4.8 Article

Global transition to low-carbon electricity: A bibliometric analysis

期刊

APPLIED ENERGY
卷 205, 期 -, 页码 57-68

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.07.107

关键词

Electricity system; Climate change; Low-carbon; Renewable energy; Bibliometric analysis; Research trends

资金

  1. Georgia Tech's Brook Byers Institute of Sustainability Systems

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Decarbonizing the global electricity system is expected to contribute significantly to mitigating climate change. A significant body of research has focused on the development of low-carbon power systems; hence, this bibliometric review is timely. We assess the global scientific research on low-carbon electricity both quantitatively and qualitatively, based on the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-Expanded) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) spanning a quarter century and 13,767 publications. Our analysis illustrates the role of inter-institutional collaboration in successful scientific research on low-carbon power systems. The United States has contributed most to the low-carbon electricity literature with 3074 publications, the highest h-index (58), 8 of the 10 most cited articles, and 4 of the 10 most productive institutions. The Chinese Academy of Science is the most productive institution with 270 publications and notably high levels of international collaboration. Based on an analysis and visualization of author keywords and content analysis, we also characterize three phases of the global transition to low-carbon electricity. The 1990s involved reliance tin traditional base-load fuels (coal and nuclear), which spurred the search for cleaner alternatives. These alternatives materialized as the rise of clean coal and wind in the first decade of the 21st century, followed by the growth of solar and natural gas beginning in 2010. Besides this evolution of technologies, we document the transition to more nuanced forms of economic and policy analysis in recent years.

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