How Low Can the Price of Wind Go?
"The learning curve theory contradiction, they found, is that “the largest single impact -- from scaling -- brings LCOE benefits.” Large-scale turbines allow wind projects to perform better. This “tradeoff between capital cost and performance” means that “LCOE is likely a better indicator of ‘technology learning’ than is capital cost,” the researchers reasoned."
Like solar, wind’s LCOE now meets and beats fossil fuels.
HERMAN K. TRABISH: DECEMBER 29, 2011
A recent study of solar found that a properly calculated levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is now competitive, and an LCOE presentation by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) researchers confirmed that wind is now at $33 to $65 per megawatt-hour and falling.
As with solar, the key to the accurate price of wind is reconciling numbers with facts. Learning curve theory, said LBNL researcher Mark Bolinger, predicts that wind price should have dropped 20 percent to 30 percent as installed capacity doubled twice between 2002 and 2008. But turbine cost, which is 50 percent to 60 percent of LCOE and 60 percent to 70 percent of project cost, doubled.
To understand this phenomenon, Bolinger and fellow LBNL researcher Ryan Wiser studied the four endogenous factors (labor costs, warranty provisions, profitability, turbine design/scaling) and three exogenous factors (raw materials prices, energy prices, foreign exchange rates) that determine turbine price.
It is a detailed study....
The learning curve theory contradiction, they found, is that “the largest single impact -- from scaling -- brings LCOE benefits.” Large-scale turbines allow wind projects to perform better. This “tradeoff between capital cost and performance” means that “LCOE is likely a better indicator of ‘technology learning’ than is capital cost,” the researchers reasoned...
More at: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/how-low-can-the-price-of-wind-go/
This link downloads the PDF of the study 'Understanding Trends in Wind Turbine Prices Over the Past Decade' by
Mark Bolinger and Ryan Wiser:
http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-5119e.pdf
= new reply since forum marked as read
The study is based on terrestrial wind installations where there are important problems with the transportation logistics of building turbines that are larger than 4MW. This might be overcome, but it is going to be related to some improvements in wind policy that makes investing in the fleets of larger specialty vehicles a safe financial proposition.
The study was based on actual transactions, and the typical onshore turbine going up right now (2012) is about 2MW. All of the larger ones that we are gearing up to make are going to be offshore and will come with their own set of economics and a completely different learning curve.
The average nameplate capacity of wind turbines installed in the U.S. doubled over the period of interest, from just under 0.9 MW in 2001/2002 to nearly 1.8 MW in 2010 (Figure 6). Along with this doubling in capacity, the average turbine hub height and rotor diameter also increased: hub height by one-third (from just under 60 meters to 80 meters) and rotor diameter by nearly two- thirds (from just over 50 meters to nearly 85 meters). Because mass scales more rapidly than height or length – e.g., taller towers are not only taller, but also need to be wider and thicker (and therefore heavier) to support the extra height – the rapid growth in turbine size has also impacted wind turbine prices on a $/kW basis. The fact that the capital cost of turbines can increase with size is widely understood (e.g., Dinica 2011, EWEA 2009), but the advantages in terms of lower balance of plant costs and higher levels of energy production typically outweigh those turbine price increases.
If she is eager to learn, she can probably work out enough on her own to get a decent idea of way the problem is analyzed. The source doesn't include external costs like risk transfer or a full accounting of the environmental consequences across the full fuel cycle; it is strictly the work of an accountant working out a comprehensive estimate of the range of probably costs associated with nuclear new build in the US.
It would also be good to explain what is behind references to how inexpensive energy from the present nuclear fleet is. Those electricity costs could be likened to the use you get out of a car after it is paid off - and it comes with the same sort of increased probability of failure.
The paper is: ' Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power' by raig A. Severance, a practicing CPA with relevant expertise in the energy area.
A write up and link to download the paper is here:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/01/05/202859/study-cost-risks-new-nuclear-power-plants/
Key points are here, with the rest of the paper functioning to explain and put these items in perspective.
Building a fuel cell car sounds like a pretty ambitious project given the costs involved but it is certainly a commendable goal.
The use of hydrogen for transportation does, however, provide a point of entry for a discussion on the overall approach to energy use and the roll of energy efficiency not only at the point of end use consumption, but also in the way the larger 'energy to work' system is designed. In this case, there is a substantial penalty efficiency penalty associated with H2 for personal transportation that, given present technologies, would require at least 60% more noncarbon energy generating infrastructure to be built than would battery electric. There are, of course, offsetting advantages for fuel cells, but from a system perspective the technology we choose makes a very significant difference; and that is true in many areas.
Hope this helps.
She's very sharp and idealistic, she'll stay with the program even after she realizes that nukes are among many technologies that over-promise and which aren't sustainable.
Many thanks!
