We've only just begun planning energy future

Ontario Darlington SMR Expansion advances four GE Hitachi BWRX-300 reactors with OPG, adding 1,200 MW of baseload nuclear power to support electrification, grid reliability, and clean energy growth across Ontario and Saskatchewan.

Key Points

Plan to build four BWRX-300 SMRs at Darlington, delivering 1,200 MW of clean, reliable baseload power under OPG.

✅ Four GE Hitachi BWRX-300 units, 1,200 MW total

✅ Shared infrastructure cuts costs and timelines

✅ Supports electrification, grid reliability, net zero

The day after Ontario announced it would be building an additional 4,800 megawatts of nuclear reactors at Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, the province announced it would be dramatically expanding its planned rollout of small modular reactors at its Darlington Nuclear Generating Station, and confirmed plans to refurbish Pickering B as part of its broader strategy.

Ontario Power Generation OPG was always going to be the first to build the GE-Hitachi BWRX-300 small modular reactor SMR, with the U.S.’s Tennessee Valley Authority among others like SaskPower and several European nations following suit. But the OPG was originally going to build just one. On July 7, OPG and the Province of Ontario announced they would be bumping that up to four units of the BWRX-300.

The Ontario government is working with Ontario Power Generation (OPG) to commence planning and licensing for three additional small modular reactors (SMRs), for a total of four SMRs at the Darlington nuclear site. Once deployed, these four units would produce a total 1,200 megawatts (MW) of electricity, equivalent to powering 1.2 million homes, helping to meet increasing demand from electrification and fuel the province’s strong economic growth, the Ontario Ministry of Energy said in a release.

“Our government’s open for business approach has led to unprecedented investments across the province — from electric vehicles and battery manufacturing to critical minerals to green steel,” said Todd Smith, Minister of Energy. “Expanding Ontario’s world-leading SMR program will ensure we have the reliable, affordable and clean electricity we need to power the next major international investment, the new homes we are building and industries as they grow and electrify.”

For the first time since 2005, Ontario’s electricity demand is rising. While the government has implemented its plan to meet rising electricity demand this decade, the experts at Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator have recommended the province advance new nuclear generation and pursue life-extension at Pickering NGS to provide reliable, baseload power to meet increasing electricity needs in the 2030s and beyond.

Subject to Ontario Government and Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) regulatory approvals on construction, the additional SMRs could come online between 2034 and 2036. That is the same timeframe that SaskPower is looking at for its first, and possibly second, units.

The initial unit is expected to go online in 2028 following Ontario’s first SMR groundbreaking at Darlington.

The Darlington site, which already hosts four reactors, was originally considered for an expansion of “large nuclear,” which is why OPG was already well on its way for site approvals of additional nuclear power generation. The plan changed to one, singular, SMR. Now that has been updated to four.

The announcement has significant impact on Saskatchewan, and its plans to build four of its own SMRs. The timing would allow Ontario Power Generation to apply learnings from the construction of the first unit to deliver cost savings on subsequent units. This is also the strategy SaskPower is following – allow Ontario to build the first, then learn from that experience.

Building multiple units will also allow common infrastructure such as cooling water intake, transmission connection and control room to be utilized by all four units instead of just one, reducing costs even further, the Ministry said.

“A fleet of SMRs at the Darlington New Nuclear Site is key to meeting growing electricity demands and net zero goals,” said Ken Hartwick, OPG President and CEO. “OPG has proven its large nuclear project expertise through the on-time, on budget Darlington Refurbishment project. By taking a similar approach to building a fleet of SMRs, we will deliver cost and schedule savings, and power 1.2 million homes from this site by the mid-2030s.”

The Darlington SMR project is situated on the traditional and treaty territories of the seven Williams Treaties First Nations and is also located within the traditional territory of the Huron Wendat peoples. OPG is actively engaging and consulting with potentially impacted Indigenous communities, including exploring economic opportunities in the Darlington SMR project such as commercial participation and employment.

The Ministry noted, “Ontario’s robust nuclear supply chain is uniquely positioned to support SMR development and deployment in Ontario, Canada and globally. Building additional SMRs at Darlington would provide more opportunities for Ontario companies and broader economic benefits as suppliers of nuclear equipment, components, and services to make further investments to expand their operation to serve the growing SMR market both domestically and abroad.”

Supporting new SMR development and investing in nuclear power is part of the Ontario government’s larger plan, aligned with a Canadian interprovincial nuclear initiative that brings provinces together, to prepare for electricity demand in the 2030s and 2040s that will build on Ontario’s clean electricity advantage and ensure the province has the power to maintain it’s position as leader in job creation and a magnet for the industries of the future, the Ministry said.

In February, World Nuclear News (WNN) reported that Poland was considering up to 79 small modular reactors of the same design as OPG and SaskPower. And on June 5, it reported, “Canada’s Ontario Power Generation will provide operator services to Poland’s Orlen Synthos Green Energy under a letter of intent signed between the partners, extending their existing cooperation on the deployment of small modular reactors.”

WNN added, “The letter of intent is aimed at concluding future agreements under which OPG and its subsidiaries could provide operator services for SMR reactors to OSGE in connection with the deployment of SMRs in Poland and other European countries. The partnership would include a number of SMR-related activities including: development and deployment; operations and maintenance; operator training; commissioning; and regulatory support.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Duke Energy Net Metering Proposal updates rooftop solar compensation with time-of-use rates, lower grid credits, and a minimum charge, aligning payments with electricity demand in North Carolina pending regulators' approval.

Key Points

A plan to swap flat credits for time-of-use rates and a minimum charge for rooftop solar customers in North Carolina.

✅ Time-of-use credits vary by grid demand

✅ $10 minimum use charge plus $14 basic fee

✅ Aims to align solar payouts with actual electricity value

Duke Energy has proposed new rules for how owners of rooftop solar panels are paid for electricity they send to the electric grid. It could mean more complexity and lower payments, but the utility says rates would be fairer.

State legislators have called for changes in the payment rules — known as "net metering" policies that allow households to sell power back to energy firms.

Right now, solar panel owners who produce more electricity than they need get credits on their bills, equal to whatever they pay for electricity. Under the proposed changes, the credit would be lower and would vary according to electricity demand, said Duke spokesperson Randy Wheeless.

"So in a cold winter morning, like now, you would get more, but maybe in a mild spring day, you would get less," Wheeless said Tuesday. "So, it better reflects what the price of electricity is."

Besides setting rates by time of use, solar owners also would have to pay a minimum of $10 a month for electricity, even if they don't use any from the grid. That's on top of Duke's $14 basic charge. Duke said it needs the extra revenue to pay for grid infrastructure to serve solar customers.

The proposal is the result of an agreement between Duke and solar industry groups — the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association; the Southern Environmental Law Center, which represented Vote Solar and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy; solar panel maker Sunrun Inc.; and the Solar Energy Industries Association.

The deal is similar to one approved by regulators in South Carolina last year, while in Nova Scotia a solar charge was delayed after controversy.

Daniel Brookshire of the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association said he hopes the agreement will help the solar industry.

"We reached an agreement here that we think will provide certainty over the next decade, at least, for those interested in pursuing solar for their homes, and for our members who are solar installers," Brookshire said.

But other environmental and consumer groups oppose the changes, amid debates over who pays for grid upgrades elsewhere. Jim Warren with NC WARN said the rules would slow the expansion of rooftop solar in North Carolina.

"It would make it even harder for ordinary people to go solar," Warren said. "This would make it more complicated and more expensive, even for wealthier homeowners."

State regulators still must approve the proposal, even as courts weigh aspects of the electricity monopoly in related solar cases. If state regulators approve it, rates for new net metering customers would take effect Jan. 1, 2023.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Texas Electricity Prices are shifting as deregulation matures, with competitive market shopping lowering residential rates, narrowing gaps with regulated areas, and EIA data showing long term declines versus national averages across most Texans.

Key Points

Texas Electricity Prices are average residential rates in deregulated and regulated markets across the state.

✅ Deregulated areas saw 17.4% residential price declines since 2006

✅ Regulated zones experienced a 5.5% increase over the same period

✅ Competitive shopping narrowed the gap; Texas averaged below US

Shopping for electricity is becoming cheaper for most Texans, according to a new study from the Texas Coalition for Affordable Power. But for those who live in an area with only one electricity provider, prices have increased in a recent 10-year period, the study says.

About 85 percent of Texans can purchase electricity from a number of providers in a deregulated marketplace, while the remaining 15 percent must buy power from a single provider, often an electric cooperative, in their area.

The report from the Texas Coalition for Affordable Power, which advocates for cities and local governments and negotiates their power contracts, pulls information from the U.S. Energy Information Administration to compare prices for Texans in the two models. Most Texans could begin choosing their electricity provider in 2002.

Buying power tends to be more expensive for Texans who live in a part of the state with a deregulated electricity market. But that gap is continuing to shrink as Texans become more willing to shop for power, even as electricity complaints have periodically risen. In 2015, the gap “was the smallest since the beginning of deregulation,” according to the report.

Between 2006 and 2015, the last year for which data is available, average residential electric prices for Texans in a competitive market decreased by 17.4 percent, while average prices increased by 5.5 percent in the regulated areas, even as the Texas power grid has periodically faced stress.

“These residential price declines are promising, and show the retail electric market is maturing,” Jay Doegey, executive director for the Texas Coalition for Affordable Power, said in a statement. “We’re encouraged by the price declines, but more progress is needed.”

The study attributes the decline to the prevalence of “low-priced individual deals” in the competitive areas, while policymakers consider market reforms to bolster reliability.

Overall, the average price of electricity in Texas (which produces and consumes the most electricity in the U.S.) — including the price in the deregulated marketplace, for the third time in four years — was below the national average in 2015.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Mercury Energy Tilt Renewables acquisition signals a trans-Tasman energy push as PowAR and Mercury split assets via a scheme of arrangement, offering $7.80 per share and a $2.96b valuation across Australia and New Zealand.

Key Points

A PowAR-Mercury deal to buy Tilt Renewables, splitting Australian and New Zealand assets via a court-approved scheme.

✅ $7.80 per share, valuing Tilt at $2.96b

✅ PowAR takes AU assets; Mercury gets NZ business

✅ Infratil and Mercury to vote for the scheme

Mercury Energy and an Australian partner appear to have won the race to buy Tilt Renewables, an Australasian wind farm developer which was spun out of TrustPower, bidding almost $3 billion, amid wider utility consolidation such as the Peterborough Distribution sale to Hydro One.

Yesterday Tilt Renewables announced that it had entered a scheme implementation agreement under which it was proposed that PowAR would acquire its Australian business and Mercury would acquire the New Zealand business, mirroring cross-border approvals where U.S. antitrust clearance shaped Hydro One's bid for Avista.

Conducted through a scheme of arrangement, Tilt shareholders will be offered $7.80 a share, valuing Tilt at $2.96b.

Yesterday morning shares in Tilt opened about 18 per cent up at $7.65, though regulatory outcomes can swing valuations as seen when Hydro One-Avista reconsideration of a U.S. order came into play.

In early December Infratil, which owns around two thirds of Tilt's shares, announced it was undertaking a review of its investment after receiving approaches, with investor sentiment sensitive to governance shifts as when Hydro One shares fell after leadership changes in Ontario.

According to a report in the Australian Financial Review, the transtasman bid beat out other parties including ASX-listed APA Group, Canadian pension fund CDPQ and Australian fund manager Infrastructure Capital Group, as Canadian investors like Ontario Teachers' Plan pursue similar infrastructure deals.

“This compelling acquisition proposal is a result of Tilt Renewables’ constant focus on delivering long-term value for shareholders and the board is pleased that, with these new owners, the transition to renewables in Australia and New Zealand will continue to accelerate,” Tilt’s chairman Bruce Harker said.

Comparable community-led clean energy partnerships, such as initiatives with British Columbia First Nations highlighted in clean-energy generation, underscore the broader momentum.

Just prior to the announcement, Tilt shares had been trading for less than $4. Such repricing reflects how utilities can face perceived uncertainties, as one investor argued too many unknowns at the time.

Mercury is already Tilt’s second largest shareholder, at just under 20 per cent. Both Infratil and Mercury have agreed to vote in favour of the scheme. The deal values Tilt’s New Zealand business at $770m, however the value of Mercury’s existing shareholding is around $585m, meaning the company will increase debt by around $185m.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Kenya Nuclear Power Plant Project advances with environmental impact assessment, selecting Tana River County under a build-operate-transfer model to boost grid capacity, support manufacturing growth, and assess reactor technology for reliable baseload energy.

Key Points

A $5B BOT nuclear facility in Tana River to expand Kenya's grid, aiming to start operations in about seven years.

✅ Environmental impact study published for public review by NEMA

✅ Preferred site: Tana River County near coast; grid integration

✅ BOT concession; reactor tech under evaluation for baseload

Kenya’s nuclear agency submitted impact studies for a $5 billion power plant, and said it’s on course to build and start operating the facility in about seven years, as markets like China's nuclear program continue steady expansion.

The government plans to expand its nuclear-power capacity fourfold by 2035, mirroring policy steps in India to revive the sector, the Nuclear Power and Energy Agency said in a report on the National Environment Management Authority’s website. The document is set for public scrutiny before the environmental watchdog can approve it, aligning with global green industrial strategies that weigh nuclear in decarbonization, and pave the way for the project to continue.

President Uhuru Kenyatta wants to ramp up installed generation capacity from 2,712 megawatts as of April to boost manufacturing in East Africa’s largest economy, noting milestones such as Barakah Unit 1 reaching 100% power as indicators of nuclear readiness. Kenya expects peak demand to top 22,000 megawatts by 2031, and other jurisdictions, such as Ontario's exploration of new nuclear, are weighing similar large-scale options, partly due to industrial expansion, a component in Kenyatta’s Big Four Agenda. The other three are improving farming, health care and housing.

The nuclear agency is assessing technologies “to identify the ideal reactor for the country,” it said in the report, including next-gen nuclear designs now being evaluated.

A site in Tana River County, near the Kenyan coast was preferred after studies across three regions, according to the report. The plant will be developed with a concessionaire under a build, operate and transfer model, with innovators such as mini-reactor concepts informing vendor options.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News