001     907706
005     20230123110619.0
024 7 _ |a 10.1186/s13705-022-00344-6
|2 doi
024 7 _ |a 2128/31173
|2 Handle
024 7 _ |a WOS:000799374300001
|2 WOS
037 _ _ |a FZJ-2022-02169
082 _ _ |a 333.7
100 1 _ |a Haase, Mona
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 0
|e Corresponding author
245 _ _ |a Prospective assessment of energy technologies: A comprehensive approach for sustainability assessment
260 _ _ |a Heidelberg
|c 2022
|b Springer
336 7 _ |a article
|2 DRIVER
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Journal article
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|b journal
|m journal
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|s 1659442482_24421
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
336 7 _ |a ARTICLE
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a JOURNAL_ARTICLE
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 0
|2 EndNote
520 _ _ |a Background: A further increase in renewable energy supply is needed to substitute fossil fuels and combat climate change. Each energy source and respective technologies have specific techno-economic and environmental characteristics as well as social implications. This paper presents a comprehensive approach for prospective sustainability assessment of energy technologies developed within the Helmholtz Initiative “Energy System 2050” (ES2050).Methods: The “ES2050 approach” comprises environmental, economic, and social assessment. It includes established life cycle based economic and environmental indicators, and social indicators derived from a normative concept of sustainable development. The elaborated social indicators, i.e. patent growth rate, acceptance, and domestic value added, address three different socio-technical areas, i.e. innovation (patents), public perception (acceptance), and public welfare (value added).Results: The implementation of the “ES2050 approach” is presented exemplarily and different sustainability indicators and respective results are discussed based on three emerging technologies and corresponding case studies: (1) synthetic biofuels for mobility; (2) hydrogen from wind power for mobility; and (3) batteries for stationary energy storage. For synthetic biofuel, the environmental advantages over fossil gasoline are most apparent for the impact categories Climate Change and Ionizing Radiation—human health. Domestic value added accounts for 66% for synthetic biofuel compared to 13% for fossil gasoline. All hydrogen supply options can be considered to become near to economic competitiveness with fossil fuels in the long term. Survey participants regard Explosion Hazard as the most pressing concern about hydrogen fuel stations. For Li-ion batteries, the results for patent growth rate indicate that they enter their maturity phase.Conclusions: The “ES2050 approach” enables a consistent prospective sustainability assessment of (emerging) energy technologies, supporting technology developers, decision-makers in politics, industry, and society with knowledge for further evaluation, steering, and governance. The approach presented is considered rather a starting point than a blueprint for the comprehensive assessment of renewable energy technologies though, especially for the suggested social indicators, their significance and their embedding in context scenarios for prospective assessments.
536 _ _ |a 1112 - Societally Feasible Transformation Pathways (POF4-111)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-1112
|c POF4-111
|f POF IV
|x 0
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to CrossRef, Journals: juser.fz-juelich.de
700 1 _ |a Wulf, C.
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)168163
|b 1
700 1 _ |a Baumann, M.
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 2
700 1 _ |a Rösch, C.
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 3
700 1 _ |a Weil, M.
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 4
700 1 _ |a Zapp, P.
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)130493
|b 5
700 1 _ |a Naegler, T.
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 6
773 _ _ |a 10.1186/s13705-022-00344-6
|g Vol. 12, no. 1, p. 20
|0 PERI:(DE-600)2641015-1
|n 1
|p 20
|t Energy, Sustainability and Society
|v 12
|y 2022
|x 2192-0567
856 4 _ |u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/907706/files/Haase_2022_ESSO.pdf
|y OpenAccess
856 4 _ |u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/907706/files/s13705-022-00344-6.pdf
|y OpenAccess
909 C O |o oai:juser.fz-juelich.de:907706
|p openaire
|p open_access
|p VDB
|p driver
|p dnbdelivery
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 1
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)168163
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 5
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)130493
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Forschungsbereich Energie
|l Energiesystemdesign (ESD)
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-110
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-111
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF4
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-100
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|v Energiesystemtransformation
|9 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-1112
|x 0
914 1 _ |y 2022
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0160
|2 StatID
|b Essential Science Indicators
|d 2021-02-02
915 _ _ |a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0
|0 LIC:(DE-HGF)CCBY4
|2 HGFVOC
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0113
|2 StatID
|b Science Citation Index Expanded
|d 2021-02-02
915 _ _ |a Fees
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0700
|2 StatID
|d 2021-02-02
915 _ _ |a OpenAccess
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0510
|2 StatID
915 _ _ |a Article Processing Charges
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0561
|2 StatID
|d 2021-02-02
915 _ _ |a JCR
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0100
|2 StatID
|b ENERGY SUSTAIN SOC : 2021
|d 2022-11-22
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0200
|2 StatID
|b SCOPUS
|d 2022-11-22
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0300
|2 StatID
|b Medline
|d 2022-11-22
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0501
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ Seal
|d 2021-02-14T16:19:01Z
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0500
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ
|d 2021-02-14T16:19:01Z
915 _ _ |a Peer Review
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0030
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ : Blind peer review
|d 2021-02-14T16:19:01Z
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0199
|2 StatID
|b Clarivate Analytics Master Journal List
|d 2022-11-22
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0150
|2 StatID
|b Web of Science Core Collection
|d 2022-11-22
915 _ _ |a IF < 5
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)9900
|2 StatID
|d 2022-11-22
920 _ _ |l yes
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-STE-20101013
|k IEK-STE
|l Systemforschung und Technologische Entwicklung
|x 0
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-STE-20101013
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED
980 1 _ |a FullTexts


LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21