4.6 Article

Availability and Feasibility of Renewable Resources for Electricity Generation in the Arctic: The Cases of Longyearbyen, Maniitsoq, and Kotzebue

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 13, 期 16, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su13168708

关键词

Arctic; renewable energy; energy transition; electricity generation; energy economy; climate change

资金

  1. Iceland Research Fund [195846-051]
  2. Landsvirkjun Fund [NYR-15-2021]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Arctic currently relies on diesel as the dominant energy source for electricity generation, but its high cost presents a challenge for residents. Research suggests that renewable energy resources can provide a feasible and cost-competitive alternative in the Arctic, with the optimal mix varying for different communities. Stakeholder responses indicate a general acceptance of renewables in the case study communities.
Currently, the dominant energy source for electricity generation in the Arctic is diesel, which is well proven for Arctic conditions. However, diesel is expensive in the Arctic, often due to long and complicated fuel transportation routes, and so inhabitants of Arctic communities can face high electricity costs. This paper investigates whether renewable energy resources can be harvested in a feasible and cost-competitive manner. The paper highlights which renewable energy resources are generally available in the Arctic and analyzes how renewable resources, such as hydropower, wind, and photovoltaics, can be used. Furthermore, we present three specific case studies to provide in-depth insight. A simulation with different energy generation scenarios using different renewable energy sources and penetration levels was performed for each case. The results indicate that renewables can be a cost-competitive option and that the optimal mix of renewables varies for different communities. Stakeholders and experts from the case study communities were also interviewed and their responses indicated a general acceptance of renewables.

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

4.6
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