The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Real-Money Stock Picks / Messed-Up Expectations Portfolio


Subject:  Re: PWER down 9.3% yesterday Date:  3/9/2011  12:09 AM
Author:  DCWD40 Number:  265 of 1287

In December, 2009, DOE predicted the grid parity costs of all new generating alternatives in 2016. The cheapest was advanced natural gas combined cycle at 79.3%. The most expensive, solar, at 396.1.

Wind, which many (including me) thought is already at grid parity, came in at 149.3 (for onshore). The reason given for the higher than grid cost was:

As mentioned, the costs shown in the table are national averages. However, there is significant local variation in costs based on local labor markets and the cost and availability of fuel or energy resources such as windy sites. For example, regional wind costs range from 91 $/MWh in the region with the best available resources in 2016 to 271 $/MWh in regions where the best sites have been claimed by 2016. Costs for wind may include additional costs associated with transmission upgrades needed to access remote resources, as well as other factors that markets may or may not internalize into the market price for wind power.

For those wanting to have the details behind the assumtions used to build all the renewable fuels model prices, here is a link to that:

I think when you look at the assumptions, you will realize that realistic grid-quality alternatives were used.

Solar is almost 4-times more expensive in 2016.

Copyright 1996-2019 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us