Scenario resolutions provide six key takeaways: 1) in the mid-term geothermal and hydropower remain the most important technologies for a clean power system, 2) in the long-term wind power will overtake hydropower in the energy mix, 3) a 100% renewable power system by 2030 is realistic under all scenarios, 4) a 100% renewable power sector without EE investments at current demand projections will be more expensive, 5) adoption of EE measures significantly reduces overall consumption rates and 6) Under all high renewable scenarios, flexible technologies and technologies with storage become increasingly important to counter the intermittency of renewable resources.
Power Generation
Figure 2 demonstrates the annual power generation for the six scenarios individually. Across all scenarios, 2030 energy mixes show a least-cost future where Kenya’s power sector is either 100%, 99%, or 94% fully renewable (Fig. 3). Despite no fossil fuel constraints, the LCPDP energy mix remains majority renewables from 2022 at 98.6%, until 2040 when CCGT is ramped up and 2050 when SCGT is introduced. Across all but the LCPDP scenario, geothermal comprises the largest, hydropower the second and wind the third main source of power in 2030. Surprisingly, despite the BAU scenario containing no upper constraints on renewable production the energy mixes across all the five other scenarios remain similar, relying on geothermal, hydro, wind, and solar power. Where the four renewable scenarios supplement the remaining generation through biofuels, the BAU scenario relies on small percentages of biofuels, oil fired gas turbines, and combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT).
Interestingly the LCPDP produces a slightly different order in its 2030 generation mix with hydropower producing the most, closely followed by geothermal and wind. Consequently, the scenarios demonstrate how the least-cost resolutions for 2030 under both current and a projected demand increase produce a 94–99% renewable mix, and under a similar energy mix a 100% clean generation can be achieved.
When looking at longer-term projections, the produced energy mixes by 2050 vary greatly depending on the scenario (Fig. 4). The 2050 BAU power mix becomes 18% FF despite geothermal remaining the largest source of power. Similarly, the LCPDP scenario’s FF share increases to 61%, with geothermal production reducing drastically. As a result, despite renewable capital costs decreasing annually, the model still finds FF to be the most cost-efficient solution in the long term. In the generation mixes of both the Vision 2030 and the Vision 2030 & EE scenarios wind power overtakes geothermal to become the primary source of energy, with wind sitting at 39.5 and 40.3% respectively, compared to 35.6 and 38.9% for geothermal. In the LCPDP & Vision 2030 and CET scenarios, geothermal remains the primary resource, with wind and solar overtaking hydropower in relation to percentageshare.
Power Production
Figure 5 compares the total 2050 power production totals across all six scenarios, with Fig. 6 demonstrating the differences across each scenario compared to the BAU. The rapid increase in power generation from the BAU, Vision 2030, and Vision 2030 & EE scenarios to the LCPDP, LCPDP & Vision 2030, and CET scenarios is due primarily to the rise in demand associated with both universal electrification and annual GDP growth. Alongside this, the rise could also be a result of the increased levels of wind and solar power production associated with high renewable energy systems. The intermittent nature of such technologies means a larger amount of power production, with appropriate storage facilities, is needed to account for the hours in the day that solar and wind power cannot be generated.
Despite this, power production decreases 8.2% in 2050 in the CET compared to LCPDP & Vision 2030 with no EE investments. Similarly, production decreases 9.5% in 2050 from the Vision 2030 to the Vision 2030 & EE scenario. EE measures can therefore be used to reduce consumption rates, providing a successful way to manage increasing energy demand. Consequently, the CET and Vision 2030 & EE scenario show how a fully renewable power system can be achieved through primarily geothermal, hydro, and wind power in 2030, altering to geothermal, wind, and solar by 2050. Such generation suggests that geothermal resources provide a stable and reliable source of energy, with the flexibility to meet demand in periods of unreliability and unavailability of intermittent resources (Matek, 2015). However, system flexibility, optimal EE shares, and the associated costs with such variables are not assessed within the scope of this research, providing considerations for further examination.
Total Costs and Capital Investment
Figure 7 exhibits the overall total system costs, and Fig. 8 the variation compared to BAU, for the scenarios. Overall, there is a $74.6 billion difference between the scenarios, and LCPDP & Vision 2030 and CET result in the highest overall system costs. Despite the CETs investments into EE, the LCPDP & Vision 2030 is the cheapest of the two. Regardless, both scenarios are significantly more expensive than the LCPDP with no fossil fuel constraints. At a total system cost of $276.3 billion, the LCPDP is $11.6 and $12.9 billion cheaper than the LCPDP & Vision 2030 and CET respectively. Consequently, the fully renewable increased demand scenarios will see a significant increase in costs. Additionally, the BAU remains the cheapest scenario, reaching a total cost of $214.7 billion, with an additional increase of $9.5 billion to reach a fully renewable system through the Vision 2030. Despite the increased cost of the CET to the LCPDP & Vision 2030, investment into efficiency in the Vision 2030 & EE reduces overall system costs to $221.8 billion, a $2.4 billion saving.
Comparison To Existing Policy
Both the current LCPDP and the modelled scenario identified geothermal power, as the least cost resource to adopt to meet Kenya’s mid-term increased demand. The current LCPDP (Republic of Kenya, 2018b) predicts a 2037 energy mix percentage of 26.7 geothermal, 17.9 hydro, 19.5 coal, 8.6 solar, 8.5 wind and 7.6% natural gas. Results from the LCPDP model in this research varied greatly in 2037, consisting of 34 geothermal, 28 wind, 25.9 hydro, 9.5 solar and 2% natural gas. Consequently, the overall fossil fuel generation mix in 2037 varies from 27.1% in the current plan to just 2% in this research. The current plan does, however, acknowledge the increasing role of wind and solar, also reflected in this research.
Additionally, the current LCPDP provides a mid-term projection of Kenya’s energy sector to 2037, identifying geothermal and hydropower as the two most significant and cost optimal renewable resrouces to meet increased demand. However, through expanding the modelling period, this study’s LCPDP projected energy mix changes significantly post 2037. This study instead finds that a primary reliance on geothermal and hydro power is not a cost-optimal energy mix. Instead, wind power, primarily through onshore wind technologies with storage, is the second most cost-efficient resource from 2037 in all scenarios which meet the 100% renewable 2030 target. Despite hydropower producing a substantial proportion of the generation mix in 2037 at 25.9%, this reduces substantially to just 7% by 2050. The overtaking of wind power, and reduction in hydropower, is seen in all modelled scenarios bar the BAU. As a result, these modelled scenarios highlight the potential for changes in cost-optimal investment choices when looking at a long term as opposed to short- and mid-term period.
Policy Recommendations
The Clean Energy Transition (CET) is a long-term scenario which would allow Kenya to reach climate compatible economic growth alongside SDG 7 and their NDCs, Vision 2030, and LCPDP goals. The implementation of a CET will be extremely valuable through reducing environmental damages, boosting the economy through job creation, lowering power demand, and relieving pressure on energy transmission and distribution (Musah et al., 2021; Okeyo and Ragui, 2017; Zalengera et al., 2020). Onekon and Kipchirchir (2016) highlight how a green economy in Kenya would allow the nation to not only achieve increased GDP but also lower poverty levels and unemployment, creating up to 300,000 jobs across the next five years. Similarly, the IEA (2022) have predicted we could see a 75% increase in electricity demand across Africa by the end of the decade to meet increased electrification and economic production, showing a crucial need to curtail growing demand.
Optimal EE penetration levels can be found through further research to reduce overall system costs. To implement a CET within Kenya seven key policy recommendations should be adopted with immediate effect: (1) No new fossil fuel investments and a cost-optimal phase out to achieve a 100% renewable power system by 2030; (2) Updated LCPDP which integrates and aligns with all other climate and energy targets including Vision 2030 goals; (3) Creation of a long-term power plan which outlines and implements a shift from significant hydropower generation to wind; (4) Penetration of high EE technologies and investments into the power sector; (5) Secure long-term investments in order to ensure a shift in focus to renewable energy and EE; (6) Ensuring a focus in developments and installation of geothermal and renewable energies with storage in order to account for intermittencies; and (7) transmission and distribution grid improvements.
100% Renewable Power Sector
All modelled scenarios show that a high renewable system by 2030 is possible and realistic. Even when no constraints are added, renewable energy technologies within Kenya are cost-optimal, and a 100% renewable power sector should therefore be pursued and integrated into all national energy policy. Renewable technology costs are decreasing with further technology developments and improvements and will continue to in the coming years (IEA, 2022). Thus 100% renewable energy investment and production must be prioritised within energy policy and future power development plans, supported by clear and measurable targets. Such a target should include mandatory 100% clean energy generation from 2030 with a primary baseload consisting primarily of geothermal and hydropower (at a cost optimal rate of 34% and 30%), with a smaller reliance on wind (at a cost optimal rate of 34%, 30% and 12%) with intentions to continue primary geothermal production alongside increased wind and solar, reducing hydropower production in the longer term (at a cost-efficient mix of 39% geothermal, 34% wind and 13% solar).
Updated Least Cost Power Development Plan (LCPDP)
Future LCPDP revisions should prioritise the integration and harmonisation of all existing cross-sector policies and targets, including but not limited to the Vision 2030, SDG 7, and NDCs. The current LCPDP contains no fossil fuel constraints, resulting in a recommendation of increased non-renewable production, including the extraction and production of national coal for the first time in the East African region. This will see a significant increase in emissions, contradicting the targets of SDG 7, Vision 2030, and Kenya’s NDC. Additionally, Kenya’s unique position as a current regional, continental, and international leader in renewable energy production will be lost, with the potential capacity to become a regional exporter of renewable electricity significantly reduced. Additionally, even in the event of political opposition or long-term barriers to the implementation of 100% renewable energy commitments, the least cost solution should be updated to the 98% renewable generation mix as shown in this study. Consequently, this research recommends the LCPDP to be reviewed.
Long-Term Power Plan
Government recommended long-term energy policies would help promote private sector investment into renewable technologies through increasing stakeholder confidence, increasing private sector involvement, and reducing pressure on the Kenyan government to drive the renewable energy transition (Diaz et al., 2017; Kim, 2019). Currently Kenya lacks a long-term nationally integrated renewable energy expansion plan, which severely inhibits the country’s ability to fully realise a CET within its power sectors. By extending the modelling and planning to a longer-term period of 2050, this study finds that the cost-optimal renewable energy resource mix changes post 2037, highlighting the need to look to long-term priorities alongside short and mid-term. Additionally, policy implementations should include compulsory social, economic, and environmental impact assessments, and capacity building programmes should be prioritised to guarantee rural communities benefit from associated job opportunities. Care and consideration should be prioritised when planning solar and wind expansion projects to avoid social harms or negatively impacting citizens residing within affected areas (Njiru and Letema, 2018; Osiolo, 2021).
Energy Efficiency (EE) Integration
The potential, and need for, EE in Kenya’s power sector to meet future demand levels is high. Without EE measures the 7 to 10% increase in demand from a rising GDP would be unrealistic resulting in a minimum $61.6 billion increase in overall system costs, as seen in the LCPDP results. This highlights a crucial need to make EE a national priority if Kenya is to reach climate compatible economic development. Current policies such as the Vision 2030 and LCPDP, which both outline EE as a key component of Kenya’s future power sector, must be brought together to enforce clear and measurable short-, mid- and long-term targets. Furthermore, additional regulation should be adopted which implements minimum energy performance standards for all appliances and technologies nationally, to curtail unnecessary energy losses (Sonnenschein et al., 2019). Further studies should investigate increased EE investments to decipher cost-optimal and realistic integration levels for Kenya’s power sector. As a result, this study recommends further research into EE technologies within Kenya to discover the most realistic and economical percentage of investment needed to reduce total overall system costs.
Secure Long-Term Investments
This research shows how a high renewable system within Kenya by 2030 is realistic and could propel the nation as a regional leader in renewable production through spearheading sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) CETs. However, capital funds and financing such a power sector development remains a key barrier to Kenya’s realisation of such potential. This study recommends the implementation of further policies alongside the CET to aid in nurturing such a development through prioritising and encouraging greater private investment (Schwerhoff and Sy, 2017). Increased private financing can be encouraged within Kenya through the adoption of renewable energy auctions, FITs, renewable energy portfolio standards, and tax exemptions (Atalay et al., 2017; Mabea, 2020). The renewable energy market within Kenya should also be opened to encourage international investment and development in both renewable energy technologies and EE (Mazzucato and Semieniuk, 2018). Additionally, public–private partnerships will become key to overcoming economic and social barriers to renewable expansion across the region (Sergi et al., 2019). Making sure such measures are implemented into written policy and widely enforced will stimulate wider investment. This would lead to increased competition and eventually reduce both electricity and manufacturing costs, helping to address national energy poverty (Moreno et al., 2012).
Overcoming Intermittent technologies
To ensure a stable and secure supply of energy, Kenya should prioritise the overcoming of barriers associated with intermittent renewable energy through primarily relying on geothermal power. This is a controllable technology with the capability to run constantly and ramp up production at any given point to make up for variability of other resources (Matek, 2015). A move to renewable energy technologies with storage, such as onshore wind and solar PV, in the long term should also be prioritised to overcome issues associated with meeting demand when supply is intermittent and unreliable (Kandasamy et al., 2017). Installation costs for such technologies have already fallen rapidly over the last few decades and are expected to fall further in coming years (Child et al., 2018; Suberu et al., 2014). As a result, long-term capacity expansion planning should project a shift in the coming decades to a significant increase in technologies with additional storage capabilities.
Grid Improvements
To optimally meet increased demand, renewable expansion, and EE installation, Kenya’s aging transmission lines and grid require improvements and investments. Increased spending on enhancing Kenya’s transmission and distribution will drastically reduce the current inefficient infrastructure, drastically lowering electricity losses (Surana and Jordaan, 2019). This is crucial for a future power system with a drastic predicted increase in demand. As a result, Kenya should prioritise transmission and distribution enhancement alongside increased production to prevent unnecessary losses through inefficient lines. Further, with the potential to transform into a regional exporter of clean power, a strong grid network with the capacity to interconnect with neighbouring power markets is critical (Remy and Chattopadhyay, 2020). Additionally, energy storage is poised to play an integral role in Kenya’s future power sector and such technologies will require developments and improvements to the grids storage capacity (Kalair et al., 2021). Thus, energy budgets should be fittingly allocated to facilitate future grid and storage development.
Future Research Recommendations
Flexibility is integral to the integration of more renewable energy resources into generation mixes, given the variability and intermittency of renewable technologies (IEA, 2022; Republic of Kenya, 2016b). Further studies should assess flexibility within Kenya’s power sector, using software such as FlexTool to evaluate how realistic the least cost generation mixes are (Makolo et al., 2021). Additionally, the distribution of renewable resources across SSA hold favourable conditions for the success of regional power pools in providing an integrated electricity market and playing a key role in accelerating CETs regionally (McCluskey et al., 2022; Remy and Chattopadhyay, 2020). Future research could examine increased imports and exports for Kenya, assessing the impact this has on power generation and system costs. The scope of this study was confined purely to Kenya’s power sector, there is scope to assess the wider energy sector through examining clean cooking (Clemens et al., 2018) and EV penetration in the transport sector (Bugaje et al., 2021). Finally, agriculture remains Kenya’s biggest economic driver, taking up half of all land allocation. The interaction of increased land intensive renewable technologies such as onshore wind and solar PV farms, compared to alternative renewable resources (Rahman et al., 2022; Sayed et al., 2021), could be assessed through the exploration of CLEWs modelling (Ramos et al., 2021).