CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world.


Clean Power wind power

Published on December 31st, 2011 | by Ravinder Casley Gera

8

Switching to Renewables No More Expensive than Upgrading Fossil Power, Says UK Government’s Climate Change Scientific Adviser

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

December 31st, 2011 by
 
 

wind power

Various arguments — some exaggerated, some plainly false — have been made over the years by those opposed to rapid expansion of renewable energy. They say solar and wind energy won’t work, or that they can’t supply consistent power, or that they can’t be expanded fast enough to meet our needs. Fortunately, one by one, improvements in technology have proven these arguments to be untrue.

Recently, though, another argument has been frequently heard: that renewable energy is too expensive. At a time of squeezed household budgets and rising fuel costs, support for renewable energy — whether through direct government subsidy or through feed-in tariffs that are effectively paid for by energy consumers — can be placed at a lower priority than keeping costs down. That’s at least part of the reason we’ve seen subsidies for renewable energy cut in Britain, the Netherlands, and elsewhere.

But according to a new study by the UK government’s chief scientific adviser on climate change, Prof David MacKay, switching wholesale to renewable energy won’t be any more expensive than replacing aging fossil fuel-driven power stations.

Prof MacKay, who’s the chief scientific adviser to the UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change, made the calculation using a nifty open-source analysis package he created called the 2050 Pathways Calculator. He estimates that the cost of converting the UK’s energy infrastructure to low-carbon sources by 2050 would be around £5000 per person per year. A more ‘business as usual’ approach, based on upgrading existing fossil fuel power stations and importing large amounts of gas and heating oil, would cost around £4600.

The calculator also lends some support to the argument that nuclear power is too expensive. A scenario based largely on expanded nuclear power costs around £5500 per person per year, making it amongst the most expensive scenarios.

Of course, none of the assessments offered by the calculator bear in mind the actual costs of climate change itself. The Guardian points out that the Stern review, the high-profile study of the economics of climate change published by the UK government in 2006, estimated that cost as equivalent to £6500 per person per year.

But, of course, the UK could take the low-carbon route and still face the additional climate change costs if other nations don’t do the same.

Then again, the calculator also doesn’t take into account other health and environmental costs that UK citizens have to pay for going to high-carbon route.

It’s ironic that David MacKay should be the brains behind this strong evidence in favour of strong support for renewables. He’s best known for a 2009 book, Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air, which itself argued that the UK couldn’t meet all its energy needs with renewables and needed to expand nuclear energy.

In fairness, though, it’s worth noting that other energy economists have questioned MacKay’s approach. Professor Dieter Helm, of Oxford University, told The Guardian that the similarity in costs between low- and high-carbon approaches that MacKay predicts “is indeed the result you get if you take conventional wisdom on fossil fuel prices and assume no major technical progress. But these are precisely the two assumptions which would make a difference.”

You can come up with your own carbon pathways for the UK at the Carbon Pathways Calculator website.


Source: The Guardian | Windmills via shutterstock

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Print Friendly

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: ,


About the Author

is a London-based freelance journalist passionate about climate change, development and technology. He has written for the Daily Express, Excite.co.uk, and the Fly. He blogs at ravcasleygera.wordpress.com.



  • Anonymous

    “Professor Dieter Helm, of Oxford University, told The Guardian that the similarity in costs between low- and high-carbon approaches that MacKay predicts “is indeed the result you get if you take conventional wisdom on fossil fuel prices and assume no major technical progress.”

    Prof Dieter is suggesting that we might see major technical progress with fossil fuels?

    Or is he doing something less stupid and pointing out that renewable technology is likely to become even cheaper over time?

    • Anonymous

      Both: “Helm says gas may turn out to be cheap and abundant, but also that technology advances in batteries, the electrification of transport, breathroughs in solar power – such as the harnessing of photosynthesis – and the use of smart grids could cut the costs of low-carbon energy too.”

      Basically, the future is uncertain.

    • http://ravcasleygera.com/ Rav Casley Gera

      There’s some evidence Helm is more optimistic about the future of fossil fuels than about nuclear, although he’s absolutely not a denier. For example, here’s an article from 2009 where he says we have to bet everything on carbon-capture and he’s quite dismissive of wind.

      http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/node/775

  • Mark Redden

    I think I need some help here:

    According to a Harvard Medical School study, the actual cost of coal power is 180% higher than the price per kwh paid by US consumer/taxpayers.

    See this: http://plymouthdailynews.com/harvard-coal-adds-18-cents-kilowatt-hour-your-bill-13185

    For the US consumer the average price paid per kwh is 10 cents, but the actual costs are 18 cents higher per kwh higher than this, giving a total of 28 cents per kwh.

    Did Harvard get its math wrong?

    If the same is true for UK coal power, and the costs of coal are almost 3 times higher than renewables, then the calculator is actually misinforming people?

    Can anyone help?

    • Anonymous

      I’ve seen no one challenge Epstein’s numbers with facts.

      I didn’t dig through the calculator, is it the case that it uses only the meter price of energy and does not include externalities? If so, that’s pretty common. It’s very common for people to ignore the hidden costs of fossil fuels and nuclear energy when discussing the cost of electricity.

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Yeah, I agree. This calculator, again, doesn’t take these costs into account. It seems obvious, but people continue to leave out the health costs of coal for some odd reason.

  • http://twitter.com/Tia_t Titia Thompson

    Maynex patent-pending self-powered H2-Flex Hybrid kit will quickly, inexpensively, and effortlessly transform any vehicle into a super-efficient hybrid. The H2-Flex can also make any EV and Fuel Cell vehicle go over 1000 miles and still recharge or refuel in about 1 minute!

Back to Top ↑