Big Becky to break through Friday 13

Ontario Nuclear Power Costs highlight LCOE, capex, refurbishment outlays, and waste management, compared with renewables, grid reliability, and emissions targets, informing Australia and Peter Dutton on feasibility, timelines, and electricity prices.

Key Points

They include high capex and LCOE from refurbishments and waste, offset by reliable, low-emission baseload.

✅ Refurbishment and maintenance drive lifecycle and LCOE variability.

✅ High capex and long timelines affect consumer electricity prices.

✅ Low emissions, but waste and safety compliance add costs.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton recently lauded Canada’s use of nuclear power as a model for Australia’s energy future. His praise comes as part of a broader push to incorporate nuclear energy into Australia’s energy strategy, which he argues could help address the country's energy needs and climate goals. However, the question arises: Is Ontario’s experience with nuclear power as cost-effective as Dutton suggests?

Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power strategy highlights a belief that nuclear energy could provide a stable, low-emission alternative to fossil fuels. He has pointed to Ontario’s substantial reliance on nuclear power, and the province’s exploration of new large-scale nuclear projects, as an example of how such an energy mix might benefit Australia. The province’s energy grid, which integrates a significant amount of nuclear power, is often cited as evidence that nuclear energy can be a viable component of a diversified energy portfolio.

The appeal of nuclear power lies in its ability to generate large amounts of electricity with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. This characteristic aligns with Australia’s climate goals, which emphasize reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change. Dutton’s advocacy for nuclear energy is based on the premise that it can offer a reliable and low-emission option compared to the fluctuating availability of renewable sources like wind and solar.

However, while Dutton’s enthusiasm for the Canadian model reflects its perceived successes, including recent concerns about Ontario’s grid getting dirtier amid supply changes, a closer look at Ontario’s nuclear energy costs raises questions about the financial feasibility of adopting a similar strategy in Australia. Despite the benefits of low emissions, the economic aspects of nuclear power remain complex and multifaceted.

In Ontario, the cost of nuclear power has been a topic of considerable debate. While the province benefits from a stable supply of electricity due to its nuclear plants, studies warn of a growing electricity supply gap in coming years. Ontario’s experience reveals that nuclear power involves significant capital expenditures, including the costs of building reactors, maintaining infrastructure, and ensuring safety standards. These expenses can be substantial and often translate into higher electricity prices for consumers.

The cost of maintaining existing nuclear reactors in Ontario has been a particular concern. Many of these reactors are aging and require costly upgrades and maintenance to continue operating safely and efficiently. These expenses can add to the overall cost of nuclear power, impacting the affordability of electricity for consumers.

Moreover, the development of new nuclear projects, as seen with Bruce C project exploration in Ontario, involves lengthy and expensive construction processes. Building new reactors can take over a decade and requires significant investment. The high initial costs associated with these projects can be a barrier to their economic viability, especially when compared to the rapidly decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies.

In contrast, the cost of renewable energy has been falling steadily, even as debates over nuclear power’s trajectory in Europe continue, making it a more attractive option for many jurisdictions. Solar and wind power, while variable and dependent on weather conditions, have seen dramatic reductions in installation and operational costs. These lower costs can make renewables more competitive compared to nuclear energy, particularly when considering the long-term financial implications.

Dutton’s praise for Ontario’s nuclear power model also overlooks some of the environmental and logistical challenges associated with nuclear energy. While nuclear power generates low emissions during operation, it produces radioactive waste that requires long-term storage solutions. The management of nuclear waste poses significant environmental and safety concerns, as well as additional costs for safe storage and disposal.

Additionally, the potential risks associated with nuclear power, including the possibility of accidents, contribute to the complexity of its adoption. The safety and environmental regulations surrounding nuclear energy are stringent and require continuous oversight, adding to the overall cost of maintaining nuclear facilities.

As Australia contemplates integrating nuclear power into its energy mix, it is crucial to weigh these financial and environmental considerations. While the Canadian model provides valuable insights, the unique context of Australia’s energy landscape, including its existing infrastructure, energy needs, and the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity in comparable jurisdictions, must be taken into account.

In summary, while Peter Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power model reflects a belief in its potential benefits for Australia’s energy strategy, the cost-effectiveness of Ontario’s nuclear power experience is more nuanced than it may appear. The high capital and maintenance costs associated with nuclear energy, combined with the challenges of managing radioactive waste and ensuring safety, present significant considerations. As Australia evaluates its energy future, a comprehensive analysis of both the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power will be essential to making informed decisions about its role in the country’s energy strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Renewables' Impact on US Wholesale Electricity Prices is clear: DOE analysis shows wind and solar, capacity gains, and natural gas lowering rates, shifting daily patterns, and triggering occasional negative pricing in PJM and ERCOT.

Key Points

DOE data show wind and solar lower wholesale prices, reshape price curves, and cause negative pricing in markets.

✅ Natural gas price declines remain the largest driver of cheaper power

✅ Wind and solar shift seasonal and time-of-day price patterns

✅ Negative wholesale prices appear near high wind and solar output

One of the arguments that's consistently been raised against doing anything about climate change is that it will be expensive. On the more extreme end of the spectrum, there have been dire warnings about plunging standards of living due to skyrocketing electricity prices. The plunging cost of renewables like solar cheaper than gas has largely silenced these warnings, but a new report from the Department of Energy suggests that, even earlier, renewables were actually lowering the price of electricity in the United States.

Plunging prices
The report focuses on wholesale electricity prices in the US. Note that these are distinct from the prices consumers actually pay, which includes taxes, fees, payments to support the grid that delivers the electricity, and so on. It's entirely possible for wholesale electricity prices to drop even as consumers end up paying more, and market reforms determine how those changes are passed through. That said, large changes in the wholesale price should ultimately be passed on to consumers to one degree or another.

The Department of Energy analysis focuses on the decade between 2008 and 2017, and it includes an overall analysis of the US market, as well as large individual grids like PJM and ERCOT and, finally, local prices. The decade saw a couple of important trends: low natural gas prices that fostered a rapid expansion of gas-fired generators and the rapid expansion of renewable generation that occurred concurrently with a tremendous drop in price of wind and solar power.

Much of the electricity generated by renewables in this time period would be more expensive than that generated by wind and solar installed today. Not only have prices for the hardware dropped, but the hardware has improved in ways that provide higher capacity factors, meaning that they generate a greater percentage of the maximum capacity. (These changes include things like larger blades on wind turbines and tracking systems for solar panels.) At the same time, operating wind and solar is essentially free once they're installed, so they can always offer a lower price than competing fossil fuel plants.

With those caveats laid out, what does the analysis show? Almost all of the factors influencing the wholesale electricity price considered in this analysis are essentially neutral. Only three factors have pushed the prices higher: the retirement of some plants, the rising price of coal, and prices put on carbon, which only affect some of the regional grids.

In contrast, the drop in the price of natural gas has had a very large effect on the wholesale power price. Depending on the regional grid, it's driven a drop of anywhere from $7 to $53 per megawatt-hour. It's far and away the largest influence on prices over the past decade.

Regional variation and negative prices
But renewables have had an influence as well. That influence has ranged from roughly neutral to a cost reduction of $2.2 per MWh in California, largely driven by solar. While the impact of renewables was relatively minor, it is the second-largest influence after natural gas prices, and the data shows that wind and solar are reducing prices rather than increasing them.

The reports note that renewables are influencing wholesale prices in other ways, however. The growth of wind and solar caused the pattern of seasonal price changes to shift in areas of high wind and solar, as seen with solar reshaping prices in Northern Europe as daylight hours and wind patterns shift with the seasons. Similarly, renewables have a time-of-day effect for similar reasons, helping explain why the grid isn't 100% renewable today, which also influences the daily timing price changes, something that's not an issue with fossil fuel power.

A map showing the areas where wholesale electricity prices have gone negative, with darker colors indicating increased frequency.
Enlarge / A map showing the areas where wholesale electricity prices have gone negative, with darker colors indicating increased frequency.

US DOE
One striking feature of areas where renewable power is prevalent is that there are occasional cases in which an oversupply of renewable energy produces negative electricity prices in the wholesale market. (In the least-surprising statement in the report, it concludes that "negative prices in high-wind and high-solar regions occurred most frequently in hours with high wind and solar output.") In most areas, these negative prices are rare enough that they don't have a significant influence on the wholesale price.

That's not true everywhere, however. Areas on the Great Plains see fairly frequent negative prices, and they're growing in prevalence in areas like California, the Southwest, and the northern areas of New York and New England, while negative prices in France have been observed in similar conditions. In these areas, negative wholesale prices near solar plants have dropped the overall price by 3%. Near wind plants, that figure is 6%.

None of this is meant to indicate that there are no scenarios where expanded renewable energy could eventually cause wholesale prices to rise. At sufficient levels, the need for storage, backup plants, and grid management could potentially offset their low costs, a dynamic sometimes referred to as clean energy's dirty secret by analysts. But it's clear we have not yet reached that point. And if the prices of renewables continue to drop, then that point could potentially recede fast enough not to matter.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

USAID GE Mobile Power Plant Ukraine supplies 28MW of emergency power and distributed generation to bolster energy security, grid resilience, and critical infrastructure reliability across cities and regions amid ongoing attacks.

Key Points

A 28MW GE gas turbine from USAID providing mobile, distributed power to strengthen Ukraine's grid resilience.

✅ 28MW GE gas turbine; power for 100,000 homes

✅ Mobile deployment to cities and regions as needed

✅ Supports hospitals, schools, and critical infrastructure

Deputy U.S. Administrator Isobel Coleman announced during her visit to Kyiv that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has provided the Government of Ukraine with a mobile gas turbine power plant purchased from General Electric (GE), as discussions of a possible agreement on power plant attacks continue among stakeholders.

The mobile power plant was manufactured in the United States by GE’s Gas Power business and has a total output capacity of approximately 28MW, which is enough to provide the equivalent electricity to at least 100,000 homes. This will help Ukraine increase the supply of electricity to homes, hospitals, schools, critical infrastructure providers, and other institutions, as the country has even resumed electricity exports in recent months. The mobile power plant can be operated in different cities or regions depending on need, strengthening Ukraine’s energy security amid the Russian Federation’s continuing strikes against critical infrastructure.   

Since the February 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and particularly since October 2022, the Russian Federation has deliberately targeted critical civilian heating, power, and gas infrastructure in an effort to weaponize the winter, raising nuclear risks to grid stability noted by international monitors. Ukraine has demonstrated tremendous resilience in the wake of these attacks, with utility workers routinely risking their lives to repair the damage, often within hours of air strikes, even as Russia builds power lines to reactivate the Zaporizhzhia plant to influence the energy situation.

The collaboration between USAID and GE reflects the U.S. government’s emphasis on engaging American private sector expertise and procuring proven and reliable equipment to meet Ukraine’s needs. Since the start of Putin’s full-scale war against Ukraine, USAID has both directly procured equipment for Ukraine from American companies and engaged the private sector in partnerships to meet Ukraine’s urgent wartime needs, with U.S. policy debates such as a proposal on Ukraine’s nuclear plants drawing scrutiny.

This mobile power plant is the latest example of USAID assistance to Ukraine’s energy sector since the start of the Russian Federation’s full-scale invasion, during which Ukraine has resumed electricity exports as conditions improved. USAID has already delivered more than 1,700 generators to 22 oblasts across Ukraine, with many more on the way. These generators ensure electricity and heating for schools, hospitals, accommodation centers for internally-displaced persons, district heating companies, and water systems if and when power is knocked out by the Russian Federation’s relentless, systematic and cruel attacks against critical civil infrastructure. USAID has invested $55 million in Ukraine’s heating infrastructure to help the Ukrainian people get through winter. This support will benefit up to seven million Ukrainians by supporting repairs and maintenance of pipes and other equipment necessary to deliver heating to homes, hospitals, schools, and businesses across Ukraine. USAID’s assistance builds on over two decades of support to Ukraine to strengthen the country’s energy security, complementing growth in wind power that is harder to destroy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

BC Ferries Island Class hybrid ferries deliver quiet, battery-electric travel with shore power readiness, lower emissions, and larger capacity on northern routes, protecting marine wildlife while replacing older vessels on Powell River and Texada services.

Key Points

Hybrid-electric ferries using batteries and diesel for quiet, low-emission service, ready for shore power upgrades.

✅ Operate 20% electric at launch; future full-electric via shore power

✅ 300 passengers, 47 vehicles; replacing older, smaller vessels

✅ Quieter transits help protect West Coast whales and marine habitat

In a champagne celebration, BC Ferries welcomed two new, hybrid-electric ships into its fleet Wednesday. The ships arrived in Victoria last month, and are expected to be in service on northern routes by the summer.

The Island Aurora and Island Discovery have the ability to run on either diesel or electricity.

"The pressure on whales on the West Coast is very intense right now," said BC Ferries CEO Mark Collins. "Quiet operation is very important. These ships will be gliding out of the harbor quietly and electrically with no engines running, that will be really great for marine space."

BC Ferries says the ships will be running on electricity 20 per cent of the time when they enter service, but the company hopes they can run on electricity full-time in the future. That would require the installation of shoreline power, which the company hopes to have in place in the next five to 10 years. Each ship costs around $40-million, a price tag that the federal government partially subsidized through CIB support as part of the electrification push.

When the two ships begin running on the Powell River to Texada, and Port McNeill, Alert Bay, and Sointula routes, two older vessels will be retired.

On Kootenay Lake, an electric-ready ferry is slated to begin operations in 2023, reflecting the province's wider shift.

"They are replacing a 47-car ferry, but on some routes they will be replacing a 25-car ferry, so those routes will see a considerable increase in service," said Collins.

Although the ships will not be servicing Colwood, the municipality's mayor is hoping that one day, they will.

"We can look at an electric ferry when we look at a West Shore ferry that would move Colwood residents to Victoria," said Mayor Rob Martin, noting that across the province electric school buses are hitting the road as well. "Here is a great example of what BC Ferries can do for us."

BC Ferries says it will be adding four more hybrid ships to its fleet by 2022, and is working on adding hybrid ships that could run from Victoria to Tsawwassen, similar to Washington State Ferries' hybrid upgrade underway in the region. 

B.C’s first hybrid-electric ferries arrived in Victoria on Saturday morning ushering in a new era of travel for BC Ferries passengers, as electric seaplane flights are also on the horizon for the region.

“It’s a really exciting day for us,” said Tessa Humphries, spokesperson for BC Ferries.

It took the ferries 60 days to arrive at the Breakwater District at Ogden Point. They came all the way from Constanta, Romania.

“These are battery-equipped ships that are designed for fully electric operation; they are outfitted with hybrid technology that bridges the gap until the EV charging infrastructure and funding is available in British Columbia,” said Humphries.

The two new "Island Class" vessels arrived at about 9 a.m. to a handful of people eagerly wanting to witness history.

Sometime in the next few days, the transport ship that brought the new ferries to B.C. will go out into the harbor and partially submerge to allow them to be offloaded, Humphries said.

The transfer process could happen in four to five days from now. After the final preparations are finished at the Breakwater District, the ships will be re-commissioned in Point Hope Maritime and then BC Ferries will officially take ownership.

“We know a lot of people are interested in this so we will put out advisory once we have more information as to a viewing area to see the whole process,” said Humphries.

Both Island Class ferries can carry 300 passengers and 47 vehicles. They won’t be sailing until later this year, but Humphries tells CTV News they will be named by the end of February. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Lockdown Electricity Demand Trends reveal later mornings, weaker afternoons, and delayed peaks as WFH, streaming, and video conferencing reshape energy demand curves, grid forecasting, and residential electricity usage across Europe, New York, Tokyo, and Singapore.

Key Points

Shifts in power use during lockdowns: later ramps, weaker afternoons, and higher, delayed evening peaks.

✅ Morning ramp starts later; midday demand dips

✅ Evening peak shifts 1-2 hours; higher late-night usage

✅ WFH and streaming raise residential load; industrial demand falls

Life in lockdown means getting up late, staying up till midnight and slacking off in the afternoons.

That’s what power market data in Europe show in the places where restrictions on activity have led to a widespread shift in daily routines of hundreds of millions of people.

It’s a similar story wherever lockdowns bite. In New York City electricity use has fallen as much as 18% from normal times at 8am. Tokyo and three nearby prefectures had a 5% drop in power use during weekdays after Japan declared a state of emergency on April 7, according to Tesla Asia Pacific, an energy forecaster.

Italy’s experience shows the trend most clearly since the curbs started there on March 5, before any other European country. Data from the grid operator Terna SpA gives a taste of what other places are also now starting to report, with global daily demand dips observed in many markets as well.

1. People are sleeping later

With no commute to the office people can sleep longer. Normally, electricity demand began to pick up between 6 a.m. and 8 a.m. Now in Germany, it’s clear coffee machines don’t go on until between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m., said Simon Rathjen, founder of the trading company MFT Energy A/S.

Germany, France and Italy -- which between them make up almost two thirds of the euro-zone economy -- all have furlough measures that allow workers to receive a salary while temporarily suspended from their jobs. The U.K. also has a support package. Many of these workers will be getting up later.

"Now I have quite a relaxed start to the morning,” said David Freeman, an analyst in financial services from London. "I don’t get up until about half an hour before I need to start work.”

2. Less productive afternoons

There is a deeper dip in electricity use in the afternoons. Previously, power use rose between 2pm and 5pm. Now it dips as people head out for a walk or some air, according to UK demand data from National Grid Plc

It’s "as though we are living through a month of Sundays”, said Iain Staffell, senior lecturer in sustainable energy at Imperial College London.

3. Evenings in

From 6pm electricity use begins to rise steeply as people finish work and start chores. Restrictions like work and home schooling that prevent much daytime TV watching lifts in the early evening. This following chart for Germany shows the evening peak for power use coming during later hours.

The evening is when electricity use is highest, with most people confined to their homes. Netflix Inc reported a record 15.8 million paid subscribers – almost double the figure forecast by Wall Street analysts. Video-streaming services like Netflix and YouTube have found a captive audience. The new Disney+ service surpassed 50 million subscribers in just five months, a faster pace than predicted.

Internet traffic is skyrocketing, with a surge in bandwidth-intensive applications like streaming services and Zoom. This may mean that monthly broadband consumption of as much as 600 gigabytes, about 35% higher than before, according to Bloomberg Intelligence.

In Singapore, electricity use has dropped off significantly since the country’s "circuit-breaker” efforts to keep people at home began April 7. Electricity use has fallen and stayed low during the day. But late at night is a different story, as power demand fell sharply immediately after the lockdown began, it has steadily crept back in the past two weeks, perhaps a sign that Tiger King and The Last Dance have been finding late-night fans in the city state.

In Ottawa, COVID-19 closures made it seem as if the city had fallen off the electricity grid, according to local reports.

4. Staying up late

We’re going to bed later too. Demand doesn’t start to drop off until 10pm to 12am, at least an hour later than before.

"My children are definitely going to bed later,” said Liz Stevens, a teaching assistant from London. "Our whole routine is out the window.”

It’s challenging for those that need to predict behaviour – power grids and electricity traders. Forecasting is based on historical data, and there isn’t anything to go into the models gauging use now.

The closest we can get is looking at big events like football World Championships when people are all sitting down at the same time, according to Rathjen at MFT.

"Forecasting demand right now is very tricky,” said Chris Kimmett, director of power grids at Reactive Technologies Ltd. "A global pandemic is uncharted territory."

What normal looks like when the crisis passes is also an open question. Different countries are set to unravel their measures in their own ways, and global power demand has already surged above pre-pandemic levels in some analyses, with Germany and Austria loosening restrictions first and Italy remaining under tight control. Some changes may be permanent, with both workers and employers becoming more comfortable with working from home.

5. Different sectors consume more

In China, which is further along recovering from the pandemic than Europe or the US, the sharp contraction in overall power output masks a shift in daily routines.

Eating habits have changed. Restaurants are expanding delivery and even offering grocery services as the preference for dining at home persists. Household electricity consumption in China probably increased from activities such as cooking and heating, according to IHS Markit, which said that residential demand rose by 2.4% in the first two months as people stayed in.

The increase in technology use also drove China’s power demand from the telecom and web-service sectors to rise by 27%, the consultancy said.

Overall, China power demand in the first quarter of the year fell 6.5% from the same period in 2019 to 1.57 trillion kilowatt-hours, China’s National Energy Administration said last week. Industry uses about 70% of the country’s electricity, while the commercial sector and households account for 14% each. – Bloomberg

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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