Conca and Wright reported during the Waste Management 2010 Conference and updated in 2011 that as in all steady-state systems, humanity must attain a sustainable energy mix sometime in the future. Unless nuclear and renewable energy are a considerable part of that mix, humanity will go through a period of environmental and economic upheaval. If energy growth estimates are even marginally correct, the world will achieve a consumption of over 30 trillion kilowatt-hours per year (30 tkWhrs/yr) by midcentury, 6.5 tkWhrs/yr in the U.S alone (Wright and Conca 2007).
This growth is essential because humanity requires about 3,000 kWhrs/yr/person to eradicate poverty, with the desirable side-effects of increased life span, decreased population growth, and decreased terrorism and war. While large unconventional fossil fuel resources are still available to be developed, particularly natural gas shales and tar sands, the economic and environmental costs are large. How the rise of renewables and nuclear will alter our dependence on fossil fuels depends upon economic and political forces. This work presents an analysis of how much it costs to produce energy from each primary energy source: coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar and hydroelectric.
Costs for coal are strongly dependent on the cost of gasoline, and the costs for wind are highly dependent on material costs like steel and concrete. Comparing apples to apples, hydro and nuclear are the most cost-effective sources over the next 60 years, almost identical per kWhr produced. The high installation costs of nuclear compared to other non-fossil fuel sources that are often cited are incorrect and stem from a misunderstanding of capacity factor and lifespan, and flawed financing mechanisms. All decommissioning and waste disposal costs are relatively small compared to other costs, even for nuclear. Costs of a carbon tax @$15/ton of CO2 emitted are significant for the fossil fuels over this time period but, on their own, are still insufficient to force any change in fossil fuel use, or the total mix of sources.
The authors concluded that comparing apples to apples, hydroelectric and nuclear are the most cost-effective sources over the next 60 years, almost identical per kWhr produced. When normalized to capacity factor, life-span, and total production over decades, the actual costs to produce energy from each primary energy source (coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar and hydro) are 4.1 ¢/kWhr for coal, 5.2 ¢/kWhr for natural gas, 3.5 ¢/kWhr for nuclear, 4.3 ¢/kWhr for wind, 7.7 ¢/kWhr for solar and 3.3 ¢/kWhr for hydro. Costs include construction, operation and maintenance (O&M), fuel, and decommissioning. Costs not included are electrical grid upgrade and connectivity of renewables, transportation issues, and non-carbon-tax externalities such as pollution and health care costs associated with energy sources especially coal and solar.
These costs are separate from investments, taxation, subsidies, loan structure, and other costs associated more with pricing and financing than with what the actual costs are to produce that energy. Costs of a carbon tax @$15/ton of CO2 emitted are significant for the fossil fuels but are still insufficient on their own to force any change in fossil fuel use, or the mix of sources. For society to develop a long-term sustainable energy mix able to meet future demand, it is imperative to know the actual production costs over the total life cycle of these units. Only then can appropriate and wise planning and financing be developed to meet those needs, build those units, fuel them and operate them in ways that do not destroy the environment or damage the long-term economic health or security of the nation.
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
