Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Solar and Nuclear Costs —The Historic Crossover

By John O. Blackburn, PhD, NC-WARN (left) and Sam Cunningham (photo not available)
August 10, 2010   |   17 Comments
Report shows that solar energy is now the better buy.

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

17 Reader Comments
No image available
Comment
1 of 17
Anonymous
August 10, 2010
In appendix A (last line of page 17) this is buried: "A 30% Federal tax credit and a 35% North Carolina tax credit were applied to the capital cost to reach a net cost per kWh." In other words, the authors estimate the current price of solar PV in NC to be 35 cents/kWh (see also pg 18 of the report) and it is only after massive Federal and state subsidies that they arrive at a final value of 16 cents/kWh. If the author was forthright these subsidies would not be hidden in the fine print of the appendix of the report and would instead be mentioned prominently with the claims on prices.

The author uses estimates of nuclear power plant costs from only a single (and dubious) source. Doubtless, costs for the first few new plants in the US will be significantly higher than for the earlier generation of plants as kinks in the regulatory process as encountered, but prices for new plants should benefit from economies of scale and probably decrease with time.

Finally, solar power is intermittent and thus clearly not a direct replacement for nuclear power, which supplies base load capacity.
Steven
No image available
Comment
2 of 17
Anonymous
August 11, 2010
Source your data please, i.e. where did you get the French, etc. data sets from which to do projections. The U.S. data is from aging plants; there are lifespan considerations, i.e. cost over time. There are also discontinuities, i.e. 24/7 continuous operation vs. 'only when the sun shines'operation--meaning you must factor in the cost of building and maintaining the backup power system.
Comment
3 of 17
August 13, 2010
Editor's note: The sourcing for this report was so extensive that I couldn't include it in this short summary reproduced above. I would encourage all those interested to download the full report by clicking on the NC-WARN link provided.
No image available
Comment
4 of 17
Anonymous
August 13, 2010
Nearly all the nuclear power cost estimates come from the the unpublished (and hence not peer reviewed) report of Cooper available at:
http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Documents/Cooper%20Report%20on%20Nuclear%20Economics%20FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf

These are estimates for new US or Canadian plants; construction costs in other countries seem to be lower. After over a decade without new builds the first few nuclear power plants to be built in the US are likely to be expensive, but projections that costs will continue to rise instead of dropping (based on economies of scale and regulatory streamlining) are purely speculative.

For base load power in the US southeast the only viable options today are nuclear and coal. This may not be a happy choice, but if one is concerned about climate change it should be an easy one....
Steven
No image available
Comment
5 of 17
Anonymous
August 17, 2010
From the author of comment #6: "Isn't biomass a viable option for the US southeast?"

OK, modest amounts of biomass are a viable source of electricity generation. However, biomethane would be used for peaking rather than base load power, and the most likely markets for biomass are for direct heating (e.g., wood pellets) or as feedstocks to create liquid fuels. Waste wood products have long been used for a small amount of electricity generation (and are now the largest non-hydro renewable in the US), and certain agricultural byproducts could do the same, but growing biomass just to fuel a turbine would be cost prohibitive (especially if you don't depend on cheap fertilizers that are now derived from fossil fuels to push up yields). Adding significant amounts of base load capacity via either coal or nuclear is readily achievable; other options are not likely to gain significant market share in the near future.
Steven
No image available
Comment
6 of 17
Anonymous
August 17, 2010
The author gets it right. Nuclear is more expensive than solar today. However, he could have been more clear on where the subsidies reside for nuclear.

Only about 50% of the nuclear plants ever started are completed. Normally they are 50% over budget. Banks and the bond market would never finace this without a federal loan guarantee. A utility would need to pay a very high interest rate to get that loan; it might not even be possible.

Another subsidy is in the form of clean up. Today I read the follow headline: "Fluor lands contract for Portsmouth plant cleanup: Fluor Corp. said Monday that it has received a $2.1 billion contract from the U.S. Department of Energy to clean up a site in southwestern Ohio once used to enrich uranium. Source: Bloomberg Businessweek"

A third subsidy is insurance. Utilities generally do not cover insurance for a nuclear accident because there is a. no insurance company willing to cover the event and b. the political risk is that the utility will go bankrupt even if it had insurance.

Another myth is the that nuclear is reliable base load. It is not. It goes down and breaks all the time. The nuclear regulatory agency posts outages almost every day. Anotehr headline today, "Exelon nuke plant southwest of Chicago shut down. Both reactors at Exelon Corp.'s nuclear power plant in Braidwood have shut down, and the company is looking for the source of the problem. Source: Bloomberg Businessweek"

And when it breaks, it typically takes weeks to find the problem and then it takes about a week to restart. Exelon is looking for the problem. When wind and solar go down, you generally know the problem.

The majority of the 10bn DOE budget goes to nuclear. It has been for the past 20 years.

Would you invest in a project that has a 50% chance of being complete with a 50% chance of a huge cost overrun that would start cash flowing in 5 years? Or you can invest in a technology that can come on line in 2 weeks.
No image available
Comment
7 of 17
Anonymous
August 17, 2010
In conclusion, I think we should keep our nuclear option open, but if you add up all the subsidies, nuclear probably costs closer to .20 a kwh.

When we talk about nuclear, we should use the real numbers. The nuclear industry generally puts up "operating costs" vs. fully loaded costs for other energy sources. There are still benefits to having a diverse energy grid, but lets talk apples-to-apples.

Amory Lovins has done some work on this at RMI.org

Nuclear might be safe, might, but it is just too expensive.

If NC has the mandate for low cost, than nuclear is a boodoggle.
No image available
Comment
8 of 17
Anonymous
August 17, 2010
The author of comment #8 writes: "Another subsidy is in the form of clean up. Today I read the follow headline: "Fluor lands contract for Portsmouth plant cleanup: Fluor Corp. said Monday that it has received a $2.1 billion contract from the U.S. Department of Energy to clean up a site in southwestern Ohio once used to enrich uranium. Source: Bloomberg Businessweek"


It is worth noting that the Portsmouth gaseous diffusion plant was used primarily to create highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons and submarine reactor cores. Cleanup of such a facility is properly the responsibility of the government and does not represent a subsidy to the nuclear power plant industry.
Steven
No image available
Comment
9 of 17
Anonymous
August 17, 2010
The author of comment #8 also writes:
"Another myth is the that nuclear is reliable base load. It is not. It goes down and breaks all the time. The nuclear regulatory agency posts outages almost every day. Anotehr headline today, "Exelon nuke plant southwest of Chicago shut down. Both reactors at Exelon Corp.'s nuclear power plant in Braidwood have shut down, and the company is looking for the source of the problem. Source: Bloomberg Businessweek"

Scheduled and unscheduled maintenance is a fact of life for all types of generation equipment. Nuclear power plants in the US have uptimes in excess of 90% and their mean percentage of time spent for scheduled and unscheduled maintenance are both BELOW those of coal plants. This would make nuclear power the most reliable source of base load power in the US.
Steven
No image available
Comment
10 of 17
Anonymous
August 17, 2010
Do people still buy to this myth of "baseload power" ? You don't want a continuous stable 24/7 supply, what you need is a supply that match your demand... I know that for 50 years, nuclear power has been a solution in search of a problem but continuous supply that you can't switch on and off all the time is as much as a problem as a variable but predictable energy like wind or solar. The nuclear intensive power system in France can only work by balancing the load with hydro (including pumped storage) and a massive amounts of exports : 30% of the power produced by nuclear power plants needs to be exported because there is no use for it.

With a virtual power plant combining different kind of renewables and energy efficiency measures (biomass, hydro, wind, solar, demand-side response...) you can actually cover the fluctuating demand as shown in the german Kombikraftwerk experiment.
No image available
Comment
11 of 17
Anonymous
August 17, 2010
The author of comment #12 writes: "Do people still buy to this myth of "baseload power" ? You don't want a continuous stable 24/7 supply, what you need is a supply that match your demand..."

Obviously, dispatchable power is more valuable than baseload power but baseload power is more valuable than intermittent power; a generation mix that is predominantly nuclear is no more problematic than one that is predominantly solar PV (it is also worth noting that some nuclear and coal plants have a limited load following capacity). The author of this article treats energy sources as if they can be characterized by a single metric--that of cents per kWh. Matching the demand profile requires a more nuanced view of the world, as I pointed out in comment #1, last line: "Finally, solar power is intermittent and thus clearly not a direct replacement for nuclear power, which supplies base load capacity." This unipolar view of the energy industry is, however, a small flaw compared to the highly biased cost estimates. This isn't a scholarly article intended for a peer reviewed journal, it is a propaganda piece intended to masquerade as a scholarly article. The author's own estimate of PV costs sans direct per kWh subsidies is 35 cents/kWh: obviously far more than nuclear power, which is produced in hundreds of plants all over the world at a fraction of this cost.
Steven
No image available
Comment
12 of 17
Anonymous
August 18, 2010
No one in the world is asking for a generation mix that is "predominantltly solar PV"... Take a look at what is written above :

"Energy efficiency, wind power, solar hot water (displacing electric water heating) and cogeneration (combined heat and power), were already cheaper sources than new nuclear plants.

This report illustrates that solar photovoltaics (PV) have joined the ranks of lower-cost alternatives to new nuclear plants. When combined, these clean sources can provide the power that is needed, when it is needed."

That's the whole concept of a virtual power plant operated by an agregator : wind and solar are producing a variable base load and the flexible energy system reacts accordingly.

Chelya.
Comment
13 of 17
August 24, 2010
I am a physicst (energy expert), long time environmentalist, and NC resident.

This article is not only a political puff piece, but is an embarrassment to the scientific community. The errors, omissions, and arbitrary assumptions are legion (way to many to adequately explain with the word limitations here).

Blackburn, Cunningham (and Cooper) should publicly apologize for promoting their own political agendas under the guise of a scientific assessment. They are doing a profound disservice to NC citizens, taxpayers and ratepayers.

Real science is rooted in the Scientific Method. Real science is based on comprehensive, independent, objective, transparent, empirical evidence. This piece (and Cooper's) have no such pedigree.

For a better understanding of our energy situation from an independent scientist, see EnergyPresentation.Info.
Comment
14 of 17
August 24, 2010
Like JenniferRunyon, the editor who chose to publish this article and the author of a comment above, I am limited by space here. I have extensively documented the problems associated with the Blackburn and Cunningham authored paper, starting with the fact that it was commissioned by an activist organization specifically organized to fight against nuclear energy and promote solar and wind power.

Fortunately, Jennifer has not done readers the disservice that some bloggers and journalists have done; she did not try to add credibility to the paper by crediting the work to the university that used to employ Dr. Blackburn and now is allowing Mr. Cunningham to pursue his Masters in Environmental Management.

If you are interested in reading more about the issues I have with the extensively promoted conclusions of the paper vis a vis the cost comparisons between heavily subsidized solar and lightly subsidized nuclear, you can find them at the following two links:

http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2010/07/gullible-reporting-by-new-york-times-on.html

http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2010/08/tamping-down-spread-of-nc-warn.html

As Ms. Runyon recommended above, I also recommend downloading and reading the paper in its entirety. I suggest reading it with a critical eye, a calculator by your side and access to alternative sources of verifiable energy information - like the Energy Information Agency predictions of levelized power costs:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html

Form your own opinions. If you decide that solar is cheaper, by all means, go buy yourself a solar system and begin generating your own power. If you do that, however, please do not complain to all of the rest of us about the cost of owning and operating your system or about the sacrifices that it requires to keep it operating.
No image available
Comment
15 of 17
Anonymous
August 25, 2010
Ok it seems that for some reasons nuke fanboys felt heavily threaten by this study and are started googling to write comments on every news that features it... So I guess it is normal that they did not notice that they are on a website calle Renewable Energy World where you will have a high chance to find renewable energy professionals, lots of them who actually owns solar panels... And by the way some of them are working in utilities so, please, cut the propaganda, it never has been a secret that nuclear power plants needs massive subsidies to operate...
No image available
Comment
16 of 17
Anonymous
September 1, 2010
@ comments 8 & 10. UK nuclear clean up - all picked up by the tax payer according to this government report:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/tna/+/http://www.dti.gov.uk/nuclearcleanup/ach/whitepaper.pdf/

We are talking £100 billion bill and rising now.

There are some better examples e.g. Sweden where they have lots of regulations to make nuclear energy providers pay into a clean up fund. Saying that, its not certain that the fund will cover the costs of decommissioning and waste storage/disposal, particularly as allot of the technology for dealing with the waste is still in development.
Comment
17 of 17
January 11, 2011
@19. Clee:

> ...I find Ron's solar bashing to be uncalled for, vague, unsubstantiated fear mongering.

It's *Rod* Adams - and he's a blatant nuclear shill, putting out lots of anti-renewable / pro-nuke propaganda and happily smearing anyone he perceives as a threat to nukes. Here he is attacking Dr Joseph Romm:

* "Unlike JR, I did not cut my teeth in the energy world at the feet of a guy who never bothered to finish school and thinks that finding a cheap, abundant source of energy would be a bad thing. ... I suspect the financial motives of anyone who claims to be focused on solving climate issues and ignores nuclear..."

You'd get a more honest and reliable commentary on energy from Sarah Palin!
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

Schneider Electric HUBER+SUHNER AG Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. Rittal Corporation Trojan Battery Company Alpha Technologies Grundfos Direct Sensors
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters