IMO for nuclear to receive that same subsidies as renewables is simply stating the obvious but I feel here in Australia that is the main "bone of contention" to the renewables lobby (and the CSIRO) in that if nuclear received Renewable energy Certificates (REC's) as do renewables it would sustain US like capacity factors (e.g 93%) rather than the 53% - 87% assigned by the CSIRO (in Gencost). A level playing field for nuclear implies that reactors would then directly compete with renewables during periods of high supply (when renewables still get paid even during "curtailment" down to when the electricity price is -$31/Mwhr (yes negative!) when it is still possible (with REC subsidies) for renewables (including roof top solar) to be cash flow positive even when that energy is being curtailed (crazy isn't it). Bowens new initiative is for our government to underwrite the profitability of renewable even when they are making a larger real loss (or generating but not connected to the grid) - that's how our taxes are being wasted! The CSIRO "step change" strategy assumes 82% renewables by 2030, 98% EV and "Green Hydrogen" by 2050 - all a wet dream for the Greens and Labor but a nightmare for our taxes and a reliable power system (i.e how are the numerous batteries going to be charged during a wind drought if there is no nuclear and no fossil fuels?)
SLX Price at posting:
$5.51 Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)