The world’s first fossil fuel phaseout conference has begun in Santa Marta, Colombia, with 57 countries representing more than half of global GDP, 30% of the world’s population and 20% of global fossil fuel production. Fossil fuel phaseout has moved from climate advocacy to the center of the global economy, where it can no longer be ignored.

For years, fossil fuel phaseout has been treated as politically impossible unless every major producer agreed at once. Santa Marta is testing a different theory: that a critical mass of countries can start building the rules, roadmaps, finance mechanisms and scientific capacity needed to manage the decline of coal, oil and gas. Before the next crisis forces the world to do it chaotically.

The conference is co-hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands and is designed as a space for countries, subnational governments and other stakeholders that recognize the need to implement a transition away from fossil fuels in a just, orderly and equitable manner, in line with climate goals and the best available science.

NextEra Energy is buying Dominion Energy in an all-stock deal valued at ~$67 billion — 0.8138 NEE shares per D share plus a pro rata slice of a $360 million one-time cash payment at close.

Implied value per D share at Friday's NEE close: ~$76.18.

D up 14.5% pre-market. NEE absorbs the dilution.

The strategic read: this is an AI infrastructure trade dressed in utility clothing. Data centers need power. Lots of it. NEE just acquired the transmission and distribution spine running through Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina — ground zero for hyperscaler buildout.

Combined entity serves ~10 million customer accounts, runs a $138 billion regulated rate base growing at an 11% clip through 2032. World's largest regulated electric utility by market cap.

The regulatory gauntlet is real — FERC, NRC, three state commissions, two shareholder votes. Timeline is 12 to 18 months. NEE put up a $4.83 billion termination fee tied to regulatory failure. That's not a rounding error. They want this deal.

Watch NEE's open. The implied D value moves tick for tick with it until close.

Here's hoping that their calculations it can withstand a typhoon are correct.

This was clearly a warning shot. The next missile could take out the substation that feeds the generated power to the HVAC lines.

The design is the Korean reactor design so actually breaking the generator itself with missiles is unlikely. But always possible if they shoot enough missiles at it.

Anyway you look at it - bad news. This provides 25% of the UAEs power.

Let's face it, only two countries are building nuclear now: China and Russia. China is all in on renewables so I can see them dropping nuclear completely in the future. That leaves Russia and they don't seem to care about renewables that much, so they might be the only country left building nuclear. Their exports will collapse though as it won't make sense for any developing countries to build nuclear over solar.

One of your moderators posted that you essentially need 3 times the solar, wind, & battery requirement due to capacity average power and non-optimum weather constraints.

You also need more HV DC transmission lines, transformers, inverters due to numerous remote smaller MW solar farm sites. That means more land leased for both panels, turbines, and powerlines. It results in more NIMBY for those not wanting to see/hear the offending power source/lines using up farmland.

In the summer, or on bright sun or heavy wind days, you end up having too much power, driving negative prices. Curtailment and backup natural gas costs then result.

Is this any way to run an electricity grid?

As you build more renewables as a percentage of the total power required you need more powerlines & batteries. Your moderator already showed that batteries are a huge expense that will remain high despite declining costs if you want more than 4-hours backup.

California taxpayer-paid subsidy with up to $120k per vehicle!!!

The Duane Arnold (nuclear) Energy Center

For decades, the Duane Arnold Energy Center operated quietly along Iowa’s Cedar River, providing steady electricity to the region. The reactor began commercial operation in 1975 and achieved a lifetime capacity factor of 78% (far below the 95% nuke bros love to use). As Iowa’s only nuclear power plant, it supplied dependable baseload power through oil crises, economic recessions, and decades of changing energy policy.

Wind Power Changed the Economics

By the 2010s, Iowa had become a national leader in wind generation. Larger turbines, federal incentives, and falling construction costs drove renewable electricity prices sharply downward.

In 2018, NextEra Energy Resources and Alliant Energy reached an agreement to cancel the nuclear power purchase contract. Alliant chose to pay $110 million to cancel the agreement five years early, shifting its energy strategy toward expanding wind generation and purchasing lower-cost electricity from renewable sources.

The company projected the decision would save customers roughly $300 million over time.

For the nuclear plant, however, the lost contract meant lost revenue. Even though the reactor remained licensed and capable of operating safely, it could no longer compete economically in a market increasingly shaped by inexpensive wind power.

From Nuclear Power to Pleasant Creek Solar

After closure, the site entered a new phase. Portions of the property surrounding the former reactor were redeveloped into a large solar installation known as Pleasant Creek Solar, transforming land once dedicated to nuclear generation into another form of renewable energy production.

The transition symbolized a broader shift underway across the Midwest: from centralized, mostly-on generation toward networks of wind and solar resources supported by modern grids.

The story of the Duane Arnold Energy Center is therefore not one of technological failure. The plant operated successfully for decades. Instead, it reflects how changing energy economics — particularly the rapid rise of wind power in Iowa — reshaped decisions about which sources of electricity would power the future.

Where a nuclear reactor once defined Iowa’s energy landscape, turbines and solar panels now carry forward the same goal: producing electricity without carbon emissions, but through a new generation of technologies

This subreddit is by and large really good at discussing posts like this.

So... are they correct?

I hate to say this but u/AndrewTyeFighter is right. Battery prices have not leveled off. I asked Claude and got the following for the last 5 years.

With that said, I still think we need them to drop significantly more to be able to go even 80% renewables. But we might be at the point where 60% nuclear/hydro and 40% solar/batteries will work well.

Claude:

I've been digging into how fast Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) prices have collapsed and figured this sub might appreciate the numbers in one place. Below are the global average turnkey BESS prices (per BloombergNEF's annual Energy Storage Systems Cost Survey) alongside notable real-world project examples for each year, with total project cost, $/kWh, and location.

Quick note on methodology: BNEF's benchmark is a global average turnkey price for utility-scale 4-hour systems. Real project costs vary a lot based on location (US projects are pricier due to tariffs/labor), duration, and what's bundled in (interconnection, land, EPC, etc.). For specific projects I'm pulling reported total capex where available, otherwise estimating from announced figures.

2021 — Global avg ≈ $300/kWh (BNEF turnkey, 4-hr)

• Moss Landing Phase II (Vistra) — Monterey County, California
• Added 100 MW / 400 MWh, bringing facility to 400 MW / 1,600 MWh
• Phase II reported cost: ~$150M for the 400 MWh addition
• ≈ $375/kWh

NREL's bottom-up model put a typical US 60 MW / 240 MWh project around $379/kWh in 2021, so this lines up.

2022 — Global avg ≈ $290/kWh (BNEF, slight uptick due to lithium spike — Li prices rose 400%+ from 2021 to early 2023)

• Crimson Energy Storage (Canadian Solar/Recurrent) — Riverside County, California
• 350 MW / 1,400 MWh
• Reported total project cost: ~$500M
• ≈ $357/kWh

This was the biggest BESS to come online in 2022 and a good marker for what utility-scale looked like at the lithium-price peak.

2023 — Global avg ≈ $273/kWh (BNEF turnkey)

• Moss Landing Phase III (Vistra) — Monterey County, California
• Added 350 MW / 1,400 MWh, bringing total facility to 750 MW / 3,000 MWh (largest in the world at completion)
• Reported Phase III cost: ~$400M
• ≈ $286/kWh

LCOS dropped from $150/MWh (2020) to $117/MWh in 2023. Supply chain easing, more LFP adoption.

2024 — Global avg ≈ $169/kWh inflation-adjusted (BNEF) — a 40% YoY drop

• Edwards Sanborn Solar + Storage (Terra-Gen) — Kern County, California
• 875 MW battery / 3,287 MWh paired with 875 MW solar (final phase commissioned January 2024)
• Total project capex reported around $1.5B for the battery portion
• ≈ $456/kWh (US-specific; US costs ran way above global avg due to 301 tariffs + labor)
• Bisha BESS (Saudi Electric Company / BYD) — Bisha, Saudi Arabia
• 500 MW / 2,000 MWh, came online late 2024
• Estimated cost ~$500M
• ≈ $250/kWh (lower because Chinese-supplied equipment, no import duties)

Big year. NREL's 2024 US utility-scale benchmark came in at $458/kWh for 4-hour systems, so the US/global gap was wide.

2025 — Global avg $117/kWh (BNEF turnkey, 4-hr) — another 31% YoY drop

• Oasis de Atacama (Grenergy) — Atacama Desert, Chile
• Multi-phase build, ultimately 4.1 GWh+ (BYD-supplied)
• Total announced investment: ~$1.4B for the storage portion
• ≈ $130/kWh (close to Ember's $125/kWh all-in benchmark for global markets outside US/China)
• Ember Oct 2025 benchmark: $125/kWh all-in capex for 4hr+ utility-scale projects outside US/China ($75/kWh core Chinese equipment + $50/kWh install/connection)
• BNEF also broke out stationary storage battery pack prices alone at $70/kWh in 2025 — the cells/modules themselves, not the full system.

TL;DR table:

Year	Global Avg ($/kWh, turnkey)	Notable Project	Location	Total Cost	$/kWh
2021	~$300	Moss Landing Phase II	California, US	~$150M	~$375
2022	~$290	Crimson Storage	California, US	~$500M	~$357
2023	~$273	Moss Landing Phase III	California, US	~$400M	~$286
2024	~$169	Edwards Sanborn (battery)	California, US	~$1.5B	~$456
2024	~$169	Bisha BESS	Saudi Arabia	~$500M	~$250
2025	$117	Oasis de Atacama	Chile	~$1.4B	~$130

Headline takeaway: turnkey BESS prices have fallen ~60% in 5 years, with a steep cliff in 2024–2025 driven by LFP cell prices, Chinese manufacturing overcapacity, 4+ MWh container designs, and "plug and play" AC-block integration cutting install costs. BNEF projects 4-hour turnkey systems will hit $41/kWh in China, $101/kWh in Europe, and $108/kWh in the US (using Chinese cells) by 2035.

The US is now structurally more expensive than the rest of the world thanks to Section 301 tariffs — a gap that may widen or shrink depending on trade policy.

Sources: BloombergNEF Energy Storage Systems Cost Survey 2025, Ember "How cheap is battery storage?" (Oct 2025), NREL ATB 2024, project company press releases.