Tag Archives: Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)

Faking It: Why ‘Cheap’ Wind & Solar Power Claims Never Stack Up

From STOP THESE THINGS

Like any ideological cult, wind and solar acolytes bury troublesome facts and replace them with oodles of helpful fiction. Start with the supposed cost of the electricity occasionally generated by wind turbines and solar panels.

The usual trick is to invent some model said to capture the unique benefits of running on sunshine and breezes. The model ignores critical variables (such as sunshine and wind and wear and tear on turbines and deterioration of panels) thereby overstating output and understating the actual cost of generation.

Once upon a time Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) was renowned for advancing science and technology using objective and critical analysis, and all for the benefit of the Country. These days. Not so much.

CSIRO is just another government institution overrun by ideological crones obsessed with the conceit that they alone can change the weather 50 years from now and that if we don’t ‘act’ now the world will incinerate some time later next week.

Well and truly captured by wind and solar rent seekers, part of their brief is to put up fictional accounts of the (always understated) costs and (always overstated) benefits of wind and solar: its GenCost report sits somewhere between Science Fiction and rubbery accounting, as Nick Cater explains below.

We now know Labor’s renewables dream is based on economic modelling that isn’t as ‘unimpeachable’ as Chris Bowen claims it to be
Sky News
Nick Cater
4 May 2024

A scan of Chris Bowen’s media archives on his ministerial website shows that he has claimed that the cheapest electricity comes from renewable energy at least once a week for the last two years.

“Facts are facts,” he told ABC’s Sabra Lane last December.

He cited economic modelling by the CSIRO describing it as “unimpeachable and very, very clear”.

If the Energy Minister is beginning to sound screechy, it is probably because he’s losing the argument.

An Essential poll for the Guardian last month found that 40 per cent of Australians think renewable energy is the most expensive form of energy, up from 38 per cent last October.

Only 36 per cent said nuclear was the most expensive, and 24 per cent picked fossil fuels.

For the first time in an Essential poll, a clear majority supported nuclear energy, 52 per cent in favour compared to 31 per cent against.

The findings should trouble not just the government but the CSIRO.

It has suffered self-inflicted repetitional damage by venturing outside its area of scientific expertise into the complex microeconomic world of energy pricing.

Despite Bowen’s insistence, most Australians know that computer modelling of future prices are not facts but predictions that must be truth tested against observations made on the ground. Observations of the upward trend in household electricity bills, for example.

This week, the Centre for Independent Studies published a devastating critique of the CSIRO’s modelling which shows it to be unworthy of the paper it’s printed upon.

The CIS’ conclusions confirm that our peak scientific body has been wading out of its depth, cherry-picking data and making rookie calculation errors.

Significant costs attached to renewable energy are conveniently ignored in the CSIRO GenCost analysis.

The cost of storage and associated transmission lines incurred before 2030 are treated as sunk costs, even though investors will expect a return over the asset’s life.

The Australian Energy Market Operator’s Integrated System Plan – Bowen’s roadmap of the transition to renewables – requires considerable rooftop solar and home battery investment.

Householders and businesses bear this cost, but it is not included in the GenCost analysis.

The cost of decommissioning turbines, solar panels and batteries at the end of their life is also excluded.

In estimating the carbon emissions savings that are said to come by adopting renewals, AEMO’S roadmap excludes emissions from the manufacture of wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and the other paraphernalia required by intermittent renewable energy, making them seem cleaner than they are.

CSIRO’s method of evaluating individual projects doesn’t consider the energy system as a whole but as separate parts.

This approach allows financially unviable projects to get approval, leading to costs being transferred to consumers.

Most egregiously of all, the CSIRO cherry pick the data to make other forms of electricity generation appear more expensive.

It bases its cost estimate for Small Modular Reactors for example on the cost of a failed project in Utah, which faced peculiar cost overruns, technical challenges and regulatory hurdles.

It includes the finance costs for SMRs but not for wind and solar, where the assumption is that money is borrowed for free.

The GenCost report would likely have found nuclear was considerably cheaper if it had examined a mass-produced reactor like GE Hitachi’s BWRX-300, which is about to start production in Canada for installation at Darlington Point in Ontario.

Previous nuclear reactors have been one-off projects.

SMRs like the BWRX-300 will be made on production lines similar to those used to manufacture aircraft.

GenCost uses unrealistic assumptions about the construction costs of new coal plants, making them appear more expensive than renewables.

The ISP selectively chooses specific future years in its cost-benefit analysis to justify transmission projects and ignores years where reliability breaches are likely to occur.

In its determination to stack the cards against fossil fuel generation, the CSIRO assumes that the current price spikes for coal and gas caused by the Ukrainian war will remain constant throughout the lifespan of new plants.

In reality, world gas prices have already returned to levels close to those before Russia’s invasion.

The complete list of errors and biases in the CSIRO GenCost is extensive.

The CIS report is available online.

The CSIRO’s errors are forgivable in part.

The organisation’s expertise is in scientific research and innovation, not microeconomics.

It is hard to fault its work on insect control, fine wool processing, radio astronomy, WiFi protocols or polymer banknotes.

Yet its work on energy pricing is not just economically naive but a departure from the established scientific method.

It commits the most egregious error in the scientist’s rulebook: a priori reasoning, the formation of conclusions based on deductive logic or pre-existing knowledge in which the search for empirical evidence becomes superfluous.

The CSIRO researchers knew what the answer should be and proceeded to torture the evidence until it made a false confession.

A priori reasoning can be helpful in mathematics and logic, but it should never be applied to empirical questions or phenomena in the natural or social sciences.

It leads to confirmation bias, where investigators selectively interpret evidence to support their preconceived notions.

It encourages logical falsehoods and oversimplification, where conclusions are drawn from established principles and ignores the complex, dynamic systems that operate in the natural world or human behaviour.

It cannot cope with complexity or uncertainty, is inherently speculative and runs a high risk of error.

It leads to the delusion that computers are intelligent and that the ability to compile a spreadsheet is the path to omnipotence.

These are increasingly common symptoms in the laptop class.

It’s a condition that might be called Excel syndrome, the delusion that the ability to put a spreadsheet together is a substitute for knowing what you’re talking about.
Sky News

And check out Nick’s interview with Alexandra Nicol on the extortionate costs of wind and solar subsidies:

Italy’s Strategic Embrace of Nuclear Power: A Calculated Move Towards Energy Security

From Watts Up With That?

In a decisive shift from its past policies, Italy, under the leadership of Premier Giorgia Meloni and Environment and Energy Security Minister Gilberto Pichetto, is paving the way for the reintroduction of nuclear energy, with a focus on the latest in reactor technology: small, modular, and IV generation reactors. This move is not merely a policy change but a strategic recalibration aimed at bolstering national energy security and aligning Italy with modern, low-carbon energy technologies

https://www.ansa.it/english/news/politics/2024/05/02/law-for-return-to-nuclear-by-end-of-this-parliament-pichetto_13c0ae18-efaa-4876-876a-bcbce0022a78.html

Environment and Energy Security Minister Gilberto Pichetto said Thursday that the government aims to pass the necessary legislation to make Italy’s return to nuclear power possible by the end of the current parliamentary term.    Italy closed its nuclear plants in 1990 after the 1987 referendum on atomic energy following the Chernobyl disaster.

https://www.ansa.it/english/news/politics/2024/05/02/law-for-return-to-nuclear-by-end-of-this-parliament-pichetto_13c0ae18-efaa-4876-876a-bcbce0022a78.html

Addressing Energy Security

The backdrop to Italy’s renewed interest in nuclear energy is the stark reality of today’s geopolitical landscape, notably heightened by the energy uncertainties following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This scenario has laid bare the vulnerabilities in Europe’s energy supply, making the case for an energy diversification strategy that includes nuclear power compelling. Nuclear energy offers a stable, reliable source of power that can reduce dependence on external entities, the weather, and unpredictable global market shifts. The introduction of nuclear power thus represents a prudent step towards securing a stable energy future for Italy.

Leveraging Modern Technology: The Role of SMRs

Central to Italy’s nuclear strategy is the adoption of small modular reactors (SMRs). Unlike traditional nuclear reactors, SMRs offer a range of benefits that align well with Italy’s strategic and environmental goals. These reactors are designed to be built faster due to their modular nature, which allows for construction in controlled factory settings and assembly onsite, leading to reduced construction times and potentially lower costs. Additionally, SMRs are considered safer due to their smaller size and innovative safety features, reducing the risk of large-scale nuclear accidents.

The flexibility of SMRs also means they can be deployed to complement renewable energy sources, providing baseload power that can fluctuate with the variable output from solar and wind power. This adaptability makes SMRs an integral part of a balanced and resilient energy portfolio, ensuring continuous energy supply without the intermittency issues associated with renewables.

Low-Carbon Commitment

Nuclear power finally beginning to become a cornerstone in the global shift towards low-carbon energy sources. Despite the debates surrounding nuclear energy, its capacity to provide large-scale, continuous, and carbon-free electricity is unmatched by any other current technology. By investing in advanced nuclear reactors, Italy is positioning itself as a leader in sustainable energy production, aligning with European and international targets for CO2 emission reductions. Whether one believes Climate Change is even an issue worth considering, these moves would fit into a positive no regrets strategy regardless of whether or not CO2 emissions are an issue at all.

Rational Policy for a Sustainable Future

Minister Pichetto’s commitment to establish a judicial framework compatible with the development and operation of SMRs reflects a forward-thinking approach to energy policy. By preparing the necessary legislative environment to support nuclear technology, Italy is not only addressing its immediate energy needs but also setting the stage for sustainable growth, energy security, and technological innovation.

This policy shift is a reasoned decision grounded in the realities of today’s energy landscape and the potential of tomorrow’s technologies. It demonstrates a clear understanding that true energy security comes from stable baseload reliable sources. Nuclear energy, particularly through the lens of SMR technology, offers a path to achieve this reliability, enhancing Italy’s energy independence while supporting environmental and economic goals.

In conclusion, Italy’s re-engagement with nuclear power, driven by current geopolitical, economic, and energy considerations, marks a smart and strategic decision. It underscores a commitment to energy security and reliability, showcasing a balanced approach to addressing both immediate needs and long-term challenges. This initiative is a significant step forward, illustrating how nations can responsibly leverage advanced technologies for a secure energy future.

Originally reported here.

https://www.ansa.it/english/news/politics/2024/05/02/law-for-return-to-nuclear-by-end-of-this-parliament-pichetto_13c0ae18-efaa-4876-876a-bcbce0022a78.html

Microreactor designs fit for a Green future

From CFACT

By Duggan Flanakin

Innovation Zero 2024, set for April 30-May 1, is the largest net zero conference in the United Kingdom, a nation that has opted to keep nuclear energy in its “green” portfolio. The government-sponsored event “provides a meeting place for announcements, partnerships, deal-making, and collaborations for those who develop, produce, deploy, and fund low-carbon solutions.”

Just two of the 40 speakers at the Innovation Zero 2024 Energy Forum will represent the nuclear energy industry – Michael Hewitt, CEO of Allied Nuclear Partners, and James Walker, CEO of NANO Nuclear Technology, which is also a cosponsor. Both the UK and the U.S. are bullish on nuclear energy as part of their decarbonization programs.

In a very positive review of the nuclear industry, National Public Radio quoted Tennessee Valley Authority President and CEO Jeff Lyash, “You can’t significantly reduce carbon emissions without nuclear power.”

Likewise, Columbia Climate School dean Jason Bordoff questioned California’s plans to abandon nuclear energy. In his view, “We have to incorporate nuclear energy in a way that acknowledges it’s not risk-free” while admitting that “the risks of falling short of our climate goals exceed the risks of including nuclear energy.”

Today, there are no small or even micro nuclear reactors in operation in the U.S. or Europe even though these two technologies are the supposed “wave of the future.”

Walker admits that public sentiment for nuclear energy is the highest in decades. People should know, he said, that  “nuclear” combines zero carbon emissions with 24/7/365 reliability. Nuclear leads all energy sources in fewest deaths per trillion kilowatt-hours of generation. Moreover, nuclear is the only large-scale energy-producing technology required to take full responsibility for all its waste and that fully includes waste management in its costs of operation.

A year ago, Casey Crownheart posed the question, “We were promised smaller nuclear reactors; where are they?” Crownheart said small modular reactors (SMRs), both cheaper and safer than full-sized reactors, could solve some major challenges of traditional nuclear power. NuScale in early 2023 was the first to receive final federal approval for its SMR design, but operational SMRs are still years from deployment.

In the UK, Rolls Royce is developing large-sized SMRs to supply the national grid, cities, towns, and possibly massive industrial processing facilities (chemical plants, for example) that require huge amounts of power. Microreactors are designed to serve a largely different clientele, such that SMRs are a complementary, rather than a competing, technology.

Even more than SMRs, microreactors are fast becoming the rage among those seeking to decarbonize energy generation. Microreactor designs allow them to operate as part of the electric grid, independently of the grid, or as part of a microgrid to generate up to 20 megawatts of thermal energy for both electricity generation and heat for industrial applications.

Walker was effusive about the “huge potential” for microreactors, starting with the “tens of thousands of mining operations running on diesel fuel.” Microreactors are 100 to 1,000 times smaller than conventional nuclear reactors and considerably smaller than SMRs. Most are designed to be portable, and many can be hauled from site to site in a semi-tractor trailer.

This combination of reliability and operational flexibility makes microreactors an attractive choice at many, especially remote, locations that today rely on diesel generators. Pursuant to a contract awarded in 2022, BWX Technologies, Inc., is scheduled to deliver the first advanced, transportable, nuclear microreactor prototype in the U.S. later this year for testing at the Idaho National Laboratory.

The potential customer base for these tiny reactors includes deployable mobile reactors, remote industrial and manufacturing projects, current and previously uneconomic mining sites, oil and gas projects, military bases, remote towns and communities, and small islands. Another valuable application is supplying emergency power following catastrophic events (tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes).

Walker noted that returning uneconomic mines to viability using inexpensive, clean energy creates the potential to free up huge deposits of mineral wealth. This is especially true for African nations whose huge mineral wealth is concentrated at locations inaccessible to existing electricity grids. Moreover, microreactors do not need daily supplies of diesel fuel.

Market research, said Walker, has identified over 100 remote settlements in Canada that today run exclusively on diesel fuel. Similarly, many countries – the Philippines, Indonesia, and Thailand, among others – have numerous small islands that rely on diesel fuel. Microreactors can also service electric vehicle charging stations.

Another major area for potential growth is the shipping industry. The U.S. Navy has for decades powered aircraft carriers and submarines with nuclear fuel without incident and without carbon emissions. Yet oil tankers, shipping container vessels, and other large ships all use high-polluting bunker fuel. If the Navy can rely on nuclear energy, so can these ships.

The resurgence of interest in nuclear energy has prompted funding opportunities from both the federal government and private industry, but there are disconnects. The Department of Energy, says Walker, has allocated over a billion dollars this year toward rebuilding the U.S. nuclear infrastructure, with a primary strategy favoring supply-chain continuity.

The recent DOE enrichment RFP required bidders to have established relationships stretching from mining (or sourcing) of the uranium ore through conversion to enrichment, but this requirement alone excludes most nuclear energy system developers.

On the industry side, mining companies, tech companies, and large industrial processing companies are all examining and investing in nuclear solutions to power their operations with nuclear energy – but none are investing in early-stage prospective technologies. Instead, significant existing development supported by an established company with a strong technical workforce is a precondition for prospective partnerships.

On the positive side, said Walker, cryptocurrency miners have begun looking at nuclear energy to generate the massive power for mining economic quantities of cryptocurrencies. AI and data center companies are also looking at nuclear energy to power their operations, especially at remote locations. No prominent nuclear energy company has funded its development with cryptocurrencies, but this may soon change.

Walker says that NANO’s microreactors are expected to begin demonstration and physical test work this year. The hope is that working prototypes will be ready by 2027, with full licensing process by 2030. Manufacturing facilities would be constructed during the licensing phase to enable prompt deployment upon approval.

The best scenario would be that the regulators issue a general permit for the reactor design so that multiple reactors could be deployed, moved to new locations, and piggybacked as needed without additional regulatory delays.

The best business model, says Walker, keeps the manufacturer as owner and operator of the reactors, selling power to customers. Dozens of microreactors can be operated from a central control room, employing only a few onsite personnel. This keeps operating and power costs low and ensures that the manufacturer retains responsibility for operation and maintenance, decommissioning, and liability insurance.

In sum, as development of microreactors continues, the primary hurdle may not be on the manufacturing end. Adapting the nuclear regulatory framework to accommodate microreactors, perhaps with a general permit structure, could be the key to revolutionizing electricity generation for industry, remote communities, and other applications without straining the electric grid or building massive new transmission infrastructure.

And that, said Walker, is what makes microreactors ideal for a green future.

This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy

Nuclear revival needs a new regulatory framework

From CFACT

By Duggan Flanakin

It is high time for the U.S. nuclear energy industry to revive, regardless of whether the planet is marching towards a carbon-neutral energy future. In France, whose nuclear reactors that today supply about two-thirds of that nation’s energy are decades old, President Macron’s government has proposed an energy bill that calls for constructing six to 14 new nuclear reactors.

The reason? To ensure “energy sovereignty.”

Worldwide, there are about 440 nuclear reactors operating in 33 countries that together provide about 2,545 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2022, about 10 percent of the world’s total. Today, another 60 nuclear facilities are being constructed in 17 countries, led by China, India, Russia, Turkiye, and Egypt. Dozens more are in the planning or proposal stages.

The only U.S. plant under construction, Vogtle Unit 4, is nearing completion.

A hostile regulatory and even statutory environment in the United States is a major reason for such little nuclear activity stateside. Far too much of the cost for large nuclear facilities is spent waiting interminably for permits, which is a disincentive to investment in the world’s most efficient, longest-lasting, and likely safest form of “clean” energy.

Vogtle Unit 3, which just went online last July, and its sister Vogtle Unit 4, which hopefully will start generating electricity this spring, were first proposed in 2004. Five years later, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission signed off on the application in 2009, but not until 2011 did the NRC approve the final safety evaluation report for the reactor design. That was 13 years ago.

Today, as in France, nearly all of the 93 operating commercial nuclear reactors (at 54 facilities in 28 states) are over 40 years old, yet they still generate nearly a fifth of the nation’s electricity. As with mining operations, the permitting jungle dissuades the development of vital national resources.

Bad as the regulatory time frame is for large nuclear facilities, it is even worse (though technically the same) for companies desiring to bring new-design small modular reactors (SMRs) and micro SMRs to market.

The nation’s first prototype commercial SMR was invented by a team of nuclear scientists at Oregon State University in 2007. Yet when NuScale Power opted to develop a working model in 2022, they projected that their SMR would not be approved for the market until 2030. The two-step permitting process designed for large reactors remains the only pathway for these smaller reactors to win federal approval.

Well, that’s not entirely true. For over half a century, the U.S. military has relied on small nuclear reactors to power missile submarines, aircraft carriers, and icebreakers. Many of the safety controls and delays associated with commercial permitting are not applied to Naval Reactors because they occupy small spaces.

The electrical output for modern Naval Reactors is about the same as that for many of the modern-day SMR designs (less than 165 MW). Still, they are dedicated to powering turboshaft propellers rather than delivering commercial electricity. There has never been an incident of radiation poisoning associated with any of these reactors.

Reforming the permitting process for large reactors is important. Of far greater importance to the projected future of nuclear energy, though, is creating a legal and regulatory framework suitable for these smaller reactors, especially for micro SMRs, now in the development stage, that generate a maximum of 20 MW of electricity.

Micro SMRs, which have been dubbed “nuclear battery packs,” are anticipated for use at desalinization plants, mining operations, and other commercial and government operations requiring uninterrupted power. Their highest use might be at remote locations where power is typically supplied by diesel fuel or even coal that must be brought long distances to the worksite.

These modular, portable reactors can be hooked up in tandem to supply additional energy, moved from one site to another (especially valuable in military battlefields), and require little maintenance. The primary barrier to universal deployment of these small reactors is the time and cost of jumping through the tedious hoops in the nuclear reactor permitting process – many of which are entirely unnecessary for ensuring public safety.

Nuclear physicist James Walker believes that micro SMRs can provide a real solution to powering remote, high-energy-using facilities that today run on diesel fuel, often brought to the site at great expense. He sees “hundreds of thousands” of activities where a micro SMR could replace diesel generators without any need for refueling over a 20-year time frame – from military bases to mining operations and even to oil and gas and petrochemical facilities.

For this dream to become a reality in the near future, the U.S. truly needs to take a long look at the wisdom of forcing these small and microreactors to follow the procedures designed for reactors ten to 100 times their size, confined to a single location, and reliant upon cooling towers or reservoirs (as with the South Texas Nuclear Plant) that require their own permits.

While the Biden Administration has committed to helping establish a reliable domestic supply of fuels using high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) – crucial to deploying advanced nuclear reactors – neither the White House nor Congress has taken on the job of crafting reforms to the nuclear energy regulatory process that would expedite and simplify the permitting process for small and micro modular reactors.

Up till now, though, the domestic nuclear energy industry has been complacent, apparently satisfied (or more likely frustrated) with the high costs and public outcries against their industry. What needs to happen is for the nuclear industry itself to take the lead by crafting model legislation and regulations and bring them before lawmakers and regulators for discussion.

Last month, the Justice Department published two pieces of model legislation for states to consider addressing gun violence. Model laws have been widely used by the American Legislative Exchange Council the United Nations, the European Union, and even the International Red Cross to transform common sense solutions into policy.

The era of micro SMRs and SMRs in general is just beginning. Yet, the regulatory framework available for bringing these innovative solutions to the energy crisis to market is irrational and unsuitable – it is overkill that impedes the energy transition.

Lawmakers, even regulators, are not very familiar with the realities that the manufacturers and would-be marketers of these new-generation tools cope with on a daily basis. Nor do they see any real need to take the risks to the status quo inherent in creating such a new framework. Why rock the boat?

It is thus very unlikely that Congress and federal regulators will do anything without prompting – without someone (the industry is the best candidate) offering them the solution on a silver platter.

But who will step up and make this happen?

This article originally appeared at Town Hall

While America Pursues Renewables, Worldwide Expansion Is Underway for Nuclear Generated Electricity

Sweden, China, India, Russia, and others are changing from occasional electricity from renewables to fossil-free electricity from nuclear that is continuous and uninterruptible.

By Ronald Stein, P.E.

American political leaders such as President Joe Biden and California Governor Gavin Newsom continue “to dream the impossible dream” that intermittent electricity from wind and solar can run the world while countries such as Sweden, China, India, and Russia are changing from occasional electricity by renewables to electricity from nuclear that is continuous, uninterruptible, and fossil-free.

With regards to reliable electricity, Sweden has said their electricity policy goal is “changed from 100% renewable to 100% fossil-free”. The Swedish government unveiled a roadmap which envisages the construction of new nuclear generating capacity equivalent to at least two large-scale reactors by 2035. Sweden plans ‘massive’ expansion of new nuclear generated electricity by 2045.

The Swedish agreement also said necessary regulations should be developed to create the conditions for the construction and operation of small modular reactors (SMRs) to service smaller communities. In addition, the permitting process for nuclear power plants must be shortened.

Elsewhere, about 60 nuclear power reactors are currently being constructed in 15 countries, notably China, India, and Russia. Together, China and Russia account for 70 percent of new nuclear plants.

America continues its pursuit of reducing crude oil usage, in favor of wind and solar generated electricity. In addition, the “American renewables dream“ would mean sacrificing an estimated 6,000 useful products that rely on by-products manufactured from crude oil – products that range from asphalt for highways to fertilizers, cosmetics, synthetic rubber, medicines and medical devices, cleaning products, plastics, so many more.

Without fuels and without products now based on crude oil, we would be unable to operate the international and military airports that now accommodate a large number of the  more than 20,000 commercial aircraftand a large number of the more than 50,000 military aircraft, as well as many of the more than50,000 merchant ships.

Without the fuels and products now based on oil, the world would see the elimination of all militaries and space programs as the world reverts to the pre-1800’s when civilization existed without oil!

The billions who live on this planet without the benefits of those products made from the petrochemicals manufactured from crude oil have provided are also the poorest, sickest, and most vulnerable humans on the planet.

For any electricity generation method, whether it’s coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, nuclear, wind turbines, or solar panels, the most reliable are those that can generate continuous and uninterruptible electricity year-round to support hospitals, industry, militaries, electronics, and communications.

The nameplate rated capacity of renewables is very misleading as the generated electricity is intermittent and unreliable. Wind facilities only generate their stated output about 30-40 percent of the time.  Solar units typically only kick in 25 percent of their purported “capacity factor.” That means backup electricity  from coal, natural gas, and nuclear generating plants must be provided for the other 60-75 percent of the time that wind and solar are napping.

To the electrical engineer, the available wind and solar farms operational data shows that, it is not possible for wind and solar electricity to ever displace dispatchable, reliable generation of continuous uninterruptable electricity supplying the base load demand. In this regard, the proposal by some policymakers to replace major coal, natural gas, hydro, and nuclear power stations with a fleet of nameplate rated wind and solar farms that are dormant most of the time is not technically achievable, thus “they dream the impossible dream”.

Further, the minerals and components of renewable electricity from wind and solar are typically garnered overseas in developing countries, chiefly in China, Africa, and Latin America. What this means is that it will be on the backs of poor Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics to provide the low-cost, cheap labor that will drive a “Green revolution” – to include any potential child and slave labor as well as extensive environmental degradation to “their” country, as discussed in detail in the Pulitzer Prize Nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations – Helping Citizens Understand the Environmental and Humanity Abuses That Support Clean Energy”.

As for the environmental credentials of “clean electricity”, governmental leaders need to look at the trail of environmental and human damage from the beginning to the end of the life of batteries, turbines, and solar panels. The cleanliness of “clean” electricity is one of the Big Lies of our time. Wind and solar electricity are not cheap or energy-efficient, after considering the energy required for mining, transporting, processing, construction, and disposal of the hardware at the end of the line.

Then we have the oxymoron situation, where policymakers are not yet cognizant that everything that “needs” electricity is made with the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil, from the light bulb to the iPhone, defibrillator, etc., etc.! Thus, renewables are not displacing the need for crude oil.

Policymakers need to have a plan to be able to support the materialistic demands of the eight billion on this globe for all the products, infrastructures, and electricity that exist today that did not exist a few hundred years ago. Efforts to cease the use of crude oil, without a planned replacement, could be the greatest threat to civilization’s demands of the eight billion on this planet.

The so-called fossil fuel industry enables people to live lives of ease and comfort that were inconceivable for the masses before the 1800’s. The products and fuels manufactured from crude oil are the basis of modern life, providing thousands of products that are ubiquitous in modern society. These include items that we use practically every minute of the day from putting on our makeup and cleaning our teeth to undergoing medical treatment. Imagine the pharmaceutical industry without petrochemical products.

If we want to deliver continuous, uninterruptible, and emission-free electricity at scale, and at a low cost for millions of electricity consumers, to support the materialistic demands that did not exist a few short centuries ago, that pace will have to move to a warp speed timeline, like that in Sweden, China, India, and Russia with their focus on electricity from nuclear generation.

Ronald Stein, P.E.

Ronald Stein is an internationally published columnist and energy consultant, and a policy advisor for The Heartland Institute.

This article originally appeared at Heartland

Energy Scale: Nuclear Powered Future Means Thinking Big & Acting Now

Small modular reactors (SMRs) are disrupting conventional notions surrounding nuclear power. Smaller, more compact, and producing minimal emissions, this innovative alternative to traditional nuclear power is receiving more public and private sector attention as governments across the world scramble to meet global energy needs reliably and responsibly.

From STOP THESE THINGS

When it comes to reliable and affordable power, big truly is beautiful. There has been plenty of focus on Small Modular Reactors which, in time, promise to revolutionise the generation and distribution of electricity. However, in the here and now, in Australia the heavy lifting is being done by large-scale coal-fired generators, with gas, diesel and kerosene being used for turbine and piston-engined generation.

Occasional bursts of wind power and solar power (weather and wind permitting) get thrust into the grid, allowing operators to collect $billions in subsidies every year.

Those subsidies are helping to destroy what’s left of Australia’s reliable coal-fired power fleet.

What replaces those reliable 24 x 365 generators is a matter of delusional faith (on the one hand) and unmitigated anxiety-filled realism (on the other).

The cult that thinks chaotically intermittent wind and solar, backed up by mythical mega-batteries, can replace coal-fired power plants have another thing coming.

However, as Peter Smith explains below, those pinning their hopes on SMRs as an immediate fix to Australia’s power woes also need a reality check.

What Smith has to say about maintaining Australia’s coal-fired power generation fleet, and progressively upgrading it with High Efficiency Low Emission plants makes perfect sense. However, over the longer term, large-scale nuclear power plants are an obvious choice for a uranium rich country like Australia. Whether Australia’s notionally conservative Liberal party has the stomach for either path is an open question.

Nuclear or Net Zero. It Can’t be Both
Quadrant
Peter Smith
30 October 2023

It seems clear that the Coalition will go to the next election with an incoherent energy-cum-climate change policy. Sticking with net zero and going nuclear won’t mix. Pursuing the first will effectively rule out the second.

The Coalition is very unlikely to propose building any conventional large-scale nuclear reactors. It will punt for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), each providing up to 300MW. For example, numbers of them would have to be linked to provide the comparable electricity supply of our largest coal power station. At full capacity, Eraring generates 2880MW.

Westinghouse, which is developing SMRs, recently provided a projected cost of US$1 billion for its 300MW model. That’s about $1.5 billion in Australian dollars. So Eraring’s power generation could be replaced for something upwards of $15 billion once all costs have been factored in. A lot of money, but a lot less than the $25 billion or more it would likely eventually cost (including transmissions lines) for storing much less power via Snowy 2.0. Assuming Snowy 2.0 is completed; which, clearly, it won’t be. It’s simply a case of when it will be put out of its misery. Cancel Malcolm Turnbull’s prime ministerial pension in small recompense for the sunk cost? Just an idle thought.

Of course, Eraring is just one of the remaining coal-power plants for the chop. Speaking at climate “summits” in July and again in October, Daniel Westerman, the CEO of AEMO, said that the “historic mainstay of the power system — coal-fired generation — is on the way out … two-thirds of coal, or 14GW, could exit the market in six-and-a-half years’ time.”

Relacing fourteen gigawatts of coal would take some 47 SMRs at a cost of about $70 billion-plus. Now we’re talking real money? Not so much. After all, Net Zero Australia, a partnership between the University of Melbourne, the University of Queensland, Princeton University and an international consultancy group, reported, also in July, that Australia would need to spend “up to $9 trillion on the transition in the next 37 years;” and, of this, $1.5 trillion by the end of the decade. Silly, unachievable, amounts of money. Still, it puts a mere $70 billion in perspective. It’s peanuts. So the Coalition and Australia are on a nuclear winner? Not so fast.

Westinghouse said it hoped to have its first (300MW) SMR operating in the United States by 2033. That’s ten years away and we are a long way from adding Australia to the queue of orders. And I assume that Westinghouse won’t be a laggard among the major companies developing SMRs.

What will Australia need to do before joining the queue and putting in its order? First, the Coalition will need to win the next election and probably the one after that. Second, it will need have the existing legal prohibition on nuclear energy overturned by the Parliament. That means getting a bill passed by the Senate. Third, it will need to identify sites for the SMRs and, critically, for high-level waste disposal. Watch out for underground bones, spiritual connections, and leftist judges of a development-denying turn of mind. Good luck.

But suppose a miracle happens and Mr Dutton eventually puts in an order. I would say you could put things on the same footing as the delivery of the first Australian-made SSN-AUKUS nuclear submarine. To wit, the early 2040s.

Before I go on, let’s never forget, when logically preferencing reliable and continuous nuclear power over unreliable and intermittent wind, solar and pathetic battery power, that refurbishing existing coal-power plants and building new efficient ones is much the best option. It is a tragedy of our age that the climate-change hoax has pretty well ruled that out. The United Nations, the EU, the ABC, the Greens, inner-city latte-sippers, Greta Thunberg, renewable-energy carpetbaggers, and many notables, would all howl. One Nation might stand up to it. The Coalition? Hardly.

But back to where I left off, nuclear by the early 2040s. Not so bad? Sadly, it is so bad. It’s too late. Westerman’s not for waiting. He’s a glass half-full man to whom dire predicaments are opportunities. Apropos:

Our Integrated System Plan is clear that investment is needed at scale. Generation from wind and solar, energy storage systems and other firming capacity, and transmission, all need urgent investment to ensure the lights stay on as our coal-fired power stations retire … the east coast power system needs to triple the amount of grid scale solar and wind by 2030, and triple it again by 2050, from 16 GW today to 141 GW by 2050, while storage needs to expand by a factor [of] 30…to 60 GW. That’s a big economic opportunity in anyone’s language, all in the best interests of energy consumers.

Letting this “big economic opportunity” slip is not on Westerman’s agenda, nor more broadly is it on the agenda of climate influencers and potentates. While things aren’t going nearly as well as hoped. Increasing costs, shortages of skilled manpower and pesky objections to ugly wind, solar and transmission eruptions are slowing progress. Nonetheless, the ship has sailed and, even if they win, no bunch of pantywaist Libs, hitched to net zero, will take enough wind out of its sails (if you’ll forgive the metaphorical pun). By the 2040s, the nuclear option will have come too late to save the day. Too much will have been invested in destroying coal and erecting wind and sun totems to reverse course.

Picture if you will an elderly Dutton weeping over the energy carnage as he pens his memoirs. If only he’d ditched net zero and plumped for coal until nuclear arrived. Yes, he won the 2024 election with a nuclear pitch. Alas, that net-zero albatross eventually did him in. What, not another blackout, he sighed, as he put down his quill in the dark.
Quadrant

Kathryn Porter On Nuclear Power

If ever there was a case for massive government intervention, this is it.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Philip Bratby

Another excellent article by Kathryn Porter:

I write a lot about what isn’t working in the energy transition – so what do I think will work?

The answer is nuclear power. Not fusion, but regular fission power. Nuclear has a number of key advantages, not found all at once in any other source of energy. Nuclear produces no carbon dioxide emissions in operation, it has a very high energy density in that a lot of energy is produced from a small geographic footprint, and it is not intermittent. Less well-known is the fact that nuclear power stations actually can “load-follow” – this means they can vary their output in response to changes in demand.

Of course, there are downsides. Nuclear has a very high capital cost and an extremely stringent regulatory regime, and there are the issues of nuclear waste and public acceptance.

The UK Government has spent a lot of time and effort trying to design incentive schemes to encourage private investment in the sector, with minimal success. It has launched Great British Nuclear to kick-start interest in small modular reactors (SMRs) and expects to co-invest in these projects. But the fact is that nuclear power is beset by large and unquantifiable risks, which mostly come from government itself. The entire German nuclear power industry was recently ordered to shut down, for instance, in the wake of the Fukushima powerplant incident: this despite the fact that no health effect to anyone from Fukushima radiation “is ever likely to be discernible” according to the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Every new nuclear project faces interminable legal action from anti-nuclear activists. There are legislators in every Western nation who make no secret of their opposition to nuclear energy, though some of these have changed their stance after realising how helpful it is in meeting net-zero goals.

In this kind of environment, it’s reasonable that the private sector should be reluctant to take on political risks. The government should go beyond incentive schemes and simply pay for new reactors, particularly large ones, out of public funds. I am not an advocate for widespread state ownership in the energy sector, but in the same way that we do not expect the private sector to finance physical security – the military and police – we should not necessarily expect it to fully finance energy security. It would be more efficient, and potentially cheaper for consumers, were the Government to get over its squeamishness about putting large infrastructure on its balance sheet and ensure that more reactors are built.

The issue of regulation is also possible to improve. Since Fukushima, despite the fact that basically no health consequences occurred, regulation has become even more risk averse. For example, the existing UK Advanced Gas Cooled Reactors may be forced to close early (some already have) because of the risk that a single control rod may fail to deploy in the event of an earthquake of a magnitude never experienced in the history of the UK. Not only can these reactors be safely shut down if fewer than a fifth of the fuel rods deploy, there are also two further shut-down methods should this fail. It’s no wonder that nuclear power is the safest form of generation with the lowest number of deaths per unit of energy generated.

The issue of waste also turns out to be a lot less thorny than expected. Most of today’s waste problems date back to the early days of nuclear power when waste was not handled correctly. The cleanup from this is an ongoing challenge. Modern reactors produce less waste, and the protocols for correct handling are now established. According to government data, the total mass of radioactive waste in stock and estimated to be produced in the UK over the next 100 years will be around 5.1 million tonnes. In contrast, around 5.3 million tonnes of hazardous waste come from UK households and businesses every single year.

When it comes to public acceptance, the best place to start is on the sites of previous reactors since the local population is used to living next door to nuclear power which has been a source of jobs.

There are significant opportunities for both large and small nuclear reactors. Despite the hype, SMRs are still some years away from being available commercially, and we can’t afford to wait. We should hurry up and build some more large reactors.

The most promising large-scale technology is the APR-1400 advanced light water reactor developed by Korea Electric Power Company (KEPCO). Six of these have been built in South Korea and the UAE, with another due to open soon. They have been delivered broadly on time (in eight years) and with modest cost overruns. Another option is the European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR) which EDF is building at Hinkley Point C and another of which recently opened at Olkiluoto in Finland. Unfortunately, the three EPR projects in Europe (the other being the flagship development at Flamanville in France) have been beset with massive delays and cost over-runs. It’s a similar story with the Westinghouse AP1000, another pressurised water reactor which has just been completed at Vogtle in Georgia with a second unit due next year.

A further option would be an Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR). These were built on time – in just five years – and on budget in Japan before the Fukushima incident. While ABWR supply chains may be stale, they could be refreshed if multi-site orders came in.

SMRs provoke a great deal of interest, for good reasons. Companies such as Dow Chemical are exploring their use to deliver high temperature heat to their facilities: on-site nuclear is one of the more credible options for zero-carbon high temperature industrial processes. Dow is working with X-Energy to deploy an SMR at its UCC Seadrift Operations site in Texas, by about 2030. The companies hope to start construction in 2026.

Again, as ever with nuclear, the main hurdle is regulatory. US developer NuScale recently secured certification from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) but said the process ran from 2008 to 2020, cost half a billion dollars and generated two million pages of documentation. And that certification is only applicable in the US – NuScale would have to go through it all again if someone wanted to deploy its  technology in the UK or elsewhere.

The UK Government has said it wants to co-operate with trusted national regulators, and this would be a good place to start – if the technology is good enough for the NRC it should be good enough for the UK and vice versa (of course, site-specific approvals must still be on a case by case basis).

The main British contender in the SMR space is Rolls Royce which was assumed to have an advantage given its role in nuclear submarine propulsion. Unfortunately, small civil reactors are quite different to military ones which run on high-enriched fuel, so there was less to leverage than expected. The company is on the slow road to UK design certification.

SMRs are essentially small versions of conventional nuclear technologies. The idea, which has also been trialled by Westinghouse for large-scale projects, is to build as many components as possible off-site using a modular approach, with reduced on-site engineering. An even more interesting prospect is a fully plug-and-play, transportable “micro-reactor” plant with virtually no on-site engineering. Again, Westinghouse is at the forefront, with a micro-reactor it expects to be built and fuelled fully off-site. The product, named eVinci, would run for around eight years before being taken away for re-fuelling, leaving no waste behind. It uses a novel passive cooling technology. Recently the company successfully produced a prototype of one of the main design components.

If micro-reactors work, their potential would be huge. They could be installed at industrial sites to generate electricity, and potentially produce hydrogen to fuel very high temperature operations such as glass-making, where the temperatures are difficult or expensive to achieve other than through combustion. They would also be ideal in various off-grid locations which currently rely on diesel generators.

Unlike these proven fission technologies, I am less optimistic about fusion. Recent “breakthroughs” have misled the public as they ignore the vast amounts of energy required to power the plant. The technology needs to improve by orders of magnitude before more energy comes out than goes in. It’s also worth noting that people talk about fusion power as though it would be free from the radiation and waste problems of fission: this is emphatically not the case. Worthwhile fusion power has been supposedly imminent for more than half a century, and it’s liable to be a very long time before it arrives. We should not put off building fission capacity to wait for it.

Fission power makes Net Zero actually possible to achieve, and has the huge benefit of being an established technology that fits very well with the way our electricity grids were designed to work. There is no need for backup generation, extra power lines, or additional balancing costs, all of which are needed when intermittent renewable generation is installed.

In 1956, the first civil nuclear power station in the world was built at Calder Hall in Cumbria with the nearby homes in Workington being the first to receive electricity generated from nuclear power. It ran for 47 years generating enough power to run a three-bar heater for 2.85 million years. We need to rediscover that same ambition and power up our nuclear sector once again.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/01/nuclear-power-green-energy-tech-net-zero-miracle/

If we do rollout large amounts of nuclear, then clearly wind power is a dead end technology, and we should put a stop to all new projects, as they will be superfluous.

Although nuclear reactors can vary their output, as she points out, to merely act as a back up for intermittent renewables would totally destroy their economics.

It would be absurd to spend hundreds of billions on both wind and nuclear, when the latter could do the job on its own.

There is, by the way, an easy solution to the problem of environmental activist opposition to nuclear – simply tell them the choice is nuclear or gas!

Six companies chosen for UK nuclear tech contest

From Tallbloke’s Talkshop

October 2, 2023 by oldbrew

There’s a yawning gap of a decade or so between the end of UK coal-fired power stations in late 2024 and the hoped-for arrival of its potential replacement, new SMR nuclear power.
– – –


Six companies have been selected to advance in the Small Modular Reactor (SMR) competition, reports Energy Live News.

Among the chosen contenders are industry giants like EDF, Rolls Royce and GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy International LLC.

The SMR competition aligns with the government’s strategic plan to revitalise nuclear power.

The government’s ambition is to have up to a quarter of all UK electricity generated from nuclear power by 2050.

What sets SMRs apart from conventional nuclear reactors is their smaller size and factory-based production.

Experts say this technology has the potential to revolutionise power station construction by making it faster and more cost-effective.

The government and Great British Nuclear, a government-backed entity driving nuclear projects, believe that the designs chosen in this phase exhibit the highest capability to deliver operational SMRs by the mid-2030s.

The next stage of the competition will be launched promptly, enabling successful companies to bid for government contracts.

The goal is to announce government-supported companies in Spring 2024, with contracts awarded by Summer 2024.

The government is also investing in large-scale projects like Sizewell C, closely resembling Hinkley Point C, the first nuclear plant constructed in over a generation.

Full report here.

Simply Irresistible: Why Plugging Into Small Modular Reactors Makes Perfect Sense

FromSTOP THESE THINGS

Listen to the wind and sun cult and you’d think that Small Modular Nuclear Reactors are a work of far-fetched Science Fiction. The reality is that some 200 small nuclear reactors are presently powering 160 ships and submarines all around the world, and have been for decades.

None of which sits with the narrative pitched by renewable energy rent-seekers, who are evidently terrified of the prospect of bringing a fleet of those SMRs onshore to provide safe, reliable and affordable power 24 x 365, whatever the weather, with no need for batteries or backup.

Apply our good friends logic and reason and you’ll soon reach the very same conclusion expressed by Tony Grey in the piece below.

SMR option shows the ‘irresistible sense’ of going nuclear
The Australian
Tony Grey
30 August 2023

As Australia’s Minister for Energy, it is of great concern that Chris Bowen should demonstrate such a lack of understanding of one of the globe’s biggest sources of energy, nuclear, in his recent article in this newspaper.

For an energy minister to reveal that he knows little about nuclear, even as a reasonable option for Australia because it is emissions-free, puts into question his ability to manage the portfolio for the people of Australia.

Nuclear energy generation has continued to evolve significantly and the technology attracting the most interest and investment today is the small modular reactor. SMR technology is in an advanced stage of development and changing the nuclear landscape. Chris Bowen mentions SMRs in his article, and acknowledges they are gaining attention, yet he dismisses them in his article as being “small in one sense only: output” because “they can produce just 300MW each”.

While the maximum capacity of individual SMRs is 300MW, their modules (as the name implies) can be placed together to meet demand. A combination of three modules would generate enough electricity for about a million people.

Also, he fails to comprehend the load-following facility of SMRs, which allows them to adjust their output to demand. He makes the astonishing claim that they are “not a flexible source of peaking and firming”. This is from an “energy minister”.

And he doesn’t seem to appreciate the pivotal and economic role that SMRs could play in replacing coal as a firming agent to support renewables when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. For that purpose, they can be built on the sites of closed-down coal-fired stations, use much of their infrastructure, and provide jobs to many of their workers. They are the only emissions-free source that can do that. Renewables can’t.

SMRs are eminently suitable for Australia because of their easy transportability. They can not only be plugged into the existing grid (no need for a $20bn rewire of the nation) but used in off-grid regional areas, even in mining. BHP has publicly called upon the government to change its policy to permit this.

In view of the intransigence of the government on the issue, it’s understandable that the opposition is running a pro-nuclear policy. There is rising public support for at least considering nuclear power to assist in the country’s deeply flawed energy policies.

A recent financial newspaper survey and polls by the Lowy Institute and Institute of Public Affairs reveal a clear majority of Australians in favour of repealing the legislation enacted in 2000 prohibiting use in Australia of nuclear. The IPA poll found a majority of Labor voters supporting use of nuclear. The opposition is merely taking a line adopted by every other advanced nation. Australia is the only top 20 economy without nuclear power.

Safety developments for reactors and the well-publicised progress in Finland of constructing a world-first long-term high-level waste repository at Onkalo, have removed the major public fears about nuclear. The battleground has moved to the economic field just as it did in the struggle over uranium mining (a proxy for nuclear). Opponents of nuclear claim, without credible evidence, that it is too costly.

What about the costs of SMRs? Chris Bowen predictably claims nuclear is “too expensive” when asked about this option. He presumably relies on the CSIRO’s recent GenCost 2022-23 report, which provides estimates for Australian energy costs. In this extensive document only a small section is devoted to nuclear and it is treated superficially. The CSIRO did not commission any credible organisation to review capital costs for SMRs, but merely escalated an out-of-date 2018 figure from a questionable outside source. The result is an overestimate of more than double plausible industry estimates.

This error is demonstrated by a recent Canadian report on SMRs. In many respects, Canadian society and its economy are very similar to Australia’s. It would therefore seem appropriate to consider Canada’s decision to include SMRs in its nuclear program, which supplies 15 per cent of the country’s electricity.

Because of their modular form, SMRs can be manufactured in batches to a single design, which reduces unit costs and facilitates streamlining of regulatory approvals. Financing is made easier when several modules are combined. As one module is finished and starts producing electricity, it will generate a positive cash flow for the next module, as would be the case with NuScale’s project in the state of Idaho of six SMRs of 77MW each, producing a total of 462MW. This would reduce the amount of capital needed for SMRs in Australia.

Elsewhere, 80 SMRs are under development in 19 countries (including the US, Canada, Japan, and many in Europe) with 17 in near-term development. NuScale expects its plant to be operational by 2030.

If so many nations are developing SMRs, with large corporations such as Fluor, Hitachi, Rolls-Royce and others investing their funds, what possible confidence could we have in Chris Bowen’s cavalier claim that SMRs cost too much? At the very least, he and the government should undertake a proper examination of the technology and economics, but from a position of knowledge. For that to happen, the prohibitory legislation must be repealed, as the Liberal Party is now proposing. The lamentable situation we are in today brings to mind George Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984, where Big Brother proclaims “Ignorance is strength”.

As Australia is way behind the rest of the world in the general understanding of nuclear economics, we could reach out to organisations such as the London-based World Nuclear Association, which has 181 members located in 44 countries and covers 70 per cent of the world’s nuclear generation. It is recognised for its comprehensive information on nuclear energy. I have been assured the WNA would be willing to offer its program to Australia.

With all the uncertainties of our energy industry, as demonstrated by Tasmania’s failure to support growing electricity needs in that state with its hydro power, and the manifest failures of the federal government to map a credible course to exchange our reliance on fossil fuels for zero-carbon sources, the Liberal Party’s call to remove the 24-year barrier to using emissions-free nuclear power, especially in its SMR form, makes irresistible sense.
The Australian

G20: Coal Should be Phased Down “in line with national circumstances”

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

In response to UN calls for the urgent elimination of coal, the G20 has responded with a commitment to keep coal as long as needed, and to pursue nuclear energy with the same urgency as renewables.

…

Implementing Clean, Sustainable, Just, Affordable & Inclusive Energy Transitions

38. We commit to accelerating clean, sustainable, just, affordable and inclusive energy transitions following various pathways, as a means of enabling strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive growth and achieve our climate objectives. We recognise the needs, vulnerabilities, priorities and different national circumstances of developing countries. We support strong international and national enabling environments to foster innovation, voluntary and mutually agreed technology transfer, and access to low-cost financing. To this end, we:

  1. Emphasise the importance of maintaining uninterrupted flows of energy from various sources, suppliers and routes, exploring paths of enhanced energy security and market stability, including through inclusive investments to meet the growing energy demand, in line with our sustainable development and climate goals, while promoting open, competitive, non-discriminatory and free international energy markets.
  2. Recognizing that developing countries need to be supported in their transitions to low carbon/emissions, we will work towards facilitating low-cost financing for them.
  3. Support the acceleration of production, utilization, as well as the development of transparent and resilient global markets for hydrogen produced from zero and low-emission technologies and its derivatives such as ammonia, by developing voluntary and mutually agreed harmonising standards as well as mutually recognised and inter-operable certification schemes. To realise this, we affirm the ‘G20 High Level Voluntary Principles on Hydrogen’, to build a sustainable and equitable global hydrogen ecosystem that benefits all nations. We take note of the Presidency’s initiative to establish the Green Hydrogen Innovation Centre steered by the International Solar Alliance (ISA).
  4. Will work towards facilitating access to low-cost financing for developing countries, for existing as well as new and emerging clean and sustainable energy technologies and for supporting the energy transitions. We note the report on “Low-cost Financing for the Energy Transitions” prepared under the Indian Presidency and its estimation that the world needs an annual investment of over USD 4 trillion, with a high share of renewable energy in the primary energy mix.
  5. Will pursue and encourage efforts to triple renewable energy capacity globally through existing targets and policies, as well as demonstrate similar ambition with respect to other zero and low-emission technologies, including abatement and removal technologies, in line with national circumstances by 2030. We also note the ‘Voluntary Action Plan for Promoting Renewable Energy to Accelerate Universal Energy Access’.
  6. Pledge to advance cooperation initiatives to develop, demonstrate and deploy clean and sustainable energy technologies and solutions and other efforts for innovation.
  7. Take note of the ‘Voluntary Action Plan on Doubling the Rate of Energy Efficiency Improvement by 2030’.
  8. Recognize the importance of sustainable biofuels in our zero and low- emission development strategies, and note the setting up of a Global Biofuels Alliance.
  9. Support reliable, diversified, sustainable and responsible supply chains for energy transitions, including for critical minerals and materials beneficiated at source, semiconductors and technologies. We take note of the Presidency’s “Voluntary High- Level Principles for Collaboration on Critical Minerals for Energy Transitions”.
  10. xi. Recognize the role of grid interconnections, resilient energy infrastructure and regional/cross-border power systems integration, where applicable in enhancing energy security, fostering economic growth and facilitating universal energy access for all.
  11. x. For countries that opt to use civil nuclear energy, will collaborate on voluntary and
  12. mutually agreed terms, in research, innovation, development & deployment of civil nuclear technologies including advanced and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), in accordance with national legislations. These countries will promote responsible nuclear decommissioning, radioactive waste and spent fuel management and mobilizing investments, and share knowledge and best practices, through strengthening international cooperation to promote nuclear safety globally.
  13. Will increase our efforts to implement the commitment made in 2009 in Pittsburgh to phase-out and rationalise, over the medium term, inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption and commit to achieve this objective, while providing targeted support for the poorest and the most vulnerable.
  14. Recognise the importance to accelerate the development, deployment and dissemination of technologies, and the adoption of policies, to transition towards low-emission energy systems, including by rapidly scaling up the deployment of clean power generation, including renewable energy, as well as energy efficiency measures, including accelerating efforts towards phasedown of unabated coal power, in line with national circumstances and recognizing the need for support towards just transitions.

…Read more: https://www.g20.org/content/dam/gtwenty/gtwenty_new/document/G20-New-Delhi-Leaders-Declaration.pdf

Good news for nuclear – modular reactors, explicitly mentioned in the text, are clearly one of the “other zero and low-emission technologies” to be pursued, with similar ambition to renewables.

Coal to be phased out “in line with national circumstances” – so as an when alternatives become available.

Not a good day for the renewables industry – in addition to promoting the role of small modular nuclear reactors, the statement emphasises the need for “resilient energy infrastructure”, in my opinion likely a veiled rebuke at Western pressure for developing nations to embrace intermittent, unreliable and unaffordable renewable energy technologies, which clearly are not ready or fit for purpose.

The document also makes mention of climate change and climate finance elsewhere, in sections I didn’t quote.

My overall impression is the document is a commitment to business as usual, with a little woke window dressing. The document is yet another strong indication that developing countries prize economic growth above the Western obsession with CO2 emissions, and are increasingly unafraid to say so.

Click here for more information on the economic obstacles to achieving Net Zero.