Good to see some sanity from the Energy Industry with one of the biggest Investor owned utilties (NextEra Energy, Inc.) saying this: "Despite the recent fervor among tech companies and investors about nuclear energy, Ketchum held that renewables and storage will likely play a greater role in meeting new energy demand for at least two decades to come." Agreed, renewables and storage is the way to go to ramp new generation capacity reasonably quickly. But all kinds of lobby groups have people believing that nuclear can be turned on fast (it won't). Paul Martin Michael Barnard please add your thoughts. Full disclaimer, my company BluWave-ai largely has no role in a world with nuclear rather our entire goal is to enable the transition to more renewables, storage and electrified transport, so I am biased in support of the CEO of NextEra John Ketchum. The relatively good news is in my home province we'll finally be onboarding more renewables given the path to 4GW of storage charge/discharge power onboarded in sub 4 years (or so....I will believe it when construction and commissioning happen). Full article here : https://lnkd.in/eumFNvhz %renewable %storage
Devashish Paul’s Post
More Relevant Posts
-
Working for sustainability and a clean transformation of energy systems and the economy. Seeking project roles now.
Cost comparison is important, and necessary (thanks Clean Energy Council), but arguably the biggest issue is still time to develop #nuclearpower. The #renewables led #energytransition can be 90% plus done before the first sod could be turned on a reactor construction site.
A new Clean Energy Council report finds small modular reactor nuclear power will cost six times more than renewable energy with storage, and that replacing renewables with nuclear would cause power prices to explode. 40% of Australia's energy grid is already made up of renewable energy like solar and wind power. Let's stick to what we know works. https://lnkd.in/gkDngm9X
Report finds nuclear is six times the cost of renewables
thewest.com.au
-
Last week, CSIRO released the 2023-24 #GenCost report, detailing the costs of new technologies for powering the grid. The report finds that smart renewables remain the lowest-cost option for new electricity generation. In contrast, nuclear energy, including both large-scale and small modular reactors, faces significant cost and timeline challenges. According to the report, even if construction began in 2025, Australia could not realistically have a nuclear plant operational before 2040. The projected electricity cost for large-scale nuclear, given current capital costs and an ongoing building program, is A$155-252/MWh. This is approximately twice the cost of fully firmed variable renewable energy, which is estimated to be $90-100/MWh by 2030, even after factoring in all related expenses such as grid transmission, battery firming, synchronous condensers, and spillage. The report's findings have sparked significant debate regarding the accuracy of these projections and the best path forward for Australia's energy future. What are your thoughts on the GenCost report and its implications for our energy strategy?
-
Chapter 7 Nuclear can be used for steady, consistent output, subject to a change in the NEM trading mechanism. The NEM currently allows spot pricing and contracts typically lasting up to 1 year. This does not provide a secure return for investors in new generators that provide a steady and consistent output, where project viability relies on a high capacity factor. To address this issue, longer-term contracts would need to be introduced. The NEM could still function as it currently does but would include both Contracts (current form) and Contracts for Difference Contracts. This is particularly important for nuclear and offshore wind, that require significantly higher capacity factors than onshore wind and solar to account for their higher initial construction costs. Nuclear could also be suited for energy intensive industrial and mining applications that require 24/7 electricity and/or heat, particularly at remote locations, beyond existing grid connections.
A new Clean Energy Council report finds small modular reactor nuclear power will cost six times more than renewable energy with storage, and that replacing renewables with nuclear would cause power prices to explode. 40% of Australia's energy grid is already made up of renewable energy like solar and wind power. Let's stick to what we know works. https://lnkd.in/gkDngm9X
Report finds nuclear is six times the cost of renewables
thewest.com.au
-
Is there a role for nuclear in Australia’s energy transition? Solar and wind are cheap and plentiful in Australia. But decarbonising the last few percent of the Australian electricity system by 2050 will be very expensive because of the need to guarantee 24/7 supply when cloudy, windless weather might sideline the great majority of renewables. Writing for ANU Policy Brief, Emeritus Professor Ken Baldwin argues that governments will need every option available to them – including small-scale nuclear projects – as they seek to fill the reliability gap that comes with 100 per cent clean energy. Read his expert analysis here: https://lnkd.in/gCjjEnwZ 📷 anystock/stock.adobe.com
-
-
You can’t argue with facts. The latest GenCost report by Australia’s national science agency, the CSIRO, reaffirms the fact that renewables firmed by storage and transmission remain the lowest cost pathway to replace our ageing coal generators. The report found that building nuclear reactors in Australia would cost between two to six times more than renewables firmed by storage technologies, while the first plant would not be operational until at least 2040. Clean Energy Council Chief Executive, Kane Thornton, said, “While nuclear may have a role to play in other jurisdictions around the world, it is ultimately the poorest possible fit for Australia’s energy future, especially when compared to the lower costs of renewables and storage, thanks to an abundance of sun and wind in Australia - the envy of the world.” View our response to the report here https://lnkd.in/gmDBMwWs #GenCost
-
-
Australia’s biggest supplier of coal generation and baseload power, AGL Energy, has again underlined there is no room for nuclear in Australia’s transition to renewables – neither on a grid dominated by wind and solar not at its coal sites that it intends to transform into clean industrial hubs. “I’d like to clarify – as I did in March – that nuclear energy is not part of our strategy and our position on this remains unchanged, AGL CEO Damien Nicks said in a presentation to a CEDA event in Sydney. Nicks’ position is important because two of AGL’s coal generation sites have been identified by the federal Opposition for its nuclear power plans, which it says could see seven reactors, or more, start construction sometime in the 2030s or 2040s – should they be elected, be able to remove the bans, find the technology and finance, and the sites to host it. #RenewableEnergy #CleanEnergy #Sustainability #GreenEnergy #SolarPower #WindEnergy #ClimateAction #EnergyEfficiency #Renewables #GreenTech
-
-
An independent report has found nuclear power is the most costly form of new energy generation in Australia, up to six times more expensive than renewable sources like wind and solar. The review was commissioned by the Clean Energy Council and conducted by consulting and engineering firm Egis. #nuclear #renewables #energy
New report found nuclear too costly for Australia, say no to SMRs
https://www.ecogeneration.com.au
-
Here's the thing with the Nuclear Energy industry's claims renewables are expensive: this is the first serious capital spend on generation capacity in Australia in 20 years. Coal fired power was mostly just maintenance costs. Of course it's expensive to build new generation capabilities and tie it into the grid. Just wait till we start paying for nuclear power build-outs. All this whingeing about renewables will suddenly be put into perspective.
-
NUCLEAR OR RENEWABLE ? The power of lobbying is incredible. In Finnland one political party, originally against nuclear power, was swayed to support it through a few simple, misleading statements: 1. "Nuclear waste is no longer a problem; we will bury it." 2. "Small nuclear reactors are safe because we've removed emergency cooling circuits and placed reactors in water tanks." 3. "The green transition and heating Helsinki are not possible without Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)." Investment in SMRs will take resources away from carbon-free and lower-cost renewable technologies that are available today and can push the transition from fossil fuels forward significantly in the coming 10 years.
Small modular reactors are still too expensive, too slow, and too risky
ieefa.org
-
Via Utility Dive: " Hydrogen too costly for clean baseload generation but could serve as long-term storage: report: The cost of clean hydrogen-fired generation would far outstrip other forms of clean baseload energy, including nuclear, according to analysis by the Clean Air Task Force. " #Energy #Utility #Utilities
Hydrogen too costly for clean baseload generation but could serve as long-term storage: report
utilitydive.com
My projection of global energy supply in the relatively steady state in a few decades puts nuclear at a very small percentage, 5% or less. Some countries will build it because it's aligned with nuclear arsenals, and perhaps some industrial sites somewhere will cluster around a big reactor for heat and power purposes, but these are edge conditions, not dominant situations. Renewables are just cheap, low risk and reliable. Once the shovel hits the ground, even with offshore wind, a GW in ten months of construction for a single project just isn't that hard. The degree of cost certainty and speed to revenue is just unparalleled compared to other low carbon forms of generation.