In power generation, different ways of generating electricity incur very different costs. This cost calculation can be done at the connection point to the load or to the power grid. Charges are usually given per kilowatt-hour or megawatt-hour. These include start-up capital, discount rate, as well as operating costs, fuel, and ongoing maintenance. This type of calculation helps policy makers, researchers, and others to guide discussion and decision-making.
The levelized cost of electricity ( LCOE ) is a measure of the power source that tries to compare various power generation methods consistently. This is the economic assessment of the total average cost to build and operate the power plant assets during its lifetime divided by the total energy output of the asset during that period. LCOE can also be considered as the minimum average cost at which electricity must be sold to break even during the life of the project.
Video Cost of electricity by source
Faktor biaya
When calculating costs, some internal cost factors should be considered. (Note the use of "cost," which is not the actual sale price, as this may be affected by factors such as subsidies and taxes):
- Capital costs (including waste disposal and decommissioning costs for nuclear energy) - tend to be low for fossil fuel power plants; high for wind turbines, solar PV (photovoltaics); very high to waste into energy, waves and tides, solar heat, and nuclear.
- High fuel costs for fossil fuels and biomass sources, low for nuclear, and zero for much renewable energy. Fuel costs may vary somewhat unexpectedly over the lifetime of generating equipment, due to political and other factors.
- Factors such as the cost of waste (and related problems) and different insurance costs are not included in the following: Working power, self-use or parasitic loads - that is, the portion of power generated is actually used to run station and fan pumps should be allowed.
To evaluate the total cost of electricity production, the cost stream is converted to net present value using the time value of money. All these costs are incorporated using the discounted cash flow.
Reduced power costs
The average power cost (LCOE), also known as LEC, is the current net value of unit-electricity costs over the lifetime of a generating asset. This is often taken as a proxy for the average price to be received by the generating assets in the market to break even during its lifetime. This is a first-rate economic assessment of the cost competitiveness of a power generation system that incorporates all costs over its lifetime: initial investment, operation and maintenance, fuel costs, capital costs.
The measurable cost is the value for which the same fixed-value income provided during the lifetime of the asset-producing profile will cause the project to break even. This can be calculated roughly as the net present value of all costs over the life of the asset divided by the total output of electrical energy from the asset.
Biaya listrik yang disamakan (LCOE) diberikan oleh:
Normally LCOE is calculated during the design life of a plant, typically 20 to 40 years old, and given in units of currency per kilowatt-hour or megawatt-day, for AUD/kWh or EUR/kWh or per megawatt-hour example, for example AUD/MWh (as tabulated below). However, care should be taken in comparing different LCOE studies and the source of information as LCOE for the given energy source is highly dependent on the assumptions, terms of financing and dissemination of the analyzed technology. In particular, capacity factor assumptions have a significant impact on LCOE calculations. Thus, the main requirement for analysis is a clear statement of the application of analysis based on justified assumptions.
Many scholars, such as Paul Joskow, have described the limits to a metric "measurable electricity cost" to compare new sources of power. In particular, the LCOE ignores the time effects associated with matching production to demand. This happens on two levels:
- Delivery delays, generator system capabilities to go online, offline, or up or down, as quickly as demand changes.
- The extent to which the availability profile matches or conflicts with the market demand profile.
Technologies that are thermally weak such as coal and nuclear are not physically able to quickly. Capital-intensive technologies such as wind, solar and nuclear are economically disadvantaged unless they result in maximum availability since LCOE is almost all low cost capital investment. Intermittent resources, such as wind and solar, may incur additional costs associated with the need to have storage or backup available. At the same time, intermittent sources can compete if they are available for production when demand and prices are highest, such as the sun during peak summer summers seen in hot countries where AC is the primary consumer. In spite of these time limitations, leveling costs are often the prerequisites needed to make comparisons on the same footing before the demand profile is considered, and measurable cost metrics are widely used to compare technology in margins, where the grid implications of the new generation can be ignored.
Another limitation of LCOE metrics is the effect of energy efficiency and conservation (EEC). EEC has caused electricity demand from many countries to remain flat or decline. Considering only LCOE for utility-scale plants will tend to maximize generation and exaggerate risk generation as needed due to efficiency, resulting in "lowballing" their LCOE. For the solar system installed at the end use point, it would be more economical to invest in EEC first, then diesel (resulting in a smaller solar system than required without an EEC step). However, designing a solar system based on LCOE will cause the LCOE system to be smaller to increase (because energy generation [measured in kWh] falls faster than system cost [$]). The entire cost of the system life cycle should be considered, not just LCOE from energy sources. LCOE is not relevant to end users than other financial considerations such as income, cash flow, mortgages, rent, rent, and electricity bills. Comparing solar investments in relation to this can make it easier for end-users to make decisions, or use cost-benefit calculations "and/or value of capacity or contribution of assets to the top on a system or circuit level".
Avoid cost
The US Energy Information Administration has recommended that the measurable costs of non-removable sources such as wind or solar may be better than avoided energy costs rather than to LCOE removable sources such as fossil fuels or geothermal. This is because the introduction of fluctuating resources may or may not avoid the cost of capital and maintenance of contactable backup resources. Levelized Avoided Cost of Energy (LACE) is the cost avoided from other sources divided by annual annual output from unpolluted sources. However, the costs avoided are much more difficult to calculate accurately.
Marginal cost of electricity
A more accurate economic assessment may be the marginal electricity cost. This value works by comparing the cost of additional systems to increase the power generation from one source to another from the power plant (see Order Merit).
Cost of external energy sources
Usually the price of electricity from various energy sources may not include all external costs - that is, the costs indirectly borne by society as a whole as a consequence of using that energy source. This may include enabling costs, environmental impact, usage life span, energy storage, recycling costs, or off-the-shelf insurance effects.
The US Energy Information Administration estimates that coal and gas will continue to be used to deliver most of the world's electricity. This is expected to result in the evacuation of millions of homes in low-lying areas, and an annual cost of hundreds of billions of property damage.
In addition, with a number of island states that are slowly submerged underwater due to rising sea levels, the large international climate litigation lawsuits against fossil fuel users are now starting in the International Court of Justice.
An EU-funded research study known as ExternE, or Externalities of Energy, conducted during the period 1995 to 2005 found that the cost of electricity production from coal or oil would double over its current value, and the cost of producing electricity from gas would increase. at 30% if external costs such as environmental damage and human health, from particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, chromium VI, river water alkalinity, mercury poisoning and arsenic emissions generated by these sources, are taken into account. It is estimated in this study that the cost of external fossil fuels, downstream, amounts to 1% -2% of all EU Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and this is before the external costs of global warming from these sources are even included. Coal has the highest external costs in the EU, and global warming is the biggest part of that cost.
The means to overcome some of the external costs of fossil fuel generation is the pricing of carbon - the most preferred method by the economy to reduce global warming emissions. Carbon prices charge those who emit carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) for emissions. The charge, called 'carbon price', is the amount to be paid for the right to issue a ton of CO 2 into the atmosphere. Carbon prices usually take the form of a carbon tax or a requirement to buy permits to issue (also called "allowances").
Depending on the assumption of possible accidents and their probabilities, the external costs for nuclear power vary significantly and can range from 0.2 to 200 ct/kWh. In addition, nuclear power works under the limiting insurance framework or liability structure of accidents in accordance with the Paris Convention on nuclear third party obligations, the additional conventions of Brussels, and the Vienna convention on civil liability for nuclear damage and in the US. -Anderson Act. It is often argued that this potential deficiency is an external cost not included in the cost of nuclear electricity; but the cost is small, about 0.1% of the electricity cost flattened, according to a CBO study.
This out-of-pocket expense for the worst-case scenario does not only happen in nuclear power, because hydroelectricity is also totally uninsured against major disasters like the Banqiao Disaster disaster, where 11 million people lost their homes and from 30,000 to 200,000 people. dead, or large dam failure in general. Since private insurance companies base dam insurance premiums on a limited scenario, major disaster insurance in this sector is also provided by the state.
Because the externalities are scattered in effect, external costs can not be measured directly, but must be estimated. One approach estimates the external cost of environmental impacts of electricity is the Federal Environmental Agency's Environmental Methodological Convention. The method arrives at the external electrical cost of the lignite at 10.75 Eurocent/kWh, of hard coal 8.94 Eurocent/kWh, of natural gas 4.91 Eurocent/kWh, of 1.13 Eurocent/kWh photovoltaic, from 0.26 Eurocent/kWh wind and from hydro 0.18 Eurocent/kWh. For nuclear, the Federal Environment Agency does not show any value, because different studies have varying results by a factor of 1,000. It recommends a nuclear given a large uncertainty, with the cost of the next inferior energy source to evaluate. Under this recommendation, the Federal Environmental Agency, and by their own method, the Ecological Forum-the social market economy, arrives at the external environmental cost of nuclear energy at 10.7 to 34 ct/kWh.
Additional cost factors
Calculations often do not include the wider system costs associated with each type of plant, such as a long-distance transmission connection to a network, or balancing and seizing costs. The calculations do not include externalities such as health damage by coal plants, or the effects of CO 2 emissions on climate change, ocean acidification and eutrophication, ocean current shifts. The cost of decommissioning a nuclear plant is usually not included (the United States is an exception, since decommissioning costs are included in the price of electricity, per the Nuclear Waste Policy Act), therefore it is not a full cost accounting. This type of item can be explicitly added as necessary depending on the purpose of the calculation. It has little connection with the actual price of power, but it helps policy-makers and others to guide discussion and decision-making.
This is not a small but very significant factor affecting all responsible power decisions:
- The comparison of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions suggests that coal, for example, is radically higher in terms of GHG than any alternative. Therefore, in the analysis below, coal-captured coal is generally treated as a separate source rather than averaged with other coal.
- Other environmental concerns with electricity generation include acid rain, ocean acidification and the effects of coal extraction on watersheds.
- Various human health problems with power plants, including asthma and smog, now dominate decisions in developed countries that pay health care costs publicly. A Harvard University Medical School study estimates the cost of coal-only health in the US between 300 and 500 billion dollars each year.
- While the cost per transmission kWh varies drastically by distance, the long complex projects required to clean or even improve transmission routes make exciting new supplies often uncompetitive with conservation measures (see below), since the timing of payments must take transmissions up to account.
Maps Cost of electricity by source
Study
Australia
According to various studies, the cost for wind and solar has decreased dramatically since 2006. For example, the Climate Council of Australia stated that for 5 years between 2009-2014 the cost of solar drops by up to 75% makes them comparable to coal, and is expected to continue to decline during 5 years ahead of 45% of the price in 2014. They also found that winds are cheaper than coal since 2013, and coal and gas will become less feasible because subsidies are withdrawn and there is hope that they end up having to pay for pollution costs.
French
The International Energy Agency and EDF estimate for 2011 the following costs. For nuclear power they charge for new safety investments to boost the French nuclear plant after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster; the cost for the investment is estimated at 4 EUR/MWh. Regarding solar power, the forecast at 293 EUR/MWh is for large factories capable of producing in the range of 50-100 GWh/year located in favorable locations (such as in Southern Europe). For small household crops capable of generating usually about 3 MWh/year, the cost corresponds to the location between 400 and 700 EUR/MWh. Today solar power is by far the most expensive source of renewable energy to generate electricity among the technologies studied, although increased efficiency and longevity of longer photovoltaic panels along with reduced production costs can make this source of energy more competitive. In 2017, generating costs dropped to EUR55.5/MWh for plants between 5 and 17MWp.
German
In November 2013, the Fraunhofer Institute for ISE Solar Systems assessed measurable generation costs for newly built power plants in the German electricity sector. The PV system reaches LCOE between 0.078 and 0.142 Euro/kWh in the third quarter of 2013, depending on the type of power plant (ground-mounted utility-scale or small solar rooftop solar) and the German insolation averages 1000 to 1200 kWh/mÃ,² per year (GHI). No LCOE figures are available for electricity generated by the recently built German nuclear power plant because nothing was built since the late 1980s. ISE study updates published in March 2018.
Japanese
A 2010 study by the Japanese government (pre-Fukushima disaster), called Energy White Paper, concluded the cost for kilowatt hour is  ¥ 49 for diesel, Ã,  ¥ 10 to  ¥ 14 for wind, and Ã,  ¥ 5 or  ¥  ¥ 6 for nuclear power. Masayoshi Son, an advocate for renewable energy, however, has pointed out that government estimates for nuclear power exclude the costs of re-processing fuel or disaster insurance responsibilities. Son estimates that if these costs are included, the cost of nuclear power is almost the same as wind power.
United Kingdom
The Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland commissioned the former British National Grid Operational Director Colin Gibson to produce reports on first-generation cost levels that will for the first time include some transmission costs as well as generating costs. It was published in December 2011. The institute is trying to encourage debate on this issue, and has taken an unusual step among the authors of such studies that publish spreadsheets.
On February 27, 2015 Vattenfall Vindkraft US agrees to build the Horns Rev 3 offshore wind farm with a price of 10.31 Eurocent per kWh. It has been quoted as below £, £ 100 per MWh.
In 2013 in Britain to build a new nuclear power plant (Hinkley Point C: completion 2023), a feed-in tariff of Ã, Â £ 92.50/MWh (about 142 USD/MWh) plus compensation for inflation by running a 35 year time agreed.
BEIS
The Department of Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) publishes regular estimates of the costs of various power generation sources, following a combined estimate of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). A measurable cost estimate for new generation projects beginning in 2015 is listed in the table below.
United States
Energy Information Administration
The following data comes from the Energy Energy Administration (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook released in 2015 (AEO2015). They are in dollars per megawatt-hour (2013 USD/MWh). These figures are estimates for the plant to start operating in 2020. The following LCOE is calculated based on a 30 year recovery period using the real after-tax weighted average cost of capital (WACC) of 6.1%. For carbon-intensive technology, 3 percentage points are added to WACC. (This is roughly equivalent to the cost of $ 15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide CO 2 )
Since 2010, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) has published Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), with an annual LCOE projection for future utility-scale facilities to be commissioned in about five years. By 2015, the EIA has been criticized by the Advanced Energy Economy (AEE) Institute after the release of its 2015 AEO report to "consistently underestimate renewable energy growth rates, leading to 'misperceptions' about the performance of these resources in the market." The AEE indicates that the average power purchase agreement (PPA) for wind power has reached $ 24/MWh by 2013. Likewise, the PPA for utility-scale solar PV is seen at current levels of $ 50- $ 75/MWh. These figures contrast with EIA's estimate of $ 125/MWh (or $ 114/MWh including subsidies) for solar PV by 2020.
Power sources that have the greatest decline in cost estimates over the period 2010 to 2017 are solar photovoltaic (down 81%), overland winds (down 63%) and combined cycle of advanced natural gas (down 32%).
For utility-scale generation operated in 2040, AMDAL estimates by 2015 that there will be further reductions in the constant cost of concentrated solar power (down 18%), solar photovoltaic (down 15%), offshore wind (down 11 %), and advanced nuclear (down 7%). The cost of land breeze is expected to rise slightly (up 2%) by 2040, while the combined electric cycle of natural gas is expected to increase by 9% to 10% during the period.
NREL OpenEI (2015)
OpenEI, co-sponsored by the US DOE and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), has developed a historical cost-generation database covering multiple sources. Because the data is open source, it may be revised frequently.
Note:
Only the Median value = only one data point.
Only Max Min value = Only two data points California California Energy Commission (2014)
The LCOE data from the California Energy Commission's report entitled "Cost Estimates for Renewable and Fossil Generations in California". Model data is calculated for all three classes of developers: merchants, investor-owned utilities (IOU), and public utilities (POUs).
Lazard (2015)
In November 2015, Lazard's investment bank headquartered in New York, publishes its ninth annual study on the cost of producing photovoltaic current electricity in the US compared to conventional power plants. The best large-scale photovoltaic power generation can generate electricity at 50 USD per MWh. Upper limit of 60 USD per MWh. For comparison, coal-fired power plants are between 65 USD and $ 150 per MWh, nuclear power at 97 USD per MWh. Small photovoltaic power plants on the roof of the house are still at 184-300 USD per MWh, but that can be done without the cost of electric transportation. The ground wind turbine is 32-77 USD per MWh. One drawback is the intermittency of solar and wind power. This study shows solutions in batteries as storage, but these are still expensive so far.
Lazard's long-term Energy Cost (LCOE) report is widely considered and industry benchmark. In 2015 Lazard published its first Levelized Cost of Storage (LCOS) report, developed by investment bank Lazard in collaboration with energy consulting firm Enovation.
Below is a complete list of LCOEs based on sources from investment banks, Lazard.
NOTE: ** Battery Storage is no longer included in this report (2015). This has been rolled out into LCOS 1.0's own separate report, developed in consultation with Enhanced Partners (See chart below).
Below is LCOS for different battery technologies. This category has traditionally been filled by Diesel Engines. This is the "Behind the Meter" app.
Below is LCOS for different battery technologies. This category has traditionally been filled by the Natural Gas Engine. This is the "In front of the meter" app.
Lazard (2016)
On December 15, 2016 Lazard released version 10 of their LCOE report and version 2 of their LCOS report.
Lazard (2017)
On November 2, 2017, investment bank Lazard released version 11 of their LCOE report and version 3 of their LCOS report.
Here are un-subsidized LCOS for various battery technologies for "Behind the Meter" (BTM) application.
Below is an unsubsidized LCOS for various "Front of the Meter" (FTM) battery technologies.
Note: Approximate groove value range of battery
Global
IEA and NEA (2015)
The International Energy Agency and the Nuclear Energy Agency publish a joint study in 2015 on international LCOE data.
Study and other analysis
Buffett Contract (2015)
Under a power purchase agreement in the United States in July 2015 for a 20-year period solar power will be paid 3.87 US $ per kilowatt hour (38.7 USD/MWh). The solar system, which produces solar power, is in Nevada (USA) and has a capacity of 100 MW.
Sun Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid (2016)
In spring 2016, a winning bid of 2.99 US cents per kilowatt-hour of photovoltaic solar energy is achieved for the next stage (800MW capacity) of solar farm Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid in Dubai. Brookings Institution (2014) Brookings Institution (2014)
Brazilian electric mix: Non-renewable and non-renewable Exergetic Cost ( 2014)
As long as the exergy is the energy source needed for the economic activity to be performed, it is reasonable to evaluate the energy costs based on the content of its existence. In addition, as an exergy can be considered a measure of the departure of environmental conditions, it also serves as an environmental impact indicator, taking into account both the supply chain efficiency (from the main input input) and the efficiency of the production process. In this way, exergoeconomics can be used to rationally rationalize CO2 and CO2 emissions among products and by-products from a highly integrated Brazilian electricity mix. Based on the thermoeconomy methodology, some authors have pointed out that exergoeconomy provides an opportunity to measure specific, renewable and non-renewable consumption of certain exchanges; to properly allocate CO 2 emissions between the flow of a particular production route; as well as to determine the overall exergy conversion efficiency of the production process. Thus, the cost of non-renewable exergy units (cNR) [kJ/kJ] is defined as the non-renewable level of exertion required to produce a flow rate unit of a substance, fuel, electricity, work or heat flow, while Total Unit Exergy Cost (cT) includes Renewable Exergy Cost (cR) and Non-Renewable Unit. Analogously, the cost of CO 2 emissions (CO2 2 ) is defined as CO 2 transmitted to obtain one unit of exergy flow rate/rate.
Renewable
Photovoltaics
The price of photovoltaic has dropped from $ 76.67 per watt in 1977 to nearly $ 0.23 per watt in August 2017, for crystalline silicon solar cells. This is seen as evidence in favor of Swanson's law, which states that the price of solar cells drops by 20% for each cumulative delivery doubled. Moore's famous law requires doubling the number of transistors every two years.
In 2011, the price of PV modules per MW has fallen by 60% since 2008, according to Bloomberg's estimates of New Energy Finance, putting solar power for the first time on a competitive footing with electric retail prices in several bright countries; an alternate and consistent rate of decline in prices of 75% from 2007 to 2012 has also been published, although it is unclear whether these figures are specific to the United States or in general globally. Measured electrical costs (LCOE) of PV are competitive with conventional electricity sources in the geographic area expansion list, especially when generation time is included, as electricity is more valuable during the day than at night. There is fierce competition in the supply chain, and further improvements in measurable energy costs for the solar system are ahead, posing an increasing threat to the dominance of fossil fuel generation sources in the next few years. Over time, renewable energy technologies generally become cheaper, while fossil fuels generally become more expensive:
The less the cost of solar power, the better when compared with conventional power, and more attractive to utility and energy users around the world. Utility-scale solar power [could be in 2011] will be shipped in California at a price well below $ 100/MWh ($ 0.10/kWh) less than most other peak generators, even those using low-cost natural gas. Lower solar module costs also stimulate demand from consumer markets where solar costs are much more profitable than retail electricity tariffs.
In 2015, First Solar agreed to supply solar power at a price of 3.87 cents/kWh from the Playa Solar 2 100 MW project which is much cheaper than the selling price of conventional power plants. From January 2015 to May 2016, the record continues to decline rapidly, and the price of solar electricity, which has reached levels below 3 cents/kWh, continues to fall. In August 2016, Chile announced a new low price contract to provide solar power of $ 29.10 per megawatt-hour (MWh). In September 2016, Abu Dhabi announced a new bid price record, promising to provide solar power of $ 24.2 per MWh In October 2017, Saudi Arabia announced a further low-cost contract to provide solar power of $ 17.90 per MWh.
With a carbon price of $ 50/ton (which will raise the price of coal-fired power by 5c/kWh), solar PV is competitive across most locations. The decline in PV prices has been reflected in rapidly growing installations, the total cumulative capacity worldwide of 297 GW by the end of 2016. According to some estimates the total investment in renewable energy for 2011 exceeds investments in carbon-based power plants.
In the case of own consumption, the payback time is calculated based on how much electricity is not carried from the grid. In addition, using solar PV power to charge DC batteries, such as those used in Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Electric Vehicles, leads to greater efficiency, but higher costs. Traditionally, DC generating electricity from solar PV should be converted into AC for buildings, with an average of 10% loss during conversion. Inverter technology is rapidly improving and current equipment has achieved 99% efficiency for small-scale residential, while commercial-scale three phase equipment can achieve above 98% efficiency. However, additional efficiency losses occur in the transition back to DC for battery-driven devices and vehicles, and using various interest rates and changes in energy prices are calculated to find current values ​​ranging from $ 2,057.13 to $ 8,213.64 (analysis from 2009).
It is also possible to combine solar PV with other technologies to create a hybrid system, which allows more stand-alone systems. LCOE calculations become more complex, but can be done by combining the costs and energy generated by each component. Like, for example, PV and cogen and batteries while reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with energy and electricity compared to conventional sources.
Hot sun
LCOE of solar thermal with energy storage that can operate all the time on demand, has fallen to AU $ 78/MWh (US $ 61/MWh) in August 2017. Although solar thermal generators with energy storage can work as stand-alone systems , the combination with solar PV power can provide cheaper power. The cheaper, more affordable solar thermal storage power does not need to rely on expensive coal/gas/oil/nuclear power generation to ensure stable grid operation.
When a solar thermal storage plant is forced to idle due to lack of sun locally during cloudy days, it is possible to consume cheap excess power from solar, wind and hydro solar power (similar to a larger, lower capacity, efficient and low-cost battery storage systems) by heating the hot liquid salt to a higher temperature to convert the stored heat energy into electricity during peak demand hours when the electricity selling price is favorable.
Wind power
- Current ground breeze
In the windy large plains of the United States, the cost of new construction wind power in the United States in 2017 is greatly below the cost of continuous use of existing coal burning plants. Wind power can be contracted through a power purchase agreement at two cents per kilowatt hour while operating costs for power plants at existing coal burning plants remain above three cents.
- Current offshore wind
In 2016 the Norwegian Wind Energy Association (NORWEA) predicts LCoE of typical Norwegian wind farms at 44Ã, EUR/MWh, assuming a weighted average cost of capital of 8% and an annual load of 3,500 full loads, ie 40% capacity factor. NORWEA continues to estimate LCoE from 1 GW Fosen Vind onshore wind farm which is expected to operate in 2020 to as low as 35 EUR/MWh to 40 EUR/MWh. In November 2016, Vattenfall won a tender to develop Windpark Kriegers Flak in the Baltic Sea for 49.9 EUR/MWh, and a similar rate was approved for the Borssele offshore wind farm. By 2016, this is the projected lowest price for electricity produced using offshore wind.
- Historical level
In 2004, wind energy consumed one fifth of what it did in the 1980s, and some predicted that the downward trend would continue as larger multi-megawatt turbines were mass-produced. In 2012, the cost of capital for wind turbines is much lower than 2008-2010 but still above the level of 2002. A 2011 report from the American Wind Energy Association states, "Wind costs have fallen over the past two years, in the range of 5 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour recently... about 2 cents cheaper than coal-fired electricity, and more projects financed through debt arrangement than last year's equity tax structure... won more mainstream receipts from Wall Street banks.... Equipment makers can also ship products in the same year when they are ordered instead of waiting for up to three years as happened in the previous cycle.... 5.600 MW new installed capacity is under construction in the United States, more than twice folding amount at the moment in 2010. 35% of all new power plants built in the United States since 2005 have come from the wind, more than a new combination of gas and coal, as electricity providers are increasingly attracted to the wind as a convenient hedge against unexpected commodity price movements. "
This cost is also reduced because wind turbine technology has increased. There are now longer and lighter wind turbine blades, improved turbine performance and increased power generation efficiency. Also, the cost of project capital and wind maintenance continues to decline. For example, the wind industry in the United States in 2014 is capable of producing more power at lower cost by using higher wind turbines with longer blades, capturing faster winds at higher altitudes. This opens up new opportunities in Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. The price of power from wind turbines built 300 to 400 feet (91 to 122 m) above ground can now compete with conventional fossil fuels such as coal. Prices have dropped to about 4 cents per kilowatt-hour in some cases and utilities have increased the amount of wind energy in their portfolio, saying it is their cheapest option.
See also
Further reading
- Economic Value of the Health Impact of Electricity on US Fossil Fuels. United States Environmental Protection Agency.
- Hidden Costs of Electricity: Comparing the Hidden Costs of Power Generation Generation. Civil Society Organization.
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments