Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38316824›Full record

ArticleNature communications2024

Avoiding ecosystem and social impacts of hydropower, wind, and solar in Southern Africa's low-carbon electricity system.

Grace C Wu, Ranjit Deshmukh, Anne Trainor, Anagha Uppal, A F M Kamal Chowdhury, Carlos Baez, Erik Martin, Jonathan Higgins, Ana Mileva, Kudakwashe Ndhlukula

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Self-Assembly Regulated Photocatalysis of Porphyrin-TiOMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Grace C Wu *Environmental Studies, Bren Hall, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106, USA. gracecwu@ucsb.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8290-119X
Ranjit Deshmukh *Environmental Studies, Bren Hall, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106, USA. rdeshmukh@ucsb.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5593-675X
Anne TrainorAfrica Program, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA, 22203, USA.
Anagha UppalDepartment of Geography, Ellison Hall, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106, USA.
A F M Kamal ChowdhuryEnvironmental Studies, Bren Hall, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3763-1204
Carlos BaezDepartment of Geography, Ellison Hall, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106, USA.
Erik MartinCenter for Resilient Conservation Science, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA, 22203, USA.
Jonathan HigginsGlobal Freshwater Team, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA, 22203, USA.
Ana MilevaBlue Marble Analytics, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Kudakwashe NdhlukulaSADC Centre for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency (SACREEE), 11 Dr Agostinho Neto Road, Windhoek, Namibia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The scale at which low-carbon electricity will need to be deployed to meet economic growth, electrification, and climate goals in Africa is unprecedented, yet the potential land use and freshwater impacts from this massive build-out of energy infrastructure is poorly understood. In this study, we characterize low-impact onshore wind, solar photovoltaics, and hydropower potential in Southern Africa and identify the cost-optimal mix of electricity generation technologies under different sets of socio-environmental land use and freshwater constraints and carbon targets. We find substantial wind and solar potential after applying land use protections, but about 40% of planned or proposed hydropower projects face socio-environmental conflicts. Applying land and freshwater protections results in more wind, solar, and battery capacity and less hydropower capacity compared to scenarios without protections. While a carbon target favors hydropower, the amount of cost-competitively selected hydropower is at most 45% of planned or proposed hydropower capacity in any scenario-and is only 25% under socio-environmental protections. Achieving both carbon targets and socio-environmental protections results in system cost increases of 3-6%. In the absence of land and freshwater protections, environmental and social impacts from new hydropower development could be significant.

Identifiers

PMID38316824
PMCPMC10844333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.