A Review of Control Techniques Future Trends in Wind Energy Turbine Systems with Doubly Fed Induction Generators (DFIG)

تعتبر طاقة الرياح حاليا واحدة من أكثر مصادر الطاقة الخضراء النظيفة الملاءمة على نطاق واسع في العالم. تم تطوير العديد من مبادئ توربينات الرياح بستخدام  المولدات المختلفة لتحويل طاقة الرياح المتاحة إلى طاقة كهربائية. يعد نظام المولد الحثي ذي التغذية المزدوجة DFIG لتوربينات الرياح ذات السرعة المتغيرة نسبيا (VSWT) هو الأكثر ملاءمة لطاقة توربينات الرياح بسبب فوائده العديدة مقارنة بتوربينات الرياح ذات السرعة الثابتة نسبيا (FSWT). تقدم هذه الورقة مراجعة و مقارنة عن طاقة توربينات الرياح المختلفة وملخصًا قيمًا للعمل الأخير المتعلقة بأنظمة طاقة الرياح المختلفة (WECS) لنمذجة DFIG وأقصى نقطة طاقة MPP وأحدث نظام تحكم للتشغيل. ومن ناحية أخرى تم في الدراسة الحالية تقديم مقارنات ومناقشات بين توربينات الرياح المختلفة لتكون مفيدة للدراسات البحثية.Wind energy is currently widely regarded as one of the most favorable green clean sources of energy. Several wind turbine principles with various generator architectures have been evolved to exchange the available wind energy into electric power. The DFIG partial Variable-Speed Wind Turbine (VSWT) system is most proper for wind turbine energy because of its numerous benefits over Fixed-Speed Wind Turbines (FSWT). This paper introduces a comparative review of the different wind turbine conversion energy and a valuable summary of the recent work in the literature on different Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) of a DFIG modeling, Maximum Power Point (MPP), and the latest control system for operation. On the other side, comparisons and discussions between different wind turbines have been presented in the current study to be beneficial for research studies

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background: Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods: This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was coprioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low-middle-income countries. Results: In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of 'single-use' consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low-middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion: This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high- and low-middle-income countries