EPRI publishes EV consumer guide

California Nuclear Renewable Bill AB 2898 seeks to add nuclear to the Renewables Portfolio Standard, impacting Diablo Canyon, PG&E compliance, carbon-free targets, and potential license extensions while addressing climate goals and natural gas reliance.

Key Points

A bill to add nuclear to California's RPS, influencing Diablo Canyon, PG&E planning, and carbon-free climate targets.

✅ Reclassifies nuclear as renewable in California's RPS.

✅ Could influence Diablo Canyon license extension and ownership.

✅ Targets carbon-free goals while limiting natural gas reliance.

Although he admits it's a long shot, a member of the California Legislature from the district that includes the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant has introduced a bill that would add nuclear power to the state's list of renewable energy sources.

"I think that nuclear power is an important component of generating large-scale electricity that's good for the environment," said Jordan Cunningham, R-San Luis Obispo. "Without nuclear as part of the renewable portfolio, we're going to have tremendous difficulty meeting the state's climate goals without a significant cost increase on electricity ratepayers."

Established in 2002, California's Renewables Portfolio Standard spells out the power sources eligible to count toward the state's goals to wean itself of fossil fuels. The list includes solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, small hydroelectric facilities and even tidal currents. The standard has been updated, currently calling for 60 percent of California's electricity to come from renewables by 2030 and 100 percent from carbon-free sources by 2045, even as some analyses argue net-zero emissions may be difficult to achieve without nuclear power.

Nuclear power is not part of the portfolio standard and Diablo Canyon — the only remaining nuclear plant in California — is scheduled to stop producing electricity by 2025, even as some Southern California plant closures face postponement to maintain grid reliability.

Pacific Gas & Electric, the operators of Diablo Canyon, announced in 2016 an agreement with a collection of environmental and labor groups to shut down the plant, often framed as part of a just transition for workers and communities. PG&E said Diablo will become uneconomical to run due to changes in California's power grid — such as growth of renewable energy sources, increased energy efficiency measures and the migration of customers from traditional utilities to community choice energy programs.

But Cunningham thinks the passage of Assembly Bill 2898, which he introduced last week, — as innovators like Bill Gates' mini-reactor venture tout new designs — could give the plant literally a new lease on life.

"If PG&E were able to count the power produced (at Diablo) toward its renewable goals, it might — I'm not saying it will or would, but it might — cause them to reconsider applying to extend the operating license at Diablo," Cunningham said.

Passing the bill, supporters say, could also make Diablo Canyon attractive to an outside investor to purchase and then apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license extension.

But nuclear power has long generated opposition in California and AB 2898 will face long odds in Sacramento, and similar efforts elsewhere have drawn opposition from power producers as well. The Legislature is dominated by Democrats, who have expressed more interest in further developing wind and solar energy projects than offering a lifeline to nuclear.

And if the bill managed to generate momentum, anti-nuclear groups will certainly be quick to mobilize, reflecting a national energy debate over Three Mile Island and whether to save struggling plants.

When told of Cunningham's bill, David Weisman, outreach coordinator for the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, said flatly, "Diablo Canyon has become a burdensome, costly nuclear white elephant."

Critics say nuclear power by definition cannot be considered renewable because it leaves behind waste in the form of spent nuclear fuel that then has to be stored, while supporters point to next-gen nuclear designs that aim to improve safety and costs. The federal government has not found a site to deposit the waste that has built up over decades from commercial nuclear power plants.

Even though Diablo Canyon is the only nuclear plant left in the Golden State, it accounts for 9 percent of California's power mix. Cunningham says if the plant closes, the state's reliance on natural gas — a fossil fuel — will increase, pointing to what happened when the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station closed.

In 2011, the final full year operations for San Onofre, nuclear accounted for 18.2 percent of in-state generation and natural gas made up 45.4 percent. The following year, nuclear dropped to 9.3 percent and gas shot up to 61.1 percent of in-state generation.

"If we're going to get serious about being a national leader as California has been on dealing with climate change, I think nuclear is part of the answer," Cunningham said.

But judging from the response to an email from the Union-Tribune, PG&E isn't exactly embracing Cunningham's bill.

"We remain focused on safely and reliably operating Diablo Canyon Power Plant until the end of its current operating licenses and planning for a successful decommissioning," said Suzanne Hosn, a PG&E senior manager at Diablo Canyon. "The Assemblyman's proposal does not change any of PG&E's plans for the plant."

Cunningham concedes AB 2898 is "a Hail Mary pass" but said "it's an important conversation that needs to be had."

The second-term assemblyman introduced a similar measure late last year that sought to have the Legislature bring the question before voters as an amendment to the state constitution. But the legislation, which would require a two-thirds majority vote in the Assembly and the Senate, is still waiting for a committee assignment.

AB 2898, on the other hand, requires a simple majority to move through the Legislature. Cunningham said he hopes the bill will receive a committee assignment by the end of next month.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Community Choice Aggregators are reshaping electricity markets with renewable energy, solar and wind sourcing, competitive rates, and customer choice, challenging PG&E, SDG&E, and Southern California Edison while advancing California's clean power goals.

Key Points

Local governments that buy power, often cleaner and cheaper, while utilities handle delivery and billing.

✅ Offer higher renewable mix than utilities at competitive rates

✅ Utilities retain transmission and billing responsibilities

✅ Rapid expansion threatens IOU market share across California

Nearly 2 million electricity customers in California may not know it, but they’re part of a revolution. That many residents and businesses are getting their power not from traditional utilities, but via new government-affiliated entities known as community choice aggregators. The CCAs promise to deliver electricity more from renewable sources, such as solar and wind, even as California exports its energy policies across Western states, and for a lower price than the big utilities charge.

The customers may not be fully aware they’re served by a CCA because they’re still billed by their local utility. But with more than 1.8 million accounts now served by the new system and more being added every month, the changes in the state’s energy system already are massive.

Faced for the first time with real competition, the state’s big three utilities have suddenly become havens of innovation. They’re offering customers flexible options on the portion of their power coming from renewable energy, amid a broader review to revamp electricity rates aimed at cleaning the grid, and they’re on pace to increase the share of power they get from solar and wind power to the point where they are 10 years ahead of their deadline in meeting a state mandate.

#google#

But that may not stem the flight of customers. Some estimates project that by late this year, more than 3 million customers will be served by 20 CCAs, and that over a longer period, Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric could lose 80% of their customers to the new providers.

Two big customer bases are currently in play: In Los Angeles and Ventura counties, a recently launched CCA called the Clean Power Alliance is hoping by the end of 2019 to serve nearly 1 million customers. Unincorporated portions of both counties and 29 municipalities have agreed in principle to join up.

Meanwhile, the city of San Diego is weighing two options to meet its goal of 100% clean power by 2035, as exit fees are being revised by the utilities commission: a plan to be submitted by SDG&E, or the creation of a CCA. A vote by the City Council is expected by the end of this year. A city CCA would cover 1.4 million San Diegans, accounting for half SDG&E’s customer demand, according to Cody Hooven, the city’s chief sustainability officer.

Don’t expect the big companies to give up their customers without a fight. Indeed, battle lines already are being drawn at the state Public Utilities Commission, where a recent CPUC ruling sided with a community energy program over SDG&E, and local communities.

“SDG&E is in an all-out campaign to prevent choice from happening, so that they maintain their monopoly,” says Nicole Capretz, who wrote San Diego’s climate action plan as a city employee and now serves as executive director of the Climate Action Campaign, which supports creation of the CCA.

California is one of seven states that have legalized the CCA concept, even as regulators weigh whether the state needs more power plants to ensure reliability. (The others are New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, Illinois and Rhode Island.) But the scale of its experiment is likely to be the largest in the country, because of the state’s size and the ambition of its clean-power goal, which is for 50% of its electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2030.

California created its system via legislative action in 2002. Assembly Bill 117 enabled municipalities and regional governments to establish CCAs anywhere that municipal power agencies weren’t already operating. Electric customers in the CCA zones were automatically signed up, though they could opt out and stay with their existing power provider. The big utilities would retain responsibility for transmission and distribution lines.

The first CCA, Marin Clean Energy, began operating in 2010 and now serves 470,000 customers in Marin and three nearby counties.

The new entities were destined to come into conflict with the state’s three big investor-owned utilities. Their market share already has fallen to about 70%, from 78% as recently as 2010, and it seems destined to keep falling. In part that’s because the CCAs have so far held their promise: They’ve been delivering relatively clean power and charging less.

The high point of the utilities’ hostility to CCAs was the Proposition 16 campaign in 2009. The ballot measure was dubbed the “Taxpayers Right to Vote Act,” but was transparently an effort to smother CCAs in the cradle. PG&E drafted the measure, got it on the ballot, and contributed all of the $46.5 million spent in the unsuccessful campaign to pass it.

As recently as last year, PG&E and SDG&E were lobbying in the legislature for a bill that would place a moratorium on CCAs. The effort failed, and hasn’t been revived this year.

Rhetoric similar to that used by PG&E against Marin’s venture has surfaced in San Diego, where a local group dubbed “Clear the Air” is fighting the CCA concept by suggesting that it could be financially risky for local taxpayers and questioning whether it will be successful in providing cleaner electricity. Whether Clear the Air is truly independent of SDG&E’s parent, Sempra Energy, is questionable, as at least two of its co-chairs are veteran lobbyists for the company.

SDG&E spokeswoman Helen Gao says the utility supports “customers’ right to choose an energy provider that best meets their needs” and expects to maintain a “cooperative relationship” with any provider chosen by the city.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario electricity pricing consultations will gather business input on OEB rate design, Industrial Conservation Initiative, dynamic pricing, global adjustment, and system costs through online feedback and sector-specific in-person sessions province-wide.

Key Points

Consultations gathering business input on rates, programs, and OEB policy to improve fairness and reduce system costs.

✅ Consults on ICI, GA, dynamic pricing structures

✅ Seeks views on OEB C&I rate design changes

✅ In-person sessions across key industrial sectors

The Ontario government has announced plans to hold consultations to seek input from businesses about industrial electricity pricing and programs. This will be done through Ontario's online consultations directory and though in-person sector-specific consultation sessions across the province. The in-person sessions will be held in all areas of Ontario, and will target "key industries," including automotive and the build-out of electric vehicle charging stations infrastructure, forestry, mining, agriculture, steel, manufacturing and chemicals.

On April 1, 2019, the Ontario government published a consultation notice for this process, confirming that it is looking for input on "electricity rate design, existing tax-based incentives, reducing system costs and regulatory and delivery costs," including related proposals such as the hydrogen rate reduction proposal under discussion. The consultation process includes a list of nine questions for respondents (and presumably participants in the in-person sessions) to address. These include questions about:

The benefits of the Industrial Conservation Initiative (described below), including how it could be changed to improve fairness and industrial competitiveness, and how it could complement programs like the Hydrogen Innovation Fund that support industrial innovation.

Dynamic pricing structures that allow for lower rates in return for responding to price signals versus a flat rate structure that potentially costs more, but is more stable and predictable, as Ontario's energy storage expansion accelerates.

Interest in an all-in commodity contract with an electricity retailer, even if it involves a risk premium.

Interested parties are invited to submit their comments before May 31, 2019.

The government's consultation announcement follows recent developments in the Ontario Energy Board's (OEB) review of electricity ratemaking for commercial and industrial customers, and intertie projects such as the Lake Erie Connector that could affect market dynamics.

In December 2018, the OEB published a paper from its Market Surveillance Panel (MSP) examining the Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI), and potential alternative approaches. The ICI is a program that allows qualifying large industrial customers to base their global adjustment (GA) payments on their consumption during five peak demand hours in a year. Customers who find ways to reduce consumption at those times, perhaps through DERs and enabling energy storage options, will reduce their electricity costs. This shifts GA costs to other customers. The MSP found that the ICI does not fairly allocate costs to those who cause them and/or benefit from them, and recommends that a better approach should be developed.

In February 2019, the OEB released its Staff Report to the Board on Rate Design for Commercial and Industrial Electricity Customers, setting out recommendations for new rate designs for electricity commercial and industrial (C&I) rate classes as Ontario increasingly turns to battery storage to meet rising demand. As described in an earlier post, the Staff Report includes recommendations to: (i) establish a fixed distribution charge for commercial customers with demands under 10 kW; (ii) implement a demand charge (rather than the current volumetric charge) for C&I customers with demands between 10kW and 50kW; and (iii) introduce a "capacity reserve charge" for customers with load displacement generation to replace stand-by charges and provide for recognition of the benefits of this generation on the system. The OEB held a stakeholder information session in mid-March on this initiative, and interested parties are now filing submissions in response to the Staff Report.

Whether and how the OEB's processes will fit together with the government's consultation process remains to be seen.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

California Duck Curve highlights midday solar oversupply and steep evening peak demand, stressing grid stability. Solutions include battery storage, demand response, diverse renewables like wind, geothermal, nuclear, and regional integration to reduce curtailment.

Key Points

A mismatch between midday solar surplus and evening demand spikes, straining the grid without storage and flexibility.

✅ Midday solar oversupply forces curtailment and wasted clean energy.

✅ Evening ramps require fast, fossil peaker plants to stabilize load.

✅ Batteries, demand response, regional trading flatten the curve.

California's remarkable success in adopting solar power, including a near-100% renewable milestone, has created a unique challenge: managing the infamous "duck curve." This distinctive curve illustrates a growing mismatch between solar electricity generation and the state's energy demands, creating potential problems for grid stability and ultimately threatening to slow California's progress in the fight against climate change.

The Shape of the Problem

The duck curve arises from a combination of high solar energy production during midday hours and surging energy demand in the late afternoon and evening when solar power declines. During peak solar hours, the grid often has an overabundance of electricity, and curtailments are increasing as a result, while as the sun sets, demand surges when people return home and businesses ramp up operations. California's energy grid operators must scramble to make up this difference, often relying on fast-acting but less environmentally friendly power sources.

The Consequences of the Duck Curve

The increasing severity of the duck curve has several potential consequences for California:

• Grid Strain: The rapid ramp-up of power sources to meet evening demand puts significant strain on the electrical grid. This can lead to higher operational costs and potentially increase the risk of blackouts during peak demand times.
• Curtailed Energy: To avoid overloading the grid, operators may sometimes have to curtail excess solar energy during midday, as rising curtailment reports indicate, essentially wasting clean electricity that could have been used to displace fossil fuel generation.
• Obstacle to More Solar: The duck curve can make it harder to add new solar capacity, as seen in Alberta's solar expansion challenges, for fear of further destabilizing the grid and increasing the need for fossil fuel-based peaking plants.

Addressing the Challenge

California is actively seeking solutions to mitigate the duck curve, aligning with national decarbonization pathways that emphasize practicality. Potential strategies include:

• Energy Storage: Deploying large-scale battery storage can help soak up excess solar electricity during the day and release it later when demand peaks, smoothing out the duck curve.
• Demand Flexibility: Encouraging consumers to shift their energy use to off-peak hours through incentives and smart grid technologies can help reduce late-afternoon surges in demand.
• Diverse Power Sources: While solar is crucial, a balanced mix of energy sources, including geothermal, wind, and nuclear, can improve grid stability and reduce reliance on rapid-response fossil fuel plants.
• Regional Cooperation: Integrating California's grid with neighboring states can aid in balancing energy supply and demand across a wider geographical area.

The Ongoing Solar Debate

The duck curve has become a central point of debate about the future of California's energy landscape. While acknowledging the challenge, solar advocates argue for continued expansion, backed by measures like a bill to require solar on new buildings, emphasizing the urgent need to transition away from fossil fuels. Grid operators and some utility companies call for a more cautious approach, emphasizing grid reliability and potential costs if the problem isn't effectively managed.

Balancing California's Needs and its Green Ambitions

Finding the right path forward is essential; it will determine whether California can continue to lead the way in solar energy adoption while ensuring a reliable and affordable electricity supply. Successfully navigating the duck curve will require innovation, collaboration, and a strong commitment to building a sustainable energy system, as wildfire smoke impacts on solar continue to challenge generation predictability.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Hurricane Grid Resilience examines how utilities manage outages with renewables, microgrids, and robust transmission and distribution systems, balancing solar, wind, and batteries to restore service, harden infrastructure, and improve storm response and recovery.

Key Points

Hurricane grid resilience is a utility approach to withstand storms, reduce outages, and speed safe power restoration.

✅ Focus on T&D hardening, vegetation management, remote switching

✅ Balance generation mix; integrate solar, wind, batteries, microgrids

✅ Plan 12-hour shifts; automate forecasting and outage restoration

When operators of Duke Energy's control room in Raleigh, North Carolina wait for a hurricane, the mood is often calm in the hours leading up to the storm.

“Things are usually fairly quiet before the activity starts,” said Mark Goettsch, the systems operations manager at Duke. “We’re anxiously awaiting the first operation and the first event. Once that begins, you get into storm mode.”

Then begins a “frenzied pace” that can last for days — like when Hurricane Florence parked over Duke’s service territory in September.

When an event like Florence hits, all eyes are on transmission and distribution. Where it’s available, Duke uses remote switching to reconnect customers quickly. As outages mount, the utility forecasts and balances its generation with electricity demand.

The control center’s four to six operators work 12-hour shifts, while nearby staff members field thousands of calls and alarms on the system. After it’s over, “we still hold our breath a little bit to make sure we’ve operated everything correctly,” said Goettsch. Damage assessment and rebuilding can only begin once a storm passes.

That cycle is becoming increasingly common in utility service areas like Duke's.

A slate of natural disasters that reads like a roll call — Willa, Michael, Harvey, Irma, Maria, Florence and Thomas — has forced a serious conversation about resiliency. And though Goettsch has heard a lot about resiliency as a “hot topic” at industry events and meetings, those conversations are only now entering Duke’s control room.

Resilience discussions come and go in the energy industry. Storms like Hurricane Sandy and Matthew can spur a nationwide focus on resiliency, but change is largely concentrated in local areas that experienced the disaster. After a few news cycles, the topic fades into the background.

However, experts agree that resilience is becoming much more important to year-round utility planning and operations as utilities pursue decarbonization goals across their fleets. It's not a fad.

“If you look at the whole ecosystem of utilities and vendors, there’s a sense that there needs to be a more resilient grid,” said Miki Deric, Accenture’s managing director of utilities, transmission and distribution for North America. “Even if they don’t necessarily agree on everything, they are all working with the same objective.”

Can renewables meet the challenge?

After Hurricane Florence, The Intercept reported on coal ash basins washed out by the storm’s overwhelming waters. In advance of that storm, Duke shut down one nuclear plant to protect it from high winds. The Washington Post also recently reported on a slowly leaking oil spill, which could surpass Deepwater Horizon in size, caused by Hurricane Ivan in 2004.

Clean energy boosters have seized on those vulnerabilities.They say solar and wind, which don’t rely on access to fuel and can often generate power immediately after a storm, provide resilience that other electricity sources do not.

“Clearly, logistics becomes a big issue on fossil plants, much more than renewable,” said Bruce Levy, CEO and president at BMR Energy, which owns and operates clean energy projects in the Caribbean and Latin America. “The ancillaries around it — the fuel delivery, fuel storage, water in, water out — are all as susceptible to damage as a renewable plant.”

Duke, however, dismissed the notion that one generation type could beat out another in a serious storm.

“I don’t think any generation source is immune,” said Duke spokesperson Randy Wheeless. “We’ve always been a big supporter of a balanced energy mix, reflecting why the grid isn't 100% renewable in practice today. That’s going to include nuclear and natural gas and solar and renewables as well. We do that because not every day is a good day for each generation source.”

In regard to performance, Wade Schauer, director of Americas Power & Renewables Research at Wood Mackenzie, said the situation is “complex.” According to him, output of solar and wind during a storm depends heavily on the event and its location.

While comprehensive data on generation performance is sparse, Schauer said coal and gas generators could experience outages at 25 percent while stormy weather might cut 95 percent of output from renewables, underscoring clean energy's dirty secret about variability under stress. Ahead of last year’s “bomb cyclone” in New England, WoodMac data shows that wind dropped to less than 1 percent of the supply mix.

“When it comes to resiliency, ‘average performance’ doesn't cut it,” said Schauer.

In the future, he said high winds could impact all U.S. offshore wind farms, since projects are slated for a small geographic area in the Northeast. He also pointed to anecdotal instances of solar arrays in New England taken out by feet of snow. During Florence, North Carolina’s wind farms escaped the highest winds and continued producing electricity throughout. Cloud cover, on the other hand, pushed solar production below average levels.

After Florence passed, Duke reported that most of its solar came online quickly, although four of its utility-owned facilities remained offline for weeks afterward. Only one was because of damage; the other three remained offline due to substation interconnection issues.

“Solar performed pretty well,” said Wheeless. “But did it come out unscathed? No.”

According to installer reports, solar systems fared relatively well in recent storms, even as the Covid-19 impact on renewables constrained projects worldwide. But the industry has also highlighted potential improvements. Following Hurricanes Maria and Irma, the Federal Emergency Management Agency published guidelines for installing and maintaining storm-resistant solar arrays. The document recommended steps such as annual checks for bolt tightness and using microinverters rather than string inverters.

Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) also assembled a guide for retrofitting and constructing new installations. It described attributes of solar systems that survived storms, like lateral racking supports, and those that failed, like undersized and under-torqued bolts.

“The hurricanes, as much as no one liked them, [were] a real learning experience for folks in our industry,” said BMR’s Levy. “We saw what worked, and what didn’t.”          

Facing the "800-pound gorilla" on the grid

Advocates believe wind, solar, batteries and microgrids offer the most promise because they often rely less on transmitting electricity long distances and could support peer-to-peer energy models within communities.

Most extreme weather outages arise from transmission and distribution problems, not generation issues. Schauer at WoodMac called storm damage to T&D the “800-pound gorilla.”

“I'd be surprised if a single customer power outage was due to generators being offline, especially since loads where so low due to mild temperatures and people leaving the area ahead of the storm,” he said of Hurricane Florence. “Instead, it was wind [and] tree damage to power lines and blown transformers.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Ontario Nuclear Power Costs highlight LCOE, capex, refurbishment outlays, and waste management, compared with renewables, grid reliability, and emissions targets, informing Australia and Peter Dutton on feasibility, timelines, and electricity prices.

Key Points

They include high capex and LCOE from refurbishments and waste, offset by reliable, low-emission baseload.

✅ Refurbishment and maintenance drive lifecycle and LCOE variability.

✅ High capex and long timelines affect consumer electricity prices.

✅ Low emissions, but waste and safety compliance add costs.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton recently lauded Canada’s use of nuclear power as a model for Australia’s energy future. His praise comes as part of a broader push to incorporate nuclear energy into Australia’s energy strategy, which he argues could help address the country's energy needs and climate goals. However, the question arises: Is Ontario’s experience with nuclear power as cost-effective as Dutton suggests?

Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power strategy highlights a belief that nuclear energy could provide a stable, low-emission alternative to fossil fuels. He has pointed to Ontario’s substantial reliance on nuclear power, and the province’s exploration of new large-scale nuclear projects, as an example of how such an energy mix might benefit Australia. The province’s energy grid, which integrates a significant amount of nuclear power, is often cited as evidence that nuclear energy can be a viable component of a diversified energy portfolio.

The appeal of nuclear power lies in its ability to generate large amounts of electricity with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. This characteristic aligns with Australia’s climate goals, which emphasize reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change. Dutton’s advocacy for nuclear energy is based on the premise that it can offer a reliable and low-emission option compared to the fluctuating availability of renewable sources like wind and solar.

However, while Dutton’s enthusiasm for the Canadian model reflects its perceived successes, including recent concerns about Ontario’s grid getting dirtier amid supply changes, a closer look at Ontario’s nuclear energy costs raises questions about the financial feasibility of adopting a similar strategy in Australia. Despite the benefits of low emissions, the economic aspects of nuclear power remain complex and multifaceted.

In Ontario, the cost of nuclear power has been a topic of considerable debate. While the province benefits from a stable supply of electricity due to its nuclear plants, studies warn of a growing electricity supply gap in coming years. Ontario’s experience reveals that nuclear power involves significant capital expenditures, including the costs of building reactors, maintaining infrastructure, and ensuring safety standards. These expenses can be substantial and often translate into higher electricity prices for consumers.

The cost of maintaining existing nuclear reactors in Ontario has been a particular concern. Many of these reactors are aging and require costly upgrades and maintenance to continue operating safely and efficiently. These expenses can add to the overall cost of nuclear power, impacting the affordability of electricity for consumers.

Moreover, the development of new nuclear projects, as seen with Bruce C project exploration in Ontario, involves lengthy and expensive construction processes. Building new reactors can take over a decade and requires significant investment. The high initial costs associated with these projects can be a barrier to their economic viability, especially when compared to the rapidly decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies.

In contrast, the cost of renewable energy has been falling steadily, even as debates over nuclear power’s trajectory in Europe continue, making it a more attractive option for many jurisdictions. Solar and wind power, while variable and dependent on weather conditions, have seen dramatic reductions in installation and operational costs. These lower costs can make renewables more competitive compared to nuclear energy, particularly when considering the long-term financial implications.

Dutton’s praise for Ontario’s nuclear power model also overlooks some of the environmental and logistical challenges associated with nuclear energy. While nuclear power generates low emissions during operation, it produces radioactive waste that requires long-term storage solutions. The management of nuclear waste poses significant environmental and safety concerns, as well as additional costs for safe storage and disposal.

Additionally, the potential risks associated with nuclear power, including the possibility of accidents, contribute to the complexity of its adoption. The safety and environmental regulations surrounding nuclear energy are stringent and require continuous oversight, adding to the overall cost of maintaining nuclear facilities.

As Australia contemplates integrating nuclear power into its energy mix, it is crucial to weigh these financial and environmental considerations. While the Canadian model provides valuable insights, the unique context of Australia’s energy landscape, including its existing infrastructure, energy needs, and the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity in comparable jurisdictions, must be taken into account.

In summary, while Peter Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power model reflects a belief in its potential benefits for Australia’s energy strategy, the cost-effectiveness of Ontario’s nuclear power experience is more nuanced than it may appear. The high capital and maintenance costs associated with nuclear energy, combined with the challenges of managing radioactive waste and ensuring safety, present significant considerations. As Australia evaluates its energy future, a comprehensive analysis of both the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power will be essential to making informed decisions about its role in the country’s energy strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News