Ontario's power supply outlook positive

U.S. Energy Crunch disrupts fuel and power markets, driving natural gas price spikes, coal resurgence, utility mix shifts, supply chain strains for EV batteries, and inflation pressures, complicating climate policy, OPEC outreach and LNG trade

Key Points

Supply-demand gaps raise fuel costs, revive coal, strain EV materials, and complicate U.S. climate policy and plans.

✅ Natural gas spikes shift generation from gas to coal

✅ Supply chain shortages hit nickel, silicon, and chips

✅ Policy tensions between price relief and decarbonization

A global energy crunch is creating pain for people struggling to fill their tanks and heat their homes, as well as roiling the utility industry’s plans to change its mix of generation and complicating the Biden administration’s plans to tackle climate change.

The ripple effects of a surge in natural gas prices include a spike in coal use and emissions that counter clean energy targets. High fossil fuel prices also are translating into high prices and a supply crunch for key minerals like silicon used in clean energy projects. On a call with investors yesterday, a Tesla Inc. executive said the company is having a hard time finding enough nickel for batteries.

The crisis could pose political problems for the Biden administration, which spent the last few months fending off criticism about rising fuel prices and inflation (Energywire, Oct. 14).

“Energy issues at this moment are as salient to the American public as they have been in quite some time,” said Christopher Borick, who directs the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion in Pennsylvania, where Biden stopped yesterday to pitch his infrastructure plan.

While gasoline prices have gotten headlines all summer, natural gas prices have risen faster than motor fuels, more than doubling from an average $1.92 per thousand cubic feet in September 2020 to $5.16 last month. By comparison, gasoline prices have risen about 55 percent in the last year, to $3.36 per gallon nationwide this week, according to AAA.

The roots of the problem go back to the beginning of the pandemic and the recession in 2020. Oil and gas prices fell so fast then that many producers, particularly in the U.S., simply stopped drilling.

Oil companies began predicting a few months later that the abrupt shutdown would eventually lead to shortages and price spikes when the economy recovered. Those predictions turned out to be accurate.

With the economy beginning to recover, demand for gas has gone up, but there’s not enough supply to go around.

While the U.S. energy crunch isn’t as severe as Europe’s energy crisis today, and analysts predict that gas prices will gradually fall next year, consumers could be in for a rough couple of months.

Here’s four ways the global energy crisis is impacting the United States, from the electricity sector to the political landscape:

What are the political repercussions?
For the Biden administration, the energy price hikes come amid fears of rising inflation and persistent supply bottlenecks at the nation’s ports as its climate ambitions face headwinds in Congress.

“The confluence of energy prices, logistical challenges and the need to move on climate have raised this to the top tier,” said Borick, who in the past has polled on energy and environmental issues in Pennsylvania.

Borick noted the administration is facing counterpressures: Even as it pushes to decarbonize the nation’s electric system, it wants to keep gas prices in check. High gasoline prices have been linked to declining political approval ratings, including for presidents, even if much of the price hikes are beyond their control.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said earlier this month that the administration can take steps to address what it called “short-term supply issues,” but also needs to focus on the long term — and climate.

In hopes of capping prices, the White House has spoken with members of OPEC about increasing oil production — though OPEC has little control over natural gas prices. And earlier this month, the administration talked to U.S. oil and gas producers about helping to bring down prices.

That comes even as environmentalists have pushed Biden to ban federal fossil fuel leasing and drilling and stop new projects.

The moves to curb prices have prompted ridicule from Republicans, who have accused Biden of declaring war on U.S. energy by canceling the Keystone XL pipeline.

“The Biden administration won’t say it out loud, yet let’s admit it: There is a crisis,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said this week on the Senate floor. “It is one that Joe Biden and his administration has created. It is a crisis of Joe Biden’s own making.”

The situation has also resurfaced comparisons to former President Carter, who struggled politically in the 1970s with gasoline shortages and other energy pressures. Some political scientists say, though, the comparison between the two isn’t apples to apples.

"In 1979, the crisis began with the Iranian Revolution, producing a supply shortage. In the USA, some states rationed the supply. That’s not occurring now. Oil prices were also regulated, another difference, “ said Terry Madonna, a senior fellow in residence for political affairs at Millersville University.

A Morning Consult poll released yesterday carried warning signs for Democrats with worries about the economy on the rise across the political spectrum.

Voters, however, were evenly split on how Biden is handling energy. Forty-two percent of respondents approve of Biden’s energy policy, compared with 45 percent who disapproved. The margin of error is 2 percentage points.

Will the electricity mix change?
Higher gas prices are giving coal a boost in some markets.

Atlanta-based Southern Co. told CNBC earlier this week, for instance, that coal was about 17 percent of the company’s power mix last year. That has changed in 2021.

“The unintended consequence of high gas prices is that coal becomes more economic, and so my sense is … our coal production has bumped up above 20 percent,” Southern CEO Tom Fanning said. “Now, how long that’ll persist, I don’t know.”

Fanning said “what we’re seeing right now, and the real challenge in America, is this notion of energy in transition.”

But the U.S. power sector has been evolving for years, with more renewables and less coal on the grid, and experts say the current energy crunch won’t change long-term utility trends in the industry.

“In general, I wouldn’t place too much emphasis on short-term fluctuations,” Jay Apt, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, said in an email. “There is still a robust supply chain for most components needed for low-pollution power, including renewables.”

In fact, elevated fossil fuel prices, and high natural gas prices in particular, could accelerate the move toward wind, solar and batteries in some areas. That’s because power plants that run on coal and natural gas can be affected by rising and volatile fuel prices, as illustrated by the recent move in commodities globally. That means higher costs to run the facilities, even if power prices often climb along with gas prices.

“If I were a utility planner, this would cause me to double down on new generation from [wind] and solar and storage as opposed to building additional natural gas plants where, you know, I could be having these super high and volatile operating costs,” said Bri-Mathias Hodge, an associate professor in the Department of Electrical, Computer and Energy Engineering at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

Ed Hirs, an energy fellow at the University of Houston, said the current global situation doesn’t change the U.S. power sector’s overall move toward generation with lower operating costs.

For example, he said nuclear and coal plants can require hundreds of employees, and both have fuel costs. Hirs said a gas facility also needs fuel and may need dozens of employees. Wind and solar facilities often need a smaller number of workers and don’t require fuel in their operations, he noted.

“Eventually the cheap wins out,” Hirs said.

That isn’t even factoring in climate change — the reason world leaders are seeking to slash greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, lowering emissions remains a priority among many states and big companies in the U.S.

Over the next 10 to 15 years, Hirs said, a key question will be whether battery technology can compete economically in terms of backing up renewables. He said a national carbon price, if enacted, would aid renewables and enhance returns on batteries.

“The real battle is going to be between natural gas and battery storage,” Hirs said.

Apt and M. Granger Morgan, who’s also a Carnegie Mellon professor, noted in a Hill piece last month that the U.S. gets about 40 percent of its power from carbon-free sources, including nuclear.

“Modelers and many power system operators agree that it is possible that renewables can cost-effectively make up roughly 80% of electricity generation,” the professors wrote, adding that other sources could include “storage and gas turbines powered with hydrogen, synfuels, or natural gas with carbon capture.”

What about EVs and renewables?
As for electric vehicles, executives with Tesla said on a call yesterday that supply-chain problems are the major brake on production for both vehicles and batteries.

Chief Financial Officer Zachary Kirkhorn said that the company’s factories aren’t running at full capacity because of an ongoing shortage of semiconductor chips. Customers are waiting longer for vehicles, he said, and wait lists are growing.

The challenges extend to raw materials. In batteries, Kirkhorn said, the company is having trouble finding enough nickel, and in vehicles, it is scrounging for aluminum. He said the problem is "not small," and that prices may rise as supply contracts come up for renewal.

The supply problems are creating "cost headwinds," he said, and so are rising labor costs. Tesla is not immune from the worker shortages that are plaguing the entire U.S. economy.

The production woes aren’t limited to Tesla: Automakers around the world have have had their output crimped by the chip shortage that accompanied the economic rebound after pandemic lockdowns. Unlike many other automakers, Tesla hasn’t been forced to pause its factory lines.

Tesla said it is poised to greatly expand its production of batteries for the electric grid — with a caveat.

Last month, Tesla broke ground on a new California factory to make Megapack, its 3 megawatt-per-hour lithium-ion batteries for use by power companies. That future factory’s capacity, 40 gigawatt per hour a year, is vastly more than the 3 GWh it made in the last calendar year.

However, today’s supply-chain problems are braking the making of both Megapack and Powerwall, Tesla’s battery for homes, Kirkhorn said. He added that production will increase "as soon as parts allow us."

Other advocates for EVs and renewable power expressed little concern about the supply crunch’s meaning for their industries, noting that higher prices alone don’t automatically trigger a broader green revolution on their own.

Those problems likely wouldn’t change the immediate course of the energy transition, researchers said.

"Short-term trends, week to week or even month to month, don’t matter much for investors or policy makers," wrote John Graham, a former budget official with the Bush administration and professor at Indiana University’s O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, in an email to E&E News.

The crunch may give policymakers a glimpse of the future, however, according to one minerals analyst.

"This isn’t going to be an outlier. I think increasingly you’re going to see pockets of the world start to feel these strains," said Andrew Miller, product director at Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, which focuses its research on battery minerals and battery supply chains.

The U.S. and its allies are only now beginning to develop their own supply chains for batteries and other key clean energy technologies, he noted. "The issue you’re facing, and this is one coming over time, is to have the platform in place. You have to have the supply chain of raw materials," he said.

"I think you’re going to see the most turbulence over the coming decade. … It’s not going to be a smooth transition,” added Miller.

How long will gas prices stay high?
The gap between natural gas demand and supply has led to severe price spikes in Europe, where utilities and other gas buyers have to compete against China for cargoes of liquefied natural gas, according to a research note from IHS Markit Ltd.

Here in the U.S., the causes are the same, but the results aren’t as extreme. Less than 10 percent of domestic gas production is exported as LNG, so American customers don’t have to compete as much against overseas buyers.

Instead, gas-hungry sectors of the economy have run into another problem, IHS analyst Matthew Palmer said in an interview. Gas producers have been cautious about increasing their output, largely because of pressure from investors to limit their spending.

“That theme has really put a governor on production,” he said.

The disconnect will likely mean higher home gas bills and higher electric prices this winter, although deep freeze events or warm weather could disrupt the trend, he said. The U.S. Energy Information Administration is predicting that average heating bills for homes that use gas furnaces will rise 30 percent this winter.

This comes as U.S. gas supply remains high, according to a biennial assessment from the Potential Gas Committee, a group of volunteer geoscientists, engineers and other experts.

Including reserves, future gas supply in the U.S. stands at a record 3,863 trillion cubic feet, up 25 tcf from levels reported in 2019, the group said Tuesday at an event co-hosted with the American Gas Association.

Of that total, so-called technically recoverable resources — or those in the ground but not yet recovered — are 3,368 tcf, the PGC said, down less than 0.2 percent from the last assessment.

The amount of technically recoverable gas went relatively unchanged from year-end 2018 for several reasons, including a lack of company activity in exploration efforts last year due to COVID, said Alexei Milkov, the group’s executive director.

Another factor is that basins mature and shale plays “cannot increase in resources forever,” said Milkov, also a professor of geology and geological engineering at the Colorado School of Mines.

Still, Milkov added, “We cannot tell you right now if we are on a new plateau, or if we are going to start seeing more growth in gas resources again, right, because it’s a complex issue.”

The EIA predicts that gas production will increase and prices will begin to drop in 2022.

David Flaherty, CEO of the Republican polling firm Magellan Strategies in Colorado, said prices could particularly hit seniors. But he said he expected the energy crunch to ease in the U.S. well before the election.

“By early summer, this is likely to be behind us,” he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

SM-1A Nuclear Plant Decommissioning details the US Army Corps of Engineers' removal of the Fort Greely reactor, Cold War facility dismantling, environmental monitoring, remote-site power history, and timeline to 2026 under a deactivated nuclear program.

Key Points

Army Corps plan to dismantle Fort Greely's SM-1A reactor and complete decommissioning of remaining systems by 2026.

✅ Built for remote Arctic radar support during the Cold War

✅ High costs beat diesel; program later deemed impractical

✅ Reactor parts removed; residuals monitored; removal by 2026

The US Army Corps of Engineers has begun decommissioning Alaska’s only nuclear power plant, SM-1A, which is located at Fort Greely, even as new US reactors continue to take shape nationwide. The $17m plant closed in 1972 after ten years of sporadic operation. It was out of commission from 1967 to 1969 for extensive repairs. Much of has already been dismantled and sent for disposal, and the rest, which is encased in concrete, is now to be removed.

The plant was built as part of an experimental programme to determine whether nuclear facilities, akin to next-generation nuclear concepts, could be built and operated at remote sites more cheaply than diesel-fuelled plants.

"The main approach was to reduce significant fuel-transportation costs by having a nuclear reactor that could operate for long terms, a concept echoed in the NuScale SMR safety evaluation process, with just one nuclear core," Brian Hearty said. Hearty manages the Army Corps of Engineers’ Deactivated Nuclear Power Plant Program.

#google#

He said the Army built SM-1A in 1962 hoping to provide power reliably at remote Arctic radar sites, where in similarly isolated regions today new US coal plants may still be considered, intended to detect incoming missiles from the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. He added that the programme worked but not as well as Pentagon officials had hoped. While SM-1A could be built and operated in a cold and remote location, its upfront costs were much higher than anticipated, and it costs more to maintain than a diesel power plant. Moreover, the programme became irrelevant because of advances in Soviet rocket science and the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Hearty said the reactor was partially dismantled soon after it was shut down. “All of the fuel in the reactor core was removed and shipped back to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) for them to either reprocess or dispose of,” he noted. “The highly activated control and absorber rods were also removed and shipped back to the AEC.”

The SM-1A plant produced 1.8MWe and 20MWt, including steam, which was used to heat the post. Because that part of the system was still needed, Army officials removed most of the nuclear-power system and linked the heat and steam components to a diesel-fired boiler. However, several parts of the nuclear system remained, including the reactor pressure vessel and reactor coolant pumps. “Those were either kept in place, or they were cut off and laid down in the tall vapour-containment building there,” Hearty said. “And then they were grouted and concreted in place.” The Corps of Engineers wants to remove all that remains of the plant, but it is as yet unclear whether that will be feasible.

Meanwhile, monitoring for radioactivity around the facility shows that it remains at acceptable levels. “It would be safe to say there’s no threat to human health in the environment,” said Brenda Barber, project manager for the decommissioning. Work is still in its early stages and is due to be completed in 2026 at the earliest. Barber said the Corps awarded the $4.6m contract in December to a Virginia-based firm to develop a long-range plan for the project, similar in scope to large reactor refurbishment efforts elsewhere. Among other things, this will help officials determine how much of the SM-1A will remain after it’s decommissioned. “There will still be buildings there,” she said. “There will still be components of some of the old structure there that may likely remain.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

TVA Rates and Renewable Energy Scrutiny spotlights electricity rates, distributed energy resources, solar and wind deployment, natural gas plans, grid access charges, energy efficiency cuts, and House oversight of lobbying, FERC inquiries, and least-cost planning.

Key Points

A congressional probe into TVA pricing and practices affecting renewables, energy efficiency, and climate goals.

✅ House panel probes TVA rates, DER and solar policies.

✅ Efficiency programs cut; least-cost planning questioned.

✅ Inquiry on lobbying, hidden fees; FERC scrutiny.

The Tennessee Valley Authority is facing federal scrutiny about its electricity rates and climate action, amid ongoing debates over network profits in other markets.

Members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce are “requesting information” from TVA about its ratepayer bills and “out of concern” that TVA is interfering with the deployment of renewable and distributed energy resources, even as companies such as Tesla explore electricity retail to expand customer options.

“The Committee is concerned that TVA’s business practices are inconsistent with these statutory requirements to the disadvantage of TVA’s ratepayers and the environment,” the committee said in a letter to TVA CEO Jeffrey Lyash.

The four committee members — U.S. Reps. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Bobby L. Rush (D-IL), Diana DeGette (D-CO), and Paul Tonko (D-NY) — suggested that Tennessee Valley residents pay too much for electricity despite TVA’s relatively low rates, even as regulators have, in other cases, scrutinized mergers like the Hydro One-Avista deal to safeguard ratepayers, underscoring similar concerns. In 2020, Tennessee residents had electric bills higher than the national average, while low-income residents in Memphis have historically faced one of the highest energy burdens in the U.S.

In 2018, TVA reduced its wholesale rate while adding a grid access charge on local power companies—and interfered with the adoption of solar energy. Internal TVA documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by the Energy and Policy Institute revealed that TVA permitted local power companies to impose new fees on distributed solar generation to “lessen the potential decrease in TVA load that may occur through the adoption of [behind the meter] generation.”

Additionally, the committee said TVA is not prioritizing energy conservation and efficiency or “least-cost planning” that includes renewables, as seen in oversight such as the OEB's Hydro One rates decision emphasizing cost allocation. TVA reduced its energy efficiency programs by nearly two-thirds between 2014 and 2018 and cut its energy efficiency customer incentive programs.

At this time, TVA has not aligned its long-term planning with the Biden administration’s goal to achieve a carbon-free electricity sector by 2035. TVA’s generation mix, which is roughly 60% carbon-free, comprises 39% nuclear, 19% coal, 26% natural gas, 11% hydro, 3% wind and solar, and 1% energy efficiency programs, according to TVA.

The committee is “greatly concerned that TVA has invested comparatively little to date in deploying solar and wind energy, while at the same time considering investments in new natural gas generation.”

TVA has announced plans to shutter the Kingston and Cumberland coal plants and is evaluating whether to replace this generation with natural gas, which is a fossil fuel, while debates over grid privatization raise questions about consumer benefits. TVA’s coal and natural gas plants represent most of the largest sources of greenhouses emissions in Tennessee.

TVA responded with a statement without directly addressing the committee’s concerns. TVA said its “developing and implementing emerging technologies to drive toward net-zero emissions by 2050.”

The final question that the House committee posed is whether TVA is funding any political activity. In 2019, the committee questioned TVA about its membership to the now-disbanded Utility Air Regulatory Group, a coalition that was involved in over 200 lawsuits that primarily fought Clear Air Act regulations.

TVA revealed that it had contributed $7.3 million to the industry lobbying group since 2001. Since TVA doesn’t have shareholders, customers paid for UARG membership fees, echoing findings that deferred utility costs burden customers in other jurisdictions. An Office of the Inspector General investigation couldn’t prove whether TVA’s contributions directly funded litigation because UARG didn’t have a line-by-line accounting of what they did with TVA’s dollars.

The congressional committee questioned whether TVA is still paying for lobbying or litigation that opposes “public health and welfare regulations.”

This last question follows a recent trend of questioning utilities about “hidden fees.” In December, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry to examine how bills from investor-owned utilities might contain fees that fund political activity, and regulators have penalized firms like NT Power over customer notice practices, highlighting consumer protection. The Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition to protect electric and gas customers of investor-owned utilities from paying these fees, which may be used for lobbying, campaign-related donations and litigation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business 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

eRex Biomass Power Plant will deliver 300 MW in Japan, offering stable baseload renewable energy, coal-cost parity, and feed-in tariff independence through economies of scale, efficient fuel procurement, and utility-scale operations supporting RE100 demand.

Key Points

A 300 MW Japan biomass project targeting coal-cost parity and FIT-free, stable baseload renewable power.

✅ 300 MW capacity; enough for about 700,000 households

✅ Aims to skip feed-in tariff via economies of scale

✅ Targets coal-cost parity with stable, dispatchable output

Power supplier eRex will build its largest biomass power plant to date in Japan, hoping the facility's scale will provide healthy margins, a strategy increasingly seen among renewable developers pursuing diverse energy sources, and a means of skipping the government's feed-in tariff program.

The Tokyo-based electric company is in the process of selecting a location, most likely in eastern Japan. It aims to open the plant around 2024 or 2025 following a feasibility study. The facility will cost an estimated 90 billion yen ($812 million) or so, and have an output of 300 megawatts -- enough to supply about 700,000 households. ERex may work with a regional utility or other partner

The biggest biomass power plant operating in Japan currently has an output of 100 MW. With roughly triple that output, the new facility will rank among the world's largest, reflecting momentum toward 100% renewable energy globally that is shaping investment decisions.

Nearly all biomass power facilities in Japan sell their output through the government-mediated feed-in tariff program, which requires utilities to buy renewable energy at a fixed price. For large biomass plants that burn wood or agricultural waste, the rate is set at 21 yen per kilowatt-hour. But the program costs the Japanese public more than 2 trillion yen a year, and is said to hamper price competition.

ERex aims to forgo the feed-in tariff with its new plant by reaping economies of scale in operation and fuel procurement. The goal is to make the undertaking as economical as coal energy, which costs around 12 yen per kilowatt-hour, even as solar's rise in the U.S. underscores evolving benchmarks for competitive renewables.

Much of the renewable energy available in Japan is solar power, which fluctuates widely according to weather conditions, though power prediction accuracy has improved at Japanese PV projects. Biomass plants, which use such materials as wood chips and palm kernel shells as fuel, offer a more stable alternative.

Demand for reliable sources of renewable energy is on the rise in the business world, as shown by the RE100 initiative, in which 100 of the world's biggest companies, such as Olympus, have announced their commitment to get 100% of their power from renewable sources. ERex's new facility may spur competition.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

China 2060 Carbon-Neutral Energy Transition projects tripled electricity, rapid electrification, wind and solar dominance, scalable hydrogen, CCUS, and higher carbon pricing to meet net-zero goals while decarbonizing heavy industry and transport.

Key Points

Shell's outlook for China to reach net zero by 2060 via electrification, renewables, hydrogen, CCUS, and carbon pricing.

✅ Power supply to 60% of energy; generation triples by 2060.

✅ Wind and solar reach 80% of electricity; coal declines sharply.

✅ Hydrogen scales to 17 EJ; CCUS and carbon pricing expand.

China may triple electricity generation to supply 60 percent of the country's total energy under Beijing's carbon-neutral goal by 2060, up from the current 23 per cent, according to Royal Dutch Shell.

Shell is one of the largest global investors in China's energy sector, with business covering gas production, petrochemicals and a retail fuel network. A leading supplier of liquefied natural gas, it has recently expanded into low-carbon business such as hydrogen power and electric vehicle charging.

In a rare assessment of the country's energy sector by an international oil major, Shell said China needed to take quick action this decade to stay on track to reach the carbon-neutrality goal.

China has mapped out plans to reach peak emissions by 2030, and aims to reduce coal power production over the coming years, but has not yet revealed any detailed carbon roadmap for 2060.

This includes investing in a reliable and renewable power system, including compressed air generation, and demonstrating technologies that transform heavy industry using hydrogen, biofuel and carbon capture and utilization.

"With early and systematic action, China can deliver better environmental and social outcomes for its citizens while being a force for good in the global fight against climate change," Mallika Ishwaran, chief economist of Shell International, told a webinar hosted by the company's China business.

Shell expects China's electricity generation to rise three-fold to more than 60 exajoules (EJ) in 2060 from 20 EJ in 2020, even amid power supply challenges reported recently.

Solar and wind power are expected to surpass coal as the largest sources of electricity by 2034 in China, reflecting projections that renewables will eclipse coal globally by mid-decade, versus the current 10 percent, rising to 80 percent by 2060, Shell said.

Hydrogen is expected to scale up to 17 EJ, or equivalent to 580 million tonnes of coal by 2060, up from almost negligible currently, adding over 85 percent of the hydrogen will be produced through electrolysis, supported by PEM hydrogen R&D across the sector, powered by renewable and nuclear electricity, Shell said.

Hydrogen will meet 16 percent of total energy use in 2060 with heavy industry and long-distance transport as top hydrogen users, the firm added.

The firm also expects China's carbon price to rise to 1,300 yuan (CDN$256.36) per tonne in 2060 from 300 yuan in 2030.

Nuclear, on a steady development track, and biomass will have niche but important roles for power generation in the years to come, Shell said.

Electricity generated from biomass, combined with carbon, capture, utilization and storage (CCUS), provide a source of negative emissions for the rest of the energy system from 2053, it added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News