World's Biggest Banks Pledge Support For Nuclear Power 81
Fourteen of the world's biggest banks and financial institutions are pledging to increase their support for nuclear energy [non-paywalled link], a move that governments and the industry hope will unlock finance for a new wave of nuclear power plants. FT: At an event on Monday in New York with White House climate policy adviser John Podesta, institutions including Bank of America, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Citi, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs will say they support a goal first set out at the COP28 climate negotiations last year to triple the world's nuclear energy capacity by 2050.
They will not spell out exactly what they would do, but nuclear experts said the public show of support was a long-awaited recognition that the sector had a critical role to play in the transition to low-carbon energy. The difficulty and high cost of financing nuclear projects has been an obstacle to new plants and contributed to a significant slowdown in western countries since a wave of reactors was built in the 1970s and 1980s.
They will not spell out exactly what they would do, but nuclear experts said the public show of support was a long-awaited recognition that the sector had a critical role to play in the transition to low-carbon energy. The difficulty and high cost of financing nuclear projects has been an obstacle to new plants and contributed to a significant slowdown in western countries since a wave of reactors was built in the 1970s and 1980s.
Re: they are just protecting their stranded assets (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: they are just protecting their stranded asset (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Thatâ(TM)s a delusional argument of a nuclear believer. Before the end of next year the contribution to global electricity from Solar PV alone will exceed nuclear total contribution.
So problem solved then. Not sure why people keep telling me I need to do things.
Skeptical take (Score:2)
The big banks are saying 'we want to finance this explosive growth, help arrange mergers, asset sales, and earn big investment banking fees'.
Skeptical that these banks are just doing the photo opportunity public relations event because of good hearts.
Money in motion - Rule 73a (Score:2)
Forgot to add - Rule 73a - banks, Wall Street, governments, credit card companies, the UN, NGOs, think tanks all need more "money in motion" to earn fees from, write research on, get tax revenue from, run political campaigns on, justify nonprofit/NGO budgets on, ...
Money in motion 101 ask who profits, who gets a job, who gets research articles on it, and who politically benefits from it.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
So you're saying that industrial electric furnaces don't exist then.
I'll let the entire aluminum, glass, and magnesium industries know, because they clearly aren't aware with all of the ones they bought and use every single day.
What a crock of shit.
Re: (Score:3)
The laws of physics say otherwise. You can't even make solar panels without fossil fuels currently. The only way you could requires nuclear power.
I really have to scratch my head at this. What, precisely, is it about electron flow produced through fossil fuels or nuclear power that differs from the electron flow produced from renewables that makes the creation of solar panels with electron flow from those sources possible, but not possible with electron flow from renewables? How does that work in your head?
I mean, if you were arguing that certain materials, like steel, require fossil fuels to make because they need the carbon... well that's still wro
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
As these banks are heavily invested in fossil assets, they know that if they support the nuclear dream they will sustain our reliance on fossil. At least for another 20-30 years. As the building of nuclear power plants is so slow and usually gets delayed by more than 200% (read Flyvberg's book how big things get done) the banks know they can hold on to their fossil assets. Now, if we move to renewables, batteries included, the movement from fossil going to happen must faster. The US is a bit slow but in many other countries the growth of EV is replacing oil consumption already quickly. In order that not to happen, these banks want to pour (our not their) money into slowly built nuclear power plants and delay the energy transition. That is what they are promoting. Let's see if that is going to work. Nuclear power can not compete with the cheap and yearly getting cheaper solar, wind and batteries.
I applaud your combination of conjecture, rumor, and old-world style thought toward anyone rich being in cahoots with one another. Have you thought about writing fiction, rather than claptrap nonsense on the web? You could probably come up with a terrific alt-history take on this situation, and sell it as fiction. Probably pays better than shitposting too. Well, maybe. Selling books is hard.
Re: (Score:3)
How about reading the WNA's own assessment of nuclear power economics as it pertains to nuclear's inability to compete with renewables?
https://world-nuclear.org/info... [world-nuclear.org]
I mean, as opposed to just your average, everyday ad hominem attacks...
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anyone trust what the World Nuclear Organization says? The members are all financially attached to the nuclear industry.
Re: (Score:2)
The WNA may be an industry organ, but that report is remarkably unbiased.
It explains in detail how nuclear is only competitive with renewables in a highly regulated environment where utilities pledge to pre-purchase power over the long term. Without those agreements or in a unregulated, competitive environment where they have to compete on price, then the plant has to be idled during peak solar/wind generation periods and that prevents it from ever recouping its losses.
Re: (Score:2)
>> that report is remarkably unbiased
Their first statement is clearly false;
"Nuclear power is cost-competitive with other forms of electricity generation"
And then;
" in a unregulated, competitive environment where they have to compete on price"
Admitted they aren't competitive.
Re: (Score:2)
"Admitted they aren't competitive."
Which was the entire point.....
Re: (Score:2)
You claimed they are "remarkably unbiased", clearly not true.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, I've noticed that people quick to assume bias already tend to have their own...
Re: (Score:2)
>> already tend to have their own
Yeah, I am biased against the legitimacy of industry organizations pushing their financial agenda on their website.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Right on the mark, even if many people are deep in denial about what is going on. Also, all "investments" by banks into nuclear will be fully insured by the government using public money, so they have zero risk. AFAIK, no large privately owned bank has ever actually invested in nuclear power. When the insurers calculated what insuring nuclear would cost (and they did, I have some contacts that did statistical modelling in back-insurance business) a long time ago, actually investing into nuclear as a busines
Batteries would have been a better play (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We'll see. Oracle is looking around obtaining 3 SMRs to power its new AI data center.
https://www.tomshardware.com/t... [tomshardware.com]
Re: (Score:2)
With all the pressure for building data centers, both for AI and Bitcoin mining, new energy is definitely needed, and needed yesterday. Solar is useful... but until we have the batteries to store it, it still is a peak energy, while nuclear provides power 24/7, where the demand is needed for data centers, where power is used 24/7 with more cooling demands in the day (where solar/wind can help.)
It would be nice to see these institutions throw some money into nuclear research, be it thorium plants, liquid fu
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the data centre, ones which are CDNs follow the usual demand curve, as few people are using them at 3AM.
As for needing constant power, the cheapest option is renewables, batteries, and long distance transmission lines. The very largest data centres can be over 100MW, but let's say 100MW since that covers more than 90% of them. Adding a gigawatt hour of battery storage is a fraction of the cost of building a datacentre that large, and will quickly pay for itself by time shifting their consumption
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Unusual conditions aren't really an issue. You over-build renewables and have a mix, along with long distance transmission lines and storage. That covers all your regular, unavoidable demand.
Most of the time you have a huge excess of cheap energy, which goes to processes which don't need to be operating 24/7. Fuel production, desalination, data processing that can be delayed, that sort of thing.
If you look at historical weather, there has never been a time when either Europe or the US could not easily get b
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Solid state batteries are a great fit for electric vehicles and other electrified forms of transportation. But there are other battery chemistries that trade weight and power density for lower costs, greater longevity, and greater thermal tolerance that would be a better fit for stationary utility-scale energy storage.
Ars Technicia just had an article the other day on the subject: link [arstechnica.com].
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Very location dependent, however.
Re: (Score:2)
Batteries will happen and are happening now. The only question is who will be making them. With the general dysfunctionality of the west, my guess is China. We could have done better than them, but we did not even really try. Same for solar cells. All advantages the west had were simply squandered.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If this were only the manufacturing you might have a point. Or not. But the research and development went with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Lip service (Score:5, Interesting)
Pledging support means nothing. If they don't treat investment in nuclear more than just a number on a profit vs risk statement then it is meaningless. They need to carve out nuclear and treat it as special case or it won't get any investment. At present the investment risk is huge, the payback is tiny, the profits are barely existent and that's before you get into the insurance issue.
Nuclear is a dead end if you treat it as a number which banks almost universally do.
Re: Lip service (Score:2)
The issues holding-back nuclear power plant construction have very little to do with access to financing, and have much more to do with political, environmental and regulatory issues.
If a power company announced it wanted to build a nuclear power plant, the environmentalists would start suing, and keep suing, the power company for the next two decades to prevent it. The politicians would cow-tow to the environmentalists, and the regulators would slow-walk the application approval process to suit their prefe
Re: (Score:2)
Environmental review reform is something that is needed for every construction project in the US not just nuclear. Solar plants, highways, rail systems, tunnels, everything gets bogged down these days. I support regulations in general but there is plenty of space for reform and important reforms in there. .
It was an old episode i'll see if I can find it but on Ezra Klein's podcast he was interviewing Jerusalem Demsas who writes on this topic a lot and osmethign I blieve I am recalling is that in a lot of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you should provide evidence for your speculations.
Nuclear reactors simply aren't economically competitive, they generate electricity that is more expensive than almost anything. Even existing nuke plants are requiring $billions in federal subsidies just to keep running. Meanwhile a number licenses for new plants have been granted, mostly at places where there already are existing nuke plants so the environmental concerns have been sorted. Quite a few applications were withdrawn, probably because they
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> Then why can both S. Korea and China do it?
They can do it because they need all the electricity they can get their hands on. They don't care how much it costs. By contrast, electricity consumption in the USA levelled off about 15 years ago and we have had an adequate supply until recently with the advent of gigantic AI consumption.
And then of course in China's case they are installing massive amounts of renewable energy as well.
Re: (Score:2)
That has changed in the past couple years. Data centers for LLMs and Bitcoin mining, as well as EV infrastructure has spiked electrical demand. That, as well as increased peak demand due to ever hotter summers.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why I said "until recently with the advent of gigantic AI consumption". Those AI companies are welcome to build their own nuke plants.
Re: Lip service (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Check out the WNA's assessment on nuclear's economics, especially in competition with renewables.
Nuclear only works when you have a highly regulated environment in which utilities pledge to pre-purchase power over the long term.
https://world-nuclear.org/info... [world-nuclear.org]
That said, dedicated SMR's might change that equation.
https://www.tomshardware.com/t... [tomshardware.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The World Nuclear Association is an industry organ and their claims can't be trusted. As for Oracle, they need the electricity and they are willing to pay a premium for it. SMR's definitely are not cheap.
Re: (Score:3)
The WNA may be an industry organ, but that report is remarkably unbiased.
It explains in detail how nuclear is only competitive with renewables in a highly regulated environment where utilities pledge to pre-purchase power over the long term. Without those agreements or in a unregulated, competitive environment where they have to compete on price, then the plant has to be idled during peak solar/wind generation periods and that prevents it from ever recouping its losses.
The SMR/data center dedicated power tr
Re: (Score:2)
Your link covers operating costs of the plants, not the total cost of the energy produced, including all subsidies, construction, disposal etc. Lifetime cost is what matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The cost of nuclear is almost impossible to calculate, because how do you value free infinite liability insurance? And how do you value all the R&D done by the military?
We will keep having nuclear no matter what it costs, because we need it for weapons. The best we can hope for is to minimize it so we pay as little as possible, and reduce the risk as much as possible.
If it wasn't such a monumental pain in the arse to go off-grid in the UK, I'd be seriously looking to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
The cost of nuclear is almost impossible to calculate, because how do you value free infinite liability insurance? And how do you value all the R&D done by the military?
Same, with the possible exception of military R&D, can be said about basically all forms of power generation. Environmental impact is always a concern. There can be a difference of scale, however.
We will keep having nuclear no matter what it costs, because we need it for weapons. The best we can hope for is to minimize it so we pay as little as possible, and reduce the risk as much as possible.
When calculating for increased risks from pollution or other factors, like nuclear disasters, nuclear still is in the top three for fewest deaths for power generated.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There was a study from MIT a few years back that investigated the rise in nuclear reactor building costs since the 1970s. Safety and regulatory costs accounted for around a third of the rise. Meanwhile, engineering, purchasing, planning, scheduling, supervision, and labor costs all rose significantly. Also mentioned in the study was a rise in inefficiencies, as project participants fumbled with increased complexity of such mega-projects.
Here is an article that summarized the study: link [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The issues holding-back nuclear power plant construction have very little to do with access to financing, and have much more to do with political, environmental and regulatory issues.
False. Nuclear power has difficulty getting financing because it is the most expensive way we have to produce power. That makes it a poor investment choice even before the risks.
You can look at Australia for an example: The Coalition is running on a platform of building 8 nuclear power plants in Australia. They have said they'll take care of environment and reduce the regulatory burden to make it happen. End result? Banks said fuck no, we're not touching that, that'll lose money. Private industry said fuck
Re:Lip service (Score:5, Insightful)
There is Big Tech money behind this. The banks want a bite of that apple. That's where this is coming from.
Big Tech is serious about spinning up nukes for data centers. Lunduke did a video [youtube.com] about this a few days ago. The most recent big news on this is Microsoft aiming to restart the TMI-1 reactor in Pennsylvania. Oracle wants to build SMRs somewhere. Ellison hasn't said where.
Big Tech is Big Tech: highly lucrative. Nothing moves the needle like trucks full of money.
Re: (Score:2)
If big tech is serious about spinning up nukes then banks don't need to get involved. The likes of Microsoft and Amazon self fund their PPAs with the nuclear industry. At that point again nuclear becomes just a number. If an existing contractual PPA exists then the risk / reward equation changes and the banks don't need to do anything unique for nuclear - continue treating it like a number.
If would be more accurate to say that Big Tech is making nuclear viable against competitors in the power industry, the
Re: (Score:2)
That is very naïve. No nuclear power is ever "just a number." All nuclear power is a product of private capital, local, regional and national political and regulatory interests, and subsidization. There is no way that Big Tech plans on funding this stuff entirely out of their own pockets: they're players that know how to shake the "green energy" money tree and get subsidized by public treasuries. Those subsidies are funneled through banks in the form of loan guarantees, special rates, special terms
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, pretty much. Obviously, banks are willing to give money if that money gets fully insured by the public. The insanity of the nuclear fanatics may just make that possible. And in that case the banks to not need to care whether there are any actual profits of whether that tech is actually burning mountains of money for nothing. It is very telling that no bank ever has actually invested in nuclear power.
Banks aren't the problem. (Score:1, Troll)
I know that everyone loves it when people come out and answer questions that nobody asked, but getting the financing doesn't seem to be the problem with building nuclear power.
Insurance, NIMBYs, lawsuits, government regulators; and of course the stratospheric cost are the problems.
Re:Banks aren't the problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The #1 thing is that banks are heavy hitters. Throw enough money at something, and it will be built. Banks and tech companies have this ability, where previously, nuclear had a relatively tiny amount of backing.
Re: (Score:2)
I know that everyone loves it when people come out and answer questions that nobody asked, but getting the financing doesn't seem to be the problem with building nuclear power..of course the stratospheric cost are the problems.
When laying out those challenges, try not to contradict Greed right out of the equation.
Theres a reason banks are even pledging a headline. A stratospheric fuckton of money, is often financed.
In related news, 5 or 6 slashdotters hardest hit (Score:1)
Asses chapped and egos bruised
Not really (Score:2)
All they say is "we will give credits if they get fully insured with public money". They are simply trying to profit from the insanity of the nuclear fanatics that want to keep an obsolete and failed tech alive at all cost.
Nuclear is a quagmire. (Score:4, Interesting)
Banks and politicians like it precisely because of that. It's very slow and predictable.
Re: (Score:1)
The average construction time is 7 years globally. Call it 10 if you want to be ultra-paranoid. That'll get you 1GW.
A wind farm will take 6 months to get you 50MW if you're lucky.
A solar farm will take about a year for a small handful of MW.
I don't know what you've been reading, but nuclear is nothing more than a building project timeline, and per MW beats any renewable energy source for comparative build times.
Re: (Score:2)
New wind capacity was about a fifth the marginal cost of nuclear capacity a decade ago, and that distance has only widened since then. And solar's cost decline has far outstripped that of wind.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody was mentioning cost whatsoever, we were talking about build times, and those build time numbers seem pretty universal if you have a look around.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China is adding wind and solar power equal to FIVE nuclear plants weekly.
It's installing at least 10 gigawatts of wind and solar generation capacity every two weeks.
In comparison, experts have said the Coalition's plan to build seven nuclear power plants would add fewer than 10GW of generation capacity to the grid sometime after 2035.
Your timelines are way, way off.
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2... [tribune.com.pk]
Re: (Score:2)
China installed 609GW of renewables in 2023.
Not megawatts, gigawatts.
Even if you assume a capacity factor of 20%, it's still around two large reactors a week's worth of energy added to their grid.
Uhuh (Score:2)
I'm going to make a wild guess that government first promised a very generous 30 year a price/volume guarantuee making the projects nearly risk free absent ridiculous cost overruns during construction.
Re: (Score:1)