Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Correcting myths about the cost of clean energy

Posted on 23 September 2024 by dana1981

This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections

After decades of stable electricity prices, U.S. residents have seen their rates rise by one-third over the past four years. 

The fossil fuel lobby and some Republican politicians are exploiting the opportunity to falsely place the blame on clean energy sources. 

“We are going to get the energy prices down,” former President Donald Trump said at an August 2024  rally in Wisconsin. “You know, this was caused by their horrible energy – wind.”

In reality, wind is the cheapest source of new power in the United States today. 

It’s true that electricity from wind and sunshine is intermittent, depending on the weather and time of day. So these power sources require building more energy storage and electrical transmission lines. But their fuel is free, unlike fossil fuels, whose prices vary wildly

A plethora of evidence, including real-world electricity rates and power generation mixes, demonstrates that wind and solar energy tend to reduce electricity prices compared to fossil fuels. Bottom line: Electricity prices have generally increased for the same reason as everything else – inflation.

Some states with lots of cheap renewables have low electricity rates

Wind energy has been the cheapest source of new electricity in the U.S. for about a decade, according to the Lazard financial services company’s annual levelized cost of energy report. 

This analysis accounts for the cost of electricity generation over the lifetime of the source, including factors like capital, operations and maintenance, fuel costs, financing, and utilization rates. In other words, it accounts for the fact that wind and solar power are intermittent. They are nevertheless the two cheapest sources of new power available in the U.S. today, especially when including clean energy tax credits from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA. 

A graph showing the cost of wind, solar, gas, coal and nuclear energy. The cost of wind and particularly solar have dramatically decreased since 2009The levelized cost of electricity sources in the United States over time, including clean energy tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act. Created by Dana Nuccitelli using data from Lazard.

Because wind power has been cheap for a long time, many states in the windy central U.S. have installed a lot of wind turbines. These states provide a real-world test of the effect that deploying renewable energy has on electricity rates. As the chart below illustrates, many of the states with the highest percentage of wind and solar generation, like Iowa, the Dakotas, Kansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico, have among the lowest electricity prices in the country. And a 2023 report by University of Texas at Austin research associate Joshua Smith estimated that renewables reduced electricity rates by about 13% in that state from 2018 to 2022.

Why are electricity rates rising?

U.S. electricity rates have long been stable, generally deviating no more than plus or minus 10% from the national average of about 15 cents per kilowatt-hour. But since 2022, national electricity prices have risen to nearly 20% above the long-term average, approaching 18 cents per kilowatt-hour.

A recent report from the energy and climate policy think tank Energy Innovation, a Yale Climate Connections partner, sought to identify the causes of those electricity rate increases. The title of the report didn’t leave readers in suspense: "Clean Energy Isn’t Driving Power Price Spikes.”

Instead, as a result of inflation caused largely by the COVID-19 pandemic, the cost of virtually everything has increased over the past several years. The Energy Innovation report notes that American electricity rates since 2010 have risen at the same rate as inflation. But electricity bills have increased more slowly due to improved home energy efficiency: Energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs mean families can keep the lights on (and the dishes washing) while consuming less electricity, for example.

Some states experienced bigger electricity price increases than others. Energy Innovation concluded that the most expensive rate increases happened in states with more fossil-fueled power generation. The report found that many utilities have continued to invest significant amounts of money in aging, expensive coal power plants. And it noted that “the states most reliant on natural gas for electricity generation were among those with the highest rate of retail price increases as gas prices surged since 2020,” in large part because “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine left Europe scrambling to reduce dependence on Russian gas, driving gas prices in the U.S. up by a factor of four in a matter of months.”

A chart showing that as gas share of generation increases so did the price from 2020-2023Source: Energy Innovation with dashed trendline added by Dana Nuccitelli.

Maintaining and upgrading the power grid also adds costs. Many of America’s electrical transmission and distribution lines were built over 50 years ago and need to be replaced and modernized. And electricity demand is growing due to factors like expanding data centers, artificial intelligence, and the electrification of vehicles and buildings. But most of those infrastructure upgrades are necessary regardless of where we get our electricity from.

Wildfires, not renewables, are driving rate increases in California 

California has the highest electricity rates in the continental United States, and about one-third of its electricity is generated from renewables. (It’s worth noting that household energy bills in California are close to the national average because the state has invested heavily in energy efficiency, so though electricity rates are high, electricity consumption is low.)

Electricity rates have risen rapidly in California over the past few years, primarily as a result of wildfire risk. The utility Pacific Gas & Electric was held liable for the over $16 billion in insured losses caused by the Camp Fire that swept through the city of Paradise in 2018. Since that disaster, California electrical utilities have been forced to fund wildfire risk insurance pools, wildfire prevention measures, improved power grid resilience, and other wildfire-related costs. According to the California Public Utilities Commission, wildfire-related costs have been responsible for most of the rise in state electricity rates.

Research has shown that climate change is a wildfire “threat multiplier” that has doubled the area burned by California wildfires over the past 30 years. One of the most important ways to lessen those risks and avoid worsening wildfires and the resulting rise in electricity rates is to deploy climate solutions like solar and wind power.

Ultimately, the Energy Innovation report determined that wind and solar energy are solutions to, not causes of, rising electricity prices.

“The volatility of fossil fuel prices, the cost of climate-driven wildfires, and surging spending on aging infrastructure all contribute to rising rates,” the report concluded, “while falling costs of clean energy can help to offset these factors.”

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Comments 1 to 3:

  1. The Labour Government in the UK are in a rush to get to get clean energy by 2030. Due to the last Conservative Government there are few onshore wind turbines in the UK, but their planning permission allows them to be made taller to take bigger blades, and if we add the maximum height allowed by the planning permission we can approximately triple the amount of electricity generated. And of course the infrastructure is already built so we can triple onshore wind turbine electricity in months. This is a win win as infrastructure takes a long time to put in, and at great expense. Great British Energy can hit the ground running by picking the lowest hanging fruit. Octopus Energy is already buying up 10% of our onshore wind turbines to heighten our onshore wind turbines, and we can do the other 90% by paying the owners to do the work, or nationalizing them.

    1 0
  2. US energy Information Adminstration has an excellent comment on why LCOE is not used by the electric generation industry in planning for plant expansion, primarily because LCOE doesnt capture all the costs and value of the different sources of generation

     

    "LCOE is limited because it only reflects the cost to build and operate a plant, but not the value of the plant to the grid"

     

    See page 9 of the pdf in the attached link.

     

    www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/

     

     

    A couple of other observations with Chart created by Nuccitelli =

    Lazards report shows the LCOE range for the various types of electric generation sources

    Wind Onshore $27-$73
    Solar utility $29-$92
    Gas combined $45-$108 (which includes base gas generation and peak generation)
    Coal $69-$168

    The two observations are why does Nuccitelli's chart use the low end of the range for solar and wind LCOE while showing the upper mid range for gas?

    The second question is why the LCOE computation used by lazards for gas include both baseload costs and peaker costs (peaker costs being the highest cost for all sources of electric generation) and then comparing to the LCOE for wind and solar when they dont perform in that space?

    thanks for an explanation

     

     

     

    0 0
  3. David-acct  @2 ,

    you are quite correct, in that pricings ought to cover external costs.

    Also, the projected future costs.

    Thus the costs should be shown in several categories :-

    (A)  The immediate LCOE, and projected costs at 5, 10, and 20 years.

    (B)  Immediate and projected total grid costs.

    (C)  A range of amortisations regarding environmental and projected societal costs.

    *

    Of course, (C) is the most difficult to estimate. Yet important, in both dollar and non-dollar terms.

    And (A) ventures into guesstimations of changes in technology.

    But we should always be looking at the bigger picture.

    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us