Unless I missed it, one cost that never seems to be factored in the costs of renewables plus storage is the cost/opportunity cost of the excessive amounts of land required. I did a back of the envelope calculation (not nearly as in depth as EBB’s) one time and to meet 1000MW of demand for energy plus battery required about 40 times the amount of acreage that a 1000 MW coal fired plant needed (using Duke’s retired Allen Plant as a proxy).
Nearly right in the north of the country, in Texas 5-6 acres but then it can be used in pasture country where it can actually improve agricultural yield so no net land use
What iron law of power density would that be, the one where the fossil fuel energy chain uses about five times as much land as the renewable one.
In Australia we had two large mine mouth coal plants at Liddell/Bayswater, the fenced area including, mines, cooling ponds power stations waste dams etc is 55 square km and in their heyday they produced about 25 TWh/y or about 450 kWh/square metre. The last big lignite plant to close produced less than 400 kWh/square metre from its site including mine and cooling pond, despite operating at near 90% CF.
A modern 5-7 MW wind turbine on a 1/5th of acre pad with another half an acre of access tracks produces 12-24 GWh/y or 4,200 to 8,200 kWh/square metre.
70% of Australia's solar energy is produced from roofs, no land use. More and more is agrivoltaic which actually increases yields from sheep grazing and pastures by providing shade in summer and wind breaks in winter.
Diablo Canyon and its companion Helms pumped hydro storage use 15 square km to produce about 2.5 GW/17 TWh/y or 1.1 MWh/square metre/y.
The newly completed 218 MW Ryan's Corner wind farm in southwest Victoria and the recently approved Tarrone 200 MW/400 MWh battery will deliver 3.4 MWh/square metre with a deliberately low density battery plant
I envision the thermal energy fanciers sitting on a chair and a conveyor dropping apples on their head one after another until they get physics.
More like 300X the land area. Not counting the long distance transmission needed from the remote areas where the best solar resource and available land is to large load centers.
You need all of that for wind & solar, for the massive waste they produce, and all the fossil that is necessary to buffer their intermittent, unreliable, seasonal power, and the fossil that is required to make them and their oversized long distance transmission lines.
I am in central Texas (ERCOT), and I have 61 360 watt solar panels on my house and 3 Tesla Powerwalls. Yesterday, the 4th, was cloudy and rainy most of the day so my $136,000 solar+battery "investment" (before the $40,800 tax gift - thank you taxpayers) generated 23kWh, while we consumed 118.6kWh. Today is forecast to be much the same. The batteries are fully discharged and will remain so during the cloudy conditions. I am glad I am not running a data center.
Thank you for your confirmation that even in Texas, solar, wind, and batteries will eventually be found to be an expensive, nonproductive fad.
France's nuclear power fleet shows a much better allocation of capital while producing safe, abundant, reasonably-priced 24/7/365 reliable and nonpolluting electric power. Nuclear power operates rain or shine, drought or flood, and independent of how fast the wind is blowing.
I'm a huge fan of nuclear, but there have been problems, for instance very recently in France and Switzerland, where because of heat waves and concerns about overheating rivers, nuclear production has been reduced. Not a problem with the plants per se, and can change with newer tech, but it is wise to be cautious when saying things like "Nuclear runs reliably in drought". Because you're asking for a "Gotcha!". https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/03/climate/extreme-heat-nuclear-shutdowns.html
If we were to locate nuclear power plants on the sites of retired coal plants, the source of cooling water would have already hosted operation of a utility scale coal plant with whatever heated cooling water discharge and/or cooling tower operations it used for many years. It would be difficult for the Riverkeeper types to argue that the nuclear power generation presented some new or different risk to the waterway, particularly in the absence of leaching coal piles and fly ash pits. All of the retired coal plant site already have grid interconnections and switchyard infrastructure and are located near load consuming centers unlike the locations of potential wind and solar projects. Since the former coal plant site are all brownfield industrial sites, it would be difficult for the various "Friends of the Forest" environment types to stake out a claim that some pristine ecosystem is being disturbed. I put together a google map showing the locations of these decommissioned coal sites in comparison to areas of high wind speeds and solar irradiance showing that the coal plant sites are a much better fit to load consuming centers. You can zoom in on each pin and see the switchyard infrastructure, source of cooling water, and proximity to load consuming population centers.
Bill, I asked a legit nuclear engineer the question about putting hot water in the rivers. And he said that the issue is that the hotter the water, the less dissolved oxygen it carries, so that it is harder for aquatic life to breathe.
a) most coal plants don't operate at anything like 90% CF in fact the US fleet rarely achieved 60%,
b) all but the oldest coal plants are more thermally efficient than the best nuclear plants and some of the waste heat from the coal plant is lost up the stack
So a 1GW coal plant running at 65% CF and 42% thermal efficiency needs about 1.5 GW of water cooling. A 1 GW nuclear plant running at 90% CF and 34% net thermal efficiency needs an average of 2.6 GW of water cooling.
By the way it still needs cooling water if its off the Zaporitzhia plant in Ukraine is drawing 2.6m gallons/day to control decay heat in the reactors and spent furel tanks
Selectively citing data without providing context is misleading.
a) Most coal plants are designed to operate at >90% capacity factor, and in fact achieve the greatest efficiency while running at or near design capacity. They are operated at lower capacity factors, sacrificing efficiency, solely to accommodate oversupply of intermittent wind and solar resources. In a normal dispatch stack, the coal plants would be operated as base load as designed.
b) Generally the thermal efficiency of modern nuclear reactors and large coal fired power plants is quite comparable, both averaging around 32-33%. Advanced designs, for both coal and nuclear plants, can bring thermal efficiencies up to the 40-45% range by increasing operating temperatures and pressures. It is true that nuclear plants use slightly more cooling water on average than coal plants (with median values of 44,350 gal/MWh for nuke and 36,350 gal/MWh for coal using once-through cooling systems, and 1,101 gal/MWh for nuke and 1,005 gal/MWh for coal using recirculating cooling systems). However, nuclear plants are typically run at lower temperatures and pressures than coal plants in order to maintain safety margins for the nuclear fuel. As a result, the cooling water discharge from nuclear plants is somewhat cooler than that from coal plants. In any case, both coal and nuclear plants are held to meeting both state and federal regulations dictating the maximum temperature of water that can be discharged into a body of water.
Coal plants might be designed to operate at 90%, but fleets never do and never have. Way back in 2013 when wind and solar supplied trivial amounts of energy US coal plants ran at just under 60% so 1,101 gallons x 93% is 70% greater than 1005 gallons by 60%.
Please show me an operating nuclear plant that has 36% thermal efficiency let alone 45%. There are no nuclear plants that operate at steam temperatures anywhere near 550-570C that ultrasupercritical coal plants do. The AP1000 operates at a steam temperature of 270C.
The cooling water discharge temperature from a nuclear plant must be lower to maintain an efficient Delta T, however the higher temperature is quickly offset by dilution but the quantity of heat not so much, that is why some French and Swiss nuclear plants had to throttle back over summer because the total heat rejected into the rivers was too much.
Kate, I do not have a Linkedin account (or any social media for that matter), but feel free to share the google map link. I want it to get into the hands of decision makers as I think it is the most logical approach to accelerating deployment of nuclear power.
Thank you for bringing up this idea. At a high level the idea of reusing infrastructure like switchgear, transformers, and cooling towers makes sense to me. Nevertheless, when I have been involved in brownfield projects, my team has always discovered that most of these items can not be reused because they are just too old. Terra Power is currently developing a site for a new nuclear power plant, but I’ll bet they have discovered this as well. That being said, I agree that Riverkeepers and others would have a tough time convincing interested parties that a new plant, that didn’t create new piles of fly ash, would be worse than the plant that was being retired. As an aside, I am very interested in nuclear powered in general and SMRs in particular.
I am not necessarily suggesting that the old infrastructure could be reused, but that its prior use to connect a gigawatt scale coal plant to the grid obviates the need for complex interconnection studies. Putting a large scale base load plant where a previous large scale base load plant used to be is pretty straight forward.
Dear Kate: The question is how much heat is overheating rivers? Most nuclear power plants operating on inland waterways utilize large cooling towers. (I see from the photo the Beznau plant does not have cooling towers visible.) The temperature of the water that is discharged to the river may be 10 degrees Celsius higher than the water that enters. The water volume that the plant requires is much smaller than the volume of water flowing through the river at that point, so the warmer water is diluted by the river flow.
Note also that large coal-fired and gas-fired power plants adjoining inland waterways also use cooling towers for the identical reason. Regrettably, the editorial stance of the New York Times regarding nuclear power tends to be negative. BTW, one of America's largest nuclear power plants (Palo Verde) with three reactors is in a desert and is not on a river. Instead, it uses reclaimed water from the City of Phoenix, Arizona in conjunction with cooling towers.
As stated, Palo Verde obtains it water from multiple municipalities on the west side of Phoenix through a lengthy pipe. Annual production from the PV Water Resources facility is ~79K acre-ft. with a small portion of this being sent to the Redhawk combined cycle plant. Cooling towers are used to cool the water prior to being disposed of in evaporation ponds. One challenge is the cost of the water has increased significantly as the municipalities perceive it having much more value.
Thank you. As a Californians, I know water is incredibly valuable in the drought-parched West. Reliable electric power should also have a large economic value attached to it.
As a consequence of political doctrine in states such as California, reliable power from Diablo Canyon (nuclear) Power Plant (DCPP) does NOT receive any economic rewards for its safe, 24/7 reliable, abundant, cost-effective and non-polluting power. Californians for Green Nuclear Power (CGNP) believes that is an unjust situation that needs to be rectified. See https://greennuke.substack.com/ for several relevant articles.
The French authorities reduced nuclear output because the cooling water would raise the overall water temperature above the permitted amount. I would anticipate that that temperature limit was determined by a rigorous process
As a witness during the past 15 years to the "rigorous process" in California with regards to operations of Diablo Canyon (nuclear) Power Plant and San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station, consequences of negligible economic or biological value are exaggerated by opponents to nuclear power.
As an example, the small amount of eggs and larval forms entrained by Diablo Canyon Power Plant with an annual estimated economic value less than one thousand US dollars was vigorously cited as the rationale for requiring unnecessary cooling towers which would have cost billions of dollars.
A similar tactic was attempted by Riverkeeper with respect to the Indian Point Energy Center. Riverkeeper was unsuccessful in shutting down Indian point in a 2009 case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, Entergy v Riverkeeper. The principle is that mitigation costs for any claimed biological harm cannot be wholly out of proportion to the likely damage. See, "Supreme Court Rules that Cost Can be Used to Determine Best Technology Available" https://www.barclaydamon.com/alerts/Supreme-Court-Rules-that-Cost-Can-be-Used-to-Determine-Best-Technology-Available-05-05-2009
Yeah I'm not a judge of how much heat is too much. My main point is that people who are anti-nuke have something to point to if someone says "nuclear runs even if there is a drought". Are there answers? Yes. Are there different approaches where this is not a problem? Yes. But it's always good to know the edge cases where someone will feel triumphant that they caught a pro-nuke person saying something "untrue". This is a PR issue, not a tech issue.
(I did not know that Palo Verde uses reclaimed city water -- that's pretty neat).
I'm glad you liked the Palo Verde example. I've looked at Palo Verde out the window of the jet I'm riding many times while flying from the west coast into Phoenix, Arizona. Palo Verde's operators pump the reclaimed water across the desert about 60 miles from downtown Phoenix. When the weather is cool, the water vapor emerging from the cooling towers is visible.
If you were running a a data centre, you would have contracts with solar, wind and gas for backup as wind suppled almost 50% more power than solar on the day in question why would you not take advantage of that?
What do you do when the sun goes down, when there is a week of continuously cloudy weather, when the wind stops blowing, when the wind blows to hard, when there is a hail storm, or when any of those other things happen and there is no voltage support or inertia support?
Excellent! "16,000 MW of solar and 57,600 MWh of battery storage" to meet 1000MW of demand?
Well, at least Texas has enough land for all those solar panels...and for the landfill sites for 20 years from now...and for the extra transmission lines that will be needed...and for keeping the BESS units far enough apart for safety from fire
“pure poppycock” with permission I would love to use this description of solar wind batteries as baseload solutions to our grid & climate hypocrisy…
Happy belated 4th of July to Energy Bad Boys … next July 4th in the independence hall, I foresee President Trump, his key cabinet members, House of Representatives & the Senate GOP leadership and other key lawmakers gathering to codify Affordable Reliable Clean Energy Security legislation of USA into law. Governor Landry of Louisiana just signed such a legislation into for his state’s energy renaissance.
Americans at the lower end of the financial ladder 🪜 and smaller businesses WILL benefit the most from this federal law … for a nation that will be closer to $40T in debt 💸 WE THE PEOPLE can not afford any more “pure poppycrokery” 🤭🗽🇺🇸🗽
Hey, guys…nice piece. As usual I agree completely. As someone who has been around the power grid forever, when I see the word “average” I quit reading. I like your analysis. I would point out that you cannot really determine the cost until you have a price for long term storage. Even in Texas you have consecutive days of low or no solar. It all depends on making assumptions.
I did a back of the envelope analysis using what I think are reasonable assumptions for a client. I can argue that to supply a 100 MW data center with solar and batteries will cost $2 billion and require 8 square miles of panels. Some days the overproduction will be astounding and some days you just won’t make it. I think you still need a couple of LM 5000s for backup.
Working on grid connections for large batteries I use google earth to check the sites. In many cases These installations are being wedged into industrial parks next to other businesses. A fire will be devastating. They should be by themselves, away from any other structure. Can’t get anyone to listen.
Thank you. Keep sounding the alarm. Refer skeptics to the February 8, 2025 article, "A Net-Zero Chernobyl: California Battery Fire Releases Tons of Carcinogenic Metals and Toxic Gases Toxic materials blanket communities, farms, and a sensitive estuary," Tuco's Child Substack. https://tucoschild.substack.com/cp/156758772
Some people were pushing the idea of 400mw data centers in Alberta with solar providing power to electrolysis for hydrogen to storage and then generation
I came up with 130 square miles based on solar 18% availability in Alberta (AESO), 7mw per sq mile of panels and then the end to end efficiency of the solar to hydrogen generation of 25%.
Yeah… I think so. Even on cloudy or snowy days you need to meet load and charge batteries. Your 18% may be way too high for actual everyday reliable supply. If you really think it through the number of panels goes to infinity which doesn’t get you through the bad weather. That’s why the gas turbine backup is necessary.
The "LM5000 engine" typically refers to the GE LM5000 gas turbine engine, a popular aeroderivative engine used in industrial and marine applications. It's known for its high power output and efficiency, derived from aircraft engine technology. The LM5000 has been used in various applications, including power generation and as a replacement engine for other systems.....
Wait - are LM5000s back in production? When I was in the industry 20 years ago, the LM5000s had been taken out of production for years, with a bit over 100 delivered. The model was replaced by the LM6000, with many more delivered, but I think this one was subsequently replaced by LMS100.
I am not at all surprised that new Combined Cycle Natural Gas plants were the most cost effective solution, even in a region of high solar radiance like Texas. Solar can be very useful for dealing with daytime in the spring/summer, but it is obviously not a “base load” solution.
I believe that anyone who uses Lazard's LCOE reports should be asked if they considered into their analysis all the factors that Lazard did not examine? (see bottom of page 7 of this year's report and bottom of page 8 of last year's report). Perhaps they should consider using Clean Air Task Force report "Beyond LCOE" https://x.com/tder2012/status/1939782757581767033 & https://www.catf.us/resource/beyond-lcoe/
I’ve been meaning to look into that clean air task force report. A few different people sent it to me but it mostly seems like it’s identifying problems we’ve been talking about for nearly 10 years and offered no qualitative means of improving the metric. Is that about right?
If you look at the link Gene Nelson, Ph.D. shared (the full Beyond LCOE report), at least read page 6. It state what LCOE doesn't include, which are items that need to be included and in the #6 footnote lists a few studies that do a good job, in CATF's opinion, of including these items.
Well, CATF may be a bit behind the times, but I suspect many listed here, perhaps unbeknownst to you, have been reading your work :)
Ebba Busch (Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden, Minister for Energy and the Minister for Business and Industry), did the following X threads, most of the points below come from these two links.
Nuclear Dawn: Africa’s $105 Billion Energy Revolution
At COP28, over 20 countries pledged to triple nuclear power by 2050. That number has now grown to more than 30. Last fall Ebba Busch spoke at a conference in New York where 14 major banks and financial institutions – incl. Bank of America, Morgan Stanley & Goldman Sachs – announced their commitment to financing the expansion of nuclear energy
South Korea has started building two new reactors, with plans for two more by 2038
Nuclear energy set a global production record in 2024, despite premature shutdowns in the 2010s and early 2020s in countries like Germany, Japan, Sweden, France, and the US
Newly appointed German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron signaled a new joint vision for energy policy: A tech-neutral EU with no discrimination against any fossil-free energy sources – including nuclear – with a renewed focus on competitiveness and security of supply
The European Nuclear Alliance – launched under the Swedish EU Presidency – has grown to 16 member states. That’s a majority of EU countries now openly supporting nuclear power. Public support is also strong: 56% of EU citizens now say nuclear power positively impacts their lives. The European Investment Bank (EIB) is now opening the door to nuclear funding, starting with backing Urenco’sexpansion
15 EU countries are actively pursuing new builds – from construction/preparations (France, Poland, Czechia) to feasibility studies (Sweden, Estonia, Finland)
Despite an on-going invasion, Ukraine has begun preparing new nuclear projects – including groundwork for new reactors
In the US, nuclear is getting support from both the federal level and individual states. Texas is investing $2B to become a hub for new nuclear. Michigan’s Palisades plant is on track to be the first prematurely closed reactor to restart. Small and microreactor projects are moving ahead – civilian and military. The Pentagon’s Project Pele (mobile microreactors for military bases) is already under construction
Canada has committed tens of billions to extend the life of its CANDU fleet. Yesterday, OPG announced the final investment decision for North America’s first grid-connected SMR – on track for 2029 if all goes to plan
Denmark is reconsidering its decades-long nuclear ban. Danish PM, social democrat Mette Frederiksen, has signaled openness, and a €350M investment fund has launched with backing from major firms like Novo Nordisk
Finland and Estonia are planning new reactors – including for district heating and SMRs. Sweden’s Vattenfall is a shareholder in Estonian startup Fermi Energia
Norway has launched a government inquiry and tasked multiple government agencies with preparing for environmental permitting of new SMRs
China has already approved 10 new reactors this year. In fact, this is the 4th year in a row Chines regulators have kept to their promise to approve "8-10" units a year. With 11 reactors approved last year, China now exceeds its target of 8–10 reactor approvals annually
Investor interest is high – both from domestic companies and international investors. The government has taken about 50 actions to accelerate new builds, including regulatory reforms and a major financing bill now before parliament
The UK announced a historic £30 billion nuclear investment programme. This includes £14 billion to build two EPRs totaling 3 200 MW at Sizewell C and announcing Rolls-Royce as the winner of the UK SMR competition
As Rt Hon Rachel Reeves, Chancellor of the Exchequer, said during the announcement: "Energy security is national security"
Czech Republic finally signs €17 billion deal with KHNP (Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power) to build two new reactors
Nuclear ties between Europe and Asia are deepening fast
For the first time, the World Bank will consider funding new nuclear.
This is a monumental shift in global development policy
Together with Constellation Energy, Meta will keep the Clinton Power Station running for 20 more years.
Big Tech and hyperscalers are stepping in to secure carbon-free, 24/7 power
At the same time, Westinghoue targets a $75 billion expansion with dramatically reduced costs through utilising a finalised design, series build and a ready supply chain
Japan moves to restart reactors at world's largest nuclear power plant
Tepco has started loading fuel at the Kashiwazaki Kariwa No. 6 reactor (with No. 7 loaded last year)
Taiwan eyes nuclear restart
Lawmakers have passed a proposal for a referendum on restarting the Maanshan nuclear plant.
Belgium legalizes nuclear
After 22 years, the nuclear phaseout law in Belgium is dead. The plan to shut down 50% of national electricity supply in 3 years is over.
Belgium is back in the nuclear game.
The 1985 ban on studying nuclear as an energy source is gone — repealed by the antinuclear parties. There are still bans on nuclear in Denmark, but there is also undeniable momentum.
What about Sweden?
On May 21st, the Riksdag (parliament) cleared the path for new investments in nuclear but adopting the nuclear financing bill put forward by the government.
This is another step in Sweden’s pivot from phaseout to buildout. Sweden now has one of the best financing frameworks for nuclear in the world in place
Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, Google, Oracle and Dow Chemical have signed agreements with various nuclear reactor companies. Amazon doubled their nuclear contract in June 2025
Greece opens door to nuclear power on June 19
Nvidia invested in Bill Gates nuclear reactor company, Terrapower
Governor Hochul Directs New York Power Authority to Develop a Zero-Emission Advanced Nuclear Energy Technology Power Plant
Estonia "the government has abandoned its goal of producing as much renewable electricity in Estonia by 2030 as is consumed domestically on an annual basis. Climate Minister Andres Sutt also stated that nuclear energy is now a priority"
Asian Development Bank mulls lifting nuclear power funding ban
1. Since the Nuclear Renaissance was announced in 2001 Nuclear share of global electricity has fallen from 17% to <9%
2. So far this year according to the IAEA the world has connected one nuclear reactor, retired two and started construction of one. https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/
3. Last year according to the IEA the world connected a net 3 GW of nuclear and 670 GW of wind and solar. Output from wind and solar grew by 669 TWh, nuclear by 101 TWh the majority due to recoveries in Japan and France https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2025/electricity.
4. There are no new nuclear plants due to be connected in the West in the next 5 years and less than thirty in the rest of the world. Assuming no retirements and a few reconnections that will add about 280 TWh/y to global nuclear output by 2030. Demand is increasing at 1,100-1,200 TWh/y so with luck, nuclear power will supply a bit over 8% of global demand by 2030. Wind and solar output is growing at a combined 13% per year. If that drops to 10% over the next five years it will still be an increase of 3,500 TWh/y
Most realize nuclear won't do too much in the near future, relatively speaking, and I don't make predictions. However, fossil fuel production is likely to continue to increase year over year.
I guess some people are not getting your message "Nuclear energy has a significant role to play in building a resilient and cleaner energy system" As European Commissioner for Energy and Housing announces 240 billion euro investment to 2050 "Nuclear energy has a significant role to play in building a resilient and cleaner energy system" https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-274867
Your numbers do not account for supply needing to match demand on all electricity grids 24x7x365. Here is an example of a four week period in Australia where every 1/2 hour is examined, what supply or generation met the demand. (doesn't look like you're convincing anyone on this post either) https://chrisbond.substack.com/p/another-28-days-later
Synchronous Inertia (and other ancillary services such as black start capability) is not accounted for in your comment. Solar, wind and batteries are IBRs (inverter-based resources - convert direct current DC electricity to alternating current AC electricity) and are unable to supply synchronous inertia, a requirement to keep voltage and frequency on the grid within tolerances. This is one of the reasons why power system engineers and electricity grid operators recommend no more than 30% of electricity on the grid be generated by IBR's. Here is an example from a power engineer recommending no more than 30%. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7324915294445936640/ This is a discussion about grid-forming inverters and their limitations. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7344426615193419776/
I live in the prairies in Canada. Of course our winters have minimal hours of daylight and wind turbines are not to operate below -30C, this temp is regularly hit in my home province of MB. Winter is the season of highest demand, if we don't have electricity, it truly is a matter of life and death with these cold temps. AB came very close to learning this lesson the hard way in Jan. of 2024 https://penguinempirereports.substack.com/p/freezing-to-fight-global-warming
I've asked those who promote such reports by Ember "Is there enough BESS, will there be enough? Do you agree with BNEF costs about spending on BESS between 2022 and 2030?" BNEF, in a Nov. 2021 article expects $262 billion to be spent in that time frame and 358GW/1TWh of capacity globally. Volta reported at the end of 2024 global BESS capacity as 150GW/363GWh. Noboby attempts to answer the question, which I feel is important. When I hear wind, solar, batteries, wind, solar, batteries, etc, I don't believe there will be nearly enough BESS capacity globally. One of these promoters of wind, solar, batteries claims Texas will likely have 14GW/20GWh by the end of this year, hmm doesn't leave very much for the rest of the world, he did not understand this. https://x.com/clawrence/status/1937541791273582787 and here is the BNEF article https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-energy/global-energy-storage-market-set-to-hit-one-terawatt-hour-by-2030/
Texas needs more batteries than any other jurisdiction because it has negligible hydro and uses about than three times as much electricity per person as Europe.
In most regions hydro will be the main backup for wind and solar just as it is now in the EU with 130 GW of hydro/pumped hydro for 94 GW of nuclear. Batteries will cover short term power peaks but hydro will supply the vast majority of energy.
You are right BESS will never be enough, but hydro, thermal storage, demand response, V2G and residual nuclear will be enough in most jurisdictions, but probably not in Texas unless its electricty demand falls back to US averages
Thank you EBBs. I've gathered from other sources in the past that Ember have "form". They state that "We’re a global energy think tank that aims to accelerate the clean energy transition with data and policy". So I presume what you saw was "accelerated data". It's called "skin in the game", no?
What a silly pipe dream. Where I live, solar insolation is highly seasonal, almost nil in the winter, like most places on Earth, including a vast expanse of taiga & boreal forest stretching across the Northern Hemisphere from Siberia to Europe to Alaska. The bulk of the Earth's land mass.
It isn't even economical in the rare mostly year round sunny dry areas like Arizona, figuring you can power any substantial portion of our civilization with solar/batteries is a pure fantasy.
How about showing us how you can even power sunny South Australia, even with massive funding undertaken with a fanatical zeal by the Ecofascists in power there, all they've achieved is the highest electricity prices on Earth and a heavy reliance on imported coal power. And prone to nasty blackouts and power rationing.
Any analysis that uses a multi-year period of weather data will come to the same conclusion. It is simply not practical to reach a point where 100% of the grid's power is coming from wind and solar.
The problem is long periods of either wind drought or cloudy winter days that discharge the batteries, or do not allow enough time between droughts to recharge. Such periods of adverse weather may be infrequent, but they need to be included in the design of the grid. Being without electricity is much more costly and dangerous than emitting a few tons of CO2, that's why NetZero should be abandoned as a target.
We almost lost the grid in Alberta on January 13 2024 when we hit a record -42c.
There would be no comparable disaster except maybe a large meteorite strike in the center of the province, the consequences of no grid at those temps is unthinkable
When I was fighting the Thacker Pass lithium mine I learned about the 100's of truckloads a day of molten sulfur that will be trucked in from, you guessed it, oil refineries, to leach the lithium from the clay. And of course all those trucks run on diesel. And of course the refineries they are building to refine the sulfuric acid and the lithium run on diesel. And of course lithium is just one of many materials required for batteries. And of course to refine silicon you need a carbon atom that comes from, you guessed it, coal.
A full materials analysis of the "green" delusions exposes that so-called renewables are simply fossil fuels+ as Alexander Dunlap calls them. But of course most people have absolutely no idea where lithium comes from or how solar panels are made.
Unless I missed it, one cost that never seems to be factored in the costs of renewables plus storage is the cost/opportunity cost of the excessive amounts of land required. I did a back of the envelope calculation (not nearly as in depth as EBB’s) one time and to meet 1000MW of demand for energy plus battery required about 40 times the amount of acreage that a 1000 MW coal fired plant needed (using Duke’s retired Allen Plant as a proxy).
Yeah we use an estimate of around 8 acres/mw of solar installed. We don’t have great storage estimates though
I utilized 1.2 acres per MWHr of storage capacity. I apologize that I don’t have the reference for where I derived that number.
Waratah battery in NSW using previous generation 3 MWh batteries 34 acres for 16,800 MWh. 49 MWh/acre. Now 6-8 MWh batteries are available.
Tarong battery storage in Queensland next to a coal plant 600 MWh on 3 acres 200 MWh/acre
Tarrone battery in SW Victoria 26 acres of low value farmland for 400 MWh, or 15 MWh/acre.
If space was an issue use Tennerstack batteries and double the energy density again
Nearly right in the north of the country, in Texas 5-6 acres but then it can be used in pasture country where it can actually improve agricultural yield so no net land use
Robert Bryce did a great 2 parter on the “iron law of power density” last year, lots of great numbers in there on how much space would be required.
Jacobson should be in the dunce school with all the other radicals.
I envision them sitting on a chair and a conveyor dropping apples on their head one after another until they get physics.
We can livestream it.
What iron law of power density would that be, the one where the fossil fuel energy chain uses about five times as much land as the renewable one.
In Australia we had two large mine mouth coal plants at Liddell/Bayswater, the fenced area including, mines, cooling ponds power stations waste dams etc is 55 square km and in their heyday they produced about 25 TWh/y or about 450 kWh/square metre. The last big lignite plant to close produced less than 400 kWh/square metre from its site including mine and cooling pond, despite operating at near 90% CF.
A modern 5-7 MW wind turbine on a 1/5th of acre pad with another half an acre of access tracks produces 12-24 GWh/y or 4,200 to 8,200 kWh/square metre.
70% of Australia's solar energy is produced from roofs, no land use. More and more is agrivoltaic which actually increases yields from sheep grazing and pastures by providing shade in summer and wind breaks in winter.
Diablo Canyon and its companion Helms pumped hydro storage use 15 square km to produce about 2.5 GW/17 TWh/y or 1.1 MWh/square metre/y.
The newly completed 218 MW Ryan's Corner wind farm in southwest Victoria and the recently approved Tarrone 200 MW/400 MWh battery will deliver 3.4 MWh/square metre with a deliberately low density battery plant
I envision the thermal energy fanciers sitting on a chair and a conveyor dropping apples on their head one after another until they get physics.
That’s awesome
Now do “Joe Biden was sharp as a tack”.
The world needs more magical thinking.
A real mental gymnast.
There's going to be a lot of people disappointed when they find out their solar lease needs renegotiated.
More like 300X the land area. Not counting the long distance transmission needed from the remote areas where the best solar resource and available land is to large load centers.
More like a fifth of the land area if you include mines, cooling ponds, waste dams etc
You need all of that for wind & solar, for the massive waste they produce, and all the fossil that is necessary to buffer their intermittent, unreliable, seasonal power, and the fossil that is required to make them and their oversized long distance transmission lines.
Here in Alberta we have a 450mw solar blight at Vulcan that covers 6 square miles
So that is 450/(6x640)=0.117
117kw per acre
I am in central Texas (ERCOT), and I have 61 360 watt solar panels on my house and 3 Tesla Powerwalls. Yesterday, the 4th, was cloudy and rainy most of the day so my $136,000 solar+battery "investment" (before the $40,800 tax gift - thank you taxpayers) generated 23kWh, while we consumed 118.6kWh. Today is forecast to be much the same. The batteries are fully discharged and will remain so during the cloudy conditions. I am glad I am not running a data center.
Thank you for your confirmation that even in Texas, solar, wind, and batteries will eventually be found to be an expensive, nonproductive fad.
France's nuclear power fleet shows a much better allocation of capital while producing safe, abundant, reasonably-priced 24/7/365 reliable and nonpolluting electric power. Nuclear power operates rain or shine, drought or flood, and independent of how fast the wind is blowing.
I'm a huge fan of nuclear, but there have been problems, for instance very recently in France and Switzerland, where because of heat waves and concerns about overheating rivers, nuclear production has been reduced. Not a problem with the plants per se, and can change with newer tech, but it is wise to be cautious when saying things like "Nuclear runs reliably in drought". Because you're asking for a "Gotcha!". https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/03/climate/extreme-heat-nuclear-shutdowns.html
If we were to locate nuclear power plants on the sites of retired coal plants, the source of cooling water would have already hosted operation of a utility scale coal plant with whatever heated cooling water discharge and/or cooling tower operations it used for many years. It would be difficult for the Riverkeeper types to argue that the nuclear power generation presented some new or different risk to the waterway, particularly in the absence of leaching coal piles and fly ash pits. All of the retired coal plant site already have grid interconnections and switchyard infrastructure and are located near load consuming centers unlike the locations of potential wind and solar projects. Since the former coal plant site are all brownfield industrial sites, it would be difficult for the various "Friends of the Forest" environment types to stake out a claim that some pristine ecosystem is being disturbed. I put together a google map showing the locations of these decommissioned coal sites in comparison to areas of high wind speeds and solar irradiance showing that the coal plant sites are a much better fit to load consuming centers. You can zoom in on each pin and see the switchyard infrastructure, source of cooling water, and proximity to load consuming population centers.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1QBresJWwMzri0sygk5l-4j01xnP1lXU&ll=37.796809024153326%2C-95.35569428737948&z=5
Bill, I asked a legit nuclear engineer the question about putting hot water in the rivers. And he said that the issue is that the hotter the water, the less dissolved oxygen it carries, so that it is harder for aquatic life to breathe.
It wouldn't
a) most coal plants don't operate at anything like 90% CF in fact the US fleet rarely achieved 60%,
b) all but the oldest coal plants are more thermally efficient than the best nuclear plants and some of the waste heat from the coal plant is lost up the stack
So a 1GW coal plant running at 65% CF and 42% thermal efficiency needs about 1.5 GW of water cooling. A 1 GW nuclear plant running at 90% CF and 34% net thermal efficiency needs an average of 2.6 GW of water cooling.
By the way it still needs cooling water if its off the Zaporitzhia plant in Ukraine is drawing 2.6m gallons/day to control decay heat in the reactors and spent furel tanks
Selectively citing data without providing context is misleading.
a) Most coal plants are designed to operate at >90% capacity factor, and in fact achieve the greatest efficiency while running at or near design capacity. They are operated at lower capacity factors, sacrificing efficiency, solely to accommodate oversupply of intermittent wind and solar resources. In a normal dispatch stack, the coal plants would be operated as base load as designed.
b) Generally the thermal efficiency of modern nuclear reactors and large coal fired power plants is quite comparable, both averaging around 32-33%. Advanced designs, for both coal and nuclear plants, can bring thermal efficiencies up to the 40-45% range by increasing operating temperatures and pressures. It is true that nuclear plants use slightly more cooling water on average than coal plants (with median values of 44,350 gal/MWh for nuke and 36,350 gal/MWh for coal using once-through cooling systems, and 1,101 gal/MWh for nuke and 1,005 gal/MWh for coal using recirculating cooling systems). However, nuclear plants are typically run at lower temperatures and pressures than coal plants in order to maintain safety margins for the nuclear fuel. As a result, the cooling water discharge from nuclear plants is somewhat cooler than that from coal plants. In any case, both coal and nuclear plants are held to meeting both state and federal regulations dictating the maximum temperature of water that can be discharged into a body of water.
Coal plants might be designed to operate at 90%, but fleets never do and never have. Way back in 2013 when wind and solar supplied trivial amounts of energy US coal plants ran at just under 60% so 1,101 gallons x 93% is 70% greater than 1005 gallons by 60%.
Please show me an operating nuclear plant that has 36% thermal efficiency let alone 45%. There are no nuclear plants that operate at steam temperatures anywhere near 550-570C that ultrasupercritical coal plants do. The AP1000 operates at a steam temperature of 270C.
The cooling water discharge temperature from a nuclear plant must be lower to maintain an efficient Delta T, however the higher temperature is quickly offset by dilution but the quantity of heat not so much, that is why some French and Swiss nuclear plants had to throttle back over summer because the total heat rejected into the rivers was too much.
@Bill Hale do you have this on LinkedIn? I would like to share it. I can share anyway of course, but would rather give you credit for your work.
Kate, I do not have a Linkedin account (or any social media for that matter), but feel free to share the google map link. I want it to get into the hands of decision makers as I think it is the most logical approach to accelerating deployment of nuclear power.
Done!
Great resource! Thanks!
Thank you for bringing up this idea. At a high level the idea of reusing infrastructure like switchgear, transformers, and cooling towers makes sense to me. Nevertheless, when I have been involved in brownfield projects, my team has always discovered that most of these items can not be reused because they are just too old. Terra Power is currently developing a site for a new nuclear power plant, but I’ll bet they have discovered this as well. That being said, I agree that Riverkeepers and others would have a tough time convincing interested parties that a new plant, that didn’t create new piles of fly ash, would be worse than the plant that was being retired. As an aside, I am very interested in nuclear powered in general and SMRs in particular.
I am not necessarily suggesting that the old infrastructure could be reused, but that its prior use to connect a gigawatt scale coal plant to the grid obviates the need for complex interconnection studies. Putting a large scale base load plant where a previous large scale base load plant used to be is pretty straight forward.
I agree.
Dear Kate: The question is how much heat is overheating rivers? Most nuclear power plants operating on inland waterways utilize large cooling towers. (I see from the photo the Beznau plant does not have cooling towers visible.) The temperature of the water that is discharged to the river may be 10 degrees Celsius higher than the water that enters. The water volume that the plant requires is much smaller than the volume of water flowing through the river at that point, so the warmer water is diluted by the river flow.
Note also that large coal-fired and gas-fired power plants adjoining inland waterways also use cooling towers for the identical reason. Regrettably, the editorial stance of the New York Times regarding nuclear power tends to be negative. BTW, one of America's largest nuclear power plants (Palo Verde) with three reactors is in a desert and is not on a river. Instead, it uses reclaimed water from the City of Phoenix, Arizona in conjunction with cooling towers.
Some additional color on Palo Verde:
As stated, Palo Verde obtains it water from multiple municipalities on the west side of Phoenix through a lengthy pipe. Annual production from the PV Water Resources facility is ~79K acre-ft. with a small portion of this being sent to the Redhawk combined cycle plant. Cooling towers are used to cool the water prior to being disposed of in evaporation ponds. One challenge is the cost of the water has increased significantly as the municipalities perceive it having much more value.
Thank you. As a Californians, I know water is incredibly valuable in the drought-parched West. Reliable electric power should also have a large economic value attached to it.
As a consequence of political doctrine in states such as California, reliable power from Diablo Canyon (nuclear) Power Plant (DCPP) does NOT receive any economic rewards for its safe, 24/7 reliable, abundant, cost-effective and non-polluting power. Californians for Green Nuclear Power (CGNP) believes that is an unjust situation that needs to be rectified. See https://greennuke.substack.com/ for several relevant articles.
The French authorities reduced nuclear output because the cooling water would raise the overall water temperature above the permitted amount. I would anticipate that that temperature limit was determined by a rigorous process
As a witness during the past 15 years to the "rigorous process" in California with regards to operations of Diablo Canyon (nuclear) Power Plant and San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station, consequences of negligible economic or biological value are exaggerated by opponents to nuclear power.
As an example, the small amount of eggs and larval forms entrained by Diablo Canyon Power Plant with an annual estimated economic value less than one thousand US dollars was vigorously cited as the rationale for requiring unnecessary cooling towers which would have cost billions of dollars.
A similar tactic was attempted by Riverkeeper with respect to the Indian Point Energy Center. Riverkeeper was unsuccessful in shutting down Indian point in a 2009 case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, Entergy v Riverkeeper. The principle is that mitigation costs for any claimed biological harm cannot be wholly out of proportion to the likely damage. See, "Supreme Court Rules that Cost Can be Used to Determine Best Technology Available" https://www.barclaydamon.com/alerts/Supreme-Court-Rules-that-Cost-Can-be-Used-to-Determine-Best-Technology-Available-05-05-2009
Yeah I'm not a judge of how much heat is too much. My main point is that people who are anti-nuke have something to point to if someone says "nuclear runs even if there is a drought". Are there answers? Yes. Are there different approaches where this is not a problem? Yes. But it's always good to know the edge cases where someone will feel triumphant that they caught a pro-nuke person saying something "untrue". This is a PR issue, not a tech issue.
(I did not know that Palo Verde uses reclaimed city water -- that's pretty neat).
I'm glad you liked the Palo Verde example. I've looked at Palo Verde out the window of the jet I'm riding many times while flying from the west coast into Phoenix, Arizona. Palo Verde's operators pump the reclaimed water across the desert about 60 miles from downtown Phoenix. When the weather is cool, the water vapor emerging from the cooling towers is visible.
Nice of you to say thanks! Wish I could add a hearty “you’re welcome”.
Or running a factory, steel mill or hospital etc.
If you were running a a data centre, you would have contracts with solar, wind and gas for backup as wind suppled almost 50% more power than solar on the day in question why would you not take advantage of that?
If you had a contract for nuclear power providing 24/7/365 uptime, why would you contract for solar, wind and gas for backup?
What do you do when the NPP needs refueling or has a minor trip that takes a week to sort out? See Vogtle 3
What do you do when the sun goes down, when there is a week of continuously cloudy weather, when the wind stops blowing, when the wind blows to hard, when there is a hail storm, or when any of those other things happen and there is no voltage support or inertia support?
Ta da ! EBB HAS YET Another example of the fallacies of renewables and battery storage. A complete waste of valuable resources. 🧨💡
Excellent! "16,000 MW of solar and 57,600 MWh of battery storage" to meet 1000MW of demand?
Well, at least Texas has enough land for all those solar panels...and for the landfill sites for 20 years from now...and for the extra transmission lines that will be needed...and for keeping the BESS units far enough apart for safety from fire
“pure poppycock” with permission I would love to use this description of solar wind batteries as baseload solutions to our grid & climate hypocrisy…
Happy belated 4th of July to Energy Bad Boys … next July 4th in the independence hall, I foresee President Trump, his key cabinet members, House of Representatives & the Senate GOP leadership and other key lawmakers gathering to codify Affordable Reliable Clean Energy Security legislation of USA into law. Governor Landry of Louisiana just signed such a legislation into for his state’s energy renaissance.
https://youtu.be/9d3EsX1vNtI?si=rtzLlamYibAA4I_f
Americans at the lower end of the financial ladder 🪜 and smaller businesses WILL benefit the most from this federal law … for a nation that will be closer to $40T in debt 💸 WE THE PEOPLE can not afford any more “pure poppycrokery” 🤭🗽🇺🇸🗽
You can use that phrase all you like!
It does describe the paper very well
Wake up ERCOT!
They did and thats why they are encouraging more solar and storage now with wind supplying 25% of demand
Hey, guys…nice piece. As usual I agree completely. As someone who has been around the power grid forever, when I see the word “average” I quit reading. I like your analysis. I would point out that you cannot really determine the cost until you have a price for long term storage. Even in Texas you have consecutive days of low or no solar. It all depends on making assumptions.
I did a back of the envelope analysis using what I think are reasonable assumptions for a client. I can argue that to supply a 100 MW data center with solar and batteries will cost $2 billion and require 8 square miles of panels. Some days the overproduction will be astounding and some days you just won’t make it. I think you still need a couple of LM 5000s for backup.
Yes totally agree. Stacking four hour batteries works in theory but not cost effectively
Working on grid connections for large batteries I use google earth to check the sites. In many cases These installations are being wedged into industrial parks next to other businesses. A fire will be devastating. They should be by themselves, away from any other structure. Can’t get anyone to listen.
Thank you. Keep sounding the alarm. Refer skeptics to the February 8, 2025 article, "A Net-Zero Chernobyl: California Battery Fire Releases Tons of Carcinogenic Metals and Toxic Gases Toxic materials blanket communities, farms, and a sensitive estuary," Tuco's Child Substack. https://tucoschild.substack.com/cp/156758772
Need to keep going.
Some people were pushing the idea of 400mw data centers in Alberta with solar providing power to electrolysis for hydrogen to storage and then generation
I came up with 130 square miles based on solar 18% availability in Alberta (AESO), 7mw per sq mile of panels and then the end to end efficiency of the solar to hydrogen generation of 25%.
Ludicrous garbage
But I lost the napkin 😂😂
Yeah… I think so. Even on cloudy or snowy days you need to meet load and charge batteries. Your 18% may be way too high for actual everyday reliable supply. If you really think it through the number of panels goes to infinity which doesn’t get you through the bad weather. That’s why the gas turbine backup is necessary.
18% is from AESO so it’s the average for the year
The square root of f all
The "LM5000 engine" typically refers to the GE LM5000 gas turbine engine, a popular aeroderivative engine used in industrial and marine applications. It's known for its high power output and efficiency, derived from aircraft engine technology. The LM5000 has been used in various applications, including power generation and as a replacement engine for other systems.....
And it’s quick start capability.
Agreed.
Wait - are LM5000s back in production? When I was in the industry 20 years ago, the LM5000s had been taken out of production for years, with a bit over 100 delivered. The model was replaced by the LM6000, with many more delivered, but I think this one was subsequently replaced by LMS100.
Thank you for your update to my comment. I should have used the 100 to 116 MW General Electric LMS100 gas turbine engine.
Great analysis!
I am not at all surprised that new Combined Cycle Natural Gas plants were the most cost effective solution, even in a region of high solar radiance like Texas. Solar can be very useful for dealing with daytime in the spring/summer, but it is obviously not a “base load” solution.
Not really as the duck curve drops off just as peak demand comes in the evening
Solar makes it worse.
I believe that anyone who uses Lazard's LCOE reports should be asked if they considered into their analysis all the factors that Lazard did not examine? (see bottom of page 7 of this year's report and bottom of page 8 of last year's report). Perhaps they should consider using Clean Air Task Force report "Beyond LCOE" https://x.com/tder2012/status/1939782757581767033 & https://www.catf.us/resource/beyond-lcoe/
I’ve been meaning to look into that clean air task force report. A few different people sent it to me but it mostly seems like it’s identifying problems we’ve been talking about for nearly 10 years and offered no qualitative means of improving the metric. Is that about right?
If you look at the link Gene Nelson, Ph.D. shared (the full Beyond LCOE report), at least read page 6. It state what LCOE doesn't include, which are items that need to be included and in the #6 footnote lists a few studies that do a good job, in CATF's opinion, of including these items.
Thanks Todd!
Not a single reference to our work. Pathetic 🙃
Well, CATF may be a bit behind the times, but I suspect many listed here, perhaps unbeknownst to you, have been reading your work :)
Ebba Busch (Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden, Minister for Energy and the Minister for Business and Industry), did the following X threads, most of the points below come from these two links.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1920889947156082916.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1933521157283627034.html
Philippines Senate Passes Nuclear Bill
Nuclear Dawn: Africa’s $105 Billion Energy Revolution
At COP28, over 20 countries pledged to triple nuclear power by 2050. That number has now grown to more than 30. Last fall Ebba Busch spoke at a conference in New York where 14 major banks and financial institutions – incl. Bank of America, Morgan Stanley & Goldman Sachs – announced their commitment to financing the expansion of nuclear energy
South Korea has started building two new reactors, with plans for two more by 2038
Nuclear energy set a global production record in 2024, despite premature shutdowns in the 2010s and early 2020s in countries like Germany, Japan, Sweden, France, and the US
Newly appointed German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron signaled a new joint vision for energy policy: A tech-neutral EU with no discrimination against any fossil-free energy sources – including nuclear – with a renewed focus on competitiveness and security of supply
The European Nuclear Alliance – launched under the Swedish EU Presidency – has grown to 16 member states. That’s a majority of EU countries now openly supporting nuclear power. Public support is also strong: 56% of EU citizens now say nuclear power positively impacts their lives. The European Investment Bank (EIB) is now opening the door to nuclear funding, starting with backing Urenco’sexpansion
15 EU countries are actively pursuing new builds – from construction/preparations (France, Poland, Czechia) to feasibility studies (Sweden, Estonia, Finland)
Despite an on-going invasion, Ukraine has begun preparing new nuclear projects – including groundwork for new reactors
In the US, nuclear is getting support from both the federal level and individual states. Texas is investing $2B to become a hub for new nuclear. Michigan’s Palisades plant is on track to be the first prematurely closed reactor to restart. Small and microreactor projects are moving ahead – civilian and military. The Pentagon’s Project Pele (mobile microreactors for military bases) is already under construction
Canada has committed tens of billions to extend the life of its CANDU fleet. Yesterday, OPG announced the final investment decision for North America’s first grid-connected SMR – on track for 2029 if all goes to plan
Denmark is reconsidering its decades-long nuclear ban. Danish PM, social democrat Mette Frederiksen, has signaled openness, and a €350M investment fund has launched with backing from major firms like Novo Nordisk
Finland and Estonia are planning new reactors – including for district heating and SMRs. Sweden’s Vattenfall is a shareholder in Estonian startup Fermi Energia
Norway has launched a government inquiry and tasked multiple government agencies with preparing for environmental permitting of new SMRs
China has already approved 10 new reactors this year. In fact, this is the 4th year in a row Chines regulators have kept to their promise to approve "8-10" units a year. With 11 reactors approved last year, China now exceeds its target of 8–10 reactor approvals annually
Investor interest is high – both from domestic companies and international investors. The government has taken about 50 actions to accelerate new builds, including regulatory reforms and a major financing bill now before parliament
The UK announced a historic £30 billion nuclear investment programme. This includes £14 billion to build two EPRs totaling 3 200 MW at Sizewell C and announcing Rolls-Royce as the winner of the UK SMR competition
As Rt Hon Rachel Reeves, Chancellor of the Exchequer, said during the announcement: "Energy security is national security"
Czech Republic finally signs €17 billion deal with KHNP (Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power) to build two new reactors
Nuclear ties between Europe and Asia are deepening fast
For the first time, the World Bank will consider funding new nuclear.
This is a monumental shift in global development policy
Together with Constellation Energy, Meta will keep the Clinton Power Station running for 20 more years.
Big Tech and hyperscalers are stepping in to secure carbon-free, 24/7 power
At the same time, Westinghoue targets a $75 billion expansion with dramatically reduced costs through utilising a finalised design, series build and a ready supply chain
Japan moves to restart reactors at world's largest nuclear power plant
Tepco has started loading fuel at the Kashiwazaki Kariwa No. 6 reactor (with No. 7 loaded last year)
Taiwan eyes nuclear restart
Lawmakers have passed a proposal for a referendum on restarting the Maanshan nuclear plant.
Belgium legalizes nuclear
After 22 years, the nuclear phaseout law in Belgium is dead. The plan to shut down 50% of national electricity supply in 3 years is over.
Belgium is back in the nuclear game.
The 1985 ban on studying nuclear as an energy source is gone — repealed by the antinuclear parties. There are still bans on nuclear in Denmark, but there is also undeniable momentum.
What about Sweden?
On May 21st, the Riksdag (parliament) cleared the path for new investments in nuclear but adopting the nuclear financing bill put forward by the government.
This is another step in Sweden’s pivot from phaseout to buildout. Sweden now has one of the best financing frameworks for nuclear in the world in place
Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, Google, Oracle and Dow Chemical have signed agreements with various nuclear reactor companies. Amazon doubled their nuclear contract in June 2025
Greece opens door to nuclear power on June 19
Nvidia invested in Bill Gates nuclear reactor company, Terrapower
Governor Hochul Directs New York Power Authority to Develop a Zero-Emission Advanced Nuclear Energy Technology Power Plant
Estonia "the government has abandoned its goal of producing as much renewable electricity in Estonia by 2030 as is consumed domestically on an annual basis. Climate Minister Andres Sutt also stated that nuclear energy is now a priority"
Asian Development Bank mulls lifting nuclear power funding ban
And yet and yet,
1. Since the Nuclear Renaissance was announced in 2001 Nuclear share of global electricity has fallen from 17% to <9%
2. So far this year according to the IAEA the world has connected one nuclear reactor, retired two and started construction of one. https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/
3. Last year according to the IEA the world connected a net 3 GW of nuclear and 670 GW of wind and solar. Output from wind and solar grew by 669 TWh, nuclear by 101 TWh the majority due to recoveries in Japan and France https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2025/electricity.
4. There are no new nuclear plants due to be connected in the West in the next 5 years and less than thirty in the rest of the world. Assuming no retirements and a few reconnections that will add about 280 TWh/y to global nuclear output by 2030. Demand is increasing at 1,100-1,200 TWh/y so with luck, nuclear power will supply a bit over 8% of global demand by 2030. Wind and solar output is growing at a combined 13% per year. If that drops to 10% over the next five years it will still be an increase of 3,500 TWh/y
Most realize nuclear won't do too much in the near future, relatively speaking, and I don't make predictions. However, fossil fuel production is likely to continue to increase year over year.
I guess some people are not getting your message "Nuclear energy has a significant role to play in building a resilient and cleaner energy system" As European Commissioner for Energy and Housing announces 240 billion euro investment to 2050 "Nuclear energy has a significant role to play in building a resilient and cleaner energy system" https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-274867
Your numbers do not account for supply needing to match demand on all electricity grids 24x7x365. Here is an example of a four week period in Australia where every 1/2 hour is examined, what supply or generation met the demand. (doesn't look like you're convincing anyone on this post either) https://chrisbond.substack.com/p/another-28-days-later
Synchronous Inertia (and other ancillary services such as black start capability) is not accounted for in your comment. Solar, wind and batteries are IBRs (inverter-based resources - convert direct current DC electricity to alternating current AC electricity) and are unable to supply synchronous inertia, a requirement to keep voltage and frequency on the grid within tolerances. This is one of the reasons why power system engineers and electricity grid operators recommend no more than 30% of electricity on the grid be generated by IBR's. Here is an example from a power engineer recommending no more than 30%. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7324915294445936640/ This is a discussion about grid-forming inverters and their limitations. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7344426615193419776/
Speaking of batteries, Volta Foundation reports 150GW/363GWh globally for 2024. BNEF stated in Nov. 2021 to expect 358GW/1,058GWh by 2030 and between 2022 and 2030, this would entail $262 billion of investment. This doesn't seem like much to me. Some expect Texas to have 14GW/20GWh by the end of 2025, seems TX is taking a pretty large share, relatively speaking, https://x.com/clawrence/status/1937541791273582787 & https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-energy/global-energy-storage-market-set-to-hit-one-terawatt-hour-by-2030/
I live in the prairies in Canada. Of course our winters have minimal hours of daylight and wind turbines are not to operate below -30C, this temp is regularly hit in my home province of MB. Winter is the season of highest demand, if we don't have electricity, it truly is a matter of life and death with these cold temps. AB came very close to learning this lesson the hard way in Jan. of 2024 https://penguinempirereports.substack.com/p/freezing-to-fight-global-warming
Wise
Amen
Here's some clues regarding the new CATF report:
https://cdn.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/12134742/beyond-lcoe.pdf
25 instances of "nuclear." 13 instances of dispatchability. 10 instances of "inertia." All important concepts.
I've asked those who promote such reports by Ember "Is there enough BESS, will there be enough? Do you agree with BNEF costs about spending on BESS between 2022 and 2030?" BNEF, in a Nov. 2021 article expects $262 billion to be spent in that time frame and 358GW/1TWh of capacity globally. Volta reported at the end of 2024 global BESS capacity as 150GW/363GWh. Noboby attempts to answer the question, which I feel is important. When I hear wind, solar, batteries, wind, solar, batteries, etc, I don't believe there will be nearly enough BESS capacity globally. One of these promoters of wind, solar, batteries claims Texas will likely have 14GW/20GWh by the end of this year, hmm doesn't leave very much for the rest of the world, he did not understand this. https://x.com/clawrence/status/1937541791273582787 and here is the BNEF article https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-energy/global-energy-storage-market-set-to-hit-one-terawatt-hour-by-2030/
Very interesting. I hadn’t considered this angle. Thanks for sharing!
I had thought of this before the Volta Foundation report came out, well articulated here https://chrisbond.substack.com/p/battery-reality
Texas needs more batteries than any other jurisdiction because it has negligible hydro and uses about than three times as much electricity per person as Europe.
In most regions hydro will be the main backup for wind and solar just as it is now in the EU with 130 GW of hydro/pumped hydro for 94 GW of nuclear. Batteries will cover short term power peaks but hydro will supply the vast majority of energy.
You are right BESS will never be enough, but hydro, thermal storage, demand response, V2G and residual nuclear will be enough in most jurisdictions, but probably not in Texas unless its electricty demand falls back to US averages
Excellent article. These lies keep popping up and there are always flaws such as you pointed out at their heart.
I think it is probably a good rule of thumb that if Lazard (other than negatively) is referenced in an article it can't be trusted.
Thank you EBBs. I've gathered from other sources in the past that Ember have "form". They state that "We’re a global energy think tank that aims to accelerate the clean energy transition with data and policy". So I presume what you saw was "accelerated data". It's called "skin in the game", no?
It’s called cook the books to produce a great headline
Well - stated EBBs!
What a silly pipe dream. Where I live, solar insolation is highly seasonal, almost nil in the winter, like most places on Earth, including a vast expanse of taiga & boreal forest stretching across the Northern Hemisphere from Siberia to Europe to Alaska. The bulk of the Earth's land mass.
It isn't even economical in the rare mostly year round sunny dry areas like Arizona, figuring you can power any substantial portion of our civilization with solar/batteries is a pure fantasy.
How about showing us how you can even power sunny South Australia, even with massive funding undertaken with a fanatical zeal by the Ecofascists in power there, all they've achieved is the highest electricity prices on Earth and a heavy reliance on imported coal power. And prone to nasty blackouts and power rationing.
High energy prices means less energy and a diminished population…yet probably more government.
Any analysis that uses a multi-year period of weather data will come to the same conclusion. It is simply not practical to reach a point where 100% of the grid's power is coming from wind and solar.
The problem is long periods of either wind drought or cloudy winter days that discharge the batteries, or do not allow enough time between droughts to recharge. Such periods of adverse weather may be infrequent, but they need to be included in the design of the grid. Being without electricity is much more costly and dangerous than emitting a few tons of CO2, that's why NetZero should be abandoned as a target.
We almost lost the grid in Alberta on January 13 2024 when we hit a record -42c.
There would be no comparable disaster except maybe a large meteorite strike in the center of the province, the consequences of no grid at those temps is unthinkable
When I was fighting the Thacker Pass lithium mine I learned about the 100's of truckloads a day of molten sulfur that will be trucked in from, you guessed it, oil refineries, to leach the lithium from the clay. And of course all those trucks run on diesel. And of course the refineries they are building to refine the sulfuric acid and the lithium run on diesel. And of course lithium is just one of many materials required for batteries. And of course to refine silicon you need a carbon atom that comes from, you guessed it, coal.
A full materials analysis of the "green" delusions exposes that so-called renewables are simply fossil fuels+ as Alexander Dunlap calls them. But of course most people have absolutely no idea where lithium comes from or how solar panels are made.
Even the Statistical Review of World Energy doesn't account for materials in so-called "renewables". Which is just willful blindness, I mean come on. Here's a great explanation: https://thehonestsorcerer.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-energy-transitions