Quick comparison of renewable energy and fossil fuel prices

China (earlier post), the United States (earlier post) and the European Union (earlier post) have all recently said they aim to increase their use of renewable energies like wind, solar and biofuels, to address global warming and energy security concerns. Much depends on the economics of such clean energy technologies, some of which are still much more expensive than conventional fossil fuels like coal and oil.

The following table is a comparison of 2005 and projected medium-term (2010-2020) costs per energy source, in U.S. cents per kilowatt hour, created by Imperial College London, as quoted by Reuters.

Some notes have to be added to this projection. First of all, the data are from a time when fossil fuel prices were only beginning their steep climb (at the beginning of 2005, a barrel of oil stood at US$45 and reached records in July and August of 2006, with prices at over US$75). With 'Peak Oil & Gas' being taken more and more seriously, prices may well rise far more quickly and steeply than Imperial College predicts, making alternatives much more competitive. Likewise, uranium oxide prices have skyrocketed over the past two years, now reaching 'precious metal' levels, at US$85/pound for U308. The medium term outlook is one of continuously increasing prices.

Secondly, even though biomass is currently the cheapest of all fuel sources, the researchers did not look at large-scale imports from the tropics. Meanwhile, we know that biofuels produced there are already considerably less costly. This is one of the reasons why the EU, for example, is looking at 90 million hectares in Africa and Latin America, to grow sustainable solid biofuels (basically fast-growing tropical short rotation trees), for use in energy intensive sectors such as the steel industry (earlier post). Large-scale biofuel production in the subtropics and the tropics will make it the most competitive of all fuels by far:
biomass :: bioenergy :: biofuels :: energy :: sustainability :: renewables :: wind :: wave :: tidal :: solar :: nuclear :: biomass :: coal :: natural gas :: uranium ::

Thirdly, the study does not look at biogas production. Again, recent research points out that Europe can replace all natural gas imports from Russia, by 2020, with biomethane that is considerably cheaper if scaled-up and made from dedicated energy crops (earlier post).

On another note, even though the table refers to Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies that can be applied to coal and gas power stations, it does not count in CCS used with the cheaper alternative, namely biomass. Using carbon dioxide storage technologies with biomass results in a system called 'Bio-Energy with Carbon Storage' - the only carbon negative energy system that can take us back to pre-industrial CO2 levels in a relatively short time (earlier post). Obviously, if biomass is cheaper than coal and gas, then CCS with biomass is cheaper than CCS with coal and gas. The BECS concept can of course also be based on gaseous biofuels, such as locally produced biomethane.

All in all, it looks like both wind power and biomass stand to become the most viable renewable energy sources for the future. Contrary to both wind, solar and tidal/wave power, biomass has the advantage that it can be traded globally and physically. It can be grown where it makes most sense to to so, and shipped to markets in an efficient manner, that is without losing too much energy in the process and without contributing too much greenhouse gas emissions (earlier post).