% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Wijesinghe:1047157,
author = {Wijesinghe, Lovindu and Weinand, Jann Michael and Hoffmann,
Maximilian and Stolten, Detlef},
title = {{M}odeling disruptive events in renewable energy supply:
{A} review},
journal = {Sustainable energy technologies and assessments},
volume = {83},
issn = {2213-1388},
address = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
publisher = {Elsevier},
reportid = {FZJ-2025-04114},
pages = {104561 -},
year = {2025},
abstract = {The accelerating shift toward renewable energy necessitates
robust planning frameworks that can accommodate unexpected
disruptions. While various energy system modeling methods
are widely used for planning and decision-making, they each
have their own strengths and weaknesses in capturing
uncertainty in the outcomes of disruptive event modeling.
This review addresses a critical research gap by
systematically analyzing how such methods quantify and
mitigate the impact of disruptive events on renewable energy
supply. It is the first to comprehensively assess modeling
approaches specifically in this context. The study
categorizes 108 disruptive events from 102 articles into
four primary types: natural (e.g., floods, heatwaves),
human-caused intentional (e.g., technological innovations),
socio-political (e.g., wars, policy changes), and economic
(e.g., interest rate shifts, carbon tax changes). Articles
were selected using a PRISMA-compliant methodology from
multiple sources, applying strict inclusion criteria:
relevance to renewable energy, a clear focus on disruptive
events, and use of modeling methods. Findings confirm the
hypothesis that incorporating broader socio-economic and
environmental criteria into modeling improves the robustness
and realism of planning under disruptive conditions. The
review shows that relying on one modeling objective such as
cost often limits the ability to capture uncertainty and
stakeholder concerns. Instead, models that integrate
multiple criteria and generate a range of feasible solutions
offer more resilient and adaptable planning outcomes. The
study recommends combining complementary modeling strategies
and tailoring criteria to stakeholder priorities. Such
combined modeling approaches are well suited to future
studies, enabling flexible, risk-informed, and
context-sensitive modeling of disruptive events in renewable
energy supply systems.},
cin = {ICE-2},
ddc = {333.7},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)ICE-2-20101013},
pnm = {1111 - Effective System Transformation Pathways (POF4-111)
/ 1112 - Societally Feasible Transformation Pathways
(POF4-111) / 110 - Energiesystemdesign (ESD) (POF4-100)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-1111 / G:(DE-HGF)POF4-1112 /
G:(DE-HGF)POF4-110},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
doi = {10.1016/j.seta.2025.104561},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1047157},
}