Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:

From the recent report by UKERC (see the "launch presentation" link)

Note that GBP costs look worse because of the fall in the GBP/EUR rate 2 years ago, as most of the costs for offshore are denominated in EUR (or DKK, basically the same thing)

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Oct 17th, 2010 at 10:53:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So wind power prices have actually increased substantially less than that of other sources

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Oct 17th, 2010 at 10:55:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Is this supposed to be a measure of production or capacity?

I'm imagining that it's the former, but......

I'm puzzled why the cost of coal fired power increased so rapidly, while combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT?) didn't?

Does this include some sort of carbon tax in the calculation?

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Sun Oct 17th, 2010 at 12:17:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The first graph (showing CAPEX = capital expenditure) is capacity, the second production. The second apparently has its origin in this Mott McDonald report, where it's clear that the cost boost arose at the EPC (engineering, procurement and construction) level. They say that the reason must be that coal power plant production is more capital and materials intensive than gas, and there were also a production bottlenecks.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Oct 17th, 2010 at 12:58:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
that the increased prices for gas-fired power and cial-fired power include higher assumptions for future prices of both gas and coal.

Wind power
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Oct 17th, 2010 at 01:04:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Looking at the appendixes starting on page 78 that appears to be the case.

At least with pricing carbon capture investments.  In terms of infrastructure to actually sequester the carbon, not a carbon tax.....

I'm not so sure that they've brought fuel costs into the analysis.

As you pointed out someplace else (forgot where) part of the beauty of wind farms is that the long term fuel cost is locked in, because its free.  No price volatility.

One of the things that I've noted looking at European vs US electricity markets is that there's less of a spread between residential and industrial rates.

I wonder how that plays into the expansion of the industry.

If industrial users are guaranteed a lower rate that means that they have less incentive to seek out deals that allow them to lock in costs in the long term.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Sun Oct 17th, 2010 at 01:25:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ooh.  Neat site

There's quite a spread as far as industrial electric prices relative to residential rates.



And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Sun Oct 17th, 2010 at 01:44:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, they say so on pages 56-57 (73-74 in the pdf), but even in the high case, they expect coal well below the 2008 prices. EPC prices however tripled, check diagrams on page 10 (pdf 27) and the text on the following pages.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Oct 17th, 2010 at 01:33:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A belated thanks for those; and do you perhaps have something similar for Germany? (It would be an interesting comparison with feed-in rates.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Oct 17th, 2010 at 01:40:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series