The Levelized Cost of Electric Generation

[cancel2 2022]

In early 2013, the US Energy Information Agency (EIA) released their new figures for the “levelized cost” of new power plants. I just came across them, so I thought I’d pass them on. These are two years more recent than the same EIA cost estimates I discussed in 2011 here. Levelized cost is the average cost of power from a new generating plant over its entire lifetime of service. The use of levelized cost allows us to compare various energy sources on an even basis. Here are the levelized costs of power by fuel source, for plants with construction started now that would enter service in 2018:

Figure 1. The levelized cost of new power plants that would come on line in 2018. They are divided into dispatchable (blue bars, marked “D:”) and non-dispatchable power sources (gray bars, marked “N:”).

​

Now, there are two kinds of electric power sources. Power sources that you can call on at any time, day or night, are called “dispatchable”. These are shown in blue above, and include nuclear, geothermal, fossil fuel, and the like. They form the backbone of the generation mix.


On the other hand, intermittent power sources are called “non-dispatchable”. They include wind and solar. Hydro is an odd case, because typically, for part of the year it’s dispatchable, but in the dry season it may not be. Since it’s only seasonally dispatchable, I’ve put it with the non-dispatchable sources.


OK, first rule of the grid. You need to have as much dispatchable generation as is required by your most extreme load, and right then. The power grid is a jealous bitch, there’s not an iota of storage. When the demand rises, you have to meet it immediately, not in a half hour, or the system goes down. You need power sources that you can call on at any time.
You can’t depend on solar or wind for that, because it might not be there when you need it, and you get grid brownout or blackout. Non-dispatchable power doesn’t cut it for that purpose.

This means that if your demand goes up, even if you’ve added non-dispatchable power sources like wind or solar to your generation mix, you still need to also add dispatchable power equal to the increased demand.

So there are two options. If the demand goes up, either you have to add more dispatchable power, or you can choose to add both more dispatchable power and more non-dispatchable power. Guess which one is more expensive …

And that, in turn means that the numbers above are deceptive—when demand goes up, as it always does, if you add a hundred megawatts of wind at $0.09 per kWh to the system, you also need to add a hundred megawatts of natural gas or geothermal or nuclear to the system.

As a result, for all of the non-dispatchable power sources, those gray bars in Figure 1, you need to add at least seven cents per kilowatt-hour to the prices shown there, so you’ll have dispatchable power when you need it. Otherwise, the electric power will go out, and you’ll have villagers with torches … and pitchforks …
Finally, I’m not sure I believe the maintenance figures in their report about wind. For solar, they put the price of overhead and maintenance at about one cent per kilowatt-hour. OK, that seems fair enough, there are no moving parts at all, just routine cleaning the dust off the panels.

But then, they say that the overhead and maintenance costs for wind are only one point three cents per kilowatt-hour, just 30% more than solar … sorry, that won’t wash. With wind, you have a multi-tonne complex piece of rapidly rotating machinery, sitting on a monstrous bearing way up on top of a huge pipe, with giant propellors attached to it, hanging out where the strongest winds blow. I’m not believing that the maintenance on that monstrosity will cost only 30% more than dusting photovoltaic panels …
Best to all,

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/16/the-levelized-cost-of-electric-generation/

 

[cancel2 2022]

.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

however, the production of natural gas electric energy involves both the cost of the plant but the cost of the fuel consumed.......the production of wind energy involves only the cost of the plant.....if the back up energy is the natural gas plant no fuel is being consumed WHILE the wind is generating power.......

 

[cancel2 2022]

however, the production of natural gas electric energy involves both the cost of the plant but the cost of the fuel consumed.......the production of wind energy involves only the cost of the plant.....if the back up energy is the natural gas plant no fuel is being consumed WHILE the wind is generating power.......

That is not true, you can't just mothball the plant until its needed.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

of course its true......is your automobile still using gasoline when you're riding your bike?......is your automobile "mothballed"?........our local power is generated from a coal plant.....as the price of power on the grid fluctuates, they idle the plant and feed off the grid when ever its cheaper......is the plant "mothballed"?.......

 

[cancel2 2022]

of course its true......is your automobile still using gasoline when you're riding your bike?......is your automobile "mothballed"?........our local power is generated from a coal plant.....as the price of power on the grid fluctuates, they idle the plant and feed off the grid when ever its cheaper......is the plant "mothballed"?.......

You can argue about the exact costs but those plant have to be there all the time on standby, due to the capricious nature of solar and wind power, ready to take over at a moment's notice.

 

[Rune]

Damn, I hate thanking PiMP, but credit where credit is due.

Tom, there are plenty of ways around this.
For example, the CapeWind project is being required to build and maintain an instant on diesel generating plant of the same capacity as the wind farm. This is exactly for baseline purposes.
If the wind drops off the generator comes on. As long as the wind is blowing, no fuel is used. Of course you don't realize the geographic forces which cause an almost constant wind here are the entire reason this area was chosen, so you couldn't possibly know how foolish your argument is. It is, however, typical of a fossil fuel shill, so carry on, moron.

 

[cancel2 2022]

of course its true......is your automobile still using gasoline when you're riding your bike?......is your automobile "mothballed"?........our local power is generated from a coal plant.....as the price of power on the grid fluctuates, they idle the plant and feed off the grid when ever its cheaper......is the plant "mothballed"?.......

So you think the only cost to running a power station is the cost of the fuel? Anyway even then it depends on the type of power station, gas can be turned on and off fairly easily, although it still takes time to get up to working turbine speed and temperature, but what about coal or nuclear you can't just throw a lever to switch them on and off?

 

[Rune]

So you think the only cost to running a power station is the cost of the fuel? Anyway even then it depends on the type of power station, gas can be turned on and off fairly easily, although it still takes time to get up to working turbine speed and temperature, but what about coal or nuclear you can't just throw a lever to switch them on and off?

Exactly Tom, that is why nuclear power is always baseline (undispacthed isn't even a term used when discussing types of electricity in the US).
In fact that is the beauty of both nuclear and (in complete contradiction to the blogger you copy and pasted this garbage from) hydro. No, the Hoover Dam doesn't have "dry spells" (what a moronic concept, even you you have stopped reading his trash by that point).

Hydro make perfect baseline power since it is on 24/7 AND requires no fuel input (or cost).

Furthermore, you are wrong about either gas or coal being able to be turned on or off. The coal auger and blower motor can be shut off just as easily as the gas cock, but turbines can hardly be brought up to temperature and pressure quickly enough to alternate in and out. Turbines are kept warm or actually mothballed, and I think you should know this.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Lake Mead

A man-made lake, Lake Mead is stacked up behind Hoover Dam, and supplies water and, via the dam, electricity to places like Las Vegas and Los Angeles. The problem is that it’s going dry. The water level in Lake Mead has been steadily dropping since the year 2000, and is now only slightly higher than it was during the harsh 1965 drought. The drop in Lake Mead’s water level is proportional to the growth of thirsty cities in the surrounding desert—cities like Las Vegas. If current trends continue, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego predicts that the lake may dry up completely by 2021. Even if this worst-case scenario doesn’t come to pass, there will certainly be shortfalls in both water delivery and electricity generation in the coming decade.

http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Coming-Water-Crisis-in-America

 

[cancel2 2022]

California Drought to Affect Lake Mead Levels

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/24555...art=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=9772382

LAS VEGAS - California will soon take a larger share of water out of Lake Mead at a time when the lake is reaching increasingly lower levels.

The State of California officially declared a drought emergency January 17. As part of that declaration, the state will draw more water from Lake Mead, which sits east of Las Vegas.
Southern Nevada water officials say this development could lead to water restrictions in the valley by next year.

Las Vegas gets approximately 90 percent of its water supply from Lake Mead. The lake's level is approximately 1,100 feet above sea level. Once that level drops to 1,075 feet, the Southern Nevada Water Authority can declare a water shortage, which would lead to tougher water restrictions.

Water officials say the lake could reach that level by next year, depending how much water California takes from the lake. The Southern Nevada Water Authority predicts the Golden State will take the water during the course of the next year.

Dropping lake levels will create another problem: the shut down of the lake's first intake pipeline. If the lake drops below that pipeline, the pipeline is rendered useless. SNWA is trying to alleviate the problem with the construction of a third intake pipeline that sits deeper inside the lake. If construction of the third intake is not completed by the time the first intake becomes obsolete, water officials say southern Nevada could face significant problems.

"It's sort of a slow motion disaster," said SNWA spokesman J.C. Davis. "It's not a super storm or a typhoon that happens all at once. It sort of happens in slow motion, and you notice it month after month, year after year." Electricity supply from Hoover Dam is also at stake. The dropping water level at Lake Mead could affect hydropower produced at the dam. While southern California uses most of that power, it's still a concern for Las Vegas.

"Las Vegas is a relatively small consumer of power from Hoover Dam. The vast majority of it is sold on the western grid as it's called, and it goes down to California," Davis said. "Nonetheless, anything that tightens the supply on the grid is going to potentially affect energy prices, so that's something that we'll have to keep an eye on."

The water authority says the third intake is more than half finished and should be completed by next summer.

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/24555119/california-drought-to-affect-lake-mead-levels

 

[PostmodernProphet]

So you think the only cost to running a power station is the cost of the fuel?

obviously not, since I said the opposite.....however, obviously the wind generator does NOT have a fuel cost.....and as I said, the local coal plant does in fact go idle when they can buy power off the grid more cheaply.....