Spain's Iberdrola, Endesa Aim to Extend Nuclear Plant Lifespan
Spain's three largest utilities are working on a proposal to extend the lifespan of the country's biggest nuclear power plant, whose reactors are slated to be shut down in 2027 and 2028.
Iberdrola SA, Endesa SA and Naturgy Energy Group SA are seeking to postpone the planned closing of the Almaraz facility until 2030, Endesa Chief Executive Officer Jose Bogas said Thursday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
7 hours ago
- Fast Company
Coal power keeps getting more expensive—and that means higher electricity bills for Americans
Coal power is a dirtier energy source than renewables like wind and solar. But even for those Americans who don't care about climate, it's also a more expensive energy source—and the economics of using it as a power source just keep getting worse. As President Donald Trump tries to bolster the coal industry by ordering shuttered coal power plants to reopen, that means everyday Americans are likely to see their electricity bills spike. Coal power was 28% more expensive in 2024 than it was in 2021, according to a new analysis by Energy Innovation, a San Francisco-based climate research firm. That means the cost of generating power with coal is rising faster than inflation, which increased by 16% over the same time period. The economics of coal have been bad for some time. A 2023 Energy Innovation report found that 99% of the existing coal plants across the U.S. are more expensive to run than to replace with renewables like wind, solar, or energy storage. In the past four years alone, more than 100 coal-fired units have closed for economic reasons. And yet Trump has ordered coal plants set for retirement to keep operating past their planned shut-down dates. The J.H. Campbell power plant in Michigan, for example, was scheduled to close May 31, but Trump ordered it to remain open. These orders to prop up the coal industry 'ignore the economic fundamentals underpinning coal's decline,' Energy Innovation's most recent report reads. And that affects Americans across the country: 'If coal plants are being kept online that would otherwise be retired, the cost of running those plants is going to be passed on to the electricity consumer,' says Michelle Solomon, a manager of the electricity program at the firm and the report's author Electricity rates are on the rise across the country, but states that rely heavily on coal, like West Virginia and Kentucky, are seeing even faster increases. Between 2021 and 2024—as 95% of the country's coal power plants have gotten more expensive to run—electricity rates in West Virginia have gone up 24%. (Since 2022, residential electricity prices have increased 13% on average across the country.) Coal is getting more expensive for a few reasons. In many areas, easy access to coal is gone, because it's already been mined for so long. That means it gets more expensive to continue mining for coal, Solomon says. Coal plants are also aging, and so they're more costly to maintain. Per Energy Innovation, the average age of U.S. coal plants is 43 years old, though multiple plants are pushing 70. These factors also affect Trump's decision to keep operating coal plants that were set for retirement. Utilities have already planned for those plants to shutter, meaning they have likely burned down their stockpiles of coal and may have even deferred maintenance, since they wouldn't be kept running. Rushing to buy coal or scrambling to complete last-minute maintenance could add even more costs. Renewables have seen some price volatility with inflation too, Solomon says, and this most recent Energy Innovation report didn't update renewables analysis. But it's clear the coal fleet is getting significantly more expensive. And given that coal has already been more expensive than renewables for years, 'it's fair to say that the economics [of coal] continue to get worse compared to renewables,' she adds. It's hard to say exactly how much rising coal prices will affect someone's electricity bills, especially when it comes to keeping open planned-for-retirement coal plants. But typically, the costs of operating these plants are passed on to consumers, Solomon says. 'The coal fleet, because it's more expensive than inflation, is putting inflationary pressure on U.S. electricity prices. 'So if the administration's goal is to make energy cheaper and to bring down inflation, keeping old coal plants running is completely opposite to what they should be doing,' Solomon says.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Tesla's Energy Storage Business Is Quietly Growing at Triple-Digit Rates. Is This the Company's Next Growth Engine?
Tesla's energy division more than doubled its storage deployments in 2024, and triple-digit growth has continued this year. The company's energy business is becoming a core growth engine rather than a side project. Demand for artificial intelligence infrastructure is providing a lift to Tesla's energy storage sales. These 10 stocks could mint the next wave of millionaires › After years of being viewed as an intriguing side project, Tesla's (NASDAQ: TSLA) energy business is starting to look like the electric-car company's most underappreciated growth engine. In 2024, energy storage deployments surged, and gross profit from the segment hit new highs. And momentum hasn't slowed. Based on Tesla's first-quarter 2025 results, the division is on pace for another record-breaking year. For investors still focused solely on Tesla vehicles like its best-selling Model Y and flashy Cybertruck, it may be time to widen the lens. Tesla's energy business delivered stunning results in 2024. Total energy generation and storage revenue jumped 67% year over year to more than $10 billion. After deploying 14.7 gigawatt hours (GWh) of storage in 2023, Tesla more than doubled this figure to 31.4 GWh in 2024. Growth like this doesn't just spotlight demand -- it highlights exceptional product-market fit and suggests there's likely a long runway ahead. More importantly, Tesla's energy business, including both solar and energy storage sales, is becoming far more profitable. Energy segment gross profit reached $2.6 billion last year -- far more than the $1.1 billion it posted in 2023. For further context, Tesla's energy business generated less than $300 million in gross profit in 2022. The division has gone from a long-term moonshot bet to a viable earnings contributor in just a few years. Much of Tesla's momentum in its energy storage business comes from its Megapack product -- a grid-scale battery storage solution designed for utilities and large-scale commercial customers. The company is producing Megapacks at its dedicated Lathrop, California, facility, and recently started production at a second Megapack factory in Shanghai, with a target production of up to 40 GWh of capacity per year. Of course, Tesla also has a product for residential customers called Powerwall. Though Powerwall deployments are smaller than Megapack, the product's importance shouldn't be underestimated. "We achieved a fourth sequential record for Powerwall deployments," Tesla said in its first-quarter update in April, "crossing 1 GWh for the first time, and continue to be supply constrained." Speaking of Tesla's first-quarter momentum in energy storage, total energy storage deployment during the period skyrocketed 154% year over year to 10.4 GWh. Revenue from energy generation and storage grew 67% year over year to $2.7 billion. In its first-quarter update, Tesla attributed some of its massive growth to rising demand for artificial intelligence (AI). AI infrastructure is driving rapid load growth, which, along with traditional utility customer applications, is creating an outsized opportunity for our Energy storage products to stabilize the grid, shift energy when it is needed most and provide additional power capacity. Of course, investors still need to keep their expectations in check. Though Tesla is the most aggressive and scaled player in the space, there's a risk that a business like this becomes commoditized over time as other players ramp up their efforts in the space. Additionally, management said in its first-quarter update that the current tariff environment has a "relatively larger impact" on its energy business than it does on its automotive business. Still, Tesla's staggering momentum in the segment is hard to ignore. Investors have long been willing to give Tesla a premium valuation based on its disruptive potential. But in recent years, that bet has rested almost entirely on the company's vehicle business. Now, a second act is emerging. Tesla's energy division is growing rapidly, becoming more profitable, and gaining strategic importance. It's taking some pressure off Tesla's automotive business. If Tesla's energy business continues to scale at its current pace, it won't just be a "nice-to-have" division. It will be one of the company's most important growth levers. Ever feel like you missed the boat in buying the most successful stocks? Then you'll want to hear this. On rare occasions, our expert team of analysts issues a 'Double Down' stock recommendation for companies that they think are about to pop. If you're worried you've already missed your chance to invest, now is the best time to buy before it's too late. And the numbers speak for themselves: Nvidia: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2009, you'd have $368,035!* Apple: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2008, you'd have $38,503!* Netflix: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2004, you'd have $668,538!* Right now, we're issuing 'Double Down' alerts for three incredible companies, available when you join , and there may not be another chance like this anytime soon.*Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 Daniel Sparks and/or his clients have positions in Tesla. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Tesla. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Tesla's Energy Storage Business Is Quietly Growing at Triple-Digit Rates. Is This the Company's Next Growth Engine? was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
The net zero fight threatening to blow up Miliband's green dreams
When Ed Miliband took the reins of his old department last summer after 14 years away, the Energy Secretary compared being in government to playing the video game Mario Kart. 'You're driving along, things fly at you and you've got to just keep going,' he joked a few months in. Some of those flying objects may have been easy to anticipate – not least a rural backlash against his approval of vast solar farms and power lines across swathes of British countryside. Yet one row Labour's net zero supremo may not have seen coming was a fight over the rather dry-sounding 'review of electricity market arrangements'. Quietly started in 2023 by Mr Miliband's Conservative predecessors, it includes what has become an incendiary proposal for regional, or 'zonal', electricity pricing. This proposal would divide Britain's national electricity market into several zones, with power prices set in each area based on local supply and demand dynamics. In practice, this would mean that people in the heavily populated South East would end up paying more than those in the North, who are closer to Scottish wind farms that generate a lot of power. It's an idea that has already got energy companies fighting like cats in a sack and is now threatening a political row as well, with Reform, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens all lining up against it. Now, with a decision expected from Mr Miliband next week, Downing Street has let it be known that Sir Keir Starmer may wade in himself to settle the matter – although sources insist the Prime Minister and his team have no firm views yet. For Starmer and Miliband, the stakes could not be higher. Industry sees the zonal question as one with existential consequences for Labour, arguing it has the potential to make or break Miliband's twin pledges to roll out a clean power system by 2030 and lower household energy bills. Failure to deliver one or both could fatally undermine public support for net zero at a time when Nigel Farage's Reform Party is describing the issue as the 'next Brexit'. 'Both sides in the zonal debate legitimately believe they are carrying the flame for decarbonisation and doing something righteous on behalf of consumers,' says Adam Bell, a former top Energy Department official who is now a consultant at Stonehaven. 'The problem is, no one can really be certain about who is actually right.' That has not stopped the various sides from making speeches, publishing studies, filming explainer videos and writing blog posts to plead their case – with the argument pitting some of the biggest names in energy against each other, often in bitter exchanges. For example, after Scottish Power boss Keith Anderson gave a speech last month warning ministers not to 'tamper with a system that works', Octopus Energy boss Greg Jackson branded his comments 'astonishing'. 'It may work for incumbent energy generators but it doesn't work for households or businesses struggling with Europe's highest energy costs,' Jackson tweeted. The implication was that Scottish Power was defending its profits at the expense of customers. Zonal supporters such as Octopus and Ovo Energy, regulator Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator (Neso), say that the switch would shave tens of billions of pounds off the cost of the green energy transition by making more efficient use of the electricity grid. 'It's our job to push prices down in the supply chain,' Jackson has said. 'If that means taking the very big producers to task and working hard to squeeze them to be more efficient, so we can pass lower prices to customers, that is our job.' At the moment, the national pricing system keeps prices in some areas such as London artificially low and prices elsewhere – such as Scotland – artificially high, leading to all kinds of waste and market quirks. For example, Britain is currently spending more than £1bn a year on switching off wind farms in some locations because the grid is too congested to accept their power at busy times, while firing up gas power plants elsewhere to compensate. These 'constraint' costs are expected to balloon to more than £3bn a year under the existing system. Switching to a zonal system would eradicate these kinds of inefficiencies because when there is abundant wind power, prices in places like Scotland would simply plummet, with the inverse true in the South East during peak times. It would theoretically encourage solar and wind farms to locate much closer to where power is needed, dramatically cutting the amount of money that would need to be spent on grid upgrades. One study shared with the Government, seen by The Telegraph, puts these savings at up to £27bn. Though wholesale electricity prices would vary between regions, households in almost every area would be better off overall due to the lack of constraint costs and reductions in grid charges, according to a study by FTI Consulting for Octopus. It estimates that zonal would leave consumers £52bn better off overall over a 20-year period. This equates to something like £50 to £100 off their annual bills, says Jason Mann, an electricity markets expert and the study's author. The South East would emerge as the only regional loser, to the tune of £3.6bn or about £150m per year. Mann argues this could be remedied with some system tweaks, ensuring no households lose out. Another potential upside of cheaper electricity in Scotland and the North could be the potential to attract investment in power-hungry data centres and industrial facilities such as hydrogen electrolysers, supporters say. Yet any suggestion of overt regional differences may prove politically toxic. Mr Miliband warned in April he would 'not introduce a postcode lottery'. 'Whatever route we go down, my bottom line is bills have got to fall, and they should fall throughout the country,' he told the BBC. On the other side of the debate, a formidable list of major players are lining up to warn Mr Miliband off the proposals. They include nearly every major wind farm developer, British Gas owner Centrica, trade bodies MakeUK, SolarUK and Offshore Energies UK, as well as Labour-supporting unions Unite and the GMB. At the crux of their arguments are two key contentions. First, that the problems with the current national pricing system can be solved by grid upgrades and lower-key market reforms; and second, that the poor timing of the zonal proposals means they now risk doing more harm than good, by creating so much uncertainty that they derail Mr Miliband's hopes for a green energy construction boom. Studies produced for wind farm owner SSE by Aquaicity Ltd and LCP paint a starkly different picture to the FTI research, arguing that the consumer savings may be nearly eradicated by price increases. This would be because wind farm developers, less certain of their future earnings under a reformed system, would demand higher prices in the Government's contracts for difference (CfD) auctions, which feed through directly into the bills paid by households and businesses. According to LCP, a move to zonal pricing would only save £5bn to 15bn over a 20-year period. Mr Miliband's clean power action plan – through which he aims to make the grid 95pc powered by renewables in 2030 – rests upon the assumption that the Government will procure unprecedented amounts of new wind farm projects in CfD auctions this summer and next. Any suggestion that zonal is on the way risks chilling investment, developers have suggested. Other critics have rubbished claims that cheaper prices in some regions will really cause businesses to relocate. 'I love Scotland, but who's going to start a big factory there?', says Dale Vince, the multimillionaire Labour donor and Ecotricity tycoon. 'I mean, how do you get your workforce there? There's so many practical problems with zonal. I don't understand why it's still being talked about.' The question of zonal has suddenly taken on more urgency as lobbying ramps up in anticipation of a promised decision this month. Advocates say that without action now the problems under the current system will only grow more unsustainable. The amount of money being wasted on a daily basis by wind farms is now being tracked by a website, Wasted Wind. On Thursday it said more than £4.5m had been spent on switching off turbines and finding replacement power. 'The amount you have to pay windfarms to get constrained off – the amount that we end up with a system that is inefficient – if we do absolutely nothing, I think means it is not economically credible for British consumers to leave it as it is,' warned Jonathan Brearley, chief executive of Ofgem, earlier this year. Although Mr Miliband's officials have backed zonal pricing, the rest of Whitehall is said to be split on the idea and there is growing nervousness in Downing Street about the political consequences if things go wrong. A spokesman for the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero insists that the focus will be on 'protecting bill-payers and encouraging investment'. Whatever Mr Miliband decides to do, people on both sides of the argument agree on one thing: he should get on with it urgently to put an end to any doubts. Bell, at Stonehaven, believes the hour is so late now that the Government is most likely to kick the can down the road. Starmer's intervention appears to make that more likely. Downing Street is understood to have requested a further review of the costs and benefits of the policy – raising the prospect that the idea could be killed off or kicked into the long grass. 'If you really just don't want to do this now, you could just say let's put it to one side now and look again in the 2040s,' he says. Ducking the question may ultimately satisfy no one. But at least Mr Miliband will be able to keep careening forward, Mario Kart-style. Until, at least, the next flying obstacle approaches. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
