Stirring GE's Ecomagination

By CNET News.com


Protective Relay Training - Basic

Our customized live online or in‑person group training can be delivered to your staff at your location.

  • Live Online
  • 12 hours Instructor-led
  • Group Training Available
Regular Price:
$699
Coupon Price:
$599
Reserve Your Seat Today
It certainly can, according to Ecomagination, a high-profile initiative inside GE to make environmentally conscious products that still result in healthy profits.

To the public, the Ecomagination advertising and marketing campaign seems to have put a different face on GE - a conglomerate that makes everything from lightbulbs to TV shows.

But while GE's happy to tout its green credentials, its vice president of Ecomagination, Lorraine Bolsinger, is wary of "greenwashing."

Putting an eco-friendly spin on products to improve a corporate image without the goods to back it up will ultimately set the company - and its financial goals - back, according to Bolsinger, who says she welcomes feedback from environmental activists.

GE Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt tapped Bolsinger two years ago to lead GE's efforts to capitalize on global environmental problems, from climate change to fresh-water shortages. That responsibility also includes reducing greenhouse gas emissions at GE, which is a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a collection of industrial businesses lobbying for climate change regulations.

During a tour of GE's labs recently in Niskayuna, N.Y., Bolsinger spoke to CNET News.com about the birth of the Ecomagination "growth strategy," clean technologies on the drawing board, and the tension of going green in Corporate America.

Question: GE was one of the first U.S.-based companies to make a bet and say there was money to be made in cleaner technologies. What was behind the initial push?

Bolsinger: When you look at our company, it's pretty easy to understand why we would have been in the space so early on. You might say we are really smart, we're really progressive, and I'd like to think that. It's also because of the very nature of things that we make. Everything that we make, just about, uses electricity or produces electricity or some kind of energy, some kind of motive power.

Question: You're big in energy.

Bolsinger: We're big in energy, and we invest in energy, so it sort of touches everything that we do. We looked at some trends. (CEO) Jeff Immelt does something called a growth playbook every year with each of his businesses. Think of it as a strategic plan for the next three to five years and beyond.

What he heard over and over were three themes for businesses. One, we are going to see enormous (gross domestic product) growth around the world. Two, we will see a scarcity of resources - scarcity of water, scarcity of (energy) resources, and higher prices that go along with that. And the security of supply is at best questionable and, of course, we see that. And the third theme is that we're going to be living in a world where regulations are going to become more and more stringent, not just in the United States but around the world.

At some point in time, customers are going to say, "I don't want anything but an environmentally friendly product." It won't be acceptable to have something that is cheap but dirty.

So we are at a point in time when we have a group of (energy) technologies in our portfolio, and we have to respond to this. We can either wait to see what happens, or we can get out in front of it. Obviously, Immelt decided to get out in front of it, and so we launched Ecomagination.

Ecomagination is for us, above everything else, a growth strategy. It is a business strategy based on the idea that by investing in technologies to help customers solve these big megatrends that we're seeing, to help them grow sustainably in this world - where there is more regulation, more scarcity, higher energy costs - that we can grow sustainably as well. So what's good for business is good for the environment, and what's good for the environment can be good for business.

Question: Reducing your company's own greenhouse gas emissions is also part of the initiative. Why is that?

Bolsinger: That's a very important piece of this because you don't have a lot of credibility if you're out there, telling everyone else, "You ought to do it, but it's not for us." Is a very important backbone of what we do.

Question: You said you're set to top the $20 billion mark in Ecomagination revenue. Yet it's not a separate division, and you're such a diversified company. How do you count it? Is a cleaner gas turbine part of Ecomagination?

Bolsinger: Yes. In order for something to be an Ecomagination-certified product, it has to have two characteristics - not one or the other, but both. It has to be significantly and measurably better in operating performance as well as environmental performance.

If we got this great green technology, but it's totally unaffordable, we say no, that's not ready to be an ecoproduct. It has to be better, in terms of operating performance for the customer - to give them some economic return - as well as the environmental piece of it. And we use a third party to help in the certification process.

Question: Why do you work with a third party to certify what you're doing?

Bolsinger: We want our claims to be authentic and certifiable. Otherwise, you're a greenwasher. We like tough standards, and I think that one of the marks of whether a process is good or not is whether everything squeaks through. And frankly, not everything does.

I'm glad that not everything makes it through because I think we have to be stringent about this. I find that the environmental-activist community is very unforgiving - that's probably a good thing. I'm sure you know about all the news reports about greenwashing and nonverifiable claims about (carbon) offsets and carbon neutrality. I think we have to be ever-vigilant to never cross that line because it's a long way back.

Question: So if half of your product portfolio is already greener, will it all be, at some point?

Bolsinger: You know, someday, I think we'll stop counting. Don't ask when that is. Maybe when I leave this job, that'll be the day, but we continue to count because we want to be on the record, we want to make sure that we are making progress.

But I do believe that at some point in time, customers are going to say, "I don't want anything but an environmentally friendly product." It won't be acceptable to have something that is cheap but dirty. Do I think that eventually everything is going to be an ecoproduct? I do, at least from the equipment perspective.

Question: How far off is that day?

Bolsinger: I'd say certainly 10 years from now, probably sooner - probably closer to 5.

Question: We're here at your research labs. How do see technology addressing climate change?

Bolsinger: I'd say that when you look at where the world needs to be - let's say we really have to have 80 percent lower (greenhouse gas) emissions by the middle of the century, right? That's the "walking around" numbers that the scientists say.

Eighty percent is huge. So I say in the next 5 to 10 years, we're going to focus on component efficiencies. Making everything more efficient by an order of magnitude, so you might say the GE (aircraft) engine is 15 percent more efficient--that's a good one. The Evolution locomotive with 40 percent lower nitrogen oxide emissions. More efficient lighting. (The list goes on.)

All those component things are doable. I think that the next generation of technologies - say, in the next 10 to 20 years - will revolve more around systems, looking at bigger broader systems play. Because now you need to get 20, 30, 40 percent improvements. We're going to be looking at total air traffic management. Not just making the engine in the airplane a little more efficient--the whole system has to get more efficient.

And further out, it's really transformational technologies. Truly breakthroughs that we don't have on the radar screen today. Or making those breakthroughs more cost-competitive. The next-generation solar, battery technology, biofuels.

We have to work on those today if you are going to be see them 20 years from now - it takes that long to get the infrastructure in place. We're doing the research today on how to make it cost-competitive, deployable, all those things. We've got to be working on those things today if we expect it to be in any way mainstream by midcentury.

Question: How about the nonenergy parts of GE? What does Ecomagination mean to them?

Bolsinger: We have more folks wanting to create certified products than we could have imagined. It's easy to imagine the technologies that I've already talked about. The energy business already has an enormous (amount of) renewable technologies - everything from biogas turbines to gas turbines to wind and solar, integrated coal gasification. You can understand those.

The surprises for me have been the financial-services business coming to us, creating a green credit card. There's no end to this thing. I didn't think we thought about ecohomes. It just serves as a muse for how our business groups can work together - our water (purification) and energy business, for example.

Question: Has there been any skepticism at all? There are people who don't believe in global warming and climate change. Has that been a barrier at all?

Bolsinger: No, it hasn't. First of all, we took off the table the debate about climate change a long time ago.

There are fewer and fewer people who are skeptics on climate change. People who say, "I don't believe it" or "I don't see it," they kind of are outliers at this point. I think it's much more mainstream. We're past the point of debating the science.

For us, we said we're just going to take reality as it is. So whether you want to debate climate change until the cows come home doesn't matter. The world is moving in that direction. There is scarcity of resources, there is regulation coming, so let's deal with the world we have. We can keep debating. What's the point of that? The world's has moved on, and we need to keep pace with that.

I think the skepticism piece was never a big deal for me because (Ecomagination) was never based on "we're doing this for philanthropy" or "we're doing this to make the world safe." We're glad to be doing that as a result of making money. It's a different lens that informs your decisions about where to spend money and what resources you're going to invest.

Question: Has there been resistance internally? This is a big change. Has it caused conflicts?

Bolsinger: Not conflicts. I know everybody wants to tell that story that everybody was skeptical. I think the biggest concern in the very beginning was that we didn't overstate things. We didn't turn into this big green machine.

We've been around for more than 120 years. We have legacy issues. Of course we do. I think you always have to be very careful that you don't step out and try to be holier than thou. You have to do what you're good at.

So I wouldn't call it skepticism. I would call it healthy concern that we get it right. I have an eco-advisory boardÂ…. We bring in outsiders to tell us how we are doing because I think it's important.

So I wouldn't say skeptics. I'd say there is tension in the businesses - the kind of tension that you want. Tension means that there is movement. If there's no tension, then it's business as usual - you just call it Ecomagination, and you're not doing anything different.

I like the tension. The tension comes when we introduce the GE Money (business) to the energy financial-services (business), and we say, "You ought to buy their offsets." And we get these two businesses to work together.

Does it cause tension? Yeah, but look at the result.

I'd say if the only other place that we have concern - and we always have concern - is whether customers embrace it. We have to be careful that the customers don't feel that we are so far out in front of them that they can't keep up.

Related News

Ex-SpaceX engineers in race to build first commercial electric speedboat

Arc One Electric Speedboat delivers zero-emission performance, quiet operation, and reduced maintenance, leveraging battery propulsion, aerospace engineering, and venture-backed innovation to cut noise pollution, fuel costs, and water contamination in high-performance marine recreation.

 

Key Points

Arc One Electric Speedboat is a battery-powered, zero-emission craft offering quiet, high-performance marine cruising.

✅ 475 hp, 24 ft hull, about 40 mph top speed

✅ Cuts noise, fumes, and water contamination vs gas boats

✅ Backed by Andreessen Horowitz; ex-SpaceX engineers

 

A team of former SpaceX rocket engineers have joined the race to build the first commercial electric speedboat.

The Arc Boat company announced it had raised $4.25m (£3m) in seed funding to start work on a 24ft 475-horsepower craft that will cost about $300,000.

The LA-based company, which is backed by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz (an early backer of Facebook and Airbnb), said the first model of the Arc One boat would be available for sale by the end of the year.

Mitch Lee, Arc’s chief executive, said he wanted to build electric boats because of the impact conventional petrol- or diesel-powered boats have on the environment.

“They not only get just two miles to the gallon, they also pump a lot of those fumes into the water,” Lee said. “In addition, there is the huge noise pollution factor [of conventional boats] and that is awful for the marine life. With gas-powered boats it’s not just carbon emissions into the air, it’s also polluting the water and causing noise pollution. Electric boats, like electric ships clearing the air on the B.C. coast, eliminate all that.”

Lee said electric vessels would also reduce the hassle of boat ownership. “I love being out on the water, being on a boat is so much fun, but owning a boat is so awful,” he said. “I have always believed that electric boats make sense. They will be quicker, quieter and way cheaper and easier to operate and maintain, with access options like an electric boat club in Seattle lowering barriers for newcomers.”

While the first models will be very expensive, Lee said the cost was mostly in developing the technology and cheaper versions would be available in the future, mirroring advances in electric aviation seen across the industry. “It is very much the Tesla approach – we are starting up market and using that income to finance research and development and work our way down market,” he said.

Lee said the technology could be applied to larger craft, and even ferries could run on electricity in the future, as projects for battery-electric high-speed ferries begin to scale.

“We started in February with no team, no money and no warehouse,” he said. “By December we are going to be selling the Arc One, and we are hiring aggressively because we want to accelerate the adoption of electric boats across a whole range of craft, including an electric-ready ferry on Kootenay Lake.”

Lee founded the company with fellow mechanical engineer Ryan Cook. Cook, the company’s chief technology officer, was previously the lead mechanical engineer at Elon Musk’s space exploration company SpaceX where he worked on the Falcon 9 rocket, the world’s first orbital class reusable rocket. In parallel, Harbour Air's electric aircraft highlights cross-sector electrification. Apart from Lee, all of Arc’s employees have some experience working at SpaceX.

The Arc boat, which would have a top speed of 40 mph, joins a number of startups rushing to make the first large-scale production of electric-powered speedboats, while a Vancouver seaplane airline demonstrates complementary progress with a prototype electric aircraft. The Monaco Yacht Club this month held a competition for electric boat prototypes to “instigate a new vision and promote all positive approaches to bring yachting into line” with global carbon dioxide emission reduction targets. Sweden’s Candela C-7 hydrofoil boat was crowned the fastest electric vessel.

 

Related News

View more

Is Ontario's Power Cost-Effective?

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

View more

ACORE tells FERC that DOE Proposal to Subsidize Coal, Nuclear Power Plants is unsupported by Record

FERC Grid Resiliency Pricing Opposition underscores industry groups, RTOs, and ISOs rejecting DOE's NOPR, warning against out-of-market subsidies for coal and nuclear, favoring competitive markets, reliability, and true grid resilience.

 

Key Points

Coalition urging FERC to reject DOE's NOPR subsidies, protecting reliability and competitive power markets.

✅ Industry groups, RTOs, ISOs oppose DOE NOPR

✅ PJM reports sufficient reliability and resilience

✅ Reject out-of-market aid to coal, nuclear

 

A diverse group of a dozen energy industry associations representing oil, natural gas, wind, solar, efficiency, and other energy technologies today submitted reply comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) continuing their opposition to the Department of Energy's (DOE) proposed rulemaking on grid resiliency pricing and electricity pricing changes within competitive markets, in the next step in this FERC proceeding.

Action by FERC, as lawmakers urge movement on aggregated DERs to modernize markets, is expected by December 11.

In these comments, this broad group of energy industry associations notes that most of the comments submitted initially by an unprecedented volume of filers, including grid operators whose markets would be impacted by the proposed rule, urged FERC not to adopt DOE'sproposed rule to provide out-of-market financial support to uneconomic coal and nuclear power plants in the wholesale electricity markets overseen by FERC.

Just a small set of interests - those that would benefit financially from discriminatory pricing that favors coal and nuclear plants - argued in favor of the rule put forward by DOE in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or NOPR, as did coal and business interests in related regulatory debates. But even those interests - termed 'NOPR Beneficiaries' by the energy associations - failed to provide adequate justification for FERC to approve the rule, and their specific alternative proposals for implementing the bailout of these plants were just as flawed as the DOE plan, according to the energy industry associations.

'The joint comments filed today with partners across the energy spectrum reflect the overwhelming majority view that this proposed rulemaking by FERC is unprecedented and unwarranted, said Todd Foley, Senior Vice President, Policy & Government Affairs, American Council on Renewable Energy.

We're hopeful that FERC will rule against an anti-competitive distortion of the electricity marketplace and avoid new unnecessary initiatives that increase power prices for American consumers and businesses.'

In the new reply comments submitted in response to the initial comments filed by hundreds of stakeholders on or before October 23 - the energy industry associations made the following points: Despite hundreds of comments filed, no new information was brought forth to validate the assertion - by DOE or the NOPR Beneficiaries - that an emergency exists that requires accelerated action to prop up certain power plants that are failing in competitive electricity markets: 'The record in this proceeding, including the initial comments, does not support the discriminatory payments proposed' by DOE, state the industry groups.

Nearly all of the initial comments filed in the matter take issue with the DOE NOPR and its claim of imminent threats to the reliability and resilience of the electric power system, despite reports of coal and nuclear disruptions cited by some advocates: 'Of the hundreds of comments filed in response to the DOE NOPR, only a handful purported to provide substantive evidence in support of the proposal. In contrast, an overwhelming majority of initial comments agree that the DOE NOPR fails to substantiate its assertions of an immediate reliability or resiliency need related to the retirement of merchant coal-fired and nuclear generation.'

Grid operators filed comments refuting claims that the potential retirement of coal and nuclear plants which could not compete for economically present immediate or near-term challenges to grid management, even as a coal CEO criticism targeted federal decisions: 'Even the RTOs and ISOs themselves filed comments opposing the DOE NOPR, noting that the proposed cost-of-service payments to preferred generation would disrupt the competitive markets and are neither warranted nor justified.... Most notably, this includes PJM Interconnection, ... the RTO in which most of the units potentially eligible for payments under the DOE NOPR are located. PJM states that its region 'unquestionably is reliable, and its competitive markets have for years secured commitments from capacity resources that well exceed the target reserve margin established to meet [North American Electric Reliability Corp.] requirements.' And PJM analysis has confirmed that the region's generation portfolio is not only reliable, but also resilient.'

The need for NOPR Beneficiaries to offer alternative proposals reflects the weakness of DOE'srule as drafted, but their options for propping up uneconomic power plants are no better, practically or legally: 'Plans put forward by supporters of the power plant bailout 'acknowledge, at least implicitly, that the preferential payment structure proposed in the DOE NOPR is unclear, unworkable, or both. However, the alternatives offered by the NOPR Beneficiaries, are equally flawed both substantively and procedurally, extending well beyond the scope of the DOE NOPR.'

Citing one example, the energy groups note that the detailed plan put forward by utility FirstEnergy Service Co. would provide preferential payments far more costly than those now provided to individual power plants needed for immediate reasons (and given a 'reliability must run' contract, or RMR): 'Compensation provided under [FirstEnergy's proposal] would be significantly expanded beyond RMR precedent, going so far as to include bailing [a qualifying] unit out of debt based on an unsupported assertion that revenues are needed to ensure long-term operation.'

Calling the action FERC would be required to take in adopting the DOE proposal 'unprecedented,' the energy industry associations reiterate their opposition: 'While the undersigned support the goals of a reliable and resilient grid, adoption of ill-considered discriminatory payments contemplated in the DOE NOPR is not supportable - or even appropriate - from a legal or policy perspective.

 

About ACORE

The American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) is a national non-profit organization leading the transition to a renewable energy economy. With hundreds of member companies from across the spectrum of renewable energy technologies, consumers and investors, ACORE is uniquely positioned to promote the policies and financial structures essential to growth in the renewable energy sector. Our annual forums in Washington, D.C., New York and San Franciscoset the industry standard in providing important venues for key leaders to meet, discuss recent developments, and hear the latest from senior government officials and seasoned experts.

 

Related News

View more

Why Atomic Energy Is Heating Up Again

Nuclear Power Revival drives decarbonization, climate change mitigation, and energy security with SMRs, Generation IV designs, baseload reliability, and policy support, complementing renewables to meet net-zero targets and growing global electricity demand.

 

Key Points

A global shift back to nuclear energy, leveraging SMRs and advanced reactors to cut emissions and enhance energy security.

✅ SMRs offer safer, modular, and cost-effective deployment.

✅ Provides baseload power to complement intermittent renewables.

✅ Policy support and investments accelerate advanced designs.

 

In recent years, nuclear power has experienced a remarkable revival in public interest, policy discussions, and energy investment. Once overshadowed by controversies surrounding safety, waste management, and high costs, nuclear energy is now being reexamined as a vital component of the global energy transition, despite recurring questions such as whether it is in decline from some commentators. Here's why nuclear power is "so hot" right now:

1. Climate Change Urgency

One of the most compelling reasons for the renewed interest in nuclear energy is the urgent need to address climate change. Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear power generates electricity with zero greenhouse gas emissions during operation. As countries rush to meet net-zero carbon targets, evidence that net-zero may require nuclear is gaining traction, and nuclear offers a reliable, large-scale alternative to complement renewable energy sources like wind and solar.

2. Energy Security and Independence

Geopolitical tensions and supply chain disruptions have exposed vulnerabilities in relying on imported fossil fuels, and Europe's shrinking nuclear capacity has sharpened concerns over resilience. Nuclear power provides a domestic, stable energy source that can operate independently of volatile global markets. For many nations, this has become a strategic priority, reducing dependence on politically sensitive energy imports.

3. Advances in Technology

Modern innovations in nuclear technology are transforming the industry. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are leading the way as part of next-gen nuclear innovation, offering safer, more affordable, and flexible options for nuclear deployment. Unlike traditional large-scale reactors, SMRs can be built faster, scaled to specific energy needs, and deployed in remote or smaller markets.

Additionally, advances in reactor designs, such as Generation IV reactors and fusion research, promise to address longstanding concerns like waste management and safety. For example, some new designs can recycle spent fuel or run on alternative fuels, significantly reducing radioactive waste.

4. Public Perception Is Shifting

Public opinion on nuclear power is also changing. While the industry faced backlash after high-profile incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima, increasing awareness of climate change and energy security is prompting many to reconsider, including renewed debates such as Germany's potential nuclear return in policy circles. A younger, climate-conscious generation views nuclear energy not as a relic of the past, but as an essential tool for a sustainable future.

5. Renewables Alone Are Not Enough

While renewable energy sources like solar and wind have grown exponentially, their intermittent nature remains a challenge. Energy storage technologies, such as batteries, have not yet matured enough to fully bridge the gap. Nuclear power, with its ability to provide constant, "baseload" energy, as France's fleet demonstrates in practice, serves as an ideal complement to variable renewables in a decarbonized energy mix.

6. Government Support and Investment

Policymakers are taking action to bolster the nuclear sector. Many countries are including nuclear energy in their clean energy plans, offering subsidies, grants, and streamlined regulations to accelerate its deployment. For instance, the United States has allocated billions of dollars to support advanced nuclear projects, the UK's green industrial revolution outlines support for upcoming reactor waves, while Europe has classified nuclear power as "sustainable" under its green taxonomy.

7. Global Energy Demand Is Growing

As populations and economies grow, so does the demand for electricity. Developing nations, in particular, are seeking energy solutions that can support industrialization while limiting environmental impact. Nuclear energy is being embraced as a way to meet these dual objectives, especially in regions with limited access to consistent renewable energy resources.

Challenges Ahead

Despite its potential, nuclear energy is not without its challenges. High upfront costs, lengthy construction timelines, and public concerns over safety and waste remain significant hurdles. The industry will need to address these issues while continuing to innovate and build public trust.

Nuclear power's resurgence is driven by its unique ability to tackle some of the most pressing challenges of our time: climate change, energy security, and the growing demand for electricity. With advances in technology, changing perceptions, and robust policy support, nuclear energy is poised to play a critical role in the global transition to a sustainable and secure energy future.

In a world increasingly shaped by the need for clean and reliable power, nuclear energy has once again become a hot topic—and for good reason.

 

Related News

View more

Opp Leader calls for electricity market overhaul to favor consumers over generators

Labor National Electricity Market Reform aims to rebalance NEM rules, support a fair-dinkum clean energy target, enable renewable zones, bolster storage and grid reliability, empower households, and unlock CEFC investment via the Finkel review.

 

Key Points

Labor's plan to overhaul NEM rules for households, clean energy targets, renewable zones, storage, and CEFC investment.

✅ Revises NEM rules to curb big generators' market power

✅ Backs a clean energy target informed by the Finkel review

✅ Expands renewable zones, storage, and CEFC finance

 

Australia's Labor leader Bill Shorten has called for significant changes to the rules governing the national electricity market, saying they are biased in favour of big energy generators, leaving households worse off even with measures like a WA electricity bill credit in place.

He said the national electricity market (NEM) rules are designed to help the big companies recoup the money they spent on purchasing government assets, a dynamic echoed in debates like a Calgary market overhaul dispute unfolding in Canada, rather than encourage households to generate their own power, and they need to change faster to adapt to consumer needs.

His comments hint at a possible overhaul of the NEM’s governance structure under a future Labor government, because the current rule-making process is too cumbersome and slow, with suggested rules changes taking years to be introduced.

Daniel Andrews defends claims that civil liberties a 'luxury' in fight against terrorism

Labor had promoted a similar idea in the lead-up to the 2016 election, with its call for an electricity modernization review, but now the Finkel review has been released it would be used to guide such a review.

In a speech to the Australian Financial Review’s National Energy Summit in Sydney on Monday, Shorten recommitted Labor to negotiating a “fair-dinkum” clean energy target with the Turnbull government, amid modelling that a strong clean energy target can lower electricity prices, saying “it’s time to put away the weapons of the climate change wars” and work together to find a way forward.

He said the media and business can all share the blame for Australia’s lost decade of energy policy development, with examples abroad showing how leadership steers change, such as in Alberta where Kenney's influence on power policy has been pronounced, but “we need to stop spoiling for a fight and start seeking a solution”.

“The scare campaigns and hyper-partisanship that got Australia into this mess, will not get us out of it,” he will say.

“That’s why, a bit over four months ago, before the chief scientist released his report, I wrote to the prime minister offering an olive branch.

“I said Labor was prepared to move from our preferred position of an emissions intensity scheme and negotiate a fair-dinkum clean energy target.

“That offer was greeted with some cynicism in the media. But let me be crystal clear – I made that offer in good faith, and that offer still stands.”

Shorten said Australia needs to resolve the current “gas crisis” and do more to drive investment in renewable energy that delivers more reliable electricity, a priority underscored by the IEA's warning that falling global energy investment risks shortages, and if Labor wins the next election it will organise Australia into a series of renewable energy zones – as recommended by the chief scientist, Alan Finkel – that identify wind, solar, pumped hydro and geothermal resources, and connect them to the existing network.

“These zones would be based on both existing generation and storage in the area – and the potential for future development,” he said.

Australia's politics only barrier to clean energy system, report finds

“Identifying these zones – from eastern Queensland, north-east New South Wales, west Victoria, the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia and the entire state of Tasmania – will also plant a flag for investors – signalling future sites for job-creating projects.”

Shorten also said Labor will free up the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to invest in more generation and more storage.

“Under Labor, the return benchmark for the CEFC was set at the weighted average of the Australian government bond rate.

“Under this government, it was initially increased to the weighted average plus 4% to 5% and is now set at the average plus 3% to 4%.

“Setting the return benchmark too high defeats the driving purpose of the CEFC and it holds back the crucial investment Australia needs – right now – in new generation and storage.

“This is why a Labor government would restore the original benchmark return of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, to invest in more generation, more storage and more jobs.”

 

 

Related News

View more

Hydro One employees support Province of Ontario in the fight against COVID-19

Hydro One COVID-19 Quarantine Support connects Ontario's Ministry of Health with trained customer service teams to contact travellers, encourage self-isolation, explain quarantine rules, and share public health guidance to slow community transmission.

 

Key Points

Hydro One helps Ontario's MOH contact travellers and guide self-isolation for quarantine compliance.

✅ Trained agents contact returning travellers in Ontario

✅ Guidance on self-isolation, symptoms, and quarantine compliance

✅ Supports public health while freeing front-line resources

 

Hydro One Networks Inc. ("Hydro One") announced support to the Ministry of Health (MOH) with its efforts in contacting travellers entering Ontario to ensure they comply with Canada's mandatory quarantine measures to combat COVID-19. Hydro One has volunteered employees from its customer service operations to contact thousands of returning travellers to provide them with timely guidance on how to self-isolate and spot the symptoms of the virus to help stop its spread.

"Our team is ready to lend a helping hand and support the province to help fight this invisible enemy," said Mark Poweska, President and CEO, Hydro One. "Our very dedicated customer service staff are highly professional and will be a valuable resource in supporting the province as it works to keep Ontarians safe and slow the spread of COVID-19."

"We have seen a tremendous response from all our companies across Ontario to help us fight the COVID-19 outbreak. With this one, Hydro One is helping the province to remind Ontarians they need to stay safe at home, especially self-isolating customers throughout Ontario," said Christine Elliott, Deputy Premier and Minister of Health. "We thank them for stepping up to be part of the fantastic province-wide effort acting together and allowing our front line workers to focus their efforts where they are needed most during this challenging time."

"We are pleased to see Hydro One volunteer its resources and expertise to support in the fight against COVID-19," said Greg Rickford, Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines. "In these unprecedented times, I am proud to see leaders in the energy sector rise to the challenge, from restoring power after major storms to supporting the people of our province."

Hydro One and its employees play a critical role in maintaining Ontario's electricity system. Since the COVID-19 outbreak began, Hydro One has been monitoring the evolving situation and adapting its operations, including on-site lockdowns for key staff as needed to ensure it continues to deliver the service Ontarians depend on while keeping our employees, customers and the public safe.

Hydro One has also developed a number of customer support measures during COVID-19, including a new Pandemic Relief Fund to offer payment flexibility and financial assistance to customers experiencing financial hardship, suspending late payment fees and returning approximately $5 million in security deposits to businesses across Ontario.

"Customers are counting on us now more than ever – not only to keep the lights on across the province, but to offer support during this difficult time," said Poweska. "Hydro One will continue to collaborate with industry partners and the province, including mutual aid assistance with other utilities, to find new ways to offer support where it is needed."

More information about how Hydro One is supporting its customers, including its ban on disconnections and other measures, can be found at www.HydroOne.com/PandemicRelief .

 

Related News

View more

Sign Up for Electricity Forum’s Newsletter

Stay informed with our FREE Newsletter — get the latest news, breakthrough technologies, and expert insights, delivered straight to your inbox.

Electricity Today T&D Magazine Subscribe for FREE

Stay informed with the latest T&D policies and technologies.
  • Timely insights from industry experts
  • Practical solutions T&D engineers
  • Free access to every issue

Download the 2025 Electrical Training Catalog

Explore 50+ live, expert-led electrical training courses –

  • Interactive
  • Flexible
  • CEU-cerified