# Cost of electricity by source

In electrical power generation, the distinct ways of generating electricity incur significantly different costs. Calculations of these costs at the point of connection to a load or to the electricity grid can be made. The cost is typically given per kilowatt-hour or megawatt-hour. It includes the initial capital, discount rate, as well as the costs of continuous operation, fuel, and maintenance. This type of calculation assists policy makers, researchers and others to guide discussions and decision making.

The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is a measure of a power source which attempts to compare different methods of electricity generation on a comparable basis. It is an economic assessment of the average total cost to build and operate a power-generating asset over its lifetime divided by the total energy output of the asset over that lifetime. The LCOE can also be regarded as the minimum cost at which electricity must be sold in order to break-even over the lifetime of the project.

## Cost factors

While calculating costs, several internal cost factors have to be considered.[1] (Note the use of "costs," which is not the actual selling price, since this can be affected by a variety of factors such as subsidies and taxes):

• Capital costs (including waste disposal and decommissioning costs for nuclear energy) - tend to be low for fossil fuel power stations; high for wind turbines, solar PV; very high for waste to energy, wave and tidal, solar thermal, and nuclear.
• Fuel costs - high for fossil fuel and biomass sources, low for nuclear, and zero for many renewables.
• Factors such as the costs of waste (and associated issues) and different insurance costs are not included in the following: Works power, own use or parasitic load - that is, the portion of generated power actually used to run the stations pumps and fans has to be allowed for.

To evaluate the total cost of production of electricity, the streams of costs are converted to a net present value using the time value of money. These costs are all brought together using discounted cash flow.[2][3]

### Levelized cost of electricity

The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), also known as Levelized Energy Cost (LEC), is the net present value of the unit-cost of electricity over the lifetime of a generating asset. It is often taken as a proxy for the average price that the generating asset must receive in a market to break even over its lifetime. It is a first-order economic assessment of the cost competitiveness of an electricity-generating system that incorporates all costs over its lifetime: initial investment, operations and maintenance, cost of fuel, cost of capital.

The levelized cost is that value for which an equal-valued fixed revenue delivered over the life of the asset's generating profile would cause the project to break even. This can be roughly calculated as the net present value of all costs over the lifetime of the asset divided by the total electrical energy output of the asset.[4]

The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is given by:

$\mathrm{LCOE} = \frac{\text{sum of costs over lifetime}}{\text{sum of electrical energy produced over lifetime}} = \frac{\sum_{t=1}^{n} \frac{ I_t + M_t + F_t}{\left({1+r}\right)^t} }{\sum_{t=1}^{n} \frac{E_t}{\left({1+r}\right)^{t}} }$
 It : investment expenditures in the year t Mt : operations and maintenance expenditures in the year t Ft : fuel expenditures in the year t Et : electrical energy generated in the year t r : discount rate n : expected lifetime of system or power station
Note: Some caution must be taken when using formulas for the levelized cost, as they often embody unseen assumptions, neglect effects like taxes, and may be specified in real or nominal levelized cost. For example, other versions of the above formula do not discount the electricity stream.[citation needed]

Typically the LCOE is calculated over the design lifetime of a plant, which is usually 20 to 40 years, and given in the units of currency per kilowatt-hour or megawatt-day, for example AUD/kWh or EUR/kWh or per megawatt-hour, for example AUD/MWh (as tabulated below).[5] However, care should be taken in comparing different LCOE studies and the sources of the information as the LCOE for a given energy source is highly dependent on the assumptions, financing terms and technological deployment analyzed.[6] In particular, assumption of capacity factor has significant impact on the calculation of LCOE. Thus, a key requirement for the analysis is a clear statement of the applicability of the analysis based on justified assumptions.[6]

Many scholars,[specify] such as Paul Joskow, have described limits to the "levelized cost of electricity" metric for comparing new generating sources. In particular, LCOE ignores time effects associated with matching production to demand. This happens at two levels:

• Dispatchability, the ability of a generating system to come online, go offline, or ramp up or down, quickly as demand swings.
• The extent to which the availability profile matches or conflicts with the market demand profile.

Thermally lethargic technologies like coal and nuclear are physically incapable of fast ramping. Capital intensive technologies such as wind, solar, and nuclear are economically disadvantaged unless generating at maximum availability since the LCOE is nearly all sunk-cost capital investment. Intermittent power sources, such as wind and solar, may incur extra costs associated with needing to have storage or backup generation available.[7] At the same time, intermittent sources can be competitive if they are available to produce when demand and prices are highest, such as solar during mid-day peaks seen in summertime load profiles.[6] Despite these time limitations, leveling costs is often a necessary prerequisite for making comparisons on an equal footing before demand profiles are considered, and the levelized-cost metric is widely used for comparing technologies at the margin, where grid implications of new generation can be neglected.

### Avoided cost

The US Energy Information Administration has recommended that levelized costs of non-dispatchable sources such as wind or solar may be better compared to the avoided energy cost rather than to the LCOE of dispatchable sources such as fossil fuels or geothermal. This is because introduction of fluctuating power sources may or may not avoid capital and maintenance costs of backup dispatchable sources. Levelized Avoided Cost of Energy (LACE) is the avoided costs from other sources divided by the annual yearly output of the non-dispatchable source. However, the avoided cost is much harder to calculate accurately.[8][9]

### Marginal cost of electricity

A more accurate economic assessment might be the marginal cost of electricity. This value works by comparing the added system cost of increasing electricity generation from one source versus that from other sources of electricity generation (see Merit Order).[citation needed]

### External costs of energy sources

Typically pricing of electricity from various energy sources may not include all external costs - that is, the costs indirectly borne by society as a whole as a consequence of using that energy source.[10] These may include enabling costs, environmental impacts, usage lifespans, energy storage, recycling costs, or beyond-insurance accident effects.

The US Energy Information Administration predicts that coal and gas are set to be continually used to deliver the majority of the world's electricity,[11] this is expected to result in the evacuation of millions of homes in low lying areas, and an annual cost of hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of property damage.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18]

Furthermore, with a number of island nations becoming slowly submerged underwater due to rising sea levels,[19] massive international climate litigation lawsuits against fossil fuel users are currently[when?] beginning in the International Court of Justice.[20][21]

An EU funded research study known as ExternE, or Externalities of Energy, undertaken over the period of 1995 to 2005 found that the cost of producing electricity from coal or oil would double over its present value, and the cost of electricity production from gas would increase by 30% if external costs such as damage to the environment and to human health, from the particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, chromium VI, river water alkalinity, mercury poisoning and arsenic emissions produced by these sources, were taken into account. It was estimated in the study that these external, downstream, fossil fuel costs amount up to 1%-2% of the EU’s entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and this was before the external cost of global warming from these sources was even included.[22][23] Coal has the highest external cost in the EU, and global warming is the largest part of that cost.[10]

A means to address a part of the external costs of fossil fuel generation is carbon pricing — the method most favored by economics for reducing global-warming emissions. Carbon pricing charges those who emit carbon dioxide (CO2) for their emissions. That charge, called a 'carbon price', is the amount that must be paid for the right to emit one tonne of CO2 into the atmosphere.[24] Carbon pricing usually takes the form of a carbon tax or a requirement to purchase permits to emit (also called "allowances").

Depending on the assumptions of possible accidents and their probabilites external costs for nuclear power vary significantly and can reach between 0.2 to 200 ct/kWh.[25] Furthermore, nuclear power is working under an insurance framework that limits or structures accident liabilities in accordance with the Paris convention on nuclear third-party liability, the Brussels supplementary convention, and the Vienna convention on civil liability for nuclear damage[26] and in the U.S. the Price-Anderson Act. It is often argued that this potential shortfall in liability represents an external cost not included in the cost of nuclear electricity; but the cost is small, amounting to about 0.1% of the levelized cost of electricity, according to a CBO study.[27]

These beyond-insurance costs for worst-case scenarios are not unique to nuclear power, as hydroelectric power plants are similarly not fully insured against a catastrophic event such as the Banqiao Dam disaster, where 11 million people lost their homes and from 30,000 to 200,000 people died, or large dam failures in general. As private insurers base dam insurance premiums on limited scenarios, major disaster insurance in this sector is likewise provided by the state.[28]

Because externalities are diffuse in their effect, external costs can not be measured directly, but must be estimated. One approach estimate external costs of environmental impact of electricity is the Methodological Convention of Federal Environment Agency of Germany. That method arrives at external costs of electricity from lignite at 10.75 Eurocent/kWh, from hard coal 8.94 Eurocent/kWh, from natural gas 4.91 Eurocent/kWh, from photovoltaic 1.18 Eurocent/kWh, from wind 0.26 Eurocent/kWh and from hydro 0.18 Eurocent/kWh.[29] For nuclear the Federal Environment Agency indicates no value, as different studies have results that vary by a factor of 1,000. It recommends the nuclear given the huge uncertainty, with the cost of the next inferior energy source to evaluate.[30] Based on this recommendation the Federal Environment Agency, and with their own method, the Forum Ecological-social market economy, arrive at external environmental costs of nuclear energy at 10.7 to 34 ct/kWh.[31]

Calculations often do not include wider system costs associated with each type of plant, such as long distance transmission connections to grids, or balancing and reserve costs. Calculations do not include externalities such as health damage by coal plants, nor the effect of CO2 emissions on the climate change, ocean acidification and eutrophication, ocean current shifts. Decommissioning costs of nuclear plants are usually not included (The USA is an exception, because the cost of decommissioning is included in the price of electricity, per the Nuclear Waste Policy Act), is therefore not full cost accounting. These types of items can be explicitly added as necessary depending on the purpose of the calculation. It has little relation to actual price of power, but assists policy makers and others to guide discussions and decision making.[citation needed]

These are not minor factors but very significantly affect all responsible power decisions:

• Comparisons of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions show coal, for instance, to be radically higher in terms of GHGs than any alternative. Accordingly, in the analysis below, carbon captured coal is generally treated as a separate source rather than being averaged in with other coal.
• Other environmental concerns with electricity generation include acid rain, ocean acidification and effect of coal extraction on watersheds.
• Various human health concerns with electricity generation, including asthma and smog, now dominate decisions in developed nations that incur health care costs publicly. A Harvard University Medical School study estimates the US health costs of coal alone at between 300 and 500 billion US dollars annually.[32]
• While cost per kWh of transmission varies drastically with distance, the long complex projects required to clear or even upgrade transmission routes make even attractive new supplies often uncompetitive with conservation measures (see below), because the timing of payoff must take the transmission upgrade into account.

## Studies

### Australia

The following table gives a selection of LCOE from two major government reports from Australia.[33][34] These figures do not include any cost for the greenhouse gas emissions (such as under carbon tax or emissions trading scenarios) associated with the different technologies.

Renewables advocates assert that the cost for wind and solar has dramatically reduced since 2006, for example, the climate council claims over the 5 years between 2009-2014 solar costs fell by 75% making them comparable to coal, and are expected to continue dropping over the next 5 years by another 45% from 2014 prices however supporting data is unclear. Another claim is that wind has been cheaper than coal since 2013, and that coal and gas will become less viable as subsidies are withdrawn and there is the expectation that they will eventually have to pay the costs of pollution.[35]

Most energy industry reports will counter that solar and wind cannot replace base load electricity sources due to the intermittent nature of production and that the necessity to maintain unused base load power generation increases the cost of any substantial shift to renewables.[36]

LCOE in AUD per MWh (2006)
Technology Cost
Coal   28–38
Coal: IGCC + CCS   53–98
Coal: supercritical pulverized + CCS   64–106
Open-cycle Gas Turbine   101
Hot fractured rocks   89
Gas: combined cycle   37–54
Gas: combined cycle + CCS   53–93
Small Hydro power   55
Wind power: high capacity factor   63
Solar thermal   85
Biomass   88
Photovoltaics   120

### France

The International Agency for the Energy and EDF have estimated for 2011 the following costs. For the nuclear power they include the costs due to new safety investments to upgrade the French nuclear plant after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster; the cost for those investments is estimated at 4 €/MWh. Concerning the solar power the estimate at 293 €/MWh is for a large plant capable to produce in the range of 50–100 GWh/year located in a favorable location (such as in Southern Europe). For a small household plant capable to produce typically around 3 MWh/year the cost is according to the location between 400 and 700 €/MWh. Currently solar power is by far the most expensive renewable source to produce electricity, although increasing efficiency and longer lifespan of photovoltaic panels together with reduced production costs could make this source of energy more competitive.

French LCOE in €/MWh (2011)
Technology Cost in 2011
Hydro power 20
Nuclear (with State-covered insurance costs) 50
Natural gas turbines without CO2 capture 61
Onshore wind 69
Solar farms 293

### Germany

Comparison of the levelized cost of electricity for some newly built renewable and fossil-fuel based power stations in euro per kWh (Germany, 2013)
Note: employed technologies and LCOE differ by country and change over time.

In November 2013, the Fraunhofer Institute assessed the levelised generation costs for newly built power plants in the German electricity sector.[37] PV systems reached LCOE between 0.078 and 0.142 Euro/kWh in the third quarter of 2013, depending on the type of power plant (ground-mounted utility-scale or small rooftop solar PV) and average German insolation of 1000 to 1200 kWh/ per year (GHI). There are no LCOE-figures available for electricity generated by recently built German nuclear power plants as none have been constructed since the late 1980s.

German LCOE in €/MWh (2013)
Technology Cost range in 2013
Coal-fired power plants (brown coal) 38–53
Coal-fired power plant (hard coal) 63–80
CCGT power plants (cogeneration) 75–98
Onshore wind farms 45–107
Offshore wind power 119–194
PV systems 78–142
Biogas power plant 135–250
Source: Fraunhofer Institute- Levelized cost of electricity renewable energy technologies[37]

### Japan

A 2010 study by the Japanese government (pre-Fukushima disaster), called the Energy White Paper, concluded the cost for kilowatt hour was ¥49 for solar, ¥10 to ¥14 for wind, and ¥5 or ¥6 for nuclear power. Masayoshi Son, an advocate for renewable energy, however, has pointed out that the government estimates for nuclear power did not include the costs for reprocessing the fuel or disaster insurance liability. Son estimated that if these costs were included, the cost of nuclear power was about the same as wind power.[38][39][40]

### United Kingdom

The Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland commissioned a former Director of Operations of the British National Grid, Colin Gibson, to produce a report on generation levelised costs that for the first time would include some of the transmission costs as well as the generation costs. This was published in December 2011 and is available on the internet :.[41] The institution seeks to encourage debate of the issue, and has taken the unusual step among compilers of such studies of publishing a spreadsheet showing its data available on the internet :[42]

On 27 February 2015 Vattenfall Vindkraft AS agreed to build the Horns Rev 3 offshore wind farm at a price of 10.31 Eurocent per kWh. This has been quoted as below 100 UK pounds per MWh.

In 2013 in the United Kingdom for a new-to-build nuclear power plant (Hinkley Point C: completion 2023), a feed-in tariff of 92.50 pounds/MWh (around 142 USD/MWh) plus compensation for inflation with a running time of 35 years was agreed.[43][44]

#### DECC

More recent UK estimates are the Mott MacDonald study released by DECC in June 2010[45] and the Arup study for DECC published in 2011.[46]

UK LCOE in £/MWh (2010)
Technology Cost range (£/MWh)[45]
Natural gas turbine, no CO2 capture 55 – 110
Natural gas turbines with CO2 capture 60 – 130
Biomass 60 – 120
New nuclear(a) 80 – 105
Onshore wind 80 – 110
Coal with CO2 capture 100 – 155
Solar farms 125 – 180
Offshore wind 150 – 210
Tidal power 155 – 390

(a) new nuclear power: guaranteed strike price of £92.50/MWh for Hinkley Point C in 2023[47][48])

In March 2010, a new report on UK levelised generation costs was published by Parsons Brinckerhoff.[49] It puts a range on each cost due to various uncertainties. Combined cycle gas turbines without CO2 capture are not directly comparable to the other low carbon emission generation technologies in the BP study. The assumptions used in this study are given in the report.

### United States

Projected LCOE in the U.S. by 2020 (as of 2015) in dollars per MWh[50]

The following data is from the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook released in 2015 (AEO2015). They are in dollars per megawatt-hour (2013 USD/MWh). These figures are estimates for plants going into service in 2020.[51] The LCOE below is calculated based off a 30-year recovery period using a real after tax weighted average cost of capital (WACC) of 6.1%. For carbon intensive technologies 3 percentage points are added to the WACC. (This is approximately equivalent fee of $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide CO2) Since 2010, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) has published the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), with yearly LCOE-projections for future utility-scale facilities to be commissioned in about five years' time. In 2015, EIA has been criticized by the Advanced Energy Economy (AEE) Institute after its release of the AEO 2015-report to "consistently underestimate the growth rate of renewable energy, leading to 'misperceptions' about the performance of these resources in the marketplace". AEE points out that the average power purchase agreement (PPA) for wind power was already at$24/MWh in 2013. Likewise, PPA agreements for utility-scale solar PV are seen at current levels of $50–$75/MWh.[52] These figures contrast strongly with EIA's estimated LCOE of $125/MWh (or$114/MWh including subsidies) for solar PV in 2020.[53]

Projected LCOE in the U.S. by 2020 (as of 2015)
Power generating technology Minimum Average Maximum
Conventional Coal 87.1 95.1 119
IGCC (Integrated Coal-Gasification Combined Cycle) 106.1 115.7 136.1
IGCC with CCS 132.9 144.4 160.4
Natural Gas-fired na na na
NG[A]: Conventional Combined Cycle 70.4 75.2 85.5
NG[A]: Advanced Combined Cycle 68.6 72.6 81.7
NG[A]: Advanced CC with CCS 93.3 100.2 110.8
NG[A]: Conventional Combustion Turbine 107.3 141.5 156.4
NG[A]: Advanced Combustion Turbine 94.6 113.5 126.8
Geothermal 43.8 47.8 52.1
Biomass 90 100.5 117.4
Wind onshore 65.6 73.6 81.6
Wind offshore 169.5 196.9 269.8
Solar PV 97.8 125.3 193.3
Solar Thermal 174.4 239.7 382.5
Hydro 69.3 83.5 107.2
1. Natural Gas

The electricity sources which had the most decrease in estimated costs over the period 2010 to 2015 were solar photovoltaic (down 68%), onshore wind (down 51%) and advanced nuclear (down 20%).

For utility-scale generation put into service in 2040, the EIA estimated in 2015 that there would be further reductions in the constant-dollar cost of solar thermal (down 18%), solar photovoltaic (down 15%), offshore wind (down 11%), and advanced nuclear (down 7%). The cost of onshore wind was expected to rise slightly (up 2%) by 2040, while natural gas combined cycle electricity was expected to increase 9% to 10% over the period.[53]

Historical summary of EIA's LCOE projections (2010–2015)
Estimate in $/MWh Coal convent'l NG combined cycle Nuclear advanced Wind Solar of year ref for year convent'l advanced onshore offshore PV CSP 2010 [54] 2016 100.4 83.1 79.3 119.0 149.3 191.1 396.1 256.6 2011 [55] 2016 95.1 65.1 62.2 114.0 96.1 243.7 211.0 312.2 2012 [56] 2017 97.7 66.1 63.1 111.4 96.0 n.a. 152.4 242.0 2013 [57] 2018 100.1 67.1 65.6 108.4 86.6 221.5 144.3 261.5 2014 [58] 2019 95.6 66.3 64.4 96.1 80.3 204.1 130.0 243.1 2015 [53] 2020 95.1 75.2 72.6 95.2 73.6 196.9 125.3 239.7 Nominal change 2010-2015 - 5% - 8% - 10% - 20% - 51% + 3% - 68% - 7% Note: Projected LCOE are adjusted for inflation and calculated on constant dollars based on two years prior to the release year of the estimate. Estimates given without any subsidies. Transmission cost for non-dispatchable sources are on average much higher. #### NREL OpenEI (2015) OpenEI, sponsored jointly by the US DOE and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), has compiled a historical cost-of-generation database[59] covering a wide variety of generation sources. Because the data is open source it may be subject to frequent revision. LCOE from OpenEI DB as of June, 2015 Plant Type (USD/MWh) Max Median Min Wind, onshore 80 40 Wind, offshore 200 100 Solar PV 250 110 60 Solar CSP 220 100 Geothermal Hydrothermal&& 100 50 Blind Geothermal&& 100 Enhanced Geothermal 130 80 Small Hydropower&& 140 Hydropower&& 100 70 30 Ocean&& 250 240 230 Biopower 110 90 Distributed Generation 130 70 10 Fuel Cell 160 100 Natural Gas Combined Cycle 80 50 Natural Gas Combustion Turbine 200 140 Coal, pulverized, scrubbed 150 60 Coal, pulverized, unscrubbed^^ 40 Coal, integrated gasification, combined cycle 170 100 Nuclear 130 90 && = Data from 2011 ^^ = Data from 2008 All other Data from 2014 Only Median value = only one data point. Only Max + Min value = Only two data points. #### California Energy Commission (2014) LCOE data from the California Energy Commission report titled "Estimated Cost of New Renewable and Fossil Generation in California".[60] Type Year 2013 (Nominal $$) (/MWh) Year 2024( Nominal$$) ($/MWh)
Name Merchant IOU POU Merchant IOU POU
Generation Turbine 49.9MW 662.81 2215.54 311.27 884.24 2895.90 428.20
Generation Turbine 100MW 660.52 2202.75 309.78 881.62 2880.53 426.48
Generation Turbine - Advanced 200MW 403.83 1266.91 215.53 533.17 1615.68 299.06
Combined Cycle 2CTs No Duct Firing 500MW 116.51 104.54 102.32 167.46 151.88 150.07
Combined Cycle 2CTs With Duct Firing 500MW 115.81 104.05 102.04 166.97 151.54 149.88
Biomass Fluidized Bed Boiler 50MW 122.04 141.53 123.51 153.89 178.06 156.23
Geothermal Binary 30MW 90.63 120.21 84.98 109.68 145.31 103.00
Geothermal Flash 30MW 112.48 146.72 109.47 144.03 185.85 142.43
Solar Parabolic Trough W/O Storage 250MW 168.18 228.73 167.93 156.10 209.72 156.69
Solar Parabolic Trough With Storage 250MW 127.40 189.12 134.81 116.90 171.34 123.92
Solar Power Tower W/O Storage 100MW 152.58 210.04 151.53 133.63 184.24 132.69
Solar Power Tower With Storage 100MW 6HR 145.52 217.79 153.81 132.78 196.47 140.58
Solar Power Tower With Storage 100MW 11HR 114.06 171.72 120.45 103.56 154.26 109.55
Solar Photovoltaic (Thin Film) 100MW 111.07 170.00 121.30 81.07 119.10 88.91
Solar Photovoltaic (Single-Axis) 100MW 109.00 165.22 116.57 98.49 146.20 105.56
Solar Photovoltaic (Thin Film) 20MW 121.31 186.51 132.42 93.11 138.54 101.99
Solar Photovoltaic (Single-Axis) 20MW 117.74 179.16 125.86 108.81 162.68 116.56
Wind Class 3 100MW 85.12 104.74 75.8 75.01 91.90 68.17
Wind Class 4 100MW 84.31 103.99 75.29 75.77 92.88 68.83

In November 2015, the investment bank Lazard headquartered in New York, published a study on the current electricity production costs of photovoltaics in the US compared to conventional power generators. The best large-scale photovoltaic power plants can produce electricity at 50 USD per MWh. The upper limit at 60 USD per MWh. In comparison, coal-fired plants are between 65 USD and $150 per MWh, nuclear power at 97 USD per MWh. Small photovoltaic power plants on roofs of houses are still at 184-300 USD per MWh, but which can do without electricity transport costs. Onshore wind turbines are 32-77 USD per MWh. One drawback see the electricity supplier of the study by the volatility of solar and wind power. One solution provides the study in batteries as a storage, but are still expensive so far.[61][62] Below is the complete list of LCOEs by source from the investment bank Lazard.[61] Plant Type ( USD/MWh) Low High Solar PV-Rooftop Residential 184 300 Solar PV-Rooftop C&I 109 193 Solar PV-Crystalline Utility Scale 58 70 Solar PV-Thin Film Utility Scale 50 60 Solar Thermal with Storage 119 181 Fuel Cell 106 167 Microturbine 79 89 Geothermal 82 117 Biomass Direct 82 110 Wind 32 77 Energy Efficiency 0 50 Battery Storage ** ** Diesel Reciprocating Engine 212 281 Natural Gas Reciprocating Engine 68 101 Gas Peaking 165 218 IGCC 96 183 Nuclear 97 136 Coal 65 150 Gas Combined Cycle 52 78 NOTE: ** Battery Storage is no longer include in this report (2015). It has been rolled into its own separate report (See charts below). In a power purchase agreement in the United States in July 2015 for a period of 20 years of solar power will be paid 3.87 UScent per kilowatt hour (38.7 USD/MWh). The solar system, which produces this solar power, is in Nevada (USA) and has 100 MW capacity.[63] Below are the LCOEs for different battery technologies. This category has traditionally been filled by Diesel Engines. These are "Behind the meter" applications.[64] Purpose Type Low ($/MWh) High ($/MWh) MicroGrid Flow Battery 429 1046 MicroGrid Lead-Acid 433 946 MicroGrid Lithium-Ion 369 562 MicroGrid Sodium 411 835 MicroGrid Zinc 319 416 Island Flow Battery 593 1231 Island Lead-Acid 700 1533 Island Lithium-Ion 581 870 Island Sodium 663 1259 Island Zinc 523 677 Comercial and Industrial Flow Battery 349 1083 Comercial and Industrial Lead-Acid 529 1511 Comercial and Industrial Lithium-Ion 351 838 Comercial and Industrial Sodium 444 1092 Comercial and Industrial Zinc 310 452 Comercial Appliance Flow Battery 974 1504 Comercial Appliance Lead-Acid 928 2291 Comercial Appliance Lithium-Ion 784 1363 Comercial Appliance Zinc 661 833 Residential Flow Battery 721 1657 Residential Lead-Acid 1101 2238 Residential Lithium-Ion 1034 1596 All of the above Traditional Method Diesel Reciprocating Engine 212 281 Below are the LCOEs for different battery technologies. This category has traditionally been filled by Natural Gas Engines. These are "In front of the meter" applications.[64] Purpose Type Low ($/MWh) High ($/MWh) Transmission System Compressed Air 192 192 Transmission System Flow Battery 290 892 Transmission System Lead-Acid 461 1429 Transmission System Lithium-Ion 347 739 Transmission System Pumped Hydro 188 274 Transmission System Sodium 396 1079 Transmission System Zinc 230 376 Peaker Replacment Flow Battery 248 927 Peaker Replacment Lead-Acid 419 1247 Peaker Replacment Lithium-Ion 321 658 Peaker Replacment Sodium 365 948 Peaker Replacment Zinc 221 347 Frequency Regulation Flywheel 276 989 Frequency Regulation Lithium-Ion 211 275 Distribution Services Flow Battery 288 923 Distribution Services Lead-Acid 516 1692 Distribution Services Lithium-Ion 400 789 Distribution Services Sodium 426 1129 Distribution Services Zinc 285 426 PV Integration Flow Battery 373 950 PV Integration Lead-Acid 402 1068 PV Integration Lithium-Ion 355 686 PV Integration Sodium 379 957 PV Integration Zinc 245 345 All of the above Traditional Method Gas Peaker 165 218 ### Other studies and analysis #### Nuclear Energy Agency (2012) In November 2012, the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency published a report with the title System effects in low carbon energy systems.[65] In this report NEA looks at the interactions of dispatchable energy technologies (fossil and nuclear) and variable renewables (solar and wind) in terms of their effects on electricity systems. These grid-level systems costs differ from the levelized cost of electricity metric that scholars like Paul Joskow have criticised as incomplete, as they also include costs related to the electricity grid, such as extending and reinforcing transport and distribution grids, connecting new capacity to the grid, and the additional costs of providing back-up capacity for balancing the grid. NEA calculated these costs for a number of OECD countries with different levels of penetration for each energy source.[65] This report has been criticized for its adequacy and used methodology.[66][67] Swedish KTH in Stockholm published a report in response, finding "several question marks concerning the calculation methods".[68]:5 While the grid-level systems costs in the 2012 OECD-NEA report is calculated to be$17.70 per MWh for 10% onshore wind in Finland, the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology concludes in their analysis, that these costs are rather $0 to$3.70 per MWh (or 79% to 100% less than NEA's calculations), as they are either much smaller or already included in the market.[68]:23–24

Estimated Grid-Level Systems Cost, 2012 (USD/MWh)[65]:8
Technology Nuclear Coal Gas Onshore Wind Offshore Wind Solar
Penetration Level 10% 30% 10% 30% 10% 30% 10% 30% 10% 30% 10% 30%
Backup costs (adequacy) 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 5.61 6.14 2.10 6.85 0.00 10.45
Balancing costs 0.16 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 5.00 2.00 5.00 2.00 5.00
Grid connection 1.56 1.56 1.03 1.03 0.51 0.51 6.50 6.50 15.24 15.24 10.05 10.05
Grid reinforcement & extension 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.20 2.20 1.18 1.18 2.77 2.77
Total Grid-level System Costs 1.72 1.67 1.07 1.07 0.51 0.51 16.30 19.84 20.51 28.26 14.82 28.27

#### Brookings Institution (2014)

In 2014, the Brookings Institution published The Net Benefits of Low and No-Carbon Electricity Technologies which states, after performing an energy and emissions cost analysis, that "The net benefits of new nuclear, hydro, and natural gas combined cycle plants far outweigh the net benefits of new wind or solar plants", with the most cost effective low carbon power technology being determined to be nuclear power.[69][70]

#### Comparison different studies (2004–2009)

Several studies compared the levelized cost of nuclear and fossil power generation. These include studies from the Royal Academy of Engineering (UK 2004), University of Chicago (US 2004), Canadian Energy Research Institute (CAN 2004), the United Kingdom Department of Trade and Industry (UK 2006), the European Commission (BEL 2008), the House of the Lords, Select Committee on Economic Affairs (UK 2008) and MIT (US 2009).

#### Brazilian Electricity Mix: The Renewable and Non-renewable Exergetic Cost (2014)

As long as exergy stands for the useful energy required for an economic activity to be accomplished, it is reasonable to evaluate the cost of the energy on the basis of its exergy content. Besides, as exergy can be considered as measure of the departure of the environmental conditions, it also serves as an indicator of environmental impact, taking into account both the efficiency of supply chain (from primary exergy inputs) and the efficiency of the production processes. In this way, exergoeconomy can be used to rationally distribute the exergy costs and CO2 emission cost among the products and by-products of a highly integrated Brazilian electricity mix. Based on the thermoeconomy methodologies, some authors [2] have shown that exergoeconomy provides an opportunity to quantify the renewable and non-renewable specific exergy consumption; to properly allocate the associated CO2 emissions among the streams of a given production route; as well as to determine the overall exergy conversion efficiency of the production processes. Accordingly, the non-renewable unit exergy cost (cNR) [kJ/kJ] is defined as the rate of non-renewable exergy necessary to produce one unit of exergy rate/flow rate of a substance, fuel, electricity, work or heat flow, whereas the Total Unit Exergy Cost (cT) includes the Renewable (cR) and Non-Renewable Unit Exergy Costs. Analogously, the CO2 emission cost (cCO2) [gCO2/kJ] is defined as the rate of CO2 emitted to obtain one unit of exergy rate/flow rate.[71]

#### Analysis from different sources (2009)

 █ Conventional oil █ Unconventional oil █ Biofuels █ Coal █ Nuclear █ Wind Colored vertical lines indicate various historical oil prices. From left to right: — 1990s average — January 2009 — 1979 peak — 2008 peak

Price of oil per barrel (bbl) at which energy sources are competitive.

• Right end of bar is viability without subsidy.
• Left end of bar requires regulation or government subsidies.
• Wider bars indicate uncertainty.
Source: Financial Times (edit)

## Renewables

### Photovoltaics

European PV LCOE range projection 2010–2020 (in €-cts/kWh)[72]
File:Price history of silicon PV cells since 1977.svg
Price history of silicon PV cells since 1977

Photovoltaic prices have fallen from $76.67 per watt in 1977 to an estimated$0.30 per watt in 2015, for crystalline silicon solar cells.[73][74] This is seen as evidence supporting Swanson's law, an observation similar to the famous Moore's Law, that states that solar cell prices fall 20% for every doubling of industry capacity.

By 2011, the price of PV modules per MW had fallen by 60% since 2008, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates, putting solar power for the first time on a competitive footing with the retail price of electricity in some sunny countries; an alternative and consistent price decline figure of 75% from 2007 to 2012 has also been published,[75] though it is unclear whether these figures are specific to the United States or generally global. The levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) from PV is competitive with conventional electricity sources in an expanding list of geographic regions,[6] particularly when the time of generation is included, as electricity is worth more during the day than at night.[76] There has been fierce competition in the supply chain, and further improvements in the levelised cost of energy for solar lie ahead, posing a growing threat to the dominance of fossil fuel generation sources in the next few years.[77] As time progresses, renewable energy technologies generally get cheaper,[78][79] while fossil fuels generally get more expensive:

The less solar power costs, the more favorably it compares to conventional power, and the more attractive it becomes to utilities and energy users around the globe. Utility-scale solar power can now be delivered in California at prices well below $100/MWh ($0.10/kWh) less than most other peak generators, even those running on low-cost natural gas. Lower solar module costs also stimulate demand from consumer markets where the cost of solar compares very favourably to retail electric rates.[80]

In the year 2015, First Solar agreed to supply solar power at 3.87 cents/kWh levelised price from its 100 MW Playa Solar 2 project which is far cheaper than the electricity sale price from conventional electricity generation plants.[81]

It is now evident that, given a carbon price of $50/ton, which would raise the price of coal-fired power by 5c/kWh, solar PV, Wind, and Nuclear will be cost-competitive in most locations. The declining price of PV has been reflected in rapidly growing installations, totalling about 23 GW in 2011. Although some consolidation is likely in 2012, due to support cuts in the large markets of Germany and Italy, strong growth seems likely to continue for the rest of the decade. Already, by one estimate, total investment in renewables for 2011 exceeded investment in carbon-based electricity generation.[82] In the case of self consumption, payback time is calculated based on how much electricity is not brought from the grid. Additionally, using PV solar power to charge DC batteries, as used in Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Electric Vehicles, leads to greater efficiencies, but higher costs. Traditionally, DC generated electricity from solar PV must be converted to AC for buildings, at an average 10% loss during the conversion. Inverter technology is rapidly improving and current equipment have reached over 96% efficiency for small scale residential, while commercial scale three-phase equipment can reach well above 98% efficiency. However, an additional efficiency loss occurs in the transition back to DC for battery driven devices and vehicles, and using various interest rates and energy price changes were calculated to find present values that range from$2,057.13 to $8,213.64 (analysis from 2009).[83] ### Wind power NREL projection: the LCOE of U.S. wind power will decline by 25% from 2012 to 2030.[84] Estimated cost per MWh for wind power in Denmark In 2004, wind energy cost a fifth of what it did in the 1980s, and some expected that downward trend to continue as larger multi-megawatt turbines were mass-produced.[85] As of 2012 capital costs for wind turbines are substantially lower than 2008–2010 but are still above 2002 levels.[86] A 2011 report from the American Wind Energy Association stated, "Wind's costs have dropped over the past two years, in the range of 5 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour recently.... about 2 cents cheaper than coal-fired electricity, and more projects were financed through debt arrangements than tax equity structures last year.... winning more mainstream acceptance from Wall Street's banks.... Equipment makers can also deliver products in the same year that they are ordered instead of waiting up to three years as was the case in previous cycles.... 5,600 MW of new installed capacity is under construction in the United States, more than double the number at this point in 2010. Thirty-five percent of all new power generation built in the United States since 2005 has come from wind, more than new gas and coal plants combined, as power providers are increasingly enticed to wind as a convenient hedge against unpredictable commodity price moves."[87] This cost has additionally reduced as wind turbine technology has improved. There are now longer and lighter wind turbine blades, improvements in turbine performance and increased power generation efficiency. Also, wind project capital and maintenance costs have continued to decline.[88] For example, the wind industry in the USA is now[when?] able to produce more power at lower cost by using taller wind turbines with longer blades, capturing the faster winds at higher elevations. This has opened up new opportunities and in Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. The price of power from wind turbines built 300 feet to 400 feet above the ground can now compete with conventional fossil fuels like coal. Prices have fallen to about 4 cents per kilowatt-hour in some cases and utilities have been increasing the amount of wind energy in their portfolio, saying it is their cheapest option.[89] ## See also ## Further reading ## References 1. A Review of Electricity Unit Cost Estimates Working Paper, December 2006 - Updated May 2007 2. "Cost of wind, nuclear and gas powered generation in the UK". Claverton-energy.com. Retrieved 2012-09-04.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> 3. "David Millborrows paper on wind costs". Claverton-energy.com. Retrieved 2012-09-04.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> 4. Nuclear Energy Agency/International Energy Agency/Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Projected Costs of Generating Electricity (2005 Update) 5. K. Branker, M. J.M. Pathak, J. M. Pearce, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.104 A Review of Solar Photovoltaic Levelized Cost of Electricity, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15, pp.4470-4482 (2011). Open access 6. Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers at line 47: attempt to index field 'wikibase' (a nil value). Open access 7. Comparing the Costs of Intermittent and Dispatchable Electricity-Generating Technologies", by Paul Joskow, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, September 2011 8. US Energy Information Administration, Levelized cost of new generation resources, 28 January 2013. 9. "Subsidies and costs of EU energy. Project number: DESNL14583" Pages: 52. EcoFys, 10 October 2014. Accessed: 20 October 2014. Size: 70 pages in 2MB. 10. International Energy Outlook: Electricity "Although coal-fired generation increases by an annual average of only 1.9 percent, it remains the largest source of electricity generation through 2035. In 2008, coal-fired generation accounted for 40 percent of world electricity supply; in 2035, its share decreases to 37 percent, as renewables, natural gas, and nuclear power all are expected to advance strongly during the projection and displace the need for coal-fired-generation in many parts of the world. World net coal-fired generation grows by 67 percent, from 7.7 trillion kilowatthours in 2008 to 12.9 trillion kilowatthours in 2035." 11. The economic impact of global warming 12. Climate change threatens Australia's coastal lifestyle, report warns | Environment | The Guardian 13. Tufts Civil Engineer Predicts Boston’s Rising Sea Levels Could Cause Billions Of Dollars In Damage 14. Rising Sea Levels' cost on Boston 15. Tufts University slide 28, note projected Bangladesh evacuation 16. The Hidden costs of Fossil fuels 17. Rising Sea Level 18. Five nations under threat from climate change 19. Tiny Pacific nation takes on Australia 20. See you in court: the rising tide of international climate litigation 21. New research reveals the real costs of electricity in Europe 22. IPCC, Glossary A-D: "Climate price", in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007. 23. Viktor Wesselak, Thomas Schabbach, Thomas Link, Joachim Fischer: Regenerative Energietechnik. Springer 2013, ISBN 978-3-642-24165-9, p. 27. 24. Methodenkonvention 2.0 zur Schätzung von Umweltkosten B, Anhang B: Best-Practice-Kostensätze für Luftschadstoffe, Verkehr, Strom -und Wärmeerzeugung (PDF; 886 kB). Studie des Umweltbundesamtes (2012). Abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2013. 25. Ökonomische Bewertung von Umweltschäden METHODENKONVENTION 2.0 ZUR SCHÄTZUNG VON UMWELTKOSTEN (PDF; 799 kB), S. 27-29. Studie des Umweltbundesamtes (2012). Abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2013. 26. Externe Kosten der Atomenergie und Reformvorschläge zum Atomhaftungsrecht (PDF; 862 kB), 9/2012. Forum Ökologisch-Soziale Marktwirtschaft e.V. im Auftrag von Greenpeace Energy eG und dem Bundesverband Windenergie e.V. Abgerufen am 23. Oktober 2013. 27. "New Harvard Study Examines Cost of Coal". Environment.harvard.edu. Retrieved 2012-09-04.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> 28. Graham, P. The heat is on: the future of energy in Australia CSIRO, 2006 29. Switkowski, Z. Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review UMPNER taskforce, Australian Government, 2006 30. The Climate Council The global renewable energy boom: how Australia is missing out, 2014 31. http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/ElecCost2015SUM.pdf 32. "Levelized cost of electricity renewable energy technologies" (PDF). FRAUNHOFER. 2013. Retrieved 6 May 2014.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> 33. Johnston, Eric, "Son's quest for sun, wind has nuclear interests wary", Japan Times, 12 July 2011, p. 3. 34. Bird, Winifred, "Powering Japan's future", Japan Times, 24 July 2011, p. 7. 35. Johnston, Eric, "Current nuclear debate to set nation's course for decades", Japan Times, 23 September 2011, p. 1. 36. "Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland report" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-09-04.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> 37. "Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland data". Iesisenergy.org. Retrieved 2012-09-04.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> 38. Electricity Market Reform – Delivery Plan Department of Energy and Climate Change, December 2013 39. Carsten Volkery: Kooperation mit China: Großbritannien baut erstes Atomkraftwerk seit Jahrzehnten, In: Spiegel Online vom 21. Oktober 2013. 40. "Mott MacDonald study released by DECC in June 2010" (PDF). Retrieved 2012-09-04.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> 41. Ove Arup & Partners Ltd (October 2011). "Review of the generation costs and deployment potential of renewable electricity technologies in the UK" (PDF). London: Department of Energy and Climate Change. Retrieved 16 February 2012.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> 42. "UK nuclear power plant gets go-ahead". BBC News. 21 October 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> 43. Roland Gribben and Denise Roland (21 October 2013). "Hinkley Point nuclear power plant to create 25,000 jobs, says Cameron". London: Daily Telegraph.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> 44. "Powering the Nation". Parsons Brinckerhoff. 2010. Retrieved 16 February 2012.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> 45. "U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Source". www.eia.gov. Retrieved 2015-11-02.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> 46. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Source 47. "New Report: Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Will Grow, Provide Options for Clean Power Plan Compliance Based on Cost Competitiveness—Official Projections Fail to Capture Market Realities, Skewing Policy Considerations". PR newswire. 22 June 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> 48. US Energy Information Administration, Levelized cost and levelized avoided cost of new generation resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2015, 14 April 2015 49. US Energy Information Administration, 2016 Levelized cost of new generation resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2010, 26 April 2010 50. US Energy Information Administration, Levelized cost of new generation resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2011, 26 April 2011 51. US Energy Information Administration, Levelized cost of new generation resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2012, 12 July 2012 52. US Energy Information Administration, Levelized cost of new generation resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2013, 28 Jan. 2013 53. US Energy Information Administration, Levelized cost and levelized avoided cost of new generation resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2014, 17 April 2014 54. OpenEI Transparent Cost Database. Accessed 06/19/2015. 55. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2014publications/CEC-200-2014-003/CEC-200-2014-003-SF.pdf 56. [1] November 2014 57. Solar and Wind Outshine Fossil Fuels November 2014 58. https://www.lazard.com/media/2391/lazards-levelized-cost-of-storage-analysis-10.pdf 59. "System effects in low carbon energy systems" (PDF). OECD, NEA. 2012-11-29. Retrieved 2013-04-04.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> 60. environmentalresearchweb.org - Nuclear and renewables: back-up and grid costs 61. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland - Note for wind energy grid level system costs published by NEA 2012 report 62. Lennart Söder (2012-12-20). "Nuclear Energy and Renewables: System Effects in Low‐carbon Electricity Systems – Method comments to a NEA report" (PDF). Swedish Royal Institute of Technology. Retrieved 13 March 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> 63. Economist magazine article "Sun, wind and drain Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought Jul 26th 2014" 64. THE NET BENEFITS OF LOW AND NO-CARBON ELECTRICITY TECHNOLOGIES. MAY 2014, Charles Frank PDF 65. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196890414003628, University of Sao Paulo - Renewable and non-renewable exergy cost and specific CO2 emission of electricity generation: The Brazilian case. Daniel Flórez-Orrego, Julio A.M. Silva, Silvio de Oliveira Jr. 66. "Solar Photovoltaics Competing in the Energy Sector—On the road to competitiveness" (PDF). European Photovoltaic Industry Association. September 2011. p. 18. Retrieved March 2015. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> 67. "Price Quotes". http://pv.energytrend.com/. Archived from the original on 26 June 2014. Retrieved 26 June 2014. External link in |website= (help)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> 68. "Sunny Uplands: Alternative energy will no longer be alternative". The Economist. 21 November 2012. Retrieved 2012-12-28.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> 69. Ken Wells (October 25, 2012), "Solar Energy Is Ready. The U.S. Isn't", Bloomberg Businessweek, businessweek.com, retrieved November 1, 2012<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> 70. Utilities’ Honest Assessment of Solar in the Electricity Supply 71. "Renewables Investment Breaks Records". Renewable Energy World. 29 August 2011.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> 72. Renewable energy costs drop in '09 Reuters, November 23, 2009. 73. Solar Power 50% Cheaper By Year End – Analysis Reuters, November 24, 2009. 74. Arno Harris (31 August 2011). "A Silver Lining in Declining Solar Prices". Renewable Energy World.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> 75. "NV Energy buys utility-scale solar at record low price under 4 cents/kWh". Retrieved 23 July 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> 76. John Quiggin (January 3, 2012). "The End of the Nuclear Renaissance |". National Interest.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> 77. Converting Solar Energy into the PHEV Battery "VerdeL3C.com", May 2009 78. Lantz, E.; Hand, M. and Wiser, R. (13–17 May 2012) "The Past and Future Cost of Wind Energy," National Renewable Energy Laboratory conference paper no. 6A20-54526, p. 4 79. Helming, Troy (2004) "Uncle Sam's New Year's Resolution" ArizonaEnergy.org 80. "LBNL/NREL Analysis Predicts Record Low LCOE for Wind Energy in 2012–2013". US Department of Energy Wind Program Newsletter. 24 February 2012. Retrieved 10 March 2012.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> 81. Salerno, E., AWEA Director of Industry and Data Analysis, as quoted in Shahan, Z. (2011) Cost of Wind Power – Kicks Coal's Butt, Better than Natural Gas (& Could Power Your EV for$0.70/gallon)" CleanTechnica.com
82. Danielson, David (14 August 2012). "A Banner Year for the U.S. Wind Industry". Whitehouse Blog.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
83. Diane Cardwell (20 March 2014). "Wind Industry's New Technologies Are Helping It Compete on Price". New York Times.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>