Is this current state of the art?

[Vikas]

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/re...o-solicitation-could-set-low-pri/514566/

"In a report on its solicitation process released late in December, Xcel Energy's Colorado utility subsidiary said it received more than 400 proposals, including what may be record-low prices for renewable energy paired with energy storage.

The median bid price for wind-plus-storage was $21/MWh and for solar-plus-storage was $36/MWh, beating the $45/MWh price seen last year in Arizona in a power purchase agreement between Tucson Electric Power (TEP) and NextEra Energy, GTM Research's Shayle Kann noted on Twitter."

Can our residents grid experts comment on it and contrast the current cost of say nuclear or coal power plants on $/MWh basis?

 

[Danno]

Nuclear looks to be $33.50 per MWh as per this.
https://www.nei.org/news/2018/cost-of-nuclear-generation-reaches-10-year-low

As what usually holds true, the real story is in the details, which are not available on the wind and solar proposals..

 

[Vikas]

Actual .pdf report published by the utility company. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4340162-Xcel-Solicitation-Report.html

Probably "slanted" article describing the above https://www.cleancooperative.com/ne...is-now-cheaper-than-existing-coal-plants

I can't wait to see what kind of spin will be put on by some contributors here.

 

[Danno]

I'd be interested in OVERKILL or Shannow's thoughts - contributors that i consider to be SMEs (Subject Matter Experts) due to their real world work experience.

 

[CharlieBauer]

As expected, over time, technology and operational expertise tend to improve and costs come down.

The same could apply to nuclear. Coal is less likely to get cheaper.

 

[OVERKILL]

Well, they don't list the volume of storage, which, as noted in the article, makes it pretty difficult to compare to traditional sources. Wind performance varies wildly throughout the year, the same with solar, so "storage" is exceedingly ambiguous without any sort of cited capacity. What is never factored into these figures is the standby gas capacity to make them viable, which must typically consist of fast-ramping single-cycle units to be able to come online quickly, though with storage, depending on volume, it might be possible to make that pairing with a CCGT, which would be more efficient, though you'd still be paying for standby capacity.

For example, this is the performance of the Ontario wind fleet for a typical summer 2-week period:

And this is the performance of Darlington Nuclear for the next two week period, as I only started mapping the nukes after interest was expressed in seeing the comparison:

 

[mk378]

Wind and solar projects will always be nearly entirely first cost, since their fuel is free. Conventional and nuclear plants incur much of their expense in the future, mostly fuel but other expenses such as personnel are also likely to be higher.

Comparing the two types on only one number of first cost doesn't make sense.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by mk378
Wind and solar projects will always be nearly entirely first cost, since their fuel is free. Conventional and nuclear plants incur much of their expense in the future, mostly fuel but other expenses such as personnel are also likely to be higher.

Comparing the two types on only one number of first cost doesn't make sense.


Agreed.

CAPEX with a nuke will always be higher due to regulation. Operating costs at a nuke are primarily staffing, as fuel is extremely cheap. Contrarily, on a GT or coal plant, fuel is, IIRC, the highest component of operating cost. CAPEX is significantly less than a nuke. Wind and solar projects have lower CAPEX, but much lower CF's and ancillary costs for gas plant construction and operation is never factored into advertised figures for these operations, despite being a necessary component.

 

[4WD]

OKiller: Would it be safe to say if a company (or CV) were able to produce electricity from various sources of energy … they'd schedule "shut downs" for maintenance based on time of year and predicted loads … a fiscal energy balance sheet in motion.

Website rules (and a current court case) don't allow me to offer opinions on why this real opportunity won't happen.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by 4WD
OKiller: Would it be safe to say if a company (or CV) were able to produce electricity from various sources of energy … they'd schedule "shut downs" for maintenance based on time of year and predicted loads … a fiscal energy balance sheet in motion.

Website rules (and a current court case) don't allow me to offer opinions on why this real opportunity won't happen.


That's not an if, that's typically how it works up here. Spring and fall are our periods of lowest demand, so this is when we do rolling outages with our biggest sources, which are the nuke units. Right now we are out ~1,330MW because unit 5 at Bruce is down and unit 5 at Pickering are down. They'll come back online and other units will go down. We have more than enough nuke/hydro/gas to cover all demand under this scenario, in fact we have enough nuclear even in this state to cover all demand at times. Right now with Bruce, when these units come back online, they are doing so at a higher output than when they went down. Bruce Power is currently rolling uprates into their maintenance outages, with the goal to increase overall site output to 7,000MW if possible.

The problem with trying to work this scenario with wind is that wind produces out of phase with demand. The best performance of wind turbines happens in the spring and fall at night. There is no lower period of demand. These show up for the party and there isn't one. And of course even this isn't consistent, so you still have fossil backup for them. Our most recent two week period, wind still managed to hit a low of 30MW of output, meaning the wind fleet was actually consuming more power than it was producing.

Solar at least works reasonably well, particularly if coupled with sufficient storage, to mitigate peaking during high load periods during the summer. Too much solar gives you the duck curve, which screws over your staple generators, but if capacity is properly planned and you aren't doing something idiotic like FIT/MicroFIT, this can at least be complimentary to existing sources and displace gas peaking.

This is the most recent two week period. You'll note that wind performance is significantly "better" than in the summer, albeit still sporadic, but still a far cry from being something that can be depended on. Those highs are also happening late in the evening running into the early AM hours and then output progressively tanks.

And this is the performance of Darlington over the same period, which managed 100% CF:

 

[4WD]

Nice summary
So basically wind and solar would always be in the minority unless forced to bring down a major contributor

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

I would hope in a fair comparison, future solar and wind generation costs would be compared to future nuclear generators (4th generation?) and not the older generators currently in use. And the nuclear facilities would have to include all costs, to include realistic ones for cleanup and disposal of waste, something frequently left out. Unfortunately apples to oranges comparisons are frequently all that is available, depending on who is driving the study.

I am a strong proponent for viable renewable energy projects and also strongly support continued research. I have a bad taste in my mouth for money wasted on non economically viable projects like the Nellis AFB array installed in 2007. For the relatively minor cost to ratepayers and taxpayers of 100 million dollars plus the donated land, it will save the Air Force $30 million if it lasts its projected lifespan of 30 years. Wait, what? And this is billed as a success story. I can see our failure as a nation to teach math is paying off.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by 4WD
Nice summary
So basically wind and solar would always be in the minority unless forced to bring down a major contributor



Thank you.

Yes. If the goal is a low emissions grid and not high penetration of VRE, then moderation exercised when implementing these sources is absolutely necessary. Personally, I don't see a place for wind, as it always requires gas backup. It's a source that cannot absolutely displace fossil capacity because there is no storage medium remotely near the capacity to enable it and it has such massive seasonal variance that is entirely out of phase with demand.

The best thing wind can do is act as a fuel saving device for gas plants, temporarily lowering emissions when it comes online. And even that, due to the phasing issue I noted above, is far from ideal, as when you need the low-emissions power the most, it's not present.

On the other hand, solar is definitely viable with only moderate storage as a peak mitigation mechanism, which makes sense if you can procure it cheaper than gas and you've already maxed out hydro capacity. Solar's output profile puts its best performance during the periods where demand is the highest, so if you have sufficient storage to mitigate the morning and evening ramps when solar output tanks, it can be effective in reducing requirements for peaking capacity. This is where variable hydro can also be used to lend a hand, as spillage or storage behind the dam is basically free, and you may need some extra capacity when it's overcast. But this scenario absolutely relies on moderation of solar capacity. This isn't "a panel on every household" situation, as once you get beyond peaker displacement, you start sabotaging the generation profiles for the plants you need running all the time, impacting their efficiency and profits, requiring you to either subsidize them to keep them viable, increasing consumer rates, or paying for curtailment, which again impacts consumer rates.

Ontario, with 25% of our generation coming from hydro, absolutely did not need wind or solar on our grid. Had we built another nuke, we would have been able to eliminate all fossil generation from our mix, as hydro would handle peaking. Rolling maintenance outages like we do presently into the spring and fall would prevent nuclear curtailment during those low demand periods, so it would be the most economic to have gone this route too.

Now, that wouldn't work everywhere. Ontario's situation relies on a 1/4 of the grid's power coming from an incredibly diverse, distributed and controllable hydro infrastructure with a total capacity of >9,000MW. Using nuclear in a flexible manner is less economical and building enough of it to cover peaking means significant curtailment, which, when the vast majority of your operating costs are staffing, and your revenue comes from each kWh sold, makes those kWh more expensive. So, in a place like Arizona, where I assume hydro isn't doable, you could conceivably build enough nukes to cover baseload and use solar + storage for peaking.

Now, this may change completely with 4th gen nukes, as a lot of them have some manner of storage rolled into their designs, and the staffing requirements will be significantly lower. How that distills out, I'm eager to see.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by ArrestMeRedZ
I would hope in a fair comparison, future solar and wind generation costs would be compared to future nuclear generators (4th generation?) and not the older generators currently in use. And the nuclear facilities would have to include all costs, to include realistic ones for cleanup and disposal of waste, something frequently left out. Unfortunately apples to oranges comparisons are frequently all that is available, depending on who is driving the study.

I am a strong proponent for viable renewable energy projects and also strongly support continued research. I have a bad taste in my mouth for money wasted on non economically viable projects like the Nellis AFB array installed in 2007. For the relatively minor cost to ratepayers and taxpayers of 100 million dollars plus the donated land, it will save the Air Force $30 million if it lasts its projected lifespan of 30 years. Wait, what? And this is billed as a success story. I can see our failure as a nation to teach math is paying off.


In Canada, the cost of decommissioning the sites is already budgeted and set aside. It was/is rolled into the per kWh rate for the plants. Every single component of our plant operating costs are rolled into those rates as well, so Bruce Power at $0.075/kWh includes their nuclear refurbishment cost, site decommissioning costs, all staffing, fuelling....etc. And they still make a profit. Mind you, Bruce is the largest nuke plant in the world and only getting larger with serial uprates being run through the eight units that occupy the site. The goal is 7,000MW, though how close they get to that figure is still to be seen. The site was originally 6,200MW and presently it is 6,450MW, though that may be closer to 6,475MW when unit 5 comes back from its maintenance outage.

Regarding 4th gen reactors, we are slated to build our first test unit shortly! It's a Micro Modular Reactor, developed by USNC/Global First Power and being funded by the provincial utility Ontario Power Generation. It's passed the entire VDR (Vendor Design Review) and is now at the Environmental Assessment phase, which is the last step before construction. I expect ground break will happen as early as 2020. This unit is planned for deployment in remote communities to displace current diesel installations as well as to power mining operations.

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

Fascinating! After enduring multiple extended blackouts in Northern California last month because the wind might blow, economical distributed power is very appealing to me.
Glad to hear you guys approach this like adults. I don't think the economic costs of disposal and cleanup down here in the lower 48 have been calculated into the cost of nucs since they still haven't figured out yet what to do with the waste.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by ArrestMeRedZ
Fascinating! After enduring multiple extended blackouts in Northern California last month because the wind might blow, economical distributed power is very appealing to me.
Glad to hear you guys approach this like adults. I don't think the economic costs of disposal and cleanup down here in the lower 48 have been calculated into the cost of nucs since they still haven't figured out yet what to do with the waste.


We have a DGR slated to be built at the Bruce site which will be used to store waste products from the 18 units the province operates. Currently, all used fuel is either cooling in spent fuel bays or sealed in dry concrete casks onsite. That said, there are also plans to build 4th gen units that run on the used fuel bundles so how much "waste" will actually be stored is up in the air. The 4th gen designs still have waste byproducts, but they are significantly shorter lived and with very minimal storage requirements so

What I expect may be stored there are contaminated components from the units themselves, stuff that's high level waste that isn't used fuel. That would make sense. Low level waste is typically incinerated with the ash put into a clay for permanent storage.

US PWR/BWR fuel could easily be reprocessed using PUREX like France does, if the embargo on doing so was lifted. Why that was banned still blows my mind, it makes absolutely zero sense