Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

Planet Gore

The hot blog.


Print   |  Text
 

Solar Cheaper than Nuclear?

Sadly the cost of nuclear power is being pushed higher and higher by myriad regulatory roadblocks and uncertainties and the global economic downturn. Regulatory barriers and escalating front-end costs are stifling much-needed investment in the nuclear-power industry. Now, a Duke University study claims that, for the first time, “Electricity from new solar installations is now cheaper than electricity from proposed new nuclear plants” in North Carolina.

As reported by The Energy Collective, the study says that “When the cost of a kilowatt hour (kWh) of solar power fell to 16 cents earlier this year, it ‘crossed over’ the trend-line associated with nuclear power. Of course, such “competitiveness” results from the lavish subsidies that solar power enjoys — subsidies that do no good when the sun’s not shining. Nuclear power is subsidized as well, but on a levelized basis (meaning an output-per-subsidy comparison), there is no contest that nuclear power gives us the best bang for our buck. Rain or shine, we can split atoms.

Fast Company writes, “the fact remains that nuclear plants can pump out energy 24 hours a day. Solar plants can’t. A long-lasting nuclear plant will most likely generate more energy per dollar invested than a solar plant ever could.”  And nuclear power, unlike solar, produces power on a commercial scale — meaning, nuclear-power reactors generate so much electricity that you can’t put them on your roof. So, before we throw photovoltaic panels a ticker-tape parade, let’s be mindful of the limitations of intermittent renewables that are “competitive” simply because U.S. taxpayers are forced to make them so.

New on Planet Gore. . .


COMMENTS   3

EXPAND  

   08/11/10 17:18

I have always said that when the greens start saying that nuclear power is better than carbon then I will pay more attention to global warming.

If CO2 causes global warming then nuclear power is an excellent stop gap measure until technology can come up with a replacement for coal and oil.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/12/10 11:58

Arguing that regulations on the safety of nuclear power plants drive up the cost of nukes makes about as much sense as saying that liability laws drive up the price of pit bulls. Yeah, but doesn't safety trump cost in both cases? And if you're arguing that nukes are being treated unfairly and are perfectly safe, then you should have no problem with repealing the Price-Anderson Act, which protects nukes from all but a fraction of the damages that would be incurred in the event of a meltdown, and I trust you'll join us in opposing loan guarantees for new nuclear plant construction.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/12/10 19:09

Mr. Singleton:
In many cases nuclear technology advancement has trumped some of its regulation. Today's design and technology put the probability of a "meltdown" much much less than our first and second generation systems.

In the case of loan guarantees those are mislabeled as there is no loan involved by the government to the plant builder. The builder wants an insurance guarantee "IF" government "Politics" fails to allow the plant to opearte after the builder invests in its construction.

I hope this helps.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact