Solar power now cheaper than nuclear
Researchers in North Carolina compare the relative price of electricity from photovoltaic cells to that from a nuclear plant.
By Katy Rank LevWed, Aug 04 2010 at 7:40 PM EST
34
SUPER SUN: Solar energy is, for the first time, more affordable than nuclear energy in North Carolina. Researchers feel this trend will continue. (Photo:Sean McGrath/Flickr) According to news aggregator Energy Collective, a historic era is upon us because solar power has become affordable. More specifically, solar power has become cheaper than nuclear power.
|
WorldShares lets you earn donations for your favorite nonprofit. Earn up to 20 points now.
Learn More |
Earn Points
What's this? |
According to the article, this is a crossover moment because the researchers haven't even considered other pros and cons of solar power, including that North Carolina is not a "sun-rich" state. Other states with more sunshine could see more cost savings. The article also references an up-and-coming trend in solar power called concentrating solar power or CSP. According to the story, CSP "promises utility-scale production and solar thermal storage." This means that even after sunset, CSP-fitted homes can generate electricity.
The story lists the crossover price point at about 16 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh). This year, in North Carolina, the price of one kWh of electricity from solar energy fell below this point for the first time. Some solar developers offer electricity from solar energy at 14 cents per kWh and predict that this price will continue to drop.
The article ends by emphasizing how important it is to have an energy source that's more affordable than nuclear power, especially given the U.S. Senate's failure to pass a climate and energy bill this year. Since both nuclear and solar power are subsidized by the government, the author points out that "taxpayers now bear the burden of putting carbon into the atmosphere through a variety of hidden charges."
 WorldShares
lets you earn donations for your favorite nonprofit. Earn up to 20
points now.Learn More Earn Points
|
CLOSE
link:
link:
Comments
Planet Green
01/14/2012 07:05 AM
Great news...
Q
12/16/2010 20:29 PM
It's going to take a nuclear disaster to stop us from using it- factor that into the cost and solar is cheaper.
BOOM!
Bill
12/16/2010 23:26 PM
When the NRC approves a Nuclear plant design that can actually have a disaster that might apply, but they have never done so.
Anonymous
01/21/2012 20:08 PM
Sorry Bill, but most of the nuclear power plants in the US were built by the same company and with the same or older technology as Fukushima. In SoCal, we have had several times when each of the two nuke plants here have failed. they were fixed, but a bigger disaster and we'd have Fukushima here. There was also one on the east coast that almost went down when a small earthquake caused by Fracking rippled through. Nuclear is stupid and expensive...the cost we see is only a fraction...we are all.... More
Olmo Tomás Mezger
11/09/2010 07:01 AM
a few days ago I had the oportunity to talk to a senior of the energy economy. His company is one of the biggest energy (electricity and gas) providers in europe. We were talking about prices of renewables, and how the big companies must change right now if they want to be part of the game in the future. The topic is hot, and even big companies are starting to think about it. Here my small report about it: .... More
Olmo Tomás Mezger
11/09/2010 06:58 AM
a few days ago I had the oportunity to talk to a senior of the energy economy. His company is one of the biggest energy (electricity and gas) providers in europe. We were talking about prices of renewables, and how the big companies must change right now if they want to be part of the game in the future. The topic is hot, and even big companies are starting to think about it. Here my small report about it: .... More
John
11/04/2010 22:40 PM
To say that solar panels are cheaper to manufacture than build a nuclear plant is apples and oranges! Nuclear facilities so much more regulated by those who are worried about the myth climate change that if the same mound of regs were put on the manufacture of solar cells, cost would be similar. Also, solar cells do not have the longevity that nuclear facilities have and would be replace five time before the nuclear facility would out live its efficiencies! The real solution is build both.... More
No More Mr Nice Guy
10/10/2010 01:25 AM
They have plenty of capacity. They just have trouble storing it when demand is low. So they shut off the wind generators because of the cost of maintenance. We should be working on super capacitors. You have all been tricked by the compliant media that touts the party line.
No More Mr Nice Guy
10/10/2010 01:18 AM
http://www.fastcompany.com/1689684/lumismart-leverages-mp3-technology-to...
No More Mr Nice Guy
10/09/2010 00:43 AM
Take away all the law suits that the useful idiots have issued to stymie the Nucs. and it will beat solar every time. In solar s defense in order to qualify for the California Solar Rebate you have to agree to position your solar array at a non-optimum angle for 5 years. Wonder who got that put in the bill? It is all a joke. The people who wrote this article may be well meaning but they are useful idiots for the people building these panels.
sunhunter
11/04/2010 19:15 PM
I have not seen the bill contents, so I have to just take your word on that. Sounds strange that it would be legislated, but if it was, it does make some sense to have the photovoltaic array facing south west. This is because peak electrical demand is in the afternoon, when all the air conditioners are on. They are trying to lower peak demand, the most expensive part of the electrical system. No more blackouts with this design as well.
Ankit
10/05/2010 03:44 AM
Its true that solar power cannot replace fossil fuel. But this doesn't make it useless, we can reduce our carbon footprint to a large extent by using some power from clean energy sources, but due to industrialization, rising demands of power can be met only by fossil fuel or nuclear power plants, but we have to be careful with its impact on our environment.
No More Mr Nice Guy
10/10/2010 01:21 AM
Or Innovation
http://www.fastcompany.com/1689684/lumismart-leverages-mp3-technology-to...
???
10/06/2010 14:44 PM
Why not?
???
10/06/2010 14:44 PM
Why not?
dwindle
09/26/2010 13:07 PM
I'm so tired of this ******** junk science. Solar is not going to be useful for decades, whereas nuclear is usable right here and right now. And the reason people keep burning coal and blood-oil is because irresponsible horseshit articles like this keep making people think solar or wind or fart powered electricity could be a reality in the next 20 years.
think how far we've just come in 20 years.
10/06/2010 14:51 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18059557
with old photo voltaic panels we would have had to cover 1% of the earths surface to power everything we currently run of non-renewable resources.
With predictable increases in efficiency in design solar panels will pay back in 10 years rather than 20 so even blinder people will realize the potential, then with increased demand the supply will be increased and I imagine the market price will drop as competition rises to sell more
tire on for 20 years
09/28/2010 17:15 PM
http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/03/05/worlds-7-biggest-solar-energy-plants/ these are photovoltaic. There are several other types of solar plants also active both in your country and elsewhere on the planet. [now - not in 20 years]
It seems like a new “world’s largest solar plant” or “world’s most efficient solar cell” is being announced every day...I'm so tired of these ******** junk.... More
mb
08/22/2010 19:59 PM
The study does not mention the cost of storage only the cost of pv. Of course the pv output is cheaper than out of a nuclear plant but as far as the grid is concerned its almost useless. You cannot power a city or a hospital only on sunny days from noon to four no cost estimate makes any sense without including the cost of storage which is currently very expensive.
MNN User
08/24/2010 21:43 PM
other alternatives to compliment solar as well...such wind, compressed, biomass, geothermal, etc....
I agree
10/06/2010 14:54 PM
Every location has it's own benefits, I'm in Iowa and here wind is so predominant that it's a far more worth investment than solar.
One of my instructors says: There is no silver bullet to the energy crisis, But with wind, solar and tidal power we can easy use the buck shot
McGuiver
08/09/2010 11:11 AM
This study has received quite a bit of attention and many rebuttals have been written. You can find two of them here
http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2010/07/gullible-reporting-by-new-yor...
.... More
Jarkko Nieminen
Today 13:29 PM
Does this study take account subsidizes for the solar power? If yes this study is flawed because solarpower receives much larger subsidizes/kwh than nuclear.
wow
10/10/2010 00:57 AM
No nuclear plant has ever been built with private sector financing. Period. Currently the US gov't is spending .883 billion/year and growing to cleaning up all of the experiments that have allowed us to have nuclear power. If you think solar energy is some socialist project compared to nuclear you are grossly mistaken.
Stuart Bell
12/27/2010 14:05 PM
Lets not confuse nuclear warfare with nuclear electrical power. The money spent in cleaning up Hanover and other sites used to build the early bombs were part of the war effort in WW-II. Not to debate the benefits of nuclear war, but it was a political decision made fairly with all available knowledge, now we have to clean up the mistakes.
Bill
10/10/2010 14:28 PM
I agree taxpayers pay the brunt of all energy development and construction no matter the souce. The real issue is that solar like wind is not 24/7 power and will not ever be. To be 24/7 it would have to generate enough during up time to be used during it's down time. So if storage efficiency increases by 400-500% over what it currently is then these plants would still not be able to be 24/7. In addition the US grid is not designed or able to easy convert to a networked generation model. To add the.... More
Uncle B
08/06/2010 15:59 PM
Solar power is modular, and can be built from as few as one solar cells upwards depending on available cash , and you can add on solar cells at any time for an upgrade! Nuclear power requires massive Capital expenditures all at once, the likes of which few proletariat can amass! Combine Solar with new super, space -age insulations recently re-discovered, for energy conservation, and cheaply heat-able, cool-able habitats can be constructed. Folks with lower living cost stresses can surely.... More
Bill
10/10/2010 14:36 PM
Aside from your apparent socialist view, modular solar doest help, unless you propose everyone has home power with no more US power grid. I live in the country and do grow my own food this includes fruits, veg, and meat. In addition, I hunt and fish for food. I don't have to, but I enjoy being self sufficient. I make easily over 6 figures, but that has went to owing nothing for my home, 76 acres, or anything else. I live the American Dream everyday and I started out as a teenage dad with no.... More
Texas Anne
08/05/2010 22:10 PM
Since the cost of building a nuclear power plant is so extremely high, why couldn't solar become more cost effective? If the cost of producing solar panels is coming down then I'm inclined to believe that this article may be true. And I for one welcome the good news.
Bob Downs
08/05/2010 19:06 PM
This study has to be seriously flawed.
Nuclear is much cheaper to produce than 16 cents/kwr and it is
available 24/7, quite unlike solar.
This is the first time I have ever read of such a claim and short
of seeing the details of the study I declare the study to be
wrong.
Bill
08/11/2010 11:16 AM
I would say 16 cents/kw hour is about right for a nuclear plant on a national average. The difference between nuclear and other technologies is that 75% of that cost is in wages (paying people) and 25% in the fuel and plants. While a coal plants are about 80% for fuel and 20% for wages. So the money at the nuclear plant goes back into the taxes for federal, state, local areas and is also carried forward into local communities.
Joby
08/06/2010 08:39 AM
Cheaper than that to PRODUCE, maybe but not to buy. Also, the technology to store energy so solar energy is available 24/7 is available now, and even referenced in the above article.
But you drank the nuclear kool-aid, right?
Bill
08/11/2010 11:11 AM
It references a future technology for the 24/7 storage which has not been vetted or even built on a small scale. Review of the study also does not take into account many costs of PV cells including the waste stream which compared to nuclear is decades behind and those wastes are a significant higher threat the environment then spent nuclear fuel. The discussion of subsidies which solar receives more then a 8 to 1 ratio over nuclear is significantly slanted the write makes it appear that the.... More
Hirotomo Nii
08/05/2010 15:57 PM
Please visit my blog Remodeling SF Bay Area; and Urban Ecology. Thanks. http://oakhiro.blogspot.com/ The ecology end of it utilizes structured land systems. Also please visit www.unsprawl.net for visuals etc
