Renewable Energy Efficiency
Pavel P. Bezrukikh
G.M. Krzhizhanovsky Power Engineering Institute JSC
Moscow, Russia
Pavel P. Bezrukikh (Jr.)
LUCOIL JSC
Moscow, Russia
Abstract—The paper presents the research results of energy,
ecological, operational, economic and social efficiency of
renewable energy (photovoltaic (PV) and wind power) and
comparison results of renewable and traditional energy
efficiency. It is established that wind and PV power stations are
more effective, than thermal stations; their ecological efficiency is
considerably higher, than that of thermal stations; the use of PV
and wind power stations increases social stability.
Keywords—renewable energy; energy efficiency; ecological
efficiency
I. INTRODUCTION
The opinion that renewable energy has low efficiency is a
barrier on the way of its wide use. In particular, such situation
is in Russia. Efficiency has a complex character and represents
a set of a few efficiencies: energy efficiency, ecological
efficiency, operational efficiency, economic and social
efficiency.
Energy efficiency is the period during which any power
station generates such energy which has been consumed for
production of materials, equipment, transportation charges,
installation, operation and utilization [1-4].
Ecological efficiency is estimated by emission of CO2 and
other harmful and greenhouse gases appearing in the course of
production of materials, equipment, transportation, installation,
service, operation and utilization of a power plant [1-4].
Operational efficiency (the term is introduced by the
authors) is the volume of power reservation for renewable
energy, electric power generation forecasting, stability of
power system operation at randomly changing generated power
of renewable energy stations, the possibility of power and
voltage regulation at the point of connection of a renewable
energy source to a power system, water consumption at
operation [5-8].
Economic efficiency is estimated according to the levelized
cost of electricity (LCOE) value [9-13].
Social efficiency is evaluated according to a few factors:
ecological safety, quantity of created workplaces and regional
development.
978-1-5090-2320-2/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
Sergey M. Karabanov
Ryazan State Radio Engineering University
Ryazan, Russia
pvs.solar@gmail.com
The paper presents complex research results of renewable
energy efficiency and the results of its comparison with
traditional power stations efficiency. The paper uses the data of
works presented by different institutions and the results of the
authors’ own calculations.
II. MAIN RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The present paper used mathematical calculations and data
bases from different sources for the analysis of different
renewable energy efficiencies and their comparison with the
efficiency data of traditional power stations [1-14].
A. Energy Efficiency [1-4, 6-8]
Energy efficiency of renewable energy has tremendous
advantage over thermal power.
The energy efficiency is estimated according to the
formula:
Tepb = Econ / E y
where Tepb is the energy payback time, ȿcon is energy
consumed for the production of a station, materials,
equipment, operation, servicing; ȿy – the electric energy
annual production of a station.
Table 1 shows the aggregated data on power consumption
in the wind turbine life cycle [1].
The energy production depends on wind characteristics at
the place of installation of a wind power plant and is
determined by the capacity utilization factor (CUF).
According to the calculations for Nordex 2 MW wind
power plant at CUF of 0.4 (very good wind conditions) the
energy payback time is 0.76 year, or 9.27 months without
utilization and 5.94 months with utilization [1]. During service
life of 25 years a wind power plant generates electric power of
32.2 times more than it was used during its life cycle without
utilization and 50.4 times more than with utilization (Table 2).
 TABLE I. ENERGY CONSUMPTION LINES IN 2 MW NORDEX WIND TURBINE LIFE CYCLE

Without utilization (disposal) With utilization (recycling)

share share
Materials J 1.7594·1013 0.898 1.7594·1013 1.41
kWh 4.89·106 4.89·106
Production J 1.3593·1012 0.069 1.3593·1012 0.11
kWh 3.77·105 3.77·105
Transport J 2.4336·1011 0.012 2.4336·1011 0.02
kWh 6,76·104 6.76·104
Operation J 1.6778·1011 0.009 1.6778·1011 0.01
kWh 4.66·104 4.66·104
Decommissioning J 2.1826·1011 0.011 - 6.8512·1012 - 0.55
kWh 6.06·104 - 1.903·104
Total J 1.9583·1013 1.0 1.2513·1013 1.0
kWh 5.439·106 3.476·106

TABLE II. ENERGY PAYBACK TIME OF 2MW NORDEX WIND TURBINE, CUF = 0.4, LIFE TIME – 25 YEARS
Without utilization With utilization
(disposal)
Energy consumed for a wind power plant construction, J 1.95·1013 1.25·1013
Energy consumed for a wind power plant construction, 5.41·106 3.47·106
kWh
Average annual energy production by a wind power plant
7·106 7·106
at CUF – 40%, kWh/year
Electric energy production by a wind power plant during
175·106 175·106
service life of 25 years, kWh
Ratio of the energy produced by a wind turbine during
service life to energy consumed for its construction 32.32 50.43
Energy payback time, months 9.27 5.94

The calculation of Tepb for a ground wind power station
with the total capacity of 300 MW containing 182 Vestas V82
wind turbines taking into account the joining equipment at
CUF of 0.4 and life time of 20 years shows that the energy
payback time is 7.2 months.
The above data confirmed by numerous calculations made
in different countries show that for a wind power station the
energy payback time is less than one year (6 - 10 months).
Slightly different situation (which changes quickly) is in
photovoltaics. In particular, in Portugal for 62 MW PV station
at solar radiation of 1900 kWh/cm2 per year the energy
payback time is 5.9 years [9]. The main contribution to the
bound energy value is made by technological processes of
silicon and solar cells production. This study has been made in
2005 for the station built in 2001-2003 where it is mentioned
that the advanced silicon production technologies will allow to
reduce the energy payback time to 1.2–1.8 years [???].
In the research made by International Energy Agency in
2011 for PV plants on roofs built in 2005-2006 in Southern
Europe where solar radiation is 1700 kWh/m2 per year, the
energy payback time for the plants of monocrystalline silicon
with the efficiency of 14% is 2.2 years, polycrystalline silicon
with efficiency of 13.2% – 2 years, thin film silicon with
efficiency of 12% – 1.7 years, CdTe modules with efficiency of
10.9% – 0.75 years [8].
So, wind power and photovoltaics have high energy
efficiency.
The picture is quite different for electric and thermal energy
production at thermal and nuclear power plants. In terms of
energy they are never repaid as during service life they
constantly consume energy in the form of fuel and transform it
to electric and/or thermal energy with the coefficient much less
than unity. This is the difference of our point of view from
many others according to which the fuel consumption during
operation is not taken into account.
Therefore, using renewable energy sources the mankind
can switch to effective electricity generation at wind power, PV
and fast neutrons nuclear power stations. As for hydroelectric
power stations similar research was not carried out. This is the
immediate task of research. However there is no doubt in their
energy efficiency.
B. Ecological Efficiency [1-4, 6-8]
It is generally agreed that wind, photovoltaic, hydraulic and
geothermal power stations do not produce CO2, they are
environmentally friendly. However, they consist of
components at which production of which CO2 and other
noxious emissions occur. The paper provides the assessment of
this effect.
The name of the research in this field is life cycle emission
study.
 1) Photovoltaic stations: Greenhouse gases emission
recounted in equivalent CO2 emission in 2009 was 29, 28 and
18 g of CO2 /kWh for monocrystalline, polycrystalline silicon
and CdTe solar cells, respectively.
NOx emission for the above solar cells is equal to 0.067,
0.058 and 0.03 g/kWh, respectively. Heavy metal emission for
CdTe solar cells in the form of cadmium emission is rather
low: 0.02 g/kWh. For comparison: in the USA the emissions
of a coal-fired power plant for 1 kWh are 1 kg of CO2/kWh, 8
g of SO2, 3 g of NOx and 0.4 g of flying particles.
The noxious emission from PV stations is less than from
coal-fired power plants for CO2 – 35–55 times, NOx – 44–100
times.
2) Wind power stations: According to the research of
World Steel Association in 2008: for 160 MW offshore wind
power plant (eighty 2MW wind turbines)in Denmark in North
Sea CO2 emission was 7.6 g/kWh, according to[???12] – 6.6
g/kWh, according to [3] - 8 g/kWh. So, CO2 emission at wind
power plants construction is two orders less than that of
thermal stations.
Tables 3 and 4 show summarized data of noxious emissions
from thermal stations in the USA and Russia (according to the
Energy Strategy Institute, Russia). This information confirms
the difference in degree of ecological impact or renewable and
thermal energy.

TABLE III. AVERAGE READINGS OF GAS SPECIFIC EMISSION BY USA FUEL POWER INDUSTRY

Gas Specific values at fuel utilization, g/kWh

Coal Natural gas Oil Average
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 967 468 708 690
Sulphur dioxide (SO2) 6.1 0.0032 3.1 3.63
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 3.45 0.82 0.95 2.22

TABLE IV. AVERAGE SPECIFIC VALUES OF NOXIOUS EMISSION FROM RUSSIAN THERMAL POWER PLANTS

Specific values at fuel utilization, g/kWh

Contaminator type
Oil with 1% sulphur Coal with 1% sulphur Natural gas
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 738 1142 547
Sulphur dioxide (SO2) 4.7 1.4 –
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 2.3 4.0 1.8
Ash and slag – 52 –
Fly ash – 0.33 –

C. Operational Efficiency [5-8]
The term “operational efficiency” has not become
conventional yet. This is the authors’ suggestion. According to
the authors, for evaluation of energy efficiency it is necessary
to clarify the following: a) whether 100 % power reservation of
wind and solar stations operating in a power supply system is
required; b) whether it is possible to forecast the electricity
generation of these power plants for the short, medium and
long-term periods; c) whether a power supply system can work
persistently at arbitrarily changing power from wind and PV
stations; d) whether it is possible to regulate the power and
voltage in the connection point of wind and PV stations to a
power supply system, e) water consumption.
1) Power generation forecasting: Operating experience of
wind and PV stations confirms the possibility to forecast
power generation for various periods: year, month, days and
even hours, with probability to 95%. First, it has become
possible thanks to accumulation of data on the annual wind
speed and solar radiation at wind and PV stations during
operation, to dispersal of wind and PV stations on the country
territory. Secondly, use of the wind speed forecast according
to NASA database. On the website of Red Eléctrica de España
it is possible to observe the share of power generation at all
types of stations, including the forecast and actual power
generation at any time.
2) Power reservation: On the basis of rather exact
forecasting it is possible to solve the main problem – the
necessity to reserve power of a wind station. According to the
conclusion of Utility Wind Group (the organization combining
55 USA electric companies and having wind power stations in
its power supply systems), the outdated and nonprofessional
opinion which is often expressed in power industry is that
wind stantions need reservation of all power transferred by
them. Now it is clear that at a moderate percentage of wind
power is necessary to have rather low, than one to one, and
often close to zero, additional generating power for
compensation of wind power stations instability [9].
In the research carried out in the USA in 2004 for
Minnesota Board of Trade it has been shown that inclusion of
1500 MW wind power stations in the state power supply
system will require additional 8 MW (0.5%) station on
traditional fuel [R. Zavadil, J. King, L. Xiadong, M. Ahlstrom,
B. Lee, D. Moon, C. Finley, L. Alnes, L. Jones, F. Hudry, M.
Monsteaim, S. Lai and J. Smith, Wind Integration Study, Final
Report, 2004].
In the power supply system of Russia the installed capacity
utilization factor, e.g., in 2014, was 0.50. In principle, it means
that there is always power reserve. The problem is load peak
which happens in certain days in December – January. This
circumstance has to be taken into account at the choice of the
location for construction of wind power and PV stations. Thus,
the problem of power reservation of wind and PV stations in
Russia is not an obstacle for development of wind energy, at
least, till that time, when 10% share of wind and PV power in
total amount of electricity generation will be achieved.
 3) Power regulation: Of course, the opportunity to
increase power of wind stations is limited by the wind power
density and in this context it is possible to say that such
opportunity is unavailable. Regulation of actual power
towards reduction of wind station power is unlimited: it is
possible to disconnect a single wind power plant or to regulate
the blade angle of rotation.
It should be specially noted that wind power stations and
new design of PV stations containing an inverter or a
frequency converter have the controlled reactive power range
equal to the station power. It means that modern wind and PV
stations can sustain voltage in the point of connection to a
power supply system at the set level. This property of a wind
power station is not yet completely understood by experts.
4) Water consumption: Water requirement belongs to
operational efficiency of wind and PV stations. Specific loss
of water at a wind power station is 475 times less than that of
nuclear power plant; 400 times less than at coal power stations
and 275 times less than at gas-fired power plants. Specific loss
of water at PV stations is 20 times less than at a nuclear power
plant, 17 times less than at coal power stations and 14 times
less than at gas-fired power plants (Table 5) [6,8].
And it is apart from water requirement for a steam-water
cycle of thermal and nuclear power plants and cooling water
of turbine condensers, whereas at wind and PV stations the
permanent water consumption is intended only for cleaning
wind turbine blades and PV modules.

TABLE V. NON-RECOVERABLE LOSSES OF WATER AT THE USA POWER PLANTS

Power plant type Coal power Oil power Gas power Wind power
NPP PV station
station plant plant plant
Water specific loss, l/kWh 2.3 1.9 1.6 0.95 0.004 0.11

However, the potential of renewable energy technologies is

D. Economic Efficiency [9-13]
There is an opinion about high cost of the electricity from
renewable energy power stations and their low
competitiveness. However this opinion is wrong. According to
the position of leading experts of the World Bank the
traditional financial analysis is not able to consider adequately
future risks connected with fuel prices. It also completely
ignores environmental and expenses and health care connected
with emissions at power plants burning fossil fuel. If we
consider costs of a complete technical cycle, some renewable
sources can even now compete with traditional energy sources.
not realized completely because of various barriers of the
market, such as state support of traditional fuels [9]. According
to the World Bank the annual state financing of gas industry in
Russia amounts to 25 bln, power generating industry – USD 15
bln.
For evaluation of economic efficiency the data obtained in
works [11] and [12] was used. Table 6 shows the summarized
results for 17 types of power plants. Levelized cost of
electricity (LCOE) was used for economic efficiency
evaluation.

TABLE VI. ESTIMATION OF LEVELIZED COST OF ELECTRICITY OF POWER PLANTS IN 2010 AND POWER PLANTS PUT INTO
OPERATION IN 2018

Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), USD/MWh

Station type Minimum Average Maximum
2010 2018 2010 2018 2010 2018
Normal coal 90.1 89.5 99.6 100.1 116.3 118.3
Advanced coal 103.9 11.6 112.2 123.0 126.1 137.9
Advanced coal with CCS technology 129.6 123.9 140.7 135.5 162.4 152.7
Natural gas (standard)
Normal with combined cycle 61.8 62.5 68.6 67.1 88.1 78.2
Advanced with combined cycle 58.9 60.0 65.5 65.6 76.1 76.1
Advanced with combined cycle with CCS technology 82.8 87.4 92.8 93.4 107.5 107.5
Normal gas-turbine 94.6 104.0 132.0 130.3 149.8 149.8
Advanced gas-turbine 80.4 90.3 105.3 104.6 119.0 119.0
Advanced nuclear 108.4 104.4 112.7 108.4 120.1 115.3
Geothermal 85.0 81.4 99.6 89.6 113.9 100.3
Biomass 101.5 98.0 120.2 111.0 142.8 130.8
Wind 78.2 73.5 96.8 86.6 114.1 99.8
Wind, offshore 307.3 183.0 330.6 221.5 350.4 294.7
Photovoltaic 122.2 112.5 156.9 144.3 245.6 224.4
PV thermal 182.7 190.2 251.0 261.5 400.7 417.6
Hydro 58.6 54.4 89.9 90.3 149.7 149.2

Obviously, by 2020 at PV stations (USD 1253/MWh) the cost of advanced coal and gas-turbine power plants will
taking into account rapid unit cost reduction and efficiency be achieved. In other words, the last barrier to broad-scale
increase of solar cells, levelized cost of electricity close to development of photovoltaics will be removed.
E. Social Efficiency
Besides decrease of noxious emissions influencing
negatively the population health, the significant social effect
of renewable energy development is job creation for
equipment production and operation of renewable energy
facilities. Herewith workplaces directly relating to renewable
energy (direct) and the ones in linked industries (indirect) are
taken into account.
According to estimation of REN-21, 2011 the total
number of workplaces in renewable energy sector in the
world in 2010 was 3.5 million. The greatest contribution is
made by biofuel production processes – 1.5 million
workplaces [14].
However for Russia social efficiency of renewable
energy is not settled by the quantity of workplaces.
Up to 20 million people in Russia live in regions with
unstable power supply, including remote places where power
supply is carried out from outmoded diesel power plants.
Often the population in these areas can use electricity two
times a day for 2-3 hours in the morning and in the evening.
Diesel fuel delivery to these regions became more complex.
The diesel fuel cost increases manifold due to delivery
difficulties. Therefore the electricity cost exceeds the tariffs
of the centralized power supply zones by 5–10 times and the
government needs to subsidize the population for electricity
payment.
The use of renewable energy sources for power supply
allows to curtail drastically the electricity cost and to
improve the population living conditions and development
conditions of local production.
III. SUMMARY
In terms of energy wind, PV and hydro-electric power
stations have global advantage over thermal stations as they
compensate the energy consumed for their creation (wind
power stations – in about one year, PV stations – in 2-5
years), but thermal stations do not compensate it ever.
Even taking into account CO2 emission at materials and
equipment production and also construction and erection
work at wind power and PV stations their ecological
cleanliness is rather higher, than that of thermal stations.
Social efficiency of renewable energy is characterized by
availability of direct and indirect workplaces with high
stability degree as this branch is less subjected to crisis
impacts. Lack of issue of CO2 and other polluting emissions
improves population living conditions. Small power plants
affect significantly local production development and living
comfort of people not connected to centralized electricity
network.
According to foreign practice special energy reservation
of wind power and PV stations is not required in case of their
optimum combination with other power plants types. As a
rule, existing reserves in power supply systems are enough
for compensation of production instability at wind power and
PV stations. Vast experience of wind power and PV stations
operation together with modern methods allows to forecast
power of these stations for the settling periods with high
probability (95% and more).
By 2018 according to minimum and average normalized
cost of electric power, wind stations will be more effective
than all types of coal power plants, gas power plants with a
combined advanced cycle and CO2 burial, gas-turbine
stations, nuclear power plants.
Hydroelectric stations will be more effective than other
renewable energy plants. PV stations will approach improved
coal power plants.
So, even now we can speak about competiveness of
renewable energy.
REFERENCES
[1] Ch. Ghenai, Life cycle analysis of wind turbine, Ocean and
Mechanical Engineering, 2012, Florida Atlantic University,
www.intechopen.com.
[2] N. D’Souza, E. Ghegbaje-Das and P. Shonfield, Life cycle
assessment of electricity production from a Vestas V 112, Final
Report, vol. 112, Turbine Wind Plant, February 2011, PE North
West Europe ApS.
[3] V. Fthenakis, H.C. Kim, R. Frichknecht, M. Rongei, P. Sinha and
M. Stucki,. Photovoltaic power systems programme. Life cycle
inventories and life cycle assessment of photovoltaic systems, IEA,
October, 2011.
[4] K. Suomalainen, Environmental life cycle assessment of a large-
scale grid connected PV plant: case study of Moura MW PV Power
Plant, Goteborg, Chalmers University of Technology, 2006.
[5] J.Ch. Smith, M.R. Milligan, E.A. DeMeo and B. Parsons, Utility
wind integration and operating impact state of art, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 22, no. 3, August 2007.
[6] P.P. Bezrukikh and P.P. Bezrukikh (Jr.), On indicators of energy
status and renewable power efficiency under the conditions of
economic crisis, Economic Questions, 2014, no. 8, pp. 92-105.
[7] P.P. Bezrukikh and P.P. Bezrukikh (Jr.), World wind energy. Status
and development forecast, Elektricheskie Stantsii (Power Plants),
no. 12, 2015, pp. 27-29.
[8] P.P. Bezrukikh, S.M. Karabanov and P.P. Bezrukikh (Jr.), The
efficiency of the world renewable energy, Energy, no. 12, 2015.
[9] A. Cabraal, S. Aqarwal and M. Takahashi, Rising to the challenge –
the whys and whens of renewable energy, Renewable Energy
World, 2007, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 117–129.
[10] Energy subsidies in the contemporary world. G20 countries, under
the editorship of L.M. Grigogiev and A.N. Kurdin, Moscow,
Asmin-Print Ltd. 2014.
[11] Levelized cost of new generation resources in the annual energy
outlook, 2011. Report of the US Energy Information Administration
(EIA) of the US Department of Energy (DOE). January 23, 2012.
[12] US Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook
2015, April 2015. DOE/EIA-0383.
[13] S.M. Karabanov, P.P. Bezrukikh and T.A. Shushkanova, Energy of
the future. Photovoltaic conversion of solar energy. Thin film solar
cells and modukes (technology, economy, market analysis,
development prospects, Moscow, Energy, 2014.
[14] REN 21 Renewables. Global Status Report, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015