4.6 Review

A Critical Review of Sustainable Energy Policies for the Promotion of Renewable Energy Sources

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 12, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su12125078

Keywords

building energy performance certification schemes; feed-in-tariff; net-zero energy building; renewable energy; sustainable energy policy

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51608001]
  2. Youth Talent Program in Anhui University of Technology [DT18200013]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Meeting the rising energy demand and limiting its environmental impact are the two intertwined issues faced in the 21st century. Governments in different countries have been engaged in developing regulations and related policies to encourage environment friendly renewable energy generation along with conservation strategies and technological innovations. It is important to develop sustainable energy policies and provide relevant and suitable policy recommendations for end-users. This study presents a review on sustainable energy policy for promotion of renewable energy by introducing the development history of energy policy in five countries, i.e., the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, Denmark and China. A survey of the articles aimed at promoting the development of sustainable energy policies and their modelling is carried out. It is observed that energy-efficiency standard is one of the most popular strategy for building energy saving, which is dynamic and renewed based on the current available technologies. Feed-in-tariff has been widely applied to encourage the application of renewable energy, which is demonstrated successfully in different countries. Building energy performance certification schemes should be enhanced in terms of reliable database system and information transparency to pave the way for future net-zero energy building and smart cities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available