Michael Taylor at IRENA has summarised its latest studies that show how the cost of renewables are set to continue declining dramatically through to 2030. We all know how those costs declined in the last ten years. Going forward, the weighted average cost of electricity in the G20 countries from offshore wind could fall by almost 50% by 2030 from 2019 levels, onshore wind by around 45%, utility-scale solar PV by up to 55% and concentrated solar power by 62%. The main drivers – technology improvements, economies of scale, competition, and growing experience – are well embedded and should raise global ambitions for rapid and clean electrification. IRENA emphasises that these trends will depend significantly on the rate of acceleration in deployment in China, given the existing and future size of that market.
The cost of electricity from solar PV, concentrated solar power (CSP), and onshore and offshore wind is not just falling, but at historically low levels. Indeed, not only are renewables the cheapest source of new electricity in the majority of the world’s countries, but are increasingly so low, that they are undercutting even the operating costs of a growing proportion of the world’s existing coal-fired power fleet.
Electricity costs from renewables have fallen sharply over the past decade, driven by improving technologies, economies of scale, increasingly competitive supply chains and growing developer experience. As a result, renewable power generation technologies have become the least-cost option for new capacity in almost all parts of the world.
Cheap utility-scale renewables
In 2019, 56% of all newly commissioned utility-scale renewable power generation capacity provided electricity at a lower cost than the cheapest new fossil fuel-fired option. Nine-tenths of the newly commissioned hydropower capacity in 2019 cost less than the cheapest new fossil fuel-fired option, as did three-quarters of onshore wind capacity and two-fifths of utility-scale solar PV. The latter value is remarkable considering that in 2010, solar PV electricity cost 7.6 times the cheapest fossil fuel-fired option.
Auction and tender results tell us that costs for solar and wind technologies are going to continue to fall out to 2021/23 and beyond. For instance, data in the IRENA Auction and PPA Database indicate that solar PV projects that have won recent auction and power purchase agreements (PPAs) processes – and that will be commissioned in 2021 – could have an average price of just USD 0.039/kWh. This is more than one-fifth less than the cheapest fossil-fuel competitor, namely coal-fired plants.
With the auction data suggesting the global weighted-average LCOE (levelised cost of electricity) of utility-scale solar PV and onshore wind potentially set to fall to USD 0.039/kWh and USD 0.043/kWh in 2021, new renewable power projects are also cheaper than the marginal operating costs of an increasing number of existing coal-fired power plants. Comparing these costs to Carbon Tracker (Carbon Tracker, 2018) data on marginal operating costs for over 2,000 GW of coal-fired power plants suggests 1,200 GW of coal-fired power plants may have higher operating costs than the average price of new utility-scale solar PV in 2021, while for the slightly higher average electricity price for onshore wind, it would be 850 GW of coal capacity.
Cost reductions to continue unabated to 2030 and beyond
IRENA is in the process of updating its analysis of the cost reduction potential to 2030 for solar and wind technologies. This analysis is an update of the analysis IRENA conducted in 2016, and the global trend of this new analysis has already been discussed in IRENA’s reports on the “Future of Wind” and “Future of Solar” report.
However, the analysis is based on detailed analysis for each of the G20 countries using a mix of techno-economic and learning curve analysis to shine a light on the cost reduction potential by market out to 2030.
The results are stark, the weighted average cost of electricity from offshore wind in the G20 countries could fall by just under half by 2030 from 2019 levels, that of onshore wind by just around 45%, that of utility-scale solar PV by up to 55% and CSP by 62% (Figure 1). The weighted average trends will depend significantly on the rate of acceleration in deployment in China, given they are the largest individual country market for solar PV and onshore wind today.
By 2030, new utility-scale solar PV and onshore wind will be undercutting not only the cost of new fossil fuel fired projects by substantial margins, but will on average be cheaper than operating almost 1,700 GW of existing coal capacity.

Figure 1: Weighted-average G20 levelised cost of electricity reduction potential, 2019-2030
Cost reduction drivers will continue
The cost reduction drivers of this decade are set continue into the 2020s, with important cost reductions from continued…
- Technology improvements: Solar and wind power technologies are constantly evolving from a mature knowledge base that is incorporating incremental innovations that are:
- Driving down installed costs, by increasing solar PV module efficiency that reduces not only materials inputs to the module, but also reduces costs in categories strongly linked to the area (e.g., cabling, racking, mounting, installation, etc.). Innovations in manufacturing are also reducing costs, by reducing materials inputs, while increasing the scale of wind turbines can drive down specific costs.
- Reducing O&M costs: improved technology reliability reduces downtime, maintenance interventions and component replacement costs. At the same time digitisation is unlocking performance data that can be used to allow preventative maintenance to reduce forced outages.
- Improving performance and output: Higher operating temperatures through the use of new heat transfer fluids in CSP plants raise power block efficiency, while larger wind turbines with higher hub-heights and greater swept areas harness more electricity for a given resource onshore or offshore.
- Economies of scale: These are acting on the manufacturing side and in some cases at the project level. The growth in the scale of regional markets for wind and solar are allowing the growth in regional manufacturing hubs that create localised economies of scale, while minimising transport costs. Growth in project size, or more commonly in recent times, the grouping of projects in successful auction bids or rounds, are allowing developers to improve their purchasing power and operating economies of scale.
- Continued competition: Competitive procurement of renewables capacity has, and will continue to, sharpen the competition that sees project developers, suppliers and manufacturers of renewable power generation equipment all searching for ways to reduce costs to win the next bid. When combined with increasing economies of scale, the supply chain cost reductions can be an important driver of lower costs.
- Greater developer experience, mature technologies and increased operational experience: All act in important ways to reduce costs. Greater experience reduces the need for contingency funds, reduces working capital needs and when combined with the increasing technology maturity and operational experience with large asset portfolios can reduce financing costs, so crucial to achieving low electricity costs.
These drivers’ impacts on different technologies and, indeed in different countries, vary, so the importance of the analysis at a G20 country-level takes on significant importance in informing policy makers in IRENA’s different Member States. This becomes clear when looking at how the cost structures of utility-scale solar PV and offshore wind differ by country today and how the different technology and local content drivers will play out over the period to 2030 (Figures 2 and 3).

Figure 2: Weighted-average utility-scale solar PV total installed costs by country, 2018 to 2030

Figure 3: Weighted-average utility-scale offshore wind total installed costs by country, 2018 to 2030 / De… = Development, Tu… = Turbine, Fo… = Foundations, Elect… = Electrical connection, Ins… = Installation, Contin… = Contingency
We should not be surprised
IRENA will release the full analysis in Q1 2021, but in many respects, the detailed analysis of the techno-economic drivers of cost reduction are just an extension of the crystal ball we can already see from the years of cost reductions that have played out in the last decade and we see into the future from auction results for the next three to five years. That renewables can economically decarbonise the electricity sector and open-up electrification of end-uses as a decarbonisation strategy is not now new news.
However, what the analysis does make clear in stark terms is that the continued cost reductions for solar and wind create quite remarkable economic opportunities to retire not just old and inefficient coal-fired power plant, but increasingly even new, relatively efficient coal-fired capacity.
Crucially, within a matter of years – in areas with excellent solar and wind resources – existing natural gas-fired plants will also increasingly be able to be retired economically. In doing so, we can not just reduce the environmental harm form the local and global pollutants from burning coal and gas, but save consumers billions of dollars per year on their electricity bills.
***
Michael Taylor is a Senior Analyst at IRENA
Nope, due to their variable and non-dispatchable nature, wind and solar cannot retire much fossil fuel capacity. Also, these types of assessments totally discount the large additional costs and great system complexity related to the temporal (value declines) and spatial (grid costs) variability of variable renewables, as well as the tremendous costs that will be required to electrify and transition to hydrogen in the industry, transport, and heating sectors (80% of final energy consumption is still non-electric).
I’m also curious about the financing costs used in the LCOE assessment. Low financing costs is one of the most important indirect subsidies to wind and solar. Price guarantees make them look like a very safe investment, whereas their value declines and total dependence on a wide range of supporting infrastructure for balancing services introduces substantial risk. If risk is not accurately priced in the market, it leads to malinvestment.
Before the end of this decade, at least 4 of GE Hitachi’s 300 MW, BWRX-300 nuclear power plants (NPPs) will be operational. The BWRX-300 has a build programme of 2 years – just the same as wind and solar plants (WASPs).
The cost-of-capital that has drained commercial investment away from NPPs and into WASPs is utterly negated. The playing field is levelled and a simple analysis of all other significant cost factors can be laid before fund managers, charged with making the most for every £1.00 their green customers put into their care.
Such simple arithmetic may go a long way to explaining why, with every day that passes, as cost reductions of WASP technologies are reported, cost increases in our electricity bills are the reality.
Build of the first BWRX-300 starts in 2024, to commence operation in 2027. By 2030, the BWRX-300 will be available for manufacture under licence in the UK and elsewhere. The overnight capital cost (OCC) will be £527 million for a 300 MW NPP capable of operating at 90% capacity factor for a design life of 60 years.
Pro-rata, 3,200 MW would cost £5.62 billion, compared to the reported £20 billion for Sizewell C. And, built in parallel, that level of installed capacity would be opoerational in 2 years.
These links carry the simple analyses and data links, which beggars the question: Why would any fund manager put £1.00 of their pot into WASPs, when that £1.00 invested in a BWRX-300 will ‘earn’ them:
7.2X more than onshore wind: https://bwrx-300-nuclear-uk.blogspot.com/2020/05/fund-managers-with-320-million-to.html
12X more than offshore wind: https://bwrx-300-nuclear-uk.blogspot.com/2020/05/invest-90-billion-in-offshore-wind.html
17.3X more than utility scale solar: https://bwrx-300-nuclear-uk.blogspot.com/2020/05/fund-managers-with-424-million-to.html
@Colin,
The answer to your question:”Why would any fund manager put £1.00 of their pot into WASPs, when that £1.00 invested in a BWRX-300 will ‘earn’ them…”:
Because your BWRS-300 is a dream, and experience show that nuclear dreams become 10 – 100 times more expensive when they become reality…
Dreamin’,
I’m only dreamin’:
https://aris.iaea.org/PDF/BWRX-300_2020.pdf
GE Hitachi – hardly a start-up company grubbing about for funds. Michal Solowow, the Polish billionaire industrialist is ‘buying’ one to save on the energy bills for his energy-intensive factories and ‘green’ his image:
3rd link down in the right-hand panel: https://bwrx-300-nuclear-uk.blogspot.com/
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-britains-nuclear-legacy/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-britains-nuclear-legacy
Cleanup costs in UK estimated bn124 GBP for Sellafield (1 plant). So, even if operating for 60 yrs. that makes 2 bn/a additional costs.
Construction of Wylfa and Cumbria have been abandoned due to economic reasons, Hinkley Point will be able to deliver electricity at astronomic prices which have to heavily supported (agreement for 35 yrs. subsidy of >90 GBP/MWh). This is nothing but ridiculous in economic terms.
All of those links included the cost of decommissioning, waste handling and storage was included for NPPs. The cost of land filling the millions upon millions of tonnes of wind turbine blades and solar panels was not included in the WASP data.