According to a recent public opinion survey of 1,152 randomly selected adults living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in the United States, 84% were in favor of nuclear energy, with 58% strongly in favor of nuclear power.
In addition, 90% of respondents viewed their local power station favorably, while 76% supported development of a nuclear reactor near their neighborhoods.
The telephone survey was conducted in mid-July by Bisconti Research Incorporated in alliance with Quest Global Research Group. The 1,152 participants were chosen by a random selection of 18 adults living within 10 miles of each of the 64 nuclear power plant sites in the U.S. Commissioned by the Nuclear Energy Institute, this was the third nationwide biennial survey conducted since 2005 to gauge attitudes toward nuclear energy in neighborhoods near nuclear power plants.
The survey found that most plant neighbors held favorable views about nuclear energy, with 92% believing that nuclear power would play an important role; 86% open to development of more nuclear power facilities; and 87% agreeing that electric utilities should soon commence with preparations to allow for new nuclear power plants to be built in the next decade.
The survey also said that 88% of the respondents gave a "high" safety rating to their nearest nuclear power plant, while 91% expressed confidence in the plant operator's ability to run the facility safely. Also, 86% believed that the company was doing a good job of protecting the environment; 83% said that the power plant operator "is involved in the community"; and 93% were in favor of license renewal for power plants that comply with federal safety standards.
On the issue of nuclear waste, only 56% believed that nuclear waste could be stored safely at the plant site until moved to a permanent disposal facility, while 85% said that nuclear waste should be moved to volunteer sites for more secure and efficient storage. Also, 91% of the respondents were in favor of the U.S. recycling spent fuel to generate more electricity and reducing the amount of nuclear waste, and 82% were in favor of the government developing the Yucca Mountain site as a national nuclear waste disposal facility, so long as the facility met the standards set by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In terms of nuclear power plants and associated benefits to the local economy, 90% believed that the facility aided local economic growth, while 89% said that nuclear power facilities provided good employment opportunities at the site and benefited nearby businesses that provided services to the plants.
Nuclear energy was associated "a lot" with reliability by 72% of the respondents, while 71% were found to be aware of the clean-energy aspects of nuclear power. In a similar survey conducted in 2007, 65% of the respondents found nuclear energy to be reliable "a lot," while 61% had read or heard about the clean-air benefits of nuclear power. The survey concluded that awareness of the advantages of nuclear energy had increased significantly during the past two years.
The survey also found a significant overall approval of nuclear energy. Of the 84% of respondents in favor, 58% expressed strong support. Only 5% were strongly opposed to nuclear energy. Among plant neighbors, 90% viewed their neighboring nuclear plants favorably, with 63% rating the facilities neare their neighborhoods as "very favorable." Only 9% of the respondents were not in favor, with 3% rating nuclear operations near their neighborhoods as "very unfavorable."
China 2060 Carbon-Neutral Energy Transition projects tripled electricity, rapid electrification, wind and solar dominance, scalable hydrogen, CCUS, and higher carbon pricing to meet net-zero goals while decarbonizing heavy industry and transport.
Key Points
Shell's outlook for China to reach net zero by 2060 via electrification, renewables, hydrogen, CCUS, and carbon pricing.
✅ Power supply to 60% of energy; generation triples by 2060.
✅ Wind and solar reach 80% of electricity; coal declines sharply.
✅ Hydrogen scales to 17 EJ; CCUS and carbon pricing expand.
China may triple electricity generation to supply 60 percent of the country's total energy under Beijing's carbon-neutral goal by 2060, up from the current 23 per cent, according to Royal Dutch Shell.
Shell is one of the largest global investors in China's energy sector, with business covering gas production, petrochemicals and a retail fuel network. A leading supplier of liquefied natural gas, it has recently expanded into low-carbon business such as hydrogen power and electric vehicle charging.
In a rare assessment of the country's energy sector by an international oil major, Shell said China needed to take quick action this decade to stay on track to reach the carbon-neutrality goal.
China has mapped out plans to reach peak emissions by 2030, and aims to reduce coal power production over the coming years, but has not yet revealed any detailed carbon roadmap for 2060.
This includes investing in a reliable and renewable power system, including compressed air generation, and demonstrating technologies that transform heavy industry using hydrogen, biofuel and carbon capture and utilization.
"With early and systematic action, China can deliver better environmental and social outcomes for its citizens while being a force for good in the global fight against climate change," Mallika Ishwaran, chief economist of Shell International, told a webinar hosted by the company's China business.
Shell expects China's electricity generation to rise three-fold to more than 60 exajoules (EJ) in 2060 from 20 EJ in 2020, even amid power supply challenges reported recently.
Solar and wind power are expected to surpass coal as the largest sources of electricity by 2034 in China, reflecting projections that renewables will eclipse coal globally by mid-decade, versus the current 10 percent, rising to 80 percent by 2060, Shell said.
Hydrogen is expected to scale up to 17 EJ, or equivalent to 580 million tonnes of coal by 2060, up from almost negligible currently, adding over 85 percent of the hydrogen will be produced through electrolysis, supported by PEM hydrogen R&D across the sector, powered by renewable and nuclear electricity, Shell said.
Hydrogen will meet 16 percent of total energy use in 2060 with heavy industry and long-distance transport as top hydrogen users, the firm added.
The firm also expects China's carbon price to rise to 1,300 yuan (CDN$256.36) per tonne in 2060 from 300 yuan in 2030.
Nuclear, on a steady development track, and biomass will have niche but important roles for power generation in the years to come, Shell said.
Electricity generated from biomass, combined with carbon, capture, utilization and storage (CCUS), provide a source of negative emissions for the rest of the energy system from 2053, it added.
Income Graduated Fixed Charge aligns CPUC billing with utility fixed costs, lowers usage rates, supports electrification, and shifts California investor-owned utilities' electric bills by income, with CARE and Climate Credit offsets for low-income households.
Key Points
A CPUC proposal: an income-based monthly fixed fee with lower usage rates to align costs and aid low-income customers.
✅ Income-tiered fixed fees: $0-$42; CARE: $14-$22, by utility territory
✅ Usage rates drop 16%-22% to support electrification and cost-reflective billing
✅ Lowest-income save ~$10-$20; some higher earners pay ~$10+ more monthly
The Public Advocates Office (PAO) for the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has proposed adding a monthly income-based fixed charge on electric utility bills based on income level.
The rate change is designed to lower bills for the lowest-income residents while aligning billing more directly with utility costs.
PAO’s recommendation for the Income Graduated Fixed Charge places fees between $22 and $42 per month in the three major investor-owned utilities’ territories, including an SDG&E minimum charge debate under way, for customers not enrolled in the California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) program. As seen below, CARE customers would be charged between $14 per month and $22 a month, depending on income level and territory.
For households earning $50,000 or less per year, the fixed charge would be $0, but only if the California Climate Credit is applied to offset the fixed cost.
Meanwhile, usage-based electricity rates are lowered in the PAO proposal, part of major changes to electric bills statewide. Average rates would be reduced between 16% to 22% for the three major investor-owned utilities.
The lowest-income bracket of Californians is expected to save roughly $10 to $20 a month under the proposal, while middle-income customers may see costs rise by about $20 a month, even as lawmakers seek to overturn income-based charges in Sacramento.
“We anticipate the vast majority of low-income customers ($50,000 or less per year) will have their monthly bills decrease by $10 or more, and a small proportion of the highest income earners ($100,000+ per year) will see their monthly bills rise by $10 or more,” said the PAO.
The charges are an effort to help suppress ever-increasing electricity generation and transmission rates, which are among the highest in the country, with soaring electricity prices reported across California. Rates are expected to rise sharply as wildfire mitigation efforts are implemented by the utilities found at fault for their origin.
“We are very concerned. However, we do not see the increases stopping at this point,” Linda Serizawa, deputy director for energy, PAO, told pv magazine. “We think the pace and scale of the [rate] increases is growing faster than we would have anticipated for several years now.”
Consumer advocates and regulators face calls for action on surging electricity bills across the state.
The proposed changes are also meant to more directly couple billing with the fixed charges that utilities incur, as California considers revamping electricity rates to clean the grid. For example, activities like power line maintenance, energy efficiency programs, and wildfire prevention are not expected to vary with usage, so these activities would be funded through a fixed charge.
Michael Campbell of the PAO’s customer programs team, and leader of the proposed program, likened paying for grid enhancements and other social programs with utility rate increases to “paying for food stamps by taxing food.” Instead, a fixed charge would cover these costs.
PAO said the move to lower rates for usage should help encourage electrification as California moves to replace heating and cooling, appliances, and gas combustion cars with electrified counterparts. In addition, lower rates mean the cost burden of running these devices is improved.
U.S. Tariffs on Chinese EVs and Solar Cells target trade imbalances, subsidies, and intellectual property risks, bolstering domestic manufacturing, supply chains, and national security across clean energy, automotive technology, and renewable markets.
Key Points
Policy measures raising duties on Chinese EVs and solar cells to protect U.S. industry, IP, and national security.
✅ Raises duties to counter subsidies and IP risks
✅ Supports domestic EV and solar manufacturing jobs
✅ May reshape supply chains, prices, and trade flows
In a significant move aimed at bolstering domestic industries and addressing trade imbalances, the Biden administration has announced higher tariffs on Chinese-made electric cars and solar cells. This decision marks a strategic shift in U.S. trade policy, with market observers noting EV tariffs alongside industrial and financial implications across sectors today.
Tariffs on Electric Cars
The imposition of tariffs on Chinese electric cars comes amidst growing competition in the global electric vehicle (EV) market. U.S. automakers and policymakers have raised concerns about unfair trade practices, subsidies, and market access barriers faced by American EV manufacturers in China amid escalating trade tensions with key partners. The tariffs aim to level the playing field and protect U.S. interests in the burgeoning electric vehicle sector.
Impact on Solar Cells
Similarly, higher tariffs on Chinese solar cells address concerns regarding intellectual property theft, subsidies, and market distortions in the solar energy industry, where tariff threats have influenced investment signals across North American markets.
The U.S. solar sector, a key player in renewable energy development, has called for measures to safeguard fair competition and promote domestic manufacturing of solar technologies.
Economic and Political Implications
The tariff hikes underscore broader economic tensions between the United States and China, spanning trade, technology, and geopolitical issues. While aimed at protecting American industries, these tariffs could lead to retaliatory measures from China and impact global supply chains, particularly in renewable energy and automotive sectors, as North American electricity exports at risk add to uncertainty across markets.
Industry and Market Responses
Industry stakeholders have responded with mixed reactions to the tariff announcements. U.S. automakers and solar manufacturers supportive of the tariffs argue they will help level the playing field and encourage domestic production. However, critics warn of potential energy price spikes for consumers, supply chain disruptions, and unintended consequences for global clean energy goals.
Strategic Considerations
The Biden administration's tariff policy reflects a broader strategy to promote economic resilience, innovation, and national security in critical industries, even as cross-border electricity exports become flashpoints in trade policy debates today.
Efforts to strengthen domestic supply chains, invest in renewable energy infrastructure, and foster international partnerships remain central to U.S. economic competitiveness and climate objectives.
Future Outlook
Looking ahead, navigating U.S.-China trade relations will continue to be a complex challenge for policymakers. Balancing economic interests, diplomatic engagements, and environmental priorities, alongside regional public support for tariffs, will shape future trade policy decisions affecting electric vehicles, renewable energy, and technology sectors globally.
Conclusion
The Biden administration's decision to impose higher tariffs on Chinese electric cars and solar cells represents a strategic response to economic and geopolitical dynamics reshaping global markets. While aimed at protecting American industries and promoting fair trade practices, the tariffs signal a commitment to fostering competitiveness, innovation, and sustainability in critical sectors of the economy. As these measures unfold, stakeholders will monitor their impact on industry dynamics, supply chain resilience, and international trade relations in the evolving landscape of global commerce.
UK Electricity-Gas Price Decoupling aims to reform wholesale electricity pricing under the Energy Security Bill, shielding households from gas price spikes, supporting renewables, and easing the cost-of-living crisis through market redesign and transparent tariffs.
Key Points
Policy to decouple power prices from gas via the Energy Security Bill, stabilizing bills and reflecting renewables
✅ Breaks gas-to-power pricing link to cut electricity costs
✅ Reduces volatility; shields households from global gas shocks
✅ Highlights benefits of renewables and market transparency
Britons could be handed relief on rocketing household bills under Government plans to sever the link between the prices of gas and electricity, including proposals to restrict energy prices in the market, it has emerged.
Ministers are set to bring forward new laws under the Energy Security Bill to overhaul the UK's energy market in the face of the current cost-of-living crisis.
They have promised to provide greater protection for Britons against global fluctuations in energy prices, through a price cap on bills among other measures.
The current worldwide crisis has been exacerbated by the Ukraine war, which has sent gas prices spiralling higher.
Under the current make-up of Britain's energy market, soaring natural gas prices have had a knock-on effect on electricity costs.
But it has now been reported the new legislation will seek to prevent future shocks in the global gas market having a similar impact on electricity prices.
Yet the overhaul might not come in time to ease high winter energy costs for households ahead of this winter.
According to The Times, Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng will outline proposals for reforms in the coming weeks.
These will then form part of the Energy Security Bill to be introduced in the autumn, with officials anticipating a decrease in energy bills by April.
The newspaper said the plans will end the current system under which the wholesale cost of gas effectively determines the price of electricity for households.
Although more than a quarter of Britain's electricity comes from renewable sources, under current market rules it is the most expensive megawatt needed to meet demand that determines the price for all electricity generation.
This means that soaring gas prices have driven up all electricity costs in recent months, even though only around 40% of UK electricity comes from gas power stations.
Energy experts have compared the current market to train passengers having to pay the peak-period price for every journey they make.
One Government source told The Times: 'In the past it didn’t really matter because the price of gas was reasonably stable.
'Now it seems completely crazy that the price of electricity is based on the price of gas when a large amount of our generation is from renewables.'
It was also claimed ministers hope the reforms will make the market more transparent and emphasise to consumers the benefits of decarbonisation, amid an ongoing industry debate over free electricity for consumers.
A Government spokesperson said: 'The high global gas prices and linked high electricity prices that we are currently facing have given added urgency to the need to consider electricity market reform.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
Nuclear Plant Climate Risks span flood risk, heat stress, and water scarcity, threatening operations, safety systems, and steam generation; resilience depends on mitigation investments, cooling-water management, and adaptive maintenance strategies.
Key Points
Climate-driven threats to nuclear plants: floods, heat, and water stress requiring resilience and mitigation.
✅ Flooding threats to safety and cooling systems
✅ Heat stress reduces thermal efficiency and output
✅ Water scarcity risks limit cooling capacity
Climate change can affect every aspect of nuclear plant operations like fuel handling, power and steam generation and the need for resilient power systems planning, maintenance, safety systems and waste processing, the credit rating agency said.
However, the ultimate credit impact will depend upon the ability of plant operators to invest in carbon-free electricity and other mitigating measures to manage these risks, it added. Close proximity to large water bodies increase the risk of damage to plant equipment that helps ensure safe operation, the agency said in a note.
Moody’s noted that about 37 gigawatts (GW) of U.S. nuclear capacity is expected to have elevated exposure to flood risk and 48 GW elevated exposure to combined rising heat, extreme heat costs and water stress caused by climate change.
Parts of the Midwest and southern Florida face the highest levels of heat stress, while the Rocky Mountain region and California face the greatest reduction in the availability of future water supply, illustrating the need for adapting power generation to drought strategies, it said.
Nuclear plants seeking to extend their operations by 20, or even 40 years, beyond their existing 40-year licenses in support of sustaining U.S. nuclear power and decarbonization face this climate hazard and may require capital investment adjustments, Moody’s said, as companies such as Duke Energy climate report respond to investor pressure for climate transparency.
“Some of these investments will help prepare for the increasing severity and frequency of extreme weather events, highlighting that the US electric grid is not designed for climate impacts today.”
Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person
instruction, our electrical training courses can be
tailored to meet your company's specific requirements
and delivered to your employees in one location or at
various locations.
