GCR: Wind and solar cost less than coal for power

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GRA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
14,018
Location
East side of San Francisco Bay
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1119903_wind-and-solar-cost-less-than-coal-for-power

Producing renewable electricity is cheaper than running old coal plants, a new report from investment firm Lazard shows.

Lazard reports that new wind farms in the U.S. can produce power for $29 to $56 per megawatt-hour, compared to $27 to $45 for existing coal-fired powerplants, according to a report last week in the British Financial Times (subscription required.)

The overlapping numbers represent production without existing subsidies for renewable power generation, which can reduce costs for renewables by an additional $15 per megawatt-hour.

Along with lower prices for power generation from natural gas, the dropping prices for solar and wind put pressure on coal-powerplants, which have been on the decline since 2008. Coal produced more than half of the electricity in the United States in 2001 and dropped to about 30 percent of the nation's electricity in 2016. . . .

Building any new coal facilities would cost even more than running existing ones, which are being undercut by cheap natural gas and now even by renewable energy sources, the Lazard report shows.

More electricity in the U.S. is now produced using natural gas, and wind and solar are on the rise. These renewable sources produced a negligible percentage of U.S. electricity in 2001 and now account for more than 7 percent.

As an example of the efficiency of new renewable energy sources, the Financial Times cites a Colorado project in which regulators approved a move by Xcel Energy to save customers $200 million by shutting down a 660-megawatt coal plant and replacing it with 1.1 gigawatts of wind power, 700 megawatts of solar and 275 megawatts of battery storage—all of which until recently were considered prohibitively expensive.
The bolded section shows the effect of the much lower capacity factors of VRE.
 
I'm sorry, but what the numbers show is renewables costing roughly the same as coal, with coal costing more or less, depending on the specific case. Subsidies don't make the power 'cost less to produce' - they just shift some of the production costs to the government. It's still good news, but as presented it's going to get ripped to shreds by opponents.
 
^^ No.
Electricity producers and their customers do not care one whit who is paying ... so long as it is not them.
And if you find that argument less than persuasive on a society-wide level I encourage you to consider the externalized costs of fossil fuels combustion.

In short, be consistent in your argument.
 
Lazard's actual report:
Levelized Cost of Energy and Levelized Cost of Storage 2018
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/

The low end levelized cost of onshore wind-generated energy is $29/MWh, compared to an average illustrative marginal cost of $36/MWh for coal. The levelized cost of utility-scale solar is nearly identical to the illustrative marginal cost of coal, at $36/MWh. This comparison is accentuated when subsidizing onshore wind and solar, which results in levelized costs of energy of $14/MWh and $32/MWh, respectively.

The cost of generating energy from utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) and onshore wind technologies continue to decline. The mean levelized cost of energy of utility-scale PV technologies is down approximately 13% from last year and the mean levelized cost of energy of onshore wind has declined almost 7%. . . .
 
Back
Top