1. What is cost feasibility and why is it important for renewable energy projects?
2. Solar, wind, hydro, biomass, geothermal, etc
3. Net present value, internal rate of return, payback period, levelized cost of energy, etc
4. Incentives, subsidies, tariffs, taxes, quotas, etc
5. Summary of main points, recommendations, and call to action
One of the main challenges of implementing renewable energy projects is to ensure that they are economically viable and competitive with conventional energy sources. This is where cost feasibility analysis comes in. Cost feasibility is the process of evaluating the costs and benefits of a project, comparing different alternatives, and assessing the financial implications of various scenarios. Cost feasibility is important for renewable energy projects because:
- It helps to identify the most optimal design, location, and technology for a project, taking into account factors such as resource availability, grid connection, environmental impact, and social acceptance.
- It helps to estimate the capital and operational costs of a project, as well as the potential revenues and savings from energy generation, carbon credits, subsidies, and incentives.
- It helps to evaluate the risks and uncertainties of a project, such as technical, market, regulatory, and political risks, and to devise mitigation strategies and contingency plans.
- It helps to attract investors, lenders, and partners for a project, by demonstrating its financial attractiveness and viability, and by providing a clear and transparent business case.
Some examples of cost feasibility analysis for renewable energy projects are:
- A study by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) that compared the costs and benefits of solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind power projects in 10 countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and found that renewable energy projects can provide cheaper electricity than fossil fuel-based power plants in many cases, especially when considering the externalities of carbon emissions and air pollution.
- A study by the World Bank that assessed the cost feasibility of geothermal power projects in Indonesia, and found that geothermal power can be competitive with coal-fired power plants in terms of levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), and can also provide significant environmental and social benefits, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, creating jobs, and improving local livelihoods.
- A study by the European Commission that analyzed the cost feasibility of offshore wind power projects in the North Sea, and found that offshore wind power can achieve cost reductions of up to 30% by 2030, through economies of scale, technological innovation, and supply chain optimization, and can also contribute to the integration of the European electricity market, the security of energy supply, and the decarbonization of the energy sector.
We are raising today's children in sterile, risk-averse and highly structured environments. In so doing, we are failing to cultivate artists, pioneers and entrepreneurs, and instead cultivating a generation of children who can follow the rules in organized sports games, sit for hours in front of screens and mark bubbles on standardized tests.
One of the main challenges of implementing renewable energy projects is to assess their cost feasibility. Unlike fossil fuels, which have a relatively stable and predictable price, renewable energy sources depend on various factors such as availability, location, technology, and environmental impact. Therefore, it is important to compare the different types of renewable energy sources and their costs in order to make informed decisions. Some of the most common and promising renewable energy sources are:
- Solar energy: This is the energy derived from the sun's radiation, which can be converted into electricity or heat using photovoltaic (PV) panels or solar thermal collectors. Solar energy is abundant, clean, and renewable, but it also has some drawbacks such as intermittency, high initial investment, and land use. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), the global weighted average levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) from solar PV was $0.085/kWh in 2019, which is a 82% decrease from 2010. However, the LCOE of solar PV varies widely depending on the region, the size of the system, and the solar resource. For example, the LCOE of utility-scale solar PV in India was $0.038/kWh, while in Germany it was $0.118/kWh in 2019.
- Wind energy: This is the energy derived from the kinetic motion of air, which can be converted into electricity using wind turbines. Wind energy is also abundant, clean, and renewable, but it faces similar challenges as solar energy such as intermittency, high initial investment, and land use. According to IRENA, the global weighted average LCOE of onshore wind was $0.053/kWh in 2019, which is a 40% decrease from 2010. The LCOE of offshore wind was $0.115/kWh in 2019, which is a 29% decrease from 2010. However, the LCOE of wind energy also depends on the region, the size of the system, and the wind resource. For example, the LCOE of onshore wind in China was $0.044/kWh, while in Brazil it was $0.076/kWh in 2019.
- Hydro energy: This is the energy derived from the gravitational force of water, which can be converted into electricity using hydroelectric dams or run-of-river systems. Hydro energy is the most widely used renewable energy source in the world, accounting for about 16% of the global electricity generation in 2019. Hydro energy is reliable, flexible, and low-cost, but it also has some drawbacks such as environmental and social impacts, water availability, and geographical limitations. According to IRENA, the global weighted average LCOE of hydropower was $0.047/kWh in 2019, which is a 12% decrease from 2010. However, the LCOE of hydropower varies significantly depending on the type, the size, and the location of the project. For example, the LCOE of large-scale hydropower in Norway was $0.025/kWh, while in Turkey it was $0.089/kWh in 2019.
- Biomass energy: This is the energy derived from organic matter, such as wood, crops, waste, or biogas, which can be converted into electricity, heat, or biofuels using various technologies. Biomass energy is a versatile and renewable energy source, but it also has some drawbacks such as greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and resource availability. According to IRENA, the global weighted average LCOE of biomass power was $0.065/kWh in 2019, which is a 14% decrease from 2010. However, the LCOE of biomass power depends on the type, the quality, and the cost of the feedstock, as well as the technology and the scale of the project. For example, the LCOE of biomass power from agricultural residues in India was $0.039/kWh, while in the United States it was $0.101/kWh in 2019.
- Geothermal energy: This is the energy derived from the heat stored in the earth's crust, which can be converted into electricity or heat using geothermal power plants or heat pumps. Geothermal energy is a reliable, baseload, and renewable energy source, but it also has some drawbacks such as high upfront costs, geological risks, and environmental impacts. According to IRENA, the global weighted average LCOE of geothermal power was $0.073/kWh in 2019, which is a 3% increase from 2010. However, the LCOE of geothermal power depends on the temperature, the depth, and the quality of the resource, as well as the technology and the scale of the project. For example, the LCOE of geothermal power in Indonesia was $0.045/kWh, while in Iceland it was $0.129/kWh in 2019.
These are some of the main types of renewable energy sources and their costs, but there are also other factors that affect the cost feasibility of renewable energy projects, such as policy support, market conditions, financing options, and social acceptance. Therefore, it is essential to conduct a comprehensive and comparative analysis of the different renewable energy options and their costs before making any decision.
FasterCapital's team works on improving your pitching materials, presenting them to an internal network of experts and investors, and matching you with the right funding sources
One of the main challenges in assessing the cost feasibility of renewable energy projects is to compare them with conventional energy sources that have different characteristics and impacts. To do this, various cost-benefit analysis methods can be applied, each with its own advantages and limitations. Some of the most common methods are:
1. Net present value (NPV): This method calculates the present value of the future cash flows of a project, minus the initial investment. The NPV represents the net benefit of the project in today's terms. A positive NPV means that the project is profitable and worth investing in. A negative NPV means that the project is not profitable and should be rejected. For example, suppose a solar farm project costs $10 million to build and generates $1.5 million per year for 20 years. Assuming a discount rate of 10%, the NPV of the project is:
$$\text{NPV} = -10 + \frac{1.5}{0.1} \times \left(1 - \frac{1}{(1 + 0.1)^{20}}\right) \approx 3.02 \text{ million dollars}$$
This means that the project is profitable and has a net benefit of $3.02 million in present value.
2. Internal rate of return (IRR): This method calculates the discount rate that makes the npv of a project equal to zero. The IRR represents the annualized return of the project over its lifetime. A higher IRR means that the project is more profitable and attractive. A lower IRR means that the project is less profitable and less attractive. The IRR can be compared with the opportunity cost of capital, which is the return that could be earned by investing in an alternative project with similar risk and duration. If the IRR is higher than the opportunity cost of capital, the project is worth investing in. If the IRR is lower than the opportunity cost of capital, the project should be rejected. For example, using the same data as above, the IRR of the solar farm project can be found by solving the equation:
$$-10 + \frac{1.5}{r} \times \left(1 - \frac{1}{(1 + r)^{20}}\right) = 0$$
The solution is $r \approx 0.15$, which means that the project has an IRR of 15%. If the opportunity cost of capital is 10%, the project is worth investing in. If the opportunity cost of capital is 20%, the project should be rejected.
3. Payback period (PP): This method calculates the number of years it takes for a project to recover its initial investment. The PP represents the time required for the project to break even. A shorter PP means that the project is less risky and more liquid. A longer PP means that the project is more risky and less liquid. The PP can be compared with a target or maximum payback period, which is the acceptable or desired time frame for a project to pay back its initial investment. If the PP is shorter than the target or maximum payback period, the project is acceptable. If the PP is longer than the target or maximum payback period, the project is unacceptable. For example, using the same data as above, the PP of the solar farm project can be found by solving the equation:
$$-10 + 1.5 \times t = 0$$
The solution is $t \approx 6.67$, which means that the project has a PP of 6.67 years. If the target or maximum payback period is 5 years, the project is unacceptable. If the target or maximum payback period is 10 years, the project is acceptable.
4. levelized cost of energy (LCOE): This method calculates the average cost per unit of energy produced by a project over its lifetime. The LCOE represents the minimum price at which the project must sell its energy to break even. A lower LCOE means that the project is more competitive and cost-effective. A higher LCOE means that the project is less competitive and cost-effective. The LCOE can be compared with the market price of energy, which is the price that the project can sell its energy to the grid or the end-users. If the LCOE is lower than the market price of energy, the project is profitable and feasible. If the LCOE is higher than the market price of energy, the project is unprofitable and infeasible. For example, suppose a wind farm project costs $20 million to build and operate and generates 100,000 MWh of energy per year for 25 years. Assuming a discount rate of 10%, the LCOE of the project is:
$$\text{LCOE} = \frac{20}{\frac{100,000}{0.1} \times \left(1 - \frac{1}{(1 + 0.1)^{25}}\right)} \approx 0.08 \text{ dollars per kWh}$$
This means that the project must sell its energy at or above $0.08 per kWh to break even. If the market price of energy is $0.10 per kWh, the project is profitable and feasible. If the market price of energy is $0.06 per kWh, the project is unprofitable and infeasible.
These methods can help evaluate the cost feasibility of renewable energy projects, but they also have some limitations and challenges. For instance, they may not capture the externalities and social benefits of renewable energy, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving air quality, creating jobs, and enhancing energy security. They may also be sensitive to the assumptions and parameters used, such as the discount rate, the project lifetime, the operation and maintenance costs, the inflation rate, the tax rate, and the subsidies and incentives. Therefore, it is important to use these methods with caution and complement them with other tools and criteria, such as sensitivity analysis, risk analysis, multi-criteria analysis, and stakeholder analysis.
Net present value, internal rate of return, payback period, levelized cost of energy, etc - Cost feasibility: Cost feasibility of renewable energy projects
One of the key factors that affect the cost feasibility of renewable energy projects is the policy and regulatory framework that governs their development, operation, and integration into the energy system. Policies and regulations can either facilitate or hinder the deployment of renewable energy sources, depending on their design, implementation, and enforcement. Some of the main policy and regulatory instruments that influence the cost feasibility of renewable energy projects are:
- Incentives: These are financial or non-financial benefits that are offered to renewable energy producers or consumers to encourage them to invest in or adopt renewable energy technologies. Incentives can take various forms, such as grants, loans, tax credits, rebates, feed-in tariffs, net metering, green certificates, etc. For example, in Germany, the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) provides feed-in tariffs for renewable electricity generation, which guarantee a fixed price per kilowatt-hour for a certain period of time, depending on the technology and the size of the project. This reduces the risk and uncertainty for investors and ensures a stable revenue stream for renewable energy producers.
- Subsidies: These are direct or indirect payments or transfers that are made by the government or other public entities to support the production or consumption of renewable energy. Subsidies can be explicit or implicit, and can have positive or negative effects on the cost feasibility of renewable energy projects. For example, in India, the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) provides subsidies for various renewable energy technologies, such as solar, wind, biomass, small hydro, etc. These subsidies lower the upfront capital cost and improve the profitability of renewable energy projects. On the other hand, fossil fuel subsidies, which are prevalent in many countries, distort the energy market and make renewable energy less competitive and attractive.
- Tariffs: These are the prices that are charged or paid for the use of the energy system, such as transmission, distribution, and retail. Tariffs can affect the cost feasibility of renewable energy projects by influencing the cost of accessing the grid, the value of the electricity generated or consumed, and the allocation of costs and benefits among different stakeholders. For example, in China, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) sets the tariffs for renewable electricity, which vary by region, technology, and resource availability. These tariffs reflect the cost of generation and transmission, and aim to ensure a reasonable return for renewable energy producers and grid operators.
- Taxes: These are compulsory payments that are levied by the government or other public authorities on the production, consumption, or trade of renewable energy or related goods and services. Taxes can affect the cost feasibility of renewable energy projects by increasing or decreasing the cost of inputs, outputs, or transactions. For example, in Norway, the government imposes a carbon tax on the use of fossil fuels, which increases the cost of conventional energy and creates an incentive for switching to renewable energy sources. Conversely, in some countries, renewable energy equipment or components are subject to import duties or value-added taxes, which increase the cost of renewable energy projects and reduce their competitiveness.
- Quotas: These are mandatory or voluntary targets or limits that are set by the government or other public or private entities for the production, consumption, or share of renewable energy or related goods and services. Quotas can affect the cost feasibility of renewable energy projects by creating a demand or a supply for renewable energy or related goods and services, and by influencing the price and the market conditions. For example, in the European Union, the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) sets a binding target of 32% of renewable energy in the final energy consumption by 2030, which creates a market and a regulatory framework for renewable energy across the member states. Similarly, in some countries, renewable portfolio standards (RPS) or renewable obligations (RO) require electricity suppliers or consumers to source a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources, which creates a demand and a price premium for renewable electricity.
I hear so many startups talking about how they can raise VC instead of questioning whether they need it in the first place.
In this article, we have examined the cost feasibility of renewable energy projects from different angles, such as capital costs, operational costs, environmental costs, social costs, and policy costs. We have also compared the costs of renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, hydro, biomass, and geothermal, with those of conventional energy sources, such as coal, oil, gas, and nuclear. Based on our analysis, we have arrived at the following main points:
- Renewable energy projects are generally more cost-effective than conventional energy projects in the long run, as they have lower operational and environmental costs, and can benefit from economies of scale and learning effects.
- Renewable energy projects can also create positive social impacts, such as job creation, poverty reduction, health improvement, and community empowerment, which can outweigh the initial capital costs and potential trade-offs.
- Renewable energy projects face various barriers and challenges, such as intermittency, grid integration, land use, resource availability, and public acceptance, which can increase the uncertainty and risk of the projects and affect their cost feasibility.
- Renewable energy projects require supportive and stable policy frameworks, such as subsidies, tariffs, quotas, taxes, and regulations, to overcome the market failures and externalities, and to incentivize the investment and innovation in the sector.
Based on these main points, we have the following recommendations for the stakeholders involved in the renewable energy sector:
1. For project developers and investors, we recommend that they conduct a comprehensive and rigorous cost-benefit analysis of the renewable energy projects, taking into account not only the financial costs, but also the environmental, social, and policy costs. We also recommend that they adopt a portfolio approach, diversifying their investments across different renewable energy sources and locations, to reduce the exposure to risk and uncertainty.
2. For policy makers and regulators, we recommend that they design and implement effective and consistent policy instruments, such as feed-in tariffs, renewable portfolio standards, carbon taxes, and emission trading schemes, to level the playing field for the renewable energy projects, and to internalize the external costs and benefits of the energy sources. We also recommend that they coordinate and harmonize their policies across different levels and jurisdictions, to avoid policy conflicts and inconsistencies, and to create a favorable and predictable environment for the renewable energy sector.
3. For consumers and citizens, we recommend that they increase their awareness and knowledge of the renewable energy sources, and their costs and benefits, and that they participate in the decision-making and governance processes of the renewable energy projects, to express their preferences and concerns, and to ensure the social acceptability and legitimacy of the projects. We also recommend that they adopt more energy-efficient and environmentally-friendly behaviors, such as reducing energy consumption, switching to green electricity, and installing rooftop solar panels, to contribute to the energy transition and to benefit from the cost savings and incentives.
To conclude, we believe that renewable energy projects are not only feasible, but also desirable, from a cost perspective, as they can provide multiple benefits and opportunities for the society and the environment, while reducing the dependence on fossil fuels and mitigating the climate change. We call for more action and collaboration from all the stakeholders, to accelerate the development and deployment of the renewable energy projects, and to realize the vision of a sustainable and low-carbon future.
Read Other Blogs