Rotem solar 248.88.
(photo credit: AP)
If Israel produces 20 percent of its energy from renewable resources by 2030, it will result in a net benefit of $2.5 billion to $2.9b. over the next 21 years, according to a report released by Greenpeace.
In addition, the alternative energy industry would create 5,500 new jobs, primarily in the North and the South.
Greenpeace commissioned the Eco-Energy Company, run by Dr. Amit Mor, to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the penetration of alternative energy, in conjunction with the formulation of their Renewable Energy Bill.
The private bill sponsored by MKs Nitzan Horowitz (Meretz), Dov Henin (Hadash) and Ophir Paz-Pines (Labor) will be discussed by the Ministerial Committee for Legislation on Sunday. The bill sets a renewable energy goal for every year from now until 2030.
The bill would set goals of 1% of electricity from renewable sources by 2010, 2% by 2013, and an additional 1% every year from 2013 on, reaching 10% by 2020 and 20% by 2030. Recently the cabinet set the 10% by 2020 goal.
Cost per ton of carbon dioxide emitted, savings from reduced gas purchases, savings on transport and distribution, savings on unemployment benefits and new job creation, and the stabilization of energy prices were offset by the costs of constructing alternative energy systems.
Mor and his colleague Shimon Sarusi predicted in the report released last week that most of the renewable energy would be generated from solar energy (both photovoltaic and thermal), some from wind, and a bit from bio-mass.
The two examined three scenarios: 15% of electricity from renewable sources by 2030, 20% by 2030 and 25% by 2030. They recommended that Greenpeace's bill and the country's goals be based on the second scenario.
They warned that in order to meet that 20% goal, the government would have to act immediately and build nearly as many megawatts of renewable energy systems as the Israel Electric Corporation has now from conventional sources. The more pessimistic goal of 15% was reachable with fewer government incentives, but would result in only $2b. in net benefits.
Mor and Sarusi based their assessment of the country's energy needs in 2030 on a 3.5% yearly increase. That number presupposes 1% energy savings each year, which would demand an aggressive savings program by the government.
The 3.5% annual increase would be due in part to the energy costs of running desalination plants; the needs of the electric car network; and rising temperatures as a result of global warming, which would cause more people to use their air conditioners more often, they wrote.