Estimated power generation costs

2011-05-10 19:29:25

#1

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5596|London, England

https://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/images/elcngr_tbl1.jpg

https://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/images/elcngr_tbl2.jpg

Interesting charts these are. While land-based wind power does surprisingly well (as well as geographically limited renewables like geothermal and hydro), I think we can finally put offshore wind and all forms of solar to bed permanently...

Edit - Oh, and the link for those that don't mind some heavy reading... http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electri … ation.html

Last edited by Jay (2011-05-10 19:30:09)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-05-10 19:42:05

#2

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6887

I'm quite surprised that nuclear power isn't far and away the most cost effective, despite the initial cost of building it.

2011-05-10 19:45:27

#3

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5596|London, England

ghettoperson wrote:
I'm quite surprised that nuclear power isn't far and away the most cost effective, despite the initial cost of building it.

The costs of building a new plant are obscene. Red tape doesn't begin to describe it. It's the most heavily regulated and micromanaged piece of the economy (which, in this case, is a good thing).

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-05-10 19:51:55

#4

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6913|Canberra, AUS

Why are you so surprised that wind is so low? Wind has always been fairly cheap, it's three big pieces of metal attached to a motor. The problem with wind has always been that it is without the worst at providing any sort of reasonable amount of baseload power.

I wouldn't write off solar permanently. It's performance is basically tied to semiconductor advances and those are coming on at a rate of knots. Even more benefits would come from superconductor research should it reach the required threshold - although that's more of a guess.

I agree that right now treating solar other than a WIP/R&D matter is a waste of time and money though.

Last edited by Spark (2011-05-10 19:55:05)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-05-10 19:52:57

#5

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5596|London, England

Spark wrote:
Why are you so surprised that wind is so low? Wind has always been fairly cheap, it's three big pieces of metal attached to a motor. The problem with wind has always been that it is without the worst at providing any sort of reasonable amount of baseload power.

Mostly because connecting it to the grid usually requires hundreds of miles of lines. That, and they seem to break fairly regularly so maintenance is a PITA.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-05-10 19:56:25

#6

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6913|Canberra, AUS

Jay wrote:
Spark wrote:
Why are you so surprised that wind is so low? Wind has always been fairly cheap, it's three big pieces of metal attached to a motor. The problem with wind has always been that it is without the worst at providing any sort of reasonable amount of baseload power.
Mostly because connecting it to the grid usually requires hundreds of miles of lines. That, and they seem to break fairly regularly so maintenance is a PITA.

I would suggest that's most of the cost, though. The actual costs associated with the turbine would be miniscule.

I've long been a fan of vertical wind turbines for individual homes, though.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-05-10 19:57:30

#7

SEREMAKER: BABYMAKIN EXPERT √; +2,187|6806|Mountains of NC

and those fking birds

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg

2011-05-10 19:58:14

#8

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5596|London, England

Spark wrote:
Jay wrote:
Spark wrote:
Why are you so surprised that wind is so low? Wind has always been fairly cheap, it's three big pieces of metal attached to a motor. The problem with wind has always been that it is without the worst at providing any sort of reasonable amount of baseload power.
Mostly because connecting it to the grid usually requires hundreds of miles of lines. That, and they seem to break fairly regularly so maintenance is a PITA.
I would suggest that's most of the cost, though. The actual costs associated with the turbine would be miniscule.

I've long been a fan of vertical wind turbines for individual homes, though.

They're so damned noisy.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-05-10 19:59:35

#9

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6913|Canberra, AUS

Jay wrote:
Spark wrote:
Jay wrote:
Mostly because connecting it to the grid usually requires hundreds of miles of lines. That, and they seem to break fairly regularly so maintenance is a PITA.
I would suggest that's most of the cost, though. The actual costs associated with the turbine would be miniscule.

I've long been a fan of vertical wind turbines for individual homes, though.
They're so damned noisy.

Yeah, true. All wind power is insanely noisy. Have to yell to be heard at the base of them over the massive WHOOSH.

Pleasantly unsurprised to see geothermal's numbers. People will be well aware that I'm a massive fan of that.

Last edited by Spark (2011-05-10 20:00:12)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-05-10 20:01:57

#10

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5596|London, England

Spark wrote:
Jay wrote:
Spark wrote:

I would suggest that's most of the cost, though. The actual costs associated with the turbine would be miniscule.

I've long been a fan of vertical wind turbines for individual homes, though.
They're so damned noisy.
Yeah, true. All wind power is insanely noisy. Have to yell to be heard at the base of them over the massive WHOOSH.

Pleasantly unsurprised to see geothermal's numbers. People will be well aware that I'm a massive fan of that.

Australia is part of the Ring of Fire, no? Or does it miss you guys and stop at New Guinea?

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-05-10 20:03:00

#11

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6913|Canberra, AUS

Misses us by miles, which is why we have no earthquakes or volcanoes :p

Basically the entire centre of the country is geothermally "hot". About a century's worth of geothermal power there.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-05-10 20:04:17

#12

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6913|Canberra, AUS

https://www.renewbl.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/heatmap-australia-geothermaresources.jpg

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-05-10 20:04:54

#13

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5596|London, England

Geothermal is very local here in the States. Prevalent in the West near the faults and there is a hot spot in Yellowstone but the rest of the country is hundreds of miles from the nearest subduction zone.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-05-10 20:14:05

#14

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5940|College Park, MD

nuclear ftw

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2011-05-10 20:14:29

#15

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6913|Canberra, AUS

Hurricane2k9 wrote:
nuclear ftw

hard to disagree

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-05-10 20:26:10

#16

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5940|College Park, MD

Spark wrote:
Hurricane2k9 wrote:
nuclear ftw
hard to disagree

The EPR is a pretty radical reactor especially in terms of safety. I think if we put a bit more research into safety it would help bring the costs of building a plant down.

The ideal thing would be super efficient solar panels but that's a while away, no?

2011-05-10 20:33:14

#17

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6913|Canberra, AUS

Not sure if that's possible. A bit of reading (and reminding myself of basic facts that I should know and forgot about super/semiconductors) tells me that PV-type cells are strictly limited to semiconductors, so I don't think they'll ever be super-efficient. Cost-effective, yes, maybe, in the future, but never as efficient as nuclear IMO.

EPR is very nice and all but it's 3rd gen. I'm looking at the 4th gen reactors.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-05-10 20:42:41

#18

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5497|foggy bottom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium

Tu Stultus Es

2011-05-10 22:21:17

#19

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6913|Canberra, AUS

(y)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-05-11 03:02:03

#20

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6344|eXtreme to the maX

Solar thermal has an 18% capacity factor?
Solar thermal has a higher capital cost than solar PV?

Depends where you are and how badly you design your system I guess. Given it uses the same steam/turbine technology as coal - its really just an alternative heat source, I don't see how it could be that bad.
Probably the gas/coal lobby requiring the studies be run on Alaska.

The figures for coal/gas with CCS are BS, not least because no-one has a clue how to do the 'S' bit yet.

Fuck Israel

2011-05-11 04:22:57

#21

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6913|Canberra, AUS

err because it's not efficient, requires mountains of effort to build and maintain and is stupidly expensive?

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-05-11 04:58:26

#22

Cheeky_Ninja06: Member; +52|6970|Cambridge, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
Solar thermal has an 18% capacity factor?
Solar thermal has a higher capital cost than solar PV?

Depends where you are and how badly you design your system I guess. Given it uses the same steam/turbine technology as coal - its really just an alternative heat source, I don't see how it could be that bad.
Probably the gas/coal lobby requiring the studies be run on Alaska.

The figures for coal/gas with CCS are BS, not least because no-one has a clue how to do the 'S' bit yet.

Damned lies and statistics !

I would imagine that when Nuclear looses its negative PR image there is a fair amount of advancement to be had. i.e. If we put as much effort into nuclear as we are into other green technologies at the moment then we would probably already be carbon neutral

2011-05-11 07:20:32

#23

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6919|Disaster Free Zone

Nuclear still uses rare materials which are not long term sustainable. As an interim source while we are still researching fully sustainable methods they are a much better substitute for coal/oil/gas but they can not be our long term solution.

Also currently about 4% of power is nuclear. You increase that to.. what 50%, or more? What do you think is going to happen to the price of uranium? Say good by to your so called cheap power source.

Last edited by DrunkFace (2011-05-11 07:30:09)

2011-05-11 07:26:57

#24

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5940|College Park, MD

we should get fusion up in this bitch

2011-05-11 08:06:17

#25

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6237|...

DrunkFace wrote:
Nuclear still uses rare materials which are not long term sustainable. As an interim source while we are still researching fully sustainable methods they are a much better substitute for coal/oil/gas but they can not be our long term solution.

Also currently about 4% of power is nuclear. You increase that to.. what 50%, or more? What do you think is going to happen to the price of uranium? Say good by to your so called cheap power source.

Nuclear can run on thorium as well, and it's not as if wind/solar cost nothing to build. "Green" energy doesn't drop out of the sky.

inane little opines

BF2S Forums Estimated power generation costs

ghettoperson wrote:

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:

Spark wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Spark wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Board footer