4.7 Article

The Smart Islands method for defining energy planning scenarios on islands

期刊

ENERGY
卷 237, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.121653

关键词

Energy planning; Smart Islands method; Renewable energy sources; RenewIslands; Energy system modelling

资金

  1. Young Researchers'Career Development Programme [DOK-01-2018]
  2. Croatian Science Foundation
  3. European Union from European Social Fund
  4. EU [824433]
  5. H2020 Societal Challenges Programme [824433] Funding Source: H2020 Societal Challenges Programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Islands provide a clear overview of resources and needs in multiple sectors, and energy planning should consider utilizing various resources to meet local needs, yet many studies only focus on limited sectors.
Islands represent areas where it is possible to have a clear overview of resources and needs over a large number of sectors. Because of this, the developed energy planning scenarios on the islands should reflect the possibility of meeting local needs with available resources of a wide range of sectors. This is often not the case in the current studies that analyse only a limited number of sectors. The developed method automatically combines needs and resources based on the quantitative indicators and generates energy planning scenarios with precisely defined types and the capacities of required technologies. The results show that the Smart Islands method provides 7 energy planning scenarios for Krk island with different technology mixes. The case study for Vis island is considered for cases with and without electrical interconnection. When the interconnection is not considered, the method suggests a 5.42 MWh battery system for maintaining grid stability. The results indicate that the Smart Islands method can be applied to islands with different characteristics as well as suggest optimal energy planning scenarios while meeting needs with local resources. (c) 2021 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

4.7
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