风能发电与火力发电的成本的比较外文翻译资料

Cost comparisons for wind and thermal power generation

ABSTRACT

Comparisons of generation costs between renewable and conventional generation technologies are a key input to energy policy discussions. However there are many pitfalls around generation cost estimation: even apparently reliable sources can quote widely differing figures. This paper reviews methodologies and data sources to determine the main sources of uncertainty in the estimation of the costs of wind, coal and natural gas generation, based on illustrative cost calculations for the US, Denmark and India. It finds that the cost elements most likely to confound generation cost calculations are fuel costs and, particularly for renewable generation, the cost of capital. It explores the impact on calculated generation cost of alternative approaches to estimating these parameters. The results should be of particular value to users of generation cost estimates who are concerned about the reliability of the information they have to work with.

CHAPTER1. Why compare costs?

Passionate supporters of renewable energy believe that power generation using renewables is the key to a sustainable economy, is cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives and the sooner it provides 100% of the national energy supply, the better. Its equally passionate opponents see it as a deadweight on the economy and believe that its supporters dishonestly conceal its true costs. There is a clear need for accurate cost comparisons.

Unfortunately, generation cost estimates vary widely – particularly for renewables – and cost comparisons for different countries can throw up inexplicable differences. For example, estimates of wind generation costs in EU countries presented in the 2015 version of Projected Costs of Generating Electricity (IEA/NEA, 2015) range between $72 and $123 per MWh (in 2013$, using a 7% real discount rate, and controlling for differences in wind quality by adjusting all estimates to the same capacity factor). This is an absurdly wide range - these are countries in a common economic zone with free markets for key components.

Furthermore, the two most important variables in the cost calculation – the cost of capital and the capacity factor – are held constant.

Clearly, even for “official” data, we should question the validity of cost estimates. In this paper I set out to ask those questions. My aim is to examine the issues that can confound generation cost calculations rather than to produce definitive cost estimates (though I think that the estimates in Section 5 of the paper are as accurate as any others out there, and better than most). As concrete examples, I estimate generation costs in the US, Denmark and India – chosen because they are diverse in terms of market structures and, in each case, I was able to obtain believable data. For each country I assess the cost of wind generation and, because policy decisions imply comparisons, also coal and gas-fired plants (for India, I do not consider gas as it is little used for generation).

CHAPTER2. My approach to cost estimation

In this paper I consider only plant costs - a full analysis would include the impact on grid costs due to the intermittency of wind output, “costs” related to differences in the marginal value of power produced at different times of day and externalities such as the health impacts of emissions. I plan to examine these costs in a second paper. Plant costs can be categorised as operating and maintenance costs (referred to as O amp; M), capital costs and fuel costs. Table 1 shows the contribution of each of these categories to total costs for the technologies considered in this paper.

My estimates are expressed in terms of the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE). This is the weighted average cost of electricity produced over the lifetime of a plant, the weights being discount factors calculated using the plantrsquo;s weighted average cost of capital as a discount rate. It is widely used for generation cost comparisons but it is not the gold standard it is sometimes imagined to be – it has been described as “a flawed metric for comparing the economic attractiveness of technologies such as wind and solar with conventional dispatchable generating technologies such as nuclear, coal, and gas-combined-cycle” (Joskow, 2011). Joskowrsquo;s concern was that LCOE effectively ascribes the same value to every unit of power generated although the market value of a unit varies according to the time of day and the pattern of demand. In more general terms, LCOE was developed to compare baseload generation technologies in a relatively stable world - it does not cope well with a world of intermittent generation and unpredictable change. It accounts for risk by applying one discount rate over a forty year project lifetime, when the risks that matter to a project developer today are one-off events such as disruptive new technologies or changes in government attitudes to the environment. Even without such events, discounting over forty years is a clumsy way to deal with uncertainty in fuel prices when forecasts can change radically from one year to the next. LCOE “essentially assumes a static world in whichhellip;costs occur in the ways they are “predicted” by a fixed annual cash flow schedule” - to quote the 2010 edition of Projected Costs of Generating Electricity (IEA/ NEA, 2010). I estimate LCOEs because they allow for useful comparisons of generation costs but they do not provide a firm foundation for complex decisions on energy policy.

My estimates exclude the effect of subsidies and incentives for renewable generation – in my view, these have little effect on the cost of power to the country as a whole - they simply redistribute the cost be-tween consumers and tax payers. For the same reason I ignore taxes on inputs such as value added tax, though I take account of royalties on coal or gas production as these are – in theory – payments for the use of

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

Cost comparisons for wind and thermal power generation

风能发电与火力发电的成本的比较

ABSTRACT

摘要

Comparisons of generation costs between renewable and conventional generation technologies are a key input to energy policy discussions. However there are many pitfalls around generation cost estimation: even apparently reliable sources can quote widely differing figures. This paper reviews methodologies and data sources to determine the main sources of uncertainty in the estimation of the costs of wind, coal and natural gas generation, based on illustrative cost calculations for the US, Denmark and India. It finds that the cost elements most likely to confound generation cost calculations are fuel costs and, particularly for renewable generation, the cost of capital. It explores the impact on calculated generation cost of alternative approaches to estimating these parameters. The results should be of particular value to users of generation cost estimates who are concerned about the reliability of the information they have to work with.

可再生能源发电与传统发电技术之间的成本的比较是对于能源政策讨论的关键的投入。然而，在发电成本估算方面存在许多的缺陷：即使明显可靠的来源也可能引用大量的不同的数字。根据美国、丹麦和印度的说明性成本进行计算，本文回顾了相关方法和数据来源，以确定风能、煤炭和天然气的发电成本估算的主要的不确定性的来源。它发现，最可能混淆发电成本估算的成本要素是燃料成本，特别对于可再生能源发电而言，其成本是资本成本。它探讨了估算这些参数的替代方法对于发电成本估算的影响。对于发电成本估算的用户而言，结果应该特别重要，他们担心他们必须使用的信息的可靠性。

CHAPTER1. Why compare costs?

第一章：为什么比较成本？

Passionate supporters of renewable energy believe that power generation using renewables is the key to a sustainable economy, is cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives and the sooner it provides 100% of the national energy supply, the better. Its equally passionate opponents see it as a deadweight on the economy and believe that its supporters dishonestly conceal its true costs. There is a clear need for accurate cost comparisons.

可再生能源的积极支持者认为，使用可再生能源进行发电是可持续经济的关键，比化石燃料替代品还便宜，并且，越早提供百分之百的国家能源供应越好。它同样热情的对手认为它是对于经济的沉重的压力，并且认为其支持者不诚实地掩盖了其真正的成本。因而就存在了对于成本的比较的明确的需要。

Unfortunately, generation cost estimates vary widely – particularly for renewables – and cost comparisons for different countries can throw up inexplicable differences. For example, estimates of wind generation costs in EU countries presented in the 2015 version of Projected Costs of Generating Electricity (IEA/NEA, 2015) range between $72 and $123 per MWh (in 2013$, using a 7% real discount rate, and controlling for differences in wind quality by adjusting all estimates to the same capacity factor). This is an absurdly wide range - these are countries in a common economic zone with free markets for key components.

不幸的是，发电成本估算的差别比较大——特别对于可再生能源而言——而且，不同国家的成本比较可能引发莫名其妙的差异。例如，欧盟国家2015年发电量预测成本（IEA / NEA，2015）中的风能发电成本的估算范围为每兆瓦时72至123美元不等（2013年为美元，实际折现率为7％，并且，通过将所有的估计值调整到了相同的容量因子来控制风的质量差异）。这是一个非常广泛的范围——这些国家位于共同经济区，关键的组成部分为自由市场。

Furthermore, the two most important variables in the cost calculation – the cost of capital and the capacity factor – are held constant.

此外，在成本计算中的两个最为重要的变量——资本成本和能力因素——保持不变。

Clearly, even for “official” data, we should question the validity of cost estimates. In this paper I set out to ask those questions. My aim is to examine the issues that can confound generation cost calculations rather than to produce definitive cost estimates (though I think that the estimates in Section 5 of the paper are as accurate as any others out there, and better than most). As concrete examples, I estimate generation costs in the US, Denmark and India – chosen because they are diverse in terms of market structures and, in each case, I was able to obtain believable data. For each country I assess the cost of wind generation and, because policy decisions imply comparisons, also coal and gas-fired plants (for India, I do not consider gas as it is little used for generation).

显然，即使对于“官方”的数据，我们也应该质疑成本估算的有效性。在本文中，我着手提出了这些问题。我的目标就是研究可能影响发电成本估算的问题，而不是进行明确的成本估算（尽管我认为本文第5章的估算跟其他的所有的估算一样准确，并且，比大多数估算还好）。作为具体的例子，我估算美国、丹麦和印度的发电成本——因为它们在市场结构方面存在分歧，而且，在每种情况下，我都能够获得到可信的数据。对于每一个国家，我都估算风力发电的成本，因为政策决定就意味着比较，还有煤和燃气电厂（对于印度来说，由于它几乎不用于发电，因此我不认为它是天然气）。

CHAPTER2. My approach to cost estimation

第二章：我的成本估算方法

In this paper I consider only plant costs - a full analysis would include the impact on grid costs due to the intermittency of wind output, “costs” related to differences in the marginal value of power produced at different times of day and externalities such as the health impacts of emissions. I plan to examine these costs in a second paper. Plant costs can be categorised as operating and maintenance costs (referred to as O amp; M), capital costs and fuel costs. Table 1 shows the contribution of each of these categories to total costs for the technologies considered in this paper.

在本文中，我只考虑到了工厂成本——一份完整的分析将包括风能发电的间歇性对于电网成本的影响，“成本”与一天的不同时间段的电力边际价值的差异以及外部性排放对于健康的影响。我计划在第二篇论文中检查这些成本。工厂成本可以分为运营和维护成本（简称O＆M），资本成本和燃料成本。表1显示了在这些类别中每一类对于本文所考虑的技术总成本的贡献。

My estimates are expressed in terms of the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE). This is the weighted average cost of electricity produced over the lifetime of a plant, the weights being discount factors calculated using the plantrsquo;s weighted average cost of capital as a discount rate. It is widely used for generation cost comparisons but it is not the gold standard it is sometimes imagined to be – it has been described as “a flawed metric for comparing the economic attractiveness of technologies such as wind and solar with conventional dispatchable generating technologies such as nuclear, coal, and gas-combined-cycle” (Joskow, 2011). Joskowrsquo;s concern was that LCOE effectively ascribes the same value to every unit of power generated although the market value of a unit varies according to the time of day and the pattern of demand. In more general terms, LCOE was developed to compare baseload generation technologies in a relatively stable world - it does not cope well with a world of intermittent generation and unpredictable change. It accounts for risk by applying one discount rate over a

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

资料编号：[24248]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word