Towards the Comprehensive Design of Energy Infrastructures
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Energy Infrastructure Design Perspectives
2.1. Energy Infrastructures as Socio-Technical Systems
2.2. Different Design Perspectives
2.2.1. System Design
“The process of devising a system, component, or process to meet desired needs. It is a decision making process (often iterative) in which the basic sciences, mathematics, and engineering sciences are applied to convert resources optimally to meet a stated objective. Among the fundamental elements of the design process are the establishment of objectives and criteria, synthesis, analysis, construction, testing, and evaluation. (…) It is essential to include a variety of realistic constraints such as economic factors, safety, reliability, aesthetics, ethics, and social impact”.[32]
2.2.2. Market Design
2.2.3. The Need for an Integrated Design Approach
3. Towards a Comprehensive Design Framework for Energy Infrastructures
3.1. Our Engineering Perspective on Energy Infrastructure Design
Design Principles and Control Mechanisms in the Design of Energy Infrastructure Systems
3.2. Our Economic Perspective on Energy Infrastructure Design
Governance and Organization in the Design of Energy Infrastructure Markets
3.3. A Framework for Comprehensive Energy Infrastructure Design
- The coordination of activities in both dimensions is essential for an infrastructure to perform according to expectations.
- The techno-operational performance is expressed in the reliable and robust functioning of energy infrastructures, irrespective of the good or service being provided.
- The socio-economic performance rests on the efficient and effective provision of a specific good or service, keeping in mind availability, affordability, and acceptability parameters and public service obligations.
- Trade-offs exist between the performance criteria of each dimension and between the dimensions. The minimum conditions of both dimensions must be guaranteed, otherwise there is either malfunctioning (no service provision) or disfunctioning (an undesired service).
- The notions applied in system and market design link to a great extent; technical coordination and market transactions are delineated along the same central–decentral/vertical integration axis; both operational and market activities require a similar allocation of responsibilities, i.e., division of control/intervention tasks and ownership and decision rights; and the general framing of operations and markets seems to be a matter of preference for central planning vs. evolutionary emergence. It is these linkages that allow aligning the systemic and market dimensions of energy infrastructures.
Comprehensive Institutional Design
3.4. Framework Utilization
- The application starts with a description of a country’s or region’s energy sector. This implies detailing the systemic and institutional environment, the performance criteria that need to be fulfilled, a description of current technologies and accompanying operational practices (design principles and coordination mechanisms), a description of relevant actors (business models, interests), and the relevant market governance and organization practices.
- Next is a description of the intended or emerging techno-operational or economic-institutional change (new value, good/service, idea, or technology) under investigation. On what layer of which dimension does the change occur? What elements are added or replaced? For example, energy cooperatives are new forms of organization among private actors [114] while smart meters are new control mechanisms for operating the system that are added to existing assets [115]. Together, Steps 1 and 2 set the scene for Steps 3 and 4.
- We then turn to the interpretation of operational and market implications of the change under investigation (assess related changes in actors and business models, operational roles and responsibilities, market organization and governance). What other layers are affected and how? For example, cooperatives are likely to affect the operational responsibilities and coordination between them and network companies and require specific regulation to clarify their roles in energy markets. Likewise, smart meters raise issues over the control of private data and enable business models that use metering data among other things. The result of this step should be a comprehensive overview of implications positioned on the various layers of the framework’s dimensions.
- Finally, we turn towards investigating design options and their performance trade-offs (across both dimensions). Focus is on the possibilities to address the implications highlighted in Step 3; special emphasis goes to how design principles, control mechanisms, governance, and organization should be changed in accordance with each other in order to ensure a reliable operation of energy systems that meets socio-economic performance criteria. Where are tensions between design options? How could they be overcome? Do new operational and institutional arrangements require a rethinking of the systemic and institutional environment itself? Cooperatives may need to be explicitly incorporated in network codes, for example, bringing tensions between the free spirit that drives these initiatives and the responsibilities they have towards non-members that are affected by them. The outcome should be an overview of the techno-operational and economic-institutional design options, their performance trade-offs, and the degree to which both dimensions align.
4. Discussion and Reflection
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgements
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- European Commission. Green Paper—Towards a European Strategy for the Security of Energy Supply; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Geels, F. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Res. Policy 2004, 33, 897–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaijser, A. How to describe large technical systems and their changes over time? In Urban Transport Development. A Complex Issue; Jönsson, G., Tengström, E., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; pp. 12–19. [Google Scholar]
- Kroes, P.; Franssen, M.; Van de Poel, I.; Ottens, M. Treating socio-technical systems as engineering systems: Some conceptual problems. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 2006, 23, 803–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weijnen, M.P.C.; Bouwmans, I. Innovation in networked infrastructures: Coping with complexity. Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct. 2006, 2, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scholten, D.J. The reliability of energy infrastructures; the organizational requirements of technical operations. Compet. Regul. Netw. Ind. 2013, 14, 173–205. [Google Scholar]
- Hughes, T.P. Networks of Power, Electrification in Western Society 1880–1930; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Dutton, K.; Thompson, S.; Barraclough, B. The Art of Control Engineering; Addison Wesley Longman: Harlow, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Perrow, C. Normal Accidents, Living with High-Risk Technologies; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Hurst, K. Engineering Design Principles; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Verschuren, P.; Hartog, R. Evaluation in design-oriented research. Qual. Quant. 2005, 39, 733–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waldo, J. On System Design; Sun Labs: Portland, OR, USA, 2006; Available online: http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/waldo/files/ps-2006-6.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2014).
- Glachant, J.-M.; Finon, D. Why do the European Union’s electricity industries continue to differ? A new institutional analysis. In Institution, Contracts and Organizations: Perspectives from New Institutional Economics; Ménard, C., Ed.; Edward Elgar: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Newbery, D. Refining market design. In Proceedings of the Conference “Implementing the Internal Market of Electricity: Proposals and Time-Tables”, Brussels, Belgium, 9 September 2005.
- Jamasb, T.; Pollitt, M. Electricity market reform in the European Union: Review of progress toward liberalization integration. Energy J. 2005, 26, 11–41. [Google Scholar]
- Correljé, A.; de Vries, L. Hybrid electricity markets: The problem of explaining different patterns of restructuring. In Competitive Electricity Markets: Design, Implementation and Performance; Sioshansie, F.P., Ed.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Pérez-Arriaga, I.J. Regulation of the Power Sector; Springer: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Künneke, R.; Finger, M. Technology matters: The cases of the liberalization of electricity and railways. Compet. Regul. Netw. Ind. 2007, 8, 303–335. [Google Scholar]
- Rinaldi, S.M.; Peerenboom, J.P.; Kelly, T.K. Identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies. IEEE Control Syst. Mag. 2001, 21, 11–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amin, M. National infrastructures as complex interactive networks. In Automation, Control, and Complexity: An Integrated Approach; Samad, T., Weyrauch, J., Eds.; John Wiley and Sons: Chichester, UK, 2000; pp. 263–286. [Google Scholar]
- Midttun, A. De-regulation and reconfiguration of infrastructure industry: Theoretical reflections on empirical patterns from Nordic markets. J Netw. Ind. 2001, 2, 25–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newbery, D.M. Privatisation and liberalisation of network utilities. Eur. Econ. Rev. 1997, 41, 357–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ewertsson, L.; Ingelstam, L. Large technical systems: A multidisciplinary research tradition. In Systems Approaches and their Application: Examples from Sweden; Olsson, M.-O., Sjöstedt, G., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 291–309. [Google Scholar]
- Barabasi, A.L. Linked: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and What It Means for Business, Science, and Everyday Life; Penguin Group: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Newman, M.E.J. The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Rev. 2003, 45, 167–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nelson, R. The co-evolution of technology, industrial structure, and supporting institutions. Ind. Corp. Change 1994, 3, 47–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murmann, J.P. Knowledge and Competitive Advantage: The Coevolution of Firms, Technology, and National Institutions; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Künneke, R.; Groenewegen, J.; Ménard, C. Aligning modes of organization with technology: Critical transactions in the reform of infrastructures. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2010, 75, 494–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nightingale, P.; Brady, T.; Davies, A.; Hall, J. Capacity utilization revisited: Software, control and the growth of large technical systems. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2003, 12, 477–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- North, D.C. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Finger, M.; Künneke, R. The coevolution between institutions and technology in liberalized infrastructures: The case of network unbundling in electricity and railways. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference of the International Society for New Institutional Economics (ISNIE), Reykjavik, Iceland, 21–23 June 2007.
- Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). Available online: www.me.unlv.edu/Undergraduate/coursenotes/meg497/ABETdefinition.htm (accessed on 15 May 2014). More information can be found on www.abet.org.
- Eder, W.E. Designing as an educational discipline. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 1999, 15, 32–40. [Google Scholar]
- Vincenti, W.G. What Engineers Know and How They Know It; The John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Dasgupta, S. Design Theory and Computer Science; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Bertalanffy, L. General System Theory; George Braziller: New York, NY, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Grabowski, M.; Roberts, K. Human and organizational error in large scale systems. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 1996, 26, 2–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coutard, O. The Governance of Large Technical Systems; Routledge: London, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Wikipedia. System Design. Available online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_design (accessed on 15 May 2014).
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Engineering Design Process. 2008. Available online: http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/plantgrowth/reference/Eng_Design_5-12.html (accessed on 15 May 2014). [Google Scholar]
- La Porte, T.R.; Consolini, P. Working in practice but not in theory: Theoretical challenges of “high-reliability organizations”. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 1991, 1, 19–47. [Google Scholar]
- La Porte, T.R. High reliability organizations: Unlikely, demanding and at risk. J. Conting Crisis Manag. 1996, 4, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rochlin, G.I. Reliable organizations: Present research and future directions. J. Conting Crisis Manag. 1996, 4, 55–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rochlin, G.; La Porte, T.R.; Roberts, K. The self-designing high-reliability organization: Aircraft carrier flight operations at sea. Nav. War Coll. Rev. 1987, 40, 76–91. [Google Scholar]
- Roberts, K.H. New Challenges to Understanding Organizations; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Joerges, B. Large technical systems: Concepts and issues. In The Development of Large Technical Systems; Mayntz, R., Hughes, T.P., Eds.; Campus Verlag: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 1988; pp. 9–37. [Google Scholar]
- Perrow, C. Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Perrow, C. Organizing to reduce the vulnerabilities of complexity. J. Conting Crisis Manag. 1999, 7, 150–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hopkins, A. The limits of normal accident theory. Saf. Sci. 1999, 32, 93–102. [Google Scholar]
- De Bruijne, M.L.C. Networked Reliability; Institutional Fragmentation and the Reliability of Service Provision in Critical Infrastructures. Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 19 June 2006. [Google Scholar]
- National Bureau of Economic Research Market Design. Available online: http://www.nber.org/workinggroups/md/md.html (accessed on 1 May 2014).
- Joskow, P. Introduction to electricity sector liberalization: Lessons learned from cross-country studies. In Electricity Market Reform: An International Perspective; Sioshansi, F.P., Pfaffenberger, W., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Haas, R.; Glachant, J.-M.; Keseric, N.; Perez, Y. Competition in the continental European electricity market: Despair or work in progress? In Electricity Market Reform: An International Perspective; Sioshansi, F.P., Pfaffenberger, W., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Kwoka, J. Restructuring the US Power Sector: A Review of Recent Studies; Report Prepared for the American Public Power Association; Northeastern University: Boston, MA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Littlechild, S.C. Regulation of British Telecommunication’s Profitability; Department of Industry: London, UK, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Newbery, D.M. Privatization, Restructuring, and Regulation of Network Utilities; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- MIT. What Is Industrial Organization? Available online: https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262032865_sch_0001.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2014).
- Wikipedia 2015. Industrial Organization. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_organization (accessed on 15 May 2014).
- Porter, M.E. Competitive Advantage; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Armstrong, M.; Porter, R. Handbook of Industrial Organization; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Joskow, P. Regulation of natural monopoly. In Handbook of Law and Economics; Polinsky, A.M., Shavell, S., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Investopedia. Industrial Organization. Available online: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/industrial-organization.asp (accessed on 1 May 2014).
- Williamson, O. Transaction cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. J. Law Econ. 1979, 22, 233–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williamson, O.E. The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead. J. Econ. Lit. 2000, 38, 595–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hodgson, G.M. What are institutions? J. Econ. Issues 2006, 40, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greif, A.; Laitin, D. A Theory of endogenous institutional change. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 2004, 98, 633–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodin, R.E. The Theory of Institutional Design; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Alexander, I.; Harris, C. The Regulation of Investment in Utilities: Concepts and Applications; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Stoft, S. Power System Economics; Wiley-Intersience and IEEE Press: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Haas, R.; Eichhammer, W.; Huber, C.; Langniss, O.; Lorenzoni, A.; Madlener, R.; Menanteau, P.; Morthorst, P.-E.; Martins, A.; Oniszk, A.; et al. How to promote renewable energy systems successfully and effectively. Energy Policy 2004, 32, 833–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shuttleworth, G. Opening European Electricity and Gas Markets; NERA: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Abernathy, W.; Utterback, J. Patterns of industrial innovation. Technol. Rev. 1978, 80, 41–47. [Google Scholar]
- Saviotti, P. Systems theory and technological change. Futures 1986, 18, 773–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saviotti, P. On the co-evolution of technologies and institutions. In Towards Environmental Innovations Systems; Weber, M., Hemmelskamp, J., Eds.; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; pp. 9–32. [Google Scholar]
- Saviotti, P.; Metcalfe, J.S. Evolutionary Theories of Economic and Technical Change; Harwood Publishers: Reading, UK, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Perez, C. Technological change and opportunities for development as a moving target. CEPAL Rev. 2001, 75, 109–130. [Google Scholar]
- Dosi, G. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Res. Policy 1982, 11, 147–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Unruh, G.C. Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 2000, 28, 817–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Von Tunzelmann, N. Historical coevolution of governance and technology in the industrial revolutions. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn. 2003, 14, 365–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Von Tunzelmann, N.; Malerba, F.; Nightingale, P.; Metcalfe, S. Technological paradigms: Past, present and future. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2008, 17, 467–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackson, S.J.; Edwards, P.N.; Bowker, G.C.; Knobel, C.P. Understanding infrastructure: History, heuristics, and cyberinfrastructure policy. First Monday 2007, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Künneke, R.; Fens, T. Network governance in electricity distribution: Public utility or commodity. In Proceedings of the 7th IAEE European Energy Conference, Bergen, Norway, 28–30 August 2005.
- Künneke, R.; Fens, T. Ownership unbundling in electricity distribution: The case of The Netherlands. Energy Policy 2006, 35, 1920–1930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finger, M.; Groenewegen, J.; Künneke, R. The quest for coherence between institutions and technologies in infrastructures. J. Netw. Ind. 2005, 6, 227–259. [Google Scholar]
- Künneke, R. Institutional reform and technological practice: The case of electricity. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2008, 17, 233–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Künneke, R.W. Critical Infrastructures: Aligning Institutions and Technologies; Inaugural Speech; TU Delft: Delft, The Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Perennes, P. Need for coherence between institutions and technologies: The example of uncertain train paths in France. Compet. Regul. Netw. Ind. 2013, 14, 130–150. [Google Scholar]
- Crettenand, N.; Finger, M. The alignment between institutions and technologies in network industries. Compet. Regul. Netw. Ind. 2013, 14, 106–129. [Google Scholar]
- Domanski-Peeroo, A. Decentralization and the Water Sector: Institutional Perspectives. Ph.D. Thesis, Paris Sorbonne, France, Paris, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Malik, O.P. Control considerations in a deregulated electric utility environment. IEEE Can. Rev. 2000, 36, 9–11. [Google Scholar]
- Bouffard, F.; Kirschen, D.S. Centralised and distributed electricity systems. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 4504–4508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Egenhofer, C.; Legge, T. Security of Supply: A Question for Policy or the Markets? CEPS: Brussels, Belgium, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- International Energy Agency (IEA). Security of Supply in Electricity Markets: Evidence and Policy Issues; OECD/IEA: Paris, France, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB). Better Safe than Sorry? Reliability Policy in Network Industries; CPB: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Joskow, P. Supply security in competitive electricity and natural gas markets. In Utility Regulation in Competitive Markets: Problems and Progress; Robinson, C., Ed.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Joskow, P.L.; Tirole, J. Reliability and competitive electricity markets. Rand J. Econ. 2007, 38, 60–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Von Hirschhausen, C. Infrastructure, regulation, investment and security of supply: A case study of the restructured US natural gas market. Util. Policy 2008, 16, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCarthy, R.W.; Ogden, J.M.; Sperling, D. Assessing reliability in energy supply systems. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2151–2162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shrivastava, S.; Sonpar, K.; Pazzaglia, F. Normal accident theory versus high reliability theory: A resolution and call for an open systems view of accidents. Hum. Relat. 2009, 62, 1357–1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Vries, L.J.; Correljé, A.C. Hybrid electricity markets. In Proceedings of the 26th USAEE/IAEE Conference, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 24–27 September 2006; pp. 1–15.
- Correljé, A.; Groenewegen, J.; Künneke, R.; Scholten, D. Design for values in economics. In Handbook of Ethics, Values and Technological Design; van den Hoven, J., van de Poel, I., Vermaas, P., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Harrigan, K.R. Formulating vertical integration strategies. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1984, 9, 638–652. [Google Scholar]
- Harrigan, K.R. Vertical integration and corporate strategy. Acad. Manag. J. 1985, 28, 397–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perry, M.K. Chapter 4 vertical integration: Determinants and effects. Handb. Ind. Organ. 1989, 1, 183–255. [Google Scholar]
- Joskow, P.L. Vertical integration. In Handbook of New Institutional Economics; Ménard, C., Shirley, M., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 319–348. [Google Scholar]
- Ménard, C.; Shirley, M. Handbook of New Institutional Economics; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Mulder, M.; Shestalova, V.; Lijesen, M. Vertical Separation of the Energy-Distribution Industry: An Assessment of Several Options for Unbundling; CPB: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Mulder, M.; Shestalova, V. Costs and benefits of vertical separation of the energy distribution industry: The Dutch case. Compet. Regul. Netw. Ind. 2006, 1, 197–230. [Google Scholar]
- Garcia, S.; Moreaux, M.; Reynaud, A. Measuring economies of vertical integration in network industries: An application to the water sector. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 2007, 25, 791–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adler, P.S.; Shenhar, A. Adapting your technological base: The organizational challenge. Sloan Manag. Rev. 1990, 32, 25–37. [Google Scholar]
- Provan, K.; Kenis, P. Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2007, 18, 229–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schleicher-Tappeser, R. How renewables will change electricity markets in the next five years. Energy Policy 2012, 48, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, G.; Devine-Wright, P. Community renewable energy: What should it mean? Energy Policy 2008, 36, 497–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amin, S.M.; Wollenberg, B.F. Toward a smart grid: Power delivery for the 21st century. IEEE Power Energy Mag. 2005, 3, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jonker, M. Modernization of Electricity Networks: Exploring the Interrelations between Institutions and Technology. Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 7 September 2010. [Google Scholar]
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Scholten, D.; Künneke, R. Towards the Comprehensive Design of Energy Infrastructures. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1291. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8121291
Scholten D, Künneke R. Towards the Comprehensive Design of Energy Infrastructures. Sustainability. 2016; 8(12):1291. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8121291
Chicago/Turabian StyleScholten, Daniel, and Rolf Künneke. 2016. "Towards the Comprehensive Design of Energy Infrastructures" Sustainability 8, no. 12: 1291. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8121291