"Sun, wind and drain: Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought"

Greetings,

 

In case you haven't seen them, I suggest looking over:

 

This article in the Economist (7/26/14): 

"Sun, wind and drain:  Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought"

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21608646-wind-and-solar-power-are-even-more-expensive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and

 

And the Study/Report, "Net Benefits of Low and No-Carbons Electricity Technologies," by Charles Frank leading to the article:*

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/05/19%20low%20carbon%20future%20wind%20solar%20power%20frank/net%20benefits%20final.pdf

 

The study take a different approach from the all too common and flawed LCOE type comparison by seeking to quantify costs of "net benefits" of electricity from wind, solar, hydro, nuclear and gas (mostly combined cycle).  The "benefits" it compares include:

 

. "Avoided CO2 Emissions"

. "Avoided energy cost"

.  "Avoided Capacity Cost"

 

The favorable aspects of the study are (a) it's far more comprehensive in the factors that are considered in most of the studies that get attention, (b) it seems to be much more carefully done than most, and (c) it candidly admits the dozens of assumptions and the sources of actual and estimated data that underlie the analyses.

 

On the other hand:

 

1.  It's findings need to be evaluated in terms of your assessment:

     a.  The value of the "benefits" (e.g., CO2 reduction) that are used to compare costs,

     b.  The validity of the assumptions and underlying data (much from EIA and much of which is also based on estimates and assumptions).

 

2.  Whether, while comprehensive, it leaves out cost considerations that may be important; e.g.:

     a.  Transmission costs (which tend to be higher for wind),

     b.  Certain subsidies which don't appear to be considered (e.g., federal nuclear accident insurance; loan guarantees that reduce costs of capital for certain types of plants; other subsidies & tax breaks that lure capital to projects that would otherwise incur higher costs of capital regulatory subsidies such as RPS that create artificial markets;)

     c  Decommissioning costs (not sure these are covered).

 

(As you might guess, I remain skeptical of estimates and assumptions about useful life, production during useful life, O&M costs of newer technologies), and/or decommissioning costs of newer technologies.)

 

If you get time to review the report, I'd appreciate hearing your views.

 

Glenn Schleede

 

*The article also cites Paul Joskow's 2011 article that affirmed what many of us had been contending for several years earlier; i.e., that one must consider the true value of the electricity, not just the cost of producing it.