The Generation Professionals Group is for utility professionals who work in biomass, coal, gas/oil, hydro, natural gas, or nuclear power generation fields. 

Doug Houseman's picture
Visionary and innovator in the utility industry and grid modernization Burns & McDonnell

I have a broad background in utilities and energy. I worked for Capgemini in the Energy Practice for more than 15 years. During that time I rose to the position of CTO of the 12,000 person...

  • Member since 2017
  • 219 items added with 75,881 views
  • Feb 17, 2022
  • 422 views

While I have not worked all the numbers yet....

I think this paper is very important to the future of energy generation and realistic costing. I don't normally post someone else's work.

It looks at LCOE in a better way.

Doug Houseman's picture
Thank Doug for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member
Discussions
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on Feb 22, 2022

Very perceptive article. The proposed modifications to LCOE are logically and economically sound. However, several of the tenets of the green energy religion are directly challenged. The authors run the risk of being burned at the stake as heretics. 

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Mar 7, 2022

Doug, I have seen many attempts to compare costs of non-dispatchable sources to dispatchable ones, all of which devolve into the mathematical mess that might occur, for example, if one attempted to quantify the qualitative benefits of apples vs. oranges. It truly is an exercise in either arrogance, or futility.

Which are better, apples or oranges? The answer is clearly oranges, and here's why:

In this case it's arrogance. Authors are advancing the pretense that the "Potsdam-Institute for Climate Impact Research" is something more than a chapel of renewables worship (the world already has too many, most of them in Potsdam or environs). Their study, minus publication by any recognized journal or review by qualified experts, is predictably unworth the paper it isn't printed on. And typically, a hint of the ubiquitous anti-nuclear underpinnings of these papers eventually surfaces- ah here it is, under Summary and Conclusions:

"[high shares of variable renewable energy (VRE)] would need considerable carbon prices and strong nuclear restrictions or significant renewables support that internalizes their positive externalities."

Brief translation: "If we: A) put a high price on carbon and ban nuclear energy, or B) shower renewable energy with gracious subsidies, high shares of VRE might be cost-effective. Either that, or we need more research on the subject."

Bleh.

 

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »