There isn't a decent sized solar farm in the UK where the information is available on both cost and electricity generated.
Turn to France and we've got it all:
Source 1 Source 2
Calculating the Output of a 300 MW Plant in the UK:
2012: 1,736 MW delivered 1,328 GWh
So 300 MW would deliver 229.5 GWh
2013: 2,822 MW delivered 2,015 GWh
So 300 MW would deliver 214.2 GWh
2014: 5,228 MW delivered 3,931 GWh
So 300 MW would deliver 225.6 GWh
2015: 8,915 MW delivered 7,556 GWh
So 300 MW would deliver 254.3 GWh
Statistics Section - Table
Average of 229.5 + 214.2 + 225.6 + 254.3
= 230.9 GWh/year
Reasonable Life Expectancy of a Solar Array to fall to 80% efficiency - 30 years Source
The average over 30 years of delivery would be 90% of
the 230.9 average value: 230.9 x 0.9 = 207.8 GWh/year
Delivery over 30 year Life Expectancy = 6.234 TWh
Exchange Rate 2014: GBP/USD - 1.6$ to the £ Source
So 2014 cost of 300 MW UK Plant = £281.25 million
--------------------//--------------------
Comparative Data: Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Plant
Source 1 - Page 15 Source 2
Delivery over 60 year Life Expectancy = 1,513.7 TWh
1,513.7 ÷ 6.234 = 242.8
242 Cestas-sized Solar Parks would have to be built
to deliver the same amount of electricity !
242 x 281,250,000 = 68,062,500,000
242 Cestas-sized Solar Parks would cost £68 billion !
£68 billion ÷ £18 billion = 3.78
For the same capital expenditure nuclear power will deliver nearly
4X more 24/7 electricity
than the intermittent electricity delivered by Solar Parks
--------------------//--------------------
242 x 2.5 = 605
242 Solar Parks would cover 605 square kilometres.
Solar Parks just about covering the
Pembrokeshire Coast National Park !
Imagine: Adventures Not In A Solar Park
Calculating the Output of a 300 MW Plant in the UK:
2012: 1,736 MW delivered 1,328 GWh
So 300 MW would deliver 229.5 GWh
2013: 2,822 MW delivered 2,015 GWh
So 300 MW would deliver 214.2 GWh
2014: 5,228 MW delivered 3,931 GWh
So 300 MW would deliver 225.6 GWh
2015: 8,915 MW delivered 7,556 GWh
So 300 MW would deliver 254.3 GWh
Statistics Section - Table
Average of 229.5 + 214.2 + 225.6 + 254.3
= 230.9 GWh/year
Reasonable Life Expectancy of a Solar Array to fall to 80% efficiency - 30 years Source
The average over 30 years of delivery would be 90% of
the 230.9 average value: 230.9 x 0.9 = 207.8 GWh/year
Delivery over 30 year Life Expectancy = 6.234 TWh
Exchange Rate 2014: GBP/USD - 1.6$ to the £ Source
So 2014 cost of 300 MW UK Plant = £281.25 million
--------------------//--------------------
Comparative Data: Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Plant
Delivery over 60 year Life Expectancy = 1,513.7 TWh
1,513.7 ÷ 6.234 = 242.8
242 Cestas-sized Solar Parks would have to be built
to deliver the same amount of electricity !
242 x 281,250,000 = 68,062,500,000
242 Cestas-sized Solar Parks would cost £68 billion !
£68 billion ÷ £18 billion = 3.78
For the same capital expenditure nuclear power will deliver nearly
4X more 24/7 electricity
than the intermittent electricity delivered by Solar Parks
--------------------//--------------------
242 x 2.5 = 605
242 Solar Parks would cover 605 square kilometres.
Solar Parks just about covering the
Pembrokeshire Coast National Park !
Imagine: Adventures Not In A Solar Park
Good assessment. NOW include the cost of the battery pack needed to actually averge out the solar power. I will even let the solar battery only be required to fit the demand form factor.
ReplyDeleteThis is basically a classic “solar vs nuclear” comparison post, but it mixes some real concepts with very selective assumptions.
ReplyDeleteYes, solar is intermittent — it depends on weather, daylight, and season. That means you do need backup systems, storage, or grid balancing, which adds cost.
But the comparison here is also oversimplified:
Nuclear has very high upfront costs and long build times
Decommissioning and waste management are huge long-term expenses
Solar costs have been falling rapidly for years, and real-world systems are usually part of a mixed grid, not standalone 300 MW islands
Capacity factor assumptions and “equivalent replacement” math can drastically change the outcome depending on inputs
In practice, most energy systems in Europe are moving toward a hybrid model — nuclear, renewables, storage, and interconnection working together rather than competing one-to-one.
So the real question isn’t “solar vs nuclear which wins?”, but “what mix gives reliable, low-carbon, affordable energy for a given country?”
If you’re interested in similar discussions and energy-related topics, you can also check here: https://piperspin.gr/