Smart Grids for Smart Cities, Volume 1 E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 464

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023

Beschreibung

SMART GRIDS for SMART CITIES Written and edited by a team of experts in the field, this first volume in a two-volume set focuses on an interdisciplinary perspective on the financial, environmental, and other benefits of smart grid technologies and solutions for smart cities. What makes a regular electric grid a "smart" grid? It comes down to digital technologies that enable two-way communication between a utility and its customers, as opposed to the traditional electric grid, where power flows in one direction. Based on statistics and available research, smart grids globally attract the largest investment venues in smart cities. Smart grids and city buildings that are connected in smart cities contribute to significant financial savings and improve the economy. The smart grid has many components, including controls, computers, automation, and new technologies and equipment working together. These technologies cooperate with the electrical grid to respond digitally to our quickly changing electric demand. The investment in smart grid technology also has certain challenges. The interconnected feature of smart grids is valuable, but it tremendously increases their susceptibility to threats. It is crucial to secure smart grids wherein many technologies are employed to increase real-time situational awareness and the ability to support renewables, as well as system automation to increase the reliability, efficiency, and safety of the electric grid. This exciting new volume covers all of these technologies, including the basic concepts and the problems and solutions involved with the practical applications in the real world. Whether for the veteran engineer or scientist, the student, or a manager or other technician working in the field, this volume is a must-have for any library.

Leseprobe

Scrivener Publishing100 Cummings Center, Suite 541JBeverly, MA 01915-6106

Publishers at ScrivenerMartin Scrivener ([email protected])Phillip Carmical ([email protected])

Smart Grids for Smart Cities Volume 1

Edited by

O.V. Gnana SwathikaK. Karthikeyan

and

Sanjeevikumar Padmanaban

This edition first published 2023 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA and Scrivener Publishing LLC, 100 Cummings Center, Suite 541J, Beverly, MA 01915, USA© 2023 Scrivener Publishing LLCFor more information about Scrivener publications please visit www.scrivenerpublishing.com.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

Wiley Global Headquarters111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA

For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of WarrantyWhile the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials, or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN 9781119872078

Front cover image: Pixabay.comCover design by Russell Richardson

Preface

What makes a regular electric grid a “smart” grid? It comes down to digital technologies that enable “two-way communication between the utility and its customers, and the sensing along the transmission lines,” according to SmartGrid.gov. Based on statistics and available research, even though Internet of Things (IoT) is the talk of the town, smart grids globally attract the largest investment venues in smart cities. Smart grids and city buildings that are connected in smart cities contribute to significant financial savings and contribute to improve the country economy globally. The smart grid evolves around its efficient portfolio in the forte of how and when to utilize electricity and other forms of energy. Smart Grids vastly involve IoT sensors and real-time communication features that contribute to control loads based on available supply and peak demand characteristics. Phenomenal research and deployment is witnessed in the area of smart meters enabled smart cities.

In the traditional electrical grid, “power flows in one direction — from centralized generation facilities, through transmission lines, and finally to the customer via distribution utilities.” The smart grid has a multitude of components, including controls, computers, automation, and new technologies and equipment working together. Also these technologies will work in conjunction with the electrical grid to respond digitally to our quickly changing electric demand.

The investment in smart grid technology also has certain challenges. Ideally the interconnected feature of smart grids is valuable but it tremendously increases their susceptibility to threats. Smart Grid stakeholders also agree on the fact that since numerous non-utility stakeholders and devices are connected to smart grids, even in the best conditions possible, the secure operations can no longer be guaranteed by a single organization or security department. It is crucial to make sure that smart grid is made secure wherein number of technologies are employed to increase the real-time situational awareness and the ability to support renewables and system automation to increase the reliability, efficiency and safety of the electric grid. Various secure communications solutions are available for public utilities to contribute to the newest smart grid applications including advanced metering infrastructure, distribution automation, voltage optimization and substation automation.

5 Salient Features:

Smart grids: Concepts, Challenges, Architecture, Standards, and Communication

Renewable Energy Systems (RES) enhanced smart grids

Smart Grid Applications and Benefits to Smart City

The synergy of Sustainability, ICT, and Urbanization in Smart Cities

Smart City: IoT, Cloud, Big Data Convergence and Wireless Networks

1Carbon-Free Fuel and the Social Gap: The Analysis

Saravanan Chinnusamy1, Milind Shrinivas Dangate1* and Nasrin I. Shaikh2†

1 Chemistry Division, School of Advanced Sciences, Vellore Institute of Technology, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India

2 Department of Chemistry, Nowrosjee Wadia College, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Abstract

Many consider utility-scale photovoltaic solar power to be an essential component of decarbonizing the Indian power sector and mitigating climate change. This technology is well accepted by the public in general surveys, yet often faces local resistance during project siting. This phenomenon is known as the “social gap.” Using social gap theory from the wind energy literature as a foundation, this study examines the causes of and offers recommendations for addressing the solar social gap in Maharashtra. The study relied on 33 semi-structured interviews with citizens, government officials, and developers across four Maharashtra communities, each facing a prospective utility-scale solar project. Through thematic analysis, the study shows that the solar social gap can be attributed to both a vocal minority that dominated community sentiment and project proposals that failed to meet the community’s standards for acceptable development. The gap was exacerbated by the presence of organized opposition groups as well as decision-makers relying on ineffective public processes to engage citizens. This research makes it clear that government officials and developers need to adopt practices that enhance community representation, process transparency, and decision-influence. Though decisionmaking strategies are not the only factor that affects community acceptance, implementing improved procedures could help close the solar social gap.

Keywords: Renewable energy, carbon-free fuel, smart cities, solar cells, communication gap

1.1 Introduction

Solar PV is undoubtedly a key player in the future of energy [1]. This technology continues to see cost reductions and is significantly contributing to new additions in generation capacity [2]. Utility-scale solar projects, i.e., ground-mounted systems that produce 50 MW of power or more for consumption by utility-users have a distinct competitive edge. As solar PV becomes increasingly attractive in the market, there will likely be a surge in development of large-scale solar arrays on what has been termed “subprime land” or land lacking one or more of the three prime requirements for development: solar resource potential, aesthetic buffers or distance from communities, and necessary grid capacity [3]. Maharashtra may already be experiencing this trend.

Additionally, there is high national public acceptance for solar energy; over 80% of India supports its development, although, as we have learned from wind, favorable survey results do not always adequately reflect what is happening in reality. There has been documentation of community disapproval of solar developments in southern India; one researcher has even identified the solar social gap in that area [4]. These utility-scale solar farms have been scrutinized for intermittency, aesthetics, socioeconomic impacts, wildlife hazards, human health hazards, and cultural infringement [5]. This response may provide a glimpse into what is to come as large-scale solar farm proposals expand beyond the Sun Belt. Therefore, there is a need to study how the deployment of utility-scale solar farms in unprecedented areas are received by the public compared to hypothetical circumstances, i.e., the unfolding of a midwestern solar social gap.

There are a limited number of studies that have examined the acceptance [1] of people living near large-scale solar farms or having experienced local solar development in the south. This may have been previously due to a lack of projects available to study; however, continued improvements are inviting more solar energy onto the grid which is creating new opportunities to capture the public’s reaction. [6] were among one of the first to seize this research potential. They performed a content analysis of newspapers to understand reasons for citizens’ support and opposition to solar projects in Gujarat and Rajasthan. My research will take a deeper dive into the Gujarat by using semi-structured interviews to examine community acceptance of and related decision-making processes for proposed utility-scale solar projects.

1.2 Objectives

The objectives of this research guided my inquiry and analysis to sufficiently identify and describe the various elements of the solar social gap. I attempted to set up the layout of my results and discussion to match the order of my objectives to demonstrate clear connections. The objectives of this research are as follows:

Determine public support or opposition, attitudes, perceptions, and values associated with utility-scale solar projects.

Analyze the solar social gap using

[7]

wind social gap determinants.

Investigate how governmentand developer-led public engagement processes address or contribute to the solar social gap.

Identify best practices for public engagement in utilityscale solar project siting to help diminish the solar social gap.

1.3 Study Areas

Four communities[8] in Maharashtra have been targeted to examine acceptance and procedures related to large-scale solar projects. The locations of these study sites are left unnamed to protect participants’ privacy. Instead, I will refer to the four communities as Community A, B, C, and D. I also redacted the site-specific references (e.g., media sources, public records, project websites) from this report as a further discretionary precaution.

Site selection was based on what is already known about each community’s public response to a solar farm proposal, zoning level, and estimated project size. According to online news articles and public records, Communities A and C have yet to report much, if any, controversy regarding their projects (Redacted 3; Redacted 4), while Communities B and D have experienced notably contentious development processes (Redacted 2; Redacted 6). Within both groupings, there is one township that is zoned locally and one that is (or was) zoned at the county level. See Figure 1.1 for a visual. This case selection was done to achieve a more accurate representation of the views on and approaches to utility-scale solar [9]. Additionally, at the time of this writing, these projects would be the largest solar farms in Maharashtra.

Figure 1.1 Matrix of study areas by zoning level and anticipated acceptance.

1.3.1 Community A

Community A consists of two townships, each housing less than 2,500 residents (Redacted 10; Redacted 12). Both townships are zoned at the county level. A special use permit was unanimously approved by the county planning commission to permit construction of a solar farm that will span over 1,000 acres and produce more than 200 MW of power.

Based on information from the developer’s website, they worked closely with township residents to hear their thoughts and answer any questions that came up. They facilitated this discussion by hosting several community forums (Redacted 1). Overall, media accounts have claimed that the public has been receptive to this solar farm (Redacted 3). Even back when the project was first introduced to the area, there were few complaints from the residents (Redacted 5).

1.3.2 Community B

Community B is a single township and home to just over 2,800 people (Redacted 8). This area was formerly county zoned until the prospects of solar development were introduced. The county established a large-scale solar ordinance and a developer subsequently submitted a proposal to build a solar array shy of 1,000 acres on rural land primarily in Community B (Redacted 6). Many of the township residents were reportedly unenthusiastic about the idea of living next to a large solar farm (Redacted 6). Further, township officials claimed that the solar array was not in accordance with their master plan (Redacted 6). In response, Community B moved to execute their right to self-zone and created an interim ordinance that would temporary block any large-scale solar development. The township’s actions caused the county to postpone consideration of the solar farm application [6]. The developer subsequently sued the township, and litigations are pending at the time of this writing. The proposed project will remain on hold until the township finalizes their zoning ordinance and settles matters in court.

1.3.3 Community C

Community C has an estimated population of just over 2,100 (Redacted 11). This self-zoned municipality unanimously passed a solar energy ordinance several years back and has since approved multiple utility-scale solar projects collectively exceeding 1,000 acres.

Both developers in Community C claimed to have used a similar public engagement approach as the developer in Community A (Redacted 7). Online news articles have not identified residents raising concerns or disapproval (Redacted 4).

1.3.4 Community D

Community D has a population of roughly 3,400 residents and is locally zoned (Redacted 9). The township board initially approved a solar ordinance from which a developer proposed a utility-scale project that would cover nearly 1,000 acres. However, due to some technicalities, the original ordinance was not legal and had to be sent back to the planning commission for modifications (Redacted 2). At this point, the community began to get involved and significant opposition developed. The planning commission worked with the developer to tailor the logistics of the zoning amendment (and subsequent project design) to better balance community interests. For example, the original setback distance of 250 feet from residential areas was increased to 500 feet. Despite these changes, there remained strong public resistance. Regardless, the planning commission attempted to move forward and made a motion to recommend the zoning amendment to the township board. The amendment was denied by the board and sent back to the planning commission for further revisions (Redacted 2). There have been numerous additional meetings, but the ordinance has yet to be finalized. At the time of this writing, the project remains on standby.

1.4 Data Collection

Qualitative methods were used to examine the solar social gap in these four research communities. Three groups within each of the four communities were targeted for semistructured interviews: government officials, solar project developers, and nearby citizens. These groups were chosen to demonstrate perspectives of decision-makers and the public about both the solar projects and the specific public-engagement approaches used to develop them. A number of methods were used to recruit each group; however, no methods could or did involve in-person contact due to restrictions put in place as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. TERI – The Energy and Resources Institutional Review Board – approved this research. For government officials, I tried to contact everyone involved in the decision-making of the project, e.g., township officials, zoning administrators, planning commissioners, board members, etc. If both county and township authorities were involved, I made attempts to talk to a representative from each level. Emails and phone numbers were found through the counties or townships’ websites.

I connected with developers through emails or phone numbers that were made available online. Efforts were made to speak with one individual per project; this was most often the project manager. Citizens were the most difficult group to contact because their information was not as virtually accessible. Thus, we tried multiple tactics to contact people, including:

Scanned the meeting minutes of public hearings related to the solar projects and identified individuals that made comments. We reached out through Facebook Messenger if we could confidently locate someone’s profile. If not, we searched county parcel mapping websites to get their address and mailed them a letter.

Searched for Facebook groups linked with the solar projects and messaged contributors.

Drove through accessible communities and noted the addresses with “no solar” signs to later mail them a letter.

Emailed government clerks to request contact information for potential land-leasers and mailed them a letter.

Identified the solar project site maps and overlaid them with parcel mapping to find individuals near the development site. Letters were mailed to the 25 non-land-leasing property owners that were the closest to each project.

Used snowball sampling from other participants.

Throughout all these attempts, I explicitly searched for both public opponents and supporters of the project. Acceptance was estimated based on the comments that individuals made about the project, their affiliation with the project, or what others had labeled them in referrals. My initial judgment of a person’s acceptance would be later confirmed or denied through interview questions (no participant’s initial classification was incorrect).

I followed up with all unresponsive individuals two weeks after the first contact attempt (sent another e-message or mailed another letter). In total, I reached out to 141 individuals and secured interviews with 33 people, resulting in a response rate of 23.4%. One developer spoke about projects in two communities; thus, the overall number of interviews was 34. Table 1.1 shows the layout of the interviewees. Interviews were done via phone and typically had a duration of 40 minutes. A short list of open-ended questions was prepared to help direct the interviews, but the semi-structured nature of the data collection allowed flexibility for the interviewees to talk about what was important to them. Responses were captured with written notes and audio recordings to ensure the accuracy of note transcriptions. Table 1.2 further discusses about Citizens’ commonly stated benefits of local utility-scale solar farms.

Table 1.1 Interview participants by group and community.

Community

A

B

*

C

D

Supporters

2

2

1

2

Opponents

5

3

1

3

Neutral

0

0

2

0

GOVT Employee

5

1

1

1

Developer/Consultant

1

0

2

2

Sub total

13

6

7

8

Total

**

34

*Unfortunately, the developer in Community B was unable to speak with me due to their pending litigations.

**The same developer was interviewed for both Community A & Community C; this was counted as two separate interviews. Thus, 33 individuals resulted in 34 interviews.

Table 1.2 Citizens’ commonly stated concerns and benefits of local utility-scale solar farms#.

Stated concern

Number of unique reports

#

Poor aesthetics

13

Diminished property values

10

Misuse of agricultural land

9

Low economic benefits (e.g., small tax base, few jobs)

7

Inefficient and still emerging technology

7

Substantial size/growth

7

Ground water/soil contamination

6

Human safety hazards (e.g., natural disasters, EMF exposure)

6

Technology is too reliant on financial assistance

6

Electricity does not stay in the community

6

Fear of failure to decommission the project after its lifespan

5

Transfer in project ownership makes accountability questionable

5

Imported materials

4

Construction disturbance

4

Wildlife barrier

4

Drainage issues

3

TOTAL

102

Stated benefits

Number of unique reports

##

Economic benefits for individual land-leaser

8

Economic benefits for community

7

Clean source of energy

6

It is not a more burdensome development (e.g., wind, housing)

5

Land-leasers’ profits can help keep farmers in farming

4

Gives land break/serves as a land bank

4

Technology is advanced enough to work in Michigan

3

Energy exporter

2

Not that visible

2

Farming solar energy is another form of producing

2

Less pesticide sprayed on ag land with solar

2

Native plants good for pollinators in PA 116 land

2

Technology is safe

2

TOTAL

49

#This does NOT include perceptions from government officials or developers. Nor is this inclusive of every concern or benefit stated in the interviews. This table is intended to show how many different people spoke about each concern or benefit; this is NOT a ranking of importance.

##A concern or benefit was only counted once per individual regardless of how many times that individual may have stated it.

1.5 Data Analysis

Data was analyzed using thematic coding, which is the process of finding and labeling (i.e., tagging) information that represents ideas relevant to the research questions similar to [10]. The first step in the process involved transcribing each recorded interview verbatim. Trint software [11] was used to help transform the audio file into written text; however, due to transcription errors, I reviewed and corrected each interview transcript. This process worked to maximize descriptive validity, or the factual accuracy of the participants’ statements [12]. After the transcripts were completed, I read through all interviews several times in consultation with friends working in similar areas.

During this process, we wrote memos about tentative themes in the data, and discussed each theme during regular meetings. The memos generated for all interviews were then used to start the construction of an initial codebook that would provide the guidelines for how we eventually coded the data. We built a codebook in Excel that had separate columns for the code names, definitions, rules, and examples. All authors here tested this codebook on several interviews, which led me to iteratively revise it until the codes were appropriate for all the interviews. The first finalized codebook was dubbed Codebook and we used it to begin tagging data in MAXQDA software [13]. Upon completion of my first cycle coding, we reviewed the data within each code to see if more specific themes had emerged. Again, we collaborated with known peoples to make memos that were ultimately used to develop a second-cycle codebook which I called Codebook 2. The codes in both codebooks were further categorized as “neutral,” “positive,” or “negative” to help organize the passages by perspective. After the coding was complete, I pulled all the tagged data for each community and wrote summaries of the content for each parent code and child code. I laid out these summaries so that I could look at themes within and across all the communities. This method of comparison was used to understand differences and similarities between communities to help generate meaning and assess threats to validity [14]. The next section depicts the findings of this work.

1.6 Conclusion

This study looked at the public acceptance of and decision-making processes for utility-scale solar project development in Maharashtra. We interviewed 33 citizens, government officials, and developers across four potential host communities. Conducting interviews with individuals that have experienced solar project development allowed me to gather rich information on participants’ perspectives. This thorough understanding was necessary to provide a detailed explanation of the solar social gap. At the same time, this method and my findings may be limited due to the purposive selection and small sample size. Nevertheless, I discuss four key takeaway points below.

The first conclusion is that the public in all four communities saw both negative and positive traits of large-scale solar development. Impacts on viewshed, property value, and agricultural land were the most consistently cited concerns, while projects’ economic additions and contribution to clean energy were common benefits.

The second conclusion is that [15, 16] social gap theory has considerable operational constraints. The qualified support and self-interest explanations were particularly troublesome. The former had a broad definition for what constitutes as a qualification. I had to make a distinction between a qualification and a concern to make this explanation more meaningful. There is a fine line between not liking something about a project and not accepting a project because it lacks necessary features. Yet the theory does not illustrate where that line is drawn. I attempted to do so by deeming a qualification as a project or process attribute that was explicitly identified as the contingent factor for an individuals’ support. But this method is heavily subjective to phrasing. More clarification on the characterization of a qualification and how a qualification can be differentiated from a concern in practice would help improve this theory.

The social gap theory’s portrayal of self-interest was impractical for use. To discern self-interest from qualified support, I had to establish standards that were nearly impossible to meet. Namely, I would only proclaim NIMBYism if I could find instances where an individual claimed that they did not want a project to affect them, but were indifferent if it affected someone else.

This requirement was particularly sensitive to social desirability bias and therefore likely resulted in an underestimation of self-interest. The social gap theory should incorporate better ways to identify self-interest in application so that this explanation retains relevance. A lack of ability to detect NIMBYism may be misconstrued as a lack of NIMBYism, which might not be true. One way to improve the self-interest explanation could be to adjust its definition to merely mean any personal grievances against a project, instead of its current two-part definition which is any personal grievances against a project in combination with not caring about how the project impacts others. The former would be easier to identify because it does not require people to do the socially undesirable act of throwing others under the bus to be considered a NIMBY. Plus, a simplified definition would eliminate the nuances that set apart these two explanations, meaning that self-interest and qualified support could be merged into one. This may take the form of “self-interest” becoming a type of qualification in which an individual’s support would depend on how a project impacts them personally. Overall, the social gap theory, as currently described, is unsuitable for application. My expectation is that other researchers who desire to operationalize this theory may struggle to do so. My third conclusion is that despite the shortcomings of the social gap theory in distinguishing between self-interest and qualified support, I was still able to characterize the solar social gap in Maharashtra. The most likely explanations are a combination of democratic deficit and qualified support. A democratic deficit may be occurring because standard public processes are relied upon, which mostly attract extreme opposing views. These voices are the ones that tend to be reflected in the decision outcomes. Whether or not they represent the minority can only be determined with more representative sampling of the community’s preferences. Regardless, measures to improve public representation should be used to complement the public process to ensure all voices are present at the decision-making table. As far as qualified support, a lot of individuals that I interviewed had criteria that needed to be met in order to accept proposed solar developments. Some qualifications were attempted to be addressed through adjustments in zoning ordinances or site plans. However, these actions were often perceived as insufficient, leading community members to remain unsatisfied with the projects. And in some instances, qualifications were simply not addressed either due to decision-makers’ lack of effort or ability. Instilling practices that encourage early and meaningful public involvement during the zoning process and throughout project siting is crucial to help appease qualified supporters.

My final conclusion is that decision-making strategies make a difference in community acceptance [17–21]. Though they are not the only factor that matter—indeed, organized opposition also plays an important role—but government officials and developers have at least a modicum of control over these processes. Decision-makers in my study communities used three effective strategies, including expanded measures to collect public input, adopting proactive planning where the solar ordinance was formed prior to developer interest, and zoning at the township level rather than at the county level. However, not all of these practices were used to the fullest extent and several recommendations I describe above were not implemented at all, such as aggressive awareness raising or descriptive information sharing. Therefore, it remains difficult to compare the outcomes of a comprehensive and collaborative approach with a business-as-usual approach. Practitioners must deploy best practices for community engagement in solar farm siting, not only to improve the development process and maximize community well-being, but also to provide opportunities for researchers to confirm the effects of those practices using empirical studies. These initiatives are necessary next steps for closing the solar social gap.

References

1. Abram, N. J., Henley, B. J., Sen Gupta, A., Lippmann, T. J. R., Clarke, H., Dowdy, A. J., Sharples, J. J., Nolan, R. H., Zhang, T., Wooster, M. J., Wurtzel, J. B., Meissner, K. J., Pitman, A. J., Ukkola, A. M., Murphy, B. P., Tapper, N. J., & Boer, M. M. (2021). Connections of climate change and variability to large and extreme forest fires in southeast Australia.

Communications Earth & Environment

, 2(1), 1–17.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-00065-8

2. Acosta, R. (2017, October 10). Lapeer becomes home to Michigan’s largest solar park. MLive MediaGroup.

https://www.mlive.com/news/flint/2017/10/lapeer_becomes_home_to_michiga.html

3. Adeh, E. H., Selker, J. S., & Higgins, C. W. (2018). Remarkable agrivoltaic influence on soil moisture, micrometeorology and water-use efficiency.

PLOS ONE

, 13(11), e0203256.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203256

4. Aitken, M., Haggett, C., & Rudolph, D. (2016). Practices and rationales of community engagement with wind farms: Awareness raising, consultation, empowerment.

Planning Theory & Practice

, 17(4), 557–576.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1218919

5. Aitken, M. (2010). Wind power and community benefits: Challenges and opportunities.

Energy Policy

, 38(10), 6066–6075.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.062

6. American Planning Association. (2016). Solar powering sunnyside.

https://www.planning.org/research/solar/sunnyside.htm

7. Armstrong, A., Ostle, N. J., & Whitaker, J. (2016). Solar park microclimate and vegetation management effects on grassland carbon cycling.

Environmental Research Letters

, 11(7), 074016.

https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/7/074016

8. Asplund, S. (2020, September 28). 2,000-acre solar farm proposed for Marquette County. WLUC-TV.

https://www.uppermichiganssource.com/2020/09/28/2000-acre-solar-farm-proposed-for-marquette-county/

9. Balaskovitz, A. (2020, February 2). West Michigan renewable energy projects: wind out, solar in. MiBiz.

https://mibiz.com/sections/energy/west-michigan-renewable-energy-projectswind-out-solar-in

10. Barrett, K. L., Lynch, M. J., Long, M. A., & Stretesky, P. B. (2018). Monetary Penalties and Noncompliance with Environmental Laws: A Mediation Analysis.

American Journal of Criminal Justice

, 43(3), 530–550.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-017-9428-01

.

11. Barry, J., Ellis, G., & Robinson, C. (2008). Cool Rationalities and Hot Air: A Rhetorical Approach to Understanding Debates on Renewable Energy.

Global Environmental Politics

, 8(2), 67–98.

https://doi.org/10.1162/glep.2008.8.2.67

12. Bassler, A., Brasier, K., Fogle, N., & Taverno, R. (2008). Developing effective community engagement: A how-to guide for community leaders. The Center for Rural Pennsylvania.

https://www.rural.palegislature.us/Effective_Citizen_Engagement.pdf

13. Bell, D., Gray, T., & Haggett, C. (2005). The ‘social gap’ in wind farm siting decisions: Explanations and policy responses.

Environmental Politics

, 14(4), 460–477.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010500175833

14. Bell, D., Gray, T., Haggett, C., & Swaffield, J. (2013). Re-visiting the ‘social gap’: Public opinion and relations of power in the local politics of wind energy.

Environmental Politics

, 22(1), 115–135.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.755793

15. Bessette, D. L., & Mills, S. B. (2021). Farmers vs. lakers: Agriculture, amenity, and community in predicting opposition to United States wind energy development.

Energy Research & Social Science

, 72, 101873.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101873

16. Bessette, D., Schelly, C., Schmitt Olabisi, L., Halvorsen, K., Gagnon, V., Fiss, A., Arola, K. & Matz, E. (2021). Energy democracy in practice: Centering energy sovereignty in rural communities and tribal nations. In A. FeldpauschParker, D. Endres, T.R. Peterson, & S. Gomez (Eds.),

Routledge Handbook of Energy Democracy

. Routledge Press [submitted for publication].

17. Bodwell EnviroAcoustics (2018, October). Sound level assessment Three Rivers Solar Energy Project Hancock County, Maine. State of Maine.

https://www.maine.gov/dep/ftp/projects/three-rivers/application/sloda/section%205.%20noise.pdf

18. Boudet, H. S. (2019). Public perceptions of and responses to new energy technologies.

Nature Energy

, 4(6), 446–455.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0399-x

19. Bradley, R. (2020, June 3). Big wind throws in the towel in Lapeer County, Michigan. Master Resource.

https://www.masterresource.org/windturbine-noise-issues/big-wind-loses-lapeercounty/

20. Brannstrom, C., Jepson, W., & Persons, N. (2011). Social Perspectives on Wind-Power Development in West Texas.

Annals of the Association of American Geographers

, 101(4), 839–851.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2011.568871

21. Brittan, G.G. (2001). Wind, energy, landscape: Reconciling nature and technology.

Philosophy & Geography

, 4(2), 169–184.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10903770124626

.

Notes

*

Corresponding author

:

[email protected]

†

Corresponding author

:

[email protected]

2Opportunities of Translating Mobile Base Transceiver Station (BTS) for EV Charging Through Energy Management Systems in DC Microgrid

A. Matheswaran1*, P. Prem2, C. Ganesh Babu3 and K. Lakshmi4

1 Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, KPR Institute of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore, India

2 Operations & Business Development, Switchgear Electromechanical, Chennai, India

3 Department of Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering, Bannari Amman Institute of Technology, Tamil Nadu, India

4 Member in Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET), Coimbatore, India

Abstract