• Home
• Reviews
• News
• Downloads
• CNET TV

About me

My posting summary

1 to 1 of 1

My comments

• Cost comparison with coal
  When energy technologies are compared in the popular press the standard used is invariably current cost of production. Thus conventional pulverized coal always comes up looking like the cheapest alternative, which constitutes a gross misrepresentation of reality.
  
  If we look at the 30 year life cycle costs for a new coal plant that will operate in a carbon-taxed economy you will discover that a 1600 megawatt plant will require at least 16 billion dollars (cost of construction, coal supply, rail shipping, water, carbon taxation or sequestration) for its life cycle operation,while an equivalent 30 year production from an existing parabolic trough solar plant will cost about $8 billion. AUSRA's CLFR technology potentially can be even more economical. Is it any wonder that there are more than 50 new coal plants on hold in the US because capital markets will not provide financing for them because they are two uneconomical and risky? In reply to: "Start-up Ausra thinks big with solar storage"

  April 19, 2008

  0 replies