1. Natural resources futures study
A British think tank Chatham House published a study on future resource issues in agriculture, metals, and energy sectors in the years 2020, 2030, and 2040. It is very informative.
Lee, B., Preston, F., Kooroshy, J., Bailey, R., & Lahn, G. (2012).
Resources Futures: A Chatham House Report. London, UK: Chatham House. [Full-text at
http://j.mp/Resource_Futures]
2. Renewable electricity futures studies
In 2012, there were two mutually conflicting renewable electricity futures studies.
(1)
Pro-renewable futures study
This report admits renewable electricity demands more costs than conventional power sources. But its conclusion is that a high-penetration (80%) of renewables in the U.S. electricity system by 2050 is environmentally desirable and technologically doable.
Hand, M. M., Baldwin, S., DeMeo, E., Reilly, J. M., Mai, T., Arent, D., Porro, G., Meshek, M., Sandor, D. (Eds.). (2012).
Renewable Electricity Futures Study. 4 volumes. (NREL/TP-6A20-52409). Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Full-text at:
http://j.mp/RE_Futures_1 =
Volume 1: Exploration of High-Penetration Renewable Electricity Futures (includes Executive Summary)
http://j.mp/RE_Futures_2 =
Volume 2: Renewable Electricity Generation and Storage Technologies
http://j.mp/RE_Futures_3 =
Volume 3: End-Use Electricity Demand
http://j.mp/RE_Futures_4 =
Volume 4: Bulk Electric Power Systems: Operations and Transmission Planning
(2)
Pro-nuclear futures study
This NEA report is not entirely about futures. But some of its data contain projections into 2020, 2030, and 2050. It considered 10% and 30% penetration levels of renewables in the grid. The NEA says grid integration costs of renewable electricity are too high. (How high? See the table below the citation.)
Nuclear Energy Agency. (2012).
Nuclear Energy and Renewables: System Effects in Low-carbon Electricity Systems. (NEA No. 7056). Paris, France: OECD/NEA Publishing. [Full-text at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264188617-en]
Total cost of electricity supply at different penetration levels of
renewable energy (USD/MWh)
| Country |
|
Reference |
10%
penetration level |
30%
penetration level |
Mix of
conventional
dispatchable
technologies |
Wind
onshore |
Wind
offshore |
Solar |
Wind
onshore |
Wind
offshore |
Solar |
| Finland |
Total cost of
electricity supply |
75.9 |
81.2 |
86.5 |
121.8 |
93.5 |
109.0 |
215.9 |
| Increase in plant-level cost |
- |
3.5 |
8.2 |
41.2 |
10.5 |
24.7 |
123.7 |
| Grid-level system costs |
- |
1.8 |
2.3 |
4.7 |
7.1 |
8.3 |
16.3 |
| Cost increase |
- |
5.3 |
10.6 |
45.9 |
17.6 |
33.1 |
140.0 |
| France |
Total cost of
electricity supply |
73.7 |
79.5 |
82.9 |
112.0 |
92.1 |
102.5 |
189.6 |
| Increase in plant-level cost |
- |
3.7 |
6.9 |
34.0 |
11.1 |
20.8 |
101.9 |
| Grid-level system costs |
- |
2.0 |
2.3 |
4.3 |
7.2 |
7.9 |
14.0 |
| Cost increase |
- |
5.8 |
9.2 |
38.3 |
18.3 |
28.8 |
115.9 |
| Germany |
Total cost of
electricity supply |
80.7 |
86.6 |
91.3 |
101.2 |
105.5 |
116.9 |
156.2 |
| Increase in plant-level cost |
- |
3.9 |
7.8 |
16.9 |
11.6 |
23.3 |
50.6 |
| Grid-level system costs |
- |
1.9 |
2.8 |
3.6 |
13.2 |
12.9 |
24.9 |
| Cost increase |
- |
5.8 |
10.6 |
20.4 |
24.8 |
36.2 |
75.4 |
| South Korea |
Total cost of
electricity supply |
63.8 |
70.5 |
77.4 |
82.8 |
86.3 |
107.1 |
122.8 |
| Increase in plant-level cost |
- |
4.7 |
11.0 |
15.8 |
14.1 |
33.1 |
47.5 |
| Grid-level system costs |
- |
2.0 |
2.6 |
3.1 |
8.4 |
10.2 |
11.4 |
| Cost increase |
- |
6.7 |
13.6 |
19.0 |
22.5 |
43.3 |
59.0 |
| United Kingdom |
Total cost of
electricity supply |
98.3 |
101.7 |
105.6 |
130.6 |
111.9 |
123.6 |
199.4 |
| Increase in plant-level cost |
- |
1.5 |
3.9 |
26.5 |
4.5 |
11.7 |
79.6 |
| Grid-level system costs |
- |
1.9 |
3.4 |
5.8 |
9.1 |
13.6 |
21.5 |
| Cost increase |
- |
3.4 |
7.3 |
32.3 |
13.6 |
25.3 |
101.1 |
| United States |
Total cost of
electricity supply |
72.4 |
76.1 |
78.0 |
88.2 |
84.6 |
91.5 |
123.7 |
| Increase in plant-level cost |
- |
2.1 |
4.2 |
14.3 |
6.2 |
12.5 |
42.8 |
| Grid-level system costs |
- |
1.6 |
1.4 |
1.5 |
6.0 |
6.5 |
8.5 |
| Cost increase |
- |
3.7 |
5.6 |
15.7 |
12.2 |
19.1 |
51.2 |
Source: Nuclear Energy Agency. (2012).
Nuclear
Energy and Renewables: System Effects in Low-carbon Electricity Systems.
(NEA No. 7056). Paris, France: OECD/NEA Publishing.
Note: Higher electricity prices associated with the high renewable scenarios
are driven by replacement of existing generation plants with new
generators (mostly renewable); additional balancing requirements
reflected in expenditures for combustion turbines, storage, and
transmission; and the assumed higher relative capital cost of renewable
generation, compared to conventional technologies, assumed in the
analysis.
Posts
