Study: Solar power is cheaper than nuclear

[Pepsi]

• Tweet

My guess is conservative types will still insist that nuclear plants must be built - because solar does not generate enough hazardous waste 

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.”

http://theenergycollective.com/oshadavidson/40559/study-solar-power-cheaper-nuclear

[Mornac]

My guess is that conservative types will opt to purchase whatever energy source is the cheapest and most practical.

[johnhp]

My guess is conservative types will still insist that nuclear plants must be built - because solar does not generate enough hazardous waste 

Study: Solar power is cheaper than nuclear

In other news, BP purchased the sun.

[johnhp]

My guess is that conservative types will opt to purchase whatever energy source is the cheapest and most practical.

Yes, this certainly explains the drunken spending of the last conservative administration.

[Velleity]

How can a barrel of oil be $80, and that's considered to be expensive?

I'd like to see a good study on how much this stuff has been subsidized, how expensive it would be if it weren't subsidized, and how cheap everything else would be if it were subsidized to the same extent oil has been subsidized.

Who profited from these subsidies and how much influence have they bought with those subsidies?

How "free" has the "free market" been in reality?

[Observer]

The results of a single study are hardly conclusive.

[Velleity]

The results of a single study are hardly conclusive.

What would oil cost without the subsidies? Considering the adverse impact on the environment, health problems, costs of protecting oil sources, wars, and everything else associate with oil, what is the true cost?

Oh, wait. I'm asking you to be objectively reasonable.

Never mind.

[Observer]

What would oil cost without the subsidies? Considering the adverse impact on the environment, health problems, costs of protecting oil sources, wars, and everything else associate with oil, what is the true cost?

Oh, wait. I'm asking you to be objectively reasonable.

Never mind.

So tell me, Vel... What about my statement was not "objectively reasonable"?

Words do have meaning. Do you ever actually think about that before you post.

[ivanm]

I have reservations about solar power in the form of PV cells as well as with nuclear power plants.

If all you want to do is to power electronic toys then maybe the PV cell is the way to go, providing you have room for the arrays it takes to develop a meaningful amount of power.  While you are at it, develop a PV cell that produces output in the dark.

My concern about using nuclear power is two fold.  For one thing, the disposal of nuclear waste is and can be a major problem.  Secondly, the fuel source is not renewable, so in time we would be strapped to find more feedstock for nuclear power just as we are now strapped to find more domestically based petroleum deposits.

We need to prioritize our needs of power, and the transportation sector in America is the largest consumer of motive power, be it liquid fuels or electrical power.  Even grid power that feeds electric conveyances is generated in large part by fossil fuel plants that depend on diesel powered locomotives to bring the coal to the power plant.  A typical coal train running in this area is one mile long and is propelledl by 3 diesel engines that gulp diesel fuel at the rate of 4 gallon per mile each.  So that is 12 gallon per mile to fire the boilers at the generation plant.  

At present a lot of sub-bituminous coal is being mined in the Wyoming area and is transported by trains running day and night, 7 days a week, to the generating plants.  For example, the Jeffrey Energy Center in NE Ks uses 3 million pounds of coal per hour when under full load, and only one third of the energy in the coal ends up as power to the customer.  The rest of it is wasted.  How about the diesel fuel that brought the coal to the power plant?  It stands to reason that a fair amount if that is effectively wasted too.

If the US cannot prioritize it s energy usage and cannot grease the wheels that squeak the loudest then all the tinkering around with PV cells and the like won't get us to where we need to be in the future.  

[Velleity]

How do you feel about all of the mercury in the environment, or the toll on the environment from mining?

How do you feel about all of the federal subsidies for oil and coal?

[ivanm]

How do you feel about all of the mercury in the environment, or the toll on the environment from mining?

How do you feel about all of the federal subsidies for oil and coal?

I take it you are speaking of mercury being  a byproduct of coal and petro mining?

I prefer that subsidies for all activities be reduced dramatically but if doing so drives the sources of coal and petro offshore then that would be shooting ourselves in the foot from a national security standpoint.
There are alternatives to using petro fuels and coal, and there are alternatives to making and using PV cells.  
My experinece from working at Texas Instruments tells me that the manufacture of semiconductor devices and other similar electronic devices employs some rather exotic and toxic substances, so IMO the PV route is not squeaky clean in this respect.  

In general, human activity of most any kind does pollute the environment, so it is up to us to prioritize our needs and in so doing prioritize our polluting of the environment.  Conservation can go a long ways towards energy independence and towards a lifestyle of consumption that is sustainable, but it doesn't seem to sell.  Maybe it isn't sexy enough or cannot be patented, so corporate America doesn't pursue such ideas.  

Let me cite a pretty simple example of how we guzzle coal, which is the primary source of our electrical power.
A 100 watt incandescent light bulb burning for a year consumes the equivelant of over 900 pounds of coal.  Doesn't it seem prudent to replace this energy hog with a curly fluourescent or an LED bulb that uses a fraction of that amount of power?
 
When it comes to pollution, I would say that if we are to pollute then lets's do it with byproducts or emissions that can in time be absorbed or neutralized by natural processes, thereby letting the environment heal itself from our wounds.  For example, an ethanol spillage can in time be absorbed by the organisms of Nature where a gasoline spill may never be neutralized, at least not in a reasonable amount of time.  In saying this I am not wanting to plug my book, but its central theme is conservation of energy and avoidance of using motor fuels and electrical power when it is not necessary. In other words, find a better way to accomplish the same end result (or an acceptable alternative result) and in so doing reduce energy consumption.

If we keep insisting that the only way of the future for energy is to make existing methods of using it more conservative, or to design engines that will tolerate biofuels, then we are barking up the wrong tree.  No matter what the source, as long as it must be manufactured or captured by a man made device, there is a limit to what we can produce or gather.  Given that, there seems to be limitations to our economic growth and welfare, assuming we continue on with business as usual when it comes to creating and consuming energy.


A primary consideration in rating a given source of energy is whether or not it is renewable. Sources such as solar, wind, and water power are truly renewable and all we have to do is to set up the means to capture tis enegy.
Biomass is basically renewable although we must usually expend a lot of energy and other inputs to grow this biomass.  Constrast this to crude oil and natural gas, which also require generous inputs of work and energy to develop.  Oil and gas are not basically renewable due to the long time frame required to form these deposits in the first place.

I find it amazing that some of the most powerful engines we have ever invented do not use petro fuels as energy sources but use basically hydrogen gas, and I am speaking of the huge rocket engines that drive our vehicles into outer space. Sadly, this hydrogen is probably being made from natural gas so even that usage has its limits and its cost to the environment.  So what is the answer to this dilemma?  Let's employ some common sense for a change and set priorities.  If our space program is not essential to our well being, relatively speaking, then maybe we need to curtail it or reduce the scope of it.

Now that China is emerging as an international super power when it comes to economic activity, her demand for imported crude oil and petro products will serve to drive up the price per barrel that we will have to pay.  It is a bidding war that we cannot win and I am seeing too little effort being exerted to put us on solid footing with our energy supply and consumption habits.  

[Velleity]

I take it you are speaking of mercury being  a byproduct of coal and petro mining?

I prefer that subsidies for all activities be reduced dramatically but if doing so drives the sources of coal and petro offshore then that would be shooting ourselves in the foot from a national security standpoint.
There are alternatives to using petro fuels and coal, and there are alternatives to making and using PV cells.  
My experinece from working at Texas Instruments tells me that the manufacture of semiconductor devices and other similar electronic devices employs some rather exotic and toxic substances, so IMO the PV route is not squeaky clean in this respect.  

In general, human activity of most any kind does pollute the environment, so it is up to us to prioritize our needs and in so doing prioritize our polluting of the environment.  Conservation can go a long ways towards energy independence and towards a lifestyle of consumption that is sustainable, but it doesn't seem to sell.  Maybe it isn't sexy enough or cannot be patented, so corporate America doesn't pursue such ideas. 

Let me cite a pretty simple example of how we guzzle coal, which is the primary source of our electrical power.
A 100 watt incandescent light bulb burning for a year consumes the equivelant of over 900 pounds of coal.  Doesn't it seem prudent to replace this energy hog with a curly fluourescent or and LED bulb that uses a fraction of that amount of power?
 
When it comes to pollution, I would say that if we are to pollute then lets's do it with byproducts or emissions that can in time be absorbed by natural processes, thereby letting the environment heal itself from our wounds.  For example, an ethanol spillage can in time be absorbed by the organisms of Nature where a gasoline spill may never be neutralized, at least not in a reasonable amount of time.  In saying this I am not wanting to plug my book, but its central theme is conservation of energy and avoidance of using motor fuels and electrical power when it is not necessary. In other words, find a better way to accomplish the same end result (or an acceptable alternative result) and in so doing reduce energy consumption.

If we keep insisting that the only way of the future for energy is to make existing methods of using it more conservative, or to design engines that will tolerate biofuels, then we are barking up the wrong tree.  No matter what the source, as long as it must be manufactured or captured by a man made device, there is a limit to what we can produce or gather.  Given that, there seems to be limitations to our economic growth and welfare, assuming we continue on with business as usual when it comes to creating and consuming energy.

Now that China is emerging as an international super power when it comes to economic activity, her demand for imported crude oil and petro products will serve to drive up the price per barrel that we will have to pay.  It is a bidding war that we cannot win and I am seeing too little effort being exerted to put us on solid footing with our energy supply and consumption habits. 

We are glutinous and wasteful and dealing with that is the cheapest and easiest of the short term answers.

China has emerged. It has surpassed Japan as the number 2 economy and it will surpass us in 2025, all else being equal. And it is a communist country.

How do you explain that?

[ivanm]

How do you feel about all of the mercury in the environment, or the toll on the environment from mining?

How do you feel about all of the federal subsidies for oil and coal?

I don't know anything about the subsidies for coal but I do have some exposure to the incentives given to domestic natural gas producers and royalty owners.  As much as I wish there wasn't such things as subsidies I am afraid we are between a rock and a hard place until sufficent alternate fuels are developed to compete with crude oil and natural gas.  In a way, even the famers are being subsidized to produce the feedstocks for ethanol, which are grains.

It appears that the price of crude oil depends on the major foreign supplies and when the price of imported oil goes up the price of domestic crude follows.  I think this market action is hurting the economy much more than the subsidies we may be giving to the oil and gas producers. From what I know the "subsidies" given to domestic oil and gas producers and royalty holders are in the form of tax breaks so there is no out of pocket expense to the government for doing so.  It is not like actually paying farmers to raise grain, or even not to raise grain.

T. Boone Pickens has been advocating that we use more natural gas as a way to decrease our dependence on imported oil and petro products.  On the surface it sounds good but he forgets to mention two salient points.  The power companies used NG to fire boilers because it is cleaner burning that coal, and if the demand for NG increases the price will go up, which makes the homeonwer's utility bills even higher.  I use NG to heat water and to fire the furnaces in the cold months, and at times I wonder if using electrical power for heat would be cheaper.

Things have really changed over the decades when it comes to NG usage.  We used to have yard lamps running off of NG that burned 24/7 and then someone woke up to the fact that this was wasteful.  NG used to be a cheap source of heating energy for the house but now it rivals the cost of using electrical power.
When you couple the fact that about 22 percent of our electrical power is generated with steam from NG fired boilers, then the proposition that electrical power is cheaper than using the NG gas directly sounds pretty fishy to me.  If 2/3 of the NG energy input to a power plant is wasted in producing electrical power then how can electrical power be cheaper than using the NG directly?

[ivanm]

We are glutinous and wasteful and dealing with that is the cheapest and easiest of the short term answers.

China has emerged. It has surpassed Japan as the number 2 economy and it will surpass us in 2025, all else being equal. And it is a communist country.

How do you explain that?

China is huge in almost every respect and has a multitude of workers who are willing to work for a nominal wage.  This may have also been the case in Japan after WW II afte we got thru doing a number on her economy. A number of so called emerging nations have become rivals to our economy and I have S. Korea, S. Vietnam, and Formosa in mind as well as Japan.  It is good to see that these people are able to make their own way after being reduced to hopeless masses by warfare. 

An American worker usually could not afford to survive on a minimum wage, let alone a sub-standard wage like that which exists in so many emerging countries, and for years American industry has relied heavily on more and more creative technological advances to keep the American worker competitive with sweat shop labor. However, in time the advantages of technology just could not provide the leverage to compete with low cost producers from afar and so we are seeing many of our jobs going offshore. In many cases these are jobs that require relatively low skills but nonetheless do provide employment for millions of people who for some reason cannot or will not upgrade their work skills.

I think that in time the mainland Chinese will meet up with the same sort of competition that Japan finally ran into, more low cost labor from other emerging countries.  So where does that leave us?  Unless we too want to live a third rate life style we need to adjust our way of doing things and our concepts of what constitutes a decent and affordable standard of living.  If we can somehow become more self sufficient in raw materials, energy, and labor then we can finally develop a lifestyle we can maintain without being overly dependent upon imports of foreign goods and sevices.

At one time a nation traded what it had a surplus of for that which it had a shortage of but that concept casrries no weight these days.  Is it any wonder we have become dependent on imports for so many of our wants and needs?

[Velleity]

If you use less and less energy every year because you become more and more efficient, you will never run out.

Think about it.