All of the EIA data used as evidence of price increases are nominal values, meaning the prices have not been adjusted for inflation. Look at the cost of cars, for example. If the average cost of a car in the U.S. was $3,215 in 1967, and $25,499 in 2016, does that mean the cost of a car increased 700%? No. Adjusted for inflation, the real value of cars has only increased by about 11% during that time (and, oh, BTW, we also got things like increased safety, power windows, and generally better cars). 2012 [57] 2017 97.7 66.1 63.1 111.4 96.0 N/A 152.4 242.0 Place Temporary Hold Direct Energy Business Blog Energy regulator to investigate power price gouging0:52 Peaker Replacement Lithium-Ion 282 347 Released September 19, 2018 | tags: RECSconsumption/demandelectricitypricesresidential EFL | Terms of Service 3.4 million chickens, 5,500 hogs dead in Florence flood Improving your lake experience 539 10 71-83-SD NEPAD further identifies several priority sectors requiring special attention and action: Our Quick & Easy Prepaid Electricity Process Kogan Mobile Plans → Then there is still the hardware investment - which means Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) - computer chips designed for the large volume of simultaneous calculations needed for video games, for instance. Build a New Car Country Households Non-Household In response to concerns about affordability, the utilities also expanded the eligibility for its program to help low-income residents. The program will now be available to anyone who makes up to double the federal poverty guidelines — up to $50,200 for a family of four — and includes utility payment assistance of up to $345 per 12-month period. Urge Congress to demand the Nuclear Regulatory Commission enforce its fire safety regulations and establish a clear, realistic timeline for compliance by all nuclear power reactors. Filing Complaints Uniform Tax Refunds Wind farm, 100 MWe $1000/kW 30% 112.90/MWh5% cost of debt, 15% return on equity and a 70-30 debt equity capital structure.In mid-2015 the NEI published figures from the Institute for Energy Research (IER) report The Levelized Cost of Electricity from Existing Generation Resources, including the finding that nuclear energy had the lowest average costs of electricity for operating facilities. For new plants, it showed nuclear at just over $90/MWh, compared with coal almost $100/MWh and gas just over $70/MWh.The China Nuclear Energy Association estimated in May 2013 that the construction cost for two AP1000 units at Sanmen are CNY 40.1 billion ($6.54 billion), or 16,000 Yuan/kW installed ($2615/kW) – about 20% higher than that of improved Generation II Chinese reactors, but likely to drop to about CNY 13,000/kW ($2120/kW) with series construction and localisation as envisaged. Grid purchase price is expected to exceed CNY 0.45/kWh at present costs, and drop to 0.42 with reduced capital cost.Advanced reactors studyA peer-reviewed study in 2017, undertaken by the Energy Innovation Reform Project (EIRP), with data collection and analysis conducted by the Energy Options Network (EON) on its behalf, compiled extensive data from eight advanced nuclear companies that are actively pursuing commercialization of plants of at least 250 MWe in size. Individual reactor units ranged from 48 MWe to 1650 MWe.At the lower end of the potential cost range, these plants could present the lowest cost generation options available, making nuclear power “effectively competitive with any other option for power generation. At the same time, this could enable a significant expansion of the nuclear footprint to the parts of the world that need clean energy the most – and can least afford to pay high price premiums for it.” The companies included in the study were Elysium Industries, GE Hitachi (using only publicly available information), Moltex Energy, NuScale Power, Terrestrial Energy, ThorCon Power, Transatomic Power, and X‐energy. LCOE ranged from $36/MWh to $90/MWh, with an average of $60/MWh.Advanced nuclear technologies represent a dramatic evolution from conventional reactors in terms of safety and non-proliferation, and the cost estimates from some advanced reactor companies – if they are shown to be accurate – suggest that these technologies could revolutionize the way we think about the cost, availability, and environmental consequences of energy generation.Financing new nuclear power plantsThere are a range of possibilities for financing, from direct government funding with ongoing ownership, vendor financing (often with government assistance), utility financing and the Finnish Mankala model for cooperative equity. Some of the cost is usually debt financed. The models used will depend on whether the electricity market is regulated or liberalised.Apart from centrally-planned economies, many projects have some combination of government financial incentives, private equity and long-term power purchase arrangements. The increasing involvement of reactor vendors is a recent development.Some options are described in the World Nuclear Association's 2012 report on Nuclear Power Economics and Project Structuring.Providing investment incentivesThe economic rationale for electricity from any plants with high capital cost and long life does not translate into incentive for investment unless some long-term electricity price is assured. This has been tackled differently in various countries.As more electricity markets become deregulated and competitive, balancing supply and demand over the short-term can result in significant price volatility. Price signals in the spot market for electricity supply do not provide a guide on the return that might be achieved over the long-term, and fail to create an incentive for long-term investment in generation or transmission infrastructure, nor do they value diversity of supply. This issue was addressed in a February 2015 World Nuclear News editorial.Deregulated electricity markets with preferential grid access for renewables have left some utilities with stranded assets, which can no longer be used sufficiently fully to be profitable. As a result, many are being decommissioned, e.g. about 9 GWe by E.On and RWE in Germany to 2013, and a further 7.3 GWe expected there (apart from nuclear capacity).In the USA, investment in new capital-intensive plant is going ahead only in states where cost-recovery can be assured. Proposed merchant plants in deregulated areas such as Texas and some eastern states have been postponed indefinitely.In Ontario, Canada, the refurbishment of Bruce A 1&2 was underwritten by a power purchase agreement (PPA) at about $63/MWh, slightly higher than the regulated price. The refurbishment of Bruce A 3&4 (1,500 MWe) from 2016 and the approximately $8 billion needed for the Bruce B units (3,480 MWe) from 2020 is likely to be underwritten similarly with PPAs.In the UK, legislation from 2013 has three main elements: Average electric rates by state 1.2 Avoided cost 13 September 2018 Profile Settings Some firms do a credit check when you apply to switch, as if you pay by direct debit, bills are estimated – if they under-assess you, you could owe them cash, so they want to know you're good for it. There are two types of credit check done… Cordless Angle Grinders 80PLUS Bronze certification Markets High-Speed Internet Pop-up Camper Solar System Looking for a cheap Power and Internet plan?  Broadband Compare lets you compare the cheapest Power and Internet provider with everyone else to make sure you get the best Power and Internet plan for your needs.  Simply enter your address and we will query the NZ Broadband Map and return the cheapest Power and Internet plans available at your property. American Electric Power (AEP - NYSE) NREL projection: the LCOE of U.S. wind power will decline by 25% from 2012 to 2030.[106] Seven year warranty SUVs Center for Science and Democracy We find deals you want from popular brands you trust. Water Pumps If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive? Ovo Energy TV accessories Supercritical pulverised coal, 1300 MWe $3000/kW 85% $75.70/MWh Tablets China Plans Broad Import Tax Cut as Soon as October September 20, 2018, 8:39 AM EDT Apr 23, 2018, 08:09pm Find Out More 20373 Future Needs--always remember to factor these in when designing a system! Eventually he might put in pressurized water (with a 12VDC pressure pump), more lights, etc. We're Award-Winning With a concerted NEPAD effort Africans will, hopefully, not languish in line for much longer. Solar electricity, states the World Bank, is as good as an electricity grid for rural households since they do not consume much power. In a modest Nyimba office, 320 kilometres away from the Zambian capital’s grid, a sign confidently announces that the office is up to date: “Solar is good ... even in thatched houses it will reach you wherever you are.” *From 1/05/2013 to 31/05/2013 customers using our service saved an average of £361. 9.0¢ ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k "Europe's Energy Portal » Fuel, Natural Gas and Electricity Prices From Past to Present". Europe's Energy Portal. Retrieved June 18, 2017. Tennessee 10.79¢ / kWh 10.93¢ / kWh DOWN -1.280 % This book covers the various renewable energy technologies, people and businesses in the world today. Renewals are ready for prime time and are being accepted around the world. Chris Goodall is a businessman and understands that a good business case must made for solar, wind, etc. in order for it become widespread for "the Switch" - and that he does convincingly. If one was to listen only to mainstream media you would think that renewals are still a fad. But in reality it is well beyond this stage and growing fast. Compare Broadband & Phone Deals December 27, 2016 Competitive and Fixed Electricity Rate Loans Eligibility Help to Buy ISAs Fitness Tracker Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase Benefits Checkup Cancellation Notices Call Before You Dig or Work As wind and solar capacity climbs, the returns of usable power diminish because of increasing curtailment during surges that the grid cannot absorb. More and more intermittent capacity has to be pushed onto the grid to get less and less additional renewable electricity. The dynamic of soaring overcapacity and falling prices is the inevitable result of the fundamental inability of intermittent wind and solar generators to efficiently match supply to demand. Posted by Simon Downes 01/09/2018 China 25.6-30.8 37.2-47.6 48.8-64.4Source: OECD/IEA-NEA, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, 2015 Edition, Table 3.11, assuming 85% capacity factorOvernight capital costs for nuclear technologies in OECD countries ranged from $2,021/kWe of capacity (in South Korea) to $6,215/kWe per kWe (in Hungary) in the 2015 report.The 2010 edition of the report had noted a significant increase in costs of building base-load plants over the previous five years. The 2015 report shows that this increase has stopped, and that this is particularly significant for nuclear technologies, "undermining the growing narrative that nuclear costs continue to increase globally".Rosatom claimed in November 2015 that due to its integrated structure, the LCOE of new VVERs exported is no more than $50-$60/MWh in most countries.It is important to distinguish between the economics of nuclear plants already in operation and those at the planning stage. Once capital investment costs are effectively “sunk”, existing plants operate at very low costs and are effectively “cash machines”. Their operations and maintenance (O&M) and fuel costs (including used fuel management) are, along with hydropower plants, at the low end of the spectrum and make them very suitable as base-load power suppliers. This is irrespective of whether the investment costs are amortized or depreciated in corporate financial accounts – assuming the forward or marginal costs of operation are below the power price, the plant will operate.The impact of varying the uranium price in isolation is shown below in a worked example of a typical US plant, assuming no alteration in the tails assay at the enrichment plant.Effect of uranium price on fuel costDoubling the uranium price (say from $25 to $50 per lb U3O8) takes the fuel cost up from 0.50 to 0.62 US c/kWh, an increase of one quarter, and the expected cost of generation of the best US plants from 1.3 c/kWh to 1.42 c/kWh (an increase of almost 10%). So while there is some impact, it is minor, especially by comparison with the impact of gas prices on the economics of gas generating plants. In these, 90% of the marginal costs can be fuel. Only if uranium prices rise to above $100 per lb U3O8 ($260 /kgU), and stay there for a prolonged period (which seems very unlikely), will the impact on nuclear generating costs be considerable.Nevertheless, for nuclear power plants operating in competitive power markets where it is impossible to pass on any fuel price increases (i.e. the utility is a price-taker), higher uranium prices will cut corporate profitability. Yet fuel costs have been relatively stable over time – the rise in the world uranium price between 2003 and 2007 added to generation costs, but conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication costs did not follow the same trend.For prospective new nuclear plants, the fuel component is even less significant (see below). The typical front end nuclear fuel cost is typically only 15-20% of the total, as opposed to 30-40% for operating nuclear plants.Competitiveness in the context of increasing use of power from renewable sources, which are often given preference and support by governments, is a major issue today. The most important renewable sources are intermittent by nature, which means that their supply to the electricity system does not necessarily match demand from customers. In power grids where renewable sources of generation make a significant contribution, intermittency forces other generating sources to ramp up or power down their supply at short notice. This volatility can have a large impact on non-intermittent generators’ profitability. A variety of responses to the challenge of intermittent generation are possible. Two options currently being implemented are increased conventional plant flexibility and increased grid capacity and coverage. Flexibility is seen as most applicable to gas- and coal-fired generators, but nuclear reactors, normally regarded as base-load producers, also have the ability to load-follow (e.g. by the use of ‘grey rods’ to modulate the reaction speed).As the scale of intermittent generating capacity increases however, more significant measures will be required. The establishment and extension of capacity mechanisms, which offer payments to generators prepared to guarantee supply for defined periods, are now under serious consideration within the EU. Capacity mechanisms can in theory provide security of supply to desired levels but at a price which might be high. For example, Morgan Stanley has estimated that investors in a 800 MWe gas plant providing for intermittent generation would require payments of €80 million per year whilst Ecofys reports that a 4 GWe reserve in Germany would cost €140-240 million/year. Almost by definition, investors in conventional plants designed to operate intermittently will face low and uncertain load factors and will therefore demand significant capacity payments in return for the investment decision. In practice, until the capacity mechanism has been reliably implemented, investors are likely to withhold investment. Challenges for EU power market integration are expected to result from differences between member state capacity mechanisms.The 2014 Ecofys report for the European Commission on subsidies and costs of EU energy purported to present a complete and consistent set of data on electricity generation and system costs, as well external costs and interventions by governments to reduce costs to consumers. The report attributed €6.96 billion to nuclear power in the EU in 2012, including €4.33 billion decommissioning costs (shortfall from those already internalised). Geographically the total broke down to include EU support of €3.26 billion, and UK €2.77 billion, which was acknowledged as including military legacy clean-up. Consequently there are serious questions about the credibility of such figures.Economic implications of particular plantsApart from considerations of cost of electricity and the perspective of an investor or operator, there are studies on the economics of particular generating plants in their local context.Early in 2015 a study, Economic Impacts of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, was prepared by the US Nuclear Energy Institute. It analyzes the impact of the 580 MWe PWR plant’s operations through the end of its 60-year operating licence in 2029. It generates an average annual economic output of over $350 million in western New York State and an impact on the U.S. economy of about $450 million per year. Ginna employs about 700 people directly, adding another 800 to 1,000 periodic jobs during reactor refueling and maintenance outages every 18 months. Annual payroll is about $100 million. Secondary employment involves another 800 jobs. Ginna is the largest taxpayer in the county. Operating at more than 95% capacity factor, it is a very reliable source of low-cost electricity. Its premature closure would be extremely costly to both state and country – far in excess of the above figures.In June 2015 a study, Economic Impacts of the Indian Point Energy Center, was published by the US Nuclear Energy Institute, analyzing the economic benefits of Entergy’s Indian Point 2&3 reactors in New York state (1020 and 1041 MWe net). It showed that they annually generate an estimated $1.6 billion in the state and $2.5 billion across the nation as a whole. This includes about $1.3 billion per year in the local counties around the plant. The facility contributes about $30 million in state and local property taxes and has an annual payroll of about $140 million for the plant’s nearly 1,000 employees. The total tax benefit to the local, state and federal governments from the plant is about $340 million per year, and the plant’s direct employees support another 5,400 indirect jobs in New York state and 5,300 outside it. It also makes a major contribution to grid reliability and prevents the release of 8.5 million tonnes of CO2 per year.In September 2015 a Brattle Group report said that the five nuclear facilities in Pennsylvania contribute $2.36 billion annually to the state's gross domestic product and account for 15,600 direct and secondary full-time jobs.Future cost competitivenessUnderstanding the cost of new generating capacity and its output requires careful analysis of what is in any set of figures. There are three broad components: capital, finance, and operating costs. Capital and financing costs make up the project cost.Calculations of relative generating costs are made using estimates of the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) for each proposed project. The LCOE represents the price that the electricity must fetch if the project is to break even (after taking account of all lifetime costs, inflation and the opportunity cost of capital through the application of a discount rate).It is important to note that capital cost figures quoted by reactor vendors, or which are general and not site-specific, will usually just be for EPC costs. This is because owners’ costs will vary hugely, most of all according to whether a plant is greenfield or at an established site, perhaps replacing an old plant.There are several possible sources of variation which preclude confident comparison of overnight or EPC capital costs – e.g. whether initial core load of fuel is included. Much more obvious is whether the price is for the nuclear island alone (nuclear steam supply system) or the whole plant including turbines and generators. Further differences relate to site works such as cooling towers as well as land and permitting – usually they are all owners’ costs as outlined earlier in this section. Financing costs are additional, adding typically around 30%, dependent on construction time and interest rate. Finally there is the question of whether cost figures are in current (or specified year) dollar values or in those of the year in which spending occurs.Major studies on future cost competitivenessThere have been many studies carried out examining the economics of future generation options, and the following are merely the most important and also focus on the nuclear element.The 2015 edition of the OECD study on Projected Costs of Generating Electricity considered the cost and deployment perspectives for small modular reactors (SMRs) and Generation IV reactor designs – including very high temperature reactors and fast reactors – that could start being deployed by 2030. Although it found that the specific per-kWe costs of SMRs are likely to be 50% to 100% higher than those for large Generation III reactors, these could be offset by potential economies of volume from the manufacture of a large number of identical SMRs, plus lower overall investment costs and shorter construction times that would lower the capital costs of such plants. "SMRs are expected at best to be on a par with large nuclear if all the competitive advantages … are realised," the report noted.A May 2016 draft declaration related to the European Commission Strategic Energy Technology plan lists target LCOE figures for the latest generation of light-water reactors (LWRs) 'first-of-a-kind' new-build twin reactor project on a brownfield site: EUR(2012) €48/MWh to €84/MWh, falling to €43/MWh to €75/MWh for a series build (5% and 10% discount rate). The LCOE figures for existing Gen-II nuclear power plants integrating post-Fukushima stress tests safety upgrades following refurbishment for extended operation (10-20 years on average): EUR (2012) €23/MWh to €26/MWh (5% and 10% discount rate).Nuclear overnight capital costs in OECD ranged from US$ 1,556/kW for APR-1400 in South Korea through $3,009/kW for ABWR in Japan, $3,382/kW for Gen III+ in USA, $3,860/kW for EPR at Flamanville in France to $5,863/kW for EPR in Switzerland, with a world median of $4,100/kW. Belgium, Netherlands, Czech Republic and Hungary were all over $5,000/kW. In China overnight costs were $1,748/kW for CPR-1000 and $2,302/kW for AP1000, and in Russia $2,933/kW for VVER-1150. EPRI (USA) gave $2,970/kW for APWR or ABWR, Eurelectric gave $4,724/kW for EPR. OECD black coal plants were costed at $807-2,719/kW, those with carbon capture and compression (tabulated as CCS, but the cost not including storage) at $3,223-5,811/kW, brown coal $1,802-3,485, gas plants $635-1,747/kW and onshore wind capacity $1,821-3,716/kW. (Overnight costs were defined here as EPC, owners' costs and contingency, but excluding interest during construction).OECD electricity generating cost projections for year 2015 on – 5% discount rate, c/kWh For My Business PG&E's new Community Wildfire Safety Program is our response to years of drought, extreme heat and 129 million dead trees that have created a "new normal" for our state, and we must continue to adapt to meet these challenges. Electricity Providers Atlanta TX | Switch Electricity Company Today Electricity Providers Atlanta TX | Great Electric Rates Electricity Providers Atlanta TX | Cheap Power
Legal | Sitemap