consumers in 2012 was 9.84 cents per KWH, including the cost of transmission and distribution of electricity. To place these additional costs in context, the average cost of electricity to U.S. Indeed, it costs about 3 cents less per KWH. It does not cost more than the cost of power from the coal or less efficient gas plants that it displaces. Gas combined cycle is the least expensive. It costs almost 19 cents more per KWH than power from the coal or gas plants that it displaces. A gas combined cycle plant saves on capacity costs mainly because it costs about two-thirds less to build than a coal-fired plant.Īdding up the net energy cost and the net capacity cost of the five low-carbon alternatives, far and away the most expensive is solar. Four of the five low-carbon technologies, excluding gas combined cycle, have a much higher net capacity cost-that is, the cost of building and maintaining the low-carbon power plants-because all four are much more costly to build and maintain than a new coal or gas simple cycle plant. All of the low carbon technologies save on energy costs compared to coal and simple cycle gas plants: wind, solar and hydro because the energy from wind, sun and water is free nuclear because uranium is cheaper than coal or gas per unit of energy and gas combined cycle because it is much more energy efficient than coal or gas simple cycle. The table above compares the cost per kilowatt-hour (KWH) of each of the five low-carbon technologies compared to the cost per KWH of the high-carbon technologies that it replaces. One of the best scenarios for our proposed low-carbon alternatives would be for each of them to replace the use of coal-fired plants when electricity demand is moderate, which is most of the time, and gas simple cycle plants during shorter periods of peak energy use. So, what would it cost you and I to move toward a world where we generate electricity through mostly low-carbon technologies? How would the cost per megawatt hour (MWH) and kilowatt hour (KWH) change? This is an important question because energy costs are private and owed by everyday consumers, whereas the benefits of reducing carbon use are shared as a global public good. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the paper asks the question, “Which of the five low-carbon alternatives is most cost-effective in lowering emissions?” The results are highly policy-relevant, and offer enlightening answers to a number of questions that can help governments aiming for a low-carbon future. My new Brookings working paper breaks down the comprehensive costs and benefits of five common low-carbon electricity technologies: wind, solar, hydroelectric, nuclear, and gas combined cycle (an advanced, highly energy efficient type of natural gas plant). However, until now, there has been little thorough, empirical analysis of which of these technologies is most efficient, and which provides the best “bang for our buck” as we seek to reduce emissions. More and more, countries are seeking to lower emissions in the electricity sector by turning to low and no-carbon generation options. The largest source of these emissions comes from the combustion of fossil fuels-including coal, oil and natural gas-to produce electricity, an effort that in 2012 made up about 40 percent of emissions globally and 32 percent in the United States. For a more detailed look at alternative technologies for reducing emissions, read Frank’s latest paper.Īs the science on climate change and its impacts on the global economy become clearer and more urgent, governments are increasingly looking for ways to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Editor’s Note: In this blog, Charles Frank answers five questions on low and no-carbon electricity technologies.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |