Historic Crossover: Report shows solar is now cheaper than nuclear power

A historic moment has been reached in the renewable energy sector of North Carolina. A report compiled by John O. Blackburn, Professor Emeritus of Economics and former Chancellor of Duke University, along with a student, Sam Cunningham for the NC Warn: Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, claims that solar power has reached the crossover point and is now cheaper than nuclear power.

“For many years the U.S. nuclear power industry has been allowed to argue that ‘there is no alternative’ to building new nuclear plants,” Blackburn’s report concludes. “This is just not true.”
Source: Solar and Nuclear Costs — The Historic Crossover: Solar Energy is Now the Better Buy

In the summary, the report entitled “Solar and Nuclear Costs — The Historic Crossover: Solar Energy is Now the Better Buy“, sumarises it’s findings as:

Solar photovoltaic system costs have fallen steadily for decades. They are projected to fall even farther over the next 10 years. Meanwhile, projected costs for construction of new nuclear plants have risen steadily over the last decade, and they continue to rise.
In the past year, the lines have crossed in North Carolina. Electricity from new solar installations is now cheaper than electricity from proposed new nuclear plants.
This new development has profound implications for North Carolina’s energy and economic future. Each and every stakeholder in North Carolina’s energy sector — citizens, elected officials, solar power installers and manufacturers, and electric utilities — should recognize this watershed moment.

Samuel Avro has published an article on Consumer Energy Report quoting Blackburn from Duke University:

Cost estimates for new nuclear plants have risen dramatically since the much-heralded “nuclear renaissance” began during the past decade, says Blackburn. “Projects first announced with costs in the $2 billion range per reactor have seen several revisions as detailed planning proceeds and numerous design and engineering problems have emerged. The latest price estimates are in the $10 billion range per reactor.”

Avro also writes that Blackburn and his report have attracted criticism from pro-nuclear bloggers like Rod Adams, author of the Atomic Insights Blog:

Rod Adams … criticized the basis of the study saying that the study’s nuclear cost projections rely on a paper written by a lone researcher with unclear qualifications. “Mark Cooper’s brief biography states that he has a ‘PhD from Yale’ but it does not specify his field of study. It indicates he is an ‘acivist/advocate’ with a rather wide range of interest areas including telecommunications regulations and energy consumer issues,” he writes. Adams also listed a number of papers on the subject which he says were ignored by Blackburn’s report.

The cost of nuclear versus various forms of renewable energy power generation has long been a hot topic for discussion. Rod Adams, whose blog post was entitled “Gullible Reporting By New York Times On the Cost of Solar Electricity Versus Nuclear Electricity” was responding to the article published by the New York Times on the 26th of July. The NYT Special Report on Energy and Environment written by Diana Powers was entitled “Nuclear Energy Loses Cost Advantage“. No doubt plenty more public debate will follow.

Read the full report here.

We heard about this report on Twitter from @EnergyPerson. Join CTTV on twitter to keep up to date with all the latest cleantech news.

Revision from the New York Times:
On 3rd of August 2010, The New York Times has made a formal correction to their Special Report: Energy and Environment “Nuclear Energy Loses Cost Advantage” outlining in an appended Editor’s note what had been omitted in their coverage. The main issues raised was that the original article failed to state that the report was prepared for an environmental advocacy group. It also did not contrast the report against others which had drawn contrasting conclusions and failed to approach the Nuclear Energy Institute, which is quoted extensively from their website, directly to respond to the claims of the study.