TVA presenting plan for comments

Ontario Nuclear Power Costs highlight LCOE, capex, refurbishment outlays, and waste management, compared with renewables, grid reliability, and emissions targets, informing Australia and Peter Dutton on feasibility, timelines, and electricity prices.

Key Points

They include high capex and LCOE from refurbishments and waste, offset by reliable, low-emission baseload.

✅ Refurbishment and maintenance drive lifecycle and LCOE variability.

✅ High capex and long timelines affect consumer electricity prices.

✅ Low emissions, but waste and safety compliance add costs.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton recently lauded Canada’s use of nuclear power as a model for Australia’s energy future. His praise comes as part of a broader push to incorporate nuclear energy into Australia’s energy strategy, which he argues could help address the country's energy needs and climate goals. However, the question arises: Is Ontario’s experience with nuclear power as cost-effective as Dutton suggests?

Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power strategy highlights a belief that nuclear energy could provide a stable, low-emission alternative to fossil fuels. He has pointed to Ontario’s substantial reliance on nuclear power, and the province’s exploration of new large-scale nuclear projects, as an example of how such an energy mix might benefit Australia. The province’s energy grid, which integrates a significant amount of nuclear power, is often cited as evidence that nuclear energy can be a viable component of a diversified energy portfolio.

The appeal of nuclear power lies in its ability to generate large amounts of electricity with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. This characteristic aligns with Australia’s climate goals, which emphasize reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change. Dutton’s advocacy for nuclear energy is based on the premise that it can offer a reliable and low-emission option compared to the fluctuating availability of renewable sources like wind and solar.

However, while Dutton’s enthusiasm for the Canadian model reflects its perceived successes, including recent concerns about Ontario’s grid getting dirtier amid supply changes, a closer look at Ontario’s nuclear energy costs raises questions about the financial feasibility of adopting a similar strategy in Australia. Despite the benefits of low emissions, the economic aspects of nuclear power remain complex and multifaceted.

In Ontario, the cost of nuclear power has been a topic of considerable debate. While the province benefits from a stable supply of electricity due to its nuclear plants, studies warn of a growing electricity supply gap in coming years. Ontario’s experience reveals that nuclear power involves significant capital expenditures, including the costs of building reactors, maintaining infrastructure, and ensuring safety standards. These expenses can be substantial and often translate into higher electricity prices for consumers.

The cost of maintaining existing nuclear reactors in Ontario has been a particular concern. Many of these reactors are aging and require costly upgrades and maintenance to continue operating safely and efficiently. These expenses can add to the overall cost of nuclear power, impacting the affordability of electricity for consumers.

Moreover, the development of new nuclear projects, as seen with Bruce C project exploration in Ontario, involves lengthy and expensive construction processes. Building new reactors can take over a decade and requires significant investment. The high initial costs associated with these projects can be a barrier to their economic viability, especially when compared to the rapidly decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies.

In contrast, the cost of renewable energy has been falling steadily, even as debates over nuclear power’s trajectory in Europe continue, making it a more attractive option for many jurisdictions. Solar and wind power, while variable and dependent on weather conditions, have seen dramatic reductions in installation and operational costs. These lower costs can make renewables more competitive compared to nuclear energy, particularly when considering the long-term financial implications.

Dutton’s praise for Ontario’s nuclear power model also overlooks some of the environmental and logistical challenges associated with nuclear energy. While nuclear power generates low emissions during operation, it produces radioactive waste that requires long-term storage solutions. The management of nuclear waste poses significant environmental and safety concerns, as well as additional costs for safe storage and disposal.

Additionally, the potential risks associated with nuclear power, including the possibility of accidents, contribute to the complexity of its adoption. The safety and environmental regulations surrounding nuclear energy are stringent and require continuous oversight, adding to the overall cost of maintaining nuclear facilities.

As Australia contemplates integrating nuclear power into its energy mix, it is crucial to weigh these financial and environmental considerations. While the Canadian model provides valuable insights, the unique context of Australia’s energy landscape, including its existing infrastructure, energy needs, and the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity in comparable jurisdictions, must be taken into account.

In summary, while Peter Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power model reflects a belief in its potential benefits for Australia’s energy strategy, the cost-effectiveness of Ontario’s nuclear power experience is more nuanced than it may appear. The high capital and maintenance costs associated with nuclear energy, combined with the challenges of managing radioactive waste and ensuring safety, present significant considerations. As Australia evaluates its energy future, a comprehensive analysis of both the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power will be essential to making informed decisions about its role in the country’s energy strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Western Canada Electric Grid could deliver interprovincial transmission, reliability, peak-load support, reserve sharing, and wind and solar integration, lowering costs versus new generation while respecting AESO markets and Crown utility structures.

Key Points

Interprovincial transmission to share reserves, boost reliability, integrate wind and solar, and cut peak capacity costs.

✅ Cuts reserve margins via diversity of peak loads

✅ Enables wind and solar balancing across provinces

✅ Saves ratepayers vs replacing retiring thermal plants

The 2017 Canadian Free Trade Agreement does not do much to encourage provinces to trade electric energy east and west. Would a western Canada electric grid help electricity consumers in the western provinces? Some Alberta officials feel that their electric utilities are investor owned and they perceive the Crown corporations of BC Hydro, SaskPower and Manitoba Hydro to be subsidized by their provincial governments, so an interprovincial electric energy trade would not be on a level playing field.

Because of the limited trade of electric energy between the western provinces, each utility maintains an excessive reserve of thermal and hydroelectric generation greater than their peak loads, to provide a reliable supply during peak load days as grids are increasingly exposed to harsh weather across Canada. This excess does not include variable wind and solar generation, which within a province can’t be guaranteed to be available when needed most.

This attitude must change. Transmission is cheaper than generation, and coordinated macrogrids can further improve reliability and cut costs. By constructing a substantial grid with low profile and aesthetically designed overhead transmission lines, the excess reserve of thermal and hydroelectric generation above the peak electric load can be reduced in each province over time. Detailed assessments will ensure each province retains its required reliability of electric supply.

As the provinces retire aging thermal and coal-fired generators, they only need to replace them to a much lower level, by just enough to meet their future electric loads and Canada's net-zero grid by 2050 goals. Some of the money not spent in replacing retired generation can be profitably invested in the transmission grid across the four western provinces.

But what about Alberta, which does not want to trade electric energy with the other western provinces? It can carry on as usual within the Alberta Electric System Operator’s (AESO) market and will save money by keeping the installed reserve of thermal and hydroelectric generation to a minimum. When Alberta experiences a peak electric load day and some generators are out of service due to unplanned maintenance, it can obtain the needed power from the interprovincial electric grid. None of the other three western provinces will peak at the same time, because of different weather and time zones, so they will have spare capacity to help Alberta over its peak. The peak load in a province only lasts for a few hours, so Alberta will get by with a little help from its friends if needed.

The grid will have no energy flowing on it for this purpose except to assist a province from time to time when it’s unable to meet its peak load. The grid may only carry load five per cent of the time in a year for this purpose. Under such circumstances, the empty grid can then be used for other profitable markets in electric energy. This includes more effective use of variable wind and solar energy, by enabling a province to better balance such intermittent power as well as allowing increased installation of it in every province. This is a challenge for AESO which the grid would substantially ease.

Natural Resources Canada promoted the “Regional Electricity Co-Operative and Strategic Infrastructure” initiative for completion this year and contracted through AESO, alongside an Atlantic grid study to explore regional improvements. This is a first step, but more is needed to achieve the full benefit of a western grid.

In 1970 a study was undertaken to electrically interconnect Britain with France, which was justified based on the ability to reduce reserve generation in both countries. Initially Britain rejected it, but France was partially supportive. In time, a substantial interconnection was built, and being a profitable venture, they are contemplating increasing the grid connections between them.

For the sake of the western consumers of electricity and to keep electricity rates from rising too quickly, as well as allowing productive expansion of wind and solar energy in places like British Columbia's clean energy shift efforts, an electric grid is essential across western Canada.

Dennis Woodford is president of Electranix Corporation in Winnipeg, which studies electric transmission problems, particularly involving renewable energy generators requiring firm connection to the grid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Greengen Misfeasance Ruling details a B.C. Supreme Court decision awarding $10.125 million over wrongfully denied Crown land and water licence permits for a Fries Creek run-of-river hydro project under a BC Hydro contract.

Key Points

A B.C. Supreme Court ruling awarding $10.125M for wrongful denial of Crown land and water licences on Greengen's project.

✅ $10.125M damages for misfeasance in public office

✅ Denial of Crown land tenure and water licence permits

✅ Tied to Fries Creek run-of-river and BC Hydro EPA

A B.C. Supreme Court judge has ordered the provincial government to pay $10.125 million after it denied permits to a company that wanted to build a run-of-the river independent power project near Squamish.

In his Oct. 10 decision, Justice Kevin Loo said the plaintiff, Greengen Holdings Ltd., “lost an opportunity to achieve a completed and profitable hydro-electric project” after government representatives wrongfully exercised their legal authority, a transgression described in the ruling as “misfeasance,” with separate concerns reflected in an Ontario market gaming investigation reported elsewhere.

Between 2003 and 2009, the company sought to develop a hydro-electric project on and around Fries Creek, which sits opposite the Brackendale neighbourhood on the other side of the Squamish River. To do so, Greengen Holdings Ltd. required a water licence from the Minister of the Environment and tenure over Crown land from the Minister of Agriculture.

After a lengthy process involving extensive communications between Greengen and various provincial and other ministries and regulatory agencies, the permits were denied, according to Loo. Both decisions cited impacts on Squamish Nation cultural sites that could not be mitigated.

Elsewhere, an Indigenous-owned project in James Bay proceeded despite repeated denials, underscoring varied approaches to community participation.

40-year electricity plan relied on Crown land
The case dates back to December 2005, when BC Hydro issued an open call for power with Greengen. The company submitted a tender several months later.

On July 26, 2006, BC Hydro awarded Greengen an energy purchase agreement, amid evolving LNG electricity demand across the province, under which Greengen would be entitled to supply electricity at a fixed price for 40 years.

Unlike conventional hydroelectric projects, such as new BC generating stations recently commissioned, which store large volumes of water in reservoirs, and in so doing flood large tracts of land, a run of the river project often requires little or no water storage. Instead, from a high elevation, they divert water from a stream or river channel.

Water is then sent into a pressured pipeline known as a penstock, and later passed through turbines to generate electricity, Loo explained, as utilities pursue long-term plans like the Hydro-Québec strategy to reduce fossil fuel reliance. The system returns water to the original stream or river, or into another body of water. 

The project called for most of that infrastructure to be built on Crown land, according to the ruling.

All sides seemed to support the project
In early 2005, company principle Terry Sonderhoff discussed the Fries Creek project in a preliminary meeting with Squamish Nation Chief Ian Campbell.

“Mr. Sonderhoff testified that Chief Campbell seemed supportive of the project at the time,” Loo said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Canadian Hydropower Transmission delivers HVDC clean energy via New England Clean Energy Connect and Champlain Hudson Power Express, linking HydroQuébec to Maine and New York grids for renewable energy, decarbonization, and lower wholesale electricity rates.

Key Points

HVDC delivery of HydroQuébec power to New England and New York via NECEC and CHPE, cutting emissions and costs.

✅ 1,200 MW via NECEC; 1,000 MW via CHPE.

✅ HVDC routes: 145-mile NECEC and 333-mile CHPE.

✅ Debates: land impacts, climate justice, wholesale rates.

As the sole residents of unorganized territory T5 R7 deep within Maine's North Woods, Duane Hanson and his wife, Sally Kwan, have watched the land around them—known for its natural beauty, diverse wildlife and recreational fishing—transformed by decades of development. 

But what troubles them most is what could happen in the next few months. State and corporate officials are pushing for construction of a 53-mile-long power line corridor cutting right through the woods and abutting the wild lands surrounding Hanson's property. 

If its proponents succeed, Hanson fears the corridor may represent the beginning of the end of his ability to live "off the land" away from the noise of technology-obsessed modern society. Soon, that noise may be in his backyard. 

"I moved here to be in the pristine wilderness," said Hanson.
 
With his life in what he considers the last "wild" place left on the East Coast on the line, the stakes have never felt higher to Hanson—and many across New England, as well.

The corridor is part of the New England Clean Energy Connect, one of two major and highly controversial transmission line projects meant to deliver Canadian hydropower from the government-owned utility HydroQuébec, in a province that has closed the door on nuclear power, to New England electricity consumers. 

As New England states rush to green their electric grids and combat the accelerating climate crisis, the simultaneous push from Canada to expand the market for hydroelectric power from its vast water resources, including Manitoba's clean energy, has offered these states a critical lifeline at just the right moment. 

The other big hydropower transmission line project will deliver 1,000 megawatts of power, or enough to serve approximately one million residential customers, to the New York City metropolitan area, which includes the city, Long Island, and parts of the Hudson Valley, New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. 

The 333-mile-long Champlain Hudson Power Express project will consist of two high voltage direct current cables running underground and underwater from Canada, beneath Lake Champlain and the Hudson River, to Astoria, Queens. 

There, the Champlain Hudson project will interconnect to a sector of the New York electricity grid where city and corporate officials say the hydropower supplied can help reduce the fossil fuels that currently comprise significantly more of the base load than in other parts of the state. Though New York has yet to finalize a contract with HydroQuébec over its hydropower purchase, developers plan to start construction on the $2.2 billion project in 2021 and say it will be operational in 2025. 

The New England project consists of 145 miles of new HVDC transmission line that will run largely above ground from the Canadian border, through Maine to Massachusetts. The $1 billion project, funded by Massachusetts electricity consumers, is expected to deliver 1,200 megawatts of clean energy to the New England energy grid, becoming the region's largest clean energy source. 

Central Maine Power, which will construct the Maine transmission corridor, says the project will decrease wholesale electric rates and create thousands of jobs. Company officials expect to receive all necessary permits and begin construction by the year's end, with the project completed and in service by 2020. 

With only months until developers start making both projects on-the-ground realities, they have seized public attention within, and beyond, their regions. 

Hanson is one among many concerned New England and New York residents who've joined the ranks of environmental activists in a contentious battle with public and corporate officials over the place of Canadian hydropower in their states' clean energy futures. 

Officials and transmission line proponents say importing Canadian hydropower offers an immediate and feasible way to help decarbonize electricity portfolios in New York and New England and to address existing transmission constraints that limit cross-border flows today, supporting their broader efforts to combat climate change. 

But some environmental activists say hydropower has a significant carbon footprint of its own. They fear the projects will make states look "greener" at the expense of the local environment, Indigenous communities, and ultimately, the climate. 

"We're talking about the most environmentally and economically just pathway" to decarbonization, said Annel Hernandez, associate director of the NYC Environmental Justice Alliance. "Canadian hydro is not going to provide that." 

To that end, environmental groups opposing Canadian hydropower say New York and New England should seize the moment to expedite local development of wind and solar power. 

Paul Gallay, president of the nonprofit environmental organization Riverkeeper—which withdrew its initial support for the Champlain Hudson Power Express last November— believes New York has the capacity to develop enough in-state renewable energy sources to meet its clean energy goals, without the new transmission line. 

Yet New York City's analysis shows clearly that Canadian hydropower is critical for its clean energy strategy, said Dan Zarrilli, director of OneNYC and New York City's chief climate policy adviser. 

"We need every bit of clean energy we can get our hands on," he said, to meet the city's goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 and help achieve the state's clean energy mandates. 

Removing Canadian hydropower from the equation, said Zarilli, would commit the city to the "unacceptable outcome" of burning more gas. The city's marginalized communities would likely suffer most from the resulting air pollution and associated health impacts. 

While the two camps debate Canadian hydropower's carbon footprint and what climate justice requires, this much is clear: When it comes to pursuing a zero-carbon future, there are no easy answers. 

Hydropower's Carbon Footprint
Many people take for granted that because hydropower production doesn't involve burning fossil fuels, it's a carbon-neutral endeavor. But that's not always the case, depending on where hydropower is sourced. 

Large-scale hydropower projects often involve the creation of hydroelectric dams and reservoirs, and, in some cases, repowering existing dams to generate clean electricity. The release and flow of water from the reservoir through the dam provides the energy necessary to generate hydropower, which long-distance power lines, or transmission lines, carry to its intended destination—in this case, New England and New York. 

The initial process of flooding land to create a hydroelectric reservoir can have a sizable carbon footprint, especially in heavily vegetated areas. It causes the vegetation and soil underwater to decompose, releasing carbon dioxide and methane—a greenhouse gas 84 times more potent over a 20-year period than carbon dioxide. 

Hydropower accounts for 60 percent of Canada's electricity generation, and HydroQuébec has planned to increase capacity to 37,000 MW in 2021, with the nation second only to China in the percentage of the world's total hydroelectricity it generates. By contrast, hydropower only accounts for seven percent of U.S. utility-scale electricity generation, making it a foreign concept to many Americans. 

As New England works to introduce substantial amounts of Canadian hydropower to its electricity grid, hydropower proponents are promoting it as a prime source for clean electricity, and new NB Power agreements are expanding regional transfers within Canada as well. 

Last fall, Central Maine Power formed its own political action committee, Clean Energy Matters, to advance the New England hydropower project. Together with HydroQuébec, the Maine utility has spent nearly $17 million campaigning for the project this year. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

UK Coal-Free Energy Transition highlights the West Burton A closure, accelerating renewable energy, wind, solar, nuclear, energy storage, smart grid upgrades, decarbonization, and net-zero goals while ensuring reliability, affordability, and a just transition for workers.

Key Points

A nationwide shift from coal power to renewables, storage, and nuclear to meet net-zero while maintaining reliability.

✅ West Burton A closure ends UK coal-fired generation

✅ Wind, solar, nuclear, storage strengthen grid resilience

✅ Government backs a just transition and worker retraining

The United Kingdom marks a historic turning point in its energy transition with the closure of the West Burton A Power Station in Nottinghamshire. This coal-fired power plant, once a symbol of the nation's industrial might, has now delivered its final watts of electricity to the grid, signalling the end of coal power generation in the UK.

A Landmark Shift Towards Clean Energy

The closure of West Burton A reflects a dramatic shift in the UK's energy landscape. Coal, the backbone of the UK's power generation for decades, is being phased out in favour of renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and nuclear. This transition aligns with the UK's ambitious net-zero emissions target, which aims to radically decarbonize the country's economy by 2050, though progress can falter, as when low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 amid changing market conditions.

Changing Energy Landscape

In the past, coal-fired power plants provided reliable, on-demand power. However, growing awareness of their significant environmental impact, particularly their contribution to climate change,  has accelerated the move away from coal. The UK government has set clear targets for eliminating coal power generation, and the industry has seen a steady decline as the share of coal fell to record lows in the electricity system.

Renewables Fill the Gap

The remarkable growth of renewable energy sources has enabled the transition away from coal. Wind and solar power, in particular, have experienced rapid development and falling costs, and in 2016 wind generated more electricity than coal for the first time. The UK now boasts substantial offshore and onshore wind farms and extensive solar installations. Additionally, investments in nuclear power and emerging energy storage technologies are increasing the reliability and diversity of the UK's power grid.

Economic and Social Impacts

The closure of the last coal-fired power station carries both economic and social impacts. While this change represents a victory for environmentalists, marked by milestones like a full week without coal power in Britain, the end of coal mining and power generation will lead to job losses in communities traditionally reliant on these industries.  The government has committed to supporting affected regions and facilitating a "just transition" for workers by retraining and creating new opportunities in the clean energy sector.

Global Implications

The UK's commitment to a coal-free future serves as a powerful example for other nations seeking to decarbonize their energy systems, including peers where Alberta's last coal plant closed recently. The nation's experience demonstrates that a transition to renewable energy sources is both possible and necessary. However, it also highlights the importance of careful planning and addressing the social and economic impacts of such a rapid energy revolution.

The Road Ahead

While the closure of West Burton A Power Station marks a historic milestone, the UK's transition to clean energy is far from complete. Maintaining a reliable and affordable energy supply, even as coal-free power records raise questions about energy bills, will require continued investment in renewable energy sources, energy storage, and advanced grid technologies.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Clean Electricity Standard (CES) sets utility emissions targets, uses tradable credits, and advances decarbonization via technology-agnostic benchmarks, carbon capture, renewable portfolio standards, upstream methane accounting, and cap-and-trade alternatives in reconciliation policy.

Key Points

CES sets utility emissions targets using tradable credits and benchmarks to drive power-sector decarbonization.

✅ Annual clean energy targets phased to 2050

✅ Tradable credits for compliance across utilities

✅ Includes upstream methane and lifecycle emissions

The Biden Administration and Democratic members of Congress have supported including a clean electricity standard (CES) in the upcoming reconciliation bill. A CES is an alternative to pricing carbon dioxide through a tax or cap-and-trade program and focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions produced during electricity generation by establishing targets, while early assessments show mixed results so far. In principle, it is a technology-agnostic approach. In practice, however, it pushes particular technologies out of the market.

The details of the CES are still being developed, but recent legislation may provide insight into how the CES could operate. In May, Senator Tina Smith and Representative Ben Ray Luján introduced the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2019 (CESA), while Minnesota's 100% carbon-free mandate offers a state-level parallel, and in January 2020, the House Energy and Commerce Committee released a discussion draft of the Climate Leadership and Environmental Action for our Nation’s (CLEAN) Future Act. Both bills increase the clean energy target annually until 2050 in order to phase out emissions. Both bills also create a credit system where clean sources of electricity as determined by a benchmark, carbon dioxide emitted per kilowatt-hour, receive credits. These credits may be transferred, sold, and auctioned so utilities that fail to meet targets can procure credits from others, as large energy customers push to accelerate clean energy globally.

The bills’ benchmarks vary, and while the CLEAN Future Act allows natural gas-fired generators to receive partial credits, CESA does not. Under both bills, these generators would be expected to install carbon capture technology to continue meeting increasing targets for clean electricity generation. Both bills go beyond considering the emissions resulting from generation and include upstream emissions for natural gas-fired generators. Natural gas, a greenhouse gas, that is leaked upstream of a generator during transportation is to be included among its emissions. The CLEAN Future Act also calls for newly constructed hydropower generators to account for the emissions associated with the facility’s construction despite producing clean electricity. These additional provisions demonstrate not only the CES’s inability to fully address the issue of emissions but also the slippery slope of expanding the program to include other markets, echoing cost and reliability concerns as California exports its energy policies across the West.

A majority of states have adopted clean energy, electricity, or renewable portfolio standards, with some considering revamping electricity rates to clean the grid, leaving legislators with plenty of examples to consider. As they weigh their options, legislators should consider if they are effectively addressing the problem at hand, economy-wide emissions reductions, and at what cost, drawing on examples like New Mexico's 100% clean electricity bill to inform trade-offs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News