Integrated renewables- the cheapest option
IRENA has develop a new energy costing system and found that renewables plus storage could supply firm power at low system costs- see my earlier post. Another new metric for assessing the total levelized cost of energy(LCOE) has also emerged with equally striking results. It puts the costs of a mix of offshore wind & solar at about €46/MWh in a future climate-neutral energy system for Denmark- less than half the equivalent cost of nuclear under the same conditions.
Thats the conclusion of a new multi-authored peer reviewed study with inputs from Denmark, Finland, Chile, Croatia and the UK. It introduces a new system-based LCOE metric - referred to as SLCOE. It says that ‘while the LCOE is only a function of the respective technology, the SLCOE is a function of both the technology and the energy system context in which it operates’.
It shows that ‘the SLCOE of wind power and solar photovoltaics can be much lower in the integrated energy systems of a future climate neutral society than in the existing electricity system. We illustrate how the SLCOE of combinations of wind power and solar photovoltaics can be much lower than the SLCOE of the individual technologies. Moreover, we compare renewable energy sources with nuclear power and find that with the current as well as expected future costs of these technologies, the SLCOE of nuclear power is substantially higher than for renewable energy’.
Interestingly it adds that ‘nuclear power and CCGT require overcapacity (and therefore lower capacity factors) to cover peaks. However, for none of these technologies is it feasible to use electricity storage because of the high costs. For nuclear power, the system costs are higher than for CCGT because the CAPEX is substantially higher’.
Co-author Christian Breyer, a professor of solar economy at LUT University in Finland, told pv magazine that, in the new study, ‘we document how essential it is to include the whole energy system in the search for least cost solutions,’ noting that sector coupling provides thermal storage, hydrogen storage via electrolysis, flexible heat pump operation, and electric vehicle smart charging – options unavailable in an electricity-only grid.
As PV Magazine’s reviewer noted, ‘in today’s electricity-only system, system costs are high across all technologies when each is modelled as the sole supply source. Solar carries a combined SLCOE of approximately €565/MWh in that context – not because PV is inherently expensive to integrate, the authors argue, but because any single technology faces steep system costs without the flexibility options a fully coupled energy system provides. Nuclear reaches approximately €141 ($166.3)/MWh in the same electricity-only context. The least-cost mix of offshore wind, solar, and gas combined-cycle turbines reaches approximately €66/MWh.’
It adds that, in a future climate-neutral integrated system, which it says the paper’s central comparison, ‘nuclear’s SLCOE is approximately €100/MWh. The least-cost mix of offshore wind and PV reaches about €46/MWh. Offshore wind alone also reaches about €46/MWh. Onshore wind reaches about €106/MWh, while solar reaches about €178/MWh as a standalone technology. Its cost falls sharply when combined with wind in the least-cost portfolio’.
More jobs too
Renewables are not only looking economically attractive, they are also underpinning employment. For example, in the UK, the net zero economy supports over 1 million jobs and generates £105bn in Gross Value Added. So says a new report by CBI Economics for the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit. About 308,000 people are employed directly in businesses such as solar panel installation, home insulation, wind turbine manufacturing and electric vehicles. When their supply chains and related businesses are taken into account, this reaches 1.1m jobs. They are quite well paid. Average wages in net zero roles reach £43,142, around 11% higher than the UK average of £39,039. The study identified six £1bn economic hotspots across regions including the Scottish Central Belt, West and North Yorkshire, and North Wales and Cheshire.
The Guardian noted however that, ‘the main right wing parties, the Conservatives and Reform UK, want to scrap the net zero targets and row back on support for renewable energy. Tony Blair, the former Labour prime minister, has also called for an end to net zero and a push for fossil fuels instead’. It’s hard to see much logic in of all this, although Kathryn Porter does try, for example arguing for fossil gas to protect UK energy security. However, while ReformUK wants us to get more gas and seems keen on fracking, it has been estimated that its plan to gut existing climate & green policies would ‘lead to 500,000 job losses and over 1.4 million by 2040’. Meanwhile, bizarrely, with even large impacts on the climate being likely, the Global Warming Policy Foundation offshoot Net Zero Watch has argued the case for going back to mining and using coal- in fluidised bed/gasification plants!
It is interesting in this context that polling by More in Common for the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit put Reform voters support for on shore wind at 56%, 66% for offshore wind and 59% for solar. Only 12% of Reform voters said reversing emissions reduction policies was a key reason for supporting the party. Fracking was not backed by Reform voters either.
Will any of this have an effect on the results of the key bye-election in Makerfield? We’ll have to wait to see…and how national politics responds. The Labour government wants to cut UK greenhouse gas emissions to 87% below 1990 levels by 2040, as set out in draft legislation for the 7th carbon budget, a legally binding limit on emissions in 2038-2042. But if Reform gets its way, it’s hard to see how cuts like that could happen…unless of course the UK suffers an economic collapse.
However, looking more broadly, and being more hopeful, then assuming that sort of outcome can be avoided, it may be that positive future energy scenarios and plans like this new one for the UK-EU could be credible. It looks to renewables and system upgrades and says ‘a structured emergency plan from 12 months to 10 years alongside a phase out of fossil fuel subsidies and windfall profit taxation is the only way forward’. Sounds good…
Comments
Post a Comment