The future of energy generation and storage

[Smurf1976]

But where is the solar and the wind in any if the cheapest power places on earth?

In my view the US is a good basis for analysis for several reasons - 50 states in the same country, so same currency and mostly comparable laws, and with plenty of data available from consistent sources.

Looking at US states with a high portion of wind there are 5 states where it's at least a third of total electricity supply as follows. Prices based on average price paid by all consumers in August 2024. Price data source is Electric Power Monthly statistics, Energy Information Administration (US government).

Price ranking is 1 - 49 (all states + DC but excluding Alaska and Hawaii since they're not directly comparable due to other obvious factors) with 1 being cheapest and 49 being most expensive. Note the average price across all states for reference is 13.61c / kWh. Prices are in USD.

Wind:

Iowa = 55.3% wind. Price ranking 14 (10.79c / kWh)
South Dakota = 52.3% wind. Price ranking = 22 (11.46c / kWh)
Kansas = 45.2% wind. Price ranking = 27 (12.06c / kWh)
Oklahoma = 41.4% wind. Price ranking = 9 (9.98c / kWh)
North Dakota = 34.1% wind. Price ranking = 1 (8.00c / kWh)

So 4 of the 5 are in the cheapest half and all are below the mean average of all states.

Now looking at the top 5 solar users:

California = 17.4%. Price rank = 49 (29.06c)
Nevada = 15.9%. Price rank = 21 (11.43c)
DC = 11.9%. Price rank = 40 (16.46c)
Massachusetts = 9.2%. Price rank = 47 (24.24c)
Vermont = 8.8%. Price rank = 42 (17.98c)

So 4 of the 5 are in the most expensive half and above the mean of all states, with the largest solar user California being the most expensive of the lot indeed it's even higher than Alaska which I've excluded for obvious reasons of not being comparable in other ways. But then Nevada is in the lower half and below the mean.

Looking at the top 5 US users of other generation sources:

Nuclear:
New Hampshire = 56.5%. Price = 44 (20.20c)
South Carolina = 53.8%. Price = 20 (11.43c)
Illinois = 53.3%. Price = 30 (12.73c)
New Jersey = 45.8%. Price = 41 (17.95c)
Tennessee = 43.4%. Price = 17 (11.12c)

Coal:
West Virginia = 90.8%. Price = 18 (11.21c)
Missouri = 74.4%. Price = 31 (12.95c)
Wyoming = 73.3%. Price = 5 (9.88c)
Kentucky = 70.7%. Price = 11 (10.41c)
Utah = 61.8%. Price = 3 (9.57c)

Gas:
Rhode Island = 90.9%. Price = 46 (23.96c)
Delaware = 85.8%. Price = 35 (13.27c)
Massachusetts = 76.9%. Price = 47 (24.24c)
Florida = 73.9%. Price = 28 (12.14c)
Mississippi = 72.1%. Price = 16 (11.02c)

Hydro:
Washington = 64.6%. Price = 10 (10.18c)
Idaho = 51.0%. Price = 7 (9.93c)
Vermont = 50.0%. Price = 42 (17.98c)
Oregon = 46.4%. Price = 19 (11.30c)
Montana = 40.0%. Price = 15 (10.97c)

Biomass:
DC = 25.5%. Price = 40 (16.46c)
Vermont = 25.2%. Price = 42 (17.98c)
Maine = 22.3%. Price = 43 (18.71)
Massachusetts = 10.3%. Price = 47 (24.24c)
New Hampshire = 6.2%. Price = 44 (20.20c)

I've left out oil since, apart from Hawaii, no state has it as a major portion of generation. Highest being Hawaii (65.4%), Alaska (14.9%), Louisiana (4.0%), Montana (1.8%) and Michigan (1.0%). So it's not a major influence on costs for any of the contiguous states.

Geothermal also omitted for the same reason. For the record the top users are Nevada (9.4%), California (5.8%), Hawaii (1.8%), Utah (0.8%), Idaho (0.5%), Oregon (0.3%) and New Mexico (0.1%). It's zero in all other states (or it rounds to zero).

Now for a bit more number crunching, generation in the 10 cheapest and 10 most expensive states as follows. Note that I've given each state an equal weighting.

10 cheapest states are North Dakota (cheapest), Louisiana, Utah, Nebraska, Wyoming, Arkansas, Idaho, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Washington. Their equally weighted generation sources are:

Nuclear = 6.57%
Coal = 33.75%
Gas = 24.22%
Oil = 0.46%
Hydro = 14.05%
Geothermal = 0.14%
Solar = 1.8%
Wind = 17.66%
Biomass = 1.33%

10 most expensive states are California (most expensive), Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, New Jersey, DC. (Yes I know DC isn't technically a state, but it's near enough for the purpose given separate statistics are produced for it). Average generation being:

Nuclear = 17.46%
Coal = 0.46%
Gas = 47.87%
Oil = 0.25%
Hydro = 11.58%
Geothermal = 0.58%
Solar = 5.73%
Wind = 5.66%
Biomass = 10.38%

 

[Smurf1976]

gas makes up a very large portion of their policy.

The problem with gas is obtaining enough of it given most of it has been committed to sale overseas.

Separate to that, well AEMO is currently forecasting load shedding for NSW on Tuesday 26 November. Odds are they'll find a workaround but supply is tight yes.

 

[qldfrog]

In my view the US is a good basis for analysis for several reasons - 50 states in the same country, so same currency and mostly comparable laws, and with plenty of data available from consistent sources.

Looking at US states with a high portion of wind there are 5 states where it's at least a third of total electricity supply as follows. Prices based on average price paid by all consumers in August 2024. Price data source is Electric Power Monthly statistics, Energy Information Administration (US government).

Price ranking is 1 - 49 (all states + DC but excluding Alaska and Hawaii since they're not directly comparable due to other obvious factors) with 1 being cheapest and 49 being most expensive. Note the average price across all states for reference is 13.61c / kWh. Prices are in USD.

Wind:

Iowa = 55.3% wind. Price ranking 14 (10.79c / kWh)
South Dakota = 52.3% wind. Price ranking = 22 (11.46c / kWh)
Kansas = 45.2% wind. Price ranking = 27 (12.06c / kWh)
Oklahoma = 41.4% wind. Price ranking = 9 (9.98c / kWh)
North Dakota = 34.1% wind. Price ranking = 1 (8.00c / kWh)

So 4 of the 5 are in the cheapest half and all are below the mean average of all states.

Now looking at the top 5 solar users:

California = 17.4%. Price rank = 49 (29.06c)
Nevada = 15.9%. Price rank = 21 (11.43c)
DC = 11.9%. Price rank = 40 (16.46c)
Massachusetts = 9.2%. Price rank = 47 (24.24c)
Vermont = 8.8%. Price rank = 42 (17.98c)

So 4 of the 5 are in the most expensive half and above the mean of all states, with the largest solar user California being the most expensive of the lot indeed it's even higher than Alaska which I've excluded for obvious reasons of not being comparable in other ways. But then Nevada is in the lower half and below the mean.

Looking at the top 5 US users of other generation sources:

Nuclear:
New Hampshire = 56.5%. Price = 44 (20.20c)
South Carolina = 53.8%. Price = 20 (11.43c)
Illinois = 53.3%. Price = 30 (12.73c)
New Jersey = 45.8%. Price = 41 (17.95c)
Tennessee = 43.4%. Price = 17 (11.12c)

Coal:
West Virginia = 90.8%. Price = 18 (11.21c)
Missouri = 74.4%. Price = 31 (12.95c)
Wyoming = 73.3%. Price = 5 (9.88c)
Kentucky = 70.7%. Price = 11 (10.41c)
Utah = 61.8%. Price = 3 (9.57c)

Gas:
Rhode Island = 90.9%. Price = 46 (23.96c)
Delaware = 85.8%. Price = 35 (13.27c)
Massachusetts = 76.9%. Price = 47 (24.24c)
Florida = 73.9%. Price = 28 (12.14c)
Mississippi = 72.1%. Price = 16 (11.02c)

Hydro:
Washington = 64.6%. Price = 10 (10.18c)
Idaho = 51.0%. Price = 7 (9.93c)
Vermont = 50.0%. Price = 42 (17.98c)
Oregon = 46.4%. Price = 19 (11.30c)
Montana = 40.0%. Price = 15 (10.97c)

Biomass:
DC = 25.5%. Price = 40 (16.46c)
Vermont = 25.2%. Price = 42 (17.98c)
Maine = 22.3%. Price = 43 (18.71)
Massachusetts = 10.3%. Price = 47 (24.24c)
New Hampshire = 6.2%. Price = 44 (20.20c)

I've left out oil since, apart from Hawaii, no state has it as a major portion of generation. Highest being Hawaii (65.4%), Alaska (14.9%), Louisiana (4.0%), Montana (1.8%) and Michigan (1.0%). So it's not a major influence on costs for any of the contiguous states.

Geothermal also omitted for the same reason. For the record the top users are Nevada (9.4%), California (5.8%), Hawaii (1.8%), Utah (0.8%), Idaho (0.5%), Oregon (0.3%) and New Mexico (0.1%). It's zero in all other states (or it rounds to zero).

Now for a bit more number crunching, generation in the 10 cheapest and 10 most expensive states as follows. Note that I've given each state an equal weighting.

10 cheapest states are North Dakota (cheapest), Louisiana, Utah, Nebraska, Wyoming, Arkansas, Idaho, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Washington. Their equally weighted generation sources are:

Nuclear = 6.57%
Coal = 33.75%
Gas = 24.22%
Oil = 0.46%
Hydro = 14.05%
Geothermal = 0.14%
Solar = 1.8%
Wind = 17.66%
Biomass = 1.33%

10 most expensive states are California (most expensive), Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, New Jersey, DC. (Yes I know DC isn't technically a state, but it's near enough for the purpose given separate statistics are produced for it). Average generation being:

Nuclear = 17.46%
Coal = 0.46%
Gas = 47.87%
Oil = 0.25%
Hydro = 11.58%
Geothermal = 0.58%
Solar = 5.73%
Wind = 5.66%
Biomass = 10.38%

Well, it is pretty clear from this that if you want cheap power, you go hydro, wind or coal if you can, and avoid solar, biomass or oil(the later quite obvious))
For obvious reasons solar and wind are also highly dependant on geography so it is most silly to mandate it regardless of location.
Sun in Sahara making more sense than in Scotland, wind better in King island than in Ipswich plain.
After you take the calculator out.
Coal remain the king imho for a country who has plenty.Ask China, India and past Australia..now we can play spoilt rich kids fairy tales and go RE and nuclear free: ask Germany, or the Australian consumer where it leads...saving the world walking to the popular soup and salvos past closed industrial wasteland ....
These stats @Smurf1976 were quite informative and an eye opener for anyone awake.
I understand that generation alone is not enough to give competitive advantage, but that is the start, and for the rest of the issue, the unique Australian inefficiency and low productivity might need a nuke to be changed indeed, without even the need for a nuclear plant

 

[qldfrog]

The problem with gas is obtaining enough of it given most of it has been committed to sale overseas.

Separate to that, well AEMO is currently forecasting load shedding for NSW on Tuesday 26 November. Odds are they'll find a workaround but supply is tight yes.

And that further exploration or exploitation is legally or otherwise prevented.