4 ms·

Construction cost is not the real criteria that should be used to evaluate power. >...The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is a measure of a power source w

by opo 9y ago

Construction cost is not the real criteria that should be used to evaluate power. >...The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is a measure of a power source which attempts to compare different methods of electricity generation on a consistent basis. It is an economic assessment of the average total cost to build and operate a power-generating asset over its lifetime divided by the total energy output of the asset over that lifetime. The LCOE can also be regarded as the average minimum cost at which electricity must be sold in order to break-even over the lifetime of the project. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source According to the chart in the wikipedia article, Hinkley Point C will have a strike price of about £93 per MWH. In comparison, ground solar is 80 onshore wind is 62 and offshore wind is 102.

Reason077 9y ago
According to the chart in the wikipedia article, Hinkley Point C will have a strike price of about £93 per MWH. In comparison, ground solar is 80 onshore wind is 62 and offshore wind is 102. Note that the Hinkley C strike price is set in 2012 currency and will be adjusted for inflation, so will actually be significantly higher when it goes into operation. It can't be directly compared to wind strike prices for current projects which are priced in the year they go into operation. Offshore wind prices are falling rapidly due to intense competition, new technology, and economies of scale. Nuclear, not so much! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/02/cut-throat-competition-is-slashing-offshore-wind-costs-to-unthin/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/02/cut-throat-co...
- opo 9y ago
  What makes this difficult to compare is that a nuclear plant will likely have a capacity factor > 90% and wind will be < 40% and solar < 10& (in UK). The low capacity factors will add in lots of additional cost if wind or solar is expected to some day be a significant source of power.
  - Reason077 9y ago
    Strike prices are in terms of the energy actually produced, so they can be compared directly. You can, of course, argue that baseload is more valuable than intermittent sources, but also remember that nuclear doesn't scale well - that strike price will still be paid in the middle of the night when there is low/no demand for the energy its producing. (For that reason, storage will help us make more efficient use of nuclear as well as renewables) Wind is already a very significant energy source in the UK, supplying up to 50% of all demand on the windiest days, and 11.5% of all overall demand in 2016.
    - opo 9y ago
      >Strike prices are in terms of the energy actually produced, so they can be compared directly. In a sense. But as I said, the low capacity factors will add in lots of additional cost if wind or solar is expected to some day be a significant source of power. For example: >... In June 2011 several energy companies including Centrica told the government that 17 gas-fired plants costing £10 billion would be needed by 2020 to act as back-up generation for wind. However, as they would be standing idle for much of the time they would require "capacity payments" to make the investment economic, on top of the subsidies already paid for wind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingd... If by ramping up wind power the country must spend huge amounts of money for capacity payments because the plants will (hopefully) sit idle, then that cost should be added to the cost of wind. Anything is better than using coal, but people should be honest about the real costs of their choices. >...You can, of course, argue that baseload is more valuable than intermittent sources, Is this actually a point that anyone disagrees with? As Bill Gates said in an interview "…They have this statement that the cost of solar photovoltaic is the same as hydrocarbon’s. And that’s one of those misleadingly meaningless statements. What they mean is that at noon in Arizona, the cost of that kilowatt-hour is the same as a hydrocarbon kilowatt-hour. But it doesn’t come at night, it doesn’t come after the sun hasn’t shone, so the fact that in that one moment you reach parity, so what? The reading public, when they see things like that, they underestimate how hard this thing is. So false solutions like divestment or “Oh, it’s easy to do” hurt our ability to fix the problems. Distinguishing a real solution from a false solution is actually very complicated." https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/11/we-need-an-energy-miracle/407881/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/11/we-need... >...but also remember that nuclear doesn't scale well - that strike price will still be paid in the middle of the night when there is low/no demand for the energy its producing. "low/no demand"? What developed country on this planet has no demand for electricity at night? For example, in the New England area, on an average day the demand for electricity varies from about 11 to 17 GW. With the coming electrification of the vehicle fleet, I don't think electricity usage will decrease at night. In terms of grid stability, nuclear doesn't have a problem with load following, but since the fuel cost is so minimal, it is more economic to not do that. >... (For that reason, storage will help us make more efficient use of nuclear as well as renewables) I don't think anyone disagrees with that. (Gates is investing in 4th gen nuclear and energy storage companies so he is putting his money where his mouth is.) >...Wind is already a very significant energy source in the UK, supplying up to 50% of all demand on the windiest days, and 11.5% of all overall demand in 2016. 50% of all demand on windy days? Do you have a citation for that? I would think that might be true for Scotland, but kind of surprising to me if it is true for the entire UK.
- lostlogin 9y ago
  To make comparisons harder, you can get usage out of a wind farm that is partially constructed. If 1 of the 500 is turning it could be generating electricity. It's hard to use a partly constructed reactor, or even coal plant.

by opo 9y ago

Reason077 9y ago

According to the chart in the wikipedia article, Hinkley Point C will have a strike price of about £93 per MWH. In comparison, ground solar is 80 onshore wind is 62 and offshore wind is 102. Note that the Hinkley C strike price is set in 2012 currency and will be adjusted for inflation, so will actually be significantly higher when it goes into operation. It can't be directly compared to wind strike prices for current projects which are priced in the year they go into operation. Offshore wind prices are falling rapidly due to intense competition, new technology, and economies of scale. Nuclear, not so much! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/02/cut-throat-competition-is-slashing-offshore-wind-costs-to-unthin/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/02/cut-throat-co...

opo 9y ago
What makes this difficult to compare is that a nuclear plant will likely have a capacity factor > 90% and wind will be < 40% and solar < 10& (in UK). The low capacity factors will add in lots of additional cost if wind or solar is expected to some day be a significant source of power.
- Reason077 9y ago
  Strike prices are in terms of the energy actually produced, so they can be compared directly. You can, of course, argue that baseload is more valuable than intermittent sources, but also remember that nuclear doesn't scale well - that strike price will still be paid in the middle of the night when there is low/no demand for the energy its producing. (For that reason, storage will help us make more efficient use of nuclear as well as renewables) Wind is already a very significant energy source in the UK, supplying up to 50% of all demand on the windiest days, and 11.5% of all overall demand in 2016.
  - opo 9y ago
    >Strike prices are in terms of the energy actually produced, so they can be compared directly. In a sense. But as I said, the low capacity factors will add in lots of additional cost if wind or solar is expected to some day be a significant source of power. For example: >... In June 2011 several energy companies including Centrica told the government that 17 gas-fired plants costing £10 billion would be needed by 2020 to act as back-up generation for wind. However, as they would be standing idle for much of the time they would require "capacity payments" to make the investment economic, on top of the subsidies already paid for wind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingd... If by ramping up wind power the country must spend huge amounts of money for capacity payments because the plants will (hopefully) sit idle, then that cost should be added to the cost of wind. Anything is better than using coal, but people should be honest about the real costs of their choices. >...You can, of course, argue that baseload is more valuable than intermittent sources, Is this actually a point that anyone disagrees with? As Bill Gates said in an interview "…They have this statement that the cost of solar photovoltaic is the same as hydrocarbon’s. And that’s one of those misleadingly meaningless statements. What they mean is that at noon in Arizona, the cost of that kilowatt-hour is the same as a hydrocarbon kilowatt-hour. But it doesn’t come at night, it doesn’t come after the sun hasn’t shone, so the fact that in that one moment you reach parity, so what? The reading public, when they see things like that, they underestimate how hard this thing is. So false solutions like divestment or “Oh, it’s easy to do” hurt our ability to fix the problems. Distinguishing a real solution from a false solution is actually very complicated." https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/11/we-need-an-energy-miracle/407881/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/11/we-need... >...but also remember that nuclear doesn't scale well - that strike price will still be paid in the middle of the night when there is low/no demand for the energy its producing. "low/no demand"? What developed country on this planet has no demand for electricity at night? For example, in the New England area, on an average day the demand for electricity varies from about 11 to 17 GW. With the coming electrification of the vehicle fleet, I don't think electricity usage will decrease at night. In terms of grid stability, nuclear doesn't have a problem with load following, but since the fuel cost is so minimal, it is more economic to not do that. >... (For that reason, storage will help us make more efficient use of nuclear as well as renewables) I don't think anyone disagrees with that. (Gates is investing in 4th gen nuclear and energy storage companies so he is putting his money where his mouth is.) >...Wind is already a very significant energy source in the UK, supplying up to 50% of all demand on the windiest days, and 11.5% of all overall demand in 2016. 50% of all demand on windy days? Do you have a citation for that? I would think that might be true for Scotland, but kind of surprising to me if it is true for the entire UK.
lostlogin 9y ago
To make comparisons harder, you can get usage out of a wind farm that is partially constructed. If 1 of the 500 is turning it could be generating electricity. It's hard to use a partly constructed reactor, or even coal plant.