Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
8,885 bytes added ,  08:08, 31 January 2017
Line 333: Line 333:  
approach from the measured daily solar radiation data & 2. model to estimate global solar radiation using temperature and sunshine hour data has been developed (Chandel et al.) which is used to calculate the hourly solar radiation Data.
 
approach from the measured daily solar radiation data & 2. model to estimate global solar radiation using temperature and sunshine hour data has been developed (Chandel et al.) which is used to calculate the hourly solar radiation Data.
 
*  Total solar radiation on the inclined surfaces and vertical surfaces for different orientations have also been estimated.
 
*  Total solar radiation on the inclined surfaces and vertical surfaces for different orientations have also been estimated.
 +
===[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.09.015 Towards a local learning (innovation) model of solar photovoltaic deployment]<ref>Shum, Kwok L., Watanabe, Chihiro,"Towards a local learning (innovation) model of solar photovoltaic deployment"</ref>===
 +
''Abstract'' -It is by now familiar that in the deployment of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, the cost dynamics of major system component like solar cell/module is subjected to experience curve effects driven by production learning and research and development at the supplier side. What is less clear, however, is the economics of system integration or system deployment that takes place locally close to the user, involving other market players, in the downstream solar PV value chain. Experts have agreed that suppliers of solar PV system must customize their flexible characteristics to address local unique users’ and applications requirements and compete on price/performance basis. A lack of understanding of the drivers of the economics of system customization therefore is a deficiency in our understanding of the overall economics of this renewable energy technology option.
 +
 +
* Definiation of Balance of System.
 +
* Trend for BOS. 
 +
* Economies of scope for deployment of PV.
 +
 +
 +
===[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.10.019 Community renewable energy: What should it mean?]<ref>Gordon Walker,  Patrick Devine-Wright,"Community renewable energy: What should it mean?"</ref>===
 +
 +
''Abstract''
 +
Community is a much used word that is readily attached to projects, initiatives and policies as part of the discursive politics of modern governance. In this viewpoint, we consider the way in which community has become attached to renewable energy projects in the UK, both in grassroot action and in mainstream energy policy. We ask what those involved have seen as distinctive about community renewable energy projects that makes them different from other renewable energy installations. We identify a diversity of understandings and interpretations that revolve around questions of both process (who the project is by) and outcome (who the project is for). We evaluate the implications of this diversity, identifying the importance of the process of project development for realising the catalytic and learning effects of meaningful and substantial local involvement.
 +
 +
* Ways in which word community is interpeted
 +
* Participation of Local and openess in project helps.
 +
* diversity in income different opportunities for financing.
 +
 +
 +
===[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.032 What are the barriers and incentives for community-owned means of energy production and use??]<ref>Gordon Walker,"What are the barriers and incentives for community-owned means of energy production and use?"</ref>===
 +
 +
Abstract
 +
This paper on community-owned means of renewable energy production and use, reviews experience to date in the UK and the incentives for and barriers limiting current and future growth. A broad view is taken of what the meaning of ‘community-owned production and use’ might constitute, as there are different models of community ownership, different notions of community and different degrees of connection or disconnection between production and use.
 +
 +
*models of ownership 1) cooperative model 2) community charities 3)development trusts 4)shares owned by local community
 +
* incentives for community projects
 +
*Barriers w.r.t to community projects
 +
 +
 +
===[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.12.047 The transformation of southern California's residential photovoltaics market through third-party ownership]<ref>Easan Drurya, Mackay Miller, Charles M. Macal, Diane J. Graziano, Donna Heimiller, Jonathan Ozik, Thomas D. Perry,"The transformation of southern California's residential photovoltaics market through third-party ownership"</ref>===
 +
 +
Third-party photovoltaics (PV) ownership is a rapidly growing market trend, where commercial companies own and operate customer-sited PV systems and lease PV equipment or sell PV electricity to the building occupant. Third-party PV companies can reduce or eliminate up-front adoption costs, reduce technology risk and complexity by monitoring system performance, and can repackage the PV value proposition by showing cost savings in the first month of ownership rather than payback times on the order of a decade. We find that the entrance of third-party business models in southern California residential PV markets has enticed a new demographic to adopt PV systems that is more highly correlated to younger, less affluent, and less educated populations than the demographics correlated to purchasing PV systems. By enticing new demographics to adopt PV, we find that third-party PV products are likely increasing total PV demand rather than gaining market share entirely at the expense of existing customer owned PV demand. We also find that mean population demographics are good predictors of third-party and customer owned PV adoption, and mean voting trends on California carbon policy (Proposition 23) are poor predictors of PV adoption.
 +
 +
* Third party ownership details not retailed to community.
 +
 +
===[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.08.045 Mobilizing community energy]<ref>Elizabeth Bomberg, Nicola McEwen,,"Mobilizing community energy"</ref>===
 +
 +
''Abstract''
 +
What explains the galvanising of communities to participate actively in energy projects? How do groups mobilize to overcome the often formidable barriers highlighted in the existing literature? Drawing on original qualitative research of 100 community energy groups in Scotland, including six in-depth case studies, we explain how effective mobilization occurs and the political dynamics surrounding such mobilization. To capture these dynamics, we adapt theories offered by literature on social movements, with a particular focus on resource mobilization theories. Applying our adapted framework, we identify two particular sets of resources shaping community energy mobilization: (i) structural resources, which refer to the broad political context structuring and constraining opportunities for community energy mobilization; and (ii) symbolic resources—less tangible resources used to galvanise participants. We investigate to what extent our case study groups were able to draw upon and exploit these resources. We find that structural resources can either facilitate or hinder mobilization; what matters is how state resources are exploited and constraints mitigated. The use of symbolic resources was highly effective in aiding mobilization. Each of the groups examined – despite their considerable variation – effectively exploited symbolic resources such as shared identity or desire for strong, self reliant communities
 +
 +
* case studies of communities in scotland and ways in which community energy can be mobilized.
 +
 +
===[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.028 Three is a crowd? Exploring the potential of crowdfunding for renewable energy in the Netherlands]<ref>E. Vasileiadou, J.C.C.M. Huijben, R.P.J.M. Raven,"Three is a crowd? Exploring the potential of crowdfunding for renewable energy in the Netherlands"</ref>===
 +
 +
''Abstract''
 +
There is a huge gap between demand and supply of finance for energy transitions, and the financial and economic crisis have had a negative impact in the already meagre funds for transforming the energy system towards renewable sources. In this paper we explore whether crowdfunding for renewable energy, as a novel sociotechnical practice developed in a niche, has the potential to break through and transform both the energy and the financial regimes, utilising the Multi-Level Perspective theory. We empirically investigate crowdfunding platforms linked to renewable electricity projects in the Netherlands. The main conclusion is that the volume of crowdfunding today is low, but the dynamic of these projects holds potential. There is limited indication of learning processes until now, as well as limited support from regime actors, pointing at a low level of niche stabilization and break-through potential, which may however be related to the early stage of development of crowdfunding in the Netherlands. On the other hand, the heterogeneity of crowdfunders is very promising. Platforms dedicated to renewable electricity exclusively, and with an investment based business model seem to be the most successful. We show how governmental market regulation and support mechanisms are shaping crowdfunding as a business model, and discuss the implications for other countries.
 +
 +
*The volume of crowdfunding for renewable energy projects is low, but its dynamic holds potential.
 +
*There is limited support of crowdfunding for renewables from powerful actors.
 +
*Crowdfunders exhibit a variety of normative, gain and even hedonic motivations.
 +
*Governmental market support and regulations are shaping crowdfunding as a business model.
    
===Guidebook for community solar programs in Michigan Communities (2014)===
 
===Guidebook for community solar programs in Michigan Communities (2014)===
45

edits

Navigation menu

MediaWiki spam blocked by CleanTalk.