The economics of wind energy

By Patricia Weis-Taylor, IEA


Arc Flash Training - CSA Z462 Electrical Safety

Our customized live online or in‑person group training can be delivered to your staff at your location.

  • Live Online
  • 6 hours Instructor-led
  • Group Training Available
Regular Price:
$249
Coupon Price:
$199
Reserve Your Seat Today
Although many countries do not report cost information, several member countries reported stable or slightly increasing wind turbine costs from 2007 to 2008.

Turbine costs reported by the IEA Wind member countries averaged from a low of 977 (euros) €/kW (U.S.) to a high of 1,800 €/kW (Austria) for 2008. Total installed costs onshore for 2008 in the reporting countries ranged from a low of 984 €/kW (Mexico) to a high of 1,885 €/kW (Switzerland). Total installed costs offshore ranged from 2,100 €/kW (UK) to 3,230 €/kW (Germany).

Some member countries have reported how costs of wind projects are distributed. In Italy, the cost of installed wind turbines is at substantially the same level as it was in 2007. The average installed plant cost of a medium-sized wind farm (30 MW) at a site of medium complexity, with 15 km of paths/roads and 12 km of electric line for connection to the high-voltage grid, is approximately 1,800 €/kW. This cost is generally subdivided as follows:

• Turbines, installation, and commissioning, 1,270 €/kW: 70.6%;

• Development, namely site qualification, design, administrative procedures, and so on, 236 €/kW: 13.1%;

• Interest on loans, 196 €/kW: 10.9%;

• Connection to the grid, 73.8 €/kW: 4.1%;

• Civil engineering work, 23.4 €/kW: 1.3%.

Annual cost of operation and maintenance has been estimated to be about 54 € /kW, which includes leasing of terrain, insurance, and guarantees. Decommissioning cost has been estimated at approximately 5 €/kW. Explanations for higher costs varied by country. Spain reports that the increasing use of large wind turbines (2 MW of nominal power), the increasing prices of raw materials, the shortage of main components, and the excess demand for wind turbines have increased prices for wind generators.

In Portugal, the cost depends on the turbines characteristics and/or the country of manufacture. In the United Kingdom, the higher capital costs of offshore are due to the increase in size of structures and the logistics of installing the turbines at sea. The costs of foundations, construction, installations, and grid connection are significantly higher offshore than onshore. Typically, for example, offshore turbines are 20% more expensive, and towers and foundations can cost more than 2.5 times offshore than onshore for a project of similar size.

Costs for service, consumables, repair, insurance, administration, lease of site, and so on, for new large turbines ranged from 1.3% to 1.5% of capital cost per year. When O&M costs are mentioned by the member countries, they are reported as fairly constant over the years. O&M costs are higher for offshore turbines.

Key to the economic viability of a wind project is the balance of costs and revenue. Wind energy tariffs, feed-in tariffs, and buyback rates are the payments to the wind farm owner for electricity generated. In some countries, this is the market price of electricity. In others, the wind energy tariff includes environmental bonuses or other added incentives to encourage wind energy development.

In many countries, the revenue of each wind farm is governed by the contract (power purchase agreement) negotiated with the power purchaser, so the numbers reported by the IEA Wind member countries are estimated averages or ranges. IEA Wind Task 26 Cost of Wind Energy, which will begin work in 2009, will survey the state of the art of calculating the cost of wind energy in preparation for developing recommended practices for such calculations.

Several countries explained how cost of energy might be calculated. In Finland, on coastal sites the cost of wind energy production could be about 50 €/MWh to 80 €/MWh without subsidies (15 years, 7% internal rate of return), while the cost of offshore production could be about 80 €/MWh to 100 €/MWh. The average spot price in the electricity market Nord Pool was 51 €/MWh in 2008 (30 €/MWh in 2007). Emission trade effects on the operating costs of thermal power have resulted in an increase of spot market prices; however, emission permit prices have been volatile and future and forward prices are about 40 €/MWh for 2009–2010. Wind power still needs subsidies to compete, even on the best available sites in Finland.

In Canada, wind generation costs are estimated to be between 44 €/MWh and 70 €/MWh. For example, provincial calls for power in British Columbia, Ontario, and Québec and the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) in Prince Edward Island resulted in electricity prices from wind energy in the range 45 €/MWh to 56 €/MWh.

In most cases, the latest price proposals have shown the highest prices. The primary variables associated with this cost range are the cost of the wind turbines themselves, the quality of wind resources, transmission connection fees, the scale of operation, and the size of turbines.

In Greece, the cost of wind generated electricity could be assumed to be between 26 €/MWh and 47 €/MWh, depending on the site and project cost. The typical interest rate for financing wind energy projects is 7% to 8%. In Norway, estimates of production costs from sites with good wind conditions suggest a production cost of about 66 €/MWh, including capital costs (discount rate 8.0%, 20-year period), operation, and maintenance.

During 2008, the spot market electricity price on the Nord Pool (Nordic electricity market place) increased until autumn 2008 and then dropped noticeably. The forward price by the end of December 2008 was 38 €/MWh. So far, wind energy is not competitive with the price of many new hydropower projects; hydro still is an option for new green power in Norway.

Wind energy tariffs or buyback rates vary by country according to the incentive structure. In Germany, the wind energy tariff includes an initial remuneration of 92 €/MWh for at least 5 years and a maximum of 20 years. After the initial period, the tariff is 50.2 €/MWh for a maximum of 20 years. Offshore turbines put into operation by 31 December 2015 receive an initial remuneration of 150 €/MWh for 12 years. After that period, the basic tariff is 35 €/MWh until the maximum remuneration period (20 years plus year of commissioning) is reached. Wind farms more than 12 nautical miles away from the coast and in waters deeper than 20 m receive a longer initial period.

In Spain, payment for electricity generated by wind farms is based on a feed-in scheme. The owners of wind farms can choose payment for electricity generated by a wind farm independent of the size of the installation and the year of start-up. For 2009, the value is 78.183 €/MWh; the update is based on the Retail Price Index minus an adjustment factor. They can choose instead payment calculated as the market price of electricity plus a premium, plus a supplement, and minus the cost of deviations from energy forecasting.

There is a lower limit to guarantee the economic viability of the installations and an upper limit (floor and cap). For instance, the values for 2009 are reference premium 31.27€/MWh, lower limit 76.098 €/MWh, and upper limit 90.692 €/ MWh. In 2008, the market price of electricity in Spain reached 64.43 €/MWh.

In the United States, the sales price of electricity was estimated by weighing projects by nameplate capacity to represent actual market prices. The average electricity sales price for projects built in 2008 was roughly 51.5 USD/MWh (36.98 €/MWh), up from a low of 30.9 USD/MWh (22.19 €/MWh) for projects built in 2002 to 2003. This price is what the utility pays to the wind plant operator and includes the benefit of the federal production tax credit and state incentives.

In each country, the mix of incentive types and the level of government at which they are applied is unique and changing. Widely ranging incentives are operating in the IEA Wind member countries. Those mentioned most often include direct capital investment such as subsidies or grants for projects, providing a premium price for electricity generated by wind (tariffs or production subsidies), obliging utilities to purchase renewable energy, and providing a free market for green electricity.

Tax credit incentives based on investment or electrical generation are also gaining popularity. In the United States, the very effective production tax credit (PTC) and investment tax credits (ITC) for wind energy development were extended through 2012. The PTC provides an income tax credit based on electricity production from wind projects. The ITC allows 30% of the investment in wind projects to be refunded in the form of reduced income taxes. The ITC may also be taken in the form of an up-front grant equivalent to 30% of the project value. The inflation-adjusted value of the PTC in 2008 was 21(USD)/MWh (15 €/MWh) for wind energy.

In Canada, the ecoENERGY for Renewable Power program provides tax write-offs as a production incentive to all renewable energy technologies. The 14-year program will invest close to 1.5 billion CAD (0.88 billion €) to increase Canada’s supply of clean electricity from renewable sources such as wind, biomass, low-impact hydro, geothermal, PV, and ocean energy. In 2007, the tax write-off was increased from 30% to 50% per year on a declining-balance basis.

Some IEA Wind member countries have national and state governments that require utilities to purchase a percentage of their overall generating capacity from renewable resources. Often called renewable portfolio standards (RPS) or renewables production obligation (RPO), they allow utilities to select the most economical renewable technology. The preferred option by most utilities to satisfy this obligation is wind energy. In the United States, 28 of the 50 states had adopted RPS approaches that collectively called for utilities to procure about 23 billion kWh of renewable energy in 2008. Wind energy qualifies as green electricity used to meet utility RPOs, to trade as certificates, or to meet consumer preferences.

In Australia, a state-based renewable energy target scheme requires electricity retailers and wholesale purchasers in Victoria to acquire Victorian Renewable Energy Certificates. Because wind projects can create these certificates, at least two large wind energy projects were able to move forward. Clear, consistent programs give the industry a firm foundation.

Other kinds of support have also accelerated the development of wind energy in the IEA Wind member countries. For example, publishing wind energy atlases developed with public research money helps developers select productive sites (Austria, Finland, Italy). In Canada, some provincial initiatives require projects to have elements manufactured in the region. This has helped develop a wind industrial base in Canada. To stimulate the industrial base, Portugal has also used domestic manufacturing as a requirement for government-supported project proposals.

Microgeneration (i.e., small wind turbines) is being promoted in several countries with new incentive approaches. An indirect incentive for the deployment of microgeneration is provided in Ireland under the Building Energy Ratings scheme (BER). Irish building regulations require that new dwellings have a portion of their energy demands met by renewable sources on site. The designer has a choice between sourcing this energy through either renewable thermal or renewable electrical means (4 kWh/m2/year electrical or 10 kWh/m2/year thermal). The contribution of a wind turbine can be included in the BER once its performance over a year has been verified.

In the United States, many states also have policies and incentives for small wind electric systems. These incentives include rebates and buy-downs, production incentives, tax incentives, and net metering. The subsidy or rebate may be as much as 50% of the cost of a small wind turbine. The rebates become even more effective when combined with low-interest loans and net metering programs. In Ireland, there is growing interest in microgeneration. Interest is expected to increase further now that the largest electricity supplier intends to offer 0.09 €/kWh to its domestic customers for electricity they deliver to the grid.

Related News

Ontario hydro rates set to increase Nov. 1, Ontario Energy Board says

Ontario Electricity Rebate clarifies hydro rates as OEB aligns bills with inflation, shows true cost per kilowatt hour, and replaces Fair Hydro Plan; transparent on-bill credit offsets increases tied to nuclear refurbishment and supply costs.

 

Key Points

A line-item credit on Ontario hydro bills that offsets higher electricity costs and reflects OEB-set rates.

✅ Starts Nov. 1 with rates in line with inflation

✅ Shows true per-kWh cost plus separate rebate line

✅ Driven by nuclear refurbishment and supply costs

 

The Ontario Energy Board says electricity rate changes for households and small businesses will be going up starting next week.

The agency says rates are scheduled to increased by about $1.99 or nearly 2% for a typical residential customer who uses 700 kilowatt hours per month.

The provincial government said in March it would continue to subsidize hydro rates, through legislation to lower rates, and hold any increases to the rate of inflation.

The OEB says the new rates, which the board says are “in line” with inflation, will take effect Nov. 1 as changes for electricity consumers roll out and could be noticed on bills within a few weeks of that date.

Prices are increasing partly due to government legislation aimed at reflecting the actual cost of supply on bills, and partly due to the refurbishment of nuclear facilities, contributing to higher hydro bills for some consumers.

So, effective November 1, Ontario electricity bills will show the true cost of power, after a period of a fixed COVID-19 hydro rate, and will include the new Ontario Electricity Rebate.

Previously the electricity rebate was concealed within the price-per-kilowatt-hour line item on electricity statements, prompting Hydro One bill redesign discussions to improve clarity. This meant customers could not see how much the government rebate was reducing their monthly costs, and bills did not display the true cost of electricity used.

"People deserve facts and accountability, especially when it comes to hydro costs," said Energy Minister Rickford.

The new Ontario Electricity Rebate will appear as a transparent on-bill line item and will replace the former government's Fair Hydro Plan says a government news release. This change comes in response to the Auditor General's special report on the former government's Fair Hydro Plan which revealed that "the government created a needlessly complex accounting/financing structure for the electricity rate reduction in order to avoid showing a deficit or an increase in net debt."

"The Electricity Distributors Association commends the government's commitment to making Ontario's electricity bills more transparent," said Teresa Sarkesian, President of the Electricity Distributors Association. "As the part of our electricity system that is closest to customers, local hydro utilities appreciated the opportunity to work with the government on implementing this important initiative. We worked to ensure that customers who receive their electricity bill will have a clear understanding of the true cost of power and the amount of their on-bill rebate. Local hydro utilities are focused on making electricity more affordable, reducing red tape, and providing customers with a modern and reliable electricity system that works for them."

The average customer will see the electricity line on their bill rise, showing the real cost per kilowatt hour. The new Ontario Electricity Rebate will compensate for that rise, and will be displayed as a separate line item on hydro bills. The average residential bill will rise in line with the rate of inflation.

 

Related News

View more

Coronavirus puts electric carmakers on alert over lithium supplies

Western Lithium Supply Localization is accelerating as EV battery makers diversify from China, boosting lithium hydroxide sourcing in North America and Europe, amid Covid-19 disruptions and rising prices, with geothermal brines and local processing.

 

Key Points

An industry shift to source lithium and processing near EV hubs, reducing China reliance and supply chain risk.

✅ EV makers seek North American and European lithium hydroxide

✅ Prices rise amid Covid-19 and logistics constraints

✅ New extraction: geothermal and oilfield brine projects

 

The global outbreak of coronavirus will accelerate efforts by western carmakers to localise supplies of lithium for electric car batteries, according to US producer Livent.

The industry was keen to diversify away from China, which produces the bulk of the world’s lithium, a critical material for lithium-ion batteries, said Paul Graves, Livent’s chief executive.

“It’s a conversation that’s starting to happen that was not happening even six months ago,” especially in the US, the former Goldman Sachs banker added.

China produced about 79 per cent of the lithium hydroxide used in electric car batteries last year, according to consultancy CRU, a supply chain that has been disrupted by the virus outbreak and EV shortages in some markets.

Prices for lithium hydroxide rose 3.1 per cent last month, their first increase since May 2018, according to Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, due to the impact of the Covid-19 bug.

Chinese lithium producer Ganfeng Lithium, which supplies major carmakers from Tesla to Volkswagen, said it had raised prices by less than 10 per cent, due to higher production costs and logistical difficulties.

“We can get lithium from lots of places . . . is that really something we’re prepared to rely upon?” Mr Graves said. “People are going to relook at supply chains, including battery recycling initiatives that enhance resilience, and relook at their integrity . . . and they’re going to say is there something we need to do to change our supply chains to make them more shockproof?”

General Motors last week said it was looking to source battery minerals such as lithium and nickel from North America for its new range of electric cars that will use cells made in Ohio by South Korea’s LG Chem.

“Some of these critical minerals could be challenging to obtain; it’s not just cobalt you need to be concerned about but also battery-grade nickel and lithium as well,” said Andy Oury, a lead engineer for batteries at GM. “We’re doing all of this with an eye to sourcing as much of the raw material from North America as possible.”

However, George Heppel, an analyst at CRU, warned it would be difficult to compete with China on costs. “China is always going to be the most competitive place to buy battery raw materials. That’s not likely to change anytime soon,” he said.

Livent, which extracts lithium from brines in northern Argentina, is looking at extracting the mineral from geothermal resources in the US and also wants to build a processing plant in Europe.

The Philadelphia-based company is also working with Canadian start-up E3 Metals to extract lithium from brines in Alberta's oil and gasfields for new projects in Canada.

“We’ll look at doing more in the US and more in Europe,” said Mr Graves, underscoring evolving Canada-U.S. collaboration across EV supply chains.


 

 

Related News

View more

Europeans push back from Russian oil and gas

EU Renewable Energy Transition is accelerating under REPowerEU, as wind and solar generation hit records, improving energy security, efficiency, and decarbonization while reducing reliance on Russian fossil fuels across the EU grid.

 

Key Points

EU shift to wind and solar under REPowerEU to cut fossil fuels, boost efficiency, and secure energy supply.

✅ Wind and solar set record 22% of EU electricity in 2022

✅ REPowerEU targets over 40% renewables and 15% lower demand by 2030

✅ Diversifies away from Russian fuels; partners with US and Norway

 

Europe is producing all-time highs of wind and solar energy as the 27-country group works to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels from Russia, a shift underscored by Europe's green surge across the bloc.

Four months after Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the European Commission launched REPowerEU. This campaign aims to:

  • Boost the use of renewable energy.
  • Reduce overall energy consumption.
  • Diversify energy sources.

EU countries were already moving toward renewable energy, but Russia’s war against Ukraine accelerated that trend. In 2022, for the first time, renewables surpassed fossil fuels and wind and solar power surpassed gas as a source of electricity. Wind and solar provided a record-breaking 22% of EU countries’ electrical supply, according to London-based energy think tank Ember.

“We have to double down on investments in home-grown renewables,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in October 2022. “Not only for the climate but also because the transition to the clean energy is the best way to gain independence and to have security of energy supply.”

Across the continent, growth in solar generation rose by 25% in 2022, according to Ember, as solar reshapes electricity prices in Northern Europe. Twenty EU countries produced their highest share of solar power in 2022. In October, Greece ran entirely on renewables for several hours and is seven years ahead of schedule for its 2030 solar capacity target.

Meanwhile, Ireland's green electricity target aims to make more than a third of its power supply renewable within four years.

By 2030, RePowerEU aims to provide more than 40% of the EU’s total power from renewables, aligning with global renewable records being shattered worldwide.

To meet the European Commission’s goal to cut EU energy usage by 15%, people and governments changed their habits and became more energy-efficient, while Germany's solar power boost helped bolster supply. Among their actions:

  • Germany turned down the heat in public buildings and lowered the cost of train tickets to reduce car usage, as clean energy hit 50% in Germany during this period.
  • Spain ordered stores and public buildings to turn off their lights at night.
  • France dimmed the Eiffel Tower and reduced city speed limits.

For the oil and gas that the EU still needed to import, countries turned to partners such as Norway and the United States.

 

Related News

View more

Wind and Solar Energy Surpass Coal in U.S. Electricity Generation

Wind and Solar Surpass Coal in U.S. power generation, as EIA data cites falling LCOE, clean energy incentives, grid upgrades, and battery storage driving renewables growth, lower emissions, jobs, and less fossil fuel reliance.

 

Key Points

An EIA-noted milestone where U.S. renewables outproduce coal, driven by lower LCOE, policy credits, and grid upgrades.

✅ EIA data shows wind and solar exceed coal generation

✅ Falling LCOE boosts project viability across the grid

✅ Policies and storage advances strengthen reliability

 

In a landmark shift for the energy sector, wind and solar power have recently surpassed coal in electricity generation in the United States. This milestone, reported by Warp News, marks a significant turning point in the country’s energy landscape and underscores the growing dominance of renewable energy sources.

A Landmark Achievement

The achievement of wind and solar energy generating more electricity than coal is a landmark moment in the U.S. energy sector. Historically, coal has been a cornerstone of electricity production, providing a substantial portion of the nation's power needs. However, recent data reveals a transformative shift, with renewables surpassing coal for the first time in 130 years, as renewable energy sources, particularly wind and solar, have begun to outpace coal in terms of electricity generation.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported that in recent months, wind and solar combined produced more electricity than coal, including a record 28% share in April, reflecting a broader trend towards cleaner energy sources. This development is driven by several factors, including advancements in renewable technology, decreasing costs, and a growing commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Technological Advancements and Cost Reductions

One of the key drivers behind this shift is the rapid advancement in wind and solar technologies, as wind power surges in the U.S. electricity mix across regions. Improvements in turbine and panel efficiency have significantly increased the amount of electricity that can be generated from these sources. Additionally, technological innovations have led to lower production costs, making wind and solar energy more competitive with traditional fossil fuels.

The cost of solar panels and wind turbines has decreased dramatically over the past decade, making renewable energy projects more economically viable. According to Warp News, the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) from solar and wind has fallen to levels that are now comparable to or lower than coal-fired power. This trend has been pivotal in accelerating the transition to renewable energy sources.

Policy Support and Investment

Government policies and incentives have also played a crucial role in supporting the growth of wind and solar energy, with wind now the most-used renewable electricity source in the U.S. helping drive deployment. Federal and state-level initiatives, such as tax credits, subsidies, and renewable energy mandates, have encouraged investment in clean energy technologies. These policies have provided the financial and regulatory support necessary for the expansion of renewable energy infrastructure.

The Biden administration’s focus on addressing climate change and promoting clean energy has further bolstered the transition. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, among other legislative efforts, have allocated significant funding for renewable energy projects, grid modernization, and research into advanced technologies.

Environmental and Economic Implications

The surpassing of coal by wind and solar energy has significant environmental and economic implications, building on the milestone when renewables became the second-most prevalent U.S. electricity source in 2020 and set the stage for further gains. Environmentally, it represents a major step forward in reducing carbon emissions and mitigating climate change. Coal-fired power plants are among the largest sources of greenhouse gases, and transitioning to cleaner energy sources is essential for meeting climate targets and improving air quality.

Economically, the shift towards wind and solar energy is creating new opportunities and industries. The growth of the renewable energy sector is generating jobs in manufacturing, installation, and maintenance. Additionally, the decreased reliance on imported fossil fuels enhances energy security and stabilizes energy prices.

Challenges and Future Outlook

Despite the progress, there are still challenges to address. The intermittency of wind and solar power requires advancements in energy storage and grid management to ensure a reliable electricity supply. Investments in battery storage technologies and smart grid infrastructure are crucial for overcoming these challenges and integrating higher shares of renewable energy into the grid.

Looking ahead, the trend towards renewable energy is expected to continue, with renewables projected to soon provide about one-fourth of U.S. electricity as deployment accelerates, driven by ongoing technological advancements, supportive policies, and a growing commitment to sustainability. As wind and solar power become increasingly cost-competitive and efficient, their role in the U.S. energy mix will likely expand, further displacing coal and other fossil fuels.

Conclusion

The surpassing of coal by wind and solar energy in U.S. electricity generation is a significant milestone in the transition to a cleaner, more sustainable energy future. This achievement highlights the growing importance of renewable energy sources and the success of technological advancements and supportive policies in driving this transition. As the U.S. continues to invest in and develop renewable energy infrastructure, the move away from coal represents a crucial step towards achieving environmental goals and fostering economic growth in the clean energy sector.

 

Related News

View more

Hydro One reports $1.1B Q2 profit boosted by one-time gain due to court ruling

Hydro One Q2 Earnings surge on a one-time gain from a court ruling on a deferred tax asset, lifting profit, revenue, and adjusted EPS at Ontario's largest utility regulated by the Ontario Energy Board.

 

Key Points

Hydro One Q2 earnings jumped on an $867M court gain, with revenue at $1.67B and adjusted EPS improving to $0.39.

✅ One-time gain: $867M from tax appeal ruling.

✅ Revenue: $1.67B vs $1.41B last year.

✅ Adjusted EPS: $0.39 vs $0.26.

 

Hydro One Ltd., following the Peterborough Distribution sale transaction closing, reported a second-quarter profit of $1.1 billion, boosted by a one-time gain related to a court decision.

The power utility says it saw a one-time gain of $867 million in the quarter due to an Ontario court ruling on a deferred tax asset appeal that set aside an Ontario Energy Board decision earlier.

Hydro One says the profit amounted to $1.84 per share for the quarter ended June 30, amid investor concerns about uncertainties, up from $155 million or 26 cents per share a year earlier.

Shares also moved lower after the Ontario government announced leadership changes, as seen when Hydro One shares fell on the news in prior trading.

On an adjusted basis, it says it earned 39 cents per share for the quarter, despite earlier profit plunge headlines, up from an adjusted profit of 26 cents per share in the same quarter last year.

Revenue totalled $1.67 billion, up from $1.41 billion in the second quarter of 2019, while other Canadian utilities like Manitoba Hydro face heavy debt burdens.

Hydro One is Ontario’s largest electricity transmission and distribution provider, and its CEO compensation has drawn scrutiny in the province.

 

Related News

View more

Japan to host one of world's largest biomass power plants

eRex Biomass Power Plant will deliver 300 MW in Japan, offering stable baseload renewable energy, coal-cost parity, and feed-in tariff independence through economies of scale, efficient fuel procurement, and utility-scale operations supporting RE100 demand.

 

Key Points

A 300 MW Japan biomass project targeting coal-cost parity and FIT-free, stable baseload renewable power.

✅ 300 MW capacity; enough for about 700,000 households

✅ Aims to skip feed-in tariff via economies of scale

✅ Targets coal-cost parity with stable, dispatchable output

 

Power supplier eRex will build its largest biomass power plant to date in Japan, hoping the facility's scale will provide healthy margins, a strategy increasingly seen among renewable developers pursuing diverse energy sources, and a means of skipping the government's feed-in tariff program.

The Tokyo-based electric company is in the process of selecting a location, most likely in eastern Japan. It aims to open the plant around 2024 or 2025 following a feasibility study. The facility will cost an estimated 90 billion yen ($812 million) or so, and have an output of 300 megawatts -- enough to supply about 700,000 households. ERex may work with a regional utility or other partner

The biggest biomass power plant operating in Japan currently has an output of 100 MW. With roughly triple that output, the new facility will rank among the world's largest, reflecting momentum toward 100% renewable energy globally that is shaping investment decisions.

Nearly all biomass power facilities in Japan sell their output through the government-mediated feed-in tariff program, which requires utilities to buy renewable energy at a fixed price. For large biomass plants that burn wood or agricultural waste, the rate is set at 21 yen per kilowatt-hour. But the program costs the Japanese public more than 2 trillion yen a year, and is said to hamper price competition.

ERex aims to forgo the feed-in tariff with its new plant by reaping economies of scale in operation and fuel procurement. The goal is to make the undertaking as economical as coal energy, which costs around 12 yen per kilowatt-hour, even as solar's rise in the U.S. underscores evolving benchmarks for competitive renewables.

Much of the renewable energy available in Japan is solar power, which fluctuates widely according to weather conditions, though power prediction accuracy has improved at Japanese PV projects. Biomass plants, which use such materials as wood chips and palm kernel shells as fuel, offer a more stable alternative.

Demand for reliable sources of renewable energy is on the rise in the business world, as shown by the RE100 initiative, in which 100 of the world's biggest companies, such as Olympus, have announced their commitment to get 100% of their power from renewable sources. ERex's new facility may spur competition.

 

Related News

View more

Sign Up for Electricity Forum’s Newsletter

Stay informed with our FREE Newsletter — get the latest news, breakthrough technologies, and expert insights, delivered straight to your inbox.

Electricity Today T&D Magazine Subscribe for FREE

Stay informed with the latest T&D policies and technologies.
  • Timely insights from industry experts
  • Practical solutions T&D engineers
  • Free access to every issue

Download the 2025 Electrical Training Catalog

Explore 50+ live, expert-led electrical training courses –

  • Interactive
  • Flexible
  • CEU-cerified