literature review renewable energy

Accessibility Links

• Skip to content
• Skip to search IOPscience
• Skip to Journals list
• Accessibility help
• Accessibility Help

Click here to close this panel.

Purpose-led Publishing is a coalition of three not-for-profit publishers in the field of physical sciences: AIP Publishing, the American Physical Society and IOP Publishing.

Together, as publishers that will always put purpose above profit, we have defined a set of industry standards that underpin high-quality, ethical scholarly communications.

We are proudly declaring that science is our only shareholder.

A Literature Review on Renewable Energy Resource and Optimization

Vijay Prakash Sharma 1 , Devendra Kumar Somwanshi 2 , Kalpit Jain 2 and Raj Kumar Satankar 3

Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science , Volume 1084 , Second International Conference on Sustainable Energy, Environment and Green Technologies (ICSEEGT 2022) 24/06/2022 - 25/06/2022 Jaipur, Rajasthan, India Citation Vijay Prakash Sharma et al 2022 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 1084 012002 DOI 10.1088/1755-1315/1084/1/012002

Article metrics

2801 Total downloads

Share this article

Author e-mails.

[email protected]

[email protected]

Author affiliations

1 Assistant Professor, Manipal University Jaipur, Jaipur, India

2 Assistant Professor, Poornima College of Engineering, Jaipur, India

3 Associate Professor, Poornima College of Engineering, Jaipur, India

Buy this article in print

Step by step the energy request is broadening and in this way the necessities for a manageable source that won't hurt the climate are of prime significance. Several projections express that by 2050 the energy requesting will basically increase. In any case bigger part of the energy necessities is fulfilled by oil subordinates yet by the utilization of innocuous to the environment power designs could help in giving the energy requests. As we in general understand that feasible power is the energy which is either established by the environment or straightforwardly from the sun or from heat conveyed critical inside the earth. In this review paper the renewable energy s power and warmth, which is produced using sun based, wind, sea, hydropower, biomass, geothermal assets, bio engages and hydrogen and these resources are known as unlimited resources.

Export citation and abstract BibTeX RIS

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence . Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.

Literature review on renewable energy development and China’s roadmap

• Review Article
• Published: 28 November 2020
• Volume 8 , pages 212–222, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Dequn Zhou 1 ,
• Hao Ding 1 ,
• Qunwei Wang 1 &

342 Accesses

31 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The low carbon energy transition has attracted worldwide attention to mitigate climate change. Renewable energy (RE) is the key to this transition, with significant developments to date, especially in China. This study systematically reviews the literature on RE development to identify a general context from many studies. The goal is to clarify key questions related to RE development from the current academic community. We first identify the forces driving RE development. Thereafter, we analyze methods for modeling RE developments considering the systematic and multiple complexity characteristics of RE. The study concludes with insights into the target selection and RE development roadmap in China.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Historical Evaluation of Korean New and Renewable Energy Policy

Energy Transition in Central Asia: A Systematic Literature Review

What really influences the development of renewable energy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Yadong Wang, Delu Wang, … Jinqi Mao

Alizamir S, de Véricourt F, Sun P (2016). Efficient feed-in-tariff policies for renewable energy technologies. Operations Research, 64(1): 52–66

MathSciNet   MATH   Google Scholar  

Anatolitis V, Welisch M (2017). Putting renewable energy auctions into action—An agent-based model of onshore wind power auctions in Germany. Energy Policy, 110: 394–102

Google Scholar  

Axsen J, Bailey J, Castro M A (2015). Preference and lifestyle heterogeneity among potential plug-in electric vehicle buyers. Energy Economics, 50: 190–201

Bai J H, Xin S X, Liu J, Zheng K (2015). Roadmap of realizing the high penetration renewable energy in China. Proceedings of the CSEE, 35 (14): 3699–3705 (in Chinese)

Baker E, Bosetti V, Anadon L D, Henrion M, Aleluia Reis L (2015). Future costs of key low-carbon energy technologies: Harmonization and aggregation of energy technology expert elicitation data. Energy Policy, 80: 219–232

Bass F M (1969). A new product growth for model consumer durables. Management Science, 15(5): 215–227

MATH   Google Scholar  

Bauner C, Crago C L (2015). Adoption of residential solar power under uncertainty: Implications for renewable energy incentives. Energy Policy, 86: 27–35

Benson C L, Magee C L (2014). On improvement rates for renewable energy technologies: Solar PV, wind turbines, capacitors, and batteries. Renewable Energy, 68: 745–751

Bergmann A, Colombo S, Hanley N (2008). Rural versus urban preferences for renewable energy developments. Ecological Economics, 65(3): 616–625

Bhagwat P C, Richstein J C, Chappin E J, de Vries L J (2016). The effectiveness of a strategic reserve in the presence of a high portfolio share of renewable energy sources. Utilities Policy, 39: 13–28

Böhringer C (1998). The synthesis of bottom-up and top-down in energy policy modeling. Energy Economics, 20(3): 233–248

Boie I (2016). Determinants for the Market Diffusion of Renewable Energy Technologies—An Analysis of the Framework Conditions for Non-residential Photovoltaic and Onshore Wind Energy Deployment in Germany, Spain and the UK. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Devon: University of Exeter

Bollinger B, Gillingham K (2012). Peer effects in the diffusion of solar photovoltaic panels. Marketing Science, 31(6): 900–912

Boomsma T K, Meade N, Fleten S E (2012). Renewable energy investments under different support schemes: A real options approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 220(1): 225–237

Chen R, Zhang X L, He J K, Yue L (2008). Provincial level renewable energy planning based on the MESSAGE model. Journal of Tsinghua University (Science and Technology), 48(9): 1525–1528 (in Chinese)

Chu S, Majumdar A (2012). Opportunities and challenges for a sustainable energy future. Nature, 488(7411): 294–303

Collantes G O (2007). Incorporating stakeholders’ perspectives into models of new technology diffusion: The case of fuel-cell vehicles. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(3): 267–280

de Coninck H, Puig D (2015). Assessing climate change mitigation technology interventions by international institutions. Climatic Change, 131(3): 417–433

Ding H, Zhou D, Zhou P (2020a). Optimal policy supports for renewable energy technology development: A dynamic programming model. Energy Economics, 92: 104765

Ding H, Zhou D Q, Liu G Q, Zhou P (2020b). Cost reduction or electricity penetration: Government R&D-induced PV development and future policy schemes. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 124: 109752

Dobrotkova Z, Surana K, Audinet P (2018). The price of solar energy: Comparing competitive auctions for utility-scale solar PV in developing countries. Energy Policy, 118: 133–148

Du X W (2014). Energy revolution for sustainable future. Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology (Social Sciences Edition), 16(5): 1–8 (in Chinese)

Eppstein M J, Grover D K, Marshall J S, Rizzo D M (2011). An agent-based model to study market penetration of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Energy Policy, 39(6): 3789–3802

Fernandes B, Cunha J, Ferreira P (2011). The use of real options approach in energy sector investments. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(9): 4491–4497

Fisher-Vanden K, Jefferson G H, Liu H, Tao Q (2004). What is driving China’s decline in energy intensity? Resource and Energy Economics, 26(1): 77–97

Fisher-Vanden K, Jefferson G H, Ma J K, Xu J Y (2006). Technology development and energy productivity in China. Energy Economics, 28(5–6): 690–705

Frankfurt School (2019). Global trends in renewable energy investment 2019. Frankfurt School-UNEP Collaborating Centre for Climate & Sustainable Energy Finance

Geroski P A (2000). Models of technology diffusion. Research Policy, 29(4–5): 603–625

Gillingham K, Newell R G, Pizer W A (2008). Modeling endogenous technological change for climate policy analysis. Energy Economics, 30(6): 2734–2753

Gonçalves da Silva C (2010). The fossil energy/climate change crunch: Can we pin our hopes on new energy technologies? Energy, 35(3): 1312–1316

Grubb M, Köhler J, Anderson D (2002). Induced technical change in energy and environmental modeling: Analytic approaches and policy implications. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 27(1): 271–308

Islam T (2014). Household level innovation diffusion model of photovoltaic (PV) solar cells from stated preference data. Energy Policy, 65: 340–350

Jacobsson S, Lauber V (2006). The politics and policy of energy system transformation—Explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology. Energy Policy, 34(3): 256–276

Jaffe A B, Newell R G, Stavins R N (2005). A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy. Ecological Economics, 54(2–3): 164–174

Jakeman G, Hanslow K, Hinchy M, Fisher B S, Woffenden K (2004). Induced innovations and climate change policy. Energy Economics, 26(6): 937–960

Jin Y Q (2016). Energy structure transformation goals and path: Comparison between US and Germany. Inquiry into Economic Issues, (2): 166–172 (in Chinese)

Jorgenson D W, Wilcoxen P J (1993). Reducing US carbon emissions: An econometric general equilibrium assessment. Resource and Energy Economics, 15(1): 7–25

Kardooni R, Yusoff S B, Kari F B (2016). Renewable energy technology acceptance in Peninsular Malaysia. Energy Policy, 88: 1–10

Kouvaritakis N, Soria A, Isoard S (2000). Modelling energy technology dynamics: Methodology for adaptive expectations models with learning by doing and learning by searching. International Journal of Global Energy Issues, 14(1–4): 104–115

Kriegler E, Weyant J P, Blanford G J, Krey V, Clarke L, Edmonds J, Fawcett A, Luderer G, Riahi K, Richels R, Rose S K, Tavoni M, van Vuuren D P (2014). The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: Overview of the EMF27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies. Climatic Change, 123(3–4): 353–367

Langbroek J H, Franklin J P, Susilo Y O (2016). The effect of policy incentives on electric vehicle adoption. Energy Policy, 94: 94–103

Levi P G, Pollitt M G (2015). Cost trajectories of low carbon electricity generation technologies in the UK: A study of cost uncertainty. Energy Policy, 87: 48–59

Li J, Wang X C, Li X Z (2017). Japan’s energy situation and renewable energy utilization. Solar Energy, (12): 10–16 (in Chinese)

Li L, Liu J, Zhu L, Zhang X B (2019). How to design a dynamic feed-in tariffs mechanism for renewables—A real options approach. International Journal of Production Research, 58(14): 4352–4366

Li X, Wen J (2014). Review of building energy modeling for control and operation. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 37: 517–537

Lin B Q, Li J L (2015). Transformation of China’s energy structure under environmental governance constraints: A peak value analysis of coal and carbon dioxide. Social Sciences in China, (9): 84–107, 125 (in Chinese)

Löschel A (2002). Technological change in economic models of environmental policy: A survey. Ecological Economics, 43(2–3): 105–126

Luderer G, Krey V, Calvin K, Merrick J, Mima S, Pietzcker R, van Vliet J, Wada K (2014). The role of renewable energy in climate stabilization: Results from the EMF27 scenarios. Climatic Change, 123(3–4): 427–441

Lund P (2006). Market penetration rates of new energy technologies. Energy Policy, 34(17): 3317–3326

Lv F, Xu H H, Wang S C (2018). National survey report of PV power applications in China 2018. International Energy Agency Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme

Ma L M, Shi D, Pei Q B (2018). Low-carbon transformation of China’s energy in 2015–2050: Renewable energy development and feasible path. China Population, Resources and Environment, 28(2): 8–18 (in Chinese)

MacCracken C N, Edmonds J A, Kim S H, Sands R D (1999). The economics of the Kyoto Protocol. Energy Journal, 20(Special Issue): 25–72

Mahajan V, Muller E, Bass F M (1990). New product diffusion models in marketing: A review and directions for research. Journal of Marketing, 54(1): 1–26

Malhotra P, Hyers R W, Manwell J F, McGowan J G (2012). A review and design study of blade testing systems for utility-scale wind turbines. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(1): 284–292

Masini A, Menichetti E (2012). The impact of behavioural factors in the renewable energy investment decision making process: Conceptual framework and empirical findings. Energy Policy, 40: 28–38

Maslin M, Scott J (2011). Carbon trading needs a multi-level approach. Nature, 475(7357): 445–447

Matteson S, Williams E (2015). Residual learning rates in lead-acid batteries: Effects on emerging technologies. Energy Policy, 85: 71–79

Murakami K, Ida T, Tanaka M, Friedman L (2015). Consumers’ willingness to pay for renewable and nuclear energy: A comparative analysis between the US and Japan. Energy Economics, 50: 178–189

Newell R G, Jaffe A B, Stavins R N (1999). The induced innovation hypothesis and energy-saving technological change. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3): 941–975

Noailly J, Smeets R (2015). Directing technical change from fossil-fuel to renewable energy innovation: An application using firm-level patent data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 72: 15–37

Nordhaus W D (1994). Managing the Global Commons: The Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Ockwell D, Sagar A, de Coninck H (2015). Collaborative research and development (R&D) for climate technology transfer and uptake in developing countries: Towards a needs driven approach. Climatic Change, 131(3): 401–415

Peter R, Ramaseshan B, Nayar C V (2002). Conceptual model for marketing solar based technology to developing countries. Renewable Energy, 25(4): 511–524

Pillai U (2015). Drivers of cost reduction in solar photovoltaics. Energy Economics, 50: 286–293

Pizer W A (1999). The optimal choice of climate change policy in the presence of uncertainty. Resource and Energy Economics, 21(3–4): 255–287

Popp D C (2001). The effect of new technology on energy consumption. Resource and Energy Economics, 23(3): 215–239

Purohit P, Kandpal T C (2005). Renewable energy technologies for irrigation water pumping in India: Projected levels of dissemination, energy delivery and investment requirements using available diffusion models. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 9(6): 592–607

Radomes Jr A A, Arango S (2015). Renewable energy technology diffusion: An analysis of photovoltaic-system support schemes in Medellín, Colombia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 92: 152–161

REN21 (2018). Renewables 2018 Global Status Report. Paris: REN21 Secretariat

Reddy S, Painuly J P (2004). Diffusion of renewable energy technologies—barriers and stakeholders’ perspectives. Renewable Energy, 29(9): 1431–1447

Ringler P, Keles D, Fichtner W (2016). Agent-based modelling and simulation of smart electricity grids and markets—A literature review. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 57: 205–215

Shafiei E, Thorkelsson H, Ásgeirsson E I, Davidsdottir B, Raberto M, Stefansson H (2012). An agent-based modeling approach to predict the evolution of market share of electric vehicles: A case study from Iceland. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(9): 1638–1653

Shi D, Wang L (2015). Energy revolution and its effects on economic development. Industrial Economics Research, (1): 1–8 (in Chinese)

Shi Y, Zhu Y B, Wang Z (2015). The cost-effective path of energy mix evolution for China under the emissions budgets. Journal of Management Sciences in China, 18(10): 26–37 (in Chinese)

Snape J R, Boait P J, Rylatt R M (2015). Will domestic consumers take up the renewable heat incentive? An analysis of the barriers to heat pump adoption using agent-based modelling. Energy Policy, 85: 32–38

Sue Wing I (2008). Explaining the declining energy intensity of the US economy. Resource and Energy Economics, 30(1): 21–49

Sundt S, Rehdanz K (2015). Consumers’ willingness to pay for green electricity: A meta-analysis of the literature. Energy Economics, 51: 1–8

Usha Rao K, Kishore V V N (2009). Wind power technology diffusion analysis in selected states of India. Renewable Energy, 34(4): 983–988

Usha Rao K, Kishore V V N (2010). A review of technology diffusion models with special reference to renewable energy technologies. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(3): 1070–1078

Viklund M (2004). Energy policy options—From the perspective of public attitudes and risk perceptions. Energy Policy, 32(10): 1159–1171

Wang Y, Zhang D, Ji Q, Shi X (2020). Regional renewable energy development in China: A multidimensional assessment. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 124: 109797

Weiss M, Junginger M, Patel M K, Blok K (2010). A review of experience curve analysis for energy demand technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(3): 411–428

Yang X, Heidug W, Cooke D (2019). An adaptive policy-based framework for China’s Carbon Capture and Storage development. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 6(1): 78–86

Yao X, Fan Y, Zhu L, Zhang X (2020). Optimization of dynamic incentive for the deployment of carbon dioxide removal technology: A nonlinear dynamic approach combined with real options. Energy Economics, 86: 104643

York R (2012). Asymmetric effects of economic growth and decline on CO 2 emissions. Nature Climate Change, 2(11): 762–764

Yu Y (2019). Low-carbon technology calls for comprehensive electricity-market redesign. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 6(1): 128–130

Zeng Y, Guo W, Wang H, Zhang F (2020). A two-stage evaluation and optimization method for renewable energy development based on data envelopment analysis. Applied Energy, 262: 114363

Zhang H, Wu K, Qiu Y, Chan G, Wang S, Zhou D, Ren X (2020a). Solar photovoltaic interventions have reduced rural poverty in China. Nature Communications, 11(1): 1969

Zhang M, Zhou D, Zhou P (2014). A real option model for renewable energy policy evaluation with application to solar PV power generation in China. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 40: 944–955

Zhang M M, Zhou P, Zhou D Q (2016). A real options model for renewable energy investment with application to solar photovoltaic power generation in China. Energy Economics, 59: 213–226

Zhang R, Shimada K, Ni M, Shen G Q, Wong J K (2020b). Low or no subsidy? Proposing a regional power grid based wind power feed-in tariff benchmark price mechanism in China. Energy Policy, 146: 111758

Zhao Y Q (2017). International renewable energy development and global energy management transformation. Macroeconomics, (4): 43–54 (in Chinese)

Zhou D, Chong Z, Wang Q (2020). What is the future policy for photovoltaic power applications in China? Lessons from the past. Resources Policy, 65: 101575

Zhou D, Ding H, Zhou P, Wang Q (2019). Learning curve with input price for tracking technical change in the energy transition process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 235: 997–1005

Zhou Y H, Pu Y L, Chen S Y, Fang F (2015). Government support and development of emerging industries: A new energy industry survey. Economic Research Journal, 50(6): 147–160 (in Chinese)

Zhou Z, Zhao F, Wang J (2011). Agent-based electricity market simulation with demand response from commercial buildings. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 2(4): 580–588

Zhu L, Fan Y (2011). A real options-based CCS investment evaluation model: Case study of China’s power generation sector. Applied Energy, 88(12): 4320–4333

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 211106, China; Research Center for Soft Energy Science, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, 211106, China

Dequn Zhou, Hao Ding & Qunwei Wang

Energy Studies Institute, National University of Singapore, Singapore, 119077, Singapore

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Dequn Zhou or Hao Ding .

Additional information

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 71573121 and 71834003).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Zhou, D., Ding, H., Wang, Q. et al. Literature review on renewable energy development and China’s roadmap. Front. Eng. Manag. 8 , 212–222 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42524-020-0146-9

Download citation

Received : 19 May 2020

Accepted : 02 September 2020

Published : 28 November 2020

Issue Date : June 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42524-020-0146-9

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• renewable energy
• energy transition
• technology innovation
• technology diffusion
• development preference
• energy system modeling
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)

• Mission & Scope
• Editorial Board
• Peer-Review Policy
• Publication Ethics Policy
• Journal Policies
• Join as Reviewer
• Conference Partners
• Call for Papers
• Journal Statistics – 2023-2024
• Submit Manuscript
• Journal Charges (APC)
• Register as Volunteer
• Upcoming Conferences
• CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS
• Thesis Archive
• Thesis Publication FAQs
• Thesis Publication Charges
• Author Login
• Reviewer Login

NCETER - 2021 (Volume 09 - Issue 11)

A literature review on different renewable energy resources.

• Article Download / Views: 6,659
• Authors : Arpan Ghatak, Bikramjit Roy, Dr. Bidhan Malakar, Debashis Chakraborty, Subhojit Dutta, Debajyoti Roy, Aditya Pandey
• Paper ID : IJERTCONV9IS11045
• Volume & Issue : NCETER – 2021 (Volume 09 – Issue 11)
• Published (First Online): 16-07-2021
• ISSN (Online) : 2278-0181
• Publisher Name : IJERT

AbstractThis paper presents a concise review of different renewable energy resources. The use of renewable energy resources is growing gradually and its requirement is also increasing as compared with the conventional energy sources from corner to corner of the world. The use of these energies can accomplish the added energy requirement and the research on this is in development. This paper provides a brief knowledge about different renewable energy resources. It thus, becomes a need to explore these sources more efficiently, so that we can maximize its use for different applications worldwide.

Keywords Renewable Energy Resources, Solar Energy, Wind Energy, Hydrothermal Liquefaction

INTRODUCTION

As worlds population is increasing day by day, therefore the utilization of energy is increasing in a hurry. The employ of renewable energy resources seems to be a huge movement by which the extra energy can be generated as generation of energy becomes an important concern for the world [1]. Renewable energy resources can be a alternative option for conventional energy resources as it substitute conventional fuels in four basic different areas such as electricity generation, hot water/space heating, motor fuels and off grid energy examines etc [2]. Basically, the most important aspect for increasing renewable energies is to pilot a number of positive results like controlling the greenhouse effect and climate change [3] [4]. There are various renewable energy resources are available in nature mainly like solar, wind, geo- thermal, tidal, biomass etc.

So, in this paper, a brief literature review is carried away to get an idea that how these renewable energy resources had been used so far and to have an idea about the evolution of these energy resources. So, after doing this review work, some of the important surveys are presented in Table 1, which is mentioned below.

TABLE 1. A BRIEF LITERATURE REVIEW ON DIFFERENT RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

So, after this section, a brief idea about most of the renewable energy sources is discussed in section 2. After that, in Section 3 , two energy resources are described which are most commonly used i.e. solar energy and wind energy. In section 4, Conclusion part is included.

DIFFERENT RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

So, from this above literature review, it can be clearly understandable that, renewable energy resources plays a very big role to meet the necessary extra power for our daily life. It can be also seen that, all foreign country and India also take very much interest on these energy resources as they are very much efficient and eco-friendly.

Solar Energy

Power generation through renewable energy sources is the need of the hour as we cannot be only dependent on the conventional energy sources to meet our needs. Solar energy is one of the most important renewable energy sources used all over the world [22]. Solar panels make use of the solar radiation reaching to the Earth and help in generating electric power with the help of solar radiation [23]. This power is utilized by us, in our households, industries, offices, schools, colleges, etc [24].

Solar panels are made up of solar modules connected in parallel; the solar modules are comprised of solar cells connected in series. Each solar cell is made up of a semiconductor like silicon, germanium, etc. Each solar cell acts as a PN junction and when the photon particles hit the surface of the solar panel then current flows due to the Photovoltaic effect. The output of the solar panels is dc in nature; hence the output can be connected to an inverter which converts DC to AC and then this AC power can be used to run the electrical appliances used in our house. The excess AC power can be provided to the grid [23].

Wind Energy

Wind energy is one of the purest forms of renewable energy source and many developed countries have made several energy policies to develop electrical power from wind energy to meet their needs. The mechanism of developing electric power using wind energy is also very simple but the only disadvantage is the Wind Energy Conversion System depends on the wind energy which is very uncertain and it is very difficult to get the desired output [12].

The wind turbine rotates due to the wind energy; the mechanical energy of the wind turbine is fed to the generator through a gear box. Gear box helps in maintaining same speed for the turbine and synchronous generator. The output of the generator is AC in nature; mainly Permanent Magnet Synchronous Generator is used. The output of the generator is fed to some power electronics converter which can be either multilevel converter or Matrix converter or Z source converter. The final output can be transmitted and distributed to domestic consumers, industrial and commercial consumers. Thus, wind energy can play a significant role in the meeting the energy needs [12].

Tidal Energy

By utilizing the natural phenomenon of movement of ocean water due to gravitational force known as tides, tidal energy can be harnessed twice a day. Tidal energy is a long- term resource an can be created by three technique namely,

Tidal Barrages.

Tidal Fences.

Tidal Turbines.

In all this case, electrical energy is to created by mechanical energy of turbine connected to generator [25].

Tidal power plant is easy to install and most importantly it is free from greenhouse gas emission. We can predict the tides since our past years, so tidal energy is the most predictable source.

Tidal power plant project are less compared to other renewable energy sources due to largely site requirement to construct dam. It need high capital investment and lot of R&D need for better turbine design to reduce capital cost [26].

By utilizing the gravitational force of falling water energy is harnessed by the rotation in turbines, electrical energy is produced. The production capacity of the energy is dependent on the water supply available. It is the most widely used form of renewable energy which is 3% of the world total energy.

Hydropower plant has low running cost while the average capital cost is high due to dams are expensive to build. The output can be controlled as per need it has a pumped storage to reserve water for high peak demand. This energy is free from greenhouse gas emission [27].

Geo-Thermal Energy

Geothermal energy is the thermal energy generated and stored in earth. This is the energy that determines the temperature of matter. It originates from the original formation of earth and through radioactive decay of the materials [28]. Water from hot springs is used since early times, but now it is used for electricity generation [29]. It is cost-effective, reliable, environmental friendly. But is limited only to areas near the tectonic plates [30].

There are three types of geothermal energy are there those are called: liquid-dominated plants, geothermal energy, enhanced geothermal energy. And as geo thermal energy do not need any fuel so there is no fuel cost. But capital costs are there [31]. Geothermal is also considered as a renewable sources because earths heat conten is much larger than the heat extracted, and is also considered as a sustainable [32] but extraction needs monitoring to avoid local depletion. Some of the examples are: hot-springs, lava, geysers, etc. [33].

Bio-Gas Energy

It is a mixture of gases produced by the breakdown of organic matter in the absence of oxygen primarily consists methane and carbon dioxide. It can be produced from raw materials like the agriculture waste, food wastes, green wastes etc. It is a renewable source of energy. It can be produced by anaerobic digestion with methanogen or anaerobic organisms which digest materials into a closed system [34]. It is mainly methane and carbon dioxide and produced by micro-organisms [35].

Bio gas mainly consists of : 1. CH4: 50-75

2. CO2: 25-30

Identify applicable sponsor/s here. If no sponsors, delete this text box (sponsors).

3. N2: 0-10

5. H2S: 0.1-0.5

Also mainly depends on substrate composition, anaerobic reactor [37]. It can be used for electricity production in a CHP gas engine, where the waste heat is used for heating the digester. It can replace compressed natural gas used in vehicles [38].

WORKING OF SOLAR AND WIND ENERGY

Working of Solar Energy

Here, in this section, we can understand the working of solar energy from the below mentioned Figure 1, which means how, solar energy is produced. The figure is given below [19]-

FIGURE 1. WORKING OF SOLAR ENERGY

So, from the above mentioned figure, it is clearly visible that, the main producer of this energy is solar irradiation which comes from sun. Solar irradiation falls to the solar panel, which are used to charge a battery through charge controller. Then this battery is used to power up any electrical equipment off grid. When it comes to on grid operation, then this energy flows to a step-up transformer through inverter. After that, this stepped up current goes to the main grid though Inductor and resistor.

Working of Wind Energy

So, in this section, we will find out how wind energy is produced from the below mentioned Figure 2 [19].-

FIGURE 2. WORKING OF WIND ENERGY

Basically, wind energy can be produced in a hilly area, where enough wind is available and it can be produced with the help of a turbine. After blowing wind by turbine, this high speed wind pass through a gear box to a generator, where voltage and current is produced. Then, this voltage and current pass through a pair of rectifier and inverter to a step- up transformer. At last it is fetched out to on grid through inductor and resistor.

So, after doing all these reviews, it can be clearly visible that, renewable energy is the future of our world and for us too. So, for this reason, we have to-

Explore more efficient techniques to extract the maximum from these energies.

Review other renewable sources like, tidal , geo- thermal, bio-mass energies more effectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper presents a detailed survey on different renewable energy resources to explore the development of these sources from past few years. From this paper, it is clearly visible that, renewable energy resources are the future for us, as it will be a key source to meet our required power for a advanced and healthy lifestyle. This paper also presents the overview of these sources and a detailed working of solar and wind energy sources. This paper also represents that , except solar and wind, other energy sources needs to be also explored.

Council, N.R., et al. (2010). Electricity From Renewable Resources: Status, Prospects, and Impediments. National Academies Press.

Jacobsson, S., & Bergek, A. (2004). Transforming The Energy Sector: The Evolution of Technological Systems in Renewable Energy Technology. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(5), 815 849.

Johansson, T.B., & Burnham, L (1993). Renewable Energy: Sources for Fuels and Electricity. Island press.

Panwar, N., Kaushik, S., Kothari, S. (2011). Role of Renewable Energy Sources in Environmental Protection: a Review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(3), 15131524.

Gibrán S. Alemán-Nava, Victor H. Casiano-Flores, Diana L. Cárdenas-Chávez, Rocío Díaz-Chavez, Nicolae Scarlat, Jürgen Mahlknecht, Jean-Francois Dallemand, Roberto Parra, Renewable energy research progress in Mexico: A review, Renewable and

Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 32, 2014, Pages 140-153, ISSN

1364-0321, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.004.

M. Thema, F. Bauer, M. Sterner, Power-to-Gas: Electrolysis and methanation status review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 112, 2019, Pages 775-787, ISSN 1364-0321, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.06.030.

Semich Impram, Secil Varbak Nese, Bülent Oral, Challenges of renewable energy penetration on power system flexibility: A survey, Energy Strategy Reviews, Volume 31, 2020, 100539, ISSN 2211- 467X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2020.100539.

S. K. Bala, B. C. Babu and S. Bala, "A review on development of Smart Grid technology in India and its future perspectives," 2012 Students Conference on Engineering and Systems, 2012, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/SCES.2012.6199016.

Abolhosseini, Shahrouz and Heshmati, Almas and Altmann, Jorn, A Review of Renewable Energy Supply and Energy Efficiency Technologies. IZA Discussion Paper No. 8145, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2432429.

R. Singh, Y. R. Sood, N. P. Padhy and B. Venkatesh, "Analysis of renewable promotional policies and their current status in Indian restructured power sector," IEEE PES T&D 2010, 2010, pp. 1-8, doi: 10.1109/TDC.2010.5484406.

H. Fayaz, N. A. Rahim, R. Saidur, K. H. Solangi, H. Niaz and M. S. Hossain, "Solar energy policy: Malaysia vs developed countries," 2011 IEEE Conference on Clean Energy and Technology (CET), 2011, pp. 374-378, doi: 10.1109/CET.2011.6041512.

M. Jamil, R. Gupta and M. Singh, "A review of power converter topology used with PMSG based wind power generation," 2012 IEEE Fifth Power India Conference, 2012, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/PowerI.2012.6479549.

Kumar. J, C.R., Majid, M.A. Renewable energy for sustainable development in India: current status, future prospects, challenges, employment, and investment opportunities. Energ Sustain Soc 10, 2 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-019-0232-1

Zhiyu Jiang, Installation of offshore wind turbines: A technical review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 139, 2021, 110576, ISSN 1364-0321, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110576.

Roman Vakulchuk, Indra Overland, Daniel Scholten, Renewable energy and geopolitics: A review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 122, 2020, 109547, ISSN 1364-0321, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109547.

Gollakota, A.R.K., Kishore, N. and Gu, S., 2018. A review on hydrothermal liquefaction of biomass. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81, pp.1378-1392.

Watson, S., Moro, A., Reis, V., Baniotopoulos, C., Barth, S., Bartoli, G., Bauer, F., Boelman, E., Bosse, D., Cherubini, A. and Croce, A., 2019. Future emerging technologies in the wind power sector: A European perspective. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 113, p.109270.

Solaun, K. and Cerdá, E., 2019. Climate change impacts on renewable energy generation. A review of quantitative projections. Renewable and sustainable energy Reviews, 116, p.109415.

Badal, F.R., Das, P., Sarker, S.K. et al. A survey on control issues in renewable energy integration and microgrid. Prot Control Mod Power Syst 4, 8 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41601-019-0122-8

Javid Mohtasham, Review Article-Renewable Energies, Energy Procedia, Volume 4, 2015, Pages 1289-1297, ISSN 1876-6102, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.07.774.

Ghatak A., Malakar B. (2020) A Survey on Improving the Solar Efficiency. In: Dawn S., Balas V., Esposito A., Gope S. (eds) Intelligent Techniques and Applications in Science and Technology. ICIMSAT 2019. Learning and Analytics in Intelligent Systems, vol 12. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42363-6_64

https://www.acciona.com/renewable-energy/

https://www.goodenergy.co.uk/how-do-solar-panels-work/

Solar Energy and its Applications

Mendi, Vikas & Rao, Subba & SEELAM, JAYA. (2016). Tidal Energy: A Review.

Tousif, Shaikh Md Rubayiat, and Shaiyek Md Buland Taslim. "Tidal power: an effective method of generating power." International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research 2, no. 5 (2011): 1-5.

Kumar, Arun & Schei, Tormod & Ahenkorah, Alfred & Rodriguez, R & Devernay, Jean-Michel & Freitas, Marcos & Hall, Douglas & Killingtveit, Ã…nund & Liu, Z. (2012). Hydropower.

Dye, S. T. (2012). "Geoneutrinos and the radioactive power of the Earth". Reviews of Geophysics. 50 (3): RG3007. arXiv:1111.6099(https://arxiv.org/abs/1111.6099).Bibcode:2012RvG eo..50.3007D(https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012RvGeo..50.3007 D).doi:10.1029/2012RG000400(https://doi.org/10.1029%2F2012RG0 00400).S2CID118667366 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:118667366).

REN21. "Renewables 2020: Global Status Report. Chapter 01; Global Overview" (https://www.ren21.net/g sr-2020).Retrieved 2021-02-02.

Glassley, William E. (2010). Geothermal Energy: Renewable Energy and the Environment, CRC Press,ISBN9781420075700.

Geothermal Economics 101, Economics of a 35 MW Binary Cycle Geothermal Plant

(https://web.archive.org/web/20100501143651/http://www.glacierpar tnerscorp.com/geothermal.php), New York: Glacier Partners, October 2009, archived from the original (http://www.glacierpartnerscorp.com/geothermal.php) on 2010-05-

01,retrieved 2009-10-17

Fridleifsson, Ingvar B.; Bertani, Ruggero; Huenges, Ernst; Lund, John W.; Ragnarsson, Arni; Rybach, Ladislaus (2008-02-11), O. Hohmeyer and T. Trittin (ed.), The possible role and contribution of geothermal energy to the mitigation of climate change | IPCC Scoping Meeting on Renewable Energy Sources conference (https://web.archive.org/web/20100308014920/http://www.ieagia.org

/documents/FridleifssonetalIPCCGeothermalpaper2008FinalRybacp 0May08_000.pdf) (PDF), Luebeck, Germany, pp. 5980, archived from the original (http://www.iea- gia.org/documents/FridleifssonetalIPCCGeothermalpaper2008 FinalRybacp0May08_000.pdf) (PDF) on March 8, 2010, retrieved 2009-04-06

Rybach, Ladislaus (September 2007). Geothermal Sustainability (http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull28-3/art2.pdf) (PDF). Geo-Heat Centre Quarterly Bulletin. 28. Klamath Falls, Oregon: Oregon Institute of Technology. pp. 27. Retrieved 2009-05-09.

Webdesign, Insyde. "How does biogas work?"(https://web.archive.org/web/20180510115131/http://www.si mgas.com/advantages-of-biogas/how-does-biogas- work/item46).www.simgas.com. Archived from the original (http://www.simgas.com/advantages-of-biogas/how-does-biogas- work/item46) on 10May 2018. Retrieved 16 May 2018.

"Biogas & Engines" (http://www.clarke-energy.com/gas- type/biogas/) . clarke-energy.com.Retrieved 21 November 2011.

Basic Information on Biogas (http://www.kolumbus.fi/suomen.biokaasukeskus/en/enperus.html) Archived(https://web.archive.org/web/20100106022729/http://www. kolumbus.fi/suomen.biokaasukeskus/en/enperus.html) 6 January 2010 at the Wayback Machine, www.kolumbus.fi. Retrieved 2.11.07.

Hafner, Sasha (2017). "Predicting methane and biogas production with the biogas package" (https://cran.r- project.org/web/packages/biogas/vignettes/predBg_function.pdf) (PDF). CRAN.

Administrator. "Biogas CHP Alfagy Profitable Greener Energy via CHP, Cogen and Biomass Boiler using Wood, Biogas, Natural Gas, Biodiesel, Vegetable Oil, Syngas and Straw" (https://web.archive.org/web/20150430111432/http://alfagy.com/biog as-chp.html). Archived from the original (http://www.alfagy.com/biogas-chp.html) on 30 April 2015. Retrieved 15 May 2015.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Harnessing the Power of Nature: A Short Review of Renewable Energy Resources

Ieee account.

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

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

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

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Systematic review article, renewable energy consumption and economic growth nexus—a systematic literature review.

• 1 School of Economics, Guangdong University of Finance and Economics, Guangzhou, China
• 2 School of Technology, Management and Engineering, NMIMS, Indore, India
• 3 Department of Banking and Financial Markets, Financial University Under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia
• 4 University Center for Circular Economy, University of Pannonia, Nagykanizsa, Hungary

An efficient use of energy is the pre-condition for economic development. But excessive use of fossil fuel harms the environment. As renewable energy emits no or low greenhouse gases, more countries are trying to increase the use of energies from renewable sources. At the same time, no matter developed or developing, nations have to maintain economic growth. By collecting SCI/SSCI indexed peer-reviewed journal articles, this article systematically reviews the consumption nexus of renewable energy and economic growth. A total of 46 articles have been reviewed following the PRISMA guidelines from 2010 to 2021. Our review research shows that renewable energy does not hinder economic growth for both developing and developed countries, whereas, there is little significance of consuming renewable energy (threshold level) on economic growth for developed countries.

Introduction

Consuming non-renewable energy may produce output and foster economic development, but undoubtedly it is a significant source of carbon emission and environmental degradation ( Awodumi and Adewuyi 2020 ). Using non-renewable energy sources put countries in a dilemma in policy priority between pollution reduction and economic growth. Thus, whether renewable or non-renewable, the energy should be used carefully and efficiently as its sources are limited. In addition, due to climate change and global warming situation, renewable energy could be the most attractive alternative to fossil fuel, reducing the CO 2 emission process. However, introducing new renewable energy technologies, consuming, and making them available for the citizens, is very time-consuming and costly. On the other side, countries struggle to maintain economic growth and development. Due to the COVID-19 crisis, the situation has been worsening. The governments of both developing and developed nations have to balance spending for climate change mitigation and economic growth.

Moreover, there is still limited information regarding all the perceived critical factors in moving toward fully renewable energy sources. This article shows a comprehensive assessment of how renewable energy systems affect the country’s economic growth. In this article, assessment is carried out based on G7 and Next-11 countries. France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada make up the Group of Seven (G7) intergovernmental organization. Government officials from these nations meet regularly to discuss world economic and monetary matters, with each member alternating through the chairmanship.

Along with the BRICs, the Next-11 (or N-11) are eleven countries identified by Goldman Sachs as having a high potential to become the world’s largest economies in the twenty-first century, namely, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, Turkey, and Vietnam. Figure 1 shows the name of G7 and Next-11 countries.

FIGURE 1 . (Group Seven) G7 and (Next-11) N-11 countries.

Energy resource has been the fundamental element for an economy or economic development ( Xiong et al., 2014 ). It is clear that economic growth mainly depends on energy consumption, which is highly responsible for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, particularly CO 2 , as stated by Gabr and Mohamed (2020) . CO 2 emissions are a by-product generated by primary consumption sources of non-renewable energy, such as fossil fuels ( Thollander et al., 2007 ). Starting from this general environmental framework due to non-renewable sources, several national economies, after having experienced several disasters, have tried to bring about a structural change in production methods and energy use. Some countries have mainly switched to renewable sources, leaving fossil fuels to no longer be based on non-renewable energy sources ( Irfan et al., 2021 ). According to the EY Company’s Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Index (RECAI), which integrates new global trends, the countries with the most significant opportunities for investments in renewables are the United States, China, and India, three large economies that have been competing for these positions for several years now ( RECAI, 2020 ). Implementing renewable energy sources (RES) is essential but still faces some challenges in some European countries. Perception and awareness toward RES are the main challenges in countries such as Montenegro ( Djurisic et al., 2020 ).

One of the world’s major power resource user countries, China, has put forward the “double carbon” target to reduce emissions ( Jiang et al., 2022 ). China’s domestic market has shown some resilience despite the end of domestic subsidies in December 2020 and the COVID-19 crisis, which affected 10% of new capacity additions. Chinese solar panel production grew by 15.7% compared to 2019 ( RECAI, 2020 ). Australia represents the third, this country has experienced exponential growth in residential photovoltaics, distributing over 10 GW of solar energy to civilian homes and adopting necessary plans to export hydrogen to Asia ( RECAI, 2020 ). India follows, from 7th to 4th place, and thanks to the growth of photovoltaic capacity to meet the ambitious national green goals for 2030 ( RECAI, 2020 ). In addition to G7 and N-11 countries, Table 1 shows the general information and technology-specific scores of the top 10 countries that invest in renewable energy sources, and Figure 2 shows the data visualization of the dataset in Table 1 .

TABLE 1 . Top 10 countries that invest in renewable sources.

FIGURE 2 . Comparison of technology-specific score of top 10 countries.

Some studies tried to relate the consumption of renewable energy and economic growth. But most of the studies concern EU countries and other factors. For example Tutak and Brodny . (2022 ) have tried to analyze the impact of renewable energy on economics, environmental, and conventional energy sources. In addition, ( Smolović et al., 2020 ), by using the pooled mean group (PMG) estimator in a dynamic panel setting (an ARDL model) has carried out a nexus between renewable energy consumption and economic growth in the traditional and new member states of the EU. Furthermore, the panel vector autoregression (PVAR) model ( Koengkan, Fuinhas, and Marques 2019 ) has examined the relationship between financial openness, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and economic growth in 12 Latin American countries. Furthermore Lorente et al. ( 2022 ) found that there is an association between economic complexity and CO 2 emissions is inverted-U and further N-shaped relationship for Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain.

We have noticed a research gap of systematic review analysis regarding economic growth and renewable energy consumption in recent years by analyzing other existing research work. From this point of view, our study tried to fill the research gap and make it a collection of systematic reviews in this field. Moreover, there were no such systematic reviews (including developing, developed, and underdeveloped countries) in this field of study.

Due to the higher cost of implementing and maintaining, cost-benefit analysis, and other external–internal factors, renewable energy is still under consideration to entirely depend on the energy source. Thus, this is a burning question for the researchers, policy makers, and related organizations whether introducing the renewable energy source would hinder or slow down the economic growth. Many researchers are trying to answer for their respective country or region of interest. No such review work tried to find the nexus between RE and EG for G7 and N-11 countries. This study attempted to gather the related research outcomes and give a broader picture of introducing and using the renewable energy and economic growth relationship.

Basic Interpretation With Renewable Energy and Economic Growth

Introducing renewable energy and economic growth is a widespread debate among researchers. From this point of view, by executing the panel data (1970–2017) ( Konuk et al., 2021 , 11), examined the relationship between economic growth and biomass energy consumption for N-11 countries. According to their research work, economic development and biomass energy consumption act together in the long run. In addition, Jenniches (2018 ) tried to assess the regional economic impacts of a transition to renewable energy generation in his review article. He believes clearly that defining technologies and assessment periods is very significant. Doytch and Narayan (2021) estimated the effects of non-renewable and renewable energy consumption on manufacturing and services growth. They have found that renewable energy enhances growth in high-growth sectors, that is, the services sector in high-income economies and the manufacturing sector in middle-income economies. Acheampong et al. (2021) investigated the causal relationship between renewable energy, CO 2 emission, and economic growth for 45 African (sub-Saharan) countries over 57 years (1960–2017). Using the GMM-PVAR method, they have concluded that a bidirectional causal relationship exists between economic growth and renewable energy ( Acheampong, Dzator, and Savage 2021 ). Another old study (comparatively) in 2003 by Ugur and Sari examined the causality relationship between the two series in the top 10 emerging economies and G7 countries. They have discovered bi-directional causality for Argentina, GDP to energy consumption causality for Korea and Italy, energy and consumption to GDP for Turkey, France, Germany, and Japan. Additionally, it was found that countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela have low renewable energy participation in their energy mix. An effect between renewable energy consumption and fossil fuels, as a possible response to periods of scarcity in reservoirs, was detected for these countries ( Koengkan et al., 2020b ).

In contrast, economic growth may slow down due to energy conservation in the case of the rest four nations ( Soytas and Sari, 2003 ). Another estimation suggested that non-renewable energy consumption has a significant and positive impact on economic activities and development across a large number of Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries ( Ivanovski, Hailemariam, and Smyth 2021 ). A review of hybrid renewable energy systems (HRES) in developing countries has been conducted by Zebra et al. (2021) . They believe Asian developing countries perform better than African nations for renewable and non-renewable mini-grids maintenance and productivity. They also believe that, in general, the costs of mini-grids will continue to decline, making renewable sources even more competitive at the utility scale. Some researchers also tried to find the opposite relationship between economic growth (barriers) and renewable energy development. Seetharaman et al. (2019 ) believe technological, social, and regulatory barriers hinder the development of RE development, but economic constraints do not directly impact the outcome of renewable energy.

In some countries, renewable energy and consumption do not hinder economic development, and on the other side, it plays a vital role in hindering economic development. So, according to Islam et al. (2022) , income growth shows positive and negative effects on renewable and non-renewable energy consumption. Consider that domestic and foreign investments positively affect renewable and non-renewable energy consumption. Furthermore, institutional quality has a positive impact on renewable energy consumption. Instead, the urbanization process has a negative impact on the consumption of renewable energy because it has a positive influence on the consumption of non-renewable energy ( Islam et al., 2022 ).

Unfortunately, despite the revolutionary attempt to adopt renewable energy technologies, some industrial countries are still firm on the consumption of fossil fuels energies with the aim of recording faster and more impressive economic growth ( Shrinkhal, 2019 ; Islam et al., 2021 ). Contrary to the positive effects on the environment generated with renewable energy sources, the economic serenity that can be reached using non-renewable enriches the coffers of different economies and the lifestyles of their people, but not those of the environment ( Doytch and Narayan, 2016 ). In some cases, renewable energy consumption (threshold level) does not significantly affect economic growth for developed countries. Renewable energy (RE) and economic development indicators may not correlate in selected EU countries. Despite some debate and unstable economic conditions, the share of RE in total energy consumption in EU countries has been systematically growing and was not much dependent on economic factors ( Ogonowski 2021 ). The economic value of solely replacing renewable energy with nuclear power and fossil energy could be very high and infeasible. They consider that electricity and power generation based on only renewable energy would cost an additional 35 trillion KRW/year for South Korea ( Park et al., 2016 ). This method is infeasible, and customer willingness to pay will be low. Lema et al. (2021) by taking in-depth analysis, tried to measure to what extent direct and indirect economic benefits are created when Chinese investments in RE projects in sub-Saharan Africa. Their research revealed that the FDI and investments on RE projects might have “bounded economic benefits” for the region by creating new job opportunities, production and training activities, linkage with local systems, and so on. In addition, economic awareness, public opinion, and mass participation are essential for the use of RE in the region. Citizens of Kenya (73%) (both urban and rural) strongly approved the development of RE sources technologies and (91%) believe that RE technologies will reduce the cost of electricity and power generation ( Oluoch et al., 2020 ).

Methodology Used in Review Assessment

We have considered Group seven (G7: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK, and the United States), countries (as developed nations and the Next-11 (N- 11: Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, Turkey, and Vietnam) countries (exclude South Korea) as developing countries.

To maintain the whole process, we have followed the PRISMA flowchart explained in Figure 3 :

FIGURE 3 . PRISMA flow diagram.

The PRISMA method—Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes—built a set of minimum elements based on the references highlighted in the systematic reviews and meta-analysis. The primary purpose of PRISMA is to focus primarily on studies that evaluate the effects of certain interventions. However, they can also be used to report systematic reviews that present with different objectives (e.g., from the evaluation of interventions) ( Prisma, 2021 ).

For this purpose, PRISMA was used because it is helpful for the critical evaluation of the published systematic reviews of this study, although it is not a tool for assessing the quality of a systematic review. For the main results of the literature review according to the PRISMA guidelines, we have considered the available online date for the “Year” column. We have followed the MLA style for the author’s name. The applied and references related theories are in the “Theories” column. Authors’ article methodologies are considered in the “Methods” column. The author’s near-future predictions or consequences are listed in the “Predictors” column. The results, conclusions, or outcomes are in the “Outcomes” column, followed by article keywords in the “Keywords” section. We have used google scholar citation for the citation column until the last week of December 2021. The citation number may vary as the citations are increasing every day. The last column is “Journal,” which denotes the respective article published journal name.

We have used Google Scholar, Scopus, Science Direct, and PubMed for research articles. Initially, we searched the articles using the keywords “Renewable energy” and “Economic growth.” We have 553 articles related to good governance and sustainable tourism mentioned in the article’s title. There were 17 duplicate articles that we had to remove. We deducted the articles unrelated to the topic content from this initial screening. After removing the irrelevant articles, we had 97 full-text eligible articles. From these 97 articles, we have selected 46 closely matched full-text articles for review ( Figure 3 ).

Effect of Renewable Energy in Economic Growth G7 Countries

While presenting economic prosperity, the G7 countries can still not guarantee environmental well-being. In fact, using the annual frequency data from 1980 to 2016, the impact on the environment of some variables was ascertained using panel data. The results show that financial globalization and eco-innovation reduce the ecological footprint. On the contrary, urbanization stimulates environmental degradation by increasing the ecological footprint values ( Ahmad et al., 2021 ).

Amri (2017) , using the dynamic simultaneous-equation panel data approach, investigated, over the period 1990–2012, the relationship between three indicators (economic growth, renewable energy, and trade) in different income groups of countries and underlined the interdependence of these variables. Notably, the main findings reveal a bidirectional nexus between renewable energy consumption and GDP in all groups of nations; a persistent bidirectional relationship among foreign trade and renewable energies in all groups of countries; finally, a bidirectional nexus between trade and economic growth in developed, developing, and others developed countries. In addition, a team of researchers investigated the dynamic effect of RE consumption, biocapacity, and economic growth in the United States from 1985 to 2014. Using the ARDL model, the authors claim that a decline in environmental degradation can attribute to an increase in RE consumption through its negative effect on the ecological footprint. Their study revealed that biocapacity and economic growth would exert more pressure on the ecological footprint. Furthermore, a causal relationship was built between ecological footprint and economic growth and economic growth and biocapacity ( Usman, Alola, and Sarkodie 2020 ).

Armeanu et al. (2021) , investigated, using several statistical methods, the interrelationships, over the period 1990–2014, among renewable energy, types of energy, economic growth, CO 2 emissions, and urbanization in different income groups of countries, and highlighted that “In the case of the group of countries with a high level of income, the presence of the co-integration of the renewable energy use with the carbon releases, renewable and nuclear energy, electric power consumption, and the urban population was observed” and the relationship was satisfied, due to the interest of this group of countries to preserve the environment. Furthermore, through the Granger causality test, the authors find a single-bidirectional causal relationship between economic growth and energy intensity in the low-income countries, whereas many bidirectional relations among the variables in high-income countries, particularly between energy intensity and CO 2 emissions.

Another study was conducted by Hao et al. (2021) to investigate the effects of green growth on CO 2 emissions for G7 countries over the past twenty-five years, using second-generation panel data methods, for example, the distributive self-regressive-augmented transversal lag model (CSARDL). The results revealed that both short- and long-term GDP growth impact environmental impoverishment. Thus, the thesis that green growth supports the quality of the environment is confirmed. The authors highlighted that any changes in CO 2 , GDP, green growth (GG), environmental taxes (ET), renewable energy consumption (REC), and human capital (HC) in one of the G7 countries would have consequences in other G7 countries in an interconnected nexus between G7 countries.

However, at the regional level, total energy consumption positively affects growth, while renewable sources negatively affect development in some regions in low- and middle-income countries ( Namahoro et al., 2021a ). Instead of testing the relationships among variables with appropriate and feasible econometrics modeling techniques, using panel data methodologies, Li and Leung (2021) evaluated the relationship between energy prices, economic growth, and renewable energy consumption. The results of Li and Lung’s study (2021) highlighted the importance of economic growth in supporting renewable energy consumption, especially in G7 countries with developed economies. However, factors that are affected through renewable energy systems are listed in Table 2 . By focusing on R&D spending and uniform policies, the G7 countries have transformed their economies from copying countries to a community of dynamic economies. As a result, and in tandem with the economy’s digitalization. This study examines the relationship between energy, financial, environmental sustainability, and social performance of G7 countries using a data envelopment analysis (DEA)-like composite score. The foundation of this study is formed over the reconstruction and modification of regional emissions and examining aspects such as energy, efficiency, and usage, in addition to the prospect of having a regional development outline. Most prior research used certain essential methodologies to examine emission levels and variance depending on actors connected to energy efficiency, energy structure, financial development, production, industry, technological development openness, and population.

TABLE 2 . Factor that effected through the renewable energy system.

Namahoro et al. (2021b) underlined that renewable energy consumption affects economic growth, using an asymmetric analysis with a non-linear autoregressive-distributed lagged model (NARDL) and causality test. In contrast, Wang and Wang (2020) reveal that in the G7 countries, renewable energy consumption positively affects economic growth. The threshold value changes influence in this positive relationship. Thus, the role of growing renewable energy use to stimulate economic growth is non-linear. For example, if the EU countries increase their renewable energy over a threshold value, the position of renewable energy in supporting economic development is more significant. In the same line, in 2020, Chen et al. (2020) studied the causal link between renewable energy consumption and economic growth using a threshold model. The reference period is 1995–2015, and they confirm that renewable energies positively and significantly affect the economic growth in the OECD countries, whereas no significant effect is in the developed countries. The authors underlined that in developing and non-OECD countries, renewable energies significantly affect economic growth over a certain threshold of their consumption. In addition, Yang et al. (2021) found feed-in-tarrif (FIT) have higher expected output and profit, and lower market prices. The risks of production and gain is of relatively more significant. By contrast, the production and profit of renewable portfolio standard (RPS) remain relatively more stable. In the same year, Sharma et al. (2021) examined the interrelationships between sustainability indicators and financial growth performance, using Arellano–Bond dynamic panel data estimation, system dynamic panel data estimation, and the augmented mean group model. The results highlighted that the transition toward renewable energy is economically in the long run, positively impacting economic growth in line with the environment. From this point of view, total investment in RE and descriptive statistics with technological specific scores by G7 countries are listed in Tables 3 , 4 , respectively. Table 3 shows the Renewable Energy Country Attractive Index of different countries, and according to the score it is found out in the USA the growth or electricity generation through the renewable energy in the wonderful way. Overall data also shows the growth rate of the onshore wind energy systems, solar PV, solar CSP, geothermal systems are better in the United States; on the other hand, the offshore wind energy system and biomass systems are popular in the United Kingdom. The Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Index (RECAI) rates the attractiveness of renewable energy investment and deployment prospects in the world’s top 40 markets. The rankings reflect our evaluations of market attractiveness and worldwide market trends. Table 4 describes the different statistical parameters with central tendency in terms of mean, mode, and median of renewable energy sources. It also finds most of the energy sources are minimum RECAI for Canada and maximum for the United States.

TABLE 3 . G 7 countries that invest in renewable sources.

TABLE 4 . Descriptive statistics with technological specific scores of G7 countries.

In Figure 4 , we have listed the comparative technology-specific scores in various factors among G7 countries.

FIGURE 4 . Comparison of technology-specific score of G7 countries. Data source: author elaboration.

There are also different phenomena in energy sector resources, capacity, and different level scales may have different outcomes. There is a possibility of reducing energy and resource consumption and to advance degrowth-related ideals of energy local production at local and small-scale energy systems in Spain and Greece ( Tsagkari, Roca, and Kallis 2021 ). The authors summarize that despite the degrowth potential of these local energy projects, their prospects are limited to revitalizing local economies and empowering local communities. The summary results of the literature review regarding G7 countries are listed in Table 5 .

TABLE 5 . Main results of literature review according to PRISMA guidelines of G7 countries.

Effect of Renewable Energy in Economic Growth Next-11 Countries

Rural people in impoverished and developing nations lack access to electricity that is dependable, economical, and long-lasting. Even though these countries have limited renewable energy sources, many urban and rural people rely on kerosene, diesel, and other fossil fuels to meet their energy needs. The renewable energy capacity in the Next-11 nations is shown in Table 6 .

TABLE 6 . Renewable energy capacity in 11 countries.

The Bangladesh’s energy sector remains deficient, impeding the country’s smooth economic activity, and progress. For greening growth and meeting sustainable development goals (SDGs), increasing the amount of renewable energy in the energy resources mix and reducing and reducing the material consumption utilized for energy generation is critical ( Baniya, Giurco, and Kelly 2021 ). The government attempts to close the gap between supply and demand for electricity by installing short-term power plants, coal-fired power plants, and importing from neighboring nations. However, the country still has a long way to produce and supply enough power. Furthermore, increased FDI inflows connected to energy limit the country’s extensive usage of renewable energy. At the same time, increased economic growth and CO 2 emissions in the area, particularly in Bangladesh, stimulate the use of renewable energy ( Murshed 2021 ). Another renewable energy source, tidal power, may play an essential part in the nation’s electrical supply by adding to it ( Ahmad and Hasan 2021 , 25). This will very certainly stimulate the industry and commercial activity along the shore. The answer may be alternatives to current energy sources, such as renewable energy resources. More renewable energy sources will be introduced and consumed, reducing energy scarcity, and promoting economic activity and growth ( Bhuiyan, Mamur, and Begum 2021 ). Researchers such as Alam et al. (2017) proposed a one-way causal relationship between economic growth and overall energy demand (renewable and non-renewable). They claim that even a cautious approach to energy sources would not affect the country’s economy, but that because economic success leads to increased energy consumption, Bangladesh must pursue renewable energy and demand-side management ( Alam, Ahmed, and Begum 2017 ). Nigeria, one of the NEXT-11 countries, is one of the Africa’s largest fossil fuel exporters. However, this country has recently experienced a significant energy problem. Biofuel has been identified as renewable energy (bioethanol and biodiesel) in recent years. Waste materials and feedstocks are widely available and accessible, potentially fueling Nigeria’s socio-economic progress ( Adewuyi 2020 ). Islam et al. describe the economic effect of renewable and non-renewable energy systems. The dynamic simulations approach looks at the influence of income growth, foreign direct investment, domestic investment, urbanization, physical infrastructure, and institutional quality on renewable and non-renewable energy consumption in Bangladesh from 1990 to 2019. According to empirical evidence, income growth positively and negatively impact renewable and non-renewable energy usage. Domestic investment has a favorable influence on renewable and non-renewable energy usage. It has been observed that foreign direct investment has a beneficial effect on renewable energy use. Although urbanization has a negative impact on renewable energy consumption, it positively impacts non-renewable energy consumption. Physical infrastructure has a positive and negative influence on renewable and non-renewable energy usage. Factor that effected through the renewable energy system on N-11 countries is listed in Table 7 .

TABLE 7 . Factor that effected through the renewable energy system on N-11 countries.

Ramadan et al. discuss the economic evaluation of new regulatory tariffs for renewables in Egypt. After 25 years of operation, the results show that adding a CAES system will increase the profitability of the Egyptian government’s new tariff for wind installations, with an NPV of $306 million compared to $207 million for a stand-alone wind system. Furthermore, the economic advantages rise if the government incentives for new renewable energy system installations or decreases financing rates. Ghouchani et al. investigate Iran’s renewable energy development potential. Three potential possibilities for the Iran’s renewable energy sector are examined in this report “long-term technology acquisition programs,” “policy stabilization,” and “attraction of international investment.” The findings indicated that renewable energy policy planning and implementation success is determined by selecting the most adaptive policies to national goals, technological capabilities, and economy. To swiftly and successfully develop and implement a comprehensive renewable energy plan, a thorough analysis of limits, impediments, available facilities and technologies, international sanctions, and foreign investment is essential. Sovacool et al. investigated and provided remedies to the likelihood of corruption in the Mexico’s renewable energy sector. The report then examines particular corruption risks in four nations (Mexico, Malaysia, Kenya, and South Africa) before offering five recommendations and solutions to help combat corruption. These approaches include corruption risk mapping, subsidy registries, sunset clauses, transparency initiatives, anti-corruption regulations, and shared ownership models. In the Economic Community of West African States’ renewable energy plan framework, Ozoegwe et al. examined Nigeria’s solar energy policy goals and tactics. This initiative is advised since the national solar energy strategy document lacks policies on encouraging the solar technology company in Nigeria. The proposals emphasized the requirements of the Renewable Energy Policy of the Economic Community of the West African States, which are currently in place. Case studies supported the recommendations for a community-shared business model for home end users and clusters of small companies in physical market places and an energy management contract business model for large organizations.

Ajayi et al. (2022) examined the influence of sustainable energy on national climate change, food security, and job opportunities in implications for Nigeria. It looked at international data on the links between energy and renewable energy adoption, national development, population growth, job creation, rural–urban integration, and the inherent benefits of renewable energy resources in mitigating climate change and global warming incidents. If Nigeria wants to continue economic growth, particularly in agriculture and food security, renewable energy for power generation must be included in the country’s rural development policy. It also shows that renewable energy can minimize its anthropogenic climate change contribution. From this point of view, total investment in RE and descriptive statistics with technological specific scores by N-11 countries are listed in Tables 8 , 9 , respectively. According to Table 8 , RECAI of Egypt is maximum, and the growth rate of renewable energy in Egypt is also maximum. Table 8 also shows that the RECAI score of some of the countries in the offshore wind, such as Vietnam and geothermal in Egypt is minimal. The World Bank is putting out a long-term offshore wind roadmap for Turkey to issue a tender in the next 2 to 3 years. Following the cancellation of a 1.2 GW offshore wind auction in mid-2018, the World Bank is now in charge of disbursing EU money to support the feasibility and environmental studies in preparation for a second sale. Table 9 describes the different statistical parameters with central tendency in terms of mean, mode, and median of renewable energy sources. The 57th edition of our Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Index (RECAI) demonstrates that there is a room for further renewable energy investment and strong demand for it. Institutional investors, in particular, have the ability and desire to offer massive, long-term capital injections required to support the fast-growing global renewable energy sector.

TABLE 8 . Next-11 countries that invest in renewable sources.

TABLE 9 . Descriptive statistics with technological specific scores of N-11 countries.

In Figure 5 , we have listed the comparative technology-specific scores in various factors among N-11 countries.

FIGURE 5 . Comparison of technology-specific score of N-11 countries.

The impact of renewable energy use on Nigeria’s environmental quality in several sectors was studied by Maji and his colleagues. The influence of renewable energy consumption on sectoral environmental quality is being examined in Nigeria as part of the government’s effectiveness. A regression analysis was used to estimate a dataset from 1989 to 2019. The per capita indicator, environmental quality indicators, and sectoral output from the agricultural, manufacturing, construction sectors, transportation, oil, residential, commercial, and public services sectors, and other sectors were examined. Adelaja et al. discussed the several barriers to national renewable energy adoption in Nigeria. Despite the privatization of Nigeria’s largest power utility company, the Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN), the country’s electrical demand is rarely met. Nigeria’s electricity output has lately been reduced, despite a massive increase in demand.

To fill the hole, polluting electric generators, inefficient energy sources including candles, kerosene lamps, paraffin devices, and entire energy abstention have all been employed. These problems lead to missed commercial and economic prospects, low quality of life, and missed long-term development potential. Lin et al. looked at how Nigeria’s renewable energy program affected the country’s total output. Based on Nigeria’s Renewable Energy Program aims, this research asks three main questions, Is it possible for Nigeria’s economy to be built entirely on renewable energy? Is it feasible to replace non-renewable energy with renewable energy? What is renewable energy’s economic impact? This study focuses on the growth of renewable energy in Nigeria. We calculate, among other things, the economic effect, production elasticity, and substitution possibilities of renewable and non-renewable energy sources. Our findings, based on a dataset from 1980 to 2015 and analyzed using the translog production function, demonstrate that capital and labor are the key drivers of output in Nigeria; however, although being positive, the economic effect of renewable and non-renewable energy sources is negligible. Wang and Wang. (2020) studied the non-linear behavior of aggregated and disaggregated renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on GDP per capita in Pakistan. This research looked at how diverse forms of energy, such as renewables, fossil fuels, oil-based electrical generating, and hydroelectric power, impact Pakistan’s output. While using fossil fuels to boost economic growth may be beneficial in the early stages of production, it is not helpful in the later stages of production. According to the study, using clean energy, while not beneficial in the early stages of production in expanding production activities in Pakistan, is useful in the later stages of production, not only for production but also for the environment.

Mohamed et al. (2021) in Pakistan discussed the role of renewable energy in combating terrorism. This study looks at the relationship between terrorism, renewable energy, and fossil fuel consumption in Pakistan, taking into account several variables such as economic development and income disparity. Using the autoregressive-distributed lag testing technique, this study evaluated the long-term connection between the examined variables throughout the yearly period of 1980–2015. Their variables have long-term relationships, as shown by the Wald test. The summary results of the literature review regarding the Next-11 (N-11) countries are listed in Table 10 .

TABLE 10 . Main results of literature review according to PRISMA guidelines of Next-11 Countries.

Granger causality identifies the long-term bi-directional causal links between all variables. The research demonstrates short-term unidirectional causes between terrorism and fossil energy, GDP and renewable energy, and wealth disparity and fossil energy, even though there are bidirectional causal links between renewable energy and fossil energy in the near run. In reality, long-term statistics demonstrate that fossil fuels decrease terrorism while renewable energy increases it.

Wang and Wang (2020) studied renewable energy use, economic growth, and the human development index in Pakistan. This study examines the link between renewable energy consumption, economic growth, and the human development index in Pakistan from 1990 to 2014 using the two-stage least square approach. According to empirical research, using renewable energy does not improve Pakistan’s human development. Surprisingly, the lesser a country’s degree, the higher its income will be. CO 2 emissions also contribute to the enhancement of the human development index. Furthermore, trade liberalization stifles Pakistan’s progress in terms of human development. Again, the long-term feedback idea between environmental influences and human development is supported by causality analysis.

Islam et al. (2022) demonstrate how renewable energy helps Pakistan prosper economically. The research aims to look at the link between renewable energy consumption and economic growth in Pakistan, taking into account capital and labor as possible production function variables. In this work, the autoregressive-distributed lag (ARDL) model and the rolling window approach (RWA) were used to integrate data in a Pakistani scenario. Quarterly data from 1972Q1 to 2011Q4 were used in the study. Bertheau and his colleagues looked into it. A geospatial and techno–economic study for the Philippines was based on 100% renewable energy micro-grids. As a result, this study recommends a hybrid approach that combines geospatial analysis, cluster analysis, and energy system modeling: To begin, they identify islands that are not connected to the power grid. Second, cluster analysis is used to identify trends. Third, we perform simulations of energy systems employing solar, wind, and battery storage to generate 100% renewable energy systems. Our research will focus on 649 non-electrified islands with 650,000 people. These islands are grouped into four groups based on population and renewable resource availability. They determined that cost-optimized 100 percent renewable energy systems rely on solar and storage capacity for each cluster, with additional wind capacity. According to Doytch and Narayan (2021) , renewable energy boosts economic growth. This study examines the influence of non-renewable and renewable energy consumption on economic development, distinguishing between manufacturing and service growth. Our empirical model is based on an endogenous growth framework with an increasing number of intermediate capital goods that comprise non-renewable and renewable energy inputs. We examine the impacts of non-renewable and renewable energy consumption on manufacturing and service growth, broken down by the type of usage (industrial, residential, and total final energy consumption) while accounting for well-known growth variables. Park and his colleagues looked at the procedures used by South Korean renewable energy cooperatives. This research focuses on citizen participatory RE co-ops as a vital niche in the community-led energy route. This study did a narrative analysis based on the RE co-ops’ present state and in-depth interviews. We examined key changes and inertia in the conventional energy system at the national, regional, and local levels by comparing within and across scales. Each scale was made up of a tangle of sub-regimes such as market, policy, and culture. We believe a niche may play a creative role in changing sub-regimes of various sizes based on resources that can be handled, such as money resources, rules, and connections. Sim J et al. looked at the economic and environmental benefits of R&D investment in the renewable energy sector in South Korea. The South Korean government has announced a strategy to invest in renewable energy to shift the country’s economy away from fossil fuels and toward renewables. This study assesses R&D investment in six types of renewable energy sources: biomass, waste, solar thermal energy, photovoltaic energy, marine energy, and wind power energy while taking into account several uncertainty factors such as the amount of renewable energy produced, R&D investment, unit price, and risk-free interest rate. According to Yurtkuran et al., agriculture, renewable energy generation, and globalization all influence CO 2 emissions in Turkey. This study investigates the impact of agriculture, renewable energy production, and globalization on CO 2 emissions in Turkey between 1970 and 2017. It uses the Gregory–Hansen integration test, bootstrap autoregressive-distributed lag (ARDL) approach, fully modified ordinary least squares, dynamic ordinary least squares, and long run estimators. The KOF indices for politics, society, and economics are explanatory variables. The Gregory–Hansen test and the bootstrap ARDL approach imply co-integration variables. In Turkey, Shan et al. investigated the role of green technology innovation and renewable energy in achieving carbon neutrality. A Granger causality test determines the causal relationship between green technology innovation, energy consumption, renewable energy, population, per capita income, and carbon dioxide emissions. Green technology innovation, renewable energy, energy consumption, population, per capita income, and carbon dioxide emissions are all co-integrated in the long run. Furthermore, while green technology innovation and renewable energy reduce carbon dioxide emissions, energy consumption, population, and per capita carbon emissions increase. Kul et al. evaluated the renewable energy investment risk factors for Turkey’s long-term development. This study uses a three-stage decision framework based on the multi-criteria decision methodology (MCDM) to assess and examine the risk factors of REIs in Turkey. The Delphi approach identifies REI risk factors in the first stage. The analytical hierarchy process is used in the second stage to examine the discovered REI risk factors (AHP). The third stage involves applying fuzzy weighted aggregated sum product assessment to evaluate and prioritize methods for overcoming risk issues in REI projects (FWASPAS). The Delphi technique discovered six primary risk variables and 23 sub-risk factors. Economic and commercial risks emerged as prominent risk factors in AHP research. The energy plan for a new era of economic development in Vietnam was examined by Nong et al. (2020) . The prospective implications of such a new power strategy in Vietnam are examined in this research by extending an economic electricity-detailed model. We found that, under a 2030 target scenario, the policy will lower the prices of both fossil- and renewable-based power by 40–78%, benefiting all sectors of the economy by allowing them to replace fossil fuels. Households benefit the most, as indicated by improvements in the per capita utility of 5.64–19.19%. Overall, the Vietnamese economy benefits greatly from the various scenarios, with real GDP increasing by 5.44–24.83%, significantly greater than the results in other countries. Nguyen et al. describe the economic potential of renewable energy in the Vietnam’s electrical industry. In a baseline scenario without renewables, coal provides 44% of total electricity generation from 2010 to 2030. Renewable energy has the potential to reduce that amount to 39%, as well as the sector’s overall CO 2 emissions by 8%, SO 2 by 3%, and NOx by 4%. Furthermore, renewables have the potential to avoid the construction of 4.4 GW of fossil fuel generating capacity, save local coal, and minimize coal and gas imports, therefore boosting energy independence and security. Omri et al. demonstrate how renewable energy helps offset the adverse effects of environmental issues on socio-economic well-being. The findings of this article demonstrate that 1) CO 2 emissions have unconditionally adverse effects on human development and economic growth; 2) the net impact on human growth of the economy from the interaction among renewable power and carbon intensity are positive, that is, renewable energy reduces the impacts of per capita CO 2 emissions on human development and economic growth; and 3) sustainable energy interacts with CO 2 frequency and carbon intensity from liquid fuels.

Conclusion and Policy Implications

Global warming, environmental pollution, and other related issues are no more country-specific problems now. For power generation and carbon dioxide sequestration, the clean development mechanism involves the massive deployment of renewable energy technologies to promote the concept of sustainable development ( Latake et al., 2015 ). In addition to the (greenhouse gas) GHG mitigating potential of renewable energy resources, the energy security guarantee is swiftly becoming a reality with the exploitation of different renewable energy resources. The clean development mechanism is a fundamental idea of the Kyoto Protocol under the canopy of the United Nations Framework on Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). However, it was envisaged that the industrialized nations would finance emission reduction mechanisms whereby the fund will be given to developing countries as sponsorship for renewable energy programs. To mitigate this problem, introducing more green technologies and renewable energy sources can be a solution. But, uncertainty, input–output cost analysis, higher production and maintenance cost, skill workforce, enough financial strengths, awareness etc ., are only a few challenges toward mass sustainable energy development. Thus, in comparison of the effects of feed-in tariff (FIT) with a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) in the developing renewable energy industry uncertainty, FIT has higher expected output and profit and lower market prices. On the other hand, the production and profit of RPS remain relatively more stable. If the cost of renewable energy is high, the incentive effect of the policy under FIT seems better. As the price goes down, the incentive effect under RPS probably continues to rise. According to the aforementioned research, it is found out that the renewable energy sector plays a very vital role in the overall growth of the country. Developing a more renewable energy system is necessary for Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria.

Renewable energy and natural resources significantly reduce emissions ( Usman and Lorente, 2022 ). Consequently, the environmental impact of CO 2 emissions requires widespread monitoring worldwide to analyze the effects on climate change (eg., floods, landslides, droughts, and increase in global average temperature). All these effects weigh under the economic conditions of each country ( Halldó rsson and Kovács, 2010 ). As Hao et al. (2021) , green growth and eco-innovation revolutionize the industrial structure. The G7 countries must focus on a green growth strategy to achieve the SDGs.

In the renewable energy capacity in Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, Turkey, and Vietnam, it is found that Indonesia plays a vital role using the renewable energy system in the country’s economic growth. The installed capacity of the renewable energy system in Indonesia is 14,690,000 MW. On the other hand, the Pakistan study looked at how different types of energy, such as renewables, fossil fuels, oil-based electrical generation, and hydroelectric power, can affect the output level in Pakistan. Our study concludes that while using fossil fuels to boost economic growth may be beneficial in the early stages of production, it is not helpful in the later stages of production. Whereas using clean energy may not be beneficial in the early stages of production in expanding production activities in developing countries, it is beneficial in the later stages of production not only for production but also for the environment. Policy makers should speed up the deep reforms regarding renewable energy to mitigate environmental degradation ( Koengkan et al., 2020b ). It has been proven that globalization can stimulate renewable energy sources for Latin American countries ( Koengkan et al., 2020a ). This will be beneficial in the region and at the world stage, developing green energy technologies. Thus, it is suggested that policy makers take advantage of globalization to reduce the costs of RE technologies and develop policies encouraging the access of these technologies by households with low income.

This is to note that the study has some limitations. For example, in this article, we have considered mainly G7 and N-11 countries which reflect primarily developed and developing countries. Meanwhile, many underdeveloped countries were not considered in the study. In addition, we have taken the last 10 years (2010–2021) of published articles for this systematic review. But the world economic conditions have been changing rapidly among nations. If we would consider the recent 5 years, the outcome of the review process may vary.

Furthermore, we have only analyzed English language articles. But there may be other critically related articles published in local languages such as Mandarin Chinese, Russians, and Spanish. Thus, we believe there is scope for more research on this topic area.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author Contributions

MB: conceptualization, methodology, resources and software, writing—original draft, and supervision. VK: original draft. AM: investigation, methodology, writing—original draft, supervision, and formal analysis. GP: data curation, validation, writing—original draft, and writing—review and editing. QZ: Revise, Proofread. XH: Proofread.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors, and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

We thank the financial support of Széchenyi 2020 under the “EFOP-3.6.1-16-2016-00015.”

Acheampong, A. O., Dzator, J., and Savage, D. A. (2021). Renewable Energy, CO 2 Emissions and Economic Growth in Sub-saharan Africa: Does Institutional Quality Matter? J. Pol. Model. 43 (5), 1070–1093. doi:10.1016/j.jpolmod.2021.03.011

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Adewuyi, A. (2020). Challenges and Prospects of Renewable Energy in Nigeria: A Case of Bioethanol and Biodiesel Production. Energ. Rep. 6 (February), 77–88. doi:10.1016/j.egyr.2019.12.002

Ajayi, O. O., Mokryani, G., and Edun, B. M. (2022). Sustainable Energy for National Climate Change, Food Security and Employment Opportunities: Implications for Nigeria. Fuel Communications 10, 100045. doi:10.1016/j.jfueco.2021.100045

Ahmad, M., and Hasan, G. M. J. (2021). “Chapter 25 - Renewable Energy in Bangladesh: Status and Potential,” in Design, Analysis, and Applications of Renewable Energy Systems . Editors A T Azar, and N A Kamal (Cambridge: Academic Press ), 607–625. Advances in Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos (ANDC). doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-824555-2.00023-X

Ahmad, M., Jiang, P., Murshed, M., Shehzad, K., Akram, R., Cui, L., et al. (2021). Modelling the Dynamic Linkages between Eco-Innovation, Urbanization, Economic Growth and Ecological Footprints for G7 Countries: Does Financial Globalization Matter? Sustain. Cities Soc. 70, 102881. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2021.102881

Alam, M. J., Ahmed, M., and Begum, I. A. (2017). Nexus between Non-renewable Energy Demand and Economic Growth in Bangladesh: Application of Maximum Entropy Bootstrap Approach. Renew. Sustain. Energ. Rev. 72, 399–406. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.007

Amri, F. (2017). Intercourse across Economic Growth, Trade and Renewable Energy Consumption in Developing and Developed Countries. Renew. Sustain. Energ. Rev. 69, 527–534. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.230

Armeanu, D. S., Joldes, C. C., Gherghina, S. C., and Andrei, J. V. (2021). Understanding the Multidimensional Linkages Among Renewable Energy, Pollution, Economic Growth and Urbanization in Contemporary Economies: Quantitative Assessments across Different Income Countries' Groups. Renew. Sustain. Energ. Rev. 142, 110818. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2021.110818

Awodumi, O. B., and Adewuyi, A. O. (2020). The Role of Non-renewable Energy Consumption in Economic Growth and Carbon Emission: Evidence from Oil Producing Economies in Africa. Energ. Strategy Rev. 27 (January), 100434. doi:10.1016/j.esr.2019.100434

Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Ibáñez-Luzón, L., Usman, M., and Shahbaz, M. (2022). The Environmental Kuznets Curve, Based on the Economic Complexity, and the Pollution haven Hypothesis in PIIGS Countries. Renew. Energ. 185, 1441–1455. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2021.10.059

Baniya, B., Giurco, D., and Kelly, S. (2021). Green Growth in Nepal and Bangladesh: Empirical Analysis and Future Prospects. Energy Policy 149 (July 2020), 112049. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112049

Bhuiyan, M. R. A., Mamur, H., and Begum, J. (2021). A Brief Review on Renewable and Sustainable Energy Resources in Bangladesh. Clean. Eng. Techn. 4, 100208. doi:10.1016/j.clet.2021.100208

Chen, C., Pinar, M., and Stengos, T. (2020). Renewable Energy Consumption and Economic Growth Nexus: Evidence from a Threshold Model. Energy policy 139, 111295. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111295

Come Zebra, E. I., van der Windt, H. J., Nhumaio, G., and Faaij, A. P. C. (2021). A Review of Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems in Mini-Grids for Off-Grid Electrification in Developing Countries. Renew. Sustain. Energ. Rev. 144 (July), 111036. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2021.111036

Djurisic, V., Smolovic, J. C., Misnic, N., and Rogic, S. (2020). Analysis of Public Attitudes and Perceptions towards Renewable Energy Sources in Montenegro. Energ. Rep. 6 (November), 395–403. doi:10.1016/j.egyr.2020.08.059

Doytch, N., and Narayan, S. (2016). Does FDI Influence Renewable Energy Consumption? an Analysis of Sectoral FDI Impact on Renewable and Non-renewable Industrial Energy Consumption. Energ. Econ. 54, 291–301. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2015.12.010

Doytch, N., and Narayan, S. (2021). Does Transitioning towards Renewable Energy Accelerate Economic Growth? an Analysis of Sectoral Growth for a Dynamic Panel of Countries. Energy 235, 121290. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2021.121290

Gabr, E. M., and Mohamed, S. M. (2020). Energy Management Model to Minimize Fuel Consumption and Control Harmful Gas Emissions. Int. J. Energ Water Res. 4 (4), 453–463. doi:10.1007/s42108-020-00085-2

Halldórsson, Á., and Kovács, G. (2010). The Sustainable Agenda and Energy Efficiency. Int. J. Phys. Distribution Logistics Manage. 40 (1/2), 5–13. doi:10.1108/09600031011018019

Hao, L.-N., Umar, M., Khan, Z., and Ali, W. (2021). Green Growth and Low Carbon Emission in G7 Countries: How Critical the Network of Environmental Taxes, Renewable Energy and Human Capital Is? Sci. Total Environ. 752, 141853. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141853

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Irfan, M., Zhao, Z.-Y., Rehman, A., Ozturk, I., and Li, H. (2021). Consumers' Intention-Based Influence Factors of Renewable Energy Adoption in Pakistan: a Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28 (1), 432–445. doi:10.1007/s11356-020-10504-w

Islam, M. M., Irfan, M., Shahbaz, M., and Vo, X. V. (2022). Renewable and Non-renewable Energy Consumption in Bangladesh: The Relative Influencing Profiles of Economic Factors, Urbanization, Physical Infrastructure and Institutional Quality. Renew. Energ. 184, 1130–1149. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2021.12.020

Islam, M. M., Khan, M. K., Tareque, M., Jehan, N., and Dagar, V. (2021). Impact of Globalization, Foreign Direct Investment, and Energy Consumption on CO2 Emissions in Bangladesh: Does Institutional Quality Matter? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28, 48851–48871. doi:10.1007/s11356-021-13441-4

Ivanovski, K., Hailemariam, A., and Smyth, R. (2021). The Effect of Renewable and Non-renewable Energy Consumption on Economic Growth: Non-parametric Evidence. J. Clean. Prod. 286, 124956. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124956

Jenniches, S. (2018). Assessing the Regional Economic Impacts of Renewable Energy Sources - A Literature Review. Renew. Sustain. Energ. Rev. 93 (October), 35–51. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.008

Jiang, T., Yu, Y., Jahanger, A., and Balsalobre-Lorente, D. (2022). Structural Emissions Reduction of China's Power and Heating Industry under the Goal of "double Carbon": A Perspective from Input-Output Analysis. Sustainable Prod. Consumption 31, 346–356. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2022.03.003

Jordan, S., and Philips, A. Q. (2018). DYNARDL: Stata Module to Dynamically Simulate Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) Models . Available at: https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:boc:bocode:s458572 .

Google Scholar

Koengkan, M., Fuinhas, J. A., and Marques, A. C. (2019). “The Relationship between Financial Openness, Renewable and Nonrenewable Energy Consumption, CO2 Emissions, and Economic Growth in the Latin American Countries: an Approach with a Panel Vector Auto Regression Model,” in The Extended Energy-Growth Nexus . Editors J A Fuinhas, and A Marques (Cambridge: Academic Press ), 199–229. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-815719-0.00007-3

Koengkan, M., Fuinhas, J. A., and Santiago, R. (2020b). The Relationship between CO2 Emissions, Renewable and Non-renewable Energy Consumption, Economic Growth, and Urbanisation in the Southern Common Market. J. Environ. Econ. Pol. 9 (4), 383–401. doi:10.1080/21606544.2019.1702902

Koengkan, M., Poveda, Y. E., and Fuinhas, J. A. (2020a). Globalisation as a Motor of Renewable Energy Development in Latin America Countries. GeoJournal 85 (6), 1591–1602. doi:10.1007/s10708-019-10042-0

Konuk, F., Zeren, F., Akpınar, S., and Yıldız, Ş. (2021). Biomass Energy Consumption and Economic Growth: Further Evidence from NEXT-11 Countries. Energ. Rep. 7 (November), 4825–4832. doi:10.1016/j.egyr.2021.07.070

Latake, P. T., Pawar, P., and Ranveer, A. C. (2015). The Greenhouse Effect and its Impacts on Environment. Int. J. Innov. Res. Creat. Technol. 1 (3), 333–337.

Lema, R., Bhamidipati, P. L., Gregersen, C., Hansen, U. E., and Kirchherr, J. (2021). China's Investments in Renewable Energy in Africa: Creating Co-benefits or Just Cashing-in?World Development. World Develop. 141 (May), 105365. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105365

Li, R., and Leung, G. C. K. (2021). The Relationship between Energy Prices, Economic Growth and Renewable Energy Consumption: Evidence from Europe. Energ. Rep. 7, 1712–1719. doi:10.1016/j.egyr.2021.03.030

Mohamed, H., Alimi, M., and Youssef, S. B. (2021). The Role of Renewable Energy in Reducing Terrorism: Evidence From Pakistan. Renewable Energy 175, 1088–1100. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2021.05.024

Murshed, M. (2021). Can Regional Trade Integration Facilitate Renewable Energy Transition to Ensure Energy Sustainability in South Asia? Energ. Rep. 7, 808–821. doi:10.1016/j.egyr.2021.01.038

Namahoro, J. P., Nzabanita, J., and Wu, Q. (2021a). The Impact of Total and Renewable Energy Consumption on Economic Growth in Lower and Middle- and Upper-Middle-Income Groups: Evidence from CS-DL and CCEMG Analysis. Energy 237, 121536. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2021.121536

Namahoro, J. P., Wu, Q., Xiao, H., and Zhou, N. (2021b). The Asymmetric Nexus of Renewable Energy Consumption and Economic Growth: New Evidence from Rwanda. Renew. Energ. 174, 336–346. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2021.04.017

Nong, D., Wang, C., and Al-Amin, A. Q. (2020). A Critical Review of Energy Resources, Policies and Scientific Studies towards a Cleaner and More Sustainable Economy in Vietnam. Renew. Sustain. Energ. Rev. 134, 110117. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2020.110117

Ogonowski, P. (2021). Application of VMCM, to Assess of Renewable Energy Impact in European Union Countries. Proced. Comput. Sci. 192, 4762–4769. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2021.09.254

Oluoch, S., Lal, P., Susaeta, A., and Vedwan, N. (2020). Assessment of Public Awareness, Acceptance and Attitudes towards Renewable Energy in Kenya. Scientific Afr. 9 (September), e00512. doi:10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00512

Park, S.-H., Jung, W.-J., Kim, T.-H., and Lee, S.-Y. T. (2016). Can Renewable Energy Replace Nuclear Power in Korea? an Economic Valuation Analysis. Nucl. Eng. Techn. 48 (2), 559–571. doi:10.1016/j.net.2015.12.012

Pesaran, M. H., and Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing Slope Homogeneity in Large Panels. Journal of Econometrics 142 (1), 50–93. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010

Prisma (2021). Transparent Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. available at http://www.prisma-statement.org/ (Last accessed date December 18, 2021).

RECAI (2020). Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Index. Available at https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/ey-com/en_gl/topics/power-and-utilities/ey-recai-56-country-index.pdf (Last accessed date December 19, 2021).

Seetharaman, K. M., Moorthy, K., Patwa, N., Saravanan, Yash., and Gupta, Y. (2019). Breaking Barriers in Deployment of Renewable Energy. Heliyon 5 (1), e01166. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01166

Sharma, G. D., Tiwari, A. K., Erkut, B., and Mundi, H. S. (2021). Exploring the Nexus between Non-renewable and Renewable Energy Consumptions and Economic Development: Evidence from Panel Estimations. Renew. Sustain. Energ. Rev. 146, 111152. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2021.111152

Shrinkhal, R. (2019). “Economics, Technology, and Environmental Protection,” in Phytomanagement of Polluted Sites (Amsterdam: Elsevier ), 569–580. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-813912-7.00022-3

Smolović, J. C., Muhadinović, M., Radonjić, M., and Đurašković, J. (2020). How Does Renewable Energy Consumption Affect Economic Growth in the Traditional and New Member States of the European Union? Energ. Rep. 6 (November), 505–513. doi:10.1016/j.egyr.2020.09.028

Soytas, U., and Sari, R. (2003). Energy Consumption and GDP: Causality Relationship in G-7 Countries and Emerging Markets. Energ. Econ. 25 (1), 33–37. doi:10.1016/S0140-9883(02)00009-9

Thollander, P., Danestig, M., and Rohdin, P. (2007). Energy Policies for Increased Industrial Energy Efficiency: Evaluation of a Local Energy Programme for Manufacturing SMEs. Energy Policy 35 (11), 5774–5783. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.06.013

Tsagkari, M., Roca, J., and Kallis, G. (2021). "From Local Island Energy to Degrowth? Exploring Democracy, Self-Sufficiency, and Renewable Energy Production in Greece and Spain". Energ. Res. Soc. Sci. 81 (November), 102288. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2021.102288

Tutak, M., and Brodny, J. (2022). Renewable Energy Consumption in Economic Sectors in the EU-27. The Impact on Economics, Environment and Conventional Energy Sources. A 20-Year Perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 345 (April), 131076. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131076

Usman, M., and Balsalobre-Lorente, D. (2022). Environmental Concern in the Era of Industrialization: Can Financial Development, Renewable Energy and Natural Resources Alleviate Some Load? Energy Policy 162, 112780. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112780

Usman, O., Alola, A. A., and Sarkodie, S. A. (2020). Assessment of the Role of Renewable Energy Consumption and Trade Policy on Environmental Degradation Using Innovation Accounting: Evidence from the US. Renew. Energ. 150 (May), 266–277. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2019.12.151

Wang, Q., and Wang, L. (2020). Renewable Energy Consumption and Economic Growth in OECD Countries: A Nonlinear Panel Data Analysis. Energy 207, 118200. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2020.118200

Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for Error Correction in Panel Data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics 69 (6), 709–748. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x

Xiong, P.-p., Dang, Y.-g., Yao, T.-x., and Wang, Z.-x. (2014). Optimal Modeling and Forecasting of the Energy Consumption and Production in China. Energy 77, 623–634. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2014.09.056

Yang, D.-x., Jing, Y.-q., Wang, C., Nie, P.-y., and Sun, P. (2021). Analysis of Renewable Energy Subsidy in China under Uncertainty: Feed-In Tariff vs. Renewable Portfolio Standard. Energ. Strategy Rev. 34 (March), 100628. doi:10.1016/j.esr.2021.100628

AHP analytical hierarchy process

ARDL autoregressive-distributed lag

Brics Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa

CAES computer-assisted execution system

CO 2 carbon dioxide

COVID-19 coronavirus disease variant

CSARDL cross sectionally augmented autoregressive distributed lag

CSP concentrated solar power

DEA data envelopment analysis

EDI economic development indicators

ET environmental taxes

FDI foreign direct investment

FIT feed-in tariff

FWASPAS fuzzy weighted aggregated sum product assessment

G7 Group of Seven

GDP gross domestic product

GG green growth

GHG greenhouse gas

GMM generalized method of moments

HC human capital

HRES hybrid renewable energy systems renewable energy

KOF Konjunkturforschungsstelle

MCDM multi-criteria decision methodology

MLA Modern Language Association

N-11 Next-11

NARDL non-linear autoregressive-distributed lagged model

NOX nitric oxide

NPV net present value

OECD Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development

PHCN Power Holding Company of Nigeria

PMG Pooled Mean Group

PRISMA preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses

PV photovoltaic

PVAR panel vector autoregression

R&D research and development

RE renewable energy

REC renewble energy consumption

RECAI Company’s Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Index

REI renewble energy investment

RES renewable energy sources

RPS renewable portfolio standard

RWA rolling window approach

SCI/SSCI science citation index/social sciences citation index

SDGs sustainable development goals

SO 2 sulfur dioxide

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Keywords: renewable energy, economic growth, consumption, Next-11 countries, Group 7

Citation: Bhuiyan MA, Zhang Q, Khare V, Mikhaylov A, Pinter G and Huang X (2022) Renewable Energy Consumption and Economic Growth Nexus—A Systematic Literature Review. Front. Environ. Sci. 10:878394. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.878394

Received: 21 February 2022; Accepted: 28 March 2022; Published: 29 April 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Bhuiyan, Zhang, Khare, Mikhaylov, Pinter and Huang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Gabor Pinter, [email protected]

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Published: 12 June 2020

The justice and equity implications of the clean energy transition

• Sanya Carley   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9599-4519 1 &
• David M. Konisky   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1146-3938 1  

Nature Energy volume  5 ,  pages 569–577 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

26k Accesses

480 Citations

149 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Energy and society
• Energy justice
• Energy policy
• Social sciences

The transition to lower-carbon sources of energy will inevitably produce and, in many cases, perpetuate pre-existing sets of winners and losers. The winners are those that will benefit from cleaner sources of energy, reduced emissions from the removal of fossil fuels, and the employment and innovation opportunities that accompany this transition. The losers are those that will bear the burdens, or lack access to the opportunities. Here we review the current state of understanding—based on a rapidly growing body of academic and policy literature—about the potential adverse consequences of the energy transition for specific communities and socio-economic groups on the frontlines of the transition. We review evidence about just transition policies and programmes, primarily from cases in the Global North, and draw conclusions about what insights are still needed to understand the justice and equity dimensions of the transition, and to ensure that no one is left behind.

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

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

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

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

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

Similar content being viewed by others

An agenda for future Social Sciences and Humanities research on energy efficiency: 100 priority research questions

Chris Foulds, Sarah Royston, … Lidija Živčič

An assessment of energy system transformation pathways to achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions in Switzerland

Evangelos Panos, Ramachandran Kannan, … Tom Kober

Equity, technological innovation and sustainable behaviour in a low-carbon future

Benjamin K. Sovacool, Peter Newell, … Jessica Fanzo

IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).

Newell, R. G. & Raimi, D. The New Climate Math: Energy Addition, Subtraction, and Transition . Issue Brief 18–09 (Resources for the Future, 2018).

Fouquet, R. Historical energy transitions: speed, prices and system transformation. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 22 , 7–12 (2016).

Google Scholar  

Sovacool, B. K. How long will it take? Conceptualizing the temporal dynamics of energy transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 13 , 202–215 (2016). Reviews the academic literature on the time scale of the current energy transition .

Smil, V. Examining energy transitions: A dozen insights based on performance. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 22 , 194–197 (2016).

Allen, R. C. Backward into the future: The shift to coal and implications for the next energy transition. Energy Policy 50 , 17–23 (2012).

Mackard, J. The next phase of the energy transition and its implications for research and policy. Nat. Energy 3 , 628–633 (2018).

Jenkins, K. Setting energy justice apart from the crowd: Lessons from environmental and climate justice. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 39 , 117–21 (2018).

Fuller, S. & McCauley, D. Framing energy justice: Perspectives from activism and advocacy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 11 , 1–8 (2016).

Bazilian, M., Nakhooda, S. & Van de Graaf, T. Energy governance and poverty. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 1 , 217–25 (2014).

Middlemiss, L. & Gillard, R. Fuel poverty from the bottom-up: Characterizing household energy vulnerability through the lived experience of the fuel poor. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 6 , 146–54 (2015).

Jenkins, K., McCauley, D., Heffron, R., Stephan, H. & Rehner, R. Energy Justice: A Conceptual Review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 11 , 174–82 (2016).

McCauley, D., Heffron, R., Stephan, H. & Jenkins, K. Advancing energy justice: The triumvirate of tenets. Int. Energy Law Rev. 32 , 107–110 (2013). Provides a conceptual framework for energy justice and defines the three tenets of the concept .

Sovacool, B. K. & Dworkin, M. H. Energy justice: Conceptual insights and practical applications. Appl. Energy 142 , 435–444 (2015).

Jones, B. R., Sovacool, B. K. & Sidortsov, R. V. Making the ethical and philosophical case for “energy justice”. Environ. Ethics 37 , 145–68 (2015).

Heffron, R. J. & McCauley, D. The concept of energy justice across the disciplines. Energy Policy 105 , 658–667 (2017).

Sovacool, B. K., Heffron, R. J., McCauley, D. & Goldthau, A. Energy decisions reframed as justice and ethical concerns. Nat. Energy 1 , 1–6 (2016).

Sovacool, B. K., Burke, M., Baker, L., Kotikalapudi, C. & Wlokas, H. New frontiers and conceptual frameworks for energy justice. Energy Policy 105 , 677–691 (2017).

Healy, N. & Barry, J. Politicizing energy justice and energy system transitions: Fossil fuel divestment and a “just transition”. Energy Policy 108 , 451–459 (2017).

Oppenheim, J. The United States regulatory compact and energy poverty. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 18 , 96–108 (2016). Evaluates the origins and intentions of utility regulation, and then proposes measures that could improve the degree to which such regulations advance social justice.

Banzhaf, S., Ma, L. & Timmins, C. Environmental justice: The economics of race, place, and pollution. J. Econ. Perspect. 33 , 185–208 (2019).

Welton, S., Eisen, J. Clean energy justice: Charting an emerging agenda. Harvard Environmental Law Revie w (2019). This law article provides a comprehensive discussion of the energy justice dimensions of clean energy developments.

Mills, S., Bessette, D. & Smith, H. Exploring landowners’ post-construction changes in perceptions of wind energy in Michigan. Land Use Policy 82 , 754–762 (2019).

Outka, U. Environmental justice issues in sustainable development: Environmental justice in the renewable energy transition. J. Environ. Sustain. Law 19 , 60–122 (2012).

Jolley, G. J., Khalaf, C., Michaud, G. & Sandler, A. M. The economic, fiscal, and workforce impacts of coal-fired power plant closures in Appalachian Ohio. Reg. Sci. Policy Pract. 11 , 403–422 (2019).

Pai, S., Zerriffi, H., Jewell, J. & Pathak, J. Solar has greater techno-economic resource suitability than wind for replacing coal mining jobs. Environ. Res. Lett . 10.1088/1748–9326/ab6c6d (2020).

Carley, S., Evans, T. P. & Konisky, D. M. Adaptation, culture, and the energy transition in American coal country. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 37 , 133–139 (2018). This article assesses how the energy transition is affecting American coal country .

Cameron, L. & van der Zwaan, B. Employment factors for wind and solar energy technologies: A literature review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 45 , 160–172 (2015).

Clean Jobs America (E2, 2019); https://www.e2.org/reports/clean-jobs-america-2019/

Outlook handbook: fastest growing occupations. US Bureau of Labor Statistics https://www.bls.gov/ooh/fastest-growing.htm (2019).

Pollin, R. & Callaci, B. The economics of just transition: A framework for supporting fossil fuel-dependent workers and communities in the United States. Labor Stud. J. 44 , 93–138 (2019).

Lobao, M., Zhou, M., Partridge, M. & Betz, M. Poverty, place, and coal employment across Appalachia and the United States in a new economic era. Rural Sociol. 81 , 343–386 (2016).

Tierney, S. The U.S. Coal Industry: Challenging Transitions in the 21st Century (Analysis Group, 2016)

Della Bosca, H. & Gillespie, J. The coal story: Generational coal mining communities and strategies of energy transition in Australia. Energy Policy 120 , 734–740 (2018).

Burke, P. J., Best, R. & Jotzo, F. Closures of coal-fired power stations in Australia: local unemployment effects. Agric. Resour. Econ. 63 , 142–165 (2019).

Haggerty, J. H., Haggerty, M. N., Roemer, K. & Rose, J. Planning for the local impacts of coal facility closure: Emerging strategies in the U. S. West. Resour. Policy 57 , 69–80 (2018).

Morris, A., Kaufman, N. & Doshi, S. The risk of fiscal collapse in coal reliant communities. The Brookings Institution https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-risk-of-fiscal-collapse-in-coal-reliant-communities (2019).

Olson-Hazboun, S. K. “Why are we being punished and they are being rewarded?” views on renewable energy in fossil fuels-based communities of the U. S. west. Extr. Ind. Soc. 5 , 366–374 (2018).

Drehobl, A. & Ross, L. Lifting the high energy burden in America’s largest cities: How energy efficiency can improve low income and underserved communities (American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 2016); https://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/researchreports/u1602.pdf Detailed analysis of energy insecurity in American cities .

Ross, L., Drehobl, A. & Stickles, B. The High Cost of Energy in Rural America: Household Energy Burdens and Opportunities for Energy Efficiency (American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 2018); https://aceee.org/research-report/u1806 . Detailed analysis of energy insecurity in rural America .

One in three U. S. households face challenges in paying energy bills in 2015. Residential Energy Consumption Survey. U.S. Energy Information Administration https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/reports/2015/energybills (2015).

O’Sullivan, K., Barnard, L. T., Viggers, H. & Howden-Chapman, P. Child and youth fuel poverty: Assessing the known and unknown. People Place Policy 10 , 77–87 (2016).

Papada, L. & Kaliampakos, D. Measuring energy poverty in Greece. Energy Policy 94 , 157–165 (2016).

Hernández, D. Sacrifice along the energy continuum: a call for energy justice. Environ. Justice 8 (4), 151–156 (2015). This article evaluates how vulnerable communities bear disproportionate burdens along the spectrum that includes both energy production and consumption .

Hernández, D. & Siegel, E. Energy insecurity and its ill health effects: A community perspective in New York City. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 47 , 78–83 (2019).

Reames, T. G. Targeting energy justice: Exploring spatial, racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban residential heating energy efficiency. Energy Policy 97 , 549–558 (2016). Maps rates of fuel poverty along racial/ethnic and socioeconomic block group characteristics, and finds that lower-income and racial- and ethnic-headed households, respectively, have higher rates of fuel poverty .

Hernández, D. & Phillips, D. Benefit or burden? Perceptions of energy efficiency efforts among low-income housing residents in New York City. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 8 , 52–59 (2015).

Graff, M., Carley, S. & Konisky, D. Stakeholder perceptions of the United States energy transition: Local-level dynamics and community responses to national politics and policy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 43 , 144–157 (2018).

Carley, S., Evans, T. P., Graff, M. & Konisky, D. M. A framework for evaluating geographic disparities in energy transition vulnerability. Nat. Energy 3 , 621–627 (2018).

Hernández, D. & Bird, S. Energy burden and the need for integrated low-income housing and energy policy. Poverty Public Policy 2 , 5–25 (2010).

Bickerstaff, K., Walker, G. & Bulkeley, H. (eds.) Energy Justice in a Changing Climate (Zed Books,).

Byrne, J. & Portanger, C. Climate change, energy policy and justice: A systematic review. Anal. Krit. 2 , 315–343 (2014).

Moore, T., Ridley, I., Strengers, Y., Maller, C. & Horne, R. Dwelling performance and adaptive summer comfort in low-income Australian households. Build. Res. Inf. 45 , 443–456 (2017).

Passey, R., Watt, M., Bruce, A. & MacGill, I. Who pays, who benefits? The financial impacts of solar photovoltaic systems and air-conditioners on Australian households. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 39 , 198–215 (2018).

Lehr, U., Lutz, C. & Edler, D. Green jobs? Economic impacts of renewable energy in Germany. Energy Policy 47 , 358–364 (2012).

Wei, M., Patadia, S. & Kammen, D. M. Putting renewables and energy efficiency to work: How many jobs can the clean energy industry generate in the US? Energy Policy 38 , 919–931 (2010).

Renewable energy and jobs – Annual Review 2018 (International Renewable Energy Agency, 2018).

Occupational Outlook Handbook. Fastest Growing Occupations. US Bureau of Labor Statistics https://www.bls.gov/ooh/fastest-growing.htm (2019).

National Solar Jobs Census 2018 (Solar Foundation, 2018).

PESA Diversity Study Identifies Opportunities to Advance Women in the Workplace. Petroleum Equipment & Services Association https://pesa.org/archives/pesa-diversity-study-identifies-opportunities-to-advance-women-in-the-workplace (2018).

U.S. Energy and Employment Report (US Department of Energy, 2017).

Gender and Energy (European Institute for Gender Equality, 2017); https://eige.europa.eu/publications/gender-and-energy

Pearl-Martinez, R. & Stephens, J. C. Toward a gender diverse workforce in the renewable energy transition. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 12 , 8–15 (2016).

Walker, C. & Baxter, J. Procedural justice in Canadian wind energy development: A comparison of community-based and technocratic siting processes. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 29 , 160–169 (2017).

Zarate-Toledo, E., Patino, R. & Fraga, J. Justice, social inclusion and indigenous opposition: A case study of wind energy development on the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Mexico. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 54 , 1–11 (2019).

Baker, S. H. Mexican energy reform, climate change, and energy justice in indigenous communities. Nat. Resour. J. 56 , 369–390 (2016).

Daley, D. M. & Reames, T. G. in Failed Promises: Evaluating the Federal Government's Response to Environmental Justice Ch. 6 (MIT Press, 2015).

Borenstein, S. & Davis, L. W. The distributional effects of U. S. clean energy tax credits. Tax. Policy Econ. 30 , 191–234 (2016).

Mullen, C. & Marsden, G. Mobility justice in low carbon energy transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 18 , 109–117 (2016).

Mitra, S. & Buluswar, S. Universal access to electricity: Closing the affordability gap. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 40 , 261–283 (2015).

Sunter, D., Castellanos, S. & Kammen, D. M. Disparities in rooftop photovoltaics deployment in the United States by race and ethnicity. Nat. Sustain. 2 , 71–76 (2019). Study evaluates the racial and ethnic disparities in rooftop solar development .

Chan, G., Evans, I., Grimley, M., Ihde, B. & Mazumder, P. Design choices and equity implications of community shared solar. Electr. J. 30 , 37–41 (2017).

Balta-Ozkan, N., Davidson, R., Bicket, M. & Whitmarsh, L. Social barriers to the adoption of smart homes. Energy Policy 63 , 363–374 (2013).

Wada, K., Akimoto, K., Sano, F., Oda, J. & Homma, T. Energy efficiency opportunities in the residential sector and their feasibility. Energy 48 , 5–10 (2012).

Reames, T. G., Reiner, M. A. & Stacey, M. B. An incandescent truth: Disparities in energy-efficient lighting availability and prices in an urban U. S. county. Appl. Energy 218 , 95–103 (2018). Studies distributional disparities in access to and price of energy efficient light bulbs .

Bednar, D. J. & Reames, T. G. Recognition of and response to energy poverty in the United States. Nat. Energy . 10.1038/s41560-020-0582–0 (2020).

Carley, S., Engle, C., Konisky, D. & Sullivan, S. Supporting vulnerable communities in a Green New Deal. Public Administration Review https://www.publicadministrationreview.com/2019/07/16/gnd17 (2020).

Zinecker, A. et al. Real People, Real Change: Strategies for Just Energy Transition s (IISD, 2017); https://iisd.org/library/real-people-real-change-strategies-just-energy-transitions

Harrahill, K. & Douglas, O. Framework development for ‘just transition’ in coal producing jurisdictions. Energy Policy 134 , 1–11 (2019).

Franklin, M., Kurtz, C. Lights outs in the cold: Reforming utility shut-off policies as if human rights matter. (NAACP, 2017).

Cook, J. K. & Bird, L. Unlocking Solar For Low- And Moderate-Income Residents: A Matrix of Financing Options By Resident, Provider, And Housing Type Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-70477 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2018).

Bomberg, E. & McEwen, N. Mobilizing community energy. Energy Policy 51 , 435–444 (2012).

Jenkins, K., McCauley, D. & Forman, A. Energy justice: A policy approach. Energy Policy 105 , 631–34 (2017).

Reames, T. G. A community-based approach to low-income residential energy efficiency participation barriers. Local Environ. 21 , 1449–1466 (2016).

Tonn, B. et al. Weatherization Works – Summary of Findings from The Retrospective Evaluation of The U. S. Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program Report ORNL/TM-2014/338 (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2014).

Tonn, B., Rose, E. & Hawkins, B. Evaluation of the U. S. department of energy’s weatherization assistance program: Impact results. Energy Policy 118 , 279–290 (2018).

Graff, M. & Pirog, M. Red tape is not so hot: Asset tests impact participation in the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Energy Policy 129 , 749–764 (2019). Evaluates how the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program’s asset test is regressive.

Murray, A. G. & Mills, B. F. The impact of low-income home energy assistance program participation on household energy insecurity. Contemp. Econ. Policy 32 , 811–825 (2014).

Chapman, R., Howden-Chapman, P., Viggers, H., O’Dea, D. & Kennedy, M. Retrofitting houses with insulation: a cost-benefit analysis of a randomized community trial. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 63 , 271–277 (2009).

Howden-Chapman, P. & Chapman, R. Health co-benefits from housing-related policies. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 4 , 414–419 (2012).

Perl, L. LIHEAP: Program and funding Report PL31865 (Congressional Research Service, 2018); https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31865.pdf

Lamb, A. K. Energy Efficiency and Health: A Guide for Public Health and Health Care Professionals (Public Health Institute, 2019); http://www.phi.org/resources/?resource=energy-efficiency-and-health-a-guide-for-public-health-and-health-care-professionals

Nowak, S., Kushler, M. & Witte, P. The New Leaders of the Pack: Aceee’s Fourth National Review of Exemplary Energy Efficiency Programs (American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 2019); https://www.aceee.org/research-report/u1901

Gilleo, A., Nowak, S. & Drehobl, A. Making a Difference: Strategies for Successful Low-Income Energy Efficiency Programs Report U1713 (American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 2017); http://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/researchreports/u1713.pdf

Sartor, O. Implementing Coal Transitions: Insights from Case Studies of Major Coal-Consuming Economies (IDDRI, Climate Strategies, 2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by the Environmental Resilience Institute, funded by Indiana University’s Prepared for Environmental Change Grand Challenge initiative.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Paul H. O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

Sanya Carley & David M. Konisky

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanya Carley .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Carley, S., Konisky, D.M. The justice and equity implications of the clean energy transition. Nat Energy 5 , 569–577 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-0641-6

Download citation

Received : 27 November 2019

Accepted : 21 May 2020

Published : 12 June 2020

Issue Date : August 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-0641-6

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Sustainable pathways towards universal renewable electricity access in africa.

• Rebecca Peters
• Jürgen Berlekamp
• Christiane Zarfl

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment (2024)

Supply, demand and polarization challenges facing US climate policies

• Matthew G. Burgess
• Leaf Van Boven
• Michael P. Vandenbergh

Nature Climate Change (2024)

Justice considerations in climate research

• Caroline Zimm
• Kian Mintz-Woo
• Thomas Schinko

Regulatory disparities disadvantage remote Australian communities in energy transition

• Lee V. White
• Bradley Riley
• Vanessa Napaltjari Davis

Nature Energy (2024)

Regional rare-earth element supply and demand balanced with circular economy strategies

• Yu-Yao Yang
• Wei-Qiang Chen

Nature Geoscience (2024)

Quick links

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

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

• Previous Article
• Next Article

Systematic literature review based on the descriptive, bibliometric, and content analysis of renewable energy supply chain for a circular economy

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Reprints and Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Yağmur Arıöz , Abdullah Yıldızbaşı , Eren Özceylan , İbrahim Yılmaz; Systematic literature review based on the descriptive, bibliometric, and content analysis of renewable energy supply chain for a circular economy. J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 1 March 2024; 16 (2): 022702. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0184430

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

Recently, the renewable energy supply chain has gained momentum as a vital component for clean energy, contributing to a sustainable future for the world. The development of the renewable energy supply chain is directly linked to circular economy targets and practices. This paper presents a systematic literature review of studies that analyze the roles, functions, and application objectives of the circular economy in the renewable energy supply chain. The aim of this review is to investigate key elements of renewable energy supply chains in the circular economy, shedding light on the state of research on the progress of sustainability in renewable energy supply chains, and guiding future research. Mainly, the systematic literature review demonstrates its findings by identifying and mapping the collated literature to reviews and applied studies that support and drive the renewable energy supply chain under the circular economy. This review paper is handled with a systematically descriptive, bibliometric, and content analysis hybrid approach, framed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis methodology on the research topic. Findings show that circular economy applications have gained momentum in the renewable energy supply chain; nonetheless, some deficiencies persist. Redesign-based applications and design for recycling concepts encompass a significant gap in the renewable energy supply chain. Moreover, the current literature lacks outcomes on the applicability of circular economy 10R targets and the interrelationship and scalability of sustainable development goals in the renewable energy supply chain.

Sign in via your Institution

Citing articles via, submit your article.

Sign up for alerts

• Online ISSN 1941-7012
• For Researchers
• For Librarians
• For Advertisers
• Our Publishing Partners  
• Physics Today
• Conference Proceedings
• Special Topics

pubs.aip.org

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use

Connect with AIP Publishing

This feature is available to subscribers only.

Sign In or Create an Account

Assay of renewable energy transition: A systematic literature review

Affiliations.

• 1 Institute for Life Sciences and the Environment (ILSE), University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland 4350, Australia.
• 2 Institute for Life Sciences and the Environment (ILSE), University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland 4350, Australia; Centre for Sustainable Agricultural Systems (CSAS), University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland 4350, Australia. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 3 Institute for Life Sciences and the Environment (ILSE), University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland 4350, Australia; School of Surveying and Built Environment, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland 4350, Australia; Institute of Environmental Science and Meteorology, University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City 1101, Philippines.
• PMID: 35421473
• DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155159

Issues of environmental degradation, finite quantity and uneven spatial distribution of fuels in nature, and growing demand accentuated by volatility of oil prices have led to the global clean renewable energy transition (RET). With an objective of examining the current knowledge-stock on RET, we reviewed 248 journal publications pooled from three databases (ScienceDirect, Web of Science and Scopus) using a Systematic Literature Review method. This study does not focus on the specifications of a particular energy technology or regress relations among a limited set of variables. Rather, the key contribution is the critical assessment of the factors that encourage and those that hinder the transition process to provide a wider perspective through seven broad lenses: technological, investment, market, environmental, government and institutional, policy and social. Research, development and implementation of technology is a direct outcome of policy investment. Developed countries are leading the RET research while the global south is far behind. Most of the studies were found to be donor-driven which faced a serious risk of being counter-welcomed in different settings of the world without compromising the objectives of the transition. A strong international collaboration among the rich and poor countries is urgently felt necessary to foster mutual benefits. Research, planning and implementation of the RET would be highly effective and sustainable through a participatory bottom-up approach promoting local technology instead of imposed expensive imported ones. The need for "demand-pull" and "technology-push" policy instruments is stringent for successful transition. We conclude that there is a unanimous agreement among all the studies on the future prospects of renewable energy in the electricity sector; however, some skepticism still exists regarding other high energy demanding areas. Our review recommends updating existing and designing new robust policy mixes to guide the modality and pace of the RET, adhering to local specificities.

Keywords: Drivers of transition; Participatory bottom-up approach; Policy mixes; Renewable energy transition; Systematic literature review.

Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Publication types

• Systematic Review
• Electricity*
• Renewable Energy*

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.9(8); 2023 Aug
• PMC10450853

Analyzing the contribution of renewable energy and natural resources for sustainability in G-20 countries: How gross capital formation impacts ecological footprints

a School of Economics, Tianjin University of Commerce, Tianjin, China

Xiaoyu Wang

b Remote Sensing, GIS and Climatic Research Lab (National Center of GIS and Space Applications), Centre for Remote Sensing, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan

Muhammad Umar Aslam

Usman mehmood.

Sustainability ensures well-being for people and communities worldwide and helps shape the world's present and future. A global transformation is required by adopting renewable energy sources to achieve sustainability. Sustainability trends have been examined using this study for the period 1992–2018 for G20 countries. The study uses indicators like ecological footprints, natural resources, renewable energy (RE), and non-renewable energy (NRE), along with gross domestic product (GDP) and capital formation. A cross-sectional-ARDL approach has been used to examine short- and long-term relationships. The presence of stationarity property, cross-sectional dependence, panel cointegration, and slope heterogeneity have been confirmed during initial testing. The empirical result confirms that using renewable energy impacts environmental sustainability in the long run and causes a decrease in ecological footprints.

On the contrary, non-renewable energy and natural resources contribute to the negative shift in sustainable development. The consistency of results has also been confirmed using robustness checks under the AMG and FMOLS approaches. The study concludes that G20 countries should promote renewable energy to empower the United Nations' agenda for sustainable development.

1. Introduction

Since the 17th century, we have seen several dramatic changes, including the expansion of industry, the spread of globalization to increase communication and trade, and the development of farming techniques that have made it possible to guarantee adequate supplies of food around the world. However, these developments have resulted in a significant disaster for the climate and separated humans from the natural world [ 1 ]. The growing ecological disaster has prompted numerous countries to pursue sustainable development goals, including the call for carbon neutrality. Specifically, the UN has established an agenda for Seventeen (SDGs) Sustainable Development Goals to advance various causes, including but not limited to resource conservation, human well-being, environmentally responsible production and consumption, technological advancement, poverty alleviation, and more.

This research is vital because of the pressing need to address the worsening ecological crisis caused by industrial pollution and our dependency on traditional energy sources. Therefore, many countries, including those in the G-20, support the need for sustainable development and carbon neutrality as outlined in the SDGs [ 2 ]. Sustainable Development Goal 7 (SDG7) calls for universal access to modern, dependable, and environmentally friendly power sources by 2030. This goal can only be achieved by transitioning away from fossil fuels. This research focuses on the Group of Twenty (G-20) countries since they have pledged to completely phase out fossil fuels and convert them to renewable energy sources by 2040. This study on ecological sustainability in the G-20 countries and the impact of energy shift and non-renewable energy is meant to contribute to the existing body of knowledge and provide insights for policymakers, environmentalists, and the scientific community [ 3 ]. This study aims to use state-of-the-art panel models to assess the efficacy of energy transitions and patents in reducing ecological repercussions in the G-20 countries [ 4 ]. This will include looking at the link between non-renewable energy, natural resources, and the Ecological Footprint (EF). The study aims to inform ideas and strategies that promote environmental sustainability throughout the G-20 nations by reducing their reliance on natural resources.

The research offers several novel concepts. Natural resources, non-renewable energy, and the energy transition are all examined as part of a more comprehensive approach to addressing environmental issues throughout the G-20 nations. This holistic perspective sheds light on the interconnected nature of these factors and their bearing on the EF and the study's use of cutting-edge panel models for analyzing the dynamics between the relevant variables—including slope homogeneity, cross-sectional dependence, stationarity properties, and panel cointegration—adds further depth to this understanding. This methodological strategy enhances the robustness and reliability of the results. Third, the research looks at how the G-20 nations have reduced natural costs like EF thanks to changes in energy policy and technological advancements. This study helps to address a gap in our understanding of the effectiveness of energy transitions and patents in mitigating environmental consequences. The research also analyzes the role of GDP and the Green Finance Framework (GFF) in environmental success to examine the connections between economic development, financial processes, and environmental sustainability. Finally, the research examines the Ecological Footprint, natural resources, and non-renewable energy in the G-20 countries over the long and medium term, providing insights into the dynamics and trajectories of ecological effects. These new pieces supplement existing knowledge by providing a more holistic perspective on the interplay between renewable and non-renewable energy sources, the energy transition, and the Global Twenty's (G-20) impact on the planet's ecological footprint.

G20 has outlined an energy transformation strategy similar to other regional countries, emphasizing energy conservation while transitioning to a flawless energy system. In light of the urgency of the climate crisis, the G-20 countries have set a goal of reaching zero net emissions by 2040, five years earlier than originally planned. It plans to switch to green energy for all its energy needs by that same year.

Moreover, the necessity of the low carbon shift is now a highly discussed issue, with substantial attention from various countries. Eliminating fossil fuels as an energy source is a promising strategy for lowering carbon emissions and protecting the planet. While renewable energy causes can support achieving 92% of the carbon reduction even as the term “global transition of energy” is still in its infancy [ 5 ]. Various variables influence the volume and environmental effects of energy production and consumption.

Moreover, a high deficiency of natural resources is a major contributor to ecological stress brought on by the demands of developing our energy, water, and infrastructure systems [ 6 ]. The literature has considered the wide-ranging economic implications of the term “natural resources” (NRs) and their depletion. To this end, the Ecological Footprint (EF) has proven to be one of the most accurate measures of the environmental stress caused by humans' continuous use of natural resource regions (NRs) [ 7 ]. defend the original idea of EF, which centers on estimating the size of the bio-productive area needed to support a given population. Regarding the demand side, EF calculates how many ecological assets are required to produce the environmental resources. There are several reasons why focusing on G-20 as an area of focus for EF research on ecological viability is crucial.

For example, it has been asserted that the combined EF of the G-20 is significantly higher than the regional biocapacity. It demonstrates the ecosystem's ability to act as a sink for carbon emissions while producing useful biological material. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that countries in the G-20, chosen as a group to investigate EF developments, have implemented some of the most stringent environmental standards and shared environmental policies [ 3 ].

Although technological advancements have made great strides toward environmental stewardship, a few knowledge voids have emerged. Although renewable energy is often used as a stand-in for technological advancement, not all are necessarily tied to cutting energy use and thus may not have a major effect on greenhouse gas production. In addition, there is no formal information linked to renewable energy related to non-renewable energy (NRE). In contrast to unlimited natural resources (NR, gross fixed capital formation (GFF) and GDP are more strongly associated with environmental achievement [ 8 , 9 ].

Second, NRE can have varying effects on environmental stability. Therefore, the three primary origins of renewable energy (RE) are scholarly research in businesses and universities [ 8 ].

Extraction of NRs is encouraged as economic growth and urbanization strengthen one another. Deforestation, mining, urbanization, and cultivation use NRs, which is bad news for the ecosystem in the long run [ 4 , 10 ] presents a historical perspective on the connection between NR and EF, and NRE argues that GDP reduces biocapacity and leaves a greater environmental impact. While extracting and using NRs can cause environmental damage, this impact can be lessened through the use of sustainable management techniques. As a result, there is a connection between air, land, and water contamination. As an alternative to this study looks at the evolution of EF within the framework of G-20 countries over the previous few decades, with patterns being decided by both measures. As a result of the above debate and the crucial holes in the literature, this study adds to the extant literature from multiple viewpoints, which benefits the general audience, environmental advocates, and the research community. The primary input of this research is researching environmental sustainability practices across G-20 countries with EF as the main dependent variable.

The EF, for example, factors in the secondary effects of human creation and consumption on the environment. Meanwhile, it's a full-fledged measure of global demand and resource allocation [ 7 ]. However, EF catches various biological data as the best indicator, making it one of the most powerful observations. As a result, results for environmental contamination metrics that don't include the EF may be deceptive, which could have dire consequences for policy [ 3 ]. In addition to the role of natural resources and non-renewable energy, our research has included the role of energy shift and non-renewable energy and GDP as key explanatory factors. Previous writing has noticed patterns regarding environmental viability for G-20 countries, but this study fills the void on a firm footing by focusing on EF and the energy shift. Considering this gap, this study is a welcome addition to the extant body of work.

Thirdly, various advanced panel models, including slope homogeneity, cross-sectional dependence, stationarity characteristics, and panel cointegration, have been applied to examine the correlation between the variables of interest. The results show that the EF load in the G-20 can be decreased through energy shifts and patents, reducing natural harm. EF has been trending up in the long and near term, as NR and NRE show. The proposed study queries and goals are grounded in the above justifications. Is it possible to reduce or manage G-20 countries' ecological impacts using cutting-edge panel estimates, and if so, are the energy shift and patents helpful? To what extent, as measured by cutting-edge panel projections, do NRE and natural resources drive EF in G-20 economies? Following are some of the goals of this study: To reduce natural costs like EF across the G20, we will use state-of-the-art statistical techniques to analyze the role and process of the energy transition and inventions. Therefore, this work aims to answer the following questions: How do renewable and nonenergy impact EF? Are natural resources helpful in reducing ecological footprints?

Ecological catastrophes, climate change, and sustainable development are complicated issues that need the collaborative efforts of many parties. National governments must enact laws and regulations that promote sustainability, carbon neutrality, and the transition to renewable energy sources. Setting lofty targets, drafting and enforcing environmental rules, and providing incentives for eco-friendly conduct are all essential. The United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund are all responsible for advising and assisting member nations globally in achieving sustainable development. They may facilitate collaboration, provide financial support, and promote sharing best practices and worldwide expertise. Sustainable behaviors, reduced carbon footprints, and investment in green technology are all major contributions from the commercial sector. Adopting CSR and integrating environmental concerns into company operations may have a positive impact. Civil society organizations like NGOs and environmental groups are vital for public backing, lobbying for policy change, and raising public awareness. They might participate in studies, classes, and local initiatives that promote sustainable practices and hold governments and businesses accountable. We can only find effective and comprehensive answers to the ecological challenge through collaboration and communication between these groups, paving the road for a robust and sustainable future.

The upcoming text is organized as follows: The methodology for the research and a summary of this research are presented in Part 2 and Part 3, respectively. At the same time, Part 4 of the article debates the assumptions and discussion surrounding the study, while Part 5 focuses on the study's conclusion, policy ramifications, and plans.

2. Literature review

2.1. re and sustainability.

The term “renewable energy” referring the shift from relying on traditional sources like fossil fuels to a scheme that uses renewable energy sources. This change is important because it reduces dependence on traditional energy sources and is crucial for promoting climate pliability and continuing luxury [ 11 , 12 ] report about the importance of affordable RE as a catalyst for the worldwide shift towards sustainability. The author's statement suggests that the energy system's efficiency has improved due to the adoption of electrification and DE fossilization, which aligns with the goals of restricting global warming to 1.5° [ 13 ]. explores the role of regional trade integration in promoting the shift towards sustainable energy in South Asia. The study gathered information from 1992 to 2018, and initial tests were conducted to manage the variability in slope and cross-sectional dependence (CSD). The practical results support the notion that local inter-trade between South Asian nations can increase the production of enviro-friendly energy, thereby promoting a sustainable environmental resolution [ 14 ]. studied OECD countries to understand the effects of renewable energy, ecological inventions, and environmental policies on the ecological footprint (EF). Their results indicate that eco-innovation and renewable energy can promote ecological sustainability and decrease EF [ 15 ]. [ 16 ] Examined the relationship between energy equilibrium, hygienic energy transition, economic expansion, and eco-friendly sustainability, known as the trilemma association. GLS and mixed-effect models based on generalized least squares indicate that a shift towards clean energy can aid in mitigating the degradation of the natural environment. A rise of 1% in using clean energy could decrease the environmental impact by 0.027%. According to Ref. [ 17 ], governments and policymakers have become increasingly interested in renewable energy, technology, and low carbon emissions due to the SDGs agenda and COP26 summit. The study uses the GMM-PVAR model to examine the connections between renewable energy, GDP, carbon emissions, and information technologies (ICTs), emphasizing the BRICS sample [ 18 ].

The European Union's (EU) renewable energy sources are praised as a policy intervention and green resilience is researched as a strategy for overcoming the multifaceted crisis. The results confirm various difficulties associated with the clean energy transition, such as competition, security, safety, susceptibility, and climate change. In conclusion, promoting climate resilience and sustainable development requires switching to renewable energy sources. Numerous studies have shown that renewable energy sources contribute to environmental sustainability, reduce ecological footprints, and boost economies in various regions and countries. Global agendas like the SDGs and the COP26 conference demonstrate how governments and legislators increasingly acknowledge the significance of renewable energy in addressing global challenges like climate change. However, obstacles to switching to renewable energy must be overcome, such as competitiveness, security, safety, vulnerability, and climate change. Using renewable energy is an encouraging movement toward a more secure and long-lasting future.

Among the G20 nations, renewable energy is closely related to sustainability metrics like ecological footprints.

2.2. NRE and sustainability

Studies examining data from various economies have drawn substantial attention [ 19 ]. The study shows that increasing the proportion of NRE sources increases damages like EF using cutting-edge panel analysis methodologies. From 1990 to 2018, Usman and [ 20 ] studied the effects of energy use, economic development, farming, and forestry on the BRICT region's EF. They discovered cross-sectional dependence and looked into it using long-run elasticity, cointegration, causality tests, and second-generation panel unit roots. According to the study, using renewable energy decreased the EF by 0.2248%, whereas using NRE sources increased it by 0.5507%. They also saw a good relationship between the EF, forest area, and the utilization of traditional and renewable energy sources [ 21 ]. Usman et al.'s study from 2021 aims to investigate the variables affecting economic development and ecological footprint (EF) in the world's top 15 emitting nations. They conclude that the Turkish economy displays an environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) pattern, where economic expansion and non-renewable energy favor EF, using the QARDL technique [ 22 ]. study the drivers required to attain sustainable development goals (SDGs) by lowering environmental pollution in EU member countries using the Panel Pool Mean Group Autoregressive Distributive Lag (PMG-ARDL) model. The study demonstrates that although renewable energy sources (RE) increase ecological quality, non-renewable energy sources (NRE) erode it. According to the authors, varying the energy portfolio by including RE technologies would be a sustainable option. They also urge EU nations to commit to doing more to decarbonize their growth trajectory and meet emission targets. Additionally [ 23 ], fills a gap in the literature by examining how renewable and non-renewable energy sources affect ASEAN economies' ecological footprint (EF) and carbon dioxide emissions. The findings show that renewable energy resolves environmental filth, while NRE has a large and negative impact on ecological deputations.

The need for studies on how energy use affects environmental contamination in oil-exporting and -importing countries is addressed by Ref. [ 24 ]. They used the AMG method, which successfully considers several variables, including slope heterogeneity, cross-sectional dependence, structural discontinuities, and stationarity features. The study found that non-renewable energy (NRE) significantly contributes to ecological degradation in both sample economies. However, because of their heaviest reliance on natural resources, net oil exporting economies are more significantly impacted by NRE. EF, NRE, renewable energy, and unemployment in South Asian economies were the subjects of a different study [ 25 ]. The findings revealed a unidirectional causal link between NRE, renewable energy, income, and EF, with increasing NRE leading to worsening ecological sustainability.

Finally, several studies have examined the correlation between economies' use of non-renewable energy sources (NRE) and their environmental footprints (EF). This study used cutting-edge panel analysis methods, repeatedly finding evidence that increasing the percentage of NRE sources is associated with ecological impact and environmental degradation. The results also show how RE improves environmental quality, suggesting that integrating RE technology into the portfolio's energy mix might be a long-term, viable option. A stronger negative effect of NRE on EF is seen in net oil exporting nations due to their heavy dependence on natural resources. These results call for increased efforts to decarbonize growth trajectories, fulfill emission targets to accomplish sustainable development goals, and for more research into the connection between energy usage and environmental pollution across economic systems.

The G20 countries' use of non-renewable energy is closely related to sustainability indicators like ecological footprints.

2.3. NR and sustainability

Natural resource rent (NR) may be effectively extracted and used to promote ecological well-being, and researchers are increasingly looking at how it affects the calculation of ecological footprint (EF). For instance Ref. [ 26 ], examined the effects of clean energy, natural resources, and urbanization on the EF factors in the BRICS. They looked into the long-term relationships between these variables from 1992 to 2016 using recent panel data estimation techniques like FMOLS and DOLS. Their data suggest that EF, a factor in ecological quality, is negatively impacted by clean energy and NR. They also verified that the BRICS economies exhibit the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) [ 27 ]. examined the effects of the NR on ecological health by researching the US economy over the previous 50 years. They discovered that investing in NR and human capital can lessen environmental damage and EF. According to Ahmed et al., the literature on the connection between NR and EF produced mixed results. The connection between environmental pollution and EF in Latin America, an area with less development and more biodiversity, was examined by Ref. [ 28 ].

They looked at the impact of natural resource rent and utilized Per Capita EF as an environmental proxy. The impact of NR and economic complexity on the distribution of EF is diverse and varies across different countries, according to their findings. Furthermore, from 1992 to 2018 [ 29 ], focused on the G7 region and examined how NR, human capital, and financial inclusion contribute to tackling sustainability issues like EF. They found that NR and human capital harmed EF in G7 economies using state-of-the-art panel techniques like Cup-FM and Cup-BC. There is a link between lack of access to financial services and environmental deterioration. Thus, today's financial goods and services should prioritize these sustainable goals. Mixed results have been found in studies examining the correlation between a country's EF and its NR from its natural resources. Some scholars argue that NR may be utilized to successfully enhance ecological well-being, while others highlight its negative impacts on EF. Furthermore, the relationship between NR and EF is complicated and context-dependent, as the findings vary among regions and countries. This connection and the need for further study in this area have also been highlighted through cutting-edge panel data estimation techniques. Understanding the connection between NR and EF is crucial for developing effective strategies and policies to slow the rate of environmental deterioration and speed up the pace of ecological sustainability.

Among the G20 nations, natural resources are closely related to sustainability metrics like ecological footprints.

3. Methodology

3.1. cross-sectional dependence (csd) test.

In conventional panel estimation-based models, it is presumed that cross-sectional units are not interdependent. However, failing to consider the potential existence of cross-sectional dependence (CSD) in panel data estimations may result in inaccurate policy conclusions and misleading findings ([ 30 , 31 ]. Additionally, it's important to note that the calculated coefficients may vary among the different sets of observations. As a result, it makes sense to study the cross-sectional dependence (CSD) when using panel data estimation. The present study investigates CSD, particularly by analyzing it before evaluating the unit root, which can be highly advantageous [ 14 ]. Various factors in any cross-sectional data investigation can impact the specified area or group of studied parsimonies [ 14 ]. Some factors that can influence cross-sectional data include financial crises, fluctuations in oil prices, regional political climates, inter-regional policies, and so on. While some variations from these factors can be adequately explained, others may remain unexplained. Consequently, paying attention to cross-sectional dependence (CSD) is crucial, as disregarding this issue may result in incorrect pragmatic estimations [ 32 ]. As per the presented urgings [ 31 ], test was utilized to investigate the data's cross-sectional dependence (CSD). For appropriate policy conclusions and findings, it is essential to consider the potential for cross-sectional dependence (CSD) in panel data calculations. Traditional panel estimation-based methods frequently assume that cross-sectional units are not correlated; however, failing to consider CSD can produce false findings. Cross-sectional statistics can be impacted by various variables, some of which may remain unexplained, including financial crises, oil price changes, regional political environments, and interregional policies. As a result, it is crucial to look into CSD before assessing other metrics, and methods like Pesaran's test can be utilized to do so. Researchers can improve the reliability and validity of their findings and develop more well-informed policy recommendations by accounting for the potential existence of CSD.

3.2. Unit root test

The stationarity or unit root tests of the data were next examined [ 33 , 34 ]. evaluated the stationarity of the data and considered the benefits and drawbacks of stationarity. These tests have different stages. The third-generation test is more sophisticated because it considers structural fractures, slope uniformity, and CSD [ 14 ]. With the previous discussion in mind, contemporary research uses [ 35 , 36 ] evaluations to address the issue of non-stationarity and CSD. In panel data analysis, stationarity or unit root tests are crucial because they reveal the stability and long-term behavior of the data. Prominent researchers [ 33 , 35 ] have made significant contributions to this field of research and offered insightful analyses of the advantages and disadvantages of stationarity testing. Unit root tests are divided into first-, second-, and third-generation tests to reflect the development of approaches in this area. The third-generation tests are considered more sophisticated since they consider various characteristics, such as structural fractures, slope uniformity, and cross-sectional dependence (CSD) [ 14 ]. Examples of these tests include [ 35 , 36 ] evaluations. Modern panel data analysis research recognizes the significance of addressing non-stationarity and CSD. The evaluations of [ 31 , 37 ] are frequently applied in recent studies to reduce the effects of non-stationarity and consider the likely existence of CSD, which can improve the robustness of the findings and produce more accurate results.

3.3. Slope heterogeneity

The following stage involves employing a test created by Ref. [ 31 ], an updated version of the [ 38 ] study, to assess the heterogeneity of the slope coefficients. The alternative hypothesis disputes the notion put out for this inquiry that the slope coefficients are homogeneous. To comprehend the variety and variability of the interactions between variables, evaluating the heterogeneity of slope coefficients is crucial [ 33 ]. created a test that expands on the [ 38 ] study to measure slope heterogeneity. This test is now commonly utilized in research. Slope heterogeneity is assessed after considering the elements of the data's cross-sectional dependence (CSD) and stationarity. This sequential approach offers a solid foundation for generating reliable findings from panel data analysis and permits a thorough study of potential sources of variation in the predicted coefficients. To account for the unpredictable outcomes of standard testing due to CSD [ 39 ], suggests using the cointegration test. There are two tildes. The slope heterogeneity in this inquiry's particular interest equations is measured using adjusted statistics, a component of the enhanced [ 33 ]. The investigation's alternate hypothesis, supported by this study, asserts that the slope coefficients are homogeneous. This study attempts to provide a thorough knowledge of the relationships between variables in the panel data, considering potential variations and differences across the cross-sectional units by studying the heterogeneity of slope coefficients by considering equations (1) , (2) ).

in the equations above, N represents the count units, which are G20 economies, S denotes Swamy's testing, and K signifies the primary descriptive variables of the model. If the P-value is insignificant at a 5% level, then the H0 hypothesis can be accepted, which states homogeneity in the slope coefficients.

3.4. Cross Sectional Auto Regressive Distributed Lag (CS-ARDL) Test

Due to the prevalence of CSD in the data, this research uses the CS-ARDL, which is significantly better than alternative methods because it considers both the interdependence of the under-researched regional units and the heterogeneity of the slope coefficients [ 14 ]. The dynamic common correlated effects are used in the CS-ARDL calculations. The ecological footprint, abbreviated as EF in this study, is the major endogenous variable, while the primary independent variables are RE, NRE, and NR. Additionally, as control variables, GFF and GDP were tracked. The letters i and t in equation (3) represent the research's cross-sectional units and period, respectively. The letter f represents the functional relationships between the variables. This study employs the CS-ARDL because of the high incidence of CSD in the data; this method is much superior to alternative ones since it considers both the interdependence of the understudied local units and the heterogeneousness of the slope coefficients [ 14 ]. The CS-ARDL calculations employ the dynamic common correlated effects. The main endogenic variable in this study is the ecological footprint, or EF, while the main independent variables are RE, NRE, and NR.

Additionally, GFF and GDP were monitored as control variables. In equation (3) , the cross-sectional units and period are denoted by the letters i and t, respectively. The letter f symbolizes the functional relationships between the variables.

The independent and control variables' beta coefficients (1–6) are included in equation (4) . The cross-sectional units (chosen G20 economies) and period are denoted by the letters i and t, respectively. Previous studies suggest that EF and RE have a negative correlation, but non-renewable and natural resources have a positive correlation. Additionally, W in equation (5) denotes EF, the main dependent variable. The ARDL model is described in equation (5) . Equation (6) , which also incorporates the cross-sectional average for each repressor, has been added to equation (5) . The cross-sectional averages also reduce the impacts of cross-sectional dependence.

equation (7) below displays the mean values of all variables, whether they are dependent, independent, or control variables.

The major endogenous variable is Wit EF per capita, which is the variable of interest. Additionally, Zi, t1 represents the explanatory and controlling variables such as natural NR, NRE, GFF, and GDP. To solve the problem of CSD brought on by the spillover effect, Xt1 represents the average of research variables. Pw, Pz, and Px stand in for the lag variables. In the CS-ARDL, the long-run coefficient values are estimated using the short-run data. Below is a representation of the long-run coefficients and mean group estimator in equation (8) :

The coefficients that were estimated for the short run are presented below in equations (9) , (10) , (11) , (12) , (13) ):

The work conducts a robustness check that considers the problems of CSD, slope heterogeneousness, panel cointegration, and stationarity chattels to assure the dependability of the results. The study employs two techniques to carry out this check: the augmented mean group (AMG) and the common correlated effects mean group (CCEMG), both of which were proposed by Refs. [ 14 , 35 ], respectively. Even when dealing with nonstationary common and undetected common variables, the AMG and CCEMG estimators help produce reliable results. The additional benefit of the CCEMG estimator is that it addresses the identification issue and considers non-homogeneous slope parameters that change over time. The factors utilized in the investigation are described and quantified in Table 2 . The energy transition was measured using measures such as clean energy investment, CEM, energy intensity, and carbon intensity using an index based on principal component analysis suggested by Ref. [ 40 ]. Here is Table 1 , in which all variables are described and their source.

Authors compile variables and their sources.

Results of Cross-sectional dependence analysis.

Note: ***explains the level of significance at 1%.

4. Results and discussion section

CSD analysis was used to confirm CSD. This test assures that future tests in this article will be more accurate. CSD analysis is crucial. H0 represented no CSD, but H1 rejected it. Table 2 shows a 1% significance for ecological footprint, renewable energy, non-renewable energy, natural resources, gross fixed capital formation, and GDP. CSD is in the dataset, confirming our H1 . The (Swamy 1970) slope coefficient heterogeneity test was performed next. (He et al., 2021; Chien et al., 2022; Suki et al., 2021). H1 rejects the slope coefficient homogeneity null hypothesis. Table 3 demonstrates slope coefficient heterogeneity. Table 3 shows that the p values for delt a and adjusted delta are 0.009 and 0.002, indicating variation in slope coefficient. Development ratio, technology, and ecology changes may explain slope variability in G20 nations' data.

Unit root test results.

Note: ***, ** & * explain the level of significance at 1%, 5% and 10% respectively.

The finding highlights the interconnectedness of the study's variables, suggesting that they cannot be investigated separately. To ensure the validity and trustworthiness of the results, the existence of CSD is considered in the subsequent tests and analyses. This study ensures that the variables' interdependence is considered in the statistical models used and the conclusions produced, providing a more thorough and accurate comprehension of the interconnections and dynamics within the dataset by recognizing and addressing CSD.

The stationarity of data is essential in studying databases. If the mean, variance, and covariance of a time series do not change during the series, then we say that the series is stationary. This quality ensures the reliability and validity of statistical analysis, making it essential. With static data, conventional statistical methods and models may be safely used, allowing for precise relationship interpretation and reliable statistical inference. By creating stationarity in datasets, researchers may effectively study data, draw valuable insights, and make judgments based on appropriate statistical analysis and modeling approaches.

We check data stationarity when CSD is present. A unit root test was used for this. Table 4 shows unit root findings. Two tests—CADF and CIPS—supported the findings. These techniques may detect data stationarity. Results show that the null hypothesis was not rejected. Hence alternative was accepted. We used 1st difference to check data stationarity since the test accepted the null hypothesis before 1st difference. Values show CADF and CIPS findings are significant at 1st difference. Data is stationer at 1st difference. This study's variables confirm stationarity or unit. If CSD is verified, utilize the Westerlund test (Westerlund 2008) to check CSD cointegration under panel cointegration. H0 asserts no CSD cointegration, but H1 says it does. Table 5 shows that Gt's stat value is significant at 1%, proving cointegration in CSD and rejecting H0.

Results of the Westerlund test.

CS-ARDL outcomes.

***, ** & * explain the level of significance at 1%, 5% and 10% respectively.

Table 5 shows the short-term and long-term relationships between variables using CS-ARDL. The short-term CS-ARDL findings show that renewable energy has a negative association with ecological footprint with a coefficient value of −0.156 at a p-value of 0.003—significant at a 1% level.

Given the inverse correlation between the ecological footprint and renewable energy, increasing the usage or acceptance of renewable energy sources is associated with decreasing the ecological footprint. In other words, the percentage of renewable energy in the energy mix is inversely related to the environmental effect or footprint. The coefficient value of −0.156 demonstrates the statistical significance of the connection between renewable energy and the ecological footprint. For every 1 unit increase in the usage of renewable energy, the ecological footprint is decreased by 0.156 units, as shown by the negative coefficient in this case. The p-value of 0.003 indicates that the association is statistically significant. The p-value for the correlation between renewable energy and ecological footprint in this study is 0.003, meaning that the link is significant at the 1% level. This provides empirical evidence that the purported inverse relationship between renewable energy and environmental impact is not coincidental. These findings point to the need to expand the usage of renewable energy sources in creating a more environmentally friendly and sustainable energy system.

Renewable energy use would reduce G20 nations' ecological load. The study's beginning addressed the move from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Reducing ecological pressures improves environmental sustainability. Thus, renewable energy and environmental footprints are strongly coupled and complimentary. A similar analysis for OECD nations (A. A. Khan et al., 2022) found a negative relationship between renewable energy and ecological footprints. This paper's findings match Ahmed et al., 's 2022 investigation. Both studies recommend switching to renewable energy to safeguard the environment and energy security. Su and Tan 2023) recommend switching from non-renewable to renewable energy for green environmental sustainability. Sustainability requires renewable energy policies for a net zero carbon benchmark (Bashir et al., 2023). However, non-renewable energy, natural resources, gross fixed capital creation, and GDP have a positive short-term relationship with the ecological load. More usage of such resources will raise G20 nations' ecological burden. Thus, NRE, NR, and EF negatively impact environmental sustainability. If all other parameters are unchanged, a 1% change in NRE and NR brings 0.585% and 0.017% change in EF across G20 countries in the short term. Keeping all other parameters fixed, the 1% change in NRE and NR states a long-term shift of 0.245% and 0.021% in EF across G20 economies.

More frequent usage or reliance on these resources means the G20 nations will incur a higher ecological cost or environmental effect. A positive relationship between these two metrics suggests that growing economic activity, use of non-renewable resources, and investment in physical capital all add to environmental stress. This indicates that the rising usage of these resources threatens the G20 countries' environmental sustainability. The quantitative measures reported in the findings provide insight into the importance of the correlation. Variations of 0.585% and 0.017% in the ecological footprint (EF), for example, are caused by 1% variations in non-renewable energy and natural resources across the G20 nations. This demonstrates that with some tweaks to how these resources are utilized, a big impact may be made on the environment.

The findings also highlight the long-term implications. Without changing anything else, the G20 economies' long-term ecological footprint shifts by 0.245% and 0.021% for every 1% change in their use of non-renewable energy and natural resources, respectively. This exemplifies the persistent link between resource depletion and environmental degradation. These results show that increasing non-renewable energy, natural resources, gross fixed capital production, and GDP harm environmental sustainability in the G20 countries. It stresses the need for sustainable resource management techniques and greener alternatives to reduce environmental stress and ensure a sustainable future.

Table 5 shows long-term ecological footprint relationships with renewable energy and other factors. Table 5 shows that in the long run, ecological footprint and renewable energy have a significant negative relationship, indicating that more renewable energy use in G20 countries would improve sustainability at −0.063 with a p-value of 0.00. Non-renewable energy, natural resources, gross fixed capital creation, and GDP exhibit significant positive relationships, indicating that increasing usage of such resources would increase ecological footprint value. For sustainable development, G20 nations should switch to renewable energy. According to the research, dependency on fossil fuels and natural resources significantly strains the ecological environment and damages sustainability.

There is a long-term, considerably inverse relationship between the use of renewable energy and the ecological footprint in G20 countries. This indicates that an increase in the use of green energy is associated with improved environmental impact. A coefficient value of −0.063 indicates the strength of this connection, which demonstrates that increasing the share of renewable energy reduces environmental impact. The statistical significance of this negative association is shown by the p-value of 0.00, which strongly supports the assertion.

Literature shows varied outcomes. Sharif et al. (2020) panel estimate tested BRICS economies. BRICS validated the environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC), and NR reduces EF. (Zafar et al., 2019). Our research and (Ahmad et al., 2020) agree that NR and economic expansion increase EF. Countries should prioritize environmental sustainability (Jahangir et al., 2022). They recommend efficient natural resource usage. Deforestation, industrialization, mining, and agriculture use NR, which increases EF (Danish et al., 2019). These findings suggest NRE and NR increase EF. Thus, governments worldwide must create sustainable and eco-friendly legislation.

Table 5 shows that GFF increases EF with time. G20 economies' EF changes 0.119% for every 1% change in GFF. Literature suggests that higher GFF values increase economic growth, which increases energy demand and harms the environment. Rahman and Ahmad 2019. A. A. Khan et al. (2022) found that GFF shares vary with the economy. Thus, technical progress and development affect GFF-EF relationships in various economies. GDP and capital creation harm environmental quality in OECD nations (Mujtaba et al., 2022). (Nathaniel et al., 2021). Literature suggests that increasing GFF would increase productivity and growth. Thus, it would pollute and degrade the environment (Acar, Altıntaş, and Haziyev, 2023). Nathaniel et al. (2021) examine G7 GDP-EF relationships from 1980 to 2016. GDP harms the environment like EF. These results show that NRE, NR, GFF, and GDP must be carefully considered and managed for long-term environmental sustainability. Table 5 shows that GDP positively impacts EF at a 1% level across G20 countries. In G20 countries, 1% GDP growth increases EF by 0.051% over time (Mujtaba et al., 2022). Examine GDP-EF relationships in OECD economies. Their analysis found that a 1% GDP growth increases the EF by 0.53%.

These findings highlight the need to properly manage and consider NRE, NR, GFF, and GDP factors to ensure environmental sustainability over the long run. They stress the need for ecologically sound sustainable development practices that mitigate the negative results of economic expansion. If policymakers and stakeholders have a firm grasp of the links between economic development and environmental protection, they will be better equipped to strike a balance between the two.

Table 6 shows FMOLS and AMG robustness checks in the final stage of the study. Table 6 , Table 7 show that both estimates agree and support each other. Hence robustness check results match CS-ARDL conclusions. Table 7 indicates that renewable energy reduces ecological load and helps G20 nations achieve environmental sustainability. It indicates G20 nations can manage environmental imbalance through renewable energy and efficient technology.

Robustness check.

***& ** explain the level of significance at 1% & 5% respectively.

Granger Causality test.

These findings further demonstrate the importance of renewable energy sources in achieving environmental and sustainable development goals. They highlight the promise of renewable energy to promote environmental harmony and provide a path ahead for the G20 nations to embrace greener, more sustainable development methods. In a time series context, the Granger causality test measures the strength of an assumed relationship between two variables. An important question is to what extent one variable may be used to predict or "cause" another. Table 7 displays the results of a Granger causality analysis.

Table 7 shows that the p-value of 0.007 indicates a statistically significant relationship between GDP and EF. If the p-value is less than the commonly used 0.05 threshold, there is strong evidence against accepting the null hypothesis. Changes in GDP are seen to predict or influence EF shifts, suggesting a Granger causal relationship between the two variables. The f-statistic corresponding p-value is 0.6090. There is inadequate evidence to reject the null hypothesis since the p-value is greater than the typically accepted significance threshold of.05. Changes in ecological footprints were not observed to predict or impact changes in GDP, implying that the conclusion implies that EF does not Granger cause GDP.

Considering the null hypothesis that GFF does not Granger Cause EF, we find that the corresponding p-value for the F-Statistic is 0.6083. There is inadequate evidence to reject the null hypothesis since the p-value is greater than the typically accepted significance threshold of0.05. This finding is consistent with the conclusion that GFF is not a Granger cause of EF. In this case, the F-statistic has a p-value of 0.2114. There is inadequate evidence to reject the null hypothesis since the p-value is greater than the typically accepted significance threshold of0.05. This finding is consistent with the hypothesis that GFF is not a Granger cause of EF.

F-Statistic (3.81876) has a p-value of 0.0226%. There is significant evidence to reject the null hypothesis since the p-value is lower than the typically accepted significance threshold of0.05. Changes in Natural Resources are observed to predict or impact shifts in ecological footprints, indicating that the two are causally related. No statistically significant correlation exists between ecological footprint changes and Natural Resources variations. In other words, EF does not Granger cause NR. Changes in non-renewable energy sources do not predict or affect ecological footprints, according to an examination of the relationship between NRE and EF. Changes in ecological footprints may have a predictive or causative impact on non-renewable energy, but the opposite is true. EF Granger causes NRE.

In terms of the Granger causality between Renewable Energy (RE) and EF, the findings are inconclusive. This suggests no correlation exists between the growth of renewable energy and reductions in ecological footprints. According to the tests, gross domestic product (GDP) and gross fixed capital formation (GFF) are not Granger-caused by one another. As a result, we find little evidence that fluctuations in Gross fixed capital creation and GDP predict or impact one another. Natural Resources (NR) and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) are analyzed similarly, revealing that neither NR nor GDP Granger causes the other. This indicates no predictive or causal link between changes in natural resource availability and GDP. Looking at the correlations between NRE and GDP, we find little evidence that one drives the other. However, GDP Granger does generate NRE. Thus, the link works both ways. This suggests that fluctuations in GDP have a causative or at least predictive effect on using non-renewable energy.

The study between RE and GDP concludes that RE does not cause GDP, but GDP does. Changes in GDP are a predictor of, or at least an impact on, changes in renewable energy. When looking at the correlation between NR and GFF, we find no evidence that either variable is a Granger cause of the other. As a result, shifts in the Global Freedom Index and natural resource availability are independent variables. The Granger causality study between NRE and GFF demonstrates that neither variable is a cause of the other. As a result, no correlation or causation between non-renewable energy shifts and GFC growth was discovered. The study between RE and GFF demonstrates the same thing: neither RE nor GFF Granger causes the other. Therefore, there is no correlation between renewable energy growth and GFC growth.

The findings of this investigation on the link between NRE and NR indicate that NRE does not result in NR. However, NR Granger causes NRE, which suggests that changes in natural resource conditions act as a predictor or causative factor in the emergence of new forms of non-renewable energy. Finally, analyzing the relationship between RE and NR reveals that the latter Granger causes the former. This data demonstrates that shifts in renewable energy are predicted by, or at least influenced by, shifts in natural resources.

5. Conclusions and policy implications

The current study mainly examines the relationship between Ecological footprints (EF) and renewable energy (RE) under the sustainability agenda for G20 countries by considering the data from 1992 to 2018. Under the study, we also explore the relationship of EF with other parameters like NRE, NR, GFF, and GDP. To study such a relation, a series of tests have been conducted to support the evidence. The existence of cross-sectional dependence, heterogeneity of slope coefficient, and stationarity have been tested. It is confirmed from the results that G20 economies are interdependent, and there exist heterogeneity and stationarity of variables. After the confirmation for panel cointegration, the CS-ARDL test was performed to study the relations in the short and long run.

It is evident from the results that renewable energy helps reduce the ecological footprints among G20 economies. On the other hand, the variables like NRE, NR, GDP, and GFF negatively impact the environment and hence are causing a threat to environmental sustainability. Therefore, it is the need of the hour to reshape the utilization of GFF, GDP, NRE, and NR to protect environmental sustainability. The results have also been verified using AMG and FMOLS under robustness check. The empirical findings of this study can be extrapolated to have practical policy consequences, particularly in the setting of the G20 economies. The details are described below:

• 1. It is advised that the G20 economies, governments, and relevant ministries proactively address the considerable obstacles preventing progress in this field to ease the transition to clean energy. To achieve a low-carbon economy, G20 member nations are also urged to work together to transfer energy-efficient technologies. Another possible strategy is to encourage community knowledge and societal demand for green energy solutions while simultaneously reducing fossil fuel dependency to advance the energy transition.
• 2. Given that natural resources greatly impact environmental deterioration, it is crucial to look into solutions emphasizing efficient management of these resources through enhanced human capital and technology. This strategy could produce a sustainable outcome. Promoting alternative industries that are in line with sustainable growth and a reduction in dependency on revenue from natural resources could also be a successful tactic.
• 3. The G20 economies must shift their present growth models towards green and sustainable characteristics as economic growth continues to leave an ecological impact. A further way to safeguard diverse businesses from environmental pollution is to transition them to green energy sources progressively. These industries play a vital role in the production and consumption of a variety of goods and services.

The study's results and conclusions might lead to several actionable proposals to promote environmental sustainability among the G20 nations. First, we need to increase funding for renewable energy like hydroelectric, solar, and wind. Providing financial assistance and legislative incentives to encourage the development of renewable energy infrastructure is one way to achieve this goal. The G20 nations should develop comprehensive energy transition initiatives to help the world wean itself off fossil fuels and onto more sustainable forms of energy production. Goals for renewable energy uptake and the progressive elimination of fossil fuel subsidies are two examples of these strategies. Third, it's crucial to encourage research and development in environmentally friendly technologies and new ideas. To speed up the development and widespread use of environmentally friendly and energy-efficient technology across various sectors, the G20 countries should invest in research and development (R&D) programs. Fourth, promoting environmentally responsible methods of production and consumption is critical. The circular economy, waste minimization, and resource efficiency should all be prioritized in policymaking. Promoting environmentally responsible company practices and raising consumer awareness are two ways to get there. Fifth, we must strengthen global collaboration and coordination to address environmental issues. The G20 nations should work together to solve global environmental problems by sharing information and solutions.

Last but not least, it is essential to establish reliable monitoring and evaluation methods to track progress toward emerging environmental sustainability goals. Reviewing policies regularly and making data on environmental indicators publicly available may help with evidence-based decision-making and highlight areas for growth. BY IMPLEMENTING THESE POLICIES, the G20 nations may help reduce their ecological footprints and contribute to global efforts to combat climate change.

The study's concluding stage discovers several restrictions and potential future directions. For example, because the study only focuses on the G20 economies, regional implications for strategic initiatives relating to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) may need to be properly considered. In addition, the study does not consider how elements like financial inclusion, financial development, green investment, unique renewable energy indicators, and human capital influence the sustainability agenda among G20 economies. Future studies should address these restrictions to produce new empirical findings and directives for policy. Furthermore, dividing G20 nations into highly and less polluted groups based on ecological footprint (EF) or carbon emissions may allow for cross-sectional comparisons and solid policy suggestions.

Funding statement

This study thanks the financial support from Tianjin Statistical Science Research Project (TJ2023KY11).

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.