This analysis shows the benefits of renewable energy adoption in Nigeria's power sector, highlighting policy interventions to achieve sustainability.
This study evaluates the sustainability implications of renewable energy adoption in Nigeria’s power sector through an integrated scenario-based analysis. Using advanced modeling tools such as the Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning System (LEAP) and the System Advisor Model (SAM), the research examines three scenarios—Business-as-Usual (BAU), Moderate Adoption, and Aggressive Adoption—spanning 2025 to 2055. The Aggressive Adoption scenario demonstrated the most substantial benefits, achieving a 62% renewable energy share, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 65%, and creating 5.4 million jobs. The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for solar and wind technologies was projected to decline to $0.04/kWh and $0.05/kWh, respectively, establishing renewables as a financially competitive alternative to fossil fuels. The Moderate Adoption scenario, achieving a 38% renewable energy share, highlighted the potential of incremental progress while underscoring the need for robust policy interventions to achieve transformative impacts. The BAU scenario illustrated the risks of inaction, with 81% reliance on fossil fuels leading to persistently high emissions and limited electrification. Policy recommendations emphasize the necessity of comprehensive frameworks, including renewable portfolio standards, feed-in tariffs, and investments in grid modernization and energy storage systems. Decentralized energy systems, local manufacturing of renewable technologies, and innovative financing mechanisms such as green bonds are also identified as critical enablers. The study situates Nigeria’s energy transition within the context of global climate goals, providing actionable insights for policymakers and stakeholders. Future research directions include grid integration modeling, localized manufacturing feasibility studies, and socio-economic equity assessments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Unegbua et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: