Automakers roll out plug-in concepts

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

EU Energy Price Crisis drives soaring electricity bills as natural gas sets pay-as-clear power prices; leaders debate price caps, common gas purchasing, market reform, renewables, and ETS changes amid Ukraine war supply shocks.

Key Points

A surge in gas-driven power costs linked to pay-as-clear pricing, supply shocks, and policy rifts across the EU market.

✅ Gas sets marginal power price via pay-as-clear mechanism

✅ Spain pushes decoupling and temporary price caps

✅ EU weighs joint gas buying, efficiency, more renewables

Nothing grabs politicians' attention faster than angry voters, and they've had plenty to be furious about as natural gas and electricity bills have soared to stomach-churning levels in recent months, as this UK natural gas analysis illustrates across markets.

That's led to a scramble to figure out ways to get those costs down, with emergency price-limiting measures under discussion — but that's turning out to be very difficult, so the likeliest result is that EU leaders meeting later this week won't come up with any solutions.

“There is no single easy answer to tackle the high electricity prices given the diversity of situations among Member States. Some options are only suitable for specific national contexts,” the European Commission said on Wednesday. “They all carry costs and drawbacks.” 

The initial problem was a surge in gas demand in Asia last year coupled with lower-than-normal Russian gas deliveries that left European gas storage at unusually low levels. Now the war in Ukraine is making matters even worse, as pressure grows for the bloc to rapidly cut its imports of Russian oil, coal and natural gas — although some national leaders reject the economic costs that would entail.

"We will end this dependence as quickly as we can, but to do that from one day to the next would mean plunging our country and all of Europe into a recession," German Chancellor Olaf Scholz warned on Wednesday.

The problem for the bloc is that its liberalized electricity market is tightly tied to the price of natural gas; power prices are set by the final input needed to balance demand — called pay-as-clear — which in most cases is set by natural gas. That's led to countries with large amounts of cheaper renewable or nuclear energy seeing sharp spikes in power prices thanks to the cost of that final bit of gas-fired electricity.

A Spanish-led coalition that includes Portugal, Belgium and Italy wants deep reforms to the EU price model, fueling a broader electricity market revamp debate in Brussels.

Others, such as the Netherlands and Germany, strongly oppose such an approach, echoing how nine countries oppose reforms at the EU level, and want to focus on cushioning the effects of the high prices on consumers and businesses, while letting the market operate. 

A third group, largely in Central Europe, wants to use the price spike to revamp or scrap the bloc's Emissions Trading System and to rethink its Fit for 55 climate legislation.

The European Commission has been holding the middle ground — arguing that the current market model makes sense, but encouraging countries to boost the amount of renewable electricity, in a wake-up call to ditch fossil fuels for Europe, to cut energy use and increase efficiency.

In draft conclusions of this week's European Council summit, seen by POLITICO, EU leaders, amid a France-Germany tussle over reform, call for things like a common approach to buying gas, aimed at preventing countries from competing against each other. But there's no big movement on electricity prices.

“It does not seem realistic to expect a result on the energy discussion at this European Council,” one diplomat said, stressing that the governments will need to see more analysis before committing to any more steps.

Looking for action
Spain wanted a much more robust response. Madrid has been arguing since last summer for “decoupling” gas from the electricity market; together with Portugal, it also mulled limiting the wholesale price of electricity to €180 per megawatt-hour — a proposal that Spain abandoned under fire from industry and consumer groups. 

Now Madrid is pushing to get a specific permission in the summit's final conclusions that would allow countries to voluntarily apply certain short-term solutions such as gas price cap strategies, according to a draft with track changes seen by POLITICO.

The issue with a cap is if gas prices are higher than the cap, Spain might not be able to buy any gas.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

UK Coal-Free Grid Streak highlights record hours without coal, as renewable energy, wind and solar boost electricity generation, cutting CO2 emissions, reducing fossil fuel reliance, and accelerating grid decarbonization amid volatile gas markets.

Key Points

It is the UKs longest coal-free power run, driven by renewables, signaling decarbonization and reduced gas reliance.

✅ Record-breaking hours of electricity with zero coal generation

✅ Enabled by wind, solar, and growing offshore wind capacity

✅ Highlights need to cut gas use and expand renewable investment

Today is the fourth the UK has entered with not a watt of electricity generated by coal.

It’s the longest such streak since the 1880s and comes only days after the last modern era coal-free power record of 55 hours was set.

That represents good news for those of us who have children and would rather like there to be a planet for them to live on when we’re gone.

Coal generated power is dirty power, and not just through the carbon that gets pumped into the atmosphere when it burns.

The fact that the UK is increasingly able to call upon cleaner alternatives for its requirements, to the extent that records are being regularly broken and coal's share has fallen to record lows, is a welcome development.

The trouble is one of those alternatives is gas, and while it is better than coal it still throws off CO2, among other pollutants. The UK’s use of it, for electricity generation and most of its heating, comes with the added disadvantage of leaving it in hock to volatile international markets and producers that aren’t always friendly.

It was only last month, with the country in the middle of a cold snap, that the Grid was issuing a deficit warning (its first in eight years).

As I wrote at the time, we need to burn less of the stuff as low-carbon progress stalled in 2019 shows, too.

As such, Greenpeace’s call for more investment in renewable energy technology and generation, including solar, onshore wind and offshore wind, which is making an increasing contribution as wind beat coal in 2016 demonstrated, was well made.

Those who complain about onshore wind farms, particularly when they are built in windy places that are pretty, seem willfully blind to the pollution caused by gas.

The need to be listened to less. So do those, like British Gas owner Centrica, that bellyache about green taxes.

It bears repeating that fossil fuels are subsidised still more. It’s just that the subsidies are typically hidden.

A report issued last year by a coalition of environmental organisations found the UK provided $972m (£695m) of annual financing for fossil fuels on average between 2013 and 2015, compared with $172m for renewable energy.

But while they come up with wildly varying amounts as a result of wildly varying approaches, the OECD, the IMF and the International Energy Agency have all quantified substantial subsidies for fossils fuels. Their annual estimates have ranged from $160bn to $5.3tn (yes you read that rate and the number was the IMF’s) globally.

So by all means celebrate coal free days, and a full week without coal power as milestones. But we need more of them more quickly and we need more renewable energy to pick up the slack. As such, the philosophy and approach of government needs to change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Nuclear Energy Growth accelerates as nations pursue decarbonization, complement renewables, displace coal, and ensure grid reliability with firm, low-carbon baseload, benefiting from standardized builds, lower cost of capital, and learning-curve cost reductions.

Key Points

Expansion of nuclear capacity to cut CO2, complement renewables, replace coal, and stabilize grids at low-carbon cost.

✅ Complements renewables; displaces coal for faster decarbonization

✅ Cuts system costs via standardization and lower cost of capital

✅ Provides firm, low-carbon baseload and grid reliability

By Kirill Komarov, Chairman, World Nuclear Association.

As Europe and the wider world begins to wake up to the need to cut emissions, Dr Kirill Komarov argues that tackling climate change will see the use of nuclear energy grow in the coming years, not as a competitor to renewables but as a competitor to coal.

The nuclear industry keeps making headlines and spurring debates on energy policy, including the green industrial revolution agenda in several countries. With each new build project, the detractors of nuclear power crowd the bandwagon to portray renewables as an easy and cheap alternative to ‘increasingly costly’ nuclear: if solar and wind are virtually free why bother splitting atoms?

Yet, paradoxically as it may seem, if we are serious about policy response to climate change, nuclear energy is seeing an atomic energy resurgence in the coming decade or two.

Growth has already started to pick up with about 3.1 GW new capacity added in the first half of 2018 in Russia and China while, at the very least, 4GW more to be completed by the end of the year – more than doubling the capacity additions in 2017.

In 2019 new connections to the grid would exceed 10GW by a significant margin.

If nuclear is in decline, why then do China, India, Russia and other countries keep building nuclear power plants?

To begin with, the issue of cost, argued by those opposed to nuclear, is in fact largely a bogus one, which does not make a fully rounded like for like comparison.

It is true that the latest generation reactors, especially those under construction in the US and Western Europe, have encountered significant construction delays and cost overruns.

But the main, and often the only, reason for that is the ‘first-of-a-kind’ nature of those projects.

If you build something for the first time, be it nuclear, wind or solar, it is expensive. Experience shows that with series build, standardised construction economies of scale and the learning curve from multiple projects, costs come down by around one-third; and this is exactly what is already happening in some parts of the world.

Furthermore, those first-of-a-kind projects were forced to be financed 100% privately and investors had to bear all political risks. It sent the cost of capital soaring, increasing at one stroke the final electricity price by about one third.

While, according to the International Energy Agency, at 3% cost of capital rate, nuclear is the cheapest source of energy: on average 1% increase adds about US$6-7 per MWh to the final price.

When it comes to solar and wind, the truth, inconvenient for those cherishing the fantasy of a world relying 100% on renewables, is that the ‘plummeting prices’ (which, by the way, haven’t changed much over the last three years, reaching a plateau) do not factor in so-called system and balancing costs associated with the need to smooth the intermittency of renewables.

Put simply, the fact the sun doesn’t shine at night and wind doesn’t blow all the time means wind and solar generation needs to be backed up.

According to a study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, integration of intermittent renewables into the grid is estimated in some cases to be as expensive as power generation itself.

Delivering the highest possible renewable content means customers’ bills will have to cover: renewable generation costs, energy storage solutions, major grid updates and interconnections investment, as well as gas or coal peaking power plants or ‘peakers’, which work only from time to time when needed to back up wind and solar.

The expected cost for kWh for peakers, according to investment bank Lazard is about twice that of conventional power plants due to much lower capacity factors.

Despite exceptionally low fossil fuel prices, peaking natural gas generation had an eye-watering cost of $156-210 per MWh in 2017 while electricity storage, replacing ‘peakers’, would imply an extra cost of $186-413 per MWh.

Burning fossil fuels is cheaper but comes with a great deal of environmental concern and extensive use of coal would make net-zero emissions targets all but unattainable.

So, contrary to some claims, nuclear does not compete with renewables. Moreover, a recent study by the MIT Energy Initiative showed, most convincingly, that renewables and load following advanced nuclear are complementary.

Nuclear competes with coal. Phasing out coal is crucial to fighting climate change. Putting off decisions to build new nuclear capacities while increasing the share of intermittent renewables makes coal indispensable and extends its life.

Scientists at the Brattle group, a consultancy, argue that “since CO2 emissions persist for many years in the atmosphere, near-term emission reductions are more helpful for climate protection than later ones”.

The longer we hesitate with new nuclear build the more difficult it becomes to save the Earth.

Nuclear power accounta for about one-tenth of global electricity production, but as much as one-third of generation from low-carbon sources. 1GWe of installed nuclear capacity prevents emissions of 4-7 million metric tons of CO2 emissions per year, depending on the region.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that in order to limit the average global temperature increase to 2°C and still meet global power demand, we need to connect to the grid at least 20GW of new nuclear energy each year.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) sets the target even higher with the total of 1,000 GWe by 2050, or about 10 GWe per year before 2020; 25 GWe per year from 2021 to 2025; and on average 33 GWe from 2026 to 2050.

Regulatory and political challenges in the West have made life for nuclear businesses in the US and in Europe's nuclear sector very difficult, driving many of them to the edge of insolvency; but in the rest of the world nuclear energy is thriving.

Nuclear vendors and utilities post healthy profits and invest heavily in next-gen nuclear innovation and expansion. The BRICS countries are leading the way, taking over the initiative in the global climate agenda. From their perspective, it’s the opposite of decline.

Dr Kirill Komarov is first deputy CEO of Russian state nuclear energy operator Rosatom and chairman of the World Nuclear Association.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Electricity Reserve Mandate requires 3.3 GW of new capacity to bolster grid reliability amid solar power volatility, peak demand, and wildfire-driven blackouts, as CPUC directs PG&E, Edison, and Sempra to procure resource adequacy.

Key Points

A CPUC order for utilities to add 3.3 GW of reserves, safeguarding grid reliability during variable renewables and peaks

✅ 3.3 GW procurement to meet resource adequacy targets

✅ Focus on grid reliability during peak evening demand

✅ Prioritizes renewables, storage; limits new fossil builds

As if California doesn’t have enough problems with its electric service, now state regulators warn the state may be short on power supplies by 2021 if utilities don’t start lining up new resources now.

In the hopes of heading off a shortfall as America goes electric, the California Public Utilities Commission has ordered the state’s electricity providers to secure 3.3 additional gigawatts of reserve supplies. That’s enough to power roughly 2.5 million homes. Half of it must be in place by 2021 and the rest by August 2023.

The move comes as California is already struggling to accommodate increasingly large amounts of solar power that regularly send electricity prices plunging below zero and force other generators offline so the region’s grid doesn’t overload. The state is also still reeling from a series of deliberate mass blackouts that utilities imposed last month to keep their power lines from sparking wildfires amid strong winds. And its largest power company, PG&E Corp., went bankrupt in January.

Now as natural gas-fired power plants retire under the state’s climate policies, officials are warning the state could run short on electricity on hot evenings, when solar production fades and commuters get home and crank up their air conditioners. “We have fewer resources that can be quickly turned on that can meet those peaks,” utilities commission member Liane Randolph said Thursday before the panel approved the order to beef up reserves.

The 3.3 gigawatts that utilities must line up is in addition to a state rule requiring them to sign contracts for 15% more electricity than they expect to need. Some critics question the need for added supplies, particularly after the state went on a plant-building boom in the 2000s.

But California’s grid managers say the risk of a shortfall is real and could be as high as 4.7 gigawatts, especially during heat waves that test the grid again. Mark Rothleder, with the California Independent System Operator, said the 15% cushion is a holdover from the days before big solar and wind farms made the grid more volatile. Now it may need to be increased, he said.

“We’re not in that world anymore,” said Rothleder, the operator’s vice president of state regulatory affairs. “The complexity of the system and the resources we have now are much different.”

The state’s three major utilities, PG&E, Edison International and Sempra Energy, will be largely responsible for securing new supplies. The commission banned fossil fuels from being used at any new power generators built to meet the requirement — though it left the door open for expansions at existing ones.

Some analysts argue California is exporting its energy policies to Western states, making electricity more costly and less reliable.

PG&E said in an emailed statement that it was pleased the commission didn’t adopt an earlier proposal to require 4 gigawatts of additional resources. Edison similarly said it was “supportive.” Sempra didn’t immediately respond with comment.

Extending Deadlines

The pending plant closures are being hastened by a 2020 deadline requiring California’s coastal generators to stop using aging seawater-cooling systems. Some gas-fired power plants have said they’ll simply close instead of installing costly new cooling systems. So the commission on Thursday also asked California water regulators to extend the deadline for five plants.

The Sierra Club, meanwhile, called on regulators to turn away from fossil fuels altogether, saying their decision Thursday “sets California back on its progress toward a clean energy future.”

The move to push back the deadline also faces opposition from neighboring towns. Redondo Beach Mayor Bill Brand, whose city is home to one of the plants in line for an extension, told the commission it wasn’t necessary, since California utilities already have plenty of electricity reserves.

“It’s just piling on to that reserve margin,” Brand said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

FERC Hydropower Licensing Dispute centers on FERC authority, Clean Water Act compliance, state water quality certifications, Federal Power Act timelines, and Army Corps dams on West Virginia's Monongahela River licenses.

Key Points

An inquiry into FERC's licensing process and state water quality authority for hydropower at Monongahela River dams.

✅ Questions on omitted state water quality conditions

✅ Debate over starting Clean Water Act certification timelines

✅ Potential impacts on states' rights and licensing schedules

As federal lawmakers, including Democrats pressing FERC, plan to consider a bill that would expand Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing authority, questions emerged on Tuesday about the process used by FERC to issue two hydropower licenses for existing dams in West Virginia.

In a letter to FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee, Democratic leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as electricity pricing changes were being debated, raised questions about hydropower licenses issued for two dams operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Monongahela River in West Virginia.

U.S. Reps. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy, Bobby Rush (D-IL), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Environment, and John Sarbanes (D-MD), amid Maryland clean energy enforcement concerns, questioned why FERC did not incorporate all conditions outlined in a West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection water quality certificate into plans for the projects.

“By denying the state its allotted time to review this application and submit requirements on these licenses, FERC is undermining the state’s authority under the Clean Water Act and Federal Power Act to impose conditions that will ensure water quality standards are met,” the letter stated.

The House of Representatives was slated to consider the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017, H.R. 3043, later in the week. The measure would expand FERC authority over licensing processes, a theme mirrored in Maine's transmission line debate over interstate energy projects. Opponents of the bill argue that the changes would make it more difficult for states to protect their clean water interests.

West Virginia has announced plans to challenge FERC hydropower licenses for the dams on the Monongahela River, echoing Northern Pass opposition seen in New Hampshire.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News