OPG reports $623 million profit

Ukraine Nuclear Plant Ownership Proposal outlines U.S. management of Ukrainian reactors amid the Russia-Ukraine war, citing nuclear safety, energy security, and IAEA oversight; Kyiv rejects ownership transfer, especially regarding Zaporizhzhia under Russian control.

Key Points

U.S. control of Ukraine's nuclear plants for safety; Kyiv rejects transfer, citing sovereignty risks at Zaporizhzhia.

✅ U.S. proposal to manage Ukraine's reactors amid war

✅ Kyiv refuses ownership transfer; open to investment

✅ Zaporizhzhia under Russian control raises safety risks

In the midst of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed a controversial idea: Ukraine should give its nuclear power plants to the United States for safekeeping and management. This suggestion came during a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, wherein Trump expressed the belief that American ownership of these nuclear plants could offer them the best protection amid the ongoing war. But Kyiv, while open to foreign support, has firmly rejected the idea of transferring ownership, especially as the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant remains under Russian occupation.

Ukraine’s nuclear energy infrastructure has always been a vital component of its power generation. Before the war, the country’s four nuclear plants supplied nearly half of its electricity. As Russia's military forces target Ukraine's energy infrastructure, including power plants and coal mines, international watchdogs like the IAEA have warned of nuclear risks as these nuclear facilities have become crucial to maintaining the nation’s energy stability. The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, has attracted international concern due to its size and the ongoing threat of a potential nuclear disaster.

Trump’s Proposal and Ukraine’s Response

Trump’s proposal of U.S. ownership came as a response to the ongoing threats posed by Russia’s occupation of the Zaporizhzhia plant. Trump argued that the U.S., with its expertise in running nuclear power plants, could safeguard these facilities from further damage and potential nuclear accidents. However, Zelenskyy quickly clarified that the discussion was only focused on the Zaporizhzhia plant, which is currently under Russian control. The Ukrainian president emphasized that Kyiv would not entertain the idea of permanently transferring ownership of its nuclear plants, even though they would welcome investment in their restoration and modernization, particularly after the war.

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant has been a focal point of geopolitical tensions since Russia's occupation in 2022. Despite being in "cold shutdown" to prevent further risk of explosions, the facility remains a major concern due to its potential to cause a nuclear disaster. Ukrainian officials, along with international observers, have raised alarm about the safety risks posed by the plant, including mines at Zaporizhzhia reported by UN watchdogs, which is situated in a war zone and under the control of Russian forces who are reportedly neglecting proper safety protocols.

The Fear of a Nuclear Provocation

Ukrainians have expressed concerns that Trump’s proposal could embolden Russia to escalate tensions further, even as a potential agreement on power-plant attacks has been discussed by some parties. Some fear that any attempt to reclaim the plant by Ukraine could trigger a Russian provocation, including a deliberate attack on the plant, which would have catastrophic consequences for both Ukraine and the broader region. The analogy is drawn with the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam, which Ukraine accuses Russia of sabotaging, an act that severely disrupted water supplies to the Zaporizhzhia plant. Ukrainian military officials, including Ihor Romanenko, a former deputy head of Ukraine’s armed forces, warned that Trump’s suggestion might be an exploitation of Ukraine’s vulnerable position in the ongoing war.

Despite these fears, there are some voices within Ukraine, including former employees of the Zaporizhzhia plant, who believe that a deliberate attack by Russian forces is unlikely. They argue that the Russian military needs the plant in functioning condition for future negotiations, with Russia building new power lines to reactivate the site as part of that calculus, and any damage could reduce its value in such exchanges. However, the possibility of Russian negligence or mismanagement remains a significant risk.

The Strategic Role of Ukraine's Nuclear Plants

Ukraine's nuclear plants were a cornerstone of the country’s energy sector long before the conflict began. In recent years, as Ukraine lost access to coal resources in the Donbas region due to Russian occupation, nuclear power became even more vital, alongside a growing focus on wind power to improve resilience. The country’s reliance on these plants grew as Russia launched a sustained campaign to destroy Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, including attacks on nuclear power stations.

The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, holds strategic importance not only due to its size but also because of its location in southeastern Ukraine, an area that has been at the heart of the conflict. Despite being in Russian hands, the plant’s reactors have been safely shut down, reducing the immediate risk of a nuclear explosion. However, the plant’s future remains uncertain, as Russia’s long-term control over it could disrupt Ukraine’s energy security for years to come.

Wider Concerns About Aging Nuclear Infrastructure

Beyond the geopolitical tensions, there are broader concerns about the aging infrastructure of Ukraine's nuclear power plants. International watchdogs, including the environmentalist group Bankwatch, have criticized these facilities as “zombie reactors” due to their outdated designs and safety risks. Experts have called for Ukraine to decommission some of these reactors, fearing that they are increasingly unsafe, especially in the context of a war.

However, Ukrainian officials, including Petro Kotin, head of Energoatom (Ukraine's state-owned nuclear energy company), argue that these reactors are still functional and critical to Ukraine's energy needs. The ongoing conflict, however, complicates efforts to modernize and secure these facilities, which are increasingly vulnerable to both physical damage and potential nuclear hazards.

The Global Implications

Trump's suggestion to take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants has raised significant concerns on the international stage. Some fear that such a move could set a dangerous precedent for nuclear security and sovereignty. Others see it as an opportunistic proposal that exploits Ukraine's wartime vulnerability.

While the future of Ukraine's nuclear plants remains uncertain, one thing is clear: these facilities are now at the center of a geopolitical struggle that could have far-reaching consequences for the energy security of Europe and the world. The safety of these plants and their role in Ukraine's energy future will remain a critical issue as the war continues and as Ukraine navigates its relations with both the U.S. and Russia, with the grid even having resumed electricity exports at times.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

GE Wind Turbine Collapse Brazil raises safety concerns at Omega Energia's Delta VI wind farm in Maranhe3o, with GE Renewable Energy probing root-cause of turbine failure after a worker injury and similar incidents in 2024.

Key Points

An SEO focus on the Brazil GE turbine collapse, its causes, safety investigation, and related 2024 incidents.

✅ Incident at Omega Energia's Delta VI, Maranhao; one worker injured

✅ GE Renewable Energy conducts root-cause investigation and containment

✅ Fifth GE turbine collapse in 2024 across Brazil and the United States

A GE Renewable Energy turbine collapsed at a wind farm in north-east Brazil, injuring a worker and sparking a probe into the fifth such incident this year, the manufacturer confirmed.

One of the manufacturer’s GE 2.72-116 turbines collapsed at Omega Energia’s Delta VI project in Maranhão, which was commissioned in 2018.

Three GE employees were on site at the time of the collapse on Tuesday (3 September), the US manufacturer confirmed, even as U.S. offshore wind developers signal growing competitiveness with gas. 

One worker was injured and is currently receiving medical treatment, GE added.

"We are working to determine the root cause of this incident and to provide proper support as needed," it said

The turbine collapse in Brazil is the fifth such incident involving GE turbines this year, even as the UK's biggest offshore windfarm begins power supply this week, underscoring broader sector momentum.

On 16 February, a turbine collapsed at NextEra Energy Resources’ Casa Mesa wind farm in New Mexico, US, while giant wind components were being transported to a project in Saskatchewan, Canada. The site uses GE’s 2.3-116 and 2.5-127 models.

The New Mexico incident was followed by another collapse in the US — as a Scottish North Sea wind farm resumed construction after Covid-19 — this time a GE 2.4-107 unit at Tradewind Energy’s Chisholm View 2 project in Oklahoma on 21 May.

Two GE turbines then collapsed at projects in July: a 2.5-116 unit at Invenergy’s Upstreamwind farm in Nebraska on 5 July, followed by a 1.7-103 model at the Actis Group-owned Ventos de São Clemente complex in Pernambuco, north-eastern Brazil, even as tidal power in Scotland generated enough electricity to power nearly 4,000 homes.

No employees were injured in the first four turbine collapses of the year, in contrast with concerns at a Hawaii geothermal plant over potential meltdown risk.

In response to the latest incident, GE Renewable Energy added: "It is too early to speculate about the root cause of this week’s turbine collapse.

"Based on our learnings from the previous turbine collapses, we have teams in place focused on containing and resolving these issues quickly, to ensure the safe and reliable operation of our turbines."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Inventoried Energy Program pays ISO-NE generators for fuel security to boost winter reliability, with FERC approval, covering fossil, nuclear, hydropower, and batteries, complementing capacity markets to enhance grid resilience during severe cold snaps.

Key Points

ISO-NE program paying generators to hold fuel or energy reserves for emergencies, boosting winter reliability.

✅ FERC-approved stopgap for 2023 and 2024 winter seasons

✅ Pays for on-site fuel or stored energy during cold-trigger events

✅ Open to fossil, nuclear, hydro, batteries; limited gas participation

Electricity ratepayers in New England will pay tens of millions of dollars to fossil fuel and nuclear power plants later this decade under a program that proponents say is needed to keep the lights on during severe winters but which critics call a subsidy with little benefit to consumers or the grid, even as Connecticut is pushing a market overhaul across the region.

Last week the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said ISO-New England, which runs the six-state power grid, can create what it calls the Inventoried Energy Program or IEP. This basically will pay certain power plants to stockpile of fuel for use in emergencies during two upcoming winters as longer-term solutions are developed.

The federal commission called it a reasonable short-term solution to avoid brownouts which doesn’t favor any given technology.

Not all agree, however, including FERC Commissioner Richard Glick, who wrote a fiery dissent to the other three commissioners.

“The program will hand out tens of millions of dollars to nuclear, coal and hydropower generators without any indication that those payments will cause the slightest change in those generators’ behavior,” Glick wrote. “Handing out money for nothing is a windfall, not a just and reasonable rate.”

The program is the latest reaction by ISO-NE to the winter of 2013-14 when New England almost saw brownouts because of a shortage of natural gas to create electricity during a pair of week-long deep freezes.

ISO-New England says the situation is more critical now because of the possible retirement of the gas-fired Mystic Generating Station in Massachusetts. As with closed nuclear plants such as Vermont Yankee and Pilgrim in Massachusetts, power plant owners say lower electricity prices, partly due to cheap renewables and partly to stagnant demand, means they can’t be profitable just by selling power.

Programs like the IEP are meant to subsidize such plants – “incentivize” is the industry term – even though some argue there is no need to subsidize nuclear in deregulated markets so they’ll stay open if they are needed.

The IEP approved last week will be applied to the winters of 2023 and 2024, after a different subsidy program expires. It sets prices, despite warnings about rushing pricing changes from industry groups, for stocking certain amounts of fuel and payments during any “trigger” event, defined as a day when the average of high and low temperatures at Bradley International Airport in Connecticut is no more than 17 degrees Fahrenheit.

These payments will be made on top of a complex system of grid auctions used to decide how much various plants get paid for generating electricity at which times.

ISO-NE estimates the new program will cost between $102 million and $148 million each winter, depending on weather and market conditions.

It says the payments are open to plants that burn oil, coal, nuclear fuel, wood chips or trash; utility-scale battery storage facilities; and hydropower dams “that store water in a pond or reservoir.” Natural gas plants can participate if they guarantee to have fuel available, but that seems less likely because of winter heating contracts.

A major complaint and groups that filed petitions opposing the project is that ISO-NE presented little supporting evidence of how prices, amount and overall cost were determined. ISO-NE argued that there wasn’t time for such analysis before the Mystic shutdown, and FERC agreed.

“The proposal is a step in the right direction … while ISO-NE finishes developing a long-term market solution,” the commission said in its ruling.

The program is the latest example of complexities facing the nation’s electricity system evolves in the face of solar and wind power, which produce electricity so cheaply that they can render traditional power uneconomic but which can’t always produce power on demand, prompting discussions of Texas grid improvements among policymakers. Another major factor is climate change, which has increased the pressure to support renewable alternatives to plants that burn fossil fuels, as well as stagnant electricity demand caused by increased efficiency.

Opponents, including many environmental groups, say electricity utilities and regulators are too quick to prop up existing systems, as the 145-mile Maine transmission line debate shows, built when electricity was sent one way from a few big plants to many customers. They argue that to combat climate change as well as limit cost, the emphasis must be on developing “non-wire alternatives” such as smart systems for controlling demand, in order to take advantage of the current system in which electricity goes two ways, such as from rooftop solar back into the grid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Puerto Rico Tesla Solar Power enables resilient microgrids using batteries, renewable energy, and energy storage to rebuild the hurricane-damaged grid, reduce fossil fuels, cut costs, and accelerate recovery with scalable solar-plus-storage solutions.

Key Points

A solar-plus-storage plan using Tesla microgrids and batteries to restore Puerto Rico's cleaner, resilient power.

✅ Microgrids cut diesel reliance and harden critical facilities.

✅ Batteries stabilize the grid and shave peak demand costs.

✅ Scalable solar enables faster, modular disaster recovery.

Puerto Rico’s governor Ricardo Rossello has said that he will speak to Elon Musk after the Tesla inventor said his innovative solar and battery systems could be used to restore electricity on the island.

Mr Musk was mentioned in a tweet, referencing an article discussing ways to restore Puerto Rico’s power grid, which was knocked out by Hurricane Maria on September 20.

Restoring the ageing and already-weakened network has proved slow: as of Friday 90 per cent of the island remained without power. The island’s electricity company was declared bankrupt in July.

Mr Musk was asked: “Could @ElonMusk go in and rebuild #PuertoRico’s electricity system with independent solar & battery systems?”

The South African entrepreneur replied: “The Tesla team has done this for many smaller islands around the world, but there is no scalability limit, so it can be done for Puerto Rico too.

“Such a decision would be in the hands of the PR govt, PUC, any commercial stakeholders and, most importantly, the people of PR.”

His suggestion was seized upon by Mr Rossello, who then tweeted: “@ElonMusk Let's talk. Do you want to show the world the power and scalability of your #TeslaTechnologies?

“PR could be that flagship project.”

Mr Musk replied that he was happy to talk.

Restoring power to the battered island is a priority for the government, and improving grid resilience remains critical, with hospitals still running on generators and the 3.5 million people struggling with a lack of refrigeration or air conditioning.

Radios broadcast messages advising people how to keep their insulin cool, and doctors are concerned about people not being able to access dialysis.

And, with its power grid wiped out, the Caribbean island could totally rethink the way it meets its energy needs, drawing on examples like a resilient school microgrid built locally. 

“This is an opportunity to completely transform the way electricity is generated in Puerto Rico and the federal government should support this,” said Judith Enck, the former administrator for the region with the environmental protection agency.

“They need a clean energy renewables plan and not spending hurricane money propping up the old fossil fuel infrastructure.”

Forty-seven per cent of Puerto Rico’s power needs were met by burning oil last year - a very expensive and outdated method of electricity generation. For the US as a whole, petroleum accounted for just 0.3 per cent of all electricity generated in 2016 even as the grid isn’t yet running on 100% renewable energy nationwide.

The majority of the rest of Puerto Rico’s energy came courtesy of coal and natural gas, with renewables, which later faced pandemic-related setbacks, accounting for only two per cent of electricity generation.

“In that time of extreme petroleum prices, the utility was borrowing money and buying oil in order to keep those plants operating,” said Luis Martinez, a lawyer at natural resources defense council and former special aide to the president of Puerto Rico’s environmental quality board.

“That precipitated the bankruptcy that followed. It was in pretty poor shape before the storm. Once the storm got there, it finished the job.”

But Mr Martinez told the website Earther that it might be difficult to secure the financing for rebuilding Puerto Rico with renewables from FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) funds.

“A lot of distribution lines were on wood poles,” he said.

“Concrete would make them more resistant to winds, but that would potentially not be authorized under the use of FEMA funds.

"We’re looking into if some of those requirements can be waived so rebuilding can be more resilient.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Thermoelectric Materials convert waste heat into electricity via the Seebeck effect; quantum computations and semiconductors accelerate discovery, enabling clean energy, higher efficiency, and scalable heat-to-power conversion from abundant, non-toxic, cost-effective compounds.

Key Points

Thermoelectric materials turn waste heat into electricity via the Seebeck effect, improving energy efficiency.

✅ Convert waste heat to electricity via the Seebeck effect

✅ Quantum computations rapidly identify high-performance candidates

✅ Target efficient, low-thermal-conductivity, non-toxic, abundant compounds

The need to transition to clean energy is apparent, urgent and inescapable. We must limit Earth’s rising temperature to within 1.5 C to avoid the worst effects of climate change — an especially daunting challenge in the face of the steadily increasing global demand for energy and the need for reliable clean power, with concepts that can generate electricity at night now being explored worldwide.

Part of the answer is using energy more efficiently. More than 72 per cent of all energy produced worldwide is lost in the form of heat, and advances in turning thermal energy into electricity could recover some of it. For example, the engine in a car uses only about 30 per cent of the gasoline it burns to move the car. The remainder is dissipated as heat.

Recovering even a tiny fraction of that lost energy would have a tremendous impact on climate change. Thermoelectric materials, which convert wasted heat into useful electricity, can help, especially as researchers pursue low-cost heat-to-electricity materials for scalable deployment.

Until recently, the identification of these materials had been slow. My colleagues and I have used quantum computations — a computer-based modelling approach to predict materials’ properties — to speed up that process and identify more than 500 thermoelectric materials that could convert excess heat to electricity, and help improve energy efficiency.

Making great strides towards broad applications
The transformation of heat into electrical energy by thermoelectric materials is based on the “Seebeck effect.” In 1826, German physicist Thomas Johann Seebeck observed that exposing the ends of joined pieces of dissimilar metals to different temperatures generated a magnetic field, which was later recognized to be caused by an electric current.

Shortly after his discovery, metallic thermoelectric generators were fabricated to convert heat from gas burners into an electric current. But, as it turned out, metals exhibit only a low Seebeck effect — they are not very efficient at converting heat into electricity.

In 1929, the Russian scientist Abraham Ioffe revolutionized the field of thermoelectricity. He observed that semiconductors — materials whose ability to conduct electricity falls between that of metals (like copper) and insulators (like glass) — exhibit a significantly higher Seebeck effect than metals, boosting thermoelectric efficiency 40-fold, from 0.1 per cent to four per cent.

This discovery led to the development of the first widely used thermoelectric generator, the Russian lamp — a kerosene lamp that heated a thermoelectric material to power a radio.

Are we there yet?
Today, thermoelectric applications range from energy generation in space probes to cooling devices in portable refrigerators, and include emerging thin-film waste-heat harvesters for electronics as well. For example, space explorations are powered by radioisotope thermoelectric generators, converting the heat from naturally decaying plutonium into electricity. In the movie The Martian, for example, a box of plutonium saved the life of the character played by Matt Damon, by keeping him warm on Mars.

In the 2015 film, The Martian, astronaut Mark Watney (Matt Damon) digs up a buried thermoelectric generator to use the power source as a heater.

Despite this vast diversity of applications, wide-scale commercialization of thermoelectric materials is still limited by their low efficiency.

What’s holding them back? Two key factors must be considered: the conductive properties of the materials, and their ability to maintain a temperature difference, as seen in nighttime electricity from cold concepts, which makes it possible to generate electricity.

The best thermoelectric material would have the electronic properties of semiconductors and the poor heat conduction of glass. But this unique combination of properties is not found in naturally occurring materials. We have to engineer them, drawing on advances such as carbon nanotube energy harvesters to guide design choices.

Searching for a needle in a haystack
In the past decade, new strategies to engineer thermoelectric materials have emerged due to an enhanced understanding of their underlying physics. In a recent study in Nature Materials, researchers from Seoul National University, Aachen University and Northwestern University reported they had engineered a material called tin selenide with the highest thermoelectric performance to date, nearly twice that of 20 years ago. But it took them nearly a decade to optimize it.

To speed up the discovery process, my colleagues and I have used quantum calculations to search for new thermoelectric candidates with high efficiencies. We searched a database containing thousands of materials to look for those that would have high electronic qualities and low levels of heat conduction, based on their chemical and physical properties. These insights helped us find the best materials to synthesize and test, and calculate their thermoelectric efficiency.

We are almost at the point where thermoelectric materials can be widely applied, but first we need to develop much more efficient materials. With so many possibilities and variables, finding the way forward is like searching for a tiny needle in an enormous haystack.

Just as a metal detector can zero in on a needle in a haystack, quantum computations can accelerate the discovery of efficient thermoelectric materials. Such calculations can accurately predict electron and heat conduction (including the Seebeck effect) for thousands of materials and unveil the previously hidden and highly complex interactions between those properties, which can influence a material’s efficiency.

Large-scale applications will require themoelectric materials that are inexpensive, non-toxic and abundant. Lead and tellurium are found in today’s thermoelectric materials, but their cost and negative environmental impact make them good targets for replacement.

Quantum calculations can be applied in a way to search for specific sets of materials using parameters such as scarcity, cost and efficiency, and insights can even inform exploratory devices that generate electricity out of thin air in parallel fields. Although those calculations can reveal optimum thermoelectric materials, synthesizing the materials with the desired properties remains a challenge.

A multi-institutional effort involving government-run laboratories and universities in the United States, Canada and Europe has revealed more than 500 previously unexplored materials with high predicted thermoelectric efficiency. My colleagues and I are currently investigating the thermoelectric performance of those materials in experiments, and have already discovered new sources of high thermoelectric efficiency.

Those initial results strongly suggest that further quantum computations can pinpoint the most efficient combinations of materials to make clean energy from wasted heat and the avert the catastrophe that looms over our planet.

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