On Feb 27, 2006, at 12:38 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
Page 2 shows the cost of a 1.65-MW turbine is $0.79/W, but actual
power can come in at about 1/3 the nameplate rating, which gives
about $2.40/W.
That adjustment is reasonable, but it complicates things. By the
same token, you might adjust nuclear power, because nuclear power
plants are used roughly 90% of the time. I believe the Davis-Besse
plant been off-line for years, waiting for repairs. You should
multiply that one by infinity I guess.
Other generators are online about half or a third of the the time,
because the demand for power goes down at night. They could be run
more but there is no need for them so it is not fair to adjust the
nameplate value. Then again, they could not be run 100% of the
time, because they do require maintenance. Probably ~90% is the
limit. Some generator type such as diesel are only run
occasionally, when peak power is needed, because the fuel is much
more expensive per kWh.
I would say it is reasonable to adjust the cost of a nuclear plant
because they are baseline plants which are left running as many
hours per year as possible, whereas it makes no sense to adjust the
cost of a diesel or gas turbine plant.
If you really want to complicate things, try taking into account
"environmental, safety and health (ES&H) characteristics." In other
words, how much does a coal fired plant cost when you include, let
us say, $1 million for every person it kills with pollution, and
$100,000 for every 10 years of life spent in disabled bad health.
That would make the cost of coal go through the roof. Or, for
example, consider what happens to the price of oil when you factor
in the cost of the Iraqi war. (A small amount of oil is used to
generate electricity.)
Yes, or the cost of acid rain.
You might add in the cost of mining accidents and $1 million per
miner killed in accidents. You might try to account for people
killed or disabled in conventional thermal power plants. Wind power
has the best safety record of any large-scale generation source,
because it happens to be the most modern, and because there are not
many ways to kill yourself with a wind turbine. Just about the only
casualties are during construction. Modern combustion plants are
quite safe, but accidents occur at the older plants and in third
world plants. (There are no third-world wind turbines, except in
India.)
Thanks for the comments.
Of course it is impossible to get an accurate estimate of such
things, but this discussion does indicate that the obvious, easily
measured costs -- such as the cost of the equipment -- may not be a
useful guide to the actual society-wide dollar cost of energy.
The numbers given appear useful to the extent that, if correct, they
are sufficient to show where the public's capital should go.
This is an interesting and complicated subject.
Yes, and a subject utterly confused by the influence of political
doctrine, institutionalized greed, and the individual bias and
emotional content associated with any potential disruptions to the
status quo and our national addiction. It seems to me a few numbers
go a long way to bringing clarity to the situation - at least for
just being a few numbers.
Horace Heffner
