Economic Benefits of Hydropower Compared to Other Power Sources

Teddie S. Hays09 April, 2015

Source- Eurelectric

There Is No Standard!!

Cents Per kWh by StateState Residential Commercial Industrial

Oregon 10.2 86.5 5.8

California 17.1 14.1 10.8

New York 19.3 14.9 6.1

South Dakota 10.0 86.0 6.9

Ohio 12.3 98.9 6.6

Texas 11.8 80.0 6.3

Florida 11.9 10.0 8.0

Renewable Energy World .com“People like to compare the cost to

generate electricity from various resources, like wind or solar, to the cost to generate electricity from coal, nuclear and natural gas. Comparing these costs is like comparing apples to oranges.”

Apples vs. OrangesWhile both are fruits and both have seeds

that’s about where the similarities end. Have you ever had an Orange pie? How about Apple sherbet ice cream? Another analogy would be to compare a skateboard to a car. They are both vehicles with four wheels but that’s about all they have in common.

The “Other” Types CoalNatural Gas NuclearWindSolar

What are “Economic Benefits”? Cost to Consumer?Infrastructure?Longevity?Job creation?Efficiency?Environmental Impact?Safety?Cost of initial investment?Reliability? Operations and Maintenance (O&M)?

In a nutshell they are:

Capital CostCost of O&M

EfficiencyCost to Consumer

Environmental Impact

Capital CostThe 1939 total cost of building the dam was

estimated by the Army Corps of Engineers at $23,700,000.

McNary Dam estimated cost in 1977 was $304,700,00.

$304,700,00 = $1.2 billion todayMcNary produces estimated $300 million worth of

power a year with an average budget of $25 million.Estimated cost of new hydro plants are $3 thousand

per kw/h.$1.5 billion = 500 MW plant

Over Night Capital Cost

Type Capacity $/KW 500 MW Plant Cost (Billions)

Coal w/ CCS 650 MW $5,227 $2.61

Natural Gas w/ CCS

340 MW $2,095 $1.05

Nuclear 2000 MW $5,530 $2.77

Wind 100 MW $2,213 $1.11

Solar 150 MW $3,873 $1.94

Hydro 500 MW $2,936 $1.47

O & M Type Capacity $/kW - yr $ million – yr

(@ 500 MW)

Coal w/ CCS 650 MW $80.53 $40.2

Natural Gas w/ CCS

340 MW $31.79 $15.9

Nuclear 2000 MW $93.28 $46.6

Wind 100 MW $39.55 $19.8

Solar 150 MW $24.69 $12.3

Hydro 500 MW $14.13 $7.1

Efficiency

Type Efficiency %

Coal w/ CCS 32% - 48%

Natural Gas w/ CCS 32% -38%(w/ Co-Gen 60%)

Nuclear 36% - 40%

Wind 30% – 45%

Solar 12% - 20%

Hydro 85% - 90%

Cost to Consumer

Flood Control

Environmental Impact

CoalLittle expensive Low-end of efficiencyMid-range cost to consumerAbundant source of coalHorrible for the environment

Natural GasVery cheapCan be efficient w/ Co-GenLow cost to consumersAbundant source of Natural GasLow emissions, Fracking protested

greatly

NuclearMid-range costLow-end efficiencyHigher consumer costCheap fuel sourceNuclear Waste and possibility of meltdown

WindLow-range cost (with Gov. subsides)

Average efficiencyLow consumer costFuel source unpredictabilityApprove by environmentalists, may cause draught

SolarVery expensiveWorst efficiencyHigh cost to consumerFuel source unpredictabilityLoved by environmentalists, not practical

Hydro

Low range costHighest efficiencyLowest cost to consumerRenewable fuel source No emissions, renewable, some

environmental impact, hated by environmentalists

ConclusionIf we can’t agree on the best ways to build our

economy how can we agree on the best ways to build economically viable power plants?

At what point does cost and efficiency stop being a factor due to demand?

If we outgrow our provision for energy production where do we turn?