Relative / comparative costs of wind energy, nuclear energy, hydro power, coal power, natural gas, geothermal energy, and biomass
ByCalifornia Energy Commission reports give costs for power generation from different sources:
US generating costs in May 2008, from the California Energy Commission
David Millborrow’s ( an ex CEGB engineer Central Electricity Generating Board) ) paper on wind costs gives comparative costs ( This link takes you to the file library – look for……..
David Millborrows paper on wind costs » 157.1 KiB – 1,786 hits – 28 March 2009
It is claimed that inherently renewables are on a decreasing cost curve, while non-renewables are on an increasing cost curve.
AN EU ENERGY SECURITY AND SOLIDARITY ACTION PLAN -gives a detailed cost breakdown of many technologies.
for Power Generation, Heating and Transport -
A paper by Professor David Elliot give various cost comparisoin summaries. For space reasons the paper is in two sections, the cost data is tin the second link ( Relative costs of renewable energy and other power generation) and ( relative costs of power generation and other generation 2) in the Claverton Library, section Energy Data and Statistics
In general it can be seen that there is not a lot to choose between the cost of wind energy, and coal, gas or nuclear.s
PV and CSP are considerably more expensive however.
See also:
DECC / BERR equivalent at http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file32014.pdf
Popularity: 80% [?]
I wonder about the data supporting those figures. Since we can produce electricity for about $.06 kW with $50 per ton biomass fuel, it seems that others ought to be able to do the same or better.
Of course this figure includes capital, operating expenses, maintenance, labor, etc, etc.
Neal Van Milligen
cavm@aol.com
Thanks for a nice post. For an alternative energy fan like I am this is a great story.
Thanks for informative info. Hows the political/geographic could impact the base cost?
Nanosolar is now building 16.4% efficient PV’s at a cost of $0.97/watt for panels that will last >25 years. Given that most places in the US have 40%+ sunny days, mulitply by five (to include nighttime), do the math, and you get $.023/kwh. Two cents, not forty(!)
Sergei – remember that panel cost is only one part of the total cost. You’ve also got the inverter, cabling, installation and maintenance. The PV might be 15-25% of total system cost. Nevertheless, if Nanosolar are selling at below us$2 per watt peak, that is interesting.
That 16.4% is champion cell efficiency; panel efficiency is more like 11%.
Not sure what your “40% sunny days multiplied by 5″ means: please can you translate that into either full-load-hours per year, or capacity factor?
25 year life for printed CIGS? Hmm, maybe. Sounds optimistic, but we’ll see.
Nanosolar have been good at talking the talk, while their competitors, most notably First Solar, have been out shipping hundreds of megawatts. I hope Nanosolar, Solyndra, and the other new thin-film kids on the block, do get up to mass production soon: more competition has to be good.
Dear Fellows and Friends
There is the true cost in loss of Carbon Credits by Gas and Oil
Finite Fossil Fuel use. The Cost also of relocating Island People
who have their ship coming in to their front door.
I am so tired of information like this which is bias and not including
the Global Climate Change science. Get real.