The Energy Provision Dilemma of Coal Versus Wind From the Economic, Environmental, and Social Perspective Within the Energy Security Framework

Abstract

<p class="Els-history-head">The energy security principle demands the fulfillment of availability, acceptability, affordability, accessibility, and sustainability. Under the financial constraints, it is very challenging to achieve. As a result, immediate decisions, often only based on the lowest cost neglecting the overall impacts, are taken. This study aims to reveal the energy provision dilemma through a literature review method and simple calculation analysis. This study intends to exemplify how to conduct an equitable analysis by comparing wind and coal power plants’ impacts from the economic, environmental, and social perspectives. This study finds that the mutually complement characteristics of NRE (New and Renewable Energy) and non-NRE (fossil energy sources) raise a dilemma in selecting the energy source, where the financial constraints exaggerate the dilemma. The study also finds that the electricity generating cost of coal is cheaper than wind, but the external costs turn over the result. Coal damages the environment more than wind, but the impacts are often neglected, and society bears the cost. A simple adsorption method could minimize the impacts, but it depends on the producers’ willingness to conduct, which eventually by the consumers’ willingness to pay the higher price. In the social aspect, both power plants have relatively more equal indirect impacts, but coal’s direct impacts are more detrimental than wind. While an energy source may excel the other, considering the specific circumstances is a must. Financial constraints aggravate the developing countries’ dilemma between achieving energy security or fulfilling the basic needs and pursuing economic growth</p>

Is sustainability challenging in Indonesia’s energy provision? Fuel type vs. externalities in electricity cost analysis

“…A previous study of externalities' effect on electricity cost finds that GCs from a wind turbine and a coal-fired power plant is 7.32 5.54 cents US$/kWh, respectively. However, by internalizing the externalities represented by the external cost and carbon tax, the GC becomes 10.196 cents US$/kWh or an increase of 84% (Asri & Yusgiantoro, 2020). Under the lowest price orientation, it is very challenging to achieve sustainability in energy provision.…”

“…On one side, the government must immediately fulfill the electricity needs (Afful-Dadzie et al, 2017), but on the other side, some impacts (of the preferable option) are too risky to neglect. The dilemma emerges due to financial constraints, where the cheaper fuel would be prioritized without first conducting the overall analysis (Asri & Yusgiantoro, 2020). This study compares the electricity's generating cost of three fuel types: fuel oil (diesel), gas, and coal.…”

“…Fossil is preferred (more suitable) for a quick electricity development, for it has established infrastructures. However, while NRE is more expensive in initial cost, fossil fuel's fuel cost remains to exist during the lifetime of power plant operation (Asri & Yusgiantoro, 2020).…”

The impact of the pandemic on environmental health from the perspective of energy sector

“…However, utilizing clean energy sources in developing countries is challenging as it is costly. The government in these countries, then, tends to provide energy sources suited to their financial capability as it is more affordable for them [4], [11]. They will not sacrifice their economy by providing cleaner energy sources which are unaffordable and requires a longer time to provide.…”

A Revisit of the Energy-Economy-Environment Nexus with Multi-Regression

“…Many governments only focus on pursuing growth without considering environmental health. For some countries, budget constraints hinder the government from freely deciding which type of energy sources to use [19], [39] or how strict environmental regulations to apply. As a result, the environment is suffering during development.…”