4.4 Article

Cost and robustness analysis of the Korean government's renewable energy plan under varying scenarios

Journal

KOREAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
Volume 38, Issue 12, Pages 2397-2405

Publisher

KOREAN INSTITUTE CHEMICAL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1007/s11814-021-0883-4

Keywords

Wind Power; Solar Photovoltaics; Bioenergy; Fuel Cells; Renewable Energy

Funding

  1. 2020 Hongik University Research Fund
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [NRF-2019 R1C1C1002642]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study proposes a revised mathematical model for assessing the total costs associated with renewable energy systems (RES) and applies it to examine the Korean government's latest plan. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the plan's robustness, revealing the contribution of various costs and providing insights for minimizing costs in key research areas.
In the ongoing global warming era, increasing the share of renewable energy systems (RES) in the energy portfolio has been a goal for many governments around the world. South Korea is not an exception and has employed numerous policy measures to promote adoption of RES. The latest renewable energy plan is one of those measures in which the target shares of RES are set for the coming decade. This study proposes a revised, more comprehensive mathematical model for assessing the total costs associated with installment, operation, and disintegration of RES. The proposed model is applied to examine the Korean government's latest plan in terms of the four major RES: solar PV, wind power, biomass energy, and fuel cell power. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate robustness of the plan with respect to changes in the price of fuels and CO2 emission. The results illustrate the contribution of various types of costs for implementing the plan and provide insight on numerous issues, including key areas of research for minimizing the costs.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available