research paper on renewable energy pdf

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 11 January 2021

Climate change impacts on renewable energy supply

• David E. H. J. Gernaat   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4994-1453 1 , 2 ,
• Harmen Sytze de Boer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7376-2581 1 , 2 ,
• Vassilis Daioglou   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6028-352X 1 , 2 ,
• Seleshi G. Yalew   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7304-6750 2 , 3 , 4 ,
• Christoph Müller   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9491-3550 5 &
• Detlef P. van Vuuren   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0398-2831 1 , 2  

Nature Climate Change volume  11 ,  pages 119–125 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

21k Accesses

260 Citations

171 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Climate-change impacts
• Energy supply and demand

An Author Correction to this article was published on 18 February 2021

This article has been updated

Renewable energy resources, which depend on climate, may be susceptible to future climate change. Here we use climate and integrated assessment models to estimate this effect on key renewables. Future potential and costs are quantified across two warming scenarios for eight technologies: utility-scale and rooftop photovoltaic, concentrated solar power, onshore and offshore wind energy, first-generation and lignocellulosic bioenergy, and hydropower. The generated cost–supply curves are then used to estimate energy system impacts. In a baseline warming scenario, the largest impact is increased availability of bioenergy, though this depends on the strength of CO 2 fertilization. Impacts on hydropower and wind energy are uncertain, with declines in some regions and increases in others, and impacts on solar power are minor. In a future mitigation scenario, these impacts are smaller, but the energy system response is similar to that in the baseline scenario given a larger reliance of the mitigation scenario on renewables.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

195,33 € per year

only 16,28 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on SpringerLink
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Impact of declining renewable energy costs on electrification in low-emission scenarios

Environmental co-benefits and adverse side-effects of alternative power sector decarbonization strategies

Climate change extremes and photovoltaic power output

Data availability.

Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

The code that produced the renewable energy potentials and cost curves can be found at https://github.com/davidgernaat . PBL holds the proprietary rights to the IMAGE computer code; extensive documentation is provided ( https://models.pbl.nl/image ).

Change history

19 february 2021.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01005-w

IEA. World Energy Outlook (International Energy Agency, 2017).

Ram, M., et al. Global Energy System based on 100% Renewable Energy – Power, Heat, Transport and Desalination Sectors (Lappeenranta University of Technology and Energy Watch Group, 2019).

Jacobson, M. Z., Delucchi, M. A., Cameron, M. A. & Mathiesen, B. V. J. R. E. Matching demand with supply at low cost in 139 countries among 20 world regions with 100% intermittent wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) for all purposes. Renew. Energy 123 , 236–248 (2018).

Article   Google Scholar  

Teske, S. Achieving the Paris Climate Agreement Goals (Springer, 2019).

Bogdanov, D. et al. Radical transformation pathway towards sustainable electricity via evolutionary steps. Nat. Commun. 10 , 1077 (2019).

Hansen, K., Breyer, C. & Lund, H. J. E. Status and perspectives on 100% renewable energy systems. Energy 175 , 471–480 (2019).

Turner, S. W. D., Hejazi, M., Kim, S. H., Clarke, L. & Edmonds, J. Climate impacts on hydropower and consequences for global electricity supply investment needs. Energy 141 , 2081–2090 (2017).

van Vliet, M. T. H., Wiberg, D., Leduc, S. & Riahi, K. Power-generation system vulnerability and adaptation to changes in climate and water resources. Nat. Clim. Change 6 , 375–380 (2016).

Gernaat, D. E. H. J., Bogaart, P. W., van Vuuren, D. P., Biemans, H. & Niessink, R. High-resolution assessment of global technical and economic hydropower potential. Nat. Energy 2 , 821–828 (2017).

Schaeffer, R. et al. Energy sector vulnerability to climate change: a review. Energy 38 , 1–12 (2012).

Mideksa, T. K. & Kallbekken, S. The impact of climate change on the electricity market: a review. Energy Policy 38 , 3579–3585 (2010).

Ciscar, J.-C. & Dowling, P. Integrated assessment of climate impacts and adaptation in the energy sector. Energy Econ. 46 , 531–538 (2014).

Chandramowli, S. N. & Felder, F. A. Impact of climate change on electricity systems and markets—a review of models and forecasts. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 5 , 62–74 (2014).

Google Scholar  

Pryor, S. C. & Barthelmie, R. J. Climate change impacts on wind energy: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 , 430–437 (2010).

CCSP. Effects of Climate Change on Energy Production and Use in the United States – Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.5 (US Climate Change Program, 2008).

Li, D. H. W., Yang, L. & Lam, J. C. Impact of climate change on energy use in the built environment in different climate zones—a review. Energy 42 , 103–112 (2012).

Emodi, N. V., Chaiechi, T. & Rabiul Alam Beg, A. The impact of climate variability and change on the energy system: A systematic scoping review. Sci. Total Environ. 676 , 545–563 (2019).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Yalew, S. G. et al. Impacts of climate change on energy systems in global and regional scenarios. Nat. Energy 5 , 794–802 (2020).

Hoogwijk, M. M. On the global and regional potential of renewable energy sources (Faculteit Scheikunde, Universiteit Utrecht, 2004).

Köberle, A. C., Gernaat, D. E. H. J. & van Vuuren, D. P. Assessing current and future techno-economic potential of concentrated solar power and photovoltaic electricity generation. Energy 89 , 739–756 (2015).

Gernaat, D. E., de Boer, H.-S., Dammeier, L. C. & van Vuuren, D. P. The role of residential rooftop photovoltaic in long-term energy and climate scenarios. Appl. Energy 279 , 115705 (2020).

Daioglou, V., Doelman, J. C., Wicke, B., Faaij, A. & van Vuuren, D. P. Integrated assessment of biomass supply and demand in climate change mitigation scenarios. Glob. Environ. Change 54 , 88–101 (2019).

Warszawski, L. et al. The inter-sectoral impact model intercomparison project (ISI–MIP): project framework. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111 , 3228–3232 (2014).

Jerez, S. et al. The impact of climate change on photovoltaic power generation in Europe. Nat. Commun. 6 , 10014 (2015).

Crook, J. A., Jones, L. A., Forster, P. M. & Crook, R. Climate change impacts on future photovoltaic and concentrated solar power energy output. Energy Environ. Sci. 4 , 3101–3109 (2011).

ORNL. New Stream-reach Development: A Comprehensive Assessment of Hydropower Energy Potential in the United States (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2014).

Haberl, H. et al. Global bioenergy potentials from agricultural land in 2050: sensitivity to climate change, diets and yields. Biomass Bioenergy 35 , 4753–4769 (2011).

IAMC documentation contributors. IAMC wiki http://iamcdocumentation.eu/ (2018).

van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Energy, land-use and greenhouse gas emissions trajectories under a green growth paradigm. Glob. Environ. Change 42 , 237–250 (2017).

Doelman, J. C. et al. Exploring SSP land-use dynamics using the IMAGE model: regional and gridded scenarios of land-use change and land-based climate change mitigation. Glob. Environ. Change 48 , 119–135 (2018).

van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Alternative pathways to the 1.5 °C target reduce the need for negative emission technologies. Nat. Clim. Change 8 , 391–397 (2018).

Field, C. B., Barros, V., Stocker, T. F. & Dahe, Q. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).

IPCC Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (eds Field, C. B. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

Gerten, D., Schaphoff, S., Haberlandt, U., Lucht, W. & Sitch, S. Terrestrial vegetation and water balance—hydrological evaluation of a dynamic global vegetation model. J. Hydrol. 286 , 249–270 (2004).

Bondeau, A. et al. Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century global terrestrial carbon balance. Glob. Change Biol. 13 , 679–706 (2007).

Beringer, T., Lucht, W. & Schaphoff, S. Bioenergy production potential of global biomass plantations under environmental and agricultural constraints. GCB Bioenergy 3 , 299–312 (2011).

Gernaat, D. Scripts used to generate results presented herein github.com/davidgernaat/Solar_CostCurves Version v1.0.0 (Zenodo, 2020); https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4059441

Gernaat, D. E. H. J., van Vuuren, D. P., van Vliet, J., Sullivan, P. & Arent, D. J. Global long-term cost dynamics of offshore wind electricity generation. Energy 76 , 663–672 (2014).

Gernaat, D. Scripts used to generate results presented herein github.com/davidgernaat/Wind_CostCurves Version v1.0.0 (Zenodo, 2020); https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4059451

Daioglou, V. & Gernaat, D. E. Scripts used to generate results presented herein github.com/davidgernaat/Bio_CostCurves Version v1.0.0 (Zenodo, 2020); https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4059455

Gernaat, D. Scripts used to generate results presented herein github.com/davidgernaat/Hydro_CostCurves Version v1.0.1 (Zenodo, 2020); https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4059487

Gernaat, D. Scripts used to generate results presented herein github.com/davidgernaat/Hydro_ClimateImpacts Version v1.0.0 (Zenodo, 2020); https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4059453

Fraunhofer Institute. Photovoltaics Report (Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, 2018).

IRENA. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2017 (International Renewable Energy Agency, 2018).

Daioglou, V., van Ruijven, B. J. & van Vuuren, D. P. Model projections for household energy use in developing countries. Energy 37 , 601–615 (2012).

Gagnon, P., Margolis, R., Melius, J., Phillips, C. & Elmore, R. Rooftop Solar Photovoltaic Technical Potential in the United States: A Detailed Assessment (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2016).

Radziemska, E. The effect of temperature on the power drop in crystalline silicon solar cells. Renew. Energy 28 , 1–12 (2003).

Tonui, J. K. & Tripanagnostopoulos, Y. Performance improvement of PV/T solar collectors with natural air flow operation. Sol. Energy 82 , 1–12 (2008).

Dudley, V. Test Results for Industrial Solar Technology Parabolic Trough Solar Collector (Sandia National Laboratory, 1995).

van Vuuren, D. P. Energy Systems and Climate Policy — Long-Term Scenarios for an Uncertain Future (Utrecht University, 2007).

IEA. World Energy Outlook (International Energy Agency, 2019).

IRENA. Renewable Capacity Statistics (International Renewable Energy Agency, 2019).

Download references

Acknowledgements

A. Righart is acknowledged for editing part of the manuscript. The research leading to these results has received funding from EU’s Horizon 2020 Navigate (no. 821124). We thank the JPI Climate initiative and participating grant institutes for funding the ISIpedia project.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, The Netherlands

David E. H. J. Gernaat, Harmen Sytze de Boer, Vassilis Daioglou & Detlef P. van Vuuren

Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

David E. H. J. Gernaat, Harmen Sytze de Boer, Vassilis Daioglou, Seleshi G. Yalew & Detlef P. van Vuuren

Faculty of Technology, Policy, and Management, Technical University of Delft, Delft, The Netherlands

Seleshi G. Yalew

Wageningen Environmental Research, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Member of the Leibniz Association, Potsdam, Germany

Christoph Müller

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

D.E.H.J.G. and D.P.v.V. developed the idea. D.E.H.J.G. designed the experiments and wrote the manuscript. S.G.Y. managed all climate input data. C.M. conducted model simulations and provided bioenergy yield data. V.D. calculated the bioenergy potential. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David E. H. J. Gernaat .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks Andre Lucena, Hannes Weigt and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended data fig. 1 gcm model mean for historical 30-year (1970–2000) average climate data used as input to calculate energy potentials..

a , Solar irradiance (kWh m −2 day −1 ) (global horizontal). b , Temperature (°C). c , Wind speeds (m s −1 ). d , Runoff (kg m −2 s −1 ). e , Sugar cane and maize yields (crop selected with highest yield per cell) (%). f , Lignocellulosic crop yields (switchgrass and Miscanthus, or trees) (crop selected with highest yield per cell) (%).

Source data

Extended data fig. 2 gcm model mean change of climate patterns and yields in rcp2.6..

a , solar irradiance (%) (global horizontal). b , temperature (%). (%). c , Wind speed (%). d , Runoff (%). e , Sugar cane and maize yields with CO 2 fertilisation (crop selected with highest yield per cell) (%). f , Lignocellulosic crop yields (switchgrass and Miscanthus, or trees) with CO 2 fertilisation (crop selected with highest yield per cell) (%).

Extended Data Fig. 3 Schematic illustration showing how climatic parameters can change the design discharge and load factors of a hydropower system.

a , The purple line shows a typical historical discharge pattern at a hydropower location with a wet and dry season. The yellow line shows how new climate-change-induced precipitation patterns influence the discharge pattern, in this case with a wetter wet season and a prolonged dry season. Ordering the yellow line data into a flow duration curve, as illustrated in b , changes the design flow and design load factors. b , The flow duration curve with the new discharge pattern. The new discharge pattern (yellow line in a ) forms a new flow duration curve with new design flow (defined as the fourth highest discharge month) and new design load factor (note that the months have shifted, too). The grey lines represent the old climate, the black lines illustrate the new.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Multi-model mean change of technical potential in RCP2.6.

a , Utility-scale PV and rooftop PV. b , Concentrated Solar Power (CSP). c , Onshore and offshore wind energy. d , Hydropower. e , First-generation bioenergy with CO 2 fertilisation. f , Lignocellulosic bioenergy with CO 2 fertilisation.

Extended Data Fig. 5 The global mean changes in technical potential per renewable technology under RCP2.6.

a, Absolute change in technical potential compared to the historical situation (EJ y −1 ). b, Relative change in technical potential compared to the historical situation (%).

Extended Data Fig. 6 Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) assumptions for IMAGE.

a , Global population (million) for SSP1-3. b , Economic development for SSP1-3 (GDP trillion USD 2005 y −1 ). c , Global final energy demand per sector for SSP1-3. d , Global primary energy use per energy carrier for SSP2 and SSP2-RCP26.

Extended Data Fig. 7 The direct and indirect effect of climate impacts on cumulative primary energy in SSP2-RCP60-CI without CO 2 fertilisation (2070–2100).

The top row shows the combined ( a ), direct ( b ) and indirect ( c ) mean change between a run with and without climate impacts on renewables in cumulative energy production (2070–2100) per technology group (%). The bottom row shows the uncertainty using the combined (d), direct (e) and indirect (f) absolute and relative standard deviation of the data shown in the top row.

Extended Data Fig. 8 The direct and indirect effect of climate impacts on cumulative primary energy in SSP2-RCP60-CI with CO 2 fertilisation (2070–2100).

The top row shows the combined ( a ), direct ( b ) and indirect ( c ) mean change between a run with and without climate impacts climate impact in cumulative energy production (2070–2100) per technology group (%). The bottom row shows the uncertainty using the combined ( d ), direct ( e ) and indirect ( f ) absolute and relative standard deviation of the data shown in the top row.

Extended Data Fig. 9 The combined relative effect of SSP2-RCP60-HRES climate impacts on cumulative primary energy supply per IMAGE model region.

a , The mean change (over the GCMs) of the cumulative primary energy supply in the period 2070–2100 per technology. b , The absolute (shown in orange gradient) and relative (shown in grey dot size) standard deviation of the data shown in a.

Extended Data Fig. 10 The combined relative effect of SSP2-RCP26 climate impacts on cumulative primary energy supply per IMAGE model region.

Supplementary information, supplementary information.

Supplementary Texts 1–3, Tables 1–5 and Figs. 1–12.

Source Data Fig. 1

Model mean (GFLD-ESM2M, HadGEM2-ES, IPSL-CM5A-LR and MIROC5) historical (1970–2000), RCP2.6 (2070–2100) and RCP6.0 (2070–2100) climate input data: Solar irradiance (kWh m −2 per day) (global horizontal), temperature (°C), wind speed (m s −1 ), runoff (kg m −2 s −1 ), sugar cane and maize yields (t ha −1 yr −1 ) and lignocellulosic crop yields (switchgrass and Miscanthus , or trees) (t ha −1 yr −1 ).

Source Data Fig. 2

Technical potential per GCM for the historical (1970–2000) period, and the future RCP2.6 (2070–2100) and RCP6.0 (2070–2100) periods: utility-scale PV and rooftop PV, concentrated solar power (CSP), pnshore and offshore wind energy, hydropower, first-generation bioenergy, and lignocellulosic bioenergy with and without CO 2 fertilization.

Source Data Fig. 3

Technical potential per region, GCM and RCP for: utility-scale PV and rooftop PV, concentrated solar power (CSP), onshore and offshore wind energy, hydropower, first-generation bioenergy, and lignocellulosic bioenergy with and without CO 2 fertilization.

Source Data Fig. 4

Primary energy supply (2071–2100) based on historical, RCP2.6 and RCP6.0 climate with and without CO 2 fertilization (PJ).

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 1

Model mean (GFLD-ESM2M, HadGEM2-ES, IPSL-CM5A-LR and MIROC5) historical (1970–2000), RCP2.6 (2070–2100) and RCP6.0 (2070–2100) climate input data: solar irradiance (kWh m −2 per day) (global horizontal), temperature (°C), wind speed (m s −1 ), runoff (kg m −2 s −1 ), sugar cane and maize yields (t ha −1 yr −1 ) and lignocellulosic crop yields (switchgrass and Miscanthus , or trees) (t ha −1 yr −1 ).

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 2

Source data extended data fig. 4, source data extended data fig. 5, source data extended data fig. 7, source data extended data fig. 8, source data extended data fig. 9, source data extended data fig. 10, rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Gernaat, D.E.H.J., de Boer, H.S., Daioglou, V. et al. Climate change impacts on renewable energy supply. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11 , 119–125 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00949-9

Download citation

Received : 13 May 2019

Accepted : 15 October 2020

Published : 11 January 2021

Issue Date : February 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00949-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Climate change impacts on the extreme power shortage events of wind-solar supply systems worldwide during 1980–2022.

• Dongsheng Zheng
• Qiang Zhang

Nature Communications (2024)

Maximizing solar power generation through conventional and digital MPPT techniques: a comparative analysis

• Shahjahan Alias Sarang
• Muhammad Amir Raza
• Andika Aji Wijaya

Scientific Reports (2024)

Spatiotemporal management of solar, wind and hydropower across continental Europe

• Anders Wörman
• Ilias Pechlivanidis
• Cintia Bertacchi Uvo

Communications Engineering (2024)

Climate change will impact the value and optimal adoption of residential rooftop solar

• Michael T. Craig

Nature Climate Change (2024)

Hydropower expansion in eco-sensitive river basins under global energy-economic change

• A. F. M. Kamal Chowdhury
• Thomas Wild
• Jonathan Lamontagne

Nature Sustainability (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

IEEE Account

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

• DOI: 10.62154/ajesre.2024.016.010374
• Corpus ID: 272344864

Renewable Energy and Sustainability Convergence

• Steve Jayeoba , Oluwapelumi Olufayo
• Published in African Journal of… 31 August 2024
• Environmental Science, Engineering
• African Journal of Environmental Sciences and Renewable Energy

16 References

Green buildings: human-centered and energy efficiency optimization strategies, impact of green finance on renewable energy development: a spatiotemporal consistency perspective, wind energy system for buildings in an urban environment, understanding policy framework for slum governance in a developing country, indoor exposure levels of bacteria and fungiin residences, schools, and offices in china: a systematic review., a clean and renewable energy-utility solution in nigeria, success criteria evaluation for a sustainable and affordable housing model: a case for improving household welfare in nigeria cities, the prospects and challenges of developing more inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable cities in nigeria, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Renewable Energy and Sustainable Development: The Case of Saudi Arabia

• First Online: 03 September 2024

Cite this chapter

• Lamia Arfaoui 9 ,
• Sonia Mannai 10 &
• Mona Alzahrani 9  

Part of the book series: Studies in Systems, Decision and Control ((SSDC,volume 537))

This study investigates the short and long-run relationships between renewable energy consumption and sustainable development in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from 1962 to 2021 using the Autoregressive distributed lag model (ARDL). The results show that there is an inverse relationship between GDP and carbon dioxide emissions. The study recommends the inclusion of environmental considerations when preparing macroeconomic policies In light of the reciprocal relationship between the economy and the environment. Renewable energy consumption is positively related to GDP. Thus, there is a positive impact of renewable energy consumption on GDP. The study results also show the importance of secondary education in achieving sustainable development. This research recommends increasing the level of education and promoting renewable energy consumption to boost sustainable development in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Aali-Bujari, A.: Impact of energy consumption on economic growth in major organization for economic cooperation and development economies (1977–2014) Aali-Bujari, Alí. (2017)

Google Scholar  

Ahmed, M.M., Shimada, K.: The effect of renewable energy consumption on sustainable economic development: evidence from emerging and developing economies. Energies 12 (15), 2954 (2019)

Alsaedi, M.A., et al.: Investigating the relevance of environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Saudi Arabia: towards energy efficiency and minimal carbon dioxide emission. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 24 (4), 1285–1300 (2022)

Alshehry, A.S., Belloumi, M.: Energy consumption, carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: the case of Saudi Arabia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 41 , 237–247 (2015)

Belloumi, M., Saad Alshehry, A.: Sustainable energy development in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability 7 (5), 5153–5170 (2015)

Benlaria, H., Jumaa Hamid Hamad A.A.: Economic impact of renewable energy on sustainable development in Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 12 (5), 311–318 (2022)

Bilgili, F., Bağlıtaş, H.H.:.The dynamic analysis of renewable energy’s contribution to the dimensions of sustainable development and energy security. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29 (50), 75730–75743 (2022)

Dradra, Z., Abdennadher, C.: Modeling the effects of renewable energy on sustainable development: evidence from simultaneous equations models. Econ. Chang. Restruct. 56 (4), 2111–2128 (2023)

Article   Google Scholar  

Hakizimana, E., et al.: The role of renewable energy technologies for sustainable development in Rwanda. Int. J. Energy Environ. Econ. 27 (4), 221–234 (2019)

Mohammed, S.J., Mansoori, G.A.: A unique view on carbon dioxide emissions around the world. Global J. Earth Sci. Eng. 4 , 8–17 (2017)

Moustapha, M.A.M., Yu, Q., Danqauh, B.A.: Dynamic relation between sustainable development and renewable energy consumption: evidence from ECOWAS region. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 555. no. 1. IOP Publishing (2020)

Wei, Z., Huang, L.: Does renewable energy matter to achieve sustainable development? Fresh evidence from ten Asian economies. Renew. Energy 199, 759–767 (2022)

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to the Deanship of Graduate Studies and Scientific Research at University of Bisha for supporting this work through the Fast-Track Research Support Program.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Business Department, Business College, University of Bisha, Bisha, Saudi Arabia

Lamia Arfaoui & Mona Alzahrani

Finance and Investment Department, Faculty of Business Administration, University of Tabuk, Tabuk, Saudi Arabia

Sonia Mannai

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mona Alzahrani .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

College of Business of Finance, Ahlia University, Manama, Bahrain

Allam Hamdan

Department of Business Studies, Box Hill College Kuwait, Kuwait, Kuwait

Arezou Harraf

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Arfaoui, L., Mannai, S., Alzahrani, M. (2024). Renewable Energy and Sustainable Development: The Case of Saudi Arabia. In: Hamdan, A., Harraf, A. (eds) Business Development via AI and Digitalization. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, vol 537. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-62106-2_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-62106-2_7

Published : 03 September 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-62105-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-62106-2

eBook Packages : Intelligent Technologies and Robotics Intelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

The energy transition: Where are we, really?

Almost nine years after the landmark Paris Agreement and nearly halfway through what has been called a “decisive decade” for climate change, the world stands at a critical juncture in their transition away from fossil fuels.

About the authors

This article is a collaborative effort by Diego Hernandez Diaz , Humayun Tai , and Thomas Hundertmark , with Michiel Nivard and Nicola Zanardi, representing views from McKinsey’s Global Energy & Materials Practice.

Translating into action the ambitious climate targets that have been put in place by governments and companies depends on accelerating the deployment and adoption of several interrelated technologies. These include renewable energy sources (RES), electrification technologies such as electric vehicles (EVs), and heat pumps—as well as comparatively less mature technologies, such as carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS), green and blue hydrogen, and sustainable fuels.

These decarbonization technologies (alongside many others, such as nuclear, long-term duration energy storage, battery energy storage systems, and energy efficiency investments) are the cornerstone of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in all McKinsey energy scenarios. The period until the end of this decade is a critical one to put in place a trajectory of accelerated adoption to meet 2030 and 2050 targets set by countries and companies.

The technology gap

The gap between what is needed and what has been achieved in the deployment of low-emissions technology is large—to date, only about 10 percent of the deployment of low-emissions technologies globally by 2050 required for net zero has been achieved, mostly in less challenging use cases. Closing the gap would require building a new, high-performing energy system to match or exceed the current one, which would entail developing and deploying new low-emissions technologies, along with entirely new supply chains and infrastructure to support them.

Given the size and complexity of today’s energy system, this is no easy task. The physical challenges that would need to be overcome to successfully transform the energy system are significant and would require concerted action to solve. McKinsey’s recent report, “The Hard Stuff: Navigating the physical realities of the energy transition,” identifies 25 physical challenges across seven domains of the energy system that would need to be addressed for the energy transition to succeed. 1 The hard stuff: Navigating the physical realities of the energy transition , McKinsey Global Institute, August 14, 2024.

Addressing these physical challenges would involve improving the performance of low-emissions technologies, addressing the interdependencies between multiple challenges, and achieving massive scale-ups, even in technologies where a strong track record has not yet been established. And, of course, this is only one side of the equation. To overcome these physical challenges, significant firm investment into low-emission technologies needs to be unlocked.

While significant progress has been made in developing and deploying some of these technologies, notably solar and wind, for which installed capacity has risen sharply over the past 15 years, a significant gap has emerged between the actual results and the expected ones. The at-scale deployment of all these technologies is still not happening as fast as needed to reach 2030 targets (see sidebar “The technology gap”). Moreover, the technologies are at risk of facing raw material and labor shortages and long permitting procedures.

We have identified three major issues that threaten the necessary deployment of capital: first, the business case—that is, the economic returns and policy predictability for developers—often remains weak; second, many technologies are increasingly but not yet cost-competitive for consumers, given the lack of at-scale manufacturing capacity or learning rate driven by deployment; and third, several technologies have not been tested at scale and need multiyear product, project, and supply chain development, thereby creating uncertainty about their effectiveness and efficiency. Ultimately, technology-focused enablers have not yet managed to address the challenges posed by macroeconomic shocks, geopolitics, and what it takes to enable tech ecosystems.

Our analysis

To shed light on the current status of the energy transition and provide a rigorous, fact-based assessment, we conducted an extensive analysis involving several steps.

Scope: We identified the key singular technologies that together account for the bulk of decarbonization potential (onshore and offshore wind, solar PV, clean hydrogen, sustainable fuels, CCUS, electric vehicles, and heat pumps). This means we excluded several other decarbonization technologies, including energy storage and battery energy storage systems (BESS) because these technologies are already in vast supply, with very healthy pipelines, and numerous players not only announcing projects but committing to them. We also excluded energy efficiency, low-carbon thermal generation, and nuclear because these are very fragmented markets with limitations due to regulation.

Data collection: We gathered comprehensive data from various sources, including proprietary and commercial project-tracking databases. This allowed us to obtain up-to-date information on the status of numerous projects across different decarbonization technologies.

Policy and historical capacity review: We reviewed existing policies, historical capacity deployments, and growth trends to understand the broader context and the trajectory of different technologies. This helped us benchmark current progress against historical data and policy targets.

Comparative analysis: We compared stated targets with expected capacity deployments, including project status and historical sales levels for customer adoption-driven technologies, such as EVs and heat pumps. This enabled us to assess the alignment between ambitious climate targets and actual progress on the ground.

Gap assessment: By examining the project status, including those that have reached FID stage, we assessed the gap between target volumes, expected volumes (based on current trends), and volumes that have already reached FID. This analysis highlighted the discrepancies between announced projects and those that are likely to materialize.

Fresh McKinsey analysis of the energy transition landscape, including the uptake of key climate and decarbonization technologies and investment decisions that follow project announcements (see sidebar “Our analysis”), suggests that corporate, public, and private equity investors are hesitating about deploying capital for the reasons described above. Invested capital is behind where it needs to be to ensure deployment targets are met. As it stands, a significant proportion of announced projects have not yet reached the final investment decision (FID) stage at which projects are greenlit, meaning that there is a continuing risk of cancellation or leakage. 1 Final investment decision (FID) is the point at which formal approval from the project developer is given to proceed, marking the commitment to allocate capital resources to the execution of the project. And projects with longer lead times (such as offshore wind) are quickly reaching the stage at which capacity that has reached FID will only come online after 2030.

Facing this hard truth, innovation and policy resets will be needed for the increasing number of country and company net-zero commitments to be achieved in practice and move projects to FID and quickly beyond to subsequent deployment.

Rigorous, fact-based assessment of real-world progress is key to ensuring that momentum is maintained, and the energy transition continues at the necessary pace. In this article—a prelude to our Global Energy Perspective 2024—we seek to provide a detailed, albeit partial, assessment of where the execution of projects stands for specific low-emissions technologies in Europe and the United States. The goal is to answer the critical question: where are we, really, in the energy transition?

While considerable progress in the energy transition has been made in many countries, this article focuses solely on Europe and the United States, both of which have set explicit 2030 targets. 2 For the analysis in this article, Europe refers to the European Union plus Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. There may some gaps in the data based on data availability. It should be noted that we are neither modeling nor forecasting future outcomes, but rather seeking to bring to light the facts as best as can be defined to assess how big the gap is and what needs to be done to close it.

Commitments and enthusiasm are up

Recent years have seen a flurry of net-zero commitments and ever-growing enthusiasm for climate action from all parts of society.

On the policy side, all 195 countries that signed the historic 2015 Paris Agreement have put forward so-called Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)—climate action plans—and more than 70 countries today have net-zero targets enshrined in law or outlined as a goal in policy documents. 3 “Net Zero Tracker,” accessed June 2024; “Nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement, synthesis report by the secretariat,” United Nations Climate Change, November 14, 2023; Net zero stocktake 2023, a joint report by NewClimate Institute, Oxford Net Zero, Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, and Data-Driven EnviroLab, June 2023. More than 155 countries have signed the Global Methane Pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30 percent below 2020 levels by 2030. 4 “Global methane pledge,” Climate and Clean Air Coalition, accessed June 2024.

Industrial policy in many OECD economies is now anchoring climate technologies as a core pillar and substantial public funds are being earmarked for their development. In both Europe and the United States, emerging industrial policy has centered on building up a competitive cleantech value chain.

In Europe, the European Green Deal, introduced in 2019, aims to make the European Union climate-neutral by 2050, with intermediate Fit for 55 targets to reduce GHGs by at least 55 percent by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. 5 “European green deal,” Council of the European Union, June 17, 2024. In the United States, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 is the largest climate investment in US history, with total climate-related spending of almost $370 billion over ten years, with the aim of cutting emissions by 40 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels. 6 Building a clean energy economy: A guidebook to the Inflation Reduction Act’s investments in clean energy and climate action , The White House, January 2023. In addition, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act has allocated billions toward modernizing the energy grid, expanding EV infrastructure, and enhancing energy efficiency across sectors. 7 “A guidebook to the bipartisan infrastructure law,” The White House, January 2024.

Together with continued cost improvement, including through innovation, these and other policy initiatives are leading to progress. Globally, between 2010 and 2023, renewable energy installation capacity grew around 20 percent per year, while the adoption of EVs surged, with a compound annual growth rate of around 80 percent (Exhibit 1). 8 Renewable energy installation includes solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, onshore wind, and offshore wind.

From the corporate side, 66 percent of Fortune 500 companies have made climate commitments (either carbon neutral, net-zero, or science-based). 9 “Commitment issues: Markers of real climate action in the Fortune Global 500,” Climate Impact Partners. Overall, more than 5,000 companies globally have joined the Science-Based Targets Initiative (SBTi)—widely considered the gold standard for voluntary climate targets—and have set approved targets compatible with a 1.5° pathway. 10 “Ambitious corporate climate action,” Science Based Targets Initiative, July 2024. Public companies in the European Union and the United States increasingly report on their sustainability impact as part of their financial disclosure requirements. 11 “Corporate sustainability reporting,” European Commission, 2023.

Such developments underscore a broader trend toward cleaner energy and reduced carbon emissions, but are now set against an increasingly complex and uncertain global energy space. Energy security, affordability, reliability, and industrial competitiveness can be challenging to achieve alongside sustainability, and investment is harder to secure. 12 “ An affordable, reliable, competitive path to net zero ,” McKinsey, November 30, 2023.

The challenge of maintaining momentum

The question remains whether the world’s much-needed commitments can be translated to action. McKinsey’s analysis of targets and announcements highlights a potential disconnect between climate ambitions and what is likely to be achieved in practice—at least at current course and speed. Regarding NDCs, for example, the United Nations acknowledges that “quality and ambition vary.” 13 “All about the NDCs,” United Nations Climate Action, accessed July 2024. Where the SBTi is concerned, many of the companies that have signed up have made commitments but have not yet articulated a clear plan to achieve them. 14 SBTI monitoring report 2023 , Science Based Targets initiative, July 2023.

In the United States alone, more than 1,000 green or blue hydrogen projects have been announced since 2015. However, fewer than 15 percent had reached FID at the time of writing, indicating a high risk for project fall-through. 15 Hydrogen Insights Project Tracker, McKinsey. This discrepancy between announced projects and projects realized following FID does not only apply to hydrogen—it is true across most critical energy transition technologies (Exhibit 2).

Indeed, decarbonization technology projects have historically had a high fall-through rate, with only a small percentage of announced projects reaching FID, and an even smaller numbers of projects actually being realized. Our analysis shows that many planned projects for key decarbonization technologies in the European Union and the United States are falling short of announced targets, some significantly so.

The extent of this shortfall varies by technology and region—renewable energy generation technologies, especially solar, are the closest to meeting short-term goals, while electrification technologies have seen periods of rapid growth but are now losing momentum. Many innovative technologies that could be crucial for decarbonizing “hard-to-electrify” sectors have ambitious project pipelines but are not yet deployed at scale. These technologies need to be deployed as electrification is only a partial answer.

Here, we look at the progress of each of these technologies and where they are falling short of targets.

Solar PV and wind: Growth may lose momentum

In the European Union and the United States, renewable energy generation technologies, such as solar PV, onshore and offshore wind, and battery energy storage systems (BESS), have experienced rapid development, driven by supportive policies and increasing private sector investment.

BESS has seen significant technological advancement over the last decade and has scaled rapidly since 2015. In the United States, legislation has supported a robust pipeline and project conversion, especially in states like California and Texas. In Europe, we expect the solar PV project pipeline will in turn attract BESS projects, especially in places like Germany and Spain where colocation is favorable. All in all, battery production capacity appears healthy, leading us to believe there is less risk of a supply gap (and therefore why we excluded BESS from this analysis).

However, our analysis of offshore wind and solar PV shows that not all renewable pipelines are on track to meet 2030 targets and short-term deceleration is threatening the existing pipeline further (Exhibit 3). System bottlenecks need to be resolved faster to ensure deployment scales at the required rate.

Solar PV has experienced significant growth in both Europe and the United States, with around 180 gigawatts (GW) and 120 GW of solar PV capacity added since 2015, respectively. 16 “Renewable capacity statistics 2023,” International Renewable Energy Agency, March 2023.

Despite this growth, Europe’s solar pipeline is not on track to meet 2030 capacity targets of 600 GW: less than 390 GW of capacity is planned to be online by end of the decade, leaving a gap of approximately 200 GW. Moreover, of the approximate 114 GW of additional solar capacity expected to come online over the next five years, less than 20 percent has reached FID. A catch-up is still possible: in contrast to wind, additional solar capacity could be delivered rapidly, within 18 months, and the pipeline between now and 2030 could increase and become firmer.

In the United States, according to our analysis, annual solar PV capacity additions will slow down after 2028, at about 220 GW of capacity (operational and FID), because of a lack of firm longer-term commitments. Of the announced capacity to come online before 2030, around 60 percent is still pending FID, putting a significant proportion of planned solar at risk. However, again, here we would acknowledge that the nature of solar installation is such that the pipelines could indeed materialize in time.

Offshore and onshore wind

In wind, power projections vary significantly by geography and technology. Wind projects typically have longer lead times, too, which can make project pipelines less secure. In Europe, the wind energy pipeline is broadly on track to meet 2030 targets, while in the United States, the pipeline appears to be less secure.

Europe currently has approximately 240 GW of onshore wind capacity in operation, with an additional 106 GW in the pipeline. If fully realized, this would exceed the target of 314 GW of onshore wind capacity. However, this pipeline is not yet committed, with only 17 GW (16 percent) of planned capacity having reached FID. The United States faces a more challenging situation, with only 39 GW of onshore wind capacity expected to come online after 2025, and just 16 GW (41 percent of the total pipeline) having secured FID.

Offshore wind development in Europe has a gap of only 18 GW remaining to meet its overall 2030 target of 176 GW. This should be achievable despite approximately 65 percent of the announced 124 GW of offshore wind capacity in the European pipeline is still pending FID.

The United States currently has about 1 GW of installed offshore wind capacity—far off its national targets, which aim for 30 GW by 2030. The 17 GW of offshore wind capacity that has been announced to come online by 2030 still only represents 60 percent of this goal—of which, 90 percent are still in the pre-FID phase.

Would you like to learn more about our Electric Power & Natural Gas Practice ?

Electric vehicles and heat pumps: momentum has slowed when it most needs to pick up.

Of course, RES and BESS do not alone hold the answer to the energy transition. Decarbonization also involves replacing fossil fuel-powered processes with electric alternatives in areas such as transportation and residential and commercial heating. 17 To achieve true zero-carbon status, these electric alternatives must be powered by green electricity—putting even more pressure on the European Union and United States to meet their targets.

Historically, EVs and heat pumps have seen strong growth. Since the Paris Agreement, the adoption of EVs and heat pumps has surged in both the European Union and United States; however, particularly for EVs, this momentum has slowed precisely at the time when acceleration is needed, requiring action to put EVs back on track to meet targets (Exhibit 4).

Electric vehicles

For the European Union to meet its target of 30 million EVs by 2030, it would need to add almost twice as many EVs as it currently has on the road (around 11 million) over the next five years. 18 IEA Global EV Data Explorer. A similar scale-up rate is required in the United States, which is targeting 26 million EVs by 2030, but has only 5 million EVs on the road today. Even with the ground still to be made up, based on FID commitments, the momentum in Europe is stronger than that in the United States.

Despite optimistic forecasts for EV deployment, lackluster sales figures over the past two years suggest a continued US slowdown in EV growth to 2030. 19 IEA Global EV Data Explorer. A lack of charging infrastructure is one of the challenges that will still need to be overcome, to increase consumer confidence in EVs.

Heat pumps are seeing a similar mixed picture, creating a challenge to the successful decarbonization of residential heat in both regions. Heat pumps have seen continued growth since 2016 due in part to policy action such as the EU Green Deal, which targets a 55 percent reduction in natural gas imports by 2030, and financial incentives in the United States to lower the upfront costs of heat pump installation. 20 “European green deal,” Council of the European Union, June 17, 2024; “Inflation reduction act overview,” US Environmental Protection Agency, January 2023.

While European heat pump sales are still on a positive trajectory, the high cost of capital, among other factors, may impact this progress. In the United States, heat pump sales declined in 2023, and, if this trend continues, the United States could see a marked slowdown in heat pump additions before 2030. 21 “AHRI releases December 2023 US heating and cooling equipment shipment data,” AHRI, February 9, 2024.

CCUS, hydrogen, and sustainable fuels: Interdependencies put progress at risk

Some sectors are, by their nature, hard to decarbonize. Their successful decarbonization relies on the deployment of electrification technologies, combined with renewable technologies and newer technologies, such as CCUS and hydrogen.

For the most part, these technologies remain largely untested at scale and have the lowest levels of FID among all decarbonization levers. Project delays or cancellations here could hinder the development of sustainable fuels and other critical components of the energy transition, with knock-on effects for energy transition targets. Further, the challenge with some of these value chains is that they require the development not just of a singular technology (for example, capture trains) but an entire value chain that coincides with the deployment of projects—further complicating the issue.

Carbon capture, utilization, and storage

CCUS has emerged as a key decarbonization lever across Europe and the United States. Project pipelines are full and ambitious, with around 60 times and nine times the amount of current CCUS capacity in Europe and the United States to be available, respectively, over the next six years. However, while announced capacity is high, the vast majority of projects are still lacking FID and hence are at high risk of not materializing (Exhibit 5). Regulatory approvals can also be lengthy. Approximately 15 percent of the announced projects are in more conventional segments (for example, gas processing) while the rest is in new(er) segments, such as cement and hydrogen.

Clean hydrogen has also attracted significant attention as a critical energy source, with both Europe and the United States setting ambitious targets for clean hydrogen production. 22 Clean hydrogen includes both green hydrogen (hydrogen produced from the electrolysis of water using renewable energy sources) and blue hydrogen (produced using steam methane reforming or gasification with CCUS). The European Union aims for 20 megatons (Mt) of clean hydrogen supply by 2030, with 10 Mt produced domestically and 10 Mt imported. 23 “Hydrogen,” European Commission. The United States is targeting 10 Mt of clean hydrogen production by the same year.

The data suggest that there is a long way to go in both regions. To meet 2030 targets, clean hydrogen production needs to increase approximately 25-fold in Europe and 20-fold in the United States over the next five years. Current project pipelines are projected to meet about 90 percent of European and 70 percent of US targets, but only around 11 percent of Europe’s and 15 percent of US announced project pipelines have reached FID. And, while Europe’s clean hydrogen project pipeline anticipates steady capacity addition until 2030, the US project pipeline already shows a sharp decline after 2028 (Exhibit 6).

Sustainable fuels

Biobased sustainable fuels are also uncertain, largely due to the unsettled hydrogen project pipeline, given hydrogen’s role as a critical input for sustainable fuels production. This may slow the impetus for sustainable fuels following policy developments, including ReFuelEU and the US sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) “Grand Challenge.” 24 Grand Challenge refers to the combined work of US DOE, DOT, USDA, and other federal government agencies working to scale up the Sustainable Aviation Fuel value chain.

The current European and US announced pipelines include around 21 million tons per annum (mtpa) and 33 mtpa of sustainable fuel capacity, respectively, with the vast majority of this being in hydrotreated vegetable oils (HVO) and hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA). 25 HVO/HEFA, advanced middle distillate and methanol. Although the production of HVO and HEFA is largely on track, achieving these goals would entail more than quadrupling current European SAF production and tripling that of the United States over the next five years.

The SAF project pipeline—while ambitious—is largely not yet firm, with only around 25 percent and 30 percent of capacity until 2030 having achieved FID in Europe and the United States, respectively.

Factors affecting market performance

Further reading.

In the coming weeks, McKinsey will publish its annual Global Energy Perspective, outlining various projected scenarios for the energy transition in the years to 2050, alongside the new Global Materials Perspective 2024.

For further reading on the energy transition and what it will take to overcome bottlenecks and challenges, see:

What would it take to scale critical climate technologies?

The hard stuff: Navigating the physical realities of the energy transition

A radical approach to cost reduction at climate tech companies

The evolving policy environment has done much to accelerate the energy transition up till now, but more will be needed to help achieve key climate goals as existing policies may be too narrow and not long-dated enough. And, policy alone may not be enough to overcome the converging factors now affecting progress. Many of these factors and potential solutions have been discussed in previous McKinsey articles (see sidebar “Further reading”).

In brief, they include the following factors.

Challenging macroeconomic environment: Economic uncertainties and fluctuating investment climates impact both the financing and prioritization of green projects. Even with initiatives like the IRA in the United States, rising inflation and interest rates have made capital expenditure-intensive projects even more expensive, likely contributing to project cancellations and continued lack of FID due to the changing financial environment.

Technology and business case maturity: CCUS, clean hydrogen, and some sustainable fuels are fundamental to the decarbonization pathways of many geographies and corporations alike, yet many new technologies have not yet been tested at scale, creating uncertainty about their effectiveness and reliability—and making them less attractive to investors.

Lack of reference projects: In contrast to “incumbent” energy technologies such as refining or upstream oil and gas, many of the emerging technology business cases lack reference cases to show investors that industry-leading companies are actually underwriting the projects. Moving forward requires pioneering thinking given the uncertainties and investor pressures on returns.

Long permitting procedures: Reported lengthy and complex permitting processes are delaying the approval and deployment of new projects. Across technologies, we have observed a high percentage of projects stuck in permitting phases, which is not helped by the heterogeneous nature of permitting processes across geographies.

Specialized labor shortages: A lack of skilled workers in green technologies is slowing the installation and maintenance of new systems across different supply chain stages, geographies, and technology maturity levels. For newer technologies such as sustainable fuels, there is a shortage of engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors with the experience needed to develop the technology. More mature technologies such as heat pumps, grids, and solar do not have enough downstream installers to keep up with installation demand.

Raw material shortages: The supply chains for critical components such as batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines are affected by raw materials’ availability. The production of lithium-ion batteries, essential for EVs and BESS, is particularly vulnerable due to high demand for lithium, cobalt, and nickel. Potential shortages not only drive up costs but also cause delays in manufacturing, potentially stalling the expansion of EVs and BESS. Similarly, the supply chain of rare earth elements such as neodymium and dysprosium, crucial for wind turbine magnets, is critical for the growth of wind energy projects.

Geopolitical uncertainty: Strained supply chains and limited availability of critical technologies and raw materials are affected by factors such as international supply chain tensions and trade disruptions. This is especially relevant for technologies where raw materials or production capacity are heavily concentrated in one specific region.

Accelerating action to meet climate goals

Make no mistake—a lot of progress has been made since the 2015 Paris Agreement. New policy initiatives combined with progressive corporate attitudes (spurred on by ever-increasing public pressure) mean the world is moving in the right direction where climate action is concerned.

At the current pace, however, Europe and the United States risk missing important 2030 climate targets across critical technologies. The interdependent nature of these technologies means that delays could have cascading effects, hindering the development and successful deployment of subsequent innovations and putting 2050 net-zero goals at risk.

Nevertheless, there is still a window of opportunity for governments and companies to deliver the growth needed to meet net-zero ambitions. To do so, reevaluating existing strategies in the light of changing global conditions may be necessary. Many current decarbonization strategies assumed a different economic and policy landscape than the one that exists today.

With this clear view of current progress in hand, now is the time for stakeholders across the energy value chain to revisit decarbonization plans and assess if these plans are still sufficient to achieve their climate goals.

Companies will need to adjust portfolio focus, given the rapid evolution of policies and government targets. Those with more experience in specific technologies could hold a significant advantage. But, they will also need to avoid getting too far ahead in regions and markets with low pipeline firmness or small pipelines.

Relevant government stakeholders could prioritize project- and market-enabling policies to improve project economics and to drive demand from the market for new products and solutions. For the former, options include financing schemes (for example, tax credits such as the 45Q in the United States). For the latter, policymakers may want to consider carbon pricing, product mandates, or other demand drivers.

After revising their portfolio strategy, stakeholders could actively derisk critical developments integral to the company’s strategy, for instance, by:

• Forming partnerships: industrial OEMs and engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) players face the challenge of delivering increasingly complex technologies at lower costs. Forming industrial partnerships could provide better visibility into product development and help maintain a network of trusted EPCs and partners.
• Engaging actively: with policies and subsidies becoming more complex, stakeholders could actively engage in discussions and highlight the challenges, bottlenecks, and enablers that are needed to advance the net-zero transition. This engagement could help ensure that policies provide strong signals for investors and enable positive returns.
• Addressing offtakes and infrastructure needs: given that the possible reduced availability of specific technologies may affect the demand/supply balance, stakeholders could proactively seek offtake agreements, understand green premiums, and address infrastructure needs.
• Staying on top of developments: as the changing market landscape impacts the attractiveness of merchant strategies, stakeholders can adjust these strategies based on the latest market intelligence and sector developments.

By revising their portfolio strategies and actively derisking critical developments, stakeholders may be better able to navigate the uncertainties of the evolving market landscape, ensuring sustained growth to reach their climate goals.

Diego Hernandez Diaz is a partner in McKinsey’s Geneva office; Humayun Tai is a senior partner in the New York office; Thomas Hundertmark is a senior partner in the Houston office; Michiel Nivard is a consultant in the Amsterdam office; and Nicola Zanardi is an alumnus of the Munich office.

The authors wish to thank Corina Ai-Hua Lo, Eva Mühlebach, Marco Barbaro, Patrícia Ovídio, Sophie FitzGerald, and Tobias Esswein for their contributions to this articl.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

The battery cell component opportunity in Europe and North America

Offshore wind: Strategies for uncertain times

Industrial heat pumps: Five considerations for future growth

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Research on green campus evaluation in cold areas based on ahp-bp neural networks.

1. Introduction

2. construction of green campus evaluation system in cold areas, 2.1. basis for screening evaluation indicators, 2.1.1. leed, breeam, 2.1.2. assessment standard for green campus gb/t 51356-2019, 2.1.3. evaluation standard for green building gb/t 50378-2019 [ 38 ], 2.1.4. building climate zoning standards gb 50178-93 [ 39 ], 2.1.5. design standard for energy efficiency of residential buildings in severe cold and cold zones jgj 26-2010 [ 40 ], 2.2. construction of evaluation index system, 3. constructing ahp-bp neural network model for green campus evaluation, 3.1. steps for determining the weights of the indicators of the hierarchical analysis method, 3.2. determine the weights of indicators using ahp hierarchical analysis method, 3.3. steps of bp neural network modeling, 3.4. establish bp neural network model, 3.5. ahp-bp neural network model analysis and discussion, 4. example validation of ahp-bp neural network models, 4.1. ahp-bp neural network model calculation, 4.2. assessment standard for green campus gb/t 51356-2019 calculation, 4.3. comparative analysis of green campus evaluation results, 5. conclusions, author contributions, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Ministry of Education. Circular of the Ministry of Education on the Issuance of the Implementation Plan for the Construction of a National Education System for Green and Low-Carbon Development. Available online: https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2022-11/09/content_5725566.htm (accessed on 18 June 2024).
• Ministry of Education. Basic National Education Development in 2023. Available online: http://www.moe.gov.cn/fbh/live/2024/55831/sfcl/202403/t20240301_1117517.html (accessed on 22 June 2024).
• Heijer, A.C.D.; Magdaniel, F.T.J.C. The University Campus as a Knowledge City: Exploring Models and Strategic Choices. IJKBD 2012 , 3 , 283. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, J.; Zhao, Y.; Sun, T. Comparative Study of Evaluation Standards and Guidelines for Green Campus at Home and Abroad. Huazhong Archit. 2020 , 38 , 20–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• CSUS/GBC 04-2013 ; Assessment Standard for Green Campus. P.R.C. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development: Beijing, China, 2013.
• GB/T 51356-2019 ; Assessment Standard for Green Campus. P.R.C. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development: Beijing, China, 2019.
• Zhao, L.; Zhou, W.; Ruan, Y. Characterization of energy and water use in colleges and universities in different climate zones. Energy Res. Inf. 2011 , 27 , 110–116. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kelly, O.; Illingworth, S.; Butera, F.; Dawson, V.; White, P.; Blaise, M.; Martens, P.; Schuitema, G.; Huynen, M.; Bailey, S.; et al. Education in a Warming World: Trends, Opportunities and Pitfalls for Institutes of Higher Education. Front. Sustain. 2022 , 3 , 920375. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, B.; Zhang, H.; Zhao, L.; Qu, K.; Liu, W.; Zhuang, Z.; Ye, H. Microclimate Optimization of School Campus Landscape Based on Comfort Assessment. Buildings 2022 , 12 , 1375. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hu, Y. Practices of Integrated Rainwater Utilization in Green Campus. Water Sav. Irrig. 2015 , 11 , 101–103. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang, K.; Xu, S.; Xue, F.; Liu, Q. Research on the Green Modification of Solar Fresh Air System in Student Dormitories of Colleges and Universities in the Context of Green Campus. Constr. Sci. Technol. 2019 , 15 , 23–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, K.H.; Song, Y.-H. Analysis of Energy Reduction and Energy Self-Sufficiency Improvement Effects by Applying a Bidirectional Reflectance PV Array with Integrated External Shading at a School Building. Buildings 2023 , 13 , 2915. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, W.; Deng, Q.; Shan, X.; Miao, L.; Wang, R.; Ren, Z. Short-Term Forecasting of Daily Electricity of Different Campus Building Clusters Based on a Combined Forecasting Model. Buildings 2023 , 13 , 2721. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rodrigues Da Silva, A.N.; Tan, F.M.; Sousa, P.B.D. Key Sustainable Mobility Indicators for University Campuses. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2024 , 22 , 100371. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, X.; Zhong, S. Research on University Campus Transportation Planning under the Concept of Green Transportation—Taking Beiyangyuan Campus of Tianjin University as an Example. Shanghai Urban Plan. Rev. 2018 , 2 , 129–134. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alghamdi, N.; Den Heijer, A.; De Jonge, H. Assessment Tools’ Indicators for Sustainability in Universities: An Analytical Overview. IJSHE 2017 , 18 , 84–115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Findler, F.; Schönherr, N.; Lozano, R.; Stacherl, B. Assessing the Impacts of Higher Education Institutions on Sustainable Development—An Analysis of Tools and Indicators. Sustainability 2018 , 11 , 59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liao, X.; Liu, M.; Gao, X.; Wang, X.; Zhong, Y. Comparative Analysis of Environmental Provisions of Typical Green Campus Evaluation Standards at Home and Abroad. J. Civ. Environ. Eng. 2016 , 38 , 204–208. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhou, Y.; Zhu, B.; Ge, J. A Comparison of the Appropriateness of Green Campus Evaluation Criteria and Improvement Research in China and the United States. Archit. J. 2016 , 150–154. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cronemberger De Araújo Góes, H.; Magrini, A. Higher Education Institution Sustainability Assessment Tools: Considerations on Their Use in Brazil. IJSHE 2016 , 17 , 322–341. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sepasi, S.; Rahdari, A.; Rexhepi, G. Developing a Sustainability Reporting Assessment Tool for Higher Education Institutions: The University of California. Sustain. Dev. 2018 , 26 , 672–682. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Parvez, N.; Agrawal, A. Assessment of Sustainable Development in Technical Higher Education Institutes of India. J. Clean. Prod. 2019 , 214 , 975–994. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, T. Research on Gray Correlation Evaluation of Green Campus Based on OWA Operator Empowerment Method. Build. Energy Effic. 2019 , 47 , 174–177+182. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Den Bogerd, N.; Maas, J. Development and Testing of the Green Schoolyard Evaluation Tool (GSET). Landsc. Urban Plan. 2024 , 241 , 104921. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Na, W.; Zhao, Z.C. The Comprehensive Evaluation Method of Low-Carbon Campus Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process and Weights of Entropy. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021 , 23 , 9308–9319. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, H.; Xu, Y.; Hong, W.-C.; Liang, Y.; Zou, D. Smart Evaluation of Green Campus Sustainability Considering Energy Utilization. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 7653. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yu, M.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, F.; Jiao, P. Ecological Assessment of Low Carbon Design of Garden Based on Optimal BP Neural Network. IJESD 2024 , 23 , 158–175. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, B.; Ye, F. Evaluation Model of Public Building Design Scheme Based on Neural Network Algorithm. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021 , 1915 , 022066. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, R.; Yin, L.; Jia, J.; Yin, Y. Application of ATS-GWIFBM Operator Based on Improved Time Entropy in Green Building Projects. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019 , 2019 , 3519195. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jin, G. Research on Appropriate Technologies for Green Campus Renovation in Universities in Hot Summer and Cold Winter Regions. Master’s Thesis, Chongqing Jiaotong University, Chongqing, China, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang, S. A Comparative Study of Green Campus Evaluation Systems in Hot Summer and Warm Winter Regions. Master’s Thesis, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yao, L. Analysis of Green Campus Building Design Cases and Appropriate Technologies in Cold Regions. Green Build. 2017 , 9 , 60–63. [ Google Scholar ]
• Qiu, J.; Wen, T. Evaluation: Theory-Methodology-Practice ; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design V4.1. Available online: https://www.usgbc.org/leed/v41 (accessed on 22 June 2024).
• Li, X.; Feng, W.; Liu, X.; Yang, Y. A Comparative Analysis of Green Building Rating Systems in China and the United States. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023 , 93 , 104520. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method. Available online: https://breeam.com/home (accessed on 22 June 2024).
• Liu, C.; Wang, F.; MacKillop, F. A Critical Discussion of the BREEAM Communities Method as Applied to Chinese Eco-Village Assessment. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020 , 59 , 102172. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• GB/T 50378-2019 ; Assessment Standard for Green Buildings. China Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, China, 2019.
• GB 50178-93 ; Building Climate Zoning Standards. Ministry of Construction of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 1993.
• JGJ.26-2010 ; Design Standard for Energy Efficiency of Residential Buildings in Severe Cold and Cold Zones. P.R.C. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development: Beijing, China, 2019.
• Saaty, T.L.; Vargas, L.G. Estimating Technological Coefficients by the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 1979 , 13 , 333–336. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhou, Y.; Fu, S. Low-Carbon Building Evaluation Index System Based on Hierarchical Analysis Method. JCM 2024 , 24 , 879–890. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rodi, W.N.W.; Che-Ani, A.I.; Norazman, N.; Kamaruzzaman, S.N.; Chohan, A.H. Prioritizing Green Building Attributes on Conventional Office Building Rental Depreciation Using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Buildings 2022 , 12 , 1169. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Y.; Fan, L.; Wang, L. Urban Virtual Environment Landscape Design and System Based on PSO-BP Neural Network. Sci. Rep. 2024 , 14 , 13747. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhu, C. An Adaptive Agent Decision Model Based on Deep Reinforcement Learning and Autonomous Learning. JLISS 2023 , 10 , 107–118. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jani, D.B.; Mishra, M.; Sahoo, P.K. Application of Artificial Neural Network for Predicting Performance of Solid Desiccant Cooling Systems—A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017 , 80 , 352–366. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aghaei, S.; Shahbazi, Y.; Pirbabaei, M.; Beyti, H. A Hybrid SEM-Neural Network Method for Modeling the Academic Satisfaction Factors of Architecture Students. Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 2023 , 4 , 100122. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ning, M.; Guan, J.; Liu, P.; Zhang, Z.; M. P. O’Hare, G. GA-BP Air Quality Evaluation Method Based on Fuzzy Theory. Comput. Mater. Contin. 2019 , 58 , 215–227. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dang, W.; Cai, L.; Liu, M.; Li, X.; Yin, Z.; Liu, X.; Yin, L.; Zheng, W. Increasing Text Filtering Accuracy with Improved LSTM. Comput. Inform. 2023 , 42 , 1491–1517. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, D.; Li, D. Shortcomings of AHP and the Path to Improve the Method—An Example Given by the Achievement’s Assessment of Beijing Normal University. Syst. Eng. Theory Pract. 2005 , 25 , 100–104. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yuan, Z.; Gao, L.; Chen, H.; Song, S. Study on Settlement of Self-Compacting Solidified Soil in Foundation Pit Backfilling Based on GA-BP Neural Network Model. Buildings 2023 , 13 , 2014. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Almahameed, B.A.; Bisharah, M. Applying Machine Learning and Particle Swarm Optimization for Predictive Modeling and Cost Optimization in Construction Project Management. Asian J. Civ. Eng. 2024 , 25 , 1281–1294. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• GB 50176-2016 ; Thermal Design Code for Civil Buildings. P.R.C. Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development: Beijing, China, 2019.

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Guo, M.; Zhu, Y.; Xu, A. Research on Green Campus Evaluation in Cold Areas Based on AHP-BP Neural Networks. Buildings 2024 , 14 , 2792. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092792

Guo M, Zhu Y, Xu A. Research on Green Campus Evaluation in Cold Areas Based on AHP-BP Neural Networks. Buildings . 2024; 14(9):2792. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092792

Guo, Mengqi, Yiyun Zhu, and Aiyan Xu. 2024. "Research on Green Campus Evaluation in Cold Areas Based on AHP-BP Neural Networks" Buildings 14, no. 9: 2792. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092792

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

NASA, ESA Missions Help Scientists Uncover How Solar Wind Gets Energy

Since the 1960s, astronomers have wondered how the Sun’s supersonic “solar wind,” a stream of energetic particles that flows out into the solar system, continues to receive energy once it leaves the Sun. Now, thanks to a lucky lineup of a NASA and an ESA (European Space Agency)/NASA spacecraft both currently studying the Sun, they may have discovered the answer — knowledge that is a crucial piece of the puzzle to help scientists better forecast solar activity between the Sun and Earth.

A paper published in the Aug. 30, 2024, issue of the journal Science provides persuasive evidence that the fastest solar winds are powered by magnetic “switchbacks,” or large kinks in the magnetic field, near the Sun.

“Our study addresses a huge open question about how the solar wind is energized and helps us understand how the Sun affects its environment and, ultimately, the Earth,” said Yeimy Rivera, co-leader of the study and a postdoctoral fellow at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, part of Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian. “If this process happens in our local star, it’s highly likely that this powers winds from other stars across the Milky Way galaxy and beyond and could have implications for the habitability of exoplanets.”

Previously, NASA’s Parker Solar Probe found that these switchbacks were common throughout the solar wind. Parker, which became the first craft to enter the Sun's magnetic atmosphere in 2021, allowed scientists to determine that switchbacks become more distinct and more powerful close to the Sun. Up to now, however, scientists lacked experimental evidence that this interesting phenomenon actually deposits enough energy to be important in the solar wind.

“About three years ago, I was giving a talk about how fascinating these waves are,” said co-author Mike Stevens, astrophysicist at the Center for Astrophysics. “At the end, an astronomy professor stood up and said, ‘that's neat, but do they actually matter?’”

To answer this, the team of scientists had to use two different spacecraft. Parker is built to fly through the Sun’s atmosphere, or “corona.” ESA's and NASA’s Solar Orbiter mission is also on an orbit that takes it relatively close to the Sun, and it measures solar wind at larger distances. 

The discovery was made possible because of a coincidental alignment in February 2022 that allowed both Parker Solar Probe and Solar Orbiter to measure the same solar wind stream within two days of each other. Solar Orbiter was almost halfway to the Sun while Parker was skirting the edge of the Sun's magnetic atmosphere.

“We didn't initially realize that Parker and Solar Orbiter were measuring the same thing at all. Parker saw this slower plasma near the Sun that was full of switchback waves, and then Solar Orbiter recorded a fast stream which had received heat and with very little wave activity,” said Samuel Badman, astrophysicist at the Center for Astrophysics and the other co-lead of the study. “When we connected the two, that was a real eureka moment.”

Scientists have long known that energy is moved throughout the Sun‘s corona and the solar wind, at least in part, through what are known as "Alfvén waves.” These waves transport energy through a plasma, the superheated state of matter that makes up the solar wind.

However, how much the Alfvén waves evolve and interact with the solar wind between the Sun and Earth couldn't be measured — until these two missions were sent closer to the Sun than ever before, at the same time. Now, scientists can directly determine how much energy is stored in the magnetic and velocity fluctuations of these waves near the corona, and how much less energy is carried by the waves farther from the Sun.

The new research shows that the Alfvén waves in the form of switchbacks provide enough energy to account for the heating and acceleration documented in the faster stream of the solar wind as it flows away from the Sun. 

“It took over half a century to confirm that Alfvenic wave acceleration and heating are important processes, and they happen in approximately the way we think they do,” said John Belcher, emeritus professor from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who co-discovered Alfvén waves in the solar wind but was not involved in this study.

In addition to helping scientists better forecast solar activity and space weather, such information helps us understand mysteries of the universe elsewhere and how Sun-like stars and stellar winds operate everywhere.

“This discovery is one of the key puzzle pieces to answer the 50-year-old question of how the solar wind is accelerated and heated in the innermost portions of the heliosphere, bringing us closer to closure to one of the main science objectives of the Parker Solar Probe mission,” said Adam Szabo, Parker Solar Probe mission science lead at NASA.

By Megan Watzke Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian

Related Terms

• Goddard Space Flight Center
• Heliophysics
• Heliophysics Division
• Parker Solar Probe (PSP)
• Science & Research
• Science Mission Directorate
• Solar Flares
• Solar Orbiter
• Solar Science
• Space Weather
• The Sun & Solar Physics

Explore More

NASA Summer Camp Inspires Future Climate Leaders

Hubble Examines a Busy Galactic Center

Join the Eclipsing Binary Patrol and Spot Rare Stellar Pairs!