Home / Chroniques / Renewables: yields vary according to climate
π Energy π Planet π Science and technology

Renewables : yields vary according to climate

sylvain Cros
Sylvain Cros
Research Engineer at the Dynamic Meteorology Laboratory of École polytechnique (IP Paris)
Avatar
Riwal Plougonven
Professor at École polytechnique (IP Paris) and Senior Lecturer at the Dynamic Meteorology Laboratory (LMD)
Key takeaways
  • According to the WMO and IRENA, global warming is having an impact on the production of renewable energies, particularly wind, solar and hydroelectric power.
  • Some regions, such as southern Africa and South-East Asia, could experience seasonal difficulties in supplying their electricity grids.
  • Hydroelectric production is directly linked to rainfall patterns and could decrease in regions subject to drought, while increasing at high latitudes.
  • Fluctuations in wind generation could particularly affect densely populated regions, with declines of up to 10 or 30%.
  • The key: using a mix of renewable energies to compensate for variations and continue to decarbonise our production.

At the end of 2023, the World Meteo­ro­lo­gi­cal Orga­ni­sa­tion (WMO) and the Inter­na­tio­nal Rene­wable Ener­gy Agen­cy (IRENA) war­ned1 : “A bet­ter unders­tan­ding of cli­mate fac­tors and their inter­ac­tions with rene­wable resources is vital to ensure the resi­lience and effi­cien­cy of ener­gy sys­tems and asso­cia­ted tran­si­tions.” The mas­sive tran­si­tion to rene­wable ener­gies is essen­tial to contain man-made glo­bal war­ming : their total ins­tal­led capa­ci­ty must rise from 3,870 GW in 2023 to 11,000 GW in 2030 to limit war­ming to 1.5°C2.

But the two agen­cies empha­sise the impact of glo­bal war­ming itself on ener­gy pro­duc­tion. Of the four indi­ca­tors consi­de­red, all are impac­ted. This applies to wind power, solar power, hydroe­lec­tri­ci­ty and ener­gy demand. “It is essen­tial that poli­ti­cal deci­sion-makers anti­ci­pate the future of ener­gy infra­struc­tures and assets, taking into account the effects of cli­mate change and the resul­ting increase in demand,” explai­ned Fran­ces­co La Came­ra, Direc­tor Gene­ral of IRENA, in a press release. In its latest syn­the­sis report3, the Inter­go­vern­men­tal Panel on Cli­mate Change (IPCC) states that the impact of cli­mate change on elec­tri­ci­ty pro­duc­tion should not com­pro­mise miti­ga­tion stra­te­gies on a glo­bal scale. On the other hand, it points out that the regio­nal impact can be signi­fi­cant, par­ti­cu­lar­ly for wind and hydroe­lec­tric power. Regions such as sou­thern Afri­ca and South-East Asia could find it dif­fi­cult to power their grids in cer­tain sea­sons. Conver­se­ly, South Ame­ri­ca could consi­der resel­ling sur­plus energy.

The global impact of cloud cover

Let’s start with solar ener­gy, which has the grea­test pro­duc­tion and expan­sion poten­tial. Elec­tri­ci­ty pro­duc­tion is direct­ly lin­ked to the amount of sun­shine – which varies accor­ding to lati­tude – and the pre­sence of clouds. “Cloud cover depends on tem­pe­ra­ture, humi­di­ty and pres­sure fields in the atmos­phere, which are them­selves influen­ced by cli­mate change,” explains Syl­vain Cros. In 2022, the load fac­tor4 – i.e. the yield – has chan­ged very lit­tle com­pa­red with the per­iod 1991–2020. IRENA has obser­ved the big­gest changes (+3 to +6%) in Boli­via, Para­guay and Argen­ti­na, coun­tries alrea­dy ran­ked among those recei­ving the most solar irra­dia­tion. By 2050, a stu­dy publi­shed in Nature Sus­tai­na­bi­li­ty5 iden­ti­fies a dou­bling in the num­ber of low-effi­cien­cy days in sum­mer in the Ara­bian Penin­su­la, and conver­se­ly a hal­ving of these days in sou­thern Europe. For an inter­me­diate sce­na­rio of green­house gas emis­sions (RCP4.5, for which war­ming reaches 2.7°C by the end of the cen­tu­ry), the changes in solar pro­duc­tion in sum­mer in 2050 are mode­rate : ‑4% for the Ara­bian Penin­su­la, +5% for Cen­tral Europe, +3% for the Ata­ca­ma Desert, ‑2% in south-east Aus­tra­lia and north-west Afri­ca and +2% in Chi­na and south-east Asia.

On a glo­bal scale, the varia­tions in pro­duc­tion lin­ked to cli­mate change are the­re­fore very small. Accor­ding to the IPCC, these varia­tions are unli­ke­ly to com­pro­mise solar energy’s abi­li­ty to sup­port the ener­gy tran­si­tion. “Pro­jec­tions show that the rise in tem­pe­ra­ture increases cloud cover, main­ly in arid regions,” explains Syl­vain Cros. This is due to an increa­sed eva­po­ra­tion of water from soils and oceans, com­bi­ned with an increase in convec­tion, which favours a rise in alti­tude and conden­sa­tion into clouds. “But there are other fac­tors that contri­bute to cloud cover, and these models are far more uncer­tain,” adds the scien­tist. As for socio-eco­no­mic fac­tors, these are dif­fi­cult to pre­dict. Tech­no­lo­gi­cal advances are increa­sing the yield of pho­to­vol­taic panels. Syl­vain Cros adds : “The rate of deploy­ment is ano­ther impor­tant fac­tor : solar panels have become so cheap that the speed of their deploy­ment could off­set the effects of the drop in irradiation.”

Regional variations and wind generation

Ano­ther impor­tant mode of rene­wable ener­gy pro­duc­tion is wind power. By com­pa­ring the load fac­tor for the year 2022 with the per­iod 1991–2020, the WMO-IRENA note signi­fi­cant changes. Many Euro­pean coun­tries are recor­ding a decrease of 10% or more, and the drop exceeds 16% in Cen­tral Ame­ri­ca and Papua New Gui­nea. Conver­se­ly, increases of 8% are seen in sub-Saha­ran Afri­ca, Mada­gas­car, Boli­via, Para­guay, Korea, and the Uni­ted States. But stu­dies seem to show that natu­ral cli­mate varia­bi­li­ty (the alter­na­ting El Niño-La Niña phe­no­me­na, for example) lar­ge­ly explains these varia­tions, rather than war­ming lin­ked to human activities.

“Changes in sur­face tem­pe­ra­ture are well unders­tood in cli­mate pro­jec­tions. On the other hand, changes in atmos­phe­ric cir­cu­la­tion are much more dif­fi­cult to model, as there are many mecha­nisms that can influence wind pro­duc­tion6,” says Riwal Plou­gon­ven. As a result, it is dif­fi­cult to iden­ti­fy a clear large-scale signal for the future. The IPCC esti­mates that long-term wind ener­gy resources will not change signi­fi­cant­ly in future cli­mate sce­na­rios. Howe­ver, cer­tain regions could be affec­ted by signi­fi­cant varia­tions, either from one year to the next, or from month to month. In a sum­ma­ry of 75 stu­dies7, the authors note a reduc­tion in pro­duc­tion poten­tial in the wes­tern Uni­ted States for the second half of the 21st cen­tu­ry, and a down­ward trend for most of the nor­thern hemis­phere (Europe, Rus­sia, China).

Conver­se­ly, wind power pro­duc­tion in Cen­tral and South Ame­ri­ca, sou­thern Afri­ca and South-East Asia is sho­wing an upward trend. In a stu­dy publi­shed in Februa­ry 20248, other authors note signi­fi­cant decreases bet­ween now and 2100 for the worst-case sce­na­rio of GHG emis­sions – around ‑10%, for example, for most of the Euro­pean Union and the Uni­ted States. They point out that this decline par­ti­cu­lar­ly affects den­se­ly popu­la­ted regions, increa­sing the impact. “The magni­tude of these changes can be signi­fi­cant, in the region of 10–30% depen­ding on the region,” notes Riwal Plou­gon­ven. But he qua­li­fies that : “Most stu­dies focus on the worst-case sce­na­rio for GHG emis­sions (SSP5‑8.5) and pro­jec­tions for the end of the cen­tu­ry. Howe­ver, this sce­na­rio is unli­ke­ly, and the hori­zon – even if it is inter­es­ting – is too far away com­pa­red with the time scales of the wind ener­gy sector.”

With regard to hydro­po­wer, the indi­ca­tor eva­lua­ted in the WMO-IRENA report shows a reduc­tion in 2022 in South Ame­ri­ca, East Asia, Cen­tral and East Afri­ca and Wes­tern Europe. On the other hand, there will be an increase in Cana­da, Mexi­co, Rus­sia, India, Nepal, South Afri­ca, Aus­tra­lia and the Scan­di­na­vian coun­tries. As with solar ener­gy, these obser­va­tions are main­ly lin­ked to the La Niña cli­mate regime in place in 2022. Hydroe­lec­tri­ci­ty pro­duc­tion is direct­ly lin­ked to water avai­la­bi­li­ty and is modu­la­ted by tem­pe­ra­ture and rain­fall inten­si­ty. As for the future, a large pro­por­tion of hydroe­lec­tric power sta­tions (61% to 74%) are loca­ted in regions where signi­fi­cant declines in river flow are pro­jec­ted as ear­ly as 2050. Ove­rall, it is esti­ma­ted that high lati­tudes will see an increase of 5–20%, while regions sub­ject to drought will see a decrease of 5–20% (this concerns North and Cen­tral Ame­ri­ca, sou­thern Europe, the Middle East, Cen­tral Asia, and sou­thern South America).

Important projections for finding solutions

It is impor­tant to consi­der these pro­jec­tions when plan­ning the deploy­ment of rene­wable ener­gies. Some regions of the world could find them­selves in a win-win situa­tion, “bene­fi­ting” from the increa­sed pro­duc­tion of seve­ral ener­gy sources. Conver­se­ly, other regions could be dou­bly or tri­ply affec­ted. The WMO-IRENA report takes the case of the region com­pri­sing Bots­wa­na, Mozam­bique, Nami­bia, South Afri­ca, and Zim­babwe : in June 2022, solar pro­duc­tion was redu­ced, but the region recor­ded signi­fi­cant increases in hydroe­lec­tri­ci­ty and wind power pro­duc­tion. By contrast, by Octo­ber 2022, most indi­ca­tors were fal­ling, put­ting elec­tri­ci­ty sup­plies at risk. “The use of a mix of rene­wable ener­gies is key to ensu­ring that varia­tions can off­set each other,” points out Riwal Plou­gon­ven. Final­ly, elec­tri­ci­ty exchanges bet­ween regions could miti­gate these effects : for example, the grea­ter poten­tial for wind power in North Ame­ri­ca could off­set the reduc­tion in Mexi­co. The WMO-IRENA empha­sise the role of ear­ly war­ning sys­tems in secu­ring ener­gy throu­ghout the world.

Riwal Plou­gon­ven concludes : “It is clear that these varia­tions lin­ked to cli­mate change must be taken into account to opti­mise our pro­duc­tion of rene­wable ener­gies, but this does not call into ques­tion the mas­sive and neces­sa­ry deploy­ment of these ener­gies to decar­bo­nise our ener­gy.” The last major effect of cli­mate change on the ener­gy tran­si­tion ? Ener­gy demand.

Anaïs Marechal
1WMO, IRENA (2023), 2022 Year in Review : Cli­mate-dri­ven glo­bal rene­wable ener­gy poten­tial resources and ener­gy demand.
2Web­site consul­ted on 26 April 2024 : https://​www​.ire​na​.org/​D​i​g​i​t​a​l​-​c​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​D​i​g​i​t​a​l​-​S​t​o​r​y​/​2​0​2​4​/​M​a​r​/​S​y​s​t​e​m​i​c​-​C​h​a​n​g​e​s​-​N​e​e​d​e​d​-​t​o​-​T​r​i​p​l​e​-​R​e​n​e​w​a​b​l​e​s​-​b​y​-​2​0​3​0​/​d​etail
3Clarke, L., et al. 2022 : Ener­gy Sys­tems. In IPCC, 2022 : Cli­mate Change 2022 : Miti­ga­tion of Cli­mate Change. Contri­bu­tion of Wor­king Group III to the Sixth Assess­ment Report of the Inter­go­vern­men­tal Panel on Cli­mate Change, Cam­bridge Uni­ver­si­ty Press, Cam­bridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. doi : 10.1017/9781009157926.008.
4The load fac­tor is the ratio bet­ween the ener­gy pro­du­ced over a given per­iod and the ener­gy that could have been pro­du­ced during that same per­iod if the ener­gy pro­duc­tion equip­ment had been ope­ra­ting constant­ly at its rated power, i.e. under opti­mum condi­tions of use.
5https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020–00643‑w
6https://​doi​.org/​1​0​.​1​0​3​8​/​n​g​e​o2253
7https://​doi​.org/​1​0​.​1​0​1​6​/​j​.​r​s​e​r​.​2​0​2​2​.​1​12596
8https://​doi​.org/​1​0​.​1​0​1​6​/​j​.​e​n​e​r​g​y​.​2​0​2​3​.​1​29765

Support accurate information rooted in the scientific method.

Donate