Valerie O'Flynn’s Post

Nuclear vs Renewables: Making Sense of Australia's Energy Cost Debate🔍 "Have you ever noticed how people can look at the same set of facts and come to completely different conclusions? That's exactly what's happening right now in Australia, where a debate about future electricity costs is revealing something fascinating about how we make long-term energy decisions. Let's break this down in a way that makes sense: First, the basics: Australia, like many countries, needs to figure out how to generate enough electricity to power homes and businesses for the next several decades. Think of it like planning a retirement investment—different options have different upfront costs, ongoing expenses, and long-term returns. The country's top scientific agency, CSIRO, is comparing two main approaches: Option 1: Nuclear Power Plants - Large, centralized facilities that generate constant power - High upfront construction costs but long operational life (60-80 years) - Uses existing grid infrastructure - CSIRO estimates cost: $155 per megawatt-hour Option 2: Renewable Energy System - Network of wind farms, solar fields, and battery storage - Lower individual facility costs but needs new transmission infrastructure - Shorter facility life (25-30 years) but can be upgraded as technology improves - CSIRO estimates cost: $106-150 per megawatt-hour But here's where the debate gets really interesting—when we look beyond the basic numbers: 1. Real-World Track Record While these theoretical costs look somewhat comparable, actual construction experiences tell a different story. The only recent U.S. nuclear project, Vogtle in Georgia, has seen its budget more than double to over $30 billion and faced years of delays. Meanwhile, renewable projects typically finish on schedule and continue to see costs decline. 2. Financial Risk Structure Nuclear requires massive upfront investment that must be financed for decades before generating returns. Renewable systems can be built in stages, allowing for smaller initial investments and the flexibility to adapt as technology improves. 3. System Evolution Perhaps most importantly, renewable technology continues to improve and decrease in cost, while nuclear construction costs have historically increased over time. This trend has led most countries outside China to pause or abandon new nuclear projects in favor of renewable alternatives. Why this matters: These aren't just academic debates. The choices countries make today about power generation will affect electricity prices and reliability for decades to come. Understanding both the theoretical arguments and real-world evidence becomes crucial for making informed decisions that will impact everything from your monthly bills to where companies choose to build factories. #Energy #Infrastructure #EconomicPolicy

New risks will emerge this week for Australia's energy market outlook when the Dutton Coalition unveils costings for a new nuclear, gas and renewables energy mix that challenges the current orthodoxy of the energy transition. ➡️ The modelling, that will be strongly contested, will show a "more balanced mix" of energy sources will deliver better price outcomes that renewables. ➡️It would set up a market dominated by coal, gas and renewables for the next decade, while the Coalition figures out how to get nuclear into the market here. ➡️It also has the potential to set up a profound reshaping of the direction of Australia's energy transition, and poses risks particularly for renewable energy and transmission developers. The Coalition's policy is already facing new headwinds from a revised CSIRO GenCost report that doubles down on findings that nuclear would be too expensive, too slow. But what might surprise is that the Coalition wants the political fight to be NOT about nuclear but about energy prices, a key cost-of-living issue that's biting hard politically. The Coalition wants to avoid the Labor wedge of renewables vs nuclear, as wind and solar will win that popularity contest. 🥊Instead the fight will be about the risks to the future of the Australian economy from an all renewables transition and a war of attrition about alleged hidden costs for consumers. There will be a focus on a lack of transparency around the capacity capital costs needed to firm renewables and the undeclared costs of Consumer Energy Resources (CER) in the home. Gas will be the initial big winner through deregulation and the opening up of new acreage to vastly increase the supply and affordability of gas on the east coast. That’s good news for developers of the Beetaloo basin in the NT, Narrabri in NSW and possibly the resumption of onshore gas exploration in Victoria. The major reason why a sceptical business sector -- who mostly believe nuclear will never come -- needs to take notice, is that if they are wrong, they're facing major disruption. It’s too late to put the genie back in the bottle for renewables that are now around 40% of the Australian market, but the Coalition has flagged it will move to slow down that pace, particularly in the regions. The Coalition is also signalling a rehaul of AEMO’s Integrated System Plan (ISP) and the Federal Government's renewables financial support program, the Capacity investment Scheme. It will also gamble on coal-fired power staying on for a lot longer, with retirements pushed back to the mid-2030s, in the belief that a lot of the coal-fleet is modern enough to keep going way past scheduled retirement dates. 🩼The Achilles heel of all this is that a legislative ban on nuclear will need to be overturned – no easy feat with hostile Senates – as well as State bans across the Commonwealth, requiring likely double dissolution elections and High Court lawfare. #NuclearPower #EnergyTransitionRisk

The Korean electric market is a comprehensively structured system that, over the years, has undergone key changes. This market has been monopolized by state-owned KEPCO, which plays the central role of generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. Below is an overview of the key aspects of the Korean electric market: 1. Market Structure KEPCO-KEPCO is primarily responsible for the South Korean electricity supply. Major generation capacity rests in its hands, and it operates the national grid. The greater part of electricity generation in the country is by KEPCO generation subsidiaries, which cover thermal, nuclear, hydro, and renewable sources. IPPs: Although KEPCO dominates the market, several independent power producers are also present. Often, these are companies involving renewable projects or just specific types of generation, such as Combined Heat and Power. Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy: This governmental organization is responsible for energy policy, including issues related to electricity. It sets strategic directions, regulatory frameworks, and policies within the context of the industry. Korean electric market 2023-2030 mobility foresight-https://lnkd.in/gk9XU3bZ 3. Energy Mix Nuclear Power: Nuclear energy in South Korea has been more crucial and has comprised a strategic cornerstone of electricity generation. In recent years, however, an evident change in this policy has emerged to reduce reliance on nuclear sources in preference for renewable ones. Fossil Fuels: Coal and natural gas remain vital in the generation of electricity, but there is a gradual shift toward cleaner energy sources. 4. Challenges and Future Outlook Energy Transition: The Korean electric market is currently in transition from relying on nuclear and fossil fuels to cleaner sources of energy, which requires immense investment into renewable energy infrastructure and upgrading the grid. 5. Recent Development • Carbon Neutrality Goals: South Korea committed itself to Carbon Neutrality by 2050. Entailing ambitious plans of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that would strike at the very heart of the future developments in the electric market. The Korean electric market has come to a juncture where it needs to carefully balance energy security, economic efficiency, and environmental sustainability for the coming decades. Find some others- •Korean online food delivery market 2023-2030 https://lnkd.in/ecvBYMF2 •South Korea cloths market 2023-2030 https://lnkd.in/ecvBYMF2 All about South korea-: Major cities in Korea typically have several traditional markets each with vendors selling a wide variety of goods including fruit, vegetables, meat, fish, breads, clothing, textiles, handicrafts, souvenirs, and Korean traditional medicinal items.[1] The Korean word for market is sijang (Korean: 시장) The market space commonly includes permanent restaurants, pop-up restaurants and food stalls

80% of new energy generation in the US is now renewable… According to the Energy Information Administration, solar and battery storage accounted for a whopping 80% of all new electricity capacity added in the US in the first half of 2024. Solar made up 60% of the 20.2 gigawatts of fresh capacity online from January to June, with a large chunk attributed to two plants – a 600+ megawatt installation in Texas and in Nevada. These states also lead the #solar charge, due to their sunny dispositions. Battery installations also saw a major surge, adding 4.2 GW for over 20% of the total. California led with over a third of the nation's deployments, with Texas, Arizona, and Nevada contributing substantially. The massive 380 MW Gemini installation in Nevada and Arizona's 300 MW Eleven Mile solar-plus-storage facility were the largest projects that came online in 2024. Wind added a respectable 2.5 GW of new turbines, although that’s small compared to solar and battery’s contributions. Canyon Wind (309 MW) and Goodnight (266 MW) were the largest wind projects to come online this year, and both are located in Texas. Nuclear power also added to the mix, although small. The 1.1 GW Unit 4 reactor at Georgia's Vogtle plant came online in April, making Vogtle the largest nuclear facility in the US. Projections for the second half of the year see over 42.6 GW of fresh capacity added: 25 GW of solar, 10.8 GW is battery storage, and 4.6 GW is wind. That means 96% of 2024's new electricity capacity is on track to be emission-free this year, thanks to these contributions. These numbers are important especially with China brought into the picture, as the country has already achieved the 1,200 gigawatt #renewableenergy target set for 2030, six years ahead of schedule. The retirement of existing power plants in the US slowed in 2024, with only 5.1 GW taken offline in the first half versus 9.2 GW during the same period in 2023. Of the retired capacity, 53% was natural gas-fired like Massachusetts' massive 1.4 GW Mystic plant, followed by 41% from coal plants including Florida's 626 MW Seminole Unit 1 and Pennsylvania's 626 MW Homer City Unit 1. Those are impressive figures if the EIA is correct in its claims… Daily #electronics from Asia insights – follow me, Keesjan, and never miss a post by ringing my 🔔. #technology #innovation

Adjusted for capacity utilization, solar and wind facilities capable of generating electricity equivalent to 480 nuclear reactors remain unconnected to transmission networks in the US and Europe according to an estimate based on data from the Berkeley National Laboratory and BloombergNEF. Global investment in clean power plants reached $670 billion in 2023 according to the IEA, but the expansion of grid infrastructure has not kept pace. In contrast to nuclear, solar and wind plants can and have been built relatively quickly and cheaply due to their modularity and the plunge in the cost of materials but large-scale grid building has been shuttered by complicated approval processes., i.e., bureaucratic inertia, and can take 10 years or more from planning to completion. In the US, the capacity of renewables facilities without grid access reached 1,500 GW in 2023, a nine fold increase since 2022. That is why in August the US announced an additional $2.2 billion investment to upgrade its power grids. In the EU four major European countries have 860GW in solar and wind awaiting grid connection according to BloombergNEF. Japan plans to invest $42-$49 billion in transmission networks through 2050. The Japanese government has curtailed the backlog of renewables awaiting grid connection by prioritising newly built renewables connection to the existing grid over non-renewables infrastructures. This measure aims at attracting private funding for both renewables and new grid infrastructure and is a crucial step towards achieving Japan's decarbonisation goals. Australia should be emulating the Japanese model given that it produces such vast amounts of renewable energy that more than a quarter of the wind and solar generated is periodically wasted. Australia is a leader in roof top solar on homes, shopping malls and warehouses and supportive government policies and community awareness has smoothed the path to adoption. While there is a still need to build more battery storage, prioritising coal and gas over renewables on the grid sends the wrong message to investors, consumers and households and unnecessarily lengthens the life of antiquated coal infrastructures and reliance on gas.

The Australian Energy Market Operator has confirmed that a combination of renewables and storage, backed by significant investments in transmission upgrades, remains the cheapest and smartest course for Australia to replace its ageing coal plants and slash emissions in its electricity grid. The final version of its latest 25-year planning blueprint, the 2024 Integrated System Plan, says Australia can and should reach 82 per cent renewables by 2030, laying the groundwork for all coal fired power generators to leave the grid by 2038. It maintains that the cost of large-scale renewable generation, storage and transmission between now and 2050 will be around $122 billion, and while it does not consider nuclear as an option – because it is not legal in Australia – it says that nuclear would be too slow and, according to the GenCost report it co-authors with the CSIRO, way too expensive.

Comparing and contrasting the increase in electrical generation, electrification and decarbonization of electricity between China and the USA since 2000 is fascinating. Full article: https://lnkd.in/g4iMsgm2 Over the past decade, my analysis has focused on the rapid expansion of renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and hydroelectric power in China, juxtaposed with the much slower growth of nuclear power. In exploring the broader energy landscape, I've also delved into China's coal generation dynamics. Despite reports of extensive coal plant construction, a closer look at global data reveals a nuanced picture: a significant portion of planned coal capacity is being canceled, shelved, or retired early. This shift is part of China's strategic pivot towards renewable energy, which not only includes building renewable infrastructure but also optimizing the use of existing coal plants, which are increasingly used as backup rather than baseload power. The carbon intensity of China's electricity has become a critical metric in assessing its energy transition. In 2023, China achieved a carbon intensity below 550 grams of CO2 per kWh, a significant milestone, the same level as 2011 US averages. To provide a comprehensive comparison, I compiled a chart contrasting the trajectories of electricity generation and CO2 emissions between China and the USA, drawing from various data sources to normalize units and ensure accuracy. This comparison highlights a stark divergence: while China's electricity generation has skyrocketed, surpassing the U.S. to double its output, the carbon intensity of its electricity has been on a downward trend, benefiting from the increased share of renewables. The chart of TWh generation versus CO2e underscores the shifting dynamics of global energy, with China's aggressive push towards renewables and electrification and the U.S.'s slower transition marked by a switch from coal to natural gas. Although the U.S. has seen a reduction in CO2 emissions due to this switch, the overall impact is somewhat mitigated by unaccounted methane emissions from natural gas, which adds a significant carbon footprint not reflected in official figures. China's rapid electrification, marked by advancements in electric vehicles, high-speed rail, and urban transit systems, points towards a future where its carbon emissions could rapidly decline, driven by the increasing efficiency of renewable energy pathways. This trajectory contrasts with the U.S., where emissions reductions are more gradual and heavily influenced by the energy sector's methane emissions. My analysis suggests that, despite challenges, China's energy strategy is steering towards a more sustainable and lower-carbon future, setting a precedent for global energy transitions. #climateaction #economy #energy #business

Energy management is the staple of a good aviation professional. Translate that to energy infrastructure in general. #sustainableaviation

Contrast the steadfast direction of renewable energy policy in China with those in US, UK and EU Do Chinese government leaders discuss the concept of #justtransition? Perhaps they simply assume that the country's leadership in critical new energy technologies will provide increased prosperity for all citizens, including those who currently work in fossil fuel industries

The cost of future electricity generation in Australia has been revealed and it shows nuclear is the most expensive. The CSIRO report found renewables are the lowest cost range of new build electricity technology. It also found nuclear power was more expensive than renewables and would take at least 15 years to develop!! OH...AND BTW....The report also says the "first unit of any new technology in Australia is likely to incur higher costs, with a potential first-of-a-kind cost premium of up to 100 per cent, which is not included in GenCost estimates." So not $9.5 billion, but $19.0 billion and that makes no allowance either for inflation over the 15 YEARS of build time or cost escalation in general due to unknown issues.. Checking out the per kWhr costs: NUCLEAR: 2023 is $9,217/kW. "This capital cost can only be achieved if Australia commits to a continuous building program and only after an initial higher cost unit is constructed. The first unit of all first-of-a-kind premium of up to 100% cannot be ruled out." SOLAR/WIND PLUS FIRMING (read BATTERY!): ~$150/kWhr 15 year build time (yeah right!) vs under 2 proven for major renewables projects that are getting cheaper and faster every year (down 8% in cost last year according to the same report). No wonder they didn't put the actual $RENEWABLES costs in the Executive Summary except in graph form like they did nuclear. The Difference is RIDICULOUS!! #DUTTON & #LNP SHOULD BE LAUGHING STOCKS FOR EVEN SUGGESTING IT!! #NoNuclear #Renewables #ClimateAction