Thanks.

The fuel prices are determined by the model at equilibruim. They can be found in Table A1 of the following link: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/stimulus/pdf/sroiaf(2009)03.pdf.

Thanks,

Mary Hutzler

The assumptions are contained in the report: Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2009 in the Electricity chapter. The link is: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/electricity.html.

Thanks,

Mary Hutzler

Thank you for your Cost analysis.
I have some questions:

1) What discount rate did you use?
2) If there is summery of assumptions, please let me know.

Best regards

The number is conventional hydro.

Thanks,

Mary Hutzler

Is the hydro 114.1 number, conventional hydro, hydrokinetic, or combined? I ask because non-conventional hydro might be higher capacity factor.

thx
ed

The numbers come directly from EIA. They are available upon request from the Coal and Electric Power Division. The difference between the numbers in the table on the IER website, which are for 2016, and Figure 57 of the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2009 is that the numbers in the table are from the revised AEO 2009 that includes the stimulus, i.e. the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of February 2009. (See http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/stimulus/index.html for EIA’s service report.) In the case of the revised AEO 2009, more wind capacity is built earlier in the forecast than in the AEO 2009 without the stimulus (10 gigawatts more by 2010 and 33 gigawatts more by 2020). As more wind units are constructed, the better wind sites are used up earlier, and wind becomes more expensive due to access and resource availability issues.

- Mary Hutzler

Thanks for your “Levelized Costs of New Generating Technologies” analysis. Some questions:

1. I estimate that you did the analysis from data at EIA, rather than pulling the numbers directly from EIA. Correct?
2. What accounts for the differences in your table and the EIA Figure 57 in the AEO Outlook 2009: “Least Expensive Technology Options Are Likely Choices for New Capacity”? For example, your numbers for wind power are 142 and 230 per Mw-hour and the AEO Outlook puts this number at about 100.

Thanks much,

Steve Goreham

For technologies that emit CO2 a half ton of CO2/MWH you need to double the above costs:
Gas turbine combined cycle $160/ton CO2

These are much higher than the $15/ton on which many of the cost numbers are based. The power pools are calculating $50-100 per ton to fuel switch however the pool needs to have both sufficient coal and GTCC capacity to make it happen( and most don’t in a large scale). Consistent with this the EU had a price of about $50/ton (before overallocation of CO2 credits was discovered) which was based on utility fuel switching.

All of these are cost numbers and do not reflect market dynamics which could multiply them several fold as we’ve seen in other energy commodity markets in time of shortage or “speculation”.

THe Waxman studies base $15/ton CO2 on buying international offsets for 50-80% of the reduction. The idea that someone would sell to us at $15 when our marginal cost is $50-400 violates basic common sense. We’ll be at the mercy of a “CO2 OPEC”.