Comparing the costs of energy generated from coal and gas with those of energy from renewable sources is incomplete unless the costs associated with storage, balancing, and security of energy supply are taken into account, argues Dumitru Chisalita, President of the Smart Energy Association (AEI), in an analysis published on Wednesday.
We are comparing a MWh produced by a photovoltaic park at noonwhen the sun is shining and there is sometimes already an excess of energy on the marketwith a MWh produced by a gas or coal power plant at 8:00 PM, when consumption is high, the sun has set, and the system is in desperate need of power. On paper, both are simply "one MWh." In the reality of the energy system, however, their value is completely different. One is generated only when the weather permits. "The other one must appear when the consumer asks for it," the specialist explains.
According to him, installed capacity is not equivalent to available capacity.
"Another deliberately fostered confusion is the conflation of installed capacity with reliably available capacity. One thousand megawatts of solar, one thousand megawatts of wind, and one thousand megawatts from a gas-fired power plant do not represent the same capacity for the system. Solar panels may produce nothing at night. Wind turbines can see output drop to very low levels during periods without wind. A gas-fired plant can generate power when called upon, subject to technical availability and fuel supply," says Chisalita.
He maintains that, in public discourse, capacity installed from renewable sources is presented as replacing decommissioned conventional capacities.
"They have replaced them in the installed capacity statisticsthough not necessarily in terms of supply security. The difference becomes apparent on winter evenings, during droughts, on windless days, and during hours when imports become insufficient or very expensive," he added.
In his view, coal and gas should not be idealized, but neither should they be evaluated without taking into account their role in the energy system.
"Coal and gas should not be idealized, but neither should they be judged through accounting sleight-of-hand. Coal is polluting when in operation. Gas generates emissions and creates fuel dependency. Conventional power plants require investment, maintenance, and ongoing costs. These realities must not be concealed. Yet, their systemic role cannot be left out of the analysis simply because it disrupts the convenient narrative of 'near-free' energy. One need not love coal to acknowledge that a power plant capable of delivering energy on demand provides a different service than a solar farm dependent on the sun. We need not turn gas into an eternal solution to admit that it can provide the flexibility required in a system with variable renewable generation," added Dumitru Chisalita.
The AEI President believes that renewable energy sources must be evaluated alongside all the costs they generate or transfer to the rest of the energy system.
"The truth is neither that 'coal saves everything' nor that 'renewables solve everything.' The truth is that each technology offers a different product, with distinct advantages, limitations, and costs. If we want honesty, we must compare systems capable of delivering the same result. It is not a matter of 'how much does a photovoltaic MWh cost at the plant gate?', but rather 'how much does the continuous delivery of a solar-based MWh to the consumer costincluding storage, backup, grid infrastructure, and balancing?' It is not 'how much does wind energy cost when the wind is blowing?', but 'how much does it cost to meet demand even when the wind isn't blowing?' It is not 'how much does an MWh produced from coal or gas cost?', but 'what is the value of the firm power, flexibility, and security services that these capacities provide to the system?'" explained Chisalita.
According to the head of the AEI, only after all technologies are required to deliver the same productreliable energy available on demand, with its total impact calculatedcan we determine which one is truly cheaper.
"Romania needs solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear energy, as well as gas, storage, grids, and backup capacity. The energy transition is necessary, but it cannot be built on slogans and selective accounting. A transition based on doctored figures will not yield affordable, secure energy; instead, it will produce capacities that look spectacular in press releases, alongside expensive imports during critical hours. The big lie is not that renewables are uselesson the contrary, they are essential. The big lie is that a MWh generated when the weather permits is identicalin terms of value and system costto a MWh delivered when the consumer demands it," states the AEI president.
In his view, the energy transition must not be abandoned; it must be matured.
"We experienced a transition built on incomplete comparisons that resulted in misguided investments, hidden costs, and energy vulnerabilities in Romania. The transition established impressive nominal capacities, yet not necessarily capacities available during critical hours. Power plants were shut down before functional replacements were in place, and it was realized too late that installed capacity does not light up homes if it is unavailable when needed. The solution is not an unconditional return to coal. The solution lies in a mix where each technology is evaluated based on the same criteria: the amount of energy actually delivered, continuity of supply, full lifecycle emissions, raw material requirements, infrastructure costs, and the actual contribution to energy security," stated Dumitru Chisalita.
Comentează