tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8628325.post6487374969099533132..comments2024-03-15T05:59:53.929-07:00Comments on Ambivalent Engineer: Let's drive electricity prices into the groundAmbivalent Engineerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491915174390340818noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8628325.post-25115950672892925392009-02-16T14:47:00.000-08:002009-02-16T14:47:00.000-08:00Thanks for the link to the paper. It's pretty goo...Thanks for the link to the paper. It's pretty good, but unfortunately doesn't list comparable costs for combustion turbines, coal, or wind. Because the costs are accounted for differently in that paper than in the paper I cite in my post, the costs can't be compared. The paper I cite compares different generation methods, which gives me the ability to predict how much costs might change if new generators were added to the fleet.<BR/><BR/>Can you back up your point with something credible that compares levelized costs of different power generator types?<BR/><BR/>On a separate note, there are several points in that paper that I agree with. And one is that future builds of nuclear powerplants are should be predicated on getting our politics in order. Not everyone has to agree that the plants are desirable, but we must get to a point where most folks are confident the plant is better than the alternatives.<BR/><BR/>There is also some wierdness in the paper. Take this quote:<BR/><BR/>"The Gen-IV project also envisions six different reactor designs, which may reduce the benefits of standardization."<BR/><BR/>As one of the authors of the paper (Daniel Kammen) was on the Gen-IV Review and Oversight Committee, you'd think he'd know that the idea is to pursue a bunch of designs but then pick a winner and build just that.Ambivalent Engineerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491915174390340818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8628325.post-59674570703639344402009-02-13T22:29:00.000-08:002009-02-13T22:29:00.000-08:00At $3/Watt (120 billion/40 GW) your LEC will be ov...At $3/Watt (120 billion/40 GW) your LEC will be over 10 cents/kWh - you still need to add T&D charges, taxes etc to get to what the end user would pay. Your plan ends up raising electricity prices rather than lowering them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8628325.post-59669549294609767292009-02-13T22:22:00.000-08:002009-02-13T22:22:00.000-08:00Your Palo Verde numbers are low - they don't i...Your Palo Verde numbers are low - they don't include construction costs or interest on the original load. Nobody has levelized electricity costs below 3 cent/kwh.<BR/><BR/>http://www.cleanpower.org/reports_pdf/HultmanKoomeyKammen_ES&T2007.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8628325.post-73997356988624062262008-08-10T02:21:00.000-07:002008-08-10T02:21:00.000-07:00Thanks, I've updated the post.$120B is well under ...Thanks, I've updated the post.<BR/><BR/>$120B is well under the $266B present value for the extra tax revenue after compensating the utilities for their income losses.<BR/><BR/>So, my point remains but is now more accurate. Thanks!Ambivalent Engineerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491915174390340818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8628325.post-51505213079118277022008-08-07T21:44:00.000-07:002008-08-07T21:44:00.000-07:00$5.9B in 1988 at construction complete is between ...$5.9B in 1988 at construction complete is between $9 and $10B today before plant construction starts, so that means your 13 new plants will cost something like $120B in present dollars.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com