism (e.g. feed-in tariff, green certificate, RPS mechanisms, etc.), and include in databook where appropriate.
Response: TAX CLIMATE What tax breaks or tax-related incentives are in place for the specific technology? (e.g. accelerated depreciation, no import duties on RE components etc) Response: GRANT / SOFT LOAN AVAILABILITY Please provide details of any grants, government backed loans or other financial support (e.g. low-interest loans) that is made available in respect of this technology. Response: RESOURCE QUALITY Details of the resource quality available for this specific technology (e.g. strength of waves / tidal movement, any other conditions making the country a suitable / non-suitable location for the development of this technology). [Note - Unlikely to change over time unless a new resource becomes available or following dramatic climate shifts] Response: CURRENT INSTALLED BASE What is the total current installed capacity (MW/GW and/or MWh/GWh)? Give figure as at end of previous calendar year, and any more recent updates if available. Enter figures in databook if appropriate. Response: How does the installed capacity for the specific technology compare to the total energy requirements of the country? What proportion of total energy / power does this technology capacity represent? Response: MARKET GROWTH POTENTIAL What is the expected future capacity (per targets) or estimated maximum potential (in MW/GW or MWh/GWh if possible)? Response: Provide details of any other indications / government targets, which indicate the future growth potential of the technology. What is the potential for large projects? Response: Is there an established supply / manufacturing base for the specific technology? Response: PROJECT SIZE What is the average project / facility size for this technology? If appropriate, give examples of operating and/or planned projects. Response:
Appendix D
131
Appendix D The scores shown in Table (5.2) are based on the following analysis:
• The score of local availability of raw material of glass, float glass manufacturing, and glass
transformation indicators are based on the analysis given in [65].
• The score of glass bending indicator is based on extensive internet survey about the existing
factories in the countries understudy that have the ability to perform such process.
• The score of glass coating, cabling industry, and electronic and electrical indicators are
based on both extensive internet survey and on [65].
• The scores of the R&D of the electronic and electrical industry are concluded from Fig A11
in [65].
• The score of the steel production capacity indicator is determined by devising an index based
on the amount of steal production in K tone per 1000 person of the country population using