4.7 Article

An inter-provincial cooperation model under Renewable Portfolio Standard policy

期刊

ENERGY
卷 269, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2023.126771

关键词

Renewable portfolio standard; Inter -provincial cooperation; Optimal model; Cooperative game

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study proposes an inter-provincial cooperation model (ICM) under the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) in China, which includes an optimization model and cost allocation models to achieve low cost and fairness. Case analysis of Beijing, Shandong, Shanxi, and Inner Mongolia shows that the ICM can reduce the total cost by 57.07 billion CNY, or 8.25% compared to the current non-cooperation model (NCM). Sensitivity analysis provides policy recommendations for promoting the implementation of the ICM.
The Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) has been implemented by a number of the world's most economically developed nations, to address the great challenges faced regarding energy problems and climate change. However, the current non-cooperation model (NCM) of the RPS in China cannot effectively overcome the bottleneck of renewable energy development due to the disparity between renewable energy-rich regions and high energyconsuming regions. To resolve this dilemma, this study proposes an inter-provincial cooperation model (ICM) under the RPS in China. The ICM consists of two parts: (1) an optimization model to obtain the lowest RPS target realization cost and ensure efficiency, and (2) cost allocation models based on the Shapley value, core, and nucleolus methods, to ensure fairness in different situations. The cases of Beijing, Shandong, Shanxi, and Inner Mongolia show that the total cost of the four provincial regions covered by the ICM will be reduced by 57.07 x 108 CNY, or 8.25% compared with the NCM. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the impact of different parameter values on the ICM results. Based on these results, we propose policy recommendations to promote implementation of the ICM.

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