A number of analyses, meta-analyses, and assessments, including those performed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and the International Energy Agency, have concluded that deployment of a diverse portfolio of clean energy technologies makes a transition to a low-carbon-emission energy system both more feasible and less costly than other pathways. In contrast, Jacobson et al. [Jacobson MZ, Delucchi MA, Cameron MA, Frew BA (2015) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(49):15060–15065] argue that it is feasible to provide “low-cost solutions to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of WWS [wind, water and solar power] across all energy sectors in the continental United States between 2050 and 2055”, with only electricity and hydrogen as energy carriers. In this paper, we evaluate that study and find significant shortcomings in the analysis. In particular, we point out that this work used invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions. Policy makers should treat with caution any visions of a rapid, reliable, and low-cost transition to entire energy systems that relies almost exclusively on wind, solar, and hydroelectric power. Significance Previous analyses have found that the most feasible route to a low-carbon energy future is one that adopts a diverse portfolio of technologies. In contrast, Jacobson et al. (2015) consider whether the future primary energy sources for the United States could be narrowed to almost exclusively wind, solar, and hydroelectric power and suggest that this can be done at “low-cost” in a way that supplies all power with a probability of loss of load “that exceeds electric-utility-industry standards for reliability”. We find that their analysis involves errors, inappropriate methods, and implausible assumptions. Their study does not provide credible evidence for rejecting the conclusions of previous analyses that point to the benefits of considering a broad portfolio of energy system options. A policy prescription that overpromises on the benefits of relying on a narrower portfolio of technologies options could be counterproductive, seriously impeding the move to a cost effective decarbonized energy system.

In the context of 100% renewable electricity systems, prolonged periods with persistently scarce supply from wind and solar resources have received increasing academic and political attention. This article explores how such scarcity periods relate to energy storage requirements. To this end, we contrast results from a time series analysis with those from a system cost optimization model, based on a German 100% renewable case study using 35 years of hourly time series data. While our time series analysis supports previous findings that periods with persistently scarce supply last no longer than two weeks, we find that the maximum energy deficit occurs over a much longer period of nine weeks. This is because multiple scarce periods can closely follow each other. When considering storage losses and charging limitations, the period defining storage requirements extends over as much as 12 weeks. For this longer period, the cost-optimal storage needs to be large enough to supply 36 TWh of electricity, which is about three times larger than the energy deficit of the scarcest two weeks. Most of this storage is provided via hydrogen storage in salt caverns, of which the capacity is even larger due to electricity reconversion losses (55 TWh). Adding other sources of flexibility, for example with bioenergy, the duration of the period that defines storage requirements lengthens to more than one year. When optimizing system costs based on a single year rather than a multi-year time series, we find substantial inter-annual variation in the overall storage requirements, with the average year needing less than half as much storage as calculated for all 35 years together. We conclude that focusing on short-duration extreme events or single years can lead to an underestimation of storage requirements and costs of a 100% renewable system.

Out of 2 TW_e of coal power plant capacity in operation globally today, more than half is less than 14 years old. Climate policy related to limiting CO₂-emissions makes the longer-term operation of these plants untenable. In this study, we assess the spectrum of available options for the future of both equipment and jobs in the coal power sector by assessing the full scope of “retrofit decarbonization” options. Retrofit decarbonization is an umbrella term that includes adding carbon capture, fuel conversion, and the replacement of coal boilers with new low-carbon energy sources, in each case re-using as much of the existing equipment as economically practicable while reducing or eliminating emissions. This article explores this idea using the Polish coal power fleet as a case study. Retrofit decarbonization in Poland was shown to be most attractive using high-temperature small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) to replace coal boilers, which can lower upfront capital costs by ~28–35% and levelized cost of electricity by 9–28% compared to a greenfield installation. If retrofit decarbonization is implemented globally by the late 2020s, up to 200 billion tons of otherwise-committed CO₂-emissions could be avoided.

The near and mid-term future of the existing Polish coal-fired power fleet is uncertain. The longer-term operation of unabated coal power is incompatible with climate policy and is economically challenging because of the increasing price of CO₂ emission allowances in the EU. The results of the techno-economic analysis presented in this paper indicate that the retrofit of existing coal-fired units, by means of replacing coal-fired boilers with small modular reactors, may be an interesting option for the Polish energy sector. It has been shown that the retrofit can reduce the costs in relation to greenfield investments by as much as 35%. This analysis focuses on the repowering of a 460 MW supercritical coal-fired unit based on the Łagisza power plant design with high temperature small modular nuclear reactors based on the 320 MW_th unit design by Kairos Power. The technical analyses did not show any major difficulties in integrating. The economic analyses show that the proposed retrofits can be economically justified, and, in this respect, they are more advantageous than greenfield investments. For the base economic scenario, the difference in NPV (Net Present Value) is more favorable for the retrofit by 556.9 M€ and the discounted payback period for this pathway is 10 years.

This article discusses a sustainable low-carbon development strategy that uses nuclear heat sources to replace coal boilers at existing coal power plants in China, to help support a resource and cost-effective low-carbon development. Based on the local situation in China, a three-stage strategy to explore the potential of repowering coal power by nuclear energy is proposed. The main focus of this study is to conduct a more detailed exploration of the 1st stage of this strategy, which includes coal plants located on the coast in regions that already have nuclear power installations. The study makes use of HTR-PM modular reactor for retrofit analysis for the types of coal units present in 1st stage of the strategy. The results show that: 1. There is a technical and economic basis for exploring nuclear power retrofit decarbonization. This conclusion is backed up by on-site transformation analysis and demonstration of the conversion of representative plant units to ensure the validity and reliability of the data. 2. This research provides a new pathway for the problem of stranded assets in China’s power sector decarbonization. The use of HTR-PM modules for retrofit can save up to 1200 billion $ as well as retaining local jobs and economic activity in areas currently hosting coal plants, which brings to society great economic and social benefits.