Skip to main content

How to calculate the cost of generating electricity

When I attend energy conferences in Latin America and the Caribbean, whether as a panelist or attendee, I often hear questions such as: What type of energy is cheaper: thermoelectric or renewable energy? And what is the most competitive renewable technology: hydroelectric, solar, or wind? These are also the basic questions that regulatory entities ask when planning to expand their energy matrices. Investors also ask these questions when seeking opportunities for investment in the region. Comparing apples and oranges The answer is not so simple. We are talking about different technologies with different investment requirements, dissimilar service life, capacity factors and operational costs that vary based on the project type and location. The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) is a useful tool that can be used to consistently compare the costs of different types of technologies (solar, wind, natural gas, etc.). How to calculate the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) In simple terms, the LCOE consists of calculating the total average cost of building and operating an electrical power station and dividing it among the total energy to be generated over its entire service life. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has financial models available to the public that can be used to calculate the LCOE for solar and wind plants. The models contain variables such as the investment cost necessary to build the plant, the useful life of the power station, and annual operating and maintenance costs, among other variables. Performing a sensitivity analysis of these different variables allows us to determine which specific actions can be taken to reduce the levelized cost of electricity in a specific project. The conclusions may vary, from changing the equipment provider to reconsidering the project’s site. What information can be obtained from the LCOE? The first benefit is the ability to compare to make informed decisions. The LCOE tool also: Provides a break-even point: Its result, expressed in kilowatt hours (kWh), can also be considered the break-even point for an electrical power station, i.e. the minimum price at which it would have to sell electricity to neither gain nor lose. Yields interesting conclusions: Using the LCOE as a tool for a competitive measure among various sources of energy allows for obtaining diametrically different results, even within the same technology. For example, the LCOE in a country with ideal geography for mini-hydroelectric power stations (in terms of both investment cost and plant factors) could be much less than a run-of-river hydroelectric power station in a flat country with high labor costs. Measures competitiveness trends among different technologies over time. Thus, five years ago the levelized cost of solar plants could not compete with other sources of energy. Thanks to the drastic reduction in investment cost, solar plants now compete at the same level as other technologies in bidding for energy contracts. LCOE and other available tools IRENA, in its 2016 publication, analyzes levelized cost of renewable energy trends in Latin America and the Caribbean with revealing conclusions. Even though the cost of installing wind farms in the region is slightly higher than in more developed countries (such as India and China), the region’s higher level of wind resources makes it possible to achieve a higher capacity factor —the ratio between the actual energy generated during a given period and what would have been produced if the plant had been continuously operating at nominal power during that period— resulting in a comparatively similar LCOE. For example, in some areas of Brazil, the plant factor reached 50 percent. It should be emphasized that although the LCOE is widely used to compare unit costs among technologies, the methodology does have some limitations since its results are highly dependent on the scope and assumptions used. Nonetheless, there are various tools and technologies that seek to determine relative economic competitiveness among different technologies. These include the Levelized Avoided Cost of Energy (LACE), which measures the avoided cost of electricity of a new electrical power plant due to the displacement that the new infrastructure produces in the system. However, this will be the subject of a future blog entry. Subscribe to receive more content like this! [mc4wp_form]
MARGARITA GARCÍA DE PAREDES
JUNE 09 2017

How to calculate the cost of generating electricity

When I attend energy conferences in Latin America and the Caribbean, whether as a panelist or attendee, I often hear questions such as: What type of energy is cheaper: thermoelectric or renewable energy? And what is the most competitive renewable technology: hydroelectric, solar, or wind?

These are also the basic questions that regulatory entities ask when planning to expand their energy matrices. Investors also ask these questions when seeking opportunities for investment in the region.

Comparing apples and oranges

The answer is not so simple. We are talking about different technologies with different investment requirements, dissimilar service life, capacity factors and operational costs that vary based on the project type and location.

The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) is a useful tool that can be used to consistently compare the costs of different types of technologies (solar, wind, natural gas, etc.).

How to calculate the levelized cost of energy (LCOE)

In simple terms, the LCOE consists of calculating the total average cost of building and operating an electrical power station and dividing it among the total energy to be generated over its entire service life.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has financial models available to the public that can be used to calculate the LCOE for solar and wind plants. The models contain variables such as the investment cost necessary to build the plant, the useful life of the power station, and annual operating and maintenance costs, among other variables. Performing a sensitivity analysis of these different variables allows us to determine which specific actions can be taken to reduce the levelized cost of electricity in a specific project. The conclusions may vary, from changing the equipment provider to reconsidering the project’s site.

What information can be obtained from the LCOE?

The first benefit is the ability to compare to make informed decisions. The LCOE tool also:

  • Provides a break-even point: Its result, expressed in kilowatt hours (kWh), can also be considered the break-even point for an electrical power station, i.e. the minimum price at which it would have to sell electricity to neither gain nor lose.
  • Yields interesting conclusions: Using the LCOE as a tool for a competitive measure among various sources of energy allows for obtaining diametrically different results, even within the same technology. For example, the LCOE in a country with ideal geography for mini-hydroelectric power stations (in terms of both investment cost and plant factors) could be much less than a run-of-river hydroelectric power station in a flat country with high labor costs.
  • Measures competitiveness trends among different technologies over time. Thus, five years ago the levelized cost of solar plants could not compete with other sources of energy. Thanks to the drastic reduction in investment cost, solar plants now compete at the same level as other technologies in bidding for energy contracts.

LCOE and other available tools

IRENA, in its 2016 publication, analyzes levelized cost of renewable energy trends in Latin America and the Caribbean with revealing conclusions. Even though the cost of installing wind farms in the region is slightly higher than in more developed countries (such as India and China), the region’s higher level of wind resources makes it possible to achieve a higher capacity factor —the ratio between the actual energy generated during a given period and what would have been produced if the plant had been continuously operating at nominal power during that period— resulting in a comparatively similar LCOE. For example, in some areas of Brazil, the plant factor reached 50 percent.

It should be emphasized that although the LCOE is widely used to compare unit costs among technologies, the methodology does have some limitations since its results are highly dependent on the scope and assumptions used.

Nonetheless, there are various tools and technologies that seek to determine relative economic competitiveness among different technologies. These include the Levelized Avoided Cost of Energy (LACE), which measures the avoided cost of electricity of a new electrical power plant due to the displacement that the new infrastructure produces in the system. However, this will be the subject of a future blog entry.

AUTHORS

Energy

Related Posts

  • Can 'flotovoltaics' be a future partner for hydropower systems?

    Can 'flotovoltaics' be a future partner for hydropower systems?

    To address changing paradigms, a new technology has been proposed: hydropower plants that enable solar generation or hybrid hydro-solar systems.

    Read more
  • Solar energy: The revolution spurring development in Honduras

    Solar energy: The revolution spurring development in Honduras

    When Invema plant, the main plastic recycler in Honduras starts operating, a success formula resonates. It is one of the commercial companies that took advantage of the photovoltaic energy boom in the country. Its case demonstrates how the private sector’s investment in solar energy can facilitate greater economic and sustainable development for the country. Six years ago, the executives of the firm decided to install solar panels in the company, so it could generate its own power. This initiative promised a 20% reduction in energy consumption as well as a significant reduction in greenhouse gases emissions of polluting gases. And so it was. Today, Invema obtains energy savings up to 30% in electricity and reinvests in the focus of its business, recycling, so much so that it is now manufacturing the bottles that Coca-Cola uses in Central America. “We are very proud, because thanks to the solar panels, IDB Invest’s doors/channels opened up and allowed us to make the investments we dreamed,” says George Gatlin, the manager of Invema, which is located in the northern city of San Pedro Sula. Invema is part of many companies and private consortia that have opted for photovoltaic energy since Honduras decided to reform its electricity subsector to revert its electricity matrix from thermal to renewable. The reforms began in 2012, when generation using fossil fuels accounted for 70% compared to 30% for renewables. This thermal hegemony was reflected in increasing oil billing, carbon dioxide emissions, high tariffs up to US$0.30 per kilowatt (KW) produced, and frequent rationing. Following the reforms, led by the government with the advisory services of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), there was an upsurge in renewable energy until the energy matrix was completely reversed compared to 2012. The latest report from the Central Bank of Honduras (BCH) in 2018 records a 75% electricity generation based on renewable sources, and an 11% share of photovoltaic energy. This percentage translated into 433 megawatts (MW) of installed capacity at the end of 2016, placing Honduras in the lead of solar generation in Central America and third in Latin America, after Chile and Mexico. “We are witnessing a revolution in the electricity sector, not just in Honduras, but worldwide, because energy storage is changing the concept, points out Carlos Jácome, IDB energy specialist who has participated in the reforms process in Honduras. “The Bank support comprises studies and soft financing. Later, the savings make it possible to improve the productivity of these companies because they can use what they no longer pay in energy to expand their businesses,” comments Jácome. Since 2012, the IDB and IDB Invest have provided technical assistance to Honduran commercial, industrial, and institutional sectors to investigate the technical and financial feasibility of photovoltaic projects. To date, 22 studies have been completed for projects ranging from 40 kilowatts (kW) to nearly 3 MW of installed capacity. Official reports indicate that interest in photovoltaic projects have increased due to a reduction in about 40% of the installation costs over the last five years. Behind this innovation there are three combined components that have resulted in a successful formula: i) the impetus of government that created favorable conditions for investment; ii) the decisions made by entrepreneurial companies; and iii) the IDB’s ability to evaluate and finance the projects. The initial investments in photovoltaic development in Honduras involved a shared risk for IDB Invest and its clients. Nonetheless, what made the difference is the technical capabilities of the Bank for evaluating and support for this type of investments. The Honduran experience encourages entrepreneurship and new markets while demonstrating that IDB Invest is the partner of choice for innovative markets. Experiences of this kind should be replicated in the region. The first photovoltaic investments began in 2015, when 388 MW were installed, followed by 45 MV more in 2016, according to reports from the National Electrical Energy Company (ENEE). According to the ENEE, the Honduran commercial and industrial solar energy market is quite different from what it was in 2012, starting with changes in electricity billing (between 11 and 18 cents per kW per hour), installation costs for panels, legal regulations, and the availability of photovoltaic manpower in the region. In addition to this, national capacities have developed with the installation and administration of photovoltaic projects. “Before, if a Canadian, Spaniard or a Costa Rican person did not show up to supervise the project it didn’t move forward. Now the Hondurans themselves have been strengthening all these positions. There is a friendly environment for investment,” notes Elsia Paz, President of the Honduran Renewable Energy Association (EHER), one of the entities that emerged in the context of these reforms. Download the full story here: “Solar Energy: The Revolution Spurring Development in Honduras” Subscribe to receive more content like this! [mc4wp_form]

    Read more
  • Water management: the key for the successful hydroelectric generation in Norway

    Water management: the key for the successful hydroelectric generation in Norway

    Beyond the extraordinary Norway’s landscapes, characteristic of  the planet’s cold temperate zones, decorated with a display of impressive fjords, there are two aspects of this country that particularly drew my attention: the first is that 99% of the energy consumed is hydro energy; and the second is that after oil and gas, the most important export item is precisely electrical energy. The conditions of this Nordic country to generate clean energy, based on hydro sources, are nearly perfect. A large part of its territory is made up of alpine plateaus, with altitudes of nearly one thousand meters above sea level. Norway’s geology is primarily characterized by solid and impermeable rocky layers; liquid and solid precipitation is abundant throughout nearly the entire year; and a high percentage of its rivers fall sharply to the sea from their sources of origin in the mountains and plateaus. But this is not all. The key to Norway’s success in the production of hydropower is human ingenuity and creativity for managing water and making the most of it while harmonizing the demands for energy and adherence to the highest environmental and social standards at the same time. Thus, Nordic engineering found a solution for managing water resources that, while abundant, continue to be extremely valuable: pumping water between reservoirs in several hydroelectric systems, to allow “energy storing” during periods of low demand. To do this, a real labyrinth of tunnels has been constructed connecting reservoirs located at different altitudes that, during periods of low demand, take in water pumped from other reservoirs located downstream, and release it when the demand for energy requires larger flows for generation. The Nordic formulas for hydroelectric efficiency Nordic engineering has optimized the production of hydropower and water consumption. One of its innovative formulas has been the design of power stations with turbines with different power ratings, allowing operators to make the necessary arrangements and supply the power required so that each unit works at or close to optimal levels. For example, in Norway a plant with 90 megawatts (MW) of installed capacity, rather than having three 30 MW turbines, which is the standard, is designed with one 40 MW, one 30 MW and one 20 MW turbine. This configuration allows the power station operator to “play” with various combinations of generators to produce the energy required in the most efficient way. Thus, when the demand requires 70 MW, rather than having three 30 MW turbines operating at 78% or two operating at maximum capacity, and the third at 33% of its capacity (with large losses due to under-utilization), the power plant can use one 40 MW turbine and one 30 MW turbine at their maximum capacity and at peak efficiency optimizing the use of water and the production of energy. Another significant aspect is how the environmental licensing system works. The granting of environmental licenses for the construction and operation of new hydroelectric power plants has been mostly delegated by the national environmental administration to what are called Water Users’ Associations. These are made up of all individuals or legal entities that have some type of legal or common law right over the water from the rivers to be exploited. Licenses with a duration of 30 years are granted after an extensive consultation and collaboration process — very extensive that can last for several years to ensure that most people is included and heard —with the associates, and it has a 30-year period. After this period, the terms of the license can be revised, and licenses may even be completely revoked, which is why the project manager is legally required to dismantle the power station, and leave the site like how it was before the project. However, so far this has never occurred, and revisions have usually been related to minimum flows to be left downstream of the reservoirs, and with the management of aquatic fauna in the intervened rivers. Keep in mind that Norway is one of the most desirable tourism destinations for European and North American fishermen looking for trout and salmon. No doubt there is much to learn from the Nordic experience in aspects related to hydropower production and water management. Norway has made great strides in areas such as the management of geographic information to determine potential sites for new power stations; the development and application of hydro-meteorological systems to support a true energy production industry based on good water management; and how to manage the power dispatching and transmission system both within the country and toward neighboring countries, to achieve efficiencies rarely seen in other countries. Subscribe to receive more content like this! [mc4wp_form]

    Read more