Next Article in Journal
Design of a Multi-Robot System for Wind Turbine Maintenance
Previous Article in Journal
Performance Investigation of a Two-Bed Type Adsorption Chiller with Various Adsorbents
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 13
Issue 10
10.3390/en13102554
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Renewable Energy Entrepreneurs: A Conceptual Framework

by
Avri Eitan
1,*,
Gillad Rosen
2,
Lior Herman
3 and
Itay Fishhendler
2
1
The Advanced School for Environmental Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 9190501, Israel
2
The Department of Geography, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 9190501, Israel
3
The Department of International Relations, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 9190501, Israel
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2020, 13(10), 2554; https://doi.org/10.3390/en13102554
Submission received: 26 March 2020 / Revised: 1 May 2020 / Accepted: 11 May 2020 / Published: 18 May 2020
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The adoption of renewable energies contributes to sustainable development worldwide. Entrepreneurs are key agents in facilitating their promotion, as they improve the mix of the means of production and thus transform renewable energy technologies into viable energy systems. Nonetheless, the literature tends to treat entrepreneurs as a homogeneous group, thus preventing comprehensive understanding of their motivations, behaviors, capabilities, and effects. This study addresses this research gap by identifying and categorizing the various characteristics of these entrepreneurs and developing an integrated classification method. Four examples of renewable energy entrepreneurs, in China, Denmark, Germany, and India, are analyzed according to the proposed classification method, while demonstrating their differences. Thus, through proposing a new analytical typology, this study improves our understanding of renewable energy entrepreneurs and their significant role in the promotion of renewable energy worldwide.

1. Introduction

Evidence across the globe indicates that renewable energy (RE) is gradually substituting mature energy systems that are often based on fossil fuels [1]. RE currently accounts for 18.2% of global energy consumption and 26.5% of global electricity production [2,3]. While RE technologies vary, they have several major advantages with sustainability aspects over fossil fuels systems [4,5,6]. RE relies on non-perishable resources [7], produces very low to zero greenhouse gas emissions [8,9,10], and reduces emissions of other pollutants that harm the environment [11,12,13]. Nevertheless, RE technologies also suffer from several drawbacks: most notably, they are often less cost-effective than fossil fuels systems in terms of energy efficiency, financing, economies of scale, and land use [14,15,16].
Promoting RE technologies therefore requires innovation which enables RE to gradually become more efficient, economically viable, cost-effective, and environmentally sustainable than their fossil rivals [17,18]. While state regulations often play an important role in the promotion of RE technologies, entrepreneurs are key agents for their advancement [19]. RE entrepreneurs improve the mix of the means of production and thus constitute a significant link in facilitating the transformation of innovation-based RE technologies and their transition into viable energy systems [20].
Despite the importance of entrepreneurs for promoting RE, the academic literature has tended to address them as a single homogeneous group of profit-seeking and business-oriented actors, paying insufficient attention to differences in entrepreneurial agency and its implications for RE advancement [21,22]. This knowledge gap has resulted in a lack of understanding of the different motivations, behaviors, capabilities, and effects that form RE entrepreneurship. Due to the centrality of entrepreneurs in promoting RE, an exploration of their heterogeneity is essential for better understanding RE diffusion.
Based on a systematic review of academic literature, this study addresses this gap by identifying the characteristics of various RE entrepreneurs and proposing a classification method that illustrates their different profiles. This classification method demonstrates that RE entrepreneurs are, in fact, heterogeneous actors marked by different characteristics, motivated by diverse incentives, exposed to different risks, and making use of a range of innovations to promote RE. The classification is based on analytical analysis, intentionally broad enough to include and represent various types of entrepreneurs even if they work in different countries, under different regulation systems, and in varying circumstances. It therefore avoids definitional constraints such as existing legal definitions of RE entrepreneurs. The novelty of the study, therefore, lies in the introduction of a comprehensive and integrated framework for RE entrepreneurs’ analysis. Since the diffusion process of RE depends heavily on entrepreneurs, the proposed typology examines and sheds light on another angle of this process and thus contributes to its better understanding. By so doing, the study also strengthens policymakers’ capabilities of shaping appropriate regulations to promote RE, based on different entrepreneurs’ characteristics.
The study starts by introducing the concept of RE entrepreneurs and examining their characteristics: their motivations, sectors, structures, scopes, capabilities, risks, and innovations. This is followed by a section proposing a classification method illustrating the entrepreneurs’ different characteristics, which constitutes their unique profiles. The next section presents the examples of several RE entrepreneurs in four different countries and demonstrates their classification according to the proposed method. The paper ends by highlighting the contribution of this study to academic literature and suggesting directions for future research.

2. RE Entrepreneurs

Entrepreneurs are essential economic agents, responsible for providing different goods or services by combining various means of productions, usually through innovative mechanisms [23,24]. RE entrepreneurs are, therefore, the agents that promote and establish RE facilities in practice [19,20]; it is they who carry the various risks associated with the process while also being its main beneficiaries [25,26,27]. They do this by optimizing the mix of the means of production (e.g., capital, natural resources, labor force, and capabilities) and thus promoting viable RE systems while harnessing varied innovations [21,22,28].
Unlike many other entrepreneurs in various fields (e.g., finance, real-estate development, etc.), the uniqueness of RE entrepreneurs lies in the broad heterogeneity of their characteristics, as discussed in the following section. For example, RE entrepreneurs are not motivated just by financial incentives but possibly also by energy-utilization, environmental, and social incentives [29]. Another example relates to the fact that RE entrepreneurs are not an exclusively private sector phenomenon, as public sector and third sector entrepreneurs, such as state-owned enterprises and cooperatives, can also be important RE entrepreneurs [30]. Hence, despite commonalities in their promotion of RE, RE entrepreneurs should not be regarded as a homogenous group. Rather, they are defined by the characteristics that distinguish them from one another, classified as external influential factors, motivations, functional features, risks, and innovations. These various characteristics of RE entrepreneurs have been separately discussed in several studies (e.g., [20,21,22]), but for the first time, they have been systematically synchronized into one coherent and unified conceptual framework, which is based on an extensive literature review.

2.1. External Influential Factors

There are a several external factors that influence RE entrepreneurs while also distinguishing them from one another. RE entrepreneurs operate in different countries and regions under a range of regulatory, political, economic, and physical systems that affect their promotion of RE facilities. First, regulation is a significant factor that determines "the rules of the game"; in other words, it dictates the entrepreneurs’ degree of freedom and limitations to act [31,32,33]. Regulation systems vary between countries and regions and may also differ in the way they are applied to different types of entrepreneurs in the same region, thus raising entrepreneurs’ adaptation costs [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36]. Belarus is an example of the constraining effect of regulation on RE entrepreneurs, as the entrepreneurs are not free to choose RE customers, and therefore their capacity to operate is limited [37].
Political and economic environments can also significantly impact RE entrepreneurs. This may include the level of democracy and economic liberalism as well as other factors such as economic growth rates, the prices of fossil fuels, solar panels, or wind turbines, and more [31,38,39]. For example, countries with liberal market economies, such as Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States, tend to show a greater range of RE entrepreneur types with greater degrees of freedom than countries with more centralized and regulated economies, such as China or Russia. Liberal economies usually have a wide range of actors in finance, consultancy, construction, among others, while in non-liberal or developing economies, entrepreneurs tend to be more homogeneous and less enterprising [40,41,42].
Finally, physical conditions, such as access to natural resources, considerably affect the activities of RE entrepreneurs and the promotion of RE across regions. The ability of any entrepreneur to promote RE facilities depends on the existence of suitable physical conditions, as RE projects require optimizing the use of natural resources. Without suitable sun, wind, or water sources, most entrepreneurs will be unable to promote relevant RE facilities [3,6]. For example, RE entrepreneurs in Norway have traditionally avoided promoting solar facilities due, primarily, to the insufficient solar radiation [43].

2.2. Motivations

A main inherent distinction between different entrepreneurs relates to their motivations, i.e., the incentives encouraging their involvement in RE projects, which relate to financial, energy-utilization, environmental, and social aspects. RE entrepreneurs are usually driven by more than one type of motivation and differ in the way they prioritize the various motivations [17,20,44]. The complexity of the incentives and their different relative weights in driving RE entrepreneurs can be analytically represented in the following prototypes.

2.2.1. Financially-Oriented Entrepreneurs

Financially-oriented entrepreneurs are motivated by financial incentives for promoting RE facilities. These incentives refer to profit-seeking through the sale of energy or other means such as cost savings originating in self-consumption, land lease payments for establishing RE projects, and thermal energy use for industry purposes (i.e., cogeneration) [45,46,47,48]. For example, Danish financially-oriented entrepreneurs have made the local wind energy industry a world leader, with the support of suitable government regulation [49,50]. Although financial incentives primarily characterize private sector entrepreneurs, many other RE entrepreneurs also strive to generate financial profits and might cancel RE projects in their absence. For example, in Ontario, Canada, a public entrepreneur, aiming to establishing a 100-million-dollar wind farm, canceled the project despite its energy and environmental advantages as it was not financially profitable [51].

2.2.2. Energy-Oriented Entrepreneurs

Energy-oriented entrepreneurs are motivated by energy-utilization incentives, namely, their desire or need to use the produced energy. Ultimately, this motivation characterizes all types of RE entrepreneurs as it represents the baseline rationale for all RE projects [52,53]. However, different entrepreneurs might prioritize this motivation differently; self-consuming RE entrepreneurs, for example, often prioritize this motivation over others [46,54,55]. One example of this can be found in Spain, where many communities have begun, with the support of a new designated government regulation, to promote RE facilities for purposes of self-consumption [56].

2.2.3. Environmental-and Sustainability-Oriented Entrepreneurs

Environmental- and sustainability-oriented entrepreneurs seek to be involved in RE projects in order to produce clean energy, reduce pollutant emissions, and advance climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts. For example, the government of India has established several wind farms in an attempt to reduce pollutant emissions and the ecological footprint of the Indian subcontinent [57]. When considering their environmental externalities, some entrepreneurs are aware that RE facilities can be more cost-effective than conventional electricity means [58,59,60,61]. For example, in Germany, many RE entrepreneurs are driven by environmental awareness rather than pure financial calculations, and this affects their business considerations [62].

2.2.4. Socially-Oriented Entrepreneurs

Socially-oriented entrepreneurs are motivated by incentives that relate to aspects such as job creation, socioeconomic improvements, and others [39]. The Maranchón wind farm in Spain is an example of an RE project that has created jobs in a remote and peripheral location with limited employment opportunities, thus benefiting the community partner-entrepreneur [63]. Furthermore, by establishing RE projects with the involvement of different communities, community members can work together toward common goals while strengthening social ties, thus further motivating community entrepreneurs to establish RE projects [64,65,66,67,68]. Nevertheless, in most cases (with international development being an exception), social motivations do not stand alone and are likely to be accompanied by other motivations. In the United Kingdom, for example, thousands of "green" jobs have been created as part of community RE projects, motivating community entrepreneurs to promote more RE projects in order to form new employment opportunities and to enjoy the accompanying financial, energy, and environmental benefits [69,70].

2.3. Functional Features

RE entrepreneurs may also vary according to various functional features which ultimately shape their involvement in RE projects. These features include their sector, the organizational structure and scope of their territorial activity, and their capabilities.

2.3.1. Sector

Entrepreneurs may be associated with different sectors, each with unique characteristics. Since the public sector is financed by the general public, it is accountable to a wide and diverse target audience and assumed to represent public interests, which may not align with business interests [71,72,73]. The private sector usually places greater emphasis on profit maximization, has better business capabilities, and is committed to its shareholders and investors [29,31,74]. The third sector is known for its commitment to social and environmental causes which often compete with business interests [75,76,77]. Some entrepreneurs may be associated with several sectors, including local communities that establish private companies to promote their self-interest in RE projects. For example, the local community of the Isle of Wight, UK, owns the Wight Community Energy Company which has established several solar farms [78]. Similarly, there are entrepreneurships that are based on the collaboration of entrepreneurs from diverse sectors [79]. One example is the town of Yarmouth in Massachusetts, USA, where a private entrepreneur has joined a third sector cooperative called CVEC in order to initiate RE projects [80].

2.3.2. Structure and Scope

RE entrepreneurs may differ in their organizational structures: for example, individuals, communities, companies, non-profit associations, government agencies, etc. (e.g., [81,82,83,84]). They may also differ in the scope of their territorial activity: for example, local, nationwide, interstate, global, etc. (e.g., [85,86,87,88]). In this context, there are many examples of collaborations between local and global entrepreneurs, each with their respective advantage [79]. While small local entrepreneurs are usually knowledgeable about the environment, the local population, and other conditions relevant for the project, large international entrepreneurs may have more resources, particularly financial resources, as well as extensive knowledge and experience [13,69,89]. For example, in Germany, community entrepreneurs use their local advantage for promoting RE projects, working either separately or jointly with large international companies that exploit their large-scale competitive advantages [62,90,91].

2.3.3. Capabilities

Lastly, RE entrepreneurs are also characterized by different capabilities in terms of their fields of specialization (e.g., financial abilities, natural resources accessibility, operation and maintenance, knowledge, regulation familiarity, community relations, business connections, etc.) and experience (e.g., a single project or several projects). These capabilities may relate to specific types of projects or certain RE technologies: for example, an entrepreneur may be an expert in solar panels but have little expertise when dealing with wind turbines [5,39,92]. In some cases, different entrepreneurs, such as local communities and private companies, may collaborate in order to maximize their capabilities and expertise for the establishment of RE projects [79].

2.4. Risks

RE entrepreneurs face different risk exposures according to their particular characteristics (e.g., sector, scope, capabilities, etc.), the project’s characteristics, and their level of competence in the project [42,93,94,95]. They also differ in their risk aversion levels, which leads them to take part in projects with varying degrees of risk [74,96,97].
The main risk facing RE entrepreneurs concerns the possible gap between expected and realized energy production [5,42]. For example, several large wind farms in Germany were found to generate less electricity than predicted due to the high density of the wind turbines, and thus alternative solutions needed to be found [98].
Other significant risks relate to financial losses. Possible financial losses or lower than predicted profits might deter any RE entrepreneur [93]. In some cases, profits might only be reduced, but in others, they might cause the entire project to be canceled [94,99,100]. For example, in Saudi Arabia, the largest planned solar project in the world was canceled due to the high financial risks [101]. Entrepreneurs sometimes collaborate in order to share the financial risk [79]. An example of such collaboration is in the community of Feldheim in Germany, which relies entirely on RE for its energy needs. In order to reduce the significant financial risks, the community partnered with several private companies, which serve as co-investors while also sharing the risks [39].
Regulation is another potential source of entrepreneurial risk. RE systems are based on supportive regulation that enables their physical and financial establishment. Regulatory changes may require costly technical adjustments, which can lead to the cancellation of entire projects [34,35,40]. For example, a 2000 MW wind farm planned in Oklahoma, USA, was canceled after the regulator, American Electric Power, changed the initial regulatory requirements [102].
RE projects might also pose several environmental risks for entrepreneurs, especially when they themselves are located in the projects’ surrounding environment, as is the case with community entrepreneurs. Although RE facilities tend to be more environmentally friendly than conventional means of production [103,104], they might still be responsible for environmental hazards such as landscape destruction, increased noise, and river flow disturbance. In some cases, the entrepreneurs themselves suffer from these hazards, while in other cases they may be required to compensate those affected [95,105,106]. For example, in Latin America, several hydropower facilities have caused unrepairable environmental damage, placing various communities at risk as they serve as both the projects’ entrepreneurs and clients simultaneously [107].
Lastly, RE entrepreneurs might be exposed to social and business-related risks. RE projects can be canceled due to business disputes caused by the respective partners’ different goals, unfair profit distributions, exposure to hazards, and others [108,109,110] Social issues might pose risks to entrepreneurs when local residents oppose the construction and operation of RE infrastructures in their proximity in order to avoid associated negative effects or externalities [111,112]. For example, the establishment of the Swaffham wind farm in the United Kingdom was nearly canceled due to major disputes between private entrepreneurs and local residents who opposed the project due to hazards associated with the wind turbines [113].

2.5. Innovation

Promoting RE technologies requires entrepreneurs to innovate in order to make RE more efficient, economically beneficial, cost-effective, and environmentally sustainable [17,18]. Innovation can be defined as the introduction of something new in the form of devices, methods, or actions [114,115]. Even though RE entrepreneurs are not necessarily the sources of the innovation, they are the main agents who identify and harness various RE innovations—be they financial, energy-utilization, environmental, or social innovations—in order to promote RE systems [18,20,21].

2.5.1. Financial Innovations

Different innovations, related to financial issues, enable entrepreneurs to promote RE by influencing RE’s cost-effectiveness and prices [116,117,118]. First, the reduction in the manufacturing costs of RE technologies has enabled entrepreneurs to promote such technologies by offering energy prices that are lower than fossil fuels systems [119,120]. An example of this can be found in the low prices of photovoltaic panels. Many of these panels are mass produced in China due to technological innovations that simplify the production process [121], thus enabling RE entrepreneurs to offer cheaper solar energy prices all over the world [122,123,124,125]. Moreover, innovation improves the efficiency of renewable systems, i.e., more energy is produced from the same facilities [126,127,128]. Wind turbines are one example; their characteristics, for example, aerodynamic capabilities, have improved significantly in recent years, thus enabling RE entrepreneurs to offer more efficient energy production than in the past while also influencing international wind energy prices [129].

2.5.2. Energy-Utilization Innovations

Innovation is also associated with significant improvements related to energy utilization. First, innovation enables RE entrepreneurs to produce energy from various previously unexploited sources [130,131,132]. For example, in recent years, significant progress has been made in energy production from sea waves in Greece, Spain, Italy, China, and elsewhere [133,134,135,136,137]. Second, innovation improves energy usability, influencing the quality and quantity of the energy produced by RE entrepreneurs [138,139,140]. For example, there have been significant improvements in storage facilities, enabling RE entrepreneurs to control the timing of RE production while limiting the dependency on external factors such as wind speed and solar radiation [105,141]. Third, innovation enables RE entrepreneurs to reach remote areas that have poor or no connectivity to electricity grids [16,142,143]. For example, remote villages in developing countries, such as India, rely on off-grid RE facilities for electricity in a way that was not possible a few years ago [144,145,146].

2.5.3. Environmental Innovations

Innovation also makes RE more environmentally sustainable [147,148,149]. First and foremost, through innovation, RE entrepreneurs can promote RE facilities with reduced emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHGs). Because they produce few or no GHG emissions, RE systems have emerged as popular energy alternatives for climate change mitigation [8,9,10]. One example is the use of landfill biogas for electricity generation, which contributes to the reuse of pollutants such as methane [150,151,152,153]. Moreover, innovation also enables RE entrepreneurs to promote decentralized RE infrastructures that can reduce environmental damage relative to larger centralized facilities [104,154,155]. Since RE systems tend to be more decentralized and diversified than fossil fuels systems, relying on them also reduces the vulnerability to extreme climate change-related events and contributes to climate change adaptation strategies [156,157,158]. One example is the promotion of multiply mini-hydroelectric facilities which decrease river flow disturbance more than large-scale hydroelectric facilities, thereby reducing the overall environmental damage [159,160,161]. Innovation also enables the reduction of other negative environmental aspects such as landscape destruction or noise pollution [95,106,111]. For example, the noise of the Gamesa wind turbine in Zaragoza, Spain, was reduced for the sake of local residents and animals [162].

2.5.4. Social Innovations

Finally, RE innovation can enhance social acceptability [108,109]. Despite broad positive societal views on the desirability of RE infrastructure, such projects often face local opposition due, mainly, to the hazards they may cause, which can vary by their scope and level of influence, as well as by other variables, such as the characteristics of the impacted population [111,163]. While some hazards, such as noise disturbance often influence only the adjacent populations [162], other hazards, such as landscape destruction can influence a much larger and distanced populations [112]. Further, while some of these hazards may have a minor influence on various populations, such as in cases of smell disturbance [164], other hazards, such as river flow intervention, may have a wider effect on the local population’s quality of life, including with regard to employment and food sources [107]. Thus, by reducing the impact of these hazards, as a function of their influence, RE innovation can help entrepreneurs gain local support, e.g., [104,154,155]). In Pakistan, for example, innovative mini-hydroelectric facilities minimized river flow disturbance and reduced the damage to the local residents, thus mobilizing their support [165]. Moreover, through innovative compensation mechanisms, entrepreneurs can increase the social acceptability of RE facilities by local residents. Such practices are found in various RE projects worldwide, for example, in Columbia, and involve the compensation of local communities in an attempt to increase social acceptability [113].

3. Profiles of RE Entrepreneurs

The previous discussion suggests that while entrepreneurs are RE promoters, they also differ in several aspects; they are thus not homogenous and, instead, form a heterogeneous and diverse group of actors. The four main inherent characteristics differentiating between them include their motivations, their functional features (consisting of four sub-characteristics: sector, structure, scope, and capabilities), the risks they face, and the innovation they harness to promote RE. Figure 1 illustrates these various characteristics and their possible components while outlining key external influential factors (regulation, political and economic climate, and physical conditions).
The capital letters in Figure 1 (i.e., A–G) represent the characteristics of RE entrepreneurs, and the numbered, lowercase letters represent the specific components of these characteristics. As discussed earlier, RE entrepreneurship is, in reality, more complex and diversified; here, it has been simplified somewhat for analytical purposes. For example, entrepreneurs may be influenced by several components, such as an entrepreneur who has both financial (a1) and environmental (a3) motivations. They may, however, also be characterized and influenced by a single component: for example, a private entrepreneur (b2) who is unrelated to the public (b1) or the third (b3) sectors. Furthermore, different components may characterize entrepreneurs at a specific point in time and for a specific RE project. For example, entrepreneurs can acquire capabilities over time, such as experience in operation and maintenance of RE facilities (e3). Another example may relate to the risks (F) RE entrepreneurs face and the innovation methods (G) they use, which may also change over time or between projects. Figure 2 represents an illustration of the profile of a random, hypothetical RE entrepreneur according to the above classification.
Figure 2 depicts an example of a hypothetical RE entrepreneur. The different rows in the figure represent the entrepreneur’s characteristics, divided into their various possible components. Different background textures are used to represent the status of the characteristics’ components: if a certain component completely applies to the entrepreneur then it is presented with a smooth grey background; if the component only partly applies, it is presented using a dotted background; and if the component does not apply or rarely applies then it is presented with a white background. As can be seen, this hypothetical profile represents an entrepreneur who is strongly motivated by financial reasons (a1), while its energy (a2), environmental (a3), and social (a4) motivations are of lower prioritization. Being perhaps part of a partnership, this private sector (b2) entrepreneur also has limited connections with the public (b1) and third (b3) sectors. This entrepreneur is organized in a corporate structure (c3) whose activities are mostly in the local regional scope (d1) with some being nationwide (d2). The entrepreneur has an equal mix of the different significant capabilities, including financial (e1), natural resources accessibility (e2), operation and maintenance experience (e3), regulation knowledge (e4), and business skills (e5). In the project illustrated in this example, the entrepreneur faces, primarily, financial risks (f1), followed by energy production risks (f2), and much lower environmental (f3), social (f4), and regulation (f5) risks. Finally, this entrepreneur mobilizes more financial (g1) and energy-utilization (g2) innovations to promote RE facilities but also uses some environmental (g3) and social (g4) innovation mechanisms.

4. RE Entrepreneurs: Four Examples

In the following section, four real-world examples of RE entrepreneurs will be presented in order to illustrate the proposed classification method. While these examples do not represent the whole spectrum of RE entrepreneurs, they nevertheless characterize common types of RE entrepreneurs and support diverse illustrations. The information regarding the various RE entrepreneurs is based on their own reports as well as on different external sources, including academic publications and professional and government reports. While each of the four RE entrepreneurs is discussed, examined, and classified according to their own unique characteristics, it should be noted that the graphical figures are schematic in their essence, and are aimed to illustrate the described classifications.

4.1. State Utility Entrepreneurs: The Case of China’s State Grid Corporation

The State Grid Corporation of China is the largest electric utility in the world in terms of workforce, budget, and grid length. Its main responsibilities are to maintain, extend, and operate the national electricity grid. Nevertheless, the state utility also has an important role in implementing Chinese environmental policy through the promotion of RE. In this context, it serves as an entrepreneur promoting RE projects including the establishment of several large-scale hydropower facilities as part of an expensive mega project [166,167,168,169,170].
Despite its name, and as depicted in Figure 3, the Grid Corporation serves more as a state agency (c5) than as a private company (c3), as it is completely owned by the Chinese state (b1). Being a nationwide state utility (d2), the Grid Corporation enjoys many advantages such as regulation adaptation made especially for its operation (e4), significant access to public financial resources (e1), and access to natural resources (e2). Furthermore, thousands of skilled workers provide it with high operation and maintenance capabilities (e3) [166,167,168,169,170].
The main aim of the Grid Corporation’s RE projects is to reduce air pollution in a country where this has been a long-term problem (a3) and to provide electricity to the country’s fast-growing population (a2). In order to do this, this Chinese entrepreneur fosters energy (g2) and environmental (g3) innovation to produce clean energy using high-end technology, which has become much cheaper in the last few years thanks to recent developments (g1). Nevertheless, the Grid Corporation faces several risks: the risk of failing to improve the environmental situation in China due to the poor air quality (f3) and the risk of sub-supplying electricity to the ever-growing population (f2). Figure 3 schematically illustrates the Grid Corporation’s RE entrepreneur profile [166,167,168,169,170].

4.2. International Entrepreneurs: The Case of Ørsted

One example of an international RE entrepreneur is Ørsted, the largest Danish energy company, which operates in numerous countries and employs thousands of workers. Ørsted has set up hundreds of RE projects with an installed capacity of more than 35,000 MW, using diverse RE technologies, most notably wind power [171,172,173,174,175,176,177].
The company’s stocks are divided almost equally between the Danish government (b1) and other private holders (b2), thus allowing the government to keep its interests with regard to environmental and sustainability issues (a3). Nevertheless, similar to other listed energy companies (i.e., companies whose shares are listed on a stock exchange), this company (c3) is obligated, primarily, to provide financial profits for its stockholders (a1) through the sale of clean energy (a2), also allowing it to demonstrate high financial capabilities (e1). As one of the world’s leaders in promoting wind energy, Østred is known for using cutting-edge innovative technologies for energy-utilization (g2) and environmental aspects (g3), also enabling it to provide the lowest possible energy prices (g1). The extensive activity of this RE entrepreneur across Denmark (d2) as well as in other European countries (d3) and on other continents (d4) has provided it with notable experience in the operation and maintenance of diverse RE facilities (e3). This has also made the company highly skilled in operating in different business environments (e5) [171,172,173,174,175,176,177].
Nevertheless, operating in different countries requires the company to adjust itself to different regulatory environments which pose risks (f5). In addition, due to its multi-country operation, the company has to cope with diverse social risks. These risks (f4) are caused by the potential environmental hazards of wind turbines (f3). This issue has led the company to adopt several social innovative mechanisms, focusing on compensating local populations as well as increasing local involvement in the projects (g4). Figure 4 schematically illustrates Ørsted’s RE entrepreneur profile [171,172,173,174,175,176,177].

4.3. Self-Consuming Entrepreneurs: The Case of Germany

Self-consuming RE entrepreneurs are a common phenomenon in Germany [90,178,179,180,181,182]. German individuals (c1), communities (c2), and small companies (c3) promote solar panels or small wind turbines in order to meet their own energy needs (a2) and enjoy some financial benefits (a1). These self-consumption RE facilities also contribute to global efforts that aim to reduce the GHG emissions of the electricity industry (a3) [90,178,179,180,181,182].
These local entrepreneurs (d1) often have direct access to natural resources (e2), which is a necessary condition for the establishment of RE facilities. High accessibility to natural resources alongside with extensive knowledge of the projects’ local environment provide these entrepreneurs with some advantages concerning their business skills in the relevant RE projects (e5). Due to their operation in a well-developed renewable energy market, these entrepreneurs also have access to high-end innovations which facilitate the promotion of their projects in financial (g1), energy (g2), environmental (g3), and social (g4) aspects [90,178,179,180,181,182].
However, due to their limited size, the involved entrepreneurs may face significant financial risks (f1), which could prevent their facilities from producing electricity (f2) or seldom force them to establish facilities that are less environmentally friendly than desired (f3). The lack of relevant resources might also make it hard for these entrepreneurs to adapt to regulation changes (f5). In addition, because of the local nature of the relevant RE projects, their facilities are usually established in proximity to local communities, which might raise risks of social unacceptability (f4). In order to try and overcome some of these issues, these local initiatives are often based on different levels of collaboration between private (b2) and public (b1) actors in an attempt to increase the capabilities and resources of the partners while also reducing their risks. Community–private sector partnerships are one common example of such collaborations. Figure 5 schematically illustrates the profile of German self-consuming RE entrepreneurs [90,178,179,180,181,182].

4.4. Third-Sector Entrepreneurs: The Case of India

Several third-sector RE entrepreneurs (b3) operate in India to assist local women to establish RE facilities (e.g., Barefoot College, Greenpeace, BASIX, SSP), with some support from local governments (b1) and private actors (b2). A significant aim of these entrepreneurs is to strengthen the status of these women (a4) while also providing them with some financial means (a1). These initiatives also help to provide electricity to many of India’s poor rural areas (a2), as most of these entrepreneurs operate in the local scope (d1), while others operate across the entire country (d2) [183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190].
The primary capabilities of these entrepreneurs relate, on the whole, to their experience in doing business across India’s rural regions (e4) and their knowledge of local regulations (e5). These third-sector entrepreneurs try to establish numerous collaborations in order to enhance other relevant capabilities, most notably in finance (e1), engineering (e3), and natural resource accessibility (e2). Such collaborations may include key individuals (c1), local communities (c2), private companies (c3), other third-sector associations (c4), and relevant government agencies (c5) [183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190].
The main risks these entrepreneurs face relate to the failure to produce electricity in remote rural regions (f2), which might pose financial risks (f1) as well as some social risks (g4) caused by the frustration of local residents. In order to avoid these risks, the entrepreneurs use energy-related innovation, which enables them to generate electricity in remote regions (g2), financial innovation (g1), which enables them to establish relatively low-cost facilities, and social innovation (g4), which introduces energy to the local population and enhances the social acceptance of the RE facilities by the population, which is often deterred by external intervention. Figure 6 schematically illustrates the profile of certain third-sector RE entrepreneurs in India [183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190].

5. Conclusions

Entrepreneurs are key agents in promoting RE through the harnessing of different innovations. They thus advance RE technologies and have a significant role in broader RE diffusion processes [19,20,21] in which various technologies (e.g., solar, wind, hydroelectric) are adopted [3,31]. Nevertheless, despite this important role, academic literature has paid these entrepreneurs insufficient attention, thus limiting comprehensive understanding of their different motivations, behaviors, capabilities, and effects by addressing them as a homogeneous group. This study has addressed this gap by identifying the characteristics of various RE entrepreneurs and proposing a classification method that illustrates their different profiles.
Building theory regarding RE entrepreneurs requires the consideration of a wide range of cases and experiences. Although the classification of RE entrepreneurs alone does not constitute theory, it advances the foundation for generating principles for further theoretical development. In examining RE projects and experiences in a wide range of cases, we see that RE entrepreneurs are very diverse. We suggest that efforts to categorize them need to take account of external factors (i.e., regulation, political and economic climate, and physical conditions) and of four main groups of characteristics: motivations, functional features (including four sub-groups: sector, structure, scope, and capabilities), risks, and innovation. Through examining the divergence among RE entrepreneurs, it is clear that this is not a unitary phenomenon. Developing theory to both explain and describe the phenomenon requires considerably more case-study information as well as regional, national, and internationally comparative work in the years to come. This paper contributes to the effort by identifying and discussing some of the key factors that differentiate RE entrepreneurs.
The suggested typology, aimed to classify RE entrepreneurs, has been demonstrated via four distinct examples of RE entrepreneurs: the State Grid Corporation of China, the Danish company Ørsted, self-consuming entrepreneurs in Germany, and third sector entrepreneurs in India. These four examples of RE entrepreneurs highlight several notable findings. First, despite the tendency to link entrepreneurs from different sectors to specific motivations, the reality is often more nuanced. The motivations of various entrepreneurs do not always correspond with the expectations stemming from their sectorial affiliation. This possible mismatch between sectors and motivations contributes to the heterogeneity of RE entrepreneurs. For instance, it appears that private-sector RE entrepreneurs can also have environmental motivations (e.g., the case of Ørsted), while third-sector RE entrepreneurs can also have financial motivations (e.g., the case of Indian third-sector entrepreneurs). In this regard, an issue for further exploration relates to the question of whether or not a positive relationship exists between the operation scope of RE entrepreneurs and their capabilities. In this study, local entrepreneurs’ capabilities have been found to be mostly associated with place-oriented features (e.g., the natural resources accessibility of self-consuming entrepreneurs in Germany); while RE entrepreneurs, with a wider scope of operation, have been found to possess some capabilities, which are less place-dependent in their nature (e.g., the financial capabilities of the State Grid Corporation of China). These various differences between RE entrepreneurs often encourage them to collaborate, as part of various partnerships, in order to harness their varied capabilities, as shown in the case of Indian third-sector entrepreneurs. The formation of different partnerships between various RE entrepreneurs can also be the result of their efforts to share their risks, often stemming from the use of innovative methods, such as in the case of self-consuming entrepreneurs in Germany.
This study, therefore, contributes to the literature in several manners. First and foremost, it provides a comprehensive and integrated classification method, which illustrates RE entrepreneurs’ varying profiles, based on the identification of their different characteristics. In so doing, the study also lays the foundation for a research framework regarding entrepreneurs influence on RE diffusion. Since the diffusion process of RE depends also on the role of entrepreneurs [19], their varied characteristics should be taken into account when analyzing this process. This analysis should also take account of other factors shaping RE diffusion, which are often discussed by the literature, such as regional scopes, RE technologies, etc. e.g., [3,91,117,119]. Moreover, the study illuminates how the characteristics of RE entrepreneurs may have a significant influence on the social acceptance of RE projects, in addition to other factors discussed by the literature, such as the type of RE technology or population features e.g., [92,101,102,125]. Since social acceptance of RE projects depends heavily on community trust [191], the characteristics of RE entrepreneurs may play a significant role in this matter (e.g., local entrepreneurs’ RE projects may enjoy a higher social acceptance rather than global ones).
This study also contributes to several key players. In this framework, it provides policy-makers with an improved set of tools to make informed decisions regarding the promotion of RE, though the adjustment of their policy to the specific characteristics of the relevant RE entrepreneurs. Further, it provides various RE entrepreneurs with a better understanding of their peer-entrepreneurs and their different behaviors and capabilities in a manner that may serve as a basis for possible collaborations. Finally, the study contributes to the general public, whether as part of its role as the consumer of RE, as the financer of government RE subsidies, or as the landlord or various RE facilities, by improving the comprehension regarding the diversity of RE entrepreneurs and regarding the need to approach each entrepreneur according to his/her own unique characteristics.
Nevertheless, additional attention should be given to several issues. First, as a theoretical study, this study lacks in-depth empirical examination of RE entrepreneurs (e.g., interviews, surveys, large-scale data analyses, etc.). As a result, the classification of the various RE entrepreneurs has to be substantiated and quantified. In this framework, the typological framework suggested in this paper can serve for future empirical testing of the relationship between RE entrepreneurs’ characteristics and success and failure to meet the goals of RE projects as viewed from the perspective of various stakeholders. Such an analysis can contribute to better matching decisions in the setup of RE partnerships. Second, since the proposed classification is based on aggregated evidence from many places and cases across the globe, the study avoids thorough discussion of unique or nontraditional cases. Further, the study lacks a temporal dimension regarding the evolution of RE entrepreneurs over time, as well as regarding the interactions occurring between the RE entrepreneurs themselves, or between RE entrepreneurs and other actors (e.g., regulators, commercial banks, etc.). In this respect, it should be examined whether RE entrepreneurs’ profiles, in a particular location, social, economic, cultural, policy context, and time, tend to converge or rather differ one from another, while increasing their entrepreneurial heterogeneity. Finally, future studies should also examine more thoroughly whether and to what extent the characteristics of various RE entrepreneurs influence the actual features of the RE diffusion process around the globe, as well as the social acceptance of RE projects by different communities and regions.
In conclusion, by identifying and classifying the heterogeneity of RE entrepreneurs, this study has turned the spotlight on these important players, while illuminating their great diversity, and has thus paved the way for a better understating of their varied role as part of the global process of RE diffusion.

Funding

This paper was supported by the Israeli Ministry of Science, Technology and Space Grant 3-14323, and by the David Amiran Scholarship of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ellabban, O.; Abu-Rub, H.; Blaabjerg, F. Renewable energy resources: Current status, future prospects and their enabling technology. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 39, 748–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. IEA. World Energy Outlook 2019; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  3. Zervos, A.; Lins, C. Renewables 2018 Global Status Report 2018. Available online: http://www.ren21.net/gsr (accessed on 22 October 2019).
  4. Martinot, E.; Dienst, C.; Weiliang, L.; Qimin, C. Renewable Energy Futures: Targets, Scenarios, and Pathways. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2007, 32, 205–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Beck, F.; Martinot, E. Renewable Energy Policies and Barriers. In Encyclopedia of Energy; Cleveland, C.J., Ed.; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 2004; Volume 5, pp. 365–383. Available online: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B012176480X004885 (accessed on 11 February 2019).
  6. Bull, S.R. Renewable energy today and tomorrow. Proc. IEEE 2001, 89, 1216–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Verbruggen, A.; Lauber, V. Basic concepts for designing renewable electricity support aiming at a full-scale transition by 2050. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 5732–5743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bevan, G. Renewable energy and climate change. Significance 2012, 9, 8–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mathiesen, B.V.; Lund, H.; Karlsson, K. 100% Renewable energy systems, climate mitigation and economic growth. Appl. Energy 2011, 88, 488–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sims, R.E.H. Renewable energy: A response to climate change. Sol. Energy 2004, 76, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tsoutsos, T.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Gekas, V. Environmental impacts from the solar energy technologies. Energy Policy 2005, 33, 289–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Panwar, N.L.; Kaushik, S.C.; Kothari, S. Role of renewable energy sources in environmental protection: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 1513–1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zervos, A.; Lins, C. Renewables 2016 Global Status Report 2016. Available online: http://proxy.library.carleton.ca/loginurl=https://www.deslibris.ca/ID/10091391 (accessed on 11 February 2019).
  14. Menanteau, P.; Finon, D.; Lamy, M.-L. Prices versus quantities: Choosing policies for promoting the development of renewable energy. Energy Policy 2003, 31, 799–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Dinica, V. Support systems for the diffusion of renewable energy technologies—An investor perspective. Energy Policy 2006, 34, 461–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Camblong, H.; Sarr, J.; Niang, A.T.; Curea, O.; Alzola, J.A.; Sylla, E.H.; Santos, M. Micro-grids project, Part 1: Analysis of rural electrification with high content of renewable energy sources in Senegal. Renew. Energy 2009, 34, 2141–2150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Negro, S.O.; Alkemade, F.; Hekkert, M.P. Why does renewable energy diffuse so slowly? A review of innovation system problems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 3836–3846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Johnstone, N.; Haščič, I.; Popp, D. Renewable Energy Policies and Technological Innovation: Evidence Based on Patent Counts. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2010, 45, 133–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gabriel, C.-A. What is challenging renewable energy entrepreneurs in developing countries? Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 64, 362–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nanda, R.; Younge, K.; Fleming, L. Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Renewable Energy. Chang. Front. Rethink. Sci. Innov. Policy 2014, 18, 199–232. [Google Scholar]
  21. Bell, J.; Stellingwerf, J. Sustainable Entrepreneurship: The Motivations and Challenges of Sustainable Entrepreneurs in the Renewable Energy Industry 2012. Available online: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-18608 (accessed on 13 April 2019).
  22. Pinkse, J.; Groot, K. Sustainable entrepreneurship and corporate political activity: Overcoming market barriers in the clean energy sector. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2015, 39, 633–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Drucker, P. Innovation and Entrepreneurship; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2014; Available online: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781317601364 (accessed on 13 April 2019).
  24. Cunningham, J.B.; Lischeron, J. Defining entrepreneurship. J. Small Bus. Manag. 1991, 29, 45–61. [Google Scholar]
  25. Choi, Y.B. Paradigms and Conventions: Uncertainty, Decision Making, and Entrepreneurship; University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  26. Liesch, P.W.; Welch, L.S.; Buckley, P.J. Risk and Uncertainty in Internationalisation and International Entrepreneurship Studies. In The Multinational Enterprise and the Emergence of the Global Factory; Buckley, P.J., Ed.; Palgrave Macmillan UK: London, UK, 2014; pp. 52–77. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137402387_3 (accessed on 13 April 2019).
  27. Eckhardt, J.T.; Shane, S.A. Opportunities and Entrepreneurship. J. Manag. 2003, 29, 333–349. [Google Scholar]
  28. Audretsch, D.B.; Bozeman, B.; Combs, K.L.; Feldman, M.; Link, A.N.; Siegel, D.S.; Stephan, P.; Tassey, G.; Wessner, C. The Economics of Science and Technology. J. Technol. Transf. 2002, 27, 155–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gabriel, C.-A.; Kirkwood, J. Business models for model businesses: Lessons from renewable energy entrepreneurs in developing countries. Energy Policy 2016, 95, 336–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kearney, C.; Hisrich, R.D.; Roche, F. Public and private sector entrepreneurship: Similarities, differences or a combination? J. Small Bus Enterp. Dev. 2009, 16. Available online: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/14626000910932863/full/html (accessed on 25 August 2019).
  31. Reddy, S.; Painuly, J.P. Diffusion of renewable energy technologies—barriers and stakeholders’ perspectives. Renew. Energy 2004, 29, 1431–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Smith, A. Emerging in between: The multi-level governance of renewable energy in the English regions. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 6266–6280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wang, Q. Effective policies for renewable energy—the example of China’s wind power—lessons for China’s photovoltaic power. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 702–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhao, Z.-Y.; Zuo, J.; Fan, L.-L.; Zillante, G. Impacts of renewable energy regulations on the structure of power generation in China—A critical analysis. Renew. Energy 2011, 36, 24–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sisodia, G.S.; Soares, I.; Ferreira, P. Modeling business risk: The effect of regulatory revision on renewable energy investment—The Iberian case. Renew. Energy 2016, 95, 303–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Schleifer, P. Orchestrating sustainability: The case of European Union biofuel governance. Regul. Gov. 2013, 7, 533–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zachmann, G.; Zaborovskiy, A.; Giucc, R. Restructuring the Belarusian Electricity Sector: Setting the Agenda; German Economic TeamIPM Research Center: Berlin, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  38. Burke, M.J.; Stephens, J.C. Political power and renewable energy futures: A critical review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 35, 78–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Roberts, J.; Bodman, F.; Rybski, R. Community Power: Model Legal. Frameworks for Citizen-Owned Renewable Energy; ClientEarth: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  40. Fabrizio, K.R. The Effect of Regulatory Uncertainty on Investment: Evidence from Renewable Energy Generation. J. Law Econ. Organ. 2013, 29, 765–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Martinot, E.; Chaurey, A.; Lew, D.; Moreira, J.R.; Wamukonya, N. Renewable energy markets in developing countries. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 2002, 27, 309–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Painuly, J.P. Barriers to renewable energy penetration; a framework for analysis. Renew. Energy 2001, 24, 73–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. The Norwegian Board of Technology. The solar revolution and what it can mean for Norway. Teknologirådet. 2017. Available online: https://teknologiradet.no/en/the-solar-revolution-and-what-it-can-mean-for-norway/ (accessed on 8 June 2019).
  44. Wüstenhagen, R.; Menichetti, E. Strategic choices for renewable energy investment: Conceptual framework and opportunities for further research. Energy Policy 2012, 40, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Jaraitė, J.; Kažukauskas, A. The profitability of electricity generating firms and policies promoting renewable energy. Energy Econ. 2013, 40, 858–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Luthander, R.; Widén, J.; Nilsson, D.; Palm, J. Photovoltaic self-consumption in buildings: A review. Appl. Energy 2015, 142, 80–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Husain, Z.; Zainal, Z.A.; Abdullah, M.Z. Analysis of biomass-residue-based cogeneration system in palm oil mills. Biomass Bioenergy 2003, 24, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Reuter, W.H.; Szolgayová, J.; Fuss, S.; Obersteiner, M. Renewable energy investment: Policy and market impacts. Appl. Energy 2012, 97, 249–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Meyer, N.I. Learning from wind energy policy in the EU: Lessons from Denmark, Sweden and Spain. Eur. Environ. 2007, 17, 347–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sovacool, B.K. Energy policymaking in Denmark: Implications for global energy security and sustainability. Energy Policy 2013, 61, 829–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Walsh, M. 2018 6:02 p.m. Cancelled Wind Farm to Cost Ontario Ratepayers $100 Million Plus: Company. iPolitics 2018. Available online: https://ipolitics.ca/2018/07/10/cancelled-wind-farm-to-cost-ontario-ratepayers-100-million-plus-company/ (accessed on 19 May 2019).
  52. Boyle, G. Renewable Energy: Power for a Sustainable Future, 3rd ed.; Boyle, G., Ed.; Oxford University Press and Open University: Oxford, UK, 2012; p. 584. Available online: http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199545339.do (accessed on 13 April 2020).
  53. Kaltschmitt, M.; Streicher, W.; Wiese, A. Renewable Energy: Technology, Economics and Environment; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. McKenna, E.; Thomson, M. Demand response behaviour of domestic consumers with photovoltaic systems in the UK: An exploratory analysis of an internet discussion forum. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2014, 4, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Peng, P.; Shao, L.; Yu, g.; Lou, X.; Shao, Y.; Sun, J. Economic comparison of distributed grid-connected photovoltaic generation with different business models. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Power and Renewable Energy (ICPRE), Shanghai, China, 21–23 October 2016; pp. 585–588. [Google Scholar]
  56. Sánchez Molina, P. Spain’s New Rules for Self-Consumption come into Force. pv Magazine International 2019. Available online: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/04/08/spains-new-rules-for-self-consumption-come-into-force/ (accessed on 19 May 2019).
  57. India’s Ministry of New and Renewable Energy. Wind Energy 2019. Available online: https://mnre.gov.in/wind (accessed on 19 May 2019).
  58. Owen, A.D. Renewable energy: Externality costs as market barriers. Energy Policy 2006, 34, 632–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Longo, A.; Markandya, A.; Petrucci, M. The internalization of externalities in the production of electricity: Willingness to pay for the attributes of a policy for renewable energy. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 67, 140–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Owen, A.D. Environmental Externalities, Market Distortions and the Economics of Renewable Energy Technologies. Energy J. 2004, 25, 127–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Boyle, G. Renewable Energy 2004. p. 456. Available online: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004reen.book (accessed on 17 April 2019).
  62. Zoellner, J.; Schweizer-Ries, P.; Wemheuer, C. Public acceptance of renewable energies: Results from case studies in Germany. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 4136–4141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Del Río, P.; Burguillo, M. An empirical analysis of the impact of renewable energy deployment on local sustainability. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 1314–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Campbell, B.; Cloke, J.; Brown, E. Communities of energy: Communities of energy. Econ. Anthropol. 2016, 3, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Rogers, J.C.; Simmons, E.A.; Convery, I.; Weatherall, A. Social impacts of community renewable energy projects: Findings from a woodfuel case study. Energy Policy 2012, 42, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Klein, S.J.W.; Coffey, S. Building a sustainable energy future, one community at a time. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 60, 867–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Seyfang, G.; Park, J.J.; Smith, A. A thousand flowers blooming? An examination of community energy in the UK. Energy Policy 2013, 61, 977–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Becker, S.; Kunze, C.; Vancea, M. Community energy and social entrepreneurship: Addressing purpose, organisation and embeddedness of renewable energy projects. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 147, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Strachan, P.A.; Cowell, R.; Ellis, G.; Sherry-Brennan, F.; Toke, D. Promoting Community Renewable Energy in a Corporate Energy World. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 23, 96–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Bird, J.; Lawton, K. The Future’s Green: Jobs and the UK Low-Carbon Transition; Institute for Public Policy Research: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  71. Loiter, J.M.; Norberg-Bohm, V. Technology policy and renewable energy: Public roles in the development of new energy technologies. Energy Policy 1999, 27, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Barradale, M.J. Impact of public policy uncertainty on renewable energy investment: Wind power and the production tax credit. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 7698–7709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Haney, A.B.; Pollitt, M.G. New Models of Public Ownership in Energy. Fac. Econ. 2010. Available online: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/242080 (accessed on 11 February 2019). [CrossRef]
  74. Sine, W.D.; Haveman, H.A.; Tolbert, P.S. Risky Business? Entrepreneurship in the New Independent-Power Sector. Adm. Sci. Q. 2005, 50, 200–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Van der Horst, D. Social enterprise and renewable energy: Emerging initiatives and communities of practice. Soc. Enterp. J. 2008, 4, 171–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Smith, A. Civil society in sustainable energy transitions. Gov. Energy Transit. Real Illusion Necessity 2012, 37, 180–202. [Google Scholar]
  77. Anheier, H.K.; Seibel, W. The Third Sector: Comparative Studies of Nonprofit Organizations; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin, Germany, 2013; Volume 21. [Google Scholar]
  78. Wight Community Energy. Wight Community Energy 2019. Available online: http://iowcommunityenergy.org/ (accessed on 18 May 2019).
  79. Eitan, A.; Herman, L.; Fischhendler, I.; Rosen, G. Community–private sector partnerships in renewable energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 105, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Cross, H.; Dahlberg, N.; Mayo, N.; Romulus, E.; Wolfson, R. The Potential for Community Shared Solar in Massachusetts: Expanding Solar Access to Low and Moderate Income Households; Tufts University: Medford, MA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  81. Chaurey, A.; Krithika, P.R.; Palit, D.; Rakesh, S.; Sovacool, B.K. New partnerships and business models for facilitating energy access. Energy Policy 2012, 47, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Means, G. The Modern Corporation and Private Property; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  83. Dorian, J.P.; Franssen, H.T.; Simbeck, D.R. Global challenges in energy. Energy Policy 2006, 34, 1984–1991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Pinkse, J.; Kolk, A.; Kolk, A. International Business and Global Climate Change; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2009; Available online: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9780203887103 (accessed on 18 May 2019).
  85. Wüstenhagen, R.; Wolsink, M.; Bürer, M.J. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2683–2691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Porter, M.E. Location, Competition, and Economic Development: Local Clusters in a Global Economy. Econ. Dev. Q. 2000, 14, 15–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Cox, K.R. Spaces of Globalization: Reasserting the Power of the Local; Guilford Press: New York, Ny, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  88. Muller, A. Global Versus Local CSR Strategies. Eur. Manag. J. 2006, 24, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Walker, G.; Devine-Wright, P. Community renewable energy: What should it mean? Energy Policy 2008, 36, 497–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kalkbrenner, B.J.; Roosen, J. Citizens’ willingness to participate in local renewable energy projects: The role of community and trust in Germany. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 13, 60–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Jacobsson, S.; Lauber, V. The politics and policy of energy system transformation—Explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology. Energy Policy 2006, 34, 256–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Cherp, A.; Vinichenko, V.; Jewell, J.; Brutschin, E.; Sovacool, B. Integrating techno-economic, socio-technical and political perspectives on national energy transitions: A meta-theoretical framework. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 37, 175–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Ucbasaran, D.; Shepherd, D.A.; Lockett, A.; Lyon, S.J. Life After Business Failure: The Process and Consequences of Business Failure for Entrepreneurs. J. Manag. 2013, 39, 163–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Jankauskas, V.; Rudzkis, P.; Kanopka, A. Risk factors for stakeholders in renewable energy investments. Energetika 2014, 60. Available online: https://www.lmaleidykla.lt/ojs/index.php/energetika/article/view/2935 (accessed on 7 May 2019). [CrossRef]
  95. Abbasi, S.A.; Abbasi, N. The likely adverse environmental impacts of renewable energy sources. Appl. Energy 2000, 65, 121–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Fagiani, R.; Barquín, J.; Hakvoort, R. Risk-based assessment of the cost-efficiency and the effectivity of renewable energy support schemes: Certificate markets versus feed-in tariffs. Energy Policy 2013, 55, 648–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Elston, J.A.; Audretsch, D.B. Financing the entrepreneurial decision: An empirical approach using experimental data on risk attitudes. Small Bus. Econ. 2011, 36, 209–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Kleidon, A. Turbines Weaken Wind Energy 2015. Available online: https://www.mpg.de/9389067/wind-energy-wind-electricity (accessed on 24 May 2019).
  99. Menegaki, A. Valuation for renewable energy: A comparative review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2008, 12, 2422–2437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. El-Karmi, F.Z.; Abu-Shikhah, N.M. The role of financial incentives in promoting renewable energy in Jordan. Renew. Energy 2013, 57, 620–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Deign, J. Failure of ‘World’s Biggest Solar Project’ in Saudi Arabia Is No Surprise 2018. Available online: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/saudi-outlook-remains-uncertain-after-softbank-pulls-out (accessed on 9 May 2019).
  102. Gearino, D. AEP Cancels Nation’s Largest Wind Farm: 3 Challenges Wind Catcher Faced. Inside Clim. News 2018. Available online: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/30072018/aep-cancels-wind-catcher-largest-wind-farm-oklahoma-oil-gas-opposition-clean-power-plan (accessed on 25 May 2019).
  103. Omer, A.M. Energy, environment and sustainable development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2008, 12, 2265–2300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Alanne, K.; Saari, A. Distributed energy generation and sustainable development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2006, 10, 539–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Evans, A.; Strezov, V.; Evans, T.J. Assessment of utility energy storage options for increased renewable energy penetration. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 4141–4147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Pasqualetti, M.J. Social Barriers to Renewable Energy Landscapes*. Geogr. Rev. 2011, 101, 201–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Moran, E.F.; Lopez, M.C.; Moore, N.; Müller, N.; Hyndman, D.W. Sustainable hydropower in the 21st century. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 11891–11898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Stigka, E.K.; Paravantis, J.A.; Mihalakakou, G.K. Social acceptance of renewable energy sources: A review of contingent valuation applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 32, 100–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Bronfman, N.C.; Jiménez, R.B.; Arévalo, P.C.; Cifuentes, L.A. Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources. Energy Policy 2012, 46, 246–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Rome, D.L. Resolving business disputes: Fact-finding and impasse. Disput. Resolut. J. 2000, 55, 8–15. [Google Scholar]
  111. Van der Horst, D. NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2705–2714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Devine-Wright, P. Renewable Energy and the Public: From NIMBY to Participation; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2014; p. 370. [Google Scholar]
  113. Stamford, M.; Stamford, M.C.R. Community Ownership: The Best Way forward for UK Wind Power? University of East Anglia: Norwich, UK, 2004; Volume 108. [Google Scholar]
  114. Merriam-Webster. Definition of Innovation 2019. Available online: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation (accessed on 17 April 2019).
  115. Karakaya, E.; Hidalgo, A.; Nuur, C. Diffusion of eco-innovations: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 33, 392–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Popp, D. Induced Innovation and Energy Prices. Am. Econ. Rev. 2002, 92, 160–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Popp, D.; Hascic, I.; Medhi, N. Technology and the diffusion of renewable energy. Energy Econ. 2011, 33, 648–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Nesta, L.; Vona, F.; Nicolli, F. Environmental policies, competition and innovation in renewable energy. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2014, 67, 396–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Tyagi, V.V.; Rahim, N.A.A.; Rahim, N.A.; Selvaraj, J.A.L. Progress in solar PV technology: Research and achievement. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 20, 443–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Pillai, U. Drivers of cost reduction in solar photovoltaics. Energy Econ. 2015, 50, 286–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Casey, T. Price Shock For Solar Panels Not So Shocking After All—Here’s Why. Clean Techn. 2019. Available online: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/01/28/price-shock-for-solar-panels-not-so-shocking-after-all-heres-why/ (accessed on 1 May 2019).
  122. Planelles, M. Self-generated energy soars in Spain as solar panels plunge in price. El País 2019. Available online: https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/02/05/inenglish/1549357123_580894.html (accessed on 1 May 2019).
  123. Parnell, J. France approves 720MW of solar as price falls another 5%. PV Tech 2018. Available online: https://www.pv-tech.org/news/france-approves-720mw-of-solar-as-price-falls-another-5 (accessed on 1 May 2019).
  124. Ingrams, S. Solar Panel Costs are Falling: Should you Invest? Which? News 2018. Available online: https://www.which.co.uk/news/2018/07/solar-panel-costs-are-falling-should-you-invest/ (accessed on 1 May 2019).
  125. Aleem, S.A.; Hussain, S.M.S.; Ustun, T.S. A Review of Strategies to Increase PV Penetration Level in Smart Grids. Energies 2020, 13, 636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  126. Barthelmie, R.J.; Jensen, L.E. Evaluation of wind farm efficiency and wind turbine wakes at the Nysted offshore wind farm. Wind Energy 2010, 13, 573–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Schubel, P.J.; Crossley, R.J. Wind Turbine Blade Design. Energies 2012, 5, 3425–3449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Johansen, J.; Madsen, H.A.; Gaunaa, M.; Bak, C.; Sørensen, N.N. Design of a wind turbine rotor for maximum aerodynamic efficiency. Wind Energy 2009, 12, 261–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Williams, E.; Hittinger, E.; Carvalho, R.; Williams, R. Wind power costs expected to decrease due to technological progress. Energy Policy 2017, 106, 427–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Tsoutsos, T.D.; Stamboulis, Y.A. The sustainable diffusion of renewable energy technologies as an example of an innovation-focused policy. Technovation 2005, 25, 753–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Yusoff, S. Renewable energy from palm oil—innovation on effective utilization of waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14, 87–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Jagoda, K.; Lonseth, R.; Lonseth, A.; Jackman, T. Development and commercialization of renewable energy technologies in Canada: An innovation system perspective. Renew. Energy 2011, 36, 1266–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Iglesias, G.; López, M.; Carballo, R.; Castro, A.; Fraguela, J.A.; Frigaard, P. Wave energy potential in Galicia (NW Spain). Renew. Energy 2009, 34, 2323–2333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Emmanouil, G.; Galanis, G.; Kalogeri, C.; Zodiatis, G.; Kallos, G. 10-year high resolution study of wind, sea waves and wave energy assessment in the Greek offshore areas. Renew. Energy 2016, 90, 399–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Zhang, D.; Li, W.; Lin, Y. Wave energy in China: Current status and perspectives. Renew. Energy 2009, 34, 2089–2092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Vicinanza, D.; Contestabile, P.; Ferrante, V. Wave energy potential in the north-west of Sardinia (Italy). Renew. Energy 2013, 50, 506–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Suárez-López, M.J.; Espina-Valdés, R.; Fernández Pacheco, V.M.; Navarro Manso, A.; Blanco-Marigorta, E.; Álvarez-Álvarez, E. A Review of Software Tools to Study the Energetic Potential of Tidal Currents. Energies 2019, 12, 1673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  138. Akella, A.K.; Sharma, M.P.; Saini, R.P. Optimum utilization of renewable energy sources in a remote area. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2007, 11, 894–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Kuang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhou, B.; Li, C.; Cao, Y.; Li, L.; Zeng, L. A review of renewable energy utilization in islands. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 59, 504–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Karki, R.; Billinton, R. Reliability/cost implications of PV and wind energy utilization in small isolated power systems. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2001, 16, 368–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Camilo, F.M.; Castro, R.; Almeida, M.E.; Pires, V.F. Economic assessment of residential PV systems with self-consumption and storage in Portugal. Sol. Energy 2017, 150, 353–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Byrne, J.; Zhou, A.; Shen, B.; Hughes, K. Evaluating the potential of small-scale renewable energy options to meet rural livelihoods needs: A GIS- and lifecycle cost-based assessment of Western China’s options. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 4391–4401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Brinkman, J.T.; Hirsh, R.F. Welcoming Wind Turbines and the PIMBY (“Please in My Backyard”) Phenomenon: The Culture of the Machine in the Rural American Midwest. Technol. Cult. 2017, 58, 335–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Schmid, G. The development of renewable energy power in India: Which policies have been effective? Energy Policy 2012, 45, 317–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Sharma, N.K.; Tiwari, P.K.; Sood, Y.R. Solar energy in India: Strategies, policies, perspectives and future potential. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 933–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Yateendra, J. Re-Visiting the Decentralized Distributed Generation Guidelines under the Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana. Idam Infrastructure Advisory Private Limited. 2013. Available online: https://biomasspower.gov.in/document/Reports/Idam%20-%20Re-visiting%20the%20Decentralized%20Distributed%20Generation%20Guidelines%20under%20the%20Rajiv%20Gandhi%20Grameen%20Vidyutikaran%20Yojana.pdf (accessed on 28 December 2019).
  147. Dincer, I. Renewable energy and sustainable development: A crucial review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2000, 4, 157–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Foster, R.; Ghassemi, M.; Cota, A. Solar Energy: Renewable Energy and the Environment; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  149. Nelson, V.; Starcher, K. Wind Energy: Renewable Energy and the Environment; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  150. McKendry, P. Energy production from biomass (Part 1): Overview of biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 83, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Chynoweth, D.P.; Owens, J.M.; Legrand, R. Renewable methane from anaerobic digestion of biomass. Renew. Energy 2001, 22, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Klass, D.L. Biomass for Renewable Energy and Fuels. Encycl. Energy 2004, 1, 193–212. [Google Scholar]
  153. Uddin, M.N.; Techato, K.; Taweekun, J.; Rahman, M.M.; Rasul, M.G.; Mahlia, T.M.I.; Ashrafur, S.M. An Overview of Recent Developments in Biomass Pyrolysis Technologies. Energies 2018, 11, 3115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  154. Sonar, D.; Soni, S.L.; Sharma, D. Micro-trigeneration for energy sustainability: Technologies, tools and trends. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2014, 71, 790–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Karger, C.R.; Hennings, W. Sustainability evaluation of decentralized electricity generation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 583–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Coaffee, J. Risk, resilience, and environmentally sustainable cities. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 4633–4638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Deering, A.; Thornton, J.P. Solar solutions for natural disasters. Risk Manag. 2000, 47, 28. [Google Scholar]
  158. Van Vliet, M.T.H.; Yearsley, J.R.; Ludwig, F.; Vögele, S.; Lettenmaier, D.P.; Kabat, P. Vulnerability of US and European electricity supply to climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2012, 2, 676–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Ramachandra, T.V.; Rajeev Kumar, J.S.; Vamsee, K.; Shruthi, B.V. Spatial Decision Support System for Assessing Micro, Mini and Small Hydel Potential. J. Appl. Sci. 2004, 4, 596–604. [Google Scholar]
  160. Greacen, C.E. The Marginalization of “Small is Beautiful”: Micro-Hydroelectricity, Common Property, and the Politics of Rural Electricity Provision in Thailand. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2004. Available online: https://search.proquest.com/docview/305213973/abstract/F0B6FF95EAAD4B8APQ/1 (accessed on 4 May 2019).
  161. Adhau, S.P. A comparative study of micro hydro power schemes promoting self sustained rural areas. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Sustainable Power Generation and Supply, Nanjing, China, 6–7 April 2009; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  162. Jianu, O.; Rosen, M.A.; Naterer, G. Noise pollution prevention in wind turbines: Status and recent advances. Sustainability 2012, 4, 1104–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  163. Devine-Wright, P. Rethinking NIMBYism: The role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 19, 426–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Rofiqul Islam, M.; Rabiul Islam, M.; Rafiqul Alam Beg, M. Renewable energy resources and technologies practice in Bangladesh. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2008, 12, 299–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Bhutto, A.W.; Bazmi, A.A.; Zahedi, G. Greener energy: Issues and challenges for Pakistan-hydel power prospective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 2732–2746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Xin, Z. State Grid Set to Ramp up Clean Energy Efforts 2019. Available online: //www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201901/09/WS5c353bb7a31068606745f967.html (accessed on 10 August 2019).
  167. State Grid Corporation of China. State Grid Corporation of China—Website 2018. Available online: http://www.sgcc.com.cn/html/sgcc_main_en/index.shtml (accessed on 1 June 2019).
  168. Reuters. China’s State Grid to Invest $5.7 Billion into Pumped Hydro Storage Plants—Reuters 2019. Available online: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-renewables-state-grid/chinas-state-grid-to-invest-5-7-billion-into-pumped-hydro-storage-plants-idUSKCN1P30PD (accessed on 1 June 2019).
  169. Kenning, T. State Grid China Teams up with German Tech Association on Smart Energy. PV Tech 2018. Available online: https://www.pv-tech.org/news/state-grid-china-teams-up-with-german-tech-association-on-smart-energy (accessed on 10 August 2019).
  170. Alexander, L. Sustainable Energy and the State Grid Corporation of China. Cornell SC Johnson 2019. Available online: https://business.cornell.edu/hub/2019/06/20/sustainable-energy-state-grid-corporation-of-china/ (accessed on 10 April 2020).
  171. Ørsted. Shareholders Board Members Managers and Company Profile—Ørsted 2017. Available online: https://www.marketscreener.com/ORSTED-AS-28607554/company/ (accessed on 14 August 2019).
  172. Ørsted. Financial Reports and Presentations—Ørsted 2018. Available online: https://orsted.com/en/Investors/IR-material/Financial-reports-and-presentations (accessed on 14 August 2019).
  173. Ørsted. Ørsted Website 2019. Available online: https://orsted.com/en (accessed on 14 June 2019).
  174. Reuters. ORSTED.CO—Oersted A/S Profile 2020. Available online: https://www.reuters.comundefined (accessed on 13 March 2020).
  175. Lee, A. Orsted Storms into Solar and Storage with US Acquisition. Latest Renewable Energy News 2010. Available online: https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/orsted-storms-into-solar-and-storage-with-us-acquisition/2-1-595877 (accessed on 10 April 2020).
  176. Frangoul, A. The world’s Biggest Offshore Wind Developer Wants a Carbon-Neutral Supply Chain. CNBC 2020. Available online: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/04/wind-energy-developer-orsted-wants-carbon-neutral-supply-chain.html (accessed on 10 April 2020).
  177. Türkeş, H. Orsted to Invest $30.2B in Green Energy by 2025. AA Energy 2018. Available online: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/energy/invesments/orsted-to-invest-302b-in-green-energy-by-2025-/22499 (accessed on 10 April 2020).
  178. Oteman, M.; Wiering, M.; Helderman, J.-K. The institutional space of community initiatives for renewable energy: A comparative case study of the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2014, 4, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  179. Fina, B.; Fleischhacker, A.; Auer, H.; Lettner, G. Economic Assessment and Business Models of Rooftop Photovoltaic Systems in Multiapartment Buildings: Case Studies for Austria and Germany. J. Renew. Energy 2018, 2018, 9759680. Available online: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jre/2018/9759680/ (accessed on 15 February 2019). [CrossRef]
  180. Li, L.W.; Birmele, J.; Schaich, H.; Konold, W. Transitioning to Community-owned Renewable Energy: Lessons from Germany. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2013, 17, 719–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  181. Rommel, J.; Radtke, J.; von Jorck, G.; Mey, F.; Yildiz, Ö. Community renewable energy at a crossroads: A think piece on degrowth, technology, and the democratization of the German energy system. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 197, 1746–1753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Musall, F.D.; Kuik, O. Local acceptance of renewable energy—A case study from southeast Germany. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 3252–3260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. IEA. Women in India’s Rooftop Solar Sector 2019. Available online: https://www.iea.org/publications/reports/womeninindiasrooftopsolarsector/ (accessed on 15 June 2019).
  184. Iyengar, R.; Defterios, J. Women are Bringing Solar Energy to Thousands of Indian Villages. CNN 2019. Available online: https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/01/business/india-solar-frontier-markets/index.html. (accessed on 15 November 2019).
  185. Banerji, A. Girl power! India’s “solar gal pals” light up rural homes. Reuters. 21 November 2018. Available online: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-renewables-women-idUSKCN1NQ24E (accessed on 16 August 2019).
  186. Nelson, S.; Kuriakose, A.T. Gender and renewable energy: Entry points for women’s livelihoods and employment. Clim. Investig. Funds 2017, 52, 125–138. [Google Scholar]
  187. Energia. Women’s Empowerment and Electricity Access: How do Grid and Off-Grid Systems Enhance or Restrict Gender Equality? 2019. Available online: https://www.energia.org/cm2/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/RA1-Womens-empowerment-and-electricity-access.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2019).
  188. Barefoot College. Barefoot College—Website. Barefoot College 2019. Available online: https://www.barefootcollege.org/ (accessed on 23 August 2019).
  189. Mishra, A. NGOs bring clean power to dark homes. The Third Pole 2018. Available online: https://www.thethirdpole.net/en/2018/01/31/ngos-bring-clean-power-to-dark-homes/ (accessed on 23 August 2019).
  190. Pfeiffer, B.; Mulder, P. Explaining the diffusion of renewable energy technology in developing countries. Energy Econ. 2013, 40, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  191. Walker, G.; Devine-Wright, P.; Hunter, S.; High, H.; Evans, B. Trust and community: Exploring the meanings, contexts and dynamics of community renewable energy. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 2655–2663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Energies 13 02554 g001 550
Figure 1. Profile structure of RE entrepreneurs.
Figure 1. Profile structure of RE entrepreneurs.
Energies 13 02554 g001
Energies 13 02554 g002 550
Figure 2. Schematic profile of a hypothetical RE entrepreneur.
Figure 2. Schematic profile of a hypothetical RE entrepreneur.
Energies 13 02554 g002
Energies 13 02554 g003 550
Figure 3. Schematic profile of the State Grid Corporation of China.
Figure 3. Schematic profile of the State Grid Corporation of China.
Energies 13 02554 g003
Energies 13 02554 g004 550
Figure 4. Schematic profile of Ørsted.
Figure 4. Schematic profile of Ørsted.
Energies 13 02554 g004
Energies 13 02554 g005 550
Figure 5. Schematic profile of German self-consuming entrepreneurs.
Figure 5. Schematic profile of German self-consuming entrepreneurs.
Energies 13 02554 g005
Energies 13 02554 g006 550
Figure 6. Schematic profile of Indian third-sector entrepreneurs.
Figure 6. Schematic profile of Indian third-sector entrepreneurs.
Energies 13 02554 g006

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Eitan, A.; Rosen, G.; Herman, L.; Fishhendler, I. Renewable Energy Entrepreneurs: A Conceptual Framework. Energies 2020, 13, 2554. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13102554

AMA Style

Eitan A, Rosen G, Herman L, Fishhendler I. Renewable Energy Entrepreneurs: A Conceptual Framework. Energies. 2020; 13(10):2554. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13102554

Chicago/Turabian Style

Eitan, Avri, Gillad Rosen, Lior Herman, and Itay Fishhendler. 2020. "Renewable Energy Entrepreneurs: A Conceptual Framework" Energies 13, no. 10: 2554. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13102554

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop