Prices of Various Energy Sources
As we continue to develop biomass as a renewable source of energy, it is important to keep the cost of energy in mind, because this has a very strong influence on the choices governments and individuals will make. I sometimes hear people ask “Why are we still using dirty coal?” You will see why in this post.
Last year I saw a presentation that projected very strong growth in wood pellet shipments from Canada and the U.S. into Europe. My first thought was “That doesn’t sound very efficient. Why don’t we just use those here in North America?”
It didn’t take very long for me to find out the answer to that. It is because wood pellets are much more expensive than natural gas in North America. On top of that it takes more effort to use wood for energy than it does natural gas. That combination means that wood has a tough time competing with natural gas in North America.
When I was looking into that issue, I compiled a list of the price for various energy types on an energy equivalent basis. The price is as current as possible unless noted. I have converted everything into $/million BTU (MMBTU), and the sources are listed below.
My preference is to use EIA data over NYMEX data because the former is an archived, fixed number. I have included energy for heating and for various transportation options. For comparison I also included the cost of electricity and the cost of the ethanol subsidy/MMBTU of ethanol produced.
Current Energy Prices per Million BTU
Powder River Basin Coal – $0.56
Northern Appalachia Coal – $2.08
Natural gas – $5.67
Ethanol subsidy – $5.92
Petroleum – $13.56
Propane – $13.92
#2 Heating Oil – $15.33
Jet fuel – $16.01
Diesel – $16.21
Gasoline – $18.16
Wood pellets – $18.57
Ethanol – $24.74
Electricity – $34.03
Observations
It isn’t difficult then to see why wood pellets have a difficult market in the U.S. For people with access to natural gas, they are going to prefer the lower price and convenience of natural gas over wood. For Europe, their natural gas supplies aren’t nearly as secure, so they have more incentive to favor wood as an option.
The cost of the ethanol subsidy is interesting. We pay more for the ethanol subsidy than natural gas costs. However, if you consider that we are paying a subsidy on a per gallon basis – and a large fraction of that gallon of ethanol is fossil fuel-derived, the subsidy for the renewable component is really high.
For instance, if we consider a generous energy return on ethanol of 1.5 BTUs out per BTU in, that means the renewable component per gallon is only 1/3rd of a gallon. (An energy return of 1.5 indicates that it took 1 BTU of fossil fuel to produce 1.5 BTU of ethanol; hence the renewable component in that case is 1/3rd). That means that the subsidy on simply the renewable component is actually three times as high – $17.76/MMBTU. Bear in mind that this is only the subsidy; the consumer then has to pay $24.74/MMBTU for the ethanol itself.
Sources for Data
Petroleum – $13.56 (EIA World Average Price for 1/08/2010)
Northern Appalachia Coal – $2.08 (EIA Average Weekly Spot for 1/08/10)
Powder River Basin Coal – $0.56 (EIA Average Weekly Spot for 1/08/10)
Propane – $13.92 (EIA Mont Belvieu, TX Spot Price for 1/12/2010)
Natural gas – $5.67 (NYMEX contract for February 2010)
#2 Heating Oil – $15.33 (EIA New York Harbor Price for 1/12/2010)
Gasoline – $18.16 (EIA New York Harbor Price for 1/12/2010)
Diesel – $16.21 (EIA #2 Low Sulfur New York Harbor for 1/08/2010)
Jet fuel – (EIA New York Harbor for 1/12/2010)
Ethanol – $24.74 (NYMEX Spot for February 2010)
Wood pellets – $18.57 (Typical Wood Pellet Price for 1/12/2010)
Electricity – $34.03 (EIA Average Retail Price to Consumers for 2009)
Conversion factors
Petroleum – 138,000 BTU/gal
Gasoline – 115,000 BTU/gal
Diesel – 131,000 BTU/gal
Ethanol – 76,000 BTU/gal
Heating oil 138,000 BTU/gal
Jet fuel – 135,000 BTU/gal
Propane – 91,500 BTU/gal
Northern Appalachia Coal – 13,000 BTU/lb
Powder River Basin Coal – 8,800 BTU/lb
Wood pellets – 7,000 BTU/lb
Electricity – 3,412 BTU/kWh
- For those who want an inside edge in the energy sector.
- Written by veteran energy analysts and insiders with a track record of accurately predicting trends.
- 100% FREE!
- And Much More...
Upcoming Events
Energy Investment Forum
June 10-11, 2013 - San Francisco, CA
A Case of Renewables versus Natural Resources
June 10-11, 2013 - San Francisco, CA
Columns
Comments
-
It is also essential that the analytical community, such as ITIF, start to act more like Bob Woodward and less ...
By Cl1ffClav3n on The Impact of Budget Sequestration on DOD Energy Innovation -
The above litany is an example of believing the myth instead of digging up the reality. When the government ...
By Cl1ffClav3n on The Impact of Budget Sequestration on DOD Energy Innovation -
I've been posted to that base, and others across Canada. Those aren't photo-voltaic cells, they are solar water heating, ...
By S'toon on How Not To Go Solar -
The invocation of the "defense industry" vice an alternative use of the "American people" in the closing paragraph is telling. ...
By ben on The Impact of Budget Sequestration on DOD Energy Innovation -
Fossil fuel power plants already have high-efficiency power storage--in their coal stockyards and tank farms--i.e., in their fuel. The ...
By Cl1ffClav3n on The Key to Running the World on Solar and Wind Power -
The move in natural gas should come from exports given the prevailing price in many foreign markets seeking supplies. ...
By ben on Who Wins from Rising Natural Gas Prices? -
Interesting to watch natural gas prices. I am surprised they have risen so much. An interesting topic: Should the ...
By Benjamin Cole on Who Wins from Rising Natural Gas Prices?


With the blog moving, it's time to get my last responses in, even though PG&E hasn't published their 2009 power mix numbers yet.
Kit P wrote: When I lived in the PNW, PRB supplied a large part of my electricity. Clee's too.
Kit P keeps bringing up my name for reasons that elude me. I have never lived in the Pacific Northwest and Powder River Basin coal does not supply a large part of my electricity. The solar panels on my roof supply a large part of my electricity. Being in PG&E territory, PG&E supplies a large part of my electricity.
Roughly 40% of PG&E's electricity comes from natural gas. Roughly 20% comes from nuclear power. Roughly another 20% comes from large hydro. Of the remaining roughly 20%, more of it comes from "Eligible Renewables" such as geothermal, biomass, small hydroelectric, wind and solar than comes from coal. Maybe Kit P thinks 2%-4% of my electricity coming from Powder River Basin coal is a "large part", but then a much larger part of my electricity comes from eligible renewables.
I'm okay with Kit P's coal plant if it meets EPA emission standards, OSHA, etc. I don't believe in shutting down perfectly-working plants. The fact that coal (from the Powder RIver Basin or elsewhere) supplies very little of the electricity provided by my power utility has nothing to do with any views I have on coal.
As for redwood trees in Redwood City, the last time I passed by the city hall, I noticed a half dozen or so redwood trees around it. I bet if I took the effort to look for redwood trees in other parts of Redwood City, I'd find a lot more. Though, as I mentioned above, Redwood City was not named that because it ever had lots of redwood trees.
Could you please add some statistics for nuclear power production?
Hi Andrew,
Hi Robert,
I found this post as I was looking for a calculator to do this very comparison. I’m surprised there isn’t already one somewhere! The closest thing I can find is:
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/update/resource_use.cfm#tabs_spot-1
My analysis is very similar to yours. You can check it out here:
http://bioenergyigert.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/natural-gas-shutting-down-coal-plants/
I’m working to create a javascript version that pulls current prices automatically. Would you be interested in helping, or do you have any input?