Business, environmental groups oppose power plant

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

EU Power Market Overhaul targets soaring electricity prices by decoupling gas from power, boosting renewables, refining price caps, and stabilizing grids amid inflation, supply shocks, droughts, nuclear outages, and intermittent wind and solar.

Key Points

EU plan to redesign electricity pricing, curb gas-driven costs, boost renewables, and protect consumers from volatility.

✅ Decouples power prices from marginal gas generation

✅ Caps non-gas revenues to fund consumer relief

✅ Supports grid stability with storage, demand response, LNG

While energy prices are soaring around the world, Europe is in a particularly tight spot. Its heavy dependence on Russian gas -- on top of droughts, heat waves, an unreliable fleet of French nuclear reactors and a continent-wide shift to greener but more intermittent sources like solar and wind -- has been driving electricity bills up and feeding the highest inflation in decades. As Europe stands on the brink of a recession, and with the winter heating season approaching, officials are considering a major overhaul of the region’s power market to reflect the ongoing shift from fossil fuels to renewables.

1. How is electricity priced? 
Unlike oil or natural gas, there’s no efficient way to save lots of electricity to use in the future, though projects to store electricity in gas pipes are emerging. Commercial use of large-scale batteries is still years away. So power prices have been set by the availability at any given moment. When it’s really windy or sunny, for example, then more is produced relatively cheaply and prices are lower. If that supply shrinks, then prices rise because more generators are brought online to help meet demand -- fueled by more expensive sources. The way the market has long worked is that it is that final technology, or type of plant, needed to meet the last unit of consumption that sets the price for everyone. In Europe this year, that has usually meant natural gas. 

2. What is the relationship between power and gas? 
Very close. Across western Europe, gas plants have been a vital part of the energy infrastructure for decades, with Irish price spikes highlighting dispatchable power risks, fed in large part by supplies piped in from Siberia. Gas-fired plants were relatively quick to build and the technology straightforward, at least compared with nuclear plants and burns cleaner than coal. About 18% of Europe’s electricity was generated at gas plants last year; in 2020 about 43% of the imported gas came from Russia. Even during the depths of the Cold War, there’d never been a serious supply problem -- until the relationship with Russia deteriorated this year after it invaded Ukraine. Diversifying away from Russia, such as by increasing imports of liquefied natural gas, requires new infrastructure that takes a lot of time and money.

3. Why does it work this way? 
In theory, the relationship isn’t different from that with coal, for example. But production hiccups and heatwave curbs on plants from nuclear in France to hydro in Spain and Norway significantly changed the generation picture this year, and power hit records as plants buckled in the heat. Since coal-fired and nuclear plants are generally running all the time anyway, gas plants were being called upon more often -- at times just to keep the lights on as summer temperatures hit records. And with the war in Ukraine resulting in record gas prices, that pushed up overall production costs. It’s that relationship that has made the surging gas price the driver for electricity prices. And since the continent is all connected, it has pushed up prices across the region. The value of the European power market jumped threefold last year, to a record 836 billion euros ($827 billion today).

4. What’s being considered? 
With large parts of European industry on its knees and households facing jumps in energy bills of several hundred percent, as record electricity prices ripple through markets, the pressure on governments and the European Union to intervene has never been higher. One major proposal is to impose a price cap on electricity from non-gas producers, with the difference between that and the market price channeled to relief for consumers. While it sounds simple, any such changes would rip up a market design that’s worked for decades and could threaten future investments because of unintended consequences.

5. How did this market evolve?
The Nordic region and the British market were front-runners in the 1990s, then Germany followed and is now the largest by far. A trader can buy and sell electricity delivered later on same day in blocks of an hour or even down to 15-minute periods, to meet sudden demand or take advantage of price differentials. The price for these contracts is decided entirely by the supply and demand, how much the wind is blowing or which coal plants are operating, for example. Demand tends to surge early in the morning and late afternoon. This system was designed when fossil fuels provided the bulk of power. Now there are more renewables, which are less predictable, with wind and solar surpassing gas in EU generation last year, and the proposed changes reflect that shift. 

6. What else have governments done?
There are also traders who focus on longer-dated contracts covering periods several years ahead, where broader factors such as expected economic output and the extent to which renewables are crowding out gas help drive prices. This year’s wild price swings have prompted countries including Germany, Sweden and Finland to earmark billions of euros in emergency liquidity loans to backstop utilities hit with sudden margin calls on their trading.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Electric Buses reduce urban emissions and noise, but require charging infrastructure, grid upgrades, and depot redesigns; they offer lower operating costs and simpler maintenance, with range limits influencing routes, schedules, and on-route fast charging.

Key Points

Battery-electric buses cut emissions and noise while lowering operating and maintenance costs for transit agencies.

✅ Lower emissions, noise; improved rider experience

✅ Requires charging, grid upgrades, depot redesigns

✅ Range limits affect routes; on-route fast charging helps

In lots of ways, the electric bus feels like a technology whose time has come. Transportation is responsible for about a quarter of global emissions, and those emissions are growing faster than in any other sector. While buses are just a small slice of the worldwide vehicle fleet, they have an outsize effect on the environment. That’s partly because they’re so dirty—one Bogotá bus fleet made up just 5 percent of the city’s total vehicles, but a quarter of its CO2, 40 percent of nitrogen oxide, and more than half of all its particulate matter vehicle emissions. And because buses operate exactly where the people are concentrated, we feel the effects that much more acutely.

Enter the electric bus. Depending on the “cleanliness” of the electric grid into which they’re plugged, e-buses are much better for the environment. They’re also just straight up nicer to be around: less vibration, less noise, zero exhaust. Plus, in the long term, e-buses have lower operating costs, and related efforts like US school bus electrification are gathering pace too.

So it makes sense that global e-bus sales increased by 32 percent last year, according to a report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, as the age of electric cars accelerates across markets worldwide. “You look across the electrification of cars, trucks—it’s buses that are leading this revolution,” says David Warren, the director of sustainable transportation at bus manufacturer New Flyer.

Today, about 17 percent of the world’s buses are electric—425,000 in total. But 99 percent of them are in China, where a national mandate promotes all sorts of electric vehicles. In North America, a few cities have bought a few electric buses, or at least run limited pilots, to test the concept out, and early deployments like Edmonton's first e-bus offer useful lessons as systems ramp up. California has even mandated that by 2029 all buses purchased by its mass transit agencies be zero-emission.

But given all the benefits of e-buses, why aren’t there more? And why aren’t they everywhere?

“We want to be responsive, we want to be innovative, we want to pilot new technologies and we’re committed to doing so as an agency,” says Becky Collins, the manager of corporate initiative at the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, which is currently on its second e-bus pilot program. “But if the diesel bus was a first-generation car phone, we’re verging on smartphone territory right now. It’s not as simple as just flipping a switch.”

One reason is trepidation about the actual electric vehicle. Some of the major bus manufacturers are still getting over their skis, production-wise. During early tests in places like Belo Horizonte, Brazil, e-buses had trouble getting over steep hills with full passenger loads. Albuquerque, New Mexico, canceled a 15-bus deal with the Chinese manufacturer BYD after finding equipment problems during testing. (The city also sued). Today’s buses get around 225 miles per charge, depending on topography and weather conditions, which means they have to re-up about once a day on a shorter route in a dense city. That’s an issue in a lot of places.

If you want to buy an electric bus, you need to buy into an entire electric bus system. The vehicle is just the start.

The number one thing people seem to forget about electric buses is that they need to get charged, and emerging projects such as a bus depot charging hub illustrate how infrastructure can scale. “We talk to many different organizations that get so fixated on the vehicles,” says Camron Gorguinpour, the global senior manager for the electric vehicles at the World Resources Institute, a research organization, which last month released twin reports on electric bus adoption. “The actual charging stations get lost in the mix.”

But charging stations are expensive—about $50,000 for your standard depot-based one. On-route charging stations, an appealing option for longer bus routes, can be two or three times that. And that’s not even counting construction costs. Or the cost of new land: In densely packed urban centers, movements inside bus depots can be tightly orchestrated to accommodate parking and fueling. New electric bus infrastructure means rethinking limited space, and operators can look to Toronto's TTC e-bus fleet for practical lessons on depot design. And it’s a particular pain when agencies are transitioning between diesel and electric buses. “The big issue is just maintaining two sets of fueling infrastructure,” says Hanjiro Ambrose, a doctoral student at UC Davis who studies transportation technology and policy.

“We talk to many different organizations that get so fixated on the vehicles. The actual charging stations get lost in the mix as the American EV boom gathers pace across sectors.”

Then agencies also have to get the actual electricity to their charging stations. This involves lengthy conversations with utilities about grid upgrades, rethinking how systems are wired, occasionally building new substations, and, sometimes, cutting deals on electric output, since electric truck fleets will also strain power systems in parallel. Because an entirely electrified bus fleet? It’s a lot to charge. Warren, the New Flyer executive, estimates it could take 150 megawatt-hours of electricity to keep a 300-bus depot charged up throughout the day. Your typical American household, by contrast, consumes 7 percent of that—per year. “That’s a lot of work by the utility company,” says Warren.

For cities outside of China—many of them still testing out electric buses and figuring out how they fit into their larger fleets—learning about what it takes to run one is part of the process. This, of course, takes money. It also takes time. Optimists say e-buses are more of a question of when than if. Bloomberg New Energy Finance projects that just under 60 percent of all fleet buses will be electric by 2040, compared to under 40 percent of commercial vans and 30 percent of passenger vehicles.

Which means, of course, that the work has just started. “With new technology, it always feels great when it shows up,” says Ambrose. “You really hope that first mile is beautiful, because the shine will come off. That’s always true.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

U.S. Grid Modernization is critical for renewable energy integration, EV adoption, climate resilience, and reliability, requiring transmission upgrades, inter-regional links, hardened substations, and smart grid investments to handle extreme weather and decarbonization targets.

Key Points

U.S. Grid Modernization upgrades power networks to improve reliability, integrate renewables, and support EV demand.

✅ $2T+ investment needed for transmission upgrades

✅ Extreme weather doubling outages since 2017

✅ Regulatory fragmentation slows inter-regional lines

After decades of struggle, the U.S. clean-energy business is booming, with soaring electric-car sales and fast growth in wind and solar power. That’s raising hopes for the fight against climate change.

All this progress, however, could be derailed, as the green revolution stalls without a massive overhaul of America’s antiquated electric infrastructure – a task some industry experts say requires more than $2 trillion. The current network of transmission wires, substations and transformers is decaying with age and underinvestment, a condition highlighted by catastrophic failures during increasingly frequent and severe weather events.

Power outages over the last six years have more than doubled in number compared to the previous six years, according to a Reuters examination of federal data. In the past two years, power systems have collapsed in Gulf Coast hurricanes, West Coast wildfires, Midwest heat waves and a Texas deep freeze and recurring Texas grid crisis risks, causing long and sometimes deadly outages.

Compounding the problem, the seven regional grid operators in the United States are underestimating the growing threat of severe weather caused by climate change, Reuters found in a review of more than 10,000 pages of regulatory documents and operators’ public disclosures. Their risk models, used to guide transmission-network investments, consider historical weather patterns extending as far back as the 1970s. None account for scientific research documenting today’s more extreme weather and how it can disrupt grid generation, transmission and fuel supplies simultaneously.

The decrepit power infrastructure of the world’s largest economy is among the biggest obstacles to expanding clean energy and combating climate change on the ambitious schedule laid out by U.S. President Joe Biden. His administration promises to eliminate or offset carbon emissions from the power sector by 2035 and from the entire U.S. economy by 2050. Such rapid clean-energy growth would pressure the nation’s grid in two ways: Widespread EV adoption will spark a huge surge in power demand; and increasing dependence on renewable power creates reliability problems on days with less sun or wind, as seen in Texas, where experts have outlined reliability improvements that address these challenges.

The U.S. transmission network has seen outages double in recent years amid more frequent and severe weather events, driven by climate change and a utility supply-chain crunch that slows critical repairs. The system needs a massive upgrade to handle expected growth in clean energy and electric cars. 

“Competition from renewables is being strangled without adequate and necessary upgrades to the transmission network,” said Simon Mahan, executive director of the Southern Renewable Energy Association, which represents solar and wind companies.

The federal government, however, lacks the authority to push through the massive grid expansion and modernization needed to withstand wilder weather and accommodate EVs and renewable power. Under the current regulatory regime, and amid contentious electricity pricing proposals in recent years, the needed infrastructure investments are instead controlled by a Byzantine web of local, state and regional regulators who have strong political incentives to hold down spending, according to Reuters interviews with grid operators, federal and state regulators, and executives from utilities and construction firms.

“Competition from renewables is being strangled without adequate and necessary upgrades to the transmission network.”

Paying for major grid upgrades would require these regulators to sign off on rate increases likely to spark strong opposition from consumers and local and state politicians, who are keen to keep utility bills low. In addition, utility companies often fight investments in transmission-network improvements because they can result in new connections to other regional grids that could allow rival companies to compete on their turf, even as coal and nuclear disruptions raise brownout risks in some regions. With the advance of green energy, those inter-regional connections will become ever more essential to move power from far-flung solar and wind installations to population centers.

The power-sharing among states and regions with often conflicting interests makes it extremely challenging to coordinate any national strategy to modernize the grid, said Alison Silverstein, an independent industry consultant and former senior adviser to the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

“The politics are a freakin’ nightmare,” she said.

The FERC declined to comment for this story. FERC Commissioner Mark Christie, a Republican, acknowledged the limitations of the agency’s power over the U.S. grid in an April 21 agency meeting involving transmission planning and costs.

“We can’t force states to do anything,” Christie said.

The White House and Energy Department did not comment in response to detailed questions from Reuters on the Biden administration’s plans to tackle U.S. grid problems and their impact on green-energy expansion.

The administration said in an April news release that it plans to offer $2.5 billion in grants for grid-modernization projects as part of Biden’s $1 trillion infrastructure package, complementing a proposed clean electricity standard to accelerate decarbonization over the next decade. A modernized grid, the release said, is the “linchpin” of Biden’s clean-energy agenda.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

IAEA Nuclear Reactor Simulators enable virtual nuclear power plant training on IPWR/PWR systems, load-following operations, baseload dynamics, and turbine coupling, supporting advanced reactor education, flexible grid integration, and low-carbon electricity skills development during remote learning.

Key Points

IAEA Nuclear Reactor Simulators are tools for training on reactor operations, safety, and flexible power management.

✅ Simulates IPWR/PWR systems with real-time parameter visualization.

✅ Practices load-following, baseload, and grid flexibility scenarios.

✅ Supports remote training on safety, controls, and turbine coupling.

Students and professionals in the nuclear field are making use of learning opportunities during lockdown made necessary by the Covid-19 pandemic, drawing on IAEA low-carbon electricity lessons for the future.

Requests to use the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) basic principle nuclear reactor simulators have risen sharply in recent weeks, IAEA said on 1 May, as India takes steps to get nuclear back on track. New users will have the opportunity to learn more about operating them.

“This suite of nuclear power plant simulators is part of the IAEA education and training programmes on technology development of advanced reactors worldwide. [It] can be accessed upon request by interested parties from around the world,” said Stefano Monti, head of the IAEA’s Nuclear Power Technology Development Section.

Simulators include several features to help users understand fundamental concepts behind the behaviour of nuclear plants and their reactors. They also provide an overview of how various plant systems and components work to power turbines and produce low-carbon electricity, while illustrating roles beyond electricity as well.

In the integral pressurised water reactor (IPWR) simulator, for instance, a type of advanced nuclear power design, users can navigate through several screens, each containing information allowing them to adjust certain variables. One provides a summary of reactor parameters such as primary pressure, flow and temperature. Another view lays out the status of the reactor core.

The “Systems” screen provides a visual overview of how the plant’s main systems, including the reactor and turbines, work together. On the “Controls” screen, users can adjust values which affect reactor performance and power output.

This simulator provides insight into how the IPWR works, and also allows users to see how the changes they make to plant variables alter the plant’s operation. Operators can also perform manoeuvres similar to those that would take place in the course of real plant operations e.g. in load following mode.

“Currently, most nuclear plants operate in ‘baseload’ mode, continually generating electricity at their maximum capacity. However, there is a trend of countries, aligned with green industrial revolution strategies, moving toward hybrid energy systems which incorporate nuclear together with a diverse mix of renewable energy sources. A greater need for flexible operations is emerging, and many advanced power plants offer standard features for load following,” said Gerardo Martinez-Guridi, an IAEA nuclear engineer who specialises in water-cooled reactor technology.

Prospective nuclear engineers need to understand the dynamics of the consequences of reducing a reactor’s power output, for example, especially in the context of next-generation nuclear systems and emerging grids, and simulators can help students visualise these processes, he noted.

“Many reactor variables change when the power output is adjusted, and it is useful to see how this occurs in real-time,” said Chirayu Batra, an IAEA nuclear engineer, who will lead the webinar on 12 May.

“Users will know that the operation is complete once the various parameters have stabilised at their new values.”

Observing and comparing the parameter changes helps users know what to expect during a real power manoeuvre, he added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Quebec Energy Strategy focuses on hydropower, energy efficiency, and new dams as Hydro-Que9bec pursues Churchill Falls deals and the Champlain Hudson Power Express to New York, while nuclear power remains off the agenda.

Key Points

Quebec's plan prioritizes hydropower, efficiency, and new dams, excludes nuclear, and expands exports via CHPE.

✅ Nuclear power shelved; focus on renewables and dams

✅ Hydro-Que9bec pursues Churchill Falls and Gull Island talks

✅ CHPE line to New York advances; export contract with NYSERDA

Quebec Premier François Legault has closed the door on nuclear power, at least for now.

"For the time being, we're not touching it," said Legault when asked about the subject at a press scrum in New York on Tuesday.

The government is looking for new sources of energy as Hydro-Québec begins talks on a $185-billion strategy to wean the province off fossil fuels. In an interview with The Canadian Press at Quebec's official residence in New York, Legault said there are a number of avenues to explore:

• Energy efficiency.
• Negotiations with Newfoundland and Labrador over Churchill Falls and Gull Island.
• Upgrading existing dams and building new ones.

"Nuclear power is not on the agenda," he said.

Yet the premier seemed open to the nuclear question some time ago. In August, Radio-Canada reported that he had raised the idea of nuclear power in front of dozens of MNAs at the National Assembly last April.

Also in August, Hydro-Québec was evaluating the possibility of reopening the Gentilly-2 nuclear power plant, which has been closed since 2012.

Asked about his leader's statement on Tuesday, the Minister of the Economy, Pierre Fitzgibbon, maintained his line: "At the moment, we're looking at everything that's possible because we know that we have a significant deficit in the supply of green energy," he said.

Another step forward for the Quebec-New York line

Premier Legault took part in Tuesday morning's announcement that construction had begun on the New York converter station of the Champlain Hudson Power Express line. New York State Governor Kathy Hochul was present at the announcement.

In November 2021, Hydro-Québec signed a contract with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) to export 10.4 terawatt-hours of electricity to the American metropolis over 25 years, while Ontario declined to renew a deal with Quebec.

At a time when the Quebec government is constantly asserting that more energy will be needed for future economic projects -- particularly the battery industry -- Legault sees no contradiction in selling electricity to the Americans and to neighboring provinces such as NB Power deals to import Hydro-Québec power.

"Whether it's this contract or the contract for companies coming to set up in Quebec, it's out of the surplus we currently have in Quebec. Now, we have dozens of investment project proposals in Quebec where we need additional electricity," he explained.

The line will supply 20 per cent of New York City's electricity needs, despite transmission constraints on Quebec-to-U.S. deliveries. Commissioning is scheduled for May 2026. The spin-offs are estimated at $30 billion, according to the premier.

Will this money be used to finance new dams, such as the La Romaine hydroelectric complex built in recent years?

"It's certain that future projects will cost several tens of billions of dollars. Hydro-Québec has the capacity to borrow. It's a very healthy company. There's no doubt that these revenues will improve Hydro-Québec's image," he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News