START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Nuclear Is Cheaper Than Solar Thermal? New Vogtle Plant Costs Half As Much as Crescent Dunes Solar Facility


Business  (tags: Energy, Energy Consumption, Energy Policy, Energy Costs, Obama Climate Plan, Investment, Research, Development, Solar Power, Nuclear Power, Costs Per Kilowatt, Crescent Dunes, Vogtle )

Brian
- 157 days ago - thebreakthrough.org
"Crescent Dunes is a 110-megawatt power plant with total reported capital costs of $910 million. That's $8,200 per kilowatt. The Vogtle reactors...are a combined 2,234 megawatts at a reported cost of about $14 billion, or $6,700 per kilowatt.



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Kamia T. (79)
Monday June 16, 2014, 4:59 pm
Sorry, even if nuclear IS cheaper than solar -- solar doesn't produce waste products that can destroy all of humanity if not contained, and that need to be stored for longer than humanity has been around in its present condition. In my book, that rules nuclear out.
 

Brian M. (202)
Monday June 16, 2014, 9:11 pm
From the article: "Last week, Mike Grunwald of TIME celebrated the coming solar revolution, highlighting a new solar plant with integrated energy storage and at the same time shrugging off new nuclear power for its “exorbitant costs.” But when you do the math, the Vogtle nuclear plants coming online near Atlanta generate a kilowatt of power at half the cost of Crescent Dunes solar. While the Vogtle reactors will generate full power roughly 90 percent of the time, Crescent Dunes will only generate power about 50 percent of the time even with the ability to store power once the sun has gone down. The world of energy technology and energy economics can be impenetrable, but it isn’t too hard to see what’s wrong with the claim that solar thermal is wildly cheaper than nuclear. "
 

Melanie Simon (0)
Tuesday June 17, 2014, 8:06 pm
NUCLEAR IS NOT CHEAPER THAN SOLAR or anything else, the real costs are not taken into consideration (for a real evaluation on comparing see Helen Caldicott's website)...neither are they as long lived as the spin tells us. Do not be fooled, the accounting is not done right...you can't actually say how much the power costs when you don't even know how the long term toxic waste will be stored much less how much that costs...anyone who makes claims like this need to get some perspective. When you do the math, you have to have the whole equation before you try to calculate the answer, otherwise you are not doing maths.
 

Brian M. (202)
Wednesday June 18, 2014, 12:43 am
Melanie, hysteria is no substitute for science. Helen Caldicott can make pronouncements from the safety of her tin foil helmet, but that doesn't make anything she says remotely accurate. From the article: "The Vogtle reactors will generate full power roughly 90 percent of the time. Even with the ability to store power once the sun has gone down, Crescent Dunes will only generate power about 50 percent of the time. After you adjust for capacity factor, or the actual production of a power plant as a proportion of nameplate capacity, Vogtle’s cost advantage is enormous."
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.