Potential of Renewables in Latin America - Nov 30 - 2009

The Potential of Renewable Energy
Resources for Electricity Generation in

Latin America
November 23, 2009
Alan Douglas Poole
Table of Contents
1. General Considerations...........................................................................................3
Scope....................................................................................................................................... 3
Current contribution of renewables to electricity generation.....................................................4
Dealing with the variability of most renewable energy resources.............................................5
2. Hydroelectric Potential.............................................................................................12
Current hydro use and estimates of potential.........................................................................12
Hydrological diversity in Latin America...................................................................................23
Possible impacts of climate change.......................................................................................28
3. Wind Energy Potential..............................................................................................30
Issues in defining the natural resource potential....................................................................32
Technology and potential.................................................................................................................. 36
The economics of wind energy...............................................................................................38
Observations on regional potential.........................................................................................43
4. Geothermal.................................................................................................................46
5. Biomass - sugarcane residues.................................................................................53
6. Solar Energy...............................................................................................................58
7. Renewable Potentials in the Context of Future Growth........................................64
References......................................................................................................................69
Annexes..........................................................................................................................74
Annex A: Comparison of Estimates of Hydropower Potential in Latin American Countries....74
Annex B-: Wind farms in Latin America..................................................................................76
Annex C: Wind Energy Potentials in Selected Countries........................................................80
Annex D: Observations on Possible Cooperation in Latin America........................................96
1
Glossary of Terms
GW Gigawatt: equal to 1,000,000 kilowatts (kW)

kW Kilowatt: unit of power = 3600 kilojoules/hour (3600 kJ/h) or 3412 Btu/h
kWe & kWth Kilowatt usually refers to electricity but sometimes the subscripts e and th used to distinguish electric
from thermal energy flow
kWh Kilowatt-hour: unit of energy = 1 kW over 1 hour or 3600 kJ
MW Megawatt: equal to 1000 kilowatts (kW)
TWh Terawatt-hour: equal to 1000 Gigawatt-hours (GWh) or 1,000,000 Megawatt-hours (MWh)
2
1. General Considerations
Scope
This report summarizes and discusses current estimates of the potential for electricity
generation from renewable energy resources in Latin America and the Caribbean islands. The
focus is on electricity generation for the grid, not for off-grid rural or small isolated systems.
The report first considers hydro, geothermal and wind energy resources There are big
differences in the state-of-the-art of these estimates.
 Hydro has been developed for years and there are fairly detailed inventories of at least
some of the resource potential in most countries.
 Geothermal is also a resource whose use is well established in a few countries of the
region. However, in general there has been relatively little exploration to dimension new
reserves, even in some countries which have developed this resource to some extent.
 Wind has become prominent much more recently and even now actual production is
very small in the region. Inventories of the potential are incipient and often incomplete.
There are also big differences between countries in their presentation of estimates of these
resources.
All three resources are very site specific. Levelized costs per kWh generated (based primarily
on the cost per kW of capacity and the load factor) can vary enormously from site to site, as can
the environmental impacts. Hence, estimates of theoretical potential which do not refer to cost
(or other constraints) are of very limited practical value. Unfortunately, that is generally the way
estimates of potential are presented, especially for wind, but usually for geothermal and even
hydro.
This report also addresses the potential for electricity generation from solar energy and
biomass, but in less detail at a country or subregional level.
A. Biomass has been used for electricity generation for decades, on a fairly small scale.
Almost all of this electricity generation has been based on the use of residues, whether
they be from agro-industrial processes, forest products or urban waste (solid and liquid).
The potential to increase electricity generation from biomass is a function of:
 Increasing flows of residues;
 Increasing the electricity output per ton of residue with new technology;
 In some cases increasing the share of residues being converted to electricity –
often in cogeneration schemes.
The analysis of these three factors for a multiplicity of residues is quite complex. In most
cases the potential for increasing the electricity generated would be quite modest.
Considering the context and objectives of this report, as well as the limited time
available, attention has been limited to electricity generation from sugarcane residues
(principally bagasse). This is overwhelmingly the largest source of electricity from
biomass in the region.
3
B. The conversion of solar energy to electricity is far more expensive today than any other
renewable energy resource. At the same time, it is much less site specific than the other
renewable resources, though there are large differences between sub-regions of Latin
America in terms of the annual solar insolation, direct versus indirect radiation and the
seasonal variability of solar energy. Thus, defining the potential for solar generation is
predominantly a question of analyzing possible advances in solar conversion technology
rather than an inventory of favorable areas and sites.
The main horizon of the analysis is around 2030. This horizon implies a pre-occupation not only
with the ultimate economically viable potential (in any case a moving target) but with the
possibilities of deployment over the next two decades. On the other hand, the basic information
and analyses needed to form a clear picture of potential in the region are mostly lacking. This
report will comment the quality of the information available, but it can be stated from the outset
that improving access to reliable information on potential will be needed if there is to be any
move to seriously increase the contribution of renewable to the generation mix.
Current contribution of renewables to electricity generation
The contribution of renewables to electricity generation today in Latin America is summarized in

Table 1-1, together with estimated values for individual countries or sub-regions. The overall
share is about 58%, or 59% if biomass is included.1
Table 1-1: Share of renewables in electricity generation in 2007
Country/sub-region Hydro Share Other Renewable a b Total

Argentina 27% 0.1% 27%
Bolivia 41% 0% 41%
Brazil 84% 0.5% 84%
Caribbean (ex-Cuba)b 8% 0% 8%
Central America 45% 9.3% 55%
Chile 39% 0% 39%
Colombia 79% 0.1% 79%
Cuba 1% 0% 1%
Ecuador 52% 0.1% 52%
Guyanas 55% 0% 55%
Mexico 12% 4.0% 16%
Paraguay 100% 0% 100%
Peru 67% 0% 67%
Uruguay 86% 0% 86%
Venezuela 73% 0% 73%
Total LAC 57% 1.2% 58%
a
“Other renewable” includes geothermal, wind and solar energy in the original OLADE database.
b
“Other renewable” excludes biomass since no information on generation by country is available.
The overall contribution in the region is estimated to be 14-16 TWh or 1.2-1.4% of the total
generation of the 1225 TWh. In Brazil the share of biomass would be over 2% and levels close to
this might be found in Central America and Colombia.
c
The Caribbean does have some significant wind power, but it is on islands not included in the
OLADE database. Source: Based on OLADE, 2008.
1
The table does not include values for biomass, since this fuel is not discriminated from fossil fuel
generation in the original source. See the note to Table 1.1.
4
This share of renewables is relatively high by world standards and as a consequence, Latin
America has the lowest carbon emissions of any continental region in the world. The large
contribution of renewables is due overwhelmingly to the high share of hydro.
While no systematic review of past trends has been made, it appears that the share of
renewable has been stable or slighting declining in most countries of the region. The expansion
plans for the power sector – typically for the coming decade – also show little change in the
share of renewable in most countries.
Dealing with the variability of most renewable energy resources
The renewable energy resources, with the exception of geothermal, have energy flows which
vary significantly over time. This variability is a pronounced characteristic of hydro, wind and
solar resources. Biomass supply – especially that of sugarcane residues - is also subject to
variations, but given the fact that biomass is a fuel, the link to power output is less direct.
The issue of the variability of supply has several distinct facets. One set concerns changes in
the average output over different intervals of time, as for example:
 the average output in different seasons;
 the change in output in short intervals, like minutes, hours or days.
To these one adds factors which affect the uncertainty of the supply of the resource:
 The profile of the extent of deviations from the average behavior.
 The ability to forecast future levels of output with horizons of minutes, hours, days or
months of anticipation.
As an illustration, Table 1-2 below briefly compares the variability and uncertainty of hydro and
wind natural power flows, over the different time horizons which are important for power sector
planning and operations.
Table 1-2: Variability and uncertainty of natural energy flows of hydro and wind power
over different time scales at the plant (or “wind farm”) level
Time scale Hydro Wind

Variability Uncertainty Variability Uncertainty
Load regulation Almost none Vanishingly small. Significant oscillations at Relatively small
Seconds to turbine level, smaller at uncertainty, forecasting
minutes “farm” level techniques are improving
Load following Very small variations Vanishingly small. Significant oscillations Relatively small
10s of minutes hour to hour uncertainty, forecasting
to hours techniques are improving
Plant scheduling & Very small except around Very small. Significant oscillations day Medium uncertainty,
Unit Commitment floods to day forecasting techniques are
1 day or more improving
Seasonal Often large variation in Often large (±) deviations Usually large/very large Considerable uncertainty.
1-4 months average seasonal flow. around average seasonal variation in average Need research on
Sometimes very large. variation. With >1 month seasonal flow. deviation around average
large uncertainty. and compare with hydro.
Annual/ Large variations in annual Great uncertainty Annual variation is Probably less than hydro.
Multi year flows. probably smaller than
hydro. Little research.
5
The shorter time scales refer to categories used for the operation of the grid and the dispatch of
generating plants making up the system. These categories are illustrated in Figure 1-1.
Figure 1-1: Time scales for grid operations

Source: EERE/USDOE, 2008
The variability of short term output has always been an obvious challenge facing the growth of
wind and solar energy. It has often been considered a key obstacle to the successful
introduction of large scale generation for the grid.
However, in considering the implications of this variability, it is well to remember that the load
created by consumers is also constantly changing. To understand the impact of, say, a given
capacity of wind energy on the dispatch of the remaining capacity on the grid, one should
subtract the electricity generated by the wind from the load curve, as illustrated in Figure 1-2.
6
Figure 1-2: Hourly load shapes with and without wind generation
From the changes in the load, one can calculate the “ramping” (up or down) required to follow
the load. Figure 1-3 illustrates the impact of wind generation on a generic North American
distributor/operator of the grid, showing the profile of hourly capacity changes in MW required
with and without the wind capacity. This ramping rate is a key factor in determining the reserve
requirements of the grid’s system and the costs of incorporating a variable source like wind.
Figure 1-3: Impact on ramping requirements over 10 minute intervals

Source: Smith, 2009
7
Positive correlation of changes in wind output with those of consumer load can reduce net
ramping with wind, at least on average. What one should look out for in this type of analysis is
"heavy tailed" net ramping distributions which are highlighted in the figure. Strictly speaking,
these should be analyzed in a LOLP-framework (that, is, when a large plant generating plant
has an unexpected forced outage). If wind increases the risk that we may have higher ramping
needs, then the next question becomes how large are our short-term wind and demand
forecasting errors and how are the errors correlated.
Improvements in forecasting 3-24 hours ahead can reduce net ramping requirements, especially
the unforeseen component, which is especially critical.
A big difference between hydro and wind or solar capacity is that hydro generation is often
associated with storage capacity in reservoirs. The existence of reservoir capacity can “smooth
out” river flows and guarantee a “firm” hydro supply (constant supply throughout the year of at
least a given level of kW) which can be substantially higher than the output equivalent to the
lowest river flow. There is no equivalent on-site storage capacity associated with wind. Indeed,
these hydro reservoirs are the closest equivalent that the electricity supply system has to storing
electricity today at anything like economically viable costs. Hydro capacity can be ramped up
very quickly up or down, like the expensive “spinning reserve” in thermal systems. This makes
hydro a good technology for regulation and load following.
While over shorter time scales, wind and solar energy flows are more variable and uncertain
than hydro’s, over longer time scales (seasonal and annual) the variability of wind may well be
smaller than hydro’s. The author has seen no published multiyear analysis comparing the
annual variability of hydro and wind, but apparently the Brazilian energy planning agency EPE
has found that there is less annual variation in wind than in hydro output in that country. There
are hints in this direction from various data series. Consider, for example, Figures 1-4A and 1-
4B which show monthly curves of hydro and wind output over a series of years in Costa Rica.
Figure 1-4A: Monthly hydro output in Costa Rica (1965-2002)
Source: ICE, 2007
8
Figure 1-4B: Monthly plant capacity factors of wind farms in Costa Rica
Source: ICE, 2007
The seasonal and annual dispersion certainly seems greater for hydro than for wind, though the
number of years in the time series for hydro is considerably longer. The issue of the variability
of wind output over longer time periods (months and years) needs more attention, as do
comparisons with hydropower over these timeframes.
The big challenge traditionally facing hydro has been the variation of seasonal and annual flows:
both the averages and especially the deviations – flood years and drought years. Storage has
been one approach to mitigate the impact of this variability on the “firm” supply of power.
Another important approach has to exploit the hydrological diversity of different river basins by
interconnecting them. This strategy, called “hydrological complementation” has long been a key
element of hydropower planning in some countries. When flow is seasonally low in one basin it
may be high in another; or a wet year in one basin may compensate for a dry year in another.
The same logic of complementation applies to wind. Much analysis has shown that increasing
the catchment area smooths out short term fluctuations in output and reduces the range from
minimum to maximum output. Figure 1-5 shows a European example of the effect of expanding
the catchment area on the load duration curve of the wind capacity.
9
Figure 1-5: Load duration curves: single wind farm vs. Nordic average
Most attention has been given to the impact of a larger catchment area on shorter term
variability and the corresponding need for regulatory and load following reserve capacity. The
question of the cost of this reserve has been a priority in the process of accommodating an
increasing role of wind energy in the generation mix.
However, linking large catchment areas in complementation may also open opportunities for
reducing the usually large seasonal variations in wind power generation, in a way more
comparable with hydro complementation strategies. Indeed, one of the most promising forms of
complementation may be between hydro and wind. That means that when wind is higher hydro
may be lower and vice versa. One sees tantalizing examples of this in places as distinct as
Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Canada and Costa Rica (see Figures 1-4A & 1-4B above). This is
a possibility that needs systematic evaluation.2
Complementation is a transmission-intensive strategy which could involve integrating quite

distant regions with backbones of bulk transmission. Hydro has pushed in this direction already
- experience in Brazil and in Central America are examples. Continued development of hydro
will tend to reinforce this, as would the new development of wind energy on a significant scale.
Proposals to dramatically increase wind energy production in the USA point to a new
infrastructure of bulk transmission, serving as a kind of continental interstate and tying together
regions as never done before.
2
Analyses of expanding catchment areas usually stop short at areas too small to capture the full
possibilities of complementation. One reason is that the analysts, in order to be accepted as practical,
tend to accept the basic restrictions of the existing transmission system.
10
In Latin America, where hydro will play a larger role than it ever did in North America, this could
also happen over the next 20 years, even before wind becomes large. Again, Brazil is already
well down this road, as will be discussed in the next section. Such a Latin American bulk
transport system could indeed help pave the way for wind. Unfortunately, a move in this
direction would confront the historic near autarchy of most national electrical grid systems.
Excluding the bi-national plants of Brazil and Argentina with Paraguay – Itaipú and Yaciretá-
trade of energy between countries is still minute. Even in Central America, where there was
much infrastructure and institution-building towards this end, trade decreased from the mid-
1980s.
There is something of a natural fit between hydro and wind, which is why it is important to
evaluate these resources together – something which is not normally done. This is especially
the case in Latin America, since overall there is still large hydro potential to be developed. In
the next two sections on hydro and wind we will return to the issue of variability and how to deal
with it.
11
2. Hydroelectric Potential
Current hydro use and estimates of potential
Hydropower produces almost 57% of the total electricity generated in the overall region of Latin
America (including the Caribbean). This is by far the largest share of supply by hydropower in
any major region of the world.
Of course, the share of hydro varies sharply from country to country and between sub-regions,
as shown in Table 2-1. For example, on the Caribbean islands generally (including Cuba) the
contribution of hydro is quite small. At the other extreme, essentially 100% of Paraguay’s
generation for the grid is hydro. Almost all of this power was generated by the bi-national plant
Itaipú and most of this was exported to Brazil. Because of these massive imports, the effective
share of hydro in Brazil’s matrix is even higher than the 84% output shown in the table.
Table 2-1: Sources of generation in 2007, by country (TWh)

Source: OLADE, 2008
Country Hydro Thermal b Others a Nuclear Total % Hydro

Argentina 31,1 76,9 0,1 7,2 115,2 27,0%
Barbados 0,0 1,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,0%
Bolivia 2,3 3,4 0,0 0,0 5,7 40,5%
Brazil c 374,4 58,8 2,1 12,3 447,6 83,7%
Chile 22,8 35,7 0,0 0,0 58,5 39,0%
Colombia 43,0 11,5 0,1 0,0 54,6 78,9%
Costa Rica 6,8 0,7 1,6 0,0 9,1 74,5%
Cuba 0,1 17,5 0,0 0,0 17,6 0,7%
Ecuador 9,0 8,3 0,0 0,0 17,3 52,1%
El Salvador 1,7 2,7 1,4 0,0 5,8 29,9%
Grenada 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0%
Guatemala 3,0 5,5 0,3 0,0 8,7 34,5%
Guyana 0,0 0,9 0,0 0,0 0,9 0,0%
Haiti 0,5 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,6 84,2%
Honduras 2,3 3,8 0,2 0,0 6,3 36,5%
Jamaica 0,2 7,3 0,0 0,0 7,5 2,3%
Mexico 27,0 185,8 9,3 10,4 232,5 11,6%
Nicaragua 0,3 2,7 0,2 0,0 3,2 9,7%
Panama 3,9 2,6 0,0 0,0 6,5 59,8%
Paraguay 53,7 0,0 0,0 0,0 53,7 100,0%
Peru 20,0 9,9 0,0 0,0 29,9 66,9%
Rep Dominicana 1,7 13,2 0,0 0,0 14,8 11,3%
Surinam 1,4 0,3 0,0 0,0 1,6 84,0%
Trinidad & Tobago 0,1 6,8 0,0 0,0 6,9 1,4%
Uruguay 8,1 1,4 0,0 0,0 9,4 85,6%
Venezuela 80,8 29,3 0,0 0,0 110,1 73,4%
Total 694,2 486,0 15,2 30,0 1225,3 56,7%
Subregions
Central America 18,0 17,9 3,7 0,0 39,6 45,4%
Caribbean ex-Cuba 2,4 28,5 0,0 0,0 30,9 7,9%
a
“Others” includes geothermal, wind and solar. b Thermal includes biomass-fueled thermal plants.
c
Brazilian hydro output does not include imports of about 38 TWh from the bi-national Itaipú plant.
12
Not only does hydropower provide a large share of Latin America’s electricity today, the
remaining potential which can be developed in the region is large. The question is how large.
In this paper the focus is on conventional hydro. Hydrokinetic resources (including wave energy
and tidal energy) are not included. It is expected that their overall contribution within the report’s
timeframe of 20-25 years would be small, though there may be interesting specific opportunities.
As with other energy resources, there are several progressively more restrictive definitions of
hydropower potential. The broadest category is the gross hydropower potential, which is
defined as the annual energy that would be potentially available if all natural runoff at all
locations were to be harnessed down to sea level (or to the border line of a country) without any
energy losses.
The share of this highly theoretical potential which has been or could be developed under
current technology, regardless of economic and other restrictions, forms the technical
hydropower potential. From this, the economic hydropower potential is the portion, which can or
has been developed at costs competitive with other energy sources. Finally, the exploitable
hydropower potential takes into account environmental or other special restrictions.
As with other energy forms, the cost of preparing credible estimates increases as one goes from
the broader to the more restrictive definitions of potential (e.g. from “theoretical resources” to
“exploitable reserves”). Not surprisingly, the best (i.e. most precise and restrictive) estimates of
potential are available in regions which have developed a larger share of their potential – which
also happen to be the richer countries. This is unfortunate, since, from the perspective of
energy strategy the regions which are of most interest are those whose potential has been less
developed.
Although hydropower is a mature energy technology, there are large differences between
estimates of potential, even at the level of gross theoretical and technical potential for the world.
Consider the two estimates of world potential in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2: Examples of global estimates of hydropower potential (TWh/year)
Category of Potential Eurelectric, 1997 Hydropower & Dams Atlas, 2000 a

Gross potential 51,000 40,500
Technical potential 14,300
Economic potential 13,100 8,100 b
Exploitable potential 10,500 8,100 b
a
Survey in the 1999 edition of the International Journal of Hydropower & Dams World Atlas &
Industry Guide, as cited in IHA, 2000.
b
Although the Hydropower & Dams Atlas source refers to “Economic Potential”, it treats it as
essentially equivalent “Exploitable Potential”
By way of comparison, current world hydropower production is approximately 3000 TWh per
year – a value which should be subtracted from those shown above in order to estimate
remaining potential.
The differences between published estimates can be even larger at the regional level. This is
illustrated in Table 2-3, where the differences are especially marked for Africa and the former
Soviet Union. Over a decade, the former increased (though information is especially precarious
13
in this continent) while the region of the former Soviet Union experienced a huge drop in
expected potential.
Table 2-3: Comparison of estimates of regional potential (TWh/year)
Region A B
IWP&D, 1989 Eurelectric, 1997
Technical Potential Economic Potential
Africa 1,150 2,500
North America (USA & Canada) 970 970
Latin America 3,540 3,530
Europe 1.070 869
Former Soviet Union/CIS 3.830 1,094
China 1.920 1,260
Rest-of-Asia 2.410 2,677
Australasia/Oceania 200 200
World 15,090 13,100
Note that in column A the estimate is for “technical” potential while that in column B is
supposedly for “economic” potential. This does not invalidate the comparison, since we are
interested in perceived regional shares and overall movement of estimates. It makes the
absolute increase in Africa even more impressive. Indeed, it is not clear just how different the
criteria are. Note that the values for both Latin America and North America are precisely the
same in both columns.
Another set of regional estimates is shown in Table 2-4. These are shown separately because
the regional breakdown is different in Eurasia and in the Americas. This breakdown includes
estimates for both the “technical” and the “exploitable” potential. The values for “technical”
potential are roughly intermediate to those in columns A and B in Table 2-3 above. Note that
the value for the Americas is very close to that shown in Table 2-3 (4325 TWh versus 4500
TWh). In all cases, the potential of Latin America is estimated to be substantially larger than
that of North America (defined as only the USA & Canada).
Table 2-4: A regional breakdown of technical and exploitable potentials (TWh/year)
Region Technical Potential Exploitable Potential a

Africa 1,750 1,000
Asia 6,800 3,600
Europe (incl part of former USSR) 1,325 850
North & Central America 1,660 1,000
South America 2,665 1,600
Americas 4,325 2,600
World 14,300 8,100
Source: International Journal of Hydropower & Dams World Atlas & Industry Guide, 1999 as cited
in IHA, 2000.
a
Although formally referred to as “economic” potential, in the text was treated more as an
“exploitable” potential.
As one of the reports makes very clear (Eurelectric, 1997), the information available to make
these estimates is fragmentary and often very preliminary.
The parameter used to describe the potential in these tables is the electricity generated per year
(say, MWh or TWh) rather than capacity (kW or MW). Annual output rather than capacity is
14
preferable as a parameter for general analysis of potential and is generally estimated first. The
analysis to estimate capacity (kW) is more complex. Besides the energy in the natural river
flows, the design capacity will depend heavily on the power system into which the new hydro
plants will be inserted, storage capacity in the system, etc. The capacity factors of hydro plants
vary widely and they can be “super-turbinized” years after they began operation. Nevertheless,
the public and policy makers seem to be more familiar with kWs than MWhs. Analyses of
potential in Latin America are often presented only in terms of capacity, as will be seen below.
Turning now to focus on Latin America, Table 2-5 shows estimates of the hydro potential in the
countries of the region and compares it with the hydro capacity existing in 2007. It is based on
the summary published by OLADE, a key source for regional energy statistics. Adjustments
were made in the cases of Brazil and Argentina.
Table 2-5: Hydro Potential Compared with Hydro Generation in 2007, by Country
Source: OLADE, 2008 (except Argentina and Brazil – see notes to table)
Country Existing Hydro Total Potential Existing/Potential

Capacity Output Capacity Output Capacity Output
GW TWh GW TWh % %
Argentina a 9,94 31,06 40,40 130,00 25% 24%
Bolivia 0,49 2,32 1,38 4,81 35% 48%
Brazil b 76,94 374,38 251,49 1.213,00 31% 31%
Chile 5,37 22,80 25,16 26,56 21% 86%
Colombia 8,53 43,02 96,00 420,48 9% 10%
Costa Rica 1,41 6,77 6,41 28,08 22% 24%
Cuba 0,04 0,12 0,65 1,30 6% 9%
Ecuador 2,06 9,04 23,75 96,77 9% 9%
El Salvador 0,47 1,74 2,17 9,48 22% 18%
Guatemala 0,78 3,01 4,10 15,21 19% 20%
Guyana 0 0 7,60 19,64 0% 0%
Haiti 0,06 0,48 0,17 0,50 36% 97%
Honduras 0,50 2,30 5,00 21,90 10% 11%
Jamaica 0,02 0,17 0,02 0,11 90% 162%
Mexico 11,34 27,04 53,00 232,14 21% 12%
Nicaragua 0,10 0,31 1,77 7,74 6% 4%
Panama 0,85 3,87 3,28 14,38 26% 27%
Paraguay 8,13 53,71 12,52 54,82 65% 98%
Peru 3,23 20,03 58,94 385,12 5% 5%
Rep Dominicana 0,47 1,68 2,01 8,80 23% 19%
Surinam 0,19 1,36 2,42 10,60 8% 13%
Trinidad & Tobago 0 0 0 0 0 0
Uruguay 1,54 8,07 1,82 7,95 85% 102%
Venezuela 14,60 80,81 46,00 201,48 32% 40%
Total 147 694 646 2.911 23% 24%
Subregions
Central America 4,1 18,0 22,7 96,8 18% 19%
Caribbean ex-Cuba 0,6 2,4 2,2 9,4 25% 26%
a
In OLADE, 2008, potential Argentine output was cited as being 354 TWh – which would imply a 100%
capacity factor for the estimated potential capacity. In Devoto (no date), a source from the Argentine
power sector regulator estimates the technical potential to be 40 GW and 130 TWh
b
Value for Brazilian potential output (in TWh) derived from the Balanço Energético Nacional for 2008.
The value in OLADE, 2008 was 1490 TWh. Value for potential capacity (GW) from EPE, 2007 & 2007b.
15
Taken at face value, Table 2-5 suggests that the remaining potential is more than 2200 TWh, or
more than 3 times the output of existing hydro capacity in the region. This value is also as
large, or larger, than all the electricity growth forecast for the region over the next 20-25 years
(though of course there are huge differences between individual countries).
However, this series of estimates of potential published by OLADE has serious limitations as a
guide for estimating the future contribution of hydro to system expansion. There are no
explanations beyond the “headline values”. While it appears that the parameter is “total
potential” (which includes capacity that has already been developed) and not “remaining
potential”, this is not made clear. There are several countries in the table where the existing
hydro capacity already exceeds or is close to 100% of potential (eg Uruguay). Is this due to
very complete development of hydro resources in that country or to an incongruence of
definitions – that is, may the country be reporting remaining potential instead of total potential?
In addition, in a few countries there are large “asymmetries” between estimates of potential
capacity compared with estimates of output. Take the case of Chile. According to Table 2-5,
only 21% of the total potential capacity (GW) has been developed, compared to 86% of the
potential output (TWh). This implies that the remaining hydro resource would have a very low
capacity factor (~2%), which is odd.
Beyond these possible mistakes or inconsistencies (examples have been signaled with red
numbers in the table), there may be important differences between countries in the definition of
what is “potential”. First, there is the minimum hydro plant size considered. In the case of
Colombia it is 100 MW. In Brazil it is 30 MW. Some other countries set much lower limits.
A larger doubt surrounds the restrictiveness of the definition of potential; is it “technical”,

“economic”, or “exploitable” potential? Overall, the OLADE values for the region approximate
the estimates of “technical” potential shown in Tables 2-3 and 2-4 above (see Annex A, which
also shows a comparative country by country breakdown). However, it is possible that in some
countries the definition is considerably more restrictive than in others. Under a more restrictive
definition (such as “exploitable” versus “technical”) a larger share of the nominal potential could
really be developed.
Consider, for example, the hydro potential of Mexico. In Table 2.5 is estimated to be about 53
GW and 232 TWh. So far about 21% of the capacity (11 GW) and only 12% of the potential
output (27 TWh) have been developed, while hydro supplies less than 12% of the country’s
generation. Planned expansion is nevertheless quite modest over the coming decade: 8.4 GW
and 19.8 TWh (SENER, 2008). At this rate, one wonders whether Mexico will ever attain even a
modest 40% of the claimed potential, especially in terms of output (TWh). Interestingly, the
technical potential cited in Annex A is substantially lower than that in Table 2.5 (160 versus 232
TWh)
By comparison, a larger share of Central America’s nominal potential (~23 GW and 97 TWh)
seems likely to be eventually developed. A recent review by the World Bank with ESMAP
estimates about 24 GW of “usable” capacity (WB/ESMAP, 2009). This is contrasted with gross
potential in two countries:
 Costa Rica – Gross potential is 25.5 GW. “Usable” is 6.6 GW, of which 2.8 GW are in
National Parks and Indian Reserves
 Guatemala – Gross potential is 10.9 GW. “Usable” is 5.8 GW.
In the case of Panama the value published by OLADE (3.3 GW & 14 TWh) is broadly
corrobated as an “exploitable” potential by a recent source from that country – with 3.7 GW
16
divided between 1.5 GW in the process of licencing and 1.3 GW in the inventory which are open
for development (ETESA, 2007).
Another point to be aware of is that the evaluation of the hydro resource is carried out at
different levels of thoroughness and there may be big differences in how far different countries
have advanced in the evaluation process.
The most precise and reliable estimates are from detailed engineering designs for construction
and from feasibility and pre-feasibility studies. Proper “inventory” evaluation also is based on
substantial information about geology, environmental conditions, etc derived from
measurements at the site (the methodology varies from country to country).
Much less reliable are studies of preliminary identification and reconnaissance. These are
based on secondary information with a minimum of field measurements beyond a few stations
to obtain river flow data. These “identification” studies may be for individualized sites, or more
rudimentarily without specification of sites.
Feasibility studies are quite expensive and even an evaluation at the “inventory” level
represents a significant outlay and years of data collection and measurements for a larger river
basin. Few, if any, countries in the region have fully inventoried all their river basins.
Consider the case of Brazil. It is important not only because it has about 40% of the region’s
hydro potential and generates more than half the region’s hydropower today. There is also a
more substantial literature available than for most countries. Table 2-6 summarizes the status
of evaluation of the remaining hydro resources in Brazil, as well as in the Brazilian part of the
basin of the Amazon River where a large share of the remaining potential is found.
Table 2-6: Levels of evaluation of the remaining hydro resource in Brazil in 2009
(excludes plants under construction)
Level of Evaluation Brazil Of which, in Amazon Basin *

MW Share MW Share
Reconnaissance: basin 26.539 16,6% 17.919 20,4%
Reconnaissance: individual plant 31.592 19,8% 24.773 28,1%
Inventory 61.136 38,2% 25.707 29,2%
Feasibility 27.709 17,3% 11.988 13,6%
Executive project (detailed design) 12.945 8,1% 7.643 8,7%
Total remaining potential 159.921 100% 88.030 100%
Source: SIPOT, 2009 – Sistema de Informações do Potencial Hidrelétrico Brasileiro (Information System
on Brazil’s Hydroelectric Potential, operated by Eletrobrás). The values shown here are somewhat
different than those in the Plano Nacional de Energia – 2030 (EPE, 2007/2007b) which is the basic
reference for Brazil in this section. In principle, the SIPOT values are more recent. The biggest
difference is that the category “Reconnaissance: basin” was reduced by about 10,000 MW, contributing to
most of the reduction in the estimated resource.
* Includes the tributaries: Tapajós, Madeira, Xingú, Negro, Trombetas, Jarí and other smaller rivers.
A large amount of the remaining nominal potential has still only been evaluated in a relatively
superficial way, especially in the Amazon basin.
Colombia and Peru, the countries with the second and third largest potential in the region, seem
to be less advanced in the assessment of their resources, though there are differences in
17
terminology which complicates comparisons. In Colombia, out of a remaining total of 87 GW
(Colombia UPME, 2008):
 In reconnaissance: 63 GW (72%)
 Prefeasibility study: 7 GW (8%)
 Feasibility study: 12 GW (14%)
 Detailed design: 5 GW (6%)
In Peru, out of a remaining potential of about 56 GW, only 35% (19.7 GW) appear to have been
defined at the level of individual plants, as shown in the breakdown below (Peru MEM, 2008):
MW
Plants with concession granted 1299
Plants under study (temporary concession) 5519
Plants without concession 1141
Potential for interconnection with Brazil or other countries 11,735
Total 19,693
It is not surprising that these countries appear to have large amounts of relatively unstudied
hydro potential. Colombia has developed only 9% of its potential, Peru only 5%. From a
national planning perspective, why spend scarce resources on defining plants that may only be
constructed decades hence?
The degree of evaluation achieved varies from country to country. The information so far
available to the author on resource assessments which have been prepared is somewhat
limited, but it can be said that not enough is known about a large partare of the potential in the
region to judge whether it should or should not ever be built. Simply studying a site is far from
being a guarantee that it will be viable, but it cannot possibly be viable without prior evaluation.
Thus there is great uncertainty about the size of the ultimately viable potential of hydro.
However, it is clear that the remaining potential in the region which can ever realistically be
developed will be significantly less than the nominal value shown in Table 2-5. Within the
timeframe of 20-25 years the feasible limit is still less, although the predominant part of the
remaining viable potential will probably be developed within this period.
The question is, “what share of the nominal potential might be achieved?” The best one can do
now is propose a range of values based on some analogies and show the implications.
As an upper value, we take the hypothesis of Brazilian planners that 70% of the inventoried
potential could be susceptible to development (though not necessarily by 2030). In the highly
developed Paraná basin, this level of development has already almost been achieved and some
other basins are also approaching this level.
International comparisons with more developed regions of the world are popular for justifying
the choice of a future level of exploitation. Such comparisons are of limited value. First it takes
a huge leap of faith to extrapolate results between regions with very different geography.
Ambiguity is added by the precarious nature of many estimates and difficulties in assuring
consistency, so that we are comparing like with like. For example, the fact that Western Europe
18
has achieved 70% of its “economic” potential 3 is hardly an argument that Latin America can
achieve 70% of its “technical” potential.4
Returning to Brazil itself, achieving the development of 70% of the potential may be harder to
achieve in the Amazon region than elsewhere in the country. Not only is there the complication
that a large share of capacity will be within restricted areas such as national parks and
indigenous reserves. Many potential sites are just not that good: heads are low, flooded areas
are large relative to output (and would cover dense forest), extensive dikes may be required. As
an illustration, consider the potential of the sub-basin of the Xingú river, a tributary of the
Amazon (see Box). Given the large share of Brazil’s remaining potential which is in Amazonia,
a significant shortfall in that basin would depress the national average.
Figure 2-1 shows an estimate of the cost per kW of the remaining potential in Brazil versus new
capacity, with variations of ±10% in unit cost.
Figure 2-1: Estimate of the cost of remaining hydropower potential in Brazil

(Baseline and ± 10% sensitivity)
Source: EPE, 2007b

Note: Cost is in US$ of 2005. Interest during construction and the cost of connecting to the
national grid are not included
3
The calculation of “economic” potential – about 580 TWh - is from Eurelectric,1997. In this case the
value seems to be truly an estimate of “economic” and not “technical” potential. An example of a
“technical” potential for Western Europe is 910 TWh (IWP&D, 1989).
4
In the case of North America (USA & Canada only) – with a hydro output of 640 TWh in 2005 – 66% of
the technical potential has been already been developed using Table 2-3 as a reference. However, more
recent analyses in Canada (CHA, 2007) suggest that the technical potential in that country is rather larger
than implied by the table, so that the regional total would increase to something on the order of 1100
TWh, with a correspondingly lower percentage level of development achieved until now.
19
This figure suggests that, assuming a limit of $ 1800/kW on the baseline cost curve, about 77
GW could be built. According to the source this would be equivalent to about 31% of the total
potential – raising the total developed to slightly over 60%. An $ 1800/kW limit is somewhat
arbitrary, but beyond this capacity the curve shows fairly sharply rising costs. Also,
environmental limits, such as those illustrated in the example of the Xingú, are not included.
The Xingú River and the Varying Quality of Potential Sites
The first large dam planned for the Xingú is Belo Monte. This will be a run-of-river project with a very
small reservoir relative to its output of 11,233 MW. The dam lies near the Transamazon highway in an
already settled region. This hydro plant has a certain elegance and will certainly be built.
However, the possibilities upstream are much less attractive. The table below summarizes some
parameters of dams proposed in the inventory performed in the 1980s in preparation for a major building
campaign which was then being planned (Poole, 2005). The upstream dams, between them, would have
roughly the same capacity as Belo Monte, but inundate an area more than 30 times larger.
Characteristics of Planned Hydro Plants on the Xingú River
Hydro Plant Capacity Reservoir Area & Ratios Useful Approx

Volume Head
(MW) (km2) (kW /ha) (109 m3) (m)
Belo Monte (Kararaô) 11233 516 217,7 1.2 88
Altamira (Babaquara) 5750 1 6140 9,4 97.0 68
Ipixuna 1900 3270 5,8 22.4 43
Kokraimoro 1490 1770 8,4 18.4 49
Jarina 620 1900 3,3 12.4 24
Iriri 770 4060 1,9 31.0 40
Total Xingu River 22,082 17,656 12,5 182.4 xxxx
Total w/o Belo Monte 10,530 17,140 6,1 181,2 xxxx
Sources: Belo Monte from EPE, 2009b. Other plants upstream based on CNEC, 1980 and Eletrobrás,
1993. Except for Belo Monte these are all very preliminary estimates and are subject to change.
1
Another value cited for Altamira/Babaquara is 6590 MW.
Although this set of estimates is relatively old, no new full inventory of the sub-basin appears to have
been prepared. The current estimate of potential (22.7 GW) is close to that shown in the table.
Unfortunately, though the National Energy Plan for 2030 (EPE, 2007b) has a volume dedicated to
hydropower, there are no estimates of the inundated areas, either for individual plants or for scenarios of
development of basins.
Times have changed since the mid-1980s. Power sector planners in Brazil today place less emphasis on
building storage reservoirs than they did 30 years ago. The technology of and experience with low-head
turbines has improved. New configurations for dams are thus likely to be closer to run-of-river. A larger
number of smaller candidate sites might well be developed with smaller reservoirs.
Nevertheless, to go from half of the river’s hydro potential to 70% will clearly be a challenge, especially
given the goal of reducing deforestation and the issues surrounding indigenous reserves. This may be an
example of how the work of resource assessment is cumulative and can evolve due both to improved
information about potential sites and to changing guidelines for planning system expansion.
20
Figure 2-1 only includes the potential which has been inventoried. There is a sizeable amount
of additional potential which has been subject only to preliminary reconnaissance which could
add to the ultimately exploitable resource at a given ceiling in $/kW (“move the curve to the
right” as it were). However, much of this potential may not be very attractive.
Given all the uncertainties in a relatively well studied country like Brazil and considering the
even greater uncertainties at the level of Latin America as a whole, the use of a range of values
is clearly indicated.
For illustrative purposes, this report assumes a minimum of 50% development of the potential in
Table 2-5 and a maximum of 70% for Latin America as a whole. Appropriate ranges for
individual countries will be different and are not discussed here. Within this range, the remaining
potential would be:
 50% development - 802 TWh
These values can be compared with hydro output in 2007, which was 646 TWh. This potential
does not cover the category of small hydro in many of the countries, though definitions differ.
The inclusion of small hydro is unlikely to increase the overall values by more than about 5%.5
It is important to distinguish between ultimate development and that which would be feasible in
a 20-25 year period. Even the lowest scenario (50% of potential) would represent more than
doubling pre-existing capacity which was built over a period of 50+ years. A factor to consider
is that more than half of the potential outside of Brazil is in countries which today use 10% or
less of their resource (Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and the Guyanas). The internal markets alone
of these countries would be unable to absorb half of their potential within 20-25 years.
A climate change mitigation strategy seeking to minimize costs would seek to maximize the rate
of development of viable hydro capacity as fast as possible at a regional level. An implication of
this would be dramatically increased exchange and export of power, even before considering
the benefits of linking together river basins with diverse hydrology – which will be discussed
below.
The existing level of information regarding the characteristics of undeveloped hydro potential in
Latin America is unsatisfactory. Various difficulties have been described in this section. It is
strongly recommended that international entities interested in climate change mitigation support
a systematic review of hydroelectric potentials in the region, taking into account environmental
and social indicators as well as economic costs. This review should support the acquisition of
new data in surveys, as well as bringing together existing resource assessments.
The development of hydroelectric power is the foundation for any energy strategy to reduce
growth in greenhouse gases from electricity generation. It is crucial that policy makers have a
clear idea of the real opportunities, costs and trade-offs for hydro development in the region.
Some economic and social criteria are summarized in the Box below. To these indicators
should be added more information about the storage capabilities of proposed hydro plants (and
of the existing systems). The energy storage capacity of hydro reservoirs has always been a
5
For example, in Brazil, small hydro (> 30 MW) technical potential was estimated to be about 17.5 GW
(EPE, 2007), which can be compared with 252 GW in Table 2.5 (usually with a somewhat higher capacity
factor).
21
crucial parameter for the design and operation of hydro systems. In the future it will be more
important yet. Dams with large useful storage play a much more important role in the operation
of a hydro system than their generation capacity alone suggests, especially if they are at the top
of a cascade of hydro plants (the classic example in Latin America is the Furnas hydro plant in
Brazil, located at the top of a cascade of hydro plants).
Key Indicators of Likely Environmental Impacts

Source: Ledec
• Reservoir Surface Area (hectares): A large reservoir area implies much loss of natural habitats
and wildlife, or displacement of many people, or both. Hectares (ha)/MW is a useful measure.
Typically a good dam site would have <25 ha/MW and a bad site >50.
• Water Retention Time (days): Used to predict water quality problems; the shorter the better.
• Biomass Flooded (tons/ha): Minimize flooding of forests to improve water quality, conserve
biodiversity, reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
• Length of River Impounded (km): Minimize the length, for aquatic and riparian biodiversity.
• Length of River Left Dry (km): Minimize for fish and other aquatic life below the dam, riparian
ecosystems, human water uses.
• Downstream Tributaries (major, un-dammed) (#): The more, the better, for migratory fish, natural
flooding regime, and estuaries.
• Inter-basin Transfers (#): One or more could spread invasive species and threaten aquatic
biodiversity.
• Likelihood of Reservoir Stratification (Densimetric Froude Number, derived from reservoir length,
depth, flow, and volume): When >1, stratification and anaerobic conditions are avoided.
• Useful Reservoir Life (years): Sustainability of power generation.
• Access Roads through Forest (km): Minimize where deforestation risks are high.
Key indicators of impacts for which extra data are required.

• Persons Requiring Resettlement (#): Diverse social impacts, disruption of livelihoods; also
environmental impacts of resettlement.
• Critical Natural Habitats Affected (#, ha): Avoid or minimize damage to protected areas, other
sites of high conservation value.
• Conservation Win-Win Opportunities (yes/no): Possible--when seriously promoted-- through
creation/strengthening of compensatory protected area(s), payment into a protected area fund, or
environmental service payments to landholders.
• Migratory Fish Species (#): The more migratory species, the greater the potential disruption from
the dam.
• Endemic Aquatic Species (#): Sites with lower endemism (species found nowhere else) have
reduced conservation risks.
• Cultural Property Affected (# and type): Avoid or minimize flooding important archaeological,
historical, paleontological, or sacred sites.
These indicators can be used to screen individual project proposals or to rank different project sites.
Despite the importance of storage, information about available reservoir storage capacity is very
hard to come by, whether for existing or future plants. In looking at future project possibilities,
reservoirs with useful storage tend to have more environmental difficulties than run-of-river
plants of the same size (though obviously this depends hugely on the sites in question). If there
is not a clear framework of information regarding the benefits of this storage capability there will
be an asymmetric analysis of the costs and benefits of such plants.
22
One point that emerges from this preliminary review is that, looking ahead to 2030, it will be
probably be very difficult for Latin America to maintain its current ~60% renewable mix in
generation without a substantial increase in the use of renewable resources besides hydro
power, compared to current levels. This point will be discussed in Section 7, when we will
return to look at the scenarios of hydro development in the context of a wider strategy to
maintain or enhance renewables’ contribution to electricity generation in Latin America.
Hydrological diversity in Latin America
As observed earlier, hydropower is subject to variations in natural river flows. The fluctuations
from dry to wet season or dry years to wet years can be large. One way to compensate for
these variations is build storage reservoirs. However, adequate sites for storage reservoirs are
limited.
Another approach is to exploit the diversity of the patterns of flow in different river basins. This
strategy – called complementation – was introduced in general terms in Section 1, since it is
relevant for most renewable resources.
Figures 2-2 and 2-3 show the big differences in the seasonality of natural flows of a selection of
rivers in Latin America. These graphs also show how large the mean seasonal variation can be.
 The regime of the Uruguay river is typical of Southern Brazil, Uruguay and parts of
Argentina.
 The Paraná River is typical of Brazil’s southeast and mid-west, where there is the
greatest concentration of hydro plants in that country.
 The Xingú River is an Eastern tributary of the Amazon.
 The Caroni River is a tributary of the Orinoco
 The Madeira is in the southwest of the Amazon basin and is fed by run-off from Bolivia
and Peru (including the Andes) as well as Brazil.
 The Magdalena River is in Colombia.
 Fortuna and Chixoy are important hydro plants in Panama and Guatemala respectively.
Map 2-1 shows the seasonality of river flows in South America in a more general manner. It
shows the three months of maximum flow and the % of annual flow which occurs in these
moths. In large areas of the Brazilian Amazon, Bolivia and Peru more than 60% of the run-off
occurs in the 3 months of peak flow, as exemplified in Figure 2-2 by the Xingú River. Other
regimes are less extreme, but still show a high concentration in the months of maximum flow
(Madeira, Caroni, Chixoy, Paraná).
Another aspect of variability is the changes in average annual flows. The history of six of the
rivers is illustrated in Figure 2-4. In most river basins fluctuations of ±25% are common, though
in some ±50% is commonly reached (Uruguay River).
23
Figure 2-2: Variation in average seasonal river flow (% long term mean flow)
Sources: ONS, 2001; OLADE
Figure 2-3: Variations in average seasonal river flow (% long term mean flow)
24
Map 2-1: Three month periods of maximum river flow and their share of annual runoff in
South America
Source: Moreira & Poole, 1993
25
Figure 2-4: Variations in annual river flow (% long term mean flow)
Linking basins with diverse hydrology can increase the “firm energy” which can be obtained
from each. Brazil has long exploited the substantial diversity between rivers in the far south
(such as the Uruguay) and the southeast/mid west (Paraná), as well as lesser differences in
hydrology in the northeaster and Amazon regions. As a consequence, Brazil may have the
most tightly integrated grid at a semi-continental scale in the world. Superimposed on a map of
Europe, Brazil’s grid extends from Lisbon almost to Moscow (see Map 2-2).
26
Map 2-2: Brazil’s electricity grid superimposed on a map of Europe
The existing interconnections between countries in Central America are also justifiable in part
because of the significant diversity which exists within a relatively small area (compare the sites
in Panama and Guatemala, for example).
Substantial opportunities exist to exploit hydrological diversity in Latin America. An interesting

example is the proposed intertie between Colombia and Central America.
Perhaps the most important possibility arises from the fact that the Equator runs through South
America. As one goes from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere the
seasonality of rains is inverted (just as summer and winter are at higher latitudes). As
consequence the Xingú, the Paraná and the Madeira (Southern Hemisphere) peak in January-
April, which is the dry season on the Caroni (Northern Hemisphere). The Northern Hemisphere
tropical rivers tend to be high when the Southern Hemisphere equivalents are low.
As Brazil develops its potential in the Amazon, beginning with plants on the Madeira and the
Xingú (Belo Monte) and new capacity is developed in the Andean countries, the possibilities for
an “inter-hemispheric interconnection” become more realistic (Poole, 2005).
Interconnections linking the major complexes of hydro in basins throughout much of Latin
America could be a major factor allowing for more rapid development of the most economic and
27
environmentally sound hydro capacity. Besides smoothing seasonal output and providing
greater security against droughts, increasing interconnection would greatly diminish the problem
of the “lumpiness” of hydro capacity additions. It would also contribute to greater security of
supply from the hydro system as the effects of climate change become manifest in the coming
decades, as discussed below.
Possible impacts of climate change
Any evaluation of the possible impacts of climate change on renewable energy resources is
necessarily very preliminary. In Latin America, analysis so far appears to be limited to the
impact on hydropower via changes in precipitation patterns. An example, summarized in a
recent World Bank report (ESMAP, 2009) is briefly discussed here.
A climate model called Earth Simulator was run in order to estimate the likelihood of extreme
weather events to the end of the century. The Earth Simulator is a super-high resolution
atmospheric general circulation model with a horizontal grid size of about 20 km. Given the very
large computing power required at this resolution, a 60 km grid was also used for an “ensemble”
of consistency checks.
Two extreme indices for precipitation were used to illustrate changes in precipitation extremes
over South and Central America, one for heavy precipitation and one for dryness.
 Map 2-3 shows the changes in maximum 5-day precipitation total (RX5D) for the 60-km
and 20-km resolution. RX5D is projected to increase in the future over almost all of
South and Central America.
 Likewise, Map 2-4 shows the changes in maximum number of consecutive dry days
(CDD). A "dry day" is defined as a day with precipitation less than 1 mm. CDD periods
are projected to increase, in particular over the northern coast.
It is generally accepted that global warming will result not only in changes in mean conditions
but also increases in the amplitude and frequency of extreme precipitation events. Changes in
extremes will have an impact on the hydrology of rivers.
The preliminary analysis illustrated here suggests that for rivers in the Amazon basin there will
be a greater concentration of rainfall in the wet season, as well as a lengthening of dry periods –
especially in southeastern Brazil. This will increase the amplitude of stream flow variations, with
an increase in stream flow during the high-flow season and a decrease in the low-flow season.
This would in turn reduce the firm capacity of hydro plants with a given reservoir capacity.
28
Map 2-3: Changes in maximum 5-day precipitation until end of 21st century (mm)
For (a) 60-km and (b) 20-km resolution.
For 60-km model, areas with the highest projected consistency in sign are hatched. Zero lines are
contoured. Source: ESMAP, 2009
Map 2-4: Changes in maximum number of consecutive dry days until end of 21st
century (days)
For (a) 60-km and (b) 20-km resolution.
For 60-km model, areas with the highest projected consistency in sign are hatched. Zero lines are
contoured. Source: ESMAP, 2009
29
3. Wind Energy Potential
Compared with other regions of the world, the installed wind generation capacity in Latin
America is the smallest in proportion to total generating capacity.
Total regional capacity has grown substantially since 2005, as shown in Table 3-1. The rate of
growth was somewhat faster than that for the world, but the growth was from a very small base
and all the new capacity was in very few countries – Brazil and Mexico, with smaller increments
in Chile and Uruguay. Pioneers in Central America and the Caribbean have not so far
continued their earlier expansion. One does not yet see a pattern of broadly based and steady
regional expansion.
The table also shows that the “wind farms” - the equivalent of individual hydro or thermal plants
- are also mostly quite small by international standards, with only a couple of exceptions.
Table 3-1: Wind power capacity since 2005
Country Capacity (MW) Largest plant(s)* MW

2005 2006 2007 2008 (early 2008)
Argentina 26,8 27,8 29,8 29,8 17,7
Brazil 28,6 236,9 247,1 338,5 150,0 & 62,0
Costa Rica 71,0 74,0 74,0 74,0 19,8 (two)
Chile 2,0 2,0 20,1 20,1 18,2
Colombia 19,5 19,5 19,5 19,5 19,5
Cuba 0,5 0,5 21,0 7,2 5,1
Curaçao 12,0 12,0 12,0 12,0
Ecuador 0,0 0,0 3,1 4,0 2,4
Guadeloupe 20,5 20,5 20,5 20,5
Guyana 13,5 13,5 13,5 13,5
Jamaica 20,7 20,7 20,7 20,7
Martinique 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1
Mexico 2,2 84,0 85,0 85,0 83,3
Peru 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,7 0,5
Uruguay 0,2 0,2 0,6 20,5
Total 219,3 513,4 568,7 667,1
Central America 71,0 74,0 74,0 74,0
Caribbean (ex Cuba) 54,3 54,3 54,3 54,3
Guyanas 13,5 13,5 13,5 13,5
* Plant = “ wind farm”. Existing wind farms in most countries of the table are shown in Annex B-1, with
information on localization and turbine number and sizes.
Source: WWEA, 2009; Latin American Wind Energy Association website
Projected increments in the existing medium term expansion plans are modest or very small in
almost all countries. The main exceptions are: Costa Rica, with scheduled additions of 150 MW
to 2014; Mexico, with at least 500 MW of new capacity planned by 2012 or soon after, and
possibly as much as 2450 MW; 6 and Brazil, which will hold an auction for new capacity in
6
Under the program “Temporada Abierta” (“Open Season”) some 2470 MW of new projects and
accompanying transmission infrastructure have been agreed to in the region of the Isthmus of
Tehuantepec in southern Mexican state of Oaxaca. Of these 507 MW are to be constructed by the
Federal utility CFE, the rest of the capacity by private sector agents (SENER, 2009). The 507 MW are
30
December, 2009 (see Box). These relatively ambitious initiatives may help change the outlook
in the broader region.
Brazil’s Wind Energy Auction
Under Brazil’s energy policy model, new generating capacity is contracted through periodic auctions. An
auction specifically for wind power has been scheduled for December, 2009 (MME-Brazil, 2009). The
auction was designed to stimulate the wind power sector and the response has been impressive – 441
projects with 13,342 MW of capacity have been registered.
The winning projects will enter on-line in 2012 with contracts of 20 years. How much capacity will in fact
be contracted is still uncertain. The amount will depend in part on the prices offered – estimates range
from 1500 MW to almost 3000 MW. Even the lower value would be almost 3 times existing capacity.
From an international perspective, the most interesting aspect of the proposed contracts is that the wind
power producer’s obligations are limited to achieving annual goals in MWh, indeed, quadrennial
averages. There is no reference to guaranteeing capacity. There is no penalty if the shortfall in output is
less than 10% over an initial four year period – generation in excess of the contracted level (up to 130%)
will be paid at 70% of the contracted price per MWh. (EPE, 2009)
Based on experience in this period, new contractual levels will be established for the subsequent four
year period and thereafter every 4 years over the life of the contract. Payments will be made in equal
monthly installments, adjusted periodically based on experience. The stable and relatively predictable
payment arrangements should facilitate project finance.
The focus on energy (MWh) instead of capacity (kW) is a consequence of Brazil’s predominantly hydro
power system and the relatively large amounts of reservoir storage available. In Brazil’s power system
the key challenge is to provide rated levels of firm energy even over multi-year “critical periods” of
drought. Because of the strategy of complementation to exploit the possibilities of hydrological diversity
between river basins, generating capacity to assure firm energy is larger than that needed to provide peak
power. From the perspective of the Brazilian system, the crucial need for wind is to guarantee annual
average generation in MWh.
In their preparations for the auction, the Brazilians have found that annual average output from wind
varies less than does hydro output. This is an interesting addition to the evaluation of the characteristics
of the variability of these two resources introduced earlier in this paper.
While this situation is unlikely to repeat itself in many countries, Brazil is a good example of how hydro
and wind are a good pair. Hydro facilitates the entry of wind.
Projections of wind power in the expansion plans tend to be in terms of MW of capacity. This
criterion flatters wind power since plants in good sites will typically have a load factor of 30-
40%, well below the regional average for most technologies, as shown in Table 3-2. At the
same time, it is also worth noting that most thermal capacity also has a rather low capacity
factor.
included in the official expansion plan (SENER, 2008), the rest does not yet appear there. A number of
projects are also being contemplated in the northern state of Baja California for export of power to the
United States.
31
Table 3-2: Average load factors of different types of generation in Latin America - 2007
Technology → Hydro Thermal Geothermal Nuclear Total

Capacity Factor 53.9% 44.6% 86.6% 77.8% 50.2%
Source: OLADE, 2008
Emphasizing capacity (MW) instead of electricity generated (MWh) is also a conceptual

distraction. Wind power is essentially about bringing MWh of generated energy to consumers
over time, not about providing MW of peak demand capacity.
Issues in defining the natural resource potential
The evaluation of wind resources for electricity generation begins with the identification and
delineation of areas where wind speeds are relatively high on average and reasonably constant.
A common mapping convention is the Battelle Wind Power classification. This ranks the
potential of areas in seven categories, ranging from “Poor” to “Superb”. The values for each
category vary with the height, since average wind speed tends to increase with height.
Table 3-3: Classes of wind potential by wind speed
Clas Resource Power Density Wind speed (m/s)

s
Potential At 50 m – W/m2 50 m height 65 m height 80 m height
3 Fair 300-400 6.4-7.0 6.6-7.3 6.8-7.5

4 Good 400-500 7.0-7.5 7.3-7.8 7.5-8.1
5 Excellent 500-600 7.5-8.0 7.8-8.3 8.1-8.6
6 Outstanding 600-800 8.0-8.8 8.3-9.1 8.6-9.4
7 Superb 800-1600 8.8-11.1 9.1-12.4 9.4-12.8
Wind speeds assume a Weibull k value of 2.0.
Wind is naturally variable, but in some areas winds are more variable than in others. The
Weibull number is a coefficient used to describe the distribution of wind speeds. A narrower
distribution (which implies a more constant wind regime) has a higher number, as shown in
Figure 3-1.
32
Figure 3-1: Effect of the Weibull number on distribution of wind speeds
The energy in the wind does not follow wind speed linearly, it varies with the cube of the wind
speed. In addition, turbines produce no power at all below a “cut-in” speed, as shown in Figure
3-2.
Figure 3-2: Typical power output versus wind speed curve

Output then rises sharply until the “rated wind speed” is achieved. This is the wind speed at
which the turbine produces it’s nominally rated power. Above that wind speed power output is
flat until the “cut-out” speed is reached at very high winds. At that point the turbine shuts down.
33
Designers can modify these values to some extent, as illustrated by two versions of a 1.5 MW
GE turbine:
Model → 1.5 sle 1.5 xle

Cut-in wind speed 3.5 m/s 3.5 m/s
Rated wind speed 14.0 m/s 12.5 m/s
Cut-out wind speed 25.0 m/s 20.0 m/s
A very rough initial idea of potentially promising areas can be obtained from conventional
meteorological stations. This source of data provides reasonably good quality information about
the variability of the resource. However, it is of limited value for estimating absolute values.
The measurements are taken at a much lower height, which reduces the wind speed. Also,
these stations tend not to be in the most promising places and the wind resource can vary
substantially between relatively nearby sites due to the effects of topography.
There have been improvements in lower cost prospecting using mathematical modeling
techniques for broader meso scale resource assessments. These assessments can identify the
most promising areas and their probable resource category.
The best areas for wind resources are often quite limited in size. Consider the example of
Brazil, one of the most thoroughly mapped countries in Latin America. Land areas with different
average wind speeds are summarized in Table 3-4. Of the million km2 categorized, 90% are no
better than “Fair” (Class 3), with average wind speeds below 7 m/s. Only 3%, or about 30,000
km2, have Class 5 or better wind potential (average wind above 7.5 m/s).
Table 3-4: Areas of Land in Different Wind Speed Classes Brazil
Average Wind Speed Approximate Wind Class Area in Class

(m/s @ 50 m height) (km2)
6 Class 2 667.391
6.5 Class 3 (starts 6.4) 231.746
7 Class 4 71.735
7.5 Class 5 21.676
8 Class 6 6.679
8.5 & higher Class 6/7 1.775
The total land area of Brazil is about 8 million km2.
Source: (CEPEL, 2001)
Even so, the gross potential in these relatively small areas can be impressively large. The
Brazilian Atlas estimates a gross potential of about 60 GW and 147 TWh in the relatively small
areas with wind speeds above 7.5 m/s (Class 5 and above).
The areas with higher class wind resources are more attractive because they permit higher
capacity factors with equivalent turbines. Exactly how much higher depends on the wind speed
distribution, which is approximately characterized by the Weibull number. Table 3-5 shows two
sets of estimates: the USDOE analysis of 20% wind penetration in the United States
(EERE/USDOE, 2008) and the Brazilian Wind Atlas (CEPEL, 2001). The latter are much lower
and appear to be excessively conservative by today’s standards. The capacity factors being
achieved by modern turbines in Brazil are much closer to the USDOE values.
34
Table 3-5: Approximate Capacity Factor Associated with Wind Speed Class
Average Wind Speed Approximate Wind Class Capacity Factor (%)

(m/s @ 50 m height) USDOE Brazil Atlas
6 Class 2 NA 14.6%
6.5 Class 3 (starts 6.4) 32% 18.2%
7 Class 4 36% 21.7%
7.5 Class 5 40% 26.4%
8 Class 6 44% 30.7%
8.5 & higher Class 6/7 47% * 34.3%
* The 47% value is for Class 7, which begins above 8.8 m/s at 50 meters.
Sources: EERE/USDOE, 2008; CEPEL, 2001
There are several reasons for the conservatism of the Brazilian Atlas. It was prepared a decade
ago and reflects the technological assumptions of that time, or even somewhat before. The
effective wind speed in the same class is higher because turbines today reach 90m or more and
average wind speed will usually increase by 1 m/s as a result (see also Table 3-3 above). The
efficiency of turbines has also improved. On top of this, the analysis was conservative then
regarding estimates of average wind speed.
A second factor to consider is the density of power capacity per unit area, in MW/km 2, which can
be achieved in wind farms. Each turbine produces downstream turbulence in the air, so there
are physical limits on how closely turbines can be packed together in order to avoid mutual
interference which degrades performance. It is difficult to generalize about the spacing of
turbines because topography and wind conditions have an influence. A general rule of thumb is
that there should be about 7 rotor diameters between each turbine, in each direction (Krohn,
personal communication).7
Thus on relatively flat, even terrain one can achieve about 6-7 MW/km 2 on average. This value
may be somewhat conservative, at least at the level of specific wind farms. Wind farm
developers in Brazil tend to use 10 MW/km 2 as a general rule, with Energy Yield Assessments
resulting in values anywhere from 7-30 MW/km2 (Pacheco, personal communication).
Interestingly, the achievable power density is not influenced by the size or height of the turbines,
though the capacity factor is.
Table 3-6 illustrates the impact of using revised parameters on estimates of the gross technical
potential of wind energy in Brazil by wind class. Due to the higher capacity assumed per km 2 (6
MW versus 2 MW) and the higher capacity factors assumed for equivalent classes of wind
speed, the resulting gross potential is far higher than in the Brazilian Atlas.
..
7
If wind comes from one direction only, the turbines may be spaced more closely in a line, but then if
there is a second line behind it must be further away, say 9 rotor diameters.
35
Table 3-6: Gross Brazilian wind energy potential – Brazil Atlas and modified parameters
Wind Class Wind Capacity (GW) a Generation (TWh)

Speed Brazil Atlas Modified Brazil Atlas b Modified c
Class 3 (from 6.4) 6.5 m/s 464 1,390 739 3,705
Class 4 7 m/s 144 430 272 1,290
Class5 7.5 m/s 43 130 100 433
Class 6 8 m/s 13 40 36 147
Class 6/7 8.5 m/s 3,6 11 11 39
Total Classes 3-7 >6.5 m/s 667 2,002 1.158 5,614
Classes 4-7 >7.0 m/s 204 611 419 1,910
Classes 5-7 >7.5 m/s 60 181 147 619
a
The Brazil Atlas assumes a power density of 2 MW/km 2. The modified scenario assumes 6 MW/km2.
b
Capacity factors used as in Table 3-5.
c
The capacity factors in Table 3-5 for USDOE were reduced by 5%, except for the Classes 6/7 which
were reduced by 10% since Class 7 starts at a higher wind speed (8.8 m/s). The resulting capacity factors
were: Class 3 – 30.4%; Class 4 – 34.2%; Class 5 – 38.0%; Class 6 – 41.8%; Class 6/7 – 42.3%.
Of course, both of these estimates are for a kind of gross technical potential. One should not
assume that more than a relatively small percentage of the land area which is apt for wind
power could be developed. Some of the best potential sites may be in areas with
characteristics that severely limit or prohibit development. Unusual scenic areas are one
example. Places with concentrations of birds may be another. Buffer areas between wind
farms are advisable and some land uses may be incompatible - though this is not the case with
agriculture (while renting space for the towers can be a source of income for farmers).
Technological advance has reduced some impacts, for example noise and the distracting
reflection from turning rotor blades. 8
However, it is interesting how a modernization of resource estimates can significantly alter the
perception of the possible role of wind energy. In this case, just 12% of Class 4-7 land area
(about 12,000 km2 or 0.15% of Brazil’s land area) could supply 50% of the electricity generation
today (448 TWh in 2007), up from 10% under the old estimates.
Technology and potential
The effective potential of wind energy is very much a function of evolving technology as well as
of the characteristics of the natural resource. Wind power technology has been evolving
continuously and continues to develop. These developments tend both to decrease the costs of
wind generation and to increase the capability to extract more power from the same resource.
Commercial wind energy development converged several decades ago on horizontal axis
turbines, whose rotors typically have three blades. A notable aspect of the evolving technology
is the increasing capacity of the turbines’ rotors and the height of the tower hubs. This evolution
is summarized in Figure 3-3. From typical sizes in the range of 500-750 kW in the late 1990s,
8
A review of environmental impacts can be found in (CNE-Chile, 2006), as well as USDOE/EERE, 2008.
The noise level at 300 meters from modern large turbines is less than 45 dB. The impact on avian
populations is reviewed, most studies show relatively low mortality, but this impact will be quite site
dependent.
36
turbines for on-shore wind farms are now in the 1.5-2.5 MW range. Offshore turbines are now
3.5 MW and will soon typically reach 5 MW.
Figure 3-3: Evolution of size and capacity of wind turbines

EERE/USDOE, 2008
This increase in rated output has necessarily been accompanied by an increase in turbine size.
Turbines with 1.5 MW rated capacity have rotors that are more than 75 meters. 2.5 MW
turbines are more than 90 meters long. Towers with hubs 100 meters high or more are now
common. Taller towers mean access to the higher quality resource available at higher
elevations. Figure 3-4 illustrates this effect in a mid-western State of the USA.
The other road to improve the quality of the available resource is to go off-shore. This option
has so far been almost exclusively developed in Europe, where some 1470 MW have been
developed (out of a total of 66,160 MW in Europe and 121,188 MW worldwide (WWEA, 2009).
Off-shore turbines are more expensive per installed kW than an equivalent land-based turbine.
However, average wind speeds are usually significantly higher offshore, which permits higher
load factors. Also, off-shore turbines will tend to be even larger than land-based ones. They
may not suffer some of the restrictions on component size imposed by land transport systems,
depending on the site.
Logistics are clearly a major concern for developing cost effective sites. The large size and
weight of big components such as the rotor and the tower modules means that transport costs
can be significant. The large size of the components and the specialized skills involved in
construction also argue for a certain economy of scale to reduce costs per kW in wind farms.
37
Figure 3-4: Comparison of the wind energy resource at 50, 70 and 100 meters in Indiana
EERE/USDOE, 2008
Most wind farms so far developed in Latin America are far too small to capture economies of
scale. Even more important, the total rate of construction of wind capacity is very small and
irregular in most national markets in the region. The lack of any regular flow of orders increases
unit costs.
The economics of wind energy
Advances in technology have brought substantial reductions in the investment cost per kW of
capacity and in the O&M costs. Cost reductions are projected to continue, especially over the
next decade or so. Technological advances have also helped to increase the capacity factor of
new machines, by reaching higher in the air or going off-shore.
Table 3-7 summarizes cost parameters for wind power from two recent studies. One is a
generic review of generation technologies by ESMAP (ESMAP, 2007). The second is from an
an analysis of the possibility of achieving a 20% share of the United States generation mix by
2030 (EERE/USDOE, 2008). There are considerable differences between these analyses
regarding near term investment costs and their evolution.
38
Table 3-7: Comparison of wind power cost parameters and their evolution over time
Investment US$/kW
2005 2010 2015 2020 2030
ESMAP, 2007 Maximum 1390 1230 1110
(US$ 2005) Probable 1240 1080 960
Minimum 1090 890 750
US 20% Wind 1650 1650 1610 1570 1480

(US$ 2006)
Fixed Operations US$/kW-year
2005 2010 2015 2020 2030
ESMAP, 2007 Maximum+20% 16,72 16,72 16,72
(US$ 2005) Probable 13,93 13,93 13,93
Minimum -20% 11,15 11,15 11,15
US 20% Wind 11,50 11,50 11,50 11,50 11,50

(US$ 2006)
Variable O&M US$/MWh
2005 2010 2015 2020 2030
ESMAP, 2007 Maximum+20% 2,64 2,64 2,64
(US$ 2005) Probable 2,20 2,20 2,20
Minimum -20% 1,76 1,76 1,76
US 20% Wind 7,00 5,50 5,00 4,60 4,40

(US$ 2006)
A noteworthy difference between these studies is that the ESMAP review projects a substantial
reduction in unit investment costs in the next decade, 9 while the projected reduction in the
USDOE study is much more modest. However, the discrepancy between these studies is
perhaps not as great as it appears at first. The USDOE study emphasizes achieving higher
load factors. Thus, for example, wind farms constructed in areas with a resource classification
of 4 (7-7.5 m/s at 50 m) are expected to achieve a capacity factor of 36% today, while those
constructed in 2015 are expected to achieve 41%, rising to 43% for those entering operation in
2030. Basically this means investing in taller towers as well as other performance enhancing
innovations, which together increase initial costs. The ESMAP review appears to project lower
cost to achieve the same performance. Both approaches should reduce the cost per MWh over
time.
The capacity factor of wind farms certainly has an important impact on total generation costs, as
shown in Table 3-8. This is due mostly to the relatively high initial investment cost per kW of
capacity.
9
This projection reflects European analyses of technological trends. The ESMAP report also notes that
existing US cost estimates tend to be higher than European estimates.
39
Table 3-8: Wind generation costs at different capacity factors – 2005 & 2015
Load Factor→ 28% 32% 36% 40% 44% 48%

EERE/USDOE, 2008 - For 2005 $90,67 $80,21 $72,07 $65,57 $60,24 $55,80
EERE/USDOE, 2008 - For 2015 $86,75 $76,53 $68,58 $62,23 $57,02 $52,69
ESMAP, 2007 - For 2005 $67,23 $59,10 $52,78 $47,72 $43,58 $40,13
ESMAP, 2007 - For 2015 $53,83 $47,37 $42,36 $38,34 $35,05 $32,32
Assumes a 10% discount rate (or weighted average cost of capital) and a 20 year lifetime.
EERE/USDOE estimates are in US$2005, those of ESMAP US$2006.
Given the capital intensity of wind power, generating costs are also sensitive to assumptions
about the discount rate and the lifetime of the equipment, as illustrated in Figure 3-5.
Figure 3-5: Generation costs as a function of discount rate and equipment lifetime
(US$/MWh)
Source: Calculated from parameters in EERE/USDOE, 2008 for a

plant with a 36% capacity factor.
The two reviews of costs cited here are for relatively developed markets in richer countries.
Costs in Latin America will be distinct. At present they seem to be substantially higher than the
values cited here. For example a 300 MW wind farm in northern Colombia is estimated to cost
between US$ 1900-2400 per kW (ESMAP, 2009), resulting in a cost of power of $74-91/MWh
instead of the $48-66 in Table 3-8 above.10 It is not clear why investment costs should be so
much higher, though the small and irregular market in Latin America clearly has a role. This
suggests that there should be considerable scope for reducing costs just to bring the region
closer in line with costs elsewhere.
The trend of costs in Brazil should be interesting to watch given the larger scale of the program
in that country. A comparative analysis of historical costs is complicated by the large
oscillations in the exchange rate which have occurred in recent years. Two of the larger
projects appear to show investment costs close to the level cited for the USA in Table 3-7 above
10
The calculation assumes a 40% load factor (close to that of the existing small wind farm), a 10%
discount rate and fixed and variable O&M as in USDOE, 2008).
40
(US$1600-1700/kW), though smaller projects (18-28 MW) appear to have had substantially
higher unit costs (US$ 2300-3100/kW)
Assuming that Latin America’s costs can converge with international costs, then wind power in
good sites begins to be quite competitive – perhaps much more competitive than perceived by
energy policy makers in the region today – influenced as they are by the high historic costs of
wind projects just commented on.
But competitive with what? The profile of generation and expected generation varies throughout
Latin America, so the context for comparison changes considerably from country to country.
Here are some general observations.
First, in many countries, the low cost baseline is hydro. Wind is not so much competing with
hydro as complementing it. Both contribute to lower carbon emissions. At the same time,
security concerns caution against an exclusive reliance on hydro, while at the regional level
(and most countries) there are simply not enough hydro resources to even contemplate such an
approach – a point already emphasized in the section on hydro. In a sense, wind is competing
against other generation resources to complement hydro.
The most common comparison made is with conventional pulverized coal plants and these
usually appear to be considerably cheaper. However, these comparisons usually have a major
flaw, they assume that the alternative thermal plant is operating at base load with capacity
factors of 80% or more. This flatters the cost of the thermal plant, but it is a bit like comparing
apples with oranges.
Wind is not a base load generation technology and the power generation system cannot be
made up exclusively of base load plants – since system load factors are more like 50% (the
average in Latin America in 2007 was about 50%). One needs to compare two mixed sets of
generating technologies that can supply that profile of demand. This is a more complex
analysis than comparing individual alternatives for a plant, but as with the question of variability
and reserves, wind requires us think more carefully about the system as a whole if we are to
take it more seriously.
A quick crude way to illustrate the impact of stepping back from simplistic comparisons with
base load plants is to consider a coal plant operating at lower factors, as in Table 3-9.
Table 3-9: Cost of generation from pulverized coal plant at different load factors
US$2006 per MWh
Capacity factor → 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

300 MW subcritical 66,10 57,54 51,83 47,76 44,70
500 MW supercritical 64,10 55,66 50,03 46,01 43,00
Source: Calculation based on ESMAP, 2007
In Table 3-8 above there is a range of wind options which produce power at $55-65 per MWh.
A coal plant operating at 60% capacity factor has a cost of about $50/MWh, so the difference
isn’t huge. Indeed, it would appear that carbon credits at today’s prices (about US$ 18/t CO 2)
could have a significant impact on the relative economics, since a credit of $18/t CO 2 translates
to an increase in cost of about $15 per MWh in a coal plant. Of course, this comparison would
be representative only once the unit cost of wind power investment gets close to international
41
levels, which may require a transition with larger incentives – as for example are discussed for
Colombia in ESMAP, 2009.
New coal plants or combined cycle natural gas plants are not usually run at 60%. However,
many thermal plants – including older coal plants - operate at this or much lower capacity
factors (e.g. intermediate load plants, not to mention peaking and those on standby to
complement hydro in dry periods). The average capacity factor of thermal plants in Latin
America was less than 45% in 2007, as was shown in Table 3-2. Their average cost per MWh
is definitely not less than the values in the table above for coal. In any case, this calculation is
only meant to illustrate a point.
This paper only addresses energy for the grid, though wind energy began as a small scale
resource for isolated regions and indeed is still often perceived in this way. There are niches for
small isolated wind systems, but it is clear that this technology has substantial economies of
scale up to plants (wind farms) of 100 MW or more. Table 3-10 shows the estimated investment
cost per kW at different scales.
Table 3-10: Investment per kW at different scales of wind generation
Scale Investment per kW (US$2006)

0.30 kW 5370
100 kW 2780
10 MW 1440
100 MW 1240
Source: ESMAP, 2007
Costs not included so far are: (a) transmission costs, and (b) the costs for ancillary services.
Transmission costs depend entirely on the location of the project and the condition of the local
grid. They may be small or quite high. It will be necessary to view the transmission needs for
the expansion of wind power in a strategic manner and not simply project by project. There is
an analogy with hydropower, except that in the case of wind the individual projects will typically
be smaller - one should analyze clusters of potential projects.
The costs for ancillary services are dominated by the costs to provide backup to compensate for
the variability of the wind supply. These include reserves for short term regulation and load
following and somewhat longer term unit commitment (see the discussion in Section 1 and
Figure 1-1), as well as fuel (natural gas) for reserve generation. Figure 3-6 shows estimates of
these costs as a function of the share of wind energy in the generating mix. There is a tendency
for these costs to increase as the share of wind in the system’s capacity increases. However,
even with a 20% share the cost is less than US$ 5.00/MWh.
42
Figure 3-6: Diverse studies of the cost of wind plant ancillary services
(regulation service, load following, unit commitment and natural gas)
Source: NAS/NAE, 2009
All plants have ancillary costs, so not all of this cost would be “net” when comparing with
alternatives. In addition, the cost estimates are for the USA. In the context of Latin America,
which has a much larger hydro share, the cost of these ancillary services may be less. For
example the cost of short term regulation and natural gas should be less with hydro as the
primary reserve.
Observations on regional potential
Unlike hydropower, there are currently no published general estimates of wind power potential
in Latin America, theoretical, partial or otherwise. Indeed, there are many countries for which
there is no published estimate at all. This does not mean there is no interest in those countries.
Peru for example has no estimate of published official estimate of potential, but has registered a
relatively large portfolio of possible plants. Similarly, Chile has no overall estimate of potential
but has surveys indicating promising sites in parts of the country. Even oil-rich Venezuela is
building a 100 MW wind farm and plans several more, despite the rudimentary nature of
published surveys there.
A number of countries have published partial or complete national surveys indicating the most
promising areas for wind project development, without, however, estimating overall potential.
The few countries with estimates give few indications of the detailed assumptions underlying
those estimates.
As already discussed above, estimating the effective potential of wind power is tricky. There are
evolving technical possibilities, while estimates also involve making some assumptions
regarding land use constraints which are necessarily rather arbitrary and/or subjective,
43
especially since the development of estimates is still quite incipient. Hydro, by comparison, is a
mature technology which has been the object of intensive study of much more easily definable
sites for many decades.
However, there is no doubt that Latin America does have some excellent areas for the
development of wind energy and the high quality potential (say, wind Classes 4, or more
rigorously, 5 and up) of the region as a whole is big enough to make a strategic difference for
electricity expansion over the coming several decades. Because of the need to economize
financial resources, the emphasis throughout is on areas with higher quality potential.
Annex C provides summaries information about selected countries and groups of countries. 11
The review does not consider possible shallow off-shore resources, which have barely begun to
be investigated. This is not surprising, considering that the development of cheaper and easier
on-shore resources has barely begun.
Given the limited and very uneven information about the distribution of wind energy resources
throughout Latin America it is impossible to quantify the regional potential even approximately.
Put another way, any regional estimate would be fairly meaningless. What we can say is that:
a. The gross potential from high quality resources (Class 4 and up) in the region as a whole
is much larger than current electricity generation (1225 TWh in 2007).
b. Only a relatively small fraction of the gross potential (perhaps 10-15% in most countries)
can effectively be developed.
 However, even with this restriction, the potential is large relative to current total
generation in the region.
 Again, taking into account this restriction, less than 1% of high quality wind
potential has been developed in the region overall.
c. This potential is unevenly distributed, both within countries and between countries.
Argentina alone has the gross potential to supply Latin America several times over, no
one else comes close.
d. While there are large differences between countries, in all the countries reviewed there
appears to be enough high quality potential to make a significant contribution to
electricity supply expansion over the next 20-25 years (say, more than 10%).
While regional potential certainly needs to be better defined, another line of analysis which
should be developed is from the perspective of the grid’s capability to absorb increasing shares
of wind generation capacity.
 Studies in countries where wind is more developed suggest that up to 15-20% of total
capacity, wind can be integrated in grids covering large catchment areas without high
additional costs for reserves (EERE/USDOE, 2008; Smith, 2009).
 In Latin America, given the large share of hydro, which is well adapted to complementing
and providing short term reserves for wind, this is probably a conservatively low value.
 Given the load factors of wind plants, 15-20% of total capacity translates to something
like 9-14% of generation output in terms of MWh (or TWh, which are one million MWh).
 In the context of Latin America in 2030, this share of output would translate to about
290-450 TWh.
 At a regional level, and within most countries, there are more than adequate high quality
resources to meet this kind of target.
11
The countries considered in the annex are: Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico and
the Dominican Republic, as well as Central America.
44
Complementation strategies which take advantage of the diversity of wind regimes (as well as of
the diversity of hydrology) would facilitate the reliable absorption of a relatively large share of
wind energy in the region’s electrical systems.
Such strategies imply a wider exchange between countries (especially middle sized and smaller
countries) to increase the diversity of the “catchment area”. This in turn implies a more robust
network of bulk transmission interconnecting the countries in the region. This would represent a
deepening of a more intense interconnection strategy already recommended for optimizing the
regional development of the remaining hydro resources.
In Section 7 the possible role of wind is discussed in the context of broader scenarios to
maintain the share of renewable in the region’s generation mix.
Looking further into the future it will be prudent to consider limits on the energy extracted from
the wind to avoid effects on weather and climate at a local or continental level. Preliminary
analyses suggest that this limit is on the order of 20% of the energy in the wind field (NAS/NAE,
2009). Such a limit represents an extraction of at least several thousand TWh/yr, which is far
above any level of output which could be achieved in the next several decades. Indeed, it is
above the level of extraction judged feasible from the perspective of land use constraints.
45
4. Geothermal
Geothermal is the third largest source of generation of electricity from renewable energy in Latin
America today. Capacity is concentrated Mexico and Central America, as shown in Table 4-1.
Mexico is the third largest geothermal producer in the world, after the USA (2002 MW) and the
Philippines (1909 MW). Central America’s capacity of 426 MW is large relative to the installed
capacity
Table 4-1: Existing geothermal capacity and generation in Latin America (2007)
Country Capacity (MW) Generation (TWh)

1995 2000 2007 2007
Mexico 753 755 953 7.40
El Salvador 105 161 161 1.38
Costa Rica * 55 143 159 1.19
Nicaragua 70 70 77 0.24
Guatemala 0 33 29 0.26
Total 983 1162 1379 10.47
Central America 230 407 426 3.07
* Costa Rica data are for 2006.
Sources: Iglesias et alii, 2005; SENER, 2008; ICE, 2007; OLADE, 2008; Dickson & Fanelli, 2004.
As shown in the table, the growth of geothermal in Latin America has been slow in recent years.
With existing technology the ability to contribute to the expansion of future supply is generally
regarded as rather limited, even in the regions with the clearest potential along the Andes,
Central America, Mexico and the Eastern Caribbean. This modest assessment could change if
there is a breakthrough in the development of “enhanced” (or “engineered”) geothermal systems
(EGS), especially those for extracting heat from deep dry rock formations. Even without such a
breakthrough geothermal could probably play a larger role than is currently suggested in the
expansion plans of the power sector.
Different from the other renewable resources, geothermal energy is not ultimately dependent on
the sun’s radiation, but on flows of heat from the interior of the earth. Geothermal plants are
operated as base load and can have capacity factors of 90% or more.
There are various basic kinds of geothermal resources. The only commercially used resources
at present are hydrothermal resources. These are found in formations which contain hot water
and/or steam trapped in fractured or porous rock at shallow to moderate depths (from
approximately 100 to 4,500 m, but usually fairly close to the surface in developed sites).
Hydrothermal resources are categorized as vapor-dominated (steam) or liquid-dominated (hot
water) according to the predominant fluid phase. Temperatures of hydrothermal reserves used
for electricity generation range from 90º C to over 350º C, but roughly two thirds are estimated
to be in the moderate temperature range, or 150-200º C (Dickson & Fanelli, 2004).
In addition to hydrothermal resources there are geopressured resources and hot dry rock
resources (HDR).
 Geopressured geothermal resources are hot water aquifers containing dissolved
methane trapped under high pressure in sedimentary formations at a depth of
approximately 3 to 6 km. Temperatures range from 90 to 200º C, although the reservoirs
46
explored to date seldom exceed 150º C. The extent of geopressured reserves is not yet
well known world-wide, and the only major resource area identified to date is in the
northern Gulf of Mexico region. This resource is potentially very promising because
three types of energy can be extracted from the wells viz., thermal energy from the
heated fluids, hydraulic energy from the high pressures involved, and chemical energy
from burning the dissolved methane gas.
 Hot, dry rock (HDR) resources are accessible geologic formations that are abnormally
hot but contain little or no water. The basic concept in HDR technology is to form a man-
made geothermal reservoir by drilling deep wells (say, 4-6,000 m) into high-temperature,
low-permeability rock and then forming a large heat-exchange system by hydraulic or
explosive fracturing. Injection and production wells are joined to form a circulating loop
through the man-made reservoir, and water is then circulated through the fracture
system, as shown in Figure 4-1. Because of the man-induced fracturing of the reservoir
these also are referred to as “enhanced (or “engineered”) geothermal systems (EGS).
The power plant design options are similar to those for “conventional” hydrothermal
resources.
Figure 4-1: Schematic of production from hot dry rock
.
Two types of technology are used to generate power from hydrothermal geothermal resources:
binary systems and steam (or “flash”) systems.
 The steam or flash plants use steam directly from the source to directly drive a
conventional Rankine cycle turbine, or use flash plants to depressurize hot water from
the source (170-300º C) to produce the steam. They are available with either back-
pressure (atmospheric) or condensing exhausts (see Figures 4-2 & 4-3). Those plants
47
exhausting to the atmosphere consume twice as much steam per kWh and are usually
smaller units (2.5-5 MW).
 In binary systems, the hot geothermal water (125-170º C) is routed through a closed-
loop heat exchanger, where a low boiling-point hydrocarbon such as isobutane or
isopentane is evaporated to drive a Rankine power cycle turbine, as shown in Figure 4-
4. The upper temperature limit depends on the thermal stability of the organic binary
fluid, and the lower limit on technical-economic factors. Below a certain temperature the
size of the heat exchangers required would render the project uneconomical. 12 The
cooled or “spent” geothermal fluid is then returned to the reservoir. Since the cycle is
self-contained, there are no emissions, other than water vapor.
Figure 4-2: Sketch of a geothermal steam plant with atmospheric exhaust
Source: Dickson & Fanelli, 2004
Figure 4-3: Sketch of a geothermal steam plant with condensation
The flow of high-temperature geothermal fluid is shown in red, and the cooling
water in blue.
12
Binary plants can be designed for temperatures down to 85-90º C but for economic reasons stay in the
range 125-170º C as shown in the text.
48
Figure: 4-4: Sketch of a geothermal binary plant
.
The flow of geothermal fluid is in red, the secondary fluid (e.g. iso-pentane) in green and
the
cooling water in blue.
Binary plants are usually constructed in small modular units of a few hundred kW e to a few MWe
capacity. These units can then be linked up to create power-plants of a few tens of megawatts.
Their cost depends on a number of factors, but particularly on the temperature of the
geothermal fluid produced, which influences the size of the turbine, heat exchangers and
cooling system. The total size of the plant has little effect on the specific cost, as a series of
standard modular units is joined together to obtain larger capacities.
Binary plants permit the use of lower temperature geothermal fluids than do steam plants. They
also have environmental advantages:
 There is no need to dispose of geothermal liquids, which can often be a problem.
 There is no release of pollutant gases, such as H2S or CO2.
 The reinjection of fluids largely eliminates subsidence.
These advantages can compensate for the fact that they are more expensive per kW and binary
plants are quite common world-wide (NAS/NAE, 2009), though steam plants predominate in
Latin America’s existing capacity.
Table 4-2 provides a range of investment costs per kW of capacity for generic flash steam and
binary plants. Table 4-3 then discriminates the cost components for the “probable cost” case.
Table 4-2: Estimate of range of investment costs for binary and steam geothermal plants
(US$ 2005/kW)
Technology Minimum Probable Maximum

20 MW binary $3.690 $4.100 $4.500
50 MW flash $2.260 $2.510 $2.750
Source: ESMAP, 2007.
49
Table 4-3: Breakdown of investment costs for binary and steam geothermal plants
(Conventional hydrothermal resource)
(US$ 2005/kW – “Probable cost” case)
Cost category 20 MW Binary a 50 MW Flash Steam b

Exploration/confirmation $790 $610
Main wells $710 $540
Power plant $2,120 $1,080
Other $480 $280
Total $4,100 $2,150
a
Binary plants typically operate between 125-170º C. Since this is a mid-case cost
scenario it may represent the case for an intermediate temperature, say 150º C.
b
Flash steam plants operate from 170º C. In this mid-case cost scenario case it will be
above 200º C.
Source: ESMAP, 2007
The higher cost of the binary plants relative to the flash steam plants is due in part to the lower
temperature of the resource, which reduces the efficiency and increases the volume of
geothermal fluids required.
The same source estimated the levelized cost per MWh of the two technologies as shown in
Table 4-4.
Table 4-4: Levelized costs per MWh for binary and steam geothermal plants
(US$ 2005/MWh)
Technology Capital Fixed O&M Variable O&M Total

20 MW binary $50,2 $13,0 $4,0 $67,2
50 MW flash $30,7 $9,0 $3,0 $42,7
Basis for the levelized capital cost is the “Probable” investment per kW shown in Table 4-2.
Source: ESMAP, 2007.
Even though the costs may be a bit optimistic regarding the assumed discount rate for a
relatively risky investment and the lifetime load factor of 90%, 13 geothermal generation is
relatively competitive in sites with good quality hydrothermal resources. It should be able to
compete with fossil fuels if relative modest costs for carbon emissions are considered.
But how big are the geothermal resources?
Available estimates by Latin American energy planning agencies of the potential for electricity
generation from hydrothermal geothermal resources are quite spotty and values were not found
for some countries which clearly have potential, such as Colombia and Peru. Table 4-5
summarizes estimates for several countries and Central America.
13
The average capacity factor of geothermal plants world-wide is closer to 70% than 90% (IGA, 2001).
However, the output is constant despite the lower capacity factor.
50
Table 4-5: Estimates of remaining hydrothermal geothermal resources
Country/Region GWe TWhe * Existing Generation

TWhe % Potential **
Central America 2.95 23.3 3.1 12%
Chile 1.24-3.35 9.7-26.4 0 na
Mexico: proven - probable 1.32-5.92 10.4-46.7 7.4 14-42%
* **
Assumes a 90% capacity factor. % of total potential (remaining + existing).
Sources: Central America (OLADE, 2005); Chile (BCN, 2004); Mexico – proven (SENER, 2005 &
Iglesias et alii, 2005), probable (Iglesias et alii, 2005)
There is a large degree of uncertainty in these estimates and it is not clear to what extent they
include somewhat lower temperature resources (say, below 175º C) which are accessible to
production with binary plants.
Dimensioning the reserves requires exploratory drilling, which is quite expensive. Not much
drilling has been done, which means there is considerable uncertainty in these estimates. It is
noteworthy that in Mexico, which is the third largest geothermal producer in the world, there has
been no published review of the potential of high temperature resources since the mid-1980s
(Iglesias et alii, 2005). In June of 2009, Chile announced an auction of geothermal
concessions, which should lead to more exploration in that country.
These country level estimates point to a relatively modest potential as do the published
expansion plans in the few countries which include geothermal. The situation in the USA is
rather similar (NAS/NAE, 2009) even allowing for the fact that the potential in Latin America may
be substantially larger (see below).
The outlook could change substantially if the technology to exploit hot dry rock (HDR)
geothermal resources matures. An example of estimates is shown in Table 4-6. To calibrate
the values shown for Latin America, the region generated 1225 TWh in 2007.
Table 4-6: Global estimates of geothermal potential
Region Land Steam a Steam & Binary

Area Output/yr Density b Output/yr Density b
6 2 2
10 km TWhe/yr kWe/km TWhe/yr kWe/km2
c
North America 18.3 1,330 8.3 2,700 16.8
Latin America 21.1 2,800 15.1 5,600 30.3
Rest of World 109.4 7,070 7.4 14,100 14.7
World 148.8 11,200 8.6 22,400 17.2
a
Conventional steam plants
b Density assumes constant output, i.e. a capacity factor of 100%
c Includes only the USA and Canada
Source: Based on IGA, 2001.
Note that this broader analysis indicates a density of potential in Latin America that is almost
double that of the rest of the world on average. Unfortunately this study presents almost no
information regarding the assumptions underlying these large estimates of potential.
The values shown seem to imply “mining” of the resource, as well as a large “footprint”. The
mean geothermal heat flux over land at Earth’s surface is approximately 60 mWth/m2, or 60
51
kWth/km2 , though there is considerable variation around this mean. 14 An efficiency of 15% is
estimated for electricity generation from the relatively low temperature heat available from this
resource (NAS/NAE, 2009). Thus, on average, the extractable electric power density from the
geothermal resource on a renewable basis is about 10 kWe/km2. This value can be compared
with the densities in the Table 4-6 above. In Latin America the average density of heat flow may
be significantly higher than in North America, but even so the values seem excessively high
even as an ultimate “technical potential”, where there is extraction of heat throughout the whole
land mass.
In any case, the generation of electricity from the heat in hot dry rocks (HDR) is for now only a
hypothesis around which there is a very big question mark. This concerns the possible
stimulation of earthquakes by the techniques used to enhance the geothermal reservoir. This
could be a show stopper. As already observed, the creation of the reservoir requires the
fracturing of the impermeable bedrock. A pioneering project in Basle, Switzerland, was
suddenly shut down in December, 2006, by a series of earthquakes clearly induced by the
project (NYT, 2009). The induction of some seismic activity has been attributed to some
conventional hydrothermal geothermal projects, such as the Geysers, in California. However,
the severe seismic impact of the Swiss HDR project was unprecedented and has raised serious
doubts about “Enhanced Geothermal Systems”.
However, even if HDR ultimately proves to be too risky from a seismic point of view, geothermal
from relatively shallow hydrothermal resources could possibly play a significant role in a strategy
to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation in Latin America over the next 20-30
years.
Accepting the parsity of published information and estimates from Latin America, let us take as
a reference the estimates of hydrothermal geothermal potential in the United States, where
actual drilling of all kinds has been far more intense. A review by the National Academies of
Science and Engineering (NAS/NAE, 2009) cited identified potentials of 13 GW (~100 TWh/yr)
in the Western US, of which 5.6 GW (~45 TWh/yr) could conceivably be developed by 2015.
The study cites other larger values for the country as a whole, as well as exploration to find
sources without surface manifestations, but let us restrict ourselves to these identified sites.
The land area of Latin America is 2.3 times that of the USA. In addition, it is possible that the
potential per km2 (energy density) is higher in Latin America is higher, as suggested by Table 4-
6. Assuming an energy density only 25% higher, Latin America would have a hydrothermal
potential of:
 125 TWh/yr assuming the exploitable potential in the USA to 2015 (5.6 GW)
 295 TWh/yr assuming the equivalent of 13 GW in the US
The lower scenario of 125 TWh/yr might be a reasonable regional target for 2030. It is
ambitious and would represent an order of magnitude increase in investments, beginning with
short term prospecting. However this goal probably would require no technological
breakthroughs. This potential would be concentrated in the countries of the “Pacific Rim” of
Latin America, as well as the Caribbean.
In Section 7, the possible role of geothermal is discussed in the context of broader scenarios to
maintain or increase the share of renewable in the mix of electricity generation in the region.
14
The subscript “th”, as in kWth means that the energy or power capacity refers to a thermal rather than
electrical flow, even though kW and kWh are normally used for electricity. One kW = 3416 Btu/hour or
3.6 MJ/hour. In these circumstances we distinguish electrical output with the subscript “e”, as in kW e.
52
5. Biomass - sugarcane residues
Biomass is the second largest renewable resource for generation in Latin America today, after
hydroelectricity. Unfortunately there are no region-wide statistics on electricity generation from
biomass.15
Within the category of biomass, sugarcane residues are by far the most important resource for
electricity generation in the region. It was decided to concentrate on sugarcane, due to the
short time available to prepare this report, the diversity of the characteristics of specific biomass
resources and the opportunities to generate power, as well as the fragmented statistical
information available.
The primary sugarcane residue is bagasse, which is a residue of the milling and squeezing of
the cane to produce sugar or alcohol. Bagasse is traditionally used to cogenerate electricity and
process steam. Two other residues are little used today for electricity generation, but could
become complementary resources in the future:
 “Field trash” (“ponta e palha” in Portuguese) - the cut leaves and cane tops – is
traditionally left in the field and burnt. Mechanized harvesting techniques open the
possibility of gathering at least part of this residue, though a part should still be left in the
fields.
 Stillage – (“vinhoto” or “vinhaça” in Portuguese) – is a liquid residue of the fermentation
process in the production of alcohol. It has high organic content and some fertilizer
nutrients (especially high potassium). If treated beforehand, this liquid waste can used
as fertilizer in the sugarcane fields. One treatment, anaerobic digestion, yields methane
which could be consumed in electricity generation systems
Production of sugarcane is widespread in Latin America and the Caribbean. Table 5-1 shows
the production by country in 2004-06 and compares output with 1994-96. Total production was
about 660 million tons of crushed cane. Over the decade output grew by about 2.5% per year.
Brazil is overwhelmingly the largest producer in the region and its share increased over the
period from about 60% in 1994-96 to 69% in 2006. Production of sugarcane grew almost as
fast in Central America. On the other hand, output stagnated or contracted in the Caribbean,
with huge reductions in Cuba and Trinidad & Tobago.
15
In the OLADE statistical reports – a standard statistical resource for the region – generation from
biomass is lumped together with fossil fuels under the category “thermal”.
53
Table 5-1: Production of sugarcane in Latin America
Countries 1994-1996 2004-2006 2004 2005 2006

Argentina 16.833 21.453 20.953 24.405 19.000
Bahamas 45 35 50 50 6
Barbados 452 374 361 350 410
Belize 1.170 1.099 1.191 927 1.180
Bolivia 4.030 5.547 5.328 5.112 6.201
Brazil 304.302 431.803 415.206 422.957 457.246
Chile 0 0 0 0 0
Colombia 32.733 39.650 40.100 39.849 39.000
Costa Rica 3.397 4.140 4.200 4.000 4.220
Cuba 39.367 15.487 23.800 11.600 11.060
Dominica 5 4 4 4 4
Dominican Republic 5.851 5.219 5.547 4.951 5.160
Ecuador 6.752 6.653 6.122 6.838 6.999
El Salvador 3.996 4.869 4.921 4.405 5.280
Guatemala 14.296 20.153 18.283 23.454 18.721
Guyana 3.193 3.283 3.744 3.006 3.100
Haiti 1.233 911 895 839 1.000
Honduras 3.239 5.364 5.466 5.625 5.000
Jamaica 2.482 1.840 2.100 1.470 1.950
Mexico 43.374 50.328 48.662 51.646 50.676
Nicaragua 3.147 4.116 4.027 3.817 4.505
Panama 1.559 1.765 1.754 1.771 1.770
Paraguay 2.704 3.552 3.637 3.820 3.200
Peru 6.600 7.182 7.497 6.804 7.246
Saint Kitts & Nevis 190 153 260 100 100
Saint Vincent & Grenadines 20 19 18 20 20
Suriname 100 87 70 70 120
Trinidad & Tobago 1.376 458 535 420 420
Uruguay 204 169 155 178 175
Venezuela 6.379 9.284 8.832 9.674 9.346
Total 509.031 644.998 633.718 638.161 663.115
Central America 30.805 41.506 39.842 43.998 40.677

Caribbean (ex Cuba) 11.654 9.015 9.771 8.204 9.070
Source: FAO, 2009. This source does not distinguish between sugarcane and sugarbeet production.
Based on other sources, sugarcane output in Chile was assumed to be zero.
Until fairly recently, sugarcane mills were usually designed to be approximately self sufficient in
electricity, due to the lack of economically interesting markets to which to sell power. There was
no incentive to produce or use steam efficiently, either for the industrial thermal processes or
the generation of power. Hence traditionally, most sugarcane mills produce steam for electricity
at very low pressure – typically 20-22 atmospheres. In such a configuration, process steam use
was about 400-500 kg per ton of cane crushed (tc) and exports of power would be in a range
from near zero to 10 kWh/tc (ton of cane)
Much higher output of electricity can be obtained from the same quantity of bagasse by
increasing the pressure of the steam produced. Table 5-2 illustrates net generation available for
export per ton of sugarcane processed at different steam pressures.
54
Table 5-2: Net electricity for export per ton of cane at different steam pressures
Country/Region Steam Pressure (bars) a

22 42 67 82/87
Southern Africa 25 53-75 130-140
India 90-120 130-140
Brazil 0 20 40-50 105
a
One bar = one atmosphere.
Sources: For estimates in Southern Africa and India as well as Brazil up to 67 bar - Seebaluck et
alii, 2007. For Brazil 82 bar, Larson, et alii, 2001.
There are substantial differences between the estimates for different countries. The lower net
output in Brazil is notable. This may be due to somewhat more intensive processing of sugar
(or alcohol) in Brazil. The other examples may include some fuel other than bagasse. The wide
range of results for the same boiler pressures shows clearly the need to be specific about
specifying factors such as the bagasse content of the cane and the associated industrial
operations when comparing sugarcane cogeneration options and performance in different
countries. In this report the main series of reference will be the estimates for Brazil, which are
also more conservative.
By the early 1990s it was recognized that by going to gasification and gas turbines, the
electricity production per ton of sugarcane could be increased substantially compared to simply
increasing steam turbine temperature and pressure. This is because gas turbines generate
substantially more electricity per ton of low pressure process steam. The increase is big
enough to compensate the losses in the gasification process.
Under this gasification approach, the gas produced from the bagasse would enter a gas turbine.
There would then be heat recovery from the exhaust gases to drive a steam turbine in
cogeneration mode. It would thus be configured as a “combined cycle” plant. This alternative
was denominated biomass integrated gasification/gas turbine combined cycle technology or
BIGCC.
Analyses in Brazil suggested that total electricity generation per ton of cane could be increased
from 135 kWh/tc with steam turbines at 82 atmospheres to about 180 kWh/tc with the BIGCC
(Larson et alii, 2001). The electricity available for export would be 15-30 kWh/tc lower,
depending on the characteristics of the sugarcane mill.
Unfortunately attempts to build a large-scale demonstration BIGCC plant never succeeded, so

the technology remains untested. Finely ground residues like bagasse present a challenge for
gasifiers, which are generally more adapted to convert lumpier solid material (e.g. wood chips or
coal).
Another way to increase electricity generation is to use the residues which today are usually
burned in the field. This “field trash” is composed of the leaves and tops of sugarcane. As
already observed, the spread of mechanized harvesting makes the collection of these residues
feasible. Table 5-3 summarizes the impact on generation potential of assuming one scenario of
use of “field trash” in order to permit generation during the off-season as well.
55
Table 5-3: Estimated electricity per ton of sugarcane under different assumptions
(kWh/tc)
Bagasse Only a With Field Trash b

Steam Turbine Gasifier & Gasifier &
22 bar 42 bar 67 bar 82 bar Comb Cycle 82 bar Comb Cycle
Export to grid 0 20 45 105-120 145-160 180-195 290-305
Total generation 10 30 60 135 175 210 320
a
Assumes bagasse dry matter of 140 kg/ton of cane. Harvest during 210 days.
b
Additional 103 kg of residue per ton of cane. Generation throughout the year with 87% capacity factor.
Sources: Based on estimates for Brazil. Steam turbine 22 & 42 bar Seebaluck et alii, 2007; 22 & 67 bar is
from a Brazilian project; other cases from Larson, et alii, 2001.
Adding “field trash” increases the potential significantly per ton of cane. The impact of different
assumptions on the potential for electricity generation in Latin America is illustrated in Table 5-4,
considering the level of production of sugarcane production in 2006. By way of comparison with
the values shown, electricity generation in Latin America was 1175 TWh in 2006. If 82 bar is
taken as an approximate limit short of gasification technologies and ½ of capacity had access to
field residues, then the potential might be roughly 115 TWh, or about 10% of current regional
generation.
Table 5-4: Potential generation from existing sugarcane under different assumptions
(TWh)
Output in 2006 Bagasse Only With Field Trash

663 million tons Steam Turbine Gasifier & Gasifier &
22 bar 42 bar 67 bar 82 bar Comb Cycle 82 bar Comb Cycle
Export to grid 0 13.3 29.8 69.6 96.1 119.3 192.3
Total generation 6.6 19.9 39.8 89.5 116.0 139.2 212.2
The potential weight of sugarcane cogeneration varies widely from country to country. Using
2006 data and the criterion above (82 bar with 50% of the field trash), the potential in Brazil and
Central America would be 17-18% of total generation, in Colombia and Cuba 12-13%, while in
the Caribbean and most other countries it would 5% or less.
The resource base for cogeneration should expand in the future as sugarcane production
increases. Future growth of sugarcane production is quite uncertain and will depend both on
the market for sugar and for fuel alcohol (ethanol) or other liquid fuels from sugarcane. Rapid
growth of such biofuels could increase the potential for cogeneration of electricity. On the
otherhand, a countervailing factor would be the development of economic processes to produce
liquid fuels from cellulosic materials. There is a large global R&D effort directed towards this
goal. Sugarcane residues would be an obvious candidate feedstock for such processes – which
would drastically limit the quantity available for electricity generation.
A simplistic extrapolation of past growth at 2.5% would represent a kind of “business as usual”
scenario with neither a big push to liquid biofuels from cane sugar nor breakthroughs in
cellulose from cane residues. It implies a sugarcane production of about 1.2 billion tons per
56
year or about 80% larger than today. The electricity generation potentials for the region in this
scenario are summarized in Table 5-5, for different technology options. In each case it is
assumed that the option would be used for all sugarcane. In practice, a mix of technologies will
be used for many decades.
Of course, some of this potential has already been developed. As already observed, systematic
estimates of generation from sugarcane are not available. However, assuming that Brazil is
roughly representative, about 13 TWh of electricity was generated in sugarcane mills in 2006. 16
This value for existing generation has been subtracted to determine “remaining potential” in the
table.
Table 5-5: Potential generation from sugarcane under different assumptions - 2030
(TWh)
Output in 2030 Bagasse Only With Field Trash a

1.2 billion tons Steam Turbine Gasifier & Gasifier &
22 bar 42 bar 67 bar 82 bar Comb Cycled 82 bar Comb Cycled
Export to grid 0 24 54 126 174 216 348
Total generation 12 36 72 162 210 252 384
Remaining total b - bc 23 59 149 197 239 371
a
Assumes that all field trash is used. Assuming 50% used, total potential generation from 82 bar steam
turbines would be 207 TWh and from gasifier & combined cycle plants it would be 297 TWh.
b
As observed in the text, estimated generation from sugarcane in 2006 was about 13 TWh. This value is
subtracted from the projected total potential generation to calculate the remaining potential with that
technology option assuming all sugarcane is used for that option.
c
In the case of the 22 bar steam turbine option, existing generation (with 660 million tons of cane) is
already slightly greater than would be produced from 1.2 billion tons in 2030. Thus the “remaining total
potential” is zero. This is because many existing mills already have 42 bar or higher steam turbines. The
22 bar technology is already obsolete and is not suggested as an option for future plants..
d
Plants with biomass gasifier & combined cycle technology are not yet technologically proven.
Today, most projects for new or retrofit capacity are designed to operate at 67 bar and do not
assume the use significant amounts of field trash. Thus, a “business as usual” scenario might
project something like 60 TWh of new generation by about 2030. The sugarcane processing
industry is quite conservative and even this modest scenario implies improved electricity pricing
in many countries, even though new 67 bar capacity can be economically competitive.
Going to higher steam pressures and using more field trash do not need technical
breakthroughs and might add 100-150 TWh. Gasification would push potential up another 30-
40% but it’s impact until 2030 would be substantially less, since even if a successful
development program were launched now, commercial deployment would be unlikely before
2020.
The possible contribution of generation from sugarcane to the mix of supply for future expansion
in the region will be discussed in Section 7.
16
In 2006, total generation from sugarcane in Brazil was 8.4 TWh, rising to 11.1 TWh in 2007. Sugarcane
production increased by 15% between 2006 and 2007, which explains about half of this large increase. In
2006 Brazil produced 69% of the region’s sugarcane. New plants have at least 40 bar pressure and
usually more, thus increasing the average coefficient of kWh/tc of the industry.
57
58
6. Solar Energy
There are two basic technological approaches to generating electricity from solar radiation.
They have very different characteristics.
 Solar thermal generation technology heats a fluid which is converted to mechanical
energy in a heat engine based on a thermodynamic cycle – usually Rankine. In order to
increase thermodynamic efficiency, sunlight is usually concentrated in order to achieve
higher temperatures and hence greater efficiency.
 Photovoltaic (PV) technology converts radiation to electricity in semi-conductors. PV
arrays with crystalline silicon are the most common and include the most efficient
configurations. Non-crystalline arrays and other semi-conductor materials are also being
used.
From the perspective of the electrical system, the most important difference between these two
approaches is that the PV is inherently far more adapted to small scale decentralized (or
“distributed”) generation applications. PV systems can be installed in peoples’ residences to
supply a part of their power. Solar thermal electric systems are >1 MW and more complex to
operate. They are equivalent to other central station power plants, which must be operated by
utilities or specialists (IPPs) selling to the grid.
Photovoltaic systems come in two basic types: flat plate and with concentrators. An advantage
of the concentrators is that the relatively expensive PV surface area is much reduced. On the
other hand, concentrator systems depend on direct radiation to operate. Flat plate PV arrays
can use indirect or diffuse radiation as well. This characteristic of PV concentrator systems is
shared with solar thermal systems and makes them suitable only in regions with very low
nebulosity, such as deserts. These systems are also more complex and thus are likely to be
owned and operated by utilities in centralized facilities.
The efficiency of solar thermal plants depends on the temperature of the heated working fluid,
which depends in turn on the factor of concentration of sunlight achieved. The most common
configuration is parabolic trough concentrators, shown in Figure 6-1. A more recently installed
configuration is heliostats which reflect sunlight onto a central tower. The capacity of a
parabolic dish is too small to be of much interest for electricity generation.
Figure 6-1: Configurations for solar thermal plants

59
The efficiency of PV systems depends on the semi-conductor materials used and their
configuration. There is also a large difference between the best efficiencies achieved in
experimental lab-scale PV cells and commercially deployed modules. The best flat plate single
crystal silicon experimental cells have achieved 25% or more, while multicrystalline cells
achieve 20%. Commercial flat plate silicon crystal modules now typically achieve 13-15 %.
Triple junction III-V compound modules with concentrators have achieved an extraordinary 41%
efficiency at very high factors of concentration - 380 times the sun’s intensity (NAS/NAE,
2009).17
At the other end of the spectrum, thin films of amorphous silicon or other semiconductor
materials have achieved only 12 % in the lab and 50-60% of that level in commercial moduless.
However, there are cost advantages to this approach. The thin films are laid down on low cost
substrates, such as plastic or glass, and use 1/10th to 1/100th the quantity of expensive semi-
conductor material used in crystalline cells. Manufacturing technology is simpler and many
processes are continuous. Module fabrication, involving the interconnection of individual solar
cells, is usually carried out as part of the film deposition process. The resulting cost per m 2 of
module surface area is much lower than for single crystal or polycrystalline silicon arrays
(USDOE, 2007). Unfortunately, the thin film modules’ performance degrades more rapidly than
that of the crystalline arrays. Whereas a lifetime of 20 years may be assumed for the latter, 15
years is the current limit for thin films (ESMAP, 2007).
Finally, there are emerging technologies such as dye sensitized nanocrystalline titanium dioxide
films, cells based on organic polymers and cells based on other nanomaterials (USDOE, 2007).
TiO2 cells have achieved 10% efficiency in the lab. Organic semiconductors hold promise as
building blocks for very low-cost solar cells. Organic solar cells can be about 10 times thinner
than thin film solar cells. The basic materials are cheaper and high-volume production
techniques could be used. However, efficiencies are still relatively low (6-7% in the lab) and
stability of the compounds is an issue.
The amount of incident solar radiation is so vast that electricity needs could in theory be
satisfied even with modest levels of efficiency of conversion of sunlight into electricity. For
example, assuming only 100 kWh per m2 of PV solar arrays, the area required to generate all of
Latin America’s electricity would be less than 12,500 km 2. This is a very much smaller area
than that now covered by hydro plant reservoirs in the region. To calibrate 100 kWh/m 2, look at
Map 6-1 below, which assumes an efficiency of 11.5% for a PV system (14% for individual
modules). The search for improving efficiency has much more to do with improving the
economics of solar energy than with increasing the potential output. The real challenge is to
maintain efficiencies already achieved while using lower cost production techniques (e.g.
silicon), or to increase the low efficiencies of concepts with clear potential for low cost
production (e.g. organic polymers).
The geographic distribution of the quality of solar PV potential is illustrated in Map 6-1, in terms
of annual kWh of electricity generated per m 2 of array area. Since the estimate is for flat panel
PV arrays, this is a function of total and not just direct radiation. The best potentials are not
17
The III and V indicate the column location of elements in the Periodic Table. Compounds based on
these are the materials for modern optoelectronic devices typically used in high-speed transistors. In this
case the triple junction is based on GaInP2/GaInAs/Ge which was developed originally for space
applications. Most concentrator systems are less intense (10-50 times), use silicon crystals and achieve
efficiencies on the order of 25% in laboratories.
60
found near the equator, given the humidity in most places. Dry areas and those at higher
altitudes have higher potential per m2 of array. In Latin America the very best areas are in the
deserts of northern Mexico as well as the Andean highlands and the dry Pacific Coast.
Map 6-1: Annual solar photovoltaic potential (kWh/m2) - World

Source: Czisch, 2004.
Compared with wind, there is much less difference in the average annual energy output per kW
of installed capacity between areas with excellent potential and those with merely average
potential. This means solar is less site dependent than wind energy, at least if we consider flat
plate PV technologies. The deployment of solar thermal and concentrator PV systems would be
much more geographically restricted.
A key characteristic of solar energy is its variability. Besides the diurnal cycle, when output falls
to zero, there is also a predictable seasonal variation. At higher latitudes the amplitude of this
seasonal variation is very large – summer output is about 4-5 times higher than winter at 50º
North or South. At the lower latitudes of most of Latin America the seasonal variation of total
radiation is much less pronounced, which is advantageous for the economics of solar energy in
the region.
The PV industry grew at more than 40 % per year worldwide from 2000 through 2008. Much of
this growth is the result of national programs targeted toward growing the PV industry and
improving PV’s competitiveness in the marketplace. In 2007, PV modules supplying 3.4 GW
were produced worldwide – though deployment in Latin America was tiny. Growth in solar
thermal has been smaller.
Despite this impressive growth, the generation of electricity directly from solar radiation is still far
too expensive to be considered a significant option for supplying electricity to the grid. The
61
more viable applications are found in off-grid situations, usually in isolated localities with very
small consumption, where alternatives are also very expensive.
The costs per kW of installed capacity have been falling substantially and are projected to fall
further in the future. One analysis suggests of the evolution of PV costs suggests that the
prices of PV modules have followed a historical trend along the “80 percent learning curve.”
That is, for every doubling of the total cumulative production of PV modules worldwide, the price
has dropped by approximately 20 percent. This trend is illustrated in Figure 6-2.
The final historical data point shown for 2003 corresponds to about $3.50/Wp and a cumulative
PV capacity of 3 GW. From 2003 until 2008 the price of PVs does not seem to have decreased
substantially. This may have been a result of the boom in commodity prices in general and the
tight supply for PVs given the rapid expansion of demand (production of PVs in 2007 was larger
than the cumulative installed capacity in 2003). A similar price inflation was observed during
this period with wind turbines.
Figure 6-2: Learning curve for photovoltaic costs

Source: NAS/NAE 2009
The cost of the module is only about 50% of the total cost of the PV system. Generic estimates
made by ESMAP/World Bank suggest that the capital cost of a 5 MW plant for the grid would be
about $7,000/kWp in 2005, falling to $5500 by 2015 (ESMAP, 2007). Assuming a discount rate
of 10%, a lifetime of 20 years and a capacity factor of 20% the levelized capital cost per MWh
would be $473/MWh, falling to $369/MWh in 2015. To this must be added an O&M cost of
$1.20-11.00/MWh.18 The generation costs per MWh are many times higher than those of other
renewable energy technologies.
18
The lower value is from ESMAP, 2007. The higher value is based on a fixed O&M cost of $10-20 per
year per installed kW in the United States (NAS/NAE, 2009).
62
The high economic cost of PV systems has some relationship with another less obvious
problem - the large amount of energy needed to fabricate crystalline silicon cells. It typically
requires several years to “pay back” this energy investment, much more than other generation
technologies (NAS/NAE, 2009). With technological innovation the tendency is for this payback
period to decrease (or the “External Energy Ratio” to increase) and with thin films and other
emerging technologies the payback time could be less than one year. This improvement will be
important, because a relatively long payback period together with rapid growth can seriously
reduce the effective net contribution of new generation capacity, as illustrated in Figure 6-3.
This is very simple illustrative example of the net fossil fuel (or, better, energy) displaced by
rapidly introducing a renewable technology with a payback time of 4 years (fairly typical of
historic paybacks for PV). In this case one unit of renewable capacity is introduced each year
over a five year period (the green line shows the cumulative renewable output). The graph then
shows the units of fossil energy required to produce the new renewable technology capacity
(red line). Over the five years of deploying the renewable technology, the net contribution is
negative (black line).
Figure 6-3: Simple illustrative example of cumulative net fossil fuel

Displaced by a hypothetical renewable technology
(Assumes all energy input to fabricate renewable capacity is fossil fuel)
Although the graph is a great simplification, something like this situation probably occurred
during the recent years of rapid expansion of PV capacity.
A major reduction in the projected future cost of PV modules depends on advances with thin
films, concentrator systems, or other new technologies. The graph in Figure 6-2 projects the
path of future costs under historical learning rates as well as with slower and faster rates of
learning.
Solar thermal electric generation is substantially cheaper than photovoltaic today. The
ESMAP/World Bank study estimates an investment of $2480/kW in 2005 falling to $ 1960 in
2015 for a 30 MW plant without storage. A longer lifetime (30 years) is also assumed. Thus the
levelized capital cost would be about $ 150/MWh falling to $ 120/MWh in 2015.
63
An equivalent plant with storage is assumed to have an investment of $4850/kW, falling to
$3820 in 2015. The storage is assumed to increase the capacity factor from 20% to 54%. Such
a high capacity factor seems optimistic. Capacity factors cited in NAS/NAE, 2009 generally do
not exceed 35%. Depending on the capacity factor, the range of levelized capital costs for
plants might thus be between $110 and $170 per MWh.
While this is substantially lower than the capital cost of photovoltaics, it is still expensive. There
is another problem, which limits the potential for solar thermal generation: the need for cooling
water. Solar thermal generation plant would be more or less restricted to arid regions where
water is usually scarce.
There is in fact a wide range in the projections of future solar energy costs. For example, the
most optimistic estimates of future levelized costs per kWh for PV systems are ¼ - ⅟5 the cost of
the most pessimistic estimates for equivalent time horizons (from 2020 to 2035). The more
optimistic projections tend to be based on targets.
Solar electricity is likely to remain expensive over the main time horizon of this report (~20
years) compared to other renewable energy technologies. However, over a longer time frame
technological advances may make solar energy more competitive. It bears remembering that
photovoltaics are part of a family of semi-conductor science & technologies which have already
wrought huge revolutions in our economic life. Large improvements in PV cost and durability
can’t be predicted, but they are certainly possible. On the other hand, the potential to
dramatically reduce solar thermal generation costs is much more limited.
It is quite possible that solar energy will first have a significant impact on the grid’s supply of
electricity via decentralized or “distributed” applications on consumers’ premises. Photovoltaics
have very small, if any, economies of scale – different from most electricity generating
technologies. For example, in the ESMAP/World Bank study (ESMAP, 2007) the total
investment per kW capacity in a 50 Watt PV system is 6% higher than in a 5 MW system which
is 100,000 times larger. Even this may overstate (or invert) the difference, since the 50 Watt
plant is assumed to have a battery storage sub-system which is absent from the 5 MW plant (in
the same study there is no change in cost per kW with systems ranging from 50 W to 25 kW,
which all have battery storage).
If one considers consumers connected to the grid instead of isolated systems (which was the
emphasis of the ESMAP/World Bank study), there is no inherent reason why consumers
interested in PVs for a relatively small part of their consumption should also invest in expensive
battery storage, at least beyond a very small capacity to facilitate the interface with the grid.
This is especially the case in Latin America, where in most countries electricity supply is quite
reliable. In any case, the decision to install substantial battery storage would be more of a result
a judgment about the reliability of the grid’s supply than of the desire to have a solar
complement.
While on the one hand there is almost no economy of scale for PVs, there is definitely an
economic benefit from generating power at the point of use. The price paid by low and medium
voltage consumers is usually much higher than the wholesale price paid to generators, at least
in countries where electricity prices are not heavily subsidized. An investment in a 3-400 W p
system (less than 2 m2 of PV module in many places of Latin America) could cost less than
$2000 within a decade long. Meanwhile, a whole constellation of new “smart grid” technologies
could play a key role facilitating the entry of solar PV systems in consumers’ buildings and
homes, in a way that is still unthinkable almost everywhere in Latin America today.
64
Finally, another aspect of the decentralized supply of solar energy deserves mention. While the
focus here is on electricity generation, it should be noted that technologies for solar water
heating can substitute directly for electricity use in tropical/subtropical countries, such as Brazil,
where electricity is commonly used for residential hot water. Modest systems designed to
substitute only a part of the hot water supply can be quite inexpensive and deserve much more
attention than they have received. There are also more limited, but interesting, opportunities to
bring solar radiation into buildings for lighting – “passive lighting” systems, as it were.
7. Renewable Potentials in the Context of Future Growth

What might the contribution of renewable energy sources be to the future expansion of
generation in Latin America? This section attempts to provide a preliminary overview of the
possibilities.
In order to establish a reference against which to compare the estimates of potential made
earlier, a very simple scenario of growth in total generation has been prepared. It is assumed
that by about 2030 electricity generation would have grown by 2000 TWh. The increase has
deliberately been set relatively high - equivalent to a growth rate of 4.3% per year from the base
of 1225 TWh in 2007 (between 1998 and 2007, the growth rate was 3.7%).
The purpose of this paper is only to analyze potentials, not to provide an expansion plan. The
objective of the scenario is thus simply to roughly calibrate the estimated contributions of
different kinds of resources to Latin America’s expansion over the coming 20-30 years. From
this perspective, it is not important whether the increase of 2000 TWh has occurred by 2028
(4.7% per year) or by 2035 (3.5% per year). Given the large uncertainties surrounding estimates
of the potential of different resources, precision in estimating the rate of exploitation would be a
distraction at this stage. Factors which influence the rate of exploitation are mostly quite
distinct from those which set the underlying potential.
Returning to the present, in 2007 the share of renewables was about 59.3% of the total
generation. Of this, 56.7% was from hydropower and about 2.6% from other renewables. 19 The
tendency has been for this proportion to fall slightly over the past two decades or so.
If Latin America is to simply maintain this proportion of ~60% renewable electricity supply over
the next 20-30 years, one point seems clear: the use of renewable resources other than hydro
must expand, probably dramatically.
In the section on hydropower it was estimated that somewhere between 800 and 1360 TWh of
economically and environmentally viable potential remain to be developed. This means that
hydro might provide as little as 40% of the total increase, assuming that all of the potential were
developed in this time frame. In the most optimistic hydro scenario (which assumes that 70% of
the total potential of about 2900 TWh in Table 2.5 can be developed), there would in principle
be enough hydro resources to supply ⅔ of the 2000 TWh of growth.
However, it seems highly unlikely that all the remaining hydropower potential in Latin America
could be developed within the next 20-25 years, especially in the higher scenarios of exploitable
potential. Hydro resources are unevenly distributed and take time to develop – some are
19
Of this 16-17 TWh is estimated to be from sugarcane biomass and 15.2 TWh from everything else.
65
located in remote areas. Brazil, which has 40% of the region’s hydro resources and more than
half the production today, is very unlikely to exhaust the development of its hydro resource
within the next 20 years. Outside of Brazil, three countries – Colombia, Peru and Ecuador –
have more than half of the remaining potential and currently use less than 10% of it. Unless
their hydro output is somehow integrated into the supply of other countries in the region there
will simply not be a market for much of their potential in this timeframe.
Development of most of the viable hydropower potential in the region by around 2030 implies a
degree of interconnection and international commerce in electricity which is barely being
discussed today.
In order to visualize the challenges, three simple scenarios have been prepared..
a. In the most pessimistic case only ~800 TWh of hydro remains to be effectively exploited
and 90% of it is developed in the period over which generation expands by 2000 TWh.
b. In a moderate case, ~1080 TWh remain to be exploited and 85% are developed in the
period.
c. In an optimistic case, ~1360 TWh remain to be exploited and 80% are developed in the
period.
Table 7-1 summarizes the consequences.
Table 7-1: Scenarios to maintain a 60% share of renewables for next 2000 TWh of growth
Hydropowe Remaining Built in Share of Other Renewables to

r
Scenario Hydropower Period Growth in Period To Maintain 60% Share
TWh TWh % % Growth Δ TWh
Low 800 720 36.0 24.0 480
Medium 1080 920 46.0 14.0 280
High 1360 1090 54.5 5.5 110
Even in the most optimistic (high) hydropower case, the share of “other renewables” must
double in order to maintain a 60% share. In terms of TWh, the increase is bigger: 110 TWh
versus ~32 TWh generated today from “other renewables”. In the medium hydropower case,
one sees a nine-fold increase, to 280 TWh. In the low hydropower case, a fifteen-fold increase.
A parallel study has been prepared for the World Bank which synthesizes projections from
governments of the region and performs sensitivity analyses of the impacts of oil and carbon
prices on the mix of generation in 2030.20 It was made available to the author after the analysis
in this paper had been completed.
The results of this separate study of supply and demand balances reinforce the conclusion that
the regional share of hydro is tending downwards over the coming decades. In all the
scenarios, it is expected that only 48% of expansion will be from hydropower (see Box). This is
very close to the share in the medium scenario of Table 7-1. However, the projection of total
generation growth is much smaller - about 1140 TWh of new generation output by 2030,
equivalent to a growth rate of 2.9% from 2007.
20
The study cited is an input for Part II of the World Bank report Latin America and Caribbean Region’s
Electricity Challenge, which is currently in preparation. This paper on the potential for renewables is an
annex for the same report.
66
A parallel perspective of the contribution of hydropower to 2030
The separate analysis of supply & demand balances cited in the text provides a useful snapshot of the
perspective of planners in the region. Several results stand out from the sequence of scenarios
summarized in the figure showing Latin America’s generation mix in 2030 under different scenarios of
prices for oil and CO2.
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
Nuclear
Hydro
GWhr
1,500,000 Geothermic
Gas
Fuel Oil
1,000,000 Wind
Diesel
Coal
500,000
Biomass
-
2030 @ Low 2030 @ 2030 @ High 2030 @ High 2030 @
Crude price Medium Crude Crude price Crude price Medium Crude
price with Medium price with High
CO2 price CO2 price
A B C D E
Scenarios
Despite the large differences in fossil fuels` prices there is no significant change in the projected share of
nuclear or renewables, especially hydropower. The share of hydro is apparently seen as a kind of
maximum feasible level, with no sensitivity to fuel prices. What happens is a play between natural gas
and coal, with a bit role for fuel oil.
 Scenario A, with low prices for oil (US$ 50/b) - and implicity, natural gas – has a large share of
natural gas in the generation mix.
 Scenario C, with high oil & gas prices (US$ 150/b), has a large coal supply (while gas almost
disappears and fuel oil increases a bit).
 Scenario E, with medium oil & gas prices (US$ 100/b) and high CO 2 prices ($50/t CO2) returns to
almost the same mix as Scenario A. Increasing the CO2 price increase the relative cost of coal.
Overall, hydro’s share of the region’s expansion is projected to be substantially smaller than the historical
share, as is shown in the table. The contributions of all other renewable energy resources remain tiny.
Share in 2007 Share of expansion 2007-2030

Hydro Nuclear Other Hydro Nuclear Other
Latin America 57% 2,4% 41% 48% 8% 44%
Southern Cone 49% 3% 48% 33% 34% 33%
Brazil 83% 3% 14% 77% 4% 18%
Andean 71% 0% 29% 51% 0% 49%
Central America 45% 0% 55% 55% 0% 45%
Caribbean 8% 0% 92% 9% 0% 91%
Mexico 12% 4% 84% 3% 0% 97%
67
Assuming the projections of hydropower expansion in this parallel supply/demand analysis, the
increment of “other renewables” needed to maintain a 60% renewable share would be about
140 TWh, almost a five-fold increase over today.
This kind of acceleration would clearly pose a big challenge for policy. However, judging from
the analysis in the previous chapters, it seems possible from a physical perspective to achieve
even the higher levels of generation from “other renewables”. This is also probably true from an
economic perspective if there is some form of credit for reducing greenhouse gas emissions
relative to fossil fuel thermal plants. We briefly review the different renewable resources and
some factors influencing their possible contributions.
.
Wind has the largest potential of the non-hydro renewables over the coming several decades
and is the possible “game changer” in the region. As described in Section 3, the ability of a
system to absorb a share of wind capacity up to 20% of total capacity (or 9-14% of generation
output) without high reserve costs now seems to be widely accepted. In this case, assuming a
regional system with ~3200 TWh of generation (i.e with 2000 TWh of growth), wind could supply
290-450 TWh. Assuming the lower projections for 2030 descroibed above (about 2400 TWh),
the limit on wind would be about 210-330 TWh.
Reaching the higher values by 2030 seems problematic, simply in terms of deployment.
Beyond some point (perhaps 150-200 TWh) stronger intra-regional interconnections will be very
desirable to provide complementation. This would be an extension of the stronger
interconnections already recommended for the optimized development of hydropower in the
region. In general, the large share of hydro in Latin America should facilitate the absorption of
wind power.21
The wind resource base in some countries may be too small to reach 20% of capacity, though
others have abundant high quality resources and overall Latin America’s potential from high
quality resources is probably substantially larger than the 450 TWh “ceiling” set from the
perspective of system integration. This report has focused on higher quality wind potential – at
least “Class 4” (7.0 m/s or more) or even “Class 5” (7.5 m/s) - because higher capacity factors
can be obtained, which substantially reduces the cost gap with conventional fossil fuel
generation technologies.
Biomass, particularly sugarcane residues, could make a significant contribution, whose size
depends on what standard of technology the sugarcane mills adopt. The current tendency is
install new generating plant with 67 atmospheres (bar) pressure steam. More aggressive
policies might take the standard to 80+ bar. At the same time, mechanization of the harvest and
prohibitions on burning field trash in the field are opening the possibility of increasing the fuel
available for generation. Based on the discussion in Section 5, Table 7-2 provides a simple
matrix of possible outputs for the grid, depending on the technology and the degree of use of
field trash as fuel.
21
Hydro has characteristics which facilitate the incorporation of both wind and solar into the grid. The
technology is well suited to ramping and load following – even better than turbines using natural gas. In
addition, storage capacity permits adjustments to variations from average output - though, planners
should avoid naïve schemes to use hydro to provide base load power from wind. The terms of the
contracting of wind power in Brazil’s auction described in Section 3 – which set only annual production
targets – are a practical illustration of the benefits of a hydro system.
68
Table 7-2: Illustrative matrix of generation options from sugarcane residues
(TWh/year sold to the grid) a
67 bar 82 bar BIGTCC b

Assume 1/4 capacity using trash 54,9 139,4 208,3
a
Values refer to the electricity which could be sold (or “exported”) to the grid and refer to the
possible increase between 2006 and 2030. Each value assumes that all the sugarcane output in
2030 goes to that option. For more information see the notes to Table 5-5.
b
The technology option “Biomass gasifier with combined cycle gas turbines” is not yet technically
proven.
If 67 bar technology were used and ¼ of plants used field trash for fuel, an increase of 55 TWh
would be possible, compared to about 9 TWh sold to the grid in 2007. This might not be far
from the trend already underway.
If there were a jump to 82 bar steam technology and ½ of plants used field trash for fuel,
something like 160 TWh might be sold. If there were a technology breakthrough in
gasification/combined cycle plants (BIGTCC) then export to the grid could grow substantially
more. However, such a breakthrough (if it happens at all) seems unlikely to occur in time to
substantially impact output much before 2025
The values here assume a sugarcane industry growing at 2.5%/year – roughly the historic rate
of the previous decade. This implies that there is no large expansion of sugarcane for ethanol
production and also that few, if any residues are diverted for the production of liquid biofuels
from cellulose. Other sources of biomass (residues of the pulp and paper industry, rice, urban
solid wastes) may also add some to the expansion of electricity generation from biomass,
though they have been relatively small historically.
Geothermal potential is something of an incognita. Published analyses are minimal. By

analogy with the United States, where there has been more exploratory drilling, the potential of
“conventional” hydrothermal resources might be almost 300 TWh per year throughout Latin
America. Of this, perhaps 125 TWh might conceivably be developed by 2030, compared with
the 11 TWh currently generated.22 This hydrothermal potential would be concentrated along the
tectonically active Pacific Rim from Mexico to Chile and in some Caribbean islands.
If there is a breakthrough in the use of nonconventional geothermal resources, especially from

deep hot dry rocks (HDR), the potential output would be substantially increased. However, such
a breakthrough is far from certain, especially considering problems with the induction of
earthquakes which have been encountered in the course of fracturing the reservoir.
Solar electricity generation also depends on breakthroughs to reduce costs if it is to contribute

seriously to supply on the grid, though off-grid applications will probably grow. No estimates
have been made in this report. In the nearer term, solar thermal applications – especially for
water heating – could substitute for electricity in some tropical/subtropical countries. This option
deserves attention.
*****
22
This value is equivalent to what might be developed in the USA by 2015, adjusted to account for land
area and a heat flux which is 25% higher on average than in the US/Canada, as discussed in Section 4.
69
Considering the non-hydro renewable resources discussed above, it should be possible to
maintain the current average share of renewables of around 60%. This is true even under the
pessimistic projection of hydro in Table 7-1 of only 720 TWh, or 36% of expansion, though the
challenge would be huge. This scenario would require about 480 TWh of new output from these
sources. From the brief review above it is clear that much turns on whether wind can fulfill its
promise:
Wind: 290-450 TWh (with the lower projections to 2030 cited above, 210-330 TWh)
Sugarcane: 50-150 TWh
Geothermal: 25-125 TWh
Solar: probably small, not evaluated
Even the low scenario for wind would represent a dramatic change from today. Sugarcane (and
biomass in general) are more limited but still important. The low scenario here is practically
“business as usual”. Geothermal is very uncertain, but is probably the smallest of the three
resources. In the case of the supply/demand projections cited above II, where generation
increases less, the gap of 140 TWh is actually quite small relative to the potentials.
In more optimistic hydro scenarios, covering, say 45-55% of expansion, an accelerated scenario
of other renewables (say 350-400 TWh) would provide the basis for an increase in the total
share of renewables. This possibility has not been analyzed in this paper, in part because Latin
America’s share of renewables is high by world standards. However, the goal of reducing or
even stabilizing GHG emissions worldwide could make this increase desirable – especially
considering the difficulties which may be encountered in other sectors of energy use.
Evidently, the mix of renewables would vary considerably among the different parts of Latin
America given their distinctive resource endowments. Argentina is particularly rich in wind.
Brazil has large hydro, biomass and wind resources, but very little geothermal. Central America
has relatively large hydro, biomass and geothermal resources, but high quality wind resources
there may be limited.
The Caribbean islands present challenges which are very distinct from the rest of the region.
Possibilities for interconnection, which will probably be important for accelerating utility scale
renewables elsewhere, will mostly not be feasible. The cost of renewable strategies will be
higher and possibilities for complementation will be less. Solar may have a larger role sooner.
The use of biomass probably needs to have a larger weight and attention given to diverse
feedstocks. Geothermal energy could be an interesting possibility on some volcanic islands.
This report has emphasized defining better the possibilities for renewable energy development,
not the probabilities. There are considerable policy challenges involved, whose discussion goes
beyond the scope of this report. At a more elementary level there is a paucity of reliable
information on potentials to orient policy makers on where the opportunities are and how big
they really are. There is an urgent need to invest in seriously improving the quality and quantity
of information and analyses available on renewable resource potentials. Individual countries
need to take the lead in this endeavor, but multilateral agents could play an important
supporting role. Annex D summarizes some specific points where such support seems useful.
70
References
References followed by an asterisk (*) have been copied and delivered to the World Bank as a
reference archive.
BCN, 2004; Posibilidades de la Energía Geotérmica en Chile. El Caso de la Octava Región;

Informe Nº 135, Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile – Departamento de Estudios,
Extensión y Publicaciones, Santiago del Chile. *
BEN, 2008; Balanço Energético Nacional; Empresa de Planejamento Energética, Rio de

Janeiro.
CADER, 2009; Estado de la Industria Eólica en Argentina 2009; Cámara Argentina de Energías
Renovables. *
CAE, 2009; Electricity: Interconnecting Canada – A Strategic Advantage; Report of the Canada
Power Grid Task Force, Canadian Academy of Engineering, Ottawa.
CEAC, 2007; Plano Indicativo Regional de Expansion de la Generación Periodo 2007-2020;

Grupo to Trabajo de Planificacion Indicativa Regional (GTPIR), Consejo de Electrificacion de
America Central. *
CHA, 2007; Study of Hydropower Potential in Canada; Canadian Hydropower Association. *
Colombia IDEAM, 2005; Atlas de Radiación Solar de Colombia; Instituto de Hidrologia,

Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales, Bogotá. *
Colombia IDEAM, 2006: Atlas de Viento e Energia Eólica de Colombia; Instituto de Hidrologia,
Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales (IDEAM). http://www.upme.gov.co/Index4.htm *
Colombia UPME, 2008; Plan de Expansión de Referencia: Generación e Transmisión 2008-

2022 ; Unidad de Planeación Minero Energética, Ministerio de Minas y Energía, Bogotá, April. *
CEPEL, 2001; Atlas do Potencial Eólico Brasileiro; Centro de Pesquisas de Energia Elétrica - Centro de
Referência para Energia Solar e Eólica Sérgio de Salvo Brito (CRESESB), Brasília.
http://www.cresesb.cepel.br/index.php?link=/atlas_eolico_brasil/atlas.htm
CNEC, 1980; Inventários Hidrelétricos: Bacia do Rio Xingú; Consórcio Nacional de Engenheiros
Consultores for Eletronorte, Brasília.
CNE-Chile, 2006; Guía para Evaluacion Ambiental Energias Renovables no Convencionales –

Proyectos Eolicos; Comisión Nacional de Energia in collaboration with the Comisión Nacional
del Medio Ambiente and support from Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit
(GTZ), Santiago, Chile *
Czisch, G, 2004; Cost minimum for a European/Transeuropean electricity supply entirely with
renewable; ISET, University of Kassel, Germany.
71
Devoto, G. no date; Hydroelectric Power and Development in Argentina; Ente Nacional
Regulador de la Electricidad, Buenos Aires.*
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sdissues/energy/op/hydro_devoto.pdf
Dickson, M.H. & Fanelli, M., 2004; What is Geothermal Energy?; Istituto di Geoscienze e
Georisorse, CNR , Pisa, Italy. http://cipore.org/info-centre/available-technology/geothermal-
technology/
EEPM, 2006; La Energía Eólica como Possibilidad de Aprovechamento – Experiencia de las

EEPM; Empresas Públicas de Medellin, June. *
EERE/USDOE, 2008: 20% Wind Energy by 2030 – Increasing Wind Energy’s Contribution to
US Electricity Supply; Report DOE/GO-102008-2567 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Department, US Department of Energy, July. More information is available on the web at:
www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro and http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41869.pdf *
Eletrobrás, 1993; Plano 2015 - volume 2; Rio de Janeiro.
EPE, 2007; Plano Nacional de Energia – 2030; Ministério de Minas e Energia, Empresa de
Pesquisa Energética, Rio de Janeiro.*
EPE, 2007b; Plano Nacional de Energia – 2030. Volume 3 - Geração Hidrelétrica; Ministério de
Minas e Energia, Empresa de Pesquisa Energética, Rio de Janeiro.*
EPE, 2009; Metodologia de Contabilização da Produção Eólica; No EPE-DEE-RE-014/2009-r0

Errata (2); Empresa de Pesquisa Energética; Rio de Janeiro, September. *
EPE, 2009b; Estudos para Licitação da Expansão da Geração: Avaliação Técnica AHE Belo
Monte – Apresentação Geral da Otimização do Empreendimento; Report No EPE-DEE-RE-
046/2009-r0, Empresa de Pesquisa Energética, Rio de Janeiro, September. *
ESMAP, 2007; Technical and Economic Assessment of Off-grid, Mini-grid and Grid
Electrification Technologies; Energy and Mining Sector Board, Energy Sector Management
Assistance Program, World Bank, Washington DC. *
ESMAP, 2009; Review of Policy Framework for Increased Reliance on Wind Energy in
Colombia – Options for Markey Entry of Wind Power in Colombia’s Energy Mix; Energy Sector
Management Assistance Program, World Bank, Washington DC, June. *
ETESA, 2007; Plan de Expansión del Sistema Interconectado Nacional 2007-2021; Empresa de
Transmisión Eléctrica S.A, Gerencia de Planeamiento, October, Panamá.*
Eurelectric, 1997; Study on the importance of harnessing the hydropower resources of the
world; Report Reference – 03000Ren9761, Union of the Electricity Industry, Brussels. *
http://www2.eurelectric.org/Content/Default.asp
FAO, 2009; Statistical Yearbook 2007-2008; Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.
Hernandez, N., 2009; Energias Alternativas – Venezuela y America Latina; Universidad Simón
Bolivar. http://www.slideshare.net/energia/energias-alternativas-venezuela-y-latinoamerica
72
ICE, 2007; Plan de Expansion de la Generacion Electrica Periodo 2008 – 2021; Instituto
Costarricense de Electricidad, Centro Nacional de Planificacion Electrica, San José, Costa
Rica. *
IGA, 2001; Report of the IGA to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development Session 9
(CSD-9); International Geothermal Association. *
Iglesias, E., Arellano, V., Torres, R., 2005; “Estimación del recurso y prospectiva
tecnológica de la geotermia en México”; Annex 3 of Prospectiva sobre la utilización de las
energías renovables en México. Una visión al año 2030; Subsecretaria de Planeación
energética y Desarrollo Tecnológico, Secretaría de Energía, (SENER, 2005) México. *
IHA, 2000; Hydropower and the World's Energy Future; International Hydropower Association
together with International Commission on Large Dams, International Energy Agency and
Canadian Hydropower Association. http://www.ieahydro.org/reports/Hydrofut.pdf
IWP&D, 1989; The World's Hydro Resources; International Water Power & Dam Construction,
September.
Keane, M. & Montanez, L., 2009; Programmatic Study: Energy Sector in Central America;
Review for LAC Region, World Bank, Washington DC, May. *
Krohn, Søren; personal communication; March and June, 2009.
Larson, E.D., William, R.H. & Leal, M.R, 2001; A review of biomass integrated-gasifier/gas
turbine combined cycle technology and its application in sugarcane industries, with an
analysis for Cuba; Center for Energy & Environmental Studies, Princeton University / Centro de
Tecnologia Copersucar, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil.
http://www.princeton.edu/pei/energy/publications/texts/Larson-01_ESD_Cuba_biomass_IGCC.pdf
Ledec, G.C.; Good Dams and Bad Dams Environmental Criteria for Choosing New Hydropower
Sites; Latin America and Caribbean Region, World Bank, Washington DC. No date. *
Moreira, J.R. & Poole, A.D., 1993; "Hydroelectricity and its Constraints" in (ed) T. Johansson, H.
Kelly, A.K.N. Reddy and R.H. Williams, Renewable Energy: Sources for Fuels and Electricity,
Island Press, Washington DC.
MME-Brazil, 2009; Portaria 211 of May 28, 2009 – Guidelines for an auction to contract reserve
energy; Ministério de Minas e Energia, Brasília. *
NAS/NAE, 2009; Electricity from Renewable Resources: Status, Prospects, and Impediments;
America’s Energy Future Panel on Electricity from Renewable Resources, National Research
Council of the National Academy of Sciences/National Academy of Engineering, Washington
DC. *
NREL, 2001; Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the Dominican Republic; Report NREL/TP-500-
27602, US National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado. *
NREL, 2003; Wind Energy Resource Atlas of Oaxaca; Report NREL/TP-500-34519, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado. *
73
NREL/IEA, 2008; Impacts of Large Amounts of Wind Power on Design and Operation of Power
Systems; Results of IEA Collaboration; National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Conference
Paper NREL/CP-500-43540, June. *
NYT, 2009; Deep in Bedrock, Clean Energy and Quake Fears; New York Times, June 23.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/business/energy-environment/24geotherm.html?_r=1
OLADE, 2004; Energía em Cifras/Energy Statistics – 2003; Version 16, Sistema de Información
Económica-Energética (SEIN), Organización Latinoamericana de Energía, Quito, October. *
OLADE, 2005; Prospectiva Energética de América Latina y el Caribe; Organizacion

Latinaoamericana de Energia, Quito. *
OLADE, 2007; Energy Statistics Report – 2006; Organización Latinoamericana de Energía,

Quito. *
OLADE, 2008; Energy Statistics Report – 2007; Organización Latinoamericana de Energía,

Quito. *
ONS, 2001; Vazões Médias Mensais nos Aproveitamentos Hidrelétricos Período 1931 a 1998;
Operador Nacional do Sistema Elétrico, Rio de Janeiro. *
Pacheco, Afonso Celso; personal communication; June 2009.
Panamá, no date; Spreadsheets on Hydroelectric Potential in Panama,by Level of Study. In

report reference archive with World Bank.*
Peru MEM, 2008; Portafolio de Proyectos de Generación y Transmisión en el Sistema Eléctrico

Interconectado Nacional (SEIN); Dirección General de Electricidad/Ministério de Energía y
Minas, Lima, República del Perú, September. *
Peru MEM, 2007; Plan Referencial de Electricidad 2006-2015; Dirección General de

Electricidad, Ministério de Energía e Minas, Lima, República del Perú. *
Peru MEM, 2007b; Portafolio de Proyectos de Centrales de Generación; Dirección General de

Electricidad/Ministério de Energía y Minas, Lima, República del Perú, April. *
Poole, A.D., 2005; Adding a Continental Perspective to the Development of Hydro Power in the
Amazon Region; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, April. *
Proyecto Eolo, 1993; http://www.dgf.uchile.cl/eolo/
PUC, 2008; “Con viento a favor”; magazine of the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú,
article by J.C. Quintana, Lima, August. *
Seebaluck, V., Leal, M.R., Rosillo-Calle, F., Sobhanbabu, P.R.K., Johnson, F.X. 2007;
Sugarcane Bagasse Cogeneration as a Renewable Energy Resource for Southern Africa; 3rd
International Green Energy Conference, June 17-21, Vasteras, Sweden.
74
SENER, 2005; Prospectiva sobre la utilización de las energías renovables en México. Una
visión al año 2030; Subsecretaria de Planeación energética y Desarrollo Tecnológico,
Secretaría de Energía, México, November. *
SENER, 2008; Prospectiva del Sector Electrico: 2008 – 2017; Direccion General de Planeación
Energética, Secretaría de Energía, México. *
SENER, 2009; Programa Especial para el Aprovechamento de Energías Renovables;

Subsecretaría de Planeación Energética y Desarrollo Tecnológico, Secretaría de Energía,
México. *
Smith, J.C., 2009; The Operational Costs of Wind Integration into Power Systems: When, Why,
and What to Worry About?; presentation by the Executive Director of the Utility Wind Energy
Integration Group (UWIG) to the World Bank, Washington DC, April 24. *
USDOE, 2007; Solar Technology Roadmaps; Ten photovoltaic roadmaps available at:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/publications.html#solar_program_publications
WB/ESMAP, 2009; Central America Sector Overview: Regional Programmatic Study for the
Energy Sector—General Issues and Options Module; World Bank & ESMAP, Washington DC *
WWEA, 2009; World Wind Energy Report 2008; World Wind Energy Association, Bonn,
February. *
75
Annexes
Annex A: Comparison of Estimates of Hydropower Potential in Latin

American Countries
To complement the country by country breakdown of Table 2.5 in the main text, based primarily
on OLADE’s summary of hydropower potentials (OLADE, 2008), this annex compares it with
another breakdown prepared by the Union of the Electricity Industry, a European entity
(Eurelectric, 1997).
In the table below, Column A shows the estimates summarized by OLADE and column B those
by Eurelectric. Column C compares the values in percentage terms. Where the OLADE value
is >20% higher, the percentage is in red. Where the OLADE value is less than 80% of the
Eurelectric estimate, it is shown in green.
Table A-1: Comparison of country estimates from two sources
Country A B C
OLADE, 2008 Eurelectric, 1997 A/B
TWh TWh
Argentina (130) 354 172 (76%) 206%
Bolivia 5 50 10%
Brazil (1213) 1490 1115 (109%) 134%
Chile 27 130 20%
Colombia 420 415 101%
Costa Rica 28 35 80%
Cuba 1
Ecuador 97 120 81%
El Salvador 9 4 237%
Guatemala 15 40 38%
Guyana 20 60 33%
Haiti 0 0 124%
Honduras 22 24 91%
Jamaica 0 0 53%
Mexico 232 160 145%
Nicaragua 8 7 119%
Panama 14
Paraguay 55 40 137%
Peru 385 410 94%
Rep Dominicana 9 3 352%
Surinam 11
Trinidad & Tobago 0
Uruguay 8
Venezuela 201 260 77%
Total (2.911) 3412 3045 [3530]
76
The Eurelectric analysis has some relevant characteristics for the comparison. First, it is not
complete. There are no estimates for countries such as Panama, Surinam and Uruguay.
Second, the regional total for Latin America shown in Table 2-3 of the main text assumes an
explicit increase to the sum of the individualized country values, as shown in Table A-2.
Table A-2: Share of individualized country estimates in total regional potential

(Eurelectric, 1997 – page 20)
Since North America was assumed to be surveyed at the same level of detail at the country
level (USA, Canada & Greenland) as Europe (in the wide definition of Europe used – including
the European part of the former Soviet Union, or CIS), this “regional adjustment” factor was
applied entirely to Latin America when preparing Table 2-3. Rather surprisingly, the resulting
regional totals – 3530 TWh/year for Latin America - are the same as those from an earlier study
of technical potential (IWP&D, 1989) also summarized in Table 2-3. This value is shown in
brackets in Table A-1 above
Although the Eurelectric paper refers to these values as being for “economic” potential, in the
case of Latin America at least, they are really for the “technical” potential, which is less
restrictive.
The original OLADE estimate of potential for the region – 3412 TWh is close to the overall
technical potential estimate of 3530 TWh from Eurelectric (and ultimately IWP&D, 1989). At an
individual country level there are some massive differences – with both much higher and much
lower estimates from OLADE.
77
Annex B-: Wind farms in Latin America
The locations and characteristics of wind farms in Latin America are summarized in the tables below, based on the Latin American
Wind Energy Association website. Unfortunately, information is not provided on wind farms in most Caribbean countries. Countries
are listed in the order of the size of their wind generation capacity in 2008.
Brazil
Wind Farms Location Farm # Turbine Date

Capacity-MW Generators Capacity-MW On Line
OSORIO: Sangradouro, Osorio, Dos Indios Rio Grande do Sul 150 75 2 2006
Rio Do Fogo Rio Grande do Norte 49,6 62 0,8 2006
Agua Doce Santa Catarina 9 15 0,6 2006
Horizonte Santa Catarina 4,8 8 0,6 2003
Bom Jardim da Serra Santa Catarina 0,6 1 0,6 2002
Central Eólica Experimental do Morro do Camelinho Minas Gerais 1 4 0,25 1994
Taíba Ceará 5 10 0,5 1998
Prainha Ceará 10 20 0,5 1999
Mucuripe Fortaleza, Ceará 2,4 4 0,6 2002
Palmas Paraná 2,5 5 0,5 2000
Macau Rio Grande do Norte 1,8 3 0,6 2004
Olinda Pernambuco 0,3 1 0,3
Eólica de Fernando de Noronha Pernambuco 0,225 2
Millennium Matacara/Paraiba 10,2 12 0.85 2007
78
Mexico

La Venta I Oaxaca 1,5 7 0,225 1994
La Venta II Oaxaca 83,3 98 0,85 2007
Guerrero Negro Baja California 0,6 1 0,6 1998
*En
Cementos Apasco* Coahuila 0,5 1 0,5
reparación
Costa Rica

Tejona Guanacaste 19,8 30 0,66
Central Tilarán PESA Guanacaste 19,8 60 0,33 1996
Molinos Viento del Arenal S.A. MOVASA Guanacaste 24 32 0,75 1999
Aeroenergía 6,75 9 0,75 1998
Argentina

Antonio Morán, Comodoro Rivadavia Chubut 17,7 26 2(0.25)/8(0.75)/16(0.7) 94/97/01
Pico Truncado (Jorge Romanutti) Santa Cruz 2,4 4 0,6 2001/2004
Punta Alta Buenos Aires 2,2 4 1(0.4)/3(0.6) 1998
General Acha La Pampa 1,8 2 0,9 2002
M. Buratovich Buenos Aires 1,2 2 0,6 1997
79
Tandil Buenos Aires 0,8 2 0,4 1995
Darragueira Buenos Aires 0,75 1 0,75 1997
Claromecó Buenos Aires 0,75 1 0,75 1998
Cutal-Có Neuquén 0,4 1 0,4 1994
Rada Tilly Chubut 0,4 1 0,4 1996
Barrick Veladero 2 1 2 2007
Colombia

Jepirachi La Guajira 19,5 15 1,3 2004
Chile

Alto Baguales XI región 2 3 0,66 2001
Canela Coquimbo 18.15 11 1.65 2007
Peru

Mal Abrigo 0,25 1 0,25 1996
San Juan de Marcona 0,45 1 0,45 1999
80
Cuba

Isla Turiguano Moron, Ciego de Avila 0,45 2 0,225 1999
Los Canarreos Isla de la Juventud 1,65 6 0,275 2007
Gibara Holguín 5,1 6 0,85 2007
Ecuador

San Cristobal Isla Galapagos 2,4 3 0,8 2007
81
Annex C: Wind Energy Potentials in Selected Countries
“Southern Cone” - Argentina/Chile
Argentina probably has, by far, the largest potential from high quality wind resources of any
country in Latin America. Unfortunately, there has been relatively effort to define this resource
and there has not been the kind of simplified systematic review of potential, as Brazil has made.
This is consistent with the tiny investment so far in wind power. However, the little analysis and
organized information that is available suggests that Argentina could be a kind of “Saudi Arabia”
of wind. Map C-1A shows the average annual wind speeds at 50 m height. Note the relatively
large areas in Patagonia with average wind speeds over 9 m/s, that is Class 7. Going down to 8
m/s (class 6) more than doubles the already large area. Map C-1B shows approximately the
areas which are class 4 or higher.23
Map C-1: Average wind speed at 50 m and areas class 4 or higher
A B
Average daily wind speed over a year – Areas with an estimated capacity factor
Argentina at 50 m higher than 35% at 70 m
Source: CADER, 2009; Centro Regional de Energía Eólica - Ministerio de Planificación Federal, Inversión
Pública y Servicios
23
In the original, the boundary is a capacity factor of 35% or higher at 70 m height, which seems to be
follow the contours of average wind speeds above 7 m/s.
82
Considering that Argentina covers 2.8 million km2, the class 7 area probably exceeds 100,000
km2. The area covered by class 5 or higher probably exceeds 420,000 km2. That would be 14
times the equivalent areas in Brazil, which were summarized above. The gross technical
potential is simply huge: for class 7 areas alone it could be 600 GW or 2200 TWh/year.
Average wind speeds are higher in the summer than in the winter, as shown in Figure C-1.
There appears to be some complementation with hydro output, which tends to peak in the
winter (June-September). On a daily basis, winds are almost always highest about 6 pm,
throughout the year, as shown in Figure C-2.
Figure C-1: Patagonia - Average daily wind speeds at 60 m height during a year
Figure C-2: Diurnal wind speeds with averages for months of different seasons at 60 m
Source: CADER, 2009
83
There is legislation to promote renewable energy for the grid in Argentina. Law 26,190 of 2006
set a target of 8 % of electricity generation to be produced by renewables by 2016. This could
mean an expansion of 2500 MW from renewable sources, according to the Secretariat for
Energy. In principle this could be a major near term impulse for the wind energy industry in
Argentina. There is a fund to subsidize producers by 15 pesos per MWh. Unfortunately, in the
market context of Argentina – with high regulatory uncertainties – this is probably not a sufficient
incentive to be effective (CADER, 2009). In addition, there is no penalty for non-compliance
with the target.
Brazil
Among South American countries, Brazil has undertaken the most systematic mapping of its
wind energy resource and has gone furthest in implementing projects. Map 3-2 shows the
distribution of wind resources in the country. The best areas are found along some parts of the
coast and in some mountainous areas in the interior.
Map C-2: Brazil – Average annual wind speeds at 50 m

Source: CEPEL, 2001
84
The seasonal variations in average wind output appear to be roughly complementary to average
variations in the flows of Brazil’s large hydro system. That is, average wind speeds are higher
in winter (June – September), which is the dry season.
Quantitative estimates of the gross potential were discussed earlier (see Tables 3-4 thru 3-6 in
the main text) to illustrate issues encountered in dimensioning the potential wind resource.
Gross potential in areas with Class 5 potential or better might be ~620 TWh, depending on the
parameters used. Relaxing the criteria to allow Class 4 would substantially increase the gross
potential to about 1900 TWh.
Of course, as discussed earlier, these are values for the gross potential and only a relatively
small fraction could ever be developed. Even so, wind power could make a very significant
contribution to the expansion of Brazil’s generation over the next two decades if there were the
appropriate policies.
Brazil jump-started its wind sector with the PROINFA program. This was originally intended to
implement 3300 MW of renewable capacity divided equally between wind, small hydro and
biomass projects. Long term power purchase contracts were offered with guaranteed prices.
Implementation has been slow and partial, but even so the program catapulted Brazil into being
the leading country in Latin America in terms of installed capacity.
In December, 2009, an auction will be held specifically for new wind power projects. This will
mark a new phase in promoting wind power. Projects will be selected on the basis of price.
Crucially, the terms for contracting power allow for wind’s variability. Suppliers need only
guarantee an average annual output as described in the main text.
Andean Countries and Venezuela
Colombia – The most promising region is the North Coast, especially the La Guajira peninsula
in the extreme northeast. Wind speeds average close to 10 m/s at 60 m height (Class 7) and
are quite steady during the day. The Colombian Academy of Sciences estimates a potential of
14 GW (49 TWh at 40% load factor) in this area (ESMAP, 2009). There are also relatively good
winds (apparently Class 5) in areas of the Santander Andes in NE Colombia (San Cristobal). In
general, the rest of the interior of Colombia presents few opportunities. Possibly interesting
sites will be quite small. Map C-3 shows annual average wind speeds at 50 m.
85
Map C-3: Colombia – Average annual wind speeds at 50 m
Source: Colombia IDEAM, 2006
The winds of the most promising locations along the North Coast are quite regular and are
higher during the day between 9 am and 5 pm. This pattern is shown in Figure C-3 for a
meteorological station in the La Guajira peninsula.
86
Figure C-3: Average hourly wind speed, by month, on La Guajira peninsula
Meteorological Station: Almirante Padilla Airport
Source: Colombia IDEAM, 2006
The figure also shows that wind output is higher in the first several months of the year, as well
as in the middle. This pattern is confirmed in Figure C-4, which shows how it nicely
complements natural hydro flows.
Figure C-4: Complementarity of wind speed with hydrology in Colombia

(La Guajira Peninsula vs Magdalena River)
Source: EEPM, 2006
One of the very few analyses of the complementarity of wind with hydro and the correlation of
output with the peak has been prepared for Colombia (ESMAP, 2009). Output from the existing
Jeripachi wind farm in La Guajira was compared month by month, between wet season and dry
season and peak, medium and low load times. As shown in Table C-1, average wind output in
the dry season was 20%+ higher than in the wet season. Interestingly, Figure C-4 above
suggests that hydro output drops in July-August – a detail not considered in the table below –
which would strengthen the calculated complementarity of the wind output..
87
Table C-1: Relative wind output during peak and off-peak load and dry vs wet season
Months designated as “dry season” are shaded in light yellow
Level of Load on the SIN Grid Total in

Peak Medium Low Month/Yr
Jan 1,18 1,30 0,58 1,08
Feb 1,46 1,51 0,65 1,26
Mar 1,60 1,61 0,77 1,36
Apr 1,21 1,23 0,70 1,08
May 1,10 1,10 0,63 0,96
Jun 1,15 1,17 0,57 1,00
Jul 1,48 1,52 0,97 1,36
Aug 1,27 1,26 0,68 1,09
Sep 1,02 1,03 0,56 0,89
Oct 0,55 0,63 0,30 0,53
Nov 0,69 0,76 0,30 0,62
Dec 0,73 0,99 0,34 0,79
Year 1,12 1,17 0,59 1,00
Dry season 1,23 1,33 0,61 1,11

Wet season 1,04 1,07 0,57 0,92
Source: Calculations based on data in ESMAP, 2009
The complementarity with hydro is important in Colombia, since hydro is dominant in that
country and coal is also very competitive. One question which has not been addressed yet in
published work is the impact of extreme meteorological periods such as El Niño/La Niña. This
kind of analysis is of course needed throughout Latin America.
At present, the Jeripachi wind farm is the only significant plant in Colombia. A second wind farm
of the same size is under construction. The small size is due to the fact that incentives for
nonconventional renewable energy is limited to plants smaller than 20 MW.
Venezuela – The same ocean winds that make the North Coast of Colombia an area of high
quality wind potential have that effect in Venezuela, as shown in Map C-4.
88
Map C-4: World oceans - annual wind power density at 50 m
Source: Prepared by NREL, US National Renewable Energy Laboratory,

from scatterometer measurements made by satellites. See Annex C-1
about QuikSCAT and to see seasonal changes.
A rather rudimentary wind resource map of the country suggests that high quality resources
(Class 5 or higher) are located around the vicinity of Lake Maracaibo – both along the coast and
to the southwest and southeast. The lake itself might be a good area for shallow off-shore
plants.
Venezuela has no wind farms at present. However a 100 MW plant is being constructed on the
Paraguaná peninsula, which is across from La Guajira peninsula at the entrance to Lake
Maracaibo. Another four wind farms of undeclared size are then to be constructed by 2013.
Peru
Peru has less than 1 MW of installed wind capacity and the existing expansion plan (Peru MEM,
2007) for 2006-2015 makes no reference to renewable projects other than hydro. Assessments
of the potential are still pretty rudimentary. Published maps show higher quality sites to be
along the Pacific Coast. However, they are difficult to calibrate with standard classifications and
do not show the potential geographic areas available except very schematically.
89
Although wind does not figure in the power sector’s expansion plan, there have been temporary
concessions taken out on 34 sites (Peru MEM, 2008) with a total of 5535 MW. Only the
proposed capacity and site are shown in this inventory. Five projects with a total of 210 MW
were summarized in an earlier inventory of projects (Peru MEM, 2007b) and slightly more
information is available about four of them, though some of it is inconsistent and may be of
dubious quality.
For these projects one sees projected capacity factors of 34% in two and 30% in two others –
though it is not clear what height of the towers is assumed (30 m has been a common reference
in Peruvian documents, this height is quite low by modern standards). The largest proposed
plant, at Marcona south of Lima, expects an average wind speed of >10 m/s at 55 meters,
which would be Class 7 standards. This is particularly interesting because the highest average
wind speeds are generally shown to be in the extreme north of Peru (Piura).
A group at the Catholic University of Lima estimates the exploitable potential to be about 65,000
MW (PUC, 2008), an order of magnitude higher than preliminary (apparently unpublished)
estimates of the government. This would be equivalent to 170-200 TWh at 30-35% capacity
factor. The basis of these calculations is unknown.
Central America
The only country in Central America with significant development of wind power is Costa Rica,
which was a pioneer in Latin America. In 2005 it had the largest installed capacity of any
country in the region. Since then capacity has grown very little.
An aggregate estimate of wind potential in Central America, as summarized in OLADE, 2005,

was 8441 MW. At a 35% capacity factor this would be equivalent to almost 26 TWh.
Unfortunately, this estimate excludes Honduras and El Salvador. Worse, there is no information
regarding the basis for the overall estimate.
Mapping of the region is still quite limited as illustrated by Map C-5, which covers the region
north of Costa Rica. What the maps show is that the higher quality potential tends to be
restricted to quite small areas in the highlands.
90
Map C-5: Partial view of wind potential in Central America north of Costa Rica
Source: NREL
Mexico
Mexico has substantial potential for wind energy, though the mapping of this resource is still
very incomplete. In 2005, the government made a preliminary estimate of about 5000 MW,
distributed roughly as shown in Map C-6. A more recent report suggests a somewhat larger
potential of 10,000 MW (SENER, 2009). Even this value may be conservative today.
91
Map C-6: Promising areas for wind power development in Mexico
Source: SENER, 2005
The most promising area is the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in the State of Oaxaca, in the extreme
south of Mexico. This site was mapped in an agreement with the US National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL, 2003). It has a concentration of approximately 4300 km 2 high quality
resources (Class 5-7) as shown in Table C-2 and Map C-7. Assuming 5 MW of capacity per
km2 this suggests a gross potential of almost 22 GW. Assuming capacity factors of 35-40%, this
would be equivalent to about 67-77 TWh (compared to Mexico’s total generation in 2007 of 233
TWh). The performance of the existing wind farm in La Venta suggests that high capacity
factors are feasible.
Table C-2: Wind Potential (Gross) in Oaxaca
Class Wind Speed Area Potential

At 50 m (km2) (MW)
Class 3 6.1-6.7 m/s 2234 11.170
Class 4 6.7-7.3 m/s 2263 11.315
Class 5 7.3-7.7 m/s 1370 6.850
Class 6 7.7-8.5 m/s 1756 8.780
Class 7 >8.5 m/s 1248 6.240
Classes 3-7 >6.1 m/s 8.871 44.355
Classes 4-7 >6.7 m/s 6.637 33.185
Classes 5-7 >7.3 m/s 4.374 21.870
Wind speeds based on a Weibull k value of 2.0 and an elevation of 2000 m.
Installed capacity per km2 assumed to be 5 MW.
Source: NREL, 2003
92
Map C-7: Areas of high wind potential in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Oaxaca
The months of October through March have the highest average wind power, as shown in
Figure C-5. This data is from longer term off-shore measurements, however NREL found good
correlation with the seasonality measured by on-shore stations.
93
Figure C-5: Average Seasonality of Wind Speed and Power Density in the Isthmus Region
Source: NREL, 2003. Satellite Ocean Monthly Wind Data for Offshore
There are substantial inter-annual variations in the monthly and total annual output, as shown in
Figures C-6 and C-7.
Figure C-6: Interannual variability of wind power in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec
94
Figure C-7: Variability of monthly wind power in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec
The diurnal pattern at the higher class wind resource sites is relatively flat. The amplitude of
variation is only around 1 m/s at Class 7 locations, with the maximum resource generally from
late morning to afternoon. However, during the windiest months (November through February),
the wind resource is sometimes slightly greater at night than during the day. Slightly larger
diurnal amplitudes and daytime maximums are typical in lower wind resource months from April
through September.
Very little information has been found so far relating to other possible sites for wind power
elsewhere in Mexico. Map C-8 shows potentials in the northwestern border area.
Map C-8: Wind potential in northwestern border areas

Source NREL
Purple = Class 5; Red = Class 6; Blue = Class 7
95
Although there are areas with high class wind resources, as in Baja California, the areas are
quite small. They tend to be found along ridges in mountainous areas.
The Caribbean Islands – Dominican Republic
The islands as a group have a very distinct profile of energy resources and opportunities relative
to the mainland. They are also diverse between themselves.
Several of the smaller islands, such as Guadeloupe and Curaçao, were pioneers in the
installation of wind power. However there has been little development in recent years.
Although there are reasonable quality wind regimes in some of the islands – see for example
Map C-4 above - they suffer from an inability to interconnect geographically disperse sites to
mitigate variations in output. This makes them more like small isolated electrical systems.
For reasons of time, this report restricts itself to one of the larger countries, the Dominican
Republic, which is among the best inventoried in the Caribbean. Higher quality wind resources
are concentrated in the southwest and northwest corners of the country, as illustrated in Map C-
9 from NREL, 2001.
Map C-9: Wind energy in the Dominican Republic

Source: NREL, 2001
96
Restricting the assessment to the high quality resources (“Excellent”) there is an area of about
460 km2 and a capacity of about 3200 MW in terms of gross technical potential. This would be
equivalent to about 8-10 TWh with capacity factors between 30% and 35%. See Table C-3.
Table C-3
Source: NREL, 2001
Because this assessment of wind potential was performed almost ten years ago, the
assumptions about technology and therefore capacity factors may be somewhat low, though the
potential in terms of capacity (MW) should be less effected. In this case gross generation
potential might be increased to 10-12 TWh. This value can be compared to the total generation
in 2007, which was 14.8 TWh. Since the areas in question are quite small and dispersed it may
be possible to develop a higher share of the theoretical potential than is common in mainland
countries.
97
Annex D: Observations on Possible Cooperation in Latin America
Supporting the development of renewables appears to be accepted as an important strategy for

the World Bank, as well as for other donors and multilateral agents in the region. The new
driver is concern about climate change, but there is also a need for maintaining reliability,
security and as low an economic and environmental cost (besides climate change) as possible.
The objective of increasing the share of hydropower and other renewable energy resources
cannot be met by the market alone and governments are likely to need considerable assistance
in implementing strategies to achieve this objective.
 Various kinds of concessional finance, especially for non-conventional renewable and
some transmission projects, will be needed. This is especially the case in the nearer
term given the pioneering nature of many initiatives and higher costs before economies
of scale can be achieved. Special attention needs to be given to attracting risk capital.
 Besides help in financing the project investments, technical assistance is important. All
countries in the region will be going up a steep learning curve regarding different aspects
of planning and project development, including which incentives will most effectively
promote the objectives. Introducing best practices for analysis and exchanging
experiences will be valuable.
There should also be ample benefits from exchanges and cooperation between countries which
multilateral agents can facilitate.
Some examples are raised below of subjects where technical assistance and cooperation
appear to be useful.
Wind’s short term variability should be addressed in the context of the grid’s constantly varying
load, not in isolation from it. If the output of wind correlates strongly with peak demand on the
grid, the variability seen by the remaining generators may on average be less than without wind
– though the “tails” of more extreme ramping may still increase somewhat. In many countries in
the region peak wind tends to be in the late afternoon, so correlation may be rather good.
Studies are needed to analyze hourly wind data from the same region as that for hourly
demand. Meteorological conditions associated with different levels of wind can be associated
with factors influencing energy demand. (Krohn, personal communication).
Attention is also needed to the variability of wind over longer timeframes, especially annual
averages. Unfortunately, there has so far been very little analysis of different aspects of
variability of the wind resource in Latin America.
Seasonal and annual complementarity has long been an element of hydroelectric planning at a
national level – at least in countries large enough to have hydrologic diversity between river
basins. There has, however, been almost no analysis of the potential for hydrologic
complementarity of basins throughout Latin America. Yet the possibilities exist and the benefits
could be very large. After all, the equator passes through South America and seasonal patterns
are inverted.
The seasonal variability of wind also differs from one “basin” to another. It also appears to be
complementary to that of hydro in many situations – examples in the region so far discovered
include Colombia and Brazil (complementarity = one resource abundant when the other is
scarce). These are an important addition to the traditional analysis of complementarity for
98
hydro. It is important to study the development of the two resources together. The analysis of
all this is in its infancy and there has been little attention to this in most other big wind markets
like Europe and the USA, since hydropower is proportionately much smaller and there is little
left to build.
An important contribution for planning would be provided by bringing together and analyzing
hydrological and wind information for Latin America as a whole and for sub-regions such as
Central America. These analyses should include comparisons of hydro and wind variability over
seasonal, annual and multi-year timescales. Solar should be added, but is less of a priority.
Analyses of hydro need to include the energy storage capability of existing dams and the
potential new storage in future hydro plants. Today almost no systematic data on storage is
published (except perhaps the surface area for environmental analysis). Storage may have a
big impact on the ease with which wind and solar can be absorbed.
On the wind side, much analysis can actually be done without having a single wind turbine
installed. Even normal, fairly low-precision meteorological measurements from a number of
stations in the affected area will provide the needed variability data, since we do not need the
absolute wind speed but only the relative variations. However, we have to assume something
about the size of the wind power plants and their mean capacity factor. Analyses building from
growing international and regional experience with wind plants will add confidence to these
latter factors.
One question which has not been addressed much in published work is the impact of extreme
meteorological periods such as El Niño and more broadly of the impact of climate change on
hydrology and wind regimes. This kind of analysis is needed throughout Latin America.
Based on this work which addresses the variability of different renewable resources, support will
be important for designing and implementing bulk transmission schemes – especially
interconnections between countries.
There is evidence that wind energy projects in Latin America for the grid have been quite
expensive relative to international standards and are still projected to be expensive. It is not
clear why investment costs should be so much higher, though the small and irregular market in
Latin America clearly has a role. This suggests that there should be considerable scope for
reducing costs just to bring the region closer in line with costs elsewhere. A study of recent and
specific proposed projects may help clarify better where the higher costs originate and the
opportunities to reduce them.
Another kind of question where multilateral exchange would be useful concerns R&D and
design. For example, there is a question whether turbines available in the market are designed
for conditions commonly found in Latin America. For example, a higher cut-off point may be
appropriate. Another example is planning tools for a more integrated grid at a continental level.
Adequate tools for this do not even exist yet in the USA or Canada (CAE, 2009).
99

Potential of Renewables in Latin America - Nov 30 - 2009

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Potential of Renewables in Latin America - Nov 30 - 2009

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Potential of Renewable Energy

Resources for Electricity Generation in

Alan Douglas Poole

GW Gigawatt: equal to 1,000,000 kilowatts (kW)

Current contribution of renewables to electricity generation

The contribution of renewables to electricity generation today in Latin America is summarized in

Table 1-1: Share of renewables in electricity generation in 2007

Country/sub-region Hydro Share Other Renewable a b Total

Dealing with the variability of most renewable energy resources

Time scale Hydro Wind

Figure 1-1: Time scales for grid operations

Figure 1-3: Impact on ramping requirements over 10 minute intervals

Figure 1-4A: Monthly hydro output in Costa Rica (1965-2002)

Source: ICE, 2007

Source: ICE, 2007

Complementation is a transmission-intensive strategy which could involve integrating quite

Current hydro use and estimates of potential

Table 2-1: Sources of generation in 2007, by country (TWh)

Country Hydro Thermal b Others a Nuclear Total % Hydro

Table 2-2: Examples of global estimates of hydropower potential (TWh/year)

Category of Potential Eurelectric, 1997 Hydropower & Dams Atlas, 2000 a

Table 2-3: Comparison of estimates of regional potential (TWh/year)

Table 2-4: A regional breakdown of technical and exploitable potentials (TWh/year)

Region Technical Potential Exploitable Potential a

Country Existing Hydro Total Potential Existing/Potential

A larger doubt surrounds the restrictiveness of the definition of potential; is it “technical”,

Level of Evaluation Brazil Of which, in Amazon Basin *

Figure 2-1: Estimate of the cost of remaining hydropower potential in Brazil

Source: EPE, 2007b

The Xingú River and the Varying Quality of Potential Sites

Characteristics of Planned Hydro Plants on the Xingú River

Hydro Plant Capacity Reservoir Area & Ratios Useful Approx

Key Indicators of Likely Environmental Impacts

Key indicators of impacts for which extra data are required.

Hydrological diversity in Latin America

Substantial opportunities exist to exploit hydrological diversity in Latin America. An interesting

Possible impacts of climate change

Table 3-1: Wind power capacity since 2005

Country Capacity (MW) Largest plant(s)* MW

Brazil’s Wind Energy Auction

Technology → Hydro Thermal Geothermal Nuclear Total

Emphasizing capacity (MW) instead of electricity generated (MWh) is also a conceptual

Issues in defining the natural resource potential

Table 3-3: Classes of wind potential by wind speed

Clas Resource Power Density Wind speed (m/s)

3 Fair 300-400 6.4-7.0 6.6-7.3 6.8-7.5

Figure 3-2: Typical power output versus wind speed curve

Model → 1.5 sle 1.5 xle

Table 3-4: Areas of Land in Different Wind Speed Classes Brazil

Average Wind Speed Approximate Wind Class Area in Class

Average Wind Speed Approximate Wind Class Capacity Factor (%)

Wind Class Wind Capacity (GW) a Generation (TWh)

Technology and potential

Figure 3-3: Evolution of size and capacity of wind turbines

The economics of wind energy

US 20% Wind 1650 1650 1610 1570 1480

US 20% Wind 11,50 11,50 11,50 11,50 11,50

US 20% Wind 7,00 5,50 5,00 4,60 4,40

Load Factor→ 28% 32% 36% 40% 44% 48%

Source: Calculated from parameters in EERE/USDOE, 2008 for a

Capacity factor → 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Table 3-10: Investment per kW at different scales of wind generation

Scale Investment per kW (US$2006)