Oglethorpe Power Corporation’s Post

Nuclear up to about 40% energy market share fits well into a generator fleet that must cooperate symbiotically to meet but not exceed society’s power demand (load) ongoing. With its high capital cost and very low fuel cost, NP must run at a high annual capacity factor to be economic and so is limited to the base load strata for optimum feasibility. Solar above 4% energy market, share and wind from the very first contraption, on the other hand, are not symbiotic with the balance of the generator fleet because they fail to provide either base load or load following generating characteristics and exacerbate net load fluctuation. Their zero fuel cost advantage is more than erased by their lack of control of load-directed fuel supply. Unfortunately, wholesale market design does not recognize lack of cooperation to meet load ongoing as a detriment.

I find it curious that much opposition is based on the cost (realistic) but ignoring the concept that renewables (excluding hydro) are weather or daylight-dependent. We will still need an assured base level of generation capacity - gas or nuclear? The generating capacities on recent announcements re nuclear seem great approaches to me. WA's coal generation (I was a geologist modelling the current Ewington-Premier seams in the Collie basin in 1989) has had six "individual" stations. Four (Govenment-owned) will close down by 2029 cutting out 1.1GW of capacity leaving two private stations to continue with capacity of 440 MW. So what will we do when those close? Base load from gas? Nuclear seems appropriate to me based at Muja where distribution is extant (not Collie, some 25 km away,that many opponents are cynically quoting)

A watershed moment for nuclear to finally being officially recognized as clean energy with key role in addressing climate change/ climate crisis. This is important recognition at top international Ministerial level . Cop28 was also historic with 22 world leaders recognizing nuclear's role in contributing to net zero and for enhancing security and this IEA Communique is a culmination to the global recognition of nuclear.

Nuclear power serving humanity in a meaningful way. Need every scheme and technology to meet the ever growing demand for electricity.

Effective messaging on day 1 of policy in my opinion.

A key moment for US energy - wind and solar are now the second most important source of power in the US, moving ahead of nuclear as of June 2024.

One of the comments mentioned: "As the governor said, we’re looking forward to Vogtle FIVE!"{Emphasis added] Some Thoughts: (1) Plant Vogtle is already the LARGEST Generator of CLEAN Energy in the U.S. (2) Depending upon "WHEN" the decision to build Vogtle Unit 5 is made (Shorter the GAP seems should be more Advantageous), the following important Benefits should be viewed as "Low-hanging Fruit".! - Standard Design (Successfully Operating AP1000s) - Supply-Chain - Experienced Craftsmen - More Efficient Construction - Lower Risks All the above should result in relatively "Lower" COST and "Shorter" Project/Construction SCHEDULE.! Btw: Potential Future Vogtle Site could look like.! Vogtle 1&2(PWR)+Vogtle 3&4(AP1000)+Vogtle 5(REPLICATED AP1000) [ COST=$8.9B ] [ COST =$36.85B ] [ Must be "Cost-competitive"] [ COD=1987-89] [COD=2023-24 ] [ ON-Bugdet & ON-Schedule] Many UNIQUE Issues! <---------------Lower NORMALIZED $/KWe & $/MWhr----------------> #DATABASE (1970-2024)  

Energy is national security. With renewables we become a forever importer of gadgets from places that do not have our interests at heart.

Regarding the future of nuclear power generation, the NRC stated that they expected to see no fewer than 25 license applications for SMR and advanced reactors by 2029. No comment was made on the current product cycle (from approval to power generation), but the SMR industry continually focuses on a much shorter time-to-market than current nuclear power generation stations, when the SMRs are being manufactured as planned. Estimates are for a potential 90 GW of energy generation with the average SMR being a 200 MW unit.

More nuclear power progress in America but none in Australia until we lift the bans and the economic viability, investment and jobs can flow in.