Solar panels at Alzahra University in Tehran, taken from source article [5].A recent study by researchers at Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT) have determined that many countries in the Middle East can make large profits off of renewable energy sources within the next 20 years [1]. This is great news for a region where the majority of its wealth comes from fossil fuels. In particular, Iran could cut energy costs by around 50% by the year 2030. Similar strides in the rest of the Middle East could have a profound impact on sustainable development and climate change. Not only would they be utilizing large amounts of low-to-no carbon energy sources, they would also be profiting from it. In fact, Iran has even recently, in early February, approved foreign investments totaling $3 billion for building solar plants [2]. Iran currently has goals to increase renewable energy sources to 7.5 GW (gigawatt) by 2030. The proposed scenario in source [1] totals 147 GW.
For Iran, the reduction in cost would be to about $63 per kWh (kilowatt-hour) , compared to $116 per kWh for Nuclear and $127 per kWh for Carbon Capture, two other low carbon emission energy methods researched. The proposed energy spread for achieving this is 77 GW of wind, 49 GW of solar photovoltaic (PV), and 21 GW of hydroelectricity. However, this is relatively unfeasible, and if you paid attention to how both I, and similarly the article, worded it, does not actually represent a reduction in cost or turning a profit. It is reduced cost compared to other low-emission sources, not from maintaining their current energy production. It is still great, but a little misleading.
As for the feasibility of this proposed endeavor by the LUT researchers? Well, life-cycle carbon emissions and land-use are definitely factors that should have been considered. Maybe they were in the actual published paper, but as for the news article about it, they clearly weren't. In terms of life-cycle carbon emissions, it turns out, that actually no energy source is devoid of greenhouse gas emissions. Table A.II.4 on page 982 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2012 report [3] shows that 50th percentile estimates of emissions in gram-equivalent of CO2 per kWh for solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, and coal are 46, 12, 4, 16, and 1001 respectively. This means that wind, hydro, and nuclear, are great, solar isn't as great, and coal is, obviously, terrible. With carbon capture methods, the minimum lifetime emissions for coal get reduced to 98, which is a huge reduction, but still terrible. In terms of land-use, based on estimates in the US, which, obviously, will differ considering climate and geographical differences, detailed in a report by the US energy utility Entergy [4], it can be extrapolated that based on the LUT researchers proposed energy spread, there would be about 7000 square miles of wind turbines and about 600 square miles of solar PV cells. This is about the size of New Jersey. and roughly 1% of Iran's total land area.
My only qualms are that, first, these estimates and projections should include likely scenarios, such as ones with nuclear, but strongly supported by large amounts of solar, wind and hydro, as opposed to just a a so-called "ideal" scenario, and second, news articles should not be so shady in how they describe these scenarios. Again, I'm just reiterating the point that the original news article, source [1], makes it seem, intentionally or not, that this transition is a reduction in cost compared to present day energy costs, when in fact, its a reduced cost between other potential low-emission sources to invest in and replace present energy systems. But this is just an issue all media seems to have these days.
Just to reiterate, this is a great idea, but the news articles about it are a bit misleading. I do believe this would be a great asset to Iran. Renewable energy sources are very safe, much of the infrastructure is already existing in Iran, and the sources are all useful for energy security and independence, something that many countries strive to have. In fact, a journal article referenced in source [5] explains how Iran has great potential to be one of the best countries for solar energy considering their “three hundred sunny days per year on two-thirds of its land area.” I hope that more foreign investment continues to pour into Iran to bulk up their solar power production along with all other renewables, not just the $3 billion already approved. If the estimates are true that this $3 billion of investments is equal to about 1.5-5 GW energy production, Iran is definitely going to need a lot more to get up to the levels of even 50 GW. I hope that the rest of the world continues such renewable energy investments into Iran and into the rest of the Middle East, as well.
Sources:
[1] http://www.technicalreviewmiddleeast.com/power-a-water/renewables/iran-could-adopt-fully-renewable-electricity-system-by-2030
[2] https://cleantechnica.com/2017/02/08/iran-approves-3-billion-worth-foreign-renewable-energy-investments/
[3] http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srren/SRREN_Full_Report.pdf
[4] http://www.entergy-arkansas.com/content/news/docs/AR_Nuclear_One_Land_Use.pdf
[5] http://muftah.org/study-explores-irans-potential-for-solar-energy/#.WMJc5n9Ud-A
I think it's always great if a country can begin to lose their dependence on fossil fuels, considering that fossil fuels are non-renewable and will run out eventually. Increasing they're ability to run off of renewable energy will make the time when fossil fuels become way too costly a non-issue. And, of course, it's great for the environment. This is especially relevant for countries in the middle east, and other countries should follow suit.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how all this ties into the countries pursuit of modernity. Many countries want to champion clean energy because it seems a noble cause, but because energy is so cheap there just really isn't much economic incentive to make drastic changes to energy infrastructure. I'm betting the article was intended to communicate modernity and progressiveness, not necessarily legitimate feasibility.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious as to how becoming fossil fuel independent would affect relations with middle eastern oil exporters.
ReplyDeleteReally anything but nuclear is a waste of time.
ReplyDeleteI would like for you to elaborate on this. Different contexts provide different costs and benefits to each problem and proposed solution. Nuclear plants are nice at producing power, but also carry risks that should not be ignored, such as the possibility of meltdown (see Chernobyl and Fukushima), how to dispose of toxic waste, and how to deal with exposure to radiation. Additionally, Iran has faced stern opposition for many years from the West, which does not want to allow Iran to advance its nuclear program. Sure, as the author declared, the feasibility of this renewable energy may be extremely low and rather misleading, but a blanket statement that "Really anything but nuclear is a waste of time" is equally ignorant.
DeleteThe use of solar power, as well as other alternatives to fossil fuels ensures that long term sustainability will persist as long as we work within our means. While nuclear energy would be more practical, certain limitations prevent such from becoming the near-future reality.
ReplyDeleteWith US/Global oil prices going down, the rest of the middle east will need to rely less on oil and more on other industries if they want to keep their economy afloat.
ReplyDeleteSolar could, at least, be used as a supplement to other forms of energy.
ReplyDeleteLike Chet said, I'm curious to see how renewable energy will shape the oil-fueled political network in the Middle East. Hopefully, energy regulation will shift the money away from oil, but for now, I see no reason why OPEC countries would want to stray from oil.
ReplyDeleteInteresting to think the future of the countries whose largest export is oil will be mainly in renewable energy.
ReplyDelete