Economics of solar aren’t competitive

The June 30 letter “Correcting costs of nuclear power” seems to have missed some important principles of power generation. One cannot simply compare the capital cost of installed watts but must also take hours of generation (energy produced) into account. This is usually expressed as watt-hours, or watts (more commonly kilowatts) times hours of production. A quick look at one’s electric bill will verify this point.

Solar power production, at best, is only during daylight hours (less than half the time on average) and even then must be reduced by various inefficiencies, including angle of the sun, angle of the solar panels, shade from trees and buildings, atmospheric conditions (clouds), etc. These factors can be readily taken into account by engineers who consult data tables developed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and apply these data, along with engineering principles, to calculate the energy which can be produced per year.

Nuclear power, on the other hand, can produce electrical energy about 90 percent of the year and does so in the 104 operating nuclear power plants in the U.S., according to DOE data. Nuclear fuel cost is a very small number compared to the capital cost of a plant. Nuclear plants are operated as “base load” plants because they produce electricity at about the same cost as coal fired plants, an economical form of power production. Of course, hydro power is cheap but unlikely to add new capacity. Oil and natural gas are more expensive and are therefore used mostly as “topping” plants when extra power is necessary. Solar cannot yet compete with these more economical forms of generation. This can be verified by examining the U.S. Government Energy Information Administration Web site: http://www.eia.doe.gov/.

Eugene R. Hager

La Jolla, Calif. [/URL]