4.6 Article

A global analysis of the progress and failure of electric utilities to adapt their portfolios of power-generation assets to the energy transition

期刊

NATURE ENERGY
卷 5, 期 11, 页码 920-927

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41560-020-00686-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. ESRC Grand Union Doctoral Training Partnership
  2. Scatcherd European Scholarship by the University of Oxford
  3. 73 Scholarship Fund for Geography by Hertford College, Oxford

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The penetration of low-carbon technologies in power generation has challenged fossil-fuel-focused electric utilities. While the extant, predominantly qualitative, literature highlights diversification into renewables among possible adaptation strategies, comprehensive quantitative understanding of utilities' portfolio decarbonization has been missing. This study bridges this gap, systematically quantifying the transitions of over 3,000 utilities worldwide from fossil-fuelled capacity to renewables over the past two decades. It applies a machine-learning-based clustering algorithm to a historical global asset-level dataset, distilling four macro-behaviours and sub-patterns within them. Three-quarters of the utilities did not expand their portfolios. Of the remaining companies, a handful grew coal ahead of other assets, while half favoured gas and the rest prioritized renewables growth. Strikingly, 60% of the renewables-prioritizing utilities had not ceased concurrently expanding their fossil-fuel portfolio, compared to 15% reducing it. These findings point to electricity system inertia and the utility-driven risk of carbon lock-in and asset stranding. To meet climate goals, electric utilities should be decarbonizing their power production, but historical analyses of this process are scarce. Using machine learning and data from more than 3,000 utilities globally, Galina Alova shows that even utilities that prioritize renewable energy continue to grow their fossil fuelled generation capacity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据