Study: Solar power is cheaper than nuclear


Recommended Posts

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-costs.gif

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.