Nevada signs energy-saving contract

US Nuclear Generating Costs 2017 show USD33.50/MWh for nuclear energy, the lowest since 2008, as capital expenditures, fuel costs, and operating costs declined after license renewals and uprates, supporting a reliable, low-carbon grid.

Key Points

The 2017 US nuclear average was USD33.50/MWh, lowest since 2008, driven by reduced capital, fuel, and operating costs.

✅ Average cost USD33.50/MWh, lowest since 2008

✅ Capital, fuel, O&M costs fell sharply since 2012 peak

✅ License renewals, uprates, market reforms shape competitiveness

Average total generating costs for nuclear energy in 2017 in the USA were at their lowest since 2008, according to a study released by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), amid a continuing nuclear decline debate in other regions.

The report, Nuclear Costs in Context, found that in 2017 the average total generating cost - which includes capital, fuel and operating costs - for nuclear energy was USD33.50 per megawatt-hour (MWh), even as interest in next-generation nuclear designs grows among stakeholders. This is 3.3% lower than in 2016 and more than 19% below 2012's peak. The reduction in costs since 2012 is due to a 40.8% reduction in capital expenditures, a 17.2% reduction in fuel costs and an 8.7% reduction in operating costs, the organisation said.

The year-on-year decline in capital costs over the past five years reflects the completion by most plants of efforts to prepare for operation beyond their initial 40-year licence. A few major items - a series of vessel head replacements; steam generator replacements and other upgrades as companies prepared for continued operation, and power uprates to increase output from existing plants - caused capital investment to increase to a peak in 2012. "As a result of these investments, 86 of the [USA's] 99 operating reactors in 2017 have received 20-year licence renewals and 92 of the operating reactors have been approved for uprates that have added over 7900 megawatts of electricity capacity. Capital spending on uprates and items necessary for operation beyond 40 years has moderated as most plants are completing these efforts," it says.

Since 2013, seven US nuclear reactors have shut down permanently, with the Three Mile Island debate highlighting wider policy questions, and another 12 have announced their permanent shutdown. The early closure for economic reasons of reliable nuclear plants with high capacity factors and relatively low generating costs will have long-term economic consequences, the report warns: replacement generating capacity, when needed, will produce more costly electricity, fewer jobs that will pay less, and, for net-zero emissions objectives, more pollution, it says.

NEI Vice President of Policy Development and Public Affairs John Kotek said the "hardworking men and women of the nuclear industry" had done an "amazing job" reducing costs through the institute's Delivering the Nuclear Promise campaign and other initiatives, in line with IAEA low-carbon lessons from the pandemic. "As we continue to face economic headwinds in markets which do not properly compensate nuclear plants, the industry has been doing its part to reduce costs to remain competitive," he said.

"Some things are in urgent need of change if we are to keep the nation's nuclear plants running and enjoy their contribution to a reliable, resilient and low-carbon grid. Namely, we need to put in place market reforms that fairly compensate nuclear similar to those already in place in New York, Illinois and other states," Kotek added.

Cost information in the study was collected by the Electric Utility Cost Group with prior years converted to 2017 dollars for accurate historical comparison.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Wind and Solar Surpass Coal in U.S. power generation, as EIA data cites falling LCOE, clean energy incentives, grid upgrades, and battery storage driving renewables growth, lower emissions, jobs, and less fossil fuel reliance.

Key Points

An EIA-noted milestone where U.S. renewables outproduce coal, driven by lower LCOE, policy credits, and grid upgrades.

✅ EIA data shows wind and solar exceed coal generation

✅ Falling LCOE boosts project viability across the grid

✅ Policies and storage advances strengthen reliability

In a landmark shift for the energy sector, wind and solar power have recently surpassed coal in electricity generation in the United States. This milestone, reported by Warp News, marks a significant turning point in the country’s energy landscape and underscores the growing dominance of renewable energy sources.

A Landmark Achievement

The achievement of wind and solar energy generating more electricity than coal is a landmark moment in the U.S. energy sector. Historically, coal has been a cornerstone of electricity production, providing a substantial portion of the nation's power needs. However, recent data reveals a transformative shift, with renewables surpassing coal for the first time in 130 years, as renewable energy sources, particularly wind and solar, have begun to outpace coal in terms of electricity generation.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported that in recent months, wind and solar combined produced more electricity than coal, including a record 28% share in April, reflecting a broader trend towards cleaner energy sources. This development is driven by several factors, including advancements in renewable technology, decreasing costs, and a growing commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Technological Advancements and Cost Reductions

One of the key drivers behind this shift is the rapid advancement in wind and solar technologies, as wind power surges in the U.S. electricity mix across regions. Improvements in turbine and panel efficiency have significantly increased the amount of electricity that can be generated from these sources. Additionally, technological innovations have led to lower production costs, making wind and solar energy more competitive with traditional fossil fuels.

The cost of solar panels and wind turbines has decreased dramatically over the past decade, making renewable energy projects more economically viable. According to Warp News, the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) from solar and wind has fallen to levels that are now comparable to or lower than coal-fired power. This trend has been pivotal in accelerating the transition to renewable energy sources.

Policy Support and Investment

Government policies and incentives have also played a crucial role in supporting the growth of wind and solar energy, with wind now the most-used renewable electricity source in the U.S. helping drive deployment. Federal and state-level initiatives, such as tax credits, subsidies, and renewable energy mandates, have encouraged investment in clean energy technologies. These policies have provided the financial and regulatory support necessary for the expansion of renewable energy infrastructure.

The Biden administration’s focus on addressing climate change and promoting clean energy has further bolstered the transition. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, among other legislative efforts, have allocated significant funding for renewable energy projects, grid modernization, and research into advanced technologies.

Environmental and Economic Implications

The surpassing of coal by wind and solar energy has significant environmental and economic implications, building on the milestone when renewables became the second-most prevalent U.S. electricity source in 2020 and set the stage for further gains. Environmentally, it represents a major step forward in reducing carbon emissions and mitigating climate change. Coal-fired power plants are among the largest sources of greenhouse gases, and transitioning to cleaner energy sources is essential for meeting climate targets and improving air quality.

Economically, the shift towards wind and solar energy is creating new opportunities and industries. The growth of the renewable energy sector is generating jobs in manufacturing, installation, and maintenance. Additionally, the decreased reliance on imported fossil fuels enhances energy security and stabilizes energy prices.

Challenges and Future Outlook

Despite the progress, there are still challenges to address. The intermittency of wind and solar power requires advancements in energy storage and grid management to ensure a reliable electricity supply. Investments in battery storage technologies and smart grid infrastructure are crucial for overcoming these challenges and integrating higher shares of renewable energy into the grid.

Looking ahead, the trend towards renewable energy is expected to continue, with renewables projected to soon provide about one-fourth of U.S. electricity as deployment accelerates, driven by ongoing technological advancements, supportive policies, and a growing commitment to sustainability. As wind and solar power become increasingly cost-competitive and efficient, their role in the U.S. energy mix will likely expand, further displacing coal and other fossil fuels.

Conclusion

The surpassing of coal by wind and solar energy in U.S. electricity generation is a significant milestone in the transition to a cleaner, more sustainable energy future. This achievement highlights the growing importance of renewable energy sources and the success of technological advancements and supportive policies in driving this transition. As the U.S. continues to invest in and develop renewable energy infrastructure, the move away from coal represents a crucial step towards achieving environmental goals and fostering economic growth in the clean energy sector.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Manus Island Naval Base strengthens US-Australia-PNG cooperation at Lombrum, near the South China Sea, bolstering sovereignty, maritime rights, and Pacific security amid APEC talks, infrastructure investment, and Belt and Road competition.

Key Points

A US-Australia-PNG facility at Lombrum to bolster Pacific security and protect maritime rights across the region.

✅ Shared by US, Australia, and PNG at Lombrum on Manus Island

✅ Near South China Sea, reinforcing maritime security and access

✅ Counters opaque lending, aligns with free trade and infrastructure

Scott Morrison has caught himself bang in the middle of escalating tensions between the United States and China.

The US and Australia will share a naval base in the north end of Papua New Guinea on Manus Island, creating another key staging point close to the contested South China Sea.

“The United States will partner with Papua New Guinea and Australia on their joint initiative at Lombrum Naval Base,” US Vice President Mike Pence said.

“We will work with these two nations to protect sovereignty and maritime rights in the Pacific Islands. ”

At an Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Port Moresby on Saturday, Mr Morrison urged nations to embrace free trade and avoid “unsustainable debt”, as the Philippines' clean energy commitment also featured in discussions.

He confirmed the US and Australia will share an expanded naval base on Manus Island, as the US ramped up rhetoric against China.

Mr Pence quoted President Donald Trump in his speech following Chinese President Xi Jinping, even as a Biden energy agenda is seen by some as better for Canada.

“We have great respect for President Xi and respect for China. But in the president’s words, China’s taken advantage of the United States for many, many years,” he said.

“And those days are over.”

His speech was met with stony silence from the Chinese delegation, after President Xi had reassured leaders his Belt and Road Initiative was not a debt trap.

China has also been at loggerheads with the United States over its territorial ambitions in the Pacific, encapsulated by Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative.

Unveiled in 2013, the Belt and Road initiative aims to bolster a sprawling network of land and sea links with Southeast Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East, Europe and Africa.

China’s efforts to win friends in the resource-rich Pacific have been watched warily by the traditionally influential powers in the region — Australia and the United States.

“It is not designed to serve any hidden geopolitical agenda,” President Xi said on Saturday.

“Nor is it a trap, as some people have labelled it.”

But Mr Pence said loans to developing countries were too often opaque and encouraged nations to look to the US instead of China.

“Too often they come with strings attached and lead to staggering debt,” he said in his speech.

“Do not accept foreign debt that could compromise your sovereignty.

“Just like America, always put your country first.”

Mr Morrison committed Australia to look to the Pacific nations and on Sunday he will host an informal BBQ with Pacific leaders, amid domestic moves like Western Australia's electricity bill credit for households.

He also announced a joint partnership with Japan and the US to fund infrastructure around the region, while at home debates over an electricity market overhaul continue.

On the back of Mr Morrison’s defence of free trade at the summit, Australian Trade Minister Simon Birmingham said he was confident the US was interested in an open trading environment in the long run, with parallel discussions such as a U.S.-Canada energy partnership underscoring regional economic ties.

Australia is hoping the US will, in the end, take a similar approach to its trade dispute with China as it did with its tariff threats against Mexico and Canada, as cross-border negotiations like the Columbia River Treaty continue to shape U.S.-Canada ties.

“Ultimately, they laid down arms, they walked away from threats, and they struck a new trade deal that ensures trade continues in that North American bloc,” Mr Birmingham told ABC TV on Sunday.

“We hope the same will happen in relation to China.”

Four countries including the US have signed up to an effort to bring electricity to 70 per cent of Papua New Guinea’s people by 2030.

Australia, Japan, the US and New Zealand on Sunday signed an agreement to work with Papua New Guinea’s government on electrification.

It’s the latest sign of great power rivalry in the South Pacific, where China is vying with the US and its allies for influence.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

WA $600 Electricity Credit supports households with power bills as a budget stimulus, delivering an automatic rebate via Synergy and Horizon, funded by the Bell Group settlement to aid COVID-19 recovery and local spending.

Key Points

A one-off $600 power bill credit for all Synergy and Horizon residential accounts, funded by the Bell Group settlement.

✅ Automatic, not means-tested; applied to Synergy and Horizon accounts.

✅ Can offset upcoming bills or carry forward to future statements.

✅ Funded by Bell Group payout; aims to ease cost-of-living pressures.

Washington Premier Mark McGowan has announced more than a million households will receive a $600 electricity credit on their electricity account before their next bill.

The $650 million measure will form part of Thursday's pre-election state budget, similar to legislation to lower electricity rates in other jurisdictions, which has been delayed since May because of the pandemic and will help deflect criticism by the opposition that Labor hasn't done enough to stimulate WA's economy.

Mr McGowan made the announcement on Sunday while visiting a family in the electorate of Bicton.

"Here in WA, our state is in the best possible position as we continue our strong recovery from COVID-19, but times are still tough for many West Australians, and there is always more work to do," he said.

"[The credit] will mean WA families have a bit of extra money available in the lead up to Christmas.

"But I have a request, if this credit means you can spend some extra money, use it to support our local WA businesses."

The electricity bill credit will be automatically applied to every Synergy or Horizon residential account from Sunday, echoing moves such as reconnections for nonpayment by Hydro One in Canada.

It can be applied to future bills and will not be means tested.

"The $600 credit is fully funded through the recent Bell Group settlement, for the losses incurred in the Bell Group collapse in the early 1990s," Mr McGowan said.

"It made sense that these funds go straight back to Western Australians."

In September, the liquidator for the Bell Group and its finance arm distributed funds to its five major creditors, including $670 million to the WA government. The payment marked the close of the 30-year battle to recover taxpayer funds squandered during the WA Inc era of state politics.

The payout is the result of litigation stemming from the 1988 partnership between then Labor government and entrepreneur Alan Bond in acquiring major interests in Robert Holmes à Court’s failing Bell Group, following the 1987 stock market crash.

WA shadow minister for cost of living, Tony Krsticevic, said the $600 credit was returning money back into West Australian's pockets from "WA Labor's darkest days".

“This is taxpayers’ money out of a levy which was brought in to pay for Labor’s scandalous WA Inc losses of $450 million in the 1980s,” he said.

“This money should be returned to West Australians.

“WA families are in desperate need of it because they are struggling under cost of living increases of $850 every year since 2017 under WA Labor, amid concerns elsewhere that an electricity recovery rate could lead to higher hydro bills.

“But they need more than just a one-off payment. These $850 cost of living increases are an on-going burden.”

Prior to the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, the opposition believed it was gaining traction by attacking the government's increases to fees and charges in its first three budgets, and by urging an electricity market overhaul to favor consumers.

Last year, Labor increased household fees and charges by $127.77, which came on top of increases over the prior two budgets, as other jurisdictions faced hydro rate increases of around 3 per cent.

According the state's annual report on its finances released in September, the $2.6 billion budget surplus forecast in the at the end of 2019 had been reduced by $920 million to $1.7 billion despite the impact of the coronavirus.

But total public sector net debt was at $35.4 billion, down from the $36.1 billion revision at the end of 2019 in the mid-year review.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Commercial Electric Tariffs explain utility rate structures, peak demand charges, kWh vs kW pricing, time-of-use periods, voltage, delivery, capacity ratchets, and riders, guiding facility managers in tariff analysis for accurate energy savings.

Key Points

Commercial electric tariffs define utility pricing for energy, demand, delivery, time-of-use periods, riders, and ratchet charges.

✅ Separate kWh charges from kW peak demand fees.

✅ Verify time-of-use windows and demand interval length.

✅ Review riders, capacity ratchets, and minimum demand clauses.

Especially during these tough economic times, as major changes to electric bills are debated in some states, facility executives who don’t understand how their power is priced have been disappointed when their energy projects failed to produce expected dollar savings. Here’s how not to be one of them.

Your electric rate is spelled out in a document called a “tariff” that can be downloaded from your utility’s web page. A tariff should clearly spell out the costs for each component that is part of your rate, reflecting cost allocation practices in your region. Don’t be surprised to learn that it contains a bunch of them. Unlike residential electric rates, commercial electric bills are not based solely on the quantity of kilowatt-hours (kWh) consumed in a billing period (in the United States, that’s a month). Instead, different rates may apply to how your power is supplied, how it is delivered via electricity delivery charges, when it was consumed, its voltage, how fast it was used (in kW), and other factors.

If a tariff’s lingo and word structure are too opaque, spend some time with a utility account rep to translate it. Many state utility commissions also have customer advocates that may assist as they explore new utility rate designs that affect customers. Alternatively, for a fee, facility managers can privately chat with an energy consultant.

Common mistakes

Many facility managers try to estimate savings based on an averaged electric rate, i.e., annual electric spend divided by annual kWh. However, in markets where electricity demand is flat, such a number may obscure the fastest rising cost component: monthly peak demand charges, measured in dollars per kW (or kilo-volt-amperes, kVA).

This charge is like a monthly speeding ticket, based solely on the highest speed you drove during that time. In some areas, peak demand charges now account for 30 to 60 percent of a facility’s annual electric spend. When projecting energy cost savings, failing to separately account for kW peak demand and kWh consumption may result in erroneous results, and a lot of questions from the C-suite.

How peak demand charges are calculated varies among utilities. Some base it on the highest average speed of use across one hour in a month, while others may use the highest average speed during a 15- or 30-minute period. Others may average several of the highest speeds within a defined time period (for example, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays). It is whatever your tariff says it is.

Because some power-consuming (or producing) devices, including those tied to smart home electricity networks, vary in their operation or abilities, they may save money on a few — but not all — of those rate components. If an equipment vendor calculates savings from its product by using an average electric rate, take pause. Tell the vendor to return after the proposal has been redone using tariff-based numbers.

When a vendor is the only person calculating potential savings from using a product, there’s also a built-in conflict of interest: The person profiting from an equipment sale should not also be the one calculating its expected financial return. Before signing any energy project contracts, it’s essential that someone independent of the deal reviews projected savings. That person (typically an energy or engineering consultant) should be quite familiar with your facility’s electric tariff, including any special provisions, riders, discounts, etc., that may pertain. When this doesn’t happen, savings often don’t occur as planned. 

For example, some utilities add another form of demand charge, based on the highest kW in a year. It has various names: capacity, contract demand, or the generic term “ratchet charge.” Some utilities also have a minimum ratchet charge which may be based on a percent of a facility’s annual kW peak. It ensures collection of sufficient utility revenue to cover the cost of installed transmission and distribution even when a customer significantly cuts its peak demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Bitcoin Energy Consumption drives debate on blockchain mining, proof-of-work, carbon footprint, and emissions, with CCAF estimates in terawatt hours highlighting electricity demand, fossil fuel reliance, and sustainability concerns for data centers and cryptocurrency networks.

Key Points

Electricity used by Bitcoin proof-of-work mining, often fossil-fueled, estimated by CCAF in terawatt hours.

✅ CCAF: 40-445 TWh, central estimate ~130 TWh

✅ ~66% of mining electricity sourced from fossil fuels

✅ Proof-of-work increases hash rate, energy, and emissions

The University of Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) studies the burgeoning business of cryptocurrencies.

It calculates that Bitcoin's total energy consumption is somewhere between 40 and 445 annualised terawatt hours (TWh), with a central estimate of about 130 terawatt hours.

The UK's electricity consumption is a little over 300 TWh a year, while Argentina uses around the same amount of power as the CCAF's best guess for Bitcoin, as countries like New Zealand's electricity future are debated to balance demand.

And the electricity the Bitcoin miners use overwhelmingly comes from polluting sources, with the U.S. grid not 100% renewable underscoring broader energy mix challenges worldwide.

The CCAF team surveys the people who manage the Bitcoin network around the world on their energy use and found that about two-thirds of it is from fossil fuels, and some regions are weighing curbs like Russia's proposed mining ban amid electricity deficits.

Huge computing power - and therefore energy use - is built into the way the blockchain technology that underpins the cryptocurrency has been designed.

It relies on a vast decentralised network of computers.

These are the so-called Bitcoin "miners" who enable new Bitcoins to be created, but also independently verify and record every transaction made in the currency.

In fact, the Bitcoins are the reward miners get for maintaining this record accurately.

It works like a lottery that runs every 10 minutes, explains Gina Pieters, an economics professor at the University of Chicago and a research fellow with the CCAF team.

Data processing centres around the world, including hotspots such as Iceland's mining strain, race to compile and submit this record of transactions in a way that is acceptable to the system.

They also have to guess a random number.

The first to submit the record and the correct number wins the prize - this becomes the next block in the blockchain.

Estimates for bitcoin's electricity consumption
At the moment, they are rewarded with six-and-a-quarter Bitcoins, valued at about $50,000 each.

As soon as one lottery is over, a new number is generated, and the whole process starts again.

The higher the price, says Prof Pieters, the more miners want to get into the game, and utilities like BC Hydro suspending new crypto connections highlight grid pressures.

"They want to get that revenue," she tells me, "and that's what's going to encourage them to introduce more and more powerful machines in order to guess this random number, and therefore you will see an increase in energy consumption," she says.

And there is another factor that drives Bitcoin's increasing energy consumption.

The software ensures it always takes 10 minutes for the puzzle to be solved, so if the number of miners is increasing, the puzzle gets harder and the more computing power needs to be thrown at it.

Bitcoin is therefore actually designed to encourage increased computing effort.

The idea is that the more computers that compete to maintain the blockchain, the safer it becomes, because anyone who might want to try and undermine the currency must control and operate at least as much computing power as the rest of the miners put together.

What this means is that, as Bitcoin gets more valuable, the computing effort expended on creating and maintaining it - and therefore the energy consumed - inevitably increases.

We can track how much effort miners are making to create the currency.

They are currently reckoned to be making 160 quintillion calculations every second - that's 160,000,000,000,000,000,000, in case you were wondering.

And this vast computational effort is the cryptocurrency's Achilles heel, says Alex de Vries, the founder of the Digiconomist website and an expert on Bitcoin.

All the millions of trillions of calculations it takes to keep the system running aren't really doing any useful work.

"They're computations that serve no other purpose," says de Vries, "they're just immediately discarded again. Right now we're using a whole lot of energy to produce those calculations, but also the majority of that is sourced from fossil energy, and clean energy's 'dirty secret' complicates substitution."

The vast effort it requires also makes Bitcoin inherently difficult to scale, he argues.

"If Bitcoin were to be adopted as a global reserve currency," he speculates, "the Bitcoin price will probably be in the millions, and those miners will have more money than the entire [US] Federal budget to spend on electricity."

"We'd have to double our global energy production," he says with a laugh, even as some argue cheap abundant electricity is getting closer to reality today. "For Bitcoin."

He says it also limits the number of transactions the system can process to about five per second.

This doesn't make for a useful currency, he argues.

Rising price of bitcoin graphic
And that view is echoed by many eminent figures in finance and economics.

The two essential features of a successful currency are that it is an effective form of exchange and a stable store of value, says Ken Rogoff, a professor of economics at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

He says Bitcoin is neither.

"The fact is, it's not really used much in the legal economy now. Yes, one rich person sells it to another, but that's not a final use. And without that it really doesn't have a long-term future."

What he is saying is that Bitcoin exists almost exclusively as a vehicle for speculation.

So, I want to know: is the bubble about to burst?

"That's my guess," says Prof Rogoff and pauses.

"But I really couldn't tell you when."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News