Utility Co Nukes or Solar: Which cost less:

no brainer here. PV can be making returns in DAYS verses Nukes if fully funded today, would take nearly a decade to generate its first kilowatt. can we wait that long?

sure, PV currently costs a bundle (as if a $3B nuke plant is cheap!!) and has limited return, but it has low maintenance cost, ZERO Fuel and cleanup costs.

i dont really know why nukes are in the running except for maybe a 20% base load. i would not use it for anything else.

 

one nuke meltdown and the cost will be unparalleled.

 

Here is the interesting part---Power costing 22 cents for KWh. That's doubling your electric bill. Nothing better than that to make everyone want to go solar.

 

It would be more credible if they hadn't labeled the last chart as KWH/square meter/day. (It's actually KWH/installed peak KW/day.) Full report has it labeled the same incorrect way.

That struck me as kind of a red flag. So I looked at their cost calculation (in the appendix, Page 18).

They cheated.

At $6/watt, fully installed (which I can't find around here, let me tell you), 25 year life, zero maintenance/repair, 6% interest rate for the time cost of money, they price a residential system as costing $0.35/KWH. (I checked that in Excel, that's what I get with their assumptions.)

How do you get from $.035/KWH to their graphs and conclusions?

Continue on page 18: By assuming away 55% of the cost of the system. So, in their world, 55% of the cost of solar doesn't exist, because it's being paid by state and federal taxpayers.

I don't mind if they do that, as long as they it completely clear what they've done. But there's not even a hint of that on the web page. And in the body of the report (Page 3), here's their description:

"The Solar PV least-squares trendline is fit to data points representing the actual cost of producing a kilowatt-hour in the year shown through 2010 ... "

In the context of discussing financial aspects of new PV with a NC homeowner, that would be reasonable. In the context of discussing which government policy option is cheapest, I don't think that's a reasonable thing to do.

 

a few things we can all take to the bank.

*Solar has low maintenance costs
*Solar has zero fuel costs after installation
*Solar is almost infinitely scalable in installations ranging from few thousand dollars to several hundred million
*Nukes will always have fuel costs, very very high operational costs and always a huge risk to the environment over a potential accident.

and
nuclear does provide 24/7 power, so its not all bad

 

The level of subsidy isn't the issue, it's the slant of the presentation.

If taxpayers paid for 100% of nuclear plant costs, then a comparison between 45% of solar and zero would have been a level playing field comparison.

But I'm sure that taxpayer's don't cover 100%, based on the extensive yet non-quantitative discussions in that report. Particularly the part about Duke Power raising rates to cover nuclear costs.

Further, going back to the source for their nuclear plant costs (a study from a Vermont law school professor), I'm fairly sure the nuclear costs presented in that analysis are un-subsidized, or, at least, they reflect the level of subsidy that existed prior to the most recent energy bill (Energy Polciy Act of 2005).

Well, what is the level of subsidy for new nuclear?

Here's a seemingly sober analysis, from the Congressional Budget Office, that does show the approximate level of subsidy for nuclear:

Nuclear Power's Role in Generating Electricity

The text around Table 1.4 places the un-subsidized cost of new nuclear at 35% higher than conventional coal, and says that the current subsidies (mostly in the form of loan guarantees) bring the cost down to level with coal. (Though, obviously, it's hard to value the cap on liabilities in event of an accident.)

So, doing the arithmetic (35/135)= 26% of the cost of new nuclear is subsidized. The primary subsidy appears to be reduced interest rates from the loan guarantees.

It is also interesting to see how stiff a carbon tax would be required to make nuclear cost level with coal cost absent subsidy. Doesn't make that look like too feasible an approach to chasing coal out of the grid.

I just want to see unbiased analysis. Compare the full costs of both technologies, and the risks and limitations of both.

Without better electrical storage, intermittent sources alone can't de-carbonize the grid. I don't think nuclear is about displacing solar, it's about making power on a windless night without fossil fuel.

I mean, is the basic premise of the report -- choose solar or nuclear -- even right? Does putting in a nuclear plant prevent homeowners from installing solar? I don't think that's really the issue with nuclear. To decarbonize the grid, the issue is solar plus what. Absent better electrical storage, all of the "whats" kind of stink. Does new nuclear stink worse than new natural gas, I don't know.

 

Not Virginia, but pretty close in south New Jersey, $5/watt for a typical install through 1BOG:

South NJ Solar Panels Cost Less with 1BOG Group Discounts | 1BOG.org

 

One of the biggest subsidies of nuclear plants is that the cost of permanently disposing of the waste is not included. This is simply because an established facility and method of disposing of the waste does not exist within the USA. (So far, Yucca Mountain is a very expensive empty facility.) Hard to include the cost of something not established, but very, very expensive when the need becomes unavoidable.

 

Well, thank you.

At first I thought they were quoting the after-rebate price, because here's what their website says (boldface is theirs, not mine).

"Typically solar installations cost approximately $9-10 dollars per watt in a turnkey system. So a 3kW (3,000W) system might cost $27,000-$30,000 before rebates. HOWEVER, federal, state, and local rebates can bring the price down considerably, and in some locations, magnificently."

That $10/watt figure, to the extent I see prices quoted around here, they tend to look like that.

So I picked an address in Cherry Hill, NJ, and no, they show a gross cost (before rebates) of $15,000 for a 3000 (DC) watt system.

OK, you've made me an instant believer. Because that makes a heck of a lot more sense than the prices I've seen quoted around here.

Here's what I'd been seeing in my area. I can look at a website like wholesale solar, and see complete packages, with the Enphase microinverters (that I'm probably going to have to use, due to shade issues), for $3.25/watt:

Enphase Energy Expandable Gridtie Solar Power Systems

Then I see a local installer offering the same packages, for $12/watt installed. And he advertises the price!

Pricing for Solar Home Renovations

Looking at a video of a guy who had an Enphase-based array installed here in Virginia, you're talking about 16 hours of unskilled and 8 hours of skilled labor to do a typical rooftop install of a modest sized system. So the quoted installed prices looked absolutely insane.

But, say, $2/watt to install them, that looks like a reasonable deal.

So, hey, I signed up. They say they have nearly 500 enrollees within a 25 mile radius of my house.

 

Good luck - $5.50-8.00/watt seems to be the "normal" price per watt these days, installed, before rebates. The $5/watt installed through 1BOG seems to be very, very good - they seem to be able to negotiate very good prices. $10+/watt is obscenely expensive these days in my opinion unless there are some extreme circumstances that dictate special hardware or additional labor.

Just for inverters/panels, you can buy Enphase compatible 230W panel and inverter at $2.85/watt from these guys. Of course, you still need to add racking hardware, wiring, the Enphase monitoring unit, shipping, installation, permits, etc...

And this is small quantity costs - for large installs with additional buying power, you should be able to get panels in the low $1/watt range (First Solar has claimed to be able to produce panels at a cost under $1/watt way back in Feb 2009). And inverters are under $0.50/watt. I would not be surprised to see utility scale installs getting done for less than $3/watt in the near future - at those prices PV has no problem competing especially during daylight/peak hours when rates are at their highest, even without subsidies.

Even now Solar Buzz estimates industrial prices at 19c/kWh. Given peak rates of 30c/kWh+ in California, it would seem that PV would be a no brainer even without subsidies - let alone a 30% federal tax credit and state subsidies.

 

it is a pathetic comment on the priorities of our current administration that the main topic of discussion is the cost of the solar installs. now, i am not saying that Uncle Sam should pay for it, but i do think the VERY LEAST that can be done is ZERO interest loans.

the government helped oil companies to the tune of billions to get oil off the ground and maintain its dominance despite the fact that the industry did not really need the money. the solar industry is just the opposite. they are hampered by a product development curve that still has a long way to go, so on paper, it is not a good investment for the end user.

but paper does not consider the impact to the environment, our children's health, the outflow of cash out of the country, or long term sustainability.

 

Using fission (nuclear power) to produce electricity is like using a chainsaw to cut butter: it is overkill and makes a mess. It is far more cost effective to build or retrofit a house to make it climate-appropriate than "go get more". Conservation and efficiency are the most cost effective. We did a conservation retrofit on our house 21 years ago (triple pane windows, R-100 ceiling, sunpipes, caulking, ceramic tile floors, R-45 walls, insulated water heaters, air lock (glass vestibule) on front door, etc.). Gas and electric bill average less than $30 month! Pay back or break even point: 2.5 years. Neighbors monthly bills average $200 to $800 per month.

Our next house will make use of SIPS, photovoltaic panels, thermomax tubes and on demand for hot water.

Our current Energy Efficiency Index is less than 1.0. We have not had the house HERS tested.

 

skruse; ahh so you have found the secret...NOT

efficiency and proper engineering are nearly as well known as they are ignored.

look at the #1 post here. "why am i getting 35 mpg?" the reason is they choose not to drive efficiently. here the ONLY cost is probably time and a bit of patience.

what u suggest is a major out of pocket expense that would not even apply to an estimated 30% of houses built more than 40 years ago where energy upgrades would be financially undo-able.

unfortunately, we decided that Jimmy Carter did not know what he was talking about and ignored or reversed all his rules on building energy efficient houses back in the 70's. we instead went for Ronnie's method of "use it now, let my kids pay for it" scheme and lived the high life.

in principle, i agree with you 100%. i am living in a home that is barely 15 years old and there are a hundred things that can be done to make it more efficient beyond lighting options. but i also live in the Pacific Northwest where power was cheap and abundant so energy efficiency was not an option. if we were cold, we stoked the fireplace. didnt matter that most of the heat (and smoke) went up the chimney, we were still warm.

well, we pretty much screwed that pooch. firewood is no longer cheap or easy to get. our population has exploded and our Bonneville Admin kickback (they used to give back up to 50% of what we paid them in electricity costs) is gone. now we are living in an area where 80% of the houses over 30 years old use electric baseboard heat. a large percentage of home have ZERO inches of insulation in the ceilings (open beamed 14 foot ceilings look great but do not retain heat which was a good thing since the older leaky woodstoves would put out 200,000 BTU's and would cook u in less than an hour if the heat was not dissipated in some way). with summer highs in the mid 70's, who needs insulation??

20 years ago, more than half the people i knew burned wood for heat and would leave the front door open to keep the house at a comfortable level. now, i built my house in 1990 and insulated it very well (you would not believe the looks i got when i told the building supply place that i was putting insulation in the floor. that was completely unheard of at the time) well on most days with temps in the 40's which is typical for winter around here, i would build a fire at night when i got home from work, stoke it, shut it down as low as i could, let it burn out sometime in the early morning. go to work and the house would cool down (no one was home anyway, so why keep it warm) and granted it would take over an hour to warm it up after i got home, but at least i could get away with only burning 2-3 cords of wood a winter. most of the people i knew burned around 10. but i digress...

*holds out hand to be slapped for wandering topic*

 

Even if Nukes were "free" it would still be a suckers bet! Once again, we worry about the "price" of something, don't understand the "cost" of something, and clearly don't realize the "value" of something. The price of Nuke power may well be cheap, but the price incalculable, and the value therefor questionable at best.

 

As pointed out, the real question is over coal or nuke. Coal is cheap and plentiful. Which is good, because we'll need a lot of it. We are literally are leveling mountains for it now. Storing the waste from coal hasn't been issue for the past century, because we just dumped it into the air. We are now addressing some of the carbon dioxide waste in limited, trial projects, but not the mercury and radioactive waste, which more than a nuke plant's.
That doesn't excuse not having a system in place to handle nuke waste. Fear shouldn't keep us from using a system that makes the best use of that waste. We should be recycling the waste back into usable fuel. Not only would that greatly reduce the amount of waste that has to be stored, it also reduces the amount that needs to be mined. Which will reduce the total amount of pollution and environmental damage involved in the energy production.
As of right now, clean, renewable base load power is not possible for all areas of the country. I believe it will be, but demand for energy isn't going to hold off until then.

 

a sobering article from an energy "expert". unfortunately, his agenda is not as transparent as his message

The Magic Of Energy Engineering - Forbes.com

 

Be careful with this statement. It only applies to major, supersized plants. The emerging question is between centralized and distributed energy. As distributed energy becomes the much better answer, the central power question will become which nuke/coal plants to maintain and which to shutdown , not what ones are to be built. Look at how much money is being spent right now on distributed wind and solar vs. centralized nuke/coal plants and you have the future answer right now.

Another statement that needs careful analysis. U235 goes in and P239 comes out with a massive amount of other short and long lived and totally unusable radioactive waste products. The "system" needed is a completely massive new set of reactors and major reprocessing facilities.

Economics is already exerting itself. Until the government figures out how to tax sunlight and wind, the economic tipping point has already reached the point to change the major direction. The money being spent now is on wind and solar. Why would it change back to nuke and coal?