Myth: Cost of solar and wind power can be directly compared to fossil fuel power

Myth: Cost of solar and wind power can be directly compared to fossil fuel power

Written by Tushar V. Choudhary (Author of the Books: "Critical Comparison of Low-Carbon Technologies" & "Climate and Energy Decoded")

The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) metric is commonly used to compare the electricity costs from these technologies. Such comparisons are widely used to argue that the electricity generated from solar and wind has lower cost than that from fossil fuels. As discussed below, this is scientifically incorrect.

Solar and wind technologies provide electricity on an intermittent basis, i.e., they lack the functionality to meet 24X7 electricity demand. On the other hand, fossil fuel and nuclear power plants provide 24X7 electricity. The U.S. Energy Information Administration lists solar and wind in a separate category because of this important distinction?[1]. Solar and wind are listed as resource-constrained technologies, while nuclear and fossil fuel power plants are listed as dispatchable technologies.?

The intermittency challenge of solar and wind causes imbalance between electricity production and demand [2,3]. Electricity is only generated during certain hours of the day in case of solar and wind. But electricity demand exists around-the-clock, which causes an imbalance. The imbalance is addressed by lowering or increasing the output from the dispatchable power plants [4,5].

Essentially, the dispatchable power plants are forced to sacrifice their performance to accommodate solar and wind power. This forced inefficient use of the dispatchable power plants causes an overall sub-optimization of the electrical grid [6]. This increases the overall electricity cost [7].

The forced curtailing (i.e., restricting) of electricity production from solar or wind is another instance of sub-optimization [8]. For example, California was forced to curtail 1,500,000,000 kWh of electricity production from solar in 2020 because of the imbalance between production and demand [9]. How much is 1,500,000,000 kWh? The global average consumption of electricity per person in 2020 was about 3300 kWh [10]. Thus, in 2020, California was forced to curtail the amount of electricity that would have met the needs of over 400,000 individuals.

The share of electricity generation from solar in California was only about 15% in 2020 [11]. Despite these low levels, California was forced to curtail about 5% of its utility-scale solar electricity production in 2020. These forced curtailments are expected to increase significantly with increasing solar deployment [12,13].

Sub-optimization of the electrical grid has a negative impact on the economics [14]. The extent of sub-optimization increases with increasing deployment of solar and wind power in the grid [15]. Consequently, wide-scale deployment of solar and wind is costly.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recently co-published a comprehensive report on this topic [16]. The report provides an example estimate for the cost penalty resulting from the sub-optimization caused by solar and wind. A 10% deployment of solar and wind was found to add a 5% cost penalty to the total electricity cost. Notably, a 50% deployment of solar and wind was found to penalize the total electricity cost by over 40%.?

The penalty results from the extra costs related to the deficiencies of solar and wind?[17]. These additional costs arise from the variability of power output, uncertainty in power generation and increase in costs for transmission and distribution associated with solar and wind power [18].

The costs that are routinely reported in media do not include the cost penalties. Thus, the reported costs do not reflect the true costs for solar and wind power. Only partial costs of solar and wind power are widely reported in media. Consequently, the reported costs cannot be directly compared with dispatchable technologies.

Media is flooded with articles advertising that solar and wind power is cost competitive with fossil fuel power. Such cost comparisons are misleading unless the shortcomings and related implications are also highlighted. Unfortunately, valid cost comparisons are not discussed in media. By excluding crucial information, these media reports provide an incorrect perception about the true cost of a low-carbon transition.

Summary: Solar and wind cannot generate 24X7 electricity on a standalone basis. Therefore, their costs cannot be directly compared with technologies that can generate 24X7 electricity. The effect of intermittency must be included in a realistic cost comparison. When the intermittency deficiency is included in the cost estimate, the costs for solar and wind power increase significantly. The cost increase is directly proportional to the extent of deployment. Higher solar and wind power in the electrical grid equals higher cost penalty. Unfortunately, most publications focus only on the partial costs of solar and wind power, i.e., they exclude costs related to the intermittency deficiency of solar and wind power [19].

References

  1. U.S. Energy Information Administration: Levelized cost of new generation resources in the annual energy outlook 2021.?https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
  2. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2015): Overgeneration from solar energy in California.?https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/65023.pdf
  3. National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Ten years of analyzing the duck chart.?https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2018/10-years-duck-curve.html
  4. Note: Due to the crucial need for balancing electricity supply and demand,?solar or wind?cannot be deployed on a standalone basis.?To illustrate this point, consider a small town, which is currently being powered by a combination of coal and natural gas plants. If 100% production of electricity is replaced by solar technology, the town will not receive adequate electricity for a significant fraction of a 24-hour period (e.g., evening through dawn, or when there is a cloud cover).?Therefore, solar and wind need dispatchable technologies such as fossil fuel power plants or nuclear power plants to address their intermittency shortcoming.?
  5. Note: A case study is helpful to further discuss the issue.?Consider a region, where electricity is provided by natural gas fueled plants, coal fueled plants, and nuclear plants. Due to the dispatchable nature (ability to match demand with electricity production) of the power plants and the significant flexible features of natural gas power plants, the region can be reliably powered with electricity 24 hours a day and 7 days a week (24X7) for the entire year with the above discussed combination of power plants. Now, let us consider the case where significant amount of solar power is added to replace some of the older coal plants. Solar technology will provide electricity only in the hours when there is sunlight. The other power plants will have to be ramped up or down depending on the electricity demand to address the problems attributed to the non-dispatchable solar plants.?In other words, the dispatchable technologies are indirectly subsidizing solar and wind.
  6. OECD and NEA report (2019): System costs with high share of nuclear energy and renewables.?https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_15000/the-costs-of-decarbonisation-system-costs-with-high-shares-of-nuclear-and-renewables?details=true
  7. OECD and NEA report (2012): The costs of decarbonization. Nuclear Energy and Renewables. System effects in low carbon low carbon electricity systems.?https://www.oecd.org/publications/nuclear-energy-and-renewables-9789264188617-en.htm
  8. California ISO: Managing Oversupply.?https://www.caiso.com/informed/Pages/ManagingOversupply.aspx
  9. U.S. EIA: California’s curtailment of solar electricity generation continues to increase.?https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49276
  10. Note: Estimation based on total 2020 global electricity consumption and 2020 global population data. Electricity generation was converted to electricity consumption using an assumption of 5% loss in transmission and distribution.?https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2021-full-report.pdf https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL
  11. California Energy Commission. California solar energy statistics and data.?https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/renewables_data/solar/index_cms.php
  12. U.S. EIA: California’s curtailment of solar electricity generation continues to increase.?https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49276
  13. Note:?Supplementary technologies such as energy storage or super grids can circumvent this problem. For example, when solar is combined with adequate energy storage, the combination can meet round-the-clock annual electricity demand. Therefore, electricity costs from solar with energy storage can be directly compared with fossil fuel power plants for wide-scale deployment. However, the costs for solar or wind with energy storage are extremely high. For example, the?upfront cost?of solar power plant with adequate energy storage is over?five timeshigher than a natural gas power plant.?
  14. OECD NEA report: Nuclear Energy and Renewables. System effects in low carbon electricity systems.?https://www.oecd.org/publications/nuclear-energy-and-renewables-9789264188617-en.htm
  15. IEA: Projected costs of generating electricity 2020.?https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020
  16. OECD NEA report (2019): System costs with high share of nuclear energy and renewables.?https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_15000/the-costs-of-decarbonisation-system-costs-with-high-shares-of-nuclear-and-renewables?details=true
  17. Note: True costs are obtained by including additional costs such as utilization costs, balancing costs and grid costs to the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). Unfortunately, only LCOE costs are widely communicated in media. Since the profile cost, balancing costs and grid costs are much higher for solar and wind power, the exclusive reporting of LCOE costs by the media is misleading about the true costs of solar and wind power.
  18. OECD NEA report (2019): System costs with high share of nuclear energy and renewables.?https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_15000/the-costs-of-decarbonisation-system-costs-with-high-shares-of-nuclear-and-renewables?details=true
  19. Note: Solar and wind power are important solutions for addressing climate change because of their miniscule greenhouse gases emissions and other advantages.?This article is mainly a comment on the specific myth. Individual articles cannot provide a complete perspective on such complex topics. For more information on other widespread misconceptions and a complete picture about climate and energy, refer to the book "Climate and Energy Decoded".?

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Tushar Choudhary, Ph.D.的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了