There is a lot of talk about renewable electricity becoming cost-competitive with conventional fossil fuel energy. That is good news for anyone who cares about global warming. However, energy experts point out real and substantial hurdles that still need to be taken.
We often hear the claim that renewable electricity is getting close to becoming as cheap as electricity from conventional sources. Unfortunately, reality is still different. The reasons are:
The general method used to quantify electricity costs from different sources - the ‘levelized-cost’ methodology - has a basic flaw: the value of electricity is assumed to be the same from renewable sources as from conventional sources. Research has however shown that renewable electricity has certain characteristics that make its value much lower than electricity from conventional sources, up to 50% at high renewable penetration rates.
Technically there is no difference between electricity generated from conventional sources and from renewable sources. However, as there is no guarantee for sunny, cloudless and windy days, renewable electricity is always erratic. As there is no economical method yet for large-scale storage, the power market needs to have a perfect balance between supply and demand on every moment. Large-scale electricity generation from renewables poses challenges to this balance.
The unreliability of renewable electricity makes its value lower than that of conventional electricity. This can be illustrated by a comparison between two cars that can travel the same number of kilometers, but one car is reliable and always brings you to your destination while the other car sometimes runs fantastically (a ‘sunny and windy day’) and sometimes breaks down (a ‘cloudy day without wind’). Of course the first car is much more valuable.
System costs are the total costs accrued beyond the perimeter of a power plant to supply electricity. Electricity costs consist of more elements than just the generation costs. Electricity first needs to be generated (‘electricity generation’). Then it needs to be transmitted at high voltages over a long distance (‘transmission’) to a local area where it is distributed at lower voltage (‘distribution’) and sold to the final consumer (‘supply’).
The additional costs of adding renewable electricity to the system are:
The variability and unpredictability of renewable output are the main reasons why system costs are higher for renewables than for nuclear energy, coal and gas. In February 2012, for example, power generation by renewable electricity almost came to a standstill for nearly two weeks, caused by lack of wind. The gap had to be covered by dispatchable power stations in Germany and abroad. Keeping these generation reserves causes extraordinarily high costs.
In addition, the production of renewables is often located far away from where demand is situated and from the existing transmission grid. This requires the construction of new lines to connect the power plant to the transmission grid and to reinforce the whole transmission system.
Using renewables to meet up to 30% of electricity demand would according to the OECD increase the electricity supply cost by between 16% and 180%, with wind being at the lower end and solar at the higher end.
The cost calculations for renewable electricity are made more difficult by the strong dependency on location. For example, even in a small country like the Netherlands the difference in costs can be substantial. The Dutch Central Planning Agency CPB estimated that the Net Present Value for on-shore wind projects currently is positive (EUR 8 million) in the province of Friesland but negative in the province of Limburg (minus EUR 30 million). A simple statement like ‘wind energy is just as expensive as conventional electricity’ is therefore meaningless without mentioning the location.
As the levelized-cost methodology is severely flawed, increased system costs are often ignored and 100% back-up costs still have to be borne for renewable electricity, it is clear that renewable electricity is far from being as cheap as conventional electricity. However, a common assumption underlying much of current energy policies is the inevitable rise of the price of fossil fuels (the ‘peak oil theory’). In that light, high costs are not a problem as coal and gas electricity plants will gradually become expensive.
The problem is that time and again the peak oil theory is proven to be wrong. The world’s fossil fuel resources are still abundant and prices are low. The fact that the shale revolution took less than ten years to transform the US, and with it world energy markets, is one example of the scale, speed and impact of innovation in the fossil fuel industries. We simply cannot afford to wait for fossil fuels to become scarce and prices to increase.
Existing solar and wind generation technologies are not likely to have much impact on combatting climate change. However, wind but especially solar electricity is rapidly becoming cheaper to produce and there are many exciting new technologies that could force a breakthrough, such as electric cars and storage technology. Providing large subsidies to existing technologies does not provide much incentive for new technologies to emerge. Yet, that is what many carbon policies do. Large-scale Research & Development, a fixed carbon price or a coal tax should be very helpful. Betting on current renewable technology is not.
Please read this important information before proceeding further. It contains legal and regulatory notices relevant to the information contained on this website.
The information contained in the Website is NOT FOR RETAIL CLIENTS - The information contained in the Website is solely intended for professional investors, defined as investors which (1) qualify as professional clients within the meaning of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), (2) have requested to be treated as professional clients within the meaning of the MiFID or (3) are authorized to receive such information under any other applicable laws. The value of the investments may fluctuate. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Investors may not get back the amount originally invested. Neither Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V. nor any of its affiliates guarantees the performance or the future returns of any investments. If the currency in which the past performance is displayed differs from the currency of the country in which you reside, then you should be aware that due to exchange rate fluctuations the performance shown may increase or decrease if converted into your local currency.
In the UK, Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V. (“ROBECO”) only markets its funds to institutional clients and professional investors. Private investors seeking information about ROBECO should visit our corporate website www.robeco.com or contact their financial adviser. ROBECO will not be liable for any damages or losses suffered by private investors accessing these areas.
In the UK, ROBECO Funds has marketing approval for the funds listed on this website, all of which are UCITS funds. ROBECO is authorized by the AFM and subject to limited regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority. Details about the extent of our regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority are available from us on request.
Many of the protections provided by the United Kingdom regulatory framework may not apply to investments in ROBECO Funds, including access to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and the Financial Ombudsman Service. No representation, warranty or undertaking is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information on this website.
If you are not an institutional client or professional investor you should therefore not proceed. By proceeding please note that we will be treating you as a professional client for regulatory purposes and you agree to be bound by our terms and conditions.