Roger Caiazza
Bud’s Offshore Energy blog highlighted a new national energy report card that is of interest to readers here. According to the Mackinac Center press release the report ranks energy sources by ranking eight key energy resource types “based on their ability to meet growing demand for affordable, reliable, and clean energy generation”. The report concludes that “natural gas and nuclear power lead the rest of the class in generating clean and affordable energy”.
Jason Hayes and Timothy G. Nash co-authored this report from Northwood University’s McNair Center for the Advancement of Free Enterprise and Entrepreneurship and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy is a nonprofit research and educational institute that advances the principles of free markets and limited government.
Methodology
The report summarizes the scoring methodology:
Bottom Line Up Front: Each ranking area graded the energy resource on a scale of 1 to 10. If an energy source performed poorly, it received a 1, if it performed well, it received a 10.
The scores in each section were totaled and broken down from 1 to 50. The energy source was given a final letter grade of A to F based on its score out of 50. The grading system results in a comparative ranking that describes the energy resource as excellent (90-100 /A-range), very good (80-89/B-range), average (70-79/C-range), poor (60-69/D-range), and Failure (59 or below/F). This methodology is roughly based on the American Society of Civil Engineers’ methodology described in the annual “A Comprehensive Assessment of American’s Infrastructure: 2021 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure” document.
The score card evaluated each energy source for five ranking areas:
- Capacity and Reliability: We estimated the capability of this energy source to produce sufficient energy to meet demand. We also considered how plans to maintain existing (or build new) infrastructure and capacity will meet growing energy demand.
- Environmental/Human Impact: We asked what are the environmental impacts, the human rights, or other labor issues associated with using this energy source.
- Cost: We asked how the energy source competes with other energy sources in terms of pricing.
- Technology and Innovation: We asked what technologies are used and what new technologies are being developed for this energy source.
- Market feasibility: We considered whether the energy source relies on free-market forces to supply energy to the public. To what extent do subsidies and/or government mandates drive its adoption and use?
The report includes recommendations for policies that could be implemented to improve this sector’s performance.
Energy Sector Rankings
The report card, ranked by the final grades, puts natural gas and nuclear at the top of the class.
The Executive Summary of the report includes a summary for each energy sector that describes the ranking rationale.
Natural gas tops the energy sectors because it not only provides electric energy but also provides the ancillary support services necessary for the transmission system at a relatively low cost. Aside from the irrational obsession with over hyped greenhouse gas effects it also has a low, albeit not zero pollution impacts. I agree with the concern that reliability would be improved with on-site storage.
Natural gas: 94 % (A)
Natural gas is at a unique position in our energy supply.
The nation has experienced rapid growth in energy demand for a range of activities: electricity generation, home heating, transportation, manufacturing, etc.
As governments around the nation attempt to impose a transition from traditional energy resources to energy sources often referred to as renewables, natural gas is the energy source that is best suited to integrate with the intermittency inherent in the use of wind and solar. Gas provides a reliable, affordable, and increasingly clean source of energy in both traditional and “carbon-constrained” applications.
Gas faces headwinds in the form of increasingly extreme net zero energy policies that will constrict supplies if implemented as proposed. Gas could also improve overall reliability if onsite storage was prioritized to help avoid supply disruptions that can occur in just-in-time pipeline deliveries during periods of extreme weather and demand.
The second highest energy sector was nuclear. The report card recognizes its zero emissions, that it provides electric energy and ancillary support services necessary for the transmission system, and that it is mature technology with the potential for extensive deployment. Were it not for high development costs and market feasibility issues it would undoubtedly be the highest rated.
Nuclear: 88% (B+)
Nuclear energy represents a best-of-all-worlds energy resource for the United States. Given its history as the nation’s safest and most reliable electricity source and its ability to produce near endless amounts of completely reliable and emission-free electricity, nuclear is an obvious choice, especially given the nation’s current hyper-focus on net zero carbon dioxide emissions.
Nuclear’s primary challenges lie in two areas: initial costs and concerns over safety related to fuel storage or the potential release of radioactive materials.
First, while initial costs to build can be high, they can be amortized over a 60- to 100-year expected life cycle. Additionally, costs can be addressed by reigning in the overactive nature of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Second, the industry’s record demonstrates it is the nation’s safest source of electricity.
Perhaps no better example of this technology’s safety, reliability, and usefulness exists than the nation’s fleet of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, submarines, and cruisers. Building on Admiral Rickover’s innovations, the U.S. Navy has reliably and safely powered a significant portion of its fleet with nuclear power for decades. As we have done in many other areas, it is possible to use the knowledge gained in this area in the civilian nuclear fleet.
Given the safety and reliability of both our military and civilian nuclear, concerns over meltdowns or having the fuel used to build nuclear weapons are more in the realm of science fiction than reality. The United States was once the world leader in developing safe, reliable nuclear technologies. We should focus on rebuilding that status.
Coal and hydroelectric are ranked next with the same with a total of 40 points. I think that ranking by electric system characteristics and not weighing environmental impacts is the reason.
Coal is a mature technology that provides electric energy and ancillary support services necessary for the transmission system and has the potential for extensive deployment. I would have ranked the capacity reliability a point higher because coal can be stored on-site and that I think is an important characteristic too often overlooked.
Coal: 80% (B-)
Despite its low cost, abundant domestic supply, and reliability, Western nations—USA, Canada, UK, and across Europe—have targeted coal for closure largely due to climate change concerns. While most pollution concerns associated with coal use can be addressed with widely available emissions reduction technologies, coal does emit more pollutants and CO2 than natural gas.
Due to growing regulatory pressure and effective competition from low-priced, domestic natural gas, coal use is declining in North America, as well as Europe. However, coal use worldwide— especially China and India—continues to grow rapidly. Across Asia, coal use is growing so rapidly that attempts to cease its use in the West as a climate change mitigation measure are being wholly eclipsed.
The primary challenges faced by the coal industry are 1) a long-term campaign on the part of government and green special interests to stop its use, and 2) very effective competition from low-cost fracked natural gas, which is displacing coal as a primary baseload generation option.
The grading for conventional hydroelectric recognized this is another mature technology that provides electric energy and ancillary support services necessary for the transmission system. Unfortunately, there is little potential for further deployment and the current plans to destroy hydro dams are inconsistent with the supposed need to fight the “existential threat” of climate change. In my opinion that is almost as stupid as shutting down nuclear plants prematurely.
Conventional hydroelectric: 80% (B-)
Hydroelectric is the one form of renewable generation that is completely dispatchable and has no emissions associated with its operations (compared with biomass).
While hydroelectric would seem to meet most of the tests of the environmental movement, it is often targeted for removal because it requires a great deal of bulk material in its construction and interrupts or changes natural river flows and floods riparian zones (displacing wildlife and human inhabitants). Given the expansive nature of large hydroelectric facilities, it is unlikely that any new developments could be permitted in North America.
In my opinion petroleum fuels were a bit under-rated. This is another mature technology that provides electric energy and ancillary support services necessary for the transmission system. Admittedly it is important in limited areas but provides critical support in those markets. However, I agree the potential for any further development is very low.
Petroleum fuels: 70% (C-)
Petroleum products play a very small role in the production of U.S. electricity. They are almost a rounding error and are used primarily in older or geographically limited areas (like the Hawaiian Islands or Northeastern markets because of historical use).
I probably would have rated geothermal closer to petroleum fuels. As noted, it suffers from the same lack of potential development.
Geothermal: 66% (D+)
Geothermal plays a limited role in the production of U.S. electricity. Much like petroleum products, geothermal is almost a rounding error and is used primarily in geographically limited areas (like the Western states and the Hawaiian Islands)
Wind and solar receive failing grades. Both are rated lowest for similar reasons. When they are compared to the capability of the other energy sources to provide sufficient energy to meet demand the need for energy storage and supporting ancillary services, they are appropriately ranked lowest. Even though they are zero-emissions resources there are “numerous other grid reliability, environmental, economic (or cost), and social issues associated with its use that are often overlooked”. When human rights impacts are included, they should be rated lower than the other sources. Wind and solar are only relatively cheaper if the costs to provide reliable energy and transmission system ancillary services are ignored. I think this ranking correctly scores this category. The technology/innovation category recognized that there are limited opportunities to improve the energy output. The market feasibility scoring considered “whether the energy source relies on free-market forces to supply energy to the public.” I do not believe that wind and solar could survive without massive subsidies so believe this scoring is appropriate.
Wind: 56% (F)
Wind is one of two so-called renewable energy generation sources widely promoted for its claimed ability to reduce the environmental impacts of electricity generation. Wind is marketed as being able to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, protect the environment, reduce electric rates, and improve grid reliability.
While it is true that wind does not produce carbon dioxide as it produces electricity, there are numerous other grid reliability, environmental, economic (or cost), and social issues associated with its use that are often overlooked.
Given that society increasingly relies on a steady and reliable supply of affordable energy, government policies that mandate and heavily subsidize a transition to wind generation represent a growing threat to human health and well-being.
Solar: 58% (F)
Solar is the second of two so-called renewable energy generation sources (wind is the first) widely promoted for its claimed ability to reduce the environmental impacts of electricity generation. Like wind, solar is marketed as being able to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, protect the environment, reduce electric rates, and improve grid reliability.
Like wind, solar does not produce carbon dioxide as it produces electricity. However, there are numerous other grid reliability, environmental, economic, social, and human rights issues associated with its use that are often overlooked.
Given that society increasingly relies on a steady and reliable supply of affordable energy, government policies that mandate and heavily subsidize a transition to solar generation also represent a growing threat to human health and well-being.
This summary of the report is only an overview. The report is comprehensive with 107 pages of text. There is extensive documentation with 297 references. As a result, the rationale for the scoring is extensive.
Conclusion
The conclusion of the report states:
Demands for a hurried transition from conventional, reliable energy sources to unreliable and expensive renewable alternatives are threatening the reliability of the North American electric grid. Pushing for increased efficiency and improved environmental performance is a laudable (and achievable) goal. However, we cannot allow misplaced environmental zeal to obscure electricity’s pivotal role in promoting human health and well-being and powering our society.
Advocates for wind and solar hold them up as essential to environmental and climate health. However, rushing a systemwide transition to these untested and unreliable energy options puts human lives and the North American economy at risk. Their inherent intermittency will strain the ability of the grid to meet growing energy demands and the ability of ratepayers to cover the high costs they impose on the grid. In contrast, the reliability and affordability of fossil and nuclear fuels cannot be ignored. Admonitions from grid managers warning about the dangers of rushing to close reliable sources of electricity generation only serve to highlight the risks associated with the premature rush to transition to wind and solar.
This research demonstrates the high environmental and economic costs of hurrying the grid transition. While fossil and nuclear fuels do have environmental costs, we also have the technological capacity to address those costs as we continue to trust their unparalleled reliability for essential energy services.
Wind and solar energy have been marketed as a means of having our energy and environmental cake and eating it, too. We are told they are clean, cheap, and reliable. However, a closer look at their real costs, growing environmental impacts, and questionable human rights records leads to serious questions about their ability to serve as a realistic energy option.
Transitioning a service as important as the nation’s electric grid cannot be rushed. It requires a far more careful and pragmatic approach than we see from elected officials and utilities nationwide. The rushed transition is neither reasonable nor prudent and must be reconsidered.
Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York. More details on the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act are available here and an inventory of over 400 articles about the Climate Act is also available. This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.
Best … Most affordable and reliable
Worst … Most dependent upon other sources for reliability
The worst is often what government mandates must be used
The best is what the market demands and evolution provides.
“Safe” and “reliable” are two words on nearly every G & T or distribution utility’s mission statements. Wind and solar fail that immediately. They might be suitable for niche situations, but integrating them into the overall grid is foolish. Since they are intermittent, they will ALWAYS have to be backed up by conventionally fueled generators with spinning reserves. It is malinvestment and ultimately hurts the rate payer.
I wonder how many environmentalists will bother to read this report and, better still, how money government officials.
how money government officials.
I’m sure it was a typo, but apropos…
“Natural gas and nuclear…lead in being clean and affordable.“
Agree about natural gas. Disagree about nuclear. Clean, yes. Affordable, no—as Gen 3 Volgte 3 and 4 have taught. Years late and many $billions over budget.
At least for the US with abundant shale gas, IMO the best strategy for the next about 20-30 years is to build new CCGT as old coal gets replaced. Cost is half of new supercritical coal. Use that time to properly investigate the several gen4 nuclear concepts (for example, SMR, MSR with two basic nuclear pathways, thorium and uranium), pick the best on paper, build at least one pilot scale or bigger to wring out the engineering details, run on grid at least ten years to make further operational design tweaks, then go gen 4 nuclear with the best optimized standard design as CCGT eventually reaches end of life.
Based on essay ‘Going nuclear’ in ebook Blowing Smoke, my guess is it will be some version of uranium MSR, because can consume all the gen 3 spent nuclear fuel lying around. See MIT’s TransAtomic white paper for details. Per MIT, the remaining engineering issues are fairly well known, and each has more than one possible solution. Good odds.
China is already operating a pilot scale 15 MWe MSR.
However when costs are compared a 2200 MW Capacity Wind Farm costs more than twice what a 2200MW Nuclear station does. The fuel may be free but construction and materials are far more costly
Source?
All I can find is $2 billion Dollar for 2 GW wind and $12 billion for 1.6 GW nuclear (Olkiluoto)
Except the wind won’t provide any reliable electricity, and will have to be replaced or more likely, just left inoperable, in probably well less than 20 years.
And most of the cost of nuclear is because of manic anti-nuclear rules, and will provide highly reliable electricity for a very long time.
Now add spinning back up.
The costs I can see are $1.3 – $2.2 million per MW for the very small turbines going up to $400 million for each 12 mw large turbine. So if you used 183 x 12 mw turbines giving just under 2200 mw that’d be in the region of $73 billion and nobody uses small turbines any more for commercial sites. In contrast EDF energy noted that the cost to build 6 EPR2 reactors (far more than 2200 mw) in the late 2020’s would cost around €56 billion in France. Sure there’s an economy of scale in the case of nuclear which appears to be the opposite of wind turbines over a certain size but, even so the costs are in favour of nuclear – add to that the fact that nuclear plants are cheaper to run and last far longer whilst wind turbines get more and more expensive to maintain and last less than 25 years.
The average U.S. construction cost for onshore wind generators fell from $1,895 per kilowatt (kW) in 2013 to $1,391/kW in 2019,
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49176
The investment cost of offshore wind in Europe has fallen from €4.41 million/MW in 2013 to €2.45 million/MW in 2018. This is due to the rise of competitive tendering, larger turbines, and more capacity.
https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1525362/europes-offshore-wind-costs-falling-steeply
Where do you get the $400 from?
Source?
Construction cost isn’t the issue. The issue is what it costs to deliver dispatchable power from a given technology, including all the costs. The only way you get to claim wind is cost effective is by leaving out most of the costs.
The classic example is the UK. Build lots of wind off the north coast of Scotland. Then notice that you have no transmission to get it to where demand is, in the South East. OK, you start building transmission. Astronomical. Not included in the construction costs of course.
Then notice that the peaks in supply are destablizing your network, because they don’t coincide with demand, so pay the operators of these useless wind farms which you have located in the wrong place not to generate the electricity which you licensed them to supply.
But this was not simple stupidity. You had a reason. You located off the north coast of Scotland because that is where the wind was. That’s true, that really is where the wind is. Its just that finding wind is only a small part of the problem, just like construction costs are only a small part of the costs.
You cannot run a country on intermittent electricity generation, and you cannot compare intermittent and dispatchable supplies without making them deliver to the same specification. Do this, and wind is a non-starter.
Intellectual dishonesty.
It’s the point we discuss here.
The claim from Bryn was:
which I’ve shown to be wrong. Nothing more. You can move goalpost all you want and imply Intellectual dishonesty – it doesn’t add to the original discussion, whereas Richards answer is on in-topic, imho with a lot of unsourced claims (so far) nevertheless.
Yes, but the point is that the products are not the same. You cannot compare wind faceplate MW capacity with nuclear power station capacity.
Because to start with, you will only get 33% of faceplate in an average year. But this 33% is not delivered predictably or in line with demand, so the useful power delivered is an even lower percentage.
The result is that per MW of useful power you end up spending several times the cost per MW of faceplate.
No, I don’t have numbers. But I would guess you would have to multiply cost per MW faceplate by at least 5 or 6 to take account of this.
And that is before transmission and backup. Which, I agree, were not part of the assertion made by Bryn, but they are a critical part of the argument on the merits of wind as technology.
NOT…
Please consider both …
Capacity factor and its effects on generation
AND
Lifespan of Nuclear (60 years) and Wind (20 years)
Here’s another estimate of costs per MW of capacity for wind
That’s $2-4B per GW and further pushes the cost with of wind far higher than Nuclear when you consider…
Capacity factor vs GWh of generation
Availability during less than optimal wind conditions
Lifespan (60 years Nuclear and 20 years wind)
At $2B/GW my specified costs double and at $4B/GW they quadruple to
$54B/equivalent wind over the 60 year lifespan of a 2GW nuclear facility
Yet wind and solar cannot be constructed without coal and petroleum.
The lifetime of the big First Solar CdTe system in Texas was much shorter than 25 years.
Yeah wind is so cheap and in demand that Wind Europe noted in a press release (23rd Feb 2023) that
“The wind supply chain lacks the money to invest at the required scale. Europe’s five wind turbine manufacturers continue to operate at a loss”
“Higher steel and other commodity prices, higher shipping costs and supply chain bottlenecks made all the major components going into wind turbines more expensive”
Press release 29 March 2023
The cost of producing wind turbines in Europe “has increased by up to 40% over the last two years”
That 2GW Wind has a 33% capacity factor while Nuclear has a 90-98% capacity factor requiring 6GW of wind installed to produce the same amount of energy. Then the wind turbines need replacing after 20 years (more likely somewhat less) while the nuclear facility can last up to 60 years. So the 6GW of wind will be replaced 3 times over the lifetime of the 2GW nuclear facility
So, the $2B / 2GW becomes $6B to allow for Capacity Factor and annual production
And, the $6B becomes $18B over the lifetime of the Nuclear Facility
Provided your $1B per GW is accurate
However under the effects of a weeks long blocking high wind produces ZERO no matter what the installed capacity is
According to EIA
$1,391/kW would equate to $1.3B/GW
What does that translate to in terms of cost per MWh over the lifetime of the plant? That’s the only really relevant metric.
Try comparing like to like, for once.
1) You are comparing faceplate power. The reality is that the wind plant will be lucky to produce 30% of faceplate, declining rapidly as the turbines age. While nuclear will will produce on average around 95% power.
2) The lifespan of your wind farm is around 20 years while the nuclear plant will probably still be operating 60 years from now with little to no degradation because of age.
3) Your wind farm is not including either the needed infrastructure improvements to connect it with the distant cities that need it’s power, while the nuclear plant can be built much closer to the cities it was designed to power.
4) Your wind farm is not including the cost of whatever is going to be used whenever the wind isn’t blowing.
Your numbers are bad. On shore EU Wind has a capacity factor ~0.25. So 2*4=8. And then you have to have ff backup ~ 75% of the time. So 8*3*whatever. And Olkiluoto is a cockup. First French EPR2, way behind schedule and over budget. Was supposed to be under $8 and on line 3 years ago.
Salute!
To be honest, Rud, my gut tells me that the nuclear option wins.
I see more emotional resistance to nukes than anything. Almost as with hydro, although the dams can influence some aspects of our environment than the nuclear plants.
Recent articles and studies we see on WUWT and other sites are touting new procedures for nuclear fuel “waste” treatment/disposal processes. I also wonder why we don’t simply drop the concrete-encased “hot” stuff down in a deep submarine trench and have it re-cycled in the mantle.
Until we have sound engineering regulations and permitting procedures, we will not benefit from the power that the nuclear option can provide.
Gums opines…
I also think nuclear electricity is the way to go long term. Saves remaining shale gas for what it does best—residential heating and cooking, petrochemicals. Just not short term with gen3. Let’s get onto Gen four. The ideas are there, the will to implement them is not. And uranium fueled MSR leaves only a small residual of very hot waste behind, that could indeed be glassified and dropped down a deep ocean trench.
Ditto, Rud..
back in previous century I was almost seduced by Ehrlich and the Club of Rome view. After a year or two I came back to Earth and did more research and such.
Sooner we get off of the fossil fuels for electricity and such, the better. Then use the petro stuff for all the modern materials and such we enjoy.
Gums sends…
“Affordable, no—as Gen 3 Volgte 3 and 4 have taught. Years late and many $billions over budget.”
Obviously a false statement. Barakkah all four units brought in ahead of scedule and under budget. Qinshan Phase 3 Unit 1, delivered 30 days ahead of schedule. Unit 2 delivered 100 days ahead of schedule. Stop looking at US examples only, Rud. The US has screwed the pooch years ago in how to build NPPs efficiently and effectively.
The US project construction disasters are NOT relevant to the rest of the world.
Agree. The two outliers, Vogtle and Hinkley C, are always trotted out as “examples” of how expensive large-scale nuclear is. However, the average U.S. nuclear cost is just over US$8bn, and all four Barakah units were built for a total of around US$25bn. Other recent examples are Finland and Sweden.
The Obama-led leftist posse behind demented Biden is selling our LNG at low prices to Europe and Asia.
That increases domestic prices, and causes increased US inflation
The posse behind Biden is subsidizing the building of more wind/solar, and crutches, such as battery systems, mostly financed, owned, supplied, maintained by Europe and China entities
Wind/solar produce expensive electricity and have short lifetimes, and are vulnerable to hailstorms, such as in Texas.
Those expensive, dysfunctional, grid-disturbing, gimmicky, power sources need battery systems, because they cannot function on their own; they are subsidized cripples.
Those cripple power sources make the US even less competitive in world markets
Every country that trades with the US has a trade surplus with the US.
Every year foreigners own more of the US, because of their $billion trade surpluses.
The US people is being screwed, by their elites, already for decades, and the posse behind Biden is making it worse with open borders to ensure permanent spectrum of Democrat diktats forever.
The electricity source cost/kWh ranking in the article is a load of crap written by an ignoramus.
US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy
EXCERPT
US Offshore Wind Electricity Production and Cost
Electricity production about 30,000 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, lifetime capacity factor = 105,192,000 MWh, or 105.2 TWh. The production would be about 100 x 105.2/4000 = 2.63% of the annual electricity loaded onto US grids.
Electricity Cost, c/kWh: Assume a $550 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation, at $5,500/kW.
Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y
Amortize bank loan for $385 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 y, 9.824 c/kWh.
Owner return on $165 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 y, 5.449 c/kWh
Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.
Supply chain, special ships, ocean transport, 3 c/kWh
All other items, 4 c/kWh
Total cost 9.824 + 5.449 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 30.273 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 15.137 c/kWh
Owner sells to utility at 15.137 c/kWh; developers in NY state, etc., want much more. See Above.
Not included: At a future 30% wind/solar penetration on the grid:
Cost of onshore grid expansion/reinforcement, about 2 c/kWh
Cost of a fleet of plants for counteracting/balancing, 24/7/365, about 2.0 c/kWh
In the UK, in 2020, it was 1.9 c/kWh at 28% wind/solar loaded onto the grid
Cost of curtailments, about 2.0 c/kWh
Cost of decommissioning, i.e., disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites
Levelized Cost of Energy Deceptions, by US-EIA, et al.
Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need grid expansion/reinforcement and expensive support systems to even exist on the grid.
With increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid, increased grid investments are needed, plus greater counteracting plant capacity, MW, especially when it is windy and sunny around noon-time.
Increased counteracting of the variable W/S output, places an increased burden on the grid’s other generators, causing them to operate in an inefficient manner (more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh), which adds more cost/kWh to the offshore wind electricity cost of about 16 c/kWh, after 50% subsidies
The various cost/kWh adders start with annual W/S electricity at about 8% on the grid.
The adders become exponentially greater, with increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid
The US-EIA, Lazard, Bloomberg, etc., and their phony LCOE “analyses”, are deliberately understating the cost of wind, solar and battery systems
Their LCOE “analyses” of W/S/B systems purposely exclude major LCOE items.
Their deceptions reinforced the popular delusion, W/S are competitive with fossil fuels, which is far from reality.
The excluded LCOE items are shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and added to government debts.
W/S would not exist without at least 50% subsidies
W/S output could not be physically fed into the grid, without items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. See list.
1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project lifetime owning and operations cost,
2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S systems to load centers
3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the variable W/S output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365
4) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during low-W/S periods, and 100% during high-W/S periods, when rotors are feathered and locked,
5) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced
6) Hazardous waste disposal of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries. See image.
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging
EXCERPT:
Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing
Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2
Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, $5.484 million/y
Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, $6.765 million/y (10% due to high inflation)
Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = $183.7 million
Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)
Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss
(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 92.3c/kWh
At 10% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh
At 40% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh
Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 20% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 4) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites. Excluded costs would add at least 10 – 15 c/kWh
NOTE: The 40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charging above 80% full and not discharging below 20% full, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal aging
Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the Owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They excessively charged/discharged the system. After a few years, they added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia
COMMENTS ON CALCULATION:
Regarding any project, the bank and the owner have to be paid.
Therefore, I amortized the bank loan and the owner’s investment
If you divide the total of the payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get the cost per kWh, as shown.
According to EIA annual reports, almost all battery systems have throughputs less than 10%. I chose 10% for calculations.
A few battery systems have higher throughputs, if they are used to absorb midday solar and discharge it the during peak hour periods of late-afternoon/early-evening. They may reach up to 40% throughput. I chose 40% for calculations.
Remember, you have to draw about 50 MWh from the HV grid to deliver about 40 MWh to the HV grid, because of A-to-Z system losses. That gets worse with aging.
A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, low-cost battery Nirvana is just around the corner, which is a load of crap.
More Pet Projects of the Political Elites Will Impoverish New Englanders
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/more-pet-projects-of-the-political-elites-that-will-impoverish
EXCERPT
On snowy days, land-guzzling solar systems, despite their huge installed capacity, MW, their generation, MWh, is way short of their “wished for” generation, due to “weather dependence”, especially in New England, with panels frequently covered with snow and ice, and with foggy, dark cloudy conditions.
Solar systems have near-zero output, MW, from about 5 pm to 9 am the next day, when people are at home using power.
As more systems are built, solar output, MW, during rare sunny days, would have a big bulge at noon-time, which far exceeds user demand, MW
Storing the huge excess MWh in very expensive batteries, and discharging 80% of it during the peak hours of late afternoon/early evening, is out of the question (is a gimmick), as that would add at least 30 c/kWh, to the price of the solar electricity taken from the HV grid, fed into the battery, discharged by the battery, and then fed to the HV grid.
Go woke, go big-time broke.
.
The political elites are screwing Vermonters and Mainers and everyone else they can get away with.
Those elites are our real enemies. not some faraway people we do not even know.
Now you know why the electricity rates in the UK, California, Germany, New England, etc., are skyrocketing.
A bunch of climate screwballs were put in charge by the political elites, who are stealing from your pocket
They make the rules that enable/legalize the stealing, all in the name of global warming, which has mostly natural causes.
The only solution is to elect Trump by a major landslide, to far more than overcome any fraud the Democrats will come up with, now that “lawfare” seems to be not succeeding
He will undo all the dysfunctional wind/solar/battery BS inflicted on us by the Obama insiders running the posse that controls demented Biden.
far more than overcome any fraud
They’re now talking about refusing to certify the election if Trump wins…
ANd they are still claiming that it is Trump that threatens “democracy”.
The trade deficit is caused by the budget deficit, and can’t be fixed until the budget is balanced.
The reason for this is because foreigners are buying US Treasuries. (If they stopped, interest rates would skyrocket even more than they have.)
Basically, the US is selling T-bills rather than physical goods.
If Poland buys F-35 fighters, then Poland wants “offsets”which means Polish ham in US stores.
The defense/intel budget causes huge annual trade deficits
About 50% of all supermarket east of the Mississippi are owned by Belgium and Dutch entities.
Brussels forces these markets to provide shelf space for European farm products. US farmers, etc., are so screwed!
But way less than wind/solar/batteries. These mostly get made in China and China ranks poorly for its industrial pollution.
Texas currently has a big cleanup after a hail storm hit a solar farm.
In time, the environmental damage associated with wind and solar farms will be ever more apparent. Each creates its own microclimate that has negative impact on the environment. They also have severe adverse impacts on natural habitat.
Never put your faith in a generation source that depends on fair weather to function
Natural gas combined cycle should be used as a bridge technology until advanced nuclear designs can be implemented. SMRs are close, but still need to be optimized. We should resist the impulse to pick winners and losers and instead be very deliberate in the choice of technology. Do multiple demonstration projects and let the chips fall where they may.
longer term, thorium and salt reactors have great promise; but at this point they as still in the R&D stage and need pilot plant operational experience to optimize the design.
We need to take a lesson from France and really do the homework to define a standard design(s) pilot them, optimize them then and only then full steam ahead.
Gas gives us the time to do that. Now if we can just get rid of the lawfare…
Both France (EPR2) and Canada (CANDO) reactor designs are good standardised designs that can be exported and built to order. We’ll be bloody charitable and assume EDF were using the EPR construction failures or cost overruns to standardise and streamline the EPR2 design.
You are discussing the need for real (gasp) systems engineering.
Gas: Environmental/Human Impact: 9/10
Amazing how the Mackinac Center sponsort by Koch and Exxon came to this conclusion.
https://nepc.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/EPSL-0109-102-EPRU-press.pdf
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Mackinac_Center_for_Public_Policy
Cleared areas with functioning pumps on poor quality land.. No forests chopped down to make way
Once removed and capped… vegetation will regenerate quickly..
No massive concrete pads to remove…. or just left in the ground..
No turbine blades to be dumped in massive ever-polluted landfill.
You FAILED again, luser… !!
And your links.. seriously
A rancid opinion piece from a bunch of low-level teachers college hacks… MEANINGLESS.
Then more rancid opinion flowing through to highly biased far-leftist “sourcewatch” page… even more MEANINGLESS.
You are a JOKE, fungal !!
Glad you have as much fun as I have.
Why fungal, though?
“Why fungal, though?”
I mistook you for a different moron. !
So, you have just admitted you are here as a JOKE…
Great for you to be successful at something in your pitiful sub-human existence.. !!
“You are a JOKE, fungal !!”
It’s actually LUSER that is the JOKE this time. !
Hard to tell the difference between their levels of mental degeneracy.
Just another rancid far-left propaganda MONKEY !
You just quoted yourself. At least make sure to switch to your right alt-account.
Or are you a bot?
You poor mentally deficit twit… I was correct my mistaken identity.
Sorry I insulted the monkeys.. your intellect doesn’t reach that high.
Don’t worry, your insult riddled posts only humiliate yourself.
Only in your puny little mind.
Every post you make is a total humiliation to YOUR intelligence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHkWMQMECZ0
Massive concrete wind turbine foundation
Never said it has no impact. But so does most human activity.
Except wind turbines have a massively disproportionate ever-lasting negative environmental impact for what they actually produce.
Those pesky little humans all over the planet, like a toxic infection. Anti-humanist deep ecology right there.
Such is the thinking of several prominent UN officials that humanity needs to be reduced to about 100,000 people, enough to keep the elites is their lifesyle.
I love the way you duck and dodge when caught out in a lie,
The reality is that wind and solar have way more environmental impact than does any other form of power.
How many dead birds, bats, etc are killed by these things.
My bet would be….. NONE.
Just like no-one can point to a single bird killed by a coal-fired power station.
A complete difference from the horrendous avian life and bug destruction by wind turbines.
But as we know.. eco-AGW-cultists don’t care even remotely about the havoc that renewables cause on the landscape and the ecosphere.
kill ’em twice!
So when do we get to see your solar panels on the roof? None? Those who advocate them never seem to have them. I know why.
What does this photo prove?
Nothing.
LoserName seems to feel that as long as he can show that other forms of power have environmental impacts, then it doesn’t matter how bad the impacts of wind and solar are.
Have they counted the MASSIVE environmental benefit of COAL releasing much needed CO2 into the atmosphere ?
Writing it in all caps doesn’t make something true.
Are you saying plants do better with LESS CO2???
Plants have existed for billions of years to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere.
Eventually most of the atmospheric CO2 molecules were sunk into coal beds and oil deposits and CO2 levels declined.
Nature responded with the creation of a symbiotic organism that thrives on the O2 plants release by utilizing the “C” to create carbohydrates, one that would have the capacity to discover and release the Carbon in those sinks for the benefit of the biome…Man.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Suck your thumb long enough… you too could get some sleep.
Or just get your mummy/carer to give you those “special” tablets. !
Why are you so reality averse?
Doesn’t make it false either.
Are you seriously denying the MASSIVE BENEFITS of CO2 to the planet.
Really !!
I just find it funny that you use all caps. I would never deny the entertainment value of this site.
So you admit I am correct, and that emphasis was necessary
You cannot counter a single word I said.
You tacitly admit that enhanced CO2 is a MASSIVE BENEFIT to the planet.
How pathetic to be you. !
Most entertainement I have thank to your comments, one more laughable than the other 😀
Whatever helps YOU sleep at night
In other words, he can’t refute anything you’ve written, but he’s too pathetic to just let the matter drop.
Never engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed. They never know when they’ve lost.
Being true, makes it true.
CO2 is of great benefit to plants and the extremely small temperature increases that are being caused by CO2 are entirely beneficial as well. The world needs more CO2, not less.
All “nookilar” are not equal….Thorium Liquid Salts Cooled Reactors are best overall.
Thorium Liquid Salts Cooled Reactors don’t exist on an industrial sized utility scale and so are not best overall. The best overall today is what can be utilized … Today
And that isn’t Thorium
Granted Thorium is by far closer than fusion.
Agree long term, not short term (meaning many decades). U MSR can consume most ‘spent’ gen 3 nuclear fuel once stripped of zircon cladding. Very small volume of residual hot radwaste must eventually be extracted from the molten salt, which can then be easily glassified for safe inexpensive disposal.
So thorium should come AFTER that very cheap existing U MSR fuel source is consumed. See my MIT reference in comments above for the technical details.
Now if we could just get them out of the lab and get someone to actually build one.
Story Tip.
China’s CO2 emissions rose by some 5.2% last years.
This increase is about two times the UK’s total CO2 emissions.
China Emissions Rose By 5.2% Last Year | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)
All that good biological karma for China and bad karma for UK. It is taking its toll in the UK.
There is an upside to the bad karma in the UK – no one will want to live there so they will resolve their illegal immigrant issue.
Many comments so far are from armchair experts offering their uninformed opinions on nuclear, as if they were making a choice among models walking the catwalk with the latest fashion clothing, trying hard to conceal from public view parts of their bodies beautiful that they see each time they shower.
We have nuclear versus fashion parade displaying similar properties – sales boost, more profit for the seller, social conventions, concealment of that which titilates, hiding parts from the public, using the same conventions that were used last time.
I have been involved professionally in the early stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. It is, like many large scale industrial projects, a mix of easy and hard concepts. The nuclear physics were adequately understood by the 1970s. Reactors were built and shown to perform quite adequately and competitively. Then the negatives entered the picture, with mobs of unhappy discontents showing their scientific illiteracy by a series of irrelevant protests like questioning the safe control of part-used fuel rods.
The future of nuclear development is in a mess because some green mud sticks. It also sticks to some regulators, whose role and lack of past success demand their house be cleaned for new tenants.
Are small molten salt reactors the answer? How would I know, I have not been involved hands on-with them, so I cannot have a meaningful opinion. I just keep out of that debate, hoping that informed participants are capable and honest.
Geoff S
The only thing you can really do is go back to the basics – look at the designs that have been developed over decades and proven to be workable. For new technologies it may be worth risking a research site to work out problems with the design and develop full scale designs from it.
But these all take time to bring online which will not sit well with those that want instant results or something quick and easy to show to the voters. Nuclear needs commitment beyond the next term in office and beyond the next financial year – it needs a long-term investment that many western career politicians are simply not willing to deal with any more.
Leave it the experts is the opening they’ve been exploiting. But yeah. Trust but verify?
Part of the issue is the US, in its infinite political wisdom, banned breeder reactors. This was attributed to a byproduct – weapons grade plutonium.
The trade space was the risk on plutonium versus how to deal with spent fuel rods.
It is an interesting conundrum.
Nuclear is the way to go for a better future but hydro, gas and coal are still important as reliable generators which neither wind nor solar are or ever will be. I say that because if we have a battery technology breakthrough it will benefit our reliable existing generators much more so than it ever will the extravagant large scale solar and wind developments that cost huge amounts to maintain both on and offshore.
The comparison charts with good long term providers romping home a long way in front of the new stuff is the stickiest of wickets for alarmists to play on (to mix my metaphors) and they haven’t a hope in hell as long as truth is told. I just wish we could have some quality alarmists commenting on these pages rather than the regulars on here to allow the truth to slowly become much much clearer to those still puzzling over the problem of whether governments and their bodies (and unofficial protagonists) are currently fit for purpose or not.
Solar is cheapest and best for becoming a climate change superpower-
Government launches billion dollar investment in Australian solar panels | ABC News | Watch (msn.com)
Those Chinese coal fired solar panels don’t stand a chance with Albo and Bowen in charge.
🙂
RC is a consistently good writer
Best national energy policy
(1) Observe Germany, UK, Australia, Texas and California
(2) Do the opposite
Best sources of power:
The most reliable
The cheapest
Let grid engineers decide,
not politicians
Two unreliable rejects:
— Windmills
— Solar Panels
One too expensive reject
— Nuclear power, but maybe not small modular reactors
One low price winner
— Natural gas, recently at the lowest price in the US, adjusted for inflation since national averages were available in 1922
If Europe hadn’t wasted so much money on wind and solar- and instead spent it on their military- we might not now be seeing a war in Ukraine.
All power sources are best. Mandates and subsidies – not so much.
In the cost assessment of nuclear, I didn’t see the cost of decommissioning included, which is substantial.
In the UK this has resulted in companies proposing nuclear projects asking for guaranteed minimum prices even if above market, in other words subsidised pricing. This is a sticking point with UK Govt.
That’s because the cost of decommissioning has already been taken care of. FIrst off the owners post bonds even before construction starts. Secondly they pay a tax on the power they produce that goes towards taking care of spent fuel and cleaning up sites.
The best.. Many years ago, the best place to live in California was the city of Dixon. Surely people live there, just like anywhere else – but the criteria which made it the best place are not my criteria.
Many years ago, I made the effort to research one of these “best city” surveys. I found that one of their top criteria was the existence of a symphony orchestra.
For me, when I feel the need to listen to some classical music, there are plenty of recordings out there. I don’t need to get dressed up and sit in an uncomfortable seat in order to listen to it live. So whether or not a city has such an orchestra makes absolutely no difference to me.
As a parent, having lots of parks makes a difference. Once the kids are grown and gone, it won’t make as big a difference. On the other hand, as I age, the existence of walking paths is making a bigger difference.
I’m not understanding the purpose of the “Technology/Innovation” column.
Wind and solar are both mature technologies, there is not much in the way of future “innovation” to make them better.
Nuclear and coal should be rated 9 or 10 for market feasibility. Instead of relying on subsidies, government intervention has reduced the installed capacity of each.
G’Day Roger,
“… it is possible to use the knowledge gained in this area in the civilian nuclear fleet.”
Unfortunately there are a number of ports around the world that still ban nuclear powered vessels from entering.
Very nice Roger.