With national attention focused on President Obama's troubled health care reform efforts, we can't afford to take our eyes off his other flawed and costly priority — "cap and trade" global-warming legislation.
Expanding the size of government is one of the many problems with the House-approved version of cap-and-trade. Mr. Obama and House Democrats plan to spend more tax dollars than they are acknowledging to increase the number of federal regulators to implement a job-killing, growth-limiting bill that raises energy costs for every American.
As reported earlier in the Washington Times, the plan to establish a massive market for carbon-dioxide trading credits will put stress on regulatory agencies like the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency. The regulatory expansion — part of an effort to force some companies to pay for the right to emit CO2 gas — will mean thousands of new federal employees imposing nearly 1,500 new regulations on businesses through 21 federal agencies. This will cost $8 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, which is notorious for underestimating bureaucratic drag on the economy.
Although funding for the new bureaucrats is not in the House bill, Mr. Obama has claimed the measure will not drain federal coffers and put additional pressure on the massive federal deficit. "At a time of great fiscal challenges, this legislation is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air we breathe," he said in June.
Funding for the bureaucratic buildup will have to come from somewhere. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission alone is expected to expand by at least 31 percent to meet new regulatory demands, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is predicted to grow by 20 percent to 30 percent. None of that is currently funded. The level of the EPA's expansion is uncertain but sure to be immense given that the 6 billion tons in annual carbon-dioxide emissions in the United States dwarfs the 300 million tons of regulated pollutants the agency currently oversees.
Mr. Obama repeatedly has claimed that spending on clean energy will save or create "millions of new jobs." Other than new armies of regulators, we don't buy it. Data from a recent Energy Department study on the impact of the House bill shows that the overall job picture will worsen in the first few years after implementation. After a brief supposed uptick in 2024, employment will decline steadily to 0.25 percent fewer jobs in 2030, with the manufacturing sector suffering a 2.5 percent lag. No doubt, these federal predictions underestimate the real damage the regulations would have on the economy.
With the Senate expected to return to drafting its version of the bill in September, it's important to recognize the fiscal danger and job losses that accompany cap-and-trade legislation. Cap-and-trade should be opposed with the same furor we've seen against the Democrats' proposed health care plans.
ITER Nuclear Fusion advances tokamak magnetic confinement, heating deuterium-tritium plasma with superconducting magnets, targeting net energy gain, tritium breeding, and steam-turbine power, while complementing laser inertial confinement milestones for grid-scale electricity and 2025 startup goals.
Key Points
ITER Nuclear Fusion is a tokamak project confining D-T plasma with magnets to achieve net energy gain and clean power.
✅ Tokamak magnetic confinement with high-temp superconducting coils
✅ Deuterium-tritium fuel cycle with on-site tritium breeding
✅ Targets net energy gain and grid-scale, low-carbon electricity
It sounds like the stuff of dreams: a virtually limitless source of energy that doesn’t produce greenhouse gases or radioactive waste. That’s the promise of nuclear fusion, often described as the holy grail of clean energy by proponents, which for decades has been nothing more than a fantasy due to insurmountable technical challenges. But things are heating up in what has turned into a race to create what amounts to an artificial sun here on Earth, one that can provide power for our kettles, cars and light bulbs.
Today’s nuclear power plants create electricity through nuclear fission, in which atoms are split, with next-gen nuclear power exploring smaller, cheaper, safer designs that remain distinct from fusion. Nuclear fusion however, involves combining atomic nuclei to release energy. It’s the same reaction that’s taking place at the Sun’s core. But overcoming the natural repulsion between atomic nuclei and maintaining the right conditions for fusion to occur isn’t straightforward. And doing so in a way that produces more energy than the reaction consumes has been beyond the grasp of the finest minds in physics for decades.
But perhaps not for much longer. Some major technical challenges have been overcome in the past few years and governments around the world have been pouring money into fusion power research as part of a broader green industrial revolution under way in several regions. There are also over 20 private ventures in the UK, US, Europe, China and Australia vying to be the first to make fusion energy production a reality.
“People are saying, ‘If it really is the ultimate solution, let’s find out whether it works or not,’” says Dr Tim Luce, head of science and operation at the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), being built in southeast France. ITER is the biggest throw of the fusion dice yet.
Its $22bn (£15.9bn) build cost is being met by the governments of two-thirds of the world’s population, including the EU, the US, China and Russia, at a time when Europe is losing nuclear power and needs energy, and when it’s fired up in 2025 it’ll be the world’s largest fusion reactor. If it works, ITER will transform fusion power from being the stuff of dreams into a viable energy source.
Constructing a nuclear fusion reactor ITER will be a tokamak reactor – thought to be the best hope for fusion power. Inside a tokamak, a gas, often a hydrogen isotope called deuterium, is subjected to intense heat and pressure, forcing electrons out of the atoms. This creates a plasma – a superheated, ionised gas – that has to be contained by intense magnetic fields.
The containment is vital, as no material on Earth could withstand the intense heat (100,000,000°C and above) that the plasma has to reach so that fusion can begin. It’s close to 10 times the heat at the Sun’s core, and temperatures like that are needed in a tokamak because the gravitational pressure within the Sun can’t be recreated.
When atomic nuclei do start to fuse, vast amounts of energy are released. While the experimental reactors currently in operation release that energy as heat, in a fusion reactor power plant, the heat would be used to produce steam that would drive turbines to generate electricity, even as some envision nuclear beyond electricity for industrial heat and fuels.
Tokamaks aren’t the only fusion reactors being tried. Another type of reactor uses lasers to heat and compress a hydrogen fuel to initiate fusion. In August 2021, one such device at the National Ignition Facility, at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, generated 1.35 megajoules of energy. This record-breaking figure brings fusion power a step closer to net energy gain, but most hopes are still pinned on tokamak reactors rather than lasers.
In June 2021, China’s Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) reactor maintained a plasma for 101 seconds at 120,000,000°C. Before that, the record was 20 seconds. Ultimately, a fusion reactor would need to sustain the plasma indefinitely – or at least for eight-hour ‘pulses’ during periods of peak electricity demand.
A real game-changer for tokamaks has been the magnets used to produce the magnetic field. “We know how to make magnets that generate a very high magnetic field from copper or other kinds of metal, but you would pay a fortune for the electricity. It wouldn’t be a net energy gain from the plant,” says Luce.
One route for nuclear fusion is to use atoms of deuterium and tritium, both isotopes of hydrogen. They fuse under incredible heat and pressure, and the resulting products release energy as heat
The solution is to use high-temperature, superconducting magnets made from superconducting wire, or ‘tape’, that has no electrical resistance. These magnets can create intense magnetic fields and don’t lose energy as heat.
“High temperature superconductivity has been known about for 35 years. But the manufacturing capability to make tape in the lengths that would be required to make a reasonable fusion coil has just recently been developed,” says Luce. One of ITER’s magnets, the central solenoid, will produce a field of 13 tesla – 280,000 times Earth’s magnetic field.
The inner walls of ITER’s vacuum vessel, where the fusion will occur, will be lined with beryllium, a metal that won’t contaminate the plasma much if they touch. At the bottom is the divertor that will keep the temperature inside the reactor under control.
“The heat load on the divertor can be as large as in a rocket nozzle,” says Luce. “Rocket nozzles work because you can get into orbit within minutes and in space it’s really cold.” In a fusion reactor, a divertor would need to withstand this heat indefinitely and at ITER they’ll be testing one made out of tungsten.
Meanwhile, in the US, the National Spherical Torus Experiment – Upgrade (NSTX-U) fusion reactor will be fired up in the autumn of 2022, while efforts in advanced fission such as a mini-reactor design are also progressing. One of its priorities will be to see whether lining the reactor with lithium helps to keep the plasma stable.
Choosing a fuel Instead of just using deuterium as the fusion fuel, ITER will use deuterium mixed with tritium, another hydrogen isotope. The deuterium-tritium blend offers the best chance of getting significantly more power out than is put in. Proponents of fusion power say one reason the technology is safe is that the fuel needs to be constantly fed into the reactor to keep fusion happening, making a runaway reaction impossible.
Deuterium can be extracted from seawater, so there’s a virtually limitless supply of it. But only 20kg of tritium are thought to exist worldwide, so fusion power plants will have to produce it (ITER will develop technology to ‘breed’ tritium). While some radioactive waste will be produced in a fusion plant, it’ll have a lifetime of around 100 years, rather than the thousands of years from fission.
At the time of writing in September, researchers at the Joint European Torus (JET) fusion reactor in Oxfordshire were due to start their deuterium-tritium fusion reactions. “JET will help ITER prepare a choice of machine parameters to optimise the fusion power,” says Dr Joelle Mailloux, one of the scientific programme leaders at JET. These parameters will include finding the best combination of deuterium and tritium, and establishing how the current is increased in the magnets before fusion starts.
The groundwork laid down at JET should accelerate ITER’s efforts to accomplish net energy gain. ITER will produce ‘first plasma’ in December 2025 and be cranked up to full power over the following decade. Its plasma temperature will reach 150,000,000°C and its target is to produce 500 megawatts of fusion power for every 50 megawatts of input heating power.
“If ITER is successful, it’ll eliminate most, if not all, doubts about the science and liberate money for technology development,” says Luce. That technology development will be demonstration fusion power plants that actually produce electricity, where advanced reactors can build on decades of expertise. “ITER is opening the door and saying, yeah, this works – the science is there.”
Germany renewable energy milestone 2019 saw wind, solar, hydropower, and biomass outproduce coal and nuclear, as low gas prices and high CO2 costs under the EU ETS reshaped the electricity mix, per Fraunhofer ISE.
Key Points
It marks H1 2019 when renewables supplied 47.3% of Germany's electricity, surpassing coal and nuclear.
✅ Driven by high CO2 prices and cheap natural gas
✅ Wind and solar output rose; coal generation declined sharply
✅ Flexible gas plants outcompeted inflexible coal units
In Lippendorf, Saxony, the energy supplier EnBW is temporarily taking part of a coal-fired power plant offline. Not because someone ordered it — it simply wasn't paying off. Gas prices are low, CO2 prices are high, and with many hours of sunshine and wind, renewable methods are producing a great deal of electricity as part of Germany's energy transition now reshaping operations. And in the first half of the year there was plenty of sun and wind.
The result was a six-month period in which renewable energy sources, a trend echoed by the EU wind and solar record across the bloc, produced more electricity than coal and nuclear power plants together. For the first time 47.3% of the electricity consumers used came from renewable sources, while 43.4% came from coal-fired and nuclear power plants.
In addition to solar and wind power, renewable sources also include hydropower and biomass. Gas supplied 9.3%, reflecting how renewables are crowding out gas across European power markets, while the remaining 0.4% came from other sources, such as oil, according to figures published by the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems in July.
Fabian Hein from the think tank Agora Energiewende stresses that the situation is only a snapshot in time, with grid expansion woes still shaping outcomes. For example, the first half of 2019 was particularly windy and wind power production rose by around 20% compared to the first half of 2018.
Electricity production from solar panels rose by 6%, natural gas by 10%, while the share of nuclear power in German electricity consumption has remained virtually unchanged despite a nuclear option debate in climate policy.
Coal, on the other hand, declined. Black coal energy production fell by 30% compared to the first half of 2018, lignite fell by 20%. Some coal-fired power plants were even taken off the grid, even as coal still provides about a third of Germany's electricity. It is difficult to say whether this was an effect of the current market situation or whether this is simply part of long-term planning, says Hein.
Activists storm German mine in anti-coal protest
It is clear, however, that an increased CO2 price has made the ongoing generation of electricity from coal more expensive. Gas-fired power plants also emit CO2, but less than coal-fired power plants. They are also more efficient and that's why gas-fired power plants are not so strongly affected by the CO2 price
The price is determined at a European level and covers power plants and energy intensive industries in Europe. Other areas, such as heating or transport are not covered by the CO2 price scheme. Since a reform of CO2 emissions trading in 2017, the price has risen sharply. Whereas in September 2016 it was just over €5 ($5.6), by the end of June 2019 it had climbed to over €26.
Ups and downs
Gas as a raw material is generally more expensive than coal. But coal-fired power plants are more expensive to build. This is why operators want to run them continuously. In times of high demand, and therefore high prices, gas-fired power plants are generally started up, as seen when European power demand hit records during recent heatwaves, since it is worth it at these times.
Gas-fired power plants can be flexibly ramped up and down. Coal-fired power plants take 11 hours or longer to get going. That's why they can't be switched on quickly for short periods when prices are high, like gas-fired power plants. In the first half of the year, however, coal-fired power plants were also ramped up and down more often because it was not always worthwhile to let the power plant run around the clock.
Because gas prices were particularly low in the first half of 2019, some gas-fired power plants were more profitable than coal-fired plants. On June 29, 2019, the gas price at the Dutch trading point TTF was around €10 per megawatt hour. A year earlier, it had been almost €20. This is partly due to the relatively mild winter, as there is still a lot of gas in reserve, confirmed a spokesman for the Federal Association of the Energy and Water Industries (BDEW). There are also several new export terminals for liquefied natural gas. Additionally, weaker growth and trade wars are slowing demand for gas. A lot of gas comes to Europe, where prices are still comparatively high, reported the Handelsblatt newspaper.
The increase in wind and solar power and the decline in nuclear power have also reduced CO2 emissions. In the first half of 2019, electricity generation emitted around 15% less CO2 than in the same period last year, reported BDEW. However, the association demands that the further expansion of renewable energies should not be hampered. The target of 65% renewable energy can only be achieved if the further expansion of renewable energy sources is accelerated.
Australia Clean Energy Target drives renewables in the National Electricity Market, with RepuTex modelling and the Finkel Review showing lower wholesale prices and emissions as gas generators set prices less often under ambitious targets.
Key Points
Policy boosting low emissions generation to cut electricity emissions and lower wholesale prices across Australia.
✅ Ambitious targets lower wholesale prices through added generation
✅ RepuTex modelling shows renewables displace costly gas peakers
✅ Finkel Review suggests CET cuts emissions and boosts reliability
The more ambitious a clean energy target is, the lower Australian wholesale electricity prices will be, according to new modelling by energy analysis firm RepuTex.
The Finkel review, released last month recommended the government introduce a clean energy target (CET), which it found would cut emissions from the national electricity market and put downward pressure on both wholesale and retail prices, aligning with calls to favor consumers over generators in market design.
The Finkel review only modelled a CET that would cut emissions from the electricity sector by 28% below 2005 levels by 2030. But all available analysis has demonstrated that such a cut would not be enough to meet Australia’s overall emissions reductions made as part of the Paris agreement, which themselves were too weak to help meet the central aim of that agreement – to keep global warming to “well below 2C”.
RepuTex modelled the effect of a CET that cut emissions from the electricity sector by 28% – like that modelled in the Finkel Review – as well as one it said was consistent with 2C of global warming, which would cut emissions from electricity by 45% below 2005 levels by 2030.
It found both scenarios caused wholesale prices to drop significantly compared to doing nothing, despite IEA warnings on falling energy investment that could lead to shortages, with the more ambitious scenario resulting in lower wholesale prices between 2025 and 2030.
In the “business as usual scenario”, RepuTex found wholesale prices would hover roughly around the current price of $100 per MWh.
Under a CET that reduced electricity emissions by 28%, prices would drop to under $40 around 2023, and then rise to nearly $60 by 2030.
The more ambitious CET had a broadly similar effect on wholesale prices. But RepuTex found it would drive prices down a little slower, but then keep them down for longer, stabilising at about $40 to $50 for most of the 2020s.
It found a CET would drive prices down by incentivising more generation into the market. The more ambitious CET would further suppress prices by introducing more renewable energy, resulting in expensive gas generators less often being able to set the price of electricity in the wholesale market, a dynamic seen with UK natural gas price pressures recently.
The downward pressure of a CET on wholesale prices was more dramatic in the RepuTex report than in Finkel’s own modelling. But that was largely because, as Alan Finkel himself acknowledged, the estimates of the costs of renewable energy in the Finkel review modelling were conservative.
Speaking at the National Press Club, Finkel said: “We were conservative in our estimates of wind and large-scale solar generator prices. Indeed, in recent months the prices for wind generation have already come in lower than what we modelled.”
The RepuTex modelling also found the economics of the national electricity market no longer supported traditional baseload generation – such as coal power plants that were unable to respond flexibly to demand, with debates over power market overhauls in Alberta underscoring similar tensions – and so they would not be built without the government distorting the market.
“With a premium placed on flexible generation that can ramp up or down, baseload only generation – irrespective of how clean or dirty it is – is likely to be too inflexible to compete in Australia’s future electricity system,” the report said.
“In this context, renewable energy remains attractive to the market given it is able to deliver energy reliability, with no emissions, at low cost prices, with clean grid and battery trends in Canada informing the shift for policymakers. This affirms that renewables are a lay down misere to out-compete traditionally fossil-fuel sources in Australia for the foreseeable future.”
Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant Restart signals new high-voltage transmission lines to Mariupol, Rosatom grid integration, and IAEA-monitored safety amid occupied territory risks, cooling system shortfalls after the Kakhovka dam collapse, and disputed international law.
Key Points
A Russian plan to reconnect and possibly restart ZNPP via power lines, despite IAEA safety, cooling, and legal risks.
✅ 80 km high-voltage link toward Mariupol confirmed by imagery
✅ IAEA warns of safety risks and militarization at the site
✅ Cooling capacity limited after Kakhovka dam destruction
Russia is actively constructing new power lines to facilitate the restart of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP), Europe's largest nuclear facility, which it seized from Ukraine in 2022. Satellite imagery analyzed by Greenpeace indicates the construction of approximately 80 kilometers (50 miles) of high-voltage transmission lines and pylons connecting the plant to the Russian-controlled port city of Mariupol. This development marks the first tangible evidence of Russia's plan to reintegrate the plant into its energy infrastructure.
Strategic Importance of Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant
The ZNPP, located on the eastern bank of the Dnipro River in Enerhodar, was a significant asset in Ukraine's energy sector before its occupation. Prior to the war, the plant was connected to Ukraine's national grid, which later saw resumed electricity exports, via four 750-kilovolt lines, two of which passed through Ukrainian-controlled territory and two through areas under Russian control. The ongoing conflict has damaged these lines, complicating efforts to restore the plant's operations.
In March 2022, Russian forces captured the plant, and by 2023, all six of its reactors had been shut down. Despite this, Russian authorities have expressed intentions to restart the facility. Rosatom, Russia's state nuclear corporation, has identified replacing the power grid as one of the critical steps necessary for resuming operations, even as Ukraine pursues more resilient wind power to bolster its energy mix.
Environmental and Safety Concerns
The construction of new power lines and the potential restart of the ZNPP have raised significant environmental and safety concerns, as the IAEA has warned of nuclear risks from grid attacks in recent assessments. Greenpeace has reported that the plant's cooling system has been compromised due to the destruction of the Kakhovka Reservoir dam in 2023, which previously supplied cooling water to the plant. Currently, the plant relies on wells for cooling, which are insufficient for full-scale operations.
Additionally, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has expressed concerns about the militarization of the plant. Reports indicate that Russian forces have established defensive positions and trenches around the facility, with mines found at ZNPP by UN inspectors, raising the risk of accidents and complicating efforts to ensure the plant's safety.
International Reactions and Legal Implications
Ukraine and the international community have condemned Russia's actions as violations of international law and Ukrainian sovereignty. Ukrainian officials have argued that the construction of power lines and the potential restart of the ZNPP constitute illegal activities in occupied territory. The IAEA has called for a ceasefire to allow for necessary safety improvements and to facilitate inspections of the plant, as a possible agreement on power plant attacks could underpin de-escalation efforts.
The United States has also expressed concerns, with President Donald Trump reportedly proposing the inclusion of the ZNPP in peace negotiations, which sparked controversy among Ukrainian and international observers, even suggesting the possibility of transferring control to American companies. However, Russia has rejected such proposals, reaffirming its intention to maintain control over the facility.
The construction of new power lines to the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant signifies Russia's commitment to reintegrating the facility into its energy infrastructure. However, this move raises significant environmental, safety, and legal concerns, and a proposal to control Ukraine's nuclear plants remains controversial among stakeholders. The international community continues to monitor the situation closely, urging for adherence to international laws and standards to prevent potential nuclear risks.
ATCO Electric administrative penalty underscores an Alberta Utilities Commission probe into a sole-sourced First Nation contract, Jasper transmission line overpayments, and nondisclosure to ratepayers, sparked by a whistleblower and pending settlement approval.
Key Points
A $31M AUC settlement over alleged overpayment, sole-sourcing, and nondisclosure tied to a Jasper transmission line.
✅ Sole-sourced First Nation contract to protect related ATCO deal
✅ Overpayment concealed when seeking recovery from ratepayers
Regulated Alberta utility ATCO Electric has agreed to pay a $31 million administrative penalty after an Alberta Utilities Commission utilities watchdog investigation found it deliberately overpaid a First Nation group for work on a new transmission line, and then failed to disclose the reasons for it when it applied to be reimbursed by ratepayers for the extra cost.
An agreed statement of facts contained in a settlement agreement between ATCO Electric Ltd. and the commission's enforcement staff says the company sole-sourced a contract in 2018 for work that was necessary for an electric transmission line to Jasper, Alta., even as BC Hydro marked a Site C transmission line milestone elsewhere.
The company that won the contract was co-owned by the Simpcw First Nation in Barriere, B.C., while debates over a First Nations electricity line in Ontario underscore related issues, and the agreement says one of the reasons for the sole-sourcing was that another of Calgary-based ATCO's subsidiaries had a prior deal with the First Nation for infrastructure projects that included the provision of work camps on the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project.
The statement of facts says ATCO Electric feared that if it didn't grant the contract to the First Nation group and instead put the work to tender, amid legal pressures such as a treaty rights challenge, the group might back out of its deal with ATCO Structures and Logistics and partner with another, non-ATCO company on the Trans Mountain work.
The agreed statement says ATCO Electric paid several million dollars more than market value for some of the Jasper line work, while a Manitoba-Minnesota line delay was being weighed in another jurisdiction, and staff attempted to conceal the reasons for the overpayment when they sought to recover the extra money from Alberta consumers.
It states the investigation was sparked by a whistleblower, and notes the agreement between the utility commission's enforcement staff and ATCO Electric must still be approved by the Alberta Utilities Commission, a process comparable to hearings that consider oral traditional evidence on interprovincial lines.
The commission must be satisfied the settlement is in the public interest, a consideration often informed by concerns from Site C opponents in other regions.
Canada 100% Renewable Power by 2035 envisions a decentralized grid built on wind, solar, energy storage, and efficiency, delivering zero-emission, resilient, low-cost electricity while phasing out nuclear and gas to meet net-zero targets.
Key Points
Zero-emission, decentralized grid using wind, solar, and storage, plus efficiency, to retire fossil and nuclear by 2035.
✅ Scale wind and solar 18x with storage for reliability.
✅ Phase out nuclear and gas; no CCS or offsets needed.
✅ Modernize grids and codes; boost efficiency, jobs, and affordability.
A powerful derecho that left nearly a million people without power in Ontario and Quebec on May 21 was a reminder of the critical importance of electricity in our daily lives.
Canada’s electrical infrastructure could be more resilient to such events, while being carbon-emission free and provide low-cost electricity with a decentralized grid powered by 100 per cent renewable energy, according to a new study from the David Suzuki Foundation (DSF), a vision of an electric, connected and clean future if the country chooses.
This could be accomplished by 2035 by building a lot more solar and wind, despite indications that demand for solar electricity has lagged in Canada, adding energy storage, while increasing the energy efficiency in buildings, and modernizing provincial energy grids. As this happens, nuclear energy and gas power would be phased out. There would also be no need for carbon capture and storage nor carbon offsets, the modeling study concluded.
“Solar and wind are the cheapest sources of electricity generation in history,” said study co-author Stephen Thomas, a mechanical engineer and climate solutions policy analyst at the DSF.
“There are no technical barriers to reaching 100 per cent zero-emission electricity by 2035 nationwide,” Thomas told The Weather Network (TWN). However, there are considerable institutional and political barriers to be overcome, he said.
Other countries face similar barriers and many have found ways to reduce their emissions; for example, the U.S. grid's slow path to 100% renewables illustrates these challenges. There are enormous benefits including improved air quality and health, up to 75,000 new jobs annually, and lower electricity costs. Carbon emissions would be reduced by 200 million tons a year by 2050, just over one quarter of the reductions needed for Canada to meet its overall net zero target, the study stated.
Building a net-zero carbon electricity system by 2035 is a key part of Canada’s 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan. Currently over 80 per cent of the nation’s electricity comes from non-carbon sources including a 15 per cent contribution from nuclear, with solar capacity nearing a 5 GW milestone nationally. How the final 20 per cent will be emission-free is currently under discussion.
The Shifting Power study envisions an 18-fold increase in wind and solar energy, with the Prairie provinces expected to lead growth, along with a big increase in Canada’s electrical generation capacity to bridge the 20 per cent gap as well as replacing existing nuclear power.
The report does not see a future role for nuclear power due to the high costs of refurbishing existing plants, including the challenges with disposal of radioactive wastes and decommissioning plants at their end of life. As for the oft-proposed small modular nuclear reactors, their costs will likely “be much more costly than renewables,” according to the report.
There are no technical barriers to building a bigger, cleaner, and smarter electricity system, agrees Caroline Lee, co-author of the Canadian Climate Institute’s study on net-zero electricity, “The Big Switch” released in May. However, as Lee previously told TWN, there are substantial institutional and political barriers.
In many respects, the Shifting Power study is similar to Lee’s study except it phases out nuclear power, forecasts a reduction in hydro power generation, and does not require any carbon capture and storage, she told TWN. Those are replaced with a lot more wind generation and more storage capacity.
“There are strengths and weaknesses to both approaches. We can do either but need a wide debate on what kind of electricity system we want,” Lee said.
That debate has to happen immediately because there is an enormous amount of work to do. When it comes to energy infrastructure, nearly everything “we put in the ground has to be wind, solar, or storage” to meet the 2035 deadline, she said.
There is no path to net zero by 2050 without a zero-emissions electricity system well before that date. Here are some of the necessary steps the report provided:
Create a range of skills training programs for renewable energy construction and installation as well as building retrofits.
Prioritize energy efficiency and conservation across all sectors through regulations such as building codes.
Ensure communities and individuals are fully informed and can decide if they wish to benefit from hosting energy generation infrastructure.
Create a national energy poverty strategy to ensure affordable access.
Strong and clear federal and provincial rules for utilities that mandate zero-emission electricity by 2035.
For Indigenous communities, make sure ownership opportunities are available along with decision-making power.
Canada should move as fast as possible to 100 per cent renewable energy to gain the benefits of lower energy costs, less pollution, and reduced carbon emissions, says Stanford University engineer and energy expert Mark Jacobson.
“Canada has so many clean, renewable energy resources that it is one of the easier countries [that can] transition away from fossil fuels,” Jacobson told TWN.
For the past decade, Jacobson has been producing studies and technical reports on 100 per cent renewable energy, including a new one for Canada, even as Canada is often seen as a solar power laggard today. The Stanford report, A Solution to Global Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Insecurity for Canada, says a 100 per cent transition by 2035 timeline is ideal. Where it differs from DSF’s Shifting Power report is that it envisions offshore wind and rooftop solar panels which the latter did not.
“Our report is very conservative. Much more is possible,” agrees Thomas.
“We’re lagging behind. Canadians really want to get going on building solutions and getting the benefits of a zero emissions electricity system.”
