# The Role of Low Temperature Waste Heat Recovery in Achieving 2050 Goals: A Policy Positioning Paper
## 3 Results
### What the Investor Wants  
A common theme coming from the ReUseHeat project and on a wider level is that, although there is a desire to invest in waste heat recovery and that money is available to do so, project promoters do not adequately assess the investment risk to allow investment to take place. In short, investors need to be reassured that there is a high probability of receiving their money back.  
Investors generally look for mature technologies with low degrees of legal, technological and economic risk. The track record, experience and financial strength of project partners is a key aspect in the decision to invest along with predictability and stability of cash flows and of the political framework. Talking to investors in the immature district heating market of the UK, we have found that even conventional district energy technology is perceived as new and risky. There is a knowledge gap that needs to be bridged between district heating practitioners and investors interested in green technology and this is true both for conventional district heating ventures and for the newer, low temperature, solutions.  
The concept of bankability, that is the extent to which a project is attractive to investors, must be part of a wider discussion of the risks of DHC projects. The risk analyses presented in business cases for funding should be close to those carried out by the potential funder. Stakeholders, however, need to manage different objectives, for example medium term lending horizons versus long term infrastructure investment. A conventional district heating network has a technical lifetime of approximately 40 years and low temperature heat recovery investments have lifespans that are approximately half of that. Investors who are willing to lock in funds for several decades are rare but, as seen above in the case of VEKS and CP Kelco, there are ways to get around this. Technical risks arise from the novelty of projects, which feed off inventive sources of waste heat, and a lack of experience, which, itself, is a major source of risk. There is experience of waste heat recovery from data centres and sewers but not of, say, hidden underground rivers [45].  
In the stakeholder interviews, 15 investors and potential investors in waste heat recovery were interviewed. From these, it was found that the biggest barriers were considered to be gaps in the legislation, regulatory issues and a lack of incentives. One major barrier is that procurement procedures are not adapted to energy efficiency projects and therefore energy service companies may not be interested in participating in the procurement process.  
Several respondents suggested that there should be a special framework for the production of heat. For example, the cost of electricity for these technologies should be reduced or should be exempted from taxes. This would allow for the risk related to the electricity price to be reduced.  
One respondent was keen to emphasise a preference for incentives at the local level, pointing out that EU funding can be a long and difficult procedure. Attempting to increase the pace at which EU incentives are agreed and paid out may therefore be a fruitful approach.  
There was a notable difference between investor respondents in the Nordic countries and France and in the rest of Europe. In the former, respondents tended to be more likely see the value of the green aspect of waste heat recovery investments, perhaps reflecting local attitudes. It may therefore be useful to look to these countries to understand how to increase the value placed on the 'greenness' of investments in the rest of Europe.