20,555
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
SW: →Cost: - add section
==Cost==
===Photovoltaic versus coal===
Currently, coal power is seen as cheaper than renewable sources of power like solar. The Standard and Poors chart cited in Khosla Venture (KV)'s [http://www.khoslaventures.com/presentations/CoalThinkOutsidethePits.pdf "The War on Coal: Think Outside the (Coal) Pits 2007 Report"] lists the average baseline cost for pulverized coal at 5.8 cents per kilowatt hour (c/kwh), or the more realistic cost of coal power generated from [[Powder River Basin]] (PRB) coal, a coal which usually has fewer contaminants and therefore somewhat bypasses the sulfur caps on coal-fired generation, is priced at 6.8 c/kwh. By comparison, the same chart lists wind at 7.1 c/kwh (while noting shortages and energy transportation factors are not included) and concentrated solar (CSP) at between 7 and 11 c/kwh.<ref name="KhoVen"> [http://www.khoslaventures.com/presentations/CoalThinkOutsidethePits.pdf The War on Coal: Think Outside the (Coal) Pits], Khosla Ventures, 2007 (PDF file).</ref>
In 2006, U.S. investors began offering free solar panel installation in return for a 25 year contract, or Power Purchase Agreement, to purchase electricity at a fixed price, normally set at or below current electric rates.<ref>Sara Parker, [http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2007/06/u-s-retailers-save-with-solar-pv-energy-efficiency-49104 "U.S. Retailers Save with Solar PV & Energy Efficiency"] Renewable Energy World.com, June 29, 2007.</ref> An innovative financing arrangement is being tested in Berkeley, California, called [http://www.cityofberkeley.info/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=26580 Berkeley First], which adds an amount to the property assessment to allow the city to pay for the installed panels up front, which the homeowner pays for over a 20 year period at a rate equal to the annual electric bill savings, thus allowing free installation for the homeowner at no cost to the city.
===Photovoltaic versus nuclear===
A 2010 report by NC Warn, [http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf '''Solar and Nuclear Costs — The Historic Crossover: Solar Energy is Now the Better Buy'''] found that solar photovoltaic system costs have fallen steadily for decades and are projected to fall further over the next 10 years, while projected costs for construction of new nuclear plants have risen steadily over the last decade, and continue to rise. Looking at North Carolina, the report finds that electricity from new solar installations is cheaper than electricity from proposed new nuclear plants, making planned nuclear projects for N.C. an unwise decision out of line with state policy, as state law requires that the development of the electricity system follow a “least-cost” path with available resources added as necessary. Less expensive resources are to be added first, followed by more expensive ones, provided that system reliability is maintained. Energy efficiency, wind power, solar hot water, and cogeneration (combined heat and power), were already cheaper sources than new nuclear plants, and yet "the state’s largest utilities are holding on tenaciously to plans dominated by massive investments in new, risky and ever-more-costly nuclear plants, while they limit or reject offers of more solar electricity. Those utilities seem oblivious to the real trends in energy economics and technology that are occurring in competitive markets."<ref name="jb">John Blackburn, [http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/08/solar-and-nuclear-costs-the-historic-crossover "Solar and Nuclear Costs —The Historic Crossover: Report shows that solar energy is now the better buy"] EnergyWorld.com, August 10, 2010.</ref>
According to the report, commercial-scale solar developers in North Carolina are already offering utilities electricity at 14 cents or less per kWh. Yet power companies like [[Duke Energy]] and [[Progress Energy]] are limiting or rejecting these offers and pushing ahead with plans for nuclear plants that, if ever completed, would generate electricity at much higher costs — 14–18 cents per kilowatt-hour according to present estimates, with the delivered price to customers somewhat higher for both sources. While solar electricity enjoys tax benefits that help lower costs to customers, "since the late 1990s the trend of cost decline in solar technology has been so great that solar electricity is fully expected to be cost-competitive without subsidies within the decade. Nuclear plants likewise benefit from various subsidies — and have so benefitted throughout their history. Now the nuclear industry is pressing for more subsidies. This is inappropriate." The report therefore advocates state investment in solar power over nuclear: "Commercial nuclear power has been with us for more than forty years. If it is not a mature industry by now, consumers of electricity should ask whether it ever will be competitive without public subsidies. There are no projections that nuclear electricity costs will decline. Very few other states are still seriously considering new nuclear plants. Some have cancelled projects, citing continually rising costs with little sign of progress toward commencing construction. Many states with competitive electricity markets are developing their clean energy systems as rapidly as possible. North Carolina should be leading, not lagging, in the clean energy transition."<ref name="jb"/>
==Storage==
