Hydropower to reach 380 GW in 2020

New Zealand Renewable Energy Strategy examines decarbonisation, GHG emissions, and net energy as electrification accelerates, expanding hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar PV while weighing intermittency, storage, materials, and energy security for a resilient power system.

Key Points

A plan to expand electricity generation, balancing decarbonisation, net energy limits, and energy security.

✅ Distinguishes decarbonisation targets from renewable capacity growth

✅ Highlights net energy limits, intermittency, and storage needs

✅ Addresses materials, GHG build-out costs, and energy security

The Electricity Authority has released a document outlining a plan to achieve the Government’s goal of more than doubling the amount of electricity generated in New Zealand over the next few decades.

This goal is seen as a way of both reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions overall, as everything becomes electrified, and ensuring we have a 100 percent renewable energy system at our disposal. Often these two goals are seen as being the same – to decarbonise we must transition to more renewable energy to power our society.

But they are quite different goals and should be clearly differentiated. GHG emissions could be controlled very effectively by rationing the use of a fossil fuel lockdown approach, with declining rations being available over a few years. Such a direct method of controlling emissions would ensure we do our bit to remain within a safe carbon budget.

If we took this dramatic step we could stop fretting about how to reduce emissions (that would be guaranteed by the rationing), and instead focus on how to adapt our lives to the absence of fossil fuels.

Again, these may seem like the same task, but they are not. Decarbonising is generally thought of in terms of replacing fossil fuels with some other energy source, signalling that a green recovery must address more than just wind capacity. Adapting our lives to the absence of fossil fuels pushes us to ask more fundamental questions about how much energy we actually need, what we need energy for, and the impact of that energy on our environment.

MBIE data indicate that between 1990 and 2020, New Zealand almost doubled the total amount of energy it produced from renewable energy sources - hydro, geothermal and some solar PV and wind turbines.

Over this same time period our GHG emissions increased by about 25 percent. The increase in renewables didn’t result in less GHG emissions because we increased our total energy use by almost 50 percent, mostly by using fossil fuels. The largest fossil fuel increases were used in transport, agriculture, forestry and fisheries (approximately 60 percent increases for each).

These data clearly demonstrate that increasing renewable energy sources do not necessarily result in reduced GHG emissions.

The same MBIE data indicate that over this same time period, the amount of Losses and Own Use category for energy use more than doubled. As of 2020 almost 30 percent of all energy consumed in New Zealand fell into this category.

These data indicate that more renewable energy sources are historically associated with less energy actually being available to do work in society.

While the category Losses and Own Use is not a net energy analysis, the large increase in this category makes the call for a system-wide net energy analysis all the more urgent.

Net energy is the amount of energy available after the energy inputs to produce and deliver the energy is subtracted. There is considerable data available indicating that solar PV and wind turbines have a much lower net energy surplus than fossil fuels.

And there is further evidence that when the intermittency and storage requirements are engineered into a total renewable energy system, the net energy of the entire system declines sharply. Could the Losses and Other Uses increase over this 30-year period be an indication of things to come?

Despite the importance of net energy analysis in designing a national energy system which is intended to provide energy security and resilience, there is not a single mention of net energy surplus in the EA reference document.

So over the last 30 years, New Zealand has doubled its renewable energy capacity, and at the same time increased its GHG emissions and reduced the overall efficiency of the national energy system.

And we are now planning to more than double our renewable energy system yet again over the next 30 years, even as zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is being debated elsewhere. We need to ask if this is a good idea.

How can we expand New Zealand’s solar PV and wind turbines without using fossil fuels? We can’t.

How could we expand our solar PV and wind turbines without mining rare minerals and the hidden costs of clean energy they entail, further contributing to ecological destruction and often increasing social injustices? We can't.

Even if we could construct, deliver, install and maintain solar PV and wind turbines without generating more GHG emissions and destroying ecosystems and poor communities, this “renewable” infrastructure would have to be replaced in a few decades. But there are at least two major problems with this assumed scenario.

The rare earth minerals required for this replacement will already be exhausted by the initial build out. Recycling will only provide a limited amount of replacements.

The other challenge is that a mostly “renewable” energy system will likely have a considerably lower net energy surplus. So where, in 2060, will the energy come from to either mine or recycle the raw materials, and to rebuild, reinstall and maintain the next iteration of a renewable energy system?

There is currently no plan for this replacement. It is a serious misnomer to call these energy technologies “renewable”. They are not as they rely on considerable raw material inputs and fossil energy for their production and never ending replacement.

New Zealand is, of course, blessed with an unusually high level of hydro electric and geothermal power. New Zealand currently uses over 170 GJ of total energy per capita, 40 percent of which is “renewable”. This provides approximately 70 GJ of “renewable” energy per capita with our current population.

This is the average global per capita energy level from all sources across all nations, as calls for 100% renewable energy globally emphasize. Several nations operate with roughly this amount of total energy per capita that New Zealand can generate just from “renewables”.

It is worth reflecting on the 170 GJ of total energy use we currently consume. Different studies give very different results regarding what levels are necessary for a good life.

For a complex industrial society such as ours, 100 GJ pc is said to be necessary for a high levels of wellbeing, determined both subjectively (life satisfaction/ happiness measures), and objectively (e.g. infant mortality levels, female morbidity as an index of population health, access to nutritious food and educational and health resources, etc). These studies do not take into account the large amount of energy that is wasted either through inefficient technologies, or frivolous use, which effective decarbonization strategies seek to reduce.

Other studies that consider the minimal energy needed for wellbeing suggest a much lower level of per capita energy consumption is required. These studies take a different approach and focus on ensuring basic wellbeing is maintained, but not necessarily with all the trappings of a complex industrial society. Their results indicate a level of approximately 20 GJ per capita is adequate.

In either case, we in New Zealand are wasting a lot of energy, both in terms of the efficiency of our technologies (see the Losses and Own Use info above), and also in our uses which do not contribute to wellbeing (think of the private vehicle travel that could be done by active or public transport – if we had good infrastructure in place).

We in New Zealand need a national dialogue about our future. And energy availability is only one aspect. We need to discuss what our carrying capacity is, what level of consumption is sustainable for our population, and whether we wish to make adjustments in either our per capita consumption or our population. Both together determine whether we are on the sustainable side of carrying capacity. Currently we are on the unsustainable side, meaning our way of life cannot endure. Not a good look for being a good ancestor.

The current trajectory of the Government and Electricity Authority appears to be grossly unsustainable. At the very least they should be able to answer the questions posed here about the GHG emissions from implementing a totally renewable energy system, the net energy of such a system, and the related environmental and social consequences.

Public dialogue is critical to collectively working out our future. Allowing the current profit-driven trajectory to unfold is a recipe for disasters for our children and grandchildren.

Being silent on these issues amounts to complicity in allowing short-term financial interests and an addiction to convenience jeopardise a genuinely secure and resilient future. Let’s get some answers from the Government and Electricity Authority to critical questions about energy security.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

London Tube Strikes Economic Impact highlights transport disruption reducing foot traffic, commuter flows, and tourism, squeezing small businesses, hospitality revenue, and citywide growth while business leaders urge negotiations, resolution, and policy responses to stabilize operations.

Key Points

Reduced transport options cut foot traffic and sales, straining small businesses and slowing London-wide growth.

✅ Hospitality venues report lower revenue and temporary closures

✅ Commuter and tourism declines reduce daily sales and bookings

✅ Business groups urge swift negotiations to restore services

London's economy is facing significant challenges due to ongoing tube strikes, challenges that are compounded by scrutiny of UK energy network profits and broader cost pressures across sectors, with businesses across the city experiencing disruptions that are impacting their operations and bottom lines.

Impact on Small Businesses

Small businesses, particularly those in the hospitality sector, are bearing the brunt of the disruptions caused by the strikes. Many establishments rely on the steady flow of commuters and tourists that the tube system facilitates, while also hoping for measures like temporary electricity bill relief that can ease operating costs during downturns. With reduced transportation options, foot traffic has dwindled, leading to decreased sales and, in some cases, temporary closures.

Economic Consequences

The strikes are not only affecting individual businesses but are also having a ripple effect on the broader economy, a dynamic seen when commercial electricity consumption plummeted in B.C. during the pandemic. The reduced activity in key sectors is contributing to a slowdown in economic growth, echoing periods when BC Hydro demand fell 10% and prompting policy responses such as Ontario electricity rate reductions for businesses, with potential long-term consequences if the disruptions continue.

Calls for Resolution

Business leaders and industry groups are urging for a swift resolution to the strikes. They emphasize the need for dialogue between the involved parties to reach an agreement that minimizes further economic damage and restores normalcy to the city's transportation system.

The ongoing tube strikes in London are causing significant disruptions to the city's economy, particularly affecting small businesses that depend on the efficient movement of people. Immediate action is needed to address the issues, drawing on tools like a subsidized hydro plan used elsewhere to spur recovery, to prevent further economic downturn.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

BNEF 2019 New Energy Outlook projects surging renewable energy demand, aggressive decarbonization, wind and solar cost declines, battery storage growth, coal phase-out, and power market reform to meet Paris Agreement targets through 2050.

Key Points

Bloomberg's NEO 2019 forecasts power demand, renewables growth, and decarbonization pathways through 2050.

✅ Predicts wind/solar to ~50% of global electricity by 2050

✅ Foresees coal decline; Asia transitions slower than Europe

✅ Calls for power market reform and battery integration

In a report that examines the ways in which renewable energy demand is expected to increase, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) finds that “aggressive decarbonization” will be required beyond 2030 to meet the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change.

Focusing on electricity, BNEF’s 2019 New Energy Outlook (NEO) predicts a 62% increase in global power demand, leading to global generating capacity tripling between now and 2050, when wind and solar are expected to make up almost 50% of world electricity, as wind and solar gains indicate, due to decreasing costs.

The report concludes that coal will collapse everywhere except Asia, and, by 2032, there will be more wind and solar electricity than coal-fired electricity. It forecasts that coal’s role in the global power mix will decrease from 37% today, as renewables surpass 30% globally, to 12% by 2050 with the virtual elimination of oil as a power-generating source.

Highlighting regional differences, the report finds that:

Western European economies are already on a strong decarbonization path due to carbon pricing and strong policy support, with offshore wind costs dropping bolstering progress;

by 2040, renewables will comprise 90% of the electricity mix in Europe, with wind and solar accounting for 80%;

the US, with low-priced natural gas, and China, with its coal-fired plants, will transition more slowly even as 30% from wind and solar becomes feasible; and

China’s power sector emissions will peak in 2026 and then fall by more than half over the next 20 years, as solar PV growth accelerates, with wind and solar increasing from 8% to 48% of total electricity generation by 2050.

Power markets must be reformed to ensure wind, solar and batteries are properly remunerated for their contributions to the grid.

The 2019 report finds that wind and solar now represent the cheapest option for adding new power-generating capacity in much of the world, amid record-setting momentum, which is expected to attract USD 13.3 trillion in new investment. While solar, wind, batteries and other renewables are expected to attract USD 10 trillion in investment by 2050, the report warns that curbing emissions will require other technologies as well.

Speaking about the report, Matthias Kimmel, NEO 2019 lead analyst, said solar photovoltaic modules, wind turbines and lithium-ion batteries are set to continue on aggressive cost reduction curves of 28%, 14% and 18%, respectively, for every doubling in global installed capacity. He explained that by 2030, energy generated or stored and dispatched by these technologies will undercut electricity generated by existing coal and gas plants.

To achieve this level of transition and decarbonization, the report stresses, power markets must be reformed to ensure wind, solar and batteries are “properly remunerated for their contributions to the grid.”

Additionally, the 2019 NEO includes a number of updates such as:

• new scenarios on global warming of 2°C above preindustrial levels, electrified heat and road transport, and an updated coal phase-out scenario;
• new sections on coal and gas power technology, the future grid, energy access, and costs related to decarbonization technology such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), biogas, hydrogen fuel cells, nuclear and solar thermal;
• sub-national results for China;
• the addition of commercial electric vehicles;
• an expanded air-conditioning analysis; and
• modeling of Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Turkey and Southeast Asia in greater detail.

Every year, the NEO compares the costs of competing energy technologies, informing projections like US renewables at one-fourth in the near term. The 2019 report brought together 65 market and technology experts from 12 countries to provide their views on how the market might evolve.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Three Mile Island Nuclear Debate spotlights subsidies, carbon pricing, wholesale power markets, grid reliability, and zero-emissions goals as Pennsylvania weighs keeping Exelon's reactor open amid natural gas competition and flat electricity demand.

Key Points

Debate over subsidies, carbon pricing, and grid reliability shaping Three Mile Island's zero-emissions future.

✅ Zero emissions credits vs market integrity

✅ Carbon pricing to value clean baseload power

✅ Closure risks jobs, tax revenue, and reliability

Three Mile Island is at the center of a new conversation about the future of nuclear energy in the United States nearly 40 years after a partial meltdown at the Central Pennsylvania plant sparked a national debate about the safety of nuclear power.

The site is slated to close in just two years, a closure plan Exelon has signaled, unless Pennsylvania or a regional power transmission operator delivers some form of financial relief, says Exelon, the Chicago-based power company that operates the plant.

That has drawn the Keystone State into a growing debate: whether to let struggling nuclear plants shut down if they cannot compete in the regional wholesale markets where energy is bought and sold, or adopt measures to keep them in the business of generating power without greenhouse gas emissions.

""The old compromise — that in order to have a reliable, affordable electric system you had to deal with a significant amount of air pollution — is a compromise our new customers today don't want to hear about.""
-Joseph Dominguez, Exelon executive vice president
Nuclear power plants produce about two-thirds of the country's zero-emissions electricity, a role many view as essential to net-zero emissions goals for the grid.

The debate is playing out as some regions consider putting a price on planet-warming carbon emissions produced by some power generators, which would raise their costs and make nuclear plants like Three Mile Island more viable, and developments such as Europe's nuclear losses highlight broader energy security concerns.

States that allow nuclear facilities to close need to think carefully because once a reactor is powered down, there's no turning back, said Jake Smeltz, chief of staff for Pennsylvania State Sen. Ryan Aument, who chairs the state's Nuclear Energy Caucus.

"If we wave goodbye to a nuclear station, it's a permanent goodbye because we don't mothball them. We decommission them," he told CNBC.

Three Mile Island's closure would eliminate more than 800 megawatts of electricity output. That's roughly 10 percent of Pennsylvania's zero-emissions energy generation, by Exelon's calculation. Replacing that with fossil fuel-fired power would be like putting roughly 10 million cars on the road, it estimates.

A closure would also shed about 650 well-paying jobs, putting the just transition challenge in focus for local workers and communities, tied to about $60 million in wages per year. Dauphin County and Londonderry Township, a rural area on the Susquehanna River where the plant is based, stand to lose $1 million in annual tax revenue that funds schools and municipalities. The 1,000 to 1,500 workers who pack local hotels, stores and restaurants every two years for plant maintenance would stop visiting.

Pennsylvanians and lawmakers must now decide whether these considerations warrant throwing Exelon a lifeline. It's a tough sell in the nation's second-largest natural gas-producing state, which already generates more energy than it uses. And time is running out to reach a short-term solution.

"What's meaningful to us is something where we could see the results before we turn in the keys, and we turn in the keys the third quarter of '19," said Joseph Dominguez, Exelon's executive vice president for governmental and regulatory affairs and public policy.

The end of the nuclear age?

The problem for Three Mile Island is the same one facing many of the nation's 60 nuclear plants: They are too expensive to operate.

Financial pressure on these facilities is mounting as power demand remains stagnant due to improved energy efficiency, prices remain low for natural gas-fired generation and costs continue to fall for wind and solar power.

Three Mile Island is something of a special case: The 1979 incident left only one of its two reactors operational, but it still employs about as many people as a plant with two reactors, making it less efficient. In the last three regional auctions, when power generators lock in buyers for their future energy generation, no one bought power from Three Mile Island.

But even dual-reactor plants are facing existential threats. FirstEnergy Corp's Beaver Valley will sell or close its nuclear plant near the Pennsylvania-Ohio border next year as it exits the competitive power-generation business, and facilities like Ohio's Davis-Besse illustrate what's at stake for the region.

Five nuclear power plants have shuttered across the country since 2013. Another six have plans to shut down, and four of those would close well ahead of schedule. An analysis by energy research firm Bloomberg New Energy Finance found that more than half the nation's nuclear plants are facing some form of financial stress.

Today's regional energy markets, engineered to produce energy at the lowest cost to consumers, do not take into account that nuclear power generates so much zero-emission electricity. But Dominguez, the Exelon vice president, said that's out of step with a world increasingly concerned about climate change.

"What we see is increasingly our customers are interested in getting electricity from zero air pollution sources," Dominguez said. "The old compromise — that in order to have a reliable, affordable electric system you had to deal with a significant amount of air pollution — is a compromise our new customers today don't want to hear about."

Strange bedfellows

Faced with the prospect of nuclear plant closures, Chicago and New York have both allowed nuclear reactors to qualify for subsidies called zero emissions credits. Exelon lobbied for the credits, which will benefit some of its nuclear plants in those states.

Even though the plants produce nuclear waste, some environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council supported these plans. That's because they were part of broader packages that promote wind and solar power, and the credits for nuclear are not open-ended. They essentially provide a bridge that keeps zero-emissions power from nuclear reactors on the grid as renewable energy becomes more viable.

Lawmakers in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Connecticut are currently exploring similar options. Jake Smeltz, chief of staff to state Sen. Aument, said legislation could surface in Pennsylvania as soon as this fall. The challenge is to get people to consider the attributes of the sources of their electricity beyond just cost, according to Smeltz.

"Are the plants worth essentially saving? That's a social choice. Do they provide us with something that has benefits beyond the electrons they make? That's the debate that's been happening in other states, and those states say yes," he said.

Subsidies face opposition from anti-nuclear energy groups like Three Mile Island Alert, as well as natural gas trade groups and power producers who compete against Exelon by operating coal and natural gas plants.

"Where we disagree is to have an out-of-market subsidy for one specific company, for a technology that is now proven and mature in our view, at the expense of consumers and the integrity of competitive markets," NRG Energy Mauricio Gutierrez told analysts during a conference call this month.

Smeltz notes that power producers like NRG would fill in the void left by nuclear plants as they continue to shut down.

"The question that I think folks need to answer is are these programs a bailout or is the opposition to the program a payout? Because at the end of the day someone is going to make money. The question is who and how much?" Smeltz said.

Changing the market

Another critic is PJM Interconnection, the regional transmission organization that operates the grid for 13 states, including Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.

The subsidies distort price formation and inject uncertainty into the markets, says Stu Bresler, senior vice president in charge of operations and markets at PJM.

The danger PJM sees is that each new subsidy creates a precedent for government intervention. The uncertainty makes it harder for investors to determine what sort of power generation is a sound investment in the region, Bresler explained. Those investors could simply decide to put their capital to work in other energy markets where the regulatory outlook is more stable, ultimately leading to underinvestment in places where government intervenes, he added.

Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, Londonderry Township, Pennsylvania
PJM believes longer-term, regional approaches are more appropriate. It has produced research that outlines how coal plants and nuclear energy, which provide the type of stable energy that is still necessary for reliable power supply, could play a larger role in setting prices. It is also preparing to release a report on how to put a price on carbon emissions in all or parts of the regional grid.

"If carbon emissions are the concern and that is the public policy issue with which policymakers are concerned, the simple be-all answer from a market perspective is putting a price on carbon," Bresler said.

Three Mile Island could be viable if natural gas prices rose from below $3 per million British thermal units to about $5 per mmBtu and if a "reasonable" price were applied to carbon, according to Exelon's Dominguez. He is encouraged by the fact that conversations around new pricing models and carbon pricing are gaining traction.

"The great part about this is everybody understands we have a major problem. We're losing some of the lowest-cost, cleanest and most reliable resources in America," Dominguez said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

US Nuclear Generating Costs 2017 show USD33.50/MWh for nuclear energy, the lowest since 2008, as capital expenditures, fuel costs, and operating costs declined after license renewals and uprates, supporting a reliable, low-carbon grid.

Key Points

The 2017 US nuclear average was USD33.50/MWh, lowest since 2008, driven by reduced capital, fuel, and operating costs.

✅ Average cost USD33.50/MWh, lowest since 2008

✅ Capital, fuel, O&M costs fell sharply since 2012 peak

✅ License renewals, uprates, market reforms shape competitiveness

Average total generating costs for nuclear energy in 2017 in the USA were at their lowest since 2008, according to a study released by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), amid a continuing nuclear decline debate in other regions.

The report, Nuclear Costs in Context, found that in 2017 the average total generating cost - which includes capital, fuel and operating costs - for nuclear energy was USD33.50 per megawatt-hour (MWh), even as interest in next-generation nuclear designs grows among stakeholders. This is 3.3% lower than in 2016 and more than 19% below 2012's peak. The reduction in costs since 2012 is due to a 40.8% reduction in capital expenditures, a 17.2% reduction in fuel costs and an 8.7% reduction in operating costs, the organisation said.

The year-on-year decline in capital costs over the past five years reflects the completion by most plants of efforts to prepare for operation beyond their initial 40-year licence. A few major items - a series of vessel head replacements; steam generator replacements and other upgrades as companies prepared for continued operation, and power uprates to increase output from existing plants - caused capital investment to increase to a peak in 2012. "As a result of these investments, 86 of the [USA's] 99 operating reactors in 2017 have received 20-year licence renewals and 92 of the operating reactors have been approved for uprates that have added over 7900 megawatts of electricity capacity. Capital spending on uprates and items necessary for operation beyond 40 years has moderated as most plants are completing these efforts," it says.

Since 2013, seven US nuclear reactors have shut down permanently, with the Three Mile Island debate highlighting wider policy questions, and another 12 have announced their permanent shutdown. The early closure for economic reasons of reliable nuclear plants with high capacity factors and relatively low generating costs will have long-term economic consequences, the report warns: replacement generating capacity, when needed, will produce more costly electricity, fewer jobs that will pay less, and, for net-zero emissions objectives, more pollution, it says.

NEI Vice President of Policy Development and Public Affairs John Kotek said the "hardworking men and women of the nuclear industry" had done an "amazing job" reducing costs through the institute's Delivering the Nuclear Promise campaign and other initiatives, in line with IAEA low-carbon lessons from the pandemic. "As we continue to face economic headwinds in markets which do not properly compensate nuclear plants, the industry has been doing its part to reduce costs to remain competitive," he said.

"Some things are in urgent need of change if we are to keep the nation's nuclear plants running and enjoy their contribution to a reliable, resilient and low-carbon grid. Namely, we need to put in place market reforms that fairly compensate nuclear similar to those already in place in New York, Illinois and other states," Kotek added.

Cost information in the study was collected by the Electric Utility Cost Group with prior years converted to 2017 dollars for accurate historical comparison.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Rosatom-RAS Cooperation drives joint R&D in nuclear energy, nuclear medicine, fusion, particle accelerators, laser technologies, fuel cycle safety, radioactive waste management, and supercomputing, aligning strategic planning and standards to accelerate innovation across Russia's nuclear sector.

Key Points

A pact uniting Rosatom and RAS on nuclear R&D, fusion, and medicine to advance nuclear technologies across Russia.

✅ Joint R&D in fusion, accelerators, lasers, and new materials

✅ Focus on fuel cycle closure, safety, and waste management

✅ Shared strategic planning, standards, and expert evaluation

Russian state atomic energy corporation Rosatom and the Russian State Academy of Sciences are to cooperate on joint scientific, technical and innovative activities in areas including nuclear energy, nuclear medicine and other areas of the electricity sector under an agreement signed in Moscow on 7 February.

The cooperation agreement was signed by Rosatom Director General Alexei Likhachov and President of the Russian Academy of Sciences Alexander Sergeev during a joint meeting to mark Russian Science Day. Under its terms, the partners will cooperate in organising research and development activities aimed at providing technological advantages in various sectors of the domestic industry, as well as creating and developing interdisciplinary scientific and technological centres and organisations supporting energy sector training and innovation. They will also jointly develop strategic planning documents, improve the technical and scientific regulatory and legal framework, and carry out expert evaluations of scientific and technical projects and scientific consultations.

Rosatom said the main areas of cooperation in the agreement are: the development of laser technologies and particle accelerators; the creation of modern diagnostic equipment, nuclear medicine and radiation therapy; controlled thermonuclear fusion; nuclear energy of the future; new materials; the nuclear fuel cycle and its closure; safety of nuclear energy and power sector pandemic response preparedness; environmental aspects of radioactive waste management; modern supercomputers, databases, application packages, and import-substituting codes; and also X-ray astronomy and nuclear planetology.

Likhachov said joint activities between Rosatom and the Academy would strengthen the Russian nuclear industry's "leadership" in the world and allow the creation of new technologies that would shape the future image of the nuclear industry in Russia. "Within the framework of the Agreement, we intend to expand work on the entire spectrum of advanced scientific research. The most important direction of our cooperation will be the integration of fundamental, exploratory and applied scientific research, including in the interests of the development of the nuclear industry. We will work together to form the nuclear energy industry of the future, and enhance grid resilience, to create new materials, new radiation technologies,” he said.

Sergeyev noted the "rich history" of cooperation between the Academy of Sciences and the nuclear industry, including modern safety practices such as arc flash training that support operations. “All major projects in the field of military and peaceful nuclear energy were carried out jointly by scientists and specialists of our organisations, which largely ensured their timeliness and success," he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News