Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
the capital costs are not that different, and the costs quoted in studies like the ExxonMobil one are costs for baseload plants - ie the lowest possible for a gas-fored plant. Even if capital costs are low, it's still cheaper to allocate them on more kWh...

Gas is capable of providing full baseload, and even these plants have quite a bit of flexibility. In Europe, quite a few baseload plants have been built.

Wind power

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Mar 20th, 2011 at 05:55:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
OK, so there's not much anti-gas argument to be got from that.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Mar 20th, 2011 at 06:31:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
baseload plants need a reliable supply of gas - long term, permanent
peaker plants produce more expensive electricity

Wind power
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Mar 20th, 2011 at 07:08:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes. But I was wondering if capital costs for baseload gas might be significantly higher, thus making it a less attractive proposition for quick-buck investors.

That not being the case, there are the other arguments you cite, concerning fuel supply. Baseload needs reliable, stable, long-term supply, which may not be easy to get in the volumes needed. Peaker picks up the going market price (unless too high for a profit margin to be made), which makes it expensive.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Mar 20th, 2011 at 07:19:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series