The Cost of Coal Generation vs. Other Methods

Because the costs transferred to the public discussed above are never counted, coal has been a cheap source of power relative to other sources.  That is no longer the case.  Energy efficiency is cheaper and far cleaner than adding a kWh from coal (see first chart below).  The other confounding aspect of comparing price among generation methods is the issue of CO2.  Some of the charts below apply a “carbon price” to each method based on its CO2 emissions; others deal with CO2 cost by estimating the cost of applying Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) technology to coal plants.  Both methods are just well informed guesses.  Many variables could affect a carbon price over time, and regarding CCS, the components of the overall systems are known to a degree, but they have never been integrated into a total system, so many questions remain unanswered.  The bottom line for the renewables is that wind is marginally more expensive without considering CO2, Thermal Solar is competitive when CO2 emissions are considered.

• Ponder this graph a while.  Note that the “Marginal Avoided Energy Supply Cost” in black text at the top, is 9.4¢- meaning it would cost 9.4¢ to add a kWh of electricity from additional generation.  And note the orange line at the bottom shows that for 3.1¢ you can add about as many kWh from efficiency as you want to.
• S&P report on generation costs with supplemental solar thermal numbers.  This shows the estimated cost of CCS for the coal plants.
• A good chart of the capital and operating costs of various plants.  Note the coal plants call for only 50% carbon capture.  Excel Energy
• See renewables section for information on cost competitiveness of renewables.