University has reported that solar energy costs are now cheaper
than nuclear energy costs after a "historic crossover"
in North Carolina.
paper on this topic was written by John O. Blackburn,
professor of economics at Duke University in North Carolina, and Sam
Cunningham, a graduate student at Duke. The paper is titled "Solar
and Nuclear Costs - The Historic Crossover," and shows that
change in costs on both solar and nuclear energy has finally forced
them to meet, and then solar stole the show by becoming the new
low-in-price renewable energy resource.
energy is a clean renewable energy resource that doesn't present much
risk, but the problem has been that it's too expensive for everyone
to implement. On the other hand, there is nuclear energy, which has
several risks associated with using it such as damage to the
environment from uranium mining, the possible creation of nuclear
weapons and issues with the transportation and storage of nuclear
waste. But until now, nuclear energy has always been cheaper to use.
the past decade or so, nuclear
energy costs have been rising while solar energy costs have
been falling. According to Mark Cooper, senior fellow for economic
analysis at Vermont Law School's Institute for Energy and
Environment, costs for nuclear energy have increased dramatically
from $3 billion per reactor in 2002 to $10 billion per reactor in
2010. What's worse is that these prices are expected to climb, and
U.S. taxpayers could end up paying hundreds of billions or trillions
of dollars "more than needed to achieve our low carbon goals"
if the government helps push
the use of nuclear energy, which is exactly what it's
nuclear power companies are obviously pushing for nuclear energy use
in the U.S. hoping for loan guarantees, tax credits and subsidies, it
looks as though government on both the federal and state levels are
pushing for it as well, according to Diana Powers of The New
1943 to 1999, the U.S. government paid nearly $151 billion, in 1999
dollars, in subsidies for wind, solar and nuclear power, Marshall
Goldberg of the Renewable Energy Policy Project, a research
organization in Washington, wrote in a July 2000 report," wrote
Powers. "Of this total, 96.3 percent went to nuclear power.
the state level, the industry has also pressed the case for
'construction work in progress,' a financing system that requires
electricity users to pay for the cost of new reactors during their
construction and sometimes before construction starts. With long
construction periods and frequent delays, this can mean that
electricity users start to pay higher prices as much as 12 years
before the plants produce electricity."
now that Blackburn and Cunningham have showed that solar
energy costs have met nuclear energy costs, which occurred
at 16 cents per kilowatt hour, then fell below nuclear costs, there
is hope that the push for nuclear will slow down and that the
government may look to a combination of solar and other renewable
energy resources that are low carbon and low cost.
should understand that both new solar and new nuclear power will cost
more than present electricity generation costs," Blackburn and
Cunningham's paper states. "That is, electricity costs will rise
in any case for most customers, especially those who do not institute
substantial energy efficiency upgrades. Power bills will rise much
less with solar generation than with increased reliance on new
and Cunningham see great opportunity for North Carolina - and
U.S. states - with these new findings, and hope that lower
costs of solar, which is much less hazardous than nuclear, will be
implemented. According to their paper, commercial-scale solar
companies are already "offering utilities electricity at 14
cents or less per kWh" while nuclear plants would generate
electricity at 14 to 18 cents per kWh.
quote: Solar uses rare earth elements
quote: And although we do have uranium to mine, I don't think we have the hundred's of years that you are refering to.
quote: Wind is still perfect....Operate at night.
quote: Nuclear energy is NOT renewable, it's still using fuel (refined radioactive isotopes), that have to be mined from the earth,
quote: Nuclear power does not consume its fuel.
quote: What cannot be recycled back into new fuel rods(> 90%) is mostly transformed into a new fuel that can be used in a different kind of reactor.
quote: There are hundreds of different CFL bulbs in the market, all with different qualities.
quote: Now, it is really silly to say that dimmers save power, when you're using a bulb that CONSUMES more power to begin with. At the very best you are paying the same to have less light.
quote: And regarding them being "filled" with toxic chemicals and lead: Considering that most of our energy is coming from coal, I think you should be worrying more about the pollution we're putting out by consuming more energy than with traces of "toxic chemicals" and lead that are enclosed in a bulb that can last 10 years.
quote: And life is not about what others can do to make your life better, but what you can do to improve everybody's lives.
quote: If people were less selfish maybe the world would be a better place to live.
quote: I don't think you have the right to label someone selfish because of the light bulb they prefer.
quote: How about life is about what you can do to better your life and your families?
quote: Main Entry: self·ish Pronunciation: \'sel-fish\ Function: adjective Date: 1640 1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others 2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act> 3 : being an actively replicating repetitive sequence of nucleic acid that serves no known function <selfish DNA>; also : being genetic material solely concerned with its own replication <selfish genes> — self·ish·ly adverb — self·ish·ness noun
quote: Sure, as an individual you don't have that much affect on power. But if everyone thought that way our power consumption would be much higher than it currently is. No one would watch their power consumption.
quote: IN MY HOME
quote: And this is the reason the world is just the mess it is.
quote: Ok, I had to object to this cuz I am as far from green as you can really get, but I do own and use CFL bulbs, for one because incandescent bulbs get too hot and die too often.
quote: If every incandescent in the country were replaced with a CFL, the amount of sulfur, mercury, arsenic, benzene, etc NOT released into the atmosphere (through coal burning) would be far greater than the amount of toxic chemicals released into the environment from broken/improperly disposed of CFLs.
quote: I no place in the United States is 100% of the load powered by nuclear.
quote: And, again, my areas power is provided by Nuclear. So I guess that means I'm personally exempted from your statement, doesn't it? I'm not adding to this "coal" problem.
quote: But you know what, I think part of the reason I don't use CFL's is because of nosy annoying obnoxious eco-freaks such as yourself. Because I know deep down it just pisses you off.
quote: Thank you for proving my point. All I said was there is no rational argument against CFLs. Obviously, yes there are plenty of irrational ones.
quote: go to home depot and get some.
quote: LED is close but all manufacturers tell you not to use their bulbs in cold weather and they don't produce enough light to fully replace outdoor flood lights, etc.
quote: I still cannot believe with 13W CFL bulbs now only $1 each that we have millions of homes in the US not using them.
quote: Here in Australia, Incandescent light bulbs were banned, sometimes it's the only way for people to see the light and switch over.
quote: But you are obviously in favor of people being forced to "see the light" so I'm wasting my breath probably.
quote: I was personally hoping for reduced energy costs in combination of the reduced electricity demands, but that never came about either.
quote: If they were the best option for people, there would be no need for a ban, CFL's would gain market dominance and incandescence would die out.
quote: so I'm wasting my breath probably.
quote: then I say they should first make Times Square and the Las Vegas Strip switch to all LED lighting before forcing the rest of us to change.
quote: We need to be more efficient. I still cannot believe with 13W CFL bulbs now only $1 each that we have millions of homes in the US not using them. I don't want to say "make it required, rawr commie commie"
quote: Because that kind of power is totally within the Constitutional constraints placed on it... Right...
quote: an energy mix is considered to be the most viable option
quote: to argue that its safe, cheap or guarantees energy independence is erroneous at best
quote: But France possesses all of the same problem that any nuclear industry does - waste disposal, non-renewability, and cost.
quote: Hannes Alfvén, Nobel laureate in physics, described the as yet unsolved dilemma of high-level radioactive waste management: "The problem is how to keep radioactive waste in storage until it decays after hundreds of thousands of years.
quote: You've deliberately misquoted him to try to create the impression of a problem.
quote: Could America, with its large expanses of hot deserts and geologically active areas, not implement successful solar and geothermal projects?
quote: The French culture is very different to that in America - you could say its more of a technocracy. Engineers and scientists have the same prestige as doctors and lawyers do in the US, so the public is far more trusting of what they have to say.
quote: Solar energy is a clean renewable energy resource that doesn't present much risk, but the problem has been that it's too expensive for everyone to implement. On the other hand, there is nuclear energy, which has several risks associated with using it such as damage to the environment from uranium mining
quote: A single nuclear plant can service over a hundred thousand homes and businesses. How many solar panels would it take to match that, and where in the hell would you put them? I live in North Carolina, there are no vast deserts here or empty flat wastelands.
quote: An article published July 27 in an Energy Special Report analyzed the costs of nuclear energy production. It quoted a study that found that electricity from solar photovoltaic systems could now be produced less expensively than electricity from new nuclear power plants.In raising several questions about this issue and the economics of nuclear power, the article failed to point out, as it should have, that the study was prepared for an environmental advocacy group, which, according to its Web site, is committed to ‘‘tackling the accelerating crisis posed by climate change — along with the various risks of nuclear power.’’ The article also failed to take account of other studies that have come to contrasting conclusions, or to include in the mix of authorities quoted any who elaborated on differing analyses of the economics of energy production.Although the article did quote extensively from the Web site of the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group, representatives of the institute were not given an opportunity to respond to the claims of the study. This further contributed to an imbalance in the presentation of this issue.
quote: "From 1943 to 1999, the U.S. government paid nearly $151 billion, in 1999 dollars, in subsidies for wind, solar and nuclear power, Marshall Goldberg of the Renewable Energy Policy Project, a research organization in Washington, wrote in a July 2000 report," wrote Powers. "Of this total, 96.3 percent went to nuclear power.
quote: NC WARN: Waste Awareness & Reduction Network is a member-based nonprofit tackling the accelerating crisis posed by climate change — along with the various risks of nuclear power — by watch-dogging utility practices and working for a swift North Carolina transition to energy efficiency and clean power generation. In partnership with other citizen groups, NC WARN uses sound scientific research to inform and involve the public in key decisions regarding their well-being.