Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

Showing Original Post only (View all)

FBaggins

(28,678 posts)
Wed May 15, 2013, 09:05 PM May 2013

Cost of German Solar is Four Times Finnish Nuclear [View all]

Olkiluoto Nuclear Plant, Plagued by Budget Overruns, Still Beats Germany’s Energiewende

Germany’s solar program will generate electricity at quadruple the cost of one of the most expensive nuclear power plants in the world, according to a new Breakthrough Institute analysis, raising serious questions about a renewable energy strategy widely heralded as a global model.



The findings challenge the idea that solar photovoltaic is a disruptive, scalable, “shelf-ready” technology with a cost advantage over nuclear. Energy analysts frequently point to Finland’s advanced nuclear project at Olkiluoto, which is seven years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget, and solar in Germany as indicative of future cost trends working against new nuclear technologies and in favor of solar.

Proponents of Germany’s Energiewende, which now involves jettisoning the country’s nuclear fleet by 2023, argue that solar and wind can make up the difference in lost capacity. A straightforward cost comparison between the two programs over the same 20-year period, however, reveals the costs of this proposition.

The Finnish European pressurized reactor (EPR), with an estimated total cost of $15 billion, will generate over half as much energy as the entire existing German solar program, which will run to roughly $130 billion. The total cost of electricity produced by German solar will be 32 cents per kilowatt-hour versus 7 cents per kilowatt-hour for the Areva-Siemens nuclear plant in Finland — a more than four-fold difference. Two such nuclear plants would generate slightly more than Germany’s solar panels, at less than a fourth the total cost.


...snip...

The reactor will generate about 225 TWh in a 20-year timeframe,3 more than half of what all of Germany’s solar panels installed between 2000 and 2011 will generate over their 20-year feed-in tariff contracts.

http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/cost-of-german-solar-is-four-times-finnish-nuclear/
72 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"The Breakthrough Institute"? kristopher May 2013 #1
Hardly the heritage foundation. FBaggins May 2013 #4
Where is your peaking power going to come from? Fairy dust? kristopher May 2013 #7
Peaking power must match peaking demand. FBaggins May 2013 #10
well, even you have to admit that with increasing gains in storage technology all of these numbers Tunkamerica May 2013 #32
Admit? FBaggins May 2013 #33
Me too. Tunkamerica May 2013 #34
What you said. It's another front for Big Energy. DCKit May 2013 #72
What about the cost and risk of storing nuclear waste for generations? JEB May 2013 #2
Negligible. FBaggins May 2013 #5
100,000 years of responsibility is not negligible. JEB May 2013 #9
Sure it is. FBaggins May 2013 #11
your casual dismissal of the problems with storing spent nuclear material would tell me everything niyad May 2013 #14
I haven't dismissed them FBaggins May 2013 #15
Really - which isotopes last 100,000 years FreakinDJ May 2013 #20
Ask the famous Luddite and astronaut JEB May 2013 #22
the higher the intensity of radioactivity the shorter the half-life. FreakinDJ May 2013 #24
Until it Leaks newsboy May 2013 #3
Methodology straight out the climate change deniers handbook Kelvin Mace May 2013 #6
That's the BI for you. kristopher May 2013 #8
Got any details? FBaggins May 2013 #12
Cherry picking data Kelvin Mace May 2013 #39
Hardly. FBaggins May 2013 #41
Seeing as solar is increasing Germany's carbon footprint dramatically wtmusic May 2013 #42
How is that? Kelvin Mace May 2013 #45
Because solar doesn't work most of the time. wtmusic May 2013 #46
That is still 13MW not produced Kelvin Mace May 2013 #59
High-carbon nuclear? wtmusic May 2013 #62
So, the contruction of the plant Kelvin Mace May 2013 #63
Solar is 2.5x higher than nuclear in lifetime GHG emissions. wtmusic May 2013 #64
You can mine 250-300 tons of steel without emissions? FBaggins May 2013 #68
breakthrough institute gets it wrong on climate economics--again niyad May 2013 #13
Not related to this analysis. FBaggins May 2013 #16
hmmm, not related. but the fact that they are wrong in one significant area tells me they niyad May 2013 #17
Your habit of misrepresenting my views is getting out of hand kristopher May 2013 #18
If I'm misrepresenting your views... you hide them pretty well. FBaggins May 2013 #25
What’s wrong with pricing carbon emissions? FreakinDJ May 2013 #21
I don't get that from Breakthrough's paper. wtmusic May 2013 #48
They are rightwing and antitax kristopher May 2013 #49
the people who lived near Chernobyl disagree about no economic cost when nuclear goes bad nt msongs May 2013 #19
The people of Fukushima JEB May 2013 #23
And who said that? FBaggins May 2013 #26
The ticking bomb that is the Hanford Kelvin Mace May 2013 #38
That isn't related to nuclear power. FBaggins May 2013 #40
Have they figured in the price of dismantlibg the reactor? Democracyinkind May 2013 #27
Of course. FBaggins May 2013 #28
There are only about 2 or 3 fully dismantled (commercial) reactors that I know of Democracyinkind May 2013 #36
It isn't just figured into their math... it's required FBaggins May 2013 #37
they left out the cost of liabily veganlush May 2013 #29
A frequently-repeated falsehood FBaggins May 2013 #31
wrong veganlush May 2013 #53
Nonsense. FBaggins May 2013 #54
give it up veganlush May 2013 #55
There was such a meltdown already. FBaggins May 2013 #57
the fact that you veganlush May 2013 #58
Only in the case... FBaggins May 2013 #60
Solar subsidies are 30 times as high as those for nuclear. wtmusic May 2013 #67
Why does a 60 year old industry need subsidies? kristopher May 2013 #69
Union of Concerned Scientists FogerRox May 2013 #70
"Legacy" subsidies? WTF is this idiot talking about? wtmusic May 2013 #71
Every operating nuke plant in the world is insured. wtmusic May 2013 #44
Under-insured is more accurate. kristopher May 2013 #50
It's just money. DetlefK May 2013 #30
Which is why we ought to ban fossil fuels and agricultural fuels. hunter May 2013 #61
Breakthrough Chairman's Bio - long version, is a joke. GeorgeGist May 2013 #35
Wow - did these idiots ever consider the cost feed-in tarrifs vs. actual generating costs? jpak May 2013 #43
Of course - all tarrrrifs included. nt wtmusic May 2013 #47
And what was the purpose of these tarrifs? jpak May 2013 #52
What WAS the purpose? FBaggins May 2013 #56
This is why the BI "study" is BS. kristopher May 2013 #51
758 veiws and 2 recs. Next. FogerRox May 2013 #65
Thanks for kick, and... wtmusic May 2013 #66
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Cost of German Solar is F...»Reply #0