The Kyoto Protocol is a global framework to combat climate change that followed from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It divided the world into 2 groups. Annex I countries consisted of industrialised developed countries which committed to a 5.2% reduction of GHG emissions from 1990 baseline level. Non-Annex I countries (rest of the world) do not have emission targets but can engage in GHG reduction through the flexible mechanism – JI and CDM. The carbon credits created by JI and CDM projects can be used in carbon trading for compliance with Annex I countries’ Kyoto targets.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH KYOTO?
As argued by Kevin Anderson, David Victor of Stanford and Dieter Helm, the Kyoto Protocol as it stands is a flawed and insufficient mechanism for reaching climate goals of 450 ppm, consistent with limiting global temperature rises to 2 degrees Celcius. It is almost beyond debate that Kyoto will fail to meet those types of climate goals.
First, the Kyoto targets are not strong enough in view of worldwide increases in GHG emissions and population growth. According to the IEA, population is expected to grow to 9 billion by 2050, world energy demand is projected to increase 50% by 2030, use of coal for electricity production is projected to rise by 25%, cars are expected to increase to 2.3 billion by 2050, and the rapid development of China and India may shoot these projection even up even further. World emissions are already rising faster than the worst IPCC projects due to massive development in the developing world. This is further complicated by the fact that these emerging developing countries are unlikely to cut emissions for ‘right to development’ reasons. Also, a significant proportion of emission rise in developing countries is attributable to carbon leakage, fuelled by consumption of carbon intensive goods in developed countries. For example, studies have shown that China was a net exporter of 1.6 billion tonnes of CO2 in 2006, which is 20% of the world’s total GHG.
It is apparent that Kyoto has even failed to meet its modest goals. The biggest developed country emitter the US has not ratified the protocol, Canada and Japan are not on track and GHG emissions from the developed world has actually increased by 2.3% since 2000. Even more worrying is that the reductions made in the EU have not been the result of clean energy policies, but due to factors that have nothing to do with climate change policy, such as dash for gas, high oil prices and offshoring.
Kyoto is also flawed because it’s methodology emphasizes the geography area of production of GHG, and not the geographic area of where the final goods are consumed. This leads to the paradoxical situation where a developed country can have decrease GHG emissions by producing all their goods in countries without GHG cap and importing the goods in. This has indeed occurred in Britain where although emissions have decreased 12% from 1990 levels, the embedded carbon of consumption in Britain has increased by 19% from 1990 levels. The real inconvenient truth is that consumption levels in developed countries need to be curbed and reduced.
Another major problem with the Kyoto framework concerns the effectiveness of the flexible mechanisms. Research work by Wara and Victor show that up to two thirds of CDM projects are not actually additional. For example, the CER revenues generated by HFC destruction projects was actually more profitable than producing the fridges, thus creating a perverse incentive to produce harmful gases, and then claim credit by destroying them. Further, in China where am ambitious renewable energy target of 20% by 2020 is being implemented, it can be questioned whether any renewable energy projects in China would have occurred anyway in the absence of CDM. There are also significant administrative problems with CDM such as inefficiencies caused by high transaction costs, corruption by DOEs due to influence of powerful project developers, and the insufficient resources available at the UNFCCC to administer all of the world’s CDM projects. Currently there are over 4000 projects in the pipeline, all to be reviewed by 10 member of the CDM executive board.
As argued by Kevin Anderson, much of the EU obligations under the Kyoto Protocol can be offset by purchases of such CER credits, which delays mitigation action in Europe and especially unhelpful if those CERs lack environmental integrity. Such delays as argued by Anderson could lead to lock-in, where the country fails to create the suitable infrastructure to build a low carbon economy.
Another major flaw with Kyoto is the omission of GHG from shipping and the aviation sector, which are the highest growing GHG emitting sectors. For example, GHG from aviation sector has grown at an average of 7% p.a. since 1990. Although aviation is said to be responsible for “only” 2% of global GHG emissions, it emits a host of non-CO2 particlues such as NOx, water, SO2 and soot at high altitudes for which the global warming potential is likely to be much higher although the extent is difficult to quantify. Some studies argue that taking account all the above, the impact of aviation is closer to 13-15% of all GHG.
It is clear that Kyoto Protocol is not, and will not deliver the results needed to stabilize the climate. The question is what alternative are there to Kyoto to could be more effectiveness in solving the problem? There are 2 basic schools of thought, one is that Kyoto should not be abandoned, simply tweaked and adjusted to address its weaknesses and problems (Stern and Hepburn). Another school of thought as advocated by Victor argues that Kyoto is inherently structurally flawed and that we should scrap it, replacing it with WTO-like agreements on joint efforts rather than targets. I argue that Victor’s view is preferable because it is efforts on the ground that have most potential to reduce GHG, and universal negotiations on targets are unlikely to produce the ambitious actions required to stabilize the climate at 2 degrees Celsius.
STERN AND HEPBURN – GLOBAL DEAL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Stern argues that we need a global deal to reduce GHG globally by 50% from 1990 levels by 2050, and this must include both developed and developing countries. At current population growth rates, this means 2tCO2/year per capita by 2050. Currently, USA, AUS, CAN are at 20t per capita, EU, Japan at 10t per capita, China at 5t per capita and India at 2t per capita.
This means developed countries must agree to sharp aggressive short, medium and long term cuts to the tune of 80% reduction of 1990 levels by 2050. Fast middle income countries such as South Korea, India and China should adopt sectoral targets in the medium run and eventually in national targets.
Stern is indifferent between emissions trading and carbon tax as long as the permits from ETS are auctioned. Eventually, a global price on carbon and a world carbon market should be developed. In terms of reforming the CDM, Stern argues that operations must be scaled up while at the same time the environmental integrity of the credits must be improved. There should be sectoral benchmarks created for CDM projects to increase administrative efficiency, important technologies with potential to reduce GHG at large scale like CCS should be included, and standards enforced to reduce carbon leakage. To tackle deforestation, a framework of REDD should be introduced that also strengthens property rights of indigenous people and ensures financial flows to citizens and climate friendly policies. Finally, an adaptation fund should be initiated for people already suffering the effects of climate change. Stern’s global deal lacks detail on countering the perverse incentives already in existence in the system.
DAVID VICTOR – CLIMATE ACCESSION DEALS
Victor argues that Kyoto is destined to be a failure no matter how much it is tweaked, because the problem with Kyoto is structural. This is due to the conventional wisdom behind Kyoto, which is that an universially binding treaty should be negotiated with targets, and a global carbon market developed, engaging the developing world through market-based compensation. However, despite Kyoto having followed the all of the above, nothing much has changed in terms of behaviour and GHG reduction. This is because the problem is structural:
1. Binding nature of instruments makes governments risk averse. They won’t sign to ambitious targets unless they are absolutely sure that they can comply. This explains why the track record of compliance with legally binding treaties is almost 100%. Commitments get tuned so that compliance is guaranteed.
2. Targets and timeframes don’t do the heavy lifting. It doesn’t guarantee any efforts will be done.
3. Government are unsure of how to meet the targets. In cases where they can't, they will simply withdraw from treaty or negotiate a more realistic target.
Instead, Victor proposes that negotiations be based on clubs, with commitments that are not legally binding. This is likely to reduce GHG more effectively than Kyoto because:
1. Governments are more likely to make ambitious commitments to each other if outputs not binding, especially in situations where they don’t know to what extent they can comply with outputs.
2. Agreements on actions are more effective to reduce GHG than targets. Actions may include renewal portfolio standards, building standards, fuel efficiency standards, technology forcing commitments, pilot CCS plants. Those packages of real effort that governments have control over, while difficult to translate into targets and timetables.
Victor proposes that Climate Accession Deal (CAD) should replace the CDM to engage developing countries. The first premise is that CAD starts with the existing interests of reluctant countries, which is anchored in the country’s administration and development plans. For example in China, the government would welcome assistance to make their existing coal plants more efficient, build a natural gas infrastructure, increase nuclear capacity and upgrade its entire electric grid. An institution similar to the WTO would be set up to ensure the environmental integrity of the system, monitor efforts and enforce penalties for non-compliance. The basic process for a CAD deal is bidding, assessment and convergence.
Bidding start with the host government since it has the capability to instigate changes in the relevant sectors. To make these CADs feasible, outsiders—the enthusiastic nations—will be expected to offer incentives that combine with real efforts by governments in the reluctant nations to alter development trajectories.
The key task in accession is to entice a new member into the club (and thus create broader benefits for the club) while not over-paying (or under-charging) the new member. The WTO offers a model through its accession process. Potential new members assemble bids of promises that they will offer in exchange for external benefits.
Incentives for enthusiastic countries to participate and provide finance may include:
1. By integrating CADs into a broader “general agreement on climate change” the CAD system more readily gives donor countries credit for their efforts.
2. Part of the CAD negotiation, by contrast, would include the appropriate credit that the enthusiastic nation would earn—in some cases, that credit might be quantified and monetized, but in others it would simply be part of the explicit package of commitments that the enthusiastic nation makes to its peers.
3. Gain credit for recognized official commitments to address climate change.
The next step would involvement assessment and monitoring. Compliance can be enforced by:
1. the negotiation of commitments can help ensure that governments promise genuine efforts that they are likely to implement.
2. a new institution is needed to provide regular assessments of implementation.
3. an assessment institution that could look broadly at a country’s promised efforts (as in the WTO, OECD and IEA policy reviews) and then probe in detail where those efforts seem to be falling short.
I prefer Victor's view because CADs will at least ensure actions on the ground which have the potential to reduce GHG more effectively over the long run compared to politically strained unambitious targets with no guarantees that any action will be done to tackle climate change. If countries realise targets cannot be met, there are perverse incentives to change the targets, i.e. moving the goalposts. Instead, the CADS if managed well, can accelerate reluctant countries down the path of adhering to global norms on the need to control emissions.
Tuesday 28 April 2009
Hydro, Wind and Solar PV
Some brief summary notes on hydro, wind and solar PV from various sources that I've read recently. I've prepared this to help me with my exams.
Low and zero carbon sources of energy generation accounts for approximately 15% of the global energy mix, with nuclear and hydropower around 6% each, and the rest of the renewables portfolio (biomass, wind, solar, wave etc.) making up the remaining 3%. While nuclear capacity has remained steady in the past 10 years, there has been steady growth in capacity of renewable energy, especially in hydro and wind.
In order to tackle climate change and to reach stabilisation levels of 550 ppm as advocated by policy makers, it is essential that low carbon technologies are ramped up to replace fossil fuels. For example in the UK, the UK Climate Change bill stipulates that GHG are to be reduced by 80% of 1990 levels by 2020, with 25-32% reduction goal by 2020. In order to reach this target, the government has mandated that by 2020, 20% of energy must come from renewable resources in line with its EU 20/20/20 obligations. This implies that the proportion of renewables generation in heating and cooling must increase from less than 1% to 10%, land transport from <1% to ~10%, and electricity production from <5% to ~40%. Similar targets are prevalent in other EU countries and in many states in America like California, who have mandatory renewable portfolios standards.
For the UK, this implies that by 2020, 57GW of renewable energy must be installed in order to reach the 20% target. Based on existing policies, it will be impossible to reach such levels due to the higher costs, political, social and logistical issues associated with renewables. The target can only be met with ambitious policies to promote same, backed up by finance and political and social support.
To reach the goals, there are a host of low carbon technologies at different levels of commercial development and potential. I will analyse 3 main technologies available today - hydro, wind, solar (both PV and concentrated).
HYDRO
Hydro is responsible for much of the growth in renewable energy generation globally in the next 10 years, especially in non-OECD countries in Asia and Central and South America. For example, China’s Three Gorges Dam project is expected to deliver 18.2 GW of new capacity and in India, 14.5 GW of hydropower is currently being constructed. In Brazil, 90% of electricity is generated from hydro and 12GW are on the pipelines to be installed.
Hydro is a mature technology that can provide baseload electricity and for large hydro, it is also dispatchable to meet peak demands. It also produces electricity at cost comparable with fossil fuels. However, there are large environmental and social concerns associated with damming rivers, such as displacement people and destruction of ecosystems. There are less environmental concerns with small scale hydro, which produce electricity based on water flow. However, since the river is not dammed, energy storage is not an option for small scale hydro. For example in Germany, CERs from large hydro projects are not eligible for compliance because of concerns over the environmental integrity of the credits (as reviewed by the World Commission on Dams).
In most of the developed world, hydro is no longer an option since most of the suitable sites have already been developed. There is therefore not much scope to exploit hydro for low carbon energy at least in developed countries.
SOLAR PV
There are broadly 3 types of solar, solar water heating, solar PV and concentrating solar power. I will concentrate on solar PV and CSP. Solar PV works by having solar photovoltaic cells converting the sun’s energy into electricity. Solar cells produce direct current from sunlight, and an inverter converts DC into AC current. The energy can then be distributed or stored in a battery. At the end of 2008, global cumulative solar PV capacity reach 15GW.
Although the PV sector has grown, it has not made a breakthrough in the market and contributes less than 1% of world energy production. With the exception of Germany, solar PV is not a significant source of energy even in sunny countries. The main stumbling block is the higher cost of producing solar cells and solar panels. With current technology solar PV can generate electricity at approximately 18-25 cents per kilowatt hour, compared to fossil fuel options which range between 3-7 cents per kilowatt. The installed cost today is around $8 a watt, meaning that to provide basic household needs it costs approcimately $30000 for solar panels. Amazingly, only half of the cost is due to production of solar cells. The rest is made up of panels, glass, inverter, labour and distribution costs. So even if the costs of solar cells decrease, it still needs to rely on the other costs to go down. It is therefore unlikely that silicon PV can ever become a low cost option.
There have been some recent technological breakthroughs, in the name of thin film solar cells. This technology has been able to cut costs down to $1-3 a watt, using less material and taking up less space. The problem is that all the materials that go into thin film are really rare – tellurium, indium, gallium, selenium. Therefore the ability to ramp up production is difficult.
Even if solar PV is price competitive, there are production restrictions associated with solar PV due to competition for basic raw materials like silicon with other industries such as the semiconductor industry. For example, the current cumulative production capability of the world solar PV industry is only around 6.85GW per year. To put that into perspective, NY city on a hot summer day uses around 12GW a day. Solar cells are also inefficient at converting the sun’s energy at around 12-23% conversion ratio, and take up large amounts of space for relatively low electricity generation. Even if solar PV grows by 50% per year for 10 years, a study has found that it would only contribute to 2.6% of the market. Therefore it can be questioned whether this technology can actually contribute to solving the problem in a meaningful timeframe.
Despite the prohibitive costs, the case study of Germany shows that solar PV may play a meaningful role if promoted by government policies. In Germany, form the 1990’s the government actively promoted solar PV through rebates, loans and feed-in-tariffs for excess electricity fed back into the grid. The market took off and by 2008 solar PV accounted for 1% of total electricity generation. Germany companies now account for 46% of the global solar PV market, generating over 10,000 jobs for the German workforce.
WIND
Wind energy is one of the most mature and fastest growing of all renewable technologies, and is now basically a production driven industry due to high demand of materials. The technology is now close to cost parity with fossil fuels at around 6 cents per kilowatt/hour, and can be scaled up as evidenced by current standard 5MW wind turbines. Wind now accounts for 1.5% of global electricity use and by 2008, capacity had reached 121 GW.
Wind turbines produce electricity by:
1. The wind blows on the blades and makes them turn.
2. The blades turns a shaft inside the nacelle (the box at the top of the turbine)
3. The shaft goes into a gearbox which increases the rotation speed enough for...
4. The generator, which uses magnetic fields to convert the rotational energy into electrical energy. These are similar to those found in normal power stations.
5. The power output goes to a transformer, which converts the electricity coming out of the generator at around 700 Volts (V) to the right voltage for distribution system, typically 33,000 V.
6. The national grid transmits the power around the country.
In Denmark, wind already contributes to 19% of total electricity generation and countries like Germany, Spain and Portugal are moving in the same direction. There are however some mentionable drawbacks to wind energy:
1. Capacity factor of 20-40% is far inferior to fossil fuel plants that can operate at 85% capacity. Therefore close to 3 times the capacity needs to be built to generate the same amount of electricity
2. Wind is intermittent and there is no available technology for large-scale storage of wind energy. It is therefore not a feasible solution for baseload electricity needs
3. wind resources are often distant from city centres where electricity demand is the highest. Exploitation of wind energy requires building of expensive transmission lines.
4. wind turbines may have negative impacts on local ecosystems and bird migration routes.
5. offshore wind is still a developing technology, with many uncertainties and technical difficulties relating to stability from strong winds and storms, and technological challenges in dealing with deeper water or less favorable soil conditions. It is therefore at least twice as expensive to develop as onshore wind.
The most effective policy instruments for further promotion of wind energy include feed-in-tariffs, mandatory long term power purchase contract to guarantee investment certainty, and assistance with high up-front capital costs through public-private partnerships. In terms of grid transmission, potential policies measures include direct funding for grid reinforcements and legal guarantee of grid access for renewables. These policies have been highly successful in Denmark, Germany and Spain and should be applied in all countries seeking to exploit this resource. It is also important to recognize that some of the barriers to wind are non-economic, such as protests from locals, land permits and environmental groups. This can be countered by policies that streamline application and permit procedures, as well as public engagement and education.
However, given current technology and grid systems, it has been argued that wind can only contribute up to 20% of electricity mix due to its inherent flaws such as intermittency and lack of storage. Technological breakthrough is needed in this area and more funding for R&D should be put in place.
To solve this problem and to increase wind’s share in the energy mix, improvements to the grid infrastructure through a smart grid will need to be built. This would consist of high voltage HVDC lines transmitting energy from distant wind farms to city centres. Another strategy, though not mutually exclusive, would be to set up microgrids for more distributed generation. A microgrid is an isolated grid with local generation; storage can operate autonomously, only connected to main grid when absolutely required. In each microgrid area, energy distributed through peer to peer technology where energy is transferred between peer to peer to create an aggregate supply of energy.
Wind energy will be especially important in the UK, where the RES targets will depend primarily on wind. In order to meet the target, it is envisioned that 14GW of onshore and 14GW of offshore wind capacity need to be built by 2025. This will require major transmission circuits, which traditionally take 10 years to permit and construct. Also, the effect of such a target means that more capacity needs to be built. In order to meet Britain’s demand of 61GW of energy, it is envisioned that 99GW of capacity will need to be built because of renewable energy’s lower capacity factors.
In terms of transmission, new routes will be required for both onshore and offshore wind, perhaps using submarine HVDC powerlines, connecting both on-land and offshore wind farms.
Low and zero carbon sources of energy generation accounts for approximately 15% of the global energy mix, with nuclear and hydropower around 6% each, and the rest of the renewables portfolio (biomass, wind, solar, wave etc.) making up the remaining 3%. While nuclear capacity has remained steady in the past 10 years, there has been steady growth in capacity of renewable energy, especially in hydro and wind.
In order to tackle climate change and to reach stabilisation levels of 550 ppm as advocated by policy makers, it is essential that low carbon technologies are ramped up to replace fossil fuels. For example in the UK, the UK Climate Change bill stipulates that GHG are to be reduced by 80% of 1990 levels by 2020, with 25-32% reduction goal by 2020. In order to reach this target, the government has mandated that by 2020, 20% of energy must come from renewable resources in line with its EU 20/20/20 obligations. This implies that the proportion of renewables generation in heating and cooling must increase from less than 1% to 10%, land transport from <1% to ~10%, and electricity production from <5% to ~40%. Similar targets are prevalent in other EU countries and in many states in America like California, who have mandatory renewable portfolios standards.
For the UK, this implies that by 2020, 57GW of renewable energy must be installed in order to reach the 20% target. Based on existing policies, it will be impossible to reach such levels due to the higher costs, political, social and logistical issues associated with renewables. The target can only be met with ambitious policies to promote same, backed up by finance and political and social support.
To reach the goals, there are a host of low carbon technologies at different levels of commercial development and potential. I will analyse 3 main technologies available today - hydro, wind, solar (both PV and concentrated).
HYDRO
Hydro is responsible for much of the growth in renewable energy generation globally in the next 10 years, especially in non-OECD countries in Asia and Central and South America. For example, China’s Three Gorges Dam project is expected to deliver 18.2 GW of new capacity and in India, 14.5 GW of hydropower is currently being constructed. In Brazil, 90% of electricity is generated from hydro and 12GW are on the pipelines to be installed.
Hydro is a mature technology that can provide baseload electricity and for large hydro, it is also dispatchable to meet peak demands. It also produces electricity at cost comparable with fossil fuels. However, there are large environmental and social concerns associated with damming rivers, such as displacement people and destruction of ecosystems. There are less environmental concerns with small scale hydro, which produce electricity based on water flow. However, since the river is not dammed, energy storage is not an option for small scale hydro. For example in Germany, CERs from large hydro projects are not eligible for compliance because of concerns over the environmental integrity of the credits (as reviewed by the World Commission on Dams).
In most of the developed world, hydro is no longer an option since most of the suitable sites have already been developed. There is therefore not much scope to exploit hydro for low carbon energy at least in developed countries.
SOLAR PV
There are broadly 3 types of solar, solar water heating, solar PV and concentrating solar power. I will concentrate on solar PV and CSP. Solar PV works by having solar photovoltaic cells converting the sun’s energy into electricity. Solar cells produce direct current from sunlight, and an inverter converts DC into AC current. The energy can then be distributed or stored in a battery. At the end of 2008, global cumulative solar PV capacity reach 15GW.
Although the PV sector has grown, it has not made a breakthrough in the market and contributes less than 1% of world energy production. With the exception of Germany, solar PV is not a significant source of energy even in sunny countries. The main stumbling block is the higher cost of producing solar cells and solar panels. With current technology solar PV can generate electricity at approximately 18-25 cents per kilowatt hour, compared to fossil fuel options which range between 3-7 cents per kilowatt. The installed cost today is around $8 a watt, meaning that to provide basic household needs it costs approcimately $30000 for solar panels. Amazingly, only half of the cost is due to production of solar cells. The rest is made up of panels, glass, inverter, labour and distribution costs. So even if the costs of solar cells decrease, it still needs to rely on the other costs to go down. It is therefore unlikely that silicon PV can ever become a low cost option.
There have been some recent technological breakthroughs, in the name of thin film solar cells. This technology has been able to cut costs down to $1-3 a watt, using less material and taking up less space. The problem is that all the materials that go into thin film are really rare – tellurium, indium, gallium, selenium. Therefore the ability to ramp up production is difficult.
Even if solar PV is price competitive, there are production restrictions associated with solar PV due to competition for basic raw materials like silicon with other industries such as the semiconductor industry. For example, the current cumulative production capability of the world solar PV industry is only around 6.85GW per year. To put that into perspective, NY city on a hot summer day uses around 12GW a day. Solar cells are also inefficient at converting the sun’s energy at around 12-23% conversion ratio, and take up large amounts of space for relatively low electricity generation. Even if solar PV grows by 50% per year for 10 years, a study has found that it would only contribute to 2.6% of the market. Therefore it can be questioned whether this technology can actually contribute to solving the problem in a meaningful timeframe.
Despite the prohibitive costs, the case study of Germany shows that solar PV may play a meaningful role if promoted by government policies. In Germany, form the 1990’s the government actively promoted solar PV through rebates, loans and feed-in-tariffs for excess electricity fed back into the grid. The market took off and by 2008 solar PV accounted for 1% of total electricity generation. Germany companies now account for 46% of the global solar PV market, generating over 10,000 jobs for the German workforce.
WIND
Wind energy is one of the most mature and fastest growing of all renewable technologies, and is now basically a production driven industry due to high demand of materials. The technology is now close to cost parity with fossil fuels at around 6 cents per kilowatt/hour, and can be scaled up as evidenced by current standard 5MW wind turbines. Wind now accounts for 1.5% of global electricity use and by 2008, capacity had reached 121 GW.
Wind turbines produce electricity by:
1. The wind blows on the blades and makes them turn.
2. The blades turns a shaft inside the nacelle (the box at the top of the turbine)
3. The shaft goes into a gearbox which increases the rotation speed enough for...
4. The generator, which uses magnetic fields to convert the rotational energy into electrical energy. These are similar to those found in normal power stations.
5. The power output goes to a transformer, which converts the electricity coming out of the generator at around 700 Volts (V) to the right voltage for distribution system, typically 33,000 V.
6. The national grid transmits the power around the country.
In Denmark, wind already contributes to 19% of total electricity generation and countries like Germany, Spain and Portugal are moving in the same direction. There are however some mentionable drawbacks to wind energy:
1. Capacity factor of 20-40% is far inferior to fossil fuel plants that can operate at 85% capacity. Therefore close to 3 times the capacity needs to be built to generate the same amount of electricity
2. Wind is intermittent and there is no available technology for large-scale storage of wind energy. It is therefore not a feasible solution for baseload electricity needs
3. wind resources are often distant from city centres where electricity demand is the highest. Exploitation of wind energy requires building of expensive transmission lines.
4. wind turbines may have negative impacts on local ecosystems and bird migration routes.
5. offshore wind is still a developing technology, with many uncertainties and technical difficulties relating to stability from strong winds and storms, and technological challenges in dealing with deeper water or less favorable soil conditions. It is therefore at least twice as expensive to develop as onshore wind.
The most effective policy instruments for further promotion of wind energy include feed-in-tariffs, mandatory long term power purchase contract to guarantee investment certainty, and assistance with high up-front capital costs through public-private partnerships. In terms of grid transmission, potential policies measures include direct funding for grid reinforcements and legal guarantee of grid access for renewables. These policies have been highly successful in Denmark, Germany and Spain and should be applied in all countries seeking to exploit this resource. It is also important to recognize that some of the barriers to wind are non-economic, such as protests from locals, land permits and environmental groups. This can be countered by policies that streamline application and permit procedures, as well as public engagement and education.
However, given current technology and grid systems, it has been argued that wind can only contribute up to 20% of electricity mix due to its inherent flaws such as intermittency and lack of storage. Technological breakthrough is needed in this area and more funding for R&D should be put in place.
To solve this problem and to increase wind’s share in the energy mix, improvements to the grid infrastructure through a smart grid will need to be built. This would consist of high voltage HVDC lines transmitting energy from distant wind farms to city centres. Another strategy, though not mutually exclusive, would be to set up microgrids for more distributed generation. A microgrid is an isolated grid with local generation; storage can operate autonomously, only connected to main grid when absolutely required. In each microgrid area, energy distributed through peer to peer technology where energy is transferred between peer to peer to create an aggregate supply of energy.
Wind energy will be especially important in the UK, where the RES targets will depend primarily on wind. In order to meet the target, it is envisioned that 14GW of onshore and 14GW of offshore wind capacity need to be built by 2025. This will require major transmission circuits, which traditionally take 10 years to permit and construct. Also, the effect of such a target means that more capacity needs to be built. In order to meet Britain’s demand of 61GW of energy, it is envisioned that 99GW of capacity will need to be built because of renewable energy’s lower capacity factors.
In terms of transmission, new routes will be required for both onshore and offshore wind, perhaps using submarine HVDC powerlines, connecting both on-land and offshore wind farms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
