yes. onshore wind starts around 16p and offshore is more - towards 30p, and solar is around 40p.
has some outline calculations to see how these are derived, using similart models for all the energy sources. But the actual costs of e.g. new coal plant and fuel prices are less easy to find than you might expect. NOr are O & M costs of power stations something people publish on the net.
Additionally it's in nay ways an 'accounting decision' to add the cost of backup to wind. And indeed to reliably give a cost to capital intensive plant.
If yuou dont understand intermittency and accounting practices you can always cherry pick something and make false claims - as Renewable UK do
- about anything.
The models in that paper use a simple accountingprinciple. Cost of money is assumed constant between all forms of power capital investmnent. No favours by way of low interest loans are applied to any technology. Capital costs are written off linearly over the expected lifetime of the equipment, and average capacity factors are applied to the income streams that accord well with MEASURED (rather than claimed) real world capacity factors.
In the case of gas backup the problem is even more thorny, so that model takes the total cost of suppliying a fixed amount of power by a gas/renewable combination,. and adding the excess cost of providing te backup over and above what the backup would have cost if it were the sloe supplier of electricity, to the renewable source,. pro rata.
I.e. you have te cost say of a GWh of gas. Then you have the cost of a mixture of a GW of gas and a GW of wind, balancing each other. That is more expensive. The gas consumption is assumed to go down, but that is actually morethan offset by the cost of the wind, for example.
Then you take the *excess* cost over the gas alone situation, and apply that excess cost *entirely* to the energy the wind farm produces. To get a true and fair estimate of how much that part of the energy mix costs you over and above what you would otherwise have paid. The wind itself doesn't cost that, but putting it on the grid *does cost that much extra* . Naturally that never enters into renewable UKs estimates of renewable energy costs. They lie about the real life achieveable capacity factors,(30-40% they say, 22%-25% in reality) they lie about the lifetime of wind turbines (they say 25 years, the reality is 10-12 years) they ignore the cost impacts elsewhere on the grid (cost of subsidising now unprofitable gas sets, cost of uprating the grid to deal with high and variable trans national power flows) and its generators and they totally ignore the social and environmental costs (detsroys house prices, tourist industries, and jobs that only exist because energy is cheap) of their technology.
If you model the direct cost in a spreadsheet, you can see that capacity factor andcapital asset lifetime and amortization periods are absolutely crucial in defining the cost of the electricity. Especially in terms of sort lifetimes. Whether a knuke last 40 or 60 yers is not a huge difference..the capital depreciation is 2.5% or 1.6% per year, and that will be dwarfed by the interest on the money at say 7.5% a year. And O&M costs - the cost of keeping the whole shebang working., could easily be 10%-15%. But when you get to a ten year lifetime that's 10% depreciation per year, and the cost does start to be highly impacted.
Then we have capacity factors. a windfarm that operates at a claimed onshore 27% CF but actually only delivers 22% has just added 25% to the cost of that electricity. If its offshore, and expected to deliver 40% CF but only scrapes 25% its even worse.
So we have the sheer chutzpah of the renewable industry claiming 'grid parity' and saying they 'still need subsidies' in more or less the same breath. The first statements represents their marketing and their faux estimates, the second recognises the actual reality of the true costs.