Renewable Energy Cheaper Than Nuclear Power

MONDAY 22 JUNE, 2009

Nuclear power has been increasingly hailed by lobbyists as a source of clean, cheap and safe power; but cost blowouts in the construction and maintenance of new nuclear plants, along with their need for massive amounts of water and continuing radioactive waste storage issues, is again making renewable energy look to be the only really viable option to power our future.

According to a recent study by economist Dr. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School, the cost of electricity generated by new nuclear reactors would be (USD) 12-20 cents per kilowatt hour, whereas increased energy efficiency and renewable energy sourced power would cost around 6 cents per kilowatt hour.

This translates to USD $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors.
Projected construction and maintenance costs for nuclear plants have quadrupled since the start of the nuclear renaissance in 2000. The required massive subsidies from taxpayers and ratepayers would not change the real cost of nuclear reactors, they would just shift the risks to the public, according to the report.

According to Dr. Cooper: "We are literally seeing nuclear reactor history repeat itself. The "Great Bandwagon Market" that ended so badly for consumers in the 1970s and 1980s was driven by advocates who confused hope and hype with reality." This latest version of the "Great Bandwagon Market" will see reactors cost seven times as much as the cost projection for the first reactors of the Great Bandwagon Market.

Cost has always been one of the the major issues haunting the solar power and wind energy industry, but the public have been generally unaware of the massive tax payer funded subsidises fossil fuels and current nuclear reactors receive. It's only been in very recent times that renewable energy is starting to see levels of funding to help put it on equal footing with non-renewable power generation technology.

http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=481

First Solar passes 1GW in solar capacity

Comment: This is a Huge Deal, The Nuke People are always saying Solar cannot replace Nuke Plants but They Can!! No Nuke Plants, No Uranium Mining! State of Virginia jump on the True Green Wagon!

Lincoln Spector, The Industry Standard03.21.2009

The sum total of all the solar panels manufactured by First Solar can now produce as much power as a nuclear power plant, one gigawatt.

The large panel manufacturer announced Friday that it has produced enough solar cells to create a gigawatt of power since it began commercial production in 2002 and hopes to double its current capacity soon.

"It took the Company more than six years to produce its first 500 megawatts (MW) and eight months to produce its second, creating today's 1GW total," reads the announcement. "By the end of this year, the Company...will have the capacity to produce more than 1GW per year -- the equivalent of an average-sized nuclear power plant."

How much does 1GW mean in real terms?

A First Solar recruitment video (see below) brags of a plant in Nevada that produces 10MW, "enough to power 64,000 homes." By that logic, 1GW should be able to power several large cities.

But there are caveats when it comes to this form of electricity generation.

Solar panels only work in daylight, and only at full capacity on clear days.

A 1GW nuclear power plant, by comparison, can keep producing power around the clock and in any weather.