Solar Power Now Cheaper Than Nuclear Power

by Adele, posted on August 11th, 2010.

solar-power-vs-nuclear-power

Historic moment: solar power now cheaper than new nuclear plants.

In the past, solar PV was more expensive than other alternatives to oil like nuclear power. But as the New York Times recently reported, that’s no longer true. The cost of solar power has been going down, while nuclear power costs are rising.

Based on a the report by John O. Blackburn, a professor of economics at Duke University, a “historic crossover” has taken place, where solar (trending down) and nuclear (trending up) have crossed each other at about $0.16 / kWh.

Report: Solar and Nuclear Costs — The Historic Crossover: Solar Energy is Now the Better Buy

The estimated cost of a new nuclear reactor is about $10 billion, and costs are likely to continue to keep going up. The costs of new reactors are staggeringly high in part because they can take over a decade to build, while construction and financing costs continually rise. The design of each reactor is complex, site-specific, and non-standardized. There are also few suppliers for the specialized products needed to build the plants, which results in sky-high costs.

nuclear-power-plant-costs

Analysts have warned that new proposals in Congress to develop more nuclear power could end up costing U.S. taxpayers hundreds of billions — or even trillions– of dollars more than necessary.

What makes this especially unappealing: utilities want ratepayers to start paying more for nuclear power before plants are even completed, perhaps even 12 years in advance. Because of the complications of construction, it’s possible that the plants may never be built. A huge percentage of previous plants have been subject to delays and cancellations.

The Risks of Nuclear Power

nuclear-power-plant

Not only is nuclear power more expensive than solar power, it also entails serious risks. The accident at Chernobyl in 1986 killed 30 people instantly, caused thousands of deaths from cancer, and raised radiation levels as far away as Scotland to 10,000 times the normal levels. Despite careful precautions, there is always some risk involved. A government subcommittee found that an accident at a U.S. nuclear power plant could kill more people than the atomic bomb in Nagasaki.

Mining uranium also causes environmental damage, creating radioactive isotopes that contaminate land, water, air, and harm nearby humans and animals. Some of these isotopes can remain harmful for hundreds of thousands of years. Nuclear waste created during production of energy is another problem. Reactors create tons of hazardous waste each year, and we have no way to safely dispose of this waste. There’s also the danger of plutonium being accessed for making bombs.

The Advantages of Solar Power

SunWize-Solar-Panel-Install 550

Solar power doesn’t carry the incredible risks of nuclear power (the cost of safety precautions in nuclear plants is a big part of the overall price-tag). Solar panels can go almost anywhere, including the roof of your home, and this type of distributed energy production helps make energy production more reliable and secure.

Solar can be installed in places that otherwise wouldn’t be used. They make use of an abundant free resource: the sun. Panels are inert and without any moving parts, virtually maintenance-free. They can easily be recycled. And now they’re cheaper than ever. In some places, they can even be a major financial investment. Just look at New Jersey, where home solar beat the stock market with a 324% return on investment.

Solar power also has some advantages over other types of renewable energy sources.

Solar makes a lot of sense. Join One Block Off the Grid (free!) to see if there’s an active group discount on solar energy in your area.

- Image 1 Credit, Image 2 Credit, Image 3: Sunwize and One Block Off the Grid

Facebook comments:

5 Responses to “Solar Power Now Cheaper Than Nuclear Power”

  1. Mary Rose Says:

    Awesome news!

  2. Ramaswami Ashok Kumar Says:

    Of course such panels are perhaps infinitely more preferable to nukes. One should bring out clearly how safe are these for disposing off after their useful life or after they have been given for recycling. But a much more crucial issue is energy audit. Let us for the sake of argument assume that the annual energy input to construction is 0.67 times the annual energy output of the pv system(pvs).Lets assume the period of construction and commissioning is one year(for a given capacity). At the end of one year after start of the pvs programme,lets assume we would like to construct two such pvs. The annual energy outgo for this is 1.33 times the pvs which is just installed! From such considerations it is clear that such a programme of pvs will be a net consumer of energy during a rapid growth phase.The argument is the same whether nukes or any other slowly deployable system is concerned. My question is therefore, how viable is the energy audit of pvs for meeting energy needs? Of course you must include all energy that has gone into producing each element of pvs including that required for disposal at the end of its life.

  3. » Weekly Greens – August 13th | Biofriendly Blog Says:

    [...] so new structures will be able to tap into solar power as soon as they are built. Between that and solar power now being cheaper than nuclear power, I’d say we’re heading in the right direction.  Image by Rupert [...]

  4. Clayton Says:

    Hi Ramaswami-

    Lifecycle energy assessments are important and we actually have a post about this in the works. Based the following report, solar panels will return 9-17 times more energy over their lifetime than they require to produce: http://bit.ly/b7BnFe.

  5. Ramaswami Ashok Kumar Says:

    Thanks.I prefer to wait for your post!

Leave a Reply

Tell your friends about 1BOG!



Like this? Click the "like" button to share it on Facebook.

Solar Power Now Cheaper Than Nuclear Power

[X] Close