Transitioning from coal to solar: A cost-benefit analysis for sustainable power generation in Indonesia

Agus Sugiyono; Irawan Rahardjo; Prima Trie Wijaya; Afri Dwijatmiko; Aminuddin; Erwin Siregar; Silvy Rahmah Fithri; Nona Niode; Ira Fitriana; Agus Sugiyono; Irawan Rahardjo; Prima Trie Wijaya; Afri Dwijatmiko; Aminuddin; Erwin Siregar; Silvy Rahmah Fithri; Nona Niode; Ira Fitriana

doi:10.3934/energy.2024007

AIMS Energy

2024, Volume 12, Issue 1: 152-166. doi: 10.3934/energy.2024007

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

Transitioning from coal to solar: A cost-benefit analysis for sustainable power generation in Indonesia

1.
Research Center for Energy Conversion and Conservation, National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Science and Technology Park, South Tangerang City, Banten, Indonesia
2.
Research Center for Process and Manufacturing Industry Technology, National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), Science and Technology Park, South Tangerang City, Banten, Indonesia
3.
Master of Industrial Engineering Program, Mercu Buana University, Jakarta

Received: 29 October 2023 Revised: 26 December 2023 Accepted: 29 December 2023 Published: 09 January 2024

The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contribution from power generation in Indonesia reaches 40% of the total GHG emissions in the energy sector because of the use of fossil fuels. The government aims to minimize GHG emissions in the power generation sector, one of which is the phase-out of coal power plants and replacing them with integrated photovoltaic (PV) power plants with battery energy storage systems (BESS). A cost-benefit analysis compared two development scenarios for 2023–2060. The base scenario continues developing coal power plants, and the phase-out scenario replaces coal power plants with integrated PV power plants and BESS. The analysis is solely focused on the financial costs and benefits for power plant investors. The results indicate that the present value of costs for the base scenario from 2023–2036 is initially lower compared to the phase-out scenario. However, in the long term, the costs of the phase-out scenario will gradually decrease and become more affordable. The benefit-cost ratio for the phase-out scenario is 2.36, while the base scenario is 2.12, indicating that the phase-out scenario is more prospective for future development. Additionally, the phase-out scenario has the advantage of achieving the net-zero emissions target by 2056 compared to the base scenario.
- cost-benefit analysis,
- coal power plant,
- energy transition,
- GHG-emissions,
- phasing-out
Citation: Agus Sugiyono, Irawan Rahardjo, Prima Trie Wijaya, Afri Dwijatmiko, Aminuddin, Erwin Siregar, Silvy Rahmah Fithri, Nona Niode, Ira Fitriana. Transitioning from coal to solar: A cost-benefit analysis for sustainable power generation in Indonesia[J]. AIMS Energy, 2024, 12(1): 152-166. doi: 10.3934/energy.2024007

Related Papers:

Abstract

The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contribution from power generation in Indonesia reaches 40% of the total GHG emissions in the energy sector because of the use of fossil fuels. The government aims to minimize GHG emissions in the power generation sector, one of which is the phase-out of coal power plants and replacing them with integrated photovoltaic (PV) power plants with battery energy storage systems (BESS). A cost-benefit analysis compared two development scenarios for 2023–2060. The base scenario continues developing coal power plants, and the phase-out scenario replaces coal power plants with integrated PV power plants and BESS. The analysis is solely focused on the financial costs and benefits for power plant investors. The results indicate that the present value of costs for the base scenario from 2023–2036 is initially lower compared to the phase-out scenario. However, in the long term, the costs of the phase-out scenario will gradually decrease and become more affordable. The benefit-cost ratio for the phase-out scenario is 2.36, while the base scenario is 2.12, indicating that the phase-out scenario is more prospective for future development. Additionally, the phase-out scenario has the advantage of achieving the net-zero emissions target by 2056 compared to the base scenario.

References

[1]	IEA (2022) World Energy Outlook 2022, Paris: IEA. Available from: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2022.
[2]	GEM (2023) Boom and bust coal 2023: Tracking the global coal plant pipeline. Available from: https://globalenergymonitor.org/report/boom-and-bust-coal-2023.
[3]	IEA (2008) Clean Coal Technologies. Paris: IEA. Available from: https://www.iea.org/reports/clean-coal-technologies.
[4]	Huang S, Du C, Jin X, et al. (2003) The impact of carbon emission trading on renewable energy: A comparative analysis based on the CGE model. Sustainability 15: 12649. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612649 doi: 10.3390/su151612649
[5]	Chen C, Pinar M, Stengos T (2022) Renewable energy and CO₂ emissions: New evidence with the panel threshold model. Renew Energy 194: 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.05.095 doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2022.05.095
[6]	Perera F (2018) Pollution from fossil-fuel combustion is the leading environmental threat to global pediatric health and equity: Solutions exist. Int J Environ Res Public Health 15: 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15010016 doi: 10.3390/ijerph15010016
[7]	Zhang Y, Han A, Deng S, et al. (2023) The impact of fossil fuel combustion on children's health and the associated losses of human capital. Glob Transit 5: 117–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glt.2023.07.001 doi: 10.1016/j.glt.2023.07.001
[8]	Ohlendorf N, Jakob M, Steckel JC (2022) The political economy of coal phase-out: Exploring the actors, objectives, and contextual factors shaping policies in eight major coal countries. Energy Res Soc Sci 90: 102590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102590 doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2022.102590
[9]	Sergi BJ, Adams PJ, Muller NZ, et al. (2020) Optimizing emissions reductions from the US power sector for climate and health benefits. Environ Sci Technol 54: 7513–7523. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b06936 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b06936
[10]	Arinaldo D, Mursanti E, Tumiwa F (2019) Implications of the Paris Agreement on the future of Indonesia's coal-fired power plants. Available from: https://iesr.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/PLTU-dan-Paris-Agreement.pdf.
[11]	IEA (2022) An Energy Sector Roadmap to Net Zero Emissions in Indonesia. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/4a9e9439-en
[12]	UNFCC (2022) Enhanced nationally determined contribution republic of Indonesia. Available from: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/NDC/2022-09/ENDC%20Indonesia.pdf.
[13]	PT PLN (Persero) (2021) RUPTL PLN 2021–2030. Available from: https://web.pln.co.id/statics/uploads/2021/10/ruptl-2021-2030.pdf.
[14]	National Energy Council (2022) Indonesian energy outlook. Available from: https://den.go.id/publikasi/indonesia-energy-outlook#.
[15]	Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (2023) Handbook of energy & economic statistic of Indonesia 2022. Available from: https://www.esdm.go.id/en/publication/handbook-of-energy-economic-statistics-of-indonesia-heesi.
[16]	PT PLN (Persero) (2023) Statistik PLN 2022. Available from: https://web.pln.co.id/statics/uploads/2023/05/Statistik-PLN-2022-Final-2.pdf.
[17]	Sansuadi, Nugroho RC (2021) Electricity Statistics for 2021 (in Bahasa). Available from: https://gatrik.esdm.go.id/assets/uploads/download_index/files/6e4c6-statistik-2021-rev-2-.pdf.
[18]	Figueiredo R, Nunes P, Meireles M, et al. (2019) Replacing coal-fired power plants by photovoltaics in the Portuguese electricity system. J Clean Prod: 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.217 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.217
[19]	Song F, Mehedi H, Liang C, et al. (2021) Review of transition paths for coal-fired power plants. Global Energy Interconnect 4: 354–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloei.2021.09.007 doi: 10.1016/j.gloei.2021.09.007
[20]	Wiranegara R, Arinaldo D, Myllyvirta L, et al. (2023) Health benefits of just energy transition and coal phase-out in Indonesia. Institute for Essential Services Reform. Available from: https://iesr.or.id/en/pustaka/health-benefits-of-just-energy-transition-and-coal-phase-out-in-indonesia.
[21]	Pranoto B, Soekarno H, Cendrawati DG, et al. (2021) Indonesian hydro energy potential map with run-off river system. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 926: 012003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/926/1/012003 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/926/1/012003
[22]	Pranoto B, Irsyad MIA, Sihombing AL, et al. (2022) Hybrid floating photovoltaic-hydropower potential utilization in Indonesia. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 1105: 012004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1105/1/012004 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1105/1/012004
[23]	Nurliyanti V, Ahadi K, Muttaqin R, et al. (2021) Fostering rooftop solar PV investments toward smart cities through e-SMART PV. In 2021 5^th International Conference on Smart Grid and Smart Cities (ICSGSC), IEEE, Tokyo, Japan, 2021: 146–50. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSGSC52434.2021.9490406
[24]	Hesty NW, Cendrawati DG, Nepal R, et al. (2021) Wind energy potential assessment based-on WRF four-dimensional data assimilation system and cross-calibrated multi-platform dataset. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 897: 012004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/897/1/012004 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/897/1/012004
[25]	Asian Development Bank (2018) Handbook on Battery Energy Storage System. Manila, Philippines. https://doi.org/10.22617/TCS189791-2
[26]	Nolting L, Praktiknjo A (2020) Can we phase-out all of them? Probabilistic assessments of security of electricity supply for the German case. Appl Energy 263: 114704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114704 doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114704
[27]	Rinscheid A, Wüstenhagen R (2019) Germany's decision to phase out coal by 2038 lags behind citizens' timing preferences. Nat Energy 4: 856–863. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0460-9 doi: 10.1038/s41560-019-0460-9
[28]	Vögele S, Kunz P, Rübbelke D, et al. (2018) Transformation pathways of phasing out coal-fired power plants in Germany. Energy Sustain Soc 8: 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-018-0166-z doi: 10.1186/s13705-018-0166-z
[29]	Trencher G, Healy N, Hasegawa K, et al. (2019) Discursive resistance to phasing out coal-fired electricity: Narratives in Japan's coal regime. Energy Policy 132: 782–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.06.020 doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.06.020
[30]	Do TN, Burke PJ (2023) Phasing out coal power in a developing country context: Insights from Vietnam. Energy Policy 176: 113512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113512 doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113512
[31]	Sunarko S, Suparman S, Nurhasanah N (2022) Coal phase-out and the potential role of nuclear power in the low carbon electricity sector in Indonesia. AIP Conf Proc 2501: 020016. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0095089 doi: 10.1063/5.0095089
[32]	Jindal A, Shrimali G (2022) Cost-benefit analysis of coal plant repurposing in developing countries: A case study of India. Energy Policy 164: 112911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112911 doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112911
[33]	Maamoun N, Kennedy R, Jin X, et al. (2020) Identifying coal-fired power plants for early retirement. Renew Sust Energ Rev 126: 109833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109833 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2020.109833
[34]	Cui R, Tumiwa F, Zhao A, et al. (2022) Financing Indonesia's coal phase-out: A just and accelerated retirement pathway to net zero. Center for Global Sustainability at the University of Maryland. Available from: https://iesr.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/UMD-IESR-IndonesiaCoalPhaseout-3August2022-1.pdf.
[35]	Biancardo SA, Gesualdi M, Savastano D, et al. (2023) An innovative framework for integrating Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) within Building Information Modeling (BIM). Socio-Econ Plan Sci 85: 101495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2022.101495 doi: 10.1016/j.seps.2022.101495
[36]	Jonek-Kowalska I (2022) Multi-criteria evaluation of the effectiveness of energy policy in Central and Eastern European countries in a long-term perspective. Energy Strategy Rev 44: 100973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2022.100973 doi: 10.1016/j.esr.2022.100973
[37]	Khakzad N, Khan F, Amyotte P (2013) Quantitative risk analysis of offshore drilling operations: A Bayesian approach. Saf Sci 57: 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.01.022 doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2013.01.022
[38]	Sugiyono A, Adiarso A, Dewi REP, et al. (2023) Analisis keekonomian pembangunan pembangkit listrik tenaga biogas dari POME dengan Continuous Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR). Majalah Ilmiah Pengkajian Industri 13: 75–84. https://doi.org/10.29122/mipi.v13i1.3232 doi: 10.29122/mipi.v13i1.3232
[39]	Noel L, McCormack R (2014) A cost benefit analysis of a V2G-capable electric school bus compared to a traditional diesel school bus. Appl Energy 126: 246–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.04.009 doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.04.009
[40]	Sugiyono A, Anindhita F, Fitriana I, et al. (2019) Indonesia Energy Outlook 2019: The Impact of Increased Utilization of New and Renewable Energy on the National Economy. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8216488
[41]	Kusdiana D (2023) Webinar of the Institute for the Assessment and Application of Administrative Sciences, Faculty of Administrative Sciences, University of Indonesia (LPPIA FIA UI), Jakarta: NRE Development Towards the NZE 2060 Energy Transition (in Bahasa).
[42]	Martha FP (2022) Pursuing DMO target, government sets coal price. Available from: https://ekonomi.bisnis.com/read/20220217/44/1501715/kejar-target-dmo-pemerintah-tetapkan-harga-batu-bara.
[43]	Cole W, Frazier AW (2020) Cost projections for utility-scale battery storage: 2020 update. Available from: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/75385.pdf.
[44]	Hutajulu JP, Sørensen OE (2021) Technology data for the indonesian power sector catalogue for generation and storage of electricity. Available from: https://ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/Globalcooperation/technology_data_for_the_indonesian_power_sector_-_final.pdf.
[45]	Kurdi Y, Alkhatatbeh BJ, Asadi S (2023) The influence of electricity transaction models on the optimal design of PV and PV-BESS systems. Sol Energy 259: 437–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2023.05.037 doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2023.05.037
[46]	Agung F (2022) Considering the future of PLTU in the midst of funding constraints. Available from: https://industri.kontan.co.id/news/menimbang-masa-depan-pltu-di-tengah-kendala-pendanaan.
[47]	Hauenstein C, Braunger I, Krumm A, et al. (2023) Overcoming political stalemates: The German stakeholder commission on phasing out coal. Energy Res Soc Sci 103: 103203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103203 doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2023.103203
[48]	Zhang B, Niu N, Li H, et al. (2023) Assessing the efforts of coal phaseout for carbon neutrality in China. Appl Energy 352: 121924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121924 doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121924
[49]	Singh K, Meena RS, Kumar S, et al. (2023) India's renewable energy research and policies to phase down coal: Success after Paris agreement and possibilities post-Glasgow Climate Pact. Biomass Bioenergy 177: 106944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2023.106944 doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2023.106944
[50]	Ge T (2023) Rising energy inequity and its driving factors to approach a just energy transition in China. Environ Impact Assess Rev 103: 10723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107231 doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107231
[51]	Huang B, Wang Y, Huang Y, et al. (2023) Life cycle cost analysis of solar energy via environmental externality monetization. Sci Total Environ 856: 158910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158910 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158910
[52]	Rokhmawati A, Sugiyono A, Efni Y, et al. (2023) Quantifying social costs of coal-fired power plant generation. Geogr Sustain 4: 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2022.12.004 doi: 10.1016/j.geosus.2022.12.004

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)