SCE operating normally following quake

VW Germany Plant Closures For EV Shift signal a strategic realignment toward electric vehicles, sustainability, and zero-emission mobility, optimizing manufacturing, cutting ICE capacity, boosting battery production, retraining workers, and aligning with the Accelerate decarbonization strategy.

Key Points

VW is shuttering German plants to cut ICE costs and scale EV output, advancing sustainability and competitiveness.

✅ Streamlines operations; reallocates capital to EV platforms and batteries.

✅ Cuts ICE output, lowers emissions, and boosts clean manufacturing capacity.

✅ Retrains workforce amid closures; invests in software and charging tech.

Volkswagen (VW), one of the world’s largest automakers, is undergoing a significant transformation with the announcement of plant closures in Germany. As reported by The Guardian, this strategic shift is part of VW’s broader move towards prioritizing electric vehicles (EVs) and adapting to the evolving automotive market as EVs reach an inflection point globally. The decision highlights the company’s commitment to sustainability and innovation amid a rapidly changing industry landscape.

Strategic Plant Closures

Volkswagen’s decision to close several of its plants in Germany marks a pivotal moment in the company's history. These closures are part of a broader strategy to streamline operations, reduce costs, and focus on the production of electric vehicles. The move reflects VW’s response to the growing demand for EVs and the need to transition from traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles to cleaner, more sustainable alternatives.

The affected plants, which have been key components of VW’s manufacturing network, will cease production as the company reallocates resources and investments towards its electric vehicle programs. This realignment is aimed at improving operational efficiency and ensuring that VW remains competitive in a market that is increasingly oriented towards electric mobility.

A Shift Towards Electric Vehicles

The closures are closely linked to Volkswagen’s strategic shift towards electric vehicles. The automotive industry is undergoing a profound transformation as governments and consumers place greater emphasis on sustainability and reducing carbon emissions. Volkswagen has recognized this shift and is investing heavily in the development and production of EVs as part of its "Accelerate" strategy, anticipating widespread EV adoption within a decade across key markets.

The company’s commitment to electric vehicles is evident in its plans to launch a range of new electric models and increase production capacity for EVs. Volkswagen aims to become a leader in the electric mobility sector by leveraging its technological expertise and scale to drive innovation and expand its EV offerings.

Economic and Environmental Implications

The closure of VW’s German plants carries both economic and environmental implications. Economically, the move will impact the workforce and local economies dependent on these manufacturing sites. Volkswagen has indicated that it will work on providing support and retraining opportunities for affected employees, as the EV aftermarket evolves and reshapes service needs, but the transition will still pose challenges for workers and their communities.

Environmentally, the shift towards electric vehicles represents a significant positive development. Electric vehicles produce zero tailpipe emissions, which aligns with global efforts to combat climate change and reduce air pollution. By focusing on EV production, Volkswagen is contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and supporting the transition to a more sustainable transportation system.

Challenges and Opportunities

While the transition to electric vehicles presents opportunities, it also comes with challenges. Volkswagen will need to manage the complexities of closing and repurposing its existing plants while ramping up production at new or upgraded facilities dedicated to EVs. This transition requires substantial investment in new technologies, infrastructure, and training, including battery supply strategies that influence manufacturing footprints, to ensure a smooth shift from traditional automotive manufacturing.

Additionally, Volkswagen faces competition from other automakers that are also investing heavily in electric vehicles, including Daimler's electrification plan outlining the scope of its transition. To maintain its competitive edge, VW must continue to innovate and offer attractive, high-performance electric models that meet consumer expectations.

Future Outlook

Looking ahead, Volkswagen’s focus on electric vehicles aligns with broader industry trends and regulatory pressures. Governments worldwide are implementing stricter emissions regulations and providing incentives for EV adoption, although Germany's plan to end EV subsidies has sparked debate domestically, creating a favorable environment for companies that are committed to sustainability and clean technology.

Volkswagen’s investment in electric vehicles and its strategic realignment reflect a proactive approach to addressing these trends. The company’s ability to navigate the challenges associated with plant closures and the transition to electric mobility will be critical, especially as Europe's EV slump tests demand signals, in determining its success in the evolving automotive landscape.

Conclusion

Volkswagen’s decision to close several plants in Germany and focus on electric vehicle production represents a significant shift in the company’s strategy. While the closures present challenges, they also highlight Volkswagen’s commitment to sustainability and its response to the growing demand for cleaner transportation solutions. By investing in electric vehicles and adapting its operations, Volkswagen aims to lead the way in the transition to a more sustainable automotive future. As the company moves forward, its ability to effectively manage this transition will be crucial in shaping its role in the global automotive market.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

US SF6 Emissions Decline as NOAA analysis and EPA mitigation show progress, with atmospheric measurements and Greenhouse Gas Reporting verifying reductions from the electric power grid; sulfur hexafluoride's extreme global warming potential underscores inventory improvements.

Key Points

A documented drop in US sulfur hexafluoride emissions, confirmed by NOAA atmospheric data and EPA reporting reforms.

✅ NOAA towers and aircraft show 2007-2018 decline

✅ EPA reporting and utility mitigation narrowed inventory gaps

✅ Winter leaks and servicing signal further reduction options

A new NOAA analysis shows U.S. emissions of the super-potent greenhouse gas sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) have declined between 2007-2018, likely due to successful mitigation efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the electric power industry, with attention to SF6 in the power industry across global markets. 

At the same time, significant disparities that existed previously between NOAA’s estimates, which are based on atmospheric measurements, and EPA’s estimates, which are based on a combination of reported emissions and industrial activity, have narrowed following the establishment of the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. The findings, published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, also suggest how additional emissions reductions might be achieved. 

SF6 is most commonly used as an electrical insulator in high-voltage equipment that transmits and distributes electricity, and its emissions have been increasing worldwide as electric power systems expand, even as regions hit milestones like California clean energy surpluses in recent years. Smaller amounts of SF6 are used in semiconductor manufacturing and in magnesium production. 

SF6 traps 25,000 times more heat than carbon dioxide over a 100-year time scale for equal amounts of emissions, and while CO2 emissions flatlined in 2019 globally, that comparison underscores the potency of SF6. That means a relatively small amount of the gas can have a significant impact on climate warming. Because of its extremely large global warming potential and long atmospheric lifetime, SF6 emissions will influence Earth’s climate for thousands of years.

In this study, researchers from NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory, as record greenhouse gas concentrations drive demand for better data, working with colleagues at EPA, CIRES, and the University of Maryland, estimated U.S. SF6 emissions for the first time from atmospheric measurements collected at a network of tall towers and aircraft in NOAA’s Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network. The researchers provided an estimate of SF6 emissions independent from the EPA’s estimate, which is based on reported SF6 emissions for some industrial facilities and on estimated SF6 emissions for others.

“We observed differences between our atmospheric estimates and the EPA’s activity-based estimates,” said study lead author Lei Hu, a Global Monitoring Laboratory researcher who was a CIRES scientist at the time of the study. “But by closely collaborating with the EPA, we were able to identify processes potentially responsible for a significant portion of this difference, highlighting ways to improve emission inventories and suggesting additional emission mitigation opportunities, such as forthcoming EPA carbon capture rules for power plants, in the future.” 

In the 1990s, the EPA launched voluntary partnerships with the electric power, where power-sector carbon emissions are falling as generation shifts, magnesium, and semiconductor industries to reduce SF6 emissions after the United States recognized that its emissions were significant. In 2011, large SF6 -emitting facilities were required to begin tracking and reporting their emissions under the EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. 

Hu and her colleagues documented a decline of about 60 percent in U.S. SF6 emissions between 2007-2018, amid global declines in coal-fired power in some years—equivalent to a reduction of between 6 and 20 million metric tons of CO2 emissions during that time period—likely due in part to the voluntary emission reduction partnerships and the EPA reporting requirement. A more modest declining trend has also been reported in the EPA’s national inventories submitted annually under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 

Examining the differences between the NOAA and EPA independent estimates, the researchers found that the EPA’s past inventory analyses likely underestimated SF6 emissions from electrical power transmission and distribution facilities, and from a single SF6 production plant in Illinois. According to Hu, the research collaboration has likely improved the accuracy of the EPA inventories. The 2023 draft of the EPA’s U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2021 used the results of this study to support revisions to its estimates of SF6 emissions from electrical transmission and distribution. 

The collaboration may also lead to improvements in the atmosphere-based estimates, helping NOAA identify how to expand or rework its network to better capture emitting industries or areas with significant emissions, according to Steve Montzka, senior scientist at GML and one of the paper’s authors.

Hu and her colleagues also found a seasonal variation in SF6 emissions from the atmosphere-based analysis, with higher emissions in winter than in summer. Industry representatives identified increased servicing of electrical power equipment in the southern states and leakage from aging brittle sealing materials in the equipment in northern states during winter as likely explanations for the enhanced wintertime emissions—findings that suggest opportunities for further emissions reductions.

“This is a great example of the future of greenhouse gas emission tracking, where inventory compilers and atmospheric scientists work together to better understand emissions and shed light on ways to further reduce them,” said Montzka.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

SDG&E Minimum Bill Proposal would impose a $38.40 fixed charge, discouraging rooftop solar, burdening low income households, and shifting grid costs during peak demand, as the CPUC weighs consumer impacts and affordability.

Key Points

Sets a $38.40 monthly minimum bill that raises low usage costs, deters rooftop solar, and burdens low income households.

✅ $38.40 fixed charge regardless of usage

✅ Disincentivizes rooftop solar investments

✅ Disproportionate impact on low income customers

The utility San Diego Gas & Energy has an aggressive proposal pending before the California Public Utilities Commission, amid recent commission changes in San Diego that highlight how regulatory decisions affect local customers: It wants to charge most residential customers a minimum bill of $38.40 each month, regardless of how much energy they use. The costs of this policy would hit low-income customers and those who generate their own energy with rooftop solar. We’re urging the Commission to oppose this flawed plan—and we need your help.

SDG&E’s proposal is bad news for sustainable energy. About half of the customers whose bills would go up under this proposal have rooftop solar. The policy would deter other customers from investing in rooftop solar by making these investments less economical. Ultimately, lost opportunities for solar would mean burning more gas in polluting power plants. 

The proposal is also bad news for people who already have to scrimp on energy costs. Most customers with big homes and billowing air conditioners won't notice if this policy goes into effect, because they use at least $38 worth of electricity a month anyway. But for households that don’t buy much electricity from the company, including those in small apartments without air conditioning, this proposal would raise the bills. Even for customers on special low-income rates, amid electric bill changes statewide, SDG&E wants a minimum bill of $19.20.

Penalizing customers who don’t use much electricity would disproportionately hurt lower-income customers, raising energy equity concerns across the region, who tend to use less energy than their wealthier neighbors. In the region SDG&E serves, the average family in an apartment uses half as much electricity as a single-family residence. Statewide, low-income households are more than four times as likely to be low-usage electricity customers than high-income households. When it gets hot, residential electricity patterns are often driven by air conditioning. The vast majority of SDG&E's customers live in the coastal climate zone, where access to air conditioning is strongly linked to income: Households with incomes over $150,000 are more than twice as likely to have air conditioning than families making less than $35,000, with significant racial disparities in who has AC.

In its attempt to rationalize its request, SDG&E argues that it should charge everyone for infrastructure costs that do not depend on how much energy they use. But the cost of the grid is driven by how much energy SDG&E delivers on hot summer afternoons, when some customers blast their AC and demand for electricity peaks. If more customers relied on their own solar power or conserved energy, the utility would spend less on its grid and help rein in soaring electricity prices over time.

In the long term, reducing incentives to go solar and conserve energy will strain the grid and drive up costs for everyone, especially as lawmakers may overturn income-based charges and reshape rate design. SDG&E's arguments are part of a standard utility playbook for trying to hike income-based fixed charges, and consumer advocates have repeatedly shut them down.  As far as we know, no regulators in the country have allowed a utility to charge customers over $38 for the “privilege” of accessing electric service. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nova Scotia Power solar charge proposes an $8/kW monthly system access fee on net metering customers, citing grid costs. UARB review, carbon credits, rate hikes, and solar industry impacts fuel political and consumer backlash.

Key Points

A proposed $8/kW monthly grid access fee on net metered solar customers, delayed to Feb 1, 2023, pending UARB review.

✅ $8/kW monthly system access fee on net metering

✅ Delay to Feb 1, 2023 after industry and political pushback

✅ UARB review; debate over grid costs and carbon credits

Nova Scotia Power has pushed back by a year the start date of a proposed new charge for customers who generate electricity and sell it back to the grid, following days of concern from the solar industry and politicians worried that it will damage the sector.

The company applied to the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board (UARB) last week for various changes, including a "system access charge" of $8 per kilowatt monthly on net metered installations, and the province cannot order the utility to lower rates under current law. The vast majority of the province's 4,100 net metering customers are residential customers with solar power, according to the application. 

The proposed charge would have come into effect Tuesday if approved, but Nova Scotia Power said in a news release Tuesday it will change the date in its filing from Feb. 1, 2022, to Feb. 1, 2023.

"We understand that the solar industry was taken off guard," utility CEO Peter Gregg said in an interview.

"There could have been an opportunity to have more conversations in advance."

Gregg said the utility will meet with members of the solar industry over the next year to work on finding solutions that support the sector's growth, while addressing what NSP sees as an inequity in the net metering system.

NSP recognized that customers who choose solar invest a significant amount and pay for the electricity they use, but they don't pay for costs associated with accessing the electrical grid when they need energy, such as on cold winter evenings when the sun is not shining.

"I know that's hit a nerve, but it doesn't take away the fact that it is an issue," Gregg said.

He said this is an issue utilities are navigating around North America, where seasonal rate designs have sparked consumer backlash in New Brunswick, and NSP is open to hearing ideas for other models of charges or fees.

The utility's suggested system access charge closely resembles one proposed in California, which has also raised major concerns from the solar industry and been criticized by the likes of Elon Musk, and has parallels to Massachusetts solar demand charges as well.

Although the "solar profile" of Nova Scotia and California is very different, with far more solar customers in that state, and in other provinces such as Saskatchewan, NDP criticism of 8% hikes has intensified affordability debates, Gregg said the fundamental issues are the same.

For those with a typical 10-kilowatt solar system, which generates around $1,800 of electricity a year, the new charge would mean those customers would be required to pay $960 back to NSP. That would roughly double the length of time it takes for those customers to pay off their investment for the panels.

David Brushett, chair of Solar Nova Scotia, said he relayed concerns from solar installers and others in the industry to Gregg on Monday. 

Brushett said the year delay is a positive first step, but he is still calling on the province to take a strong stance against the application, which has led to customers cancelling their panel installations and companies considering layoffs.

"There's still an urgency to this situation that hasn't been addressed, and we need to kind of protect the industry," he said Tuesday.

NSP's original application proposed exempting net metering customers who enrolled before Feb. 1, 2022, from the charge for 25 years after they sign up. But any benefit would be lost if those customers sold their home, and the exemption wouldn't extend to the new buyers, said Brushett.

Carbon offsets missing from equation: industry
Brushett said NSP "completely ignored" the fact that it's getting free carbon offset credits from homeowners who use solar energy under the provincial cap and trade program.

If the net metering system continues as is, NSP has said non-solar customers would pay about $55 million between now and 2030. That number assumes about 2,000 people sign up for net metering each year over the next nine years.

When asked whether those carbon emission credits were factored into the calculations for the proposed charge, Gregg said, "I don't believe in the current structure it is, but it's something that certainly we'd be open to hearing about."

Brushett said his group is finalizing a legal response to NSP's proposal and has already filed an official complaint against the company with the UARB.

Base charge on actual electrical output: customer
At least one shareholder in NSP parent company Emera is considering selling his shares in response to the application.

Joe Hood, a shareholder from Middle Sackville, said the proposed charge won't apply to his existing 11.16-kilowatt solar system, but if it did, it would cost him $1,071 a year.

"I am offended that a company I would invest in would do this to the solar industry in Nova Scotia," he said.

According to his meter, Hood said he pushed 9,600 kilowatt hours of solar electricity to the grid last year— some only for a brief period, and all of which was used by his home by the end of the year.

Under the proposed charge, someone with one solar panel who goes away on vacation in the summer would push all their electricity to the grid, and be charged far less than someone with 10 panels who has used all their own power and hasn't pushed anything.

"Nova Scotia Power's argument is that it's an issue with the grid. Well, then it should be based on what touches the grid," Hood said.

Far from actually making the system fair for everyone, Hood said this charge places solar only in the hands of the super-rich or NSP, with projects like its community solar gardens in Amherst, N.S.

Green Party suggests legislation update
Nova Scotia's Green Party also said Tuesday that Gregg's arguments of fairness are misleading, echoing earlier premier opposition to a 14% hike on rates.

The party is calling for an update to the Electricity Act that would "prevent penalizing any activity that helps Nova Scotia reach its emissions target," aligning with calls to make the electricity system more accountable to residents.

In its application, NSP has also asked to increase electricity rates for residential customers by at least 10 per cent over the next three years, amid debate that culminated in a 14% rate hike approval by regulators. 

The company wants to maintain its nine per cent rate of return.

NSP expects to earn $153 million this year, $192 million in 2023, and $213 million in 2024 from its rate of return. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Hornsea One Offshore Wind Farm delivers first power to the UK grid, scaling renewable energy with 1.2GW capacity, giant offshore turbines, and Yorkshire coast infrastructure to replace delayed nuclear and cut fossil fuel emissions.

Key Points

Hornsea One Offshore Wind Farm is a 1.2GW UK project delivering offshore renewable power to about 1 million homes.

✅ 174 turbines over 407 km2; Siemens Gamesa supply chain in the UK

✅ 1.2GW capacity can power ~1m homes; phases scale with 10MW+ turbines

✅ Supports UK grid, replaces delayed nuclear, cuts fossil generation

An offshore windfarm on the Yorkshire coast that will dwarf the world’s largest when completed is to supply its first power to the UK electricity grid this week, mirroring advances in tidal electricity projects delivering to the grid as well.

The Danish developer Ørsted, which has installed the first of 174 turbines at Hornsea One, said it was ready to step up its plans and fill the gap left by failed nuclear power schemes.

The size of the project takes the burgeoning offshore wind power sector to a new scale, on a par with conventional fossil fuel-fired power stations.

Hornsea One will cover 407 square kilometres, five times the size of the nearby city of Hull. At 1.2GW of capacity it will power 1m homes, making it about twice as powerful as today’s biggest offshore windfarm once it is completed in the second half of this year.

“The ability to generate clean electricity offshore at this scale is a globally significant milestone at a time when urgent action needs to be taken to tackle climate change,” said Matthew Wright, UK managing director of Ørsted, the world’s biggest offshore windfarm builder.

The power station is only the first of four planned in the area, with a green light and subsidies already awarded to a second stage due for completion in the early 2020s, and interest from Japanese utilities underscoring growing investor appetite.

The first two phases will use 7MW turbines, which are taller than London’s Gherkin building.

But the latter stages of the Hornsea development could use even more powerful, 10MW-plus turbines. Bigger turbines will capture more of the energy from the wind and should lower costs by reducing the number of foundations and amount of cabling firms need to put into the water, with developers noting that offshore wind can compete with gas in the U.S. as costs fall.

Henrik Poulsen, Ørsted’s chief executive, said he was in close dialogue with major manufacturers to use the new generation of turbines, some of which are expected to approach the height of the Shard in London, the tallest building in the EU.

The UK has a great wind resource and shallow enough seabed to exploit it, and could even “power most of Europe if it [the UK] went to the extreme with offshore”, he said.

Offshore windfarms could help ministers fill the low carbon power gap created by Hitachi and Toshiba scrapping nuclear plants, the executive suggested. “If nuclear should play less of a role than expected, I believe offshore wind can step up,” he said.

New nuclear projects in Europe had been “dramatically delayed and over budget”, he added, in comparison to “the strong track record for delivering offshore [wind]”.

The UK and Germany installed 85% of new offshore wind power capacity in the EU last year, according to industry data, with wind leading power across several markets. The average power rating of the turbines is getting bigger too, up 15% in 2018.

The turbines for Hornsea One are built and shipped from Siemens Gamesa’s factory in Hull, part of a web of UK-based suppliers that has sprung up around the growing sector, such as Prysmian UK's land cables supporting grid connections.

Around half of the project’s transition pieces, the yellow part of the structure that connects the foundation to the tower, are made in Teeside. Many of the towers themselves are made by a firm in Campbeltown in the Scottish highlands. Altogether, about half of the components for the project are made in the UK.

Ørsted is not yet ready to bid for a share of a £60m pot of further offshore windfarm subsidies, to be auctioned by the government this summer, but expects the price to reach even more competitive levels than those seen in 2017.

Like other international energy companies, Ørsted has put in place contingency planning in event of a no-deal Brexit – but the hope is that will not come to pass. “We want a Brexit deal that will facilitate an orderly transition out of the union,” said Poulsen.

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