WASHINGTON, DC, US.
By 2015, solar PV will cost four times more than the cost of conventional
power generation, according to the president of the United States.
PV plants will have levelized costs of US$287.90 per Mwh by 2015, consisting
of 268.80 for capital costs, 6.10 for fixed O&M and 13.00 for transmission,
explains the ‘Economic Report of the President’ that was delivered by George
Bush to Congress last month. The analysis assumes a capacity factor of
21.7%.
By comparison, conventional coal-fired generation will cost $60.90 per MWh,
of which $31.40 will be capital cost, $3.60 for O&M and $3.60 for
transmission, plus $22.30 for fuel. Advanced coal with CCS will cost $83.80
per MWh while advanced combined cycle gas-fired facilities will cost $64.80,
assuming a capacity factor of 87%.
Solar thermal will cost $154.00 per MWh for plants which enter service in
2015, of which $122.80 will be capital cost, $20.70 O&M, $10.50
transmission, but nothing for fuel. Wind will cost $82.50, of which $64.60
is to install the turbines, $9.60 O&M and $8.20 for transmission, with no
cost for fuel.
Biomass will cost $79.80 total, geothermal will be $72.90 and advanced
nuclear will cost $69.70 per MWh by 2015. Capacity factors are assumed to be
31% for solar thermal and 35% for wind.
The Economic Report of the President is a detailed summary of the economic
issues and policies that face the country, and costs important topics.
"Production of significant amounts of wind power is economically feasible
only in certain areas of the country; similarly, it is easier to site power
plants in certain areas," it explains in a section on alternative energies.
"Alternative energy sources are not the only way to address energy security
and environmental concerns," with ways of using fossil fuels in a less
polluting manner also to be considered, it continues. "The current suite of
available alternative energy sources is an important part of achieving our
goal, but a number of technical, regulatory, and economic hurdles must be
overcome to use them fully."
The report notes that "some alternative energy sources have a lower
environmental impact than traditional fossil fuels," with wind, solar, hydro
and nuclear producing no local air pollution at the point of generation.
"Appropriately chosen alternative energy sources in the transportation and
electricity generation sectors may help reduce (CO2) emissions."
"Some believe that (renewables) may eventually compete with or cost less
than fossil fuels," but the report notes that geothermal power is "limited
in its ability to provide large amounts of electricity" while, "in some
areas, wind is now cost competitive with other sources of energy production,
largely because of a government tax credit of 1.9 cents for each kilowatt
hour produced." There is "some public opposition to wind power; because of
the height of the turbine, wind plants produce a large visual footprint, and
there is a potential effect on migratory bird and bat populations."
"Solar power is attractive because its output closely aligns with peak
electricity demand (but) beyond some niche markets, solar power is not yet
an economically competitive method of supplying large amounts of
electricity," it explains. Solar PV "may eventually serve as an alternative
to bulk power provided by the electricity sector" but CSP plants are
expensive and "require a large amount of space and are considered
aesthetically unappealing by some, and thus could be sited away from
population centers. This means that there would be transmission losses in
moving the electricity to population centers."
"Biomass, geothermal, and wind power are close to economically competitive
with nuclear and fossil fuel production and have the potential for expanded
use, provided that the constraints described above can be overcome," it
concludes. "Finally, while solar power is currently an expensive way to
produce large amounts of electricity, it could be an important source of
alternative energy if costs can be reduced."
|
