Ontario advertises green credentials to investors

Meaford Pumped Storage Project aims to balance the grid with hydro-electric generation, a hilltop reservoir, and transmission lines near Georgian Bay, pending environmental assessment, permitting, and federal review of impacts on fish and drinking water.

Key Points

TC Energy proposal to pump water uphill off-peak and generate 1,000 MW at peak, pending studies and approvals.

✅ Balances grid by storing off-peak energy and generating at peak.

✅ Requires reservoir, break wall, transmission lines, generating station.

✅ Environmental studies and federal review underway before approvals.

Plans for a $3.3 billion hydro-electric project in Meaford are still in the early study stages, but some residents have concerns about what it might mean for the environment, as past Site C stability issues have illustrated for large hydro projects.

A one-year permit was granted for TC Energy Corporation (TC Energy) to begin studies on the proposed location back in May, and cross-border projects like the New England Clean Power Link require federal permits as well to proceed. Local municipalities were informed of the project in June.

TC Energy is proposing to have a pumped storage project at the 4th Canadian Division Training (4CDTC) Meaford property, which is on federal lands.

A letter sent to local municipalities explains that the plan is to balance supply and demand on the electrical grid by pumping water uphill during off-peak hours. It would then release the water back into Georgian Bay during peak periods, generating up to 1,000 megawatts of electricity.

The project is expected to create 800 jobs over four years of construction, in addition to long-term operational positions.

According to the company's website, the proposed pump station would require a large reservoir on the military base, a generating station, transmission lines infrastructure, and a break wall 850 metres from shore.

Some residents fear the project will threaten the bay and the fish, echoing Site C dam concerns shared with northerners, and the region's drinking water.

Meaford's mayor says the town has no jurisdiction on federal lands, but that a list of concerns has been forwarded to the company, while Ontario First Nations have urged government action on urgent transmission needs elsewhere.

TC Energy will tackle preliminary engineering and environmental studies to determine the feasibility of the proposed location, which could take up to two years.

Once the assessments are done, they need to be presented to the government for further review and approval, as seen when Ottawa's Site C stance left work paused pending a treaty rights challenge.

TC Energy's website states that the company anticipates construction to begin in 2022 if it gets all the go-ahead, with the plant to begin operations four years later.

Input from residents is being collected until April 2020, similar to when the National Energy Board heard oral traditional evidence on the Manitoba-Minnesota transmission line.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

Germany Nuclear Power Extension debated as Olaf Scholz weighs energy crisis, gas shortages from Russia, slow grid expansion in Bavaria, and renewables delays; stress test results may guide policy alongside coal plant reactivations.

Key Points

A proposal to delay Germany's nuclear phaseout to stabilize power supply amid gas cuts and slow grid upgrades.

✅ Driven by Russia gas cuts and Nord Stream 1 curtailment

✅ Targets Bavaria grid bottlenecks; renewables deployment delays

✅ Decision awaits grid stress test; coalition parties remain split

The German chancellor on Wednesday said it might make sense to extend the lifetime of Germany's three remaining nuclear power plants.

Germany famously decided to stop using atomic energy in 2011, and the last remaining plants were set to close at the end of this year.

However, an increasing number of politicians have been arguing for the postponement of the closures amid energy concerns arising from Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The issue divides members of Scholz's ruling traffic-light coalition.

What did the chancellor say?
Visiting a factory in western Germany, where a vital gas turbine is being stored, Chancellor Olaf Scholz was responding to a question about extending the lifetime of the power stations.

He said the nuclear power plants in question were only relevant for a small proportion of electricity production. "Nevertheless, that can make sense," he said.

The German government has previously said that renewable energy alternatives are the key to solving the country's energy problems.

However, Scholz said this was not happening quickly enough in some parts of Germany, such as Bavaria.

"The expansion of power line capacities, of the transmission grid in the south, has not progressed as quickly as was planned," the chancellor said.

"We will act for the whole of Germany, we will support all regions of Germany in the best possible way so that the energy supply for all citizens and all companies can be guaranteed as best as possible."

The phaseout has been planned for a long time. Germany's Social Democrat government, under Merkel's predecessor Gerhard Schröder, had announced that Germany would stop using nuclear power by 2022 as planned.

Schröder's successor Angela Merkel — herself a former physicist — had initially sought to extend to life of existing nuclear plants to as late as 2037. She viewed nuclear power as a bridging technology to sustain the country until new alternatives could be found.

However, Merkel decided to ditch atomic energy in 2011, after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, setting Germany on a path to become the first major economy to phase out coal and nuclear in tandem.

Nuclear power accounted for 13.3% of German electricity supply in 2021. This was generated by six power plants, of which three were switched off at the end of 2021. The remaining three — Emsland, Isar and Neckarwestheim — were due to shut down at the end of 2022. 

Germany's energy mix 1st half of 2022
The need to fill an energy gap has emerged after Russia dramatically reduced gas deliveries to Germany through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, though nuclear power would do little to solve the gas issue according to some officials. Officials in Berlin say the Kremlin is seeking to punish the country — which is heavily reliant on Moscow's gas — for its support of Ukraine and sanctions on Russia.

Germany has already said it will temporarily fire up mothballed coal and oil power plants in a bid to solve the looming power crisis.

Social Democrat Scholz and Germany's energy minister, Robert Habeck, from the Green Party, a junior partner in the three-way coalition government, had previously ruled out any postponement of the nuclear phasout, despite debate over a possible resurgence of nuclear energy among some lawmakers. The third member of Scholz's coalition, the neoliberal Free Democrats, has voiced support for the extension, as has the opposition conservative CDU-CSU bloc.

Berlin has said it will await the outcome of a new "stress test" of Germany's electric grid before deciding on the phaseout.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

UK Coal-Free Electricity Record highlights rapid growth in renewables as National Grid phases out coal; wind, solar, and offshore projects surge, green tariffs expand, and energy comparison helps consumers switch to cheaper, cleaner deals.

Key Points

Britain's longest coal-free run, enabled by renewables, lower demand, and grid shifts for cheaper, greener tariffs.

✅ Record set after two months without coal-fired generation

✅ Renewables outpace fossil fuels; wind and solar dominate

✅ Green tariffs expand; prices at three-year lows

On Wednesday 10 June, Britain hit a significant landmark: the UK went for two full months without burning coal to generate power – that's the longest period since the 1880s, following earlier milestones such as a full week without coal power in the recent past.

According to the National Grid, Britain has now run its electricity network without burning coal since midnight on the 9 April. This coal-free period has beaten the country’s previous record of 18 days, six hours and 10 minutes, which was set in June 2019, even though low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 according to analyses.

With such a shift in Britain’s drive for renewables and lower electricity demand following the coronavirus lockdown, as Britain recorded its cleanest electricity during lockdown to date, now may be the perfect time to do an online energy comparison and switch to a cheaper, greener deal.

Only a decade ago, around 40 per cent of Britain’s electricity came from coal generation, but since then the country has gradually shifted towards renewable energy, with the coal share at record lows in the system today. When Britain was forced into lockdown in response to the coronavirus pandemic, electricity demand dropped sharply, and the National Grid took the four remaining coal-fired plants off the network.

Over the past 10 years, Britain has invested heavily in renewable energy. Back in 2010, only 3 per cent of the country's electricity came from wind and solar, and many people remained sceptical. However, now, the UK has the biggest offshore wind industry in the world. Plus, last year, construction of the world’s single largest wind farm was completed off the coast of Yorkshire.

At the same time, Drax – Britain’s biggest power plant – has started to switch from burning coal to burning compressed wooden pellets instead, reflecting the UK's progress as it keeps breaking its coal-free energy record again across the grid. By this time next year, the plant hopes to have phased out coal entirely.

So far this year, renewables have generated more power than all fossil fuels put together, the BBC reports, and the energy dashboard shows the current mix in real time. Renewables have been responsible for 37 per cent of electricity supplied to the network, with wind and solar surpassing nuclear for the first time, while fossil fuels have accounted for 35 per cent. During the same period, nuclear accounted for 18 per cent and imports made up the remaining 10 per cent.

What does this mean for consumers?

As the country’s electricity supply moves more towards renewables, customers have more choice than ever before. Most of the ‘Big Six’ energy companies now have tariffs that offer 100 per cent green electricity. On top of this, specialist green energy suppliers such as Bulb, Octopus and Green Energy UK make it easier than ever to find a green energy tariff.

The good news is that our energy comparison research suggests that green energy doesn’t have to cost you more than a traditional fixed-price energy contract would. In fact, some of the cheapest energy suppliers are actually green companies.

At present, energy bills are at three-year lows, which means that now is the perfect time to switch supplier. As prices remain low and renewables begin to dominate the marketplace, more switchers will be drawn to green energy deals than ever before.

However, if you’re interested in choosing a green energy supplier, make sure that you look at the company's fuel mix. This way, you’ll be able to see whether they are guaranteeing the usage of green energy, or whether they’re just offsetting your usage. All suppliers must report how their energy is generated to Ofgem, so you’ll easily be able to compare providers.

You may find that you pay more for a supplier that generates its own energy from renewables, or pay less if the supplier simply matches your usage by buying green energy. You can decide which option is right for you after comparing the prices.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Geothermal Power Plant Risks include hydrogen sulfide leaks, toxic gases, lava flow hazards, well blowouts, and earthquake-induced releases at sites like PGV and the Geysers, threatening public health, grid reliability, and environmental safety.

Key Points

Geothermal Power Plant Risks include toxic gases, lava impacts, well failures, and induced quakes that threaten health.

✅ Hydrogen sulfide exposure can cause rapid pulmonary edema.

✅ Lava can breach wells, venting toxic gases into communities.

✅ Induced seismicity may disrupt grids near PGV and the Geysers.

If lava reaches Hawaii’s PGV geothermal power plant, it could release of deadly hydrogen sulfide gas. That’s the latest potential danger from the Kilauea volcanic eruption in Hawaii. Residents now fear that lava flow will trigger a meltdown at the Puna Geothermal Venture (PGV) power plant that would release even more toxic gases into the air.

Nobody knows what will happen if lava engulfs the PGV because magma has never engulfed a geothermal power plant, Reuters reported. A geothermal power plant uses steam and gas heated by lava deep in the earth to run turbines that make electricity.

The PGV power plant produces 25% of the power used on Hawaii’s “Big Island.” The plant is considered a source of clean energy because geothermal plants burn no fossil fuels and produce little pollution under normal circumstances, even as nuclear retirements like Three Mile Island reshape low-carbon options.

The Potential Danger from Geothermal Energy

The fear is that the lava would release chemicals used to make electricity at the plant. The PGV has been shut down and authorities moved an estimated 60,000 gallons of flammable liquids away from the facility. They also shut down wells that extract steam and gas used to run the turbines.

Another potential danger is that lava would open the wells and release clouds of toxic gases from them. The wells are typically sealed to prevent the gas from entering the atmosphere.

The most significant threat is hydrogen sulfide, a highly toxic and flammable gas that is colorless. Hydrogen sulfide normally has a rotten egg smell which people might not detect when the air is full of smoke. That means people can breathe hydrogen sulfide in without realizing they have been exposed.

The greatest danger from hydrogen sulfide is pulmonary edema; the accumulation of fluid in the lungs, which causes a person to stop breathing. People have died of pulmonary edema after just a few minutes of exposure to hydrogen sulfide gas. Many victims become unconscious before the gas kills them. Long-term dangers that survivors of pulmonary edema face include brain damage.

Hydrogen sulfide can also cause burns to the skin that are similar to frostbite. Persons exposed to hydrogen sulfide can also suffer from nausea, headaches, severe eye burns, and delirium. Children are more vulnerable to hydrogen sulfide because it is a heavy gas that stays close to the ground.

Geothermal Danger Extends Far Beyond Hawaii

The danger from geothermal energy extends far beyond Hawaii. The world’s largest collection of geothermal power plants is located at the Geysers in California’s Wine Country, and regulatory timelines such as the postponed closure of three Southern California plants can affect planning.

The Geysers field contains 350 steam production wells and 22 power plants in Sonoma, Lake, and Mendocino counties. Disturbingly, the Geysers are located just north of the heavily-populated San Francisco Bay Area and just west of Sacramento, where preemptive electricity shutdowns have been used during extreme fire weather. Problems at the Geysers might lead to significant blackouts because the field supplies around 20% of the green energy used in California.

Another danger from geothermal power is earthquakes because many geothermal power plants inject wastewater into hot rock deep below to produce steam to run turbines, a factor under review as SaskPower explores geothermal in new settings. A geothermal project in Switzerland created Earthquakes by injecting water into the Earth, Zero Hedge reported. A theoretical threat is that quakes caused by injection would cause the release of deadly gases at a geothermal power plant.

The dangers from geothermal power might be much greater than its advocates admit, potentially increasing reliance on natural-gas-based electricity during supply shortfalls.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

PG&E Wildfire Lawsuit alleges utility negligence, inadequate infrastructure maintenance, and faulty transmission lines, as victims seek compensation. Regulators investigate the blaze, echoing class actions after Victoria's Black Saturday mega-fires and utility oversight failures.

Key Points

PG&E Wildfire Lawsuit alleges utility negligence and power line faults, seeking victim compensation amid investigations.

✅ Alleged failure to maintain transmission infrastructure

✅ Spark reports and regulator filings before blaze erupted

✅ Class action parallels with Australia's Black Saturday

Victims of California's most destructive wildfire have filed a lawsuit accusing Pacific Gas & Electric Co. of causing the massive blaze, a move that follows the utility's 2018 Camp Fire guilty plea in a separate case.

The suit filed on Tuesday in state court in California accuses the utility of failing to maintain its infrastructure and properly inspect and manage its power transmission lines, amid prior reports that power lines may have sparked fires in California.

The utility's president said earlier the company doesn't know what caused the fire, but is cooperating with the investigation by state agencies, and other utilities such as Southern California Edison have faced wildfire lawsuits in California.

PG&E told state regulators last week that it experienced a problem with a transmission line in the area of the fire just before the blaze erupted.

A landowner near where the blaze began said PG&E notified her the day before the wildfire that crews needed to come onto her property because some wires were sparking, and the company later promoted its wildfire assistance program for victims seeking aid.

A massive class action after Australia's last mega-fire, Victoria's Black Saturday in 2009, saw $688.5 million paid in compensation to thousands of claimants affected by the Kilmore-Kinglake and Murrindindi-Marysville fires, partly by electricity company SP Ausnet, and partly by government agencies, while in California PG&E's bankruptcy plan won support from wildfire victims addressing compensation claims.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Electricity Price Surge reflects soaring wholesale rates, natural gas spikes, carbon tax pressures, and grid decarbonization challenges amid cold-weather demand, constrained supply, and Europe-style energy crisis impacts across the province.

Key Points

An exceptional jump in Alberta's power costs driven by gas price spikes, high demand, policy costs, and tight supply.

✅ Wholesale prices averaged $123/MWh in December

✅ Gas costs surged; supply constraints and outages

✅ Carbon tax and decarbonization policies raised costs

Albertans just endured the highest electricity prices in 21 years. Wholesale prices averaged $123 per megawatt-hour in December, more than triple the level from the previous year and highest for December since 2000.

The situation in Alberta mirrors the energy crisis striking Europe where electricity prices are also surging, largely due to a shocking five-fold increase in natural gas prices in 2021 compared to the prior year.

The situation should give pause to Albertans when they consider aggressive plans to “decarbonize” the electric grid, including proposals for a fully renewable grid by 2030 from some policymakers.

The explanation for skyrocketing energy prices is simple: increased demand (because of Calgary's frigid February demand and a slowly-reviving post-pandemic economy) coupled with constrained supply.

In the nitty gritty details, there are always particular transitory causes, such as disputes with Russian gas companies (in the case of Europe) or plant outages (in the case of Alberta).

But beyond these fleeting factors, there are more permanent systemic constraints on natural gas (and even more so, coal-fired) power plants.

I refer of course to the climate change policies of the Trudeau government at the federal level and some of the more aggressive provincial governments, which have notable implications for electricity grids across Canada.

The most obvious example is the carbon tax, the repeal of which Premier Jason Kenney made a staple of his government.

Putting aside the constitutional issues (on which the Supreme Court ruled in March of last year that the federal government could impose a carbon tax on Alberta), the obvious economic impact will be to make carbon-sourced electricity more expensive.

This isn’t a bug or undesired side-effect, it’s the explicit purpose of a carbon tax.

Right now, the federal carbon tax is $40 per tonne, is scheduled to increase to $50 in April, and will ultimately max out at a whopping $170 per tonne in 2030.

Again, the conscious rationale of the tax, aligned with goals for cleaning up Canada's electricity, is to make coal, oil and natural gas more expensive to induce consumers and businesses to use alternative energy sources.

As Albertans experience sticker shock this winter, they should ask themselves — do we want the government intentionally making electricity and heating oil more expensive?

Of course, the proponent of a carbon tax (and other measures designed to shift Canadians away from carbon-based fuels) would respond that it’s a necessary measure in the fight against climate change, and that Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero according to the IEA.

Yet the reality is that Canada is a bit player on the world stage when it comes to carbon dioxide, responsible for only 1.5% of global emissions (as of 2018).

As reported at this “climate tracker” website, if we look at the actual policies put in place by governments around the world, they’re collectively on track for the Earth to warm 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, far above the official target codified in the Paris Agreement.

Canadians can’t do much to alter the global temperature, but federal and provincial governments can make energy more expensive if policymakers so choose, and large-scale electrification could be costly—the Canadian Gas Association warns of $1.4 trillion— if pursued rapidly.

As renewable technologies become more reliable and affordable, business and consumers will naturally adopt them; it didn’t take a “manure tax” to force people to use cars rather than horses.

As official policy continues to make electricity more expensive, Albertans should ask if this approach is really worth it, or whether options like bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap could better balance costs.

Robert P. Murphy is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News