Hospitals relieved isotopes back in production

Solar Plus Storage is accelerating across utilities and microgrids, pairing rooftop solar with lithium-ion batteries to enhance grid resilience, reduce peak costs, prevent blackouts, and leverage tax credits amid falling prices and decarbonization goals.

Key Points

Solar Plus Storage combines solar generation with batteries to shift load, boost reliability, and cut energy costs.

✅ Cuts peak demand charges and enhances blackout resilience

✅ Falling battery and solar costs drive nationwide utility adoption

✅ Enables microgrids and grid services like frequency regulation

Todd Karin was prepared when California’s largest utility shut off power to millions of people to avoid the risk of wildfires last month. He’s got rooftop solar panels connected to a single Tesla Powerwall in his rural home near Fairfield, California. “We had backup power the whole time,” Karin says. “We ran the fridge and watched movies.”

Californians worried about an insecure energy future are increasingly looking to this kind of solution. Karin, a 31-year-old postdoctoral fellow at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, spent just under $4,000 for his battery by taking advantage of tax credits. He's also saving money by discharging the battery on weekday evenings, when energy is more expensive during peak demand periods. He expects to save around $1,500 over the 10 years the battery is under warranty.

The economics don’t yet work for every household, but the green-power combo of solar panels plus batteries is popping up on a much bigger scale in some unexpected places. Owners of a rice processing plant in Arkansas are building a system to generate 26 megawatts of solar power and store another 40 MW. The plant will cut its power bill by a third, and owners say they will pass the savings to local rice growers. New York’s JFK Airport is installing solar plus storage to reduce its power load by 10 percent, while Pittsburgh International Airport is building a 20-MW solar and natural gas microgrid to keep it independent from the local utility. Officials at both airports are worried about recent power shutdowns due to weather and overload-related blackouts.

And residents of the tiny northern Missouri town of Green City (pop. 608) are getting 2.5 MW of solar plus four hours of battery storage from the state’s public utility next year. The solar power won’t go directly to townspeople, but instead will back up the town’s substation, reducing the risk of a potential shutdown. It’s part of a $68 million project to improve the reliability of remote substations far from electric generating stations.

“It’s a pretty big deal for us,” says Chad Raley, who manages technology and renewables at Ameren, a Missouri utility that is building three rural solar-plus-storage projects to better manage the flow of electricity across the local grid. “It gives us so much flexibility with renewable generation. We can’t control the sun or clouds or wind, but we can have battery storage.”

The first solar-plus-storage installations started about a decade ago on a small scale in sunny states like California, Hawaii, and Arizona. Now they’re spreading across the country, driven by falling prices of both solar panels and lithium-ion batteries the size of a shipping container imported from both China and South Korea, with wind, solar, and batteries making up most of the utility-scale pipeline nationwide. These countries have ramped up production efficiencies and lowered labor costs, leaving many US manufacturers in the dust. In fact, the price of building a comparable solar-plus-storage generating facility is now cheaper than operating a coal-fired power plant, industry officials say. In certain circumstances, the cost is equal to some natural gas plants.

“This is not just a California, New York, Massachusetts thing,” says Kelly Speakes-Backman, CEO of the Energy Storage Association, an industry group in Washington. She says more than 30 states have renewable storage on the grid. Utilities have proposed and states have approved 7 gigawatts to be installed by 2030, and most new storage will be paired with solar across the US.

Speakes-Backman estimates the unit cost of electricity produced from a solar-plus-storage system will drop 10 to 15 percent each year through 2024, supporting record growth in solar and storage investments. “If you have the option of putting out a polluting or non-polluting generating source at the same price, what are you going to pick?” says Speakes-Backman.

She notes that PJM, a large Mid-Atlantic wholesale grid operator, announced it will deploy battery storage to help smooth out fluctuating power from two wind farms it operates. “When the grid fluctuates, storage can react to it quickly and can level out the supply,” she says. In the Midwest, grid-level battery storage is also being used to absorb extra wind power. Batteries hold onto the wind and put it back onto the grid when people need it.

While the solar-plus-storage trend isn’t yet putting a huge dent in our fossil fuel use, according to Paul Denholm, an energy analyst at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, it is a good beginning and has the side effect of cutting air pollution. By 2021, solar and other renewable energy sources will overtake coal as a source of energy, and the US is moving toward 30% electricity from wind and solar, according to a new report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, a nonprofit think tank based in Cleveland.

That’s a glimmer of hope in a somewhat dreary week of news on carbon emissions. A new United Nations report released this week finds that the planet is on track to warm by 3.9 degrees Celsius (7 Fahrenheit) by 2100 unless drastic cuts are made by phasing out gas-powered cars, eliminating new coal-fired power plants, and changing how we grow and manage land, and scientists are working to improve solar and wind power to limit climate change as well.

Energy-related greenhouse gas emissions in the US rose 2.7 percent in 2018 after several years of decline. The Trump administration has rolled back climate policies from the Obama years, including withdrawing from the Paris climate accords.

There may be hope from green power initiatives outside the Beltway, though, and from federal proposals like a tenfold increase in US solar that could remake the electricity system. Arizona plans to boost solar-plus-storage from today’s 6 MW to a whopping 850 MW by 2025, more than the entire capacity of large-scale batteries in the US today. And some folks might be cheering the closing of the West’s biggest coal-fired power plant, the 2.25-gigawatt Navajo Generating Station, in Arizona, which had spewed soot and carbon dioxide over the region for 45 years until last week. The closure might help the planet and clear the hazy smog over the Grand Canyon.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

British Columbia electricity rate increase will raise BC Hydro bills 3.75% over 2025-2026 to fund infrastructure, Site C, and clean energy, balancing affordability, reliability, and energy security while keeping prices below the North American average.

Key Points

BC will raise BC Hydro rates 3.75% in 2025-2026, about $3.75/month, to fund grid upgrades, Site C, and clean energy.

✅ 3.75% over 2025-2026; about $3.75/month on $100 average bill

✅ Funds Site C, grid maintenance, and clean energy capacity

✅ Keeps BC Hydro rates below North American averages

British Columbia's electricity rates will experience a 3.75% increase over the next two years, following an earlier 3% rate increase approval that set the stage, as confirmed by the provincial government on March 17, 2025. The announcement was made by Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions, Adrian Dix, who emphasized the decision's necessity for maintaining BC Hydro’s infrastructure while balancing affordability for residents.

For most households, the increase will amount to an additional $3.75 per month, based on an average BC Hydro bill of $100, though some coverage framed an earlier phase as a BC Hydro $2/month proposal that later evolved. While this may seem modest, the increase reflects a broader strategy to stabilize the utility's rates amidst economic challenges and ensure long-term energy security for the province.

Reasons Behind the Rate Hike

The rate increase comes during a period of rising costs in both global markets and local economies. According to Dix, the economic uncertainty stemming from trade dynamics and inflation has forced the government to act. Despite these pressures, and after a prior B.C. rate freeze to moderate impacts, the increase remains below cumulative inflation over the last several years, a move designed to shield consumers from the full force of these economic changes.

Dix also noted that, when adjusted for inflation, electricity rates in British Columbia in 2025 are effectively at the same price they were four decades ago. This stability, he argued, underscores the provincial government’s commitment to keeping rates as low as possible for residents, even as operating costs rise.

“We must take urgent action to protect British Columbians from the uncertainty posed by rising costs while building a strong, resilient electricity system for the long-term benefit of B.C.’s energy independence,” Dix said. He also highlighted the government's approach to minimizing the financial burden on consumers by keeping electricity costs well below the North American average.

Infrastructure and Maintenance Costs

The primary justification for the rate increase is to allow BC Hydro to continue its critical infrastructure development, including the Site C hydroelectric project, which is expected to become operational in the coming years. The increased costs of maintaining and upgrading the province's electricity grid also contribute to the need for higher rates.

The Site C project, a massive hydroelectric dam under construction on the Peace River, is expected to provide a substantial increase in clean, renewable energy capacity. However, such large-scale projects require significant investment and maintenance, both of which have contributed to the increased operating costs for BC Hydro.

A Strategic Move for Rate Stability

The provincial government has been clear that the rate increase will allow for a continuation of infrastructure development while keeping the rates manageable for consumers. The 3.75% increase will be spread across two years, with the first hike scheduled for April 1, 2025, reflecting the typical April rate changes BC Hydro implements, and the second for April 1, 2026.

Dix confirmed that the rate hike would still keep electricity costs among the lowest in North America, noting that British Columbians pay about half of what residents in Alberta pay for electricity. This is part of a broader effort by the provincial government to provide stable energy pricing while bolstering the transition to clean energy solutions, such as the Site C project and other renewable energy initiatives.

Addressing Public Concerns

Although the government has framed the increase as a necessary measure to ensure the province's long-term energy independence and reliability, the rate hikes are likely to face scrutiny from residents, particularly those already struggling with the rising cost of living, even as provinces like Ontario face their own Ontario hydro rate increase pressures this fall.

Public reactions to utility rate increases are often contentious, as residents feel the pressure of rising prices across various sectors, from housing to healthcare. However, the government has promised that the new rates will remain manageable, especially considering the relatively low rate increases compared to inflation and other regions where Manitoba Hydro scaled back a planned increase to temper impacts.

Furthermore, the increase comes as part of a broader strategy that aims to keep the overall impact on consumers as low as possible. Minister Dix emphasized that these rate increases were intended to ensure the continued reliability of BC Hydro’s services, without overwhelming ratepayers.

Long-Term Goals

Looking ahead, the province's strategy centers on not only maintaining affordable electricity rates but also reinforcing the importance of renewable energy, while some jurisdictions consider a 2.5% annual increase plan over multiple years to stabilize their grids. As climate change becomes an increasingly pressing issue, BC’s investments in clean energy projects like Site C aim to provide sustainable power for generations to come.

The government’s long-term vision involves building a resilient, energy-independent province that can weather future economic and environmental challenges. In this context, the rate increases are framed not just as a response to immediate inflationary pressures but as a necessary step in preparing BC’s energy infrastructure for the future.

The 3.75% rate increase set for 2025 and 2026 represents a balancing act between managing the financial health of BC Hydro and protecting consumers from higher costs. While the increase will have a modest effect on household bills, the long-term goal is to build a more robust and sustainable electricity system for British Columbia’s future. Through investments in clean energy and strategic infrastructure development, the province aims to keep electricity rates competitive while positioning itself as a leader in energy independence and climate action.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Wind Energy Policy Changes highlight TransAlta's Riplinger cancellation amid UCP buffer zones for pristine viewscapes, regulatory uncertainty, and market redesign debates, reshaping Alberta's renewables investment climate and clean energy diversification plans.

Key Points

UCP rules and market shifts reshaping wind siting, permits, and finance, increasing uncertainty and delays for new projects.

✅ 35-km buffer near pristine viewscapes limits wind siting

✅ TransAlta cancels 300 MW Riplinger project

✅ Market redesign uncertainty chills renewables investment

The winds of change are blowing through Alberta's energy landscape today, and they're not necessarily carrying good news for renewable energy development. TransAlta, a major Canadian energy company, recently announced the cancellation of a significant wind farm project, citing a confluence of factors that create uncertainty for the future of wind power in the province. This decision throws a spotlight on the ongoing debate between responsible development and fostering a clean energy future in Alberta.

The scrapped project, the Riplinger wind farm near Cardston, Alberta, was envisioned as a 300-megawatt facility capable of providing clean electricity to the province. However, TransAlta pointed to recent regulatory changes implemented by the United Conservative Party (UCP) government, following the end of the renewable energy moratorium in Alberta, as a key reason for the project's demise. These changes include the establishment of a 35-kilometer buffer zone around designated "pristine viewscapes," which significantly restricts potential wind farm locations.

John Kousinioris, CEO of TransAlta, expressed frustration with the lack of clarity surrounding the future of renewable energy policy in Alberta. He highlighted this, along with the aforementioned rule changes, as major factors in the project's cancellation. TransAlta has also placed three other power projects on hold, indicating a broader concern about the current investment climate for renewable energy in the province.

The news has been met with mixed reactions. While some residents living near the proposed wind farm site celebrate the decision due to concerns about potential impacts on tourism and the environment, others worry about the implications for Alberta's clean energy ambitions, including renewable energy job growth in the province. The province, a major energy producer in Canada, has traditionally relied heavily on fossil fuels, and this decision might be seen as a setback for its goals of diversifying its energy mix.

The Alberta government defends its changes to renewable energy policy, arguing that they are necessary to ensure responsible development and protect sensitive ecological areas. However, the TransAlta decision raises questions about the potential unintended consequences of these changes. Critics argue that the restrictions might discourage investment in renewable energy and the province's ability to sell clean power to wider markets altogether, hindering Alberta's progress towards a more sustainable future.

Adding to the uncertainty is the ongoing process of redesigning Alberta's energy market. The aim is to incorporate more renewable energy sources, including solar energy expansion across the grid, but the details of this redesign remain unclear. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for companies like TransAlta to make sound investment decisions, further dampening enthusiasm for renewable energy projects.

The future of wind energy development in Alberta remains to be seen. TransAlta's decision to scrap the Riplinger project is a significant development, and it will be interesting to observe how other companies respond to the changing regulatory landscape, as a Warren Buffett-linked developer pursues a $200 million wind project in Alberta. Striking a balance between responsible development, protecting the environment, and fostering a clean energy future will be a crucial challenge for Alberta moving forward.

This situation highlights the complex considerations involved in transitioning to a renewable energy future, where court rulings on wind projects can influence policy and investment decisions. While environmental concerns are paramount, ensuring a stable and predictable investment climate is equally important. Open communication and collaboration between industry, government, and stakeholders will be key to navigating these challenges and ensuring Alberta can harness the power of wind energy for a sustainable future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Karpowership LNG powership in Senegal will supply 15% of the grid, a 235 MW floating power plant bound for Dakar, enabling fast deployment, base-load electricity, and cleaner natural gas generation for West Africa.

Key Points

A 235 MW floating plant supplying 15% of Senegal's grid with fast, reliable, lower-emission LNG electricity.

✅ 235 MW LNG-ready floating plant meets 15% of Senegal's demand

✅ Rapid deployment: commercial operations expected early October

✅ Cleaner natural gas conversion planned after six months

Turkey's Karpowership company, the designer and builder of the world's first floating power plants and the global brand of Karadeniz Holding, will meet 15% of Senegal's electricity needs from liquefied natural gas (LNG) with the 235-megawatt (MW) powership Ayşegül Sultan, which started its voyage from Turkey to Senegal, where an African Development Bank review of a coal plant is underway, on Sunday.

Karpowership, operating 22 floating power plants in more than 10 countries around the world, where France's first offshore wind turbine is now producing electricity, has invested over $5 billion in this area.

In a statement to members of the press at Karmarine Shipyard, Karpowership Trade Group Chair Zeynep Harezi said they aimed to provide affordable electricity to countries in need of electricity quickly and reliably, as projects like the Egypt-Saudi power link expand regional grids, adding that they could commission energy ships capable of generating the base electric charge of the countries, as tidal power in Nova Scotia begins supplying the grid, in a period of about a month.

Harezi recalled that Karpowership commissioned the first floating energy ship in 2007 in Iraq, followed by Lebanon, Ghana, Indonesia, Mozambique, Zambia, Gambia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Cuba, Guinea Bissau and Senegal, while Scottish tidal power demonstrates marine potential as well. "We meet the electricity needs of 34 million people in many countries," she stressed. Harezi stated that the energy ships, all designed and produced by Turkish engineers, use liquid fuel, but all ships can covert to the second fuel.

Considering the impact of electricity production on the environment, Harezi noted that they plan to convert the entire fleet from liquid fuel to natural gas, with complementary approaches like power-to-gas in Europe helping integrate renewables. "With a capacity of 480 megawatts each, the world's largest floating energy vessels operate in Indonesia and Ghana. The conversion to gas has been completed in our project in Indonesia. We have also initiated the conversion of the Ghana vessel into gas," she said.

Harezi explained that they would continue to convert their fleets to natural gas in the coming period. "Our 235-MW floating electric vessel, the Ayşegül Sultan, sets sail today to meet 15% of Senegal's electricity needs on its own. After an approximately 20-day cruise, the vessel will reach Dakar, the capital of Senegal, and will begin commercial operation in early October," Harezi continued. "We plan to use liquid fuel as bridging fuel in the first six months. At the end of the first six months, we will start to produce electricity from LNG on our ship. Thus, Ayşegül Sultan will be the first project to generate electricity from LNG in Africa, while the world's most powerful tidal turbine is delivering power to the grid, officials said. Our floating power plant to be sent to Mozambique is designed to generate electricity from LNG. It is also scheduled to start operations in the next year."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Manitoba Hydro Debt Load surges past $19.2B as the Crown corporation faces shrinking net income, restructuring costs, and PUB rate decisions, driven by Bipole III, Keeyask construction, aging infrastructure, and rising interest rate risks.

Key Points

Manitoba Hydro Debt Load refers to the utility's escalating borrowings exceeding $19B, pressuring rates and finances.

✅ Debt rose to $19.2B; projected near $25B within five years.

✅ Major drivers: Bipole III, Keeyask, aging assets, restructuring.

✅ Rate hikes sought; PUB approved 3.6% vs 7.9% request.

Manitoba Hydro's debt load now exceeds $19 billion as the provincial Crown corporation grapples with a shrinking net income amid ongoing efforts to slay costs.

The utility's annual report, to be released publicly on Tuesday, also shows its total consolidated net income slumped from $71 million in 2016-2017 to $37 million in the last fiscal year, mirroring a Hydro One profit drop as electricity revenue fell.

It said efforts to restructure the utility and reduce costs are partly to blame for the $34 million drop in year-over-year income.

These earnings come nowhere close, however, to alleviating Hydro's long-term debt problem, a dynamic also seen in a BC Hydro deferred costs report about customer exposure. The figure is pegged at $19.2 billion this fiscal year, up from $16.1 billion the previous year and $14.2 billion in 2016.

The utility projects its debt will grow to about $25 billion in the next five years. Its largest expenses include finishing the Bipole III line, working on the Keeyask Generating System that is halfway done and rebuilding aging wood poles and substations, the report said.

"This level of debt increases the potential financial exposure from risks facing the corporation and is a concern for both

the corporation and our customers who may be exposed to higher rate increases in the event of rising interest rates, a prolonged drought or a major system failure," outgoing president and CEO Kelvin Shepherd wrote.

The income drop is primarily a result of the $50 million spent in the form of restructuring charges associated with the utility's efforts to streamline the organization and drive down costs, amid NDP criticism of Hydro changes related to government policy.

Those efforts included the implementation of buyouts for employees through what the utility dubbed its "voluntary departure program."

Among the changes, Manitoba Hydro reduced its workforce by 800 employees, which is expected to save the utility over $90 million per year. It also reduced its management positions by 26 per cent, a Monday news release said, while Hydro One leadership upheaval in Ontario drove its shares down during comparable governance turmoil.

To improve its financial situation, Hydro has applied for rate increases, even as the Consumers Coalition pushes to have the proposal rejected. The Public Utilities Board offered a 3.6 per cent average rate hike, instead of the 7.9 per cent jump the utility asked for.

In May, when the PUB rendered its decision, it made several recommendations as an alternative to raising rates, including receiving a share of carbon tax revenue and asking the government to help pay for Bipole III.

Hydro is projecting a net income of $70 million for 2018-2019, which includes the impact of the recent rate increase. That total reflects an approximately 20 per cent reduction in net income from 2017-18 after restructuring costs are calculated.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News