As the world grapples with the increasing demand for electricity, two major contenders have emerged as potential solutions – solar energy and nuclear power. In this blog, we explore the key differences between solar vs nuclear power and what implications they have for our energy future.
As humans, we have appointed ourselves as saviors of the planet, while also causing major harm to it through our activities and choices. A significant fraction of our species wants us to cut down on the frankly scary amount of waste we spew into our atmosphere, while another economically-oriented fraction wants us to focus on meeting our enormous energy needs first – all this while some of us are still ignorant about the detrimental effects of conventional fuels, climate change or even sustainable development.
Some of the popular choices for alternative sources of energy are solar energy, wind energy and nuclear power. Solar energy is a great way to go about generating clean energy. Some of the biggest buildings owned and designed by tech firms, like the Tesla Gigafactory and the new Google headquarters at the Bay View Campus are powered by solar energy. But there’s merit in the argument that you can’t have enough solar power generated for all of us. Which is why, there’s nuclear power to look at. Nuclear power is a rockstar in the sense that it generates multiple times more power per unit input mass, and is pretty much as clean as any other source, provided waste disposal is done correctly.
Related: The Rise & Rise of SolarCity
So which one do we go for? Which power source will shape humanity’s future? Let’s look at the economics of both:
As compared to current conventional grid energy costs, which can go up to 32 cents/kWh in major US cities, solar energy costs just about 7-10 cents/kWh. The goal is to reduce this furthermore to around 3 cents/kWh by 2030. This is primarily possible because of government subsidies in virtually every country. Along with this, the swift decline in production costs of solar panels has assisted the cause. Â However, is it better than nuclear energy? Is solar energy the future?
Let us look closer to find what the future for humanity is and compare solar vs nuclear power.
Numbers play the game here.
Let us consider the biggest power plants for both solar power and nuclear power. The Bhadla Solar Park in India spans over 14,000 acres and is the largest solar power plant in the world. It cost US $1.3billion to construct the plant in 2017. On the other hand, the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power in Japan took ~$520 million in the early 1980s when it was built. The facility is built over an area of ~1,037 acres. The energy costs will be much lower as time passes but even after 20 years, nuclear power plant is cheaper. Adjusted for current costs and inflation, the largest nuclear power plant in the world would have taken roughly $1.5 billion. On the other hand, the largest solar-power facility in the world would cost $1.6 billion. While the Bhadla Solar Park has a capacity of 2245 MW, the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear power plant has a total capacity of ~8000 MW with 7 boiling water reactors (BWRs) spread across the area. We thus see that the output of the larger nuclear park is way higher than that of the largest solar energy source in the world.
Right now, solar energy costs about 7-10 ¢/kWh, which can further be optimized with the growing subsidies and incentives being offered to the masses. On the other hand, nuclear energy costs about 0.4 euro ¢/kWh or close to 0.44 ¢/kWh. This is way lower than the current costs of solar energy. The efficiency of a nuclear plant is in the region of 33%. A solar plant has an uninspiring 11-15% efficiency.
On an average, a nuclear plant has a 60-year lifetime. A solar plant has only a 30-40 year lifetime. Initial investments are also low in nuclear power plants. Add to this, low maintenance costs of nuclear power plants. The capacity factor of a nuclear power plant is currently the highest among all other energy sources. Capacity factor is defined as the ratio of the electrical energy produced by a generating unit for the period of time compared to the electrical energy that could have been produced at continuous full power operation during the same period. It thus indicates how fully a unit’s capacity is used.
Thus, nuclear power plants produce maximum power more than 92% of the time during the year, which is more than thrice the power of a solar energy plant.
Related: Nuclear Fusion – Persistently Decades Away
The efficiency of the nuclear power plants, coupled with their capacity factor places nuclear power at a higher pedestal than solar power in terms of efficiency and throughput. For instance, Finland’s Olkiluoto 3 produces 47 TWh more than Germany’s Solar PV over the course of 20 years. However, the lifetime electricity production of Germany’s Solar PV is higher than Finland’s Olkiluoto 3. This means that you get more electricity from solar plants in 40 years when compared with a nuclear plant operational for 60 years.
The myth that solar plants will become cheaper than nuclear plants in the next five years still exists. It is highly unlikely. To drop solar PV prices further, one has to go for a larger manufacturing scale.Â
Considering all the statistical data, it is much more profitable to produce electricity using a nuclear power plant.
All the statistics mentioned above are from thebreakthrough.org.
You might argue that solar panels are much more versatile in contrast to a nuclear power plant. One gets to install the solar panels almost at any economically viable place that receives an adequate amount of sunlight. Here is where a solar plant scores the most points. A small-scale solar plant is possible but a small-scale nuclear power plant is out of the equation right now. Touché.
Let us widen our gaze a bit here, consider Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant in Koodankulam in the Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu. One unit of this nuclear power plant produces 1,000MW.
Industrial estimates reveal that you need around five acres of land to produce 1 MW of solar energy. For a 1,000MW plant, you need 5,000 acres. As you have read already, the efficiency of photovoltaic panels is about 11-15% and the efficiency of a nuclear power plant is around 33%. With the current model, you will need a much larger solar plant to generate energy to match the energy generated by a 1,000MW nuclear power plant.
However, the efficiency of a panel is never 15%. It varies from time to time. It is dependent on many variable quantities such as temperature, weather, orientation, shade, and panel/roof pitch (inclination of roof/panel).
Another question that needs to be addressed is sustainability and the availability of the raw material needed for these fuel sources. A fraction of uranium produces about the same energy produced by one ton of coal. It should take hundreds of years for us to exhaust these resources. Nevertheless, this fuel is an exhaustible resource. However, with nuclear fusion these concerns can be easily resolved.
This problem is absent in the case of a solar plant. It will be a while before we run out of the solar light and heat (~5 billion years) and thus, solar energy can be considered as a renewable energy source.
Avoid proper care and a nuclear power plant can lead to an environmental disaster. Chernobyl still haunts us, and lack of proper care led to that disaster in 1986. The power reactors in a nuclear power plant produce plutonium which is a highly toxic element. If not properly handled properly, it can escape and cause extremely radiation-based diseases. These kinds of disasters are rare but one can never let their guard down. The human factor is always present in nuclear power plants. Dispose of nuclear waste will always be problematic. Slow decay of hazardous by-products makes the matters worse.
Related: Where Does All The Nuclear Waste Go?
Solar plants have no direct way of causing an ecological disaster. A win over a nuclear power plant but manufacturing of solar plants results in toxic wastes. We have generated more than 15 million tons of toxic waste between 2007 and 2011. Again, managing this waste is a problem.
To reduce total emissions, the only practical method is to shift to nuclear. Nearly 80% of power produced in France is through nuclear power plants.
Forsaking the present-day and progressing to the imminent, we can expect:
A nuclear fission with thorium as fuel will be the answer to a much safer nuclear power plant. The waste generated is in lesser quantities and is more stable when associated with conventional nuclear waste.
Generation IV nuclear reactors should minimize waste. Apart from this, these are extremely economical.
We could also go for Sodium-Cooled Fast-Spectrum Reactor (Generation IV reactor). It provides better safety and enhanced efficiency. Waste management is unparalleled. Fuel recovery is up to 99.99%.
Never count out feasible nuclear fusion.
In Solar panels, expect two-sided ones. Two-sided panels generate up to 10% more electricity. Doping silicon with other semiconductors increase the efficiency up to 40%. However, this is still in experimental phase only.
A mineral found in the Earth’s mantle – Perovskite has produced extraordinary efficiencies in the laboratories. Right now, it is 18% but expect a sharp rise in the future. One could place Perovskite over regular solar panels to increase efficiency. The problem with Perovskite is the water and temperature sensitivity.
Self-cooling solar panels are also in the works. Along with this, researchers are trying to convert old car batteries into such panels with improved efficiency.
Nuclear dominates right now and will continue to do so for the next 20 years. Solar could catch up with the help of Perovskite and other technologies but Generation IV nuclear reactors are the future. As demonstrated by France and Sweden, it is the best possible way to cut down emissions at a rapid pace.
In the current scenario, both solar energy and nuclear power are efficient alternative sources of energy . Keeping in mind the rapidly growing global climate crisis, solar energy can be considered to be a quick solution to our problems. The higher renewability, more experience and lower risk factor make this our best bet to fight the short-term energy crisis and environmental issues. However, to solve our long-term needs, we should design a comprehensive energy system which relies both on solar energy and nuclear power. The total annual energy production of a solar power plant is less than that of a nuclear power plant of roughly the same size. It could help us meet the growing energy demand in a few years if we can work on creating more fuel reserves safely and sustainably for nuclear-power generation. Solar power alone, could not meet the demand in the future due to its operational limitations.
View Comments (5)
very well written
Feels like a very one sided discussion my friend.
Finances -
Does not really matter, the concept of Finance or Money as per say is "the value of money itself is, as much as you think it is.". Earlier there was a Gold standard, but now this is it. And contrary to popular belief it does not depend on export, import or GDP, these indicators might influence it a little but not much. Therefore, you must have witnessed the Economic Crashes in the recent past.
1. That being said the basic component of Solar panels is Silicon, the 2nd most abundant resource on earth.
2. Sunrays are free
Basic economics states, the rarer the substance the more expensive it should be. The question is why does a solar plant costs more than a nuclear power plant, its definitely not the economics, its the politics.
Adaptability -
Going solar is not only about getting your energy from the sun without CO2 emissions, its also about becoming a more conscious consumer. We have to lower our energy consumption by making more passive cooled/heating houses, more conscious use of nature and our surroundings, you kind of skipped this portion.
Also decentralization of power, organisation hold consumer to ransom without any repercussions. Since rural ares are not profitable, they organisations will stick to urban areas and there is no development of the rural areas. you have the power of internet, the things you can instantly understand and comprehend, the rural areas have been denied of this for ages. Maybe its time we become a little less selfish.
Fuel resources & Safety aspects and pollution
You forgot to mention that Uranium is mined, in India its mined in Jaduguda, Jharkhand. If you have time please visit the place, see the condition of people who mine and transport Uranium, they mine bare foot, without masks, without any kind of protection. More people actually died from the dust than radioactive substance. The irony is that they actually published this and projected it in a way to show that "Dust is more harmful than Radioactive Substances". I wish i could just stop here, but there is one more thing that you should know, 11 villages in every direction now have radioactive dust which is 1000 times more radioactive than required to harm a human being.
The list of woes goes on and on from the mining to refining to transporting it, using it, by products, even cooling the reactor to end waste, Nuclear energy has the cost of countless existing and yet to arrive lives for centuries to come in this country.
From the north east of India, Jharkhand to Southern point of India,Kudankulam, it leaves a trail of murder for cheap energy. All unaccounted for in your article.
Nuclear clearly wins, but humanity loses.
I hope we never have to use/consume products of other people's misery.
Feels like a very one sided discussion my friend.
Finances -
Does not really matter, the concept of Finance or Money as per say is "the value of money itself is, as much as you think it is.". Earlier there was a Gold standard, but now this is it. And contrary to popular belief it does not depend on export, import or GDP, these indicators might influence it a little but not much. Therefore, you must have witnessed the Economic Crashes in the recent past.
1. That being said the basic component of Solar panels is Silicon, the 2nd most abundant resource on earth.
2. Sunrays are free
Basic economics states, the rarer the substance the more expensive it should be. The question is why does a solar plant costs more than a nuclear power plant, its definitely not the economics, its the politics.
Adaptability -
Going solar is not only about getting your energy from the sun without CO2 emissions, its also about becoming a more conscious consumer. We have to lower our energy consumption by making more passive cooled/heating houses, more conscious use of nature and our surroundings, you kind of skipped this portion.
Also decentralization of power, organisation hold consumer to ransom without any repercussions. Since rural ares are not profitable, they organisations will stick to urban areas and there is no development of the rural areas. you have the power of internet, the things you can instantly understand and comprehend, the rural areas have been denied of this for ages. Maybe its time we become a little less selfish.
Fuel resources & Safety aspects and pollution
You forgot to mention that Uranium is mined, in India its mined in Jaduguda, Jharkhand. If you have time please visit the place, see the condition of people who mine and transport Uranium, they mine bare foot, without masks, without any kind of protection. More people actually died from the dust than radioactive substance. The irony is that they actually published this and projected it in a way to show that "Dust is more harmful than Radioactive Substances". I wish i could just stop here, but there is one more thing that you should know, 11 villages in every direction now have radioactive dust which is 1000 times more radioactive than required to harm a human being.
The list of woes goes on and on from the mining to refining to transporting it, using it, by products, even cooling the reactor to end waste, Nuclear energy has the cost of countless existing and yet to arrive lives for centuries to come in this country.
From the north east of India, Jharkhand to Southern point of India,Kudankulam, it leaves a trail of murder for cheap energy. All unaccounted for in your article.
Nuclear clearly wins, but humanity loses.
I hope we never have to use/consume products of other people's misery.
How rapid the future changes... Now (medio 2016) the DEWA solar power plant in Dubai won a contract for supplying power to Dubai at less than 5 dollarcent per kWh (non subsidised !!). This is a game changer.
According to a speech by Mr. Elon Musk (who usually is very scientific in his statements) the output of covering solar panels on the area that is to be used for a nuclear power plant (including the safe zones) equals or surpasses the output of that nuclear plant.
I know what I would choose.
In 2016 Solar power is way better in the long time. Just invest the money in improving the efficiency of solar rather than building stupid nuclear power plans which will be fully radiative after about 25 years and will become useless and effect humanity.
As Elon Musk has said we can deploy a solar plan on the same area of a nuclear power plan considering the surroundings of nuclear plant will be dangerous to live near. Solar will over its disadvantages in just a few years .
Building of more nuclear power plants in india must be stopped and must be replaced by solar plants or putting solar on every roof of houses in india by government will be a better investment in the long run and better for the future of humanity.