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

Thanks. However, that LCOE term does some funny things to the actual cost of Ngas sourced electricity, especially in present day terms.

A CCGT might get 60% thermal efficiency if the coolant is really cold all year round, and so is the air, and it is a brand new state of the art unit. In reality, an average of 50% is doing good (though co-gen obviously makes things better)..

A quickie estimation of the cost to make electricity from Ngas is:

Cost (cents/kw-hr) = Ngas Price ($/MBtu) * 0.3414/Efficiency + 1.5 (O&M, etc)

At $12/MBtu, the cost to make electricity would be 9.36 c/kw-hr, or E74.72/MWh at 50% efficiency; at 60% this drops to E64.22/MW-hr. But this is all in present dollars, and assumes close to zip for paying off the capital of the CCGT facility. It is nowhere near E30/MWh. But, that's where the LCOE term comes into play - it seems to punish wind and benefit Ngas using the LCOE approach.

Oh well, at least they did put some kind of price on CO2 pollution, but E15/tonne is certainly not E59.56/tonne. It sure beats what NY State uses which is $1.80/ton CO2 (RGGI), or E1.53/tonne CO2, which is almost in the "Why bother?" category

by nb41 on Thu Nov 1st, 2012 at 02:45:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
nb41:
it seems to punish wind and benefit Ngas using the LCOE approach

So here we have another angle of attack on the Ernst & Young estimations (even though they are favourable to wind across the board) for the UK: the assumptions and calculations of levelised cost.

There are now a series of reasons why we could/should offer an alternative estimation of the comparison wind/CCGT.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Nov 1st, 2012 at 03:15:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, I get the distinct impression that the authors wanted the UK to appear with wind more expensive at the moment.

Whether that was because having wind better all the time would look like it was not a difficult report to write, or would appear biased, or because they had any reason to avoid stating the obvious, ie that it would be a good idea to exploit the biggest wind potential in Europe, it seems odd to have all those assumptions stretched in the same direction, and just enough to get wind to be just more expensive than gas, and only for a short while anyway.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Thu Nov 1st, 2012 at 04:56:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series