Al Gore on Conan

MIT is projecting a cost as low as 39 mils/kWh. That compares with current costs of 31 mils for fossil/steam; 13 mils for hydro; 20 mils for nuclear; and 62 mils for gas turbine (FERC Form 1 reports for 2007). Nuclear costs are low because they're from long-amortized plants. Hydro is about crapped out for growth. Gas, coal, and oil prices have nowhere to go but up.

The MIT projection is based on an upfront investment of roughly $1 billion, which will be a sunk cost that, in itself, can recover little of its initial cost. Like many such projects, private companies are not going to engage in much pure or early-stage research without some subsidies, because the expense is large and the benefits will acrue to their competitors, as well.

So your premise is estimated to be wrong by top researchers in the field. The people at MIT generally do their math very well. Since your premise is wrong, your conclusions are wrong, and the rest of your post is moot.

Not if they were drilling at 6000 feet as I recall someone writting.

Shrug

Gunner

"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone. I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout" Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls. Keyton

All of the above are in volcanically active areas...with the sole exception of California..but as I recall..the Geysers is not far from the SA fault.

Gunner

"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone. I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout" Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls. Keyton

From the figures you quote, I would say Geothermal is not viable. Twice is high as nuclear power. And requiring a billion dollars as a sunk cost. I am assuming " sunk cost " means a cost which is ignored in calculating the cost of the power produced.

Dan

True but the response was made to a general rant against "geothermal" used as a general term. But you are correct in that conventional geothermal provides all, or nearly all, of the commercial electrical generation.

This thread seems to have diverged into discussion of Enhanced Geo and old style geo.... :-)

Regards,

J.B.

Then you would say wrong.

No. Nuclear currently shows a low operating cost because it's all (or nearly all) coming from fully amortized plants. Didn't you see the note? Build new ones, and watch the per-kWh rate soar.

Right. Now, distribute that across the volume of potential production, and tell us the economic effect, OK?

What few people understand..is that in the US..there are few active volcanic areas usable for geothermal.

So its largely unusable for most of the country. Shrug

Tide generators make far more sense..but then..the Kennedys and similar Leftards dont want them mucking up their view from their seaside compounds.

Gunner

"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone. I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout" Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls. Keyton

I looked at the MIT report, but have to confess I did not read all 372 pages. Tried to find cost comparisons by searching on Nuclear. Failed. Tried searching on 39 mils/kWh. Failed there too. Looked at the report index and did not find any promising places to look.

Any hints on where to find the source data? I would think that MIT would have been comparing new build Geothermal to new build nuclear. Apples to Apples and all that. MIT is smart enough to compare like things.

I am not motivated enough to read all 372 pages.

Dan

It's not in there. You need to look at the FERC reports, which are available on some government website. Try DOE. I have it from something I compiled from FERC data last year.

They described it as 3.9 cents/kWh, or something similar. The use of mils is more common in the energy industry. I just converted it.

You'll need a variety of data sources if you want to explore alternative energy, particularly so since you'll find different estimates from different sources. I didn't get all of that info from one report.

I don't blame you. I haven't read all of it yet, either. I was working on a solar-related article last year, but I haven't done anything with energy since then. It's a lot of work.

As for data sources, start with DOE. They have several pages related to geothermal, with lots of links. And don't overlook Wikipedia. I use their references and links a lot these days. They're often a good place to start.

Much of the current info on EGS is in the form of papers and conference proceedings, like the reference I gave to John. Unfortunately, most of those are hidden in pay sites, unless you have access to a university or business account.

But the DOE links should get you going. When I first dig into a subject like this, I plan to spend at least two days just finding my way around the sources. Then I get on the phone to find out who can steer me to the best info. Then another round of data gathering, and then some actual phone interviews. In a week or so, you'll have what you need for an article.

I am not writing an article, but was curious on what is the expected cost of power from a new nuclear plant. Must not be too bad as lots of people are interested in building some new plants. I would think the newer reactors would produce electricity cheaper than the existing ones. But maybe not.

Dan

First they have to amortize their startup costs, which are very high.

But short-term per-kWh cost isn't the only issue with nukes, solar, wind, or geothermal. They all have the advantage of not burning fossil fuels. You don't need a research project to tell you why that's a desirable thing, providing security, supply, and environmental benefits, none of which have a short-term value assigned to them by markets.

Progress Energy wants to build one in Levy County, Florida. The greenies have suggested wind power, in a are hit often by hurricanes. I think progress energy should locate all the members of that group they serve and tell them to find alternative suppliers for their electricity.

Or at least pay double or triple per kWh.... there is some price at which NIMBY will die off, and if it doesn't then there is more money to waste on less efficient alternative.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

"Very high" doesn't quite cover it. Nobody knows what a new US nuke plant would really cost. Triple any current estimate, then it might be in the ballpark. Neither does anyone know the real cost of the waste stream. IIRC the originally price tag of the recently abandoned, oversubscribed and under-funded plan was $40 billion (today's dollars), but more recent estimates were more like $100 billion. Considering that the opening always seems to be scheduled yet another

10 years off, the 100 number was no more likely to be accurate than

*If* ratepayers ever learn to accept the true cost of what should be considered a premium energy source, then maybe it would be possible to buy off opposition and borrow enough money to build new plants. But the entire process has always been sold on the basis of low cost. We've been heading for that mirage for 40 years, with new plants always another 5-10 years walking. When or if we ever see investors step forward with their own money, including self-funded insurance, that's when we'll know that's something's changed. Until then, there's nothing but empty rhetoric about politics being the "only" impediment, all the way to the horizon and beyond.

Wayne

In 1960 and maybe into the 70's we had a import tax on oil to keep the price high enough that domestic fields would not be abandoned. I looked it up. In April of 1973 oil was $3.60 a barrel. As I remember the import tax was something like $3 a barrel, so without the tax imported oil was only 60 cents a barrel.

Dan

In 1960 and maybe into the 70's we had a import tax on oil to keep the price high enough that domestic fields would not be abandoned. I looked it up. In April of 1973 oil was $3.60 a barrel. As I remember the import tax was something like $3 a barrel, so without the tax imported oil was only 60 cents a barrel.

Dan Everything hit the fan after the Six Day War. It was a combination of that conflict, the decline of colonial control, and the realization by the Saudis and friends how they could better exploit the resource that led to higher prices. The cost of production also increased, even in Saudi Arabia, as the easiest oil fields had already been partially depleted. As the original leases held by the multi-nationals expired, the newer leases were not as favorable to the oil companies. In any case, the long term trend would have led to higher prices regardless of U.S. politics.

The last time they showed their ass it was over a new HV power line across most of Central Florida. It was to carry twice the voltage for the same loads as the old line which would cut the current in half, and their 'Ph.D. claimed that the higher voltage would quadruple the EMF and kill all the cattle along the path. I never did track down that Ph.D., or find out what school he graduated from.

There was one small farm with less than a dozen cows, between the gulf and the Atlantic on that route. They built the line and someone drove a car into one of the precast concrete stands while the line was being built. The path through the grass showed how hard it was to steer the car around obstacles and into the stand. The front was destroyed, and didn't leave a mark on the concrete. :)

Remember the oil wells the first Gulf War that we were told would burn and send us into a sooty winter? Crude pumps itself out of the sand there, like the gushers in _No Country for Old Men_. All you gotta do is catch the stuff into your favorite vessel of commerce. We only pay the Arabs money for it because of our peculiar Western values of property rights, granted to nations who inhabit the world's wastelands because they couldn't defend themselves well enough to live anywhere else. Limitless petroleum sat around on the ground wasted for all of human history until the 20th century. Gasoline was a waste product dumped into rivers, from kerosene distillation in the 19th century. Great sticky gobs of devolatilized crude float in the ocean, and foul the beach here in Florida. That we can still buy refined fuels at retail for less than milk or bottled water testifies to the ultimate plenty and cheapness of the feedstock.

And coal is just sitting in the ground for the digging. Etcetera.

Crude prices reflect a lot of different market forces, Rich. The issues are what it costs and what it probably will cost in the future, in the world market. Like any business or financial deal, pricing oil is a forward-looking enterprise. When you make long-term investments in electrical generating capacity, the future is a major issue at stake.

Something less than 1% of US electrical generating capacity uses oil for fuel, but fossil fuel prices tend to drag each other up and down, so I won't introduce that caveat. The point is that costs of production are going up; demand is going up; and market prices will follow. India and China are just getting started with cars and they have a lot of potential drivers just itching to get rolling. Building generating capacity with stable "fuel" prices -- nuclear, geothermal, solar, or wind -- has a value that goes beyond today's spot-market prices for fossil fuels.

Operating costs for gas turbine "peaking" plants, as I quoted from the FERC figures, run around 68 mils/kWh -- much higher than the projected operating costs for EGS -- but gas has its place in our overall electrical generating system. If it doesn't present any big surprises in its development, and if the seismic issues don't become insurmountable, EGS will have its place, too.