IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v16y2023i7p3298-d1117767.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Assessment of Energy Flexibility Solutions from the Perspective of Low-Tech

Author

Listed:
  • Muhammad Salman Shahid

    (Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, G2Elab, F-38000 Grenoble, France)

  • Seun Osonuga

    (Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, G2Elab, F-38000 Grenoble, France)

  • Nana Kofi Twum-Duah

    (Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, G2Elab, F-38000 Grenoble, France
    Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, G-SCOP, F-38000 Grenoble, France)

  • Sacha Hodencq

    (Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, G2Elab, F-38000 Grenoble, France)

  • Benoit Delinchant

    (Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, G2Elab, F-38000 Grenoble, France)

  • Frédéric Wurtz

    (Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, G2Elab, F-38000 Grenoble, France)

Abstract

The energy transition is a multidisciplinary challenge that warrants solutions that are robust and sustainable. Energy flexibility, one of the key pillars of the energy transition, is an umbrella term that covers multiple innovative solutions implemented at all levels of the electric grid to ensure power quality standards, amongst other objectives. Low-tech, on the other hand, emphasizes designing, producing, and sustainably implementing solutions. Therefore, considering the multidisciplinary nature of energy transition and the existing energy flexibility solutions, the purpose of this research work is multilateral: first, it presents the concept of low-tech and its associated mechanisms; then, it addresses the misconceptions and similarities that low-tech might have with other innovation approaches; and finally, it provides an assessment of existing flexibility solutions using low-tech as a tool. The result of this assessment is presented qualitatively and indicates that indirect energy flexibility solutions rank higher on a low-tech scale relative to supply-side energy flexibility solutions and energy storage flexibility solutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Muhammad Salman Shahid & Seun Osonuga & Nana Kofi Twum-Duah & Sacha Hodencq & Benoit Delinchant & Frédéric Wurtz, 2023. "An Assessment of Energy Flexibility Solutions from the Perspective of Low-Tech," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-29, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:7:p:3298-:d:1117767
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/7/3298/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/7/3298/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simoiu, Mircea Stefan & Fagarasan, Ioana & Ploix, Stéphane & Calofir, Vasile, 2022. "Modeling the energy community members’ willingness to change their behaviour with multi-agent systems: A stochastic approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 1233-1246.
    2. Hossain, Mokter & Simula, Henri & Halme, Minna, 2016. "Can frugal go global? Diffusion patterns of frugal innovations," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 132-139.
    3. Wang, Jiang-Jiang & Jing, You-Yin & Zhang, Chun-Fa & Zhao, Jun-Hong, 2009. "Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(9), pages 2263-2278, December.
    4. Soto, Esteban A. & Bosman, Lisa B. & Wollega, Ebisa & Leon-Salas, Walter D., 2021. "Peer-to-peer energy trading: A review of the literature," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 283(C).
    5. Maxim, Alexandru, 2014. "Sustainability assessment of electricity generation technologies using weighted multi-criteria decision analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 284-297.
    6. Youdeowei, P.O & Nwankwoala, H.O & Desai, D.D, 2019. "Dam Structures And Types In Nigeria: Sustainability And Effectiveness," Water Conservation & Management (WCM), Zibeline International Publishing, vol. 3(1), pages 20-26, February.
    7. Hondo, Hiroki, 2005. "Life cycle GHG emission analysis of power generation systems: Japanese case," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 30(11), pages 2042-2056.
    8. Costea, Gabriela & Pusch, Martin T. & Bănăduc, Doru & Cosmoiu, Diana & Curtean-Bănăduc, Angela, 2021. "A review of hydropower plants in Romania: Distribution, current knowledge, and their effects on fish in headwater streams," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    9. Dilmus D. James, 1987. "The Political Economy of Science and Technology," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 921-923, June.
    10. Cany, C. & Mansilla, C. & Mathonnière, G. & da Costa, P., 2018. "Nuclear power supply: Going against the misconceptions. Evidence of nuclear flexibility from the French experience," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 289-296.
    11. Kaplinsky, Raphael, 2011. "Schumacher meets Schumpeter: Appropriate technology below the radar," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 193-203, March.
    12. Huber, Matthias & Dimkova, Desislava & Hamacher, Thomas, 2014. "Integration of wind and solar power in Europe: Assessment of flexibility requirements," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 236-246.
    13. de Oliveira e Silva, Guilherme & Hendrick, Patrick, 2016. "Pumped hydro energy storage in buildings," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 1242-1250.
    14. de Almeida, Aníbal T. & Moura, Pedro S. & Marques, Alféu S. & de Almeida, José L., 2005. "Multi-impact evaluation of new medium and large hydropower plants in Portugal centre region," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 149-167, April.
    15. Roberts, Mike B. & Bruce, Anna & MacGill, Iain, 2019. "Impact of shared battery energy storage systems on photovoltaic self-consumption and electricity bills in apartment buildings," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 245(C), pages 78-95.
    16. Manolakos, D & Papadakis, G & Papantonis, D & Kyritsis, S, 2004. "A stand-alone photovoltaic power system for remote villages using pumped water energy storage," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 57-69.
    17. Keiichi Akahane & Shunsuke Yonai & Shigekazu Fukuda & Nobuyuki Miyahara & Hiroshi Yasuda & Kazuki Iwaoka & Masaki Matsumoto & Akifumi Fukumura & Makoto Akashi, 2012. "The Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident and exposures in the environment," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 136-143, June.
    18. Prajapati, Vijaykumar K. & Mahajan, Vasundhara, 2021. "Reliability assessment and congestion management of power system with energy storage system and uncertain renewable resources," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 215(PB).
    19. Abdel-Basset, Mohamed & Gamal, Abduallah & Chakrabortty, Ripon K. & Ryan, Michael J., 2021. "Evaluation approach for sustainable renewable energy systems under uncertain environment: A case study," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 1073-1095.
    20. Heffron, Raphael & Körner, Marc-Fabian & Wagner, Jonathan & Weibelzahl, Martin & Fridgen, Gilbert, 2020. "Industrial demand-side flexibility: A key element of a just energy transition and industrial development," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    21. Pablo Fernández-Bustamante & Oscar Barambones & Isidro Calvo & Cristian Napole & Mohamed Derbeli, 2021. "Provision of Frequency Response from Wind Farms: A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-24, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Rivero-Iglesias, Jose M. & Puente, Javier & Fernandez, Isabel & León, Omar, 2023. "Integrated model for the assessment of power generation alternatives through analytic hierarchy process and a fuzzy inference system. Case study of Spain," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 563-581.
    2. Strantzali, Eleni & Aravossis, Konstantinos, 2016. "Decision making in renewable energy investments: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 885-898.
    3. L. Hay & A. H. B. Duffy & R. I. Whitfield, 2017. "The S‐Cycle Performance Matrix: Supporting Comprehensive Sustainability Performance Evaluation of Technical Systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 45-70, January.
    4. Yan, Rujing & Wang, Jiangjiang & Wang, Jiahao & Tian, Lei & Tang, Saiqiu & Wang, Yuwei & Zhang, Jing & Cheng, Youliang & Li, Yuan, 2022. "A two-stage stochastic-robust optimization for a hybrid renewable energy CCHP system considering multiple scenario-interval uncertainties," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 247(C).
    5. Teirilä, Juha, 2020. "The value of the nuclear power plant fleet in the German power market under the expansion of fluctuating renewables," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    6. David Severin Ryberg & Martin Robinius & Detlef Stolten, 2018. "Evaluating Land Eligibility Constraints of Renewable Energy Sources in Europe," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-19, May.
    7. Michaela Makešová & Michaela Valentová, 2021. "The Concept of Multiple Impacts of Renewable Energy Sources: A Critical Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-21, May.
    8. Silvia Angilella & Maria Rosaria Pappalardo, 2022. "Performance assessment of energy companies employing Hierarchy Stochastic Multi-Attribute Acceptability Analysis," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 299-370, March.
    9. Seddiki, Mohammed & Bennadji, Amar, 2019. "Multi-criteria evaluation of renewable energy alternatives for electricity generation in a residential building," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 101-117.
    10. Diaz-Balteiro, L & González-Pachón, J. & Romero, C., 2017. "Measuring systems sustainability with multi-criteria methods: A critical review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(2), pages 607-616.
    11. Howell, Rachel & van Beers, Cees & Doorn, Neelke, 2018. "Value capture and value creation: The role of information technology in business models for frugal innovations in Africa," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 227-239.
    12. Barnikol, Julian & Liefner, Ingo, 2022. "The prospects of advanced frugal innovations in different economies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    13. Bengart, Paul & Vogt, Bodo, 2021. "Fuel mix disclosure in Germany—The effect of more transparent information on consumer preferences for renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    14. Boroomandnia, Arezoo & Rismanchi, Behzad & Wu, Wenyan, 2022. "A review of micro hydro systems in urban areas: Opportunities and challenges," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    15. Xiaoyang Sun & Baosheng Zhang & Xu Tang & Benjamin C. McLellan & Mikael Höök, 2016. "Sustainable Energy Transitions in China: Renewable Options and Impacts on the Electricity System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-20, November.
    16. Troldborg, Mads & Heslop, Simon & Hough, Rupert L., 2014. "Assessing the sustainability of renewable energy technologies using multi-criteria analysis: Suitability of approach for national-scale assessments and associated uncertainties," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1173-1184.
    17. Buchmayr, A. & Verhofstadt, E. & Van Ootegem, L. & Sanjuan Delmás, D. & Thomassen, G. & Dewulf, J., 2021. "The path to sustainable energy supply systems: Proposal of an integrative sustainability assessment framework," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    18. Poudel, B. & Parton, K. & Morrison, M., 2022. "The drivers of the sustainable performance of renewable energy-based mini-grids," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 1206-1217.
    19. Baumann, Manuel & Weil, Marcel & Peters, Jens F. & Chibeles-Martins, Nelson & Moniz, Antonio B., 2019. "A review of multi-criteria decision making approaches for evaluating energy storage systems for grid applications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 516-534.
    20. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid & Nemery, Philippe, 2016. "Which energy mix for the UK (United Kingdom)? An evolutive descriptive mapping with the integrated GAIA (graphical analysis for interactive aid)–AHP (analytic hierarchy process) visualization tool," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 602-611.

    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:16:y:2023:i:7:p:3298-:d:1117767. 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.