True Cost of Energy: Uncovering the Incentives & Subsidies

[Opus_723]

So, I was trying to figure something out today.

If you were to take away all government incentives for various forms of energy production in the U.S., what would the real cost per watt be? I started off thinking about wind energy, but quickly realized that fossil fuels are subsidized too. However, I couldn't find any sources that had done the calculations, and don't even know where to start looking for data by myself. I searched around the internet for awhile, but was quickly overwhelmed. It seems like it would take forever to account for all the bits and pieces of legislation that provide incentives to various types of energy production. I have seen a few figures, but none are exhaustive, and tend to be totals for the whole industry rather than $/watt.

But wouldn't it be great to be able to compare all of our energy sources side by side and see how they are all progressing? Even better if we could find rates of change in the true cost per watt. That way we could tell whether growth was due to technology or increased subsidies.

So my question is, does anyone know if this has been done? And if not, how could someone go about doing this?

 

[chiro]

I think if you do want to measure something like this you need to have some kind of reference to economic factors like say GDP per capita or mean income levels or something along those lines.

The reason I say this is because in one country something like oil (crude) will be say $A per barrel and in another it will be $B per barrel, but the two countries have different purchasing powers and when you compare different rates of commodities (including oil), taking into account some form of a "purchasing power factor" will give a more fair assessment of a standardized cost that takes this into account.

 

[WhoWee]

Once you remove the incentives - you then might want to remove the cost of regulation for a more fair analysis?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Once you remove the incentives - you then might want to remove the cost of regulation for a more fair analysis?

For oil, you would also need to include a good part of the cost of the military industrial complex, our foreign policies, and who knows how many lives.

 

[WhoWee]

For oil, you would also need to include a good part of the cost of the military industrial complex, our foreign policies, and who knows how many lives.

Welcome back Ivan!

Well, as long as we're going to continue to depend on Middle East oil - yes. However, if we re-direct our focus to domestic processes - no.

 

[AlephZero]

Once you remove the incentives - you then might want to remove the cost of regulation for a more fair analysis?

That's a great idea! I wonder how low can you reduce the octane level of gasoline, so the customers won't notice anything till their engines blow up 10000 miles later...

 

[WhoWee]

That's a great idea! I wonder how low can you reduce the octane level of gasoline, so the customers won't notice anything till their engines blow up 10000 miles later...

This looks like a fun way to move the discussion - why not remove all safeguards on nukes too?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Without gov't subsidies, the cheapest energy would tend to be the densest one from a energy/volume or energy/weight basis. This is probably coal or oil, although nuclear (uranium) could be pretty good too even with a lot of the gov't regulation.

Overall, when government subsidies are taken out of the equation alternative energy solutions such as wind and solar can't hold a candle to mined energy resources that can be "burned."

 

[NeoDevin]

Without gov't subsidies, the cheapest energy would tend to be the densest one from a energy/volume or energy/weight basis. This is probably coal or oil, although nuclear (uranium) could be pretty good too even with a lot of the gov't regulation.

Overall, when government subsidies are taken out of the equation alternative energy solutions such as wind and solar can't hold a candle to mined energy resources that can be "burned."

Do you have any source for this claim?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Welcome back Ivan!

Thanks, but I'm not really back. Just poking my head in for a moment. I've got the PF Jones!

Well, as long as we're going to continue to depend on Middle East oil - yes. However, if we re-direct our focus to domestic processes - no.

That is not reality. The fact is that we DO import about 60% of our oil and we don't have competitive domestic sources. The true cost of oil is a lesson in history. Look at Libia for example; would Kadafi be Kadafi without oil? No. In fact, just to demonstrate how costly oil can be in very real terms, probably the closest we've ever come to nuclear war was over oil - under Carter when the Soviets were poised to sweep across the ME. He was the only President other than Truman to authorize the use of nukes in the battlefield! What would be the cost of a nuclear war, and how do we include that risk in the cost of oil? How about a war with China?

Now if you want to compare idealistic future theoretical alternative options, to idealistic future theoretical petroleum options, your point would be valid. And in that event oil would still lose.

Another real cost is found in public health. Even ignoring issues like global climate change, the cost of oil in terms of public health have been studied and quantified to some extent. I know we have links somewhere but don't have any handy at the moment.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Do you have any source for this claim?

How about this from Forbes?

Just a quick glance at corn ethanol's power density--just 0.05 W/m2.

Now let's consider the power density of wind energy, which is about 1.2 W/m2, and solar photovoltaic, which can produce about 6.7 W/m2.

(A) marginal natural gas well, producing 60,000 cubic feet per day, has a power density of about 28 W/m2. An oil well, producing 10 barrels per day, has a power density of about 27 W/m2. Meanwhile, a nuclear power plant like the South Texas Project--even if you include the entire 19 square-mile tract upon which the project is sited--produces about 56 W/m2.

Then a quick comparison of footprints to get the same power output.

That can be understood by comparing the land use needs of a nuclear plant with those of a wind energy project or a corn ethanol operation. The two reactors at the South Texas Project produce 2,700 megawatts of power. The plant covers about 19 square miles, an area slightly smaller than the island of Manhattan. To match that output using wind energy, you'd need a land area nearly the size of Rhode Island. Matching that power output with corn ethanol would require intensive farming on more than 21,000 square miles, an area nearly the size of West Virginia.

Wind, Solar, and Biomass are good peaker power sources, but they are not by any stretch of the imagination a base load power source. Asking a country to use wind, solar, and biomass as primary power sources is like asking a family of four to use a Porsche 911 Turbo S as a daily driver.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/11/renewables-energy-oil-economy-opinions-contributors-robert-bryce.html"

 

[NeoDevin]

How about this from Forbes?



Then a quick comparison of footprints to get the same power output.



Wind, Solar, and Biomass are good peaker power sources, but they are not by any stretch of the imagination a base load power source. Asking a country to use wind, solar, and biomass as primary power sources is like asking a family of four to use a Porsche 911 Turbo S as a daily driver.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/11/renewables-energy-oil-economy-opinions-contributors-robert-bryce.html"

I wasn't referring to energy per square meter. I thought (and still think) that you meant per unit cost when you wrote your earlier post. If I misinterpreted your post, please clarify.

 

[Opus_723]

The idea here wasn't to debate whether renewables are as cheap as fossil fuels. I doubt that. Mostly, I wanted to know if there is any way we could get real, unsubsidized numbers for comparison. This was we could see whether wind and solar power are really getting cheaper at claimed rates, or whether the subsidies are just increasing. We could also see what coal power really costs without government funds.

Basically, I just think it's a shame that I can't find this information anywhere, when it could inform debates so much. So I'm asking, does this information exist? And if not, how can we get it?

 

[mugaliens]

I wasn't referring to energy per square meter.

I rather liked his response, particularly the difference between corn-derived ethanol at 0.05 W/m2 compared to solar voltaic at 6.7 W/m2.

Gee.

Solar voltaic is 134 times more efficient use of arable land to produce energy than growing corn-derived ethanol. Yet, since corn won't grow in the desert, but solar works fine in the desert, let's use arable land to grow food, not fuel, and let's use the desert to produce solar power.

Sound like a plan?

 

[NeoDevin]

I rather liked his response, particularly the difference between corn-derived ethanol at 0.05 W/m2 compared to solar voltaic at 6.7 W/m2.

Gee.

Solar voltaic is 134 times more efficient use of arable land to produce energy than growing corn-derived ethanol. Yet, since corn won't grow in the desert, but solar works fine in the desert, let's use arable land to grow food, not fuel, and let's use the desert to produce solar power.

Sound like a plan?

From a land-use perspective your (and his) arguments are correct. However, if corn-ethanol costs $0.01/m2 and solar costs $2.00/m2 (just pulled those numbers out of thin air, they most likely have no relation to reality), then it would be cheaper (dollar wise) to use corn-ethanol than solar voltaic. I was hoping he could somehow substantiate his claim that "when government subsidies are taken out of the equation alternative energy solutions such as wind and solar can't hold a candle to mined energy resources that can be "burned."" Clearly since Mech mentioned subsidies, he was referring to cost, rather than land use (though of course cost of land must be factored in).

Also, just realized that it wasn't the same person who responded to my request for evidence as who made the original claim. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Some comparisons of specific energy densities are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

Some excerpts:

• Reactor-grade Uranium has a specific energy density (SED) of 3,456,000 MJ/kg (3.5 TJ/kg)
• Crude oil has a SED of 46.3 MJ/kg
• Coal has a SED of up to 32.5 MJ/kg
• Natural gas has a SED of 53.6 KJ/kg

So what I deduce from this information, is that if you're building a power plant to provide say 2GW of power to the surrounding area, assuming comparable efficiencies you need to burn 61.5 kg\s of coal but only 0.00058 kg\s of Uranium to achieve that output.

Put another way, from a stored energy standpoint a Uranium LWR could have a cost including regulation 100,000 times more than a coal plant and still be economical (assuming coal is an economical energy resource, which we know it is).

 

[mugaliens]

...if corn-ethanol costs $0.01/m2 and solar costs $2.00/m2 (just pulled those numbers out of thin air, they most likely have no relation to reality

Get a grip - those figures are VERY widely available, especially when it's a 200:1 against the split in your position.

 

[mugaliens]

Put another way, from a stored energy standpoint a Uranium LWR could have a cost including regulation 100,000 times more than a coal plant and still be economical (assuming coal is an economical energy resource, which we know it is).

Yeah, pretty much, if you were to discount the legal expenses.

Point is: We were screwed. Royally.

 

[NeoDevin]

Get a grip - those figures are VERY widely available, especially when it's a 200:1 against the split in your position.

And yet nobody in this thread has provided a single reference to the (unsubsidized) cost/J for any of them.

 

[mugaliens]

Get a grip - those figures are VERY widely available, especially when it's a 200:1 against the split in your position.

So if you desired to purchase land you'd opt to spend x per acre for A when A paid 200 times less than B? That's an incredibly moronic option...

Regardless, my post had nothing to do with land valuations. It had everything to do with enegry production.