Author Topic: Construction costs for most power plant types have fallen in recent years  (Read 2416 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
Construction costs for most power plant types have fallen in recent years
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=31912
JULY 5, 2017



Based on EIA survey data for new, utility-scale electric generators (those with a capacity greater than one megawatt), capacity-weighted average construction costs for many generator types have fallen in recent years. Annual changes in construction costs include the effects of differences in the geographic distribution of installed capacity between years, differences in technology types, and other changes in capital and financing costs.

EIA began collecting data on construction costs for new utility-scale generators installed in 2013. The data for each year reflect projects completed in that year. Because power plants are often constructed over several years, reported costs are not necessarily indicative of the cost of a project initiated in that year. Government grants, tax benefits, and other incentives are excluded from these costs.

Construction costs alone do not determine the economic attractiveness of a generation technology. Other factors such as fuel costs (for generators that consume fuel), utilization rates, financial incentives, and state policies also affect project economics and, in turn, the kinds of power plants that are built.

In 2015, wind, natural gas, and solar were the most commonly added capacity types, adding 8.1 gigawatts (GW), 6.5 GW, and 3.2 GW, respectively. In the case of wind and solar, almost all of these additions (98% and 91%, respectively) were at new plants, as opposed to new generators at existing plants.

For natural gas, about 60% of the capacity added in 2015 was new generators at new plants, and the remaining 40% were new generators at existing plants. For other fuels such as hydro and petroleum liquids, which had relatively little capacity added in 2015, almost all of those additions were located at existing plants. Construction costs for battery storage units are available for the first time in 2015.



The capacity-weighted cost of installing wind turbines was $1,661 per kilowatt (kW) in 2015, a 12% decrease from 2013. Costs tend to be lower for larger wind plants, as plants above 100 megawatts (MW) averaged lower costs than those below 100 MW, likely reflecting economies of scale.



he average cost of natural gas generators installed in 2015 was $696/kW, a 28% decline from 2013. Nearly 75% of the natural gas capacity installed in 2015 were combined-cycle units, which had an average installed cost of $614/kW. Combined-cycle natural gas plants include at least one combustion turbine and one steam turbine and are generally more efficient than plants with combustion turbines alone. About 1.5 GW of natural gas plants with only combustion turbines were installed in 2015, at an average cost of $779/kW. Natural gas plants with internal combustion engines were more expensive, averaging $1,798/kW for the 0.2 GW installed in 2015.



The cost of utility-scale solar photovoltaic generators declined 21% between 2013 and 2015, from $3,705/kW to $2,921/kW. More than half of the utility-scale solar photovoltaic systems installed in the United States track the sun through the day, and in general, those systems cost slightly more than those installed at fixed angles. Construction costs differed slightly by technology type, with crystalline silicon systems (73% of the 2015 installed solar photovoltaic capacity) costing slightly less than systems with thin-film panels made using cadmium telluride.



More information is available in EIA’s construction costs data, which is based on data collected through EIA’s Annual Electric Generator Report (EIA-860). Construction costs for generators installed in 2016 are expected to be available in January 2018.
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,750
Gee, based upon these graphs, I wonder which ones we should be building, maybe solar or wind?
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

Online Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,707
  • Gender: Male
  • Dumbest member of the forum
Coal isn't represented, as far as I can see.
I wonder how it would place?
Probably as cheap as natural gas, or cheaper.

Offline Joe Wooten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,455
  • Gender: Male
Coal isn't represented, as far as I can see.
I wonder how it would place?
Probably as cheap as natural gas, or cheaper.

Much higher than a combined cycle gas plant. In a coal-fired plant you have the extra capital costs of the coal handling equipment, pollution control equipment, and the extra land required for the coal pile. Operating costs are higher due to the power consumption of the fuel handling and pollution control equipment(especially the electrostatic precipitators) and the fact that the coal has to be shipped in on either trains (most common) or barges.

A combined cycle plant also gives more bang for the BTU, running about 61% cycle efficiency, whereas a supercritical coal plant runs about 43% to 45% cycle efficiency. As long as the price of  gas stays low, it will dominate coal.

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
Much higher than a combined cycle gas plant. In a coal-fired plant you have the extra capital costs of the coal handling equipment, pollution control equipment, and the extra land required for the coal pile. Operating costs are higher due to the power consumption of the fuel handling and pollution control equipment(especially the electrostatic precipitators) and the fact that the coal has to be shipped in on either trains (most common) or barges.

A combined cycle plant also gives more bang for the BTU, running about 61% cycle efficiency, whereas a supercritical coal plant runs about 43% to 45% cycle efficiency. As long as the price of  gas stays low, it will dominate coal.

Joe, do you have a link for that coal efficiency?  I'm not trying to say it is wrong, I just have searched for that data for comparing to CCCT without finding it.  Also, does that include all the parasitic pollution loads typical of a new plant regulations?
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
Coal isn't represented, as far as I can see.
I wonder how it would place?
Probably as cheap as natural gas, or cheaper.

I believe coal was left out of the data set because of the lack of building coal plants from 2013-2015 in the US.  No/insignificant data available.

It should be significantly more expensive than Nat Gas CCCT.  Much more equipment is required for the coal handling and pollution requirements, as Joe W has said.
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline Joe Wooten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,455
  • Gender: Male
Joe, do you have a link for that coal efficiency?  I'm not trying to say it is wrong, I just have searched for that data for comparing to CCCT without finding it.  Also, does that include all the parasitic pollution loads typical of a new plant regulations?
Here's one.

http://www.elp.com/articles/print/volume-81/issue-1/power-pointers/primer-on-supercritical-steam.html

I do thermal efficiency of power plants, mostly nuke these days, for a living. The numbers I put out there are what I got from colleagues who work at those plants. The 43% to 45% numbers are gross cycle efficiency, which does not take into account house loads.

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
Here's one.

http://www.elp.com/articles/print/volume-81/issue-1/power-pointers/primer-on-supercritical-steam.html

I do thermal efficiency of power plants, mostly nuke these days, for a living. The numbers I put out there are what I got from colleagues who work at those plants. The 43% to 45% numbers are gross cycle efficiency, which does not take into account house loads.

Thank you!

I remember reading years ago, with scrubbers, coal plant parasitic loads were up to 1/3 total power generated.  Do you think that is too high for a modern coal plant?
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline Joe Wooten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,455
  • Gender: Male
Thank you!

I remember reading years ago, with scrubbers, coal plant parasitic loads were up to 1/3 total power generated.  Do you think that is too high for a modern coal plant?

No, that is too high. I seem to remember that the lignite fired plants Texas Utilities had at Martin Lake were 750 MWe sized units, and pollution controls consisted of scrubbers and precipitators/baghouses, taking about 10% to 15% of the generation, which is still a lot.

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,750
Much higher than a combined cycle gas plant. In a coal-fired plant you have the extra capital costs of the coal handling equipment, pollution control equipment, and the extra land required for the coal pile. Operating costs are higher due to the power consumption of the fuel handling and pollution control equipment(especially the electrostatic precipitators) and the fact that the coal has to be shipped in on either trains (most common) or barges.

A combined cycle plant also gives more bang for the BTU, running about 61% cycle efficiency, whereas a supercritical coal plant runs about 43% to 45% cycle efficiency. As long as the price of  gas stays low, it will dominate coal.
Does your operating expenses include or exclude the cost of feed stock?  Coal is pretty cheap and wonder if it is all-inclusive in your opex.
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
No, that is too high. I seem to remember that the lignite fired plants Texas Utilities had at Martin Lake were 750 MWe sized units, and pollution controls consisted of scrubbers and precipitators/baghouses, taking about 10% to 15% of the generation, which is still a lot.

Thank you, I was probably remembering numbers when scrubbers were early in use with high sulfur coal.
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline Joe Wooten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,455
  • Gender: Male
Does your operating expenses include or exclude the cost of feed stock?  Coal is pretty cheap and wonder if it is all-inclusive in your opex.

Yes. Per BTU I think gas is and has been for several years cheaper than coal. That is why several mines have closed too. The cost of mining the coal dose is not covered by the price, especially for the deep shaft mines.

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
Yes. Per BTU I think gas is and has been for several years cheaper than coal. That is why several mines have closed too. The cost of mining the coal dose is not covered by the price, especially for the deep shaft mines.



https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/update/resource_use.php
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline Joe Wooten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,455
  • Gender: Male

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
Ooopsie! I were wrong!

Thanks for the correction.....

But when combined with higher efficiencies and less plant losses, the net is/approaching gas cheaper than coal for $/MWH.
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline Joe Wooten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,455
  • Gender: Male
But when combined with higher efficiencies and less plant losses, the net is/approaching gas cheaper than coal for $/MWH.

Agreed!, But I was going off on cost delivered to the plant site.