Slashdot Mirror

The Olkiluoto 3 plant in Finland, was planned to be finished 2010, now it is delayed till 2019.
https://www.reuters.com/articl...
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Capacity: It will have a nameplate capacity of 1600 MW.
Costs: The cost of Olkiluoto 3 was initially put at 3.2 billion euros but Areva in 2012 estimated the overall cost at closer to 8.5 billion euros. Since then, it has not updated its cost projection.

EDF on Monday confirmed a 10.5 billion euro cost estimate for a similar European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) it is building in Flamanville, France, which has also suffered delays and cost overruns.

Lets check what a ~10MW windmill costs?
The costs for a utility scale wind turbine range from about $1.3 million to $2.2 million per MW of nameplate capacity installed. Most of the commercial-scale turbines installed today are 2 MW in size and cost roughly $3-$4 million installed. Source: http://www.windustry.org/how_m...
and https://www.wind-energy-the-fa...

With "installed" in this case is meant: already operational ... so lets find a 10MW one ...
Siemens said it has committed to reducing offshore wind costs to â80/MWh including connection costs by 2025. Hannibal said the target of â100/MWh will be met by 2020. This are production costs of power, not the cost of the turbine, from: https://www.windpowermonthly.c...

This is a 9.5MW turbine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Hm, still not finding anything concrete regarding the price of a turbine, lets go with this corner numbers: https://about.bnef.com/blog/2h... The price of wind turbines set for delivery in 2H 2017 averaged $990,000 per MW according to Bloomberg New Energy Financeâ(TM)s Wind Turbine Price Index.

So, the nuclear power plant above costs close to 10billion for 1600MW. That is 6.2million per MW.
So with the cost of the nuclear plant I could build offshore wind parks 6 times as big. Considering CFs, that still two to three times more power for the same price.

Of course you can blame me for cherry picking a new power plant famous for cost overruns. But it is the most soon finished on in the west. Costs for nukes will increase, cost for wind is constantly decreasing.

P.S. this is an interesting read, too: https://www.irena.org/Document...

I read the source rather than opinionated drivel on ars technica.

https://about.bnef.com/new-ene...

#1 and #2 are fudged to the extreme to get the outcome they're gunning for. #4 is equally fudged and is in direct contradiction with #1 and #2. #5 is also in direct contradiction with #1 and #2. #3 is likely true in the assumption on coal, but it's highly unlikely to be replaced with what study claims.

First of all, if you are to try to deploy lithium batteries on world scale as spinning reserve replacement, lithium prices will not just go through the roof - they'll go into outer space. The reason we have cheap lithium now is because we get lithium by literally vaporising water in the driest desert on the planet. If you want to increase production by orders of magnitude, as this kind of project would require, you'd have to go for less economic ways of making lithium. And that means orders of magnitude higher costs. So much for #1 and #2. Not to even mention that solar doesn't scale all that well, because there are too many regions where there isn't enough sun, and energy requirements are at their highest when sunny periods are at their lowest. So linear scaling of low hanging fruit adoption for decades on is literally the infamous xkcd level of "you're getting married tomorrow, so you'll lots of wedding cakes for next year at a linear rate of one a day".

As for the #4, UK makes for a great example here. CCGTs replacing coal, because to meet CO2 targets, you can get roughly twice the energy from natgas that you would get from coal for the same emission of CO2. It's also mutually exclusive with their claims in #1 and #2, showing that whatever model they're using, it appears to contradict itself.

The only things to take away are #3 and #5. #3 will likely be sorta, kinda correct in that we'll probably switch from goal mostly to CCGTs, and #5 is likely correct that as long as "lithium prices go to outer space" scenario of #1 and #2 doesn't happen (another internal contradiction in the model), a significant portion of locomotion will go electric.

Some people are, in my opinion, ridiculously overly-optimistic that *all* new cars will be EVs within ten years (let alone *most*). A much saner prediction puts EVs at 35% of global sales by 2040

You're quoting Bloomberg, which has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. I expect the crossover point will be much closer to the ten year mark than Bloomberg's multi-decade imagining. Electric cars are inherently less expensive to produce, the battery being the most expensive component, and rapidly declining. Electric cars are inherently faster, again, the battery being the biggest limiting factor. Cleaner, cheaper to operate and maintain. In ten years, with a massive increase in the battery energy density and dramatically decreased cost, why would anybody want to buy a gas powered car? Clearout sales maybe? Nostalgia? Come to think of it, the crossover could arrive considerably faster than ten years. The rise of the smartphone would be as good a model as any.

No one is arguing that fossil fuel motor cars won't eventually disappear. The question is really just about the time required to do so. Some people are, in my opinion, ridiculously overly-optimistic that *all* new cars will be EVs within ten years (let alone *most*). A much saner prediction puts EVs at 35% of global sales by 2040, although they'll undoubtedly be better represented in countries like the US.

Don't listen to the hucksters promising a revolution in a few short years. It's not going to happen quickly. It's going to be decades of slow transition as we develop the technology and infrastructure to replace the oil-based systems we've built over the last century.

Exactly my point. Hence kWh is useless for what you seek.

Tell all of these organizations that their approach is useless;

https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/...
http://energyinnovation.org/20...
http://www.renewable-energysou...
http://about.bnef.com/press-re...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=...

Or maybe you know more than them. Methinks you just want to avoid proper comparisons.

If you want to compare the cost of energy, use MWh. A MW is not energy. A MWh is energy. And finally, a nice easy to read statement from wikipedia;

In electrical power generation, the distinct ways of generating electricity incur significantly different costs. Calculations of these costs at the point of connection to a load or to the electricity grid can be made. The cost is typically given per kilowatt-hour or megawatt-hour. It includes the initial capital, discount rate, as well as the costs of continuous operation, fuel, and maintenance. This type of calculation assists policy makers, researchers and others to guide discussions and decision making.

The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is a measure of a power source which attempts to compare different methods of electricity generation on a comparable basis. It is an economic assessment of the average total cost to build and operate a power-generating asset over its lifetime divided by the total energy output of the asset over that lifetime. The LCOE can also be regarded as the minimum cost at which electricity must be sold in order to break-even over the lifetime of the project.

If you want to refute, provide a source instead of meandering rationalizations.

Yes, and you were given what was needed.For anything else, contact Ethan Zindler at Bloomberg Energy and they will sell you the raw data since that is what they do. And considering that energy companies are putting in more wind and solar, I would say that it is indicative that Bloomberg is accurate.

"The BNEF report analyzes thousands of data points culled from individual deals and projects around the world to estimate the actual costs associated with each type of energy, excluding subsidies. "

"takes into account not just the cost of generating a marginal MWh of electricity, but also the upfront capital and development expense, the cost of equity and debt finance, and operating and maintenance fees." - http://about.bnef.com/press-re...

In 2014, 39% of US Electricity came from coal, and that percentage is declining.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/...

Coal isn't competing well with natural gas, and they're closing down a large number of older coal plants, and aren't building new ones. Most new plants are natural gas or renewables.

http://about.bnef.com/content/...

That said, it's still easier to control emissions at a single source than at thousands.

and it is possible we are simply out of time, with regards to the funding for this sort of research.

That seems unlikely. The future is never as bleak as some would have you believe.
There have been a number of developments of late that suggest real progress is being made:

http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/cellulosic-ethanol-heads-for-cost-competitiveness-by-2016/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/09/04/same-moonshine-different-name-welcome-to-the-age-of-cellulosic-ethanol/

Somewhat dated:
http://www.nrel.gov/continuum/sustainable_transportation/cellulosic_ethanol.cfm

However, its still ethanol.
It may be wiser to take a look at other fuel stretchers as well.
Butanol is being looked at because it is less corrosive and also higher energy density than ethanol, almost approaching that of gasoline. (Exhaust smells like bananas).

Butanol trumps ethanol in several ways: Adding ethanol to gasoline reduces fuel mileage, but butanol packs almost as much energy as gas, meaning fewer fill-ups. Butanol also doesn't damage car engines like ethanol, so more of it can be blended into gas. And because butanol doesn't separate from gasoline in the presence of water, it can be blended right at the refinery, while ethanol has to be shipped separately from gas and blended closer to the filling station.

Even Zebra poop is helping, it yields a particular strain of Clostridium bacteria that can convert nearly any form of cellulose into butanol very efficiently.

Burned by itself, (B100) you might have a 10% mileage penalty. Mixed with gas it might not even impose any significant mileage penalty.
Its been found that the mileage penalty does not exactly vary in lock-step with energy density. (Theoretically ethanol should only see a 2 to 3% mileage penalty, but some claim 10%, especially on older vehicles). But to date, no one has done significant real world testing on Butanol + Gas blends.

Some links to Butanol stories:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/04/12/the-fuel-that-could-be-the-end-of-ethanol/
http://farmindustrynews.com/blog/bio-butanol-can-be-produced-about-same-cost-ethanol-optinol-reports
http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2013/april/cost-saving-measure-to-upgrade-ethanol-to-butanol-a-better-alternative-to-gasoline.html

And more in 10 other Asian countries. This is a twofer: Let's loose money by not making loans on a nearly fool proof business model and let those countries become ignore the U.S more for their new friends who will do what they want and we don't!

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/10/will-china-build-hundreds-of-new-coal.html

The Bloomberg link is broken. Here's a another, with misleading headline:

http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/chinas-power-sector-heads-towards-a-cleaner-future/