The US Department of Energy issued a press release today announcing a new $102 Million loan guarantee for a 50.6 MW wind farm near Roxbury, Maine and an 8 mile transmission line to connect it to the grid. Before we join hands in carbon-free jubilation let’s do the math:
$102 Million for 50.6 MW that will operate (best case) at 30% capacity = $6.72 million per megawatt (MW) of delivered electricity
Well now, that’s an interesting number, but what does it mean in the real world? Let’s see how it compares to building other forms of large scale carbon-free energy like a nuclear power plant.
A Westinghouse AP-1000 reactor produces 1,154 MW at about a 90% capacity factor, thus delivering a virtually consistant 1,040 MW. The reported “all in” cost for two such rectors like the ones currently under construction at the Vogtle station in Georgia is about $8 Billion (or $4 Billion for 1040 MW).
How much would it cost to build the same energy delivery capacity with wind power (as shown above)? Let’s find out:
Wind costs $6.72 million per MW * 1040 MW = $7.75 Billion
So this simple example of two current real world projects demonstrates wind generated electricity costs twice as much to build as the same quantity of nuclear generated electricity. By the way, I’ve been very kind to wind in my analysis because the worldwide average capacity factor is more like 19.6%, not the 30% I’ve used in my comparison. That difference would increase the cost of wind by another 50% to more than $10 Billion (2.5 times the cost of nuclear).
So would someone please tell me why the United States is squandering precious limited financial resources on intermittent wind energy projects that cost twice as much as an equivalent amount of reliable nuclear energy?
Dr. Chu, you should be ashamed!
Edit on March 8, 2011: I failed to consider generous state and federal subsidies that typically cover 30% to 50% of the cost of new wind energy installations, and the accelerated depreciation that assures investors get a rapid return on their investment even if the project produces little electricity. These add further to the true cost of wind energy.
#1 by Bill Rodgers on March 8, 2011 - 3:52 AM
Several other points:
Only 200 hundred jobs. Doesn’t say what skill level or duration.
Vogtle estimates that I have seen are for up to 3000-3500 construction jobs and up to 800 permanent jobs.
70,000 tons of carbon avoided annually does not state what capacity factor was used to determine that figure so hard the reality of the actual number of tons of carbon that will be avoided.
#2 by Bill Rodgers on March 9, 2011 - 3:42 AM
Apparently my fingers weren’t woring correctly.
I meant to say:
70,000 tons of carbon avoided annually, but the press release does not state at what capacity so it is hard to determine the actual number of tons of carbon that MAY be avoided.
#3 by Dogmudgeon on March 8, 2011 - 4:08 AM
I enjoy reading TWIN, but I must take a qualified issue with this piece.
Why shame Dr. Chu? He’s a popular figure in the Enviro movement, and he’s leading the first generation of nuclear energy support among Democrats and liberals in over 40 years.
Arguing that our resources are strictly limited would be more convincing if the USA wasn’t simultaneously conducting two expensive wars, financing a major tax-reduction effort, and seeking to repair damage caused by the greed and ineptitude of the financial sector.
I maintain that non-nuclear energy will be important. If it is profitable, that’s great. If it isn’t, we will have no better argument for making progress in nuclear energy. And as this article and project illustrate, the first reports are beginning to come in right about now.
#4 by ChrisW on March 8, 2011 - 4:23 PM
What about the 1 GW of standby gas turbines when the wind doesn’t blow? The total wind package with quick and dirty standby gas turbines will cost as much from a carbon footprint point of view as running the most efficient Combined Cycle Gas Turbines in the first place. Factor in gas prices doubling in five years and highly subsidised free wind is the economic saddlebag that will take out national economies around the world, just ask the Spanish.
#5 by seth on March 8, 2011 - 4:43 PM
The actual project cost is $125M+ 25% tax credit. It and it is supposed to produce 122.1 million kW
That works out to $12B/Gw. To that we need to add $8B/Gw for the 4 times sized grid to carry it to market and another $8B/Gw for the natural gas required to load balance the piece of junk. More GHG’s are produced we the wind/OCGT gas scam than if just CCGT gas plant was used instead.
So $28B/GW compared to the $4B/GW budgeted for the AP-1000′s at SCANA. SCANA is three times the cost of the same American AP-1000 nukes are being built in China. Unskilled low value Chinese labor cost about 2/3 that of highly skilled US labor so few savings there. Difference is the worst regulator in the OECD – the NRC.
#6 by Bill Bry on March 9, 2011 - 10:29 AM
Agenda 21 is why. Search the term, it is all crytal clear.
#7 by A listener on March 12, 2011 - 10:05 AM
Welcome back..could you do a quick post about what’s going on at the Japanese reactor? Thanks
#8 by Angus on March 15, 2011 - 2:08 PM
But it causes 0% as many meltdowns.
I bet the japanese wish they had a wind energy plant that got hit by an earthquake instead.
#9 by Watcher on March 26, 2011 - 11:47 PM
When you compute the financial, human and ecological costs of the japanese meltdown, wind energy suddenly becomes incredibly cheap….