research proposal in renewable energy

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essays Samples >
• Essay Types >
• Research Proposal Example

Renewable Energy Research Proposals Samples For Students

12 samples of this type

Do you feel the need to check out some previously written Research Proposals on Renewable Energy before you start writing an own piece? In this open-access directory of Renewable Energy Research Proposal examples, you are given a thrilling opportunity to discover meaningful topics, content structuring techniques, text flow, formatting styles, and other academically acclaimed writing practices. Applying them while crafting your own Renewable Energy Research Proposal will definitely allow you to finish the piece faster.

Presenting high-quality samples isn't the only way our free essays service can help students in their writing endeavors – our authors can also compose from point zero a fully customized Research Proposal on Renewable Energy that would make a genuine basis for your own academic work.

Electrical Design Of A Photovoltaic Power Station Research Proposal Example

For additional power generation, good research proposal about the honorable jeff sessions.

[Your address]

United States Senate 326 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-0104 DC Phone: 202-224-4124 DC Fax: 202-224-3149

Dear senator,

Good research proposal on what previous researches suggest.

Business Sustainability in the Middle East – How Solar Energy Use can be Effectively Commercialized in the United Arab Emirates and the Middle East

Don't waste your time searching for a sample.

Get your research proposal done by professional writers!

Just from $10/page

The Impact Of Renewable Energy And Non-Renewable Energy To Create A Sustainable Research Proposal Example

The impact of renewable energy and non-renewable energy to create a sustainable environment in the uae, research proposal on finance, renewable energy independent power producers in south africa: the analysis of financial mechanisms for small and medium enterprises, perfect model research proposal on renewable energy proposal, executive summary.

Lehigh Valley Campus in Pennsylvania is proposing to incorporate renewable sources of energy (Hybrid Photovoltaic Cells and Thermal Collector) into the campus and a cybercafé/bookstore business venture in honor of the recently deceased alumnus of PSU, Wayne K. Newton. It is our firm belief that this project will fulfill the Late Wayne Newton’s visionary dream and fulfill the family’s wishes to donate the funds. The campus aims to use these funds to procure hybrid solar module and design a cybercafé/bookstore business premise

The total cost of the project will be $87120.

Research proposal on renewable energy solar panels, shifting to alternative fuels in azerbaijan-research proposal research proposals example, problem statement, sample research proposal on recyclable waste as a transport fuel in the kingdom of saudi arabia, research rationale, climate change and humanity’s contribution to it research proposal example, example of solar power and wind energy research proposal, energy resource plan research proposal, environmental science.

Energy Resource Plan Introduction

Energy conservation is important to the environment. You have probably heard that said on television and read it in the headlines a million times but you may not have thought about what it means for your family. The environment needs to be clean for our families. Less air pollution in the atmosphere means healthier kids and less asthma.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Gen Z, Millennials Stand Out for Climate Change Activism, Social Media Engagement With Issue
• 2. Climate, energy and environmental policy

Table of Contents

• 1. Climate engagement and activism
• 3. Local impact of climate change, environmental problems
• Acknowledgments
• Methodology
• Appendix: Detailed charts and tables

A majority of Americans consider climate change a priority today so that future generations can have a sustainable planet, and this view is held across generations.

Looking to the future, the public is closely divided on what it will take to address climate change: While about half say it’s likely major lifestyle changes in the U.S. will be needed to deal with climate change impacts, almost as many say it’s more likely new developments in technology will address most of the problems cause by climate change.

On policy, majorities prioritize the use of renewable energy and back the expanded use of specific sources like wind and solar. Americans offer more support than opposition to a range of policies aimed at reducing the effects of climate change, including key climate-related aspects of President Joe Biden’s recent infrastructure proposal. Still, Americans do not back a complete break with carbon: A majority says oil and gas should still be part of the energy mix in the U.S., and about half oppose phasing out gas-powered vehicles by 2035.

Overall, 64% of U.S. adults say reducing the effects of climate change needs to be “a top priority to ensure a sustainable planet for future generations, even if that means fewer resources for addressing other important problems today.” By contrast, 34% say that reducing the effects of climate change needs to be “a lower priority, with so many other important problems facing Americans today, even if that means more climate problems for future generations.”

There are stark partisan differences over this sentiment. Nearly nine-in-ten Democrats (87%) say efforts to reduce the effects of climate change need to be prioritized today to ensure a sustainable planet. By contrast, 61% of Republicans say that efforts to reduce the effects of climate change need to be a lower priority, with so many other important problems facing Americans today. (Democrats and Republicans include those who lean to each party.)

Asked to look to the future 50 years from now, 51% of Americans say it’s more likely that major changes to everyday life in the U.S. will be needed to address the problems caused by global climate change. By contrast, 46% say it’s more likely that new technology will be able to address most of the problems caused by global climate change.

Most Democrats (69%) expect that in 50 years major lifestyle changes in the U.S. will be needed to address the problems caused by climate change. By contrast, among Republicans, two-thirds (66%) say it’s likelier that new technology will be able to address most climate change problems in the U.S. Among Republicans, this view is widely held (81%) among the majority who do not see climate change as an important personal concern; Republicans who express greater personal concern about climate change are more likely to say major changes to everyday life in the future will be needed to address problems caused by climate change.

Overall, majorities across generations believe that climate change should be a top priority today to ensure a sustainable planet for future generations. Generational divisions are more prominent among Republicans than Democrats, however.

Among Republicans, about half of Gen Zers (49%) and Millennials (48%) give top priority to reducing the effect of climate change today, even if that means fewer resources to deal with other important problems. By contrast, majorities of Gen X (61%) and Baby Boomer and older Republicans (71%) say reducing the effects of climate change needs to a lower priority today, given the other problems Americans are facing.

Generational differences among Democrats on this question are modest, with clear majorities giving priority to dealing with climate change today.

Majority of Americans prioritize developing alternative energy sources, but only a third would phase out all fossil fuels

Burning fossil fuels for electricity and in cars and trucks are among the primary sources of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. Americans broadly favor increasing the use of renewable energy sources, but a majority reject the idea of phasing out fossil fuel energy sources completely. And Americans are about evenly divided on the idea of phasing out the production of new gasoline cars and trucks by 2035.

There are familiar partisan divisions over nearly every aspect of energy policy, particularly when it comes to fossil fuels. Political divides have widened over the past year as Republican support for alternative energy sources – including wind and solar power – has fallen while support for expanding offshore oil drilling, hydraulic fracturing and coal mining has ticked up.

Within both parties, Gen Zers and Millennials are more supportive of proposals to move away from fossil fuels than their older counterparts.

A majority of Americans (71%) continue to say that the U.S. should prioritize developing alternative energy, while a much smaller share (27%) prioritizes expanding the production of oil, coal and natural gas.

The share of Republicans who prioritize developing alternative energy sources over expanding the production of fossil fuels has fallen 18 percentage points in the past year. As a result, Republicans are now closely divided between these two energy priorities. Democrats remain near consensus levels in their support for prioritizing development of alternative energy levels.

Among Republicans, there are significant generational differences in support for increasing the development of renewable energy sources. Majorities of Gen Z (63%) and Millennial (62%) Republicans prioritize increased development of renewable sources, such as wind and solar. Smaller shares of Gen X Republicans (50%) and just 33% of Baby Boomer and older Republicans prioritize this approach over the expanding of fossil fuel development. For more details, including longer-term trends over time, see the Appendix .

Republicans and Democrats also differ over the best way to encourage reliance on renewable energy sources. Most Democrats (81%) continue to see a need for government regulations to increase reliance on renewable energy. On the other hand, two-thirds of Republicans (67%) say the private marketplace alone will be enough. See the Appendix for details.

In keeping with support for prioritizing the development of renewable energy, most Americans favor expanding solar panel farms (84%) and wind turbine farms (77%). By contrast, majorities oppose more coal mining (61%), more hydraulic fracturing (56%) and more offshore oil and gas drilling (55%).

Americans are divided over expanding nuclear power: 50% favor more nuclear power plants, while 47% are opposed.

Republican support for expanding solar power is down 11 points in the last year (from 84% to 73%), and support for wind power has fallen 13 points (from 75% to 62%). Democrats’ widely held support for increasing both energy sources remains largely unchanged.

In addition, there has been an increase since 2020 in the shares of Republicans who support expanding hydraulic fracturing of natural gas (up 10 points), offshore oil and gas drilling (up 6 points) and coal mining (up 6 points). See the Appendix for details.

Even so, younger Republicans remain less likely than their older counterparts to support expanding fossil fuel sources, consistent with past Center surveys.

For instance, 79% of Baby Boomer and older Republicans support more offshore oil and gas drilling, while roughly half (48%) of Gen Z Republicans say the same (a difference of 31 points). There are similar divides over hydraulic fracturing, the primary extraction technique for natural gas (74% of Baby Boomer and older Republicans favor vs. 44% of Gen Z Republicans).

Nearly two-thirds of Americans support using a mix of fossil fuel and renewable energy sources, younger adults more inclined to phase out fossil fuels completely

While a large share of U.S. adults would prioritize alternative energy development over expanding the use of fossil fuels, most adults are not inclined to give up reliance on fossil fuels altogether.

The survey finds 64% of Americans say they support ongoing use of oil, coal and natural gas as well as renewable energy sources, while a third (33%) say the country should phase out the use of fossil fuels completely.

There are sharp differences of opinion about this issue by party. Most Republicans (86%) say that the U.S. should rely on a mix of fossil fuel and renewable energy sources. Democrats are about evenly divided, with 47% in favor of using a mix of sources and 50% calling for a phase out of fossil fuels. About two-thirds of liberal Democrats (65%) support phasing out fossil fuels but fewer moderate and conservative Democrats say the same (39%).

There are also generational divisions on this issue, with younger generations more likely to support giving up fossil fuel use over time. In fact, majorities of Democratic Gen Zers (60%) and Millennials (57%) support phasing out fossil fuel use completely.

Americans are closely divided over phasing out gas-powered vehicles; Democrats, younger adults are more receptive to the idea

Climate advocates point to electric vehicles as a way to cut down on carbon emissions and reduce climate change. Americans are about equally divided on the idea of phasing out production of gasoline cars and trucks by 2035. A little under half (47%) say they would favor such a proposal, while 51% are opposed.

As with other proposals on climate and energy issues, partisans express opposing viewpoints. About two-thirds of Democrats (68%) support phasing out gasoline cars by 2035, while 76% of Republicans oppose this.

Most U.S. adults oppose oil drilling in ANWR but are more divided over Keystone XL decision

The issue of whether or not to allow oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has long been a controversy in energy policy. Overall, most Americans (70%) oppose the idea, while 27% are in favor.

Nearly all Democrats (89%) say they oppose allowing oil and gas drilling in the ANWR. Republicans are about evenly divided, with half in favor of allowing this and 48% opposed.

One of Biden’s  first actions as president  was revoking the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline would have carried oil from Canada into the U.S.

About half of Americans (49%) say canceling the pipeline was the right decision, while 45% say it was the wrong decision.

Most Democrats (78%) say it was the right decision, while most Republicans (80%) say otherwise. See details in the  Appendix .

But there are also generational dynamics in views about gasoline-powered vehicles, with younger adults more supportive than older adults of phasing out gas cars and trucks. Narrow majorities of Gen Zers (56%) and Millennials (57%) support such a proposal, compared with 38% of Baby Boomer and older Americans. This pattern holds within both parties, though sizable partisan divides remain across all generations. See the Appendix for a look at how these generational and partisan divides compare across measures.

The public is broadly familiar with electric vehicles: About nine-in-ten have heard either a lot (30%) or a little (62%) about them. When it comes to first-hand experience, 7% of adults say they currently have an electric or hybrid vehicle; 93% say they do not.

People who say they have heard a lot about electric vehicles are closely divided over the idea of phasing out gas-powered cars and trucks by a margin of 52% in favor to 48% opposed. Not surprisingly, those who currently own an electric or hybrid vehicle are largely in favor of this idea (68% vs. 31% opposed).

Broad public support for a number of policies to address climate change, including some proposed in Biden infrastructure plan

In late March, the Biden administration announced a $2 trillion infrastructure plan with several elements they argue would help reduce the effects of climate change. The new Center survey finds majorities of Americans support a number of proposals to address global climate change, including three specific elements in Biden’s infrastructure plan.

There are sharp partisan divisions over many of these proposals, as expected. In addition, there are concerns, particularly among Democrats, that Biden’s policy proposals will not go far enough in efforts to reduce the effects of climate change.

Majorities of U.S. adults support a range of approaches to address climate change

The new Center survey finds majorities back three specific elements of Biden’s infrastructure plan. More than seven-in-ten Americans (74%) favor a proposed requirement for power companies to use more energy from renewable sources, such as solar and wind, to reduce carbon emissions. A smaller majority – 62% – favors federal spending to build a network of electric vehicle charging stations across the country in order to increase the use of electric cars and trucks.

And 63% of Americans support the idea of raising corporate taxes to pay for more energy efficient buildings and improved roads and bridges, a key funding mechanism in Biden’s infrastructure proposal.

Biden has closely tied his climate-focused infrastructure proposals with economic and job growth. Half of U.S. adults think that the Biden administration’s plan to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure in ways that are aimed at reducing the effects of climate change will help the economy. Three-in-ten think this will hurt the economy, and 18% say it will make no difference.

Americans continue to broadly support a number of longer-standing proposals to reduce the effects of climate change. Nine-in-ten Americans favor planting additional trees to absorb carbon dioxide emissions. About eight-in-ten (81%) favor providing a tax credit for businesses that develop technology that can capture and store carbon emissions before they enter the atmosphere. Both of these ideas were part of a set of policies supported by congressional Republicans last year .

Large majorities of Americans also favor tougher restrictions on power plant carbon emissions (76%), taxing corporations based on the amount of carbon emissions they produce (70%) and tougher fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles and trucks (70%).

54% of Democrats think Biden administration’s climate policies will not go far enough

Three months into the Biden administration, there is no clear consensus over the administration’s approach on climate change. About four-in-ten Americans (41%) think the Biden administration’s policies to reduce the effects of climate change will not go far enough. Roughly three-in-ten (29%) think the Biden administration will go too far, and a similar share (28%) say the administration’s approach will be about right.

Republicans and Democrats have far different expectations for the Biden’s administration policies on climate change. A narrow majority of Democrats and those who lean to the Democratic Party (54%) –including 63% of liberal Democrats – think the administration’s policies will not go far enough to reduce the effects of climate change.

In contrast, six-in-ten Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say the Biden administration’s policies will go too far, including 74% of conservative Republicans.

There are some generational differences in views on this this issue among Republicans, in line with differences over the importance of addressing climate change. About as many Gen Z Republicans say Biden’s climate policies will not go far enough (35%) as say the policies will go too far (38%). By comparison, a 72% majority of Republicans in the Baby Boomer or older generations think the Biden administration will go too far on climate change.

When it comes to views about proposals aimed at reducing climate change, however, there are few differences of opinion across generations among either party. Yet large differences remain between Republicans and Democrats overall.

Democrats’ views about five proposals aimed at reducing the effects of climate change are uniformly positive. Roughly 85% to 95% of Democrats support each.

Republicans and Republican leaners are most supportive of proposals to absorb carbon emissions by planting large numbers of trees (88%), followed by a proposal to provide a corporate tax credit for carbon-capture technology (73%). A majority of the GOP (58%) favor tougher restrictions on carbon emissions from power plants. About half of Republicans favor taxing corporate carbon emissions (50%) or tougher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks (49%).

There are no divisions within the GOP by generation across these issues, though ideological divides are often sharp. For example, 65% of moderate and liberal Republicans favor tougher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks, compared with 40% of conservative Republicans.

Republicans and Democrats are also deeply divided over climate-focused proposals in the Biden administration’s infrastructure plan.

Large majorities of Democrats favor requiring power companies to use more energy from renewable sources (92%), raising corporate taxes to pay for energy efficient buildings and improved roads (84%) and building a network of electric vehicle charging stations across the country (82%).

About half of Republicans (52%) support requiring power companies to use more energy from renewable sources. There is less support for federal spending to build a nationwide network of electric vehicle charging stations (38%). An equal share of Republicans (38%) support the idea of raising taxes on corporations to pay for more energy efficient buildings and better roads, although more moderates and liberals in the GOP (59%) than conservatives (27%) support this idea.

There is comparatively more support for these proposals among younger Republicans, particularly for federal spending to build electric vehicle charging stations and requirements for power plants to use more renewable sources.

Republicans and Democrats at odds over economic impact of Biden’s infrastructure plan

Democrats are largely optimistic that the Biden administration’s plan to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure in ways aimed at reducing the effects of climate change will help the economy. About eight-in-ten Democrats (78%) say this.

Among Republicans, a majority (59%) thinks this proposed plan will hurt the economy, while only about two-in-ten (18%) say it will help. Conservative Republicans (71%) are especially inclined to say the climate-focused infrastructure proposal will hurt the economy.

Generational differences are largely modest but occur in both parties. Baby Boomer Republicans are the most pessimistic about the plan’s economic impact, while Boomer Democrats are the most optimistic that the plan will help the economy.

What are important considerations to Americans in climate proposals?

When it comes to proposals to reduce the effects of global climate change, protecting the environment for future generations and increasing jobs and economic growth are the top considerations Americans would like to see in policy proposals.

Asked to think about what is important to them in proposals to reduce the effects of climate change, 64% of the public says protecting the quality of the environment for future generations is a very important consideration to them personally; 28% say it’s somewhat important to them and just 6% say it’s not too or not at all important to them.

A majority (60%) also says that increasing job and economic growth is a very important consideration to them personally when it comes to proposals to reduce the effects of climate change.

About half (52%) say keeping consumer costs low is a very important consideration to them personally in climate proposals. Making sure proposals help lower-income communities is seen as a very important consideration by 45% of the public.

About a third (34%) say getting to net-zero carbon emissions as quickly as possible is a very important consideration to them personally. Joe Biden has set a goal for the U.S. to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

Limiting the burden of regulations on businesses is seen as a very important climate policy consideration by 24% of the public – the lowest share who say this across the six items asked in the survey. However, majorities view all six factors, including limiting the regulatory burden on businesses, as at least somewhat important considerations in climate proposals.

Partisans have differing priorities when it comes to climate change proposals. Among Republicans, increasing job and economic growth (65% very important) and keeping consumer costs low (61%) are their top considerations. Among Democrats, protecting the quality of the environment for future generations is their clear top consideration (79% very important), followed by making sure proposals help lower-income communities (59%) and increasing job and economic growth (58%). About half of Democrats (51%) say getting to net-zero carbon emissions as quickly as possible is very important to them.

Public sees actions from businesses, ordinary Americans as insufficient on climate change

Americans see a range of actors as falling short in efforts to help reduce the effects of global climate change. The public is broadly critical of the lack of action from large businesses and the energy industry – but also views elected officials, as well as ordinary Americans, as failing to do their part.

Nearly seven-in-ten adults (69%) say large businesses and corporations are doing too little to help reduce the effects of global climate change, while just 21% say they are doing about the right amount and very few (8%) say they are doing too much to address climate change. Similarly, a majority of the public (62%) says the energy industry is doing too little to help reduce the effects of global climate change.

The public also extends criticism on climate inaction to Americans themselves and the officials they vote into elected office. Overall, 66% say ordinary Americans are doing too little to help reduce the effects of climate change, and 60% say this about their state’s elected officials. A separate question that asks about the actions of the federal government across a range of environmental areas finds that 59% say the federal government is doing too little on climate change.

Americans are less critical of their own individual actions in helping to address climate change: Roughly half (48%) believe they, themselves, are doing about the right amount to help reduce the effects of climate change. Still, almost as many (47%) say they are doing too little to help.

When it comes to the role of environmental advocacy organizations, 48% say they are doing about the right amount to help reduce the effects of climate change, compared with 29% who say they are doing too little and 22% who say they are doing too much.

There are stark partisan differences in views of the role groups and individuals are playing to help reduce the effects of climate change. Large majorities of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say large businesses (85%), ordinary Americans (82%), the energy industry (80%) and their state elected officials (79%) are doing too little to help reduce climate change impacts. By contrast, about half of Republicans and Republican leaners or fewer say these actors are doing too little to address climate change. Republicans are much more likely to say most of these groups are doing about the right amount than to say they are doing too much to address climate change.

Generational differences in views are most pronounced on this question within the GOP. In general, Gen Z and Millennial Republicans are more likely than older Republicans to say groups and individuals are doing too little to help reduce the effects of climate change. For instance, 57% of Gen Z and 59% of Millennial Republicans say large businesses are doing too little to help address climate change, compared with 50% of Gen X Republicans and 43% of Baby Boomer and older Republicans.

A 54% majority of U.S. adults see climate scientists’ role on policy as too limited, though some have doubts about scientists’ understanding

As the Biden administration, Congress and state and local governments debate how best to address climate change, 54% of Americans think climate scientists have too little influence on policy debates about climate change. Smaller shares say climate scientists have about the right amount (22%) or too much (22%) influence on climate policy.

At the same time, Americans appear to have reservations about climate scientists’ expertise and understanding. Only about two-in-ten Americans (18%) say climate scientists understand “very well” the best ways to address climate change. Another 42% say climate scientists understand ways to address climate change “fairly well”; 38% say they understand this not too or not at all well.

Public views of climate scientists’ understanding are more positive, if still generally skeptical, on the fundamentals of whether climate change is occurring (37% say scientists understand this very well) and what causes climate change (28%).

Americans’ overall views about climate scientists’ expertise and understanding of what is happening to the Earth’s climate are similar to 2016, the last time Pew Research Center asked these questions.

In keeping with the wide political divisions over climate policy issues, Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to rate climate scientists’ understanding highly. And these partisan divides have widened since 2016. For example, Democrats are 43 percentage points more likely than Republicans to say climate scientists understand very well whether or not climate change is occurring. This gap was 25 points in 2016. See the Appendix for details.

Similarly, far larger shares of Democrats than Republicans believe climate scientists have too little say in climate debates (77% vs. 27%).

Younger generations are especially likely to think climate scientists have too little say on climate policy debates. However, these generational dynamics occur only within the GOP.

Millennial (38%) and Gen Z (41%) Republicans are more likely than Baby Boomers and older generations of Republicans (18%) to think climate scientists have too little influence on related policy debates. About half of older Republicans (53%) say climate scientists have too much influence in these debates.

Roughly three-quarters to eight-in-ten Democrats across younger and older generations think climate scientists have too little say in climate policy debates.

Majority of Americans continue to say federal government is doing too little to protect key aspects of the environment

When it comes to environmental protection, a majority of Americans continue to see a role for stricter environmental regulations and majorities view the federal government as doing too little across most areas of environmental concern asked about in the survey, such as protecting air quality.

Gen Z and Millennials offer the broadest support for environmental regulations and for more government action to protect specific aspects of the environment.

Partisan gaps over government action to protect the environment remain very large and differences over the value of stricter environmental regulations have widened since last asked in September 2019 during the administration of Donald Trump.

There are generational and partisan differences over value of environmental regulations

Overall, 56% of Americans say that stricter environmental laws are worth the cost, compared with a smaller share (41%) who say they cost too many jobs and hurt the economy.

On balance Gen Z and Millennials are both much more likely to  stricter environmental laws as worth the cost than to say they cost too many jobs and hurt the economy (by 59% to 33% and 63% to 35%, respectively). Gen X and Boomer and older adults also see stricter environmental laws as worth the cost, though by narrower margins.

A large majority of Democrats (81%) believe that stricter environmental laws are worth the cost. By contrast, 71% of Republicans say they cost too many jobs and hurt the economy. Republicans have become much more likely to take a critical view of stricter environmental regulations since September 2019, when 55% said they hurt the economy and cost too many jobs. (For more details on this change over time, see the Appendix ).

Generational differences in views occur primarily within the GOP and not among Democrats. Among Republicans, Gen Z (35%) and Millennials (34%) are more likely than Baby Boomer and older adults (20%) to say stricter environmental laws are worth the cost, though larger shares across cohorts say these regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy. Roughly eight-in-ten Democrats across generations say that stricter environmental laws are worth the cost.

Far more Americans say government is doing too little, rather than too much, on key areas of environmental protection

Consistent with Center surveys over the past few years, majorities of U.S. adults support more government action to address a range of environmental concerns, including air and water quality as well as climate change.

Overall, 63% say the federal government is doing too little to protect the water quality of lakes, rivers and streams. Majorities also say the government is doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change (59%), protect air quality (59%) and protect animals and their habitats (57%). About half (51%) say the federal government is doing too little to protect open lands in national parks and nature preserves. Across all five items, small shares of the public believe the government is doing too much to address any one of these environmental issues.

There are wide differences in views on these issues by political party, with Democrats much more likely than Republicans to think that government efforts in these areas are insufficient.

While still the predominant viewpoint, the shares of Democrats who say the government is doing too little across these five areas are 6 to 10 percentage points lower than they were in May of 2020, before Joe Biden took office. Republicans’ views on these questions have been largely steady, although the share of Republicans who believe the federal government is doing too little to address climate change is down 5 percentage points, from 35% in May 2020 to 30% today.

Partisan groups remain far apart when it comes to assessment of government action on climate change: 83% of Democrats and Democratic leaners think the government’s efforts are insufficient, vs. 30% of Republicans and GOP leaners, a difference of 53 percentage points. Conservative Republicans stand out on this from their fellow partisans with a moderate or liberal ideology: 19% say the federal government is doing too little to address climate change compared with 49% of moderate or liberal Republicans.

Gen Zers and Millennials are more likely than older Americans to say the government is doing too little to address specific areas of environmental concern, though these divides are driven primarily by differences by generation within the GOP.

About two-thirds of Gen Zers (66%) and Millennials (65%) say the federal government is doing too little to protect air quality, compared with 58% of Gen X and 52% of Baby Boomer and older adults.

Similarly, 68% of Gen Zers and 66% of Millennials say the federal government is doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change versus 57% of Gen X and 52% of Baby Boomer and older adults.

Among Republicans, Gen Zers and Millennials are more likely than Baby Boomer and older adults to say the federal government is doing too little to address all five of these areas of environmental concern. Majorities of Democrats across generations say the government is doing too little to address these environmental issues.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Baby Boomers
• Climate, Energy & Environment
• Generation X
• Generation Z
• Generations, Age & Politics
• Millennials
• Politics Online
• Silent Generation
• Social Media & the News

Boomers, Silents still have most seats in Congress, though number of Millennials, Gen Xers is up slightly

The pace of boomer retirements has accelerated in the past year, u.s. millennials tend to have favorable views of foreign countries and institutions – even as they age, millennials overtake baby boomers as america’s largest generation, older americans continue to follow covid-19 news more closely than younger adults, most popular, report materials.

• American Trends Panel Wave 89

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

• BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
• RECIPIENT RESOURCES
• DOE OFFICIALS LOGIN
• Printable Version
• Funding Opportunities

Unsolicited Proposals

• Small Businesses & Investors
• Related Links

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy often turns to the private sector for assistance in accomplishing its mission and program objectives. Organizations and individuals are encouraged to submit proposals that are relevant to DOE's research and development mission either in response to formal DOE solicitations or through self-generated unsolicited proposals.

An Unsolicited Proposal is an application for support of an idea, method, or approach that is submitted by individuals, businesses, and organizations solely on the proposer's initiative rather than in response to a "formal" Government solicitation. Funding of Unsolicited Proposals is considered a noncompetitive action.

For further information relating to the process for submitting unsolicited proposals, please visit NETL's Unsolicited Proposals page

LOGIN TO THE PMC

Select login type:.

Contacts | Web Site Policies | U.S. Department of Energy | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Golden Field Office | Security & Privacy | USA.gov Content Last Updated: 4/26/2024

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Most NSF systems and services, including NSF.gov, Research.gov and FastLane, will be unavailable from Friday, April 26, 11 p.m. EDT – Saturday, April 27, 8:00 a.m. EDT due to extended maintenance. We apologize for any inconvenience.

Important information for proposers

All proposals must be submitted in accordance with the requirements specified in this funding opportunity and in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) that is in effect for the relevant due date to which the proposal is being submitted. It is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that the proposal meets these requirements. Submitting a proposal prior to a specified deadline does not negate this requirement.

Clean Energy Technology RAISE or EAGER Proposals

Dear Colleagues:

As energy use in the United States continues to grow, the use of clean, sustainable energy sources must increase to meet demand. These sources include energy from biomass, geothermal, wind, hydropower, tidal power, and solar sources. For the purposes of this Dear Colleague Letter (DCL), clean energy represents new efficient technology based on novel fundamental concepts, the energy saved through increased energy efficiency and conservation measures for existing technologies, as well as energy derived from renewable sources.

With this DCL, the National Science Foundation (NSF) invites interdisciplinary groups of Principal Investigators (PIs) to develop potentially transformative, convergent, fundamental research proposals in the area of clean energy technologies. Two kinds of proposals will be considered: Research Advanced by Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering (RAISE) and Early-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER).

NSF’s Directorates for Engineering (ENG); Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS); Biological Sciences (BIO); Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE); Geosciences (GEO); Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE); STEM Education (EDU); and Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP) seek to support new research that advances Clean Energy Technologies and increases the use of clean energy sources to benefit all sectors of the economy, to ensure social justice, and to contribute to the public good. Advances in custom-designing and producing materials for energy-efficient technologies, electrification of the U.S. economy including the transportation sector and the chemical industry, as well as developing new approaches to harnessing energy from renewable sources in green and sustainable ways, are critical for developing practical approaches to achieving a carbon-neutral and equitable economy.

Proposals that address barriers and opportunities for technology adoption, economic and societal impacts of technology development, social justice considerations, or social and environmental sustainability of clean energy technologies are strongly encouraged.

RAISE and EAGER proposals require the submission of a Concept Outline that describes the research and how it will benefit clean energy technology as defined above. Concept outlines must focus on one or more of the following areas:

• Hydrogen, fusion, and/or geothermal technologies: Example topics that enable science and technology discovery and development include: resource discovery and characterization; new materials, chemical conversion technologies: process systems research aimed at fundamental understanding of underlying phenomena that govern overall efficiency, performance, and scalability; plasma, laser, materials, and power management technologies for fusion energy; new bio-inspired or bio-mimetic materials, biological platforms and circuitry to support the bioconversion of chemical energy to electric power; geothermal resource and geothermal hydrogen operation/extraction; understanding of limits of maximum capacity and scale-up; understanding of integration with other energy systems and grid infrastructure; and computing systems and infrastructure for these technologies.
• Industrial heat and/or energy efficiency technologies: Example topics that enable science and technology discovery and development include: fundamental research aimed at substituting clean energy sources for fossil fuels to provide industrial process heat, understanding underlying phenomena that govern overall efficiency and maximum scale for methods by which heat is used to transform chemicals and materials into useful products; fundamental understanding of optimization and control of the built environment; investigations of impacts to the integration with larger energy systems and the grid; energy-efficient power electronics and systems – distribution and consumption; energy efficient micro-electronics; integration of energy systems and the grid with other infrastructure systems such as transportation; new device, circuit, and systems technologies and processes to harness energy from heat generated by advanced computing; and reducing power consumption in data centers.
• Fundamental challenges of enabling offshore wind/wave technologies: Example topics include fundamental research on materials and structures under extreme conditions, fundamental research aimed at understanding underlying phenomena that control overall efficiency and maximum scale; fundamental understanding of impacts to local and regional environment; computing systems and infrastructure for resilient renewable energy; understanding the integration with larger energy systems and the grid; fundamental understanding of resource prediction for intermittent renewable resources like wind; LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) for improved wind detection in wind turbines; fundamental understanding of effective utilization of these resources; and fundamental understanding of corrosion and structural issues in the ocean environment.
• Critical materials for clean energy technologies - their recovery, reuse, and recycling: Example topics that enable science and technology discovery and development include new approaches to materials recovery and recycling; deposit discovery and characterization; fundamental research on advanced manufacturing to allow simpler recovery at end-of-use; and advancing the fundamental understanding of challenges and potential solutions to enable reuse of critical materials.
• Net-zero fuels and bioenergy: Example topics that enable science and technology discovery and development include new chemicals and multifunctional materials, chemical conversion, and/or process systems research aimed at fundamental understanding of underlying phenomena that control overall efficiency and performance, including quantum mechanics principles in biology such as coherence for efficient energy transfer or tunneling in enzyme efficiency for energy capture, transfer, or storage; new biological platforms and circuitry to support the bioconversion of chemical energy to electric power; discovering value in CO2 through new bio-based systems, such as bio-electrochemical reduction to make fuels and chemicals; understanding of limits of maximum capacity and scale-up; and understanding of integration with other energy/process systems and/or grid infrastructure.
• Education and workforce development efforts: Example topics include understanding of workforce education and training needs; broadening participation opportunities; and new pedagogical approaches in order to advance and strengthen the U.S. competitiveness in the research areas listed above. A project’s scope may span from preK-12 through graduate school and career levels. Example efforts across different career and education levels include, but are not limited to, developing new curricula or teaching materials in clean energy, building partnerships with stakeholders to share data or software tools aiming to improve learning of clean energy concepts, partnerships with the private sector or government research institutions to create new training opportunities, involving undergraduate students in research, offering faculty or professional development workshops for experiential learning of clean energy concepts and applications, designing novel approaches to helping researchers and graduate students to understand lab-to-market processes, or building transfer pathways from community colleges to 4-year colleges.

Research related to computational, simulation, and data-science tools that can lead to new insights in clean energy technology development is also encouraged.

A RAISE or EAGER proposal may only be submitted after consideration of the Concept Outline by an NSF Program Officer . A minimum of one PI and one co-PI must be associated with a concept outline for both RAISEs and EAGERs. Concept outlines are strictly limited in length to 3 pages plus a half-page justification of the estimated budget, for a total of 4 pages, including references. All correspondence, inquiries, and concept outlines for EAGERS must be submitted to [email protected] . All correspondence, inquiries, and concept outlines for RAISES must be submitted to [email protected] . An individual may appear as PI, co-PI, Senior Personnel, or Consultant on no more than one RAISE or EAGER proposal submitted in response to this DCL . EAGERS will be internally reviewed. RAISES will be externally reviewed. Proposals that fail to address concepts described in this DCL will be returned without review.

For an EAGER submission:

The research topic (a-f) along with at least one relevant NSF core program must be indicated in the first paragraph of the concept outline . The concept outline must describe the research idea with a clear explanation of why it is innovative, potentially transformative, or otherwise potentially impactful. Reasons why this project is appropriate for EAGER funding must be provided in a separate paragraph, e.g., it involves radically different approaches, applies new expertise, or engages novel interdisciplinary perspectives; in short, it is an interdisciplinary high-risk, high-reward project that is unsuitable for submission as a “regular” proposal. New collaborations with researchers at Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and/or industry are welcomed. Funding of these FFRDC collaborators in general is not allowed as part of this DCL.

Concept outlines for EAGER proposals responsive to this DCL must be received by 5 p.m. submitter's local time on 06/14/2023 . The correspondence permitting submission of an EAGER proposal can be expected approximately 3 weeks after submission of the concept outline. This correspondence will include a proposal due date of August 16, 2023 by 5 p.m. submitter’s local time. All EAGER proposals must be submitted via Research.gov to the coordinating program Electrochemical Systems ( PD 23-7644 ) in the Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport System Division (CBET) of NSF's Directorate for Engineering (ENG). EAGER proposals submitted without prior submission of a corresponding concept outline and subsequent correspondence email will be returned without review. The email from an NSF Program Officer serves as documentation of approval for submittal and must be uploaded by the prospective PI in the “Program Officer Concurrence Email” section of Research.gov. The concept outline and proposal titles must begin with "EAGER: CET:". An individual may be included in only one concept outline and subsequent EAGER proposal submission pursuant to this DCL. Complete guidance on submitting a EAGER proposal may be found in Chapter II.F.3 of the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide 23-1.

For a RAISE submission:

The research topic (a-f) along with at least two relevant NSF core programs must be indicated in the first paragraph of the concept outline . The concept outline must describe the research idea with a clear explanation of why it is innovative, potentially transformative, or otherwise potentially impactful. Reasons why this project is appropriate for RAISE funding must be provided in a separate paragraph, e.g., it involves scientific advances that lie for the most part outside the scope of a single program or discipline, such that substantial funding support from more than one program or discipline is necessary; that the lines of research promise transformational advances; and that prospective discoveries reside at the interfaces of disciplinary boundaries that may not be recognized through traditional review or co-review. New collaborations with researchers at Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and/or industry are welcomed. Funding of these FFRDC collaborators in general is not allowed as part of this DCL.

Concept outlines responsive to this DCL must be received by 5 p.m. submitter's local time on 07/12/2023 . The correspondence permitting submission of a RAISE proposal can be expected approximately 3 weeks after submission of the concept outline. This correspondence will include a proposal due date of October 3, 2023 by 5 p.m. submitter’s local time. All RAISE proposals must be submitted via Research.gov to the coordinating program Electrochemical Systems ( PD 23-7644 ) in the Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport System Division (CBET) of NSF's Directorate for Engineering (ENG). The submitter must confirm with at least two program officers of different core programs in any of the participating NSF Directorates that the project bridges the scope of their programs. These programs must be identified in the first paragraph of the concept outline for the RAISE proposal. The email correspondence permitting submission of the RAISE proposal from an NSF Program Officer serves as documentation of approval for submittal and must be uploaded by the prospective PI in the “Program Officer Concurrence Email” section of Research.gov. The concept outline and proposal titles must begin with "RAISE: CET:". An individual may be included in only one concept outline and subsequent RAISE proposal submission pursuant to this DCL. RAISE proposals submitted without prior submission of a corresponding concept and subsequent correspondence email will be returned without review.

For an invited RAISE proposal, NSF will not accept separately submitted collaborative proposals from multiple organizations. A proposal involving more than one organization must be submitted as a single proposal from one organization, with the collaborators identified as subawardee organizations. Complete guidance on submitting a RAISE proposal may be found in Chapter II.F.4 of the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide 23-1.

All correspondence, inquiries, and concept outlines for EAGERS must be submitted to [email protected] . All correspondence, inquiries, and concept outlines for RAISES must be submitted to [email protected] .

Sincerely, Susan S. Margulies, Assistant Director Directorate for Engineering (ENG) Sean L. Jones, Assistant Director Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS) Simon Malcomber, Acting Assistant Director Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO) Margaret Martonosi, Assistant Director Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) Alexandra R. Isern, Assistant Director Directorate for Geosciences (GEO) Sylvia M. Butterfield, Acting Assistant Director Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE) James L. Moore III, Assistant Director Directorate for STEM Education (EDU) Erwin Gianchandani, Assistant Director Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP)

Organization(s)

• Division of Translational Impacts (TIP/TI)
• Division of Innovation and Technology Ecosystems (TIP/ITE)
• Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP)
• Division of Undergraduate Education (EDU/DUE)
• Division of Graduate Education (EDU/DGE)
• Directorate for STEM Education (EDU)
• Division of Integrative Organismal Systems (BIO/IOS)
• Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences (BIO/MCB)
• Division of Environmental Biology (BIO/DEB)
• Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO)
• Engineering Education and Centers (ENG/EEC)
• Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation (ENG/CMMI)
• Division of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental and Transport Systems (ENG/CBET)
• Division of Electrical, Communications and Cyber Systems (ENG/ECCS)
• Directorate for Engineering (ENG)
• Division of Ocean Sciences (GEO/OCE)
• Division of Earth Sciences (GEO/EAR)
• Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences (GEO/AGS)
• Directorate for Geosciences (GEO)
• Office of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure (CISE/OAC)
• Division of Computing and Communication Foundations (CISE/CCF)
• Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE)
• Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences (SBE/BCS)
• Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE)
• Division of Chemistry (MPS/CHE)
• Division of Materials Research (MPS/DMR)
• Division of Mathematical Sciences (MPS/DMS)
• Division of Physics (MPS/PHY)
• Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS)

Funding opportunity: Discovering the next generation of renewable energy technologies

Apply for a Network Plus to discover and develop the next generation of energy technologies.

Proposals must create coherence in an emerging research area to drive forward research in and supply.

You must be based at a UK research organisation eligible for EPSRC funding.

Proposals must focus on technology areas that already exist with some critical mass.

The full economic cost (FEC) of your Network Plus can be up to £500,000. We will fund 80% of the full economic cost.

Network Pluses from this funding opportunity can range in size from £250,000 to £500,000, lasting 24 to 30 months.

This opportunity will run on the UKRI Funding Service, our new funding platform, rather than via Je-S.

The expression of interest (EoI) stage is mandatory and full applications will only be accepted where an EoI has been submitted. The EoI will not be assessed.

Who can apply

Before applying for funding, check the Eligibility of your organisation .

Our standard eligibility rules apply. For full details, visit  EPSRC’s eligibility page .

We have introduced new role types for funding opportunities being run on the new UKRI Funding Service.

For full details, visit Eligibility as an individual .

Who is eligible to apply

International applicants.

Under the  UKRI and Research Council of Norway Money Follows Cooperation agreement  a project co-lead (international) (previously co-investigator) can be based in a Norwegian institution.

Resubmissions

We will not accept uninvited resubmissions of projects that have been submitted to UKRI or any other funder.

Find out more about EPSRC’s resubmissions policy .

Equality, diversity and inclusion

We are committed to achieving equality of opportunity for all funding applicants. We encourage applications from a diverse range of researchers.

We support people to work in a way that suits their personal circumstances. This includes:

• career breaks
• support for people with caring responsibilities
• flexible working
• alternative working patterns

Find out more about equality, diversity and inclusion at UKRI .

What we're looking for

To be eligible for the full funding opportunity you must have completed the EoI Smart Survey.

This is an opportunity to apply for new Network Plus funding to discover and develop the next generation of renewable energy technologies and put the UK at the forefront of these areas of technology.

The importance of renewable energy technologies has been shown by both the Net Zero Research and Innovation Framework and the Committee for Climate Change as a key component of the UK’s 2050 net zero target and has formed the backbone of our strategy in Energy & Decarbonisation for many years.

The Supergen programme is our Energy and Decarbonisation theme’s largest coordinated investment across several grants. The programme was set up in 2001 to deliver sustained and coordinated research on Sustainable PowER GENeration and supply.

To support this mission, as we move into the next phase of the programme, our focus is on accelerating the impact from known renewable power generation and supply technologies through the Supergen Offshore Renewable Energy, Bioenergy, and Energy Networks Hubs while also ensuring the UK is at the forefront of the next generation of renewable energy technologies.

This funding opportunity is intended to create coherence in emerging areas of renewable energy research to drive forward research in Sustainable PowER GENeration and supply to give the UK a lead in the next generation of these technologies.

This investment is a major component of our engineering net zero mission-inspired priority and is aimed at investing in the high risk and high reward research to discover and develop the next generation of renewable energy technologies.

This funding opportunity is intended to deliver outcomes that align to the priorities within UKRI’s ‘building a green future’ strategic theme, as well as the UK’s net zero research and innovation framework and the British Energy Security Strategy .

The next phase of the Supergen programme is intended to build a diverse, inclusive, and interdisciplinary research and innovation community working across UKRI, academia, business, government and the public and international partners to create lasting and sustainable benefits for all.

The purpose of each Network Plus will be to bring together a community and develop a research agenda for a proposed area in next generation renewable energy technologies and which provide an opportunity to secure UK leadership with greater levels of coordination and research activity.

Proposals should focus on technology areas that already exist with some critical mass. Each Network Plus will aim to create coherence in a research area that is currently absent and will thus enable a future bid to compete for Supergen hub funding and should include industry engagement in their planning. Two to three of these Network Plus investments may then be taken forward as the next generation of Supergen hubs (subject to funding).

Network Plus proposals should focus on an emerging area of renewable energy technology that will enhance UKRI’s Energy and Decarbonisation portfolio and ensure that next generation renewable technologies are more environmentally sustainable than previous approaches. Proposals from areas that are currently or have previously been part of the Supergen programme must therefore be substantially different to previously funded work or they will not be considered.

The current Supergen portfolio consists of three hubs: Offshore Renewable Energy, Bioenergy, Energy Networks and a Network Plus in energy storage.

The duration of this award is between two and two and a half years.

Projects must start by 1 July 2024.

Funding available

The FEC of your project can be up to £500,000

We will fund 80% of the FEC.

What we will fund

The main focus of these Network Plus grants is not to fund research. Each Network Plus will aim to create coherence in a research area. Key activities supported include:

• salary costs for time spent on setting up and managing the network
• travel and subsistence, including for members to meet to exchange ideas and expertise and to visit each other’s laboratories. Industrial collaborators should meet their own costs where possible
• administrative support to help coordinate the network
• communication costs and costs for additional equipment such as personal computers and web servers

Any research funded should only be to inform a future bid for Supergen hub funding.

Supporting skills and talent

We encourage you to follow the principles of the Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers and the Technician Commitment .

International collaboration

If your application includes international applicants, project partners or collaborators, visit UKRI’s trusted research and innovation for more information on effective international collaboration.

Find out about getting funding for international collaboration .

How to apply

We are running this funding opportunity on the new UKRI Funding Service. You cannot apply on the Joint Electronic Submissions (Je-S) system.

The project lead is responsible for completing the application process on the Funding Service, but we expect all team members and project partners to contribute to the application.

Only the lead research organisation can submit an application to UKRI.

Select ‘Start application’ near the beginning of this Funding finder page.

• Confirm you are the project lead.
• Sign in or create a Funding Service account. To create an account, select your organisation, verify your email address, and set a password. If your organisation is not listed, email [email protected]
• Answer questions directly in the text boxes. You can save your answers and come back to complete them or work offline and return to copy and paste your answers. If we need you to upload a document, follow the upload instructions in the Funding Service. All questions and assessment criteria are listed in the How to apply section on this Funding finder page.
• Send the completed application to your research office for checking. They will return it to you if it needs editing.
• Your research office will submit the completed and checked application to UKRI.

Watch our research office webinars about the new UKRI Funding Service .

We must receive your application by 4.00pm UK time on 9 November 2023.

You will not be able to apply after this time.

Make sure you are aware of and follow any internal institutional deadlines.

We will not be returning applications for amendment. If an application is withdrawn prior to peer review or office rejected due to substantive errors in the application, it cannot be resubmitted to the opportunity.

Personal data

Processing personal data.

EPSRC, as part of UKRI, will need to collect some personal information to manage your funding service account and the registration of your funding applications.

We will handle personal data in line with UK data protection legislation and manage it securely. For more information, including how to exercise your rights, read our privacy notice .

Publication of outcomes

EPSRC, as part of UKRI, will publish the outcomes of this funding opportunity.

If your application is successful, we will publish some personal information on the UKRI Gateway to Research .

Word count: maximum 550

In plain English, provide a summary we can use to identify the most suitable experts to assess your application.

We may make this summary publicly available on external-facing websites, so make it suitable for a variety of readers, for example:

• opinion-formers
• policymakers
• the wider research community

Guidance for writing a summary

Clearly describe your proposed work in terms of:

• the challenge the project addresses
• aims and objectives
• potential applications and benefits

List the key members of your team and assign them roles from the following:

• project lead (PL)
• project co-lead (UK) (PcL)
• researcher co-lead (RcL)
• grant manager
• professional enabling staff
• research and innovation associate
• visiting researcher

Only list one individual as project lead.

We would normally expect no more than three project co-leads on a Network Plus application who will assist in the management of the network.

Find out more about UKRI’s new grant roles .

Core questions

Vision and approach.

What are you hoping to achieve with and how will you deliver your proposed work?

What the assessors are looking for in your response

For the Vision, explain how your proposed work:

• is of excellent quality and importance within or beyond the field(s) or area(s)
• has the potential to advance current understanding, generates new knowledge, thinking or discovery within or beyond the field or area
• is timely given current trends, context and needs
• impacts world-leading research, society, the economy or the environment
• enhances the UK’s capability in renewable energy to take steps towards meeting net zero 2050
• brings together a disparate community that has the potential to form a Next Generation Supergen hub but currently lacks the necessary coherence across institutions, disciplines or sectors
• enhances UKRI’s energy and decarbonisation portfolio

Within the Vision section we also expect you to:

• identify the potential direct or indirect benefits and who the beneficiaries might be

For the Approach, explain how you have designed your work so that it:

• is effective and appropriate to achieve your objectives
• is feasible, and comprehensively identifies any risks to delivery and how they will be managed
• if applicable, uses a clear and transparent methodology
• if applicable, summarises the previous work and describes how this will be built upon and progressed
• will maximise translation of outputs into outcomes and impacts
• describes how your, and if applicable your team’s, research environment (in terms of the place and relevance to the project) will contribute to the success of the work
• ensures that next generation renewable technologies are more environmentally sustainable than previous approaches

Within the Approach section we also expect you to:

• demonstrate access to the appropriate services, facilities, infrastructure, or equipment to deliver the proposed work
• provide a project plan including milestones and timelines in the form of a Gantt chart or similar (additional one-page A4)
• include a detailed and appropriate plan for how you will acquire and manage data (additional one-page A4)

Create a document that includes your responses to all criteria. The document should not be more than six sides of A4, single spaced and in 11-point Arial (or equivalent sans serif font) with margins of at least 2cm. You may include images, graphs, tables. You can have an additional page for a diagrammatic workplan.

For the file name, use the unique funding service number the system gives you when you create an application, followed by the words ‘Vision and Approach’.

Save this document as a single PDF file, no bigger than 8MB. Unless specifically requested, please do not include any personal data within the attachment.

If the attachment does not meet these requirements, the application will be rejected.

The Funding Service will provide document upload details when you apply.

Applicant and team capability to deliver

Word count: 1,500

Why are you the right individual or team to successfully deliver the proposed work?

Evidence of how you, and if relevant your team, have:

• the relevant experience (appropriate to career stage) to deliver the proposed work
• the right balance of skills and expertise to cover the proposed work
• the appropriate leadership and management skills to deliver the work and your approach to develop others
• contributed to developing a positive research environment and wider community

The word count for this section is 1,500 words, 1,000 words to be used for R4RI modules and, if necessary, a further 500 words for Additions.

Use the Résumé for Research and Innovation (R4RI) format to showcase the range of relevant skills you and, if relevant, your team (project and project co-leads, researchers, technicians, specialists, partners and so on) have and how this will help deliver the proposed work. You can include individuals’ specific achievements but only choose past contributions that best evidence their ability to deliver this work.

Complete this section using the R4RI module headings listed. Use each heading once and include a response for the whole team, see the UKRI guidance on R4RI . You should consider how to balance your answer, and emphasise where appropriate the key skills each team member brings:

• contributions to the generation of new ideas, tools, methodologies, or knowledge
• the development of others and maintenance of effective working relationships
• contributions to the wider research and innovation community
• contributions to broader research or innovation users and audiences and towards wider societal benefit

Provide any further details relevant to your application. This section is optional and can be up to 500 words. You should not use it to describe additional skills, experiences, or outputs, but you can use it to describe any factors that provide context for the rest of your R4RI (for example, details of career breaks if you wish to disclose them).

Complete this as a narrative. Do not format it like a CV.

We have introduced new role types for funding opportunities being run on the new Funding Service.

For full details, see Eligibility as an individual .

Word count: 1,000

List the references you have used to support your application.

Include all references in this section, not in the rest of the application questions.

You should not include any other information in this section.

We advise you not to include hyperlinks, as assessors are not obliged to access the information they lead to or consider it in their assessment of your application.

If linking to web resources, to maintain the information’s integrity, include persistent identifiers (such as digital object identifiers) where possible.

You must not include links to web resources to extend your application.

Project partners: contributions

Provide details about any project partners’ contributions using the template provided.

If you do not have any project partners, simply add ‘N/A’ into the text box, mark this section as complete and move to the next section.

If you do have project partners, download and complete the project partner contributions template (DOCX, 52KB) then copy and paste the table within it into the text box. Ensure you have obtained prior agreement from project partners that, should you be offered funding, they will support your project as indicated in the template.

A project partner is a collaborating organisation that is contributing to the application and will have an integral role in the proposed research. Project partners cannot normally receive funding directly from the grant. Two exceptions to this are:

• where a project partner is providing services or equipment that will go through a formal procurement process audited by the host research organisation
• the project partner can receive small amounts of funding from the grant, such as for travel and subsistence to attend project meetings. These will need to be requested and fully justified in the application

Section: Project partners: letters (or emails) of support

Word count: 10

Question: Upload a single PDF containing the letters or emails of support from each partner you named in the table in the previous ‘contributions’ section.

If you have named project partners in the previous ‘contributions’ section, enter the words ‘attachment supplied’ in the text box.

Each letter or email you provide should:

• confirm the partner’s commitment to the project
• clearly explain the value, relevance and possible benefits of the work to them
• describe any additional value that they bring to the project
• refer to the our guidance on project partners letters of support for further information Project partners letter of support

Unless specifically requested, do not include any personal data within the attachment. Upload details are provided within the service on the actual application.

Upload a single PDF containing the letters or emails of support from each partner you named in the table in the previous ‘contributions’ section ensuring it is no larger than 8MB.

For audit purposes, we require formal collaboration agreements to be put in place if an award is made.

Do not provide letters of support from host and co-project lead research organisations.

Word count: 250

Does your proposed research require the support and use of a facility?

If you will need to use a facility, follow your proposed facility’s normal access request procedures. Ensure you have prior agreement so that if you are offered funding, they will support the use of their facility on your project.

For each requested facility you will need to provide the:

• name of facility, copied and pasted from the facility information list (DOCX, 35KB)
• proposed usage or costs, or costs per unit where indicated on the facility information list
• confirmation you have their agreement where required

If you will not need to use a facility, you will be able to indicate this in the Funding Service.

Resources and cost justification

What will you need to deliver your proposed work and how much will it cost?

Justify the application’s more costly resources, in particular:

• project staff
• significant travel for field work or collaboration (but not regular travel between collaborating organisations or to conferences)
• any equipment that will cost more than £10,000
• any consumables beyond typical requirements, or that are required in exceptional quantities
• all facilities and infrastructure costs
• all resources that have been costed as ‘exceptions’

Assessors are not looking for detailed costs or a line-by-line breakdown of all project resources. Overall, they want you to demonstrate how the resources you anticipate needing for your proposed work:

• are comprehensive, appropriate, and justified
• represent the optimal use of resources to achieve the intended outcomes
• maximise potential outcomes and impacts

Ethics and responsible research and innovation (RRI)

Word count: 500

What are the ethical or RRI implications and issues relating to the proposed work? If you do not think that the proposed work raises any ethical or RRI issues, explain why.

Demonstrate that you have identified and evaluated:

• the relevant ethical or responsible research and innovation considerations
• how you will manage these considerations

If you are collecting or using data, identify:

• any legal and ethical considerations of collecting, releasing or storing the data including consent, confidentiality, anonymisation, security and other ethical considerations and, in particular, strategies to not preclude further reuse of data
• formal information standards with which your study will comply

Additional sub-questions (to be answered only if appropriate) will be included in the Funding Service. These will ask about numbers, species or strain, and justification about:

• genetic and biological risk
• research involving the use of animals
• conducting research with animal overseas
• research involving human participation
• research involving human tissues or biological samples

Optional additional questions

Added value.

What is the added value that this network will enable that would not be possible otherwise?

Using the text box below, demonstrate what the network will achieve, considering how it will do the following:

• create new interdisciplinary research communities and topics
• transform a disparate community that has the potential critical mass to form a Next Generation Supergen hub but currently lacks the necessary coherence across institutions, disciplines or sectors
• provide a critical mass of researchers with a range of expertise and experience
• create next generation renewable technologies are more environmentally sustainable than previous approaches
• promote mobility between academe, universities and industry
• achieve sustainability beyond the funding requested
• embed Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in all activities throughout the lifetime of the network

How we will assess your application

Assessment process.

We will not be assessing the EOI. This is only going to be used for:

• remit checking
• pre-approaching reviewers

We will assess your full application using the following process.

Peer review

We will invite peers to review your application independently, against the specified criteria for this funding opportunity.

You will not be able to nominate reviewers for applications on the new UKRI Funding Service. Research councils will continue to select expert reviewers.

We are monitoring the requirement for applicant-nominated reviewers as we review policies and processes as part of the continued development of the new UKRI Funding Service.

Shortlisting

We will review the comments and scores for each application. Shortlisted applications will go to a panel who will make a funding recommendation.

If your application is shortlisted, you will have 14 days to respond to reviewers’ comments.

Following peer review, we will invite peers to use the evidence provided by reviewers and your applicant response to assess the quality of your application and rank it alongside other applications after which the panel will make a funding recommendation.

We will make the final funding decision.

Principles of assessment

We support the San Francisco declaration on research assessment (DORA) and recognise the relationship between research assessment and research integrity.

Find out about the UKRI Principles of Assessment and Decision Making .

We reserve the right to modify the assessment process as needed.

Assessment criteria

The criteria we will assess your application against are:

• vision of the project
• approach to the project
• applicant and team capability to deliver
• added value of the network
• resources requested to do the project
• ethical and responsible research and innovation considerations of the project

Find details of assessment questions and criteria under the ‘Application questions’ heading in the ‘How to apply’ section.

Contact details

Get help with your application.

For help on costings and writing your application, contact your research office. Allow enough time for your organisation’s submission process.

Ask about this funding opportunity

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 01793 547490

Our phone lines are open:

• Monday to Thursday 8:30am to 5:00pm
• Friday 8:30am to 4:30pm

Sensitive information

If you or a core team member need to tell us something you wish to remain confidential, email the UKRI Funding Service helpdesk on [email protected]

Include in the subject line: the funding opportunity title; sensitive information; your Funding Service application number.

Typical examples of confidential information include:

• individual is unavailable until a certain date (for example due to parental leave)
• declaration of interest
• additional information about eligibility to apply that would not be appropriately shared in the ‘Applicant and team capability’ section
• conflict of interest for UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) to consider in reviewer or panel participant selection
• the application is an invited resubmission

For information about how UKRI handles personal data, read UKRI’s privacy notice.

Additional info

Related opportunities.

Completion of the ‘Network Pluses in Energy to form next generation Supergen Hubs’ expression of interest is a mandatory part of the application process for this funding opportunity.

Research disruption due to COVID-19

We recognise that the COVID-19 pandemic has caused major interruptions and disruptions across our communities. We are committed to ensuring that individual applicants and their wider team, including partners and networks, are not penalised for any disruption to their career, such as:

• breaks and delays
• disruptive working patterns and conditions
• the loss of ongoing work
• role changes that may have been caused by the pandemic

Reviewers and panel members will be advised to consider the unequal impacts that COVID-19 related disruption might have had on the capability to deliver and career development of those individuals included in the application. They will be asked to consider the capability of the you and your wider team to deliver the research they are proposing.

Where disruptions have occurred, you can highlight this within your application if you wish, but there is no requirement to detail the specific circumstances that caused the disruption.

This is the website for UKRI: our seven research councils, Research England and Innovate UK. Let us know if you have feedback or would like to help improve our online products and services .

Integration of Renewable Energy Project: A Technical Proposal for Rural Electrification to Local Communities

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.

We use cookies on this website to give you a better user experience. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more

Download document, call for proposals: innovative ways for financing renewable energy projects in asean and east asia.

Share Article:

Print Article:

Jakarta, 9 March 2022:  The Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA) is inviting research proposals for a study on 'Innovative Ways for Financing Renewable Energy Projects in ASEAN and East Asia'. [1]

The proposal will include at least the following parts:

• Research question (s);
• Background and contribution to the literature.
• Data and methodology (analytical framework)
• Expected policy implications. ERIA studies are policy orientated, and it is essential that the study delivers policy implications for ASEAN and East Asia.

Together with the proposal, the lead researcher will submit a brief CV with a list of publications (if the researcher has not been a member of ERIA’s EMI Working Group in the past) and a sample paper, preferable in a journal article style.

Timeframe and administrative issues

To be fully considered, proposals should be submitted to Dr. Han Phoumin ( [email protected] ) and to Prof. Farhad Taghizadeh-Hesary ( [email protected] ) no later than  15 May 2022 . Early submission is encouraged. Only successfully selected proposals/authors will be notified, expectedly by the end of May 2022.

ERIA will fund not less than USD 4,000 for each proposed study. At least, we will have one online meeting

All studies are to be finalized by end of November 2022. This deadline is firm to make it possible to report the results to Energy Policy Makers as well as to be submitted for the international book publication.

The Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA) is inviting research proposals for studies related to innovative ways for financing renewable energy projects in ASEAN and East Asia.

ERIA is an international organization established by the 16 member countries of the East Asia Summit (EAS). It is expected to contribute intellectually to the regional efforts for ASEAN Community building and East Asia economic integration. Its role is to provide policy analyses and recommendations to Leaders and Ministers at regional meetings such as the ASEAN Economic Ministers Meeting, EAS Energy Ministers Meeting (EMM), ASEAN Summit, and the EAS.

The economic recovery plans for 2021–2022 increased the global energy demand, resulting in a sharp increase in the prices of oil and other fossil fuels. However, the increase in fossil fuel prices could not stimulate new investments in renewable energy and energy-efficiency projects. The main reason behind this low level of investment and the reluctance of private investors toward the green sector is the existence of various risks and economic uncertainty, which has forced the investors to look for safer assets. This low level of interest toward renewable energy and green infrastructure investments threatens the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and the achievement of several sustainable development goals (SDGs).

The current investment levels in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in the ASEAN region and East Asia are insufficient to achieve the carbon neutrality goals by 2050. Renewable energy projects have more difficulties compared to other projects in accessing finance. The main challenges that renewable energy projects face for accessing finance are lack of long-term financing, the existence of various risks, Lower rate of return in renewable energy projects, and lack of capacity in market actors. Hence, for achieving energy transition and carbon neutrality goals, we need to scale up the financing of investments that provide environmental benefits through innovative ways. In the wake of COVID-19, the importance of innovative ways and policies for enhancing investments in renewable energy projects to achieve climate-related goals is highlighted.

Potential issues for the study

With this background, ERIA would like to invite proposals of study on innovative ways for financing renewable energy projects in ASEAN and East Asia.

The call for proposals seeks empirical and policy-oriented studies on ASEAN member states and East Asian economies that deal with innovative and market-based solutions for unlocking private investments in renewable energy projects. The final manuscripts will consist of papers developed based on a sound theoretical framework and significantly contribute to the literature. The project aims to collectively provide policy recommendations for designing funding strategies for renewable energy development in ASEAN and East Asia. The project aims to provide lessons to end-users, policymakers, and market players in ASEAN and East Asia on access to finance for renewable energy development.

Proposals may deal with, but not limited, to the following:

• Innovative and market-based instruments and renewable energy deployment.
• Role of green finance in renewable energy development.
• Analyzing renewable energy financing programs in ASEAN and East Asia.
• Obstacles for renewable energy financing and solutions.
• Green bonds, renewable energy, and energy transition
• Carbon taxation for renewable energy development.
• Role of governments in unlocking the private investments in renewable energy projects.
• Roles of institutional innovation, innovation in products, and processes in renewable energy development.
• Public supports for investments in renewable energy projects during the pandemic and in the post-pandemic.
• Role of new technologies in easing access to finance for renewable energy development.
• Case studies on utilizing innovative finance and FinTech in funding renewable energy projects.
• Application of AI, DLT or blockchain, peer-to-peer lending platforms, big data, internet-based and mobile-based payments, IoT, matchmaking platforms including crowdlending and tokenizing green assets in scaling up renewable energy financing.
• Role of venture capital, crowdfunding, angel investment, and partner financing in funding renewable energy projects.

Terms of Reference

Innovative Ways for Financing Renewable Energy Projects in ASEAN and East Asia

[1]  Please note that this proposal is sub-theme under the project of “Economic Analysis of Large-Scale Deployment of Solar PV with Battery Storage in ASEAN and East Asia

Search ERIA.org

Latest multimedia.

Latest News

23 April 2024

21 April 2024

19 April 2024

Latest Articles

• Skip To Main Content
• Skip To Navigation
• Screen Reader Access

Search form

• Agricultural Sciences
• Astronomy & Space Sciences
• Chemical Sciences
• Cognitive Sciences and Psychology
• Computer Sciences and IT
• COVID-19 Research
• Earth, Atmosphere & Environment Sciences
• Energy Sciences
• Engineering Sciences
• Life Sciences & Biotechnology
• Mathematical Sciences
• Material Sciences
• Medical Sciences
• Pharmaceutical Sciences
• Physical Sciences
• Traditional Knowledge
• Other Areas
• Institutional
• International
• Grants for Seminar and Conferences
• Startup Grants
• Ministries & Departments
• Centres of Excellence
• Thematic Centres
• Centres of Higher Learning
• National Academies
• Statewise S&T Organisations
• Industry Related Associations
• Laboratories
• International Organisations
• Civil Societies
• Science Centres & Planetaria
• All Programmes & Schemes
• Research and Development
• Human Resource and Development
• Women Schemes
• International Programmes
• Societal Development
• Academia Industry Partnerships
• School Students
• Graduate Students
• Post Graduate Students
• PhD Scholars
• Post Doctoral Fellowships
• Scholarships for Women
• Faculty and Scientists
• National Fellows
• Grassroot Innovations
• Industrial Innovations
• COVID-19 Technology
• Earth, Atmosphere & Env. Sciences
• Rural Technologies

Announcements & Opportunities

Mnre invites call for proposal for renewable energy research and technology development programme (re-rtd-2022).

The RE-RTD programme aims at scaling up the R&D effort during the period FY 2021-22 to FY 2025-26 for promoting indigenous technology development for widespread deployment of new and renewable energy in an efficient and cost-effective manner across the country. The programme will strengthen research and innovation capacity of the country and will be implemented in accordance with the policy and guidelines issued from time to time and thrust areas identified by MNRE.

Eligibility: i) R & D/Academic Institutions including Engineering Colleges (both Public & Private duly accredited by Government bodies), ii) Public/Private Industries, iii) Societies registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860, iv) Trusts registered under the Indian Trusts Act 1882, v) NGOs, vi) Startups duly recognized by Department for Promotion and Internal Trade (DPIIT) and vii) Organizations engaged in Research & Development for the promotion of new & renewable energy

 last date: sunday, july 10, 2022.

• Features/Analysis
• Transmission and Distribution
• Climate Change
• Battery Energy Storage
• Carbon Capture
• Research and Development
• Energy Efficiency
• Artificial Intelligence
• Internet of Things
• Smart Grids
• Future Energy
• Smart Mobility
• Southern Africa
• East Africa
• West Africa
• North Africa
• Central Africa
• International
• Women in Energy
• Submit content
• Press Releases
• Industry Insights
• Conference Papers
• Tenders library
• Subscribe to newsletter
• Subscribe to magazine
• Company Showcase

The AU-EU LEAP-RE programme has announced funding for 13 new research and innovation projects into renewable energy in cooperation between Africa and Europe .

In so doing, through the 13 projects listed below, LEAP-RE strengthens its support to develop renewable energy sources that address both climate change and the need for electrification, two of the biggest challenges facing Africa today. Though the continent contains more than 16% of the world’s population as of 2017, Africa accounts for only 5% of the world’s global primary energy usage.

Between 70 and 80% of used energy is generated from traditional biomass in most AU countries, despite the continent’s abundant fossil and renewable energy sources. However, energy access remains the biggest problem, with an average electrification rate of 35% in sub-Saharan Africa.

LEAP-RE, which stands for Long-Term Joint European Union – African Union Research and Innovation Partnership on Renewable Energy programme , started in 2020 funding eight ongoing projects.

The tranche of 13 new projects will receive global funding of €10,35 million (€7,809m from funding agencies and €2,540m from the European Commission).

François Moisan, head of LEAP-RE’s Pillar 1, explained each project would receive a funding amount between €376,489 and €1 million, with the maximum funding to each project determined according to the terms of the call for proposals. “During the selection process, applicants explained how much funds they would be needing in order to complete the projects and the amount they will receive is based on that.”

The Call Steering Committee, a pool of 30 independent experts from both continents evaluated and ranked the projects using the criteria of the European H2020 research and innovation programme.

The 13 renewable energy research projects to address a variety of needs

Renewable energy resources, mapping and modelling

OASES: Development and Demonstration of a Sustainable Open Access AU-EU Ecosystem for Energy System Modelling. Coordination: Fraunhofer Institute for Energy Economics and Energy System Technology, Germany.

End‐of‐life and second‐life management of RE components

RESTART: Recycling of spent Li-ion batteries and end-life photovoltaic panels: From the development of metal recovery processes to the implementation of a start-up. Coordination: University UCA of Morocco, Morocco.

SIREVIVAL: Si-based devices for renewable energy: From end-of-life recycling to revival of photovoltaic modules. Coordination: Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium.

Clean cooking and biomass transformation

SoCoNexGen: Solar Indoor Cooking Systems of the Next Generation. Coordination: Aachen University of Applied Sciences, Germany.

SOLAR INDUCE: Solar induced domestic clean efficient cooking and refrigeration for off-grid applications in Africa. Coordination: COPRECI S Coop, Spain.

PyroBioFuel: Sustainable biomass conversion into bioenergy through pyrolysis. Coordination: Cairo University, Egypt.

SunGari: A modern solar cooking solution for African staples. Coordination: University of Greenwich, UK.

New renewable energy resources for Africa

HyAfrica: Towards a next-generation renewable energy source – a natural hydrogen solution for power supply in Africa. Coordination: CONVERGE, Lda, Portugal.

New, more efficient PV cells and components

QDSOC: Environmentally friendly colloidal quantum dots for high-performance solar cells. Coordination: Université de Lorraine, France.

NANOSOLARCELL: Integration of photonic conversion layers based on photo-emissive nanostructured materials for improving sunlight harvesting ability of solar cells. Coordination: CNRS-CEMHTI, France.

Productive uses and new applications of solar energy

MG-FARM: Smart stand-alone micro-grids as a solution for agriculture farms electrification. Coordination: Université de Lorraine, France.

LEDSOL: Enabling clean and sustainable water through smart UV/LED disinfection and Solar energy utilisation. Coordination: Centrul IT pentru Stiinta si Tehnologie, Romania.

SolChargE: Decentralised Solar Charging System for Sustainable Mobility in rural Africa. Coordination: Technical University of Munich, Germany.

Projects are ongoing

The funding runs for 18 to 36 months, depending on the projects’ activities and needs. Beyond funding, the research projects are constantly monitored throughout their duration by LEAP-RE and have to submit regular reports and present their work as part of the overall programme. “They will benefit from communication support and clustering activities with other projects that are active in the field of renewable energy,” said Moisan.

The eight projects already under LEAP-RE will last until 2025. The new partner organisations involved in each of the 13 new projects are already self-sustaining. “Success [of the projects] will be measured based on the research results on the projects. If successful some projects might lead to the creation of start-ups, others will be the base for future research projects, building on their findings,” said Moisan.

LEAP-RE is a 5-year programme coordinated by French SME LGI and by the Department of Science and Innovation (DSI) of South Africa. LEAP-RE gathers more than 80 partners in Africa and Europe dedicated to research and innovation in the field of renewable energy. The programme has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program under Grant Agreement n°963530.

• Climate change
• energy access
• European Union

Share this article

RELATED ARTICLES

Eskom: winter 2024 loadshedding outlook not as dark as 2023, african megacities need urgent action to adapt to climate change, just energy transition plan shifts focus to skills development, latest features, sa: mpumalanga residents forced to fetch water from a nearby car..., four ‘solutions’ to the plastic pollution problem that just won’t work, what is a super energy services company (esco), ekurhuleni residents lose court battle for access to flushing toilets.

• Jiaxuan Liang 1 &
• Gang Li 1 , 2  

Explore all metrics

The study’s overarching objective is to evaluate FDI’s contribution to China’s renewable energy sector and the country’s ongoing energy transformation. The industrial sector of China’s economy is contributing enormously to the country’s overall growth. The primary goal of this research is to examine the impact of asymmetric positive–negative shocks on China’s economic development via the lenses of measurements of industrial value-added, FDI, technical innovation, and natural assets. Empirical short-run and long-run asymmetric estimations using N-ARDL are performed using indicator data from 1986 to 2019. The results show that industrial value-added contributes to economic development when a positive shock occurs but has the opposite impact when a negative shock occurs. Technology innovation is also a good factor in achieving economic development, whether the shock is positive or negative. Short- and long-term impacts of FDI and financial innovation rents are neutral when a positive shock occurs but negative when an unfavorable shock occurs. The short-term/long-term difference is now more stable with the addition of the error correction term. A novel equilibrium equation shown via symmetric multiplier graphs may represent asymmetrical adjustments to economic growth in response to positive and negative shocks. Proposals based on results urge the government and policymakers to focus on heavy and secondary sectors, policies that rely heavily on technology, and the use of renewable resources.

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

Role of green finance in improving energy efficiency and renewable energy development

Impact of Green financing, FinTech, and financial inclusion on energy efficiency

The Regional Innovation System and Smart Specialisation in the “energy region” Lusatia

Acheampong AO, Adams S, Boateng E (2019) Do globalization and renewable energy contribute to carbon emissions mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa? Sci Total Environ 677:436–446

Article   Google Scholar  

Asif M et al (2020) Dynamic interaction between financial development and natural resources: evaluating the ‘resource curse’ hypothesis. Resour Policy 65:101566

Baldassarre Di, Giuliano FL, Montanari A (2009) Design flood estimation using model selection criteria. Phys Chem Earth 34(10–12):606–611

Bhatia SK et al (2019) Carbon dioxide capture and bioenergy production using biological system—a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 110:143–158

Bogacheva OV, Smorodinov OV (2017) Challenges to green finance in G20 countries. World Econ Int Relat 61(10):16–24

Google Scholar  

Cantwell J (2017) Innovation and international business. Ind Innov 24(1):41–60

Cao S et al (2021) Digital finance, green technological innovation and energy-environmental performance: evidence from China’s regional economies. J Clean Prod 327:129458

Chang L, Quan Lu, Ali S, Mohsin M (2022) How does hydropower energy asymmetrically affect environmental quality? Evidence from quantile-based econometric estimation. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 53:102564

Cui X, Umair M, Gayratovich GI, Dilanchiev A (2023) DO remittances mitigate poverty? AN empirical evidence from 15 selected Asian economies. Singap Econ Rev (SER) 68(04):1447–1468. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217590823440034

Ding C, Liu C, Zheng C, Li F (2022) Digital economy, technological innovation and high-quality economic development: based on spatial effect and mediation effect. Sustainability 14(1):216

Dobrodolac M, Lazarević D, Švadlenka L, Živanović M (2016) A study on the competitive strategy of the universal postal service provider. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 28(8):935–949

Fang CR, You SY (2014) The impact of oil price shocks on the large emerging countries’ stock prices: evidence from China, India and Russia. Int Rev Econ Finance 29:330–338

Faria-e-Castro M (2018) Fiscal multipliers and financial crises. Working Paper Series (No. 2018-023)

Ferreira JJ, Fernandes CI, Veiga PM (2023) The role of entrepreneurial ecosystems in the SME internationalization. J Bus Res 157:113603

Granoff I, Ryan Hogarth J, Miller A (2016) Nested barriers to low-carbon infrastructure investment. Nat Clim Change 6(12):1065–1071

Ivanov D, Dolgui A (2021) OR-methods for coping with the ripple effect in supply chains during COVID-19 pandemic: managerial insights and research implications. Int J Prod Econ 232:107921

Koitsiwe K, Adachi T (2015) Relationship between mining revenue, government consumption, exchange rate and economic growth in botswana. Contad Admin 60:133–148

Lange L et al (2021) Developing a sustainable and circular bio-based economy in EU: by partnering across sectors, upscaling and using new knowledge faster, and for the benefit of climate, environment & biodiversity, and people & business. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 8:1456

Lee JW (2013) The contribution of foreign direct investment to clean energy use, carbon emissions and economic growth. Energy Policy 55:483–489

Li C et al (2022) The role of green finance and energy innovation in neutralizing environmental pollution: empirical evidence from the MINT economies. J Environ Manag 317:115500

Li C, Umair M (2023a) Does green finance development goals affects renewable energy in China. Renew Energy 203:898–905

Li L, Baijun Wu, Patwary AK (2022a) How marine tourism promote financial development in sustainable economy: new evidences from South Asia and implications to future tourism students. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29(1):1155–1172

Li W et al (2022b) The nexus between COVID-19 fear and stock market volatility. Econ Res Ekon Istraž 35(1):1765–1785. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.1914125

Li Y, Umair M (2023b) The protective nature of gold during times of oil price volatility: an analysis of the COVID-19 pandemic. Extract Ind Soc 15:101284

Liu F, Umair M, Gao J (2023) Assessing oil price volatility co-movement with stock market volatility through quantile regression approach. Resour Policy 81:103375

Liu H (2022) Preparation and performance evaluation of small molecule ammonium salt inhibitors synthesized from mixed amines. Highlights Sci Eng Technol 2:112–119

Liu S, Hou P, Gao Y, Tan Y (2022) Innovation and green total factor productivity in China: a linear and nonlinear investigation. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29(9):12810–12831

Long R et al (2020) Research on the measurement, evolution, and driving factors of green innovation efficiency in yangtze river economic belt: a super-SBM and spatial Durbin model. Complexity 2020:1–14

Miao Z, Baležentis T, Shao S, Chang D (2019) Energy use, industrial soot and vehicle exhaust pollution—China’s regional air pollution recognition, performance decomposition and governance. Energy Econ 83:501–514

Muhammad M, Azer D, Muhammad U (2023) The impact of green climate fund portfolio structure on green finance: empirical evidence from EU countries. Ekonomika 102(2):130–144

Mohsin M et al (2021) Nexus between energy efficiency and electricity reforms: a DEA-based way forward for clean power development. Energy Policy 149:112052

Oh H, Reis R (2012) Targeted transfers and the fiscal response to the great recession. J Monet Econ 59:S50–S64

Pan X et al (2020) Influence of FDI quality on energy efficiency in china based on seemingly unrelated regression method. Energy 192:116463

Petrović-Ranđelović M et al (2020) Economic growth and carbon emissions: evidence from CIVETS countries. Appl Econ 52(16):1806–1815

Shao X, Zhong Y, Liu W, Li RYM (2021) Modeling the effect of green technology innovation and renewable energy on carbon neutrality in N-11 countries? Evidence from advance panel estimations. J Environ Manag 296:113189

Taghizadeh-Hesary F, Rasoulinezhad E, Yoshino N (2019) Energy and food security: linkages through price volatility. Energy Policy 128:796–806

Torma G, Aschemann-Witzel J (2023) Social acceptance of dual land use approaches: stakeholders’ perceptions of the drivers and barriers confronting agrivoltaics diffusion. J Rural Stud 97:610–625

Umair M, Dilanchiev A (2022) Economic recovery by developing business starategies: mediating role of financing and organizational culture in small and medium businesses. Proc Book 683

Vilkaite-Vaitone N, Skackauskiene I (2019) Green marketing orientation: evolution, conceptualization and potential benefits. Open Econ 2(1):53–62

Wan Q, Qian J, Baghirli A, Aghayev A (2022) Green finance and carbon reduction: implications for green recovery. Econ Anal Policy 76:901–913

Wang C et al (2021a) Global financial crisis, smart lockdown strategies, and the COVID-19 spillover impacts: a global perspective implications from Southeast Asia. Front Psychiatry 12:643783

Wang Y, Wang Z, Zameer H (2021b) Structural characteristics and evolution of the ‘international trade-carbon emissions’ network in equipment manufacturing industry: international evidence in the perspective of global value chains. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(20):25886–25905

Weber JG (2020) How should we think about environmental policy and jobs? An analogy with trade policy and an illustration from U.S. coal mining. Rev Environl Econ Policy 14(1):44–66

Wu Q, Yan D, Umair Md (2023) Assessing the role of competitive intelligence and practices of dynamic capabilities in business accommodation of SMEs. Econ Anal Policy 77:1103–1114

Wu X et al (2021) Testing role of green financing on climate change mitigation: evidences from G7 and E7 countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(47):66736–66750

Xiao H et al (2021) The governance-production nexus of eco-efficiency in chinese resource-based cities: a two-stage network DEA approach. Energy Econ 101:105408

Xiuzhen X, Zheng W, Umair M (2022) Testing the fluctuations of oil resource price volatility: a hurdle for economic recovery. Resour Policy 79:102982

Xu S, Qamruzzaman Md, Adow AH (2021) Is financial innovation bestowed or a curse for economic sustainably: the mediating role of economic policy uncertainty. Sustainability 13(4):1–18

Yang H et al (2021) Multi-region and multi-sector comparisons and analysis of industrial carbon productivity in China. J Clean Prod 279:123623

Yoon KH, Ratti RA (2011) Energy price uncertainty, energy intensity and firm investment. Energy Econ 33(1):67–78

Yu M, Umair M, Oskenbayev Y, Karabayeva Z (2023) Exploring the nexus between monetary uncertainty and volatility in global crude oil: a contemporary approach of regime-switching. Resour Policy 85:103886

Yuan H, Zhao L, Umair M (2023) Crude oil security in a turbulent world: China’s geopolitical dilemmas and opportunities. Extract Ind Soc 16:101334

Yue Y, Tian L, Yue Q, Wang Z (2020) Spatiotemporal variations in energy consumption and their influencing factors in china based on the integration of the DMSP-OLS and NPP-VIIRS nighttime light datasets. Remote Sens 12(7):1151

Zhang Y, Umair M (2023) Examining the interconnectedness of green finance: an analysis of dynamic spillover effects among green bonds, renewable energy, and carbon markets. Environ Sci Pollut Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27870-w

Zivot E, Andrews DWK (2002) Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. J Bus Econ Stat 20(1):25–44. https://doi.org/10.1198/073500102753410372

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Arts and Social Science, the University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Jiaxuan Liang & Gang Li

Party Committee General Branch of University Administrative Offices, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gang Li .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Consent for publication, additional information, publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Liang, J., Li, G. The role of green financing in enabling sustainable energy transition and economic development. Econ Change Restruct 57 , 108 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10644-024-09639-4

Download citation

Received : 31 October 2023

Accepted : 26 January 2024

Published : 24 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10644-024-09639-4

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

• Financial innovation
• Foreign direct investment
• Renewable energy
• Energy transition
• Technical innovation

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Maintenance work is planned for Wednesday 1st May 2024 from 9:00am to 11:00am (BST).

During this time, the performance of our website may be affected - searches may run slowly and some pages may be temporarily unavailable. If this happens, please try refreshing your web browser or try waiting two to three minutes before trying again.

We apologise for any inconvenience this might cause and thank you for your patience.

Sustainable Energy & Fuels

Design and development of nanostructured photocatalysts for large-scale solar green hydrogen generation.

* Corresponding authors

a Department of Chemistry, Siksha ‘O’ Anusandhan Deemed to be University Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India E-mail: [email protected] , [email protected]

The production of clean hydrogen through artificial photosynthesis is the most intriguing research topic that offers hope for meeting the world's energy demands. The evolution of green hydrogen via visible light-driven photocatalysis is challenging but feasible. Photocatalytic solar power systems primarily rely on utilizing the complete range of solar spectrum. The synthesis of an optimal photocatalyst should address all the influencing parameters with an efficient scaling method, which remains yet to be elucidated despite several advancements in photocatalytic water-splitting applications. Real-time solutions are necessary to overcome the lack of photocatalytic efficacy of semiconducting nanomaterials in solar-powered systems. In addition to the proposal of designing solar-powered systems for hydrogen generation, this review paves the way for highlighting the difficulties associated with water reduction methods. It also offers some strategies to improve charge separation and migration in a semiconducting photocatalyst by enhancing light absorption and altering their band positions. Moreover, a cost-effective, eco-friendly, and photostable heterogeneous nanocatalyst must be designed for visible light-harvesting water-splitting processes. This article reports various nanomaterial-based photocatalysts, which act as the base surface for photocatalytic solar water splitting. These include oxides, chalcogenides, and nitrides of metals, noble metals, plasmonic metals, ultrathin 2D covalent–organic frameworks (COFs), metal–organic frameworks (MOFs), and metal-free polymeric graphitic carbon nitrides. The integration of multi-component nano-materials can be more appropriate than single-component photocatalysts to maximize their catalytic activity. Thin-film photocatalysis is considered the most effective method for increasing hydrogen production rates compared to powder suspension-based photocatalysis. This article presents the latest advancements in thin film-based photocatalytic technology, outlining all the critical factors, prerequisites, and techniques for thin film preparation. Future research on advanced photocatalysis focuses on harvesting green hydrogen for in situ carbon dioxide reduction, fine chemical synthesis, nitrogen fixation, and hydrogen peroxide synthesis. Experimentally, photocatalytic solar-powered systems utilize natural sun light. However, the synthesis of ideal photocatalysts via effective scaling approaches remains a challenge. This paper paves the way for finding solutions and designing a practical solar-powered system for green hydrogen production.

Article information

Download citation, permissions.

P. K. Sahu, A. Champati, A. Pradhan and B. Naik, Sustainable Energy Fuels , 2024, Advance Article , DOI: 10.1039/D4SE00056K

To request permission to reproduce material from this article, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

Advertisements

Beneath the plains of the Nullarbor lies an underground world formed over millions of years

Arid, flat, desolate.

To many people that is Australia's Nullarbor, but in reality, the surface is pockmarked with holes that open the gateway to a subterranean wonderland.

"It's the world's largest arid limestone karst, 200,000 square kilometres of this enormous, emerged limestone platform that is completely honeycombed," Stefan Eberhard told 7.30 . 

"Think of it like a sponge cake. It's flat on top, but underneath it is riddled with holes.

"The entrances of the caves are one of the most spectacular parts of the cave system because they're such a surprise."

Eberhard, a cave diver and documentary filmmaker, has been using ropes to lower himself into these cave entrances for the past 30 years.

"Some of them might be 40 metres deep and 80 metres across a big giant black hole ... those ropes might be 20 or 30 metres in depth," he said.

In recent years, he's been able to convince his wife Bronwen to join him.

"I grew up with a fear of heights … so I've had a real change of narrative in my later life," she said.

"I just fell in love with the Nullarbor the first time I went. It feels like you're crossing time and going into something very special."

The limestone   —   which was once at the bottom of the ocean — is extremely porous. Any rain that falls on the surface doesn't form lakes or rivers; instead, it seeps into the rock.

Over millions of years, that water gouged tunnels that stretch from where the rain fell to where the plain meets the cliffs overlooking the Great Australian Bight.

"Some of these tunnels are 20 to 30 metres in diameter … they're like train tunnels barrelling underneath the desert, 90 metres below the surface," Eberhard said.

"One of them is 35 kilometres long, snaking its way beneath the plain, and some of them are completely full of water and the only way to explore them is with diving equipment.

"You can't feel a current, it's moving so slowly … it's like flying through space."

While the thought of strapping yourself to an underwater scooter and navigating through unknown, pitch-black caves is terrifying to most people, cave experts — or speleologists — say only a tiny fraction of the caves have been documented, and the 'thrill of exploration' keeps bringing them back.

"There's a remarkable diversity of cave-dwelling invertebrates on the Nullarbor which occur nowhere else in Australia or anywhere else in the world," Stefan said.

"There's a giant, blind cockroach, and it doesn't run away like normal cockroaches. There's a gigantic blind cave spider.

"About 20 years ago … cavers found a complete articulated skeleton of the famous marsupial lion."

An 'ideal site' for renewables

Having dedicated themselves to bringing the little-known world of the Nullarbor caves to the attention of the public, the Eberhards say they're now in a fight to save them.

A 15,000-square-kilometre section of the Nullarbor in the very far south-east of Western Australia has been earmarked as the site of one of the world's largest renewable energy projects: The Western Green Energy Hub.

The proposal is to build 25 million solar panels and 3,000 wind turbines, capable of generating 50 gigawatts of electricity.

This energy will then be used to create 3.5 million tonnes of hydrogen each year.

"Our ultra-scale hydrogen project requires large, reliable and consistent amounts of electricity to 'feed' electrolysers," a Western Green Energy Hub (WGEH) spokesperson said.

"The location offers high diurnal sun and wind loadings; is relatively unencumbered; and has road, rail and sea access possibilities."

The developers say green hydrogen is crucial to Australia's transition away from fossil fuels, as it provides a storable and transferable alternative.

However, the Eberhards say the price to pay will be the destruction of parts of the cave system.

"The hard limestone cap rock, which is very hard, it's only one to two metres thick, though beneath that it's really quite soft," Stefan Eberhard said.

"Constructing these massive things is like trying to put bricks on a pavlova.

"What's at stake here? Too much. This is World Heritage-quality karst."

WGEH believes the project and the caves can co-exist, and it will do all it can to preserve them.

"WGEH advocates for the 'avoidance of impact', which would also apply to any caves in our project area, and to the karst system more generally.

"We continue karst system and cave mapping to ensure that we isolate project 'no- go' areas."

It says any visual impact can be minimised thanks to the sheer size of the footprint.

"Wind turbines will be located on the Hampton Tablelands, set back at least 15 kilometres from the escarpment, which itself is some distance away from the Eyre Highway.

"Turbines will be located around 2.5 kilometres apart, with flexibility on each specific siting."

Deal on the table for native title holders

There are three partners to the proposed development: Singapore-based Intercontinental Energy, CWP Global and Mirning Green Energy Limited.

The Mirning are the traditional owners of the Nullarbor, and Mirning Green Energy is the commercial arm of the Mirning Traditional Lands Aboriginal Corporation (MTLAC).

In 2017 the Mirning People were granted native title over the land on which the developers now want to build, which means before any development can go ahead, an Indigenous Land Use Agreement must be negotiated.

"Our cave systems are our storylines," MTLAC chair Shilloh Peel said.

"Each family is connected to each cave, as well as the rock holes that provide water to the caves.

"We need to bring our people along with us … and we would have to make sure that all our cultural sites, heritage sites are protected."

The current proposal is for Mirning Green Energy to be given a permanent seat on the board, to have a 10 per cent stake in the project, and have the option of securing majority ownership in 50 years after a financial investment decision is made.

Ms Peel and the Mirning people must therefore balance any potential risk to their cultural sites with clear financial incentives.

"Economically, these things are good for our people, [we will] get a rangers program up and running," Ms Peel said.

"Just to have that sense of people going back to country working for country and being on country."

WGEH says this is the only site it is considering, partly because of its ability to partner with the Mirning in exchange for the use of the land.

A financial commitment to the project isn't due until 2029, and an agreement with the Mirning Traditional Lands Aboriginal Corporation is one of many hurdles.

"Our Mirning community, we are vast and wide, but they will come together and work these processes," Ms Peel said.

"They will have the final decision."

Watch 7.30 , Mondays to Thursdays 7:30pm on ABC iview and ABC TV

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

Mystery solved into how giant marsupial lion got to be in caves.

World's biggest green energy hub on WA coast 'could power Australia'

Nullarbor floodwaters still waist-deep a month after drought-breaking rain

Eyre Highway death gives cyclist second thoughts about crossing the Nullarbor for charity

• Alternative Energy
• Environment
• Environmental Impact
• Human Interest
• Indigenous (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander)
• Science and Technology