226 Indicator High Gas (2030) Balanced Hybrid (2030) ★ Accelerated Renewable (2030) Gas share of generation 35–40% 25–30% 20–25% Renewable share (wind + solar) 20–25% 25–35% 35–40% Hydro share 35–40% 35–40% 28–35% System cost index (relative to Hybrid) 0.85 1.00 1.30–1.45 Indicative avg. electricity price (USD/MWh) 40–45 45–50 55–60 Reliability risk without additional storage Low Low–Medium Medium - High Scope 2 reduction vs. 2024 baseline ~2% ~40% ~60% Required storage investment None Minimum-moderate High Infrastructure readiness (2026) High Medium Low Note: Cost indices are relative to the Balanced Hybrid baseline. Electricity price estimates are indicative and based on regional benchmarks. Reliability risk assessments assume current storage cost levels; the assessment for the Accelerated Renewable scenario improves materially as battery storage costs fall toward 2035. Sources: Clark & McGregor (2024); Ordoudis et al. (2018); Osinergmin (2026); IEA (2025); author projections. Three structural points emerge from the comparison. First, the Balanced Hybrid pathway achieves meaningful emissions reductions — approximately 40% against the 2024 baseline — at a system cost comparable to or below the high-gas scenario, without incurring the reliability risks of the accelerated renewable strategy. Second, the cost premium of the accelerated renewable scenario is driven primarily by storage and balancing requirements; this premium will narrow as storage costs fall, but in the short term, such a reduction is not envisaged. Third, infrastructure readiness is a binding near-term constraint: the accelerated renewable scenario
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2