Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies Wind

Posted May 12, 2009 | folder icon Print this page

Updated February 1, 2011

Download PDF

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) produces forecasts of energy supply and demand for the next 20 years using the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS)[1]. These forecasts are updated annually and published in the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO).[2] All sectors of the energy system are represented in NEMS, including the electric power generation, transmission, and distribution system.

To meet electricity demand, the EIA represents the existing generating plants, retires those that have come to the end of their economic life, and builds additional plants to meet projected demand from the residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation sectors. As a result, EIA must represent a slate of technologies, their capital and operating costs, their availability and capacity factors, the financial structure and subsidies, the time to construct the plant, the utilization of the plant, and expected future cost changes, including fuel input for fossil and nuclear plants.

To determine the most economic technology for the type of demand (base, intermediate, or peaking load) for which new capacity is needed, NEMS competes the technologies based on the economics of their levelized costs. Levelized costs represent the present value of the total cost of building and operating a generating plant over its financial life, converted to equal annual payments and amortized over expected annual generation from an assumed duty cycle.

The first table below provides the average national levelized costs for the generating technologies represented in the AEO2011 reference case.[3] The values shown in the table do not include financial incentives such as state or federal tax credits, which impact the cost and the competitiveness of the technology. These incentives, however, are incorporated in the evaluation of the technologies in NEMS based on current laws and regulations in effect at the time of the modeling exercise, as well as regional differences in the cost and performance of the technology, such as labor rates and availability of wind or sun resources. Due to the regional differences in the cost of labor, fuel, and other factors that affect the levelized generation cost, a second table is provided below that gives the range in the levelized cost based on these differences.

In the AEO2011 reference case, a 3-percentage point increase in the cost of capital is added when evaluating investments in greenhouse gas intensive technologies such as coal-fired power plants without carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology and coal-to-liquids plants. The 3-percentage point adjustment is similar to a $15 per ton carbon dioxide emissions fee when investing in a new coal plant without CCS technology. This adjustment represents the implicit hurdle being added to greenhouse gas intensive projects to account for the possibility that they may need to purchase allowances or invest in other greenhouse gas emission-reducing projects that offset their emissions in the future. Thus, the levelized capital costs of coal-fired plants without CCS are likely higher than most current coal project costs.

The levelized cost for each technology is evaluated based on the capacity factor indicated, which generally corresponds to the maximum availability of each technology. However, some technologies, such as a conventional combined cycle turbine, that may look relatively expensive at its maximum capacity factor may be the most economic option when evaluated at a lower capacity factor associated with an intermediate load rather than base load facility.[4]

Simple combustion turbines (conventional or advanced technology) are typically used for peak load, and are thus evaluated at a 30 percent capacity factor. Intermittent renewable resources, e.g. wind and solar, are not operator controlled, but dependent on the weather or the sun shining. Since the availability of wind or solar is dependent on forces outside of the operator’s control, their levelized costs are not directly comparable to those for other technologies although the average annual capacity factor may be similar. Because intermittent technologies do not provide the same contribution to system reliability as technologies that are operator controlled and dispatched, they may require additional system investment as back-up power that are not included in the levelized costs shown below.

For more information on the capital cost estimates used in determining the capital cost component below, see EIA, Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Electricity Generation Plants, http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/beck_plantcosts/index.html


Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2011, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html

Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2011, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html

 


[1] Energy Information Administration, NEMS documentation, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview/index.html

[2] Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2011, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html

[3] Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2011, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html

[4] Base load plants are facilities that operate almost continuously, generally at annual utilization rates of 70 percent or higher. Intermediate load plants are facilities that operate less frequently than base load plants, generally at annual utilization rates between 25 and 70 percent. Peaking plants are facilities that only run when the demand for electricity is very high, generally at annual utilization rates less than 25 percent.

Author:
admin
  • Ziad

    Dear IER,

    I am actually working on a project on wind power turbine. Is it possible to have a link for a more detailed report on wind levelized energy cost ?

    The estimation you did was only for the US ?

  • http://crossfirefusor.com Johnson

    $0.01 per MWh could be possible with aneutronic nuclear fusion reactor fueled with relatively inexpensive fuels such as hydrogen-boron and hydrogen-lithium. It can be a cheap, clean and safe source of electricity without any type of radioactive waste.

  • Nikolaus

    Hey guys,

    I am currently working on my final thesis for my bachelor-degree in Vienna, Austria. I am comparing several studies which calculate LCOE and try to explain how various studies have vast differences in their results concerning the LCOE per MWh.

    One of the studies examined is the EIA-Outlook. I know this question was already posted, but I couldn’t find an answer in the link provided (see post of Koji on September 16th, 2009): For calculating the LCOE, which discount rate/cost of capital was used? I would be very grateful for an answer!

  • admin

    Nikolaus,

    The average cost of capital between 2010 and 2035 is 0.115. In 2016, it is 0.114. However, for new coal plants without sequestration, 3 percentage points are added to cost of debt and cost of equity to represent a carbon risk premium. And, for new renewables online by 2015, a 2 percentage point reduction in cost of debt and equity is made to represent loan guarantees in the stimulus.

  • admin

    Nikolaus,

    The average cost of capital between 2010 and 2035 is 0.115. In 2016, it is 0.114. However, for new coal plants without sequestration, 3 percentage points are added to cost of debt and cost of equity to represent a carbon risk premium. And, for new renewables online by 2015, a 2 percentage point reduction in cost of debt and equity is made to represent loan guarantees in the stimulus.

  • Nikolaus

    Hey,

    thanks for the information!

    Is there any justification for assuming capital costs of 11,5%? The IEA for example use 5 and 10 percent in two their scenarios…

  • Nikolaus

    Hey,

    thanks for the information!

    Is there any justification for assuming capital costs of 11,5%? The IEA for example use 5 and 10 percent in two their scenarios…

  • Nikolaus

    Hey,

    thanks for the information!

    Is there any justification for assuming capital costs of 11,5%? The IEA for example use 5 and 10 percent in two their scenarios…

  • Anonymous

    As the solar photovoltaic (PV) matures, the economic feasibility of PV projects is increasingly being evaluated using the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) generation in order to be compared to other electricity
    generation technologies. Unfortunately, there is lack of clarity of reporting assumptions, justifications and degree of completeness in LCOE calculations, which produces widely varying and contradictory results. 

    It is suggested that the degree of applicability of an analysis is clearly stated so that the wrong conclusions are not made. This article have a range of LCOE which is a step in the right direction compared to other sources that cite numbers with no justification.

    Read more: A Review of Solar Photovoltaic Levelized Cost of Electricity, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15, pp.4470-4482 (2011), http://www.appropedia.org/Review_of_Solar_Levelized_Cost

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Thomas-Stacy/1768627213 Thomas Stacy

    Hi guys.  To make the point about comparative cost of wind energy to conventionals, note that the full cost of wind energy only displaces the variable costs of other sources, since all the conventional plants and fixed costs remain – no matter how many air current surface mines get built.  So compare the full cost of wind to the olive green portion of the stacked bars for conventional technologies in the chart to arrive at a valid cost comparison. We have been trying to get EIA to report this way, but of course the bureaucracy is a problem!