Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
The main negative externality, as pointed out and discussed at length in Joskow
[
13
,
14
,
26
] and Ueckerdt [
39
], is the cost associated with grid integration, because
vRES, by their very nature, require back-up energy. Since this must be weighted
against what they see as the only positive externality
—
the cost of CO
2
emissions
avoided
they conclude that there are cheaper ways to achieve that end, such as
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology, based on capturing CO
2
at the
point of burning fossil fuels and drilling to store it deep underground in mines and
exhausted oil and gas deposits. These technologies are well known to oil and gas
extracting companies. In this context, it should also be remarked that coal and oil-
—
red power plants also need back-up energy, given that they cannot be ramped up
and down quickly and at reasonable cost. Gas plants are the usual fossil-fuel option
for balancing the power system, but again they cannot be ramped up and down on
short notice at reasonable cost, so they have to be kept on stand-by, which implies a
considerable cost. Again, other authors argue that these alleged integration costs are
dif
cult to measure, and are relevant for a traditional grid not designed for re-
newables, which require a quite different type of electricity network [
32
]. Grid
integration and balancing capabilities have also been discussed at some length
above, and it has been remarked that, a positive rather than a negative externality
should be accounted for precisely for CSP with TES.
In relation to grids and electricity networks, it must be added that the discussion
above applies to countries with reasonably well developed electricity networks.
This is not the case for much of the world, however, and it is precisely here that one
of the main comparative advantages of emerging and less developed economies
lies. Grids can be designed from scratch or redesigned much more easily according
to the requirements of renewable energies. And totally off-grid systems or small
local grids will very likely take the place of traditional
electricity
networks. The huge costs involved in setting up and deploying a traditional elec-
tricity grid, and the losses incurred in transferring electricity over long distances are
thus largely avoided in the new mode of distributed generation and consumption of
electricity. In the end, summing up the discussion, when the question of
'
developed
'
'
grid-
integration
of vRES is properly assessed, it cannot be sustained that it is a sound,
clear negative externality: it may even be an advantage in certain circumstances.
Finally, to be fair, other more academically oriented papers are far less critical of
vRES ([
5
,
12
,
33
] are recent examples).
Last but not least, subsidies for fossil-fuel energies must be mentioned at least in
passing [
15
]. Such energies in fact receive several times the amount allocated to
renewable energies. It is true that they also generate a far larger amount of energy,
but what is astonishing is that even after more than two centuries for coal, one and a
half centuries for oil and gas and several decades for nuclear power they still need
subsidies and public support to be worth operating. In sharp contrast, renewables
have been subsidised sizeably, in one way or another, for just the last two decades
and are nevertheless the target of severe criticism by many.
Finally, externalities may represent huge costs or bene
'
ts, and all possible effort
should be made to assess them. But they are dif
cult to evaluate and subject to a
considerable degree of uncertainty and opinion, and hence it is dif
cult to assign
Search WWH ::
Custom Search