Comments on: Nuclear Power vs. Solar Power

By: Who Says Solar Power Is Bogus? | Solar Feeds

Who Says Solar Power Is Bogus? | Solar Feeds — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:59:57 +0000

[...] These cons are rapidly evaporating, and the long-term projections are encouraging. Some argue that nuclear power, more drilling, and wind farms are more feasible than solar energy. [...]

By: Cardio

Cardio — Sun, 26 Dec 2010 09:06:59 +0000

Hey marfdrat, read the post properly before replying.
Gerd and Rob were talking about the carbon footprint of manufacturing solar panels, not the cost of them.
The carbon footprint of producing solar pv’s is about 1-2 years and falling. One of the biggest appeals of Solar over Nuclear is that the costs of Solar per unit power continues to fall and will continue to fall as it follows it’s growth curve in technology (conversion efficiency, cost of production…), whereas Nuclear has hit a brick wall and fallen unconscious in it’s cost efficiency (http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/plan_b_updates/2008/update78) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants)
Nuclear ain’t following any sort of moore’s law, that’s for sure.

As Solar is developed further, particularly pv, initial carbon footprint will as it has been, continue to fall.

Each generation of nuclear power takes decades to develop. The much hyped (by nuclear advocates) gen iv reactor, is still vapourware and I believe its full spec isn’t due until the year 2030. Nuclear just can’t compete with solar where thousands of laboratories around the world are generating more energy and cost efficient solar pv cells, and as solar becomes more efficient, so does it’s popularity hence mass production cost efficiencies come more into play.

Fantastic work is also being done by the likes of Dan Nocera and others in related fields and I’d say that by the year 2050, Solar power will be too cheap to meter.

By: marfdrat

marfdrat — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 20:46:50 +0000

Gerd – you’re living in a dream world if you think the payback on solar panels is 1-2 years. Maybe for heating the water in a rain barrel. A quick survey of sites with (seemingly) reliable information says you’re off by a factor of 10. From Homeowner.net (http://www.homeownernet.com/energy/solar_home.html): A 3-4 KW [Kilowatt] system for a 3000 square foot home can cost from $24,000 to $40,000, and take 10 years or more to pay back. These numbers look pretty accurate, as I have investigated installing solar panels on my own house, thinking we’d be able to save some money. The entry cost is just too high to justify for the average homeowner. Government subsidies aren’t the answer; they’re an inefficient re-allocation of capital resources (but then, everything the Government does is inefficient).

I don’t know how much your electric bills are, but they’re probably not $1000 to $1,666 per month (the amount you’d need to save to recoup the cost in 2 years). Additionally, you have the problem of availability of the sun: it doesn’t shine 24 hours per day, or when it’s cloudy. Storage is still problematic, because the batteries required to save up excess energy generated (assuming there is any) are very expensive.

Currently, solar-powered anything exists only because vested interests in government agencies insist that it must: without subsidies, no one would bother, because it’s not cost-effective.

By: Gerd

Gerd — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:01:50 +0000

@Rob if only YOU knew… You can find such info even on wikipedia theses days. The energetic payback time for solar panels is about 1-2 years. Their lifespan is about 20-30 years. So the answer is: yes, they EASILY provide much more energy than they require. For wind turbines this output/input ratio (energetic ROI) is even more positive.

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:36:49 +0000

How about this, a combination of Wind, Solar, Nuclear, Geo Thermal, Parabolic Mirrors, ect… is the key.
We can’t put all our eggs into one basket.

As far as the Costs go for each one; how do you put a cost on a clean evironment? Cost is alway “Relative.”

By: ReX Tanos

ReX Tanos — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:16:51 +0000

Actualy there’s nothing better than a safe & clean energy, solar power is better than all powers…

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 02:54:22 +0000

No one really looks at the carbon footprint of manufacturing solar panels. If people only knew…

By: Who Says Solar Power Is Bogus?

Who Says Solar Power Is Bogus? — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:42:46 +0000

[...] These cons are rapidly evaporating, and the long-term projections are encouraging. Some argue that nuclear power, more drilling, and wind farms are more feasible than solar [...]

By: Narayan

Narayan — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:34:51 +0000

While we look at the GHG emissions from all the sources we comfortablyleave the amount of GHG that goes into the production of the Solar panles.

Especially the raw materials for the solar like Silicon, other gases and consumable all require a huge power and emits lot of GHG

Some body need to really put his head down and work on what is the net carbon from this source.

By: Solar

Solar — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:42:19 +0000

Solar power is renewable and non toxic. Nuclear power is larger scale and can give more bang for the buck, not to mention doesn’t take up hundreds of acres to power cities. But Solar won’t HARM us, it simply uses the sun and has no bi-product.