From: "David B. Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
To: "globalchange" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 5:59 PM
Subject: [Global Change: 2964] Re: The Flawed Economics of Nuclear Power
>
>> Subject: [Global Change: 2962] Re: The Flawed Economics of Nuclear Power
>
> From the Ethree study commissioned by the State of California and
> recently released:
>
> Busbar (generation) cost in cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars:
>
> Biogas: 8.552
> Wind: 8.910
> Gas Combined Cycle: 9.382
> Geothermal: 10.182
> Hydroelectric: 10.527
> Coal Supercritical: 10.554
> Coal Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC): 11.481
> Solar thermal: 12.653
> Nuclear: 15.316
> Biomass: 16.485
> Coal IGCC with Carbon Capture & Storage (IGCC with CCS): 17.317
>
Numbers speak volumes, but we should take care when generalizing from a
single data point. E3 estimates that California has the highest nuclear
busbar cost in the western region (15.6) compared with Montana (13.4),
Colorado (12.8), Wyoming (12.2). California is not a representative sample
when pondering how to power the Chicago Metro Transit Trains, or the
Caterpillar plant in Peoria, for example.
In addition to geographic context, we should be aware that these prices are
also conditional on historical context: these are pre-CO2 pollution control
prices. If carbon control adds six cents to gas and supercritical coal like
it does to IGCC, then nuclear is in the neighborhood, and by some analyses
(like the CBO) it is the least-cost baseload generator under those
conditions.
The wind price is also context sensitive: on a grid with diverse fossil,
nuclear, and hydro generation, wind can nibble away ten or twenty percent
before intermittancy becomes an expensive threat to grid reliability.
Increasing wind beyond that will increase costs due to reliability
enhancements such as smart meters, compressed air storage or backup
generation. Transmission costs are also a consideration with wind, as well
as hydro and geothermal, where these resources tend to be concentrated at
great distances from load centers. Adding reliability and transmission to
busbar costs, nuclear compares more favorably.
Thanks,
-dl
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
