4.7 Article

Multi-temporal scale analysis of complementarity between hydro and solar power along an alpine transect

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 741, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140179

关键词

Run-of-the river hydropower; Solar power; Energy complementarity; Wavelet analysis; Alpine transect

资金

  1. Doktoratsstipendiumaus der Nachwuchsforderung from the University of Innsbruck
  2. University of Padova
  3. LPDP (Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education), Ministry of Finance, the Republic of Indonesia
  4. Stiftungsfonds fur Umweltokonomie und Nachhaltigkeit GmbH (SUN)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Variable renewable energy sources display different space-time variability driving the availability of energy generated from these sources. Complementarity among variable renewable energies in time and space allows reducing the variability of power supply and helps matching the electricity demand curve. This work investigates the temporal structure of complementarity along an alpine transect in North-East Italy, considering a 100% renewable energy mix scenario composed by photovoltaic and run-of-the-river energy. We analyze the dominant scales of variability of variable renewable energy sources and electricity demand. In addition, we introduce a new metric, the wavelet-based complementarity index, to quantify the potential complementarity between two different energy sources. We show that this index varies at different temporal scales and it helps explaining the discrepancy between demand and supply in the study area. Continuous and discrete wavelet analyses are applied to assess the energy balance variability at multiple temporal scales and to identify the optimal mix of renewable energies, respectively. This work describes therefore an effective approach to investigate the temporal-scale dependency of the variance in the energy balance and can be further extended to different and more complex situations. (C) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.

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