4.7 Article

Are renewable energy technologies cost competitive for electricity generation?

期刊

RENEWABLE ENERGY
卷 180, 期 -, 页码 658-672

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2021.08.088

关键词

Cost competitiveness of renewable energy; Electricity generation cost; Levelized cost of electricity; Renewable energy; Factors affecting electricity costs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Renewable energy technologies, especially solar and wind energy technologies, have experienced a rapid decline in costs over the past two decades, making them cost-competitive with fossil fuel technologies. However, there is currently no consensus on the cost competitiveness due to wide variations in factors influencing LCOEs across countries and technologies.
Renewable energy technologies (RETs), particularly solar and wind energy technologies, have experi-enced a rapid decline in their costs over the last two decades. Several studies claim that RETs are cost-competitive with fossil fuel technologies based on their levelized costs of electricity (LCOE), the most common indicator used to compare the cost competitiveness of electricity-generating technologies. However, no consensus exists due to the wide variations in factors influencing the LCOEs across countries and technologies. This study calculates more than 4000 LCOEs for 11 technologies, varying all input variables. It shows that the LCOEs for RETs, except concentrated solar and offshore wind, are lower than those for fossil fuel technologies at the lower range of capital costs and discount rates of 10% or lower. However, for a reasonable range of input variables, the study cannot justify the low auction prices for solar power, below US$20/MWh, recently observed in some parts of the world. The study illustrates how various factors influence the cost of electricity generation across technologies. It also compares the trends in electricity generation costs between RETs and fossil fuels over the last two decades. (c) 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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

4.7
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