The Holy Grail of the solar industry — reaching grid parity — may no longer be a distant dream. Solar may have already reached that point, at least when compared to nuclear power, according to a new study by two researchers at Duke University.

It’s no secret that the cost of producing photovoltaic cells (PV) has been dropping for years. A PV system today costs just 50 percent of what it did in 1998. Breakthroughs in technology and manufacturing combined with an increase in demand and production have caused the price of solar power to decline steadily. At the same time, estimated costs for building new nuclear power plants have ballooned.

The result of these trends: “In the past year, the lines have crossed in North Carolina,” say study authors John Blackburn and Sam Cunningham. “Electricity from new solar installations is now cheaper than electricity from proposed new nuclear plants.”

If the data analysis is correct, the pricing would represent the “Historic Crossover” claimed in the study’s title.

Two factors not stressed in the study bolster the case for solar even more:

1) North Carolina is not a “sun-rich” state. The savings found in North Carolina are likely to be even greater for states with more sunshine –Arizona, southern California, Colorado, New Mexico, west Texas, Nevada and Utah.

2) The data include only PV-generated electricity, without factoring in what is likely the most encouraging development in solar technology: concentrating solar power (CSP). CSP promises utility scale production and solar thermal storage, making electrical generation practical for at least six hours after sunset.

Power costs are generally measured in cents per kilowatt hour – the cost of the electricity needed to illuminate a 1,000 watt light bulb (for example) for one hour. When the cost of a kilowatt hour (kWh) of solar power fell to 16 cents earlier this year, it “crossed over” the trend-line associated with nuclear power. (see chart below)

Solar-Nuclear cost comparison (from Blackburn and Cunningham)

The authors point out that some commercial scale solar developers are now offering electricity at 14 cents a kWh in North Carolina, a price which is expected to continue to drop.

While the study includes subsidies for both solar and nuclear power, it estimates that if subsidies were removed from solar power, the crossover point would be delayed by a maximum of nine years.

The report is significant not only because it shows solar to be a cheaper source of energy than nuclear. The results are also important because, despite the Senate’s failure to pass a climate and energy bill this year, taxpayers now bear the burden of putting carbon into the atmosphere through a variety of hidden charges – or externalities, as economists call them. Fossil fuels currently account for 70 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. annually. (Nuclear generates 20 percent.)

Having dropped below nuclear power, solar power is now one of the least expensive energy sources in America.

Bush Contract Signed Two Days After Obama Was Sworn In

In its final days, and with no fanfare, the Bush Administration signed 21 contracts with nuclear power companies promising to store high level radioactive waste from plants that had not yet been built, even though no federal repository for such waste exists, according to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER). At least one of the contracts is dated January 22, 2009 — two days after President Barack Obama had been sworn into office.

READ THE FULL STORY (W/LINKS TO THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS) AT ONEARTH MAGAZINE.

From the Department of Energy, some good news and some bad news for renewable energy advocates.

First, the good news: The DOE released a list today of the dozen projects currently participating in the Department’s energy loan programs. The loans and guarantees total more $19 billion and will “create or save” 50,000 jobs, according to DOE figures. So, what could be bad about that? Nothing, unless you look carefully at the details. (Not that the DOE is trying to mislead anyone — it’s a matter of definitions.)

The Devil is in the Definitions

The Arizona state legislature recently tried to pass a bill that would have defined nuclear power as a “renewable” source of energy, despite federal regulations to the contrary. (I’ve written about the details elsewhere.) No such purposeful dis-information is contained in the information coming from Secretary of Energy Steven Chu’s office. It’s just that Chu, like his boss, defines “clean energy” very narrowly — referring only to sources that emit little or no-CO2.

Shippingport Atomic Power Station

This definition excludes the 2,200 tons of radioactive waste produced annually by the nation’s 104 nuclear power plants. A half century after the first commercial nuclear power plant went on-line (the Shippingport Atomic Power Station in Pennsylvania), there is still no long-term solution for what to do with this dangerous waste.

Still, even the enthusiastically pro-nuclear Secretary of Energy doesn’t claim nuclear is “renewable” since it runs on a fuel supply (uranium) that has to be mined and is finite.

Of the dozen loan recipients, nine are clearly renewable. One (Ford) is a combo — the loan goes “to transform factories…to produce more fuel efficient models,” according to the DOE (pdf file). The increased efficiency comes from a variety of changes, including adding electric vehicles (which can be “renewable” depending on the energy source) and design changes that allow more complete energy capture from combustion — which is a good thing, but doesn’t make it “renewable.”

In addition to the two nuclear power plants (operated by Southern Nuclear), one other project is clearly not renewable — or clean: the construction of a plant in Louisiana to produce activated carbon), used to remove mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. Reducing mercury pollution is clearly a good thing. The coal industry also needs this technology because new, lower mercury emission standards are going into effect. But, is a project “clean” if it allows coal-fired power plants to continue emitting CO2? The DOE’s definition of “clean energy” is not just narrowly defined, it’s also a moving target.

Follow the Money

The DOE’s $19 billion dollar energy pie can be sliced in different ways. Here’s what that pie looks like based on the opening sentence of the DOE press release on the dozen projects: “The U.S. Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee Program paves the way for federal support of clean energy projects…”

Chart 1 shows all monies as “Clean Energy” because it assumes DOE’s definition.

CHART 1

Chart 2 divides the DOE money based on renewable vs. non-renewable energy project.

CHART 2

[Note: As of Sunday (March 7), the DOE was unable to say how the $5.9 billion loan to Ford was divided between renewable and non-renewable projects. For that reason, Ford is not included in Chart 2.]

Substituting “renewable” for the ambiguous term “clean” gives a much different picture. Loan guarantees for renewable projects account for just over a third of DOE dollars. It’s instructive to look at a similar chart, with one difference — illustrating how funding for renewable energy stacks up against funding for nuclear power in this DOE program.

Chart 3 divides the DOE money based on renewable vs. nuclear power projects.

CHART 3

The non-renewable portfolio is almost entirely devoted to building twin nuclear power plants in Georgia, operated by Southern Nuclear. Removing the single other project in this category (the facility to produce activated carbon in Louisiana) has no effect on the whole number percentages of the renewable and non-renewable categories in Chart 2.

The point of this exercise is to underscore the importance of precision in discussing energy policy issues. In this debate, the words “clean” and “renewable” are often applied to the word “energy” as if they were synonymous. They aren’t.

Whether or not nuclear power should play a major role in our energy future is an enormously important question — but it’s not addressed here. In the DOE’s loan guarantee program, one form of energy is dominant: nuclear power.

Advocates of nuclear power will be happy with this arrangement. Renewable energy supporters, not so much.

Announced Projects in the DOE’s Loan Programs

1. Solyndra, Inc. was awarded a $535 million loan guarantee (pdf) to manufacture innovative cylindrical solar photovoltaic panels that provide clean, renewable energy.
   
   

   Solyndra solar panel tubes

   
   

2. Nordic Windpower USA has been offered a conditional commitment for $16 million (pdf) to support the expansion of its assembly plant in Pocatello, Idaho to produce its one megawatt wind turbine.




3. Beacon Power, an energy storage company, has been offered a conditional commitment of $43 million (pdf) to support the construction of its 20 megawatt flywheel energy storage plant in Stephentown, New York that will help ensure the reliable delivery of renewable energy to the electricity grid.




4. Red River Environmental Products has been offered a conditional commitment for $245 million (pdf) to build an activated carbon (AC) manufacturing facility near Coushatta, Red River Parish, Louisiana.




5. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (operated by Southern Nuclear) has been offered conditional commitments for a total of $8.33 billion in loan guarantees (pdf) for the construction and operation of two new nuclear reactors at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Burke, Georgia.
   
   

   Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant

   
   

6. BrightSource Energy, Inc. has been offered conditional commitments for more than $1.37 billion in loan guarantees (pdf) under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to support the construction and start-up of three utility-scale concentrated solar power plants.




7. First Wind – Kahuku Wind Power has received a conditional commitment for $117 million to install twelve 2.5 MW wind turbine generators along with a battery energy storage system for electricity load stability.
   
   

   Wind turbines

   
   

8. Sage Electrochromics has received a conditional commitment for $72 million to support the financing of the construction and operation of a 250,000 square foot, high volume manufacturing facility to produce SageGlass®, an energy-saving switchable window technology for commercial and residential use.




9. Ford Motor Company has closed on a $5.9 billion loan (pdf) to transform factories across Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio to produce more fuel efficient models.




10. Nissan has closed on a $1.4 billion loan (pdf) to produce electric cars and battery packs at its manufacturing complex in Smyrna, Tennessee. The loan will aid in the construction of a new battery plant and modifications to the existing assembly facility.
    
    

    Nissan Leaf, EV

    
    

11. Tesla Motors has been offered a $465 million loan (pdf) to finance a manufacturing facility for the Tesla Model S sedan and to support a facility to manufacture battery packs and electric drive trains.




12. Fisker Automotive has been offered a $528.7 million conditional loan (pdf) for the development of two lines of plug-in hybrids that will save hundreds of millions of gallons of gasoline and offset millions of tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2016.

[Source: DOE press release via email, 5 March 2010]