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
CSIRO’s report, which found a large-scale reactor’s energy would...
-
- 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)