Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
ISBN: 978-979-8978-46-3
Published by:
ASEAN Centre for Energy (ACE)
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH
February 2019
4 5
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
6 7
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Comparison of LCOE with Energy Generation Costs in the AMS.............................................. 16 Figure 46 LCOE Change with Different Discount Rates........................................................................... 82
Figure 2 Comparison of RE Technologies’ LCOE with the Residential Selling Price of Electricity Figure 47 Impact of Policy Mechanism in LCOE and Grid Parity for Small-scale Solar PV..................... 84
in the AMS................................................................................................................................................ 17 Figure 48 Impact of Policy Mechanism on IRR for Small-scale Solar PV................................................ 84
Figure 3 LCOE Change with Different Discount Rates............................................................................. 18 Figure 49 Impact of Policy Mechanism on LCOE and Grid Parity for Large-scale Solar PV................... 85
Figure 4 Impact of Policy Mechanism on the LCOE and Grid Parity for Small-scale Solar PV................ 19 Figure 50 Impact of Policy Mechanism on IRR for Large-scale Solar PV................................................ 86
Figure 5 Impact of Policy Mechanism on IRR for Small-scale Solar PV.................................................. 19 Figure 51 Impact of Policy Mechanism on LCOE and Grid Parity for Wind Power.................................. 87
Figure 6 Global Levelised Cost of Electricity from Utility-scale Renewable Power Generation Figure 52 Impact of Policy Mechanism on IRR for Wind Power............................................................... 88
Technologies, 2010-2017......................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 53 Impact of Policy Mechanism on LCOE and Grid Parity for Biomass........................................ 89
Figure 7 LCOE in USD/kWh of Several RE Technologies’ Projects in 2014 ........................................... 26 Figure 54 Impact of Policy Mechanism on IRR for Biomass.................................................................... 89
Figure 8 Levelised Costs and Generation Costs...................................................................................... 26
Figure 9 Solar Power Installed Capacity between 2005 and 2017........................................................... 38
Figure 10 Solar PV Installation Costs in the AMS Divided by Project Size.............................................. 40
Figure 11 Cost Breakdown for Small-scale Solar PV............................................................................... 41
Figure 12 Cost Breakdown for Large-scale Solar PV............................................................................... 41
Figure 13 O&M% for Solar PV Projects................................................................................................... 42
Figure 14 LCOE of Solar PV in the AMS with COD from 2010 to 2017................................................... 43
Figure 15 Solar PV Learning Curve Analysis and Projection in the AMS................................................. 43 LIST OF TABLES
Figure 16 Sensitivity Analysis for Solar PV.............................................................................................. 44
Figure 17 Installed Hydropower Capacity in the AMS ............................................................................. 48
Figure 18 Average Hydropower Installation Costs in the AMS................................................................. 50
Figure 19 Cost Breakdowns for Hydropower Projects in the AMS........................................................... 51 Table 1 Input Parameters for LCOE Calculations..................................................................................... 34
Figure 20 Average Hydropower O&M Costs in the AMS.......................................................................... 51 Table 2 Projects Sampled by Installed Capacity...................................................................................... 39
Figure 21 LCOE of Hydropower in AMS in COD Years from 2007 to 2017.............................................. 52 Table 3 Capacity Factors for Solar PV Plant Samples............................................................................. 39
Figure 22 Hydropower Learning Curve Analysis and Projection in the AMS............................................ 53 Table 4 Selected Hydropower Projects in the AMS.................................................................................. 49
Figure 23 Sensitivity Analysis for Non-irrigation Hydropower Plants........................................................ 53 Table 5 Capacity Factors of Hydropower Projects................................................................................... 49
Figure 24 Sensitivity Analysis for Irrigation Hydropower Plants............................................................... 54 Table 6 Capacity Factors and Number of Wind Power Projects............................................................... 58
Figure 25 Installed Wind Power Capacity in the AMS from 2005 to 2017................................................ 58 Table 7 Capacity Factors and Number of Biomass Projects.................................................................... 66
Figure 26 Average Wind Power Project Installation Costa in the AMS..................................................... 59 Table 8 Capacity Factors and Number of Geothermal Projects............................................................... 72
Figure 27 Cost Breakdowns for Wind Power Projects............................................................................. 59 Table 9 Installation Costs for Geothermal Projects in the AMS................................................................ 73
Figure 28 Average Wind Power O&M Costs in the AMS......................................................................... 60 Table 10 O&M Cost for Geothermal plants in the AMS............................................................................ 75
Figure 29 Wind Power LCOE in the AMS on COD from 2009 to 2017.................................................... 61
Figure 30 Projection of Wind Power in the AMS...................................................................................... 61
Figure 31 Sensitivity Analysis for Wind Power in the AMS....................................................................... 62
Figure 32 Installed Biomass Capacity in the AMS from 2005 to 2017..................................................... 66
Figure 33 Installation Costs for Biomass Projects.................................................................................... 67
Figure 34 Breakdown of Biomass Project Costs...................................................................................... 67
Figure 35 Average Biomass O&M CostsA in the AMS............................................................................. 68
Figure 36 Average Biomass Fuel Costs in the AMS................................................................................. 68
Figure 37 Biomass LCOE on COD from 2006 to 2017............................................................................ 69
Figure 38 Installed Capacities of Geothermal Power in the AMS from 2007 to 2017.............................. 72
Figure 39 Capacities and Capacity Factors of Geothermal Power Plants Included in This Study........... 73
Figure 40 Cost Breakdown of a Geothermal Power Plant........................................................................ 74
Figure 41 O&M Costs of Geothermal Power Plants................................................................................. 74
Figure 42 LCOE for Geothermal Power................................................................................................... 75
Figure 43 Sensitivity Analysis for Geothermal Plants in the AMS............................................................ 76
Figure 44 Comparison of LCOE with Energy Generation Costs in the AMS............................................ 80
Figure 45 Comparison of RE Technologies’ LCOE with the Residential Selling Price of Electricity
in the AMS................................................................................................................................................ 81
8 9
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
10 11
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
ASEAN is a region of opportunities with the rapid growth of the ten ASEAN Member States (AMS) and the The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is one of the most dynamic and fast-growing regions
continuously increasing energy demand which will reach its highest level in 2035. To meet this demand, in the world. The rapid economic growth brings both great challenges and opportunities. A key challenge is
we must develop a variety of systems and technologies in parallel, as well as a range of strategies for to ensure that energy can be generated and distributed from clean sources, and at affordable prices. The
clean and sustainable generation of energy, which take environmental, social and economic impacts into ASEAN Member States (AMS) through the ASEAN Plan of Action for Energy Cooperation (APAEC) 2016-
consideration. This has become a priority for the AMS, as asserted in the ASEAN Plan of Action for Energy 2025 realise the potential of renewable energy (RE) and have set an aspirational target of 23% for RE as
Cooperation 2016-2025 that sets an aspirational target of 23% renewable energy (RE) in total primary a proportion of the total primary energy supply by the year 2025. RE could be one of the ways for the AMS
energy supply in 2025. This target is currently standing at 12.4% as per 2016. To support the aspirational to fulfil the theme of the APAEC in achieving energy security, accessibility, affordability and sustainability
target, in 2016 the ASEAN Centre for Energy (ACE) conducted a study on the levelised cost of electricity for all.
(LCOE) for solar photovoltaic (PV), biomass, and hydro.
To support the APAEC 2016-2025’s goals for enhancing energy connectivity and market integration in the
The deployment of RE in ASEAN has been continuously rising since 2008, with total additional capacity ASEAN, the ASEAN-German Energy Programme (AGEP), a jointly implemented project by the ACE and
reaching 30 GW by 2016, or roughly double the 2008 capacity. However, this growth could be enhanced Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH on behalf of the Federal Ministry
even further with more evidence supporting RE development. Subsequently, as follow-up to the LCOE for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) conducted a follow-up study to review the levelised
study in 2016, this study was conducted under the ASEAN-German Energy Programme (AGEP), a jointly cost of electricity (LCOE) for solar photovoltaic (PV), hydropower, wind, biomass, and geothermal. This
implemented project by ACE and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, study aims to determine the current LCOE of the five RE technologies mentioned above and help identify
on behalf of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). As a continuation necessary policies to encourage fair competition between RE and fossil fuel power plants in the AMS.
of the first study, the objectives of this study are: 1) to analyse the LCOE trend of current RE technologies
in the AMS, 2) to obtain the most representative LCOE numbers as reliable references, 3) to understand This study underlines the main parameters influencing the LCOE in the AMS. It also analyses the LCOE
and provide recommendations on the impact of policy on LCOE prices, and 4) to advise on the necessary of selected RE technologies in the AMS, and suggests the necessary policies to reach a significant
policies for obtaining significant competitiveness between the LCOE of RE technologies and conventional competitive level for certain RE technologies’ LCOE. The results reveal that the discount rate, capital costs,
fossil fuel power plants in the AMS. and capacity factor variations increase or reduce the LCOE more significantly compared to other variables.
The result also indicates a downward projection of future LCOEs for solar PV, hydropower, and wind, which
This second study includes geothermal and wind power with more project samples for each technology. require additional support from policymakers (i.e. subsidies, financing mechanisms, RE research grants),
With a total 134 projects evaluated, it is expected that the study will offer a better understanding of the to increase market deployment to meet their national and regional targets.
LCOE for these five RE technologies in ASEAN, and further identify necessary policies to encourage fair
competition between RE and conventional fossil fuel-based power plants in the AMS. This study was developed through extensive research and considerable cooperation with the ASEAN
Renewable Energy Sub-sector Network. For that reason, we are very pleased to announce the completion of
The Levelised Cost of Electricity of Selected Renewable Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II is The Levelised Cost of Electricity of Selected Renewable Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II, which
part of ACE’s efforts to fulfil its function as a regional energy centre of excellence that continues to initiate is now available for all related stakeholders. We believe that this study will be helpful in giving policymakers
coherent, coordinated, focused and robust energy policy agendas and strategies for ASEAN. We hope that an overview of the parameters that influence LCOEs in the ASEAN, so that they can take the necessary
this publication will provide stakeholders with useful information on the current costs of RE technologies in actions to support RE development, and stakeholders can see the benefit of investing in RE technologies.
the ASEAN.
Maria-José Poddey
Christopher G. Zamora Principle Advisor for AGEP
Acting Executive Director GIZ
ASEAN Centre for Energy
12 13
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
This study on the levelised costs of electricity (LCOE) was developed by the ASEAN Centre for Energy The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region is an economic zone, home to around 622
(ACE) and Renewable Energy Sub-sector Network (RE-SSN), under the supervision of Mr. Christopher million people. It has a regional gross domestic product of USD 2.6 trillion (2014) growing at an average
G. Zamora, Ms. Maria-Jose Poddey, and Dr. Sanjayan Velautham with technical assistance from Adilla annual rate of 5.3%, and the demand for energy is immense due to the economic drive in the region
Fathimah, Badariyah Yosiana, Rizky Fauzianto, Septia Buntara Supendi, Dr. Tharinya Supasa and resulting from rapid industrialisation. The ten ASEAN Member States (AMS) together account for 5.7% of
Yudiandra Yuwono. It was conducted under the ASEAN-German Energy Programme (AGEP), a jointly the world’s energy production (ACE, 2017).
implemented project by the ACE and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)
GmbH on behalf of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). Rapidly rising energy demand and fluctuating fossil fuel prices are challenges to all of the ASEAN countries
in their efforts to ensure economic growth and prosperity to their people. To overcome these challenges, the
A regional workshop was held 7-8 August 2018 in Bangkok, Thailand, and attended by RE-SSN’s ASEAN has implemented a new ASEAN Plan of Action for Energy Cooperation (APAEC) 2016-2025 with
representatives and RE relevant stakeholders to supply and validate data, and also verify preliminary findings the theme “Enhancing Energy Connectivity and Market Integration in the ASEAN to Achieve Energy Security,
and analysis prepared by the ACE and consultant from King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi. Accessibility, Affordability and Sustainability for All”. Integral parts of the APAEC revolve around renewable
energy (RE). In 2016, the ASEAN achieved a 12.4% RE share in the total primary energy supply (TPES).
The completion of the study was made possible through the cooperation and support of the RE-SSN Focal
Points and other stakeholders from relevant ministries, institutions, and RE project developers that have RE has an important role to play in delivering a sustainable energy future. It enhances energy security
provided information. We would like to thank everyone involved, in particular those named below: RE- through diversification, decreases dependence on imported fuels, and contributes to the mitigation of
SSN Focal Points and networks; Mr. Abdul Matiin Hj Muhd Kasim, Energy Department, Prime Minister’s climate change by reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The ASEAN region is blessed with a huge
Office of Brunei Darussalam; Mr. Toch Sovanna and Mr. Chiphong Sarasy, Ministry of Mines and Energy potential to use RE and hence the role of RE is becoming more important in developing a diversified energy
of Cambodia; Mr. Harris, Directorate General of New and Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation mix. However, only a small fraction of RE has been developed to date.
of Indonesia, Mr. Chantho Milattanapheng and Mr. Phonepasong Sithideth, Ministry of Energy and Mines
of Lao PDR; Ms. Noor Afifah Abdul Razak and Mr. Asdirhimi Ab. Rasib, Ministry of Energy, Science, In recent years, many of the AMS have stepped up their efforts to develop national RE programmes,
Technology, Environment and Climate Change (MESTECC) of Malaysia; Dr. Win Myint, Ministry of including the setting of renewable targets, and putting regulatory frameworks and policies into place to
Electricity and Energy of Myanmar; Ms. Mylene C. Capongcol, with Ms. Marissa P. Cerezo, Renewable support the deployment of RE systems. Nevertheless, despite the growth of RE, the ASEAN TPES, or
Energy Management Bureau, Department of Energy of Philippines; Ms. Vanessa Koh and Ms. Cheryl energy mix, still relies heavily on fossil fuels, namely, oil, coal, and natural gas. The shares of fossil fuels
Leem, Energy Market Authority of Singapore; Mr. Wanchai Bunluesinth, Department of Alternative Energy accounted for about 80% of the energy supply in 2017. Consequently, in order to ensure the development
Development and Efficiency of Thailand; and Mr. Nguyen Ninh Hai, Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT) of RE in the region and reach the RE target, several measures are needed. A measure that has been
of Vietnam, as well as the FGD participants; Mr. Bualom Saysanavong, Mr. Edward Neri, Ms. La Ngoc Lan, deployed globally to encourage the development of RE is to compare the levelised costs of electricity
Ms. Nor Azaliza Damiri, Ms. Nur Haziqah Mohd Dzaki, Ms. Jariya Budnard, Mr. Htun Naing, Mr. Chipong (LCOE) generated from all forms of renewable and conventional technologies.
Sarasy, Mr. Praptono Adhi, Ms. Phonethida Phanakhone, Mr. Alberto III Dalusung, Mr. Mohd Rahimi Mohd
Yusuf, Mr. Kevin Chan, Mr. Cherdsak Wattanavijitkul, Ms. Mya Aye, Mr. San Htwe, and Mr. Tuy Anh Nguyen.
The results of an LCOE study for the AMS conducted by the ACE in November 2016 indicated that the costs of
ACE - AGEP team: Lisa Tjandra, Nanda F. Moenandar, Sandy Fajrian, Septia Buntara Supendi, Dr. Tharinya electricity generated from various forms of RE could potentially compete with the cost of electricity generated
Supasa, and Yudiandra. from conventional fuels. Constantly updated data and more comprehensive analysis are necessary in order to
formulate a well-integrated energy strategy and policy for all stakeholders. The previous LCOE study in 2016
ACE - Policy Research and Analytics team: Aloysius Damar Pranadi, Beni Suryadi, and Nadhilah Shani. was extended to include wind and geothermal power, along with trend analysis and projection for all RE. The
data were obtained from 64 projects from the previous LCOE in 2016, together with that from more projects
GIZ- AGEP team: Rizky Fauzianto which disseminated questionnaires to focal points in the AMS. This is all aligned with one of the APAEC strategic
action plans to enhance and implement RE in order to achieve the RE target in the TPES in 2025.
This study reviews and updates the LCOE of selected RE technologies with data from the AMS. Additionally,
it also provides a trend analysis for solar PV, wind, and hydropower technologies. The key findings are
analysed to identify necessary policies to nurture fair competition between RE and conventional fossil fuel
power plants in the AMS. The specific objectives of the study are:
• To analyse the LCOE trend for RE technologies in the AMS over the last 10 years (2007-2017),
review and update the 2016 report and project the LCOE for the next doubling of installed capacity.
• To obtain the most representative LCOE numbers to serve as reliable references
• To understand and provide recommendations on the impact of policies relating to the LCOE price.
• To advise the necessary policies geared to obtaining significant competitive levels between the
LCOE for RE technologies and conventional fossil fuel power plants in the AMS
14 15
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
Analysis Figure 2 Comparison of RE Technologies’ LCOE with the Residential Selling Price of Electricity in the AMS
Based on the study of five selected RE technologies in the AMS, there is encouraging development, Technology
but several measures are needed to fulfil the APAEC target. In taking these further measures, important Biomass Hydropower Solar PV Wind
parameters with a major influence on RE development have been determined. Furthermore, with the 0.30 Indonesia
important parameters identified, policy measures are needed to further implement the measures. Lao PDR
0.25 Malaysia
LCOE (USD/kWh)
Affordability of RE in the AMS Myanmar
Philippines
The costs of RE technologies are constantly being compared against the costs of conventional energy 0.20
Singapore
sources to illustrate the affordability of each. At present, the use of conventional energy is still more cost-
0.16 Thailand
efficient compared to RE technologies. However, with the rapid depletion of fossil fuels and increasing
In Figure 1, the LCOEs are compared to the generation costs of PLN (Indonesia), TNB (Malaysia), and There are several factors which favour the development of RE technologies. New RE technology
EGAT (Thailand), while in Figure 2, the LCOEs are compared to the residential selling price in the AMS. It modifications will continuously reduce the price of RE equipment while the capacity factor will continuously
can be seen that only biomass and hydropower offer a more competitive cost against conventional energy expand (Sovacool, 2008). On the other hand, more precise methods for the calculation of costs could also
generation in the AMS, likely due to the fact that these technologies have reached a relatively mature stage change the current method of comparison. At present, the LCOE does not favour a variable RE system
of development (Ellabban et al., 2014). However, with the cost of solar PV on a steeply declining trend, it such as solar PV and wind (Ueckerdt et al., 2013). Until it does, financial support for RE development is
could be a promising option for development. needed. In analysing methods to support RE development, important parameters are identified below
based on projections and sensitivity analyses.
With a few years of development, solar PV could potentially compete with conventional energy sources,
especially if it was assumed that the prices of the conventional forms of energy will steadily increase. Important Parameters
Several factors, such as subsidies, resources scarcity, and the constant aging of existing facilities will likely For the sensitivity analyses of five RE technologies, three parameters were identified as having major
push the costs of conventional energy sources higher over time. influences on the LCOE of RE projects. These are: 1) discount rates; 2) capital costs; and 3) capacity factor.
Figure 1 Comparison of LCOE with Energy Generation Costs in the AMS Discount Rates
Technology
The discount rate is one of the major parameters for the calculation of the LCOE and has a great impact
Biomass Hydropower Solar PV Wind on it. The discount rate is used to discount future values and turn them into present values. For the same
0.30 Indonesia
amount of future value, a large discount rate results in a small present value, while a small discount value
Laos PD
leads to a larger present value. The change on the LCOE with different discount rates is apparent in
Malaysia
0.25
PLN Diesel: 0.25 Figure 3. The baseline case study for solar PV was the same as for the solar PV sensitivity section. The
Myanmar
LCOE for this project was USD 0.2 /kWh. The discount rate for this project was 10%, and then varied by
Philippines
approximately 1% (X-axis). Decreasing the discount rate from 10% to 9%, a decline of 7% in the LCOE
Singapore
0.20
Thailand
can be observed. If a policy mechanism can reduce the discount rate from 10% to 6%, it can reduce the
Vietnam
LCOE from USD 0.20to 0.15/kWh. This would enhance its competitiveness vis-a-vis conventional forms of
LCOE (USD/kWh)
energy. Meanwhile, if this same project had a higher discount rate of only 2%, from 10% to 12%, it would
0.15
cause the LCOE to increase 14%, equivalent to USD 0.23/kWh.
% CF
EGAT NGPP: 0,11
0.1079
0.10 TNB Avg: 0,095; EGAT Avg: 0,094 0.4000
PLN Avg: 0,077 0.6000
0.8000
0.05 0.9170
0.00
2007 2017 2007 2017 2007 2017 2007 2017
16 17
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
Figure 3 LCOE Change with Different Discount Rates Figure 4 Impact of Policy Mechanism on the LCOE and Grid Parity for Small-scale Solar PV
Indonesia
Malaysia
Thailand
Vietnam
Lao PDR
Singapore
Philippines
-13%
-20%
-20%
-26%
-30%
Electricity Tariff
Capital/Installation costs
As observed in the sensitivity analysis for each technology, it is apparent that a shift in capital costs has
major impacts on the LCOE calculations. Capital costs directly affect the LCOE the most because the more
expensive the capital costs, the higher the LCOE will become. However, different methods for categorising
costs could lead to significant differences among the capital costs for two similar projects, thus resulting in
significant differences in the LCOE. For example, some hydropower projects included irrigation and storage Figure 5 Impact of Policy Mechanism on IRR for Small-scale Solar PV
infrastructure in the capital costs, while others factored only the hydropower generator components (Zarfl
et al., 2015). Consequently, the capital costs must be defined accurately, and it is important that cross- 22,00%
checking between projects be carried out because differences in this parameter lead to significant changes 20,85%
in the LCOE. An example of the impact of the LCOE policy mechanism and grid parity for small-scale solar
20,00%
PV is shown in Figure 4. 19,25%
As shown, the LCOE of this solar PV project had reached grid parity in Singapore and the Philippines 18,00%
(Figure 4). The import duty and taxes were exempted, as shown in Figure 5, while the LCOE was slightly 17,13%
16,58%
reduced by USD 0.004/kWh, and the internal rate of return (IRR) increased from 16.58% to 17.13%.
Meanwhile, as shown in Figure 5, a reduction in the cost of solar rooftop equipment by 20% to 30% can 16,00%
moderately reduce the LCOE and increase the IRR. The cost of the equipment can be decreased by
either direct subsidy or technology improvement (learning-curve). If the cost of the solar PV equipment
decreases, it can reach grid parity in Thailand but not yet in Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, and Vietnam. 14,00%
At the same time, the IRR will rise to between 19.25% and 20.85%.
12,00%
10,00%
With baseline
parameters
Decreasing of solar
rooftop equipment cost
20% (Direct Subsidy or
technology learning curve)
Decreasing of solar
rooftop equipment cost
30% (Direct Subsidy or
technology learning curve)
18 19
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
Policy Coordination In response, direct and indirect targeted support from governments should be deployed for the three
Policy coordination should go beyond simply presenting research findings as evidence but also aim at important parameters to assist the development of renewable energies. These can be aligned with the
catering to policymakers’ requirement for knowledge. Interactive workshops and policy dialogues help test APAEC strategic action plan to enhance and implement RE policy so as to achieve the 2025 RE target in
the conclusions and recommendations against the policy reality and incorporate policymakers’ feedback TPES. For example, subsidies and financing mechanisms (i.e., tax or land acquisition) could be created
on the research findings (Davies, 2012). The outcome of the dialogues will be further handed to the AMS’ to reduce the capital costs. Additionally, specific RE research grants could be distributed to encourage
governments for implementation of the development plan. technology production in the region and also efficiency enhancement.
Utilising the results from this study, the AMS could make targeted policy measures with respect to RE.
Conclusion More accurate regional targets or policies could also be created. The information here could help create
Compared with RE development globally, in the AMS it is currently on pace. While this study shows that an enabling environment for RE development, not only through reducing risks but also by adding extra
only biomass and hydropower are comparable with the prices of conventional energy in the AMS, solar PV incentives to all the stakeholders involved. However, with global RE development moving swiftly, analysis
and wind are also showing promise. However, several measures are needed to not only reduce the current of its compatibility with society’s development must always be continuously updated.
costs of RE, but also create an environment that could support its growth.
This study should be used as the baseline for a co-created programme between the AMS’ governments
Three important parameters of RE development have been identified through sensitivity analyses: 1) and relevant stakeholders. This will consequently ensure that the development of RE in the ASEAN is
discount rates; 2) capital costs; and 3) capacity factor. Variations in these values increased or decreased in line with stakeholders’ interests, more importantly, with the AMS’ government interests as they face
the LCOE more significantly than other variables. The projections of the future LCOE for solar PV, complicated decisions in supplying energy to their people.
hydropower, and wind showed a slight decline which could be realised only if existing financial support for
RE is maintained and improved.
C
re
di
tt
he
Ph
ilip
pi
ne
s
D
O
E
20 21
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
22 23
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
1. INTRODUCTION
Figure 6 Global Levelised Cost of Electricity from Utility-scale Renewable Power Generation Technologies,
2010-2017 (source: IRENA, 2018)
2016 USD/kWh
total energy production (ACE, 2017).
Rapidly rising energy demand and fluctuating fossil fuel prices are challenges to all of the ASEAN countries
in their efforts to ensure economic growth and prosperity for their people. To overcome the challenges, the 0.22
ASEAN has implemented a new ASEAN Plan of Action for Energy Cooperation (APAEC) 2016-2025 with 0.2
Fossil fuel
the theme “Enhancing Energy Connectivity and Market Integration in ASEAN to Achieve Energy Security, cost range
0.17
Accessibility, Affordability and Sustainability for All”. Integral parts of the APAEC revolve around renewable
0.14
energy (RE). In 2016, the ASEAN achieved a 12.4% RE share in its TPES.
RE has an important role to play in delivering a sustainable energy future. It enhances energy security 0.1 0.10
0.08
through diversification, decreases dependence on imported fuels, and contributes to the mitigation of 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06
climate change by reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The ASEAN region is blessed with a huge 0.05 0.05
potential for the use of RE and hence it is becoming more important in a diversified energy mix. However, 0.04
24 25
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
Figure 7 LCOE in USD/kWh for Several RE Technologies’ Projects in 2014 (source: ACE, 2016) In addition, this study also assessed the effect of policy support mechanisms that provide incentives for
the development of RE in the AMS. These are fiscal incentives (exemptions on import duties and taxes,
0.900 solar biomass hydropower low corporate taxes, income tax holidays) and financial mechanisms (low interest rates, longer loan terms,
0.850 higher debts share, and low returns on equity). Any policy measure that positively impacts not only project
0.800 investment and operating costs, but also equity cash flow would improve the attractiveness of the project
from a financing point of view.
0.700
The 2016 study indicated that to deploy more RE installations and push RE development even further,
Levelised Cost (USD per kWh)
0.600 additional support from policymakers and relevant stakeholders is needed. To make RE even more
Mean competitive with other electricity generating technologies, and to increase market deployment to meet
0.500 the AMS’ national RE targets as well as the regional target of 23% as stipulated in the APAEC Phase
Median
I: 2016-2025, more detailed studies are needed. With RE technologies and their costs continuously
Min changing rapidly over the past fifteen years, re-designing the RE policy components, such as feed-in
0.400
tariffs or subsidies, is necessary to monitor RE LCOE cost changes, their grid parity, competitiveness with
Max
conventional electricity generation costs, etc., with updated and detailed analyses.
0.300
0.220 To continuously promote RE development and the relevant stakeholders’ understanding of RE, a follow-up to
0.200 0.190 0.125 the 2016 study was needed to serve as an impactful reference for both the private sector and policymakers.
0.130 0.092 0.085
0.100 0.088 0.045
0.057 0.044 1.2 Continuation of LCOE in the AMS Study
0.000 0.019 As a continuation of the 2016 LCOE study, a new LCOE study was developed by the ACE with technical
assistance from The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment (JGSEE) at King Mongkut’s
The 2016 LCOE study also compared the estimated LCOE with the average generation costs (which cover University of Technology Thonburi under close coordination with the Renewable Energy Sub-sector Network
all generation technologies) and found that hydropower in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand were Focal Points of the AMS. The study was conducted under the ASEAN-German Energy Programme (AGEP),
able to compete with conventional fuel generation (the highest LCOE value was lower than the average a jointly implemented project by the ACE and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
generation costs for these countries). For Malaysia, most but not all hydropower projects had reached grid (GIZ) GmbH on behalf of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). Data
parity. Meanwhile, some biomass projects in Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand had also reached grid and analysis from the first study were utilised as a baseline and this follow-up study adds more types of RE
parity (Figure 8). technologies and increases the number of RE project samples across nine AMS.
Figure 8 Levelised Costs and Generation costs This follow-up study reviews and updates the LCOE of selected RE technologies with data from the AMS.
Note: The darker shade represents minimum LCOE value to the mean value, while the lighter shade The previous 2016 LCOE study was extended to include wind and geothermal power, along with trend
represents mean value to the maximum value (source: ACE, 2016) analysis and projections for all forms of RE. All 64 projects which were previously analysed in the previous
study were utilised along with more updated projects’ data from six AMS. The key findings are analysed
2014 (in USD/kWh) to create necessary policies for bringing fair competition between RE and conventional fossil fuel power
hydropower plants in the AMS. The specific objectives of the study were:
TBN average gen cost: 0.073 (blue line)
• To analyse the LCOE trend for RE technologies among the AMS over the last 10 years (2007-
PLN average gen cost: 0.109 (green line)
2017), review and update the 2016 report and project the LCOE for the next doubling of installed
biomass PLN diesel gen cost: 0.259 (red line)
capacity.
PLN gas turbine gen cost: 0.244 • To obtain the most representative LCOE numbers as reliable references
PLN CC gen cost: 0.113 • To understand and provide recommendations on the impact of policies relating to the LCOE.
large solar PV MERALCO average gen charge: 0.120 • To advise on the necessary policies for obtaining significant competitiveness between the LCOE of
EGAT average sales price: 0.096 RE technologies and conventional fossil fuel power plants in the AMS.
medium solar PV
small solar PV
26 27
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
In this study, two types of RE technologies were added: geothermal and wind power. Along with improving
the data from the first study, more data were collected. These more detailed, updated data were then
used for deeper analyses. In addition, this study also provided a trend analysis for solar PV, wind, and
hydropower technologies.
These deeper analyses were made possible with more projects’ data being available and each being
equipped with its commercial operation date (COD) year. Apart from only showing the LCOE value, a
general trend could be made. Comparisons with several examples of electricity generation costs and
residential electricity prices could also be observed throughout the years. Also, with more data on project
details obtained, potential policy analyses through IRR were made.
The differences in the baseline analysis of the first (2016) and the second (2019) study are shown in the
following illustration.
0.24
0.700
0.22
Levelised Cost (USD per kWh)
0.600
0.18
0.500 Median 0.16
0.16
0.400 Min
0.14
Max
0.300 0.12
0.220 0.10
0.200 0.190 0.125 0.08
0.00
2007 2017 2007 2017 2007 2017 2007 2017
Using this baseline analyses, future projections and more detailed policy recommendations were
made. While the first study created a rough estimate of how the costs of RE technologies are declining
and becoming more competitive, the second study takes up where it left off to create more enhanced
analyses. The 2019 study follows up on how to promote RE technologies further by showing a rough
illustration of how RE would continuously challenge the costs of providing electricity from conventional
energy sources in the coming years.
28 29
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
30 31
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
32 33
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
Table 1 Input Parameters for LCOE Calculations 2.3 Learning Rates and Future Costs
PV PV The most common model which is widely used in the energy literature to forecast changes in technology
rooftop rooftop PV utility-
small large scale (>2
Wind Wind
Biogas
Brown
Hard coal CCGT GT costs is the “one-factor learning curve” (or “experience curve”). This formulation is derived from empirical
onshore offshore coal
(5-15 (100-1000 MWp) observations across a variety of energy technologies that frequently indicate a log-linear relationship
kWp) kWp)
between the unit cost of the technology and its cumulative output (production) or installed capacity (Rubin
Lifetime [in
years]
25 25 25 25 25 30 40 40 30 30 et al. 2015). The future costs are estimated by using the concept of learning-by-doing which was discussed
Share of by Ferioli et al. (2009). This can be quantitatively expressed as:
80% 80% 80% 80% 70% 80% 60% 60% 60% 60%
debt
Share of
20% 20% 20% 20% 30% 20% 40% 40% 40% 40%
equity
Interest rate
3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 4.0% 5.5% 4.0% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5.% 5.5%
on debt
Return on
5.0% 6.5% 6.5% 7.0% 10.0% 8.0% 11.0% 11.0% 10.0% 10.0%
equity
WACC
nominal
3.8% 4.1% 4.1% 4.6% 6.9% 4.8% 7.7% 7.7% 7.3% 7.3% eq. 2
WACC real 1.8% 2.1% 2.1% 2.5% 4.8% 2.7% 5.6% 5.6% 5.2% 5.2% where x0 represents power cumulative installed capacity in MW in year 0.
OPEX fix 2.5% of 2.5% of 2.5% of 4.0% of xt represents cumulative installed capacity in MW in year t.
30 100 36 32 22 20
[EUR/kWh] CAPEX CAPEX CAPEX CAPEX C(xt) is a unit cost of a product, process, or technology in year t,
OPEX var
[EUR/kWh]
0 0 0 0.005 0.005 0 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.003 C(xo) is a unit cost of a product, process, or technology in year 0,
Degradation 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
b is a positive learning parameter
Moreover, the fractional reduction in cost associated with a doubling of installed capacity is referred to as
the learning rate (LR) and is given by:
LR = 1 – 2b (eq.3)
2b in the above equation is the “progress ratio”
The initial cost declines by the learning rate, LR, at every doubling of production. For example, when
the learning rate (LR) equals 20%, the cost of any specific energy installation decreases by 20% as the
installed capacity is doubled.
E
C
tA
di
re
E
C
C
tA
di
re
C
34 35
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
36 37
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
3. SOLAR PV
Table 2 Projects Sampled by Installed Capacity
Installed capacity of Existing Projects
AMS
Small Medium Large
Total
< 100 kWp 100 – 1,000 kWp > 1,000 kWp
Indonesia 2 2
3.1 Solar PV Development in the ASEAN Malaysia 19 7 8 24
The solar power installed capacity in the AMS increased significantly between 2007 and 2017, from around Philippines 1 4 5
47 MW to 4,211 MW as shown in Figure 9. Thailand, the Philippines, and Malaysia are the leading countries. Singapore 1 1
The installations of solar PV in Thailand increased from 32 MW in 2007 to 2,697 MW in 2017, while those in Thailand 2 2 4
the Philippines and Malaysia increased from 1 MW and 7.0 MW to 885.3 MW and 362.2 MW, respectively. Total 21 9 16 46
However, during the same period, Myanmar and Vietnam had not yet installed any solar PV.
The country-average capacity factors, which range from 11% to 21%, of the solar PV plants included in this
Figure 9 Solar Power Installed Capacity between 2005 and 2017 (source: ACE, 2018) study are summarised in Table 3 with a few plants falling outside this range. The average capacity factor of
the small, medium, and large-scale plants was about 16%.
4211
4000 Table 3 Capacity Factors for Solar PV Plant Samples
Country Capacity Factor
Indonesia AMS Small Medium Large Overall
3500
Malaysia Indonesia 18% 18%
Philippines Philippines 15% 18% 17%
3000 Singapore 15% 15%
Singapore
Thailand Thailand 17% 16% 16%
2500 Overall
Mean 16% 15% 16% 16%
Median 16% 15% 16% 16%
Solar PV (MW)
2000
Min 11% 13% 14% 11%
Max 19% 17% 21% 21%
1500
1000
3.3 Cost Details
47
500
3.3.1 Installation Costs
The installation costs of the solar PV power plants vary according to the capacity and type of technology.
0 The installation costs per unit capacity of the small, medium, and large-scale plants are shown in Figure
2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
10 for each project in five AMS. For the overall view of all the AMS, the capacity-weighted averages of
Year
the installation costs of the solar PV plants were USD 1,963, USD 1,824, and USD 2,013/kW for small,
medium, and large scale, respectively.
Along with the increases in installed capacity, the electricity generated by solar PV in the ASEAN grew in
the same proportion from 58 GWh in 2007 to 5,004 GWh in 2016. The electricity generation from solar PV
among the three leading AMS—Thailand, the Philippines, and Malaysia—increased from 39 GWh, 1 GWh,
and 8.6 GWh, respectively, in 2007 to 3,377 GWh, 1,097 GWh, and 323.4 GWh, respectively, in 2016.
38 39
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
Figure 10 Solar PV Installation Costs in the AMS Divided by Project Size Figure 11 Cost Breakdown for Small-scale Solar PV
2,013 0%
12 12 24 24
2,000 1,963
Installed Capacity (kWp)
1,867
In comparison, as shown in Figure 12, the top two shares of the cost breakdowns for the large-scale solar
1,800 PV were similarly the equipment costs and installation costs, which are typically more than about 70% of
the total installed costs. However, compared to the small-scale solar PV, civil works costs ranked above
the rest.
Large-scale
100%
Financial cost during construction (USD)
1,400 90%
Administration costs (USD)
80%
Indonesia Malaysia Philippines Thailand Malaysia Singapore Malaysia Thailand Consultation, Licenses and Permits (USD)
70% Grid connection (USD)
Installation and commissioning costs (USD)
60%
3.3.2 Cost Breakdowns Import duty & taxes (USD)
50%
Cost breakdowns are taken from the available project samples. As not every project had detailed cost data Transportation & Insurance (USD)
40%
available, only several small-scale and large-scale solar PV costs were used in this section. These project Equipment cost (USD)
Design, Engineering, Project management (USD)
samples are from Malaysia and the Philippines. 30%
Civil works (USD)
20%
Land acquisition & development (USD)
As shown in Figure 11, the largest share of the cost breakdowns for the small solar PV plants was the 10% Exploration (USD)
equipment costs (about 60%), followed by: 1) installation and commissioning costs (about 12%); 2) 0%
administrative costs (about 7%-8%); 3) design/engineering/project management costs; and 4) civil works 10,046.40 12,500.00 13,141.44 38,891.00
40 41
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
Figure 13 O&M% for Solar PV Projects Figure 14 LCOE of Solar PV in the AMS with COD from 2010 to 2017
Technology / Country COD
Country
Large Medium Small Indonesia
0.28
Malaysia
5.00% 4.95% Philippines
0.26
Singapore
4.50%
Thailand
4.44% 0.24
4.00%
3.50% 0.22 % CF
3.63%
0.1079
LCOE (USD/kWh)
3.00% 0.20 0.1200
% O&M
2.50% 0.1400
0.18 0.1600
2.00% 0.1800
1.55% 0.16 0.2000
1.50%
1.02% 1.14% 0.2100
0.14
1.00%
0.50% 0.12
0.43%
0.00%
0.01% 0.02% 0.10
Indonesia Malaysia Philippines Thailand Malaysia Philippines Singapore Malaysia Thailand Vietnam
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
3.4 Analysis
3.4.2 Projection
3.4.1 Levelised Cost of Electricity The projection can be calculated by using a one-factor learning curve methodology referred to in equations
Based on the calculations, the LCOE of solar PV plants in the AMS ranged from USD 0.099 to USD 0.2/ 2 to 4. The Y-axis represents the mean value of solar PV LCOE in USD per kWh, while the X-axis represents
kWh. The largest and smallest calculated LCOEs were both from the small-scale plants. On average, the the accumulated installed solar PV (GW) for the whole ASEAN region. Projections for solar PV in the AMS
small-, medium-, and large-scale solar PV plants had an LCOE of USD 0.187, USD 0.181, and USD 0.182/ are shown in Figure 15.
kWh, respectively. Most of the solar PV plants in the ASEAN countries were installed in the six years after
2012. While Figure 7 indicates that there was a declining trend globally, Figure 14 shows that the LCOE Figure 15 Solar PV Learning Curve Analysis and Projection in the AMS
trend of these solar PV plants in the AMS was also slightly downward, though a further qualitative analysis 0.500
should be developed to clarify the fact. Compared to the globally weighted average, the LCOE of utility-
scale solar PV decreased to USD 0.10/kWh in 2017 (IRENA, 2018b). 0.03
0.464
0.400
LCOE (USD/kWh)
0.300 0.09
0.299 1.02
0.218
0.200
0.39
0.200 1.93
0.196
0.89 3.64
0.208 0.162 10.10
0.100 0.147
0.000
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
42 43
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
Using ASEAN data, the b value was –0.0941, thus the learning rate (LR) of solar PV was 6.3%. This
implies that if the installed capacity of solar PV is doubled in the AMS, the LCOE price will fall by 6.3%.
The LCOE in 2025 is computed by using equation 4 and the projected cumulated solar PV for 2025 were
obtained from the 5th ASEAN Energy Outlook (ACE, 2017). Thus, the LCOE for 2025 is projected to be
USD 0.147/kWh.
-32% 36%
discountrate
-2%
annual degradation
-33% 100%
capacity factor*
-4% 4%
O & M cost
-46% 46%
capital cost
The measured impacts are presented as percentages of change in the LCOE as shown in Figure 16.
It shows the impact of the key changes caused by the parameters to the LCOE. A 50% increase in the
discount rate resulted in a 36% increase in the LCOE, while a decrease resulted in a 32% decrease in
the LCOE. A 50% increase in O&M costs resulted in a 4% increase in the LCOE, while inversely, a 50%
decrease in O&M costs resulted in a 4% decrease in the LCOE. A 50% increase in capital costs resulted
in a 46% increase in the LCOE, while a 50% decrease in capital cost resulted in a 46% decrease in the
LCOE. The capacity factor is inversely related to the LCOE, so a 50% increase in the capacity factor
resulted in a 33% decrease in LCOE, while a 50% decrease in the capacity factor resulted in a 100%
increase in the LCOE. For annual module degradation, a 50% increase in the reference value resulted in
an increase of 2% in the LCOE.
In sum, three main important parameters for solar PV technology are: capacity factor, discount rate, and
capital costs. These three affect the LCOE more than any other parameter and thus should be the focus in
future RE development.
44 45
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
46 47
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
Thailand
25K
Vietnam Capacity Factor
AMS Mean (%) Median (%) Min (%) Max (%)
20K
Indonesia 68 65 50 86
15K
Lao PDR 41 40 37 59
Malaysia 76 75 71 80
10K Myanmar 72 74 62 81
Philippines 39 42 27 47
5K Thailand 46 40 40 80
Vietnam 39 38 36 44
0K Overall 52 40 27 86
2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
Year
Along with the installed capacity, the development of energy generation from hydropower in the AMS 4.3 Cost Details
also accelerated. In 2016, the amount of energy generated increased from 61,563 GWh to 144,533 GWh
mainly in Vietnam, the Lao PDR, and Myanmar. The rate of increase more than doubled that of the installed 4.3.1. Installation Costs
hydropower capacity pattern from 2007 to 2017. Technological improvements were the most probable Hydropower plants require large amounts of initial investment. These are mostly turned into installation
cause because the global efficiency of hydropower was also constantly increasing (Zarfl et al., 2015). costs (Zarfi et al., 2015). Of the samples used in this study, the installation costs generally consist of
However, the hydropower generation in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand remained constant or equipment costs, transformer costs, and interconnecting costs.
slightly decreased.
The installation costs of the hydropower projects are given in Figure 14. They were calculated as installation
costs per installed capacity for each project in the AMS. As shown in Figure 18, the average hydropower
installation costs of all the countries were about USD 1,793/kW. Only Malaysia had average hydropower
installation costs above the ASEAN average value based on the collected project data. The cheapest and
most expensive installation costs are listed for Thailand and Indonesia at USD 511 and 3,193/kW, respectively.
48 49
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
Figure 18 Average Hydropower Installation Costs in the AMS Figure 19 Cost Breakdowns for Hydropower Projects in the AMS
Tech / AMS 100% 2.29%
6.09% 15.29% Temporary/Auxiliary Work
90%
Irrigation Non-Irrigation
80% 6.05%
Other Development Costs
70% 16.56%
43.61% Consulting fee
3000 60%
9.87%
Access/Service Roads Cost
50%
17.52%
40% Transmission Interconnection Cost
30%
2500 Switchyard and Transformers
45.82%
20%
34.71%
Equipment Cost, Transportation to
10% project site, Balance of Plant
0%
Installation Cost (USD)
2000 6 18
1,926
Installed Capacity (MW)
1,659
4.3.3 Operating and Maintenance Costs (O&M)
1500 The O&M costs for hydropower plants are summarised in Figure 20. The average O&M costs for all of the
countries was 1.69% of CAPEX for the plants used for irrigation and 2.15% for the non-irrigation plants.
One project in Vietnam had the lowest O&M percentage (0.94%), whereas another project in Indonesia
had the highest O&M percentage (4.08%). These numbers are within the range of global O&M percentage
1000 average of 1-4% CAPEX or 1-6% CAPEX if upgrades and refurbishment are included (IRENA, 2012a).
4.0%
0
Lao PDR Thailand Vietnam Indonesia Malaysia Myanmar
3.5%
The slight difference in the average cost between irrigation and non-irrigation hydropower plants is to be
expected. As opposed to the irrigation hydropower plants, the non-irrigation ones are commonly located in 3.0%
more remote locations. Thus, the cost components were higher despite having a bigger energy generation
output (Paish, 2002). However, the cost of these projects is on the lower spectrum of the global average
range of USD 1,050 to 8,000/kW (IRENA, 2012a). It is possible that these project costs exclude the storage 2.5%
costs, which are calculated in the IRENA’s global average.
O&M (% CAPEX)
2.2%
4.3.2 Cost Breakdowns 2.0%
From the whole sample, the cost breakdowns for only two hydropower projects, in Lao PDR and the Philippines,
1.7%
are analysed for this section (see Figure 19). The largest share was equipment costs/transportation to the
project site/balance of the plant (about 35%-45%), followed by switchyard and transformer costs (about 20%- 1.5%
45%), and other costs (transmission interconnection costs, consulting fees, etc.).
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
Lao PDR Thailand Vietnam Indonesia Malaysia Myanmar
50 51
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
4.4. Analysis Figure 22 Hydropower Learning Curve Analysis and Projection in the AMS
0.090 28.76
4.4.1 LCOE 0.080
20.51
0.071
0.080
LCOE (USD/kWh)
The levelised costs of hydropower plants are portrayed in Figure 21. The average of the overall LCOE 0.070
32.87 39.92
was USD 0.06/kWh while the median was USD 0.05/kWh. The maximum and minimum were USD 0.38 0.060
19.40 0.055 0.054
44.00
0.064 68.97
and USD 0.01/kWh, respectively. According to IRENA (2012), the LCOE for hydropower plants is generally 0.052
0.046
0.050
low though the value is very site-specific as different projects calculate the capital costs differently. Some 37.52
0.040 0.052
projects take supporting infrastructure into consideration, while several others calculate only the electricity
0.030
generation components. It is also shown that the LCOE of selected projects in the AMS resemble the global
range of USD 0.02 to 0.27/kWh (IRENA, 2012a), proof that hydropower technology development in the 0.020
0.000
Figure 21 LCOE of Hydropower in AMS in COD Years from 2007 to 2017 19.00 29.00 39.00 49.00 59.00 69.00
COD
ASEAN cumulated Hydropower (GW)
0,075 AMS
0,070
Lao PDR
Malaysia
4.4.3 Sensitivity Analysis
Myanmar
The median value of hydropower was used to conduct the sensitivity analysis. The analyses were divided
0,065 Thailand into two results, one for the non-irrigation hydropower plants and one for irrigation hydropower plants.
Vietnam
0,060
% CF
For the non-irrigation plants, the key parameters to the LCOE were installed capacity, installation costs,
0.3600 O&M costs, capacity factor and discount rate. For the non-irrigation type, it was assumed that the installed
0,055
0.5000 capacity was 73 MW, the O&M costs were 1.8%, the capacity factor was 76%, the installed costs were
0,050
0.6000 USD 2,055/kW, the annual degradation rate was 0.5%, the discount rate was 10%, and the project lifetime
USD/kWh
0.7000
was 30 years. The results are shown in Figure 23.
0.8085
0,045
discount rate
0,030
2%
0,025
annual degradation
0,020
-23% 43%
capacity factor*
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
-7,0% 7%
O&M cost
4.4.2 Projection
-43% 43%
Using the ASEAN data, the learning rate (LR) of hydropower was calculated at 16.11% and the b value was
calculated at - 0.25355. This implies that if the accumulated installed hydropower was doubled in the AMS, capital cost
the LCOE would decline by 16.11%. The projected cumulated hydropower for 2025 was obtained from the
5th ASEAN Energy Outlook (ACE, 2017). The LCOE for 2025 is projected to be USD 0.046/kWh. Details
of the projection are shown in Figure 22. 0
As shown above, the capital costs, capacity factor, and discount rate had larger impacts on the LCOE
among the five parameters. A 50% increase in capital costs resulted in a 43% increase in the LCOE. The
same increase in O&M costs resulted in a 7% increase in the LCOE, while a 50% increase in the discount
rate generated a 40% in the LCOE. As the capacity factor was already 76%, it could increase by 30% as
a maximum value for the non-irrigation type. Otherwise, the capacity factor would be over 100%. If the
capacity factor increases by 30%, the LCOE would decline by 33%.
52 53
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
The median value for the all the irrigation type of hydropower plants was 58 MW in installed capacity. It
was assumed that the discount rate was 6%, the capacity factor was 40%, the annual degradation rate was
0.5%, the capital costs were USD 1,756/kW, and the project lifetime was 30 years.
-33% 39%
discount rate
2%
annual degradation
-33% 100%
capacity factor*
-7,9% 8%
O&M cost
-42% 42%
capital cost
Figure 24 indicates that the capital costs, capacity factor and discount rate had larger impacts on the LCOE
among the five parameters, similar to the non-irrigation type of plants. A 50% increase in capital costs
resulted in a 42% increase in the LCOE. The same increase in O&M costs resulted in an 8% increase in
the LCOE, while a 50% increase in the discount rate generated a 39% decline in the LCOE. If the capacity
factor increased by 50%, the LCOE declined by 33%.
In sum, the three main parameters for hydropower technology are; capacity factor, discount rate, and
capital costs. These three affect the LCOE more than any other parameter and should therefore be the
focus in future development.
54 55
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
56 57
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
2400
2200
1200
2000
Country
1000 Philippines 1800
Thailand
Vietnam 1600 1,518
800
Wind (MW)
1400
Philippines Thailand Vietnam
600
40%
Table 6 Capacity Factors and Number of Wind Power Projects 74.50% 64.45% Transportation and land cost
Capacity Factor (%) and Number of Projects 30%
Equipment cost
Country Mean Min. Max. No. of Projects 20%
Philippines 27.11% 25.53% 28.30% 3
10%
Thailand 19.49% 17.98% 21.00% 4
Vietnam 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 1 0%
30 80
Overall 22.14% 17.98% 28.30% 8
Installed Capacity (MW)
58 59
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
0.18
Thailand
1.60%
Philippines
0.16
Vietnam
1.40%
0.14 % CF
1.20% 0.1798
O&M (%Capex)
LCOE (USD/kWh)
1.00% 0.2200
0.10 0.2400
0.80% 0.2600
0.08 0.2830
0.60%
0.06
0.40%
0.04
0.20%
0.02
0.00%
Philippines Thailand Vietnam 0.00
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
5.4.2 Projection
The projected LCOE for wind power in 2025 were estimated using equations 2. The b value was -0.2821.
Thus, the learning rate (LR) of wind power was 17.7%. This implies that doubling the accumulated installed
capacity of wind power plants in the AMS will reduce the LCOE cost by 17.7%.
1.031 5.5498
0.100 0.147 0.093
0.050
0.000
0.600 1.600 2.600 3.600 4.600 5.600
C
re
di
tt
he
The LCOEs in 2025 were computed using equation 2. The projected cumulated wind power installed
O
E
capacity for 2025 were obtained from the 5th ASEAN Energy Outlook (AEO5, 2017). Thus, the LCOEs for
2025 are projected to be USD 0.093/kWh.
60 61
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
-31% 34%
discount rate
2%
annual degradation
-33% 100%
capacity factor*
-6,1% 6%
O&M cost
-44% 44%
capital cost
Among five parameters, capital costs, capacity factor and discount rate were the key parameters impacting
the LCOE of wind power plants. The most impactful option to decrease the LCOE of wind power plants was
to reduce capital costs. A 50% decrease in capital costs resulted in a 44% increase in the LCOE to become
USD0.08/kWh. In the meantime, if the capacity factor increased by 50%, the LCOE declined by 33% to
become USD 0.1/kWh. Another option was to decrease the discount rate by 50%, from 10% to 5% which
could reduce the LCOE by 31%.
62 63
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
64 65
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
3200
Figure 32 Installed Biomass Capacity in the AMS from 2005 to 2017 (source: ACE,2017)
3000 3,080
Country 2800
5K
Brunei Darussalam
Cambodia 2600
Indonesia
Philippines
2000
3K Singapore
Biomass (MW)
Thailand 1800
Vietnam
1600
2K
1400
1,357
66 67
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
6.3.3 Operating and Maintenance Costs (O&M) The average fuel cost in each AMS was USD 10.3 million/ton in Malaysia, USD 24.15 million/ton in the
The two main components of a biomass project’s annual costs are: O&M costs and fuel costs. The Philippines, and USD 18.5 million/ton in Thailand. However, it is important to note that the fuel costs
distribution of the O&M costs is summarised in Figure 35 in terms of percentage of biomass installation depend on the types of biomass used and its abundance in each country. The overall average fuel cost of
costs. On average, the O&M costs were 5.26% of the biomass installation costs while the median was all the participating plants was USD 17.8 million/ton. Feedstock availability was the main factor accounting
5.32%. The minimum value was 3.12% in Thailand and the maximum value was 7.96% in Malaysia. for the differences among the average costs in the AMS. Thus, a broad range of LCOE values occurred
if several biomass plants were compared to each other. Hence, a deeper quantitative analysis or a more
Figure 35 Average Biomass O&M Costs (%CAPEX) in the AMS specified categorisation are required before accurate comparisons are made.
Country
8%
6.4 Analysis
7.96% The levelised costs of the 19 biomass projects were calculated from the three main components: installation
costs, O&M costs, and fuel costs. These costs are summarised in Figure 37. While the project samples
used diverse forms of feedstock, the LCOE values were quite similar.
7%
6%
COD
5% 0.18
Malaysia
5%
Philippines
0.16
Thailand
4% 0.14
% CF
0.3350
0.12
0.6000
3%
3.12% 0.8000
0.10
USD/kWh
Malaysia Philippines Thailand 0.9170
0.08
varied widely among the different AMS as different feedstocks were used in the various biomass plants.
0.04
0.00
30 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
29.80
25
Avg. Fuel Cost (Mil. USD/ton)
20
17.81
15
10
5
6.41
0
Malaysia Philippines Thailand
68 69
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
70 71
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
7. GEOTHERMAL
Figure 39 Capacities and Capacity Factors of Geothermal Power Plants Included in This Study
120 95 95 95 95 95 100
90
100
76 80
7.1 Geothermal Development in the ASEAN 70
% Capacity Factor
60
installed geothermal capacity was is 3,877.7 MW. This was shared almost equally between Indonesia and
the Philippines, with 1,949.5 MW and 1,927.9 MW, respectively. Thailand had a small 0.3 MW portion. 60 50
110
40
Figure 38 Installed Capacities of Geothermal Power in the AMS from 2007 to 2017 40
30
4,000 3,877.70 55 50 20
20
3,559.40
3,500 3,354.40 20 20 10
3,319.40
3,142.30 3,155.30 3,184.30 3,211.80 10
3,010.30 3,059.30 0 0
2,938.30
3,000
Installed capacity (MW)
2,000
7.3 Cost Details
1,500 Like most power plants, the major cost components can be divided into installation costs and operating
and maintenance costs.
1,000
72 73
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
Figure 40 Cost Breakdown of a Geothermal Power Plant Table 10 O&M Cost for Geothermal plants in the AMS
Data for Figure 41: O&M Cost (% of CAPEX)
100%
9.44% Financial cost during Country Mean Median Min Max
90% construction Indonesia 3.67% 3.67% 3.67% 3.67%
3.81%
4.58% Philippines 10.20% 10.20% 3.72% 16.67%
80% Overall 5.84% 3.67% 3.67% 16.67%
Administration cost
70%
60%
7.4 Analysis
Transportation & Insurance,
50% Installation and commissioning
75.46%
costs, Grid connection, etc. 7.4.1 LCOE
40% The calculated levelised costs of the geothermal power plants in the AMS are given in Figure 42. The
LCOE ranged from USD 0.09/kWh to USD 0.21/kWh. Most of the LCOEs of the geothermal plants with
Equipment Cost, Civil works,
30% Design, Engineering, Project capacities of 50 MW and above were about USD 0.10/kWh. The smaller geothermal power plants had
Management higher LCOEs of USD 0.15/kWh and USD 0.21/kWh.
20%
0.20
LCOE (USD/kW)
The O&M costs of geothermal power plants are summarised in Figure 41. The average O&M costs for all 0.15
the plants was 5.84% of CAPEX. These are in the same range as the O&M costs for geothermal power
plants as reported by the Department of Energy, USA (USDOE, 2016). There is a data point of USD 0.01/
0.10
kWh that is much lower than the others. This is probably because the O&M costs of the steam station had
been excluded from the reported figure.
0.05
Figure 41 O&M Costs of Geothermal Power Plants
Indonesia
0.00
Philippines
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
18%
16%
Installed capacity (MW)
14%
O&M Cost (%CAPEX)
12%
7.4.2 Projection
10%
Due to the small number (6) of projects used as the sample for this study, it is not possible to formulate an
8% accurate model to predict the LCOE of geothermal projects.
6%
7.4.3 Sensitivity Analysis
4% Sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the key parameters affecting the LCOE. The median
values from all the geothermal projects in this study were used for the calculations: installed capacity of
2%
44 MW, capacity factor of around 92%, annual degradation rate of around 0.5%, and O&M costs of 4% of
0% CAPEX. The discount rate was set at 10%, and the project lifetime was assumed to be 30 years. A variation
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 of about 50% was used for the discount rate, annual degradation, capacity factor, O&M costs, and capital
costs, and the LCOE results were compared, with and without parameter variation cases. The impacts
Installed capacity (MW) measured are presented in Figure 43 as the percentages of change in the LCOE.
74 75
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
-27% 30%
discount rate
2%
annual degradation
0% 100%
capacity factor*
-13,7% 14%
O&M cost
-36% 36%
capital cost
Figure 43 shows the impact of the key changes caused by the parameters to the LCOE of geothermal
plants. A 50% increase in the discount rate resulted in a 30% increase in the LCOE, while a 50% decrease
resulted in a 27% decrease in the LCOE. A 50% increase in the O&M costs resulted in a 14% increase in
the LCOE, while a 50% decrease in O&M costs resulted in a 13.7% decrease in the LCOE. A 50% increase
in capital costs resulted in a 36% increase in the LCOE, while a 50% decrease in capital costs resulted in a
36% decrease in the LCOE. As the capacity factor is inversely related to the LCOE, a 50% decrease in the
capacity factor resulted in a 100% increase in the LCOE. For annual module degradation, a 50% increase
in the reference value resulted in an increase of 2% in the LCOE.
Credit ASEC
76 77
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
78 79
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
Based on the study of five selected RE technologies in the AMS, it can be seen that there has been 0.25 Malaysia
LCOE (USD/kWh)
Myanmar
encouraging development. However, several measures are needed to fulfil the APAEC target. In formulating
Philippines
these measures, important parameters that have a major influence on RE development have been 0.20
Singapore
determined. To identify the important parameters, policy measures are needed to further implement them.
0.16 Thailand
To elaborate on these two points, this section focuses on: 1) analysing the affordability of RE in the AMS;
Thus, this section focuses on comparing the LCOE of RE technologies and conventional technologies. This
analysis is to be used as a basis for policy recommendations. Based on the LCOE calculations for each RE In Figure 44, the LCOEs are compared to the generation costs of PLN (Indonesia), TNB (Malaysia), and
technology, comparisons between the electricity generation costs and electricity’s residential selling price EGAT (Thailand). In Figure 45 the LCOEs are compared to the residential selling price in the AMS: USD
in the AMS (Infrastructure Asia, 2018) are drawn in Figure 44 and Figure 45. 0.1/kWh for Indonesia, USD 0.05 /kWh for Lao PDR, USD 0.09/kWh for Malaysia and Vietnam, USD 0.12/
kWh for Thailand and USD 0.15/kWh for the Philippines. Only biomass and hydropower plants offer more
Figure 44 Comparison of LCOE with Energy Generation Costs in the AMS competitive costs against conventional energy generation in the AMS. This is likely due to the fact that these
technologies have reached a relatively mature stage of development (Ellabban et al., 2014). However, as
Technology the costs of solar PV are steeply declining, solar PV could be a promising option for development. Given
Biomass Hydropower Solar PV Wind
0.30 Indonesia a few years of development, it could potentially compete with conventional energy sources. Moreover,
Laos PD it could be realistically assumed that the price of conventional energy sources will continue to increase.
Malaysia Several factors, such as subsidies, resource scarcity, and the constant aging of the existing facilities will
PLN Diesel: 0.25
0.25 Myanmar push up the costs of conventional energy over time.
Philippines
Singapore There are several points to be considered in favour of RE technologies. The continual technological
0.20
Thailand developments will surely decrease the price of RE technologies while the capacity factor will constantly
Vietnam increase (Sovacool, 2008). On the other hand, more precise calculation of the costs could also change the
LCOE (USD/kWh)
current comparison methods. As it stands, the current LCOE does not favour variable RE systems such as
0.15
solar PV and wind (Ueckerdt et al., 2013). Hence, constant financial support is needed for RE projects. In
% CF
EGAT NGPP: 0,11 analysing various methods to support RE development, important parameters are identified based on this
0.1079
0.10 TNB Avg: 0,095; EGAT Avg: 0,094 0.4000
study’s projections and sensitivity analyses.
PLN Avg: 0,077 0.6000
0.8000
0.05 0.9170
0.00
2007 2017 2007 2017 2007 2017 2007 2017
80 81
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
82 83
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
Figure 47 Impact of Policy Mechanism in LCOE and Grid Parity for Small-scale Solar PV b) Large-scale Solar PV
0.180 Technical Parameters Cost and Financing Parameters
0.167
0.160 0.157
0.142 0.138 Installed capacity: 13 MWp CAPEX: USD 1,620/MW
0.140
0.125 0.127
0.120 0.117 Capacity factor: 16.6% Discount rate: 4.13%
0.110
0.093 0.097
0.100
Annual production degradation: 1% Baseline IRR: 10%
0.080
Construction period: 1 year LCOE: USD 0.134/kWh
0.060 0.050
0.040 Project useful life: 25 years Solar Feed-in Tariff: USD 0.19/ kWh
0.020
This project had the import duty and taxes exempted. Therefore, the policy support mechanism can be
0.000
suggested as follows:
With baseline parameters
Indonesia
Malaysia
Thailand
Singapore
Philippines
Vietnam
Lao PDR
Policy support mechanism: 1) a 30% and 50% reduction in land acquisition and development; and 2) a
decrease in solar rooftop equipment costs by 20% and 30% (direct subsidy or technology learning curve).
Details of the impacts are provided in Figure 49 and Figure 50.
Electricity Tariff Figure 49 Impact of Policy Mechanism on LCOE and Grid Parity for Large-scale Solar PV
0.167
0.180
0.156
0.160
0.134 0.132 0.131
0.140 0.124 0.127
0.118
0.120 0.110
0.097
Figure 48 Impact of Policy Mechanism on IRR for Small-scale Solar PV 0.093
0.100
22.00% 0.080
0.040
20.00%
19.25% 0.020
0.000
18.00%
Indonesia
Malaysia
Thailand
Vietnam
Lao PDR
Singapore
Philippines
16.58% 17.13%
16.00%
12.00%
10.00%
The LCOE of this large-scale solar PV project had also already reached grid parity in Singapore and the
With baseline
parameters
Decreasing of solar
rooftop equipment cost
20% (Direct Subsidy or
technology learning curve)
Decreasing of solar
rooftop equipment cost
30% (Direct Subsidy or
technology learning curve)
Philippines because the sampled cost was already lower than the cost of electricity. By using land subsidies
or partial subsidies from the government, the LCOE will not yet reach grid parity in Thailand whilst the IRR
will increase by less than 1%. Reducing the cost of the solar PV equipment by 20% to 30% can moderately
reduce the LCOE and increase the IRR. If the solar PV equipment decreases by a certain percentage,
either by direct subsidy or technological improvement (learning curve), the LCOE of this project can reach
grid parity in Thailand but not yet in Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, and Vietnam. Meanwhile the IRR will
rise by around 2-3%.
84 85
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
Figure 50 Impact of Policy Mechanism on IRR for Large-scale Solar PV Figure 51 Impact of Policy Mechanism on LCOE and Grid Parity for Wind Power
14.00% 0.180
0.167
0.159
13.35% 0.160 0.156
0.146
0.140
13.00% 0.140 0.131
0.127
0.120
LCOE (USD/kWh)
12.12% 0.110
0.080
11.00% 0.060
10.62% 0.050
10.40%
10.09% 0.040
10.00% 0.020
Lao PDR
techonology learning curve)
Indonesia
Malaysia
Thailand
Singapore
Philippines
Vietnam
9.00%
8.00%
With baseline parameters
The LCOE of this 80-kW wind power project had already reached grid parity in Singapore as the sampled
cost was already lower than the electricity cost. A reduction in the costs of this wind power equipment by 20%
B. Wind power project and 30% can moderately reduce the LCOE and increase the IRR. If the cost of the wind power equipment
Key variables were taken from one of the wind projects used in this study. decreases by a certain percentage, the LCOE of this project can reach grid parity in the Philippines but
not yet in Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam. Meanwhile the IRR will rise by about
Technical Parameters Cost and Financing Parameters
2-3.5%. In addition, if the transportation and land acquisition is subsidised or is partially supported by the
government, the LCOE will decrease slightly, but still not yet reach grid parity in most of the AMS. At the
Installed capacity: 80 kW CAPEX: USD 2,700/MW
same time, the IRR will increase slightly by around 1%.
Capacity factor: 20% Discount rate: 10%
Project useful life: 25 years Wind Feed-in Tariff: 0.19 USD/ kWh
This project had the import duties and taxes exempted. The major capital costs were equipment and
transportation and land cost. Therefore, the policy support mechanisms are as follows:
Policy support mechanisms: 1) a 50% reduction in transportation and land acquisition; and 2) decreasing
of wind power equipment costs by 20% and 30% (direct subsidy or technology learning curve). Details of
the impacts are elaborated on in Figure 51 and Figure 52.
86 87
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
Figure 52 Impact of Policy Mechanism on IRR for Wind Power Figure 53 Impact of Policy Mechanism on LCOE and Grid Parity for Biomass
17.00% 0.180
0.167
16.00% 15.66% 0.160 0.156
15.00% 0.140
14.37%
0.127
14.00% 13.62% 0.119
0.120 0.118
0.115
0.109 0.110
13.00%
12.25% 0.100 0.097
0.093
LCOE (USD/kWh)
12.00%
0.080
11.00%
0.060
10.00% 0.050
0.040
9.00%
8.00% 0.020
With baseline parameters
Decreasing of equipment
cost 20% (Direct Subsidy or
techonology learning curve)
Decreasing of
equipmentcost30% (Direct
Subsidy or techonology
learning curve)
Indonesia
Malaysia
Thailand
Singapore
Philippines
Vietnam
Lao PDR
C. Biomass project
Key variables from one of the biomass projects examined in this study is used as an example.
13.50%
Policy support mechanism: 1) exemption from import duties and taxes; 2) decrease in solar rooftop
Decreasing of equipment
cost 20% (Direct Subsidy or
techonology learning curve)
88 89
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
90 91
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
92 93
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
9. CONCLUSION
94 95
Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE) for Selected Renewable Energy Technologies in the ASEAN Member States II
REFERENCES
ACE, 2016. Levelised Cost of Electricity of Selected Renewable Technologies in the ASEAN Member Ouyang, X., Lin, B., 2014. Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of renewable energies and required subsidies
States. ASEAN Centre for Energy, Jakarta. in China. Energy Policy 70, 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.03.030
ACE, 2017. The 5th ASEAN Energy Oulook. ASEAN Centre for Energy, Jakarta. Paish, O., 2002. Small hydro power: technology and current status. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 6, 537–
556. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-0321(02)00006-0
ACE, 2018. Solar power installed capacity during 2005 to 2017. ASEAN Centre for Energy Database,
Jakarta. Roth, I., 2004. Incorporating externalities into a full cost approach to electric power generation life-cycle
costing. Energy 29, 2125–2144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2004.03.016
Assmann, D., 2012. Renewable Energy: A Global Review of Technologies, Policies and Markets. Routledge.
Sovacool, B.K., 2008. Renewable Energy: Economically Sound, Politically Difficult. Electr. J. 21, 18–29.
Batruch, C., 2017. Climate change and sustainability in the energy sector. J. World Energy Law Bus. 10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2008.05.009
444–463. https://doi.org/10.1093/jwelb/jwx024
Ueckerdt, F., Hirth, L., Luderer, G., Edenhofer, O., 2013. System LCOE: What are the costs of variable
renewables? Energy 63, 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.10.072
Branker, K., Pathak, M.J.M., Pearce, J.M., 2011. A review of solar photovoltaic levelized cost of electricity.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 4470–4482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.104 Zarfl, C., Lumsdon, A.E., Berlekamp, J., Tydecks, L., Tockner, K., 2015. A global boom in hydropower dam
construction. Aquat. Sci. 77, 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-014-0377-0
Davies, H.T.O. (ed.), 2012. What Works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services, Reprinted.
ed. Policy Press, Bristol.
Edenhofer, O., Programme des Nations Unies pour l’environnement, Organisation météorologique
mondiale, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group III, United Nations
Environment Programme, World Meteorological Organization, 2012. Renewable energy sources
and climate change mitigation special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ellabban, O., Abu-Rub, H., Blaabjerg, F., 2014. Renewable energy resources: Current status, future
prospects and their enabling technology. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 39, 748–764. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.113
Ferioli, F., Schoots, K., van der Zwaan, B.C.C., 2009. Use and limitations of learning curves for energy
technology policy: A component-learning hypothesis. Energy Policy 37, 2525–2535. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.10.043
IRENA, 2018a. Renewable Energy Market Analysis: South East Asia. International Renewable Energy
Agency, Abu Dhabi.
IRENA, 2018b. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2017. International Renewable Energy Agency,
Abu Dhabi.
IRENA, 2012a. Renewable Power Generation Costs. International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi.
IRENA, 2012b. Renewable Energy Cost Analysis - Solar Photovoltaics. IRENA Working Paper 1 (4/5).
International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi.
Khatib, H., 2010. Review of OECD study into “Projected costs of generating electricity—2010 Edition.”
Energy Policy 38, 5403–5408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.023
96 97
98
www.agep.aseanenergy.org
SustainableEnergyforASEAN