| Solar
Energy: The Costly Revival of Support for Nuclear Energy.
Written
by Steve Sloane to
The New York Times,
July 10, 2007
To
the Editor:
Today’s article (C1) “Costs Surge For Building Power
Plants” stresses the increasing costs of constructing nuclear
power plants to supply our planet's growing need. If I can correctly
boil down the big numbers included in your article, it reports,
that building costs already are above $3 per watt for new construction.
This cost does not include the cost of nuclear fuel to actually
make electricity, and the secure disposal of nuclear waste. Neither
does $3+ per watt include the cost of diligent maintenance to prevent
leaks, spills, meltdowns, and other unlikely potential hazards as
experienced at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
Insurance is also absent from this cost equation. There is no insurance
company that will take the nuclear risk. Only the Federal government
supported by our tax dollars would be vulnerable for the unimaginable
fiscal expense of nuclear disaster whether from sabotage, acts of
gods or mismanagement. The huge dimensions of nuclear disaster to
both our environment and our health go beyond fiscally responsible
risk management.
Among other alternatives, compare photovoltaic or solar electric
generation. Its cost is down from $200 per watt 20+ years ago to
about $6 per watt for major projects. Some have already been completed
for less. Contrary to trends in fossil fuel, and nuclear, as scale
is increasing costs for solar are diminishing. This trend is even
more exciting when you add in the avoided cost of escalating fuel
costs.
Most of the material cost in new construction is for the solar panels
themselves. The manufacturers guarantee solar panels for 25 years
and they have life expectancies of 40 years or more. The same solar
panels that we have been using to power our satellites in space
have been running 24/7 for over 40 years! Solar panels have no moving
parts to maintain, and burn no fuel.
Fossil fuel burning and radio-active nuclear power plants described
in your article have life expectancies of 15 to 20 years, about
half and substantially below the 25 – 40 or more year solar
life expectancy. Solar has the added advantage of be most productive
at “peak” time, like 5 PM on August afternoons, when
demand is the greatest and energy costs the most. Solar is great
for keeping the lights on and preventing rolling brown-outs and/or
blackouts.
Let’s do the math: Solar costs twice as much to build as nuclear
but it lasts twice as long. Solar doesn’t burn any fuel and
it has no harmful side-effects.
Nuclear fuel is expensive and its spent by-product is great for
manufacturing dirty bombs and it has a half-life to burden many
future generations, if there are any.
Watt Years per Construction Dollar:
Nuclear:
$3/20 years = 0.15 watt years per dollar
Solar:
$6/40 years = 0.15 watt years per dollar for solar
These costs do not include the cost of nuclear fuel, disposal of
nuclear waste for which solar energy has no comparable extra costs,
and the cost of liability insurance which is unavailable for nuclear
plants and unnecessary for solar.
We cannot afford and we do not need more nuclear power plants like
Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Shoreham.
Big solar is a big step forward.
—Steve Sloane
—Glen Cove, NY
—slonobono@aol.com
EDITOR’S NOTE:
Steve Sloane, who has contributed to RLTE in the past, has been
an associate member of the Sustainable Energy Alliance for 5 years
specializing in energy analysis. His company CoolSun is the sales
agent in Metro NY for The Clear Skies Group. CoolSun helped initiate
the Alternative Energy Program at the United States Merchant Marine
Academy which uses PV electricity that we helped provide to manufacture
hydrogen for use in its fuel cell vehicles. CoolSun has also provided
pro-bono services to Suffolk County Habitat For Humanity, which
has resulted in all new houses in Suffolk County including in their
construction free photovoltaic electricity for owners to lower their
costs and help them pay their mortgages.
See also “Solar Eclipse” in the Planet
section of this issue.
Comments
will be reviewed and
posted on a daily basis.
|
