IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v13y2020i23p6211-d451135.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multicriterial Evaluation of Renewable Energy Expansion Projects at Municipal Level for the Available Biomass Potential

Author

Listed:
  • Lucas Blickwedel

    (Chair for Wind Power Drives, RWTH Aachen University, Campus-Boulevard 61, 52074 Aachen, Germany)

  • Laura Stößel

    (Chair for Wind Power Drives, RWTH Aachen University, Campus-Boulevard 61, 52074 Aachen, Germany)

  • Ralf Schelenz

    (Chair for Wind Power Drives, RWTH Aachen University, Campus-Boulevard 61, 52074 Aachen, Germany)

  • Georg Jacobs

    (Institute for Machine Elements and System Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Schinkelstraße 10, 52062 Aachen, Germany)

Abstract

To reduce emissions in the energy sector and reach worldwide climate goals, further expansion of renewable energy sources (RES) is inevitable. Local opposition has increased in recent years, resulting in the need for more consideration of acceptance issues in the planning process of RES projects. To fill this gap, a method is introduced to consider the dimension of social acceptance in a holistic approach and at an early project stage. In a two-step procedure, a municipal interest profile is created, followed by an examination of possible expansion projects based on the municipal profile. Both hard and soft characteristics of a given project are assessed in combination. Using the example of two potential scenarios for biomass expansion in a given municipality in Germany, the methodology is put to the test. The results show that with the new method House of municipal Energy (HomE), the interest profile of a municipality can be quantified in a comprehensible and transparent way. It is further shown that, depending on the initial objective function of the municipality, different expansion scenarios can be advantageous. In the examined case, the larger biogas plant achieves a higher utility value, since a clearly higher local added value can be generated. A smaller plant, which is only operated with waste materials, is preferable with regard to the required area and lower environmental impact. However, the advantages of the larger plant outweigh those of the smaller plant for the investigated example.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucas Blickwedel & Laura Stößel & Ralf Schelenz & Georg Jacobs, 2020. "Multicriterial Evaluation of Renewable Energy Expansion Projects at Municipal Level for the Available Biomass Potential," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-17, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:23:p:6211-:d:451135
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/23/6211/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/23/6211/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jenssen, Till & König, Andreas & Eltrop, Ludger, 2014. "Bioenergy villages in Germany: Bringing a low carbon energy supply for rural areas into practice," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 74-80.
    2. Berlo, Kurt & Wagner, Oliver, 2011. "Zukunftsperspektiven kommunaler Energiewirtschaft," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 158, pages 236-242.
    3. Alexandra Pehlken & Kalle Wulf & Kevin Grecksch & Thomas Klenke & Nina Tsydenova, 2020. "More Sustainable Bioenergy by Making Use of Regional Alternative Biomass?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-22, September.
    4. McKenna, R. & Bertsch, V. & Mainzer, K. & Fichtner, W., 2018. "Combining local preferences with multi-criteria decision analysis and linear optimization to develop feasible energy concepts in small communities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1092-1110.
    5. Van Hoesen, John & Letendre, Steven, 2010. "Evaluating potential renewable energy resources in Poultney, Vermont: A GIS-based approach to supporting rural community energy planning," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 2114-2122.
    6. Neofytou, H. & Nikas, A. & Doukas, H., 2020. "Sustainable energy transition readiness: A multicriteria assessment index," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    7. Friedl, Christina & Reichl, Johannes, 2016. "Realizing energy infrastructure projects – A qualitative empirical analysis of local practices to address social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 184-193.
    8. Bronfman, Nicolás C. & Jiménez, Raquel B. & Arévalo, Pilar C. & Cifuentes, Luis A., 2012. "Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 246-252.
    9. McKenna, Russell, 2018. "The double-edged sword of decentralized energy autonomy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 747-750.
    10. Musall, Fabian David & Kuik, Onno, 2011. "Local acceptance of renewable energy--A case study from southeast Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3252-3260, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Laura Stößel & Leila Poddie & Tobias Spratte & Ralf Schelenz & Georg Jacobs, 2021. "County Clustering with Bioenergy as Flexible Power Unit in a Renewable Energy System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-14, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. McKenna, R. & Bertsch, V. & Mainzer, K. & Fichtner, W., 2018. "Combining local preferences with multi-criteria decision analysis and linear optimization to develop feasible energy concepts in small communities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1092-1110.
    2. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2022. "Beyond the triangle of renewable energy acceptance: The five dimensions of domestic hydrogen acceptance," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    3. Weinand, Jann Michael & Scheller, Fabian & McKenna, Russell, 2020. "Reviewing energy system modelling of decentralized energy autonomy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    4. Tong Koecklin, Manuel & Fitiwi, Desta & de Carolis, Joseph F. & Curtis, John, 2020. "Renewable electricity generation and transmission network developments in light of public opposition: Insights from Ireland," Papers WP653, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    5. Fouladvand, Javanshir & Aranguren Rojas, Maria & Hoppe, Thomas & Ghorbani, Amineh, 2022. "Simulating thermal energy community formation: Institutional enablers outplaying technological choice," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 306(PA).
    6. Kânoğlu-Özkan, Dilge Güldehen & Soytaş, Uğur, 2022. "The social acceptance of shale gas development: Evidence from Turkey," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PC).
    7. Fitiwi, Desta Z. & Lynch, Muireann & Bertsch, Valentin, 2020. "Power system impacts of community acceptance policies for renewable energy deployment under storage cost uncertainty," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 893-912.
    8. Haji Bashi, Mazaher & De Tommasi, Luciano & Le Cam, Andreea & Relaño, Lorena Sánchez & Lyons, Padraig & Mundó, Joana & Pandelieva-Dimova, Ivanka & Schapp, Henrik & Loth-Babut, Karolina & Egger, Christ, 2023. "A review and mapping exercise of energy community regulatory challenges in European member states based on a survey of collective energy actors," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    9. Dalia Streimikiene & Tomas Baležentis & Artiom Volkov & Mangirdas Morkūnas & Agnė Žičkienė & Justas Streimikis, 2021. "Barriers and Drivers of Renewable Energy Penetration in Rural Areas," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-28, October.
    10. Schumacher, K. & Krones, F. & McKenna, R. & Schultmann, F., 2019. "Public acceptance of renewable energies and energy autonomy: A comparative study in the French, German and Swiss Upper Rhine region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 315-332.
    11. Avri Eitan & Gillad Rosen & Lior Herman & Itay Fishhendler, 2020. "Renewable Energy Entrepreneurs: A Conceptual Framework," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-23, May.
    12. Bhowmik, Chiranjib & Bhowmik, Sumit & Ray, Amitava, 2018. "Social acceptance of green energy determinants using principal component analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 1030-1046.
    13. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    14. Kalkbrenner, Bernhard J. & Yonezawa, Koichi & Roosen, Jutta, 2017. "Consumer preferences for electricity tariffs: Does proximity matter?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 413-424.
    15. Weinand, J.M. & McKenna, R. & Fichtner, W., 2019. "Developing a municipality typology for modelling decentralised energy systems," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 75-96.
    16. Sonnberger, Marco & Ruddat, Michael, 2017. "Local and socio-political acceptance of wind farms in Germany," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 56-65.
    17. Mrówczyńska, M. & Skiba, M. & Sztubecka, M. & Bazan-Krzywoszańska, A. & Kazak, J.K. & Gajownik, P., 2021. "Scenarios as a tool supporting decisions in urban energy policy: The analysis using fuzzy logic, multi-criteria analysis and GIS tools," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    18. Sharpton, Tara & Lawrence, Thomas & Hall, Margeret, 2020. "Drivers and barriers to public acceptance of future energy sources and grid expansion in the United States," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    19. Langer, Katharina & Decker, Thomas & Roosen, Jutta & Menrad, Klaus, 2016. "A qualitative analysis to understand the acceptance of wind energy in Bavaria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 248-259.
    20. Jinjin Guan & Harald Zepp, 2020. "Factors Affecting the Community Acceptance of Onshore Wind Farms: A Case Study of the Zhongying Wind Farm in Eastern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-19, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:23:p:6211-:d:451135. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.