Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cost of electricity by source
Cost of electricity by source
7 languages
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Tools
Appearance
hide
Text
Small
Standard
Large
Width
Standard
Wide
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the price of electricity, see electricity pricing.
Different methods of electricity generation can incur a variety of different costs, which
can be divided into three general categories: 1) wholesale costs, or all costs paid by
utilities associated with acquiring and distributing electricity to consumers, 2) retail
costs paid by consumers, and 3) external costs, or externalities, imposed on society.
On average the levelized cost of electricity from utility scale solar power and onshore
wind power is less than from coal and gas-fired power stations,[1]: TS-25 but this varies a
lot depending on location.[2]: 6–65
Cost metrics[edit]
Costs
Past costs of producing renewable energy declined significantly,[5] with 62% of total renewable
power generation added in 2020 having lower costs than the cheapest new fossil fuel option. [6]
"Learning curves": Trend of costs and deployment over time, with steeper lines showing greater
cost reductions as deployment progresses.[7] With increased deployment, renewables benefit
from learning curves and economies of scale.[8]
A cost factor unique to storage are losses that occur due to inherent inefficiencies of
storing electricity, as well as increased CO2 emissions if any component of the
primary source is less than 100% carbon-free.[11] In the U.S., a comprehensive 2015
study found that net system CO2 emissions resulting from storage operation are
nontrivial when compared to the emissions from electricity generation [in real time to
meet demand], ranging from 104 to 407 kg/MWh of delivered energy depending on
location, storage operation mode, and assumptions regarding carbon intensity.[11]
Capture rate[edit]
The capture rate is the volume-weighted average market price (or capture price) that
a source receives divided by the time-weighted average price for electricity over a
period.[17][18][19][20] For example, a dammed hydro plant might only generate when prices
are high and so have a capture rate of 200%, whereas a source that is not
dispatchable, such as a wind farm without batteries, would typically have a capture
rate under 100%.[20] Typically the more of a single type of renewable that is built in a
pricing area (such as Great Britain) the lower the capture rate will become for that
type, for example if many wind farms generate a lot at the same time the price at that
time will go down.[17] There can be curtailment if grid connectivity is lacking across the
pricing area – for example from wind power in Scotland to consumers in England –
resulting in the capture rate not reflecting the true cost.[17]
Cost factors[edit]
While calculating costs, several internal cost factors have to be considered.[21] Note
the use of "costs," which is not the actual selling price, since this can be affected by
a variety of factors such as subsidies and taxes:
Capital costs tend to be low for gas and oil power stations; moderate for
onshore wind turbines and solar PV (photovoltaics); higher for coal plants
and higher still for waste-to-energy, wave and tidal, solar thermal, offshore
wind and nuclear.
Fuel costs – high for fossil fuel and biomass sources, low for nuclear, and
zero for many renewables. Fuel costs can vary somewhat unpredictably
over the life of the generating equipment, due to political and other factors.
To evaluate the total cost of production of electricity, the streams of costs are
converted to a net present value using the time value of money. These costs are all
brought together using discounted cash flow.[22][23]
Capital costs[edit]
For power generation capacity capital costs are often expressed as overnight
cost per kilowatt. Estimated costs are:
Cost per kW
$6,495–
Coal with 90% carbon capture
6,625
$1,062–
Combined-cycle
1,201
Cost per kW
$6,695–
Nuclear $7,442–7,989 $81–82 94%
7,547
18–
Wind power $1,718 $1,462 $27–75
48%
$4,833– 29–
Wind, offshore $3,285–5,908 $67–146
6,041 52%
$1,731– 11–
Distributed generation (wind) $2,275–5,803 $32–219
2,079 52%
49–
Solar thermal/concentrated $7,895 $6,505 $76–97
63%
12–
Solar photovoltaic $1,327 $1,333–2,743 $31–146
30%
20–
Solar PV with storage $1,748 $2,044 $53–81
31%
$6,639–
Fuel cells
7,224
31–
Hydropower, conventional $3,083 $2,574–16,283 $60–366
66%
80–
Geothermal power $3,076 $6,753–46,223 $55–396
90%
Real life costs can diverge significantly from those estimates. Olkiluoto block 3,
which achieved first criticality in late 2021 had an overnight cost to the construction
consortium (the utility paid a fixed price agreed to when the deal was signed of only
3.2 billion euros) of €8.5 billion and a net electricity capacity of 1.6 GW or €5310 per
kW of capacity.[26] Meanwhile Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in Canada had
an overnight cost of CA$5.117 billion for a net electric capacity of 3512 MW
or CA$1,457 per kW of capacity.[27] The oft cited figure of CA$14.319 billion – which
works out to CA$4,077 per kW of capacity – includes interest (a particularly high cost
in this case as the utility had to borrow at market rates and had to absorb the cost of
delays in construction) and is thus not an "overnight cost". Furthermore, there is the
issue of comparability of different sources of power, as capacity factors can be as
low as 10–20% for some wind and solar applications reaching into the 50% range
for offshore wind and finally above 90% for the most reliable nuclear power plants.
[28]
The average capacity factor of all commercial nuclear power plants in the world in
2020 was 80.3% (83.1% the prior year) but this includes outdated Generation II
nuclear power plants and countries like France which run their nuclear power
plants load following which reduces the capacity factor.[29] Peaking power plants have
particularly low capacity factors but make up for it by selling electricity at the highest
possible price when supply does not meet demand otherwise.[30]
The first German Offshore Wind Park Alpha Ventus Offshore Wind Farm with
a nameplate capacity of 60 MW cost €250 million (after an initial estimate of €190
million).[31] In 2012, it produced 268 GWh of electricity, achieving a capacity factor of
just over 50%.[32] If the overnight cost is calculated for the nameplate capacity, it
works out to €4167 per kW whereas if one takes into account the capacity factor, the
figure needs to be roughly doubled.
Geothermal power is unique among renewables in that it usually has a low above-
ground impact and is capable of baseload power generation as well as combined
heat and power. However, depending on the plant and conditions
underground naturally occurring radioactive materials such as radon may be
released into the air.[33] This partially offsets relatively high costs per capacity which
were cited as US$200 million for the 45 MW first phase of Þeistareykir Geothermal
Power Station and a total of US$330 million for the 90 MW combined two first
phases. This gives a cost per kW of capacity of US$4,444 if only the first phase is
considered and US$3,667 if the cost estimates for both phases together hold.[34] The
source also calls this power plant uniquely cost effective for geothermal power and
the unique geology of Iceland makes the country one of the largest producers of
geothermal power worldwide and by far the largest per capita or relative to all energy
consumed.
Block 5 of Irsching Power Station in Southern Germany uses natural gas as fuel in
a combined cycle converting 1750 megawatts of thermal energy to 847 net MW of
usable electricity. It cost €450 million to build.[35] This works out to some €531 per kW
of capacity. However, due to the uneconomical prospect of operating it as a peaking
power plant, the owners, soon after opening the plant in 2010, wanted to shut down
the plant.[36]
The LCOE of floating wind power increases with the distance from shore.[37]
The Lieberose Photovoltaic Park – one of the largest in Germany – had a nameplate
capacity at opening of 52.79 megawatt and cost some €160 million to build[38]
[39]
or €3031 per kW. With a yearly output of some 52 GWh (equivalent to just over
5.9 MW) it has a capacity factor just over 11%. The €160 million figure was again
cited when the solar park was sold in 2010.[40]
The world's largest solar farm to date (2022) in Rajasthan, India – Bhadla Solar
Park – has a total nameplate capacity of 2255 MW and cost a total of 98.5
billion Indian rupees to build.[41] This works out to roughly 43681 rupees per kW.
As can be seen by these numbers, costs vary wildly even for the same source of
electricity from place to place or time to time and depending on whether interest is
included in total cost. Furthermore, capacity factors and the intermittency of certain
power sources further complicate calculations. Another issue that is often omitted in
discussions is the lifespan of various power plants – some of the oldest hydropower
plants have existed for over a century, and nuclear power plants going on five or six
decades of continuous operation are no rarity. However, many wind turbines of the
first generation have already been torn down as they can no longer compete with
more modern wind turbines and/or no longer fit into the current regulatory
environment.[citation needed] Some of them were not even twenty-five years old. Solar
panels exhibit a certain aging, which limits their useful lifetime, but real world data
does not yet exist for the expected lifetime of the latest models.
Short-term fluctuations in fuel prices can have significant effects on the cost of
energy generation in natural gas and oil fired power plants and to a lesser extent for
coal fired power plants. As renewable energies need no fuel, their costs are
independent of world markets for fuels once built. Coal-fired power plants are often
supplied with locally or at least domestically available coal – this is especially true
for lignite whose low grade and high moisture content make transporting it over long
distances uneconomical – and are thus less subject to the influence of world
markets. If there is a carbon tax or other forms of CO2-pricing, this can have a
significant impact on the economic viability of fossil fueled power plants. Due to the
ease of stockpiling uranium and the rarity of refueling (most Pressurized Water
Reactors will change about a quarter to a third of their fuel loading every one and a
half to two years[44][45]), short term fluctuations in world uranium prices are a risk
absorbed by fuel suppliers, not power plant operators. However, long-term trends in
uranium price can have an effect of a few tenths of a cent to a cent or two per
kilowatt-hour on the final price of nuclear energy.[46]
The biggest factor in the operating costs of both nuclear and renewable are local
wages – in most cases those need to be paid regardless of whether the plant is
operating at full capacity or putting out only a fraction of its nameplate capacity and
thus those plants are usually run to as high a fraction of their capacity as the market
(negative prices) and weather (avoiding overheating rivers with cooling water,
availability of sun or wind...) allow.[47][48] However, in France the nuclear power plants
which provide some 70% of electricity demand are run load following to stabilize the
grid. As a lot of home heating in France is supplied via electric means (heat
pumps and resistive heating), there is a notable seasonality to nuclear energy
generation in France with planned outages usually scheduled for the lower demand
summer period, which also coincides with school holidays in France. In Germany
some two decades old and older wind turbines were shut down after no longer
receiving renewable energy subsidies due to a reported market-rate electricity price
of some €0.03 per kWh not covering marginal costs or only covering them as long as
no major maintenance was needed.[49] By contrast after being fully depreciated,
Germany's (then remaining) nuclear power plants were described in media reports
throughout the 2010s and into the early 2020s as highly profitable for their operators
even without direct government subsidy.[50][51][52]
Solar panel performance is usually guaranteed for 25 years and sometimes 30.
[63]
According to a 2021 Harvard Business Review study costs of recycling solar
panels will reach $20–30 per panel in 2035, which would increase the LCOE fourfold
for PV solar power but only if panels are replaced after 15 years rather than the
expected 30 years. If panels are replaced early this presents a significant policy
challenge because if the recycling is made legal duty of the manufacturers (as it
already is in the EU) it will dramatically reduce profit margins on this already
competitive market.[64] A 2021 IEA study of repairing old panels to reuse rather than
recycle them concluded that the financial viability depends on country specific factors
such as grid tariffs, but that reuse is only likely for utility solar, as rooftop owners will
want to make best use of space with more efficient new panels.[65]
A means to address a part of the external costs of fossil fuel generation is carbon
pricing — the method most favored by economists for reducing global-warming
emissions.[70] Carbon pricing charges those who emit carbon dioxide for their
emissions. That charge, called a "carbon price", is the amount that must be paid for
the right to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon pricing
usually takes the form of a carbon tax or a requirement to purchase permits to emit
(also called "allowances").
These beyond-insurance costs for worst-case scenarios are not unique to nuclear
power, as hydroelectric power plants are similarly not fully insured against
catastrophic events like a large dam failure. As private insurers base dam insurance
premiums on limited scenarios, major disaster insurance in this sector is likewise
provided by the state.[74][better source needed]
Because externalities are diffuse in their effect, external costs cannot be measured
directly, but must be estimated.
International trade[edit]
Different countries charge generating companies differently for the negative
externalities (such as pollution) that they create. To avoid unfair competition from
imports of dirty electricity a tariff may be applied. For example, the UK and the EU
may include electricity in their Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms.
[75]
Alternatively the emissions trading systems (ETS) of the importing and exporting
countries may be linked,[76] or the generators in one country may be subject to the
ETS of another country (for example Northern İreland generators are in the EU
ETS).[77]
PV (utility,
110 68 24–96 56 39
fixed-axis)
PV (utility,
- - - - 47
tracking)
PV
150 164 117–282 126 -
(residential)
Solar
150 182 - 121 -
(thermal)
Wind,
59 53 24–75 50 41
onshore
Wind,
120 115 72–140 88 79
offshore
Nuclear new
65 - 141–221* (31) 69 (32) -
(existing)
Hydro 22 47 - 68 -
Geothermal 60 73 61-102 99 -
Coal (CC) 61 - 68–166 88 (110) -
Gas 71 - 115–221 71 -
CC (Peak)
*LCOE estimates for nuclear power from Lazard are "based on the then-estimated
costs of the Vogtle Plant and US-focused".[84]
LFSCOE
LFSCOE
LCOE (Texas, (Germany, EU)
US)
IPCC (2014)[edit]
IPCC Fifth Assessment Report contains LCOE calculations[82] for broad range of
energy sources in the following four scenarios:
Mean
47 58 81 87 118 156 228
$US/MWh
Europe[edit]
It can be seen from the following table that the cost of renewable energy, particularly
photovoltaics, is falling very rapidly. As of 2017, the cost of electricity generation
from photovoltaics, for example, has fallen by almost 75% within 7 years.[94]
70–90;[102] 7
36–
Nuclear 50 [a]
60–100 – 0–100;[103] 1 – – –
84
05[104]
103.8
38– 29– 45.9–
Lignite 46–65 [b]
45–100 [c]
– – –
53 84 79.8
153.4
110.3
Hard 63– 40– 62.7–
49–68[b] 45–100[c] – – –
Coal 80 116 98.6
200.4
Natural
75– 53– 77.8– 77.9–
Gas 57–67[b] 40–75 – 93[104]
98 168 99.6 130.6
(CCGT)
22–
Hydro – – – – – – –
108
101.4
135– 72.2–
Biogas – – – 126 [104]
– –
215 172.6
147.4
Small-
scale PV 137– 98– 72.3– 58.1–
– – – –
(German 203 142 115.4 80.4
y)
In Germany, the bidding processes that have been carried out since 2017 have led
to significant cost reductions. In one bid for offshore wind farms, at least one bidder
dispensed entirely with public subsidies and was prepared to finance the project
through the market alone. The highest subsidy price that was still awarded was 6.00
ct/kWh.[111] In a bid for onshore wind farm projects, an average payment of 5.71
ct/kWh was achieved, and 4.29 ct/kWh in a second bidding round.
In 2019, there were bids for new offshore wind farms in the United Kingdom, with
costs as low as 3.96 pence per kWh (4.47 ct).[112]
In the same year, there were bids in Portugal for photovoltaic plants, where the price
for the cheapest project is 1.476 ct/kWh.[113]
Britain[d][edit]
As of 2022, gas is the largest source of electricity at 40%:[114] its cost varies and being
high carbon it causes climate change.[115] So to reduce the share of gas the
government annually auctions contracts for difference to build low-carbon generation
capacity, mainly offshore wind.[116] Before 2022 these generators had always received
payments from electricity suppliers, but that year they started making payments. [117] In
other words renewables became subsidy free,[118] partly due to the fall in cost of
offshore wind.[119] Instead of gas still dark weeks can be supplied by Norwegian
hydropower[120] or by nuclear. As many of Britain's existing nuclear reactors are due to
retire soon the government hopes that cost effective small modular reactors can be
developed.[114]
France[edit]
This section needs to be updated. Please help update this article to
reflect recent events or newly available information. (March 2022)
The International Energy Agency and EDF have estimated the following costs. For
nuclear power, they include the costs due to new safety investments to upgrade the
French nuclear plant after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster; the cost for those
investments is estimated at €4/MWh. Concerning solar power, the estimate of
€293/MWh is for a large plant capable of producing in the range of 50–100
GWh/year located in a favorable location (such as in Southern Europe). For a small
household plant that can produce around 3 MWh/year, the cost is between 400 and
€700/MWh, depending on location. Solar power was by far the most expensive
renewable source of electricity among the technologies studied, although increasing
efficiency and longer lifespan of photovoltaic panels together with reduced
production costs have made this source of energy more competitive since 2011. By
2017, the cost of photovoltaic solar power had decreased to less than €50/MWh.
French LCOE in €/MWh (2017)
Hydro power
Germany[edit]
The Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems publishes studies comparing the
cost of different styles of energy production. The values for PV installations are
based on the average cost between Northern and Southern Germany. The reports
differentiate between the two and gives more details.[123]
The LCOE for PV battery systems refers to the total amount of energy produced by
the PV system minus storage losses. The storage losses are calculated based on
the capacity of the battery storage, the assumed number of cycles and the efficiency
of the battery. The results include differences in PV costs, battery costs (500 to 1200
EUR/kWh), and varying solar irradiation. For larger rooftop PV systems with battery
storage, the battery costs between 600 and 1000 EUR/kWh. For ground-mounted
PV with battery storage systems, investment costs for battery storage of 500 to 700
EUR/kWh were assumed. The prices for smaller systems are in part lower, as these
are standardized products, whereas larger battery systems tend to be individualized
projects that additionally incur costs for project development, project management,
and infrastructure. The range of investment costs is smaller for the larger sizes, as
there is more competitive pressure.
2021
Middle East[edit]
The capital investment costs, fixed and variable costs, and the average capacity
factor of utility-scale wind and photovoltaic electricity supplies from 2000 to 2018
have been obtained using overall variable renewable electricity production of the
countries in the Middle East and 81 examined projects.
Average capacity factor and LCOE of wind and PV electricity resources in the Middle
East[125]
2001 - 0.17 - -
Turkey[edit]
As of March 2021 for projects starting generating electricity in
Turkey from renewable energy in Turkey in July feed-in-tariffs in lira per kWh are:
wind and solar 0.32, hydro 0.4, geothermal 0.54, and various rates for different types
of biomass: for all these there is also a bonus of 0.08 per kWh if local components
are used.[126] Tariffs will apply for 10 years and the local bonus for 5 years.[126] Rates
are determined by the presidency,[127] and the scheme replaces the previous USD-
denominated feed-in-tariffs for renewable energy.[128]
Japan[edit]
This section needs to be updated. Please help update this article to
reflect recent events or newly available information. (July 2016)
A 2010 study by the Japanese government (pre-Fukushima disaster), called the
Energy White Paper,[129] concluded the cost for kilowatt hour was ¥49 for solar, ¥10 to
¥14 for wind, and ¥5 or ¥6 for nuclear power.
Masayoshi Son, an advocate for renewable energy, however, has pointed out that
the government estimates for nuclear power did not include the costs for
reprocessing the fuel or disaster insurance liability. Son estimated that if these costs
were included, the cost of nuclear power was about the same as wind power.[130][131][132]
More recently, the cost of solar in Japan has decreased to between ¥13.1/kWh to
¥21.3/kWh (on average, ¥15.3/kWh, or $0.142/kWh).[133]
The cost of a solar PV module make up the largest part of the total investment costs.
As per the recent analysis of Solar Power Generation Costs in Japan 2021, module
unit prices fell sharply. In 2018, the average price was close to 60,000 yen/kW, but
by 2021 it is estimated at 30,000 yen/kW, so cost is reduced by almost half.
United States[edit]
This section may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail
that may interest only a particular audience. Please help
by spinning off or relocating any relevant information, and removing
excessive detail that may be against Wikipedia's inclusion
policy. (September 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
Energy Information Administration (2020)[edit]
Since 2010, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) has published
the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), with yearly LCOE projections for future utility-
scale facilities to be commissioned in about five years' time.
The following data are from the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Annual
Energy Outlook released in 2020 (AEO2020). They are in dollars per megawatt-hour
(2019 USD/MWh). These figures are estimates for plants going into service in 2025,
exclusive of tax credits, subsidies, or other incentives.[134] The LCOE below is
calculated based on a 30-year recovery period using a real after tax weighted
average cost of capital (WACC) of 6.1%. For carbon intensive technologies 3
percentage points are added to the WACC. (This is approximately equivalent to a fee
of $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide CO2.) Federal tax credits and various state
and local incentive programs would be expected to reduce some of these LCOE
values. For example, EIA expects the federal investment tax credit program to
reduce the capacity weighted average LCOE of solar PV built in 2025 by an
additional $2.41, to $30.39.
The electricity sources which had the most decrease in estimated costs over the
period 2010 to 2019 were solar photovoltaic (down 88%), onshore wind (down 71%)
and advanced natural gas combined cycle (down 49%).
For utility-scale generation put into service in 2040, the EIA estimated in 2015 that
there would be further reductions in the constant-dollar cost of concentrated solar
power (CSP) (down 18%), solar photovoltaic (down 15%), offshore wind (down
11%), and advanced nuclear (down 7%). The cost of onshore wind was expected to
rise slightly (up 2%) by 2040, while natural gas combined cycle electricity was
expected to increase 9% to 10% over the period.[135]
201 202
[142]
NB 58.6 53.8 96.2 55.8 NB 73.7 NB
7 2
201 202
[143]
NB 48.3 48.1 90.1 48.0 124.6 59.1 NB
8 2
201 202
[143]
NB 40.8 40.2 NB 42.8 117.9 48.8 NB
9 3
[144]
202 202 NB 36.61 36.61 NB 34.10 115.04 32.80 NA
0 5
Nominal
−92
change 2010– NB −56% −54% NB −77% -40% NB
%
2020
Note: Projected LCOE are adjusted for inflation and calculated on constant
dollars based on two years prior to the release year of the estimate.
Estimates given without any subsidies. Transmission cost for non-dispatchable
sources are on average much higher. NB = "Not built" (No capacity additions are
expected.)