Solar Cheaper than Grid Nuclear? Think Again!
By Daren Bakst and Carlo Stagnaro -- October 20, 2010Several months ago, a study by the anti-nuclear group North Carolina Waste Awareness Network (NC WARN) gained worldwide exposure by concluding that solar power is cheaper today than nuclear power.
The New York Times ran an article highlighting the findings, but the article was so criticized that the newspaper’s editors responded with what amounted to an apology.
NC WARN’s startling, untenable conclusion is the subject of this post, which is based on a longer paper.
The group’s central graph (Figure 1), which took the media hook, line, and sinker, shows a steep decreasing cost curve for solar over time coupled with a pronounced increasing cost curve for nuclear.
Figure 1. Generation costs from solar and nuclear power according to Blackburn and Cunningham (2010).
But nuclear power is less, not more, expensive than solar power.…
Continue ReadingThe All-Electric Car: Think 132-Year Payback (DOE’s Sandalow shows us what not to do)
By Patrick Barron -- October 19, 2010“When David Sandalow writes about energy and the environment, we should all pay close attention.”
– Al Gore endorsement, 2007
The term energy encompasses a plethora of technologies, and each attracts the gimlet eye of Big Brother.
In recent years environmental groups have been very successful in insinuating themselves into the halls of government so that today there is a revolving door between government and the environmental movement. And it’s just like the revolving door between the government and other key industries, such as banking and the military-industrial complex.
Government would have us believe that a new regulation is the result of some great, objective, and careful investigation. But mostly these regulations and spending programs are foisted upon us by the people who only yesterday were nothing more than lobbyists for some fervently held cause.…
Continue ReadingAB 32’s “Political Symbolism with Consequences” (Will California vote for recovery?)
By Daniel Simmons -- October 18, 2010Many Californians are concerned about the continuing economic viability of the Golden State, especially with the impending implementation of the California Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as AB (Assembly Bill) 32. The goal of the act is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, through a program administered and enforced by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
Almost all economic modeling of GHG emissions regulations find that the costs of such programs outweigh their benefits. The estimates have come from a wide spectrum of organizations, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Energy Information Administration, Brookings Institution, consulting-firm Charles River Associates, and others.
Contrary to the economic consensus, CARB has gone the other direction and argues that command-and-control and cap-and-trade will so increase the efficiency of energy use that Californians will benefit substantially by 2020.…
Continue Reading