The usual way to compare costs of energy sources is by Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE), which averages total costs over the lifetime of a project (construction, fuel, maintenance, financing, etc.) into a per-megawatt-hour (MWh) figure.

The latest big global comparisons (IEA, Lazard, U.S. EIA, IRENA, 2023–2024 data) generally rank sources like this (approximate global averages; actual costs vary by country and financing):

---

Cheapest → Most expensive (LCOE, $/MWh, 2023–24 ranges)

1. Utility-scale Solar PV — $25–50

   • Prices keep falling; lowest in sunny regions with cheap financing.

2. Onshore Wind — $30–60

   • One of the most cost-competitive sources; stable or falling.

3. Hydropower (large-scale) — $35–80

   • Very cheap once built, but highly site-dependent; huge upfront cost.

4. Nuclear (existing plants, lifetime extensions) — $40–70

   • Extending old plants is cheap; new builds are very expensive.

5. Geothermal — $45–90

   • Stable and dispatchable; depends on suitable geology.

6. Offshore Wind — $70–120

   • Costs are coming down, but still higher due to construction complexity.

7. New Nuclear (new builds) — $120–200+

   • High capital costs, delays, and financing risks make new projects expensive.

8. Fossil fuels

   • Natural Gas (combined cycle) — $45–100 (cheap where gas is abundant, but volatile with fuel prices).

   • Coal — $65–150 (often uncompetitive now, especially with carbon pricing).

   • Oil-fired generation — $150–250+ (used mainly for backup in islands/remote regions).

---

Big picture

• Cheapest globally today: Solar PV and onshore wind.

• Most expensive: New nuclear, oil, and some coal.

• Most stable (not fuel-price sensitive): Renewables and nuclear.

• Most volatile: Gas and coal, since they depend on global commodity markets.

---

Do you want me to make a ranked chart just for Canada or the UK (since policies, subsidies, and geography shift costs a lot), or keep it global?

ChatGPT said:

Here’s a ranked cost comparison of energy sources in the UK, using the latest reliable government data (expressed in £ per MWh, real 2021/2022 prices) — ranked from least to most expensive:

---

UK Energy Sources: Ranked by Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE)

Rank	Energy Source	Estimated LCOE (£/MWh)	Notes
1⃣	Onshore Wind	~£38	Most cost-effective; strong economies of scale. electricity info+1Wikipedia
2⃣	Large-Scale Solar PV	~£41	Slightly higher than onshore wind but still very competitive. electricity info+1
3⃣	Offshore Wind	~£44	More expensive than onshore but still much cheaper than fossil fuels. electricity info+1Wikipedia
4⃣	Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT)	~£114	When forecast for 2025; still meaningfully more costly than renewables even without carbon capture. electricity info
5⃣	New Nuclear (e.g., Hinkley/Sizewell C)	~£109–£132*	Estimated cost around £109 (DESNZ new nuclear central estimate) to ~£132 strike price; Hinkley LCOE ranges dependent on financing assumptions. electricity infoWorld Nuclear NewsFinancial Times

*DESNZ figure (~£109) refers to new nuclear central estimate; Hinkley-based LCOE including financing at ~£132/MWh. electricity infoWorld Nuclear News

---

Summary Ranking (Cheapest → Most Expensive)

1. Onshore Wind (~£38/MWh)

2. Large-Scale Solar PV (~£41/MWh)

3. Offshore Wind (~£44/MWh)

4. CCGT (Gas) (~£114/MWh)

5. New Nuclear (~£109–£132/MWh)

---

Additional Context & Insights

• Solar PV is becoming increasingly competitive: One projection suggests that large-scale solar could drop dramatically to ~£17/MWh by 2035 under optimistic scenarios, potentially undercutting all other sources. PubMed Central

• Renewables vs Gas: The Imperial College Grantham Institute notes that as of 2023, the LCOE for solar and wind (around £41–48/MWh) is substantially lower than gas (~£124/MWh including carbon price), reinforcing that renewables are already cost-efficient. Imperial College London

• Local example of high cost: The older Greater Gabbard offshore wind project (built around 2011) had an LCOE of £137/MWh, highlighting how older projects and infrastructure differences can impact costs. Wikipedia

---

Final Thoughts

• Renewables — especially onshore wind and solar — are currently the cheapest electricity sources in the UK.

• Offshore wind remains competitive, though more expensive due to infrastructure and installation complexity.

• Natural gas is significantly more expensive when considering carbon pricing.

• New nuclear falls between renewables and gas, and while higher in cost, is valued for its stable, low-carbon baseload generation.

Would you like me to break this down further—for instance:

• By expected future costs (e.g., projected 2025–2035 changes)?

• Cost comparisons including system-level factors (energy storage, grid integration)?

• A cost comparison for small modular reactors (SMRs)?

Let me know—happy to dig deeper!

ChatGPT said:

That’s a great question — and it gets at the difference between physical resource abundance (solar really is abundant) and socio-technical constraints (the messy reality of economics, politics, storage, infrastructure, and cultural imagination). Fusion looks attractive because it seems to sidestep some of the perceived problems of solar. Let me unpack that.

---

1. Abundance ≠ Easy Usability

• Solar is intermittent: day/night cycles, weather, seasonal shifts. This means you need either:

  • very large amounts of storage (batteries, hydrogen, pumped hydro, etc.),

  • massive long-distance transmission to average out fluctuations,

  • or a mix with other firm resources (hydro, geothermal, nuclear).

• Fusion is framed as “always on”: in principle it’s dispatchable baseload, like coal or nuclear fission, but without CO₂ or long-lived waste.

---

2. Energy density and land footprint

• Solar requires large areas for panels, though the total land fraction is small globally.

• Fusion, like fission, promises extremely high energy density: one plant could power millions of homes without huge land use. Politically, this looks tidier than covering deserts or rooftops with panels.

---

3. Infrastructure inertia

• The 20th-century grid was built around centralized, controllable power stations (coal, gas, nuclear). Fusion fits neatly into this mental and physical model.

• Solar, especially when distributed (rooftops, microgrids), challenges those centralized models — which can feel threatening to incumbent utilities, regulators, and investors.

---

4. Technological prestige & funding politics

• Fusion has been pursued since the 1950s, often wrapped in Cold War science and national prestige.

• It attracts research funding because it feels like “moon-shot physics” and maintains large high-tech labs and careers.

• Solar, in contrast, is “just” engineering and scaling — less glamorous, more about industrial policy and global supply chains.

---

5. Strategic hedging

• Even if solar could meet demand, policymakers and scientists often want diverse options:

  • In case storage technologies stall.

  • In case land use/political opposition slows solar build-out.

  • As insurance against over-reliance on a single energy path.

• Fusion research is slow and costly, but many argue the payoff (a firm, dense, carbon-free source) is worth having as a back-up.

---

6. Imaginaries of control

• Solar depends on diffuse, variable natural flows — it implies living with variability and reorganizing energy demand and supply accordingly.

• Fusion (and fission) are “Promethean” projects: humans mastering fire, creating a star in a bottle. There’s a psychological and cultural pull in dominating nature rather than adapting to it.

---

7. Where this leaves us

• Solar (and wind) are already cheap and deployable today, but they force systemic changes in grids, storage, and politics.

• Fusion is not here yet, but is pursued because it promises continuity: firm, dense, centralized power that looks like what we already know.

• In practice, the energy transition will likely be driven by renewables + storage + some fission — while fusion remains a hedge that might come good in the long run.

---

👉 Put simply: fusion is being pursued not because solar isn’t “enough” in principle, but because solar is abundant yet intermittent, land-intensive, and system-disruptive. Fusion promises a dense, controllable, centralized alternative that fits old patterns of energy and power.