CSIRO’s report, which found a large-scale reactor’s energy would cost one-and-a-half to twice as much as firmed renewable energy, didn’t help to entice the capital allocators.
There is a saying that is popping up around the energy transition debate: Capital is a coward. Deep-pocketed investors will only flock in where there’s a good chance of making a decent risk-adjusted return and, for now at least, that’s in renewables.
That’s why Brookfield wanted to spend more than $10 billion on Origin’s energy markets business, why the Forrests spent $4 billion-plus on developer CWP Renewables (now Squadron Energy), and why a consortium including the Future Fund and QIC paid $3 billion for Tilt Renewables. None are talking about backing nuclear power in Australia.
- Forums
- Political Debate
- Nuclear to cost $17b and twice as expensive as renewable energy
Nuclear to cost $17b and twice as expensive as renewable energy, page-189
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 43 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
Featured News
The Watchlist
CC9
CHARIOT CORPORATION LTD
Shanthar Pathmanathan, MD
Shanthar Pathmanathan
MD
Previous Video
Next Video
SPONSORED BY The Market Online