Econometric Studies on the Development of Renewable Energy Sources to Support the European Union 2020–2030 Climate and Energy Framework: A Critical Appraisal
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Search Strategy and Data Collection
- Type of document availability: classified as “Open Access”, those journals in which all its peer-reviewed academic articles were available online without registration, subscription, and/or payment requirements. Overall, 18 of the total 153 documents were open access. The rest of the documents, 135, were those that required a prior registration, subscription, or payment in order to have them for analysis.
- Year of publication: the literature review includes studies from 2002 to 2019. The largest number of econometric studies that analyze the development of renewable energies were published in years 2017 and 2018. Figure 3 shows the year-wise frequency of publication from 2002 to 2017 in this field.
- Knowledge area: the results offered by the Scopus database were classified into four broad thematic groups (life sciences, physical sciences, health sciences, and social sciences and humanities), which, in turn, were divided into 27 main thematic areas and more than 300 minor themes. Table 2 has been elaborated where the number of documents of the literary review are shown according to the thematic area provided by Scopus. In total, 92% of the publications of the review were included in the thematic areas of energy (with 35% of the total documents); environmental sciences (25%); economics, econometrics, and finance (11%); engineering (10%); business, administration, and accounting (6%); and social sciences (5%). Therefore, 75% of the studies belonged to the thematic group of physical sciences, 24% to the social sciences, and only 1% to the life sciences.
- Type of source: Scopus covers various types of sources in order to ensure the maximum research coverage in all fields. It includes serial publications such as journals, commercial publications, book series, and materials or conference proceedings that have been assigned an ISSN (International Standard Serial Number), as well as nonserial documents with an ISBN (International Standard Book Number), such as books, and nonserial documents without an ISBN, such as reports, part of a series of books, procedures, monographs, edited volumes, main reference works, patents, and postgraduate level textbooks. There were 70 literary sources that encompassed the studies of this review—the Energy Policy and Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews were those that have published the largest number of documents, 28 and 19 articles respectively. Table 3 shows the type of source and the number of documents by type of source.
- Type of document: within the types of documents that Scopus includes (article, article-in-press, book, book chapter, conference paper, editorial, erratum, letter, note, review, and short review); this review has 118 articles, 19 reviews, 10 books, 5 articles presented at conferences, and 1 book chapter.
- Keywords: Scopus offered the keywords used in the 119 initial documents; however, 34 additional documents were considered important to complete the state-of-the art review. Consequently, each of the 34 additional documents that have been added to this review have been analyzed document by document for the keywords used, which were then included in the database made for the review analysis; with all of them, all keywords have been synthesized following the “document search tips” that Scopus database provides. Changes have been made to synthesize the plural and singular concepts in their singular form and error correction has also been made to avoid duplication in said keywords. With all premises taken into account, there were 210 keywords used by the different authors to reflect the content of the econometric studies on renewable energy sources, with the following being the most frequently used expressions: “renewable energy”, “energy policy”, “economics”, “renewable energy resources”, “investment”, “renewable resource”, “sustainable development”, and “wind power”. Table 4 presents the full list of keywords. From the table above, and grouping the keywords by themes, it can be seen that the most studied topics in the field of the RES development through an econometric analysis were those related to policy such us “climate policy”, “energy policy”, “policy making”, or “public policy”. Others related to the support that renewables received are frequently studied highlighting above all the “feed-in tariff” support or “renewable portfolio standard”. The investment in renewables was also a topic of interest. The sustainability of the energy system has also been frequently studied. In addition, carbon emissions, control emission, and emission trading are also very important issues to the deployment of RES. If we focus on the scope of the analysis, we can observe that most of the publications in the field of RES development have focused on a set of countries (Europe; BRICS, especially China; developing countries; the United States; and countries from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). Regarding the technological scope, most of the studies are focused on RES in general, but also solar (specially, solar photovoltaic) and wind energy are frequently studied. The methodology used is very varied, highlighting regression analysis, panel data models, cost benefit analysis, choice experiment, and multi criteria decision making.
- Author affiliation: Scopus encompasses three key search concepts in its database: article, author, and affiliation. At this point, Scopus uses 70,000 affiliate profiles, which is an interesting tool for the academic and research field as it meant that we could identify possible relationships between the affiliation body of the authors of the different econometric studies on RES and other different points of this review. The top 15 affiliation organizations of the total 219 are detailed in Table 5.
- Country authorship: the top countries of origin of the authors of this literature review were the United States, China, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and Spain.
- Funding sponsor: there were 73 organizations that financed part of the studies of this review. It is noteworthy that 7 of the 8 institutions that most frequently funded studies were agencies from China.
- Publication language: the predominant language in econometric research studies concerning the develop of RES was English (150 of the 153 documents of the literary review), and only 3 documents have been prepared in Chinese, French, and Thai.
4. Discussion and Concluding Remarks
Conflicts of Interest
- European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Framework Strategy for a Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Horizon 2020—The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Accompanying the Mid-term Evaluation of the LIFE Programme; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Bointner, R. Innovation in the energy sector: Lessons learnt from R&D expenditures and patents in selected IEA countries. Energy Policy 2014, 73, 733–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bointner, R.; Pezzutto, S.; Grilli, G.; Sparber, W. Financing Innovations for the Renewable Energy Transition in Europe. Energies 2016, 9, 990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Policy Framework for Climate and Energy in the Period from 2020 to 2030; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Intriligator, M.D.; Bodkin, G.; Hsiao, C. Econometric Models, Techniques, and Applications, 2nd ed.; Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Quintana-Rojo, C.; Callejas-Albiñana, F.E.; Tarancón, M.A.; del Río, P. Assessing the feasibility of deployment policies in wind energy systems. A sensitivity analysis on a multiequational econometric framework. Energy Econ. 2020, 86, 104688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smyth, R.; Narayan, P.K. Applied econometrics and implications for energy economics research. Energy Econ. 2015, 50, 351–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karanfil, F. How many times again will we examine the energy-income nexus using a limited range of traditional econometric tools? Energy Policy 2009, 37, 1191–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Community Research and Development Information Service (CORDIS). Available online: https://cordis.europa.eu/ (accessed on 19 April 2020).
- Gall, M.D.; Gall, J.P.; Borg, W.R. Educational Research: An Introduction, 8th ed.; Pearson: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Hart, C. Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination; SAGE Publications: London, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Randolph, J.J. A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review. Prac. Assess. Res. Eval. 2009, 14, 1–13. Available online: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/pare/vol14/iss1/13 (accessed on 12 October 2019).
- Webster, J.; Watson, R.T. Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Q. 2002, 26, 13–23. [Google Scholar]
- Woo, C.K.; Chen, Y.; Zarnikau, J.; Olson, A.; Moore, J.; Ho, T. Carbon trading’s impact on California’s real-time electricity marketprices. Energy 2018, 159, 579–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woo, C.K.; Shiu, A.; Liu, Y.; Luo, X.; Zarnikau, J. Consumption effects of an electricity decarbonization policy: Hong Kong. Energy 2018, 144, 888–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woo, C.K.; Sreedharan, P.; Hargreaves, J.; Kahrl, F.; Wang, J.; Horowitz, I. A review of electricity product differentiation. Appl. Energy 2014, 114, 262–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woo, C.K.; Li, R.; Shiu, A.; Horowitz, I. Residential winter kW h responsiveness under optional time-varying pricing in British Columbia. Appl. Energy 2013, 108, 288–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woo, C.K.; Horowitz, I.; Horii, B.; Orans, R.; Zarnikau, J. Blowing in the Wind: Vanishing Payoffs of a Tolling Agreement for Natural-gas-fired Generation of Electricity in Texas. Energy J. 2012, 33, 207–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Shrimali, G.; Chan, G.; Jenner, S.; Groba, F.; Indvik, J. Evaluating Renewable Portfolio Standards for In-State Renewable Deployment: Accounting for Policy Heterogeneity. Econ. Energy Env. Pol. 2015, 4, 127–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shrimali, G.; Jenner, S. The impact of state policy on deployment and cost of solar photovoltaic technology in the U.S.: A sector-specific empirical analysis. Renew. Energy 2013, 60, 679–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarzynski, A.; Larrieu, J.; Shrimali, G. The impact of state financial incentives on market deployment of solar technology. Energy Policy 2012, 39, 550–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shrimali, G.; Kniefel, J. Are government policies effective in promoting deployment of renewable electricity resources? Energy Policy 2011, 39, 4726–4741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shrimali, G.; Jenner, S.; Groba, F.; Chan, G.; Indvik, J. Have State Renewable Portfolio Standards Really Worked? Synthesizing Past Policy Assessments to Build an Integrated Econometric Analysis of RPS effectiveness in the U.S. DIW Berl. Discuss. Pap. 2012, 1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Groba, F.; Cao, J. Chinese Renewable Energy Technology Exports: The Role of Policy, Innovation and Markets. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2014, 60, 243–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Jenner, S.; Groba, F.; Indvik, J. Assessing the strength and effectiveness of renewable electricity feed-in tariffs in European Union countries. Energy Policy 2013, 52, 385–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Chaichan, M.T.; Kazem, H.A. Generating Electricity Using Photovoltaic Solar Plants in Iraq, 1st ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 1–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dijkgraaf, E.; Van Dorp, T.P.; Maasland, E. On the effectiveness of feed-in tariffs in the development of solar photovoltaics. Energy J. 2018, 39, 81–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- López Prol, J. Regulation, profitability and diffusion of photovoltaic grid-connected systems: A comparative analysis of Germany and Spain. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 91, 1170–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hancevic, P.I.; Nuñez, H.M.; Rosellon, J. Distributed photovoltaic power generation: Possibilities, benefits, and challenges for a widespread application in the Mexican residential sector. Energy Policy 2017, 110, 478–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Li, S.J.; Chang, T.H.; Chang, S.L. The policy effectiveness of economic instruments for the photovoltaic and wind power development in the European Union. Renew. Energy 2017, 101, 660–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, H.; Anadón, L.D. The role of the complementary sector and its relationship with network formation and government policies in emerging sectors: The case of solar photovoltaics between 2001 and 2009. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 2014, 82, 80–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popp, D.; Hascic, I.; Medhi, N. Technology and the diffusion of renewable energy. Energy Econ. 2011, 33, 648–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hitaj, C.; Löschel, A. The Impact of a Feed-In Tariff on Wind Power Development in Germany. Resour. Energy Econ. 2019, 57, 18–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Grafström, J.; Lindman, Å. Invention, innovation and diffusion in the European wind power sector. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 114, 179–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morano, P.; Tajani, F.; Locurcio, M. GIS application and econometric analysis for the verification of the financial feasibility of roof-top wind turbines in the city of Bari (Italy). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 70, 999–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gavard, C. Carbon price and wind power support in Denmark. Energy Policy 2016, 92, 455–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Redlinger, R.Y.; Andersen, P.D.; Morthorst, P.E. Wind Energy in the 21st Century: Economics, Policy, Technology and the Changing Electricity Industry, 1st ed.; Palgrave Macmillan: Hampshire, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 1–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caporale, D.; De Lucia, C. Social acceptance of on-shore wind energy in Apulia Region (Southern Italy). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 52, 1378–1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, K.; Kim, Y. Role of policy in innovation and international trade of renewable energy technology: Empirical study of solar PV and wind power technology. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 44, 717–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okeniyi, J.O.; Moses, I.F.; Okeniyi, E.T. Wind characteristics and energy potential assessment in Akure, South West Nigeria: Econometrics and policy implications. Int. J. Ambient Energy 2015, 36, 282–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sangroya, D.; Nayak, J. Effectiveness of state incentives for promoting wind energy: A panel data examination. Front. Energy 2015, 9, 247–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Rensburg, T.M.; Kelley, H.; Jeserich, N. What influences the probability of wind farm planning approval: Evidence from Ireland. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 111, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Del Río, P.; Tarancón, M.A.; Peñasco, C. The determinants of support levels for wind energy in the European Union. An econometric study. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Chang. 2014, 19, 391–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flora, R.; Marques, A.C.; Fuinhas, J.A. Wind power idle capacity in a panel of European countries. Energy 2014, 66, 823–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hitaj, C. Wind power development in the United States. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2013, 65, 394–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, F. How fit are feed-in tariff policies? Evidence from the European Wind Market. Policy Res. Work. Pap. 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Del Río, P.; Tarancón, M.A. Analysing the determinants of on-shore wind capacity additions in the EU: An econometric study. Appl. Energy 2012, 95, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, C.G. Feed-in tariff vs. renewable portfolio standard: An empirical test of their relative effectiveness in promoting wind capacity development. Energy Policy 2012, 42, 476–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adelaja, A.; Hailu, Y.G.; McKeown, C.H.; Tekle, A.T. Effects of renewable energy policies on wind industry development in the US. J. Nat. Res. Policy Res. 2010, 2, 245–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menz, F.C.; Vachon, S. The effectiveness of different policy regimes for promoting wind power: Experiences from the states. Energy Policy 2006, 34, 1786–1796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Álvarez-Farizo, B.; Hanley, N. Using conjoint analysis to quantify public preferences over the environmental impacts of wind farms. An example from Spain. Energy Policy 2002, 30, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romano, A.A.; Scandurra, G.; Carfora, A. Environmental, generation and policy determinants of feed-in tariff: A binary pooling and panel analysis. Metodoloski Zvezki 2015, 12, 111–122. [Google Scholar]
- Boehringer, C.; Cuntz, A.N.; Harhoff, D.; Asane-Otoo, E. The Impacts of Feed-in Tariffs on Innovation: Empirical Evidence from Germany; Center for Economic Studies and Ifo Institute: Munich, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, M.G.; Urpelainen, J. The Effect of Feed-in Tariffs on Renewable Electricity Generation: An Instrumental Variables Approach. Environ. Res. Econ. 2014, 57, 367–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowen, E.; Lacombe, D.J. Spatial Interaction of Renewable Portfolio Standards and Their Effect on Renewable Generation Within NERC Regions; West Virginia University, Department of Economics: Morgantown, WV, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Yin, H.; Powers, N. Do state renewable portfolio standards promote in-state renewable generation? Energy Policy 2010, 38, 1140–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carley, S.; Baldwin, E.; MacLean, L.M.; Brass, J.N. Global Expansion of Renewable Energy Generation: An Analysis of Policy Instruments. Environ. Res. Econ. 2017, 68, 397–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fujii, H.; Cao, J.; Managi, S. Firm-level environmentally sensitive productivity and innovation in China. Appl. Energy 2016, 184, 915–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Aranda-Usón, A.; Portillo-Tarragona, P.; Marín-Vinuesa, L.M.; Scarpellini, S. Financial resources for the circular economy: A perspective from businesses. Sustainability 2019, 11, 888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Polzin, F.; Egli, F.; Steffen, B.; Schmidt, T.S. How do policies mobilize private finance for renewable energy?—A systematic review with an investor perspective. Appl. Energy 2019, 1249–1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, Y.; Guo, W. A review of investment, financing and policies support mechanisms for renewable energy development. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management, Baku, Azerbaijan, 31 August–2 September 2016; Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer: Singapore, 2016; pp. 981–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olson-Hazboun, S.K. “Why are we being punished and they are being rewarded?” Views on renewable energy in fossil fuels-based communities of the U.S. West. Extr. Ind. Soc. 2018, 5, 366–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kilinc-Ata, N. The evaluation of renewable energy policies across EU countries and US states: An econometric approach. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2016, 31, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ohler, A.M. Factors affecting the rise of renewable energy in the U.S.: Concern over environmental quality or rising unemployment? Energy J. 2015, 36, 97–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marciano, J.A.; Lilieholm, R.J.; Teisl, M.F.; Leahy, J.E.; Neupane, B. Factors affecting public support for forest-based biorefineries: A comparison of mill towns and the general public in Maine, USA. Energy Policy 2014, 75, 301–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delmas, M.A.; Montes-Sancho, M.J. U.S. state policies for renewable energy: Context and effectiveness. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 2273–2288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Carley, S. State renewable energy electricity policies: An empirical evaluation of effectiveness. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 3071–3081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira Uhr, D.D.A.; Squarize Chagas, A.L.; Ziero Uhr, J.G. Estimation of elasticities for electricity demand in Brazilian households and policy implications. Energy Policy 2019, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trotter, P.A.; McManus, M.C.; Maconachie, R. Electricity planning and implementation in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 74, 1189–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zipp, A. The marketability of variable renewable energy in liberalized electricity markets—An empirical analysis. Renew. Energy 2017, 113, 1111–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armey, L.E.; Hosman, L. The centrality of electricity to ICT use in low-income countries. Telecommun. Policy 2016, 40, 617–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pablo-Romero, M.D.P.; Pozo-Barajas, R.; Sánchez-Braza, A. Analyzing the effects of Energy Action Plans on electricity consumption in Covenant of Mayors signatory municipalities in Andalusia. Energy Policy 2016, 99, 12–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kileber, S.; Parente, V. Diversifying the Brazilian electricity mix: Income level, the endowment effect, and governance capacity. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 49, 1180–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linnerud, K.; Holden, E. Investment barriers under a renewable-electricity support scheme: Differences across investor types. Energy 2015, 87, 699–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bae, M.; Kim, H.; Kim, E.; Chung, A.Y.; Kim, H.; Roh, J.H. Toward electricity retail competition: Survey and case study on technical infrastructure for advanced electricity market system. Appl. Energy 2014, 133, 252–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shokri, A.; Heo, E.; Kim, J. Effects of government policies on deploying geothermal electricity in 35 OECD and BRICS countries. Geosyst. Eng. 2014, 17, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Y.; Tang, K.K.; Wang, L.L. Do renewable electricity policies promote renewable electricity generation? Evidence from panel data. Energy Policy 2013, 62, 887–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soliño, M.; Vázquez, M.X.; Prada, A. Social demand for electricity from forest biomass in Spain: Does payment periodicity affect the willingness to pay? Energy Policy 2009, 37, 531–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charfeddine, L.; Kahia, M. Impact of renewable energy consumption and financial development on CO2 emissions and economic growth in the MENA region: A panel vector autoregressive (PVAR) analysis. Renew. Energy 2019, 139, 198–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kais, S.; Mounir, B.M. Causal interactions between environmental degradation, renewable energy, nuclear energy and real GDP: A dynamic panel data approach. Environ. Syst. Decis. 2017, 37, 51–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Polzin, F.; Migendt, M.; Täube, F.A.; von Flotow, P. Public policy influence on renewable energy investments—A panel data study across OECD countries. Energy Policy 2015, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Liu, Y. Is the natural resource production a blessing or curse for China’s urbanization? Evidence from a space-time panel data model. Econ. Model. 2014, 38, 404–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozkan, F.; Ozkan, O. Panel data analysis for the CO2 emissions, the industrial production and the energy sector of the OECD countries. Energy Educ. Sci. Tech. A 2012, 29, 1233–1244. [Google Scholar]
- Marques, A.C.; Fuinhas, J.A.; Pires Manso, J.R. Motivations driving renewable energy in European countries: A panel data approach. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 6877–6885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahbaz, M.; Balsalobre-Lorente, D.; Sinha, A. Foreign direct Investment–CO2 emissions nexus in Middle East and North African countries: Importance of biomass energy consumption. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 217, 603–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Chiu, C.L.; Chang, T.H. What proportion of renewable energy supplies is needed to initially mitigate CO2 emissions in OECD member countries? Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 1669–1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Yang, L.; Long, H. Climatic impacts on energy consumption: Intensive and extensive margins. Energy Econ. 2018, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, B.; Lin, B. Investigating the role of high-tech industry in reducing China’s CO2 emissions: A regional perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 177, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanley, N.; Barbier, E.B. Pricing Nature: Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental Policy, 1st ed.; Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.: Cheltenham, UK, 2009; pp. 1–360. [Google Scholar]
- Bai, Y.; Hua, C.; Jiao, J.; Yang, M.; Li, F. Green efficiency and environmental subsidy: Evidence from thermal power firms in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 188, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jenkins, R. How China Is Reshaping the Global Economy: Development Impacts in Africa and Latin America, 1st ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018; pp. 1–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, L.; Li, J. Rebound effect in China: Evidence from the power generation sector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 71, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brunekreeft, G.; Luhmann, T.; Menz, T.; Müller, S.U.; Recknagel, P. Regulatory Pathways for Smart Grid Development in China, 1st ed.; Springer Vieweg: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2015; pp. 1–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Liu, Y. Barriers to the adoption of low carbon production: A multiple-case study of Chinese industrial firms. Energy Policy 2014, 67, 412–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marconi, D.; Sanna-Randaccio, F. The clean development mechanism and technology transfer to China. Prog. Int. Bus. Res. 2014, 8, 351–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Niu, D.; Bao, C.; Suk, S.; Sudo, K. Affordability of energy cost increases for companies due to market-based climate policies: A survey in Taicang, China. Appl. Energy 2013, 102, 1464–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Wang, C.; Zhang, W.; Suk, S.; Sudo, K. Company’s affordability of increased energy costs due to climate policies: A survey by sector in China. Energy Econ. 2013, 36, 419–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, H.; Oxley, L. China’s Energy Economy: Situation, Reforms, Behavior, and Energy Intensity, 1st ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 1–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, B.; Xu, B. How to promote the growth of new energy industry at different stages? Energy Policy 2018, 118, 390–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grafström, J. Divergence of renewable energy invention efforts in Europe: An econometric analysis based on patent counts. Environ. Econ. Policy Stud. 2018, 20, 829–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Bourgeois, G.; Mathy, S.; Menanteau, P. The effect of climate policies on renewable energies: A review of econometric studies. Innovations 2017, 54, 15–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soon, J.J. Step up the heat: A regression discontinuity analysis of the effect of home heating subsidy on energy expenditure. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2016, 17, 81–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolkesjø, T.F.; Eltvig, P.T.; Nygaard, E. An Econometric Analysis of Support Scheme Effects on Renewable Energy Investments in Europe. Energy Procedia 2014, 58, 2–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Phitthayaphinant, P.; Somboonsuke, B. An econometric model of oil palm plantation area in Thailand. Kasetsart J. Soc. Sci. 2012, 33, 239–252. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, W.; Lam, P.T.I. Non-market valuation of consumer benefits towards the assessment of energy efficiency gap. Energy Build. 2019, 184, 264–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, R.; Musango, J.K.; Brent, A.C.; Heun, M.K. The correlation between energy cost share, human, and economic development: Using time series data from Australasia, Europe, North America, and the BRICS nations. Energies 2018, 11, 2405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Tiba, S.; Frikha, M. Income, trade openness and energy interactions: Evidence from simultaneous equation modeling. Energy 2018, 147, 799–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayat, F.; Pirzada, M.D.S.; Khan, A.A. The validation of Granger causality through formulation and use of finance-growth-energy indexes. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 1859–1867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tiba, S.; Omri, A. Literature survey on the relationships between energy, environment and economic growth. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 69, 1129–1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antunes, C.H.; Henriques, C.O. Multi-objective optimization and multi-criteria analysis models and methods for problems in the energy sector. In Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis; International Series in Operations Research & Management Science; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016; Volume 233, pp. 1067–1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mumtaz, R.; Zaman, K.; Sajjad, F.; Lodhi, M.S.; Irfan, M.; Khan, I.; Naseem, I. Modeling the causal relationship between energy and growth factors: Journey towards sustainable development. Renew. Energy 2014, 63, 353–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dasgupta, P.; Morton, J.F.; Dodman, D.; Karapinar, B.; Meza, F.; Rivera-Ferre, M.G.; Sarr, A.T.; Vincent, K.E.; Carr, E.R.; Raholijao, N.; et al. Chapter 9—Rural areas. In Climate Change 2014 Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2015; pp. 613–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Metz, B.; Davidson, O.; Bosch, P. Climate Change 2007 Mitigation of Climate Change, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007; pp. 1–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, J.; Moeltner, K.; Reichl, A.; Schmidthaler, M. An empirical analysis of local opposition to new transmission lines across the EU-27. Energy J. 2016, 37, 59–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gezahegn, T.W.; Gebregiorgis, G.; Gebrehiwet, T.; Tesfamariam, K. Adoption of renewable energy technologies in rural Tigray, Ethiopia: An analysis of the impact of cooperatives. Energy Policy 2018, 114, 108–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koengkan, M. The decline of environmental degradation by renewable energy consumption in the MERCOSUR countries: An approach with ARDL modeling. Environ. Syst. Decis. 2018, 38, 415–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naqvi, S.R.; Jamshaid, S.; Naqvi, M.; Farooq, W.; Niazi, M.B.K.; Aman, Z.; Zubair, M.; Ali, M.; Shahbaz, M.; Inayat, A.; et al. Potential of biomass for bioenergy in Pakistan based on present case and future perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 1247–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Suganthi, L. Multi expert and multi criteria evaluation of sectoral investments for sustainable development: An integrated fuzzy AHP, VIKOR/DEA methodology. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 43, 144–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alabi, O.; Ackah, I.; Lartey, A. Re-visiting the renewable energy–economic growth nexus: Empirical evidence from African OPEC countries. Int. J. Energy Sect. Manag. 2017, 11, 387–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Abotah, R.; Daim, T.U. Towards building a multi perspective policy development framework for transition into renewable energy. Sustain. Energy Tech. Assess. 2017, 21, 67–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gasparatos, A.; Doll, C.N.H.; Esteban, M.; Ahmed, A.; Olang, T.A. Renewable energy and biodiversity: Implications for transitioning to a Green Economy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 70, 161–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Villar-Rubio, E.; Huete-Morales, M.D. Market Instruments for a Sustainable Economy: Environmental Fiscal Policy and Manifest Divergences. Rev. Policy Res. 2017, 34, 255–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zainudin, W.N.R.A.; Ishak, W.W.M. Measuring public acceptance on renewable energy (RE) development in Malaysia using ordered probit model. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2017, 890, 012137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Heshmati, A.; Abolhosseini, S.; Altmann, J. The Development of Renewable Energy Sources and Its Significance for the Environment, 1st ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2015; pp. 1–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aguirre, M.; Ibikunle, G. Determinants of renewable energy growth: A global sample analysis. Energy Policy 2014, 69, 374–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Baiyegunhi, L.J.S.; Hassan, M.B. Rural household fuel energy transition: Evidence from Giwa LGA Kaduna State, Nigeria. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2014, 20, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajayi, O.O. Sustainable energy development and environmental protection: Implication for selected states in West Africa. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 26, 532–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajayi, O.O.; Ajayi, O.O. Nigeria’s energy policy: Inferences, analysis and legal ethics toward RE development. Energy Policy 2013, 60, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Komatsu, S.; Kaneko, S.; Ghosh, P.P.; Morinaga, A. Determinants of user satisfaction with solar home systems in rural Bangladesh. Energy 2013, 61, 52–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salim, R.A.; Rafiq, S. Why do some emerging economies proactively accelerate the adoption of renewable energy? Energy Econ. 2012, 34, 1051–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmid, G. The development of renewable energy power in India: Which policies have been effective? Energy Policy 2012, 45, 317–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, M.; Xia, X.; Chai, Y.; Liu, J. Life cycle energy conservation and emissions reduction benefits of rural household biogas project. Nongye Gongcheng Xuebao Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2010, 26, 245–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soliño, M. External benefits of biomass-e in Spain: An economic valuation. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 1992–1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Asafu-Adjaye, J.; Mahadevan, R. Managing Macroeconomic Policies for Sustainable Growth, 1st ed.; Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.: Cheltenham, UK, 2012; pp. 1–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Sung, B.; Park, S.D. Who drives the transition to a renewable-energy economy? Multi-actor perspective on social innovation. Sustainability 2018, 10, 448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Menegaki, A.N.; Tsagarakis, K.P. Rich enough to go renewable, but too early to leave fossil energy? Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 41, 1465–1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bae, J.H. Supply portfolio of bioethanol in the Republic of Korea. Korean Econ. Rev. 2014, 30, 133–161. [Google Scholar]
- Kochaphum, C.; Gheewala, S.H.; Vinitnantharat, S. Does biodiesel demand affect palm oil prices in Thailand? Energy Sustain. Dev. 2013, 17, 658–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, B.; Omoju, O.E. Focusing on the right targets: Economic factors driving non-hydro renewable energy transition. Renew. Energy 2017, 113, 52–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicolini, M.; Tavoni, M. Are renewable energy subsidies effective? Evidence from Europe. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 74, 412–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romano, A.A.; Scandurra, G.; Carfora, A.; Fodor, M. Renewable investments: The impact of green policies in developing and developed countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 68, 738–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, K.; Heo, E.; Kim, Y. Dynamic Policy Impacts on a Technological-Change System of Renewable Energy: An Empirical Analysis. Environ. Res. Econ. 2017, 66, 205–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balta-Ozkan, N.; Watson, T.; Mocca, E. Spatially uneven development and low carbon transitions: Insights from urban and regional planning. Energy Policy 2015, 85, 500–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Krasko, V.A.; Doris, E. State distributed PV policies: Can low cost (to government) policies have a market impact? Energy Policy 2013, 59, 172–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, M.; Schneider, M.; Griesshaber, T.; Hoffmann, V.H. The impact of technology-push and demand-pull policies on technical change—Does the locus of policies matter? Res. Policy 2012, 41, 1296–1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grilli, G. Renewable energy and willingness to pay: Evidences from a meta-analysis. Econ. Policy Energy Environ. 2017, 253–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klepacka, A.M.; Florkowski, W.J.; Revoredo-Giha, C. The expansion and changing cropping pattern of rapeseed production and biodiesel manufacturing in Poland. Renew. Energy 2019, 113, 156–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zawojska, E.; Bartczak, A.; Czajkowski, M. Disentangling the effects of policy and payment consequentiality and risk attitudes on stated preferences. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2019, 93, 63–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Arabatzis, G.; Kyriakopoulos, G.; Tsialis, P. Typology of regional units based on RES plants: The case of Greece. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 78, 1424–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartczak, A.; Chilton, S.; Czajkowski, M.; Meyerhoff, J. Gain and loss of money in a choice experiment. The impact of financial loss aversion and risk preferences on willingness to pay to avoid renewable energy externalities. Energy Econ. 2017, 65, 326–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartolini, F.; Gava, O.; Brunori, G. Biogas and EU’s 2020 targets: Evidence from a regional case study in Italy. Energy Policy 2017, 109, 510–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carfora, A.; Romano, A.A.; Ronghi, M.; Scandurra, G. Renewable generation across Italian regions: Spillover effects and effectiveness of European Regional Fund. Energy Policy 2017, 102, 132–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oncioiu, I.; Petrescu, A.G.; Grecu, E.; Petrescu, M. Optimizing the renewable energy potential: Myth or future trend in Romania. Energies 2017, 10, 759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grilli, G.; Balest, J.; Garegnani, G.; Paletto, A. Exploring residents’ willingness to pay for renewable energy supply: Evidences from an Italian case study. J. Environ. Account. Manag. 2016, 4, 105–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Valdés Lucas, J.N.; Escribano Francés, G.; San Martín González, E. Energy security and renewable energy deployment in the EU: Liaisons Dangereuses or Virtuous Circle? Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 62, 1032–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baležentis, T. The sources of the total factor productivity growth in Lithuanian family farms: A färe-primont index approach. Prague Econ. Pap. 2015, 24, 225–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leontopoulos, S.; Arabatzis, G.; Ntanos, S.; Tsiantikoudis, S.C. Acceptance of energy crops by farmers in Larissa’s regional unit, Greece: A first approach. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies in Agriculture, Food and Environment, Kavala, Greece, 17–20 September 2015; CEUR Workshop Proceedings. pp. 38–43. [Google Scholar]
- Koroneos, C.; Xydis, G.; Polyzakis, A. The optimal use of renewable energy sources—The case of lemnos Island. Int. J. Green Energy 2013, 10, 860–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Corsatea, T.D.; Dalmazzone, S. A regional analysis of renewable energy patenting in Italy. Int. Cent. Econ. Res. 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menegaki, A.N. Growth and renewable energy in Europe: A random effect model with evidence for neutrality hypothesis. Energy Econ. 2011, 33, 257–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zografakis, N.; Sifaki, E.; Pagalou, M.; Nikitaki, G.; Psarakis, V.; Tsagarakis, K.P. Assessment of public acceptance and willingness to pay for renewable energy sources in Crete. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 1088–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|WHICH TECHNOLOGIES AND HOW?|
|Question||References in the EC Report|
|Which technologies?||RES target: increase 32% by 2030.|
|Which technologies?||The electricity system needs to adapt to increasingly decentralized and variable production (solar and wind).|
|Which technologies?||An improved biomass policy will be necessary to maximize the resource efficient use of biomass.|
|How?||Subsidies for mature energy technologies (including RES) should be phased out entirely in the 2020–2030 timeframe. Subsidies for new and immature technologies with significant potential to contribute cost-effectively to RES volumes would still be allowed.|
|How?||Providing regulatory certainty and transparency for investors in low-carbon technologies.|
|How?||Enhancing policy coherence and coordination across the EU.|
|How?||Deployment of smart grids and interconnections between member states to ensure a level of electricity interconnections equivalent to or beyond 10% of their installed production capacity.|
|Question||References in the EC Report|
|Environmental issues||RES contribute to achieve GHG emissions target.|
|Environmental issues||RES reduce air pollution.|
|Security||RES promote security of energy supply|
|Security||RES reduce the exposure to volatile prices of fossil fuels.|
|Security||Member states must act collectively to diversify their supply countries and routes for imported fossil fuels.|
|Security||Diversification of energy imports and the share of local energy sources used in in energy consumption over the period up to 2030.|
|Economic growth||RES drive growth in innovative technologies.|
|Economic growth||RES create jobs in emerging sectors.|
|Economic growth||RES drive technological innovation (R&D expenditure, EU patents, competitive situation on technologies compared to third countries).|
|UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS?|
|Question||References in the EC Report|
|Competition in energy markets||Ensuring competition in integrated markets.|
|Competition in energy markets||Exploitation of local sustainable energy sources (RES, domestic reserves of conventional and unconventional fossil fuels (natural gas) and nuclear) according to preferences over their energy mix and within the framework of an integrated market with undistorted competition.|
|Competitiveness and affordability||Competitive and affordable energy for all consumers.|
|Competitiveness and affordability||Energy price differentials between the EU and major trading partners.|
|Agricultural and Biological Sciences||Life Sciences||2|
|Business, Management and Accounting||Social Sciences||16|
|Chemical Engineering||Physical Sciences||1|
|Computer Science||Physical Sciences||4|
|Decision Sciences||Social Sciences||2|
|Earth and Planetary Sciences||Physical Sciences||4|
|Economics, Econometrics and Finance||Social Sciences||32|
|Environmental Science||Physical Sciences||70|
|Materials Science||Physical Sciences||1|
|Physics and Astronomy||Physical Sciences||1|
|Social Sciences||Social Sciences||15|
|Type of Source||Documents|
|Keyword (Number of Documents)|
|A||A-carbon (2); Affordability (2); Agriculture (4); Alternative Energy (15); Autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) (1).|
|B||Biodiesel (2); Biofuel (5); Biogas (2); Biomass (5); Biomass Energy (2); Biomass Power (2); Brazil (3).|
|C||Canada (2); Carbon (7); Carbon Dioxide (16); Carbon Dioxide Emissions (2); Carbon Emission (13); Carbon Taxes (2); Chemical Industry (2); China (12); Chinese Companies (2); Choice Experiment (8); Climate change (9); Climate Policy (2); CO2 Emissions (5); Cointegration (2); Commerce (15); Commercialization (2); Company (2); Competition (3); Competition (economics) (2); Complementary sector (1); Conjoint Analysis (2); Consumption Behavior (3); Contingent Valuation (4); Contingent Valuation Methods (2); Convergence (2); Cost Analysis (4); Cost Benefit Analysis (12); Costs (16); Crop Production (2).|
|D||Data Set (3); Decision Making (7); Demand Analysis (4); Demand-pull (1); Developing Countries (5); Developing World (3); Development stage (1); Diffusion (2); Discrete Choice (2); Dynamics of policy impact (2).|
|E||Econometric analysis (14); Econometrics (6); Economic Activities (2); Economic Analysis (2); Economic And Social Effects (9); Economic Development (9); Economic Growth (9); Economic Policy (2); Economic Valuation (2); Economics (33); Elasticity (2); Electric Generators (2); Electric Industry (2); Electric Power Generation (4); Electric Power Utilization (3); Electric Utilities (4); Electricity (9); Electricity Generation (14); Electricity grid (1); Electricity markets (1); Electricity Prices (2); Electricity Supply (5); Electricity transmission (1); Electricity-consumption (4); Emerging economies (1); Emission Control (8); Emissions (2); Emissions Trading (4); Empirical Analysis (4); Employment (2); Energy (4); Energy Conservation (8); Energy Consumption (4); Energy Cost (3); Energy economics (1); Energy Efficiency (6); Energy Management (3); Energy Market (10); Energy Planning (9); Energy policy (37); Energy Productions (3); Energy Resource (7); Energy Sector (3); Energy Security (3); Energy Transitions (2); Energy Use (11); Energy Utilization (15); Environment (4); Environmental (2); Environmental Concerns (2); Environmental economics (7); Environmental Impact (6); Environmental Policy (3); Estimation Method (3); Europe (9); European Union (12).|
|F||Feed-in tariff (13); Finance (4); Financial incentives (1); Foreign Direct Investment (3); Fossil Fuels (9).|
|G||Gas Emissions (5); Geothermal (1); Global Warming (5); Green energy policies (1); Greenhouse Effect (3); Greenhouse Gas (8).|
|H||Household Energy (3); Housing (4).|
|I||Incentive (3); India (1); Induced innovation (1); Industry (3); Innovation (7); Innovation spillovers (1); International trade (1); Invention (1); Investment (26).|
|L||Learning effects (1); Literature review (1).|
|M||Matching analysis (1); Multi Criteria Decision Making (3); Multi-regime interaction (1)|
|N||Natural Resources (6); Negative binomial regression (1); Network (1); Nigeria (3); Numerical Model (8).|
|O||OECD (4); Oil prices (1).|
|P||Panel cointegration (1); Panel corrected standard error (2); Panel data (14); Panel data models (5); Patents (2); Photovoltaic System (5); Photovoltaics (1); Poland (Central Europe) (3); Policies (1); Policy consistency (1); Policy design (1); Policy effectiveness (1); Policy impact (1); Policy Implementation (3); Policy Making (4); Pollutant emission (1); Power Generation (3); Power Markets (3); Public Policy (10).|
|R||R & D strategy (1); Regional analysis (1); Regional Planning (3); Regression (1); Regression Analysis (6); Renewable (1); Renewable deployment (1); Renewable electricity (7); Renewable energy (61); Renewable Energy Development (6); Renewable energy investments (1); Renewable energy policy (7); Renewable Energy Potentials (3); Renewable energy power (1); Renewable energy promotion (1); Renewable Energy Resources (29); Renewable Energy Source (16); Renewable Energy Technologies (5); Renewable investments (1); Renewable portfolio standard (12); Renewable Resource (22); Research And Development (3); Risk Assessment (4); Rural Areas (3).|
|S||Smart Power Grids (3); Social acceptance (1); Solar Energy (3); Solar photovoltaic (4); Solar Power (5); Solar PV (2); Solar technology (1); Spain (5); State electricity policy (1); State policy impact (1); Subsidy (1); Support scheme effects (1); Surveys (8); Sustainability (4); Sustainable Development (17).|
|T||Tariff Structure (3); Taxation (5); Technological change system (1); Technology-push (1).|
|U||United States (5).|
|W||Waste energy (1); Willingness to Pay (6); Wind (2); Wind energy (3); Wind energy policies (1); Wind power (17).|
|1||Democritus University of Thrace||5|
|2||Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc.||4|
|3||German Institute for Economic Research||4|
|4||Land Policy Institute, Michigan State University||4|
|5||Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETH Zurich)||4|
|6||University of Florida||4|
|8||Hong Kong Baptist University||3|
|9||Hong Kong Polytechnic University||3|
|10||Laboratoire D’Économie Appliquée de Grenoble||3|
|11||Luleå University of Technology||3|
|12||Norwegian University of Life Sciences||3|
|14||Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha||3|
|15||University of Naples “Parthenope”||3|
|#1 (Red)||United States.|
Alternative energy, electricity, photovoltaic system, renewable energy technologies, solar energy, solar photovoltaics, solar power generation, wind power.
Energy planning, Energy Policy, feed-in-tariff, incentive, innovation, investment(s), policy analysis, policy makers, policy making, power generation, renewable electricity, renewable energy development, renewable energy policy, renewable generation, renewable portfolio standard, tariff structure.
Empirical analysis, panel data.
Carbon dioxide, carbon, carbon emission, CO2 emission commerce, emission control, emission trading,
Cost analysis, cost benefit analysis, cost-benefit analysis, cost.
Energy market, pollution tax.
Regression analysis surveys.
Biomass, electricity generation, electricity supply, energy conservation, energy resource, energy use, energy source, environmental impact, gas emissions, global warming, greenhouse gases.
Economic growth, Economics.
Decision making, willingness to pay.
|#4 (Yellow)||Brazil, India, developing countries.|
Electric power generation, energy efficiency, energy utilization, fossil fuels,
Climate change, natural resources, renewable energy source.
Economic analysis, economic and social effects, economic development, sustainability, sustainable development.
|#5 (Purple)||European Union.|
|WHICH TECHNOLOGIES AND HOW?|
|RES target: increase 32% by 2030.||[30,33,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,46,47,50,51,54,55,56,60,62,66,73,75,77,79,82,83,84,87,89,103,117,127,136,139,142,143,144,145,150,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,160,161,162,163,164]|
|The electricity system needs to adapt to increasingly decentralized and variable production (solar and wind).||[27,30,31,33,34,35,37,38,39,40,41,42,45,46,47,49,50,51,54,60,73,77,84,106,117,139,145,151,152,156,161,162,163,164]|
|An improved biomass policy will be necessary to maximize the resource efficient use of biomass.||[35,81,106,136,139,150,151,152,154,156,157,160,161,162,163]|
|Subsidies for mature energy technologies (including RES) should be phased out entirely in the 2020–2030 timeframe. Subsidies for new and immature technologies with significant potential to contribute cost-effectively to RES volumes would still be allowed.||[31,33,34,35,39,40,41,42,45,46,49,50,51,55,56,63,73,77,84,143,145,150,156]|
|Providing regulatory certainty and transparency for investors in low-carbon technologies.||[27,31,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,42,44,45,46,47,49,50,51,55,57,60,63,66,75,77,79,80,81,84,86,103,106,127,138,139,143,144,145,150,151,152,154,155,156,158,162]|
|Enhancing policy coherence and coordination across the EU.||[27,30,31,33,34,35,37,39,40,41,45,46,47,49,50,51,55,56,57,63,66,77,80,84,87,103,138,139,148,151,152,154,155,156,158,162,164]|
|Deployment of smart grids and interconnections between member states to ensure a level of electricity interconnections equivalent to or beyond 10% of their installed production capacity.||[30,34,36,38,39,40,46,47,49,50,51,54,55,117,156]|
|RES contribute to achieve GHG emissions target.||[30,31,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,46,47,49,50,51,54,55,56,57,66,73,75,77,83,84,87,89,103,117,127,136,138,139,142,144,145,152,154,155,156,157,158,160,161,162,163,164]|
|RES reduce air pollution.||[30,31,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,46,47,49,50,51,54,55,56,57,66,73,75,77,83,84,87,89,103,117,127,136,138,139,142,144,145,152,154,156,157,161,162,163,164]|
|RES promote security of energy supply.||[30,33,35,37,40,42,46,47,49,50,51,55,56,66,73,87,103,117,138,139,142,144,150,152,154,156,158,163,164]|
|RES reduce the exposure to volatile prices of fossil fuels.||[30,33,34,35,39,40,41,42,46,47,49,50,55,56,60,66,73,83,87,103,138,139,142,144,150,152,154,156,158,163,164]|
|Member states must act collectively to diversify their supply countries and routes for imported fossil fuels.||[30,35,37,40,42,47,49,66,77,103,138,139,154,156,158,163]|
|Diversification of energy imports and the share of indigenous energy sources used in in energy consumption over the period up to 2030.||[33,35,38,40,42,46,47,49,50,103,139,150,156,158,161,162,163]|
|RES drive growth in innovative technologies.||[30,31,33,34,35,37,38,39,40,41,42,45,46,47,49,50,51,55,56,60,62,63,73,87,103,145,154,155,156,160,162]|
|RES create jobs in emerging sectors.||[33,34,37,40,41,47,51,62,87,136,154,155,156,157,162,163]|
|RES drive technological innovation (R&D expenditure, EU patents, competitive situation on technologies compared to Third World countries).||[30,31,33,34,35,37,38,39,40,42,45,46,47,49,50,51,56,60,62,63,73,87,103,139,145,154,155,156,160,162]|
|UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS?|
|Ensuring competition in integrated markets.||[30,33,34,35,37,38,39,40,42,46,47,49,50,51,77,140,143,155,157,159,163,164]|
|Exploitation of sustainable indigenous energy sources (RES, domestic reserves of conventional and unconventional fossil fuels (gas natural) and nuclear) according to preferences over their energy mix and within the framework price-integrated market with undistorted competition.||[30,33,35,36,38,39,40,41,42,46,47,50,51,55,77,139,150,154,155,156,157,158,161,162,163]|
|Competitive and affordable energy for all consumers.||[33,35,37,40,41,46,49,54,56,62,77,81,139,155,156,157,158,161,163,164]|
|Energy price differentials between the EU and major trading partners.||[30,33,35,40,41,42,46,49,56,139,156,158,162]|
|WHICH TECHNOLOGIES AND HOW?||WHY?||UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS?|
|Addressed Topics||Deployment of wind and solar PV technologies.|
Analysis of the effectiveness of support policies: feed-in-tariffs and quotas.
Innovation in RES sector.
Identification of drivers and barriers for RES deployment.
Determination of support levels.
|Assessment of the impact of RES on CO2 emissions.|
RES and Economic development.
|Role of variable RES in liberalized electricity markets.|
Social acceptance: willingness to pay.
|Topics that Need to be Addressed||Electricity generation from biomass.|
Deployment of bioenergies.
Regional policies for RES deployment.
Electricity grid transformation.
Competitive incentives (auctions).
|RES and energy security.|
RES and generation of qualified employment.
International trade of RES sector.
|Social acceptance: NIMBY (not in my backyard) effect.|
RES environmental impacts.
Effects on retail electricity prices.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Quintana-Rojo, C.; Callejas-Albiñana, F.-E.; Tarancón, M.-Á.; Martínez-Rodríguez, I. Econometric Studies on the Development of Renewable Energy Sources to Support the European Union 2020–2030 Climate and Energy Framework: A Critical Appraisal. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4828. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124828
Quintana-Rojo C, Callejas-Albiñana F-E, Tarancón M-Á, Martínez-Rodríguez I. Econometric Studies on the Development of Renewable Energy Sources to Support the European Union 2020–2030 Climate and Energy Framework: A Critical Appraisal. Sustainability. 2020; 12(12):4828. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124828Chicago/Turabian Style
Quintana-Rojo, Consolación, Fernando-Evaristo Callejas-Albiñana, Miguel-Ángel Tarancón, and Isabel Martínez-Rodríguez. 2020. "Econometric Studies on the Development of Renewable Energy Sources to Support the European Union 2020–2030 Climate and Energy Framework: A Critical Appraisal" Sustainability 12, no. 12: 4828. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124828