5 replies to this topic

[Shortpoet-GTD]

"The PSC has released its annual checkup [PDF] on the implementation of the state’s (Michigan)
Renewable Energy Standard and its cost effectiveness. The highlights include:

• More than $100 million in investments on advanced energy projects from 2008-2011, with job creation as an additional benefit;
  
• An average cost for renewables of $91.19 per megawatt hour, compared to $133 per megawatt hour for a new coal plant.

That’s almost 42 bucks less per megawatt hour for cleaner energy sources like wind and solar, without nasty downsides like respiratory illness and mercury pollution."

http://www.midwesten...aper-than-coal/

[tri-n-b-helpful]

How does that work exactly? Heavy government subsidies? Or are the standards and restrictions right now for building a new coal plant suddenly making it cost-prohibitive? What types and how do they plan to use renewable energy to make it cheaper than coal and how was this calculated? Wind and solar are incredibly inefficient and enormously more expensive to produce than electricity from a coal fired plant; this has been known and reinforced for a very long time now. They also calculated that if the entire USA were covered with either wind or solar installations, these would generate nowhere near the power requirements of the people there.

Interesting article - there must be more to it?

[still learning]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 24 February 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

"The PSC has released its annual checkup [PDF] on the implementation of the state’s .....An average cost for renewables of $91.19 per megawatt hour, compared to $133 per megawatt hour for a new coal plant.
That’s almost 42 bucks less per megawatt hour for cleaner energy sources like wind and solar, without nasty downsides like respiratory illness and mercury pollution."
http://www.midwesten...aper-than-coal/

I'd take that $133 number with a really big grain of salt.
If you follow the midwestern articles's link into the PSC document here http://www.michigan....12_376924_7.pdf (pages 22 to 27)
you find several numbers for new coal plants and the midwestern writer has chosen to use the very highest one.

[still learning]

tri-n-b-helpful, on 25 February 2012 - 04:56 PM, said:

.....Wind and solar are incredibly inefficient and enormously more expensive to produce than electricity from a coal fired plan....;

Where do you get the idea that wind electricity is incredibly more expensive than coal electricity?
Modern windpower can be cost competitive per megawatt-hour.
From table 2 here  http://en.wikipedia....icity_by_source
Levelized average cost in 2016 for new construction onshore wind is $97 per megawatt-hour,  conventional coal is $94.80, advanced coal with CCS $136.20 and advanced natural gas combined cycle (without CCS) $63.10.

Wind electricity does have the intermittency problem though, need other sources of electricity too.

It is cheaper to build a megawatt of "nameplate" capacity of coal generation than wind generation.  Then somebody has to buy the coal to produce megawatt-hours of electricity.  "Levelized cost" is supposed to take into account construction costs and fuel costs and operation/maintenance costs too.

[zararina]

Those additional green jobs can really be considered as a good news as lots needs work and sources of income.
That statistics on savings or comparison of costs between coal plants and alternative sources is also a very positive news and hopes it was really factual.

[Hayden]

Very interesting blog article...

Sometimes an obstacle for renewables is not being able to compete in pricing which is certainly not the case here.