In these difficult days, Record new renewable energy capacity this year and next: IEA by Nina Chestney sheds some light in the unending and stuffy tunnel that the world’s economy finds itself stuck-in. Wind turbines lining the roads, roof mounted solar panels generating energy for all are more and more visible even in the MENA region, oil exporters or not.
LONDON, Nov 10 (Reuters) – Record levels of new renewable energy capacity are set to come on stream this year and next, while fossil fuel capacity will fall due to an economic slump and the COVID-19 crisis, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in a report.
In its annual renewables outlook, the IEA said new additions of renewables capacity worldwide would increase by 4% from last year to a record 198 gigawatts (GW) this year.
This means renewables will account for almost 90% of the increase in total power capacity worldwide this year.
Supply chain disruptions and construction delays slowed the progress of renewable energy projects in the first six months of this year due to the coronavirus pandemic.
However, the construction of plants and manufacturing activity has ramped up again, and logistical challenges have been mostly resolved, the IEA said.
Electricity generated by renewables will increase by 7% globally this year, despite a 5% annual drop in global energy demand, the largest since World War Two.
Next year, renewable capacity additions are on track for a rise of almost 10%, which would be the fastest growth since 2015.
“Renewable power is defying the difficulties caused by the pandemic, showing robust growth while others fuels struggle,” said Dr Fatih Birol, the IEA’s executive director.
Policymakers need to support the strong momentum behind renewables growth and if policy uncertainties are addressed, renewable energy capacity additions could reach 271 GW in 2022,the IEA said.
In 2025, renewables are set to become the largest source of electricity generation worldwide, supplying one third of the world’s electricity, and ending coal’s five decades as the topglobal power source, the report said.
Reporting by Nina Chestney; Editing by Mark Potter
According to the World Energy Outlook 2019, almost 1 billion people in the world today do not have access to reliable electricity. As the world continues to lift people out of poverty and bring access to electricity to deep corners of the world, the global energy requirements, including for electricity and for industry, are going to go up.
At the same time, it is widely accepted that we need to find different energy sources. Carbon intensive sources like fuelwood, coal and natural gas need to be phased out as we build a climate-resilient world. Several authorities have come onboard the need for low-carbon energy generation. (And even if you don’t believe in the CO2-induced theory of climate change, the fact remains that using fuelwood, coal and gas-based energy generation has terrible health consequences.)
Discussing low-carbon energy invariably leads to a big debate: Renewables vs nuclear.According to you, which form of low-carbon should the world depend on?Renewable energyNuclear energyI’ll answer this after reading the article (okay! There’s another poll at the end for you!)VoteView ResultsCrowdsignal.comAdvertisementsabout:blankREPORT THIS AD
Option 1: Renewable energy (solar and wind)
When we talk of renewables, most people stress on solar and wind energy.
Solar and wind have become increasingly popular in the last two decades. They are being promoted as the energy sources of the future because they do not emit GHGs during electricity production. Even their emissions during manufacturing and decommissioning pale compared to other forms of energy. Energy generation from renewables is expected to grow by 300% by 2040 due to their popularity and advancements in battery storage technology.
Solar and wind farms are also easier and faster to build compared to most other sources of energy.
They are flexible and can ramp energy production up or down at a moment’s notice, depending on the demand. This is important in today’s energy use scenario. For example, if a popular TV show runs from 9:00 – 9:30 PM, we will see a spike in energy demands at 9 PM followed by a dip in demands at 9:30 PM. We also have situations of negative demand, when people generate more electricity (from their rooftop solar) than they use and supply the surplus to the grid. In such cases, other sources of energy would need to ramp down. Such situations place undue stress on the grids, which renewables can easily handle.
The biggest advantage from solar and wind is their independence from the grid. Set up panels or windmills on your rooftop and you can produce your own electricity without depending on the grid! This ability makes these options attractive in unelectrified areas and areas very far from electricity generation plants.Advertisementshttps://c0.pubmine.com/sf/0.0.3/html/safeframe.htmlREPORT THIS AD
Option 2: Nuclear energy
Nuclear energy is not new; nuclear power plants have existed since the 1950s. Nuclear power plants also do not emit GHGs during electricity production and are a good low-carbon energy source. Several features of nuclear energy make it a superb source of energy for the future.
The most impressive by far is its power density: nuclear energy produces more power per unit volume than any other form of electricity source we know. This also makes them space-efficient. Even their waste products can be contained within a small space, compared to the waste generated by decommissioned solar and wind infrastructure.
They are stable and reliable. If the nuclear power plant works properly, we can be guaranteed a given amount of electricity at all times. This is key in industrial areas and urban centers where the demand for energy rarely fluctuates. Often, these areas are also well-connected to the grid and require large amounts of power, making nuclear a more attractive option than the intermittent, power-thin renewables.
Contrary to popular belief, it is safe. Nuclear disasters have occurred largely due to mismanagement and primitive technology, both of which are avoidable in today’s world. Nuclear wastes also need not be dangerous if proper precautions are taken and protocols are diligently followed.
However, solar and wind are far from ideal…
Solar and wind have their fair share of criticisms.
First, they are intermittent: we cannot get reliable electricity throughout the day, month or year from either of these sources. This means we need a back-up—either through battery storage (who’s capacity is still low) or through coal/natural gas plants (kind of beats the purpose)—or we need a combination of different renewable energy sources that can feed support each other. The need for backup, along with the new grid infrastructure we need to interconnect different renewable sources, has increased the cost of electricity for consumers even though the cost of energy has gone down.
Second, they have low power densities; they produce low energy per unit volume compared to fossil fuels and nuclear. This means that if we tried to power the world entirely by a combination of different renewable energy sources, we would need A LOT space. For example, if the entire world was to be powered by solar, we would need a land area the size of South Africa. Not at all efficient.
Third, the infrastructure we create for wind and solar has a lifespan of 25-30 years. What happens at the end of their lifespan? Disposing solar panels and windmills are a huge pain, requiring massive infrastructure to recycle their components. If we didn’t recycle them, we would dump them in landfills and cause an environmental disaster.
When we try to scale solar and wind energy generation through parks or farms, this technology incurs a significant ecological cost. Solar farms displace animals from their homes and create a heat island that is unconducive to most lifeforms. Similarly, wind farms are notorious for their interference with the flight paths of large birds and bats.
Nuclear energy also has problems…
Nuclear energy’s biggest detractor is its construction. It takes a long time and a lot of money to construct a nuclear power plant. This isn’t ideal because we need to cheaply and quickly produce low-carbon forms of electricity to meet the rising demands around the world. Construction of nuclear power plants is also very carbon-intensive.
Nuclear isn’t traditionally flexible, and modern designs offer limited flexibility, which isn’t ideal in places with highly variable energy demands.
Introducing nuclear energy (and wastes) in countries that do not yet have access to this technology creates the risk for weaponization. While the chances of an all-out nuclear war continue to be low, the risk cannot be discounted.
Should we be choosing one or the other?
For the longest time, I felt that this is a binary option. That is how the debate has been structured on the global stage. But a closer look at the advantages and disadvantages of renewables and nuclear paint a different picture. See for yourself…
This table compares the two forms of energy against several parameters of a future energy grid.
Clearly, nuclear and solar/wind are complimentary: where one falls short, the other can support.Advertisementsabout:blankREPORT THIS AD
Conclusion: Should we rely on only one form of energy?
Given different needs in different areas of life, it is unwise to depend on any one form of energy. For example, solar/wind is cheaper and faster to electrify rural areas, where the need for electricity remains low and it is expensive to connect them to the grid. Nuclear makes sense in cities and industrial complexes that need reliable, stable and cheap electricity all the time.
Let me ask you the question again:According to you, which form of low-carbon should the world depend on?Renewable energyNuclear energyA combination of bothVoteView ResultsCrowdsignal.com
Bonus: Are hydroelectricity, bioenergy, geothermal and tidal the best of both worlds?
Many people mention these sources under renewables. In fact, hydroelectric power plants form the largest proportion of the renewable energy mix. However, they behave differently compared to solar and wind and have many features of nuclear energy.
Hydroelectricity, bioenergy, geothermal and tidal—can counter many shortcomings of solar and wind, like power density and intermittency. Unlike nuclear, they are relatively cheaper and faster to build.
But they come with their own problems. They are all highly location-specific, take time and resources to construct, and occupy a lot of space causing huge environmental and social damage.
These forms of energy make sense depending on the location. Hydro, geothermal, tidal and bioenergy can generate all the energy a region requires, or can easily work with solar and wind to meet energy needs. They can be a reliable substitute to nuclear energy in controversial places where energy requirements are high and consistent.
The future of energy in a low-carbon world, according to me, does not have to renewable OR nuclear. We need a bit of both (the relative proportions, of course, are debatable). Their features are complimentary and the next generation energy grid should evolve to accommodate both forms of energy.
Sam Stranks, University of Cambridge describes “How a new solar and lighting technology could propel a renewable energy transformation”. This will undeniably come to some help those countries that have opted strongly for renewables, such as Tunisia.
The demand for cheaper, greener electricity means that the energy landscape is changing faster than at any other point in history. This is particularly true of solar-powered electricity and battery storage. The cost of both has dropped at unprecedented rates over the past decade and energy efficient technologies such as LED lighting have also expanded.
Access to cheap and ubiquitous solar power and storage will transform the way we produce and use power, allowing electrification of the transport sector. There is potential for new chemical-based economies in which we store renewable energy as fuels, and support new devices making up an “internet of things”.
But our current energy technologies won’t lead us to this future: we will soon hit efficiency and cost limits. The potential for future reductions in the cost of electricity from silicon solar, for example, is limited. The manufacture of each panel demands a fair amount of energy and factories are expensive to build. And although the cost of production can be squeezed a little further, the costs of a solar installation are now dominated by the extras – installation, wiring, the electronics and so on.
This means that current solar power systems are unlikely to meet the required fraction of our 30 TeraWatt (TW) global power requirements (they produce less than 1 TW today) fast enough to address issues such as climate change.
Likewise, our current LED lighting and display technologies are too expensive and not of good enough colour quality to realistically replace traditional lighting in a short enough time frame. This is a problem, as lighting currently accounts for 5% of the world’s carbon emissions. New technologies are needed to fill this gap, and quickly.
Our lab in Cambridge, England, is working with a promising new family of materials known as halide perovskites. They are semiconductors, conducting charges when stimulated with light. Perovskite inks are deposited onto glass or plastic to make extremely thin films – around one hundredth of the width of a human hair – made up of metal, halide and organic ions. When sandwiched between electrode contacts, these films make solar cell or LED devices.
Amazingly, the colour of light they absorb or emit can be changed simply by tweaking their chemical structure. By changing the way we grow them, we can tailor them to be more suitable for absorbing light (for a solar panel) or emitting light (for an LED). This allows us to make different colour solar cells and LEDs emitting light from the ultra-violet, right through to the visible and near-infrared.
Despite their cheap and versatile processing, these materials have been shown to be remarkably efficient as both solar cells and light emitters. Perovskite solar cells hit 25.2% efficiency in 2019, hot on the heels of crystalline silicon cells at 26.7%, and perovskite LEDs are already approaching off-the-shelf organic light-emitting diode (OLED) performances.
Unlike conventional silicon cells, which need to be very uniform for high efficiency, perovskite films are comprised of mosaic “grains” of highly variable size (from nano-meters to millimeters) and chemistry – and yet they perform nearly as well as the best silicon cells today. What’s more, small blemishes or defects in perovskite films do not lead to significant power losses. Such defects would be catastrophic for a silicon panel or a commercial LED.
Although we are still trying to understand this, these materials are forcing the community to rewrite the textbook for what we consider as an ideal semiconductor: they can have very good optical and electronic properties in spite of – or perhaps even because of – disorder.
We could hypothetically use these materials to make “designer” coloured solar cells that blend in to buildings or houses, or solar windows that look like tinted glass yet generate power.
But the real opportunity is to develop highly efficient cells beyond the efficiency of silicon cells. For example, we can layer two different coloured perovskite films together in a “tandem” solar cell. Each layer would harvest different regions of the solar spectrum, increasing the overall efficiency of the cell.
Another example is what Oxford PV are pioneering: adding a perovskite layer on top of a standard silicon cell, boosting the efficiency of the existing technology without significant additional cost. These tandem layering approaches could quickly create a boost in efficiency of solar panels beyond 30%, which would reduce both the panel and system costs while also reducing their energy footprint.
These perovskite layers are also being developed to manufacture flexible solar panels that can be processed to roll like newsprint, further reducing costs. Lightweight, high-power solar also opens up possibilities for powering electric vehicles and communication satellites.
For LEDs, perovskites can achieve fantastic colour quality which could lead to advanced flexible display technologies. Perovskites could also give cheaper, higher quality white lighting than today’s commercial LEDs, with the “colour temperature” of a globe able to be manufactured to give cool or warm white light or any desired shade in between. They are also generating excitement as building blocks for future quantum computers, as well as X-Ray detectors for extremely low dose medical and security imaging.
Although the first products are already emerging, there are still challenges. One key issue is demonstrating long-term stability. But the research is promising, and once these are resolved, halide perovskites could truly propel the transformation of our energy production and consumption.
A rather meaningful piece of energy news went almost unnoticed in recent weeks. The Abu Dhabi Power Corporation announced the lowest tariff for solar energy in the world. The new record came as the winning bid for the upcoming 2 GW solar power plant, the Al Dhafra Solar PV project, set the world’s most cost-competitive tariff for solar PV energy, at USD 1.35 cents/kWh (AED 4.97 fils/kWh in local currency). This is approximately 44% lower than the tariff set just three years ago for the ‘Noor Abu Dhabi’ project – Abu Dhabi’s first large-scale solar 1.2GW PV project and a world record tariff-setter at the time – which commenced its commercial operation back in April 2019.
The gigantic photovoltaic power plant is scheduled to come online in mid-2022. Expected to cover an area of 20 square kilometers, it will almost triple Abu Dhabi’s solar power generation to 3.2 GW and help the Emirate state achieve its 2030 goal to reduce carbon intensity by 70% compared to 2015. This single addition could on its own supply almost 3% of the entire United Arab Emirates annual electricity demand (~127 TWh in 2018). The Al Dhafra and Noor projects firmly position Abu Dhabi among the leading regions of the world for solar power adoption and price benchmark. To better appreciate the competitiveness of this bid, it’s worth noting that even old and fully depreciated coal power plants have LCOE values around USD 3.3 cents/kWh (see Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy 2019).
But why would this piece of news matter? Surely this is a geographical exception, a sunny oasis in a world otherwise dominated by cheap fossil fuels, a result that cannot be replicated worldwide. Well, not really. While the Middle East is naturally bound to become a solar powerhouse in the coming years – its wide desert areas and sunny climate result in typical PV load factors above 1800 kWh/kWp installed – high levels of solar irradiance are actually available throughout the world within a broad range of latitudes. A beautiful map from Global Solar Atlas is worth a thousand words.
As global data show, a vast portion of the planet is in fact ripe for exploitation with ultra-cheap solar power. And the news from the Emirates are indeed echoed by comparable prices set elsewhere over the past year, from Europe to America. The previous solar tariff record belonged to Portugal: the southern European country claimed the spot in July 2019, at about USD 1.64 cents/kWh for a 150 MW project. 211 MW of PV capacity were signed at USD 1.75 cents/kWh in Brazil just weeks before that, while a sub-2 cents/kWh bid was also presented in the same period for the Los Angeles Eland Solar & Storage Center project in Kern County, California (the final version of the project will in fact be a 300 MW / 1.2 GWh energy storage installation – with an aggregate price of USD 3.962 cents/kWh for dispatchable power).
At the levels being reached by utility-scale solar, even northern, rainy countries such as the UK – with half the solar irradiance of the Emirates – could soon see projects achieve LCOEs below USD 3 cents/kWh (if they are not beat by cheaper wind power at those latitudes). We are now at a point where economics alone is the main factor driving the energy transition towards sustainability. With an annual global growth hovering around the 100 GW mark before the coronavirus crisis, solar power is now poised for a long-term additional boost through favourable economic recovery policies planned by most governments around the world. The unfolding economic crisis, likely to push down solar capital costs even further, will only make the PV market even more attractive. Cheap large-scale battery storage, whether coupled to these projects or as stand-alone peaker plants replacement, will be the natural ally.
With the global financial community increasing its focus on fossil fuel divestment and sustainability, we can expect the booming utility-scale solar market to mark its presence in all continents at increasing pace. Investors with deep pockets, looking for stable and predictable returns at a time of increasing uncertainty and change, will safely bet on massive renewable energy developments for reliable returns on their portfolios, while avoiding the volatility and risk involved with projects in the incumbent sources of energy.
Competitive power generation costs make investment in renewables highly attractive as countries target economic recovery from COVID-19, new IRENA report finds.
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2 June 2020 — Renewable power is increasingly cheaper than any new electricity capacity based on fossil fuels, a new report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) published today finds. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2019 shows that more than half of the renewable capacity added in 2019 achieved lower power costs than the cheapest new coal plants.
The report highlights that new renewable power generation projects now increasingly undercut existing coal-fired plants. On average, new solar photovoltaic (PV) and onshore wind power cost less than keeping many existing coal plants in operation, and auction results show this trend accelerating – reinforcing the case to phase-out coal entirely. Next year, up to 1 200 gigawatts (GW) of existing coal capacity could cost more to operate than the cost of new utility-scale solar PV, the report shows.
Replacing the costliest 500 GW of coal with solar PV and onshore wind next year would cut power system costs by up to USD 23 billion every year and reduce annual emissions by around 1.8 gigatons (Gt) of carbon dioxide (CO2), equivalent to 5% of total global CO2 emissions in 2019. It would also yield an investment stimulus of USD 940 billion, which is equal to around 1% of global GDP.
“We have reached an important turning point in the energy transition. The case for new and much of the existing coal power generation, is both environmentally and economically unjustifiable,” said Francesco La Camera, Director-General of IRENA. “Renewable energy is increasingly the cheapest source of new electricity, offering tremendous potential to stimulate the global economy and get people back to work. Renewable investments are stable, cost-effective and attractive offering consistent and predictable returns while delivering benefits to the wider economy.
“A global recovery strategy must be a green strategy,” La Camera added. “Renewables offer a way to align short-term policy action with medium- and long-term energy and climate goals. Renewables must be the backbone of national efforts to restart economies in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak. With the right policies in place, falling renewable power costs, can shift markets and contribute greatly towards a green recovery.”
Renewable electricity costs have fallen sharply over the past decade, driven by improving technologies, economies of scale, increasingly competitive supply chains and growing developer experience. Since 2010, utility-scale solar PV power has shown the sharpest cost decline at 82%, followed by concentrating solar power (CSP) at 47%, onshore wind at 39% and offshore wind at 29%.
Costs for solar and wind power technologies also continued to fall year-on-year. Electricity costs from utility-scale solar PV fell 13% in 2019, reaching a global average of 6.8 cents (USD 0.068) per kilowatt-hour (kWh). Onshore and offshore wind both declined about 9%, reaching USD 0.053/kWh and USD 0.115/kWh, respectively.
Recent auctions and power purchase agreements (PPAs) show the downward trend continuing for new projects are commissioned in 2020 and beyond. Solar PV prices based on competitive procurement could average USD 0.039/kWh for projects commissioned in 2021, down 42% compared to 2019 and more than one-fifth less than the cheapest fossil-fuel competitor namely coal-fired plants. Record-low auction prices for solar PV in Abu Dhabi and Dubai (UAE), Chile, Ethiopia, Mexico, Peru and Saudi Arabia confirm that values as low as USD 0.03/kWh are already possible.
For the first time, IRENA’s annual report also looks at investment value in relation to falling generation costs. The same amount of money invested in renewable power today produces more new capacity than it would have a decade ago. In 2019, twice as much renewable power generation capacity was commissioned than in 2010 but required only 18% more investment.
Originally posted on RobinAndrew: An initially-slight tale, which grows and grows right up to its end, as slight lives desperately try to grow themselves into something important without completely relinquishing the comforts to which they have accustomed themselves. Emerson writes with an almost nineteenth-century reserve which aptly suits her characters and relates as well to…
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.