Solar Energy in the North May Work Better Than Previously Thought

A new report by Henry Lee and Windy Dewi at the Belfer Center has studied the efficiency of solar energy in the Arctic.

The researchers have explored whether solar power can be a cost-effective and sustainable alternative to diesel-based electricity in remote villages of northwest Alaska, where energy security and high costs are pressing issues.

Today, many Arctic communities rely almost entirely on diesel generators, but fuel is expensive to transport and prices fluctuate widely.

Six villages

The researchers looked at six villages in rural Alaska for their analysis: Kivalina, Kotzebue, Deering, Selawik, Ambler, and Kobuk. 

The villages were chosen due to geographic location, availability of data and existing energy infrastructure.

The villages were all in remote parts of Alaska and heavily relied on diesel fuel. In addition, the villages are not linked by a regional transmission grid, but have their own isolated distribution systems.

But the costs of transporting both diesel and machinery to each of these villages varied.

Weighing costs

Solar energy has generally been considered counterintuitive in the Arctic since the sun stays below the horizon for months at a time in the winter. However, the study finds that the case for solar electricity in the North may be stronger than previously thought.

If a village invested in a solar system, it would still have to use and pay for a diesel generator when it's not sunny, which is a significant part of the year in Alaska. Therefore, the only cost savings from such an investment stem from the cost of the diesel oil that is not burned when the solar-generated electricity is consumed.

In other words, solar investments do not eliminate the need for diesel generators; they only reduce the amount of electricity needed from those generators and therefore the amount of diesel oil used.

Thus, the researchers have looked at whether the total cost of the solar-generated electricity is greater than the cost of diesel oil not burned. If the price of the diesel oil is greater than the investment in solar, then investing in a solar system could be worth exploring.

The study also highlights that the energy market is changing, that the cost of solar systems is declining, and that the total costs of relying on diesel generators are becoming better understood and remain high. Importantly, the public is also becoming more aware and concerned with the impacts of burning diesel on public health.

Findings

An important factor when weighing these costs was the location of the villages. The villages are remote, fuel is expensive to transport and prices fluctuate widely.  

Fuel efficiency also varied, as many village diesel generators were getting older and were no longer operating at optimal efficiencies.

The researchers found that solar energy was cheaper than diesel in Kotzebue, Selawik, Ambler and Kobuk. 

Diesel remained cheaper in Kivalina and Deering due to lower fuel costs or higher efficiency in generators.

Storage

While the findings indicate a better case for solar energy in the Arctic than previously thought, one aspect is particularly important for villages in the North: energy storage.

Rural communities in Alaska would likely need to store energy for days at a time, particularly in the shoulder months of May and August. However, energy storage is currently very expensive and limited.

The study states that storage for periods of time measured in days as opposed to hours would provide significant benefits, but such technologies are not yet available at commercially competitive prices and are unlikely to be so prior to 2030.

Finally, the researchers conclude that there is a definite trend toward greater use of solar energy, and if that is coupled with less expensive storage, the trend is likely to accelerate over the next ten years, even in the coldest and most remote areas of Alaska.