The Economic Thicket of Generating Cost Comparisons (Power Magazine)
How much does it cost? Seems like a simple question. But when it comes to competing electric generating technologies, it’s an extremely gnarly proposition.
Despite the difficulties, cross-generation cost comparisons are playing a significant role in public decisions at the international, national, and local levels about choices of generating technologies. Advocates for various technologies and businesses with vested interests all claim that they—mirror, mirror on the wall—are the least-cost generating option of all.
Each technology has a valid claim. Hydro, the oldest, has a no-cost, renewable fuel: water. Geothermal, one of the newest, also has a low-cost fuel—steam from the earth. Coal is dirt cheap. Natural gas is cheaper, and is killing coal in competitive markets. Nuclear has low fuel costs and no carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Solar and wind have no fuel cost and no air emissions. And so it goes.
Each has cost negatives. Hydro soaks up construction capital, as do geothermal and nuclear. Coal has high conventional and CO2 air emissions, but gas also emits CO2. Solar and wind have high capital costs, take up a lot of land, and are inflexible.
Read More..........