4.8 Review

Potentiality of renewable resources: Economic feasibility perspectives in South Korea

期刊

RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS
卷 79, 期 -, 页码 61-70

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.043

关键词

Renewable energy; South Korea; HOMER; Economic feasibility

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant - Korea government (MSIP) [NRF-2017R1C1B5017437]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2017R1C1B5017437] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Since dependency on fossil fuels and nuclear energy has become a main global concern, the South Korean government has made significant efforts for the diffusion and vitalization of renewable energy generation facilities. One of the notable efforts for renewable energy is the government's and research institutes' provision of natural resource maps. Although these maps are useful for the diffusion of renewable energy generation systems, the economic feasibility of these systems can be affected by various factors (e.g., cost of the components in the systems or the characteristics of national electricity demand). Therefore, the current study investigates the economic feasibility of renewable energy generation systems in 17 selected cities in South Korea using information on the currently considered components and the hybrid optimization of multiple energy resources (HOMER) software. Based on the simulation results, the optimal configurations for the cities are introduced, the potentiality of utilizing renewable energy resources in the cities evaluated, and the renewable energy resources ranked for each city. Among the suggested cities, Jeju and Incheon are nominated as two promising locations for utilizing renewable energy resources. Moreover, this study presents the general economic feasibility maps for South Korean cities, as well as discusses both implications and limitations.

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