This study aims to evaluate the potential of solar power generation based on socioeconomic scenarios that integrate ecosystem conservation and renewable energy expansion. The spatial scope covers the entire territory of South Korea, where areas with ecological sensitivity, physical instability, and limited land developability were excluded as avoidance zones. Potentially available areas were classified into two land-use types-degraded land and agricultural land and combined with three socioeconomic options: (a) minimum installation area, (b) setback distance from roads and residential areas, and (c) proximity to major demand centers. Based on these criteria, sixteen scenarios were developed to estimate potential solar capacity (GW) and electricity generation (TWh), while quantitatively assessing the sensitivity of solar potential to individual and combined policy-driven spatial constraints. The results show that the maximum potential generation reaches 411.6 TWh on degraded land and 955.0 TWh on agricultural land, which substantially exceeds South Korea’s national solar generation targets for 2030 and 2040 and represents a significant contribution toward 2050 carbon neutrality scenarios. When all spatial constraints are applied simultaneously, the potential decreases by approximately 67% for degraded land and 58% for agricultural land, highlighting the strong limiting effects of cumulative policy restrictions. The national average capacity factor is estimated at 14.35% for degraded land and 14.54% for agricultural land, indicating more stable supply conditions on agricultural land. Overall, the findings demonstrate that solar deployment outcomes are strongly shaped by spatial policy design rather than technical potential alone. This study provides a policy-relevant, spatially explicit framework to support sustainable solar siting strategies that balance ecosystem protection with long-term national energy goals in South Korea.
Cho et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: