EPRI to help with smart grid roadmap

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis highlights nuclear power vs coal and natural gas, renewables and hydropower limits, carbon emissions, energy security, and baseload reliability during Russia-related supply shocks and winter demand.

Key Points

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis weighs reactor extensions vs coal revival to bolster security, curb emissions.

✅ Coal plants restarted; nuclear shutdown stays on schedule.

✅ Energy security prioritized amid Russian gas supply cuts.

✅ Emissions likely rise despite renewables expansion.

Peel away the politics and the passion, the doomsaying and the denialism, and climate change largely boils down to this: energy. To avoid the chances of catastrophic climate change while ensuring the world can continue to grow — especially for poor people who live in chronically energy-starved areas — we’ll need to produce ever more energy from sources that emit little or no greenhouse gases.

It’s that simple — and, of course, that complicated.

Zero-carbon sources of renewable energy like wind and solar have seen tremendous increases in capacity and equally impressive decreases in price in recent years, while the decades-old technology of hydropower is still what the International Energy Agency calls the “forgotten giant of low-carbon electricity.”

And then there’s nuclear power. Viewed strictly through the lens of climate change, nuclear power can claim to be a green dream, even as Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy most.

Unlike coal or natural gas, nuclear plants do not produce direct carbon dioxide emissions when they generate electricity, and over the past 50 years they’ve reduced CO2 emissions by nearly 60 gigatonnes. Unlike solar or wind, nuclear plants aren’t intermittent, and they require significantly less land area per megawatt produced. Unlike hydropower — which has reached its natural limits in many developed countries, including the US — nuclear plants don’t require environmentally intensive dams.

As accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown, when nuclear power goes wrong, it can go really wrong. But newer plant designs reduce the risk of such catastrophes, which themselves tend to garner far more attention than the steady stream of deaths from climate change and air pollution linked to the normal operation of conventional power plants.

So you might imagine that those who see climate change as an unparalleled existential threat would cheer the development of new nuclear plants and support the extension of nuclear power already in service.

In practice, however, that’s often not the case, as recent events in Germany underline.

When is a Green not green?
The Russian war in Ukraine has made a mess of global energy markets, but perhaps no country has proven more vulnerable than Germany, reigniting debate over a possible resurgence of nuclear energy in Germany among policymakers.

At the start of the year, Russian exports supplied more than half of Germany’s natural gas, along with significant portions of its oil and coal imports. Since the war began, Russia has severely curtailed the flow of gas to Germany, putting the country in a state of acute energy crisis, with fears growing as next winter looms.

With little natural gas supplies of the country’s own, and its heavily supported renewable sector unable to fully make up the shortfall, German leaders faced a dilemma. To maintain enough gas reserves to get the country through the winter, they could try to put off the closure of Germany’s last three remaining nuclear reactors temporarily, which were scheduled to shutter by the end of 2022 as part of Germany’s post-Fukushima turn against nuclear power, and even restart already closed reactors.

Or they could try to reactivate mothballed coal-fired power plants, and make up some of the electricity deficit with Germany’s still-ample coal reserves.

Based on carbon emissions alone, you’d presumably go for the nuclear option. Coal is by far the dirtiest of fossil fuels, responsible for a fifth of all global greenhouse gas emissions — more than any other single source — as well as a soup of conventional air pollutants. Nuclear power produces none of these.

German legislators saw it differently. Last week, the country’s parliament, with the backing of members of the Green Party in the coalition government, passed emergency legislation to reopen coal-powered plants, as well as further measures to boost the production of renewable energy. There would be no effort to restart closed nuclear power plants, or even consider a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout for the last active reactors.

“The gas storage tanks must be full by winter,” Robert Habeck, Germany’s economy minister and a member of the Green Party, said in June, echoing arguments that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue for the coming winter.

Partially as a result of that prioritization, Germany — which has already seen carbon emissions rise over the past two years, missing its ambitious emissions targets — will emit even more carbon in 2022.

To be fair, restarting closed nuclear power plants is a far more complex undertaking than lighting up old coal plants. Plant operators had only bought enough uranium to make it to the end of 2022, so nuclear fuel supplies are set to run out regardless.

But that’s also the point. Germany, which views itself as a global leader on climate, is grasping at the most carbon-intensive fuel source in part because it made the decision in 2011 to fully turn its back on nuclear for good at the time, enshrining what had been a planned phase-out into law.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

U.S. Electricity Trade by State, 2013-2017 highlights EIA grid patterns, interstate imports and exports, cross-border flows with Canada and Mexico, net exporters and importers, and market regions like ISOs and RTOs shaping consumption and generation.

Key Points

Brief EIA overview of interstate and cross-border power flows, ranking top net importers and exporters.

✅ Pennsylvania was the largest net exporter, averaging 59 million MWh.

✅ California was the largest net importer, averaging 77 million MWh.

✅ Top cross-border: NY, CA, VT, MN, MI imports; WA, TX, CA, NY, MT exports.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) State Electricity Profiles, from 2013 to 2017, Pennsylvania was the largest net exporter of electricity, while California was the largest net importer.

Pennsylvania exported an annual average of 59 million megawatt-hours (MWh), while California imported an average of 77 million MWh annually.

Based on the share of total consumption in each state, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Idaho and Delaware were the five largest power-importing states between 2013 and 2017, highlighting how some clean states import 'dirty' electricity as consumption outpaces local generation. Wyoming, West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana and New Hampshire were the five largest power-exporting states. Wyoming and West Virginia were net power exporting states between 2013 and 2017.

New York, California, Vermont, Minnesota and Michigan imported the most electricity from Canada or Mexico on average from 2013 to 2017, reflecting the U.S. look to Canada for green power during that period. Similarly, Washington, Texas, California, New York, and Montana exported the most electricity to Canada or Mexico, on average, during the same period.

Electricity routinely flows among the Lower 48 states and, to a lesser extent, between the United States and Canada and Mexico. From 2013 to 2017, Pennsylvania was the largest net exporter of electricity, sending an annual average of 59 million megawatthours (MWh) outside the state. California was the largest net importer, receiving an average of 77 million MWh annually.

Based on the share of total consumption within each state, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Idaho, and Delaware were the five largest power-importing states between 2013 and 2017. Wyoming, West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana, and New Hampshire were the five largest power-exporting states. States with major population centers and relatively less generating capacity within their state boundaries tend to have higher ratios of net electricity imports to total electricity consumption, as utilities devote more to electricity delivery than to power production in many markets.

Wyoming and West Virginia were net power exporting states (they exported more power to other states than they consumed) between 2013 and 2017. Customers residing in these two states are not necessarily at an economic disadvantage or advantage compared with customers in neighboring states when considering their electricity bills and fees and market dynamics. However, large amounts of power trading may affect a state’s revenue derived from power generation.

Some states also import and export electricity outside the United States to Canada or Mexico, even as Canada's electricity exports face trade tensions today. New York, California, Vermont, Minnesota, and Michigan are the five states that imported the most electricity from Canada or Mexico on average from 2013 through 2017. Similarly, Washington, Texas (where electricity production and consumption lead the nation), California, New York, and Montana are the five states that exported the most electricity to Canada or Mexico, on average, for the same period.

Many states within the continental United States fall within integrated market regions, referred to as independent system operators or regional transmission organizations. These integrated market regions allow electricity to flow freely between states or parts of states within their boundaries.

EIA’s State Electricity Profiles provide details about the supply and disposition of electricity for each state, including net trade with other states and international imports and exports, and help you understand where your electricity comes from more clearly.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ontario Electricity Relief outlines an extended disconnect moratorium, potential time-of-use price changes, and Ontario Energy Board oversight to support residential customers facing COVID-19 hardship and bill payment challenges during the emergency in Ontario.

Key Points

Plan to extend disconnect moratorium and weigh time-of-use price relief for residential customers during COVID-19.

✅ Extends winter disconnect ban by 3 months

✅ Considers time-of-use price adjustments

✅ Requires Ontario Energy Board approval

The Ontario government is preparing to announce electricity relief for residential electricity users struggling because of the COVID-19 emergency, according to sources.

Sources close to those discussions say a decision has been made to lengthen the existing five-month disconnect moratorium by an additional three months.

Separately, Hydro One's relief fund has offered support to its customers during the pandemic.

News releases about the moratorium extension are currently being drafted and are expected to be released shortly, as the pandemic has reduced electricity usage across Ontario.

Electricity utilities in Ontario are currently prohibited from disconnecting residential customers for non-payment during the winter ban period from November 15 to April 30.

The province is also looking at providing further relief by adjusting time-of-use prices, such as off-peak electricity rates, which are designed to encourage shifting of energy use away from periods of high total consumption to periods of low demand.

For businesses, the province has provided stable electricity pricing to support industrial and commercial operations.

But that would require Ontario Energy Board approval and no decision has been finalized, our sources advise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

SM-1A Nuclear Plant Decommissioning details the US Army Corps of Engineers' removal of the Fort Greely reactor, Cold War facility dismantling, environmental monitoring, remote-site power history, and timeline to 2026 under a deactivated nuclear program.

Key Points

Army Corps plan to dismantle Fort Greely's SM-1A reactor and complete decommissioning of remaining systems by 2026.

✅ Built for remote Arctic radar support during the Cold War

✅ High costs beat diesel; program later deemed impractical

✅ Reactor parts removed; residuals monitored; removal by 2026

The US Army Corps of Engineers has begun decommissioning Alaska’s only nuclear power plant, SM-1A, which is located at Fort Greely, even as new US reactors continue to take shape nationwide. The $17m plant closed in 1972 after ten years of sporadic operation. It was out of commission from 1967 to 1969 for extensive repairs. Much of has already been dismantled and sent for disposal, and the rest, which is encased in concrete, is now to be removed.

The plant was built as part of an experimental programme to determine whether nuclear facilities, akin to next-generation nuclear concepts, could be built and operated at remote sites more cheaply than diesel-fuelled plants.

"The main approach was to reduce significant fuel-transportation costs by having a nuclear reactor that could operate for long terms, a concept echoed in the NuScale SMR safety evaluation process, with just one nuclear core," Brian Hearty said. Hearty manages the Army Corps of Engineers’ Deactivated Nuclear Power Plant Program.

#google#

He said the Army built SM-1A in 1962 hoping to provide power reliably at remote Arctic radar sites, where in similarly isolated regions today new US coal plants may still be considered, intended to detect incoming missiles from the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. He added that the programme worked but not as well as Pentagon officials had hoped. While SM-1A could be built and operated in a cold and remote location, its upfront costs were much higher than anticipated, and it costs more to maintain than a diesel power plant. Moreover, the programme became irrelevant because of advances in Soviet rocket science and the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Hearty said the reactor was partially dismantled soon after it was shut down. “All of the fuel in the reactor core was removed and shipped back to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) for them to either reprocess or dispose of,” he noted. “The highly activated control and absorber rods were also removed and shipped back to the AEC.”

The SM-1A plant produced 1.8MWe and 20MWt, including steam, which was used to heat the post. Because that part of the system was still needed, Army officials removed most of the nuclear-power system and linked the heat and steam components to a diesel-fired boiler. However, several parts of the nuclear system remained, including the reactor pressure vessel and reactor coolant pumps. “Those were either kept in place, or they were cut off and laid down in the tall vapour-containment building there,” Hearty said. “And then they were grouted and concreted in place.” The Corps of Engineers wants to remove all that remains of the plant, but it is as yet unclear whether that will be feasible.

Meanwhile, monitoring for radioactivity around the facility shows that it remains at acceptable levels. “It would be safe to say there’s no threat to human health in the environment,” said Brenda Barber, project manager for the decommissioning. Work is still in its early stages and is due to be completed in 2026 at the earliest. Barber said the Corps awarded the $4.6m contract in December to a Virginia-based firm to develop a long-range plan for the project, similar in scope to large reactor refurbishment efforts elsewhere. Among other things, this will help officials determine how much of the SM-1A will remain after it’s decommissioned. “There will still be buildings there,” she said. “There will still be components of some of the old structure there that may likely remain.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

BC Hydro Rate Freeze Rejection details the BCUC decision enabling a 3% rate increase, citing revenue requirements, debt, and capital costs, affecting electricity bills, with NDP government proposing lifeline rates and low-income relief.

Key Points

It is the BCUC ruling allowing a 3% BC Hydro rate hike, citing cost recovery, debt, and capital needs.

✅ BCUC rejects freeze; 3% increase proceeds April 1, 2018

✅ Rationale: cost recovery, debt, capital expenditures

✅ Relief: lifeline rate, $600 grants, winter payment plan

The B.C. Utilities Commission has rejected a request by the provincial government to freeze rates at BC Hydro for the coming year, meaning a pending rate increase of three percent will come into effect as higher BC Hydro rates on April 1, 2018.

BC Hydro had asked for the three per cent increase, aligning with a rate increase proposal that would add about $2 a month, but, last year, Energy Minister Michelle Mungall directed the Crown corporation to resubmit its request in order to meet an NDP election promise.

"After years of escalating electricity costs, British Columbians deserve a break on their bills," she said at the time.

However, the utilities commission found there was "insufficient regulatory justification to approve the zero per cent rate increase."

"Even these increases do not fully recover B.C. Hydro's forecast revenue requirement, which includes items such as operating costs, new capital expenditures and carrying costs on capital expenditures," the commission wrote in a news release.

Mungall said she was disappointed by the decision.

"We were always clear we were going to the BCUC. We need to respect the role the BCUC has here for the ratepayers and for the public. I'm very disappointed obviously with their decision."

Mungall blamed the previous government for leaving BC Hydro in a financial state where a rate freeze was ultimately not possible.

Last month, Moody's Investors Service calculated BC Hydro's total debt at $22 billion and said it was one of the province's two credit challenges going forward.

"There's quite a financial mess that is a B.C. Liberal legacy after 16 years of government. We have the responsibility as a new government to clean that up."

B.C. Liberal leader Andrew Wilkinson said it was an example of the new government not living up to its campaign promises.

"British Columbians, particularly those on fixed incomes, believed the B.C. NDP when they promised a freeze on hydro bills. They planned accordingly and are now left in the lurch and face higher expenses. This is a government that stumbles into messes that cost all of us because they put rhetoric ahead of planning," he said.

Help on the way?

With the freeze being rejected, Mungall said the government would be going forward on other initiatives to help low-income ratepayers, as advocates' call for change after a fund surplus, including:

Legislating a "lifeline rate" program, allowing people with "demonstrated need" to apply for a lower rate for electricity.

Starting in May, providing an emergency grant of $600 for customers who have an outstanding BC Hydro bill.

Hydro's annual winter payment plan also allows people the chance to spread the payment of bills from December to February out over six months, and, with a two-year rate increase on the horizon, a new pilot program to help people paying their bills begins in July.

Mungall couldn't say whether the government would apply for rate freezes in the future.

"I don't have a crystal ball, and can't predict what might happen in two or three years from now, but we need to act swiftly now," she said.

"I appreciate the [BCUC's] rationale, I understand it, and we'll be moving forward with other alternatives for making life more affordable."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News