IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v13y2020i23p6224-d451483.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comprehensive Evaluation of Photovoltaic Solar Plants vs. Natural Ecosystems in Green Conflict Situations

Author

Listed:
  • Kosuke Mori

    (Graduate School of Human Development and Environment, Kobe University, 3-11 Tsurukabuto, Nada-ku, Kobe 657-8501, Japan)

  • Tomohiro Tabata

    (Graduate School of Human Development and Environment, Kobe University, 3-11 Tsurukabuto, Nada-ku, Kobe 657-8501, Japan)

Abstract

This study aims to develop a comprehensive method for evaluating the environmental cost/benefits of photovoltaic (PV) solar plant installation versus conserving natural ecosystems. First, the positive and negative impacts of installing PV solar plants in regions with natural ecosystems are reviewed. For focus and quantification, climate change mitigation and economic benefit were considered as benefits, and the loss of carbon sinks and biodiversity as well as disaster risk were considered as negatives. These items were also integrated as external costs using a life-cycle assessment method, and a ratio of positive versus negative impacts (P/N ratio) was developed, as part of our evaluation. The method was applied to a case study in Hyogo Prefecture, Japan, where 361 large PV solar plants have been installed in areas that previously supported natural ecosystems. Prior to the PV installation, 25.5% of the plants were cleared from the natural ecosystem. Consequently, the annualized benefits (costs) for these Hyogo plants were estimated to be 101.16 (73.88) million USD, which yielded a P/N ratio of 1.37, indicating that their benefits outweighed their costs. An economic benefit was found to be one of the parameters that significantly influenced the P/N ratio.

Suggested Citation

  • Kosuke Mori & Tomohiro Tabata, 2020. "Comprehensive Evaluation of Photovoltaic Solar Plants vs. Natural Ecosystems in Green Conflict Situations," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-18, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:23:p:6224-:d:451483
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/23/6224/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/23/6224/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bevk, Tadej & Golobič, Mojca, 2020. "Contentious eye-catchers: Perceptions of landscapes changed by solar power plants in Slovenia," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 999-1010.
    2. Denholm, Paul & Margolis, Robert M., 2008. "Land-use requirements and the per-capita solar footprint for photovoltaic generation in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 3531-3543, September.
    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. Köberle, Alexandre C. & Gernaat, David E.H.J. & van Vuuren, Detlef P., 2015. "Assessing current and future techno-economic potential of concentrated solar power and photovoltaic electricity generation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 739-756.
    2. Sanzana Tabassum & Tanvin Rahman & Ashraf Ul Islam & Sumayya Rahman & Debopriya Roy Dipta & Shidhartho Roy & Naeem Mohammad & Nafiu Nawar & Eklas Hossain, 2021. "Solar Energy in the United States: Development, Challenges and Future Prospects," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-65, December.
    3. Barnea, Gil & Hagemann, Christian & Wurster, Stefan, 2022. "Policy instruments matter: Support schemes for renewable energy capacity in worldwide comparison," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    4. Iga Solecka & Piotr Krajewski & Aleksandra Krzyżanek & Ada Garczyńska, 2022. "Citizens’ Perceptions of Landscape Changes and Their Driving Forces: Evidence from Poland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-28, February.
    5. Joshua M. Pearce, 2022. "Agrivoltaics in Ontario Canada: Promise and Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, March.
    6. Deshmukh, Swaraj Sanjay & Pearce, Joshua M., 2021. "Electric vehicle charging potential from retail parking lot solar photovoltaic awnings," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 608-617.
    7. Teodoro Semeraro & Roberta Aretano & Amilcare Barca & Alessandro Pomes & Cecilia Del Giudice & Elisa Gatto & Marcello Lenucci & Riccardo Buccolieri & Rohinton Emmanuel & Zhi Gao & Alessandra Scognamig, 2020. "A Conceptual Framework to Design Green Infrastructure: Ecosystem Services as an Opportunity for Creating Shared Value in Ground Photovoltaic Systems," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-28, July.
    8. Josef Navrátil & Stanislav Martinát & Tomáš Krejčí & Petr Klusáček & Richard J. Hewitt, 2021. "Conversion of Post-Socialist Agricultural Premises as a Chance for Renewable Energy Production. Photovoltaics or Biogas Plants?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-21, November.
    9. Arent, Doug & Pless, Jacquelyn & Mai, Trieu & Wiser, Ryan & Hand, Maureen & Baldwin, Sam & Heath, Garvin & Macknick, Jordan & Bazilian, Morgan & Schlosser, Adam & Denholm, Paul, 2014. "Implications of high renewable electricity penetration in the U.S. for water use, greenhouse gas emissions, land-use, and materials supply," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 368-377.
    10. Denholm, Paul & King, Jeffrey C. & Kutcher, Charles F. & Wilson, Paul P.H., 2012. "Decarbonizing the electric sector: Combining renewable and nuclear energy using thermal storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 301-311.
    11. Hu, Yanlong & Huang, Weibin & Wang, Jing & Chen, Shijun & Zhang, Jie, 2016. "Current status, challenges, and perspectives of Sichuan׳s renewable energy development in Southwest China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 1373-1385.
    12. Huber, Matthias & Roger, Albert & Hamacher, Thomas, 2015. "Optimizing long-term investments for a sustainable development of the ASEAN power system," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 180-193.
    13. Salak, B. & Lindberg, K. & Kienast, F. & Hunziker, M., 2021. "How landscape-technology fit affects public evaluations of renewable energy infrastructure scenarios. A hybrid choice model," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    14. McPherson, Madeleine & Karney, Bryan, 2017. "A scenario based approach to designing electricity grids with high variable renewable energy penetrations in Ontario, Canada: Development and application of the SILVER model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 185-196.
    15. Kienast, Felix & Huber, Nica & Hergert, Rico & Bolliger, Janine & Moran, Lorena Segura & Hersperger, Anna M., 2017. "Conflicts between decentralized renewable electricity production and landscape services – A spatially-explicit quantitative assessment for Switzerland," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 397-407.
    16. Horner, Robert M. & Clark, Corrie E., 2013. "Characterizing variability and reducing uncertainty in estimates of solar land use energy intensity," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 129-137.
    17. Uzair Jamil & Abigail Bonnington & Joshua M. Pearce, 2023. "The Agrivoltaic Potential of Canada," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-26, February.
    18. Szabó, Sándor & Bódis, Katalin & Kougias, Ioannis & Moner-Girona, Magda & Jäger-Waldau, Arnulf & Barton, Gábor & Szabó, László, 2017. "A methodology for maximizing the benefits of solar landfills on closed sites," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1291-1300.
    19. Silvestro Cossu & Roberto Baccoli & Emilio Ghiani, 2021. "Utility Scale Ground Mounted Photovoltaic Plants with Gable Structure and Inverter Oversizing for Land-Use Optimization," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-16, May.
    20. Chelsea Schelly & Don Lee & Elise Matz & Joshua M. Pearce, 2021. "Applying a Relationally and Socially Embedded Decision Framework to Solar Photovoltaic Adoption: A Conceptual Exploration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-18, January.

    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:6224-:d:451483. 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.