[Sustain] Price: Renewable vs Fossil - With Big Caution On Waste Methane

[Eric Brooks]

This great information!

I do have one big caution however on waste methane.

Since the CO2 that would result from burning waste methane is persistent 
in the atmosphere for centuries longer than free methane itself, even 
though methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, the resulting C02 
will actually generate more global warming than that which would result 
from just releasing the methane directly into the air. So, we should not 
promote directly burning waste methane.

Instead, we should capture waste methane, split it into hydrogen, and 
then either burn the hydrogen in fuel cells and/or pipe the hydrogen to 
communities for heating and cooking.

cheers

Eric Brooks

posted by: rfreeh <rfreeh123 at sbcglobal.net>

The following assume private investors own the facilities.
>
> *Natural Gas Baseload:* depends heavily on the ever changing cost of 
> natural gas. For 24 hour baseload power from an existing power plant 
> this is roughly 6.5 to 7 cents/kwh. (The state contracts that were 
> signed during the energy crisis, and are still in effect, are for 7.3 
> cents/kwh; at the time this seemed outrageous--today it doesn't look 
> so bad.) The price to build brand new natural gas plants has gone up 
> significantly, so natural gas  fueled power going forward may range 7 
> to 8 cents/kwh. (It was 3 cents only a few years ago--how's that for 
> sticker shock) This does not account for increasing future natural gas 
> prices or potential carbon assessments.
>
> *Natural Gas Peaking:*  can range from 10 cent/kwh to over 50 cent/kwh.
>
> *Wind:* costs 7 to 9 cents/kwh, but is eligible for a 2 cent/kwh 
> federal tax credit. For this reason actual wind contracts were until 
> recently selling for as low as 5.5 to 6 cents/kwh.
>
> *Solar Thermal:* Mid scale (under 100 mw) central power generation 
> using the heat of the sun (not for your roof) would be 25 cents/kwh 
> (or higher if not placed in a desert region), but the federal 
> government has a generous tax credit of 30%, bringing the cost closer 
> to 16 to 18 cents/kwh. Building to larger scale would reduce the cost 
> signficantly, as will development of the technology and market. It is 
> very close to cost competitive with natural gas.
>
> *Photovoltaic:* so called "solar panels" of the type that go on 
> rooftops or anywhere else you want, on average ranges from 25 to 40 
> cent/kwh in locations with clear access to the sky and plenty of 
> sunlight (most of California would count for the latter). The lower 
> range would be for larger scale systems, while the higher range 
> applies to smaller residential systems. Commercial developers can 
> bring the cost down significantly due to 30% federal tax credits, as 
> can the $3 billion in state rebates currently being offered in 
> California. Photovoltaics serve the peak energy needs, and thus also 
> fall broadly within the range of peak natural gas generation. How to 
> measure this precisely is hotly disputed between advocates and critics.
>
> If CCAs finance renewable facilities with bonds then the cost usually 
> drops significantly. Photovoltaics is an exception, but this can 
> partly be offset by bulk purchasing, economy of scale, and the ability 
> to influence site choice and design.
>
> Another factor is that natural gas generation is highly volatile in 
> price, while renewables tend to be relatively fixed in cost once they 
> are installed. That is not to say there is no risk from renewables, 
> but inherent and potentially violent price volatility is not one of 
> them. Mitigating fuel price volatility carries a real economic cost in 
> the form of a hedge (market insurance) premium. So this is not merely 
> theoretical.
>
> The California Energy Commission came out with a draft report for cost 
> of all types of electric generation; and it clearly shows that a 
> number of renewables (for example, geothermal, wind, solar thermal, 
> waste methane) can be cost competitive with natural gas if they are 
> publicly financed. Local Power has also demonstrated this in a report 
> we did for the Environmental Health Coalition.
>
> Hope I did not overload you with information here.
>
> Robert F.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/sustainability/attachments/20071103/a302b1bf/attachment.htm