Solar photovoltaic systems have long been painted as a clean way to generate electricity, but expensive compared with other alternatives to oil, like nuclear power. No longer. In a “historic crossover,” the costs of solar photovoltaic systems have declined to the point where they are lower than the rising projected costs of new nuclear plants, according to a paper published this month.

- from Nuclear Energy Loses Cost Advantage

Such a report might lead one to believe that it is more cost effective in the long run to build a solar power plant instead of a nuclear plant. While that might be the case in some instances in most scenarios it probably won’t be the case. Over the long run, when measured in cost per unit of output, nuclear plants are still less costly to consumers than solar power plants. There are a few reasons why this is the case.

• The Cost of Land – Solar plants require about 5 to 10 acres per megawatt of capacity. So if you were to size a solar plant and try to make it equivalent in capacity terms to one nuclear generating unit you would need at least 5,000 acres. A nuclear plant could be built on a couple of hundred acres or less.
• Actual Output of Power – Over the lifetime of a solar plant it will output far less electricity than a similarly sized nuclear power plant. A really good photovoltaic solar plant will offer a capacity factor of 15%, which means that on average you would get 150 megawatts of output from a solar plant. Nuclear plants have improved their performance in recent years to over 85% capacity factor, which means on average you get about five times the power from nuclear than you do from solar.
• The Cost of Reliability – A solar power plant cannot replace a conventional power plant and still maintain or improve reliability of power delivery. This is due to the fact that you can’t really predict exactly how much output you will get from a solar plant at any given time. When electricity is at its peak demand for a day you may or may not have solar power available in order to help you meet that demand. So you still need other forms of more reliable supply to help meet that demand. Nuclear plants can replace other types of plants, particularly baseload coal plants, because there is a high level of certainty that the power from the plant will be available. So the cost of having to continue to use legacy generation assets must be considered.
• Environmental Costs –  The cost to the environment is in favor of solar plants, but not nearly as much as the margin between solar and fossil fuel powered generating facilities. They will use minimum water when compared with nuclear plants. But nuclear plants output no harmful emissions. And since nuclear plants also eliminate the need for certain older types of generation the environmental costs of nuclear could be seen as comparable to solar.

As you can see there are a number of strong arguments in favor of nuclear economics, especially when you consider power output over the long run. The Energy Information Administration currently estimates the construction costs of nuclear (on a national basis) as lower than solar photovoltaic by about $2,500 per kilowatt of capacity. Where the EIA does give solar an advantage is in the operations and maintenance costs of the solar facilities by $80 per kilowatt. In order to truly take advantage of those cost differences solar facilities would need to be able to scale up to much larger sizes than we are seeing right now. The baselines used by EIA compare a 5 megawatt solar photovoltaic against a 1,350 megawatt nuclear unit.

It’s true that there are other costs and pitfalls to nuclear projects that help to shrink the economic gap with solar power. The cost of all the needed approvals and permits for nuclear facilities continues to rise. The risk that the plant won’t ever get built, and thus all the upfront costs are lost is real. After all, a new nuclear facility hasn’t been constructed in the U.S. in over 30 years. In the past nuclear projects have been plagued by mismanagement and cost overages. But those incidents occurred at a time when the burden on the cost was borne by electricity ratepayers. In the era of competitive markets the shareholders of the companies that construct nuclear power will bear the majority of the risk. It’s also important to note that large solar facilities come with their own risks. Large solar power plant proposals for the California desert have been met with fierce opposition.

So is solar power cheaper than nuclear power? Perhaps in some circumstances but for the most part the answer is no. It is worth noting that after publishing their story on the cost of nuclear compared to solar in North Carolina the New York Times added an editors note to their article that includes the following statement.

…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.

The Times’ editorial update highlights the importance of considering the many inputs and outputs that result from the construction and operation of power facilities. It’s a complicated subject. The information that is not presented is just as important as what is included in a particular study or report. Draw your own conclusions on the topic but I think that we have a ways to go before solar can truly challenge nuclear as a more economic source of electric power.

Pickens delays world’s biggest wind farm project

T Boone Pickens, a renowned Texan oilman who is raising the capital for the wind farm, told a US television station today that the twofold problem was slowing down his ambitious plan. Pickens, who made a fortune from the oil industry but has been converted to renewable energy as a means of ending US dependence on foreign oil, announced the original plan for the wind farm last year and construction was supposed to start in 2010.

Chrysler Launches New Hybrids, then Cancels Production

In a sign of these strange economic times, Chrysler LLC is simultaneously preparing to launch its first hybrid vehicles and to shut down their production. Chrysler announced that it will close the Newark Assembly Plant in Newark, Delaware, at the end of this year, a move that will bring an end to the Dodge Durango and Chrysler Aspen in all their forms, including the new hybrids.

Evergreen Solar files suit against Lehman Bros.

Evergreen Solar Inc., a Marlborough manufacturer of solar power panels, said today it has filed suit against Barclays and Lehman Brothers in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy cases. Evergreen Solar said it is demanding the immediate return of Evergreen stock shares loaned to Lehman Brothers in July as Evergreen Solar seeks to challenge Barclay’s ownership claim to shares transferred during Lehman Brothers bankruptcy proceedings.

FPL Group to cut spending, wind power growth

FPL Group, the largest operator of wind-power generation in the United States, said on Monday it would slash its 2009 spending because of the economic slump, reducing its wind turbine additions. The company said it would cut 2009 planned capital expenditures nearly 25 percent to $5.3 billion and add 1,100 megawatts in new wind-power generation rather than the 1,500 megawatts it originally had planned.

More items on the news page. Follow all of the clean energy news that I pick up around the web by bookmarking my link account at http://delicious.com/cleanenergydigest.

Wind-farm Workers Laid Off

Noble Environmental Power has stopped work at its Bellmont and Chateaugay wind-energy projects and laid off its workers. And it appears the bankruptcy of one of its major financial backers may have played a part. “Due to conditions in the financial markets, Noble Environmental Power has had to scale back its development plans for 2009,” Noble Chief Executive Officer Walter Howard said in a written statement.

Tesla Motors Hits Brakes Amid Credit Crisis

Citing “extraordinary times,” Tesla Motors, maker of the battery-powered, $109,000 Roadster, said Wednesday that difficult market conditions were forcing it to delay production of its next-generation vehicle, close two offices, lay off an unspecified number of employees and replace its chief executive.

Like all power projects, clean energy projects rely on investment capital. Investment capital is in short supply right now and is likely to be in short supply for the foreseeable future.

The graphic at left shows coal prices are up about 100% since the beginning of 2008. And although coal is still very inexpensive when compared with oil and natural gas it is very likely that these price increases will have a ripple effect in the marketplace for energy.

The allure of cleaner sources of energy will surely increase as the cost of coal increases. Google has stated goal of making renewable energy cheaper than coal via their RE<C initiative. Google probably didn’t count on coal prices rising sharply when they kicked off RE<C, but the effects of the coal price increase will be what Google intended just the same.

For the moment coal is still quite a bit cheaper than all other sources of energy except nuclear. Several other factors besides price close the economic gap between coal and clean energy sources. The future cost of emissions is an important cost and a big unknown in the U.S. at this time. Producing power with coal also yields costs with respect to goodwill and public relations. Energy companies whose portfolio contains significant amounts of coal fired generation must spend extra money to convince the public that they being as responsible as they can be. That is a cost that needs to be factored into the economics of coal too.

EIA Coal News and Markets (Archive)

Many people are inclined to ask, "What happened on Friday?" That’s not the right question though. Something has been happening over a much longer period of time. It’s only now that anyone is taking notice. The chickens are coming home to roost if you will.

The situation is this. We have fast rising fuel prices, not only for oil but natural gas too. Almost everything we do requires fuel. Fuel allows people to use technology to create energy. Energy powers our homes, businesses our lifestyles. The need for energy is ubiquitous, hence the need for fuel is ubiquitous. The vast majority of the energy in the United States is generated via fossil fuels.

The U.S. isn’t the only consumer of fuel in the world. The U.K. and Europe also demand vast quantities of fossil fuels, albeit much less than the U.S. There was a time when the market was driven by demand in the U.S., U.K. and Europe. That time has past. Demand is also driven by India, China and other developing nations as well. The irony of the situation is the fact that prosperity in the U.S. and other places is the direct cause of the demand coming from India and China. Don’t blame India and China though. They’re building their economies just like the U.S. has done for decades. And we in the U.S. are driving that growth.

The situation is simple and complex at the same time. Higher fuel costs increase the cost of energy. Since energy is required to do almost everything this means that every aspect of the economy is affected by rising fuel costs. Of late the market has seen flat supply of the most necessary fuels while demand has increased. So if supply of fuel is increased along with a reduction in demand then we are likely to see lower prices for fuel and energy. Those lower prices will help to stabilize the economy in the U.S. That’s the simple part.

The hard part is figuring out what the most important problem is and how to solve it. There is a supply problem. Not enough oil is being pumped to give the market a good feeling that the value will go down. There is a demand problem. If supply increases but demand does not decrease then there may not be a drop in prices. There is a technology problem. The technology required to greatly reduce demand for fossil fuels is moving along slowly. There’s no doubt that for all the funding they’ve received of late that clean energy technologies still cannot compete with fossil fuels in terms of the ability to meet our energy requirements. These problems and others constitute the complex part of the scenario.

Countries really need strong leaders to assist in solving these sorts of complex problems. The problems related to fossil fuels are no different. The situation is dire. The rapid rise in fuel costs is starting to ripple through the U.S. economy with companies like Ford, General Motors, American Airlines, Continental Airlines (heck all the airlines) crying uncle. Gas prices are sharply higher. Food costs are sharply higher of late. This rapid rise in fuel costs is a very real problem that affects everyone. So how do we get costs under control?

Our leaders (and that means Mr. President and elected representatives) need to step up and get cracking on a pragmatic energy policy. The policy should include aggressive measures to diversify the mix of fuels we use. That means more wind, solar and biomass. It also means more nuclear power (that’s right nuclear) and electric transmission to go along with it. It also means cars that use much less gasoline than they do today.

A new energy policy should also devote assets to increasing the U.S. supply of fossil fuel. New sources of natural gas and oil are desperately needed. Without these we have no way to counter the reduced output and growing demand around the world. Drilling is unpopular but very necessary if we want to build energy security for the U.S. and the world markets.

Education should be a very key component of a new energy policy as well. All the public sees now is sound byte rhetoric from legislators looking to make headlines. Where are the leaders getting on television, explaining the situation and telling people what they can do to help? They don’t exist today. The President of the United States could do this and I have no idea why he hasn’t. Are these issues not of utmost national importance?

The situation we are in today has taken decades to create. So there’s no reason to believe that it won’t take that long to reverse. If we get started today, the United States can continue to reduce our demand for fossil fuels. We can also continue to increase our fossil fuel supplies in order to stabilize the market. We can also become the leaders who will reap great benefits from implementing the latest clean energy technologies. Finally, every American (especially those who live very large) can pitch in today by getting smarter about energy and changing their ways accordingly.

Are our leaders in Washington ready to lead the way? For the sake of the nation and the world, I sure hope so.