4 ms·

How does that compare to other existing energy generation sources today?

diafygi 10y ago
The investment firm Lazard has a nice report[1] on comparing U.S. energy costs by source. Here's the costs in the U.S. (without counting subsidies): * Wind: $ 32/MWh * Solar: $ 43/MWh * Natural Gas: $ 52/MWh * Coal: $ 65/MWh * Geothermal: $ 82/MWh * Biomass: $ 82/MWh * Nuclear: $ 97/MWh * Solar+Storage: $ 119/MWh * Diesel: $ 212/MWh So wind and solar are currently the cheapest, but you can only get to about 50% penetration with those without storage[2]. The rest has to be "dispatchable". [1]: https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-90.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-... [2]: https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~vsmith/docs/renewables_sgc_2013.pdf https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~vsmith/docs/renewables_sgc...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  >So wind and solar are currently the cheapest, but you can only get to about 50% penetration with those without storage[2]. The rest has to be "dispatchable". That % will probably go up as the demand side of the market reacts to variable pricing. We've barely scratched the surface of what's possible in terms of demand shifting.
- barney54 10y ago
  One issue with these numbers that they are making and apples-to-oranges comparison with non-dispatchable sources (wind and solar) and dispatchable sources. There is value to being able to turn on and off a generation source that isn't accounted for here.
  - JshWright 10y ago
    Sure, but it also doesn't account for the value in not releasing large amounts of greenhouse gasses and other pollutants.
    - gregwtmtno 10y ago
      I would like to see a price for "Natural Gas + Carbon Capture"
  - pipio21 10y ago
    Also there is great value not having pollutant particles in the air and in the water that will kill your father from cancer when he is 48. There is value not releasing radioactivity in the air from the natural isotopes you find in coal for example too. There is value not having the fish or the cow you eat contaminated by waste. There is value in not having your crops destroyed by acidic water. There is value in having a living coral reef and not being dissolved. I can certify there is value in all of that because I was raised in a coal extracting place. Probably you only know about the part of switching a lever on and off.
  - epistasis 10y ago
    To get those numbers, nuclear is also non-dispatchable, because it must be run continuously except for the small maintenance windows every 18 months. Additionally, the combined cycle power plants that allow for super efficient and cheap fossil fuel plants do not respond quickly to turning on and off; it takes time. With solar and wind, you can choose to not generate but you can't choose to generate if the sun isn't shining. For cheap fossil fuel electricity, you need to plan out a day in advance. It's not so easy to spin a nuclear plant up and down. Peaker plants, that are truly dispatchable, are about the cost of solar+storage on that chart these days.
    - fulafel 10y ago
      You can do load following with nuclear, it's done in France.
- SamPhillips 10y ago
  and to add more context, the bid in this article is $24/MWh, which would imply a $100/MWh Solar + Storage cost given the numbers above from Lazard. For comparison, the new Hinkley nuclear plant in England has a PPA guarantee at ~$120/MWh. Obviously there are geographic differences, but the trendline for solar is impressive. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_...
- epistasis 10y ago
  I didn't realize that solar+storage was already so cheap. If there's a mix of say, 50% Wind + Solar, and 50% from stored solar (or wind), then at worst that's an average electricity cost of $83/MWh. That's already cheaper than nuclear, which I didn't think would happen this decade. Natural gas produces .61 tons of CO2 per MWh [1]. If you take Exxon's planned tax amount of $80/ton of CO2, that would put natural gas at $101/MHw. This is Exxon's estimate, so I think we can safely say that $80/ton is a lower bound on the true cost of fossil fuels to the rest of the economy. So in reality, renewables+storage are already cheaper than fossil fuels. We're just subsidizing fossil fuels by ignoring their negative externality. [1] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11
SagelyGuru 10y ago
Natural gas can presumably be easily switched on and off to take up the intermittent 50% of the demand. So the realistic combined price is somewhere around $47. Why then build nuclear at $97 ??
- alex_hitchins 10y ago
  I'm not sure how responsive gas plants are, I believe it can take an non-insignificant time to spin up, when demand at that point my have subsided. There is always a baseline need for energy, seems most sensible to me this comes from a modern, nuclear source and not the relics we rely on today.
  - goodcanadian 10y ago
    I am certain that nuclear power takes days to "spin up," so even if gas plants are not responsive (it is my impression that they are), it is still sensible to compare them. The real reason to consider nuclear is that there is more than construction cost, there is also fuel cost. The fuel over the life of the nuclear plant is considerably cheaper than for a gas plant. Of course, even that isn't the whole story: I don't know how total operating cost and negative externalities balance out. EDIT: I misread; it appears that those numbers are total cost per MWh produced, not construction cost. In that case, it appears that gas definitely beats nuclear hands down (ignoring the CO2 problem).
    - alex_hitchins 10y ago
      > I am certain that nuclear power takes days to "spin up," Yes, which is why you would want it for base load rather than responsive. If we invested in nuclear technology rather than condemn it all as a terrible venture we could produce far cheaper and cleaner nuclear plants.
      - kinofcain 10y ago
        Interestingly the need for base load is going away as we increase the mix of renewables: plants that can't load follow are becoming less useful and more expensive to operate. Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California is being shut down in a few years mostly due to environmental concerns but also in part because it can't be spun up and down easily to adjust for the output of the state's increasing mix of fluctuating solar and wind production. We're headed towards a mix that looks like almost entirely renewables and peakers, or maybe eventually renewables and storage, if things like the tesla battery installation work out.

The investment firm Lazard has a nice report[1] on comparing U.S. energy costs by source. Here's the costs in the U.S. (without counting subsidies): * Wind: $ 32/MWh * Solar: $ 43/MWh * Natural Gas: $ 52/MWh * Coal: $ 65/MWh * Geothermal: $ 82/MWh * Biomass: $ 82/MWh * Nuclear: $ 97/MWh * Solar+Storage: $ 119/MWh * Diesel: $ 212/MWh So wind and solar are currently the cheapest, but you can only get to about 50% penetration with those without storage[2]. The rest has to be "dispatchable". [1]: https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-90.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-... [2]: https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~vsmith/docs/renewables_sgc_2013.pdf https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~vsmith/docs/renewables_sgc...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
crdoconnor 10y ago
>So wind and solar are currently the cheapest, but you can only get to about 50% penetration with those without storage[2]. The rest has to be "dispatchable". That % will probably go up as the demand side of the market reacts to variable pricing. We've barely scratched the surface of what's possible in terms of demand shifting.
barney54 10y ago
One issue with these numbers that they are making and apples-to-oranges comparison with non-dispatchable sources (wind and solar) and dispatchable sources. There is value to being able to turn on and off a generation source that isn't accounted for here.
- JshWright 10y ago
  Sure, but it also doesn't account for the value in not releasing large amounts of greenhouse gasses and other pollutants.
  - gregwtmtno 10y ago
    I would like to see a price for "Natural Gas + Carbon Capture"
- pipio21 10y ago
  Also there is great value not having pollutant particles in the air and in the water that will kill your father from cancer when he is 48. There is value not releasing radioactivity in the air from the natural isotopes you find in coal for example too. There is value not having the fish or the cow you eat contaminated by waste. There is value in not having your crops destroyed by acidic water. There is value in having a living coral reef and not being dissolved. I can certify there is value in all of that because I was raised in a coal extracting place. Probably you only know about the part of switching a lever on and off.
- epistasis 10y ago
  To get those numbers, nuclear is also non-dispatchable, because it must be run continuously except for the small maintenance windows every 18 months. Additionally, the combined cycle power plants that allow for super efficient and cheap fossil fuel plants do not respond quickly to turning on and off; it takes time. With solar and wind, you can choose to not generate but you can't choose to generate if the sun isn't shining. For cheap fossil fuel electricity, you need to plan out a day in advance. It's not so easy to spin a nuclear plant up and down. Peaker plants, that are truly dispatchable, are about the cost of solar+storage on that chart these days.
  - fulafel 10y ago
    You can do load following with nuclear, it's done in France.
SamPhillips 10y ago
and to add more context, the bid in this article is $24/MWh, which would imply a $100/MWh Solar + Storage cost given the numbers above from Lazard. For comparison, the new Hinkley nuclear plant in England has a PPA guarantee at ~$120/MWh. Obviously there are geographic differences, but the trendline for solar is impressive. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_...
epistasis 10y ago
I didn't realize that solar+storage was already so cheap. If there's a mix of say, 50% Wind + Solar, and 50% from stored solar (or wind), then at worst that's an average electricity cost of $83/MWh. That's already cheaper than nuclear, which I didn't think would happen this decade. Natural gas produces .61 tons of CO2 per MWh [1]. If you take Exxon's planned tax amount of $80/ton of CO2, that would put natural gas at $101/MHw. This is Exxon's estimate, so I think we can safely say that $80/ton is a lower bound on the true cost of fossil fuels to the rest of the economy. So in reality, renewables+storage are already cheaper than fossil fuels. We're just subsidizing fossil fuels by ignoring their negative externality. [1] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11

SagelyGuru 10y ago

Natural gas can presumably be easily switched on and off to take up the intermittent 50% of the demand. So the realistic combined price is somewhere around $47. Why then build nuclear at $97 ??

alex_hitchins 10y ago
I'm not sure how responsive gas plants are, I believe it can take an non-insignificant time to spin up, when demand at that point my have subsided. There is always a baseline need for energy, seems most sensible to me this comes from a modern, nuclear source and not the relics we rely on today.
- goodcanadian 10y ago
  I am certain that nuclear power takes days to "spin up," so even if gas plants are not responsive (it is my impression that they are), it is still sensible to compare them. The real reason to consider nuclear is that there is more than construction cost, there is also fuel cost. The fuel over the life of the nuclear plant is considerably cheaper than for a gas plant. Of course, even that isn't the whole story: I don't know how total operating cost and negative externalities balance out. EDIT: I misread; it appears that those numbers are total cost per MWh produced, not construction cost. In that case, it appears that gas definitely beats nuclear hands down (ignoring the CO2 problem).
  - alex_hitchins 10y ago
    > I am certain that nuclear power takes days to "spin up," Yes, which is why you would want it for base load rather than responsive. If we invested in nuclear technology rather than condemn it all as a terrible venture we could produce far cheaper and cleaner nuclear plants.
    - kinofcain 10y ago
      Interestingly the need for base load is going away as we increase the mix of renewables: plants that can't load follow are becoming less useful and more expensive to operate. Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California is being shut down in a few years mostly due to environmental concerns but also in part because it can't be spun up and down easily to adjust for the output of the state's increasing mix of fluctuating solar and wind production. We're headed towards a mix that looks like almost entirely renewables and peakers, or maybe eventually renewables and storage, if things like the tesla battery installation work out.