Offshore Wind Energy Cheaper than Nuclear Energy, EU Climate Chief Says

Posted on by
Print Friendly

offshore wind turbineI wrote a short piece last week on onshore wind energy being cost-competitive with coal in some regions. Now, EU climate chief Connie Hedegaard has added that offshore wind energy is cheaper than nuclear.

Offshore Wind Energy is Very, Very Cheap — Cheaper than Nuclear

You often see people claiming that nuclear energy is so cheap — (I always wonder if their figures are based on what nuclear energy projects are projected to cost or the actual cost of such projects, which often ends up beings several times higher). Of course, not even taking the great risk posed by nuclear power plants into account, wind power costs have been dropping in recent years and, as Hedegaard (referring to offshore wind energy, in particular) contends, “People should believe that this is very, very cheap.”

“Some people tend to believe that nuclear is very, very cheap, but offshore wind is cheaper than nuclear,” Hedegaard says.

EU May Learn from Nuclear Catastrophe in Japan

While leading U.S. Republicans in Congress think we have nothing to learn from the nuclear catastrophe in Japan and the Obama administration has said that nuclear still needs to be a part of our clean energy solutions, the tone is very different in the EU.

“There are 143 nuclear power plants in Europe and they are not going to disappear,” Hedegaard said at the European Wind Energy Association’s annual conference in Brussels. “But when it comes to new energy capacity that discussion is likely to be very much influenced by what is happening in Japan.”

Even without taking the risks of nuclear energy into account (and the problem of tremendously long-term storage), the supposed need for nuclear in order to get off of potentially more dangerous coal is quite dubious.

Solar Energy Also Cheaper than Nuclear Energy

And remember that last summer, John O. Blackburn, a professor of economics at Duke University in North Carolina, and Sam Cunningham, a graduate student at Duke, wrote a paper titled “Solar and Nuclear Costs — The Historic Crossover” that reported solar photovoltaic energy had become cheaper than nuclear.

And really, beyond the costs, what are the risks of wind turbines or solar panels failing?

Is it time to finally let the nuclear dream of “energy too cheap to meter” fade away?

Related Stories:

Photo via Nuon/flickr

Zachary Shahan (2291 Posts)

I'm the director of CleanTechnica, the most popular clean energy website in the world, and Planetsave, a leading green and science news site. I've been covering green news of various sorts since 2008, and I've been especially focused on solar energy, electric vehicles, bicycling, and wind energy for the past few years. You can also find my work on Scientific American, Reuters, Think Progress, GE's ecomagination site, several sites in the Important Media network, & many other places. To connect on your favorite social network, go to: zacharyshahan.com


  • Roland

  • Pingback: Legal Marijuana and Nuclear Free World = Economic Sustainability? – EcoLocalizer

  • http://gomakesolarpanels.com/affordable-solar-energy/ affordable solar energy

    Solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal power all have potential to be more affordable once the technology starts to get more efficient (with investment). They key is really to get off of fossil fuels (whether foreign or domestic) as quickly as possible.

  • Pingback: Offshore Wind Power Cheaper than Nuclear Power, EU Climate Chief Emphasizes – Planetsave.com: climate change and environmental news

  • Pingback: Say Goodbye to Nuclear Power – EcoLocalizer

  • Bart

    Even if wind and solar are cheaper, I do not think that this for the eu is the issue. The issue is, however, capacity. The amount of gigawatts one can produce.
    I suggest we invest more in clean energies to make them indeed cheap in terms of euros per watt, so that when the nuclear plants are turned off, we are not in the dark and with a slowing economy.
    Until then I fear the environmentalists must be ready to see the reality of things and that all taken into account, clean & green energy is not ready to take over from nuclear.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      reliability is a big issue that we see a lot of incorrect claims about — i’ll come back to that in a full post soon. i have to say that i think it is purely a political issue now, not a technical one

  • Bob Wallace

    A link to Hedegaard’s statement? Was she saying that offshore wind is currently cheaper than nuclear (new nuclear I would assume) or on track to become cheaper? Did she put numbers to her statement?

    BTW, if you check Blackburn’s article I think you’ll find that PV has reached parity with new nuclear if one includes federal subsidies for PV. I believe he was making a statement about the best financial decision for North Carolina to make, not a statement about the absolute price of solar vs. nuclear.

    (Of course the quoted price of new nuclear does not include all federal subsides, so equality might have been reached on an absolute level.)

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      the link to the Guardian article that quotes Hedegaard is in my piece above (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/17/wind-cheaper-nuclear-eu-climate). she seems to very clearly be saying that offshore wind is cheaper than nuclear (yes, i would assume new nuclear as well) now.

      i am pretty sure that Blackburn was talking about the avg. cost for the nation, not for that region, but will look into it. also, believe it was in reference to the costs, not the price. but it wouldn’t make much difference. as noted: “From 1943 to 1999 the U.S. government paid nearly $151 billion, in 1999 dollars, in subsidies for wind, solar and nuclear power, Marshall Goldberg of the Renewable Energy Policy Project, a research organization in Washington, wrote in a July 2000 report. Of this total, 96.3 percent went to nuclear power.” solar and wind have a long ways to go to catch up

  • BlueRock

    > And really, beyond the costs, what are the risks of wind turbines or solar panels failing?

    This is a point I often make about the relative risks. The nuke fan club have no coherent response.

    As for costs, renewables are arguably already cheaper – even without the massive externalities of fossils and nukes added in to the mix.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      Exactly. The private market takes this into account much better than governments do. Nuclear could not survive *anywhere* without massive government support. The risks of nuclear, coal, and natural gas are grossly underrepresented in the costs, in my opinion. But nuclear especially

      The thing I have thought about numerous times in the past couple weeks — what are the risks of wind turbines crashing (even though they didn’t in Japan) or of solar panels breaking down.. (doesn’t compare)

  • http://www.yellowbluedesigns.com Steve Lionais

    The fact that we can own wind turbines or solar panels as individuals, giving us independence from the utility companies is very attractive.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      yes, this is a huge, underrated point in my opinion. thanks for adding it

  • http://rhondawinter.com/ rhonda winter

    How much does it cost to rebuild an entire planet after it has been consumed by massive clouds of toxic radiation?

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      hmm, good question :D