Why the renewable target should be ramped up, not cut

Jul 11, 2014 by Peerapat Vithayasrichareon; Iain Macgill, And Jenny Riesz
Figure 1. Installed generation capacity, expected costs, standard deviation (SD) of generation costs (cost risk) and CO2 emissions of the least cost generation portfolio in each renewable penetration scenario. Percentages indicate the % of energy sourced from each technology. Credit: Authors, CC BY-NC-ND

It's hard to predict which of Australia's climate policies will survive, or perhaps even thrive, in the current parliament. But our research suggests that if the Abbott government wants to cut long-term power costs and risk to electricity consumers, it should consider ramping up rather than weakening the Renewable Energy Target (RET).

Recent UNSW modelling highlights that not only will generation reduce greenhouse emissions, but it can also reduce the risks associated with high wholesale electricity costs from uncertain future gas price and pricing policies here in Australia and Internationally.

Indeed, this modelling suggests that a much higher renewable penetration than currently legislated, let alone some of the watered down targets currently under discussion, could assist the Australian electricity industry to cope with an increasingly uncertain, and likely carbon constrained future world.

In particular, it is time to extend the discussion beyond RET costs and market impacts, to their potential contribution to reducing future risks for the electricity industry, and us all.

Future electricity industry uncertainties

The Australian electricity industry faces unprecedented uncertainty on many fronts. Key industry cost factors such as future domestic , and climate policies are highly uncertain.

The completion of the major east-coast natural gas export facilities currently under construction will expose domestic gas prices to international gas markets,which are themselves highly uncertain looking forward. Meanwhile, embedded generation and demand-side technologies have upset long-term trends in demand growth.

And the past week in Canberra has highlighted the uncertainties facing carbon policy developments day to day, let alone looking forward over decades.

Recent preliminary RET modelling from consultants Acil Allen, commissioned by the government itself, suggested that maintaining the RET at its legislated target might increase overall industry costs by around A$12.8 billion in real terms, but would result in lower long-term wholesale electricity prices and household electricity bills.

Acil Allen did acknowledge a very important caveat in their modelling - there is inherent uncertainty in the wholesale electricity price outcomes that determine whether customer bills go up or down under different future renewable energy targets.

But, surprisingly, the consultants argued that the overall industry costs associated with the RET were relatively certain by comparison. Acil Allen suggested the key policy question was whether it was worth trading off these additional industry costs against the less certain and riskier wholesale price benefits associated with the RET.

In reality, there are major uncertainties in these "direct" costs looking forward over 15 years including new build capital costs, fuel costs, electricity demand growth and, in particular, carbon pricing.

New modelling shows an increase in the renewable energy target could cut power costs. Credit: Dave Hunt/AAP

Some of this is reflected in Acil Allen's sensitivity analysis which included demand, fuel costs, capital costs and carbon price fluctuations. However, these represent a very limited perspective on major future uncertainties.

At what carbon price?

Acil Allen's modelling assumes a zero carbon price in the reference policy scenarios with some sensitivity based around European Union carbon price permits of less than $10/ton of carbon dioxide and then climbing at 3% from 2021.

But separate modelling by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Australian Treasury, and International Energy Agency (IEA) suggests carbon prices at least five times higher to achieve effective action on climate change.

These uncertainties are also interdependent. Future gas prices seem almost certain to be influenced by future global carbon policies due to the lower emissions of gas compared to coal. Indeed, historical fossil fuel and carbon prices have exhibited considerable correlations in the EU and UK markets.

Renewables to reduce electricity costs and risks

Our modelling has attempted to explicitly incorporate the major uncertainties in future gas and carbon price and explore their implications for overall electricity industry costs.

The modelling examines different possible future generation portfolios by considering different renewable energy penetration scenarios in 2030, given highly uncertain future fuel prices, carbon pricing policy and electricity demand.

Based upon the government's own projections for future gas and carbon prices, technology costs and demand, our modelling suggests that a renewable penetration of around 65%-75% in 2030 might actually offer the lowest overall industry costs and cost risks. This penetration is of course far in excess of the current target, which was legislated to achieve at least 20% renewable energy by 2020.

Our modelling, like all modelling, can only provide insights and guidance on challenging policy questions such as the future of renewables in Australia. However, our findings renewable generation can effectively mitigate cost risk associated with gas and carbon price uncertainty, with each addition of 10% renewable energy reducing this cost risk by an average of 20%.

So the additional cost of investing in renewable generation at present can be framed as an "insurance" or hedge against future extreme prices if and when the world becomes serious about addressing climate change.

Results of the modelling are shown in Figure 1 where standard deviation (SD) of costs represents cost risk.

Fig. 2. Probability distribution of the generation cost for the least cost generation portfolio for each level of renewable penetration considered. Credit: Authors, CC BY-NC-ND

Figure 2 shows the probability distribution for the lowest cost generation portfolio at each renewable penetration level considered where the width of the distribution represents the extent of cost risk.

Investment in renewable generation is preferable to coal generation due to its high emissions, yet also to new investment in combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT), regardless of the future carbon price, due to the anticipated high and uncertain future gas prices.

Future generation portfolios with a large share of CCGT, and consequently far less renewables are likely to be exposed to considerable cost risk. CCGT plants are exposed to high and uncertain gas prices, and therefore play a small role in the lowest cost portfolios, in terms of both capacity and annual generation, even without a . This reflects the fact that baseload CCGT plants are of lesser value when bulk energy is being provided by variable renewables. Possible future carbon pricing only adds to these risks.

Modelling can play a key role in assisting policy makers and stakeholders to better understand their options, and their potential implications. However, with such high future uncertainty, it is vital that decision making takes into account the wide range of possible futures and the potential risks associated with particular policy decisions. And the RET review and its associated modelling could certainly benefit from better considering these questions.

Explore further: Political uncertainty clouds future of energy

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Coal more risky than renewables

Sep 05, 2013

Coal-fired electricity may have little or no economic future in Australia, even if carbon capture and storage becomes commercially available, a new analysis has found.

Political uncertainty clouds future of energy

Feb 18, 2014

Researchers from Murdoch University are investigating how the Federal Government's efforts to repeal the carbon tax are affecting investments in Australia's energy sector.Lead researcher and PhD candidate ...

Fully renewable electricity could be competitive

Apr 03, 2013

(Phys.org) —A carbon price of between $50 and $100 per tonne of carbon dioxide would make coal-fired and gas-fired power less economical than renewable electricity, a UNSW study shows.

Recommended for you

Team improves solar-cell efficiency

13 hours ago

New light has been shed on solar power generation using devices made with polymers, thanks to a collaboration between scientists in the University of Chicago's chemistry department, the Institute for Molecular ...

Calif. teachers fund to boost clean energy bets

13 hours ago

The California State Teachers' Retirement System says it plans to increase its investments in clean energy and technology to $3.7 billion, from $1.4 billion, over the next five years.

Idealistic Norwegian sun trappers

20 hours ago

The typical Norwegian owner of a solar heating system is a resourceful man in his mid-fifties. He is technically skilled, interested in energy systems, and wants to save money and protect the environment.

User comments : 6

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

marko
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 11, 2014
Australias Conservative Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, is an international embarassment to Australia as he tries to undo the positive climate change initiatives already progressed in Australia.

Abbott is a scientific illiterate buffoon who is beholden to big business polluters and acts like a Dictator on climate change issues. He is worse that the former conservative leader John Howard, a self-admitted 'climate change skeptic'.

Put your trust in God but don't believe in scientific evidence it seems.
EWH
2 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2014
This article is advocacy based on bad analysis, not science. Even taking it at face value, the "risk" is mostly of lower prices rather than higher prices. Using the prospect of high carbon taxes as a rationale for even more impossibly high proportion of renewables is like the life insurance agent using his own propensity for random violence as a reason to by more insurance. The fact is that those taxes are a pure boondoggle with no credible research to back up the notion that they can have any effect on temperature. Even assuming a CO2 multiplier effect from supposed positive climate feedback, the amount of CO2 change from taxes is too low to have any measurable change on climate.

The analysis completely ignores the need for baseload power and the instability of the grid that comes from having such a high percentage of very rapidly fluctuating power from wind and solar. It also completely ignores the only viable low-carbon power source, nuclear.
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2014
Tony Abbott, prime minister of Australia recently suggested at some meeting with media present that we need more base load electrical power.

He is either stupid or very badly informed. Since the carbon tax there has been a reduction in power consumption, one base load power station has closed and others have reduced output even shutting down "spare" turbines.

Physics proves that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which needs management, with levels continuing to rise. Implementing a carbon tax has put direct pressure on power companies to improve efficiency & passing some of this carbon tax to the poor through Centerlink has moderated effect upon consumption patterns.

In general, public has seen the incentive of reducing power & either keeping the subsidy if they are poor or if not poor also reducing consumption to save power - especially so it is in the 'public mindset' as important.

The alternative 'direct action' from Abbott fundamentally has less psychological impact for change.
kelman66
4.7 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2014
Great strides are being made in solar power and battery technology, as well as many other areas.
With all the uses for petroleum products, it seems sorta silly to burn it. Obviously cant switch overnight but the time has come to start switching certain things over.
Dont put all your eggs in the oil basket.
otero
Jul 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2014
otero uttered
The so-called "renewables" and "green-solution" just point outs clearly, a shift to renewable energy will just replace one non-renewable resource (fossil fuel) with another (metals and minerals).
Really ?

So then applying such idea with equivalence you must conclude fixed infrastucture of coal fired power stations such as: Steel, Copper, refractory materials (sand) etc has the same type of negative overtone.

So otero, which do you prefer:-

a. Coal/gas fired power stations using steel, copper & sand etc where emissions produce greenhouse gas affecting climate whilst consuming a non-renewable energy source.

or

b. Solar/hydroelectric power stations using steel, copper & sand where there are negligible emissions converting a virtually limitless & free energy source.

Do you see the perversity of the emotional tone you chose with 'gobble up' ?

Isnt that what fossil fuel plants do - gobble up resources for fixed infrastructure ?
otero
Jul 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
howhot2
5 / 5 (1) Jul 23, 2014
I think the differences in energy derived from fossil fuel vs renewables can be summed up this way; Fossil fuels are a limited, finite and polluting resource. Renewables are a technology with a potential unlimited future. Personally I'll bet the future over the old fuddy-duddy.