91% of new renewable projects now cheaper than fossil fuels alternatives
The report confirms that renewables maintained their price advantage over fossil fuels, with cost declines driven by technological innovation, competitive supply chains, and economies of scale.
In 2024, solar photovoltaics (PV) were, on average, 41% cheaper than the lowest-cost fossil fuel alternatives, while onshore wind projects were 53% cheaper. Onshore wind remained the most affordable source of new renewable electricity at US$0.034/kWh, followed by solar PV at US$ 0.043/kWh.
The addition of 582 gigawatts of renewable capacity in 2024 led to significant cost savings, avoiding fossil fuel use valued at about US$57 billion. Notably, 91% of new renewable power projects commissioned last year were more cost-effective than any new fossil fuel alternatives.
Renewables are not only cost-competitive vis-a-vis fossil fuels but are advantageous by limiting dependence on international fuel markets and improving energy security. The business case for renewables is now stronger than ever.
While continued cost reductions are expected as technologies mature and supply chains strengthen, short-term challenges remain. Geopolitical shifts including trade tariffs, raw material bottlenecks, and evolving manufacturing dynamics, particularly in China, pose risks that could temporarily raise costs.
Higher costs are likely to persist in Europe and North America, driven by structural challenges such as permitting delays, limited grid capacity, and higher balance-of-system expenses.
In contrast, regions like Asia, Africa, and South America, with stronger learning rates and high renewable potential, could see pronounced cost declines.
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said, 'Clean energy is smart economics – and the world is following the money. Renewables are rising, the fossil fuel age is crumbling, but leaders must unblock barriers, build confidence, and unleash finance and investment. Renewables are lighting the way to a world of affordable, abundant, and secure power for all.'
IRENA Director-General Francesco La Camera added, 'The cost-competitiveness of renewables is today's reality. Looking at all renewables currently in operation, the avoided fossil fuel costs in 2024 reached up to US$ 467 billion. New renewable power outcompetes fossil fuels on cost, offering a clear path to affordable, secure, and sustainable energy. This achievement is the result of years of innovation, policy direction, and growing markets. However, this progress is not guaranteed. Rising geopolitical tensions, trade tariffs, and material supply constraints threaten to slow the momentum and drive-up costs. To safeguard the gains of the energy transition, we must reinforce international cooperation, secure open and resilient supply chains, and create stable policy and investment frameworks—especially in the Global South. The transition to renewables is irreversible, but its pace and fairness depend on the choices we make today.'
IRENA's 2024 report also explores the structural cost drivers and market conditions shaping renewable investment. It concludes that stable and predictable revenue frameworks are essential to reduce investment risk and attract capital.
Mitigating financing risk is central to scaling renewables in both mature and emerging markets. Instruments such as power purchase agreements (PPAs) play a pivotal role in accessing affordable finance, while inconsistent policy environments and opaque procurement processes undermine investor confidence.
Particularly, integration costs are emerging as a new constraint on deployment of renewables. Increasingly, wind and solar projects are delayed due to grid connection bottlenecks, slow permitting and costly local supply chains. This is acute in G20 and emerging markets, where grid investment must keep pace with rising electricity demand and the expansion of renewables.
Furthermore, financing costs remain a decisive factor in determining project viability. In many developing countries of the Global South, high capital costs, influenced by macroeconomic conditions and perceived investment risks, significantly inflate the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) of renewables.
For example, IRENA found that while onshore wind generation costs were similar in Europe and Africa with around US$0.052/kWh in 2024, the cost structures varied significantly. European projects were capital-expenditure driven, while African projects bore a much higher share of financing costs. IRENA's assumed cost of capital ranged from 3.8% in Europe to 12% in Africa, reflecting differing perceived risk profiles.
Finally, technological advances beyond generation are also improving the economics of renewables. The cost of battery energy storage systems (BESS) has declined by 93% since 2010, reaching US$192/kWh for utility-scale systems in 2024. This reduction is attributed to manufacturing scale-up, improved materials and optimised production techniques.
Battery storage, hybrid systems, combining solar, wind and BESS as well as digital technologies are increasingly vital for integrating variable renewable energy.
Artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled digital tools are enhancing asset performance and grid responsiveness. However, digital infrastructure, flexibility, and grid expansion and modernisation remain pressing challenges, including in emerging markets, where the full potential of renewables cannot be realised without further investment.
WAM
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Hamas-bound crypto funds worth $2 million seized by US
About $2 million in cryptocurrency assets intended for Hamas has been seized by the US government, recently unsealed court forfeiture documents from the US Department of Justice have shown. According to court filings, the digital currency was held in Tether and Binance accounts connected through BuyCash, a 'Gaza-based money transfer business' allegedly involved in helping to finance Hamas. 'Terrorist organisations like Hamas and their affiliates rely on shadowy financial networks to fund their deadly operations,' US Attorney General Pam Bondi said. 'By seizing millions in cryptocurrency, the Justice Department is aggressively dismantling the financial infrastructure of terrorism and refusing to allow our digital currency platforms to become safe havens for terrorist financing.' The court filings said a man named Ahmed Alaqad, a partial owner of the BuyCash operation, is also suspected of supporting groups including ISIS and Al Qaeda. Unsealed court documents accuse him of 'materially supporting Hamas' after the group's attack on Israel in October 2023. According to the Department of Justice, the specific method of transferring funds through digital assets is likely to have resulted in Hamas receiving as much as $4 million previously. 'These types of money transfers are a classic money laundering technique, as they intend to disguise the nature, location, ownership and control of the funds being transferred,' the court filings said. Despite growing enthusiasm for crypto, there is still plenty of scepticism. Unlike fiat currencies, crypto mostly lacks an overall regulatory apparatus and is largely decentralised, making it appealing to groups with nefarious intentions. In May, a man in the US was sentenced to more than 30 years in prison after he was found guilty of converting $185,000 to cryptocurrency and transferring it to ISIS. In March, an investigation originating from the FBI's field office in New Mexico led to the seizure of $201,400 in cryptocurrency assets that was intended to finance Hamas.
Zawya
2 hours ago
- Zawya
Sterling stronger, supported by global market optimism
Sterling firmed against the dollar and the euro on Wednesday helped by the optimism across global markets after the U.S. and Japan struck a trade deal which boosted stocks and currencies, such as the pound, which can move with global growth expectations. The pound was last marginally higher against the dollar at $1.3540, its highest in nearly two weeks, and working its way back towards early July's near four-year top of $1.3787. It strengthened more against the euro, which was down 0.24% at 86.62 pence. The big story for markets on Wednesday was a trade deal between the United States and Japan that lowers tariffs on auto imports and spares Tokyo from punishing new levies on other goods in exchange for a $550 billion package of U.S.-bound investment and loans. That boosted stocks globally, and other risk-friendly currencies such as the Australian and New Zealand dollars, as well as the pound. While the pound is still down against both the euro and dollar in July, some analysts see better days for it ahead, as markets look past the volatility in Britain's bond market at the start of the month caused by fiscal concerns, which weighed on the currency. BofA analysts said in a note the third quarter promised to be better for the British economy. "We feel the conditions are now in place for a bounce in GBP through the summer months," they said. "We do not understate the fragile state of UK public finances but continue to be struck by how markets are willing to find the UK guilty of fiscal breaches before being (given) the opportunity of proving innocence." They also flagged that rate differentials were moving in the pound's favour, and that "tariff attrition in other countries will eventually materialise." Thursday's business activity data, and Friday's retail sales data will give the latest indications of the health of the British economy. (Reporting by Alun John Editing by Tomasz Janowski)
Zawya
2 hours ago
- Zawya
Africa's minerals are being bartered for security: why it's a bad idea?
A US-brokered peace deal between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda binds the two African nations to a worrying arrangement: one where a country signs away its mineral resources to a superpower in return for opaque assurances of security. The peace deal, signed in June 2025, aims to end three decades of conflict between the DRC and Rwanda. A key part of the agreement binds both nations to developing a regional economic integration framework. This arrangement would expand cooperation between the two states, the US government and American investors on 'transparent, formalized end-to-end mineral chains'. Despite its immense mineral wealth, the DRC is among the five poorest countries in the world. It has been seeking US investment in its mineral sector. The US has in turn touted a potential multi-billion-dollar investment programme to anchor its mineral supply chains in the traumatised and poor territory. The peace that the June 2025 deal promises, therefore, hinges on chaining mineral supply to the US in exchange for Washington's powerful – but vaguely formulated – military oversight. The peace agreement further establishes a joint oversight committee – with representatives from the African Union, Qatar and the US – to receive complaints and resolve disputes between the DRC and Rwanda. But beyond the joint oversight committee, the peace deal creates no specific security obligations for the US. The relationship between the DRC and Rwanda has been marred by war and tension since the bloody First (1996-1997) and Second (1998-2003) Congo wars. At the heart of much of this conflict is the DRC's mineral wealth. It has fuelled competition, exploitation and armed violence. This latest peace deal introduces a resources-for-security arrangement. Such deals aren't new in Africa. They first emerged in the early 2000s as resources-for-infrastructure transactions. Here, a foreign state would agree to build economic and social infrastructure (roads, ports, airports, hospitals) in an African state. In exchange, it would get a major stake in a government-owned mining company. Or gain preferential access to the host country's minerals. We have studied mineral law and governance in Africa for more than 20 years. The question that emerges now is whether a US-brokered resources-for-security agreement will help the DRC benefit from its resources. Based on our research on mining, development and sustainability, we believe this is unlikely. This is because resources-for-security is the latest version of a resource-bartering approach that China and Russia pioneered in countries such as Angola, the Central African Republic and the DRC. Resource bartering in Africa has eroded the sovereignty and bargaining power of mineral-rich nations such as the DRC and Angola. Further, resources-for-security deals are less transparent and more complicated than prior resource bartering agreements. DRC's security gaps The DRC is endowed with major deposits of critical minerals like cobalt, copper, lithium, manganese and tantalum. These are the building blocks for 21st century technologies: artificial intelligence, electric vehicles, wind energy and military security hardware. Rwanda has less mineral wealth than its neighbour, but is the world's third-largest producer of tantalum, used in electronics, aerospace and medical devices. For almost 30 years, minerals have fuelled conflict and severe violence, especially in eastern DRC. Tungsten, tantalum and gold (referred to as 3TG) finance and drive conflict as government forces and an estimated 130 armed groups vie for control over lucrative mining sites. Several reports and studies have implicated the DRC's neighbours – Rwanda and Uganda – in supporting the illegal extraction of 3TG in this region. The DRC government has failed to extend security over its vast (2.3 million square kilometres) and diverse territory (109 million people, representing 250 ethnic groups). Limited resources, logistical challenges and corruption have weakened its armed forces. This context makes the United States' military backing enormously attractive. But our research shows there are traps. What states risk losing Resources-for-infrastructure and resources-for-security deals generally offer African nations short-term stability, financing or global goodwill. However, the costs are often long-term because of an erosion of sovereign control. Here's how this happens: - certain clauses in such contracts can freeze future regulatory reforms, limiting legislative autonomy - other clauses may lock in low prices for years, leaving resource-selling states unable to benefit when commodity prices surge - arbitration clauses often shift disputes to international forums, bypassing local courts - infrastructure loans are often secured via resource revenues used as loan security. This effectively ringfences exports and undermines sovereign fiscal control. Examples of loss or near-loss of sovereignty from these sorts of deals abound in Africa. For instance, Angola's US$2 billion oil-backed loan from China Eximbank in 2004. This was repayable in monthly deliveries of oil, with revenues directed to Chinese-controlled accounts. The loan's design deprived Angolan authorities of decision-making power over that income stream even before the oil was extracted. These deals also fragment accountability. They often span multiple ministries (such as defence, mining and trade), avoiding robust oversight or accountability. Fragmentation makes resource sectors vulnerable to elite capture. Powerful insiders can manipulate agreements for private gain. In the DRC, this has created a violent kleptocracy, where resource wealth is systematically diverted away from popular benefit. Finally, there is the risk of re-entrenching extractive trauma. Communities displaced for mining and environmental degradation in many countries across Africa illustrate the long-standing harm to livelihoods, health and social cohesion. These are not new problems. But where extraction is tied to security or infrastructure, such damage risks becoming permanent features, not temporary costs. What needs to change Critical minerals are 'critical' because they're hard to mine or substitute. Additionally, their supply chains are strategically vulnerable and politically exposed. Whoever controls these minerals controls the future. Africa must make sure it doesn't trade that future away. In a world being reshaped by global interests in critical minerals, African states must not underestimate the strategic value of their mineral resources. They hold considerable leverage. But leverage only works if it is wielded strategically. This means: - investing in institutional strength and legal capacity to negotiate better deals - demanding local value creation and addition - requiring transparency and parliamentary oversight for minerals-related agreements - refusing deals that bypass human rights, environmental or sovereignty standards. Africa has the resources. It must hold on to the power they wield. All rights reserved. © 2022. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (
