What if the debate about Environmental Protection Agency limits on climate-disrupting carbon pollution was all hot air? What if the falling cost of clean energy has already planted a stake in coal’s polluting heart?
As Erin Ailsworth of the Boston Globe reports, a new onshore wind contract just signed in New England is a game-changer for how we talk about energy:
The state’s biggest utilities, in a milestone for New England’s wind power industry, have signed long-term contracts to buy wind-generated electricity at prices below the costs of most conventional sources, such as coal and nuclear plants.
The contracts, filed jointly Friday with the Department of Public Utilities, represent the largest renewable energy purchase to be considered by state regulators at one time. If approved, the contracts would eventually save customers between 75 cents and $1 a month, utilities estimated. […]
John Howat, senior energy analyst at the Boston-based National Consumer Law Center, said he needed to review the details before he could provide a thorough assessment of the contracts. But his initial reaction to the price — on average, less than 8 cents per kilowatt hour? “Wow.”
For a comparison, in the same time frame gas is projected to cost 7 cents/KWH, coal 10 cents/KWH and nuclear 11 cents/KWH.
A dollar a month may not seem like a lot. But if wind is cheaper than coal, why would you ever build a new coal-fired power plant?
That simple price comparison doesn’t account for all the climate change, public health and wildlife benefits that come with switching from coal to wind. When the cost of pollution is factored in, both wind and solar power blow the doors off of coal and are competitive with gas.
Why should we go all-in on wind when gas is projected to be slightly cheaper? Because New England is already dangerously dependent on gas, leaving us vulnerable to price spikes like we saw last winter. And since gas can fire up much faster than coal plants, gas and wind actually go very well together. (No, that was not a fart joke. Let’s keep moving.)
In this context, the hot air being spewed in Washington over carbon regulations seems quaint at best. At worst, it’s a war on consumers as polluters and their allies try to force us to keep buying expensive, dirty energy.
Cross-posted from The Green Miles
I support the utilities buying this type of wind power, happens to be located in Maine and NH according to the link, which points out how expensive Cape Wind is, like more than 2X more expensive than coal or nuclear.
Why is it that this wind power being purchased will generate 565 megawatts of electricity but enuff for just 170,000 homes, when Pilgrim has output of 680 megawatts, but that can supply 500,000 homes (according to Entergy).
And also piles of nuclear waste no one knows what to do with. threatening Cape Cod Bay wildlife.
All that worth saving a few cents/KWH?
One is a measure of the capacity to produce power, while the other is a measure of power produced. That’s as much education as I’m willing to impart on this topic – you’re free to go somewhere else to learn more, and please don’t return.
Appreciate it
Power is the output, measured in MW
Energy is the power times time, measured in MWh
The power of the wind turbines is 565 MW — that’s the maximum output, when the wind passing by all the turbines exceeds some mph (a brisk wind), or when the nuclear power plant is using steam to turn the turbine at maximum RPM. Think of power as the speed of your car, and the numbers 565 and 680 as top speed for those cars.
The energy is the power times time. In the case of the wind turbines, it’s the power output in each hour. Same for pilgrim. If the wind turbines are spinning at top speed for a full hour, they will produce 565 MW times 1 hr = 565 MWh. For Pilgrim, it’s 680 times 1 hr = 680 MWh. But again, that’s when they’re each moving at top speed. Think of energy as the distance you travel in the car — the miles per hour times the number of hours is the number of miles you travel.
Here’s the thing: about 90% of the time, Pilgrim is operating at 100% of capacity — top speed. Highway driving. The rest of the time it isn’t operating at all (in park). Pilgrim is down about 4 weeks every two years to refuel, and at that time it’s in park. The wind turbines, on the other hand, only spin as fast as the wind is blowing, so they operate like a car in stop-and-go traffic. Sometimes full speed, sometimes staying still, usually somewhere in between. Onshore wind in New England means the wind turbine will, over the course of a year, travel at about 30% of top speed.
Over an average year:
Pilgrim = 680 MW * 90% average capacity factor * 8760 hrs/yr = 5,361,120 MWh.
Windfarm = 1,484,820 MWh.
In terms of energy, Pilgrim will provide about 3.6 times as much energy as the wind farm we’re discussing in each year. 500,000 / 170,000 = 2.95, pretty close to my numbers [which are round industry averages, not precise for each plant].
The prices listed in the article are in kWh. There are 1,000 kWh in each MWh. That means that the price of Pilgrim’s electricity is $110/MWh. The price of the wind farm in question is $80/MWh.
As to Cape Wind vs. coal or nuclear, the comparison you make isn’t really helpful. You’re comparing the price to generate at an existing plant to the price to generate at a brand new plant. The price of Cape Wind vs. a brand new coal or brand new nuclear plant is the relevant comparison. What’s a brand new coal or nuclear plant cost? So much that no independent investors are building them anywhere in the United States — the only ones being built are where the utility can charge the ratepayers for the cost of construction, regardless of how expensive it gets. Where there is a “free market” for supplying electricity [New England, upper Northeast (DC to Chicago to NY), California, and Texas] there are no new coal or nuclear plants under consideration, because they cost much more to build and operate than new natural gas plants.
To be clear, Cape Wind is expensive. But, we’re going to have to buy it, because the societal cost of operating all these fossil plants is just too high. We’re going to need these new wind farms in Maine and New Hampshire, and other onshore new wind farms in New England, and offshore wind farms in the North Atlantic, and solar panels on roofs and in fields across the region to replace all those fossil fuel megawatt hours.
P.S. TGM’s comments about gas price spikes are spot on. While natural gas is the cheapest fossil fuel for generating electricity right now, it’s subject to price spikes and supply interruptions during cold snaps. The more renewables we have on the grid, the less we are exposed to that risk of disruption (economic or electrical).
Love the car comparison, makes it easy to understand, question 4 U (if I may)
I was going to write a diary on Vogtle 3 and 4, have you heard of them? These are new nuclear power plants being built in Georgia. Estimated costs is $14 billion for both, Feds give $8 billion in loan guarantees, each reactor is 1200 MW.
So if we can build Pilgrim 2 for $8 billion, Feds guaranty $4 billion, enuff to power 1 million homes 90% of the time, isn’t that a better investment than Cape Wind which is over $1 billion to construct and runs at full tilt perhaps 40% of the time, can supply 200K homes is my guess. And I don’t buy the warm water coming out if Pilgrim today has any adverse effects on seals or fishes (ser greenmiles link). Back in the day, I use to fish at Pilgrim and the best spot was right where the water exiting the plant hit the ocean, and lobster pots were all over the place, near the rock jetties.
1. Vogtle costs are really a mystery. Southern Company has done back flips to keep the costs a secret. Their actual final costs remain to be seen, and all other nuclear construction in the past 10 years has gone way over budget, but maybe Vogtle works out differently.
2. Georgia ratepayers are on the hook for the costs, no matter what. Georgia Power (owned by Southern Co) wouldn’t proceed without that guarantee. Even if they never finish the project and it sits idle, Georgia Power will get their money. That makes it a terrible risk, and it’s precisely why greenies and Tea Partiers in Georgia are working together in opposition of this terrible deal for both the environment and the ratepayers.
3. New England doesn’t have captive ratepayers. There is no utility which can build the plant. We use a free(r) market system, where independent owners build, own, and operate the plants, and then sell the capacity (MW) and the energy (MWh) on the free market. The New England market doesn’t pay enough for a builder to recoup his costs. We know this because no merchant has stepped forward with a proposal to build a new nuclear unit anywhere in a free(r) market system.
4. Vermont Yankee is already built. It’s closing down because the cost of *operating and maintaining* a nuclear plant costs too much. The cost of building one is even higher.
5. The 90% vs 40% is irrelevant. The question is: if it is built, will it make enough revenue to cover the costs? The answer is almost certainly no because, after all, no merchants are willing to even try and Vermont Yankee is closing as it is.
Nuclear just costs too much. That’s the reality. You can argue that it should be subsidized because its green, you can argue that the regulatory atmosphere should be streamlined, you can argue that Yucca or somewhere else should happen, and go right ahead. But, until those things are worked out, you won’t see new nuclear in New England because the kinds of people who have that much of their own money typically don’t waste it $billions at a time, which is what a new nuclear unit in New England would result in.
P.S. That some kinds of marine life prefer the warm cooling water released by nuclear or any steam plant doesn’t mean there aren’t detrimental impacts. Furthermore, the much bigger environmental problem is at the intake — where many, many millions of fish and eggs get entrained or entrapped, and that loss of young marine life is quite detrimental to the surrounding ecosystem.
Your post was on the top of the list a few minutes ago over there – nice!