4.8 Review

Evaluating and comparing three community small-scale wind electrification projects

期刊

RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS
卷 16, 期 7, 页码 5379-5390

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.04.015

关键词

Isolated rural electrification; Microwind systems; Developing countries; Peru

资金

  1. Toyota Environmental Activities Grant Programe
  2. The Co-operative Bank from United Kingdom
  3. The Koru Foundation from United Kingdom
  4. Asociacion Catalana de Ingenieria sin Fronteras
  5. Technical University of Catalonia from Spain
  6. Green Empowerment of the United States
  7. Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy (WISIONS) from Germany
  8. Ministry of Energy and mines of Peru
  9. Spanish MICINN project [ENE2010-15509]
  10. FEDER
  11. Catalan Agency for Development Cooperation
  12. Centre for Development Cooperation of the Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya-Barcelona Tech (UPC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electrification systems based on renewable energy have proven suitable for providing electricity autonomously to rural communities. Among the technical options available, wind systems are increasingly getting attention. In the northern mountains of Peru, at 3800 m.a.s.l., three community wind electrification projects have been implemented. The technical solutions used in each project are different: wind vs. hybrid photovoltaic-wind systems; individual equipment vs. microgrids. This study aims to describe, evaluate and compare these three small-scale community wind electrification projects. The evaluation of the three projects was carried out by comparing previous and present scenario; attention has been focused on project design and technical aspects, socio-economic impacts and sustainability and management model. These three examples shed light on both the advantages and disadvantages of different technological options as well as on appropriate community-level management models. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据