Techno-enviro-economic evaluation for decarbonizing the transmission network in Saudi Arabia: Optimizing power corridors toward cost-effective net-zero CO₂

Authors

  • Mohammed AlAqil Department of Electrical Engineering, College of Engineering, King Faisal University, AlAhsa 36362, Saudi Arabia
Article ID: 575
44 Views

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18686/cest575

Keywords:

transmission conductors; energy efficiency; CO2 reduction; techno-economic analysis; grid decarbonization

Abstract

Saudi Arabia has set a national target of reaching carbon neutrality by 2060, which places strong pressure on the power sector to adopt cleaner and more efficient technologies. This study examines how modern overhead transmission line conductors can contribute to that goal through a combined technical, environmental, and economic lens. A structured evaluation model is proposed that merges engineering analysis with statistical assessment to compare widely used conventional conductors against newer designs with enhanced efficiency. The investigation emphasizes reductions in transmission losses, improvements in current-carrying capability, and the resulting environmental benefits. A 380 kV transmission corridor in Saudi Arabia is used as a reference case to test the approach. In fact, four conductor technologies including ACSR, ACAR, AAAC, and ACCC are assessed through a purpose-built calculation tool benchmarked against IEEE and CIGRE practices. At a rated current of 2600 A, the base conductor exhibits annual energy losses of 258.67 MWh/year, whereas the ACCC DHAKA 1020 conductor reduces losses to 136.18 MWh/year, corresponding to a 47% reduction; ACAR 1236 achieves a 36% reduction with losses of 164.65 MWh/year. Conventional ACSR conductors show inconsistent performance, with DRAKE 26/7 reducing losses by only 4%, while HAWK 477 increases losses by approximately 70%, confirming their limited suitability for high-load, long-distance transmission. Additionally, the economic evaluation of a 380 kV, 360 km transmission line operating at 1700 MVA and 50 °C indicates annual operational line-loss costs exceeding SAR 1633 million for the base conductor, which are reduced by 53% when ACCC DHAKA 1020 is employed. These results highlight the importance of adopting advanced conductor technologies as a cost-effective pathway for strengthening transmission networks and aligning them with national sustainability and decarbonization strategies.

Downloads

Published

2026-02-09

How to Cite

AlAqil, M. (2026). Techno-enviro-economic evaluation for decarbonizing the transmission network in Saudi Arabia: Optimizing power corridors toward cost-effective net-zero CO₂. Clean Energy Science and Technology, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.18686/cest575

Issue

Vol. 4 No. 1 (2026)

Section

Article

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Mohammed AlAqil

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References

1. Kamboj P, Hejazi M, Qiu Y, et al. The path to 2060: Saudi Arabia's long-term pathway for GHG emission reduction. Energy Strategy Reviews. 2024; 55: 101537. doi:10.1016/j.esr.2024.101537 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2024.101537

2. Paraschiv S, Paraschiv LS. Trends of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels combustion (coal, gas and oil) in the EU member states from 1960 to 2018. Energy Reports. 2020; 6: 237–242. doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2020.11.116 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.11.116

3. Islam MT, Ali A. Sustainable green energy transition in Saudi Arabia: Characterizing policy framework, interrelations and future research directions. Next Energy. 2024; 5: 100161. doi: 10.1016/j.nxener.2024.100161 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nxener.2024.100161

4. Durand-Lasserve O. Net Zero Emissions in saudi arabia by 2060: least-cost pathways, influence of international oil price, and economic consequences. The Energy Journal. 2025; 46(5): 57–84. doi: 10.1177/01956574251340006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01956574251340006

5. Alyousif M, Belaid F, Almubarak N, et al. Mapping Saudi Arabia's low emissions transition path by 2060: An input-output analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2025; 211: 123920. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123920 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123920

6. Jafari M, Botterud A, Sakti A. Decarbonizing power systems: A critical review of the role of energy storage. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2022; 158: 112077. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112077 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112077

7. Babiker MH, Jacoby HD, Reilly JM, et al. The evolution of a climate regime: Kyoto to Marrakech and beyond. Environmental Science & Policy. 2002; 5(3): 195–206. doi: 10.1016/S1462-9011(02)00035-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1462-9011(02)00035-7

8. Bäckstrand K, Lövbrand E. The road to Paris: Contending climate governance discourses in the post-Copenhagen era. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. 2019; 21(5): 519–532. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.07.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2016.1150777

9. Tabash M I, Farooq U, Issa S S, et al. Empirical assessment of digital transformation and renewable energy adoption in the Middle East. Discover Sustainability. 2025; 6(1): 836. doi: 10.1007/s43621-025-01758-w DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-01758-w

10. Che W, Wang Y, Zhu W, et al. A review of carbon emission reduction during the operation stage of substations. Sustainability (2071-1050). 2024; 16(22). doi: 10.3390/su162210017 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su162210017

11. Pierre F, Michael OS, Luke G, et al. Global carbon budget 2022. Earth System Science Data. 2022; 14(11): 4811–4900. doi: 10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022

12. Corinne Le Q, Robbie M. Global Carbon Budget 2018. Earth System Science Data. 2018; 10(4): 2141–2194. doi: 10.5194/essd-10-2141-2018 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-2141-2018

13. Slimene MB and Khlifi MA. A hybrid renewable energy system with advanced control strategies for improved grid stability and power quality. Scientific Reports. 2025; 15: 23445. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-06091-w DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-06091-w

14. Solomon S, Plattner GK, Knutti R, et al. Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2009; 106(6): 1704–1709. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0812721106 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0812721106

15. da Silva AAP, de Barros Bezerra JM. A model for uprating transmission lines by using HTLS conductors. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery. 2011; 26(4): 2180–2188. doi: 10.1109/TPWRD.2011.2151887 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRD.2011.2151887

16. Li B, Hu Q, Guo R, et al. A review of the developments in capacity-uprating conductors for overhead transmission lines. Coatings. 2025; 15(10): 1203. doi: 10.3390/coatings15101203 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings15101203

17. Alkhathlan M, Javid M. Energy consumption, carbon emissions and economic growth in Saudi Arabia: An aggregate and disaggregate analysis. Energy Policy. 2013; 62: 1525–1532. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.068 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.068

18. Mardani A, Streimikiene D, Cavallaro F, et al. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and economic growth: A systematic review of two decades of research from 1995 to 2017. Science of the Total Environment. 2019; 649: 31–49. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.201 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.229

19. Reiche M. Renewable energy policies in the gulf countries: A case study of the carbon-neutral “Masdar City” in Abu Dhabi. Energy Policy. 2010; 38(1): 378–382. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.09.029 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.09.028

20. Wojtaszek A. Renewable energy in policy frameworks: A comparative outlook on the European Green Deal. Sustainability. 2025; 17(23): 10567. doi:10.3390/su172310567 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su172310567

21. Golombek R, Lind A, Ringkjøb HK, et al. The role of transmission and energy storage in European decarbonization towards 2050. Energy. 2022; 239: 122159. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.122159 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.122159

22. Pietzcker RC, Osorio S, Rodrigues R .Tightening EU emissions trading system targets in line with the european green deal: Impacts on decarbonization of the EU power sector. Energy Policy. 2021; 151: 112175. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112175 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116914

23. Zahid H, Zulfiqar A, Adnan M, et al. Global renewable energy transition: A multidisciplinary review of policy, technology, and integration strategies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2025; 174 113152. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2025.113152

24. Handayani K, Overland I, Suryadi B, et al. Integrating 100% renewable energy into electricity systems: A net-zero analysis for cambodia, laos, and myanmar. Energy Reports. 2023; 10: 4849–4869. doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2023.11.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2023.11.005

25. Shavel I, Naden E. Modeling Net-Zero: A comparative analysis of deep decarbonization studies of the US electric system. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2026; 226: 116337. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2025.116337 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2025.116337

26. Joskow PL. Transmission capacity expansion is needed to decarbonize the electricity sector efficiently. Joule. 2020; 4(1): 1–3. doi:10.1016/j.joule.2019.10.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2019.10.011

27. Denholm P, Arent DJ, Baldwin SF, et al. The challenges of achieving a 100% renewable electricity system in the United States. Joule. 2021; 5(6): 1331–1352. doi: 10.1109/MPE.2023.3271821 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2021.03.028

28. Saudi Electricity Company, Sustainability Report 2023, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Available online: https://www.se.com.sa/-/media/sec/Investors/Sustainability-Reports/1_09_25_SE_2023_Sustainability-Report_EN.ashx (accessed on 23 January 2026).