“…Battaglini et al [40], for example, identify two main options for 100% renewables in Europe: bottom-up, decentralised Smartgrid solutions focusing on smallscale generation, and top-down, centralised Supergrid approaches, focusing on very large transmission systems and large-scale generation. Yet, they argue that Europe has no time to quarrel about which type of renewables it wants, so that "the two concepts [.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“….] can and must co-exist in order to guarantee a transition to a decarbonised economy" [40]: the two visions can and must be merged into a SuperSmart Grid vision. This is exactly the same statement as Desertec's reply to Eurosolar's criticism (see Section 1).…”
a b s t r a c tTo decarbonise its electricity system, Europe must rapidly expand renewables. We analyse the controversy between two organisations, Eurosolar and Desertec, which seemingly pursue the same goal of 100% renewable electricity. We show that they interpret "100% renewables" differently and envision fundamentally different renewable electricity futures, to be reached through different governance pathways driven by different actors. Desertec reacts to mankind's violation of the Earth's carrying capacity and seeks secure decarbonisation through renewables, for which centrally regulated, large-scale imports of controllable concentrating solar power from the desert are necessary. Eurosolar, in contrast, seeks to decentralise the electricity supply and disempower the actors who caused the unsustainable and undemocratic energy system, for which renewables are suited as they are carbon-neutral and decentralised by nature. As the core aim of Desertec, controllable solar power imports through large-scale infrastructure, violates Eurosolar's core aim of decentralisation, a compromise is difficult: this would require one organisation to give up its primary objective. Our results show that the reason for this controversy among renewables proponents lies not in technology or cost, and can thus not be identified or resolved through techno-economic analysis or modelling, but in irreconcilable differences in normative aims and governance choices.
“…Battaglini et al [40], for example, identify two main options for 100% renewables in Europe: bottom-up, decentralised Smartgrid solutions focusing on smallscale generation, and top-down, centralised Supergrid approaches, focusing on very large transmission systems and large-scale generation. Yet, they argue that Europe has no time to quarrel about which type of renewables it wants, so that "the two concepts [.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“….] can and must co-exist in order to guarantee a transition to a decarbonised economy" [40]: the two visions can and must be merged into a SuperSmart Grid vision. This is exactly the same statement as Desertec's reply to Eurosolar's criticism (see Section 1).…”
a b s t r a c tTo decarbonise its electricity system, Europe must rapidly expand renewables. We analyse the controversy between two organisations, Eurosolar and Desertec, which seemingly pursue the same goal of 100% renewable electricity. We show that they interpret "100% renewables" differently and envision fundamentally different renewable electricity futures, to be reached through different governance pathways driven by different actors. Desertec reacts to mankind's violation of the Earth's carrying capacity and seeks secure decarbonisation through renewables, for which centrally regulated, large-scale imports of controllable concentrating solar power from the desert are necessary. Eurosolar, in contrast, seeks to decentralise the electricity supply and disempower the actors who caused the unsustainable and undemocratic energy system, for which renewables are suited as they are carbon-neutral and decentralised by nature. As the core aim of Desertec, controllable solar power imports through large-scale infrastructure, violates Eurosolar's core aim of decentralisation, a compromise is difficult: this would require one organisation to give up its primary objective. Our results show that the reason for this controversy among renewables proponents lies not in technology or cost, and can thus not be identified or resolved through techno-economic analysis or modelling, but in irreconcilable differences in normative aims and governance choices.
“…On the one hand, through Italy and an undersea cable, Switzerland could conceivably have access to concentrating solar power (CSP) from northern Africa [38][39][40]. Morocco has, besides appropriate climatological characteristics (mean Normalized Direct Irradiance larger than 2000 kWh/m 2 /year), a specific political scheme to foster CSP development [41,42].…”
Many future electricity scenarios, including those from the International Energy Agency, use natural gas to bridge the transition to renewables, in particular as a means of balancing intermittent generation from new renewables. Given that such strategies may be inconsistent with strategies to limit climate change to below 2 • C, we address the question of whether such use of gas is necessary or cost effective. We conduct a techno-economic case study of Switzerland, using a cost optimization model. We explore a range of electricity costs, comparing scenarios in which gas is used as a source of base-load power, a source of balancing capacity, and not used at all. Costs at the high end of the range show that a complete decarbonization increases system-wide costs by 3% compared to a gas bridging scenario, and 13-46% compared to a carbon-intensive scenario, depending on the relative shares of solar and wind. Costs at the low end of the range show that system-wide costs are equal or lower for both completely decarbonized and gas bridging scenarios. In conclusion, gas delivers little to no cost savings as a bridging fuel in a system that switches to wind and solar.
“…[1][2][3]. Accordingly increasing renewable energy penetration and also new types of loads, such as electric vehicles, have necessitated the adoption of smart solutions by the electricity industry [4][5][6][7].…”
The renewable energy-based distributed generation (DG) implementation in power systems has been an active research area during the last few decades due to several environmental, economic and political factors. Although the integration of DG offers many advantages, several concerns, including protection schemes in systems with the possibility of bi-directional power flow, are raised. Thus, new protection schemes are strongly required in power systems with a significant presence of DG. In this study, an adaptive protection strategy for a distribution system with DG integration is proposed. The proposed strategy considers both grid-connected and islanded operating modes, while the adaptive operation of the protection is dynamically realized considering the availability of DG power production (related to faults or meteorological conditions) in each time step. Besides, the modular structure and fast response of the proposed strategy is validated via simulations conducted on the IEEE 13-node test system.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.