Electricity News in November 2020
Meeting the rising demand for electricity in Europe
Nuclear vs Renewables LCOE highlights decarbonization tradeoffs, baseload reliability, storage costs, capacity factor impacts, gas backup dependence, and price volatility, clarifying grid integration value and true system costs beyond simple levelized metrics.
Key Points
Compares nuclear and intermittent renewables on system value, decarbonization speed, and storage costs beyond LCOE.
✅ Nuclear cuts carbon intensity 34% more per added MW.
✅ Intermittency raises storage needs and system costs up to +50%.
✅ Declining capacity factors increase price volatility and gas reliance.
One of the few certainties in the energy industry right now is that demand for electricity will rise substantially. The electrification of cars and light vans together with the rapid growth of electricity-intensive data processing technologies, as New Zealand's electricity future debates highlight, all require a big expansion of generation capacity.
But although there is consensus about the urgency of the need to decarbonise electricity production if the world is to get anywhere near meeting the goals of the 2015 Paris Accord there is less agreement about the best way to do this.
Energy investment decisions have exceptionally long term consequences. Wind turbines are now expected to last more than two decades and the lifetime of a nuclear plant may be half a century or more.
Choosing the technologies which most efficiently maintain the security of energy supply while simultaneously delivering faster cuts in carbon emissions and keeping prices competitive is therefore vital for all our futures.
Getting the best value for money is rightly a top priority for governments, especially amid reports of falling wholesale prices in high-renewables markets. Making wrong decisions now will burden domestic and industrial consumers with billions of avoidable costs for decades to come. But comparing the cost of different types of electricity generation is extremely complicated.
One popular method uses the “levelized cost of electricity” (LCOE) and is examined in the latest report from the New Nuclear Watch Institute. This sheds new light on how the cost and value of nuclear energy compare with intermittent renewables like wind and solar, alongside 2050 projections for their global share.
The appeal of LCOE is its simplicity. It offers investors and utility companies a convenient tool for measuring the likely profitability of a particular generation project.
However, NNWI’s report exposes the danger for policymakers of relying too heavily on LCOE alone, whose narrow focus doesn’t reflect all the variables. Factors such as whether power generation relies on weather conditions, and related hidden system costs, are not sufficiently taken into account. Some technologies may have costly or harmful consequences for the energy sector, society, the environment, or the wider economy.
The report highlights firstly the crucial fact that, for each extra MW of installed electricity generation capacity, investment in nuclear energy capacity cuts the carbon intensity of a power system by 34% more than investment in a similar increase in the capacity of intermittent renewables.
Given the rapidly increasing urgency of the need to decarbonise the electricity generation industry this conclusion exposes the folly of ignoring the speed with which growth in nuclear capacity can help address climate change.
A second key message is the increased dependence on gas as the necessary back up fuel in countries where the contribution of nuclear declines and intermittent electricity generation technologies such as wind and solar start to play a bigger role, as examined in why 100% renewables remains elusive for large grids.
As reliance on intermittent sources of electricity grows, so the greater the need for back up from reliable baseload provision becomes, a point central to the grid reliability debate in many markets. If this baseload is not provided by low carbon nuclear energy then gas is the unavoidable alternative.
In the very short term accelerating the switch away from coal to gas is beneficial. Thereafter however entrenching reliance on gas will make emissions reduction targets impossible to achieve. To avoid this outcome, which would be catastrophic for climate change, massive investment in additional electricity storage capacity is essential.
Even assuming that the technical challenges in providing this extra storage can be overcome the impact on system costs of the expansion of storage could raise the effective cost of intermittent renewables by up to 50% of their levelized cost.
This outcome, which is often ignored by enthusiasts advocating entirely renewables-based systems of electricity production, would drive up consumer prices and damage the economies of the countries which adopted such systems.
The third conclusion of NNWI’s study relates to likely increases in the volatility of the price of electricity. This is based on the effects of changes in the capacity factor of a country’s energy system – the proportion of the maximum electricity generation represented by the actual amount of electricity generated.
As a country depends more on intermittent sources of electricity so the capacity factor of its energy system falls. This is because of the need to maintain back up generation capacity for the times when wind and solar cannot produce.
This creates another problem too. When the backup capacity is only used for limited and often short periods it inevitably becomes less efficient and more expensive. Forcing the providers of this backup capacity to operate on a stop/start basis to make up for the unreliability of intermittent sources also raises maintenance costs.
This, in turn, leads to greater price volatility between periods of an abundant generation when the wind is blowing and the sun shining – which may sometimes coincide with periods of below-average demand – and those long freezing windless winter nights when generation falls and consumption rises.
The message from the NNWI report is not that intermittent generation has no role to play in the decarbonising the energy sector. On the contrary, NNWI has always recognised and supported the vital contribution of renewable energy. The falling cost of many renewable technologies, such as rapidly declining offshore wind costs, is wholly welcome.
Oscar Wilde defined a cynic as someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. The LCOE approach suffers from an inability to recognise the value of certain electricity generation technologies as opposed to their cost. It fails to capture the benefits to consumers and the wider economy of using nuclear power alongside renewables.
Placing too much reliance on LCOE comparisons to justify a wholesale rejection of investment in new nuclear capacity may lead governments to make mistaken and even dangerous decisions.
If the outcome of those decisions damages the world economy and slows down or even jeopardises the success of the world’s response to climate change then humanity will be the loser.
Related News
Power Demand Seen Holding Firm In Europe’s Latest Lockdown
European Power Demand During Second Lockdowns remains resilient as winter heating offsets commercial losses; electricity consumption tracks seasonal norms, with weather sensitivity, industrial activity, natural gas shielding, and coal decline shaping dynamics under COVID-19 restrictions.
Key Points
It is expected to remain near seasonal norms, driven by heating, industry activity, and weather sensitive consumption.
✅ Winter heating offsets retail and hospitality closures
✅ Demand sensitivity rises with colder weather in France
✅ Gas generation shielded; coal likely to curtail first
European power demand is likely to hold up in the second round of national lockdown restrictions, with fluctuations most likely driven by changes in the weather.
Traders and analysts expect normal consumption this time around as home heating during the chilly season replaces commercial demand.
Last week electricity consumption in France, Germany and the U.K. was close to business-as-usual levels for the time of year, according to BloombergNEF data. By contrast, power demand had dropped 16% in the first seven days of the springtime lockdown, as reflected by the U.K.’s 10% daily decline reported then.
How power demand performs has significance outside the sector. It’s often seen as a proxy for economic growth and during lockdowns earlier this year, electricity use slumped along with GDP, and stunted hydro and nuclear output could further hobble recovery. For Western Europe, annual demand is expected to be 5% lower than the previous year, a bigger decline than after the global financial crisis in 2008, according to S&P Global Platts.
The Covid-19 limits are lighter than those from earlier in the year “with an explicit drive to preserve economic activity, particularly at the more energy-intensive industrial end of the spectrum,” said Glenn Rickson, head of European power analysis at S&P Global Platts.
Higher levels of working from home will offset some of the losses from shop and hospitality closures, “but also increase the temperature sensitivity of overall gas and power demand, as heat-driven demand records have shown in recent summers,” he said.
The latest wave of national lockdowns began in France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Britain, with Spain having seen April demand plummet earlier in the year, as coronavirus cases surged and officials struggled to keep the spread of the virus under control.
Much of the manufacturing industry remains working for now despite additional restrictions to contain the coronavirus. With the peak of the second wave yet to be reached, “it seems almost inevitable that the fourth quarter will prove economically challenging,” analysts at Alfa Energy said.
There will initially be significantly less of an impact on demand compared with this spring when global daily demand dipped about 15% and electricity consumption in Europe was down 30%, Johan Sigvardsson, power price analyst at Swedish utility Bixia AB said.
The prevalence of electric heating systems in France means that power demand is particularly sensitive to cold weather. A cold spell would significantly boost demand and drive record electricity prices in tight markets.
Similar to the last round of shutdowns, it’s use of coal that will probably be hit first if power demand sags, as transition-focused responses gather pace, leaving natural gas mostly shielded from fluctuations in the market.
“We expect that another drop in power demand would again impact coal-fired generation and shield gas power to some extent,” said Carlos Torres Diaz, an analyst at Rystad Energy.
Related News
Volvo Trucks to launch complete range of electric trucks in Europe in 2021
Volvo Electric Heavy-Duty Trucks lead Europe’s e-mobility shift, meeting strict emissions rules with battery-electric drivelines, hydrogen fuel cell roadmaps, fast charging infrastructure, and autonomous freight solutions for regional haulage and urban construction.
Key Points
A battery-electric heavy truck range for haulage and urban construction, targeting zero emissions and compliance.
✅ Up to 44t GCW, ranges up to 300 km per charge
✅ Battery-electric now; hydrogen fuel cells targeted next
✅ Production from 2022; suited to haulage and construction
According to the report published by Allied Market Research, the global electric truck market generated $422.5M (approx €355.1M) in 2019 and is estimated to reach $1.89B (approx €1.58B) by 2027, registering a CAGR of 25.8% from 2020 to 2027, reflecting broader expectations that EV adoption within a decade will accelerate worldwide.
The surge in government initiatives to promote e-mobility and stringent emission norms on vehicles using fossil fuels (petrol and diesel) is driving the growth of the global electric truck market, while shifts in the EV aftermarket are expected to reinforce this trend.
Launching a range of electric trucks in 2021
Volvo is among the several companies, including early moves like Tesla's truck reveal efforts, trying to cash in on this popular and lucrative market. Recently, the company announced that it’s going to launch a complete heavy-duty range of trucks with electric drivelines starting in Europe in 2021. Next year, hauliers in Europe will be able to order all-electric versions of Volvo’s heavy-duty trucks. The sales will begin next year and volume production will start in 2022.
“To reduce the impact of transport on the climate, we need to make a swift transition from fossil fuels to alternatives such as electricity. But the conditions for making this shift, and consequently the pace of the transition, vary dramatically across different hauliers and markets, depending on many variables such as financial incentives, access to charging infrastructure and type of transport operations,” explains Roger Alm, President Volvo Trucks.
Used for regional transport and urban construction operations
According to the company, it is now testing electric heavy-duty models – Volvo FH, FM, and FMX trucks, which will be used for regional transport and urban construction operations in Europe, and in the U.S., 70 Volvo VNR Electric trucks are being deployed in California initiatives as well. These Volvo trucks will offer a complete heavy-duty range with electric drivelines. These trucks will have a gross combination weight of up to 44 tonnes.
“Our chassis is designed to be independent of the driveline used. Our customers can choose to buy several Volvo trucks of the same model, with the only difference being that some are electric and others are powered by gas or diesel. As regards product characteristics, such as the driver’s environment, reliability, and safety, all our vehicles meet the same high standards. Drivers should feel familiar with their vehicles and be able to operate them safely and efficiently regardless of the fuel used,” says Alm.
Fossil free by 2040
Depending on the battery configuration the range could be up to 300 km, claims the company. Back in 2019, Volvo started manufacturing the Volvo FL Electric and FE Electric for city distribution and refuse operations, primarily in Europe, while in the van segment, Ford's all-electric Transit targets similar urban use cases. Volvo Trucks aims to start selling electric trucks powered by hydrogen fuel cells in the second half of this decade. Volvo Trucks’ objective is for its entire product range to be fossil-free by 2040.
Back in 2019, Swedish autonomous and electric freight mobility leader provider Einride’s Pod became the world’s first autonomous, all-electric truck to operate a commercial flow for DB Schenker with a permit on the public road. Last month, the company launched its next-generation Pod in the hopes to have it on the road starting from 2021, while major fleet commitments such as UPS's Tesla Semi pre-orders signal broader demand.
Related News
General Motors to add 3,000 jobs focused on electric vehicles
General Motors EV Hiring expands software development, engineering, and IT roles for electric vehicles, Ultium batteries, and autonomous tech, offering remote jobs, boosting diversity and inclusion, and accelerating zero-emission mobility and customer experience initiatives.
Key Points
GM plan to hire 3,000 software, engineering, and IT staff to speed EV programs, remote work, and customer experience.
✅ 3,000 hires in software, engineering, IT
✅ Focus on EVs, Ultium batteries, autonomous tech
✅ Remote roles, diversity, inclusion priorities
General electrical safety involves practices and procedures designed to prevent electric shock, arc flash, and other hazards associated with electrical systems. Whether at home, in the workplace, or industrial environments, following established safety guidelines helps protect people, property, and equipment from electrical accidents. General Motors plans to hire 3,000 new employees largely focused on software development as the company accelerates its plans for electric vehicles, the automaker announced Monday.
GM said the jobs will be focused on engineering, design and information technology “to increase diversity and inclusion and contribute to GM’s EV and customer experience priorities.” The hiring is expected through the first quarter of 2021, as the company addresses EV adoption challenges in key markets. Many of the positions will be remote as GM begins to offer “more remote opportunities than ever before,” the company said.
“As we evolve and grow our software expertise and services, it’s important that we continue to recruit and add diverse talent,” GM President Mark Reuss said in a release. “This will clearly show that we’re committed to further developing the software we need to lead in EVs, enhance the customer experience and become a software expertise-driven workforce.”
General Motors CEO on third-quarter earnings, rise in demand for trucks and more
The hiring blitz comes as the automaker expects to increase focus on electric vehicles, including offering at least 20 new electric vehicles globally by 2023, while competitors like Ford accelerate EV investment as well. GM earlier this year said it planned to invest $20 billion in electric and autonomous vehicles by 2025, including a tentative Ontario EV plant commitment.
Ken Morris, GM vice president of autonomous and electric vehicles programs, told reporters on a call Monday that the automaker has pulled forward at least two upcoming electric vehicles following the GMC Hummer EV, which is the first vehicle on GM’s next-generation electric vehicle platform with its proprietary Ultium battery cells.
“We’re moving as fast as we can in terms of developing vehicles virtually, more so than we ever have by far,” Morris said. “We are doing things virtually, more effective than we ever have.”
Shares of the automaker reached a new 52-week high of $39.72 ahead of the Monday announcement. The stock was up 5% during midday trading Monday following market optimism about a Covid-19 vaccine and President-elect Joe Biden outlining priorities that would support electric vehicles nationwide.
The race between Tesla, GM, Rivian and others to dominate electric pickup trucks
“We’re looking forward to working with the Biden administration and support policies that will foster greater adoption of EVs across all 50 states and encourage investments in R&D and manufacturing,” Morris said. “At the end of the day, climate change is a global concern and the best way to remove automobile emissions from the environmental equation is all-electric, zero-emissions future.”
At the same time, gas-electric hybrids continue to gain momentum in the U.S., shaping consumer transition paths.
The additional jobs are separate from a previous announcement by GM to hire 1,100 new employees as part of a $2.3 billion joint venture with LG Chem to produce Ultium cells in northeast Ohio.
GM employed about 164,000 people globally in 2019, down from 215,000 in 2015 as the company has restructured and cut operations in recent years.
Related News
Wind power grows despite Covid-19
Global Wind Power Growth will hit record installations, buoying renewable energy, offshore wind, onshore capacity, and economic recovery, as GWEC forecasts resilient post-Covid markets led by China and the US with strong investment and jobs.
Key Points
Global Wind Power Growth is the forecast rise in capacity driving renewable energy, jobs, and lower emissions.
✅ 71.3 GW installed in 2020; only 6% below pre-Covid forecast
✅ 348 GW added by 2024; nearly 1,000 GW total capacity
✅ Offshore wind resilient; 6.5 GW in 2020, China-led
Wind power will continue to show record growth, as renewables set to shatter records over the next five years despite the impacts of the Covid-19 crisis, and will make a crucial contribution to economic recovery... According to the latest market outlook by GWEC Market Intelligence, 71.3GW of wind power capacity is expected to be installed in 2020, which is only a 6% reduction from pre-Covid forecasts. This is a significant increase from original predictions that expected wind power installations to be reduced by up to 20 per cent due to the pandemic, demonstrating the resilience of the wind power industry across the globe.
From 2020 to 2024, the cumulative global wind energy market will grow at a compound annual rate of 8.5% and installing 348GW of new capacity, bringing total global wind power capacity to nearly 1,000GW by the end of 2024, which is an increase of 54% for total wind power installations compared to 2019. While some project completion dates have been pushed into 2021 due to the pandemic, next year is expected to be a record year for the wind industry with 78GW of new wind capacity forecasted to be installed in 2021. Over 50% of the onshore wind capacity added between 2020 to 2024 will be installed in China and the US, where U.S. solar and wind growth is supported by favourable government plans, led by installation rushes to meet subsidy deadlines.
The offshore wind sector has been largely shielded from the impacts of the Covid-19 crisis, GWEC Market Intelligence has indeed increased its forecast for offshore wind by 5 per cent to 6.5 GW of new installations in 2020, another record year for the industry, as offshore wind's $1 trillion outlook comes into focus, led by the installation rush in China. Up until 2024, over 48GW of new offshore wind capacity is expected to be installed, with another 157GW forecasted to be installed from 2025 to 2030 across key markets such as offshore wind in the UK and Asia.
“While the Covid-19 crisis has impacted every industry across the world, wind power has continued to grow and thrive. This is no surprise given the cost competitiveness of wind energy and the need to rapidly reproduce carbon emissions. Fossil fuel industries face market fluctuations and require bailouts to stay afloat, while wind turbines across the world have continued to spin and provide affordable, clean energy to citizens everywhere," says Ben Backwell, CEO of GWEC.
“Thanks to the localised nature of wind power supply chains and project construction, the sector has continued to generate billions in local investment and thousands of jobs to support economic recovery. However, in order to tap into the full potential of wind power to drive a green recovery, governments must ensure that energy markets and policies allow a continued ramp up in investment in wind and other renewables, and avoid unintended effects such as the Solar ITC extension impact on the US wind market, while disincentivising investment in expensive and declining fossil fuel industries," he says.
Biggest markets
China and the US will continue to be the two main markets driving growth over the next few years, with U.S. wind power surges underscoring the momentum. "We have increased or maintained our forecasts for onshore wind in regions such as Latin America, North America, Africa, and the Middle East over the next five years, with only minor decreases in Asia Pacific and Europe. However, these reductions are not necessarily a direct impact of Covid-19, but also a symptom of pre-existing regulatory issues, such as protracted permitting procedures, which are slowing down installations. In particular, offshore wind has demonstrated its resilience by exceeding our pre-pandemic forecasts for 2020, and will be an important source of growth in the decade ahead," Feng Zhao, strategy director at GWEC.
“We have seen a series of carbon neutrality commitments by major economies such as China, Japan and South Korea over the past few weeks. Since wind power is a key technology for decarbonisation, building on the evolution in 2016, these targets will increase the forecast for wind power over the next few decades. However, the right enabling regulatory and policy frameworks must be in place to accelerate renewable energy growth to meet these targets. China, the world’s largest wind power market and largest carbon emitter, has pledged to go carbon-neutral by 2060. To have a chance at achieving this target, we need to be installing 50GW of wind power per year in China from now until 2025, and then 60GW from 2026 onwards. It is crucial that governments firm up carbon neutrality targets with tangible actions to drive wind and other renewable energy growth at the levels needed to achieve these aims”, he says.
Related News
Why a green recovery goes far deeper than wind energy
Scotland Green Recovery Strategy centers on renewable energy, onshore wind, energy efficiency, battery storage, hydrogen, and electric vehicles, alongside public transport and digital infrastructure, local manufacturing, and grid flexibility to decarbonize industry and communities.
Key Points
A plan to cut emissions by scaling renewables, efficiency, storage, and infrastructure for resilient, low-carbon growth.
✅ Prioritize energy efficiency retrofits in homes and workplaces
✅ Invest in battery storage, hydrogen, and EV charging networks
✅ Support local manufacturing and circular economy supply chains
THE “green recovery” joins the growing list of Covid-era political maxims, while green energy investment could drive recovery, suggesting a bright and environmentally sustainable post-pandemic future lies ahead.
The Prime Minister once again alluded to it recently when he expressed his ambition to see the UK become the “world leader in clean wind energy”. In his typically bombastic style, Boris Johnson declared that everything from our kettles to electric vehicles, with offshore wind energy central to that vision, will be powered by “breezes that blow around these islands” by the next decade.
These comments create a misleading impression about how we can achieve a green recovery, particularly as Covid-19 hit renewables and exposed systemic challenges. While wind turbines have a key role to play, they are just one part of a comprehensive solution requiring a far more in-depth focus on how and why we use energy. We must concentrate our efforts and resources on reducing our overall consumption and increasing energy capture.
This includes making significant energy efficiency improvements to the buildings where we live and work and grasping the lessons of lockdown, including proposals for a fossil fuel lockdown to accelerate climate action, to ensure we operate in a more effective and less environmentally-damaging fashion. Do we really want to return to a world where people commute daily half way across the country for work or fly to New York for a two-hour meeting?
Businesses will need to adapt to new ways of operating outwith the traditional nine-to-five working week to reduce congestion and pollution levels. To make this possible requires Government investment in critical areas such as public transport and digital infrastructure, alongside more pylons to strengthen the grid, across all parts of Scotland to decentralise the economy and enable more people to live and work outside the main cities.
A Government-supported green recovery must rest on making it financially viable for businesses to manufacture here to reduce our reliance on imported goods. This includes processing recycleable materials here rather than shipping them abroad. It also means using locally generated energy to support local jobs and industry. We miss a trick if Scotland simply becomes a power generator for the rest of the UK.
MOVING transport from fossil fuels to renewable fuels will require a step-change that also requires support across all levels. The increased use of electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cells are all encouraging developments, but these will rely on investment in infrastructure throughout the country if we’re to achieve significant benefits to our environment and our economy.
This brings us to the role of onshore wind power; still the cheapest form of renewable energy, and a sector marked by wind growth despite Covid-19 around the world today. Repowering existing sites with newer and more efficient turbines will certainly increase capacity rapidly, but we must also invest into development projects that will further enhance the capacity and efficiency of existing equipment. This includes improving on the current practice of the National Grid paying operators to switch off wind turbines when excess electricity is produced and instead developing new and innovative means to capture this energy. Government-primed investment into battery storage could help ensure we achieve and further reduce our reliance on traditional, non-sustainable sources.
We need a level playing field so that all forms of energy are judged on their lifetime cost in terms of emissions as well as construction and decommissioning costs to ensure fiscal incentives are applied on a fairer basis.
Turning the maxim of a green recovery into reality will require more than extra wind turbines, and the UK's wind lessons underscore the importance of policy and scale. We need a significant investment and commitment from business and government to limit existing emissions and ensure we capture and use energy more efficiently.
Andy Drane is projects partner and head of renewables at law firm Davidson Chalmers Stewart.
Related News
American wind power congratulates President-elect Biden on his victory.
American Wind Power Statement on Biden highlights collaboration on renewable energy policy, clean energy jobs, carbon-free power, climate action, and a modern grid to grow the economy while keeping electricity costs low.
Key Points
AWEA commits to work with Biden on renewable policy, clean energy jobs, and a carbon-free U.S. grid.
✅ AWEA cites over 120,000 U.S. wind jobs ready to scale
✅ Supports 100% carbon-free power target by mid-century
✅ Aims to keep electricity costs low with renewable policy
American wind power congratulates President-elect Biden on his victory. "We look forward to collaborating with his administration and Congress, after pledges to scrap offshore wind in recent years, as we work together to shape a cleaner and more prosperous energy future for America, where wind and solar surpass coal in generation across the country.
The President-elect and his team have laid out an ambitious, comprehensive approach to energy policy that recognizes renewable energy's ability to grow America's economy and create a cleaner environment, as market majority for clean energy becomes a realistic prospect, while keeping electricity costs low and combating the threat of climate change as wind power surges across many regions.
The U.S. wind sector and its growing workforce of over 120,000 Americans stand ready to help put that plan into action and support the Biden administration in delivering on the immense promise of renewable energy to add well-paying jobs to the U.S. economy, with quarter-million wind jobs forecast in coming years, and reach the President-elect's 100% target for a carbon-free America by the middle of this century, alongside a 100% clean electricity by 2035 goal that charts the near-term path." - Tom Kiernan, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association.
Related News
Rolls-Royce signs MoU with Exelon for compact nuclear power stations
Rolls-Royce and Exelon UKSMR Partnership accelerates factory-built small modular reactors, nuclear power, clean energy, 440MW units, advanced manufacturing, fleet deployment, net zero goals, and resilient, low-cost baseload generation in the UK and globally.
Key Points
A partnership to deploy factory-built SMR stations, providing 440MW low-carbon baseload for the UK and export markets.
✅ 440MW factory-built SMR units with rapid modular assembly
✅ Exelon to operate and enhance high capacity factors
✅ Supports UK net zero, jobs, and export-led manufacturing
Rolls-Royce and Exelon Generation have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to pursue the potential for Exelon Generation to operate compact nuclear power stations both in the UK and internationally, including markets such as Canada where New Brunswick SMR questions are prompting public debate today.
Exelon Generation will be using their operational experience to assist Rolls Royce in the development and deployment of the UKSMR.
Rolls-Royce is leading a consortium that is designing a low-cost factory built nuclear power station, known as a small modular reactor (SMR), with UK mini-reactor approval anticipated as development progresses. Its standardised, factory-made components and advanced manufacturing processes push costs down, while the rapid assembly of the modules and components inside a weatherproof canopy on the power station site itself avoid costly schedule disruptions.
The consortium is working with its partners and UK Government to secure a commitment for a fleet of factory built nuclear power stations, each providing 440MW of electricity, to be operational within a decade, helping the UK meet its net zero obligations in line with the green industrial revolution policy set out by government. A fleet deployment in the UK will lead to the creation of new factories that will make the components and modules which will help the economy recover from the Covid-19 pandemic and pave the way for significant export opportunities as well.
The consortium members feature the best of nuclear engineering, construction and infrastructure expertise in Assystem, Atkins, BAM Nuttall, Jacobs, Laing O'Rourke, National Nuclear Laboratory, Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, Rolls-Royce and TWI. Exelon will add valuable operational experience to the team.
Tom Samson, interim Chief Executive Officer of the UKSMR consortium, said: 'Nuclear power is central to tackling climate change and economic recovery, but it must be affordable, reliable and investable and the way we manufacture and assemble our power station brings its cost down to be comparable with offshore wind.
'It's a compelling proposition that could draw new players into the UK's power generation landscape, improving choice for consumers and providing uninterrupted low carbon energy to homes and businesses.
'The opportunity to partner with Exelon is a very exciting prospect for our program, complementing our existing Consortium partnerships with one of the world's largest nuclear operator adds an important dimension to our growth ambitions, embodies the strength of the UK and USA alliance on nuclear matters and reflects wider international moves, such as a Canadian premiers' SMR initiative to accelerate technology development, and offers our future customers the ability to achieve the highest performance standards associated with Exelon's outstanding operational track record.'
The power stations will be built by the UKSMR consortium, before being handed over to be operated by power generation companies. Exelon Generation will work closely with the consortium during the pre-operation period. Exelon Nuclear operates 21 nuclear reactors in America, and U.S. regulators recently issued a final safety evaluation for a NuScale SMR that underscores momentum in the sector. The Exelon nuclear fleet is an integral part of the U.S. clean power mix; it produces more than 158 million megawatt-hours of clean electricity every year.
Bryan Hanson, EVP and COO of Exelon Generation said: 'We believe that SMRs are a crucial part of the world's clean energy mix, as projects like Darlington SMRs advance in Ontario. With our experience both in the US and internationally, Exelon is confident that we can help Rolls Royce ensure SMRs play a key role in the UK's energy future. We've had a very strong record of performance for 20 consecutive years, with a 2019 capacity factor of 95.7 percent. We will leverage this experience to achieve sustainably high capacity factors for the UKSMRs.'
Ralph Hunter, Managing Director of Exelon Nuclear Partners, who runs Exelon's international clean energy business, said: 'We have a strong track record of success to be the operator of choice for the UKSMR. We will help develop operational capability, training and human capacity development in the UK, as utilities such as Ontario Power Generation commit to SMRs abroad, ensuring localisation of skills and a strong culture of safety, performance and efficiency.'
By 2050 a full UK programme of a fleet of factory built nuclear power stations in the UK could create:
Up to 40,000 jobs GBP52BN of value to the UK economy GBP250BN of exports
The current phase of the programme has been jointly funded by all consortium members and UK Research and Innovation.
Related News
When did BC Hydro really know about Site C dam stability issues? Utilities watchdog wants to know
BC Utilities Commission Site C Dam Questions press BC Hydro on geotechnical risks, stability issues, cost overruns, oversight gaps, seeking transparency for ratepayers and clarity on contracts, mitigation, and the powerhouse and spillway foundations.
Key Points
Inquiry seeking explanations from BC Hydro on geotechnical risks, costs, timelines and oversight for Site C.
✅ Timeline of studies, monitoring, and mitigation actions
✅ Rationale for contracts, costs, and right bank construction
✅ Implications for ratepayers, oversight, and project stability
The watchdog B.C. Utilities Commission has sent BC Hydro 70 questions about the troubled Site C dam, asking when geotechnical risks were first identified and when the project’s assurance board was first made aware of potential issues related to the dam’s stability.
“I think they’ve come to the conclusion — but they don’t say it — that there’s been a cover-up by BC Hydro and by the government of British Columbia,” former BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen told The Narwhal.
On Oct. 21, The Narwhal reported that two top B.C. civil servants, including the senior bureaucrat who prepares Site C dam documents for cabinet, knew in May 2019 that the project faced serious geotechnical problems due to its “weak foundation” and the stability of the dam was “a significant risk.”
Get The Narwhal in your inbox!
People always tell us they love our newsletter. Find out yourself with a weekly dose of our ad‑free, independent journalism
“They [the civil servants] would have reported to their ministers and to the government in general,” said Eliesen, who is among 18 prominent Canadians calling for a halt to Site C work until an independent team of experts can determine if the geotechnical problems can be resolved and at what cost.
“It’s disingenuous for Premier [John] Horgan to try to suggest, ‘Well, I just found out about it recently.’ If that’s the case, he should fire the public servants who are representing the province.”
The public only found out about significant issues with the Site C dam at the end of July, when BC Hydro released overdue reports saying the project faces unknown cost overruns, schedule delays and, even as it achieved a transmission line milestone earlier, such profound geotechnical troubles that its overall health is classified as ‘red,’ meaning it is in serious trouble.
“The geotechnical challenges have been there all these years.”
The Site C dam is the largest publicly funded infrastructure project in B.C.’s history. If completed, it will flood 128 kilometres of the Peace River and its tributaries, forcing families from their homes and destroying Indigenous gravesites, hundreds of protected archeological sites, some of Canada’s best farmland and habitat for more than 100 species vulnerable to extinction.
Eliesen said geotechnical risks were a key reason BC Hydro’s board of directors rejected the project in the early 1990s, when he was at the helm of BC Hydro.
“The geotechnical challenges have been there all these years,” said Eliesen, who is also the former Chair and CEO of Ontario Hydro, where Ontario First Nations have urged intervention on a critical electricity line, the former Chair of Manitoba Hydro and the former Chair and CEO of the Manitoba Energy Authority.
Elsewhere, a Manitoba Hydro line to Minnesota has faced potential delays, highlighting broader grid planning challenges.
The B.C. Utilities Commission is an independent watchdog that makes sure ratepayers — including BC Hydro customers — receive safe and reliable energy services, as utilities adapt to climate change risks, “at fair rates.”
The commission’s questions to BC Hydro include 14 about the “foundational enhancements” BC Hydro now says are necessary to shore up the Site C dam, powerhouse and spillways.
The commission is asking BC Hydro to provide a timeline and overview of all geotechnical engineering studies and monitoring activities for the powerhouse, spillway and dam core areas, and to explain what specific risk management and mitigation practices were put into effect once risks were identified.
The commission also wants to know why construction activities continued on the right bank of the Peace River, where the powerhouse would be located, “after geotechnical risks materialized.”
It’s asking if geotechnical risks played a role in BC Hydro’s decision in March “to suspend or not resume work” on any components of the generating station and spillways.
The commission also wants BC Hydro to provide an itemized breakdown of a $690 million increase in the main civil works contract — held by Spain’s Acciona S.A. and the South Korean multinational conglomerate Samsung C&T Corp. — and to explain the rationale for awarding a no-bid contract to an unnamed First Nation and if other parties were made aware of that contract.
Peace River Jewels of the Peace Site C The Narwhal
Islands in the Peace River, known as the ‘jewels of the Peace’ will be destroyed for fill for the Site C dam or will be submerged underwater by the dam’s reservoir, a loss that opponents are sharing with northerners in community discussions. Photo: Byron Dueck
B.C. Utilities Commission chair and CEO David Morton said it’s not the first time the commission has requested additional information after receiving BC Hydro’s quarterly progress reports on the Site C dam.
“Our staff reads them to make sure they understand them and if there’s anything in then that’s not clear we go then we do go through this, we call it the IR — information request — process,” Morton said in an interview.
“There are things reported in here that we felt required a little more clarity, and we needed a little more understanding of them, so that’s why we asked the questions.”
The questions were sent to BC Hydro on Oct. 23, the day before the provincial election, but Morton said the commission is extraordinarily busy this year and that’s just a coincidence.
“Our resources are fairly strained. It would have been nice if it could have been done faster, it would be nice if everything could be done faster.”
“These questions are not politically motivated,” Morton said. “They’re not political questions. There’s no reason not to issue them when they’re ready.”
The commission has asked BC Hydro to respond by Nov. 19.
Read more: Top B.C. government officials knew Site C dam was in serious trouble over a year ago: FOI docs
Morton said the independent commission’s jurisdiction is limited because the B.C. government removed it from oversight of the project.
The commission, which would normally determine if a large dam like the Site C project is in the public’s financial interest, first examined BC Hydro’s proposal to build the dam in the early 1980s.
After almost two years of hearings, including testimony under oath, the commission concluded B.C. did not need the electricity. It found the Site C dam would have negative social and environmental impacts and said geothermal power should be investigated to meet future energy needs.
The project was revived in 2010 by the BC Liberal government, which touted energy from the Site C dam as a potential source of electricity for California and a way to supply B.C.’s future LNG industry with cheap power.
Not willing to countenance another rejection from the utilities commission, the government changed the law, stripping the commission of oversight for the project. The NDP government, which came to power in 2017, chose not to restore that oversight.
“The approval of the project was exempt from our oversight,” Morton said. “We can’t come along and say ‘there’s something we don’t like about what you’re doing, we’re going to stop construction.’ We’re not in that position and that’s not the focus of these questions.”
But the commission still retains oversight for the cost of construction once the project is complete, Morton said.
“The cost of construction has to be recovered in [hydro] rates. That means BC Hydro will need our approval to recover their construction cost in rates, and those are not insignificant amounts, more than $10.7 billion, in all likelihood.”
In order to recover the cost from ratepayers, the commission needs to be satisfied BC Hydro didn’t spend more money than necessary on the project, Morton said.
“As you can imagine, that’s not a straight forward review to do after the fact, after a 10-year construction project or whatever it ends up being … so we’re using these quarterly reports as an opportunity to try to stay on top of it and to flag any areas where we think there may be areas we need to look into in the future.”
The price tag for the Site C dam was $10.7 billion before BC Hydro’s announcement at the end of July — a leap from $6.6 billion when the project was first announced in 2010 and $8.8 billion when construction began in 2015.
Eliesen said the utilities commission should have been asking tough questions about the Site C dam far earlier.
“They’ve been remiss in their due diligence activities … They should have been quicker in raising questions with BC Hydro, rather than allowing BC Hydro to be exceptionally late in submitting their reports.”
BC Hydro is late in filing another Site C quarterly report, covering the period from April 1 to June 30.
The quarterly reports provide the B.C. public with rare glimpses of a project that international hydro expert Harvey Elwin described as being more secretive than any hydro project he has encountered in five decades working on large dams around the world, including in China.
Read more: Site C dam secrecy ‘extraordinary’, international hydro construction expert tells court proceeding
Morton said the commission could have ordered regular reporting for the Site C project if it had its previous oversight capability.
“Then we would have had the ability to follow up and ultimately order any delinquent reports to be filed. In this circumstance, they are being filed voluntarily. They can file it as late as they choose. We don’t have any jurisdiction.”
In addition to the six dozen questions, the commission has also filed confidential questions with BC Hydro. Morton said confidential information could include things such as competitive bid information. “BC Hydro itself may be under a confidentiality agreement not to disclose it.”
With oversight, the commission would also have been able to drill down into specific project elements, Morton said.
“We would have wanted to ensure that the construction followed what was approved. BC Hydro wouldn’t have the ability to make significant changes to the design and nature of the project as they went along.”
BC Hydro has been criticized for changing the design of the Site C dam to an L-shape, which Eliesen said “has never been done anywhere in the world for an earthen dam.”
Morton said an empowered commission could have opted to hold a public hearing about the design change and engage its own technical consultants, as it did in 2017 when the new NDP government asked it to conduct a fast-tracked review of the project’s economics.
Construction Site C Dam
A recent report by a U.S. energy economist found cancelling the Site C dam project would save BC Hydro customers an initial $116 million a year, with increasing savings growing over time. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal
The commission’s final report found the dam could cost more than $12 billion, that BC Hydro had a historical pattern of overestimating energy demand and that the same amount of energy could be produced by a suite of renewables, including wind and proposed pumped storage such as the Meaford project, for $8.8 billion or less.
The NDP government, under pressure from construction trade unions, opted to continue the project, refusing to disclose key financial information related to its decision.
When the geotechnical problems were revealed in July, the government announced the appointment of former deputy finance minister Peter Milburn as a special Site C project advisor who will work with BC Hydro and the Site C project assurance board to examine the project and provide the government with independent advice.
Eliesen said BC Hydro and the B.C. government should never have allowed the recent diversion of the Peace River to take place given the tremendous geotechnical challenges the project faces and its unknown cost and schedule for completion.
“It’s a disgrace and scandalous,” he said. “You can halt the river diversion, but you’ve got another four or five years left in construction of the dam. What are you going to do about all the cement you’ve poured if you’ve got stability problems?”
He said it’s counter-productive to continue with advice “from the same people who have been wrong, wrong, wrong,” without calling in independent global experts to examine the geotechnical problems.
“If you stop construction, whether it takes three or six months, that’s the time that’s required in order to give yourself a comfort level. But continuing to do what you’ve been doing is not the right course. You should have to sit back.”
Eliesen said it reminded him of the Pete Seeger song Waist Deep in the Big Muddy, which tells the story of a captain ordering his troops to keep slogging through a river because they will soon be on dry ground. After the captain drowns, the troops turn around.
“It’s a reflection of the fact that if you don’t look at what’s new, you just keep on doing what you’ve been doing in the past and that, unfortunately, is what’s happening here in this province with this project.”
Related News
Ontario unveils new tax breaks, subsidized hydro plan to spur economic recovery from COVID-19
Ontario COVID-19 Business Tax Relief outlines permanent Employer Health Tax exemptions, lower Business Education Tax rates, optional municipal property tax cuts, and hydro bill subsidies to support small businesses, industrial and commercial recovery.
Key Points
A provincial package of tax breaks and hydro subsidies to help small, industrial, and commercial businesses recover.
✅ Permanent Employer Health Tax exemption to $1M payroll
✅ Lower Business Education Tax rates for 94% of firms
✅ Hydro subsidies cut medium-large rates by 14-16%
The Ontario government's latest plan to help businesses survive and recover from the COVID-19 pandemic includes a suite of new tax breaks for small businesses and $1.3 billion to subsidize electricity bills for industrial and commercial operations.
The new measures were announced Thursday as part of Ontario's 2020 budget, which sets new provincial records for both spending and deficit projections.
The government of Premier Doug Ford says the budget will address barriers impeding long-term growth, ensuring the province forges a path to a full recovery from the pandemic.
"When the pandemic is over, Ontario will come back with a vengeance, stronger and more prosperous than ever before," Ford said at an afternoon news conference.
Small businesses with payrolls under $1 million will no longer have to pay the Employer Health Tax. The province temporarily raised the exemption from $490,000 to $1 million earlier this year, but the government is now making the change permanent.
The higher exemption means that about 90 per cent of Ontario businesses will no longer have to pay the tax, amounting to about $360 million by 2022, according to the province.
"We have heard from employers across Ontario that this measure helped them keep workers on the job during COVID-19," Finance Minister Rod Phillips told the legislature.
The 2020 budget lowers rates for the Business Education Tax (BET), a property tax earmarked for public education. More than 200,000 Ontario businesses, or 94 per cent, will see a lower rate.
"I believe this budget takes some significant initial steps to help stabilize the economy and help businesses, especially small businesses," said Toronto Mayor John Tory in a statement. Tory's office estimates that reductions to the BET will result in $117 million in lower taxes for commercial properties in Canada's largest city.
Municipal governments will also be permitted to reduce property taxes for small businesses, should they choose to do so. The province says it will "consider matching these reductions," which could amount to $385 million in tax relief by 2023.
Finance Minister Rod Phillips tabled the largest spending plan in Ontario history on Thursday afternoon. (Frank Gunn/The Canadian Press)
Municipalities currently have few options to provide targeted relief to local businesses. Guelph Mayor Cam Guthrie, chair of Ontario's Big City Mayors, said the prospect of lowering property taxes will likely be welcomed by local governments across the province.
"I really am looking forward to looking into that because it would give targeted relief to these businesses that have been asking for something from local governments for the past nine months," he said in an interview.
Tax cuts 'won't help a boarded up business,' NDP says
The 2020 budget does not contain any new direct funding for small businesses or their employees. NDP leader Andrea Horwath, who has proposed to make hydro public again, said those types of funding would help businesses more than potential tax reductions.
"A future hydro or tax cut won't help a boarded up business and it certainly won't help the folks that used to work there," Horwath said.
"Those measures are great if you're a company that's doing really well ... but let's face it, main streets across Ontario are crumbling."
Ontario did reveal on Thursday more details about a previously announced $300-million fund to support businesses in Toronto, Ottawa, Peel Region and York Region, which were placed under modified Stage 2 restrictions this fall. The money can be used to cover property taxes and energy bills for eligible businesses.
In a similar move, B.C. provided a three-month break on electricity bills for residents and businesses during the pandemic.
An undetermined amount of the $300 million will also be made available to businesses that are placed under "control" and "lockdown" rules, which are the two most severe restrictions in the province's updated reopening guidelines announced in October.
No regions are currently under these restrictions.
Elsewhere, B.C. saw commercial electricity consumption plummet during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Government to subsidize hydro bills for industrial businesses
The Ford government, which earlier oversaw a Hydro One leadership overhaul, is also taking aim at what it calls "job-killing electricity prices" in Ontario's industrial and commercial sectors.
The budget includes a $1.3 billion investment over three years to subsidize their hydro bills, a move praised by Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters as supportive of industry, which the province says have been inflated due to contracts signed by the previous Liberal government to purchase electricity generated by wind, solar and bioenergy.
"This is the legacy that is making our businesses uncompetitive," Phillips told reporters Thursday afternoon.
Ontario says its $1.3-billion investment to subsidize electricity bills will offset expensive contracts for green energy signed by the previous Liberal government. (Patrick Pleul/dpa via Associated Press)
The investment will lower rates for medium- and large-sized business by between 14 and 16 per cent, and follows an OEB decision on Hydro One rates that affects transmission and distribution costs, according to Ontario's calculations. Phillips said those rates will be among the lowest of any jurisdiction in the Great Lakes region.
The provincial government said the investment is necessary for Ontario to recover from the COVID-19 downturn. The Ford government expects that no further subsidies will be required by around 2040.
Related News
Canada Makes Historic Investments in Tidal Energy in Nova Scotia
Canada Tidal Energy Investment drives Nova Scotia's PLAT-I floating tidal array at FORCE, advancing renewable energy, clean electricity, emissions reductions, and green jobs while delivering 9 MW of predictable ocean power to the provincial grid.
Key Points
Federal funding for a floating tidal array delivering 9 MW of clean power in Nova Scotia, cutting annual CO2 emissions.
✅ $28.5M for Sustainable Marine's PLAT-I floating array
✅ Delivers 9 MW to Nova Scotia's grid via FORCE
✅ Cuts 17,000 tonnes CO2 yearly and creates local jobs
Canada has an abundance of renewable energy sources that are helping power our country's clean growth future and the Government of Canada is investing in renewable energy and grid modernization to reduce emissions, create jobs and invigorate local economies in a post COVID-19 pandemic world.
The Honourable Seamus O'Regan, Canada's Minister of Natural Resources, today announced one of Canada's largest-ever investments in tidal energy development — $28.5 million to Sustainable Marine in Nova Scotia to deliver Canada's first floating tidal energy array.
Sustainable Marine developed an innovative floating tidal energy platform called PLAT-I as part of advances in ocean and river power technologies that has undergone rigorous testing on the waters of Grand Passage for nearly two years. A second platform is currently being assembled in Meteghan, Nova Scotia and will be launched in Grand Passage later this year for testing before relocation to the Fundy Ocean Research Centre for Energy (FORCE) in 2021. These platforms will make up the tidal energy array.
The objective of the project is to provide up to nine megawatts of predictable and clean renewable electricity to Nova Scotia's electrical grid infrastructure. This will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year while creating new jobs in the province. The project will also demonstrate the ability to harness tides as a reliable source of renewable electricity to power homes, vehicles and businesses.
Tidal energy — a clean, renewable energy source generated by ocean tides and currents, alongside evolving offshore wind regulations that support marine renewables — has the potential to significantly reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions and improve local air quality by displacing electricity generated from fossil fuels.
Minister O'Regan made the announcement at the Marine Renewables Canada 2020 Fall Forum, which brings together its members and industry to identify opportunities and strategize a path forward for marine renewable energy sources.
Funding for the project comes from Natural Resources Canada's Emerging Renewables Power Program, part of Canada's more than $180-billion Investing in Canada infrastructure plan for public transit projects, green infrastructure, social infrastructure, trade and transportation routes and Canada's rural and northern communities, as Prairie provinces' renewable growth accelerates nationwide.
Related News
18% of electricity generated in Canada in 2019 came from fossil fuels
EV Decarbonization Strategy weighs life-cycle emissions and climate targets, highlighting mode shift to public transit, cycling, and walking, grid decarbonization, renewable energy, and charging infrastructure to cut greenhouse gases while reducing private car dependence.
Key Points
A plan to cut transport emissions by pairing EV adoption with mode shift, clean power, and less private car use.
✅ Prioritize mode shift: transit, cycling, and walking.
✅ Electrify remaining vehicles with clean, renewable power.
✅ Expand charging, improve batteries, and manage critical minerals.
California recently announced that it plans to ban the sales of gas-powered vehicles by 2035, a move similar to a 2035 electric vehicle mandate seen elsewhere, Ontario has invested $500 million in the production of electric vehicles (EVs) and Tesla is quickly becoming the world's highest-valued car company.
It almost seems like owning an electric vehicle is a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, but it isn't, as a U of T study explains today. What we should also be focused on is whether anyone should use a private vehicle at all.
As a researcher in sustainable mobility, I know this answer is unsatisfying. But this is where my latest research has led.
Battery EVs, such as the Tesla Model 3 - the best selling EV in Canada in 2020 - have no tailpipe emissions. But they do have higher production and manufacturing emissions than conventional vehicles, and often run on electricity that comes from fossil fuels.
Almost 18 per cent of the electricity generated in Canada came from fossil fuels in 2019, and even as Canada's EV goals grow more ambitious today, the grid mix varies from zero in Quebec to 90 per cent in Alberta.
Researchers like me compare the greenhouse gas emissions of an alternative vehicle, such as an EV, with those of a conventional vehicle over a vehicle lifetime, an exercise known as a life-cycle assessment. For example, a Tesla Model 3 compared with a Toyota Corolla can provide up to 75 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases emitted per kilometre travelled in Quebec, but no reductions in Alberta.
Hundreds of millions of new cars
To avoid extreme and irreversible impacts on ecosystems, communities and the overall global economy, we must keep the increase in global average temperatures to less than 2 C - and ideally 1.5 C - above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100.
We can translate these climate change targets into actionable plans. First, we estimate greenhouse gas emissions budgets using energy and climate models for each sector of the economy and for each country. Then we simulate future emissions, taking alternative technologies into account, as well as future potential economic and societal developments.
I looked at the U.S. passenger vehicle fleet, which adds up to about 260 million vehicles, while noting the potential for Canada-U.S. collaboration in this transition, to answer a simple question: Could the greenhouse gas emissions from the sector be brought in line with climate targets by replacing gasoline-powered vehicles with EVs?
The results were shocking. Assuming no changes to travel behaviours and a decarbonization of 80 per cent of electricity, meeting a 2 C target could require up to 300 million EVs, or 90 per cent of the projected U.S. fleet, by 2050. That would require all new purchased vehicles to be electric from 2035 onwards.
To put that into perspective, there are currently 880,000 EVs in the U.S., or 0.3 per cent of the fleet. Even the most optimistic projections, despite hype about an electric-car revolution gaining steam, from the International Energy Agency suggest that the U.S. fleet will only be at about 50 per cent electrified by 2050.
Massive and rapid electrification
Still, 90 per cent is theoretically possible, isn't it? Probably, but is it desirable?
In order to hit that target, we'd need to very rapidly overcome all the challenges associated with EV adoption, such as range anxiety, the higher purchase cost and availability of charging infrastructure.
A rapid pace of electrification would severely challenge the electricity infrastructure and the supply chain of many critical materials for the batteries, such as lithium, manganese and cobalt. It would require vast capacity of renewable energy sources and transmission lines, widespread charging infrastructure, a co-ordination between two historically distinct sectors (electricity and transportation systems) and rapid innovations in electric battery technologies. I am not saying it's impossible, but I believe it's unlikely.
Read more: There aren't enough batteries to electrify all cars - focus on trucks and buses instead
So what? Shall we give up, accept our collective fate and stop our efforts at electrification?
On the contrary, I think we should re-examine our priorities and dare to ask an even more critical question: Do we need that many vehicles on the road?
Buses, trains and bikes
Simply put, there are three ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from passenger transport: avoid the need to travel, shift the transportation modes or improve the technologies. EVs only tackle one side of the problem, the technological one.
And while EVs do decrease emissions compared with conventional vehicles, we should be comparing them to buses, including leading electric bus fleets in North America, trains and bikes. When we do, their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions disappears because of their life cycle emissions and the limited number of people they carry at one time.
If we truly want to solve our climate problems, we need to deploy EVs along with other measures, such as public transit and active mobility. This fact is critical, especially given the recent decreases in public transit ridership in the U.S., mostly due to increasing vehicle ownership, low gasoline prices and the advent of ride-hailing (Uber, Lyft)
Governments need to massively invest in public transit, cycling and walking infrastructure to make them larger, safer and more reliable, rather than expanding EV subsidies alone. And we need to reassess our transportation needs and priorities.
The road to decarbonization is long and winding. But if we are willing to get out of our cars and take a shortcut through the forest, we might get there a lot faster.
Author: Alexandre Milovanoff - Postdoctoral Researcher, Environmental Engineering, University of Toronto 
Related News
Biden seen better for Canada’s energy sector
Biden Impact on Canadian Energy Exports highlights shifts in trade policy, tariffs, carbon pricing, and Keystone XL, with implications for aluminum, softwood lumber, electricity trade, fracking limits, and small modular nuclear reactors.
Key Points
How Biden-era trade, climate rules, and tariffs may reshape Canadian energy and exports.
✅ Reduced tariff volatility and friendlier trade policy toward allies
✅ Climate alignment: carbon pricing, clean power, cross-border electricity
✅ Potential gains for oil, gas, aluminum, and softwood lumber exporters
There is little doubt among industry associations, the Conference Board of Canada and C.D. Howe Institute that a Joe Biden White House will be better for Canadian resource and energy exporters – even Alberta’s beleaguered oil industry, despite Biden’s promise to kill the Keystone XL pipeline.
The consensus among industry observers in the lead-up to the November 3 U.S. presidential election was that a re-elected Donald Trump would become even more pugnacious on trade and protectionism, putting electricity exports at risk for Canadian utilities, which would be bad for Canadian exporters. The Justin Trudeau government would likely come under increased pressure to lower Canadian business taxes to compete with Trump’s low-tax climate.
“A Joe Biden victory would likely lead to higher taxes for both corporations and wealthy Americans to help pay down the gigantic fiscal deficit that is currently running at plus-US$5 trillion,” the conference board concluded in a recent analysis.
On trade and tariffs, the conference board said: “Many but not all of these ongoing trade disputes would wither away under a Joe Biden administration. He would likely run a broad trade policy favouring strategic allies like Canada.
While Canadian industries like forestry and aluminum smelting benefited from strong demand and prices in the U.S. under Trump, the forced renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement failed end tariffs and duties on things like softwood lumber and aluminum ingots, even as Canadians backed tariffs on energy and minerals during the dispute.
The uncertainty over trade issues, and Trump’s tax cuts, which made Canada’s tax regime less competitive, have contributed to a period of low business investment in Canada during Trump's presidency.
“For Canada, we’ve seen a period, since this administration has been in power, where investment has eroded steadily,” conference board chief economist Pedro Antunes said. “We are not doing well at all, in terms of private capital investment in Canada.”
Alberta’s oil industry has been hit particularly hard, with a slew of divestments by big energy giants, and cancellations of major projects, like the $20 billion Frontier oilsands project, scrubbed by Teck Resources.
While domestic policies and global market forces are partly to blame for falling investments in Canada’s oil and gas sector, up until the pandemic hit, investment in oil and gas increased significantly in the U.S., while declining in Canada, during Trump’s first term.
Biden is also expected to level the playing field with respect to climate change policies. Canadian industries pay carbon taxes and face regulations that their counterparts in the U.S. don’t. That has disadvantaged energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries like mines and pulp mills in Canada.
“With Biden in office, Canada will once again have a partner at the federal level in the states in the transition to a decarbonized economy,” said Josha MacNab, national policy director for the Pembina Institute.
Biden’s policies might also favour importing aluminum, cross-laminated timber, fuel cells and other lower-carbon products and commodities from Canada.
At least one observer believes that Canada’s oil and gas sector might benefit more from a Biden White House, despite Biden’s pledge to kill the Keystone XL pipeline.
“I think Joe Biden could be very good for Alberta,” Christopher Sands, director of the Wilson International Center’s Canada Institute, said in a recent discussion hosted by the C.D. Howe Institute.
Sands added that the presidential permit Biden has promised to tear up on the Keystone XL pipeline project is a construction permit, not an operating permit.
“The segment of that pipeline that crosses the U.S.-Canada border, which is the only place that the presidential permit applies, has been built,” Sands said. “So I think that’s somewhat of an empty threat.”
He added that, if Biden bans fracking on federal lands, as he has promised, and implements other restrictions that make it more costly for American oil and gas producers, it might increase the demand for Canadian oil and gas in the U.S. The demand would be highest in the U.S. Midwest, which depends largely on Marcellus Shale production, notably in Pennsylvania, and Western Canada for its oil and gas.
One of the Canadian industries directly affected by the Trump administration was aluminum smelting, which is relevant for B.C. because Rio Tinto plc’s Kitimat smelter exports aluminum to the U.S.
Jean Simard, president of the Aluminum Association of Canada, said one of Trump’s legacies was the reactivation of a little-used mechanism – Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act – to hit Canada and other countries, notably China, with import tariffs.
The 10 per cent tariffs on aluminum cost Canadian aluminum producers US$15 million in the month of August alone, Simard said.
The Trump administration eventually exempted Canadian aluminum exports from the tariffs, then reintroduced them, and then, one week before the election, exempted them again.
These on-again, off-again tariff threats create tremendous uncertainty, not just for Canadian producers, but also for U.S. buyers. That kind of uncertainty is likely to ease under a Biden presidency.
Simard said Biden’s track record suggests he is well-disposed towards Canada and less confrontational with allies and trade partners in general, and some in Washington have called for a stronger U.S.-Canada energy partnership as well.
Meanwhile, softwood lumber tariffs have been imposed by Democrats and Republicans alike. But there are compelling reasons for ending the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber war.
Home renovation and repair in the United States has done surprisingly well during the pandemic.
As a result of sawmill curtailments in the U.S. due to pandemic restrictions and high demand for lumber in the U.S. housing sector, North American lumbers prices broke records this summer, soaring as high as US$900 per thousand board feet.
“It shows that there’s very strong demand for our product,” said Susan Yurkovich, president of the Council of Forest Industries.
Ultimately, the duties Canadian lumber exporters pay are passed on to U.S. consumers.
Sands said Biden’s climate action pledges, including a clean electricity standard, could increase opportunities for trading electricity between Canada in the U.S., as the U.S. increasingly looks to Canada for green power, and could also be good for Canadian nuclear power technology.
Strong climate change policies necessarily result in an increased demand for low-carbon electricity, and advancing clean grids, which Canada has in abundance, thanks to both hydro and nuclear power.
“[Biden] does share the desire to act on climate change, but unlike some of his fellow party members who are more signed on to a Green New Deal, he’s open to pragmatic solutions that might get the job done quickly and efficiently,” Sands said.
“This is a huge opportunity for small, modular nuclear reactors, and Atomic Energy Canada has some great designs. There’s a real opportunity for a nuclear revival.”
Related News
Is it finally time to buy an electric car?
Electric Vehicles deliver longer range, faster charging, and broader price options, with incentives and lease deals reducing costs; evaluate performance, home charging, road trip needs, and vehicle types like SUVs, pickups, and vans.
Key Points
Electric vehicles are battery-powered cars that cut costs, boost performance, and charge at home or at fast stations.
✅ Longer range and faster charging reduce range anxiety
✅ Lower operating costs vs gas: fuel, maintenance, incentives
✅ Home Level 2 charging recommended; plan for road trips
Electric cars now drive farther, charge faster and come in nearly every price range. But when GMC began promoting its Hummer EV pickup truck to be released this year, it became even clearer that electric cars are primed to go mainstream for many buyers.
Once the domain of environmentalists, then early adopters, electric vehicles may soon have even truck bros kicking the gasoline habit, though sales are still behind gas cars in many markets.
With many models now available or coming soon — and arriving ahead of schedule for several automakers — including a knockoff of the lovable Volkswagen Microbus — you may be wondering if it’s finally time to buy or lease one.
Here are the essential questions to answer before you do.
(Full disclosure: I’m a convert myself after six years and 70,000 gas-free miles.)
1. Can you afford an electric car?
Electric vehicles tend to be pricy to buy but can be more affordable to lease. Finding federal, state and local government incentives can also reduce sticker shock. And, even if the monthly payment is higher than a comparable gas car, operating costs are lower.
Gas vehicles cost an average of $3,356 per year to fuel, tax and insure, while electric cost just $2,722, according to a study by Self Financial, and Consumer Reports finds EVs save money in the long run too. Find out how much you can save with the Department of Energy calculator.
2. How far do you need to drive on a single charge?
Although almost 60 percent of all car trips in America were less than 6 miles in 2017, according to the Department of Energy, the phrase “range anxiety” scared many would-be early adopters.
Teslas became popular in part because they offered 250 miles of range. But the range of many electric vehicles between charges is now over 200 miles; even the modestly priced Chevrolet Bolt can travel 259 miles on a single charge.
Still, electric vehicles have a “road trip problem,” according to Josh Sadlier, director of content strategy for car site Edmunds.com. “If you like road trips, you almost have to have two cars — one for around town and one for longer trips,” he says.
3. Where will you charge it?
If you live in an apartment without a charging station, this could be a deal breaker.
The number of public chargers increased by 60 percent worldwide in 2019, according to the International Energy Agency. While these stations — some of which are free — are more available, most electric vehicle owners install a home station for faster charging.
Electric vehicles can be charged by plugging into a common 120-volt household outlet, but it’s slow, and understanding charging costs can help you plan home use. To speed up charging, many electric vehicle owners wind up buying a 240-volt charging station and having an electrician install it for a total cost of $1,200, according to the home remodeling website Fixr.
4. What will you use the car for?
While there are a few luxury electric SUVs on the market, most electric vehicles are smaller sedans or hatchbacks with limited cargo capacity. However, the coming wave of electric cars are more versatile, and many experts expect that within a decade these options will be commonplace, including vans, such as the Microbus, and trucks, such as an electric version of the popular Ford F-150 pickup.
5. Do you enjoy performance?
This is where electric vehicles really shine. According to automotive experts, electric cars beat their gas counterparts in these ways:
Immediate response with great low-end acceleration, particularly in the 0-30 mph range.
Sure-footed handling due to the heavy battery mounted under the car, giving it a low center of gravity.
No “shift shock” from changing gears in a conventional gas car’s transmission.
Little noise except from the wind and tires.
Other factors
Once you consider the big questions, here are other reasons to make an electric car your next choice:
Reduced environmental guilt. There is a persistent myth that electric vehicles simply move the emissions from the tailpipe to the power generating station. Yes, producing electricity produces emissions, but many electric vehicle owners charge at night when much of the electricity would otherwise be unused. According to research published by the BBC and evidence that they are better for the planet in many scenarios electric cars reduce emissions by an average of 70 percent, depending on where people live.
Less time refueling. It takes only seconds to plug in at home, and the electric vehicle will recharge while you’re doing other things. No more searching for gas stations and standing by as your tank gulps down gasoline.
No oil changes. Dealers like a constant stream of drivers coming in for oil changes so they can upsell other services. Electric vehicles have fewer moving parts and require fewer trips to the dealership for maintenance.
Carpool lanes and other perks. Check your state regulations to see if an electric vehicle gets you access to the carpool lane, free parking or other special advantages.
Enjoy the technology. Yes, electric vehicles are more expensive, but they also tend to offer top-of-the-line comfort, safety features and technology compared with their gas counterparts.
Related News
Four Facts about Covid and U.S. Electricity Consumption
COVID-19 Impact on U.S. Electricity Consumption shows commercial and industrial demand dropped as residential use rose, with flattened peak loads, weekday-weekend convergence, Texas hourly data, and energy demand as a real-time economic indicator.
Key Points
It reduced commercial and industrial demand while raising residential use, shifting peaks and weekday patterns.
✅ Commercial electricity down 12%; industrial down 14% in Q2 2020
✅ Residential use up 10% amid work-from-home and lockdowns
✅ Peaks flattened; weekday-weekend loads converged in Texas
This is an important turning point for the United States. We have a long road ahead. But one of the reasons I’m optimistic about Biden-Harris is that we will once again have an administration that believes in science.
To embrace this return to science, I want to write today about a fascinating new working paper by Tufts economist Steve Cicala.
Professor Cicala has been studying the effect of Covid on electricity consumption since back in March, when the Wall Street Journal picked up his work documenting an 18% decrease in electricity consumption in Italy.
The new work, focused on the United States, is particularly compelling because it uses data that allows him to distinguish between residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, against a backdrop of declining U.S. electricity sales over recent years.
Without further ado, here are four facts he uncovers about Covid and U.S. electricity demand during COVID-19 and consumption.
Fact #1: Firms Are Using Less
U.S. commercial electricity consumption fell 12% during the second quarter of 2020. U.S. industrial electricity consumption fell 14% over the same period.
This makes sense. The second quarter was by some measures, the worst quarter for the U.S. economy in over 145 years!
Economic activity shrank. Schools closed. Offices closed. Factories closed. Restaurants closed. Malls closed. Even health care offices closed as patients delayed going to the dentist and other routine care. All this means less heating and cooling, less lighting, less refrigeration, less power for computers and other office equipment, less everything.
The decrease in the industrial sector is a little more surprising. My impression had been that the industrial sector had not fallen as far as commercial, but amid broader disruptions in coal and nuclear power that strained parts of the energy economy, the patterns for both sectors are quite similar with the decline peaking in May and then partially rebounding by July. The paper also shows that areas with higher unemployment rates experienced larger declines in both sectors.
Fact #2: Households Are Using More
While firms are using less, households are using more. U.S. residential electricity consumption increased 10% during the second quarter of 2020. Consumption surged during March, April, and May, a reflection of the lockdown lifestyle many adopted, and then leveled off in June and July – with much less of the rebound observed on the commercial/industrial side.
This pattern makes sense, too. In Professor Cicala’s words, “people are spending an inordinate amount of time at home”. Many of us switched over to working from home almost immediately, and haven’t looked back. This means more air conditioning, more running the dishwasher, more CNN (especially last week), more Zoom, and so on.
The paper also examines the correlates of the decline. Areas in the U.S. where more people can work from home experienced larger increases. Unemployment rates, however, are almost completely uncorrelated with the increase.
Fact #3: Firms are Less Peaky
The paper next turns to a novel dataset from Texas, where Texas grid reliability is under active discussion, that makes it possible to measure hourly electricity consumption by sector.
As the figure above illustrates, the biggest declines in commercial/industrial electricity consumption have occurred Monday through Friday between 9AM and 5PM.
The dashed line shows the pattern during 2019. Notice the large spikes in electricity consumption during business hours. The solid line shows the pattern during 2020. Much smaller spikes during business hours.
Fact #4: Everyday is Like Sunday
Finally, we have what I would like to nominate as the “Energy Figure of the Year”.
Again, start with the pattern for 2019, reflected by the dashed line. Prior to Covid, Texas households used a lot more electricity on Saturdays and Sundays.
Then along comes Covid, and turned every day into the weekend. Residential electricity consumption in Texas during business hours Monday-Friday is up 16%(!).
In the pattern for 2020, it isn’t easy to distinguish weekends from weekdays. If you feel like weekdays and weekends are becoming a big blur – you are not alone.
Conclusion
Researchers are increasingly thinking about electricity consumption as a real-time indicator of economic activity, even as flat electricity demand complicates utility planning and investment. This is an intriguing idea, but Professor Cicala’s new paper shows that it is important to look sector-by-sector.
While commercial and industrial consumption indeed seem to measure the strength of an economy, residential consumption has been sharply countercylical – increasing exactly when people are not at work and not at school.
These large changes in behavior are specific to the pandemic. Still, with the increased blurring of home and non-home activities we may look back on 2020 as a key turning point in how we think about these three sectors of the economy.
More broadly, Professor Cicala’s paper highlights the value of social science research. We need facts, data, and yes, science, if we are to understand the economy and craft effective policies on energy insecurity and shut-offs as well.
Related News
3-layer non-medical masks now recommended by Canada's top public health doctor
Canada Three-Layer Mask Recommendation advises non-medical masks with a polypropylene filter layer and tightly woven cotton, aligned with WHO guidance, to curb COVID-19 aerosols indoors through better fit, coverage, and public health compliance.
Key Points
PHAC advises three-layer non-medical masks with a polypropylene filter to improve indoor COVID-19 protection.
✅ Two fabric layers plus a non-woven polypropylene filter
✅ Ensure snug fit: cover nose, mouth, chin without gaps
✅ Aligns with WHO guidance for aerosols and droplets
The Public Health Agency of Canada is now recommending Canadians choose three-layer non-medical masks with a filter layer to prevent the spread of COVID-19, even as an IEA report projects higher electricity needs for net-zero, as they prepare to spend more time indoors over the winter.
Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam made the recommendation during her bi-weekly pandemic briefing in Ottawa Tuesday, as officials also track electricity grid security amid critical infrastructure concerns.
"To improve the level of protection that can be provided by non-medical masks or face coverings, we are recommending that you consider a three-layer nonmedical mask," she said.
Trust MedProtect For All Your Mask Protection
www.medprotect.ca/collections/protective-masks
According to recently updated guidelines, two layers of the mask should be made of a tightly woven fabric, such as cotton or linen, and the middle layer should be a filter-type fabric, such as non-woven polypropylene fabric, as Canada explores post-COVID manufacturing capacity for PPE.
"We're not necessarily saying just throw out everything that you have," Tam told reporters, suggesting adding a filter can help with protection.
The Public Health website now includes instructions for making three-layer masks, while national goals like Canada's 2050 net-zero target continue to shape recovery efforts.
The World Health Organization has recommended three layers for non-medical masks since June, and experts note that cleaning up Canada's electricity is critical to broader climate resilience. When pressed about the sudden change for Canada, Tam said the research has evolved.
"This is an additional recommendation just to add another layer of protection. The science of masks has really accelerated during this particular pandemic. So we're just learning again as we go," she said.
"I do think that because it's winter, because we're all going inside, we're learning more about droplets and aerosols, and how indoor comfort systems from heating to air conditioning costs can influence behaviors."
She also urged Canadians to wear well-fitted masks that cover the nose, mouth and chin without gaping, as the federal government advances emissions and EV sales regulations alongside public health guidance.
Trust MedProtect For All Your Mask Protection
www.medprotect.ca/collections/protective-masks
