Stone & Webster Management Consultants has prepared life-cycle cost calculations for most of the technologies likely to be used in new power plants. Calculations were made for the following types of plants:
- Subcritical and supercritical pulverized coal,
- Circulating fluidized bed (CFB),
- Integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC),
- GE advanced boiling water reactor (ABWR),
- South African pebble bed modular reactor (PBMR) and
- Gas fired combined cycle power plants.
The paper, presented at POWER-GEN International in Los Vegas in early December, presents a consistent comparison of the economics and risks of representative designs that are being considered in the power marketplace for projects requiring investments of $1 billion or more.
A brief description of each type of power plant and a list of assumptions, too long to go into here, are given. Results of the calculations are presented in graphic form for total capital investment in dollars and dollars per kW, levelized production costs (cost of electricity produced) and a comparison of costs for coal plants with and without sequestration.
The cost of electricity for all of the coal fired plants, which were all sized for 500 MW, only varies from just over $0.06 for the two pulverized coal plants to about $0.066 for the CFB plant to about $0.068 for the IGCC plant. The 500 MW size was selected for coal plants and the gas plant because it is the crossover point for costs for the two types of pulverized coal plants. Below 500 MW the subcritical plants are less expensive and above 500 MW the supercritical plants are less expensive.
Electricity produced by the two nuclear power plants were $0.058 for the ABWR and $0.06 for the PBMR. The ABWR was sized for 1370 MW, as this is the only size that it will be made and the PBMR was sized to use the 168 MW module that is being used in the South African plant. The combined cycle gas plants could produce electricity at about $0.14 for $11/MMBtu gas and $0.098 for $7/MMBtu gas.
The difference in cost for the coal plants is directly attributable to differences of capital costs. The nuclear plants had capital cost charges per kW about the same as a CFB coal plant but the fuel costs less than half that of the coal plants. The natural gas plants had very low capital cost charges and very high fuel costs.
The study also compared the costs of supercritical pulverized coal (SPC) plants with IGCC plants with and without sequestration. The capital costs per kW increased about $800/kw for the SPC plant but less than half of that for the IGCC plant. This results in a cost of electricity of almost $0.09 for the SPC plant with sequestration and about $0.08 for the IGCC plant with sequestration. These difference are the reason why some companies are opting to build IGCC plants, as they foresee the time that sequestration will be required on all plants.
The paper has much more background and information than I gave and is a great resource for those interested in electric power generation and its economics. The paper, a 20 page pdf, was referenced in the March 7 issue of the Power Engineering E-Newsletter can be found here.
The point that I questioned the most in the study was that comparison of a 500 MW coal plant and a 1370 MW nuclear plant gives an unfair advantage to the nuclear plant. I was suprised that the 168 MW PBMR plant was as close in cost to the 1370 MW ABWR plant as it was. It should be pointed out that in costing the 168 MW PBMR they assumed that one module of a four-module design is considered, where the four modules share the benefits of common facilities and site work. The PMBR design is not currently certified in the U.S.
Technorati tags: electric power, coal, natural gas, nuclear, energy, technology
The Energy Blog: Cost Comparisons for New Power Plants
I can build a power plant that can provide free electricity to the owner.
Posted by: Jim | August 01, 2008 at 06:30 PM