Looking for VALID data about electricity generation costs

[SavantStrike]

I'm taking a business writing course right now and I have to write a research paper. I was allowed to pick pretty much any topic I wanted, and I was given the green light to write a paper discussing the cost of various low (there is no such thing as no), carbon energy sources. I like the topic. I can make it applicable to a business audience, and I have always found pretty much anything related to electricity interesting .

There are at least several hyped low and carbon energy sources either on the market or in the pipeline, but I only want to focus the ones I think are the most plausible (so I guess I'm a tiny bit biased ). I decided at least in the short term, the ones that fit that bill the best are nuclear(njew plants rather than existing ones), solar, and wind.

To keep the paper from turning into a novel, I decided to focus on the cost to build large scale generation facilities based on these sources (a known quantity). I'm also going to cover the cost per kWh a consumer could expect to pay for electricity generated, but I'm having a harder time figuring that one out.

So far, the ready-crunched numbers for solar and wind seem optimistically low to me - especially since most of those numbers come from pro-wind and pro-solar activists. Similarly, the nuclear numbers seem a bit low too, but it's enough of a hard sell due to public fear that a fair amount of both biased and unbiased sources are around for me to check my own calculations against.

But let's talk shop. What's your take on low carbon power?

Am I a horrible person for not wanting to include biomass and hydro electric power?

Am I crazy for believing nuclear power can be perfectly safe if the reactor wasn't designed without a containment vessel, built on the cheap, and run outside of specifications?

And doesn't the phrase "pro-wind" sound funny? Just say it with me. I'm pro-wind.

 

[Luc]

Mmm, Hydro electricity is something that should be included IMO. However, you are writing a paper, not a novel. Since you already have solar/wind/nuclear you might have enough data.

Low Carbon power? I usualy use a fan instead of the air con. Well, I do not use the air con at all during summer. The fan is usually enough to cool me down. During winter, I close everything when I go to work so I do not heat up the place when nobody is around. SWMBO is currently away so I just put a layer on top of the current layer. It's a bit 'fresh' in here but still enjoyable.

I think nuclear power can be safe if used and processed properly. The only problem reside with what comes out of it.

For the pro-wind, well, they showed a doco a couple months ago RE windpower in Europe. It was explained that a lot of villagers in France were against it because of the noise and the view. I do not completely disagree with them, the installation should be made in where there will be a minimum of impacts.

Solar power, another doco down under. They did a research and apparently, they would need a 50km by 50km solar panel pad in the middle of Oz to generate power for almost 100% of the country. The investment was 2.something billions (AUD), can't remember the number. However, it seems they will go ahead with Nuclear from what I've been seeing in the papers lately. The nuclear power plant was costing a bit less, not much.

Hope my rambling will contribute, if no, that's all right

Good luck with your paper Chris!

 

[ClubmanRob]

I'm taking a business writing course right now and I have to write a research paper. I was allowed to pick pretty much any topic I wanted, and I was given the green light to write a paper discussing the cost of various low (there is no such thing as no), carbon energy sources.

With this realization, you are one step ahead of the "green" crowd. If I were your course instructor, I would have given you an "A" just for that sentence.

 

[RazorDingo]

A timely subject.

It has proven remarkably difficult to come up with reliable cost-estimates for many low-carbon power sources. Even a supposedly "mature" technology such as nuclear power sometimes surprises its proponents - as happened recent in Ontario, Canada: the bids to expand capacity came in three times higher than budgeted.

Even seemingly non-polluting technologies such as geothermal energy often have surprising "hidden" costs. A plan to expand geothermal capacity in northern California was recent halted, when agencies became concerned that it could increase the frequency of earthquakes.

 

[SavantStrike]

Mmm, Hydro electricity is something that should be included IMO. However, you are writing a paper, not a novel. Since you already have solar/wind/nuclear you might have enough data.

Low Carbon power? I usualy use a fan instead of the air con. Well, I do not use the air con at all during summer. The fan is usually enough to cool me down. During winter, I close everything when I go to work so I do not heat up the place when nobody is around. SWMBO is currently away so I just put a layer on top of the current layer. It's a bit 'fresh' in here but still enjoyable.

I think nuclear power can be safe if used and processed properly. The only problem reside with what comes out of it.

For the pro-wind, well, they showed a doco a couple months ago RE windpower in Europe. It was explained that a lot of villagers in France were against it because of the noise and the view. I do not completely disagree with them, the installation should be made in where there will be a minimum of impacts.

Solar power, another doco down under. They did a research and apparently, they would need a 50km by 50km solar panel pad in the middle of Oz to generate power for almost 100% of the country. The investment was 2.something billions (AUD), can't remember the number. However, it seems they will go ahead with Nuclear from what I've been seeing in the papers lately. The nuclear power plant was costing a bit less, not much.

Hope my rambling will contribute, if no, that's all right

Good luck with your paper Chris!

The conservation you speak of is perhaps the most valuable thing that can be done for electric power. Try selling that to the general public though

Hydro electric has it's place to be sure, but TBH I'm not sure how much of a good thing it is. Look at what happened in China with all of those behemoth dams they built. To get enough power out of hydro electric, a change in the landscape is always required. Those wave farms that some have been talking about sound intriguing, but until someone proves that they don't actually affect marine life, I'm not sure we should go blanketing the ocean in them.

That 50km by 50km generation solar facility sounds like a bad idea to me. I'm not sure that it's a good choice to go marring the beautiful (and often rugged) landscape of Australia. I'm glad it was scrapped due to cost (and 2 billion sounds low for such an installation).

With this realization, you are one step ahead of the "green" crowd. If I were your course instructor, I would have given you an "A" just for that sentence.

I agree. The green crowd seems to go nuts over this stuff, which is normally a good thing, but the problem is really people who are pro environment who don't do their research. There is no such thing as no carbon power, and expectations are too high. Somehow, people think it's possible to find an energy source that:

1. Costs less than coal (dirty coal, clean coal facilities are expensive)
2. Pleases everyone
3. Does not produce any kind of waste before, during, or after construction of a facility

A timely subject.

It has proven remarkably difficult to come up with reliable cost-estimates for many low-carbon power sources. Even a supposedly "mature" technology such as nuclear power sometimes surprises its proponents - as happened recent in Ontario, Canada: the bids to expand capacity came in three times higher than budgeted.

Even seemingly non-polluting technologies such as geothermal energy often have surprising "hidden" costs. A plan to expand geothermal capacity in northern California was recent halted, when agencies became concerned that it could increase the frequency of earthquakes.

Agreed. It's painful to try to find a cost for these things. That's probably what makes this a good paper. The biggest snags I have hit so far are:

1. Even when clean energy facilities have been built, the operators don't seem to want to release data regarding power output and cost. Hmmm... I wonder if that means they went under budget and the power is cheaper?

2. Nuclear facilities are a big unknown because public fears kept them from being built for the past two decades (in many countries at least). Next generation designs also cost a lot more than previous generation designs because of even better safety features (note, the old ones are still extremely safe). The plus side is that the next gen facilities are usually designed with a longer intended service life than the old ones were built with.

I think a blend of energy sources would be a good call, and I think people need to get over the price tag. Either demand low carbon energy and pay the price, or burn coal and stop complaining about global warming. Doing both is impossible. If we do decide to pay the price for low carbon, we should try to understand all the energy sources available and stop treating nuclear power like a step child.

 

[richmondesi]

Well, figuring out what the cost of the energy would be isn't too hard to figure.

Cost to generate and deliver the energy X markup to achieve desired profit margin = price

Assuming enough facilities are built to easily handle demand, the price of delivering low carbon energy should be significantly lower than that produced by fossil fuels.

Unless I'm missing something, that is. In that case, I can trust Robert Deniro to help me out

 

[HankG]

I think you should at least include a brief hydro-electric section. At the least, you should say why you feel it isn't as viable as the options you are talking about. I think if you don't, anyone who reads it is going to ask you why you didn't include it.

 

[SavantStrike]

Well, figuring out what the cost of the energy would be isn't too hard to figure.

Cost to generate and deliver the energy X markup to achieve desired profit margin = price

Assuming enough facilities are built to easily handle demand, the price of delivering low carbon energy should be significantly lower than that produced by fossil fuels.

Unless I'm missing something, that is. In that case, I can trust Robert Deniro to help me out

Where it gets iffy is a when subsidies, etc, factor into the equation. I think I will just ignore them though as subsidies are never a good long term solution, and the money comes from somewhere even in the short run- taxes .

I disagree about low carbon energy carrying a lower price tag though. I think it is physically impossible until we run out of coal. Coal is so cheap and plentiful that a quick and dirty coal fired plant is always going to produce cheaper energy. It's a trade off, and society needs to decide whether or not it's worth making.

Any low carbon energy is expensive, and I for one am perfectly okay with it. The higher price tag even carries with it the built in incentive to conserve. It's a win win. The problem I have is with the proponents of the low carbon sources. They try to change the rules of the game when calculating the cost for their energy source while making the other options look worse. For example:

- Promising 80 and 90 percent capacity factors for wind and solar energy. It's not going to happen due to calm days and cloudy skies

- Leaving the redundant generation facilities required to make make enough wind and solar energy on the aforementioned calm/cloudy days out of the equation when calculating the cost of said energy

- Touting the benefits of photovoltaic solar cells as 100 percent clean without mentioning the toxic substances often used during manufacturing

- Calculating the cost of various renewable energies to the consumer based on subsidies (taxes people, taxes!)

- Not factoring in water requirements when discussing biofuel (it's not low carbon but still)

- Calculating the cost of nuclear energy based on a 20 year plant service life (new designs are expected to last 40-60 years)

- Failure to admit that all of the low carbon sources have drawbacks in one way or another

Frankly the more I keep reading, the annoyed I keep getting with special interest groups on BOTH sides of every argument. If I had to pick a side though, I would say erring on the side of radical environmentalism will do the most damage to the planet we're trying to save because it will keep low carbon energy in litigation for years to come.

Lets face it, utilities are already going to have a hard time making a higher price per kw/h look sexy. For goodness sake don't make it any harder on them by saying the energy HAS to come from a given source or it isn't clean.

I think you should at least include a brief hydro-electric section. At the least, you should say why you feel it isn't as viable as the options you are talking about. I think if you don't, anyone who reads it is going to ask you why you didn't include it.

You're right. I will include a sub heading with other low carbon alternatives with a brief summary of each of them and a description of the current challenges I feel will keep them from going mainstream (at least for the time being).

 

[Luc]

Additional note for the 50km2 of solar panels.

It was going to be done in the middle of the desert, away from everything. Something like what they had in James Bond.

 

[ChocoTaco]

Want something that'll really throw the greenies for a loop? Check out molten salt reactors. Almost no radioactive waste, and fairly inexpensive to build and operate.

 

[richmondesi]

Here's an interesting link on nuclear power


Nuclear Costs

BTW, I was assuming that you were talking about a world solution, and not a US one.

 

[SavantStrike]

Additional note for the 50km2 of solar panels.

It was going to be done in the middle of the desert, away from everything. Something like what they had in James Bond.

Suh weet!

But it can't possibly be as cool as James Bond, and did they think about uhm... maintenance? I never understood the idea of putting a bunch of fragile mirrors in the middle of nowhere, or a bunch of photovoltaics if the mirrors aren't cool enough.

I always viewed solar as a good rooftop solution. Photovoltaics are pricey, but solar powered hot water on the other hand... extra hot water for shaving .

Want something that'll really throw the greenies for a loop? Check out molten salt reactors. Almost no radioactive waste, and fairly inexpensive to build and operate.

There are some really cool ideas for next generation reactors. I hope they get to see the light of day. Somewhere along the way they are going to have to once people start to realize that those plug in hybrids need a lot of juice .

Honestly I feel as though we should never have stopped building nuclear reactors, and we should have started encouraging solar and wind power where appropriate, all while encouraging energy conservation. Instead all that got built were a ton of natural gas peaking turbines for the days when our increasingly overtaxed energy grid just couldn't take the demand.

 

[Luc]

Suh weet!

But it can't possibly be as cool as James Bond, and did they think about uhm... maintenance? I never understood the idea of putting a bunch of fragile mirrors in the middle of nowhere, or a bunch of photovoltaics if the mirrors aren't cool enough.

I always viewed solar as a good rooftop solution. Photovoltaics are pricey, but solar powered hot water on the other hand... extra hot water for shaving .



There are some really cool ideas for next generation reactors. I hope they get to see the light of day. Somewhere along the way they are going to have to once people start to realize that those plug in hybrids need a lot of juice .

Honestly I feel as though we should never have stopped building nuclear reactors, and we should have started encouraging solar and wind power where appropriate, all while encouraging energy conservation. Instead all that got built were a ton of natural gas peaking turbines for the days when our increasingly overtaxed energy grid just couldn't take the demand.

The idea was to build the plant somewhere in the desert where unemployement is very high, creating job (building+maintenance). I know, it cannot be as cool as James Bond but it's similar.

As for solar panels on the roof, the Australian government is financing each house that would like a solar panel to save on energy

http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/renewable/pv/index.html

For the solar panels in the desert, I think it's this website
http://www.desertknowledge.com.au/dka/index.cfm?attributes.fuseaction=pre_stdf

 

[Luc]

I also found those

http://ecogeneration.com.au/news/desert_a_fertile_ground_for_solar/001332/
http://business.brisbanetimes.com.a...unset-in-australia-20090626-czu5.html?page=-1
http://www.energymatters.com.au/government-rebates/

Hope this helps...

 

[Rughi]

...I was allowed to pick pretty much any topic I wanted, and I was given the green light to write a paper discussing the cost of various low (there is no such thing as no), carbon energy sources.

With this realization, you are one step ahead of the "green" crowd. If I were your course instructor, I would have given you an "A" just for that sentence.

What percent carbon are they?
Maybe.....

14%???

 

[ClubmanRob]

What percent carbon are they?
Maybe.....

14%???

Not the alcohol free ones.

 

[SavantStrike]

Here's an interesting link on nuclear power


Nuclear Costs

BTW, I was assuming that you were talking about a world solution, and not a US one.

A world solution would be nice, but that would have broadened the scope even further . As it is though the US has a diverse enough landscape that I would imagine that anything that works elsewhere would work here (and vice versa).

As for that link, I have seen that one and am currently using the figure they provided for fuel cost ($.050 per kWh) in a quick and dirty spreadsheet. Later I will probably calculate costs based on the possibility of an increase in the price of Uranium.

MIT produced a paper in 2004 with some obnoxiously detailed cost estimates which I don't plan to re create in their entirety. It's a pity they felt the need to add in a possible carbon credit tax, as the data would have been immediately useful if they hadn't (as of right now, there is no carbon credit tax).

It's a pretty cool paper, though it's not a light read at all..

Here it is hosted at the US DOE

http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/rpt_TheFutureofNuclearPowerMITStudy2003.pdf

The idea was to build the plant somewhere in the desert where unemployement is very high, creating job (building+maintenance). I know, it cannot be as cool as James Bond but it's similar.

As for solar panels on the roof, the Australian government is financing each house that would like a solar panel to save on energy

http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/renewable/pv/index.html

For the solar panels in the desert, I think it's this website
http://www.desertknowledge.com.au/dka/index.cfm?attributes.fuseaction=pre_stdf

I think Aus is probably one of the best places for solar power in the world. I wonder how the US subsidies for residential solar compare to the Australian ones. It would be fun to cover subsidies from multiple nations, but then the paper would reach an absurd length .

And any information helps. I'm currently knee deep in browser tabs, but more is always better!

 

[SavantStrike]

Booyah!

If anyone is interested, I have come up with some not so quick and dirty numbers for nuclear and solar. Others are still to come. A discussion of where I got some of the data and what the criteria were is at the bottom of the post. Meanwhile if you just want prices, prepare for sticker shock. As I suspected the talks about low carbon energy at coal prices were outright lies.

So far though, I have been pleasantly suprised with how well the solar folks have gotten their capacity factors up, but that isn't the whole picture.

Nuclear:
An AP1000 producing 1117 MW (net) of electrical power with a capacity factor of 85% (should be capable of 90+) should generate electricity at a cost of 12.18 cents per kWh. This is just the cost of generation and does not include any kind of profit for the utility. It also assumes that a plant with a 40-60 year life cycle needed to be paid off in 10 years.

I crunched the numbers and the nuclear industry hasn't lied about everything. The cost of fuel really isn't a huge factor in the price of the power (though it does account for something). Tripling the cost of fuel only brings the cost up to 13.44 cents per kWh. To me, this makes the concern about dwindling supplies a moot point. At triple the fuel price, reprocessing and other methods become viable (right now once through is cheaper), and the supply increases draumatically.

Solar:
PG&E signed a deal for a solar farm in the mojave desert that I was able to find some juicy details about. I'll be following it's progress eagerly as it's a pretty impressive project.
6000 acres (9 square miles)
553 megawatts
28 pecent capacity factor

With a 2 billion dollar price tag and a 10 year period to pay back loans (although in this case the agreement was signed for 25 years, I wanted to compare apples to apples), The electricity cost works out to around 17.14 cents per kWh to produce. After that 10 year period, the only cost is maintenance.

CONCLUSION:
Both nuclear and solar power work out to around the same price per kWh. I'm expecting
wind to be around the same or higher. There are a few key points to take away from this data though:
-The grid needs to expand a lot more than most people realize. Those plug in hybrids are going to start taking MORE electricity. Transportation is a huge part of the carbon footprint
-If private solar can work out to the same price as large scale solar, it's a good option for anyone who owns a home in the appropriate climate
-6000 acres is HUGE. To get enough solar to power the country, it's going to require a LOT of land
-That 30 percent capacity factor means that only so much solar power can be installed on the grid before the cost becomes progressively expensive. Going past a certain amount of solar power will mean utilities will have to install redundant solar facilities to ensure adequate power.
-We should probably stop flogging nuclear power as being ineffective. It's not as cheap as the reactor manufacturers would like you to think, but it's competitive with other forms of energy, and it produces a LOT of energy in a small footprint.

Also a not so fun fact, but I did some extra research on the subject, and Chernobyl was an even poorer design than I originally thought it was.
Chernobyl was a death trap waiting to happen. It's really not fair to compare ANY nuclear reactor's safety to Chernobyl. Here's why
-The design of the reactor made it impossible to give it adequate containment. OTHER Russian reactor designs other than the RBMK Chernobyl was based on had containment
-The control rods used to stop a runaway reaction took 20 seconds to lower. This is a really LONG time. RBMK reactors have since been retrofitted with faster control rods
-The reactor at Chernobyl allowed operators to REMOVE the control rods. This was fixed
-The reactor was being tested at a low power state when it failed. The reactor design is such that it is the least stable it can be at low power
-The reactor was thermally efficient, but it sucked. There are a few of them left and they are a LOT safer now then they were at the time of the accident thanks to retrofits, but they should probably just be decomissioned
-It was designed on the cheap. The roof was supposed to be constructed of fireproof material, but to save cost it was made with flammable material

One researcher claims that more people die per year due to coal exposure than have died due to Chernobyl (both immediately and long term due to cancer).

My numbers:

I used that MIT study I showed as a good basis for my calculations and what data sets should be included. I also used some of their figures, though not all of them, and not to the level of detail they went in to. I think it must have been painful to write that paper...

At any rate, I specified the cost of nuclear based on a Westinghouse AP1000 reactor. It seems that it is one of the most popular new designs being considered in the US. I may actually want to switch it to an EPR though as at least one has been under construction internationally.

Lets see here. Nuclear
With an 8 billion dollar price tag for a new reactor (although it could run over)
45 million dollar per year fuel cost
budgeted money for long term storage cost, budgeted money for decomissioning,
15 percent interest on the price of the plant,
budgeted operating and maintenance costs
non planned operating and maintenance costs (whew!)

I'll fill in the solar later