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 8:40 PM EST
Read more: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, FOSSIL FUELS, NUCLEAR ENERGY, SOLAR POWER


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.

Crayola goes green with 15-acre solar farm
Pocono Raceway becomes world's largest solar-powered sports facility
Can radio waves kill the need for batteries?
Volcanic island seeks geothermal power
Solar drone lands after record 14 days aloft
The article sites researchers from Duke University in North Carolina, who found that the cost of "producing photovoltaic cells (PV) has been dropping for years ... at the same time, estimated costs for building new nuclear power plants have ballooned." Thus, it's cheaper to put solar panels on houses than to build a new nuclear power plant to service them.

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 Link EMAIL Share RSS Digg Tweet

CLOSE link:
Comments(4)
ALL COMMENTSREADERS' SELECTIONSPOST A COMMENTSort by:
Newest First Oldest First
Posted By Texas Anne - Thu, Aug 05 2010 at 10:10 PM EST

Solar Now!
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.
replyPosted By Bob Downs - Thu, Aug 05 2010 at 7:06 PM EST


Solar cheaper?
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.
replyPosted By Joby - Fri, Aug 06 2010 at 8:39 AM EST


RTFA
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?