Solar Power Costlier for Florida Than Nuclear, Report Finds: A Long-Awaited Report Says Solar Power Could Be Financially Viable in Florida, but Will Be Considerably More Expensive Than Nuclear Power

Nov 26 - The Miami Herald

In a much anticipated report that could affect every Floridian's pocketbook, a consultant hired by the state says solar power could be a competitive source of electricity by 2020 in many scenarios, but it will cost considerably more than new nuclear power and natural gas, the main sources of power for present customers of Florida Power & Light.

Biomass -- things like plant waste, wood chips and garbage -- will be a financially viable source in all scenarios, but wind isn't likely to be much of a factor in Florida. Power from ocean currents -- still in a very basic experimental stage -- could be producing power that's competitive with solar by 2017.

These are some of the findings of a draft study by Navigant Consulting, commissioned by the Public Service Commission, which has been ordered by the Legislature to come up with a recommendation for a renewable energy portfolio standard that will mandate a certain percentage of power come from clean energy, to offset the need for foreign oil and the greenhouse gases that cause global warming.

The 269-page report is stuffed with numbers and alternative scenarios.

"I'm usually a quick study," said Eric Draper, deputy director of Audubon of Florida, after reading the report Tuesday afternoon. "But the interpretation of the costs in this is so complicated that it's difficult for advocates to do their jobs.

"It would have been helpful to have this data well before the workshop next Tuesday," when environmentalists, renewable energy businesses and utilities will discuss the results.

Gov. Charlie Crist has said he wants to see 20 percent of power coming from renewables by 2020. The Legislature didn't go along with that in its last session, passing the buck to the PSC and asking it to come with a standard that balanced the need for green against costs to consumers. The PSC staff currently is recommending 20 percent by 2041, a goal that environmentalists say is far too weak.

Until now, the missing ingredient in the discussion has been the cost of the renewables.

SCENARIOS

In its report, Navigant set up three scenarios, each considered with or without renewable energy credits in which producers are paid bonuses for providing clean power.

One listed unfavorable conditions for renewables, such as low fossil fuel prices, withdrawal of renewable subsidies, little if any taxes on greenhouse gases by 2020 and spending on renewables limited to 1 percent of utilities' revenues. In the most favorable scenario, there would be a stiff tax on greenhouse gases, high fossil fuel prices and utilities being forced or allowed to spend up to 5 percent of revenue on renewable energy.

Looking at the middle scenario, somewhat favorable to renewables but without credits, solar will remain the most expensive option.

Navigant said a company producing ground-mounted solar photovoltaic energy will need 30.63 cents/kWh in 2009 to make its investment worthwhile over the course of the plant's 30-year life. As the years go by, improvements in technology will mean that figure for solar will decline to 23.59 cents/kWh in 2020, the last year the study measures.

NUCLEAR COSTS

That compares to new nuclear costs of 12.97 cents/kWh in 2020. Natural gas base plants would be 10.09 cents.

But the study says that because solar is a intermittent power source, it would be more accurate to compare it with natural-gas turbines that turn on only peak times, which are expected to have costs of 17 to 23 cents/kWh over the next 12 years.

Wind costs could range from 17.55 cents/kWh in 2009 to 18.30 in 2020, but the report said there was not a lot of financially viable on-land wind power in the state. Much of biomass power would be considerably cheaper, with costs in 2020 ranging from 0.82 cents/kWh to 12 cents.

For power from ocean currents, power could be viable at 17.42 cents/kWh starting in 2015, declining to 13.72 cents/kWh for such plants built in 2020.

How these figures were arrived at -- and how accurate they are -- is likely to be hotly debated over the next several months, with consumer advocates concerned primarily about cost and environmentalists looking at the global warming issues.

"My focus is on the price issue, because that's what's going to be discussed in the Legislature," said Draper of Audubon. The politicians are likely to support the green movement "as long as their constituents don't complain about their rates going up."

-----

To see more of The Miami Herald or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.herald.com.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.