+Frank B. Subscriber² Posted July 29, 2010 Subscriber² Share Posted July 29, 2010 Study: Solar power is cheaper than nuclear The Holy Grail of the solar industry ? reaching grid parity ? may no longer be a distant dream. Solar may have already reached that point, at least when compared to nuclear power, according to a new study by two researchers at Duke University. It?s no secret that the cost of producing photovoltaic cells (PV) has been dropping for years. A PV system today costs just 50 percent of what it did in 1998. Breakthroughs in technology and manufacturing combined with an increase in demand and production have caused the price of solar power to decline steadily. At the same time, estimated costs for building new nuclear power plants have ballooned. The result of these trends: ?In the past year, the lines have crossed in North Carolina,? say study authors John Blackburn and Sam Cunningham. ?Electricity from new solar installations is now cheaper than electricity from proposed new nuclear plants.? If the data analysis is correct, the pricing would represent the ?Historic Crossover? claimed in the study?s title. Two factors not stressed in the study bolster the case for solar even more: 1) North Carolina is not a ?sun-rich? state. The savings found in North Carolina are likely to be even greater for states with more sunshine ?Arizona, southern California, Colorado, New Mexico, west Texas, Nevada and Utah. 2) The data include only PV-generated electricity, without factoring in what is likely the most encouraging development in solar technology: concentrating solar power (CSP). CSP promises utility scale production and solar thermal storage, making electrical generation practical for at least six hours after sunset. Power costs are generally measured in cents per kilowatt hour ? the cost of the electricity needed to illuminate a 1,000 watt light bulb (for example) for one hour. When the cost of a kilowatt hour (kWh) of solar power fell to 16 cents earlier this year, it ?crossed over? the trend-line associated with nuclear power. (see chart below) Solar-Nuclear cost comparison (from Blackburn and Cunningham) The authors point out that some commercial scale solar developers are now offering electricity at 14 cents a kWh in North Carolina, a price which is expected to continue to drop. While the study includes subsidies for both solar and nuclear power, it estimates that if subsidies were removed from solar power, the crossover point would be delayed by a maximum of nine years. The report is significant not only because it shows solar to be a cheaper source of energy than nuclear. The results are also important because, despite the Senate?s failure to pass a climate and energy bill this year, taxpayers now bear the burden of putting carbon into the atmosphere through a variety of hidden charges ? or externalities, as economists call them. Fossil fuels currently account for 70 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. annually. (Nuclear generates 20 percent.) Having dropped below nuclear power, solar power is now one of the least expensive energy sources in America. Source: theenergycollective.com via Slashdot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XerXis Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 solar panels are not the future, thermal solar installations are (as the article rightly points out) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hum Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 duh. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹ Posted July 29, 2010 Subscriber¹ Share Posted July 29, 2010 wow, what's with the sudden and irreversible jump in nuclear prices all about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
embj Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 The authors point out that some commercial scale solar developers are now offering electricity at 14 cents a kWh in North Carolina, a price which is expected to continue to drop. Hell, the power from my utility company costs almost that now. I pay them about 13-13.5 cents a kWh...and that's here in NC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Gibs Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 What? A bunch of cells is cheaper than building an entire power plant that requires complex electronics and advanced machinery and then requires uranium? Who would have thought! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoredBozirini Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 What? A bunch of cells is cheaper than building an entire power plant that requires complex electronics and advanced machinery and then requires uranium? Who would have thought! You underestimate the amount of energy controlled fission produces. Even with the higher costs, the energy output is a lot higher than what you get with a bunch of photovoltaic cells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Gibs Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 You underestimate the amount of energy controlled fission produces. Even with the higher costs, the energy output is a lot higher than what you get with a bunch of photovoltaic cells. I didn't underestimate anything ;) I know how much energy controlled fission produces. My point is that building a solar farm is obviously going to be cheaper than building a nuclear powerstation. Whether or not it produces the same amount of energy, is a different matter. And I was using sarcasm ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astra.Xtreme Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 This is a pretty useless article. Of course a "natural" form of energy is going to be cheaper at this point. It's comparing 2010 solar technology to 30-40 year old nuclear technology. They fail to take into account the new Nuke plant designs. Westinghouse rolled out a new plant design that is currently being built in Georgia and many more will be in the works in the next few years. These are much much more efficient and have a good chance of leading the way for alternative energy sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Growled Member Posted July 30, 2010 Member Share Posted July 30, 2010 If nuclear and solar power was the same price or even nearly the same price, I'd take solar. Solar is a much cleaner energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoredBozirini Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 I didn't underestimate anything ;) I know how much energy controlled fission produces. My point is that building a solar farm is obviously going to be cheaper than building a nuclear powerstation. Whether or not it produces the same amount of energy, is a different matter. And I was using sarcasm ;) You need to remember that energy is sold, not given away. If a nuclear power plant costs $20 billion, but you get out of it $40 billion in the long run; it is cheaper than a solar cell farm that costs $1 billion and you can only get $2 billion out of it in the long run. This is a pretty useless article. Of course a "natural" form of energy is going to be cheaper at this point. It's comparing 2010 solar technology to 30-40 year old nuclear technology. They fail to take into account the new Nuke plant designs. Westinghouse rolled out a new plant design that is currently being built in Georgia and many more will be in the works in the next few years. These are much much more efficient and have a good chance of leading the way for alternative energy sources. I'm lost here. Solar is natural, so is nuclear energy. What do you mean with "natural"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yxz Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 cold fusion > all :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shokus Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Natural means "green", means only solar, wind energy need apply. Coal is unnatural, don't you know? Petrol is also unnatural and man-made, the ancients must have learnt to synthesize petrol thousands of years ago and deposited them all under the ground for safe-keeping. /s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Reid Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 I didn't underestimate anything ;) I know how much energy controlled fission produces. My point is that building a solar farm is obviously going to be cheaper than building a nuclear powerstation. Whether or not it produces the same amount of energy, is a different matter. And I was using sarcasm ;) How much space does it take for a solar farm to produce the same output as your average nuclear plant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raa Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 If everyone put one on their roof - no space, compared to your average nuclear plant. Pity they won't do it though. I did, and i'd never look back. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Reid Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 If everyone put one on their roof - no space, compared to your average nuclear plant. Pity they won't do it though. I did, and i'd never look back. :) yeah, but would those be able to supply a house with enough power, not to mention the massive amounts of large batteries that would need to be produced if everyone was going solar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyF Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 I didn't underestimate anything ;) I know how much energy controlled fission produces. My point is that building a solar farm is obviously going to be cheaper than building a nuclear powerstation. Whether or not it produces the same amount of energy, is a different matter. And I was using sarcasm ;) But that's like saying it's cheaper to buy a 9-volt battery than it is to buy a 1000-watt natural gas generator. You need to measure by how much electricity is produced, if you don't have enough, you need to keep adding more and more plants, and there becomes a point where nuclear energy is still cheaper, rather it be through direct construction costs, or through various recurring expenses caused by owning such a large amount of land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts