A CHEAT SHEET FOR ARGUING WITH CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS AND OTHER FLAT EARTHERS 

Correcting Anti-Renewable Energy Propaganda

February 9th, 2020 by Guest Contributor 

By Georg Nitsche

In 1989, pro-nuclear lobbyists claimed that wind power couldn’t even provide 1% of Germany’s electricity. A few years later, pro-nuclear lobbyists ran ads in German newspapers, claiming that renewables wouldn’t be able to meet 4% of German electricity demand.

After the renewable energy revolution took off, in 2015, the pro-nuclear power “Breakthrough Institute” published an article claiming solar would be limited to 10–20% and wind to 25–35% of a power system’s electricity.

In 2017, German (pro-nuclear power) economist Hans-Werner Sinn tweeted that more than 50% wind and solar would hardly be possible. And in 2018, Carnegie Science reported a study claiming that “wind and solar could meet most but not all U.S. electricity needs.” According to one of the authors, their research indicates that “huge amounts of storage” or natural gas would need to supplement solar and wind power.

From a pro-renewable perspective, this is encouraging. The claims about the limits of renewable energy have moved from “not even 1% of electricity” to “most but not all of the electricity.” And yet, the anti-renewables message has always been the same: renewables will lead to a dead end.

In order to underscore their point, anti-renewable energy propagandists now publish incorrect cost figures that claim a fully renewable electric grid would be unaffordable or way more expensive than other options, such as, you guessed it, nuclear power.

MIT Technology Review writes about the “scary price tag” that such a purely renewable grid would come with, calculating $2.5 trillion as a price tag for storage requirements alone — 12 hours of storage. Wood McKenzie also talks about $2.5 trillion, albeit for 24 hours of storage. The “Clean Air task force” puts the cost for a 100% renewable grid in California at an annual $350 billion.

Anti-renewable propagandists need to talk about imaginary high costs of renewables, especially because one of their preferred ways of generating electricity — nuclear power — turns out to be incredibly expensive.

Renewable energy gets cheaper each year, nuclear power gets more expensive each year — how come they still adamantly claim that renewables are not a cost-effective way of decarbonizing?

The answer, of course, is that the studies are flawed. Taking a look at these studies shows that several patterns can be observed in many of these studies. Among these flaws are ridiculous overestimates of storage requirements, overestimates of grid expansion needs, and the insistence on uneconomical strategies of storing electricity, such as insisting on batteries to store several weeks worth of grid electricity consumption.

In order to understand how these studies are flawed, it’s essential to understand how a renewable energy grid actually works, how energy storage works, and what costs you can expect. After that, I will describe the flaws in some of these studies and recalculate a more realistic scenario, especially more realistic cost projections.

How a renewable grid works

A few facts are important to know:

Storage will not be necessary for a long time.

The sun doesn’t always shine, the wind doesn’t always blow — yet most of the time, there is either sun or wind available. For now, storage will not play a role for a long time. Solar and wind power will increase their shares of electricity consumption, and until they reach 80% of electricity consumption, grid expansion, moderate curtailment, and gas-fired backup power plants are the only tools necessary to reach such a high share of renewables.

Backup power plants are cheap.

So, if 80% of the electricity is generated using solar and wind power, the remaining 20% has to be created from backup power plants. According to grid operator PJM’s data, backup power plants cost up to $120,200 per megawatt per year. We can calculate the cost for a worst case scenario: To cover the 769 gigawatts of US peak load, backup power plants would cost $92.5 billion per year. Divided by the 4.18 trillion kilowatt-hours that were consumed in the USA in 2018, that amounts to 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Nuclear power is expensive and gets more expensive over time.

The newest Lazard figures put nuclear power at 15 cents per kilowatt-hour. In addition, that’s more than the cost figures of the previous years.

Even for 80 percent solar and wind, grid investment costs are moderate.

The NREL estimates that, even if you get 77% of electricity from solar and wind power, the grid will have to be expanded from around 85,000 gigawatt-miles to around 116,000 gigawatt-miles. That’s not even a 50% increase.

Getting more solar and wind power will require overbuilding and curtailment.

One study that is often cited as “proof” of the limits to renewables finds that, actually, even without any storage, overbuilding solar and wind to 1.5 times US consumption could get you 93% solar and wind power in the grid. This is still without any storage at all. To put this into perspective, if you overbuild solar and wind power 1.5 times, and you have an LCOE of 3 cents per kWh (according to BNEF, this is possible for solar and wind by 2030), that gives you a total LCOE of 4.5 cents per kWh (ignoring minor system costs for curtailment), which is still very cheap, and far below the 15 cents per kWh figure for nuclear power.

The remaining 7% could be provided, for example, by burning synthetic methane that’s made from hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

You can make a synthetic gas that’s 100% compatible with the existing gas infrastructure. The process is known as power-to-gas. Electrolysis uses solar and wind electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. In a second step, carbon dioxide, which can be captured from the air (direct air capture) is mixed with the hydrogen. This results in methane, which is 100% compatible with the existing gas grid and the gas-fired power plants. Once this methane is burned, it emits only as much carbon dioxide as was previously captured from the air. The cost for this methane is currently estimated at 20 euro-cents per kWh, but costs have come down in the past and will continue to come down. In Germany, there is already a facility that generates renewable methane and injects it into the gas grid.

There might be other storage options as well in the future.

To store the entire grid for many hours or even days, batteries are too expensive. Yet there are other options under investigation. Siemens is testing a simple concept of first converting the electricity into heat, storing the heat, and later using that heat to drive a steam turbine. Highview Power uses cold air to store electricity and use the expanding, reheating air to drive a turbine. Both companies already built a pilot storage plant.

Considering these facts, it is possible to make a calculation about how much a purely renewable grid would likely cost, using today’s technology and today’s prices. Whenever anyone claims way higher costs, we should grow suspicious immediately.

Calculating the cost for a purely renewable grid.

Assuming we used today’s technology, we can compare solar and wind power to nuclear power. According to Lazard, nuclear power costs 15 cent per kWh. Generating all of US electricity from nuclear power, therefore, would cost $615 billion per year. So, how much would a completely renewable grid cost — per year and per kilowatt-hour?

One way a renewable grid would work would include the following technologies

Expanding solar and wind power to reach 93 percent wind/solar.

Using the study “geophysical constraints on the reliability of wind and solar power,” getting to 93 percent solar and wind power would require generating 1.5 times US power demand. This means that you overbuild wind and solar and curtail some of the electricity to increase the amount of solar/wind power that can be used directly. You would have to generate 6300 TWh of renewable electricity, which at current costs (according to Lazard) would cost $271 billion per year.

Paying for backup power plants.

Backup power plants that could provide the entire grid with electricity would cost $92.5 billion per year, according to PJM data.

Expand the grid

NREL data suggests that you need +30 TW-miles to go to 80 percent renewables. Extrapolating, you would need +37.5 TW-miles for 100 percent. That’s around 60 TW-km — thus, around $60 billion grid investment. Calculating the grid investment cost per year, it would cost around $10 billion a year (WACC 10%, 10 year payment). This shows that grid expenditure is negligible.

Burning renewable methane in these backup power plants to reach 100 percent renewable electricity

Using the latest study by Ludwig Bölkow Systemtechnik, generating synthetic natural gas from hydrogen, using direct air capture for the carbon dioxide, 1 kWh of synthetic methane costs around 20 euro-cents per kWh when produced in Europe. In a 60 percent efficient CCGT power plant, 1 kWh would cost 33.33 euro-cents (37.15 US cents). Generating 7 percent of US electricity from renewable synthetic methane costs $110 billion.

Total cost, therefore, would amount to $483.5 billion per year. Divided by electricity consumption of 4100 TWh, the total cost would be 11.8 cents per kilowatt hour. This is already cheaper than Lazard’s estimate for nuclear power, which is currently at 15 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Let’s also stress that this will change. In 2030, according to BNEF, wind and solar power will already be below $30 per MWh. Synthetic methane will cost around 15 euro-cents per kWh, according to LBST. As such, you would annually spend $189 billion on wind/solar electricity, plus 27,86*294= $82bn on synthetic methane, $92.5 bn on CCGT power plants, and $10 bn on grid expansion, leading to a total $9.1 cents per kWh. That’s way cheaper than nuclear power.

So, how come we keep reading that a fully renewable electricity grid would be astronomically expensive, especially from pro-nuclear lobbyists? If a quick and dirty calculation already shows that renewable electricity is already cheaper than nuclear power, how come numerous studies point to 100 percent renewable electricity being unaffordable?

Once you understand how a renewable grid works and how much it will likely cost, we can look at the strategies used to discredit renewable energy.

Let’s look at the studies.

One of the studies frequently quoted by MIT Technology Review is the study “Geophysical constraints on the reliability of solar and wind power in the United States.” It’s available on the Internet for free, and a seemingly serious attempt to calculate scenarios of reaching 100 percent renewable electricity. Using 36 years of weather data and comparing it to US electricity demand, the study finds that:

• 80 percent of the US electricity could be provided by wind and solar power if either
• 12 hours of storage were installed or
• there were a continental-scale transmission grid.

To achieve 100 percent solar/wind power, either “several weeks worth of electricity storage” and/or “the installation of much more capacity of solar and wind power than is routinely necessary to meet peak demand” would be required. The availability of “relatively low cost, dispatchable, low CO2 emission power” would obviate the need for extra solar/wind and/or energy storage.

So far, that’s nothing new.

This study, however, goes on by calculating the cost of various scenarios of going to 100 percent renewable energy. However, none of the scenarios considered is even remotely as economical and/or realistic as a solar/wind/backup power plants/power-to-gas scenario. Instead, the study only considers 3 options, which are:

• overbuilding (no storage)
• pumped hydro storage
• battery storage.

There is no precise data on the annual costs for these options, yet it is mentioned that the costs would be $2.7 trillion, the assumed battery life would be 10 years, and the assumed discount rate would be 10 percent — which implies annual costs of $440 billion.

No reason is given why power-to-gas would be completely ignored, at a time in which it was already considered a required future technology to reach 100 percent renewables in Germany. Even precise cost data was already published in Germany (Potenzialatlas Power to Gas). Compared to today, power-to-gas was significantly more expensive at the time the study was published (and so were backup power plants to burn that gas), yet the total costs of storing electricity would have been significantly cheaper.

To get 93 percent solar/wind without storage, generating 1.5 times demand (6000 TWh) would be necessary — at that time around $270 billion. Power-to-gas (synthetic methane) to cover for the remaining 7% would have cost $185 billion, gas-fired power plants would have cost $150 billion. Total cost would have been around $600 billion. This is roughly on par with what nuclear power costs today.

To use batteries, $430 billion would have been necessary for storage alone, in addition, you would have had to generate 8000 TWhs of electricity, leading to a cost of $790 billion. This is equivalent to almost 20 cents per kilowatt-hour in cost.

Therefore, that study calculates a scenario which generates around $190 billion a year in unnecessary costs. In addition, that scenario today is outdated. As already calculated, today’s technology would lead to an annual cost of $483.5 billion. The Caldeira study, therefore, calculates a scenario that is $300 billion per year too expensive. The study is outdated, assumes the use of inadequate technology and therefore shouldn’t be of any relevance any more.

The Clean Air Task Force Study for California

In case you thought a study like the Caldeira study was highly misleading, you haven’t seen the CATF study for California. As expected, this study was reported on by MIT Technology Review as well.

The study assumes that for 100 percent renewable electricity, California alone would have to pay an annual $350 billion for storage alone. This is akin to $1.6 per kilowatt hour. As expected, that study is complete nonsense, but how on earth are such insane figures even calculated and argued for?

The most likely explanation is that this study completely ignores the possibility of overbuilding and curtailment. This is especially problematic in California, because both wind and solar power plants produce less electricity in winter. The most obvious approach to address that problem would be to build enough wind and solar power plants to provide enough electricity in winter. In summer, excess electricity generation would have to be curtailed.

Instead of this obvious approach, it appears that the Clean Air Task Force assumes that California will build giant batteries that can store all excess electricity in summer to save it for winter. Such an approach is completely absurd, as is demonstrated by the price tag of $350 billion for California alone.

Using up-to-date figures we can estimate the actual cost for California. To reach 100 percent renewable energy using solar, wind, and power-to-gas, we can estimate a total cost of $42.4 billion a year. This is akin to an LCOE of 18.4 cents, using current technology. This is still rather expensive, but not much more expensive than nuclear power. Considering the rapid cost declines for solar and wind power, it can be assumed that solar, wind, and power-to-gas will turn out to be the more economical solution for California as well.

The Hans-Werner-Sinn study for Germany

A similar study was already published in Germany, again assuming one scenario in which curtailment was not allowed. So, again, you had to store huge amounts of electricity in summer to save it for winter — 16 TWh of storage altogether to reach 89 percent solar and wind power. The second scenario didn’t allow for storage at all, which made a massive overcapacity necessary. Therefore, 61 percent of wind and solar power would have to be curtailed to reach 89 percent solar and wind power. There already is a rebuttal to that study, published by Zerrahn, Schill, and Kemfert, that showed how a compromise (allowing for 22 percent curtailment) would reduce storage needs to 1 TWh, whereas allowing for 32 percent curtailment would furthermore reduce storage needs to 432 GWh.

The Wood MacKenzie Study

Wood MacKenzie published a white paper, Deep Decarbonization requires deep pockets, estimating capital investment costs of $4.5 trillion for decarbonization using wind, solar, and batteries alone.

The Wood MacKenzie assumptions are the following:

• 1,600 gigawatts of generation (wind and solar)
• 24 hours of lithium-ion battery storage
• 200,000 miles of new high-voltage transmission at overall $700 billion in cost.

Wood MacKenzie’s assumptions are partly in contradiction to the “geophysical constraints” study. It suggests increasing solar and wind power roughly 12.3 fold, which means that there would be no overbuilding at all.

There is little indication that this would suffice to get 100 percent of solar and wind, even if you had 24 hours of battery storage (unlike 12 hours as suggested by the Caldeira study). In fact, the supplementary data provided by Caldeira shows that increasing storage capacity from 12 hours to 24 hours would have little effect on the necessity to overbuild solar and wind power plants. Since battery storage is incredibly expensive, Wood MacKenzie suggests using:

• an inadequate storage strategy
• unnecessarily much storage
• likely too little solar and wind power to actually achieve 100 percent solar and wind.

Even less justifiable is the assumption that $700 billion would have to be invested in grid expansion. Based on NREL data, it’s likely that less than one tenth of that sum needs to be invested. Even the Caldeira study “only” talks about $410 billion of grid investment.

The Jenkins–Thernstrom commentary

Jenkins, former Director for Energy and Climate Policy in the Breakthrough Institute, published one study and one commentary in Joule Magazine, which of course found that a purely wind-solar-storage solution is not a good idea. Jenkins co-authored one study and one commentary on the future of electric grid decarbonization. The study was published in November 2018, the commentary in December 2018.

The commentary points out challenges on the path to a zero emissions grid. It correctly finds that the challenges increase as renewable penetration increases. It also correctly finds that grid expansion cost are negligible compared to other costs and that greening the electricity sector is vital to green the economy.

It correctly finds that there is a necessity to overbuild. However, it finds that between 40 and 50 percent of generated electricity would have to be curtailed and finds that this would almost double the costs of the entire electricity system. This is, of course, completely outdated, since electricity from solar and wind power have fallen drastically in costs.

The study specifically mentions a possible electricity consumption increase for electricity “and fuels produced from electricity, e.g. hydrogen,” to more than 50 percent of final energy demand.

However, oddly, the study completely ignores the possibility of using exactly these fuels to green the electric grid. Producing electrolytic hydrogen and converting it to methane is not considered, arguing that “considerable uncertainty remains about the real-world cost, timing, and scalability of these storage options.” This technology (power-to-gas), which significantly reduces the costs of greening the electric grid, is completely dismissed.

There is no clear definition of “considerable uncertainty,” and Jenkins, Luke, and Thernstrom don’t mention any specifics or any studies that point to that. In fact, in 2018, various German studies (such as the DENA e-fuels study) already were very specific about the cost (and also predicted a significant cost reduction). No reason is given why that data would be completely ignored.

The commentary goes on arguing that several technologies (grid expansion, flexible demand, seasonal storage, and very-low-cost wind and solar) must all become reality, whereas other technologies such as nuclear power, CCS and enhanced geothermal energy could all fill the firm role in a low-cost, low carbon portfolio. Therefore, the commentary argues, the chances of wind, solar and storage providing 100 percent of electricity consumption are lower than the chances of wind, solar plus nuclear, CCS, or geothermal energy.

This logic has a severe flaw. First of all, very-low-cost wind and solar are very likely to become reality and partly already are reality. Just because several conditions have to be met in one scenario doesn’t mean that this scenario is less likely to work out. Jenkins writes about nuclear power, CCS, bioenergy, and enhanced geothermal energy: “Assume that each resource has only a 50 percent probability of becoming affordable and scalable within the next two decades. If all four options are pursued, however, the odds that at least one succeeds would be 94 percent.”

But you cannot do that. You cannot simply assume a certain chance. Jenkins says that these examples are “purely illustrative,” but still goes on arguing that we shouldn’t eschew the development of firm low-carbon technologies because they face challenges today.

But that’s not how it works.

To make wind and solar power cheap, to make batteries cheap, hundreds of billions of dollars had to be invested. We don’t have an infinite amount of money and an infinite amount of time. Should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars in nuclear power, CCS, and geothermal each? This is money that we couldn’t use for making wind and solar power and energy storage — all of which are proven and highly developed technologies —even cheaper. The more time and money we waste on technologies that face severe problems and are expensive, the less time and money we can use for solar, wind, and energy storage — technologies that actually work.

The Jenkins–Sepulveda–Sisternes–Lester study

Again, this study points out a barely new “finding” that a grid that merely consists of batteries, solar, and wind power is likely going to cost more than other alternatives. This is well known. This is exactly why there is investment in power-to-gas and other long-term storage technologies — for example, thermal energy storage.

Of course, again, power-to-gas is ignored entirely, therefore leaving wind-solar and storage with the only storage option of lithium-ion batteries.

What’s more worrisome about this study is the fact that the authors “propose a new taxonomy that divides low-carbon electricity technologies into three different sub-categories: ‘Fuel-saving’ variable renewables (such as solar and wind), ‘Fast burst’ balancing renewables (such as lithium-ion batteries), and ‘firm’ low carbon resources such as nuclear power plants and carbon capture and storage (CCS) power plants.”

This is a very dangerous taxonomy. If we start using it, we implicitly rule out that solar, wind, and some sort of energy storage can power the grid alone. Solar and wind power will always merely be considered an add-on to a grid that is essentially powered by some other resource.

Of course, power-to-gas could be considered a “firm” energy source. However, there is a significant difference between carbon capture and storage (CSS) and nuclear power: capital costs. Equipping a gas-fired power plant with carbon capture features would double the capital costs, which reduces its economical prospects if it isn’t used frequently. Nuclear power is even more capital-intensive and would have to be used frequently as well.

This is also confirmed by what the authors envision: What’s officially named “mid-range scenario” (presumably the most likely outcome, according to the authors) not only indicates that nuclear power will be the most important electricity source — providing around 50 percent of all electricity in the “Southern System” and around 80 percent electricity in the “Northern System.” Jenkins basically did it again: Limit wind and solar power to a maximum of around 50 percent and declare that the most important electricity source in the future will be — you guessed it — nuclear power.

However, looking at the study, you will immediately find significant flaws.

The first obvious flaw, of course, is that power-to-gas is completely ignored. This was expected.

A little less expected are the assumptions for technology costs.

For example, the mid-range costs for solar power are considered to be $900 per kilowatt. This is based on the NREL data for 2017, applying 50 percent cost reduction. In the “Very Low” scenario, solar is assumed to cost $670 per kilowatt — based on the NREL’s estimates for 2047 (Utility PV — Low).

As for wind, mid-range costs are considered 25 percent under the NREL’s “low” assumption for 2017 wind power. “Very low” wind power costs are assumed to be $927 per kilowatt — based on NREL’s estimates for 2047 wind power — (Land Base Wind, TRG 1 — Low).

At the same time, the “Conservative” assumption for nuclear power is $7,000 per kilowatt, based on Georgia Public Service Commission (PSA).

$670 per kW for solar in 2047 are likely way too pessimistic. DNV-GL, for example, now estimates that solar PV would be at 42–58 US cents per watt in 2050. The most optimistic “very low” scenario for solar, therefore, should be at $420/kW, not $670/kW. Wind energy forecasts are more conservative. Thus, wind energy projections made by Jenkins might be correct.

But taking a look at Jenkins’ envisioned grid supply, in most high-renewable scenarios, the largest part of the renewable electricity is provided by solar power anyway. Thus, underestimating the reduction of solar energy costs means to decisively overestimate total costs of a renewable energy grid.

As for nuclear power, Jenkins’ most pessimistic assumption is that nuclear power costs $7,000 per kilowatt. That is actually overly optimistic. Lazard currently estimates that nuclear power costs between $6,500 and $12,250 per kilowatt. In 2016, estimates were at $5,400–8,200 for nuclear ($8,650 for new US nuclear). This means that nuclear power actually got more expensive. Jenkins doesn’t merely assume that nuclear will reverse this trend someday, but even in his most pessimistic scenario have capital costs that would be considered at the low end of the spectrum today.

To sum it up, Jenkins makes overly optimistic cost assumptions even for his “conservative” scenario regarding nuclear. And he makes overly pessimistic assumptions even for his “low” scenario regarding solar power. So he basically compares an optimistic projection of nuclear power costs to a pessimistic projection of solar power costs and finds that nuclear power is cheaper.

Now that we have looked into some anti-renewable energy propaganda studies, we can spot a set of strategies that is used by anti-renewable propagandists to discredit renewable energy.

Ignore power-to-gas

Even pro-nuclear propagandists are very well aware of the ability to store large amounts of electricity using power-to-gas — they simply ignore it. You find Jenkins, Thernstrom, and Sepulveda mentioning that technology, but then simply go on by only calculating the costs of other, less optimal storage technologies. Sepulveda doesn’t give a reason at all for ignoring power-to-gas, Jenkins and Thernstrom dismiss scenarios that rely on power-to-gas, arguing that it “remains unproven at such large scales,” without explaining why power-to-gas, even though it is proven to work, all of a sudden would stop working if a large number of power-to-gas facilities were built.

Insisting on an inadequate storage strategy to store large amounts of energy, such as insisting on lithium-ion batteries for that task is one way to artificially inflate the costs of going renewable.

Overestimate storage needs

The study Geophysical limits talks about 12 hours of lithium-ion or pumped hydro storage needs for the USA. Wood McKenzie all of a sudden estimates 24 hours of lithium-ion storage needs for the USA, Hans-Werner Sinn estimates 16 TWh of pumped-hydro storage (more than 10 days worth of storage) for Germany, and the Clean Air Task force estimates 36.3 TWh of lithium-ion battery storage needs for California, around 46 days worth of energy storage. While the storage estimates for 12 hours of lithium-ion battery storage are already hard to justify (as there is power-to-gas as an alternative), it is quite obvious that arguing that pumped hydro or lithium-ion storage must store more than a week’s worth of electricity consumption is nonsense and designed to artificially inflate the cost estimates of a 100 percent renewable grid. This works by using the next strategy:

Ignore curtailment

The Clean Air Task Force and Hans-Werner Sinn used the strategy of simply not allowing any curtailment of renewable energy at all. This, of course, inflates the cost of storage enormously. If you do allow curtailment, you can build more wind and solar power plants than usually needed — so you have enough solar and wind power even in times of less wind or sunshine, therefore reducing storage needs. For example, to get to 90 percent solar/wind power in Germany without curtailment, you would need more than 16 TWh of storage. If you accept around 22 percent curtailment, storage needs are reduced from more than 16 TWh to 1.1 TWh.

Overestimate grid expansion needs

Another way of artificially inflating cost estimates for renewable energy is to vastly overestimate the needs of grid expansion. The NREL’s estimate is a grid expansion from 85,000 gigawatt-miles to around 116,000 gigawatt-miles for 77 percent solar and wind power. So even if we calculate that for 100 percent solar and wind power, a further expansion to 125,000 gigawatt-miles might be necessary, the costs remain moderate. 1 mile is roughly 1.61 kilometers. At $1 million per gigawatt-kilometer, therefore, it would cost around $65 billion to expand the grid to 125,000 gigawatt-miles. This puts into perspective the vastly overblown grid expansion estimates by Sepulveda (252,000 gigawatt-miles or 408,000 gigawatt-kilometers at a cost of around $410 billion) and Wood McKenzie (200,000 miles of new HVT at a cost of around $700 billion).

Ignore or underestimate progress

A review of “recent literature” by Jenkins and Thernstrom in 2017 found that getting to near-zero emissions would cost significantly more than including technologies like nuclear power and CCS. One of the studies cited by Jenkins and Thernstrom is a study by Brick and Thernstrom from 2015. This study claims to “test the outer bounds of” future scenarios, assuming rapid and significant cost declines for wind and solar: Capital costs of $1000 per kilowatt and increased costs for nuclear ($6500 per kilowatt).

“In November 2018, however, Lazard considered $6500 per kilowatt the lowest end of the price spectrum for nuclear power, whereas the highest end of the spectrum was $12,250 per kilowatt. At the same time, wind and solar were estimated to cost between $950 and $1250 per kW (solar) and between $1150 and $1550 per kW (wind). Thus, what was considered “rapid and significant cost declines” in 2015, in 2018 was already within reach.

Georg Nitsche has a master’s degree in history. He’s interested in lobbyism and propaganda, as well as in the history and future of renewable energy. 

RIGHT CLICK PRINT AND SAVE AS PDF.

2023 was a record year for wind installations as world ramps up clean energy, report says

CARLOS MUREITHI
Tue, April 16, 2024 




 Wind turbines operate on March 7, 2024, in Palm Springs, Calif. According to a new report published Tuesday, April 16, 2024, last year, marked the best year for new wind projects. (AP Photo/Ashley Landis, File)

The world installed 117 gigawatts of new wind power capacity in 2023, a 50% increase from the year before, making it the best year for new wind projects on record, according to a new report by the industry's trade association.

The latest Global Wind Report, published Tuesday by the Global Wind Energy Council, explores the state of the global wind industry and the challenges it's facing in its expansion.

The increase in wind installations “shows that the world is moving in the right direction in combating climate change,” the report said.


But the authors warned that the wind industry must increase its annual growth to at least 320 gigawatts by 2030 in order to meet the COP28 pledge to triple the world’s installed renewable energy generation capacity by 2030, as well as to meet the Paris Agreement’s ambition of capping global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit).

“It’s great to see wind industry growth picking up, and we are proud of reaching a new annual record,” said GWEC CEO Ben Backwell, “however much more needs to be done to unlock growth.”

Still, the report shows that wind is becoming “better understood and appreciated across the globe for the value it brings as a renewable energy source,” said George Aluru, CEO of the Electricity Sector Association of Kenya, an industry body for private investors in electricity.

“This increased renewable energy supply supports climate goals in line with ensuring sustainable development,” he said.

With the growing impacts of climate change, wind power and other renewable energy sources are seen as a key to reducing electricity generation from fossil fuels and mitigating climate change. Renewables are the cheapest form of electricity in many parts of the world and among the cheapest in most others.

The global cumulative wind power capacity now totals 1,021 gigawatts.

Christian Andresen, research manager at SINTEF Energy Research, a Norway-based independent institute for applied research in the energy sector, said the report shows that the wind industry is “picking up pace” by attracting investments and gaining maturity, and that may lead to a snowball effect leading to future growth.

For the planet, he said, it indicates that it is possible to ramp up to reach climate targets.

“This is an important building block in the transition towards a net-zero emission society,” said Andresen.

As was the case in 2022, China led all other countries for both new onshore and offshore wind power installations in 2023. It had 65% of new installations, and was followed by the U.S., Brazil and Germany, respectively. Together, these four countries accounted for 77% of new installations globally last year.

The report notes that growth in wind power installations is highly concentrated in a few big countries and links that to strong market frameworks to scale wind installations in those countries. The top five markets at the end of last year remained as China, the U.S., Germany, India and Spain.

Still, some other countries and regions are coming up, having witnessed record levels of growth in 2023.

Africa and the Middle East installed nearly 1 gigawatt of wind power capacity in 2023, almost triple that of the previous year. With upcoming projects in South Africa, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the report predicts that new onshore wind additions for Africa and the Middle East will grow fivefold by 2028 compared with 2023.

Some of the markets to watch include Kenya, where windpower provides around 17% of electricity, the report said. The country has the largest wind farm in Africa, the 310-megawatt Lake Turkana Wind Power Project, and the report notes new planned large-scale wind projects in the country, including a 1-gigawatt wind park by local power generator KenGen.

But building wind power installations is expensive and entails high up-front investments, and emerging and developing countries face higher cost of capital and pay higher loan rates to build out their wind, the report said.

Wind energy also faces supply chain and grid challenges, and innovation in the electricity system is needed to integrate intermittent wind energy onto the grid while retaining reliability, said Erin Baker, professor of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research at the University of Massachusetts. Offshore wind, she said as an example, has some very specialized equipment and manufacturing, and also requires expertise in finance and business models.

But the accelerating growth of wind energy, as shown in the report, means that countries are developing the supply chains needed to keep this growth up, and it will “almost certainly” lead to reductions in cost and improvements in the technology as more and more is built around the world, she said.

“The recent growth, and nations support for the wind industry, are hopeful signs that the supply chain is being established,” said Baker.

__


Group Says Record 117 GW of New Wind Power Generation Installed in 2023

Darrell Proctor
Tue, April 16, 2024 



A report from a leading wind power trade association said a record 117 GW of new wind energy generation capacity was installed worldwide last year, a 50% increase from the prior year. The "Global Wind Report 2024," published April 16 by the Global Wind Energy Council, said "the world is moving in the right direction in combating climate change" but also said growth in wind power still lags the generation capacity needed to meet climate goals set by global governments. The report said that cumulative global wind power capacity now totals 1,021 GW. The report's authors said that annual growth, though, needs to reach at least 320 GW by the end of this decade to meet the goals outlined at last year's COP28 climate conference, as well as the targets of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change. Jonathan Cole, CEO of London, UK-based Corio Generation and chair of the Global Wind Energy Council, wrote, "Looking at this year’s 'Global Wind Report,' we can see strong progress by the wind industry in commissioning huge volumes of renewable energy. 2023 saw the highest number of new installations in history for onshore wind [over 100 GW] and second highest for offshore wind [11 GW]. We passed the symbolic milestone of 1 TW installed globally and, at the current rate, we expect to hit 2 TW before 2030." Cole noted, though, that "Nonetheless we must acknowledge, firstly, that this rate of growth still leaves us far short of the tripling target and, secondly, that our sector has been tested by the tough macroeconomic environment. Global inflationary pressures, rising cost of capital and fragility in the supply chain have affected our ability to ramp up in many regions. Given the urgency of the action needed, we do not have time to retreat and wait for these problems to go away—we need decisive action by our political and industrial leaders to address the big challenges before us."

China Remains Global Leader

The report said China remains the global leader in building wind power generation capacity, with 65% of new installations in 2023. The U.S., Brazil, and Germany are in the next three spots, with those three along with China accounting for 77% of new installed wind power last year. The top five markets for wind power in 2023 were the same as the prior year: China, the U.S., Germany, India, and Spain. Other areas of growth include Africa and the Middle East, which installed about 1 GW of new capacity last year, nearly three times the capacity that came online there in 2022. The report's authors said they expect onshore wind power additions will grow nearly fivefold by 2028 compared to 2023 levels, thanks to new installations in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and South Africa. The report noted Kenya as a country to watch. Wind power provides about 17% of Kenya's electricity, and that country is home to Africa's largest wind farm, the 310-MW Lake Turkana Wind Power Project that came online in 2019. Kenya Electricity Generating Co. (KenGen) is planning to build a 1-GW wind project in the country's northwestern region, in Marsabit. KenGen has said that project will be built in phases and is expected to be fully operational in 2028. Kenya is among country's that has a goal of receiving 100% of its electricity from renewable energy resources by 2030. The country already receives about 92% of its power from renewables, with nearly half from geothermal and about 30% from hydro.

Reaching 2 TW of Capacity

Ben Backwell, CEO of GWEC, said it took the world "over 40 years to reach the 1-TW mark of worldwide installed wind power," and noted there are now just seven years "to install the next 2 TW. While this is possible, it will require an unprecedented level of focus, determination, collaboration and ingenuity to reach the goal." Backwell said, "An unprecedented number of countries have now established ambitious national targets—particularly those with strong offshore resources—including major industrial economies and large emerging markets such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, Vietnam, the Philippines and Kenya. Supporting these countries to push through regulatory complexity and scale up investment will play a big part in accelerating wind installations beyond 300 GW per year." Feng Zhao, head of strategy and market intelligence for GWEC, said, "After two years of relatively ‘low’ growth, onshore wind installations in China bounced back in 2023 with more than 69 GW commissioned, a new record. In the U.S., despite a last-quarter rush, with developers installing more new wind capacity in Q4 2023 than in the previous three quarters combined, only 6.4 GW of onshore wind capacity was added for the entire year, the lowest level since 2014." Zhao noted that "Total onshore wind additions in North America dropped to 8.1 GW last year, 16% lower than 2022. The decline was driven primarily by the slowdown of onshore wind growth in the world’s second-largest wind power market—the U.S." The U.S. wind power industry is poised to add more generation capacity; the offshore wind sector already has announced multiple gigawatt-scale projects this year. Construction continues on the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind installation, which is expected online in 2026. The project's 2.6 GW of generation capacity would make it the largest wind power facility in the U.S. —

Darrell Proctor is a senior associate editor for POWER (@POWERmagazine).

Offshore wind farms off Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard: A guide of what to know

Heather McCarron, Cape Cod Times
Fri, January 27, 2023

With more than 95,000 miles of coastline in the United States, why is Massachusetts the proverbial gold rush for offshore wind? What makes it so special that the waters off its coast are called the "Saudi Arabia" of wind power?

With one offshore wind project well underway and others in progress, Massachusetts is leading the way in the nation's green energy expansion and meeting the goals set for reducing carbon emissions.

How many wind farms areas are there? When will the first wind-powered electricity start to flow into the grid? How will the electricity get from offshore into your home? How will it affect your electricity bill? And how does it all help the environment?

Keep reading to find the answers to these, and more, questions related to offshore wind.

What makes Massachusetts the 'Saudi Arabia' of wind?

Jeff Plaisted, of Eastham, with IBEW Local 223, operates a winch unspooling 3,000 feet of electric cable being pulled under Craigville Beach Road toward Covell Beach in Centerville on Jan. 10, 2023. The cable will join the offshore cable for the Vineyard Wind project. The line will carry 220,000 volts of electricity.

Anthony Kirincich, a scientist who studies physical oceanography at the Woods Hole Oceanaographic Institution, said it's a combination of factors, but the main one has to do with the atmospheric conditions that drive the weather as well as the oceans.

The really quick answer, he said, is the larger scale atmospheric flow patterns — the polar jet stream and the subtropical jet stream — "kind of draw together" and accelerate as everything moves from west to east.

"We in Massachusetts happen to be right at that place where convergences take place," he said.

The consistently strong wind patterns off the Massachusetts coast, particularly south of Martha's Vineyard, are borne out in the 2016 Offshore Wind Energy Resource Assessment for the United States from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

But other factors than atmospheric patterns converge here to make it ideal for offshore wind power production.

"Not only are the winds fairly strong, the continental shelf — the bottom of the ocean — is shallower," Kirincich said.

State Rep. Jeffrey Roy, D-Franklin, chairman of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy who has long supported offshore wind power development, summarized, "essentially, Massachusetts has a unique combination of; one, consistent, high-speed winds within distance from shore; two, shallow waters; and, three, substantial shoreline."

Wind resource maps show that wind speeds off the Massachusetts coast are slightly above 9 meters per second. A map from the Marine Cadastre National Viewer, compiled with data from National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Wind Integration National Dataset (WIND) Toolkit, shows how windspeed decreases as you move south along the East Coast, down to about 7 meters per second off Florida.
Offshore wind farms: Who is building them? who owns the waters? And who assigns the leases?

The offshore lease areas are in federal waters on the outer continental shelf south of Martha's Vineyard, southeast of Rhode Island's Narragansett Bay and west of Montauk Point on Long Island, New York. Together they amount to about 800,000 acres.

"Waters in the outer continental shelf are considered public waters, so nobody owns them in the traditional sense of the word; however, they are considered federal — not state — waters because the federal government holds and manages them for the public good," Roy said.

The federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, an agency within the Department of Interior, assigns the leases. Permitting and environmental reviews are done at the federal, state, regional, local and tribal levels.

After a Construction and Operations Plan is approved, each lessee has an operating term of 25 years.

Here are the offshore wind projects in Massachusetts and Rhode Island

Several offshore wind areas are in the outer continental shelf south of Martha's Vineyard, each at different stages of development and each variously landing in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New York, according to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. They include:

What is Vineyard Wind?

Touted as the nation's first commercial-scale offshore wind enterprise, Vineyard Wind 1 is an 800-megawatt project that is co-owned by Avangrid Renewables, LLC and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners. Power will go to Massachusetts and provide electricity to 400,000 homes, according to Avangrid.

What is Park City Wind?

An 804-megawatt project owned by Avangrid Renewables. This project is the first phase of a larger project called New England Wind and will occupy the northeast portion of the company's offshore lease area. Energy from Park City Wind will go Connecticut.

What is Commonwealth Wind?

A 1,232-megawatt project owned by Avangrid Renewables. This project is the second phase of New England Wind and will occupy the southwest portion of the company's offshore lease area. Power will go to Massachusetts and provide electricity to 700,000 homes.

What is Mayflower Wind?

A joint venture between Shell and Ocean Winds, this project has the potential to generate more than 2,400 megawatts of power. At this point, Mayflower Wind has contracts to produce about 1,200 megawatts, which will go to Massachusetts.

What is Revolution Wind?

A project owned jointly by Ørsted U.S. Offshore Wind and Eversource that will bring 304 megawatts to Connecticut and 400 megawatts to Rhode Island. The transmission cable is planned to land in North Kingston, Rhode Island.

What is South Fork Wind?

A 132-megawatt project owned jointly by Ørsted US Offshore .Wind and Eversource, with 12 turbines planned about 35 miles east of Montauk Point. Bringing power to the local grid in East Hampton, New York. A construction and operations plan was approved last year and onshore work is underway. Offshore work is set to start this spring.

What is Sunrise Wind?

A 924-megawatt project jointly owned by Ørsted U.S. Offshore Wind and Eversource to serve New York. The construction and operation plan is in progress, permitting has yet to start. The transmission cable is expected to land in central Long Island.

What is Beacon Wind?

A 1,230-megawatt project owned by Equinor and bp to serve New York. Permitting is yet to start. No cable landing site has been identified.

What are the advantages of wind power?

Wind power helps the environment by eliminating the use of fossil fuels in power generation and reducing emissions. Each wind project benefits the overall health of the environment.

For example, Vineyard Wind 1 will eliminate 1.68 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year, according to the company. That is the same as taking 325,000 cars off the road.

Commonwealth Wind is looking at cutting greenhouse gas emissions by more than 2.35 million tons annually, which is like taking another 460,000 cars off the road, while Park City Wind would reduce emissions by 1.59 million tons a year (310,000 car equivalent).
How will wind-generated energy impact your electricity bill?

With wind power in the mix, wholesale electricity rates won't be as sensitive to changes in the market as fossil fuels.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, natural gas was the largest source of energy for electricity production in the U.S. in 2021, accounting for about 38%, followed by coal at 22% and petroleum at less than 1%. Other sources are nuclear energy and renewable energy.

When fossil fuel prices go up, or supplies are short, electricity rates rise. With power from offshore wind flowing through the grid, there will be less volatility and generally lower rates overall, Ian Campbell of Vineyard Wind said.

Where are the Massachusetts-bound wind projects connecting to shore?

Vineyard Wind has already landed two, 230-kilovolt power export cables at Barnstable's Covell Beach. These will eventually be connected to the wind farm south of Martha's Vineyard.

Commonwealth Wind is proposing to land three cables at Barnstable's Dowses Beach, a plan that has drawn strong opposition from neighbors. An ad hoc community group called Save Greater Dowses Beach is circulating a petition, both on paper and online via Change.org, to stop the company's plans.

Concerned in Barnstable:Cold wind blows on proposed offshore cable landing at Dowses Beach

Park City Wind's plan calls for bringing two 400-megawatt transmission cables ashore at Barnstable's Craigville Beach.

Mayflower Wind is exploring landing sites in Falmouth but has also met with some criticism. Somerset is another possible landing site. On Dec. 19, the Falmouth Select Board turned down the company's request to explore three public sites for possible electric cables — officials said they took the action because of unanswered questions from the public.

When will wind turbines be built off Cape Cod?

Vineyard Wind completed permitting in 2020, broke ground in 2021 and is on track to be fully operational in 2024.

Environmental review and state and local permitting are ongoing for Park City Wind, Commonwealth Wind and Mayflower Wind.

Jeff Plaisted, of Eastham, with the IBEW local 223, operates a winch unspooling 3,000 feet of electric cable being pulled under Craigville Beach Road toward Covell's Beach in Centerville on Jan. 10, 2023. The cable will connect to the Vineyard Wind project south of Martha's Vineyard.

Park City Wind is more than halfway through the process. According to the company, it has completed the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act environmental review process and a substantial portion of the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) review process. Benchmarks for 2023 include hearings by the Cape Cod Commission and the Barnstable Conservation Commission. It is scheduled to begin delivering power in 2025.

On track to bring power ashore this yearOffshore wind company lays final cable at Barnstable beach. What is next?

Commonwealth Wind is early in the permitting and environmental review process, with a goal to be online by the end of 2027.

When will power from wind energy come ashore in Massachusetts?

Vineyard Wind is on track to bring its first wind-generated power ashore later this year, and expects to be fully operational by next year.

Park City Wind expects to bring power ashore starting in 2025, followed by Commonwealth Wind in 2027 and Mayflower Wind in 2028.
How much does it cost to build a commercial-scale wind farm?

The cost of developing an offshore wind project runs into the billions. The various companies tend to keep their exact costs close to the vest for competitive reasons, but as an example, Vineyard Wind CEO Klaus Moeller says his company secured $2.3 billion from nine banks around the world.
How have world events caused wind farm construction costs to increase?

What's troubling offshore wind companies that are still early in their permitting process is a sharp increase in prices owing to international market conditions and burgeoning worldwide interest in offshore wind development. Executives with New England Wind at a January open house about Park City Wind pointed at the war in Ukraine, record increases in interest rates, inflation, supply chain issues and exploding demand for wind farms in Europe and elsewhere as causes.

Criticism in FalmouthMayflower Wind responds, after criticism in Falmouth over communication

The war in Ukraine particularly has "wreaked havoc" on the cost of steel, a key component in the construction of wind turbines, according to the project's manager of external affairs Pat Johnson. He said the Russian invasion of Ukraine highlights the need for alternative, more stable energy sources, consequently bumping up interest in offshore wind development in Europe and elsewhere.

Mayflower Wind is targeting the end of January 2024 to have its environmental review and permitting completed. The company is looking to start delivering power by 2028.

Johnson said while Park City Wind and Commonwealth Wind were bid in 2019 and 2021, their supply chain contracts were not locked in because there were still years of permitting ahead. Now, given the world economic situation, "projects that were profitable under yesterday's economic conditions are no longer profitable."

For this reason, Avangrid is planning to re-bid its projects while continuing with the permitting already underway. Commonwealth Wind will do this with the next Massachusetts offshore wind power procurement round in April, and the company is working with Connecticut officials either to renegotiate their existing contract or go to bid again.
How many wind turbines does each wind farm plan to install?

Vineyard Wind is planning a total of 62 General Electric Haliade-X turbines, spaced 1 nautical mile apart. Each turbine will be able to generate up to 13 megawatts

Park City Wind plans 50 turbines. There is no turbine count for Commonwealth Wind, since Avangrid has not yet made a final turbine selection for the project. Turbines will be spaced 1 nautical mile apart.

Mayflower Wind also has yet to determine the number of turbines. The number of turbines needed depends on the type of turbine that will be used.
So, how big is a wind turbine and its blades?

Just how big are the turbines? That really depends on the type of turbine used.

Vineyard Wind's General Electric Haliade-X turbines can serve as an example, though. Each of these turbines include a monopile that will anchor it to the seafloor, topped by a transitional piece at the surface, then a tower topped by a nacelle and the blades. Each blade is 107 meters, or almost the length of a football field including the end zones (109.7 meters). The height of each turbine is about the same as three Statues of Liberty stacked up, (about 850 feet) from blade tip to the water's surface.

According to the U.S. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, this scale is typical for offshore wind turbines. The greater heights and longer blades allow each turbine to create more energy more efficiently, therefore fewer turbines are needed to produce the same power that shorter turbines with shorter blades would generate.
Wind Turbines: How offshore wind power works

Wind turbines work on a simple principle, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy notes: "Wind turns the propeller-like blades of a turbine around a rotor, which spins a generator, which creates electricity."

Specifically, the kinetic (or moving) energy of wind is converted into electricity using the aerodynamic force from the blades.

"When wind flows across the blade, the air pressure on one side of the blade decreases. The difference in air pressure across the two sides of the blade creates both lift and drag," according to the agency. "The force of the lift is stronger than the drag and this causes the rotor to spin."

The rotor, in turn, creates rotation in a generator that converts the mechanical energy into electricity. The power is collected by an offshore substation before it is transmitted ashore through submarine cables, is run through on-shore substations and finally enters the power distribution grid. In the case of offshore power, the electricity travels under the seabed at higher voltages than onshore because it is more efficient. Onshore substations put the power through a series of transformers to downgrade the voltage so it is compatible with the capacity of the distribution lines.
Offshore wind versus onshore wind power

Offshore wind is just getting started in Massachusetts, but the state is no stranger to wind power. It is home to more than 44 land-based wind farms in more than 30 communities, according to the state Renewable and Alternative Energy Division. Collectively they generate more than 100 megawatts of power.

When it comes to power-generating capacity, offshore wind is the real workhorse because the ocean environment provides higher and more consistent wind speeds.
What are the advantages of wind power?

Wind power helps the environment by eliminating the use of fossil fuels in power generation and reducing emissions. Each wind project benefits the overall health of the environment.

For example, Vineyard Wind 1 will eliminate 1.68 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year, according to the company. That is the same as taking 325,000 cars off the road.

Commonwealth Wind is looking at cutting greenhouse gas emissions by more than 2.35 million tons annually, which is like taking another 460,000 cars off the road, while Park City Wind would reduce emissions by 1.59 million tons a year (310,000 car equivalent).

Contact Heather McCarron at hmccarron@capecodonline.com.

Gain access to premium Cape Cod Times content by subscribing. Check out our subscription offers.

This article originally appeared on Cape Cod Times: Offshore wind energy projects: A guide of wind turbines to dates

Hydropower plants to support solar and wind energy in West Africa

KU LEUVEN

IMAGE: SOLAR STREET LIGHTING IN NIGER. view more 

CREDIT: SEBASTIAN STERL

Hydropower plants can support solar and wind power, rather unpredictable by nature, in a climate-friendly manner. A new study in the scientific journal Nature Sustainability has now mapped the potential for such "solar-wind-water" strategies for West Africa: an important region where the power sector is still under development, and where generation capacity and power grids will be greatly expanded in the coming years. "Countries in West Africa therefore now have the opportunity to plan this expansion according to strategies that rely on modern, climate-friendly energy generation," says Sebastian Sterl, energy and climate scientist at Vrije Universiteit Brussel and KU Leuven and lead author of the study. "A completely different situation from Europe, where power supply has been dependent on polluting power plants for many decades - which many countries now want to rid themselves of."

Solar and wind power generation is increasing worldwide and becoming cheaper and cheaper. This helps to keep climate targets in sight, but also poses challenges. For instance, critics often argue that these energy sources are too unpredictable and variable to be part of a reliable electricity mix on a large scale.

"Indeed, our electricity systems will have to become much more flexible if we are to feed large amounts of solar and wind power into the grid. Flexibility is currently mostly provided by gas power plants. Unfortunately, these cause a lot of CO2 emissions," says Sebastian Sterl, energy and climate expert at Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) and KU Leuven. "But in many countries, hydropower plants can be a fossil fuel-free alternative to support solar and wind energy. After all, hydropower plants can be dispatched at times when insufficient solar and wind power is available."


Hydropower plant in Gui, Ghana.

The research team, composed of experts from VUB, KU Leuven, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), and Climate Analytics, designed a new computer model for their study, running on detailed water, weather and climate data. They used this model to investigate how renewable power sources in West Africa could be exploited as effectively as possible for a reliable power supply, even without large-scale storage. All this without losing sight of the environmental impact of large hydropower plants.

"This is far from trivial to calculate," says Prof. Wim Thiery, climate scientist at the VUB, who was also involved in the study. "Hydroelectric power stations in West Africa depend on the monsoon; in the dry season they run on their reserves. Both sun and wind, as well as power requirements, have their own typical hourly, daily and seasonal patterns. Solar, wind and hydropower all vary from year to year and may be impacted by climate change. In addition, their potential is spatially very unevenly distributed."

West African Power Pool

The study demonstrates that it will be particularly important to create a "West African Power Pool", a regional interconnection of national power grids. Countries with a tropical climate, such as Ghana and the Ivory Coast, typically have a lot of potential for hydropower and quite high solar radiation, but hardly any wind. The drier and more desert-like countries, such as Senegal and Niger, hardly have any opportunities for hydropower, but receive more sunlight and more wind. The potential for reliable, clean power generation based on solar and wind power, supported by flexibly dispatched hydropower, increases by more than 30% when countries can share their potential regionally, the researchers discovered.

All measures taken together would allow roughly 60% of the current electricity demand in West Africa to be met with complementary renewable sources, of which roughly half would be solar and wind power and the other half hydropower - without the need for large-scale battery or other storage plants. According to the study, within a few years, the cost of solar and wind power generation in West Africa is also expected to drop to such an extent that the proposed solar-wind-water strategies will provide cheaper electricity than gas-fired power plants, which currently still account for more than half of all electricity supply in West Africa.

Better ecological footprint

Hydropower plants can have a considerable negative impact on local ecology. In many developing countries, piles of controversial plans for new hydropower plants have been proposed. The study can help to make future investments in hydropower more sustainable. "By using existing and planned hydropower plants as optimally as possible to massively support solar and wind energy, one can at the same time make certain new dams superfluous," says Sterl. "This way two birds can be caught with one stone. Simultaneously, one avoids CO2 emissions from gas-fired power stations and the environmental impact of hydropower overexploitation."

Left: current policy plans Right: West African Power Pool scenario

Global relevance

The methods developed for the study are easily transferable to other regions, and the research has worldwide relevance. Sterl: "Nearly all regions with a lot of hydropower, or hydropower potential, could use it to compensate shortfalls in solar and wind power." Various European countries, with Norway at the front, have shown increased interest in recent years to deploy their hydropower to support solar and wind power in EU countries. Exporting Norwegian hydropower during times when other countries undergo solar and wind power shortfalls, the European energy transition can be advanced.

###