The development of low carbon energy sources Filip Černoch cernoch@mail.muni.cz Decarbonization • Politicaly driven, with the climate change reasoning. • Specified goal, in search for suitable technologies - vs. previous energy transitions. • Muscles + fire → draft animals → waterwheels and windmills → coal (oil, natural gas) → (coal) electricity → ? Life cycle CO2 equivalent of selected electricity supply technologies Technology Median Technology Median Coal 820 Geothermal 38 Biomass co-fired with coal 740 Concentrated solar power 27 Gas – combined cycle 490 Hydropower 24 Biomass – dedicated 230 Wind offshore 12 Solar PV – utility scale 48 Nuclear 12 Solar PV – rooftop 41 Wind onshore 11 Arranged by decreasing median values. In gCO2eq/kWh Energy investments in selected regions, 2015 and 2018 Investments in power generation, 2018 Overnight construction costs (OCC) in 2015USD/kW, USA (left) and France (right) Learning curve • Decreasing costs due to: • Research and development itself. • Learning by doing – a byproduct of manufacturing and deployment, with companies incrementaly improving industrial operations, installation procedures, sales, and financing processes. • Economy of scale – companies and industries getting larger, spreading some fixed costs over a larger volume of product sales. • Learning by waiting – harnessing the spillover effect from other industries, technologies, or countries. Learning curve Construction duration, USA and France OCC of global nuclear reactors in USD2010 Experience curve of USA/Fr NPPs Distribution of construction overrun costs by technology • 401 electricity infrastructure projects build between 1936 and 2014 in 57 countries. • USD 820 bn. worth of investments, 323 515 MW of installed capacity, and 8495km of transmission lines. LCOE for base load technologies, at different discount rates NPP in the EU in progress • Flamanville NPP – construction started in 2007, with schedulled commissioning in 2012 and planned costs €3,3bn. Last information (from 2015) – commissioning in 2022 for €10,5bn. • Olkiluoto NPP – construction started in 2005, with schedulled commissioning in 2010 and planned costs of €3bn. Commissioning expected in 2020 for €8,5-10bn+. • Mochovce NPP – construction re-started in 2009, with schedulled commissioning in 2012 and 2013 and planned costs of €2,775bn. Commissioning expected in 2020 and 2021 for €3,8bn. 16 Strongly positive Positive Neutral Rather negative Strongly negative Finland UK Luxemburg Greece Ireland France The Netherlands Denmark Sweden Germany Slovakia Estonia Belgium Austria Romania Portugal Italy Bulgaria Poland - Latvia Malta The Czech Republic Slovenia - Lithuania Cyprus Hungary Spain - - - Nuclear phase-outs • Austria – 1997 • Germany – 2011 • Italy – 1987 (after Chernobyl) • Sweden - 1980 (after Three Mile Island), renounced in 2010. • New Zealand – 1987 • … • … Position of nuclear in the EU • Liberalized market emphasizes less risky and shorter investments. • Limited role of the governments in energy. • Public scepticims on the nuclear technology. • Pricing of elektricity not able to valuate the reliability and predictability of sources. • European companies (AREVA/EdF) absent in global investments. • Vs. some investment in developing world. Global PV module price trends 2009- 2016 Global PV module price trends 2009- 2016 Total installed costs of onshore wind by country 1983- 2014 Global levelised costs of electricity from utility-scale RES technologies, 2010 - 2018 LCOE for base load technologies, at different discount rates LCOE for RES technologies, at different discount rates LCOE vs. variable elektricity household tariff Ownership of global power generation capacity commissioned in 2015 Ownership of installed RE capacity in Germany (2012) RES position in the EU • Smaller unit costs, mechanisms driving prices down (auctioning). • Positive, albeit changing public acceptance. • Prosumers. • Current price mechanisms not capable to accomodate RES. • Support mechanisms in line with the EU rules. • Cannibalization of price • Intermittent production. Discussion • Future of nuclear sources? • Future of RES? • Other options? Sources • Sovacool, B.K.; Gilbert, A.; Nugent, D. (2014): An international comparative assessment of construction cost overruns for electricity infrastructure. • Lovering, J.R.; Yip, A.; Nordhaus, T.(2016): Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors. • Suna, D.; Resch, G.(2016): Is nuclear economical in comparison to renewables? • Khatib, H.(2016): A review of the IEA/NEA projeted costs of electricity – 2015 edition. • Hall, S.; Foxon, T.J.; Bolton, R.:(2016): Financing the civic energy sector: How financial institutions affect ownership models in Germany and the United Kingdom. • IRENA (2019): Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2018. • O´Connor, P. (2016): What is the learning Curve – and What Does it Means for Solar Power and for Electrict Vehicles? • IEA (2019): World Energy Investment 2019 • IEA (2019): Renewables 2019: Analysis and forecast to 2024