Quantcast

Solar Growth Skyrockets as Nuclear Power Fails to Compete

Popular
Cooling towers at a nuclear power plant in Gundremmingen, Germany are visible behind homes whose owners are taking advantage of solar-power subsidies. The plant is marked for closure.

By Mike Jacobs

Last year's solar deployment numbers just came in and they are, in a word, phenomenal. Utilities bought more new solar capacity than they did natural gas capacity: an astounding 22 states added more than 100 MW of solar each.

At the same time, there is grim news about delays in construction and associated cost over-runs for nuclear plant construction projects in Georgia and South Carolina. SCANA—owner of South Carolina Electric & Gas and sponsor of the VC Summer Nuclear Project—has just reported new delays in the in-service dates of its new reactors to 2020. Construction started more than 7 years ago, with energy deliveries promised to begin in 2016.

Past hopes for a "renaissance" in nuclear power in the U.S., with four to eight new nuclear plant facilities projected to come on line in America between 2016 and 2018, have been overwhelmed by competition. Union of Concerned Scientists predicted this trend in costs many times.

Great Solar News

Meanwhile, there is much to say about the solar boom. Just ask one of your 1,300,000 neighbors who have solar on their property.

To put these achievements in perspective, let's talk about solar jobs and productivity. The solar industry employs more than 260,000 people in the U.S. The continuous improvement in know-how in construction techniques and in manufacturing drives down solar deployment costs every three months. The pricing for new solar projects is coming in the range of 4 cents (Texas) to 5 cents (California) per kilowatthour.

In comparison with nuclear, the amount of solar power built in 2016, taking into account how many hours each can operate each day, is the equivalent of more than three new nuclear plants.

To dive in a little deeper: let's use a 25 percent capacity factor for new solar, making the 14,626 MW installed equivalent to 3,650 MW of theoretically perfectly running nuclear plants. The Westinghouse AP 1000 units under construction for the last seven to 10 years produce about 1,100 MW. So, in one year, solar additions were equal to what takes more than seven years to build. The difference in speed of deployment is why Union of Concerned Scientists is clear that nuclear power isn't a near-term climate solution.

The Demise of the Nuclear Option

In the energy business, nuclear is fading fast. Struggles to keep existing plants open in competitive markets are roiling the electricity markets. But the recent news about the very few manufacturing firms supplying nuclear construction illustrates how very different the nuclear industry is from solar.

Cost over-runs in the U.S. plants are so large that when state regulators finally put a cap on what South Carolina and Georgia consumers would pay, manufacturer Toshiba (owner of Westinghouse) found itself with $6 billion in losses and the likely end of its business in nuclear power plant construction.

The concentration of nuclear component manufacturing in so few companies has shown how a problem with quality led to a "single point of failure" plaguing the fleet of French nuclear plants. Policy in the U.S. has been to shield the utility companies from the risks of their business decisions to construct nuclear plants, continuing with the Vogtle plant in Georgia.

Would We Ever Go 100% Solar?

Would we ever build only solar? Maybe, but that's not the right question. "What can we do with lots of solar?" is a better one.

We can keep absorbing the solar pattern of production with the tools we have. We can plan to adjust to cheap energy in the middle of the day with time-varying rates. And if we can get energy storage further along, we can get to the end of this debate.

Mike Jacobs is a senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists with expertise in electricity markets, transmission and renewables integration work.

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends getting regular cholesterol tests shortly after you turn 20. Ca-ssis / iStock / Getty Images Plus

Many people don't begin worrying about their cholesterol levels until later in life, but that may be increasing their odds of heart problems in the long term.

Read More Show Less
A child receives a measles vaccine. DFID - UK Department for International Development / CC BY 2.0

Measles infected nearly 10 million people in 2018 and killed more than 140,000, according to new estimates from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Most of the people who died were children under five years old.

Read More Show Less
Sponsored
Ocean pollution concept with plastic and garbage pictured in Sri Lanka. Nestle is among the top corporate plastic polluters, according to a report called BRANDED Volume II: Identifying the World's Top Corporate Plastic Polluters. Anton Petrus / Moment / Getty Images

Nestlé cannot claim that its Ice Mountain bottled water brand is an essential public service, according to Michigan's second highest court, which delivered a legal blow to the food and beverage giant in a unanimous decision.

Read More Show Less

A number of supermarkets across the country have voluntarily issued a recall on sushi, salads and spring rolls distributed by Fuji Food Products due to a possible listeria contamination, as CBS News reported.

Read More Show Less
Birds eye view of beach in Green Bowl Beach, Indonesia pictured above, a country who's capital city is faced with the daunting task of moving its capital city of Jakarta because of sea level rise. Tadyanehondo / Unsplash

If you read a lot of news about the climate crisis, you probably have encountered lots of numbers: We can save hundreds of millions of people from poverty by 2050 by limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, but policies currently in place put us on track for a more than three degree increase; sea levels could rise three feet by 2100 if emissions aren't reduced.

Read More Show Less