New study: Cheapest forms of energy in the future

[KerbMav]

If you close down that power plant before it was planned to be closed, and replace it with a wind turbine, those assumptions about the cost of energy are going to be wrong, and the effective price of the energy from that coal or nuclear plant will go up. Essentially you have to incorporate the capital expenditure that isn't being offset by the coal or nuclear plant any more into the cost of the wind or solar plant that replaces it.

You also have to take into account costs arising from the operation of a power plant, e.g. impact on public health from exhausts, safe disposal/storage of residues etc.

(Dodging the politically disputed impact on global climate ... oups ...)

[cantab]

Regarding fusion, one thing I've never seen talked about is the ramp-up/down time for fusion power. It could well be in the same boat as nuclear fission, taking so long to start up that it's really only suitable for base load.

Wind on the other hand could actually be used for matching changes in demand. Generation capacity may not be controllable but it's reasonably predictable, and a turbine can be braked when not needed, and when unbraked will start delivering power in I'd expect a minute or so. Now, this isn't something that happens in the current economic climate because once a wind turbine is installed it costs basically nothing to run it vs not running it. But in a distant future where fossil fuel generation is marginalised and nuclear fission and/or fusion are meeting the base load requirement, wind could shift to the role of meeting peak loads, along with storage systems and hydroelectricity.

[shynung]

...once a wind turbine is installed it costs basically nothing to run it vs not running it.

Not exactly true. Windmills use planetary step-up gearboxes, which occasionally break down. If not running, the gearboxes would last longer from reduced wear.

[Dodgey]

Not exactly true. Windmills use planetary step-up gearboxes, which occasionally break down. If not running, the gearboxes would last longer from reduced wear.

True but I think the point still stands as a comparison.

[shynung]

True but I think the point still stands as a comparison.

It does, but in a different way. Wind turbines cost more in equipment, but the operating costs are reduced to maintenance alone. Fossil fuel-power steam turbines have to deal with all that, plus the cost of fuel being shoved in.

On the other hand, wind turbine construction and components are much trickier than a steam turbine's. Along with the gearbox, the generator, huge blade assemblies, and the tower must be built on a suitable (windy) area, which is typically not very easy to reach compared to the industrial areas (or practically anywhere) steam turbines are commonly built on. Steam turbines also don't need a gearbox - they're directly coupled to the generator - which makes them somewhat simpler in construction than typical wind turbines. They do need a boiler, though; that's the thing that sucks up operational funds the most.

Edited February 13, 2015 by shynung

[AngelLestat]

Now add, atleast day to night storage for solar, backup storage for wind and other backup's necessary and everything else conveniently omitted from the diagram. Maintenance? Degradation over time of solar panels?

factor capacity, maintenance and lifetime are not ommited, is all mentioned in the tables.

For example:

Levalized cost for wind: 37 - 81 = 59 average (this variance means mostly turbines location), capacity factor: 40%, lifetime 20 years, contruction time: 12 months, capital cost: 1600.

Levalized cost for Nuclear: 124 (for new models), capacity factor: 90%, lifetime 40 years, contruction time: 69 months, capital cost: 7500 (see the capital cost graph)

After editing some mistakes:

Levelized cost of energy takes into account all these factors:

LEC = Average lifetime levelized electricity generation cost

It = Investment expenditures in the year t

Mt = Operations and maintenance expenditures in the year t

Ft = Fuel expenditures in the year t

Et = Electricity generation in the year t

r = Discount rate

n = Life of the system

I am not sure how well estimate the cost of lifetime, for example a nuclear plant last 40 years against 20 in wind. But you only need to waste a 10% (or less) of the initial cost to remplace a wind turbine.

Because wind turbine cost drop a lot by time, new transportation methods as the one mentioned in the first page will be avariable. And one huge part of the cost does not need to be remplaced (foundations).

Not sure if estimate the time lost in construction time, 59 months more than wind, those lost on profits are included?

Then we have capital cost being 4.5 times more than wind. In case is not already estimate, it will be 7500 (vs 1200 wind farm) divide by 2 because you dont put all the money at the same time = 3750 over 59 months with a 15% of that cost lost by year. 75% of the 3750 = 2182 in capital cost lost becouse that money was freeze instead making profits.

So if we ignore the last 3 thing that I mention imagine that are already include in the analysis then wind vs nuclear is:

Wind: 59 vs Nuclear =124

Now we need to add storage, in the table all levalized cost takes into account the same anual power, price by kw.

It can storage over 6 hours. This is more than enoght, because your wind farms can use the storage from other wind farms, the wind always blow some where.

But we will use the new storage price which is 168 as the table show. In most cases is not necesary to install storage at the same time you build your wind farm, you installed when your wind-solar energy overseed the 25%

59+168= 227

wind 227 vs nuclear 124

This does not take into account nuclear plant descomission cost (which may be high for a 40 years nuclear plant), waste managment and disasters or possible new counter taxes or closures in the future.

That is a risk and a bet that an investor needs to do if they choice nuclear.

Wind and solar energy cost will still fall and new transport methods may reduce that even more.

Storage was not needed before, that is way we never had great advantages in that area, now is needed and we learn that there are huge ways to reduce cost. Is estimated that it will be the technology branch that will experience bigger cost drops.

The global electrical usage of 22,126 TWh's is from 2011, it has obviously grown since then. It will also grow in industrialised nations as if ie. instead of central heating you now need to use electrical heating. Then developing nations will massively increase the electrical usage. Even the 1.3 billion chineese needs to use 3.75x as much energy to compaire to germany or a massive 7.125 x to use as much as the average american. It is 5,9 billion people needing to double, triple or many times more their electrical usage to get an equal standard of life.

So are the industrialized nations willing to pay for them not going cheap ass coal? We kinda should... it's been our usage of coal, oil and gas that's partially the reason we are rich and it's rather certainly the reason there's a problem now.

The thing with china is that they need so much energy, than even if they want to get just wind or solar, the demand will grow so fast that the price will go up. Also the current price of wind and solar + storage needed does not equal yet the price of nuclear.

But the topic talks that in 5 to 10 years, wind and solar will be the way to go.

Also... I still haven't seen you give even an estimation of the enviromental or human health impact of digging enough ressources out of the ground, then reshape them into windmills, solarpanels and energy storage on a megaproject scale, then transport them around the globe and deploy them and then maintain a megaproject like that over 50-100 years, possibly to forever?

This table is from the 2011, so for sure the CO2 trace go down at least half for wind and solar. Because Co2 emissions are related to cost in manufacture. If you can reduce cost of PV and wind, is because you find a way to made them using less energy, taking your raw materials more efficient and without much transportation, etc.

This link talk about raw materials:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/renewables-are-as-green-as-you-d-expect/

And this taking into account that you can not remplace that iron with carbon composite. Carbon composite are becoming more cheap to manufacture every day, and we know that carbon is a lot cheap than any other raw material.

This will start to change in just 5 years.

This is true however its getting less relevant, modern houses are so well isolated and use heat exchangers so they don't use much more energy for pure heating unless its very cold.

Correct, Insulation is the most efficient way to save energy. Before find more efficient ways to produce that energy, first try to not lose it.

My last sentence in that paragraph basically means, you have a coal power plant, or a nuclear plant, the cost of energy from it is going to be based on the lifetime of the plant, as the initial costs are quite high. If you close down that power plant before it was planned to be closed, and replace it with a wind turbine, those assumptions about the cost of energy are going to be wrong, and the effective price of the energy from that coal or nuclear plant will go up. Essentially you have to incorporate the capital expenditure that isn't being offset by the coal or nuclear plant any more into the cost of the wind or solar plant that replaces it.

Ok, now I understand what you said, I am agree.

We need to add too the economic cost for that country of not use those fossil reservoirs, carbon capture is included in the graph that I show, that tech still needs some time to reduce the cost even more.

I guess all this will be solved if the world put a price to each energy source.

If is clean, it needs to cost less. If is dirty it needs to cost more.

People needs to pay the price for what kind of energy they consume. If that happens wind and solar will be way ahead of any fossil energy.

For heat transfer calculations, it isn't really my area of research, especially not for space-based stuff, I'd mainly be looking at convective and conductive transfer inside heat exchangers, but I can have a look for you if you want, just PM me and I'll see what I can do.

Is heat transfer on an airship. I will send you a pm when I finish.

Edited February 13, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Branjoman]

I guess all this will be solved if the world put a price to each energy source.

If is clean, it needs to cost less. If is dirty it needs to cost more.

/\This right here is pure gold in my eyes

[shynung]

I guess all this will be solved if the world put a price to each energy source.

If is clean, it needs to cost less. If is dirty it needs to cost more.

Governments around the world are already doing that, by subsidizing cleaner energy sources and (sometimes) putting heavier taxes on less-cleaner sources. But at this level, they can only do so much. The initial investment required for clean energy production is still quite steep for most people to afford installing the equipment in the first place, even in large-community scales. Otherwise, solar power plants and wind turbines would outnumber coal power plants already; I'm not seeing that as of yet.