4 ms·

A variety of sources? Fine. Show your work. 2018-2019 vintage sources only, not something from twenty years ago. edit: Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wik

• manfredo 7y ago
  https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-o... https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/08/f25/LCOE.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/08/f25/LCOE.pdf https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.... <- Note that in this one, coal is only counted with carbon capture technology, which increases cost Coal is among the cheapest conventional source. Note that solar (other than solar thermal) and wind do not include cost of energy storage. Gas combined cycle (basically, a jet engine + a steam turbine heated by the jet exhaust) does beat coal in many of these estimates, but this is new technology that has only been deployed widely by first world countries. Generally, only countries with developed aerospace industries have that infrastructure to built thermally efficient gas turbines. Thermally efficient gas turbines need advanced materials and fabrication techniques like monocrystal casting. These figures are highly dependent on the kind of infrastructure available to a country. What's cheap for a country like the US with extensive gas turbine manufacturing is not going to be cheap for other countries. There's a reason why so many developing countries use coal: it's a much more low tech solution that does not require complex industry. If your claim about the lower cost of gas was limited in scope to the US and similarly developed countries, I'd agree, but I was talking in global terms. Many countries are sticking to coal because it's cheaper: https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/08/02/india-shows-how-hard-it-is-to-move-beyond-fossil-fuels https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/08/02/india-shows-ho... https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/08/22/asian-governments-are-the-biggest-backers-of-the-filthiest-fuel https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/08/22/asian-governmen... https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/natural-gas/100419-analysis-next-wave-of-asias-lng-demand-hinges-on-affordability-competing-fuels https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-ne... There are good reasons to move off of coal, regardless. Coal extraction is dirty, and it generates pollutants that are much worse than gas turbines. It'd probably be good policy to facilitate the export of gas turbines to developing countries.
• beerandt 7y ago
  From an unregulated, no subsidies, no externalities perspective, coal is still cheapest. It's no longer so because of regulation, or market uncertainty of future regulation.
  • beat 7y ago
    In the US, it's not the cheapest by a long shot, even excluding subsidies and externalities. I'd be perfectly happy to see new coal plant construction banned from a regulatory perspective, but right now there are ZERO new coal plants being built in the US. The rest of the world will not be far behind.
    • beerandt 7y ago
      Emissions controls counts as a regulation. That on it's own is a substantial cost. I think you're using a narrow definition of the word regulation. Not knowing what the next administration is going to change adds cost of uncertainty. If it weren't due to regulation, that would mean it's due to technology or raw cost. Both of which are ruled out by the fact that the US is the third largest coal exporter in the world, and exports have increased in the last 3 years. If our coal weren't cheap, it wouldn't be worth exporting. If coal power plants weren't cheap, developing countries would be switching to the cheaper technology.