Squirrel causes hourlong outage

Quebec EV transition plan aims for 2 million electric vehicles by 2030 and bans new gas cars by 2035, stressing charging infrastructure, incentives, emissions cuts, and industry impacts, with debate over feasibility and economic risks.

Key Points

A provincial policy targeting 2M EVs by 2030 and a 2035 gas-car sales ban, backed by charging buildout and incentives.

✅ Requires major charging infrastructure and grid upgrades

✅ Balances incentives with economic impacts and industry readiness

✅ Gas stations persist while EV adoption accelerates cautiously

Quebec's ambitious push to dominate the electric vehicle (EV) market, echoing Canada's EV goals in its plan, by setting a target of two million EVs on the road by 2030 and planning to ban the sale of new gas-powered vehicles by 2035 has sparked significant debate among industry experts. While the government's objectives aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote sustainable transportation, some experts question the feasibility and potential economic impacts of such rapid transitions.

Current Landscape of Gas Stations in Quebec

Contrary to Environment Minister Benoit Charette's assertion that gas stations may become scarce within the next decade, industry experts suggest that the number of gas stations in Quebec is unlikely to decline drastically. Carol Montreuil, Vice President of the Canadian Fuels Association, describes the minister's statement as "wishful thinking," emphasizing that the number of gas stations has remained relatively stable over the past decade. Statistics indicate that in 2023, Quebec residents purchased more gasoline than ever before, and EV shortages and wait times further underscore the continued demand for traditional fuel sources.

Challenges in Accelerating EV Adoption

The government's goal of having two million EVs on Quebec roads by 2030 presents several challenges. Currently, there are approximately 200,000 fully electric cars in the province. Achieving a tenfold increase in less than a decade requires substantial investments in charging infrastructure, consumer incentives, and public education to address concerns such as range anxiety and charging accessibility, especially amid electricity shortage warnings across Quebec and other provinces.

Economic Considerations and Industry Concerns

Industry stakeholders express concerns about the economic implications of rapidly phasing out gas-powered vehicles. Montreuil warns that the industry is already struggling and that attempting to transition too quickly could lead to economic challenges, a view echoed by critics who label the 2035 EV mandate delusional. He suggests that the government may be spending excessive public funds on subsidies for technologies that are still expensive and not yet widely adopted.

Public Sentiment and Adoption Rates

Public sentiment towards EVs is mixed, and experiences in Manitoba suggest the road to targets is not smooth. While some consumers, like Montreal resident Alex Rajabi, have made the switch to electric vehicles and are satisfied with their decision, others remain hesitant due to concerns about vehicle cost, charging infrastructure, and the availability of incentives. Rajabi, who transitioned to an EV nine months ago, notes that while he did not take advantage of the incentive program, he is happy with his decision and suggests that adding charging ports at gas stations could facilitate the transition.

The Need for a Balanced Approach

Experts advocate for a balanced approach that considers the pace of technological advancements, consumer readiness, and economic impacts. While the transition to electric vehicles is essential for environmental sustainability, it is crucial to ensure that the infrastructure, market conditions, and public acceptance are adequately addressed, and to recognize that a share of Canada's electricity still comes from fossil fuels, to make the shift both feasible and beneficial for all stakeholders.

In summary, Quebec's ambitious EV targets reflect a strong commitment to environmental sustainability. However, industry experts caution that achieving these goals requires careful planning, substantial investment, and a realistic assessment of the challenges involved as federal EV sales regulations take shape, in transitioning from traditional vehicles to electric mobility.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

EV Flood Fire Risks highlight climate change impacts, lithium-ion battery hazards, water damage, post-submersion inspection, first responder precautions, manufacturer safeguards, and insurance considerations for extreme weather, flood-prone areas, and hurricane aftermaths.

Key Points

Water-exposed EV lithium-ion batteries may ignite later, requiring inspection, isolation, and trained responders.

✅ Avoid driving through floodwaters; park on high ground.

✅ After submersion, isolate vehicle; seek qualified inspection.

✅ Inform first responders and insurers about EV water damage.

As climate change intensifies the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, concerns about electric vehicle (EV) safety in flood-prone areas have come to the forefront. Recent warnings from officials regarding the risks of electric vehicles catching fire due to flooding from Hurricane Idalia underscore the need for heightened awareness and preparedness among consumers and emergency responders, as well as attention to grid reliability during disasters.

The alarming incidents of EVs igniting after being submerged in floodwaters have raised critical questions about the safety of these vehicles during severe weather conditions. While electric vehicles are often touted for their environmental benefits and lower emissions, it is crucial to understand the potential risks associated with their battery systems when exposed to water, even as many drivers weigh whether to buy an electric car for daily use.

The Risks of Submerging Electric Vehicles

Electric vehicles primarily rely on lithium-ion batteries, which can be sensitive to water exposure. When these batteries are submerged, they risk short-circuiting, which may lead to fires. Unlike traditional gasoline vehicles, where fuel may leak out, the sealed nature of an EV’s battery can create hazardous situations when compromised. Experts warn that even after water exposure, the risk of fire can persist, sometimes occurring days or weeks later.

Officials emphasize the importance of vigilance in flood-prone areas, including planning for contingencies like mobile charging and energy storage that support recovery. If an electric vehicle has been submerged, it is crucial to have it inspected by a qualified technician before attempting to drive it again. Ignoring this can lead to catastrophic consequences not only for the vehicle owner but also for surrounding individuals and properties.

Official Warnings and Recommendations

In light of these dangers, safety officials have issued guidelines for electric vehicle owners in flood-prone areas. Key recommendations include:

1. Avoid Driving in Flooded Areas: The most straightforward advice is to refrain from driving through flooded streets, which can not only damage the vehicle but also pose risks to personal safety.

2. Inspection After Flooding: If an EV has been submerged, owners should seek immediate professional inspection. Technicians can evaluate the battery and electrical systems for damage and determine if the vehicle is safe to operate.

3. Inform Emergency Responders: In flood situations, informing emergency personnel about the presence of electric vehicles can help them mitigate risks during rescue operations, including firefighter health risks that may arise. First responders are trained to handle conventional vehicles but may need additional precautions when dealing with EVs.

Industry Response and Innovations

In response to rising concerns, electric vehicle manufacturers are working to enhance the safety features of their vehicles. This includes developing waterproof battery enclosures and improving drainage systems to prevent water intrusion, as well as exploring vehicle-to-home power for resilience during outages. Some manufacturers are also investing in research to improve battery chemistry, making them more resilient in extreme conditions.

The automotive industry recognizes that consumer education is equally important, particularly around utility impacts from mass-market EVs that affect planning. Manufacturers and safety organizations are encouraged to disseminate information about proper EV maintenance, the importance of inspections after flooding, and safety protocols for both owners and first responders.

The Role of Insurance Companies

As the risks associated with electric vehicle flooding become more apparent, insurance companies are also reassessing their policies. With increasing incidences of extreme weather, insurers are likely to adapt coverage options related to water damage and fire risks specific to electric vehicles. Policyholders should consult with their insurance providers to ensure they understand their coverage in the event of flooding.

Preparing for the Future

With the increasing adoption of electric vehicles, it is vital to prepare for the challenges posed by climate change and evolving state power grids capacity. Community awareness campaigns can play a significant role in educating residents about the risks and safety measures associated with electric vehicles during flooding events. By fostering a well-informed public, the likelihood of accidents and emergencies can be reduced.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ontario Global Adjustment Charge faces constitutional scrutiny as a regulatory charge vs tax; Court of Appeal revives case over electricity pricing, feed-in tariff contracts, IESO policy, and hydro rate impacts on consumers and industry.

Key Points

A provincial electricity fee funding generator contracts, now central to a court fight over tax versus regulatory charge.

✅ Funds gap between market price and contracted generator rates

✅ At issue: regulatory charge vs tax under constitutional law

✅ Linked to feed-in tariff, IESO policy, and hydro rate hikes

Ontario’s court of appeal has decided that a constitutional challenge of a steep provincial electricity charge should get its day in court, overturning a lower-court judgment that had dismissed the legal bid.

Hamilton, Ont.-based National Steel Car Ltd. launched the challenge in 2017, saying Ontario’s so-called global adjustment charge was unconstitutional because it is a tax — not a valid regulatory charge — that was not passed by the legislature.

The global adjustment funds the difference between the province’s hourly electricity price and the price guaranteed under contracts to power generators. It is “the component that covers the cost of building new electricity infrastructure in the province, maintaining existing resources, as well as providing conservation and demand management programs,” the province’s Independent Electricity System Operator says.

However, the global adjustment now makes up most of the commodity portion of a household electricity bill, and its costs have ballooned, as regulators elsewhere consider a proposed 14% rate hike in Nova Scotia.

Ontario’s auditor general said in 2015 that global adjustment fees had increased from $650 million in 2006 to more than $7 billion in 2014. She added that consumers would pay $133 billion in global adjustment fees from 2015 to 2032, after having already paid $37 billion from 2006 to 2014.

National Steel Car, which manufactures steel rail cars and faces high electricity rates that hurt Ontario factories, said its global adjustment costs went from $207,260 in 2008 to almost $3.4 million in 2016, according to an Ontario Court of Appeal decision released on Wednesday.

The company claimed the global adjustment was a tax because one of its components funds electricity procurement contracts under a “feed-in tariff” program, or FIT, which National Steel Car called “the main culprit behind the dramatic price increases for electricity,” the decision said.

Ontario’s auditor general said the FIT program “paid excessive prices to renewable energy generators.” The program has been ended, but contracts awarded under it remain in place.

National Steel Car claimed the FIT program “was actually designed to accomplish social goals unrelated to the generation of electricity,” such as helping rural and indigenous communities, and was therefore a tax trying to help with policy goals.

“The appellant submits that the Policy Goals can be achieved by Ontario in several ways, just not through the electricity pricing formula,” the decision said.

National Steel Car also argued the global adjustment violated a provincial law that requires the government to hold a referendum for new taxes.

“The appellant’s principal claim is that the Global Adjustment was a ‘colourable attempt to disguise a tax as a regulatory charge with the purpose of funding the costs of the Policy Goals,’” the decision said. “The appellant pressed this argument before the motion judge and before this court. The motion judge did not directly or adequately address it.”

The Ontario government applied to have the challenge thrown out for having “no reasonable cause of action,” and a Superior Court judge did so in 2018, saying the global adjustment is not a tax.

National Steel Car appealed the decision, and the decision published Wednesday allowed the appeal, set aside the lower-court judgment, and will send the case back to Superior Court, where it could get a full hearing.

“The appellant’s claim is sufficiently plausible on the evidentiary record it put forward that the applications should not have been dismissed on a pleadings motion before the development of a full record,” wrote Justice Peter D. Lauwers. “It is not plain, obvious and beyond doubt that the Global Adjustment, and particularly the challenged component, is properly characterized as a valid regulatory charge and not as an impermissible tax.”

Jerome Morse of Morse Shannon LLP, one of National Steel Car’s lawyers, said the Ontario government would now have 60 days to decide whether to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

“What the court has basically said is, ‘this is a plausible argument, here are the reasons why it’s plausible, there was no answer to this,’” Morse told the Financial Post.

Ontario and the IESO had supported the lower-court decision, but there has been a change in government since the challenge was first launched, with Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Ford replacing the Liberals and Kathleen Wynne in power. The Liberals had launched a plan aimed at addressing hydro costs before losing in a 2018 election, the main thrust of which had been to refinance global adjustment costs.

Wednesday’s decision states that “Ontario’s counsel advised the court that the current Ontario government ‘does not agree with the former government’s electricity procurement policy (since-repealed).’

“The government’s view is that: ‘The solution does not lie with the courts, but instead in the political arena with political actors,’” it adds.

A spokesperson for Ontario Energy Minister Greg Rickford said in an email that they are reviewing the decision but “as this matter is in the appeal period, it would be inappropriate to comment.” 

Ontario had also requested to stay the matter so a regulator, the Ontario Energy Board, could weigh in, while the Nova Scotia regulator approved a 14% hike in a separate case.

“However, Ontario only sought this relief from the motion judge in the alternative, and given the motion judge’s ultimate decision, she did not rule on the stay,” Thursday’s decision said. “It would be premature for this court to rule on the issue, although it seems incongruous for Ontario to argue that the Superior Court is the convenient forum in which to seek to dismiss the applications as meritless, but that it is not the convenient forum for assessing the merits of the applications.”

National Steel Car’s challenge bears a resemblance to the constitutional challenges launched by Ontario and other provinces over the federal government’s carbon tax, but Justice Lauwers wrote “that the federal legislative scheme under consideration in those cases is distinctly different from the legislation at issue in this appeal.”

“Nothing in those decisions impacts this appeal,” the judge added.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BPA Privatization would sell the Bonneville Power Administration's transmission lines, raising FERC-regulated grid rates for ratepayers, impacting hydropower and the California-Oregon Intertie under the Trump 2018 budget proposal in the Pacific Northwest region.

Key Points

Selling Bonneville's transmission grid to private owners, raising rates and returns, shifting costs to ratepayers.

✅ Trump 2018 budget targets BPA transmission assets for sale.

✅ Higher capital costs, taxes, and profit would raise transmission rates.

✅ California-Oregon Intertie and hydropower flows face price impacts.

President Trump's 2018 budget proposal is so chock-full of noxious elements — replacing food stamps with "food boxes," drastically cutting Medicaid and Medicare, for a start — that it's unsurprising that one of its most misguided pieces has slipped under the radar.

That's the proposal to privatize the government-owned Bonneville Power Administration, which owns about three-quarters of the high-voltage electric transmission lines in a region that includes California, Washington state and Oregon, serving more than 13.5 million customers. By one authoritative estimate, any such sale would drive up the cost of transmission by 26%-44%.

The $5.2-billon price cited by the Trump administration, moreover, is nearly 20% below the actual value of the Bonneville grid — meaning that a private buyer would pocket an immediate windfall of $1.2 billion, at the expense of federal taxpayers and Bonneville customers.

Trump's plan for Portland, Ore.-based Bonneville is part of a larger proposal to sell off other government-owned electricity bodies, including the Colorado-based Western Area Power Administration and the Oklahoma-based Southwestern Power Administration. But Bonneville is by far the largest of the three, accounting for nearly 90% of the total $5.8 billion the budget anticipates collecting from the sales. The proposal is also part of the administration's

Both plans are said to be politically dead-on-arrival in Washington. But they offer a window into the thinking in the Trump White House.

"The word 'muddle' comes to mind," says Robert McCullough, a respected Portland energy consultant, referring to the justification for the privatization sale included in the Trump budget.

The White House suggests that selling the Bonneville grid would result in lower costs. But that narrative, McCullough wrote in a blistering assessment of the proposal, "displays a severe lack of understanding about the process of setting transmission rates."

McCullough's assessment is an update of a similar analysis he performed when the privatization scheme was first raised by the Trump administration last year. In that analysis issued in June, McCullough said the proposal "raises the question of why these valuable assets would be sold at a discount — and who would get the benefit of the discounted price."

The implications of a sale could be dire for Californians. Bonneville is the majority owner of the California-Oregon Intertie, an electrical transmission system that carries power, including Columbia River-generated hydropower and other clean-energy generation in British Columbia that supports the regional exchange, south to California in the summer and excess California generation to the Pacific Northwest in the winter.

But the idea has drawn fire throughout the region. When it was first broached last year, the Public Power Council, an association of utilities in the Northwest, assailed it as an apparent "transfer of value from the people of the Northwest to the U.S. Treasury," drawing parallels to Manitoba Hydro governance issues elsewhere.

The region's political leaders had especially harsh words for the idea this time around. "Oregonians raised hell last year when Trump tried to raise power bills for Pacific Northwesterners by selling off Bonneville Power, and yet his administration is back at it again," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said after the idea reappeared. "Our investment shouldn't be put up for sale to free up money for runaway military spending or tax cuts for billionaires." Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) promised in a statement to work to "stop this bad idea in its tracks."

The notion of privatizing Bonneville predates the Trump administration; it was raised by Bill Clinton and again by George W. Bush, who thought the public would gain if the administration could sell its power at market rates. Both initiatives failed.

The same free-enterprise ideology underlies the Trump proposal. Privatizing the transmission lines "encourages a more efficient allocation of economic resources and mitigates unnecessary risk to taxpayers," the budget asserts. "Ownership of transmission assets is best carried out by the private sector where there are appropriate market and regulatory incentives."

But that's based on a misunderstanding of how transmission rates are set, McCullough says. Transmission is essentially a monopoly enterprise, with rates overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission based on the grid's costs, and with federal scrutiny of public utilities such as the TVA underscoring that oversight. There's very little in the way of market "incentives" involved in transmission, since no one has come forward to build a competing grid.

Those include the owners' cost of capital — which would be much higher for a private owner than a government agency, McCullough observes, as Hydro One investor uncertainty demonstrates in practice. A private owner, unlike the government-owned Bonneville, also would owe federal income taxes, which would be passed on to consumers.

Then there's the profit motive. Bonneville "currently sells and delivers its power at cost," McCullough wrote last year. "Under a private regime, an investor-owned utility would likely charge a higher rate of return, a pattern seen when UK network profits drew regulatory rebukes."

None of these considerations appears to have been factored into the White House budget proposal. "Either there's an unsophisticated person at the Office of Management and Budget thinking up these numbers himself," McCullough told me, "or there would seem to be ongoing negotiations with an unidentified third party." No such buyer has emerged in the past, however.

What's left is a blind faith in the magic of the market, compounded by ignorance about how the transmission market operates. Put it together, and there's reason to wonder if Trump is even serious about this plan.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

New York faces soaring energy bills as utilities seek record rate hikes, aging grid infrastructure demands upgrades, and federal renewable policies shift. Consumers struggle with affordability, late payments, and rising costs of delivery and energy supply across the state.

Why is New York Facing Soaring Energy Bills?

New York faces soaring energy bills because utilities are raising rates to cover the costs of grid upgrades, inflation, and policy-driven changes in energy supply.

✅ Utilities seek double-digit rate hikes across the state

✅ Aging infrastructure and storm repairs increase delivery costs

✅ Federal policies and gas dependence push energy prices higher

New Yorkers are bracing for another wave of energy bill increases as utilities seek record-high rate hikes and policy changes ripple through the state’s power system. Electric bills in New York are the highest they’ve been in over a decade, and more than a million households are now at least two months behind on payments, a sign of pandemic energy insecurity that continues to strain budgets, owing utilities nearly $2 billion.

Record numbers of households have had their electricity or gas shut off this year — more than 61,000 in May alone — despite pandemic shut-off suspensions that had offered temporary relief, the highest the Public Utility Law Project (PULP) has ever recorded. “This August was the group’s busiest month ever,” said Laurie Wheelock, PULP’s executive director, citing a surge in calls to its hotline. “The top concern on people’s minds: rate hikes.”

Utilities across the state are pushing for significant price increases, citing aging infrastructure, the need for climate adaptation, and higher operating costs, as California regulators face calls for action amid rising bills. “We used to see single-digit rate hikes and now we see double-digit rate hikes,” said Jessica Azulay, executive director of the Alliance for a Green Economy. “That’s a new normal that is unacceptable.”

Several utilities have requested delivery rate increases of 25 percent or more, with some proposals as high as 39 percent. Upstate utilities NYSEG and RG&E are seeking to raise electric and gas bills by about $33 a month, although regulators are unlikely to approve the full amount.

The companies argue the hikes are needed “to pay for rebuilding an aging grid and expanding its capacity to meet residents’ and businesses’ service demands,” including storm repairs. They also claim the plan would create more than 1,000 jobs.

James Denn, a spokesperson for the Public Service Commission (PSC), said much of the cost pressure stems from “inflation, higher interest rates, supply chain disruptions, the global push to upgrade electrical infrastructure, and, most recently, the rising risk and uncertainty from tariffs,” trends reflected in U.S. electricity price data over the past two years.

While some have blamed New York’s clean-energy transition, a PSC report found that state climate policies account for only 5 to 9.5 percent of the average household’s electric bill, or approximately $10 to $12 per month. The bulk of the increases still come from traditional spending on infrastructure, storm resilience, and system expansion.

On the supply side, costs are rising too. President Donald Trump’s recent policies have threatened renewable-energy investment nationwide, even as states’ renewable ambitions carry significant costs, potentially adding to New York’s woes. His July “megabill” phases out a 30 percent federal tax credit for solar and wind unless projects begin construction by mid-2026. Industry experts warn that the changes could make renewables “more expensive to build” and “increase reliance on gas.”

“It just means more expensive power,” said Marguerite Wells of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York.

The state estimates Trump’s policy shifts could cost New York $60 billion in lost renewable investment. With fewer clean-energy projects moving forward, gas — which already supplies roughly half of the state’s electricity — will remain the dominant source, tying energy prices to volatile global markets and the kinds of price drivers seen in California in recent years.

Governor Kathy Hochul has called affordability “our greatest short-term challenge,” while consumer advocates are demanding reforms to reduce utility profits and overhaul “rate design,” and to strengthen protections such as the emergency disconnection moratorium that applies during declared emergencies.

“There is definitely a groundswell of concern,” Wheelock said. “We go to meetings and we’re getting questions about rate design, like, ‘What is the revenue decoupling mechanism?’ Never had that question before.”

Related Articles

• USA Electricity News

UK Nuclear Energy Ten Point Plan outlines support for large reactors, SMRs, and AMRs, funding Sizewell C, hydrogen production, and industrial heat to reach net zero, decarbonize transport and heating, and expand clean electricity capacity.

Key Points

A UK plan backing large, small, and advanced reactors to drive net zero via clean power, hydrogen, and industrial heat.

✅ Funds large plants (e.g., Sizewell C) under value-for-money models

✅ Invests in SMRs for factory-built, modular, lower-cost deployment

✅ Backs AMRs for high-temperature heat, hydrogen, and industry

The UK government has just announced its “Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution”, in which it lays out a vision for the future of energy, transport and nature in the UK. As researchers into nuclear energy, my colleagues and I were pleased to see the plan is rather favourable to new nuclear power.

It follows the advice from the UK’s Nuclear Innovation and Research Advisory Board, pledging to pursue large power plants based on current technology, and following that up with financial support for two further waves of reactor technology (“small” and “advanced” modular reactors).

This support is an important part of the plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, as in the years to come nuclear power will be crucial to decarbonising not just the electricity supply but the whole of society.

This chart helps illustrate the extent of the challenge faced:

Electricity generation is only responsible for a small percentage of UK emissions. William Bodel. Data: UK Climate Change Committee

Efforts to reduce emissions have so far only partially decarbonised the electricity generation sector. Reaching net zero will require immense effort to also decarbonise heating, transport, as well as shipping and aviation. The plan proposes investment in hydrogen production and electric vehicles to address these three areas – which will require, as advocates of nuclear beyond electricity argue, a lot more energy generation.

Nuclear is well-placed to provide a proportion of this energy. Reaching net zero will be a huge challenge, and industry leaders warn it may be unachievable without nuclear energy. So here’s what the announcement means for the three “waves” of nuclear power.

Who will pay for it?
But first a word on financing. To understand the strategy, it is important to realise that the reason there has been so little new activity in the UK’s nuclear sector since the 1990s is due to difficulty in financing. Nuclear plants are cheap to fuel and operate and last for a long time. In theory, this offsets the enormous upfront capital cost, and results in competitively priced electricity overall.

But ever since the electricity sector was privatised, governments have been averse to spending public money on power plants. This, combined with resulting higher borrowing costs and cheaper alternatives (gas power), has meant that in practice nuclear has been sidelined for two decades. While climate change offers an opportunity for a revival, these financial concerns remain.

Large nuclear
Hinkley Point C is a large nuclear station currently under construction in Somerset, England. The project is well-advanced, with its first reactor installed and due to come online in the middle of this decade. While the plant will provide around 7% of current UK electricity demand, its agreed electricity price is relatively expensive.

Under construction: Hinkley Point C. Ben Birchall/PA

The government’s new plan states: “We are pursuing large-scale new nuclear projects, subject to value-for-money.” This is likely a reference to the proposed Sizewell C in Suffolk, on which a final decision is expected soon. Sizewell C would be a copy of the Hinkley plant – building follow-up identical reactors achieves capital cost reductions, and setbacks at Hinkley Point C have sharpened delivery focus as an alternative funding model will likely be implemented to reduce financing costs.

Other potential nuclear sites such as Wylfa and Moorside (shelved in 2018 and 2019 respectively for financial reasons) are also not mentioned, their futures presumably also covered by the “subject to value-for-money” clause.

Small nuclear
The next generation of nuclear technology, with various designs under development worldwide are smaller, cheaper, safer Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), such as the Rolls Royce “UK SMR”.

Reactors small enough to be manufactured in factories and delivered as modules can be assembled on site in much shorter times than larger designs, which in contrast are constructed mostly on site. In so doing, the capital costs per unit (and therefore borrowing costs) could be significantly lower than current new-builds.

The plan states “up to £215 million” will be made available for SMRs, Phase 2 of which will begin next year, with anticipated delivery of units around a decade from now.

Advanced nuclear
The third proposed wave of nuclear will be the Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs). These are truly innovative technologies, with a wide range of benefits over present designs and, like the small reactors, they are modular to keep prices down.

Crucially, advanced reactors operate at much higher temperatures – some promise in excess of 750°C compared to around 300°C in current reactors. This is important as that heat can be used in industrial processes which require high temperatures, such as ceramics, which they currently get through electrical heating or by directly burning fossil fuels. If those ceramics factories could instead use heat from AMRs placed nearby, it would reduce CO₂ emissions from industry (see chart above).

High temperatures can also be used to generate hydrogen, which the government’s plan recognises has the potential to replace natural gas in heating and eventually also in pioneering zero-emission vehicles, ships and aircraft. Most hydrogen is produced from natural gas, with the downside of generating CO₂ in the process. A carbon-free alternative involves splitting water using electricity (electrolysis), though this is rather inefficient. More efficient methods which require high temperatures are yet to achieve commercialisation, however if realised, this would make high temperature nuclear particularly useful.

The government is committing “up to £170 million” for AMR research, and specifies a target for a demonstrator plant by the early 2030s. The most promising candidate is likely a High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor which is possible, if ambitious, over this timescale. The Chinese currently lead the way with this technology, and their version of this reactor concept is expected soon.

In summary, the plan is welcome news for the nuclear sector, even as Europe loses nuclear capacity across the continent. While it lacks some specifics, these may be detailed in the government’s upcoming Energy White Paper. The advice to government has been acknowledged, and the sums of money mentioned throughout are significant enough to really get started on the necessary research and development.

Achieving net zero is a vast undertaking, and recognising that nuclear can make a substantial contribution if properly supported is an important step towards hitting that target.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News