Letter to the editor:

Switch to solar is just too costly right now

Dirk Dahlgren, Las Vegas

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 | 2:01 a.m.

Those who support the idea of making solar energy a major part of the nation’s electrical supply often don’t address the issue of cost to the people for the electricity.

As the recent uproar about NV Energy’s desire to raise your $100-per-month electrical bill to $119 proves, cost is a major issue for most of our state population.

The April issue of National Geographic magazine contains a supplement that states that for power plants coming on line in 2013, coal, natural gas, wind and nuclear power cost about 6 cents per kilowatt-hour, while solar costs about 22 cents. So going mostly solar would raise your electric bill from $100 to $360 per month. Most low-income and fixed-income people cannot afford that.

Though future discoveries could change the costs, it seems folly to bet your future on uncertain research outcomes. The government could pay for the solar installation so your electric bills will not go up. But since it gets money only from the people — one way or another — you will still pay. Money doesn’t grow on trees.

There are also people who suggest putting solar facilities on individual houses, but that is even more expensive — that is, not economical at this time.

Discussion: 8 comments so far…

By uddeboda

4/14/09 at 5:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Dirk,
""Money doesn't grow on trees.""

Money does grow on trees, where do you think the raw material comes from to make these $trillions that are going to be printed, so as to lul the American people into believing that all is well with the economy.
By neiman1

4/14/09 at 5:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

How about building a nuclear power plant next to Yucca Mountain. Then no wast has to be transported. We just move it next door when its time.
By mschaffer

4/14/09 at 6:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

I wonder how much water a nuclear power plant needs?
By uddeboda

4/14/09 at 10:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

mschaffer

A bl##dy lot of water, that is why many are built near to the oceans, tons of water.
To build one inland and in the "desert" would be folly, so where would the water come from.
By BLNV

4/14/09 at 1:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

What if no one bought the very first expensive "pong" video game or that first 20 pound cell phone, computer... Demand makes the products more efficient and cost effective
We need solar
By Ardent

4/14/09 at 2:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

uddeboda:

You seem to forget that the Palo Verde nuclear power plant 50 miles outside Phoenix is similarly located in a desert. This plant uses waste water (effluent) for cooling; there are also applications pending at NRC for new nuclear plants in relatively arid parts of Texas. In short, the water issue is not the obstacle you make it out to be with respect to nuclear power generation, though you're right that nuclear power plants use a lot of water and this is why they are most typically located near major waterways.

As for the solar issue, one need look no farther than the solar array currently operating at Nellis AFB to get a sense of the economics. The Nellis array produces about 14 megawatts and covers some 140 acres of land. It cost about $100 million to construct and cannot supply baseload power (no sun shining, no power).

In other words, we're talking about a power to land use to cost ratio of about 1 megawatt per 10 acres of land per $7.1 million dollars.

By comparison, the Palo Verde plant generates about 3,200 megawatts of continual baseload power and occupies about 4,000 acres. It cost about $5.9 billion to construct. That's a ratio of 1 megawatt per 1.25 acres of land use per $1.8 million dollars.

For a solar array to match the output of Palo Verde, in other words, you would need about 32,000 acres of solar panels and the facility would cost about $23 billion (if my math is right).
By mschaffer

4/14/09 at 2:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Ardent,

Please read the following linked document that questions your assumptions.

Thank you,
Mark Schaffer
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E0...
By Ardent

4/16/09 at 2:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

mschaffer:

Please, I'm very familiar with Lovins' work; his stance on nuclear power is well documented, and his role at the environmentally conscious RMI is as well known that organization's biases.

I could easily point you to several studies by equally (if not more) respected sources that controvert or dispute Lovins et al.

The more interesting point to argue at this stage is why you called anything I posted an "assumption" in the first place.

If you look carefully at my post, and examine your own concept of the term "assumption," you will see that I offered virtually no assumptions. You might assume, by the content of my post and the fact that I bothered to write it, that I advocate nuclear power. In that case, you would be right, but that is your assumption, not mine (or more accurately, your inference, and an accurate one at that).

Rather, what I presented were simple facts: the land use, power capacity, and costs of two energy sources, along with some amateur math to formulate a comparison.

In short, there is NOTHING in my post that could be called an assumption, and your labeling my statements as such illustrates perfectly what is wrong in this debate.

It is the tendency of nuclear power opponents to characterize FACTS as opinions, assumptions, or other subjective phenomena, rather than accepting objective DATA for what it is: quantifiable values that remain neutral even when used to underpin an implicit argument.

All you have done, in other words, is shift the debate from the upshot of my post, which hinges on the simple capacity/land use/cost comparison I'm making.

A more productive and intellectually honest response to my post might have attempted to use Lovins' estimates to determine whether the comparison I offered would still result in an advantage for nuclear power (as clearly it would, for not even Lovins is suggesting a six- or seven- or eight-fold differential).