This month’s art history post, with guidance from Legalectric’s own art historian, leads off with underdrawings a la Giorgione, to highlight the exciting stuff in the South Dakota Energy Infrastructure Authority’s Energy Study. It seems they’ve figured out a few things: High cost of new infrastructure, massive transmission upgrades if they want to do coal for export, AND most importantly, that if they want to do all this spending (of our money!?!) they’d damn well better find a market for this electricity because they don’t have one!


In the midst of it, on p. 56, dig this:

The text continues:

As shown on Figure 5.1, when the wind alternative is combined with NGCC units to achieve a baseload-eequivalent reliability level, the resulting wind/gas combinations show significantly higher busbar costs than the puliverized coal options for such baseload applications. The NGCC and IGCC options showed higher costs as well.

OK, but that’s according to those figures for coal above. Take a look at the Mesaba Project numbers — when reality of IGCC is compared to the wind/gas combo what happens? CLICK HERE for Amit Rebuttal Testimony:

The Schulte report for SDEIA was dated January, 2007, so he had access to all the info on cost of BSII and cost of Excelsior from the Minnesota PUC dockets — Oh, forgot to mention, Schulte is former VP of Excelsior Energy — seems he had the sense to get out.

OK, let’s make that point a little more graphically. Here’s the Amit Table 1, that shows comparative costs:

I’ve scribbled in SDEIA/Schulte’s January wind/gas combo numbers. Schulte’s coal numbers are way too low.

The wind/gas combo has the lowest levelized price.

Can someone explain to me why we’d do anything other than add wind around gas plants for back up (if and only if necessary)?

And y’all remember the capital cost of Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project:

DOE Financial Assistance Cover Sheet


600MW of IGCC for $2,155,680,783, or $3,593/kW

 Once more with feeling:

The wind/gas combo has the lowest levelized price.

Leave a Reply