Burning Coal

[Barong23]

How about NASA?

Coal and gas are far more harmful than nuclear power
By Pushker Kharecha and James Hansen,
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Human-caused climate change and air pollution remain major global-scale problems and are both due mostly to fossil fuel burning. Mitigation efforts for both of these problems should be undertaken concurrently in order to maximize effectiveness. Such efforts can be accomplished largely with currently available low-carbon and carbon-free alternative energy sources like nuclear power and renewables, as well as energy efficiency improvements.

Figure 1. Cumulative net deaths prevented assuming nuclear power replaces fossil fuels. The top panel (a) shows results for the historical period in our study (1971-2009), with mean values (labeled) and ranges for the baseline historical scenario. The middle (b) and bottom (c) panels show results for the high-end and low-end projections, respectively, of nuclear power supply estimated by the IAEA (ref. 4) for the period 2010-2050. Error bars reflect the ranges for the fossil fuel mortality factors listed in Table 1 of our paper. The larger columns in panels (b) and (c) reflect the all-coal case and are labeled with their mean values, while the smaller columns reflect the all-gas case; values for the latter are not shown because they are all simply a factor of about 10 lower (reflecting the order-of-magnitude difference between the mortality factors for coal and gas). Countries/regions are arranged in descending order of CO2 emissions in recent years. FSU15=15 countries of the Former Soviet Union and OECD=Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
In a recently published paper (ref. 1), we provide an objective, long-term, quantitative analysis of the effects of nuclear power on human health (mortality) and the environment (climate). Several previous scientific papers have quantified global-scale greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions avoided by nuclear power, but to our knowledge, ours is the first to quantify avoided human deaths as well as avoided GHG emissions on global, regional, and national scales.

The paper demonstrates that without nuclear power, it will be even harder to mitigate human-caused climate change and air pollution. This is fundamentally because historical energy production data reveal that if nuclear power never existed, the energy it supplied almost certainly would have been supplied by fossil fuels instead (overwhelmingly coal), which cause much higher air pollution-related mortality and GHG emissions per unit energy produced (ref. 2).

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/

 

[RacerX.ksr]

You probably jack off to propaganda. I bet you think second hand smoke kills thousands each year as well?

 

[Barong23]

No, I think second hand smoke is great. Matter of fact I can't think of anything I'd rather see right now that you tied to the top of a smokestack... maybe sitting on it with your bare arse overtop like on a commode telling us all about how air quality really is not relevant to the human lung. We naturally filter out the impurities so light up, folks! Next pack is on me! Gather the kids around and let them join in the ambiance!

 

[RacerX.ksr]

I can tell by your response that you are aware of the truth about the second hand smoke studies. Why won't you entertain the thought that coal demonization is a product of the same type of "science"?

"Duh, it stinks therefore it must be deadly."

 

[mrhotdice]

I'm all in favor of burning politicians at the stake who vote against coal.

 

[mrhotdice]

The EPA will destroy America if allowed to allow these egg heads to control our energy policy. Case in point, the Keystone pipeline. No person who loves America should be against a project that creates jobs without any environmental damage.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

The US Energy Information Administration provides a comparison of levelized costs for different power generation sources. Levelized cost represents the present value of the total cost of building and operating a generating plant over a period of time, and reflects overnight capital cost, fuel cost, operation and maintenance costs, financing costs, and an assumed utilization rate for each plant type. To convert from dollars per megawatt-hour to cents per kWh, move the decimal point in the table below one spot to the left (for example, conventional coal is 9.48 cents per kWh on average).

As you can see, the externalities are sufficient to triple the cost of coal power, if they were reflected in its price. If we include the coal externalities, it increases the levalized costs to approximately 28 cents per kWh, which is more than hydroelectric, wind (onshore and offshore), geothermal, biomass, nuclear, natural gas, solar photovoltaic, and on par with solar thermal (whose costs are falling rapidly). Suddenly coal doesn't look like such a good deal.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/true-cost-of-coal-power.html

Actually that's not true. It's a common mistake made by people who don't understand the industry. The cost shown for renewable sources of capacity aren't the total cost of using those resources. When a utility installs solar or wind, it must also install a secondary source of capacity that can be dispatched in the event that the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining when they need the capacity. Wind and solar have very low capacity factors, meaning they cannot be counted on with high reliability to provide power during the peak hours. Because of this, you can't just look at the revenue requirement associated with wind or solar and compare that to coal or natural gas. Wind and solar must be accompanied by another source of dispatchable capacity. It's not necessarily a 1 to 1 ratio, but it is significant because of the poor capacity factor of those sources.

On a side note. If we are going account for externalities, which I disagree with because we don't for any other product, then the person who is talking about battery storage would have include the environmental costs of manufacturing batteries.

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

Actually that's not true. It's a common mistake made by people who don't understand the industry. The cost shown for renewable sources of capacity aren't the total cost of using those resources. When a utility installs solar or wind, it must also install a secondary source of capacity that can be dispatched in the event that the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining when they need the capacity. Wind and solar have very low capacity factors, meaning they cannot be counted on with high reliability to provide power during the peak hours. Because of this, you can't just look at the revenue requirement associated with wind or solar and compare that to coal or natural gas. Wind and solar must be accompanied by another source of dispatchable capacity. It's not necessarily a 1 to 1 ratio, but it is significant because of the poor capacity factor of those sources.

On a side note. If we are going account for externalities, which I disagree with because we don't for any other product, then the person who is talking about battery storage would have include the environmental costs of manufacturing batteries.

Actually it is true. This is the levelized cost of installing incremental capacity and generating power from said capacity. It's not looking at the total overall costs for a brand new, continuously running grid using just the source reported. Plus utilization rates are factored into the cost calculation in that cost per kwh generated is increased by the low capacity factor.

Wind, solar and other renewable sources of energy are installed to offset existing, traditional sources, not to completely replace them in a grid's energy portfolio. Hell, building 1 new conventional coal fired power plant

So, this is a fair, and universally accepted, method of comparing the levelized cost of installed capacity....except that the data is a bit outdated in that solar PV and wind installation costs are now cheaper than first forecast in 2009. Utility scale PV systems are well under 20c per kWh, at about 10c/kWh on the West Coast.

And yes, let's include total economic cost of these sources, where the additional environmental and health costs of generating energy from coal triples its price per kWh, which would obviously dwarf that of storage and battery manufacturing.

 

[theoledog]

The Government has done a study.......... Good god... We should all live to be 1000........ That's all they do is studies..... We should have been perfect a long time ago....

 

[RacerX.ksr]

How do we arrive at these numbers? Can you cite a death certificate that lists a coal fired power plant as a contributing factor?

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Actually it is true. This is the levelized cost of installing incremental capacity and generating power from said capacity. It's not looking at the total overall costs for a brand new, continuously running grid using just the source reported. Plus utilization rates are factored into the cost calculation in that cost per kwh generated is increased by the low capacity factor.

Wind, solar and other renewable sources of energy are installed to offset existing, traditional sources, not to completely replace them in a grid's energy portfolio. Hell, building 1 new conventional coal fired power plant

So, this is a fair, and universally accepted, method of comparing the levelized cost of installed capacity....except that the data is a bit outdated in that solar PV and wind installation costs are now cheaper than first forecast in 2009. Utility scale PV systems are well under 20c per kWh, at about 10c/kWh on the West Coast.

And yes, let's include total economic cost of these sources, where the additional environmental and health costs of generating energy from coal triples its price per kWh, which would obviously dwarf that of storage and battery manufacturing.

Actually you are dead wrong. renewable sources are not installed to offset existing capacity. This one statement tells me you have no clue on how the industry works. Even if it were true, 1 MW of renewable capacity will not replace 1 MW of dispatchable capacity. Most of this capacity is added because of load growth or because coal units are being shut down. In either case, if you need 100 MWs of capacity, you cannot install 100 MWs of renewable capacity and call it a day. You would have to install 100 MWs of renewable and 80 MWs of something that can be dispatched.

 

[Deeeefense]

What about cost? Is that a consideration for whether or not we are burning too much coal?

It depends on which cost you are talking about, just the actually cost of mining and shipping the coal, or also the cost attributable to burning it.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

It depends on which cost you are talking about, just the actually cost of mining and shipping the coal, or also the cost attributable to burning it.

External costs aren't considered with any other product, so considering them with coal would create an unlevel playing field. They aren't considered when you drive your car, operate your lawn mower, in the manufacture of batteries, burn wood in your fireplace, etc. That is where government has a role. Many products have negative consequences to the environment and the general population. It is up to government to set reasonable standards that balance the consumers need for an affordable product with the consequences of using that product.

 

[Deeeefense]

Finally Z, you've managed to find some unbiased information to prove your suppositions. If I can't trust Greenpeace info, who can I trust?

where's your data? where's your sources? you seem convinced all his sources are wrong but offer nothing to support your argument.

Everyone forms their opinion from one or more information sources, what source(s) influenced your opinion that all this information is wrong?

 

[Deeeefense]

Actually that's not true. It's a common mistake made by people who don't understand the industry. The cost shown for renewable sources of capacity aren't the total cost of using those resources. When a utility installs solar or wind, it must also install a secondary source of capacity that can be dispatched in the event that the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining when they need the capacity. Wind and solar have very low capacity factors, meaning they cannot be counted on with high reliability to provide power during the peak hours. Because of this, you can't just look at the revenue requirement associated with wind or solar and compare that to coal or natural gas. Wind and solar must be accompanied by another source of dispatchable capacity. It's not necessarily a 1 to 1 ratio, but it is significant because of the poor capacity factor of those sources.

On a side note. If we are going account for externalities, which I disagree with because we don't for any other product, then the person who is talking about battery storage would have include the environmental costs of manufacturing batteries.

Every source of power including coal and nuclear have unexpected outages - or unscheduled periods of time when there are not generating electricity. Your argument always seem to imply that this is only a situation with alternatives. Consequently we will always have to have back up sources of capacity for periods of unscheduled outages be it from a coal or nuke unit going down or the wind stop blowing, or the sun quits shinning or the water stops flowing.

The solution here is geographical diversity and a smart grid that can move electricity around nation wide on demand. The wind may temporarily stop blowing in Nebraska on a given day, but it doesn't stop blowing everywhere in the country on the same day. You can develop statistical models that you can pretty much rely on that over the course a wide array of wind farms for instance located in different geographical areas can be depended on to develop an average of X kwh over say 80% of the time. Then you plan for your low production time with backup power from a source such as gas turbine, the same way we do with coal or nuclear outages. Yes alternatives will probably not be quite as reliable and you can never depend 100% on renewable, but you can eventually supplement a large portion of your power needs through these cleaner, more efficient sources.

You're arguments always seem to imply that we are stuck in this 19th century technology for ever with all of it's costs and problems, but throughout history we have always developed the technology to solve problems. The proliferation of clean reliable energy world wide is an enormous challenge but I have faith that we are making a lot of progress towards achieving it and we need to stay the course, no relinquish to continuing with the same old horse & buggy methods.

 

[Deeeefense]

External costs aren't considered with any other product, so considering them with coal would create an unlevel playing field. They aren't considered when you drive your car, operate your lawn mower, in the manufacture of batteries, burn wood in your fireplace, etc. That is where government has a role. Many products have negative consequences to the environment and the general population. It is up to government to set reasonable standards that balance the consumers need for an affordable product with the consequences of using that product.

That's a fair statement but it's not quite on point. The point is when you put pencil to paper and comput the actual costs of producing electrical power from coal, vs nat gas, nuclear, wind, or solar, coal evaluates out higher than any other method.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Every source of power including coal and nuclear have unexpected outages - or unscheduled periods of time when there are not generating electricity. Your argument always seem to imply that this is only a situation with alternatives. Consequently we will always have to have back up sources of capacity for periods of unscheduled outages be it from a coal or nuke unit going down or the wind stop blowing, or the sun quits shinning or the water stops flowing.

The solution here is geographical diversity and a smart grid that can move electricity around nation wide on demand. The wind may temporarily stop blowing in Nebraska on a given day, but it doesn't stop blowing everywhere in the country on the same day. You can develop statistical models that you can pretty much rely on that over the course a wide array of wind farms for instance located in different geographical areas can be depended on to develop an average of X kwh over say 80% of the time. Then you plan for your low production time with backup power from a source such as gas turbine, the same way we do with coal or nuclear outages. Yes alternatives will probably not be quite as reliable and you can never depend 100% on renewable, but you can eventually supplement a large portion of your power needs through these cleaner, more efficient sources.

You're arguments always seem to imply that we are stuck in this 19th century technology for ever with all of it's costs and problems, but throughout history we have always developed the technology to solve problems. The proliferation of clean reliable energy world wide is an enormous challenge but I have faith that we are making a lot of progress towards achieving it and we need to stay the course, no relinquish to continuing with the same old horse & buggy methods.

It doesn't matter what technology might ultimately be able to accomplish. What matters is what we have to work with today. What you are referring to will be even more expensive because it will require the building of huge amounts of transmission capacity at between $2 and $2.5 million dollars per mile. That will make the economics even more difficult to overcome. I'm not saying it won't eventually happen, but who knows. You keep talking about things that aren't reality today. Today, the capacity factor of of coal and gas are 90% or greater. The capacity factor of renewable sources of capacity are 25% or less. Under the current technology, the economics of renewable sources is not good because of their initial cost plus the fact that there has to be additional capacity installed that can be dispatched to cover the 75% of time the renewable source won't be available when you need it.

 

[theoledog]

You probably jack off to propaganda. I bet you think second hand smoke kills thousands each year as well?

I LOL'd at this one.... I give you 2T'sup and a noshi_!

 

[Barong23]

You don't get these mountains back. You sold them. Forever.

 

[Barong23]

 

[Bill Derington]

Every source of power including coal and nuclear have unexpected outages - or unscheduled periods of time when there are not generating electricity. Your argument always seem to imply that this is only a situation with alternatives. Consequently we will always have to have back up sources of capacity for periods of unscheduled outages be it from a coal or nuke unit going down or the wind stop blowing, or the sun quits shinning or the water stops flowing.

The solution here is geographical diversity and a smart grid that can move electricity around nation wide on demand. The wind may temporarily stop blowing in Nebraska on a given day, but it doesn't stop blowing everywhere in the country on the same day. You can develop statistical models that you can pretty much rely on that over the course a wide array of wind farms for instance located in different geographical areas can be depended on to develop an average of X kwh over say 80% of the time. Then you plan for your low production time with backup power from a source such as gas turbine, the same way we do with coal or nuclear outages. Yes alternatives will probably not be quite as reliable and you can never depend 100% on renewable, but you can eventually supplement a large portion of your power needs through these cleaner, more efficient sources.

You're arguments always seem to imply that we are stuck in this 19th century technology for ever with all of it's costs and problems, but throughout history we have always developed the technology to solve problems. The proliferation of clean reliable energy world wide is an enormous challenge but I have faith that we are making a lot of progress towards achieving it and we need to stay the course, no relinquish to continuing with the same old horse & buggy methods.

Dee, There's a big difference between a coal or Nuke plant that has a reliability factor of 80%, and a windmill with a reliability factor less than 20%.

The smart grid is a myth, a catch phrase. It sounds good to the uninformed, but it's not reality.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

You don't get these mountains back. You sold them. Forever.

I'm from the mountains, and always hated strip mining because of what it does to the landscape. However, it does create land areas in eastern Kentucky that can be developed where there was none before. That being said, this isn't being done to you, or to me. It's being done because we use the power at a rate that creates the demand for the product they are mining. This is especially true if you do any kind of space conditioning.

 

[Barong23]

Ah, coal mining levels mountains therefore the new level land is useful. You've been doing some thinking.

Never mind that coal mining may leave behind a land poisoned with toxic sludge full of mercury, uranium, thorium, arsenic, and a host of other highly poisonous heavy metals.

But I get your point... we want to level more mountains to make more room for malls so we can leave those behind for our children.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Ah, coal mining levels mountains therefore the new level land is useful. You've been doing some thinking.

Never mind that coal mining may leave behind a land poisoned with toxic sludge full of mercury, uranium, thorium, arsenic, and a host of other highly poisonous heavy metals.

But I get your point...

Apparently you don't.

 

[Deeeefense]

Dee, There's a big difference between a coal or Nuke plant that has a reliability factor of 80%, and a windmill with a reliability factor less than 20%.

The smart grid is a myth, a catch phrase. It sounds good to the uninformed, but it's not reality.

You're look at one specific wind farm. What I mean is if you had say 20 windfarms all located in different areas. You know that if each windfarm operated at max capacity simultaneous it would product X kwh of electricity. But you know that won't be the case, but what you could rely on statistically is that a large portion might be operating at 60% capacity and a smaller portion less than 30% capacity at a given time. You add it up over a period of time of monitoring their performance you might come up with an average figure of say .5X kwh and a standard deviation of +/- .1X. So from that you could pan your supplement power needed during the lower production times.

To me there is a bit of an advantage with renewables becasue unlike a coal or nuke unit where you lose 100% of it's output immediately, with renewables you might see a more mild, incremental type of fluctuation from day to day.

With the proper engineering and use of statistics I see no reason this could not be workable.

 

[KingOfBBN]

Anybody see what George Soros did? [laughing]

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

Actually you are dead wrong. renewable sources are not installed to offset existing capacity.

I never said renewable energy is installed to offset existing capacity. I clearly stated that wind and solar power are installed to offset existing sources [of energy production]. The demand for additional power increases every day. Utilities can either meet that demand by investing in traditional or renewable sources of power generation. If they choose renewables (perhaps because of the relatively comparable LCOE) then the new wind/solar power capacity is offsetting the need for fossil fuels.

This one statement tells me you have no clue on how the industry works. Even if it were true, 1 MW of renewable capacity will not replace 1 MW of dispatchable capacity. Most of this capacity is added because of load growth or because coal units are being shut down. In either case, if you need 100 MWs of capacity, you cannot install 100 MWs of renewable capacity and call it a day. You would have to install 100 MWs of renewable and 80 MWs of something that can be dispatched.

Hey, at least I know how LCOE is calculated.

I never once said that the output of 1 MW of installed solar capacity is equal to the output of 1 MW of installed coal burning power plant capacity. Ever.

LCOE is a measure of the cost of producing energy from newly installed capacity, not for meeting the requirements of base loads. But, according to this LCOE calculation, wind is on par with advanced coal plants when producing the same amount of power.....because, as I said, utilization rates and capacity factors are factored into the DOE's calculation of LCOE. It's the major reason solar and wind are as high as they are.

If you're arguing against the methodology of LCOE then, well, I can't help you since it's the universally accepted measure of adding nameplate capacity used by utilities and energy market analysts.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

You're look at one specific wind farm. What I mean is if you had say 20 windfarms all located in different areas. You know that if each windfarm operated at max capacity simultaneous it would product X kwh of electricity. But you know that won't be the case, but what you could rely on statistically is that a large portion might be operating at 60% capacity and a smaller portion less than 30% capacity at a given time. You add it up over a period of time of monitoring their performance you might come up with an average figure of say .5X kwh and a standard deviation of +/- .1X. So from that you could pan your supplement power needed during the lower production times.

To me there is a bit of an advantage with renewables becasue unlike a coal or nuke unit where you lose 100% of it's output immediately, with renewables you might see a more mild, incremental type of fluctuation from day to day.

With the proper engineering and use of statistics I see no reason this could not be workable.

I think that a smart grid, if the cost could be justified, would allow you to optimize the mix of renewable sources of generation, but no matter how large of an area you draw a circle around, the same problem exists. Keep in mind that generating kwh is not the issue. It's the capacity. A utility has to have enough capacity available instantaneously when it needs it. Diversity of load could certainly allow you to offset some of that as you expand the area you are trying to serve. I think that is the vision that a lot of people have for the future. Even then, renewable capacity will have to be backed up by a certain amount of capacity that can be dispatched because diversity will not offset the entire difference in availability between renewable sources and fossil fuel sources. A huge issue with realizing smart grid is the transmission capacity to move the power around, plus the technology to monitor and control the system is exorbitantly expensive. The cost of transmission capacity is increasing at a very high rate. Personally, I'm not sure we will ever get there because of the cost. I think it is more likely that another technology will come along that allows for smaller, localized generation. That might ultimately be some breakthrough in solar, fuel cell, battery technology, etc.

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

[QUOTE="cat_in_the_hat, post: 2107011, member: 2612"

The smart grid is a myth, a catch phrase. It sounds good to the uninformed, but it's not reality.[/QUOTE]

This is such a ridiculous statement. Utilities and VC's in the US invest $4B per year in Smart Grid advancements and research. The Smart Grid industry in China is valued at $5B.

You really believe that governments and utilities are good with the status quo, and that continuously burning power plants is the most efficient way of energy production and distribution in the long run? Rhetorical question, it's not. The grids in the US, and worldwide, are inefficient and will not keep up with the growing demand of energy production and consumption.

Utilities see the direction of the energy industry and realize that improvements in demand response, production efficiency and an overhaul of transmission systems will save them billions vs installing needed capacity on top of the current infrastructure. Our current energy distribution infrastructure is, for lack of a better word, dumb, extremely so.

Just because you don't like it [not sure why] doesn't mean it's not happening.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

I never said renewable energy is installed to offset existing capacity. I clearly stated that wind and solar power are installed to offset existing sources [of energy production]. The demand for additional power increases every day. Utilities can either meet that demand by investing in traditional or renewable sources of power generation. If they choose renewables (perhaps because of the relatively comparable LCOE) then the new wind/solar power capacity is offsetting the need for fossil fuels.



Hey, at least I know how LCOE is calculated.

I never once said that the output of 1 MW of installed solar capacity is equal to the output of 1 MW of installed coal burning power plant capacity. Ever.

LCOE is a measure of the cost of producing energy from newly installed capacity, not for meeting the requirements of base loads. But, according to this LCOE calculation, wind is on par with advanced coal plants when producing the same amount of power.....because, as I said, utilization rates and capacity factors are factored into the DOE's calculation of LCOE. It's the major reason solar and wind are as high as they are.

If you're arguing against the methodology of LCOE then, well, I can't help you since it's the universally accepted measure of adding nameplate capacity used by utilities and energy market analysts.

I'm not following you. Generation is not installed for the purpose of generating kwhs. Generation is installed, every time, because of a shortage of capacity, so I'm not sure what you are trying to communicate in paragraph one. The unit, or units, are sized based on the projected capacity shortfall.

I have worked in the utility industry for almost 29 years doing levelized revenue requirement calculations, cost of service studies, rate design, economic evaluation, depreciation studies, etc. Not only do I no how to calculate a levelized revenue requirement, I have calculated hundreds. My problem is not with the calculation of cost in your table. I'm talking about the fact that the cost in your table does not represent 100% of the cost associated with serving a load with a renewable source of generation. All incremental capacity is installed to meet a projected capacity shortfall. If the utility is projecting a capacity shortfall of 100 MWs, they will evaluate the cost of serving that load using various sources of capacity. If one of the options they look at is wind or solar, they will have to couple that with another source because 100 MWs of wind or solar will not serve a 100 MW shortfall. It will require 100 MWs of wind plus a certain amount of gas in order to serve the load. So the cost of serving the load is the cost of wind or solar plus the cost of gas that backs it up. It has nothing to do with how the levelized costs are calculated in gthe table.

 

[I need this]

Whether you support coal in KY or not, it is very likely that a new coal plant will never be built again in the state. Move on and adapt.

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

I'm not following you. Generation is not installed for the purpose of generating kwhs. Generation is installed, every time, because of a shortage of capacity, so I'm not sure what you are trying to communicate in paragraph one.

You're right, but LCOE is not a calculation of generation demand or how the resulting energy from installed capacity will be consumed, it's used to price the production of energy for newly installed capacity.

My problem is not with the calculation of cost in your table. I'm talking about the fact that the cost in your table does not represent 100% of the cost associated with serving a load with a renewable source of generation.

So you're saying that the LCOE calculation is wrong because it's not factoring in what you want it to factor? LCOE is obviously a measure of the cost of producing incremental energy from newly installed capacity, not the overall cost of meeting demands of energy consumption. These are new plants/power sources built on existing grids in which additional energy is needed and introduced.

I have worked in the utility industry for almost 29 years doing levelized revenue requirement calculations, cost of service studies, rate design, economic evaluation, depreciation studies, etc. Not only do I no how to calculate a levelized revenue requirement, I have calculated hundreds.

That's great. So you know capacity factors are included in the calculation?

All incremental capacity is installed to meet a projected capacity shortfall. If the utility is projecting a capacity shortfall of 100 MWs, they will evaluate the cost of serving that load using various sources of capacity. If one of the options they look at is wind or solar, they will have to couple that with another source because 100 MWs of wind or solar will not serve a 100 MW shortfall. It will require 100 MWs of wind plus a certain amount of gas in order to serve the load. So the cost of serving the load is the cost of wind or solar plus the cost of gas that backs it up. It has nothing to do with how the levelized costs are calculated in gthe table.

Correct, but once again, LCOE is not a measure of the cost of serving any kind of load. It's the cost of incremental energy produced by newly installed capacity. Wind and Solar obviously can't satisfy a base load in the present due to it's intermittency, or low capacity factor. That will change with the wide spread implementation of cost effective storage. But using your example, if the utility is going to meet the full shortfall of 100 MW, it will construct a solar / wind facility larger than 100MW. But since the LCOE is a measure of MWh, the total cost of producing a unit of energy, including construction costs of the >100MW facility (construction costs being the bulk of renewables' LCOE), from that renewable energy facility will be 10-20c per kWh.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

You're right, but LCOE is not a calculation of generation demand or how the resulting energy from installed capacity will be consumed, it's used to price the production of energy for newly installed capacity.



So you're saying that the LCOE calculation is wrong because it's not factoring in what you want it to factor? LCOE is obviously a measure of the cost of producing incremental energy from newly installed capacity, not the overall cost of meeting demands of energy consumption. These are new plants/power sources built on existing grids in which additional energy is needed and introduced.

That's great. So you know capacity factors are included in the calculation?

Correct, but once again, LCOE is not a measure of the cost of serving any kind of load. It's the cost of incremental energy produced by newly installed capacity. Wind and Solar obviously can't satisfy a base load in the present due to it's intermittency, or low capacity factor. That will change with the wide spread implementation of cost effective storage. But using your example, if the utility is going to meet the full shortfall of 100 MW, it will construct a solar / wind facility larger than 100MW. But since the LCOE is a measure of MWh, the total cost of producing a unit of energy, including construction costs of the >100MW facility (construction costs being the bulk of renewables' LCOE), from that renewable energy facility will be 10-20c per kWh.

So you're saying that the LCOE calculation is wrong because it's not factoring in what you want it to factor? LCOE is obviously a measure of the cost of producing incremental energy from newly installed capacity, not the overall cost of meeting demands of energy consumption. These are new plants/power sources built on existing grids in which additional energy is needed and introduced.

LCOE is not a measure of the cost of producing incremental energy. It has nothing to do with incremental cost at all. It is a full embedded cost calculation that includes, capital costs, O&M, Depreciation, Taxes, etc. New generating facilities are not built where additional energy is needed. All generation is built because of a shortage in capacity, not energy.



That's great. So you know capacity factors are included in the calculation?

The expected MWhs is a component in a levelized revenue requirement, but it has nothing to do with the point about the low capacity factor of renewable sources meaning that additional dispatchable resources also have to be added to serve the load.

Correct, but once again, LCOE is not a measure of the cost of serving any kind of load. It's the cost of incremental energy produced by newly installed capacity. Wind and Solar obviously can't satisfy a base load in the present due to it's intermittency, or low capacity factor. That will change with the wide spread implementation of cost effective storage. But using your example, if the utility is going to meet the full shortfall of 100 MW, it will construct a solar / wind facility larger than 100MW. But since the LCOE is a measure of MWh, the total cost of producing a unit of energy, including construction costs of the >100MW facility (construction costs being the bulk of renewables' LCOE), from that renewable energy facility will be 10-20c per kWh.[/QUOTE]

It has nothing to do with serving base load. It cannot serve peaking load either, without some other back-up source of generation. Construction costs are the bulk of the revenue requirement for coal as well. I don't think a utility would choose to serve the 100 MW load with 400 MWs of wind. That would not make economic sense. If it wanted a renewable resource, and believes the Commission would sign off on it, It might install a certain amount of wind and then a certain amount of gas in some combination that was the most cost effective combination. That might be 100 MWs of wind and 75 MWs of natural gas. It might be some other combination based on their generation mix, reserve factor, etc.

My point is people, including yourself, use these charts as if they demonstrate the relative cost of serving a load with wind or solar versus coal or gas. They do not. A levelized revenue requirement is simply taking the annual carrying charges associated with building any source of generation and discounting those at some discount rate to get a present value revenue requirement. Then an annuity is calculated based on the expected life of the plant. The annual annuity divided by the expected energy output of the plant gives you the cost per MWh. That is where the usage of the plant gets accounted for in the calculation. That calculation assumes all capacity can serve the same load. It cannot. If you aren't comparing the cost to serve a load, then what is the point? That is why we build capacity. Just looking at the straight cost with no consideration that one type of capacity cannot replace the other, is a meaningless comparison.

 

[rmattox]

Ah, coal mining levels mountains therefore the new level land is useful. You've been doing some thinking.

Never mind that coal mining may leave behind a land poisoned with toxic sludge full of mercury, uranium, thorium, arsenic, and a host of other highly poisonous heavy metals.

But I get your point... we want to level more mountains to make more room for malls so we can leave those behind for our children.

Admittedly, I'm not in the same league as you guys when it comes to discussing this issue; my view is simplistic and maybe even naive but it likely represents the views of lots of people.

My wife and I lived in the mountains for several years. The single biggest factor that influenced us to move was the lack of suitable housing and/or places to build a home. They were just beginning to level mountains when we were there. People welcomed the new flat land. Houses started to spring up, but a little too late for us. It's interesting to hear all these opinions about coal mining, but IMO the only ones that matter are those of the people who depend on mining for a living and the people that have to live in those areas. Weekend visitors to the mountains opinions are of little importance to me.
As for cost, the major cost factor for me is the cost of heating, cooling and lighting my home. Again, if you insist upon attacking an energy source, why not focus your sights on oil. Coal doesn't cause wars; coal mine owners are not buying weapons for terrorists who use them on our sovereign land and interests. Clean up the oil problems; eliminate dependence on that then start on coal.
Respectfully,

 

[P19978]

Anybody see what George Soros did? [laughing]

Typical liberal hypocrisy.

 

[Bill Derington]

You're look at one specific wind farm. What I mean is if you had say 20 windfarms all located in different areas. You know that if each windfarm operated at max capacity simultaneous it would product X kwh of electricity. But you know that won't be the case, but what you could rely on statistically is that a large portion might be operating at 60% capacity and a smaller portion less than 30% capacity at a given time. You add it up over a period of time of monitoring their performance you might come up with an average figure of say .5X kwh and a standard deviation of +/- .1X. So from that you could pan your supplement power needed during the lower production times.

To me there is a bit of an advantage with renewables becasue unlike a coal or nuke unit where you lose 100% of it's output immediately, with renewables you might see a more mild, incremental type of fluctuation from day to day.

With the proper engineering and use of statistics I see no reason this could not be workable.

[QUOTE="cat_in_the_hat, post: 2107011, member: 2612"

The smart grid is a myth, a catch phrase. It sounds good to the uninformed, but it's not reality.

This is such a ridiculous statement. Utilities and VC's in the US invest $4B per year in Smart Grid advancements and research. The Smart Grid industry in China is valued at $5B.

You really believe that governments and utilities are good with the status quo, and that continuously burning power plants is the most efficient way of energy production and distribution in the long run? Rhetorical question, it's not. The grids in the US, and worldwide, are inefficient and will not keep up with the growing demand of energy production and consumption.

Utilities see the direction of the energy industry and realize that improvements in demand response, production efficiency and an overhaul of transmission systems will save them billions vs installing needed capacity on top of the current infrastructure. Our current energy distribution infrastructure is, for lack of a better word, dumb, extremely so.

Just because you don't like it [not sure why] doesn't mean it's not happening.[/QUOTE]


I don't have a feeling toward it one way or the other. But Dollar signs don't mean squat. Replacing old transmission lines could fall under the smart grid net, or installing remotely reporting meter boxes, they have no more to do with a "smart grid" than before. Battery or capacitor storage technology as well.

I see how the electrical load works everyday, and while wind and solar are viable options in order to have a sustainable grid coal is going to play a large part for a very long time to come. Or Nukes are going to have to be built at a rapid rate.

Whats going to happen in the next 10-20 years is as older coal plants are phased out, and natural gas is used more it's price will escalate, and more efficient ,cleaner coal plants will be built more than likely.

Megawatts are bought and sold like stock. Right now where I am it's $44 a megawatt on the open market, but its a mild summer day. A couple of weeks ago they were approx $65 but if a big unit somewhere tripped offline they would've jumped up considerably. And back during the cold snap last year and the year before they were consistently in the $100's of dollar at one point jumping up to $1500 a megawatt for a few hours when a large unit somewhere tripped offline. And thats all because electricity is an instantaneous demand, if a utility is short it can cause the whole grid to collapse at the worst, or rolling blackouts in areas.

 

[VT/UK Rondo]

 

[VT/UK Rondo]

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

LCOE is not a measure of the cost of producing incremental energy. It has nothing to do with incremental cost at all. It is a full embedded cost calculation that includes, capital costs, O&M, Depreciation, Taxes, etc.

Yes, it absolutely is the incremental cost of producing energy for newly installed capacity. What is included in numerator is the total cost is the up front capex, fixed & variable O&M, depreciation, taxes, etc. I have never said anything to the contrary. That's why it's expressed in MWh or kWh.

By definition the LCOE is the universal "metric for comparing new generating sources".

The expected MWhs is a component in a levelized revenue requirement, but it has nothing to do with the point about the low capacity factor of renewable sources meaning that additional dispatchable resources also have to be added to serve the load.

Yes, it does incorporate utilization rates. Capacity factor is an integral part of the LCOE calculation.

Your issue is just with the LCOE calculation. You're right in that there are limits to LCOE, such as the exclusion of dispatchibility. But LCOE only focuses on the cost of incremental energy produced from the newly constructed power generating asset. So, the LCOE figures presented by Z aren't wrong (other than they're outdated and solar/wind are now cheaper) and are extensively used by the industry when determining investment strategies to add additional capacity to an existing power grid.

It has nothing to do with serving base load. It cannot serve peaking load either, without some other back-up source of generation. Construction costs are the bulk of the revenue requirement for coal as well. I don't think a utility would choose to serve the 100 MW load with 400 MWs of wind. That would not make economic sense. If it wanted a renewable resource, and believes the Commission would sign off on it, It might install a certain amount of wind and then a certain amount of gas in some combination that was the most cost effective combination. That might be 100 MWs of wind and 75 MWs of natural gas. It might be some other combination based on their generation mix, reserve factor, etc.

My point is people, including yourself, use these charts as if they demonstrate the relative cost of serving a load with wind or solar versus coal or gas. They do not. A levelized revenue requirement is simply taking the annual carrying charges associated with building any source of generation and discounting those at some discount rate to get a present value revenue requirement. Then an annuity is calculated based on the expected life of the plant. The annual annuity divided by the expected energy output of the plant gives you the cost per MWh. That is where the usage of the plant gets accounted for in the calculation. That calculation assumes all capacity can serve the same load. It cannot. If you aren't comparing the cost to serve a load, then what is the point? That is why we build capacity. Just looking at the straight cost with no consideration that one type of capacity cannot replace the other, is a meaningless comparison.

Yes, LCOE does demonstrate the relative cost of contributing to load requirements. It's additional energy for the grid. As I've said multiple times, it's not a measure of fulfilling all energy demands.

And yes, as stated before, the LCOE calculation does account for capacity factors.

Obviously, as I said, Wind and Solar are not meant to cover the full demands of base loads.

And you build additional capacity to add energy to the grid to meet demand. Any additional capacity goes to serve a load and doesn't have to cover the full demand of said load.

Are you of the opinion that LCOE shouldn't be used by the industry, and the utilities / other energy analysts are wasting their time applying LCOE when comparing projects?

You're just getting caught up on the strawman notion that solar and wind are presently meant to meet all demands of the grid as the sole source of the power supply. They're not. They're supplemental energy sources, at least until the storage costs of renewable energy reaches grid and socket parity.

 

[KingOfBBN]

George Soros the puppet master of the Left shows what a hypocrite he is as is most of the leftist politicians. You guys want to take a guess what this critic of coal did this week?