Solar energy is getting more attention lately, some of it the result of a Duke University study indicating that the costs of new photovoltaic systems have fallen below the projected costs of new nuclear plants. The finding of the study are true — as far as they go.
The research uses North Carolina statistics to argue that the power produced via solar energy costs less than that generated by newly constructed nuclear plants. Researcher John O. Blackburn, an economics professor at Duke, called it “historic crossover.”
Perhaps. But North Carolina isn’t the United States, and both solar and nuclear power — though part of the solution in promoting energy diversification — remain well behind coal as the main sector for energy production. Coal is still king of low-cost power and will likely remain so for quite a while, particularly if clean-coal technologies prove feasible and are installed to minimize pollution.
The “crossover,” based on North Carolina rates, occurred at 16 cents per kilowatt hour, the study indicated. Large solar generation systems there can produce electricity at 12 cents to 14 cents per kilowatt hour. Smaller residential solar systems average 13 cents to 19 cents per kilowatt hour.
That compares favorably with New England, the region of the country with the highest electric rates. Residents there pay an average of 17.1 cents per kilowatt hour.
But even if the Duke study is factual and properly interpreted, there is a major problem: Nationally, electric rates average 11.7 cents per kilowatt hour. The Plains states have the cheapest rates at an average of 9.4 cents per kilowatt hour.
In Nebraska, where public utilities supply power, the Nebraska Public Power District charges residential customers 8.88 cents per kilowatt hour in the summer and 7.01 cents, lowered to 4.54 cents after the first 750 kilowatts, in the winter. The Omaha Public Power District rate is 8.61 cents per kilowatt hour.
That said, the price trend for solar is encouraging. The cost of solar power has fallen since the 1990s due to technological improvements and the economics of scale. A photovoltaic system now costs half what it did a little more than 10 years ago.
Nuclear power, meanwhile, will remain part of the energy diversification picture, although the cost of plant construction continues to rise. Cost estimates for new nuclear facilities, which averaged $3 billion per reactor in 2002, are about $10 billion per reactor now.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is looking at 19 applications for new nuclear construction. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for Economic Analysis at the University of Vermont, notes various obstacles: Ninety percent of the applications have suffered from delays or cancellations, had design problems or cost increases or had utility bond ratings downgraded by Wall Street.
Solar and nuclear power both will steer our country toward a broader array of energy production. Both of those sources face separate challenges, and the data from the Duke study won’t settle the debates about how best to move forward.
Copyright ©2012 Omaha World-Herald®. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, displayed or redistributed for any purpose without permission from the Omaha World-Herald.
