otomanb said:near me using natural resources like coal and petrol for the generation of Electricity is not so good bcaz they are present in limited amount. I think wind and tidal way is very cheap and almost free running cost, what do u say?
in coal there is a big problem where to dispose off Coal's ash
For wind? Source?chayced said:Wind and tidal are very expensive. Initial cost of seting up the generators is expensive, then when you have them set up maintenance is expensive.
Historically natural gas is more expensive than coal per kWh(e). Natural gas plants are not very intrusive and cheaper than coal to build, so utilities throw up many of them but avoid running them unless they need them, e.g. peaking power.mgb_phys said:If you have coal then coal is cheap - but the plants are big and expensive.
If you have natural gas then that's cheap and the plants are quick and cheap to build.
If you don't have fossil fuels and your government/people are sane then nuclear is cheap.
Once you've built the plant, then hydroelectric is cheapest to run.
I find those numbers highly suspect. For example, nuclear shows a difference of 9 cents between operating cost and combined building/operating costs. This would allow the original building cost to be payed off in around 9 years. If you assume a nuclear plant only lasts 9 years then the 13 cents per kwh is valid, but life expectancy is >40years.mheslep said:Historically natural gas is more expensive than coal per kWh(e). Natural gas plants are not very intrusive and cheaper than coal to build, so utilities throw up many of them but avoid running them unless they need them, e.g. peaking power.
As of 2006, least to most expensive, in the US
To Build, assumes no backup power ($ per kW):
Natural Gas Combustion Turbine $670
Natural Gas Combined Cycle $730
Wind $1750-2400
Coal $2080-2740
Solar Thermal $3150-5700
Nuclear $3500-7000, Biomass $3500
Solar PV $8100
To Operate and Maintain only, per unit energy generated (cents / kWh)
Solar Thermal (1), Wind (1.7 ), Solar PV (4.1) , Hydro
Nuclear (3-4 cents, 2015 est)
Coal ()
Natural Gas (2-3X coal)
Levelized Cost: Build and Operating costs combined (cents / kWh)
Coal 7.5
Gas Combined Cycle 8.6
Gas Turbine 17
Nuclear 13 in 2016
Edit: adding in actual O&M costs as I find them.
http://www.psc.state.fl.us/utilities/electricgas/RenewableEnergy/Full_Report_2008_11_24.pdf
Maybe, but it doesn't make financial sense to use the huge 40+ y amortization period, the interest simply dominates. Consequently, I have the impression that current nuclear plants, capital costs paid off long ago, are huge cash cows, running 94% of the time.chayced said:I find those numbers highly suspect. For example, nuclear shows a difference of 9 cents between operating cost and combined building/operating costs. This would allow the original building cost to be payed off in around 9 years. If you assume a nuclear plant only lasts 9 years then the 13 cents per kwh is valid, but life expectancy is >40years.
I don't know what definitive means in this context, but I can't imagine what would drive solar thermal O&M costs, and the US has some ~20GW of wind installed now so I expect the experience is in place. The source above was an FP&L report, largest wind utility. Note: I can't determine whether of not the Production Tax Credits (PTC) are part of the wind costs.Also, solar thermal and wind power have very low operating costs. Has this been definitively established?
The report notes that new transmission costs are left out of the calculations, but we know that remote solar and wind will need more of that. Another cost is fossil / nuclear baseload backup for the wind and solar when their offline - not a problem yet but as the they grow it increasingly will be.The way those numbers read, solar thermal and wind power have the potential to drastically lower electricity costs. Is there any proof that this has actually happened? Last I checked paying for green energy was much more expensive than the dirty alternative. I would love cheap and clean energy, but I have yet to actually see it.
The cheapest way to produce electricity varies depending on location and available resources. However, in general, the cheapest way is through renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, or hydro power. These sources have minimal operating costs and do not require the use of expensive fuels.
The most cost-effective form of energy production is also renewable energy. In addition to being the cheapest, renewable energy sources have lower maintenance costs and do not contribute to air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions.
Nuclear energy is often touted as a cheap form of energy production due to its high energy output. However, the initial construction and maintenance costs of nuclear power plants can be very expensive. Additionally, the long-term storage and disposal of nuclear waste can also add to the overall cost.
While renewable energy sources are generally cheaper and more sustainable, there are some downsides to consider. For example, the initial investment for building renewable energy infrastructure can be high. Additionally, renewable energy sources can be intermittent and reliant on weather conditions, making them less reliable than traditional energy sources.
Governments can encourage the use of cheaper electricity production methods by implementing policies and incentives that promote the development and adoption of renewable energy sources. This can include tax breaks, subsidies, and regulations that make it easier for companies and individuals to invest in renewable energy infrastructure.