Scientists and politicians form colliding fronts on climate change

Ontario Natural Gas Moratorium gains momentum as IESO weighs energy storage, renewables, and demand management to meet rising electricity demand, ensure grid reliability, and advance zero-emissions goals while long-term capacity procurements proceed.

Key Points

A proposed halt on new gas plants as IESO assesses storage and renewables to maintain reliability and cut emissions.

✅ Minister seeks interim IESO report by Oct. 7

✅ Near-term contracts extend existing gas plants for reliability

✅ Long-term procurements emphasize storage, renewables, conservation

Ontario's energy minister says he doesn't think the province needs any more natural gas generation and has asked the electricity system regulator to speed up a report exploring a moratorium.

Todd Smith had previously asked the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) to report back by November on the feasibility of a moratorium and a plan to get to zero emissions in the electricity sector.

He has asked them today for an interim report by Oct. 7 so he can make a decision on a moratorium before the IESO secures contracts over the long term for new power generation.

"I've asked the IESO to speed up that report back to us so that we can get the information from them as to what the results would be for our grid here in Ontario and whether or not we actually need more natural gas," Smith said Tuesday after question period.

"I don't believe that we do."

Smith said that is because of the "huge success" of two updates provided Tuesday by the IESO to its attempts to secure more electricity supply for both the near term and long term. Demand is growing by nearly two per cent a year, while Ontario is set to lose a significant amount of nuclear generation, including the planned shutdown of the Pickering nuclear station over the next few years.

'For the near term, we need them,' regulator says
The regulator today released a list of 55 qualified proponents for those long-term bids and while it says there is a significant amount of proposed energy storage projects on that list, there are some new gas plants on it as well.

Chuck Farmer, the vice-president of planning, conservation and resource adequacy at the IESO, said it's hoped that the minister makes a decision on whether or not to issue a moratorium on new gas generation before the regulator proceeds with a request for proposals for long-term contracts.

The IESO also announced six new contracts — largely natural gas, with a small amount of wind power and storage — to start in the next few years. Farmer noted that these contracts were specifically for existing generators whose contracts were ending, while the province is exploring new nuclear plants for the longer term.

"When you look at the pool of generation resources that were in that situation, the reality is most of them were actually natural gas plants, and that we are relying on the continued use of the natural gas plants in the transition," he said in an interview. 

"So for the near term, we need them for the reliability of the system."

The upcoming request for proposals for more long-term contracts hopes to secure 3,500 megawatts of capacity, as Ontario faces an electricity shortfall in the coming years, and Farmer said the IESO plans to run a series of procurements over the next few years.

Opposition slams reliance on natural gas
The NDP and Greens on Tuesday criticized Ontario's reliance in the near term on natural gas because of its environmental implications.

The IESO has said that due to natural gas, greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector are set to increase for the next two decades, but by about 2038 it projects the net reductions from electric vehicles will offset electricity sector emissions.

Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner said it makes no sense to ramp up natural gas, both for the climate and for people's wallets.

"The cost of wind and solar power is much lower than gas," he said.

Ontario quietly revises its plan for hitting climate change targets
"We're in a now-or-never moment to address the climate crisis and the government is failing to meet this moment."

Interim NDP Leader Peter Tabuns said Ontario wouldn't be in as much of a supply crunch if the Progressive Conservative government hadn't cancelled 750 green energy contracts during their first term.

The Tories argued the province didn't need the power and the contracts were driving up costs for ratepayers, amid debate over whether greening the grid would be affordable.

The IESO said it is also proposing expanding conservation and demand management programs, as a "highly cost-effective" way to reduce strain on the system, though it couldn't say exactly what is on the table until the minister accepts the recommendation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Japan Offshore Wind Investment signals Japanese utilities entering UK offshore wind, as J-Power and Kansai Electric buy into Innogy's Triton Knoll, leveraging North Sea expertise, 9.5MW turbines, and 15-year fixed-rate contracts.

Key Points

Japanese utilities buying UK offshore wind stakes to import expertise, as J-Power and Kansai join Innogy's Triton Knoll.

✅ $900M deal: J-Power 25%, Kansai Electric ~16% in Innogy unit

✅ Triton Knoll: 860MW, up to 90 9.5MW turbines, 15-year fixed PPA

✅ Goal: Transfer North Sea expertise to develop Japan offshore wind

Two of Japan's biggest power companies will buy around 40% of a German-owned developer of offshore wind farms in the U.K., seeking to learn from Britain's lead in this sector, as highlighted by a UK offshore wind milestone this week, and bring the know-how back home.

Tokyo-based Electric Power Development, better known as J-Power, will join Osaka regional utility Kansai Electric Power in investing in a unit of Germany's Innogy.

The deal, estimated to be worth around $900 million, will give J-Power a 25% stake and Kansai Electric a roughly 16% share. It will mark the first investment in an offshore wind project by Japanese power companies, as other markets shift strategies, with Poland backing wind over nuclear signaling broader momentum.

Innogy plans to start up the 860-megawatt Triton Knoll offshore wind project -- one of the biggest of its kind in the world -- in the North Sea in 2021. The vast installation will have up to 90 9.5MW turbines and sell its output to local utilities under a 15-year fixed-rate contract.

J-Power, which supplies mainly fossil-fuel-based electricity to Japanese regional utilities, will set up a subsidiary backed by the government-run Development Bank of Japan to participate in the Innogy project. Engineers will study firsthand construction and maintenance methods.

While land-based wind turbines are proliferating worldwide, offshore wind farms have progressed mainly in Europe, though U.S. offshore wind competitiveness is improving in key markets. Installed capacity totaled more than 18,000MW at the end of 2017, which at maximum capacity can produce as much power as 18 nuclear reactors.

Japan has hardly any offshore wind farms in commercial operation, and has little in the way of engineering know-how in this field or infrastructure for linking such installations to the land power grid, with a recent Japan grid blackout analysis underscoring these challenges. But there are plans for a total of 4,000MW of offshore wind power capacity, including projects under feasibility studies.

J-Power set up a renewable energy division in June to look for opportunities to expand into wind and geothermal energy in Japan, and efforts like a Japan hydrogen energy system are emerging to support decarbonization. Kansai Electric also seeks know-how for increasing its reliance on renewable energy, even as it hurries to restart idled nuclear reactors.

They are not the only Japanese investors is in this field. In Asia, trading house Marubeni will invest in a Taiwanese venture with plans for a 600MW offshore wind farm.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Power-to-gas converts surplus renewable electricity into green hydrogen or synthetic methane via electrolysis and methanation, enabling seasonal energy storage, grid balancing, hydrogen injection into gas pipelines, and decarbonization of heat, transport, and industry.

Key Points

Power-to-gas turns excess renewable power into hydrogen or methane for storage, grid support, and clean fuel.

✅ Enables hydrogen injection into existing natural gas networks

✅ Balances grids and provides seasonal energy storage capacity

✅ Supplies low-carbon fuels for industry, heat, and heavy transport

Last month Denmark’s biggest energy firm, Ørsted, said wind farms it is proposing for the North Sea will convert some of their excess power into gas. Electricity flowing in from offshore will feed on-shore electrolysis plants that split water to produce clean-burning hydrogen, with oxygen as a by-product. That would supply a new set of customers who need energy, but not as electricity. And it would take some strain off of Europe’s power grid as it grapples with an ever-increasing share of hard-to-handle EU wind and solar output on the grid.

Turning clean electricity into energetic gases such as hydrogen or methane is an old idea that is making a comeback as renewable power generation surges and crowds out gas in Europe. That is because gases can be stockpiled within the natural gas distribution system to cover times of weak winds and sunlight. They can also provide concentrated energy to replace fossil fuels for vehicles and industries. Although many U.S. energy experts argue that this “power-to-gas” vision may be prohibitively expensive, some of Europe’s biggest industrial firms are buying in to the idea.

European power equipment manufacturers, anticipating a wave of renewable hydrogen projects such as Ørsted’s, vowed in January that, as countries push for hydrogen-ready power plants across Europe, all of their gas-fired turbines will be certified by next year to run on up to 20 percent hydrogen, which burns faster than methane-rich natural gas. The natural gas distributors, meanwhile, have said they will use hydrogen to help them fully de-carbonize Europe’s gas supplies by 2050.

Converting power to gas is picking up steam in Europe because the region has more consistent and aggressive climate policies and evolving electricity pricing frameworks that support integration. Most U.S. states have goals to clean up some fraction of their electricity supply; coal- and gas-fired plants contribute a little more than a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, European countries are counting on carbon reductions of 80 percent or more by midcentury—reductions that will require an economywide switch to low-carbon energy.

Cleaning up energy by stripping the carbon out of fossil fuels is costly. So is building massive new grid infrastructure, including transmission lines and huge batteries, amid persistent grid expansion woes in parts of Europe. Power-to-gas may be the cheapest way forward, complementing Germany’s net-zero roadmap to cut electricity costs by a third. “In order to reach the targets for climate protection, we need even more renewable energy. Green hydrogen is perceived as one of the most promising ways to make the energy transition happen,” says Armin Schnettler, head of energy and electronics research at Munich-based electric equipment giant Siemens.

Europe already has more than 45 demonstration projects to improve power-to-gas technologies and their integration with power grids and gas networks. The principal focus has been to make the electrolyzers that convert electricity to hydrogen more efficient, longer-lasting and cheaper to produce.

The projects are also scaling up the various technologies. Early installations converted a few hundred kilowatts of electricity, but manufacturers such as Siemens are now building equipment that can convert 10 megawatts, which would yield enough hydrogen each year to heat around 3,000 homes or fuel 100 buses, according to financial consultancy Ernst & Young.

The improvements have been most dramatic for proton-exchange membrane electrolyzers, which are akin to the fuel cells used in hydrogen vehicles (but optimized to produce hydrogen rather than consume it). The price of proton-exchange electrolyzers has dropped by roughly 40 percent during the past decade, according to a study published in February in Nature Energy. They are also five times more compact than older alkaline electrolysis plants, enabling onsite hydrogen production near gas consumers, and they can vary their power consumption within seconds to operate on fluctuating wind and solar generation.

Many European pilot projects are demonstrating “methanation” equipment that converts hydrogen to methane, too, which can be used as a drop-in replacement for natural gas. Europe’s electrolyzer plants, however, are showing that methanation is not as critical to the power-to-gas vision as advocates long believed. Many electrolyzers are injecting their hydrogen directly into natural gas pipelines—something that U.S. gas firms forbid—and they are doing so without impacting either the gas infrastructure or natural gas consumers.

Europe’s first large-scale hydrogen injection began in eastern Germany in 2013 at a two-megawatt electrolyzer installed by Essen-based power firm E.ON. Germany has since ratcheted up the amount of hydrogen it allows in natural gas lines from an initial 2 percent by volume to 10 percent, in a market where renewables now outpace coal and nuclear in Germany, and other European states have followed suit with their own hydrogen allowances. Christopher Hebling, head of hydrogen technologies at the Freiburg-based Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, predicts that such limits will rise to the 20-percent level anticipated by Europe’s turbine manufacturers.

Moving renewable hydrogen and methane via natural gas pipelines promises to cut the cost of switching to renewable energy. For example, gas networks have storage caverns whose reserves could be tapped to run gas-fired electric generation power plants during periods of low wind and solar output. Hebling notes that Germany’s gas network can store 240 terawatt-hours of energy—roughly 25 times more energy than global power grids can presently store by pumping water uphill to refill hydropower reservoirs. Repurposing gas infrastructure to help the power system could save European consumers 138 billion euros ($156 billion) by 2050, according to Dutch energy consultancy Navigant (formerly Ecofys).

For all the pilot plants and promise, renewable hydrogen presently supplies a tiny fraction of Europe’s gas. And, globally, around 4 percent of hydrogen is supplied via electrolysis, with the bulk refined from fossil fuels, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency.

Power-to-gas is catching up, however. According to the February Nature Energy study, renewable hydrogen already pays for itself in some niche applications, and further electrolyzer improvements will progressively extend its market. “If costs continue to decline as they have done in recent years, power-to-gas will become competitive at large scale within the next decade,” says study co-author Gunther Glenk, an economist at the Technical University of Munich.

Glenk says power-to-gas could scale up faster if governments guaranteed premium prices for renewable hydrogen and methane, as they did to mainstream solar and wind power.

Tim Calver, an energy storage researcher turned consultant and Ernst & Young’s executive director in London, agrees that European governments need to step up their support for power-to-gas projects and markets. Calver calls the scale of funding to date, “not proportionate to the challenge that we face on long-term decarbonization and the potential role of hydrogen.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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

ITER Nuclear Fusion advances tokamak magnetic confinement, heating deuterium-tritium plasma with superconducting magnets, targeting net energy gain, tritium breeding, and steam-turbine power, while complementing laser inertial confinement milestones for grid-scale electricity and 2025 startup goals.

Key Points

ITER Nuclear Fusion is a tokamak project confining D-T plasma with magnets to achieve net energy gain and clean power.

✅ Tokamak magnetic confinement with high-temp superconducting coils

✅ Deuterium-tritium fuel cycle with on-site tritium breeding

✅ Targets net energy gain and grid-scale, low-carbon electricity

It sounds like the stuff of dreams: a virtually limitless source of energy that doesn’t produce greenhouse gases or radioactive waste. That’s the promise of nuclear fusion, often described as the holy grail of clean energy by proponents, which for decades has been nothing more than a fantasy due to insurmountable technical challenges. But things are heating up in what has turned into a race to create what amounts to an artificial sun here on Earth, one that can provide power for our kettles, cars and light bulbs.

Today’s nuclear power plants create electricity through nuclear fission, in which atoms are split, with next-gen nuclear power exploring smaller, cheaper, safer designs that remain distinct from fusion. Nuclear fusion however, involves combining atomic nuclei to release energy. It’s the same reaction that’s taking place at the Sun’s core. But overcoming the natural repulsion between atomic nuclei and maintaining the right conditions for fusion to occur isn’t straightforward. And doing so in a way that produces more energy than the reaction consumes has been beyond the grasp of the finest minds in physics for decades.

But perhaps not for much longer. Some major technical challenges have been overcome in the past few years and governments around the world have been pouring money into fusion power research as part of a broader green industrial revolution under way in several regions. There are also over 20 private ventures in the UK, US, Europe, China and Australia vying to be the first to make fusion energy production a reality.

“People are saying, ‘If it really is the ultimate solution, let’s find out whether it works or not,’” says Dr Tim Luce, head of science and operation at the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), being built in southeast France. ITER is the biggest throw of the fusion dice yet.

Its $22bn (£15.9bn) build cost is being met by the governments of two-thirds of the world’s population, including the EU, the US, China and Russia, at a time when Europe is losing nuclear power and needs energy, and when it’s fired up in 2025 it’ll be the world’s largest fusion reactor. If it works, ITER will transform fusion power from being the stuff of dreams into a viable energy source.

Constructing a nuclear fusion reactor
ITER will be a tokamak reactor – thought to be the best hope for fusion power. Inside a tokamak, a gas, often a hydrogen isotope called deuterium, is subjected to intense heat and pressure, forcing electrons out of the atoms. This creates a plasma – a superheated, ionised gas – that has to be contained by intense magnetic fields.

The containment is vital, as no material on Earth could withstand the intense heat (100,000,000°C and above) that the plasma has to reach so that fusion can begin. It’s close to 10 times the heat at the Sun’s core, and temperatures like that are needed in a tokamak because the gravitational pressure within the Sun can’t be recreated.

When atomic nuclei do start to fuse, vast amounts of energy are released. While the experimental reactors currently in operation release that energy as heat, in a fusion reactor power plant, the heat would be used to produce steam that would drive turbines to generate electricity, even as some envision nuclear beyond electricity for industrial heat and fuels.

Tokamaks aren’t the only fusion reactors being tried. Another type of reactor uses lasers to heat and compress a hydrogen fuel to initiate fusion. In August 2021, one such device at the National Ignition Facility, at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, generated 1.35 megajoules of energy. This record-breaking figure brings fusion power a step closer to net energy gain, but most hopes are still pinned on tokamak reactors rather than lasers.

In June 2021, China’s Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) reactor maintained a plasma for 101 seconds at 120,000,000°C. Before that, the record was 20 seconds. Ultimately, a fusion reactor would need to sustain the plasma indefinitely – or at least for eight-hour ‘pulses’ during periods of peak electricity demand.

A real game-changer for tokamaks has been the magnets used to produce the magnetic field. “We know how to make magnets that generate a very high magnetic field from copper or other kinds of metal, but you would pay a fortune for the electricity. It wouldn’t be a net energy gain from the plant,” says Luce.

One route for nuclear fusion is to use atoms of deuterium and tritium, both isotopes of hydrogen. They fuse under incredible heat and pressure, and the resulting products release energy as heat

The solution is to use high-temperature, superconducting magnets made from superconducting wire, or ‘tape’, that has no electrical resistance. These magnets can create intense magnetic fields and don’t lose energy as heat.

“High temperature superconductivity has been known about for 35 years. But the manufacturing capability to make tape in the lengths that would be required to make a reasonable fusion coil has just recently been developed,” says Luce. One of ITER’s magnets, the central solenoid, will produce a field of 13 tesla – 280,000 times Earth’s magnetic field.

The inner walls of ITER’s vacuum vessel, where the fusion will occur, will be lined with beryllium, a metal that won’t contaminate the plasma much if they touch. At the bottom is the divertor that will keep the temperature inside the reactor under control.

“The heat load on the divertor can be as large as in a rocket nozzle,” says Luce. “Rocket nozzles work because you can get into orbit within minutes and in space it’s really cold.” In a fusion reactor, a divertor would need to withstand this heat indefinitely and at ITER they’ll be testing one made out of tungsten.

Meanwhile, in the US, the National Spherical Torus Experiment – Upgrade (NSTX-U) fusion reactor will be fired up in the autumn of 2022, while efforts in advanced fission such as a mini-reactor design are also progressing. One of its priorities will be to see whether lining the reactor with lithium helps to keep the plasma stable.

Choosing a fuel
Instead of just using deuterium as the fusion fuel, ITER will use deuterium mixed with tritium, another hydrogen isotope. The deuterium-tritium blend offers the best chance of getting significantly more power out than is put in. Proponents of fusion power say one reason the technology is safe is that the fuel needs to be constantly fed into the reactor to keep fusion happening, making a runaway reaction impossible.

Deuterium can be extracted from seawater, so there’s a virtually limitless supply of it. But only 20kg of tritium are thought to exist worldwide, so fusion power plants will have to produce it (ITER will develop technology to ‘breed’ tritium). While some radioactive waste will be produced in a fusion plant, it’ll have a lifetime of around 100 years, rather than the thousands of years from fission.

At the time of writing in September, researchers at the Joint European Torus (JET) fusion reactor in Oxfordshire were due to start their deuterium-tritium fusion reactions. “JET will help ITER prepare a choice of machine parameters to optimise the fusion power,” says Dr Joelle Mailloux, one of the scientific programme leaders at JET. These parameters will include finding the best combination of deuterium and tritium, and establishing how the current is increased in the magnets before fusion starts.

The groundwork laid down at JET should accelerate ITER’s efforts to accomplish net energy gain. ITER will produce ‘first plasma’ in December 2025 and be cranked up to full power over the following decade. Its plasma temperature will reach 150,000,000°C and its target is to produce 500 megawatts of fusion power for every 50 megawatts of input heating power.

“If ITER is successful, it’ll eliminate most, if not all, doubts about the science and liberate money for technology development,” says Luce. That technology development will be demonstration fusion power plants that actually produce electricity, where advanced reactors can build on decades of expertise. “ITER is opening the door and saying, yeah, this works – the science is there.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Duke Energy Smart Meters enable remote meter reading, daily energy usage data, and two-way outage detection via AMI, with encrypted data, faster restoration, and remote connect/disconnect for Indiana customers in Howard County.

Key Points

Advanced meters that support remote readings, daily usage insights, two-way outage detection, and secure, encrypted data.

✅ Daily energy usage available online the next day

✅ Two-way communications speed outage detection and restoration

✅ Remote connect/disconnect; manual reads optional with opt-out fee

Say goodbye to your neighborhood meter reader. Say hello to your new smart meter.

Over the next three months, Duke Energy will install nearly 43,000 new high-tech electric meters for Howard County customers that will allow the utility company to remotely access meters via the digital grid instead of sending out employees to a homeowner's property for walk-by readings.

That means there's no need to estimate bills when meters can't be easily accessed, such as during severe weather or winter storms.

Other counties serviced by Duke Energy slated to receive the meters include Miami, Tipton, Cass and Carroll counties.

Angeline Protogere, Duke Energy's lead communication consultant, said besides saving the company money and manpower, the new smart meters come with a host of benefits for customers enabled by smart grid solutions today.

The meters are capable of capturing daily energy usage data, which is available online the next day. Having this information available on a daily basis can help customers make smarter energy decisions and support customer analytics that avoid billing surprises at the end of the month, she said.

"The real advantage is for the consumer, because they can track their energy usage and adjust their usage before the bills come," Protogere said.

When it comes to power outages, the meters are capable of two-way communications. That allows the company to know more about an outage through synchrophasor monitoring, which can help speed up restoration. However, customers will still need to notify Duke Energy if their power goes out.

If a customer is moving, they don't have to wait for a Duke Energy representative to come to the premises to connect or disconnect the energy service because requests can be performed remotely.

Protogere said when it comes to installing the meters, the changeover takes less than 5 minutes to complete. Customers should receive advance notices from the company, but the technician also will knock on the door to let the customer know they are there.

If no one is available and the meter is safely accessible, the technician will go ahead and change out the meter, Protogere said. There will be a momentary outage between the time the old meter is removed and the new meter is installed.

Kokomo and the surrounding areas are one of the last parts of the state to receive Duke Energy's new, high-tech meters, which are commonly used by other utility companies and in smart city initiatives across the U.S.

Protogere said statewide, the company started installing smart meters in August 2016 as utilities deploy digital transformer stations to modernize the grid. To date, they have installed 694,000 of the 854,000 they have planned for the state.

The company says the information stored and transmitted on the smart meters is safe, protected and confidential. Duke Energy said on its website that it does not share data with anyone without customers' authorization. The information coming from the meters is encrypted and protected from the moment it is collected until the moment it is purged, the company said.

Digital smart meter technology uses radio frequency bands that have been used for many years in devices such as baby monitors and medical monitors. The radio signals are far below the levels emitted by common household appliances and electronics, including cellphones and microwave ovens.

According to the World Health Organization, FCC, U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Electric Power Research Institute, no adverse health effects have been shown to occur from the radio frequency signals produced by smart meters or other such wireless networks.

However, customers can still opt-out of getting a smart meter and continue to have their meter manually read.

Those who choose not to get a smart meter must pay a $75 initial opt-out fee and an additional $17.50 monthly meter reading charge per account.

If smart meters have not yet been installed, Duke Energy will waive the $75 initial opt-out fee if customers notify the company they want to opt out within 21 days of receiving the installation postcard notice.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News