For ages, people have been saying: “Solar is a great, clean, renewable energy source, but it is just too expensive. Other energy sources, like nuclear, may have some (or serious) environmental risks, but they are cheaper.” Now, a new report…
1 Graph Says A Lot
My good Twitter friend Alan Nogee recently shared an interesting graph with me. Frankly, we’ve probably written more about nuclear costs than is worth our time, so I’m not going to write a long piece here again. Here’s the graph (which I decided to title “nuclear premium”):
And here’s what market research company IHS had to say about it:
The IHS CERA Power Capital Costs Index (PCCI)
Leveraging the IHS CERA Index + Scenarios methodology, the PCCI tracks and forecasts the costs associated with the construction of a portfolio of 30 different power generation plants in North America. The PCCI tracks the costs of building coal, gas, wind and nuclear power plants, indexed to year 2000. The PCCI is a work product of the Capital Costs Analysis Forum for Power-North America, an annual renewable service managed by IHS CERA. For further information on the PCCI or the Forum, please contact Roger Kranenburg.
For related stories, see:
Solar Power Cheaper Than Nuclear In Cloudy Old England
Hinkley C Nuclear Power Plant To Get Twice The Rate As Solar PV From UK Government
Solar Less Than 5¢/kWh In Austin, Texas! (Cheaper Than Natural Gas, Coal, & Nuclear)
Scroll through our nuclear energy archives for even more. And subscribe to our cleantech newsletter to never miss a story.
1 Graph Says A Lot was originally published on CleanTechnica. To read more from CleanTechnica, join over 50,000 other subscribers: Google+ | Email | Facebook | RSS | Twitter.