Study urges re-commissioning Filipino nuclear plant

BMW Hydrogen Fuel Cell Strategy positions iX5 and eDrive for zero-emission mobility, leveraging fuel cells, fast refueling, and hydrogen infrastructure as an alternative to BEVs, diversifying drivetrains across premium segments globally, rapidly.

Key Points

BMW's plan to commercialize hydrogen fuel-cell drivetrains like iX5 eDrive for scalable, zero-emission mobility.

✅ Fuel cells enable fast refueling and long range with water vapor only.

✅ Reduces reliance on lithium and cobalt via recyclable materials.

✅ Targets premium SUV iX5; limited pilots before broader rollout.

BMW is hanging in there with hydrogen, a stance mirrored in power companies' hydrogen outlook today. That’s what Oliver Zipse, the chairperson of BMW, reiterated during an interview last week in Goodwood, England. 

“After the electric car, which has been going on for about 10 years and scaling up rapidly, the next trend will be hydrogen,” he says. “When it’s more scalable, hydrogen will be the hippest thing to drive.”

BMW has dabbled with the idea of using hydrogen for power for years, even though it is obscure and niche compared to the current enthusiasm surrounding vehicles powered by electricity. In 2005, BMW built 100 “Hydrogen 7” vehicles that used the fuel to power their V12 engines. It unveiled the fuel cell iX5 Hydrogen concept car at the International Motor Show Germany in 2021. 

In August, the company started producing fuel-cell systems for a production version of its hydrogen-powered iX5 sport-utility vehicle. Zipse indicated it would be sold in the United States within the next five years, although in a follow-up phone call a spokesperson declined to confirm that point. Bloomberg previously reported that BMW will start delivering fewer than 100 of the iX5 hydrogen vehicles to select partners in Europe, the U.S., and Asia, where Asia leads on hydrogen fuel cells today, from the end of this year.

All told, BMW will eventually offer five different drivetrains to help diversify alternative-fuel options within the group, as hybrids gain renewed momentum in the U.S., Zipse says.

“To say in the U.K. about 2030 or the U.K. and in Europe in 2035, there’s only one drivetrain, that is a dangerous thing,” he says. “For the customers, for the industry, for employment, for the climate, from every angle you look at, that is a dangerous path to go to.” 

Zipse’s hydrogen dreams could even extend to the group’s crown jewel, Rolls-Royce, which BMW has owned since 1998. The “magic carpet ride” driving style that has become Rolls-Royce’s signature selling point is flexible enough to be powered by alternatives to electricity, says Rolls-Royce CEO Torsten Müller-Ötvös. 

“To house, let’s say, fuel cell batteries: Why not? I would not rule that out,” Müller-Ötvös told reporters during a roundtable conversation in Goodwood on the eve of the debut of the company’s first-ever electric vehicle, Spectre. “There is a belief in the group that this is maybe the long-term future.”

Such a vehicle would contain a hydrogen fuel-cell drivetrain combined with BMW’s electric “eDrive” system. It works by converting hydrogen into electricity to reach an electrical output of up to 125 kW/170 horsepower and total system output of nearly 375hp, with water vapor as the only emission, according to the brand.

Hydrogen’s big advantage over electric power, as EVs versus fuel cells debates note, is that it can supply fuel cells stored in carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic tanks. “There will [soon] be markets where you must drive emission-free, but you do not have access to public charging infrastructure,” Zipse says. “You could argue, well you also don’t have access to hydrogen infrastructure, but this is very simple to do: It’s a tank which you put in there like an old [gas] tank, and you recharge it every six months or 12 months.”

Fuel cells at BMW would also help reduce its dependency on raw materials like lithium and cobalt, because the hydrogen-based system uses recyclable components made of aluminum, steel, and platinum. 

Zipse’s continued commitment to prioritizing hydrogen has become an increasingly outlier position in the automotive world. In the last five years, electric-only vehicles have become the dominant alternative fuel — as the age of electric cars dawns ahead of schedule — if not yet on the road, where fewer than 3% of new cars have plugs, at least at car shows and new-car launches.

Rivals Mercedes-Benz and Audi scrapped their own plans to develop fuel cell vehicles and instead have poured tens of billions of dollars into developing pure-electric vehicle, including Daimler's electrification plan initiatives. Porsche went public to finance its own electric aspirations. 

BMW will make half of all new-car sales electric by 2030 across the group, with many expecting most drivers to go electric within a decade, which includes MINI and Rolls-Royce. 
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Nevada Renewable Portfolio Standard 2030 targets 50% clean energy, advancing solar, geothermal, and wind, cutting GHG emissions, phasing out coal, and expanding storage, EV infrastructure, and in-state renewables under PUCN oversight and tax abatements.

Key Points

A state mandate requiring 50% of electricity from renewables by 2030, driving solar, geothermal, wind, and storage.

✅ 50% clean power by 2030; 100% carbon-free target by 2050

✅ Growth in solar, geothermal, wind; coal phase-out; natural gas remains

✅ RETA incentives spur 6.1 GW capacity, jobs, and in-state investment

Nevada is on track to meet its Renewable Portfolio Standard of 50% of electricity generated by renewable energy sources by 2030, according to the Governor's Office of Energy's annual Status of Energy Report.

Based on compliance reports the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada has received, across all providers, about 20% of power is currently generated by renewable resources, and, nationally, renewables ranked second in 2020 as filings show Nevada's investor-owned utility and other power providers have plans to reach the state's ambitious RPS of 50% by 2030, according to the report released Jan. 28.

"Because transportation and electricity generation are Nevada's two largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, GOE's program work in 2021 underscored our focus on transportation electrification and reaching the state's legislatively required renewable portfolio standard," GOE Director David Bobzien said in a statement Jan. 28. "While electricity generated from renewable resources currently accounts for about 25% of the state's electricity, a share similar to projections that renewables will soon provide about one-fourth of U.S. electricity overall, we continue to collaborate with the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, electricity providers, the renewable energy industry and conservation organizations to ensure Nevada reaches our target of 50% clean energy by 2030."

The state's RPS, enacted in 1997 and last modified in 2019, requires an increase in renewable energy, starting with 22% in 2020 and increasing to 50% by 2030. The increase in renewables will reduce GHG emissions and help the state reach its goal of 100% carbon-free power by 2050, while states like Rhode Island have a 100% by 2030 plan, highlighting varying timelines.

Renewable additions
The state added 1.332 GW of renewable capacity in 2021 as part of the Renewable Energy Tax Abatement program, at a time when U.S. renewable energy hit a record 28% in April, for a total renewable capacity of 6.117 GW, according to the report.

The RETA program awards partial sales and use tax and partial property-tax abatements to eligible renewable energy facilities, which increase Nevada's tax revenue and create jobs in a growing industry. Eligible projects must employ at least 50% Nevada workers, pay 175% of Nevada's average wage during construction, and offer health care benefits to workers and their dependents.

Since its adoption in 2010, the GOE has approved 60 projects, including large-scale solar PV, solar thermal, biomass, geothermal and wind projects throughout the state, according to the report. Projects granted abatements in 2021 include:

• 100-MW Citadel Solar Project
• 150-MW Dry Lake Solar + Storage Project
• 714-MW Gemini Solar Project
• 55-MW North Valley Power Geothermal Project
• 113-MW Boulder Flats Solar Project
• 200-MW Arrow Canyon Solar Project

"Nevada does not produce fossil fuels of any significant amount, and gasoline, jet fuel and natural gas for electricity or direct use must be imported," according to the report. "Transitioning to domestically produced renewable resources and electrified transportation can provide cost savings to Nevada residents and businesses, as seen in Idaho's largely renewable mix today, while reducing GHG emissions. About 86% of the fuel for energy that Nevada consumes comes from outside the state."

Phasing out coal plants
Currently, more than two-thirds of the state's electricity is produced by natural gas-fired power plants, with renewables covering most of the remaining generation, according to the report. Nevada continues to phase out its remaining coal power plants, as renewables surpassed coal nationwide in 2022, which provide less than 10% of produced electricity.

"Nevada has seen a significant increase in capturing its abundant renewable energy resources such as solar and geothermal," according to the report. "Renewable energy production continues to grow, powering Nevada homes and business and serves to diversify the state's economy by exporting solar and geothermal to neighboring states, as California neared 100% renewable electricity for the first time. Nevada has more than tripled its renewable energy production since 2011."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Commercial Electric Tariffs explain utility rate structures, peak demand charges, kWh vs kW pricing, time-of-use periods, voltage, delivery, capacity ratchets, and riders, guiding facility managers in tariff analysis for accurate energy savings.

Key Points

Commercial electric tariffs define utility pricing for energy, demand, delivery, time-of-use periods, riders, and ratchet charges.

✅ Separate kWh charges from kW peak demand fees.

✅ Verify time-of-use windows and demand interval length.

✅ Review riders, capacity ratchets, and minimum demand clauses.

Especially during these tough economic times, as major changes to electric bills are debated in some states, facility executives who don’t understand how their power is priced have been disappointed when their energy projects failed to produce expected dollar savings. Here’s how not to be one of them.

Your electric rate is spelled out in a document called a “tariff” that can be downloaded from your utility’s web page. A tariff should clearly spell out the costs for each component that is part of your rate, reflecting cost allocation practices in your region. Don’t be surprised to learn that it contains a bunch of them. Unlike residential electric rates, commercial electric bills are not based solely on the quantity of kilowatt-hours (kWh) consumed in a billing period (in the United States, that’s a month). Instead, different rates may apply to how your power is supplied, how it is delivered via electricity delivery charges, when it was consumed, its voltage, how fast it was used (in kW), and other factors.

If a tariff’s lingo and word structure are too opaque, spend some time with a utility account rep to translate it. Many state utility commissions also have customer advocates that may assist as they explore new utility rate designs that affect customers. Alternatively, for a fee, facility managers can privately chat with an energy consultant.

Common mistakes

Many facility managers try to estimate savings based on an averaged electric rate, i.e., annual electric spend divided by annual kWh. However, in markets where electricity demand is flat, such a number may obscure the fastest rising cost component: monthly peak demand charges, measured in dollars per kW (or kilo-volt-amperes, kVA).

This charge is like a monthly speeding ticket, based solely on the highest speed you drove during that time. In some areas, peak demand charges now account for 30 to 60 percent of a facility’s annual electric spend. When projecting energy cost savings, failing to separately account for kW peak demand and kWh consumption may result in erroneous results, and a lot of questions from the C-suite.

How peak demand charges are calculated varies among utilities. Some base it on the highest average speed of use across one hour in a month, while others may use the highest average speed during a 15- or 30-minute period. Others may average several of the highest speeds within a defined time period (for example, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays). It is whatever your tariff says it is.

Because some power-consuming (or producing) devices, including those tied to smart home electricity networks, vary in their operation or abilities, they may save money on a few — but not all — of those rate components. If an equipment vendor calculates savings from its product by using an average electric rate, take pause. Tell the vendor to return after the proposal has been redone using tariff-based numbers.

When a vendor is the only person calculating potential savings from using a product, there’s also a built-in conflict of interest: The person profiting from an equipment sale should not also be the one calculating its expected financial return. Before signing any energy project contracts, it’s essential that someone independent of the deal reviews projected savings. That person (typically an energy or engineering consultant) should be quite familiar with your facility’s electric tariff, including any special provisions, riders, discounts, etc., that may pertain. When this doesn’t happen, savings often don’t occur as planned. 

For example, some utilities add another form of demand charge, based on the highest kW in a year. It has various names: capacity, contract demand, or the generic term “ratchet charge.” Some utilities also have a minimum ratchet charge which may be based on a percent of a facility’s annual kW peak. It ensures collection of sufficient utility revenue to cover the cost of installed transmission and distribution even when a customer significantly cuts its peak demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Bitcoin Energy Consumption drives debate on blockchain mining, proof-of-work, carbon footprint, and emissions, with CCAF estimates in terawatt hours highlighting electricity demand, fossil fuel reliance, and sustainability concerns for data centers and cryptocurrency networks.

Key Points

Electricity used by Bitcoin proof-of-work mining, often fossil-fueled, estimated by CCAF in terawatt hours.

✅ CCAF: 40-445 TWh, central estimate ~130 TWh

✅ ~66% of mining electricity sourced from fossil fuels

✅ Proof-of-work increases hash rate, energy, and emissions

The University of Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) studies the burgeoning business of cryptocurrencies.

It calculates that Bitcoin's total energy consumption is somewhere between 40 and 445 annualised terawatt hours (TWh), with a central estimate of about 130 terawatt hours.

The UK's electricity consumption is a little over 300 TWh a year, while Argentina uses around the same amount of power as the CCAF's best guess for Bitcoin, as countries like New Zealand's electricity future are debated to balance demand.

And the electricity the Bitcoin miners use overwhelmingly comes from polluting sources, with the U.S. grid not 100% renewable underscoring broader energy mix challenges worldwide.

The CCAF team surveys the people who manage the Bitcoin network around the world on their energy use and found that about two-thirds of it is from fossil fuels, and some regions are weighing curbs like Russia's proposed mining ban amid electricity deficits.

Huge computing power - and therefore energy use - is built into the way the blockchain technology that underpins the cryptocurrency has been designed.

It relies on a vast decentralised network of computers.

These are the so-called Bitcoin "miners" who enable new Bitcoins to be created, but also independently verify and record every transaction made in the currency.

In fact, the Bitcoins are the reward miners get for maintaining this record accurately.

It works like a lottery that runs every 10 minutes, explains Gina Pieters, an economics professor at the University of Chicago and a research fellow with the CCAF team.

Data processing centres around the world, including hotspots such as Iceland's mining strain, race to compile and submit this record of transactions in a way that is acceptable to the system.

They also have to guess a random number.

The first to submit the record and the correct number wins the prize - this becomes the next block in the blockchain.

Estimates for bitcoin's electricity consumption
At the moment, they are rewarded with six-and-a-quarter Bitcoins, valued at about $50,000 each.

As soon as one lottery is over, a new number is generated, and the whole process starts again.

The higher the price, says Prof Pieters, the more miners want to get into the game, and utilities like BC Hydro suspending new crypto connections highlight grid pressures.

"They want to get that revenue," she tells me, "and that's what's going to encourage them to introduce more and more powerful machines in order to guess this random number, and therefore you will see an increase in energy consumption," she says.

And there is another factor that drives Bitcoin's increasing energy consumption.

The software ensures it always takes 10 minutes for the puzzle to be solved, so if the number of miners is increasing, the puzzle gets harder and the more computing power needs to be thrown at it.

Bitcoin is therefore actually designed to encourage increased computing effort.

The idea is that the more computers that compete to maintain the blockchain, the safer it becomes, because anyone who might want to try and undermine the currency must control and operate at least as much computing power as the rest of the miners put together.

What this means is that, as Bitcoin gets more valuable, the computing effort expended on creating and maintaining it - and therefore the energy consumed - inevitably increases.

We can track how much effort miners are making to create the currency.

They are currently reckoned to be making 160 quintillion calculations every second - that's 160,000,000,000,000,000,000, in case you were wondering.

And this vast computational effort is the cryptocurrency's Achilles heel, says Alex de Vries, the founder of the Digiconomist website and an expert on Bitcoin.

All the millions of trillions of calculations it takes to keep the system running aren't really doing any useful work.

"They're computations that serve no other purpose," says de Vries, "they're just immediately discarded again. Right now we're using a whole lot of energy to produce those calculations, but also the majority of that is sourced from fossil energy, and clean energy's 'dirty secret' complicates substitution."

The vast effort it requires also makes Bitcoin inherently difficult to scale, he argues.

"If Bitcoin were to be adopted as a global reserve currency," he speculates, "the Bitcoin price will probably be in the millions, and those miners will have more money than the entire [US] Federal budget to spend on electricity."

"We'd have to double our global energy production," he says with a laugh, even as some argue cheap abundant electricity is getting closer to reality today. "For Bitcoin."

He says it also limits the number of transactions the system can process to about five per second.

This doesn't make for a useful currency, he argues.

Rising price of bitcoin graphic
And that view is echoed by many eminent figures in finance and economics.

The two essential features of a successful currency are that it is an effective form of exchange and a stable store of value, says Ken Rogoff, a professor of economics at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

He says Bitcoin is neither.

"The fact is, it's not really used much in the legal economy now. Yes, one rich person sells it to another, but that's not a final use. And without that it really doesn't have a long-term future."

What he is saying is that Bitcoin exists almost exclusively as a vehicle for speculation.

So, I want to know: is the bubble about to burst?

"That's my guess," says Prof Rogoff and pauses.

"But I really couldn't tell you when."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

U.S. coal-fired generation 2021 rose as higher natural gas prices, stable coal costs, and a recovering power sector shifted the generation mix; capacity factors rebounded despite low coal stocks and ongoing plant retirements.

Key Points

Coal output rose 22% on high gas prices and higher capacity factors; a 5% decline is expected in 2022.

✅ Natural gas delivered cost averaged $4.93/MMBtu, more than double 2020

✅ Coal capacity factor rose to ~51% from 40% in 2020

✅ 2022 coal generation forecast to fall about 5%

We expect 22% more U.S. coal-fired generation in 2021 than in 2020, according to our latest Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO). The U.S. electric power sector has been generating more electricity from coal-fired power plants this year as a result of significantly higher natural gas prices and relatively stable coal prices, even as non-fossil sources reached 40% of total generation. This year, 2021, will yield the first year-over-year increase in coal generation in the United States since 2014, highlighted by a January power generation jump earlier in the year.

Coal and natural gas have been the two largest sources of electricity generation in the United States. In many areas of the country, these two fuels compete to supply electricity based on their relative costs and sensitivity to policies and gas prices as well. U.S. natural gas prices have been more volatile than coal prices, so the cost of natural gas often determines the relative share of generation provided by natural gas and coal.

Because natural gas-fired power plants convert fuel to electricity more efficiently than coal-fired plants, record natural gas generation has at times underscored that advantage, and natural gas-fired generation can have an economic advantage even if natural gas prices are slightly higher than coal prices. Between 2015 and 2020, the cost of natural gas delivered to electric generators remained relatively low and stable. This year, however, natural gas prices have been much higher than in recent years. The year-to-date delivered cost of natural gas to U.S. power plants has averaged $4.93 per million British thermal units (Btu), more than double last year’s price.

The overall decline in electricity demand in 2020 and record-low natural gas prices led coal plants to significantly reduce the percentage of time that they generated power. In 2020, the utilization rate (known as the capacity factor) of U.S. coal-fired generators averaged 40%. Before 2010, coal capacity factors routinely averaged 70% or more. This year’s higher natural gas prices have increased the average coal capacity factor to about 51%, which is almost the 2018 average, a year when wind and solar reached 10% nationally.

Although rising natural gas prices have resulted in more U.S. coal-fired generation than last year, this increase in coal generation will most likely not continue as solar and wind expand in the generation mix. The electric power sector has retired about 30% of its generating capacity at coal plants since 2010, and no new coal-fired capacity has come online in the United States since 2013. In addition, coal stocks at U.S. power plants are relatively low, and production at operating coal mines has not been increasing as rapidly as the recent increase in coal demand. For 2022, we forecast that U.S. coal-fired generation will decline about 5% in response to continuing retirements of generating capacity at coal power plants and slightly lower natural gas prices.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Turkey Point Subsequent License Renewal seeks NRC approval for FP&L to extend Units 3 and 4, three-loop pressurized water reactors near Homestead, Miami; public review, docketing, and an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearing.

Key Points

The NRC is reviewing FP&L's request to extend Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 operating licenses by 20 years.

✅ NRC will docket if application is complete

✅ Public review and opportunity for adjudicatory hearing

✅ Units commissioned in 1972 and 1973, near Miami

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Thursday that it had made available the first-ever "subsequent license renewal application," amid milestones at nuclear power projects worldwide, which came from Florida Power and Light and applies to the company's Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station's Units 3 and 4.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently made available for public review the first-ever subsequent license renewal application, which Florida Power & Light Company submitted on Jan. 1.

In the application, FP&L requests an additional 20 years for the operating licenses of Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4, three-loop, pressurized water reactors located in Homestead, Florida, where the Florida PSC recently approved a municipal solid waste energy purchase, approximately 40 miles south of Miami.

The NRC approved the initial license renewal in June 2002, as new reactors at Georgia's Vogtle plant continue to take shape nationwide. Unit 3 is currently licensed to operate through July 19, 2032. Unit 4 is licensed to operate through April 10, 2033.

#google#

NRC staff is currently reviewing the application, while a new U.S. reactor has recently started up, underscoring broader industry momentum. If the staff determines the application is complete, they will docket it and publish a notice of opportunity to request an adjudicatory hearing before the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

The first-ever subsequent license renewal application, submitted by Florida Power & Light Company asks for an additional 20 years for the already-renewed operating licenses of Turkey Point, even as India moves to revive its nuclear program internationally, which are currently set to expire in July of 2032 and April of 2033. The two thee-loop, pressurized water reactors, located about 40 miles south of Miami, were commissioned in July 1972 and April 1973.

If the application is determined to be complete, the staff will docket it and publish a notice of opportunity to request an adjudicatory hearing before the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the agency said.

The application is available for public review on the NRC website. Copies of the application will be available at the Homestead Branch Library in Homestead, the Naraja Branch Library in Homestead and the South Dade Regional Library in Miami.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News