permafrost Loc: Minnesota

It's now cheaper to build a new wind farm than to keep a coal plant running
Share Tweet Reddit Flipboard Email
Inflation dictates that the cost of living will continue to rise — except, it seems, when it comes to renewable energy. The cost of building a new utility-scale solar or wind farm has now dropped below the cost of operating an existing coal plant, according to an analysis by the investment bank Lazard. Accounting for government tax credits and other energy incentives would bring the cost even lower.

"There are some scenarios, in some parts of the U.S., where it is cheaper to build and operate wind and solar than keep a coal plant running," said a Lazard banker who was involved in the report. "You have seen coal plants shutting down because of this."

Every year, the investment bank analyzes the cost of different types of energy using a metric called the levelized cost of energy, or LCOE. This analysis factors in the cost of components and the cost of operations, as well as the cost of debt, to come up with the smallest dollar amount, per unit of energy, for an investor in the project to see a 12 percent return.

The LCOE for coal this year is between $27 and $45 per megawatt. That figure is $29 to $56 for a wind farm and $31 to $44 for a solar farm, depending on the technology used.


Wind power costs have dropped as utilities have turned to bigger and bigger turbines, which can produce more energy. The largest turbines installed today can produce double the power they could've a decade ago, according to the Energy Information Administration, dramatically increasing the amount of power a parcel of land can produce. Wind and solar installation has also gotten more competitive, driving the development of more efficient technology.

Lazard also noted that wind and solar farms typically require fewer people to run than a coal or nuclear plant, further decreasing their cost.

The bank noted that this analysis applies to developed economies, and excludes places like India and China, parts of which are very dependent on coal. But in the U.S., coal plant construction has ground to a near halt, and many utilities are successfully making the case for renewables to their customers. This year has seen the second-higher number of coal plant retirements on record.


.

peg w

Besides being more expensive, coal is really bad for the environment. I can't see electric companies investing in coal or oil fired plants. They'll just have to cover WV in wind farms.

Kevyn

It is difficult to understand how anyone can be against renewable carbon neutral energy infrastructure. The only thing that makes sense is that they have bought the propaganda of the fossil fuel industry. Just a couple of years ago you had blowhards like dope fiend Rush Limbaugh were spouting off about the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs. It was portrayed as an attack on freedom itself and an unacceptable expense to Americans. Now we are enjoying high efficiency light sources that rarely burn out and save an enormous amount of energy and green house gas emission. Even the most stubborn Luddite wouldn’t go back and plenty of fools stocked up on the old bulbs for nothing. The same sky is falling bleating came with the advent of seat belts and air bags in cars. If we paid attention to those fools many thousands more would die on our highways each year. Why do Americans continue to buy into the paranoia and lies?

woodguru

The solar system I installed a little over two years ago has already paid for itself, I'm saving an average of about $500 a month, many summer and in between peak season months of the year I'm using less than I generate, which goes to the grid. In the summer when PG&E needs it I'm generating more than I'm using even running A/C.

woodguru

Trump's repeal of mileage standards was perhaps as moronic as anything the GOP has done with Trump. Big oil was the only beneficiary on it. Followed by increasing ethanol in gasoline, why not make it more inefficient, help our farmers and oil companies out, why not?

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

I recall that light bulb baloney.. our own Michelle Bachmann was on a rampage about them, joined Rush in the demand for freedom to light crap..

as a teen the seat belts were a big deal for us..

those who refuse to accept anything new and different leave me in a daze..

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

I like hearing about these things...

pafret Loc: Northeast

I you were truly concerned with the economy you would realize that the production of light bulbs is now an Asian province. The ecology suffers as well since the materials used in the more modern lights pollute more than the old incandescent bulbs and the Asians do not bother with any EPA style regulations. In this country the bulbs require special handling for disposal but this is universally ignored. There is a significant difference in cost to achieve the same illumination as the older bulbs provided. I don't know where you are getting these light sources that rarely burn out but my experience is that they burn out frequently and have the potential of setting the house on fire. Crappy quality control and cheap labor do not make for a high quality product.

Why do Kevyns buy into propaganda? The last thing anyone wants is to have an airbag deploy since it does an enormous amount of damage on its own. Luddites may or may not want to go back but what rankles most is that they were given no choice. Incandescents were outlawed without consideration of the ancillary damage done to the environment or economy. Some technological advances are not necessarily good advances.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Let me say Pafret, I bought some incandescents for my garage and still have a few in the closet.. this was well after the new bulbs were everywhere. So I do not think the old ones were banned, only replaced..

do not know if they are sold now, which is months later.. I may look around next time I go to the home center..

the other stuff, I agree with the quality and disposal problem you speak of.. I know that at least a couple of bulbs did not last the years they were suppose to. but I also keep no record to show the time of use..

Back to the outdoor cold weather use.. the new ones were supposed to be so hard to use in cold weather, why I bought to old style.. but the only difference is warm up time, then they work fine. even at 30 below..

all in all the new bulb are a huge improvement and a nice step on road to needed advancement..

Comment Loc: California

U stupid idiots. Wind and solar are highly subsidized by taxpayers. La la la dah dah dah!!!!!!

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Did you know that only big Pharma gets more subsidy than big oil??


Also, does the thought of have your electric power independently of the local coop appeal to you? it does my, and if I were younger those panels/wind machines would be at my home..

boofhead

That has been my experience as well. Another big government unnecessary interference. Let the purchaser make the decision; if the new bulbs are better they will outsell the old style. But there are plenty of places the old bulbs, which are much cheaper, do a fine job, especially for those places where they sit for years and are only used infrequently. The oldest incandescent bulb is still burning over a hundred years. I doubt the new ones will ever reach that. I don't see more than a doubling of life for the new bulbs, except maybe for the LED type, and the cost is way more than twice. The energy use is what you choose so you can save some there, but again it is not proportional to the cost of the bulb so any way you cut it, you are paying more. Your point about disposal is also true and is, I agree, being ignored. Wait until they have to remediate a landfill or two!

boofhead

Where I live they put in a wind farm on an island and the costs of powerlines, transformers etc was huge. The builders have a deal with the local power company that forces the power company to buy their electricity, no matter how much they produce, at a premium price. The more the wind farm supplies, the higher the cost to the consumer for all their power needs. If the power company had a choice they would run away from this deal as fast as they could. But of course they don't have a choice and everything is paid for by the gullible public as usual.

At present, and I suspect for quite a while more, the cost of making those windmills, getting them on site, preparing the ground, running the transmission lines, repairing them, operating them, disposing of them when they reach their end of life, is way more than any savings they might make on the cost of electricity. So far there has not been any savings except in a few small areas where running conventional electricity plants is not feasible or economical due to a small demand, so all those farms you see, sometimes turning, sometimes not, surrounded by dead birds and bats and the occasional dead crop duster or helicopter pilot, are a negative so far as the economy and the environment is concerned, and that is before you also consider that a conventional plant must always be running in case the wind stops so I would posit that wind power will NEVER be a better choice especially for large power needs and I also promise that it will Always put up the cost of energy for all of us.

Another scam. Pity we are all so gullible.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

where do you live???

I pay an extra 15 bucks a month for green energy.. northern Minnesota..

If you are telling the truth, which i doubt, the board for that elec company needs a hard review.. but as usual, I bet what you say is far from the whole story..

boofhead

I know the guy who built the windmills, saw them being built, see them every day and when the wind is light they don't turn and when it is too strong they are feathered to prevent damage. Just like windmills everywhere. The increase in the electricity rate was published. Fortunately I am not in the municipal power area so I am not affected but the rates did go up. The electricity authority acknowledges a rate increase of 1.1% due to the requirement to take the windfarm power but I would assume that as is usual, the true cost is greater than that. An audit would show more. Given that the building costs were subsidized, the cost to the community is obviously higher than admitted.

There are many ways to get sustainable power; wind is not one of them, except in specific and small-scale cases. A good idea, but in practice it simply does not work and probably never will.