Costs and benefits of energy transition
Overall Concept
The study of whether energy transition towards 100% renewables is socially and economically feasible is yet under hot debates. Some famous debates recently in the scientific communities includes the attacks on Mark Z. Jacobson's 100% RE studies[1][2][3] and also T.W. Brown's response to a critical review of 100 % RE systems[4][5].
In these debates, the question of how much an energy system with 100% renewables costs is often the main reason both parties disagree with each other. Therefore, it may be important to know how a solid, dynamic, and system oriented analysis on the costs and benefits of energy transition should look like.
In short, there are three scales of CBA (cost-benefit analysis) one should consider for such full scale overview. On the energy system level, the microeconomic level, and the macroeconomic level. The three levels show different perspectives of the effects of energy transition: the energy system level discusses impacts that occur from a technical or engineer point of view, the microeconomic level discusses impacts of different individuals energy transition have on; and the macroeconomic level discusses the net benefits/losses an entire industry or the society itself as a whole will gain during the transition process.
Effects on Energy Systems
There are two kinds of costs that constitute the system total cost of an energy system: the generation cost and the integration cost.
The generation costs are the costs of different types of energy sources to produce energy. One common indicator of this cost is the levelized cost of energy (LCoE). The integration costs are the additional costs to integrate different sources of energy onto the system so that supply meets demand.
Because the LCoE of renewable energy sources have been declining in a rapid speed, and are already cost-competitive with conventional sources under some scenarioes[6], the larger amount of deployment of renewables during the transition process will definitely lower the generation costs of an energy system.
On the other hand, most renewables that are deployed currently are variable renewable energy soures such as solar and wind. These sources require new mindset and investments for balancing of their fluctuating characteristics, with undermines the benefits of generation costs reduction.
The increase of integration costs during energy transition is nonetheless small compare to the overall benefits gained by generation costs. Even if we add all the additional integration costs to the generation costs of renewables, VRE are still cost competitive to other conventional alternatives in most modeled scenarioes[7].
It is also important to keep in mind that such comparison is sometimes misleading because the integration costs do not only depend on the amount of VRE but also the flexibility of the energy system the renewable sources are deployed. For example, a study conducted by Aurora Energy Research found out that the integration costs of a large amount of solar installation in UK can drop significantly when there are no nuclear on line, and can even go negative if battery storage becomes very cheap[8].
Microeconomic (Distributional) Effects
The microeconomic effects are also called distributional effects, because it discusses how energy transition redistribution welfare among different agents in society. There are three angles to analyze these effects: policy, merit order, and R&D subsidies.
Policies that subsidizes an industry directly via tax abatement, public funds, or indirectly via setting market pricing rules such as the feed-in-tariff or feed-in-premium redistributes welfare from some agents of society to others.
Cancellation of subsidies towards fossil fuel industry chains, for example, might increase oil and electricity prices and thus reduce the welfare of consumers. The effect of this cancellation is however different to various types of consumers. According to the International Monetary Fund, the richest 25% of the world's population have gained 43% of the subsidies towards fossil fuel, while the poorest 25% have gained only 7%[9].
Macroeconomic Effects
References
- ↑ Mark Z. Jacobson, Mark A. Delucchi, Mary A. Cameron, Bethany A. Frew, Low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem with100% penetration of intermittent wind, water, andsolar for all purposes, 2015
- ↑ Christopher T. M. Clack et. al, Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost gridpower with 100% wind, water, and solar, 2017
- ↑ Mark Z.Jacobson, Mark A. Delucchi, Mary A. Cameron, Brian V. Mathiesen, Matching demand with supply at low cost in 139 countries among 20 world regions with 100% intermittent wind, water, and sunlight(WWS) for all purposes, 2018
- ↑ Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems
- ↑ T.W. Brown, T. Bischof-Niemz, K. Blok, C. Breyer, H. Lund, B.V. Mathiesen, Response to ‘Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of100% renewable-electricity systems’, 2018
- ↑ Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis 10.0, https://www.lazard.com/media/438038/levelized-cost-of-energy-v100.pdf
- ↑ In-depth: The whole system costs of renewables, https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-whole-system-costs-renewables
- ↑ Intermittency and the cost of integrating solar in the GB power market, http://www.solar-trade.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Intermittency-and-the-cost-of-integrating-solar-Aurora-Energy-Research-September-2016.pdf
- ↑ Energy Subsidy Reform : Lessons and Implications, http://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/IMF071/20361-9781475558111/20361-9781475558111/20361-9781475558111.xml?redirect=true; although available only behind pay wall, the following page quoted the original source: https://www.peopo.org/news/367251
