Advertisement 1

Sudbury letter: Solar, wind power expensive options

Article content

With respect to published letters regarding nuclear power, I would like to add the following from recent published data. All costs are a bit dated, but are on the same relative basis and are sound comparisons of the three energy sources.

For a power output of 6300 megawatts or equivalent to the Bruce nuclear generating station, costs are as follow:

Nuclear. Cost to construct about $15 billion. Land area 2,300 acres. Production cost $66 per megawatt. Lifespan 40 to 60 years.

Wind. Cost to construct about $32 billion. Land area 380,000 acres. Production cost $140 per megawatt. Lifespan 20 to 25 years.

Solar. Cost to construct about $78 billion. Land area 38,000 acres. Production cost $480 per megawatt. Lifespan 25 to 35 years.

Taking into account lifespans, the cost to construct for wind increases to $64 billion and the cost for solar increases to $156 billion.

In addition, construction cost is a direct function of energy consumed. Nuclear construction energy would be 150 terawatts, wind would be 640 terawatts and solar 1,560 terawatts.

The cost for disposal of spent assets for all options is not included.

It should be remembered that disposal of spent solar cells does not yet have an environmentally sound solution.

These numbers are rough, but they are on an equal basis. Hydro is less than all three but I don't have numbers for hydro.

Thomas Price

Whitefish 

. . . . 

Do you have an opinion about this letter? Email it to sud.letters@sunmedia.ca

Article content
Advertisement 2
Advertisement
Article content
Article content
News Near Sudbury
    This Week in Flyers