Energy resources are critical drivers of economic development and societal progress, but their extraction, conversion, and use have profoundly impacted ecological systems and the environment. Therefore, it is essential to explore the relationships between energy resources and the environment throughout history. This paper examines the causal relationships between energy resource utilization and environmental changes, addressing both renewable and non-renewable energy sources. We analyze the environmental consequences of energy extraction and consumption, including pollution, habitat destruction, and climate change, and evaluate sustainable approaches to mitigate these effects. Fossil fuels have been the primary source of energy and are major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, air and water pollution, and habitat destruction, all of which exacerbate global climate change. On the other hand, renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric power are considered more sustainable. However, they also have environmental impacts, such as habitat disruption and high resource consumption. Researchers argue that trade-offs must be managed between increasing energy use, facilitated by technological advancements, and achieving sustainability. Energy generation and ecological goals should not be viewed as opposing or irreconcilable. With the implementation of appropriate policies, measures, and guidelines, energy production can be aligned with efforts to mitigate climate change and promote sustainability.

1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate change 2014: synthesis report: longer report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2015.
2. Osman AI, Chen L, Yang M, et al. Yap, Cost, environmental impact, and resilience of renewable energy under a changing climate: a review. Environ Chem Lett. 2023; 21(2023): 741-764. doi: 10.1007/s10311-022-01532-8
3. Kiesecker JM, Copeland H, Pocewicz A, et al. Development by design: blending landscape‐level planning with the mitigation hierarchy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2009; 8(5): 261-266. doi: 10.1890/090005
4. Rosenberg DM, McCully P, Pringle CM. Global-scale environmental effects of hydrological alterations: Introduction. Bioscience. 2000; 50(2000): 746-751. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0746:GSEEOH]2.0.CO;2
5. Yang H, Feng Q, Xu W, et al. Unraveling the nuclear isotope tapestry: Applications, challenges, and future horizons in a dynamic landscape. Eco-Environment & Health. 2024; 3(2): 208-226. doi: 10.1016/j.eehl.2024.01.001
6. Kurniawan TA, Othman MHD, Singh D, et al. Technological solutions for long-term storage of partially used nuclear waste: A critical review. Annals of Nuclear Energy. 2022; 166: 108736. doi: 10.1016/j.anucene.2021.108736
7. Ahmad T, Zhang D. A critical review of comparative global historical energy consumption and future demand: The story told so far. Energy Reports. 2020; 6: 1973-1991. doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2020.07.020
8. Boykoff M, Luedecke G. Elite News Coverage of Climate Change. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. 2016. doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.357
9. Ambient (outdoor) air pollution, (n.d.). Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and-health?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiA34S7BhAtEiwACZzv4UCKjjJNs3QNsXXwG8_xTfwlGPe31WmcMarJivuve03UHb9hHpjKKBoCWCAQAvD_BwE (accessed 17 December 2024).
10. Lelieveld J, Evans JS, Fnais M, et al. The contribution of outdoor air pollution sources to premature mortality on a global scale. Nature. 2015; 525(7569): 367-371. doi: 10.1038/nature15371
11. Vohra K, Vodonos A, Schwartz J, et al. Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem. Environmental Research. 2021; 195: 110754. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.110754
12. Finer M, Jenkins CN, Pimm SL, et al. Oil and Gas Projects in the Western Amazon: Threats to Wilderness, Biodiversity, and Indigenous Peoples. PLoS ONE. 2008; 3(8): e2932. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002932
13. Zhang Y, Han A, Deng S, et al. The impact of fossil fuel combustion on children’s health and the associated losses of human capital. Global Transitions. 2023; 5: 117-124. doi: 10.1016/j.glt.2023.07.001
14. Vengosh A, Jackson RB, Warner N, et al. A Critical Review of the Risks to Water Resources from Unconventional Shale Gas Development and Hydraulic Fracturing in the United States. Environmental Science & Technology. 2014; 48(15): 8334-8348. doi: 10.1021/es405118y
15. Palmer MA, Bernhardt ES, Schlesinger WH, et al. Mountaintop Mining Consequences. Science. 2010; 327(5962): 148-149. doi: 10.1126/science.1180543
16. Mudumba T, Stimpson B, Jingo S, et al. The implications of global oil exploration for the conservation of terrestrial wildlife. Environmental Challenges. 2023; 11: 100710. doi: 10.1016/j.envc.2023.100710
17. Vohra K, Vodonos A, Schwartz J, et al. Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem. Environmental Research. 2021; 195: 110754. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.110754
18. Domke GM, Walters BF, Nowak DJ, et al. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removals from Forest Land, Woodlands, and Urban Trees in the United States, 1990-2017. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station; 2019. doi: 10.2737/fs-ru-178
19. Executive Summary - CO2 Emissions in 2023 - Analysis - IEA. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2023/executive-summary (accessed 27 December 2024).
20. Myllyvirta L. Quantifying the Economic Costs of Air Pollution from Fossil Fuels Key messages. CREA; 2020.
21. Gonzalez-Salazar MA, Kirsten T, Prchlik L. Review of the operational flexibility and emissions of gas- and coal-fired power plants in a future with growing renewables. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2018; 82: 1497-1513. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.278
22. Zappa W, van den Broek M. Analysing the potential of integrating wind and solar power in Europe using spatial optimisation under various scenarios. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2018; 94: 1192-1216. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.071
23. Tyagi VV, Kaushik SC, Tyagi SK. Advancement in solar photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) hybrid collector technology. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2012; 16(3): 1383-1398. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2011.12.013
24. Renewable Energy and Jobs - Annual Review 2022. Available online: https://www.irena.org/publications/2022/Sep/Renewable-Energy-and-Jobs-Annual-Review-2022 (accessed 27 December 2024).
25. International Renewable Energy Agency, International Labour Organization. Renewable Energy & Jobs Annual Job Review. 2021; 1-98.
26. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2023. Available online: https://www.irena.org/Publications/2024/Sep/Renewable-Power-Generation-Costs-in-2023 (accessed 27 December 2024).
27. The drop in the LCOE of renewable energies over the past decade drives the energy transition - AleaSoft Energy Forecasting. Available online: https://aleasoft.com/drop-lcoe-renewable-energies-past-decade-drives-energy-transition/ (accessed 27 December 2024).
28. Black S. IMF Fossil Fuel Subsidies Data: 2023 Update. IMF Working Papers. 2023; 2023(169): 1. doi: 10.5089/9798400249006.001
29. Epa U, Change Division C. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2019 - Data Highlights. 1990.
30. Air pollution. Available online: https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution?form=MG0AV3#tab=tab_1 (accessed 18 December 2024).
31. Shue H. Responsible for what? Carbon producer CO2 contributions and the energy transition. Climatic Change. 2017; 144(4): 591-596. doi: 10.1007/s10584-017-2042-9
32. Kuipers KJJ, Hilbers JP, Garcia-Ulloa J, et al. Habitat fragmentation amplifies threats from habitat loss to mammal diversity across the world’s terrestrial ecoregions. One Earth. 2021; 4(10): 1505-1513. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2021.09.005
33. Kirsch S. Running out? Rethinking resource depletion. The Extractive Industries and Society. 2020; 7(3): 838-840. doi: 10.1016/j.exis.2020.06.002
34. Ramana MV. Nuclear power and the public. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 2011; 67(4): 43-51. doi: 10.1177/0096340211413358
35. Review of the Department of Energy’s Plans for Disposal of Surplus Plutonium ... - National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Division on Earth and Life Studies, Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board, Committee on Disposal of Surplus Plutonium at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant - Google Books. Available online: https://books.google.co.tz/books?hl=en&lr=&id=BErpDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&dq=U.S.+Department+of+Energy+(DOE).+(2020).+Nuclear+Waste+Disposal.&ots=ARHo0MYyMk&sig=DIAF06zq7LRfoTUBpsc5jeI75J8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=U.S.%20Department%20of%20Energy%20(DOE).%20(2020).%20Nuclear%20Waste%20Disposal.&f=false (accessed 27 December 2024).
36. Perrow C. Fukushima and the inevitability of accidents. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 2011; 67(6): 44-52. doi: 10.1177/0096340211426395
37. Yasunari TJ, Stohl A, Hayano RS, et al. Yasunari, Cesium-137 deposition and contamination of Japanese soils due to the Fukushima nuclear accident. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011; 108(2011): 19530-19534. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1112058108
38. Lovering JR, Yip A, Nordhaus T. Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors. Energy Policy. 2016; 91: 371-382. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.011
39. Majority of Americans support more nuclear power in the US | Pew Research Center. Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/08/05/majority-of-americans-support-more-nuclear-power-in-the-country/ (accessed 27 December 2024).
40. Pratiwi S, Juerges N. Review of the impact of renewable energy development on the environment and nature conservation in Southeast Asia. Energy, Ecology and Environment. 2020; 5(4): 221-239. doi: 10.1007/s40974-020-00166-2
41. Li X, Gu Q, Wang Q, et al. Renewable energy in the mining industry: Status, opportunities and challenges. Energy Strategy Reviews. 2024; 56: 101597. doi: 10.1016/j.esr.2024.101597
42. Voigt CC, Straka TM, Fritze M. Producing wind energy at the cost of biodiversity: A stakeholder view on a green-green dilemma. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy. 2019; 11(6). doi: 10.1063/1.5118784
43. Dhar A, Naeth MA, Jennings PD, et al. Perspectives on environmental impacts and a land reclamation strategy for solar and wind energy systems. Science of The Total Environment. 2020; 718: 134602. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134602
44. He F, Zarfl C, Tockner K, et al. Hydropower impacts on riverine biodiversity. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. 2024; 5(11): 755-772. doi: 10.1038/s43017-024-00596-0
45. Stamford L, Azapagic A. Environmental Impacts of Photovoltaics: The Effects of Technological Improvements and Transfer of Manufacturing from Europe to China. Energy Technology. 2018; 6(6): 1148-1160. doi: 10.1002/ente.201800037
46. Tawalbeh M, Al-Othman A, Kafiah F, et al. Environmental impacts of solar photovoltaic systems: A critical review of recent progress and future outlook. Science of The Total Environment. 2021; 759: 143528. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143528
47. Gómez‐Catasús J, Morales MB, Giralt D, et al. Solar photovoltaic energy development and biodiversity conservation: Current knowledge and research gaps. Conservation Letters. 2024; 17(4). doi: 10.1111/conl.13025
48. Lafitte A, Sordello R, Ouédraogo DY, et al. Existing evidence on the effects of photovoltaic panels on biodiversity: a systematic map with critical appraisal of study validity. Environmental Evidence. 2023; 12(1). doi: 10.1186/s13750-023-00318-x
49. Pitz-Paal R, Amin A, Oliver Bettzuge M, et al. Wagner, Concentrating solar power in Europe, the middle east and North Africa: A review of development issues and potential to 2050. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, Transactions of the ASME. 2012; 134(2012). doi: 10.1115/1.4006390
50. Degraded lands can aid achieve four times India’s 2030 renewable. Available online: https://www.tncindia.in/what-we-do/our-insights/stories-in-india/renewableenergy/ (accessed 27 December 2024).
51. Kumar K, Malhotra Baxi S. Desert Solar Power India: A Systematic Study of Potential Development of Solar Power in The Indian Desert. International Journal of Advanced Research. 2021; 9(10): 1411-1414. doi: 10.21474/ijar01/13700
52. Shokrgozar S, Girard B. “The companies are powerful, people are weak”: India’s solar energy ambitions and the legitimation of dispossession in Rajasthan. Journal of Political Ecology. 2024; 31(1). doi: 10.2458/jpe.5410
53. Wu H, Hou Y. Recent Development of Grid-Connected PV Systems in China. Energy Procedia. 2011; 12: 462-470. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2011.10.062
54. Wang Y, Sun T. Life cycle assessment of CO2 emissions from wind power plants: Methodology and case studies. Renewable Energy. 2012; 43: 30-36. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2011.12.017
55. Dolan SL, Heath GA. Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Utility-Scale Wind Power: Systematic Review and Harmonization. J Ind Ecol. 2012; 16(2012). doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00464.x
56. Gradolewski D, Dziak D, Martynow M, et al. Comprehensive Bird Preservation at Wind Farms. Sensors. 2021; 21(1): 267. doi: 10.3390/s21010267
57. Estellés‐Domingo I, López‐López P. Effects of wind farms on raptors: A systematic review of the current knowledge and the potential solutions to mitigate negative impacts. Animal Conservation. 2024.
58. Maxwell SM, Kershaw F, Locke CC, et al. Potential impacts of floating wind turbine technology for marine species and habitats. Journal of Environmental Management. 2022; 307: 114577. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114577
59. Püts M, Kempf A, Möllmann C, et al. Trade-offs between fisheries, offshore wind farms and marine protected areas in the southern North Sea – Winners, losers and effective spatial management. Marine Policy. 2023; 152: 105574. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105574
60. Afzal MS, Tahir F, Al-Ghamdi SG. Recommendations and Strategies to Mitigate Environmental Implications of Artificial Island Developments in the Gulf. Sustainability. 2022; 14(9): 5027. doi: 10.3390/su14095027
61. Edwards-Jones A, Watson SCL, Szostek CL, et al. Stakeholder insights into embedding marine net gain for offshore wind farm planning and delivery. Environmental Challenges. 2024; 14: 100814. doi: 10.1016/j.envc.2023.100814
62. Bunn SE, Arthington AH. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity, Environ Manage. 2002; 30(2002): 492-507. doi: 10.1007/s00267-002-2737-0
63. Rolls RJ, Leigh C, Sheldon F. Mechanistic effects of low-flow hydrology on riverine ecosystems: ecological principles and consequences of alteration. Freshwater Science. 2012; 31(4): 1163-1186. doi: 10.1899/12-002.1
64. Winemiller KO, McIntyre PB, Castello L, et al. Sáenz, Balancing hydropower and biodiversity in the Amazon, Congo, and Mekong. Science. 1979; 351(2016): 128-129. doi: 10.1126/science.aac7082
65. Castello L, Macedo MN. Large‐scale degradation of Amazonian freshwater ecosystems. Global Change Biology. 2015; 22(3): 990-1007. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13173
66. Bambace LAW, Ramos FM, Lima IBT, et al. Mitigation and recovery of methane emissions from tropical hydroelectric dams. Energy. 2007; 32(6): 1038-1046. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2006.09.008
67. Gleick PH. The World’s Water, undefined 2008, Three Gorges Dam Project, Yangtze River, China, Researchgate. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter-Gleick/publication/265238648_Three_Gorges_Dam_Project_Yangtze_River_China/links/55f890c908aeafc8ac137fe4/Three-Gorges-Dam-Project-Yangtze-River-China.pdf (accessed 7 December 2024).
68. Chang CYA, Gao Z, Kaminsky A, Reames TG. Michigan Sustainability Case: Revisiting the Three Gorges Dam: Should China Continue to Build Dams on the Yangtze River? Sustainability (United States).2018; 11(2018): 204-215. doi: 10.1089/sus.2018.29141.cyac
69. Köhler B, Ruud A. How are environmental measures realized in European hydropower? Available online: https://brage.nina.no/nina-xmlui/handle/11250/3060086 (accessed 7 December 2024).
70. Ferrier RC, Jenkins A. Handbook of Catchment Management; Wiley Online Library; 2009.
71. Núñez‐Regueiro MM, Siddiqui SF, Fletcher RJ. Effects of bioenergy on biodiversity arising from land‐use change and crop type. Conservation Biology. 2020; 35(1): 77-87. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13452
72. Tomlin AS. Air Quality and Climate Impacts of Biomass Use as an Energy Source: A Review, Energy and Fuels. 2021; 35(2021): 14213-14240. doi: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.1c01523
73. Kulas D, Winjobi O, Zhou W, Shonnard D. Effects of Coproduct Uses on Environmental and Economic Sustainability of Hydrocarbon Biofuel from One- and Two-Step Pyrolysis of Poplar, ACS Sustain Chem Eng. 2018; 6(2018): 5969-5980. doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b04390
74. Davis JE. Booms, Blooms, and Doom: The Life of the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone. Alabama Review. 2017; 70(2): 156-170. doi: 10.1353/ala.2017.0011
75. Waller MT. Ethnoprimatology. Springer International Publishing; 2016.
76. Hernandez RR, Easter SB, Murphy-Mariscal ML, et al. Environmental impacts of utility-scale solar energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2014; 29: 766-779. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.041
77. Pearce‐Higgins JW, Stephen L, Douse A, et al. Greater impacts of wind farms on bird populations during construction than subsequent operation: results of a multi‐site and multi‐species analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2012; 49(2): 386-394. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02110.x
78. Palmeirim AF, Peres CA, Rosas FCW. Giant otter population responses to habitat expansion and degradation induced by a mega hydroelectric dam. Biological Conservation. 2014; 174: 30-38. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.03.015
79. Werling BP, Dickson TL, Isaacs R, et al. Landis, Perennial grasslands enhance biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services in bioenergy landscapes, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014; 111(2014): 1652-1657. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1309492111
80. Semere T, Slater F. Ground flora, small mammal and bird species diversity in miscanthus (Miscanthus × giganteus) and reed canary-grass (Phalaris arundinacea) fields. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2007; 31(1): 20-29. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2006.07.001
81. Timo T, Lyra-Jorge M, Gheler-Costa C, et al. Effect of the plantation age on the use of Eucalyptus stands by medium to large-sized wild mammals in south-eastern Brazil. iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry. 2015; 8(2): 108-113. doi: 10.3832/ifor1237-008
82. Dotta G, Verdade LM. Medium to large-sized mammals in agricultural landscapes of south-eastern Brazil. Mammalia. 2011; 75(2011): 345-352. https://doi.org/10.1515/MAMM.2011.049
83. IRENA - International Renewable Energy Agency. Available online: https://www.irena.org/ (accessed 27 December 2024).
84. Ofoegbu O, Ajakaye OJ, Onche E, et al. Recycling of Solar Panel Cells: Past, Present and Future. Paper Publications; 2024.
85. Badran G, Lazarov VK. From Waste to Resource: Exploring the Current Challenges and Future Directions of Photovoltic Solar Cell Recycling. Solar. 2025; 5(1): 4. doi: 10.3390/solar5010004
86. Wagner-Wenz R, van Zuilichem AJ, Göllner-Völker L, et al. Recycling routes of lithium-ion batteries: A critical review of the development status, the process performance, and life-cycle environmental impacts. MRS Energy & Sustainability. 2022; 10(1): 1-34. doi: 10.1557/s43581-022-00053-9
87. Price SJ, Muncy BL, Bonner SJ, et al. Effects of mountaintop removal mining and valley filling on the occupancy and abundance of stream salamanders. Bellard C, ed. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2015; 53(2): 459-468. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12585
88. Cerrejón-Glencore’s coal mine continues to make unfulfilled promises to the communities it has affected for decades in Colombia. The Roche community speaks up - London Mining Network. Available online: https://londonminingnetwork.org/2024/11/cerrejon-glencores-coal-mine-continues-to-make-unfulfilled-promises/ (accessed on 27 December 2024).
89. Oliveira MLS, Akinyemi SA, Nyakuma BB, et al. Environmental Impacts of Coal Nanoparticles from Rehabilitated Mine Areas in Colombia. Sustainability. 2022; 14(8): 4544. doi: 10.3390/su14084544
90. Black-throated finch GP fact sheet 2014. “Black-throated finch GP fact sheet 2014”, Accessed: Feb. 28, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.banktrack.org/download/impacts_of_the_proposed_carmichael_coal_mine_project_on_the_black_throated_finch
91. Prodanov B, Dimitrov L, Kotsev I, et al. Spatial distribution of sand dunes along the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast: inventory, UAS mapping and new discoveries. Nature Conservation. 2023; 54: 81-120. doi: 10.3897/natureconservation.54.105507
92. Osintseva M, Ishutin I. Influence of Natural, Climatic, and Industrial Factors on Air and Water Quality in The Kemerovo Region (Kuzbass, Russia). Qubahan Academic Journal. 2023; 3(3): 1-10. doi: 10.48161/qaj.v3n3a149
93. Pearce‐Higgins JW, Stephen L, Langston RHW, et al. The distribution of breeding birds around upland wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2009; 46(6): 1323-1331. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01715.x
94. Slavik K, Lemmen C, Zhang W, et al. Wirtz, The large-scale impact of offshore wind farm structures on pelagic primary productivity in the southern North Sea. Hydrobiologia. 2019; 845 (2019): 35-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-018-3653-5
95. Hampl N. Energy systems for Brazil’s Amazon: Could renewable energy improve Indigenous livelihoods and save forest ecosystems? Energy Research & Social Science. 2024; 112: 103491. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2024.103491
96. Hayes MA. Bats Killed in Large Numbers at United States Wind Energy Facilities. BioScience. 2013; 63(12): 975-979. doi: 10.1525/bio.2013.63.12.10
97. Smallwood KS. Comparing bird and bat fatality‐rate estimates among North American wind‐energy projects. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 2013; 37(1): 19-33. doi: 10.1002/wsb.260
98. Ürge-Vorsatz D, Cabeza LF, Serrano S, et al. Heating and cooling energy trends and drivers in buildings. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2015; 41: 85-98. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.039
99. Worku MY. Recent Advances in Energy Storage Systems for Renewable Source Grid Integration: A Comprehensive Review. Sustainability. 2022; 14(10): 5985. doi: 10.3390/su14105985
100. Dunn B, Kamath H, Tarascon JM, Electrical energy storage for the grid: A battery of choices. Science. 1979; 334 (2011): 928-935. doi: 10.1126/science.1212741
101. Lee H, Lee J, Koo Y. Economic impacts of carbon capture and storage on the steel industry–A hybrid energy system model incorporating technological change. Applied Energy. 2022; 317: 119208. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119208
102. Jenkins J. Financing Mega-Scale Energy Projects: A Case Study of The Petra Nova Carbon Capture Project Prepared for the CEO Council for Sustainable Urbanization October 2015. Available online: http://english.cciee.org.cn (accessed on 27 December 2024).
103. Kartal MT, Pata UK, Alola AA. Renewable electricity generation and carbon emissions in leading European countries: Daily-based disaggregate evidence by nonlinear approaches. Energy Strategy Reviews. 2024; 51: 101300. doi: 10.1016/j.esr.2024.101300
104. Vela Almeida D, Kolinjivadi V, Ferrando T, et al. The “Greening” of Empire: The European Green Deal as the EU first agenda. Political Geography. 2023; 105: 102925. doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2023.102925
105. Massoud Amin S, Wollenberg BF. Toward a smart grid: power delivery for the 21st century. IEEE Power and Energy Magazine. 2005; 3(5): 34-41. doi: 10.1109/mpae.2005.1507024
106. Babanazarov NSH, Matkarimov AI, Ilyasov IS. Advancing energy efficiency: Harnessing machine learning for smart grid management. E3S Web of Conferences. 2024; 524: 01003. doi: 10.1051/e3sconf/202452401003
107. Hu Z, Ran C, Zhang H, et al. The Current Status and Development Trend of Perovskite Solar Cells. Engineering. 2023; 21: 15-19. doi: 10.1016/j.eng.2022.10.012
108. Leung DYC, Yang Y. Wind energy development and its environmental impact: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2012; 16(1): 1031-1039. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2011.09.024
109. Dwivedi YK, Hughes L, Kar AK, et al. Climate change and COP26: Are digital technologies and information management part of the problem or the solution? An editorial reflection and call to action. International Journal of Information Management. 2022; 63: 102456. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102456