45 billion dollar utility sale an environmental watershed

Wisconsin Solar and Wind Energy advances as rooftop solar, utility-scale farms, and NREL perovskite solar cells improve efficiency; wind turbines gain via wake modeling, yaw control, and grid-scale battery storage to cut carbon emissions.

Key Points

It is Wisconsin's growth in rooftop and utility-scale solar plus optimized wind turbines to cut carbon emissions.

✅ Perovskite solar cells promise higher efficiency, need longevity

✅ Wake modeling and yaw control optimize wind farm output

✅ Batteries and bids can offset reliance on natural gas

Solar energy in Wisconsin continued to grow in 2019, as more homeowners had rooftop panels installed and big utilities started building multi-panel solar farms.

Wind power is increasing more slowly in the state. However, renewable power developers are again coming forward with proposals for multiple turbines.

Nationally, researchers are working on ways to get even more energy from solar and wind, with the U.S. moving toward 30% electricity from wind and solar in coming years, as states like Wisconsin aim to reduce their carbon emissions over the next few decades.

One reason solar energy is growing in Wisconsin is due to the silicon panels becoming more efficient. But scientists haven't finished trying to improve panel efficiency. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Col., is one of the research facilities experimenting with brushing a lab-made solution called perovskite onto a portion of a panel called a solar cell.

In a demonstration video supplied by NREL, senior scientist Maikel van Hest said that, in the lab anyway, the painted cell and its electrical connections called contacts, produce more energy:

"There you go! That's how you paint a perovskite solar cell. And you imagine that ultimately what you could do is you could see a company come in with a truck in front of your house and they would basically paint on the contacts first, dry those, and paint the perovskite over it. That you would have photovoltaic cells on the side of your house, put protective coating on it, and we're done."

Another NREL scientist, David Moore, says the new solar cells could be made faster and help meet what's expected to be a growing global demand for energy. However, Moore says the problem has been lack of stability.

"A solar cell with perovskites will last a couple years. We need to get that to 20-25 years, and that's the big forefront in perovskite research, is getting them to last longer," Moore told members of the Society of Environmental Journalists during a recent tour of NREL.

Another part of improving renewable energy is making wind turbines more productive. At NREL's Insight Center, a large screen showing energy model simulations dominates an otherwise darkened room. Visualization scientist Nicholas Brunhart-Lupo points to a display on the screen that shows how spinning turbines at one edge of a wind farm can cause an airflow called a wake, which curtails the power generation of other turbines.

"So what we find in these simulations is these four turbines back here, since they have this used air, this low-velocity wake being blown to their faces, they're only generating about 20% of the energy they should be generating," he explains.

Brunhart-Lupo says the simulations can help wind farm developers with placement of turbines as well as adjustments to the rotor and blades called the yaw system.

Continued progress with renewables may be vital to any state or national pledges to reduce use of fossil fuels and carbon emissions linked to climate change, including Biden's solar expansion plan as a potential pathway. Some scientists say to limit a rise in global temperature, there must be a big decline in emissions by 2050.

But even utilities that say they support use of more renewables, as why the grid isn't 100% renewable yet makes clear, aren't ready to let go of some energy sources. Jonathan Adelman of Xcel Energy, which serves part of Western Wisconsin, says Xcel is on track to close its last two coal-fired power plants in Minnesota. But he says the company will need more natural gas plants, even though they wouldn't run as often.

"It's not perfect. And it is in conflict with our ultimate goal of being carbon-free," says Adelman. "But if we want to facilitate the transition, we still need resources to help that happen."

Some in the solar industry would like utilities that say they need more natural gas plants to put out competitive bids to see what else might be possible. Solar advocates also note that in some states, energy regulators still favor the utilities.

Meanwhile, solar slowly marches ahead, including here in southeastern Wisconsin, as Germany's solar power boost underscores global momentum.

On the roof of a ranch-style home in River Hills, a work crew from the major solar firm Sunrun recently installed mounting brackets for solar panels.

Sunrun Public Policy Director Amy Heart says she supports research into more efficient renewables. But she says another innovation may have to come in the way regulators think.

"Instead of allowing and thinking about from the perspective of the utility builds the power plant, they replace one plant with another one, they invest in the infrastructure; is really thinking about how can these distributed solutions like rooftop solar, peer-to-peer energy sharing, and especially rooftop solar paired with batteries how can that actually reduce some of what the utility needs?

Large-scale energy storage batteries are already being used in some limited cases. But energy researchers continue to make improvements to them, too, with cheap solar batteries beginning to make widespread adoption more feasible as scientists race to reduce the expected additional harm of climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

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

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Texas Proposition 7 Energy Fund will finance ERCOT grid reliability via loans and grants for new on-demand natural gas plants, maintenance, and modernization, administered by the Public Utility Commission of Texas after Winter Storm Uri.

Key Points

State-managed fund providing loans and grants to expand and upgrade ERCOT power generation for grid reliability.

✅ $7.2B incentives for new dispatchable plants in ERCOT

✅ Administered by Public Utility Commission of Texas

✅ Aims to prevent outages like Winter Storm Uri

Texans are set to vote on Tuesday on a constitutional amendment to determine whether the state will create a special fund for financing the "construction, maintenance, and modernization of its electric generating facilities."

The energy fund would be administered and used only by the Public Utility Commission of Texas to provide loans and grants to maintain and upgrade electric generating facilities and improve electricity reliability across the state.

The biggest chunk of the fund, $7.2 billion, would go into loans and incentives to build new power-generating facilities in the ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas) region, where ERCOT has issued an RFP for winter capacity to address seasonal concerns.

The proposal, titled Proposition 7, is one of several electricity market reforms under consideration by lawmakers and regulators in Texas to avoid another energy crisis like the one caused by a deadly winter storm in February 2021.

That storm, known as Winter Storm Uri, left millions without power, water and heat for days as ERCOT struggled to prevent a grid collapse after the shutdown of an unusually large amount of generation, and bailout proposals soon surfaced in the Legislature as the market reeled.

Pablo Vegas, president and CEO of ERCOT, emphasized the grid has become more “volatile” given the current resources, as the Texas power grid faces recurring challenges.

“The complexities of managing a growing demand, and a very dynamic load environment with those types of resources becomes more and more challenging,” Vegas said Tuesday during a meeting of the ERCOT board of directors.

Vegas said one solution to overcome the challenge is investing in power production that is available on demand, like power plants fueled by natural gas. Those plants can help during times when the need for electricity strains the supply.

“With the passing of Proposition 7 on the ballot this November, we’ll see those incentives combined to incentivize a more balanced development strategy going forward,” Vegas told board members.

If Proposition 7 is passed by voters, it would enact S.B. 2627, which establishes an advisory committee to oversee the fund and the various projects it could be used for, amid severe-heat blackout risks that affect the broader U.S. $5 billion would be transferred from the General Revenue Fund to the Texas Energy Fund if Proposition 7 passes.

Opposition for Proposition 7 comes from the Lone Star chapter of the Sierra Club, an environmental organization based in Austin and which has issued a statement on Gov. Abbott's demands regarding grid policy. Cyrus Reed, conservation director of the Lone Star chapter, said the Texas energy fund is slated to benefit private utilities to build gas plants using taxpayer’s money.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Germany net-zero roadmap charts coal phase-out by 2030, rapid renewables buildout, energy storage, and hydrogen-ready gas engines to cut emissions and lower LCOE by 34%, unlocking a resilient, flexible, low-cost power system by 2040.

Key Points

Plan to phase out coal by 2030 and gas by 2040, scaling renewables, storage, and hydrogen to cut LCOE and emissions.

✅ Coal out by 2030; gas phased 2040 with hydrogen-ready engines

✅ Add 19 GW/yr renewables; 30 GW storage by 2040

✅ 34% lower LCOE, 23% fewer emissions vs slower path

Germany can achieve significant reductions in emissions and the cost of electricity by phasing out coal in 2030 under its coal phase-out plan but must have a clear plan to ramp up renewables and pivot to sustainable fuels in order to achieve net-zero, according to a new whitepaper from Wartsila.

The modelling, published in Wärtsilä new white paper ‘Achieving net-zero power system in Germany by 2040’, compares the current plan to phase out coal by 2030 and gas by 2045 with an accelerated plan, where gas is phased out by 2040. By accelerating the path to net-zero, Germany can unlock a 34% reduction in the levelised cost of energy, as well as a 23% reduction in the total emissions, or 562 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in real terms.

The modelling offers a clear, three-step roadmap to achieve net-zero: rapidly increase renewables, energy storage and begin future-proofing gas engines in this decade; phase out coal by 2030; and phase out gas by 2040, converting remaining engines to run on sustainable fuels.

The greatest rewards are available if Germany front-loads decarbonisation. This can be done by rapidly increasing renewable capacity, adding 19 GW of wind and solar PV capacity per year. It must also add a total of 30GW of energy storage by 2040.

Håkan Agnevall, President and CEO of Wärtsilä Corporation said: “Germany stands on the precipice of a new, sustainable energy era. The new Federal Government has indicated its plans to consign coal to history by 2030. However, this is only step one. Our white paper demonstrates the need to implement a three-step roadmap to achieve net-zero. It is time to put a deadline on fossil fuels and create a clear plan to transition to sustainable fuels.”

While a rapid coal phase-out has been at the centre of recent climate policy debates, including the ongoing nuclear debate over Germany’s energy mix, the pathway to net-zero is less clear. Wärtsilä’s modelling shows that gas engines should be used to accelerate the transition by providing a short-term bridge to enable net zero and navigate the energy transition while balancing the intermittency of renewables until sustainable fuels are available at scale.

However, if Germany follows the slower pathway and reaches net-zero by 2045, it risks becoming reliant on gas as baseload power for much of the 2030s amid renewable expansion challenges that persist, potentially harming its ability to reach its climate goals. 

Creating the infrastructure to pivot to sustainable fuels is one of the greatest challenges facing the German system. The ability to convert existing capacity to run purely on hydrogen via hydrogen-ready power plants will be key to reaching net-zero by 2040 and unlocking the significant system-wide benefits on offer.

Jan Andersson, General Manager of Market Development in Germany, Wärtsilä Energy added: “To reach the 2040 target and unlock the greatest benefits, the most important thing that Germany can do is build renewables now. 19 GW is an ambitious target, but Germany can do it. History shows us that Germany has been able to achieve high levels of renewable buildout in previous years. It must now reach those levels consistently.

“Creating a clear plan which sets out the steps to net zero is essential. Renewable energy is inherently intermittent, so flexible energy capacity will play a vital role. While batteries provide effective short-term flexibility, gas is currently the only practical long-term option. If Germany is to unlock the greatest benefits from decarbonisation, it must have a clear plan to integrate sustainable fuel. From 2030, all new thermal capacity must run solely on hydrogen.”

Analysis of the last decade demonstrates that the rapid expansion of renewable energy is possible, and that renewables overtook coal and nuclear in generation. Previously, Germany has built large amounts of renewable capacity, including 8GW of solar PV in 2010 and 2011, 5.3 GW of onshore wind in 2017, and 2.5 GW of offshore wind in 2015.

The significant reductions in the cost of electricity demonstrated in the modelling are driven by the fact that renewables are far cheaper to run than coal or gas plants, even as coal still provides about a third of electricity in Germany. The initial capital investment is far outweighed by the ongoing operational expense of fossil fuel-based power.

As well as reducing emissions and costs, Germany’s rapid path to net-zero can also unlock a series of additional benefits. If coal is phased out by 2030 but capacity is not replaced by high levels of renewable energy, Germany risks becoming a significant energy importer, peaking at 162 TWh in 2035. The accelerated pathway would reduce imports by a third.

Likewise, more renewable energy will help to electrify district heating, meaning Germany can move away from carbon-intensive fuels sooner. If Germany follows the accelerated path, 57% of Germany’s heating could be electrified in 2045, compared to 10% under the slower plan.

Jan Andersson concluded: “The opportunities on offer are vast. Germany can provide the blueprint for net zero and galvanise an entire continent. Now is the time for the new government to seize the initiative.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant Mines reported by IAEA at the Russian-occupied site: anti-personnel devices in a buffer zone, restricted areas; access limits to reactor rooftops and turbine halls heighten nuclear safety and security concerns in Ukraine.

Key Points

IAEA reports anti-personnel mines at Russian-held Zaporizhzhia, raising nuclear safety risks in buffer zones.

✅ IAEA observes mines in buffer zone at occupied site

✅ Restricted areas; no roof or turbine hall access granted

✅ Safety systems unaffected, but staff under pressure

The United Nations atomic watchdog said it saw anti-personnel mines at the site of Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant which is occupied by Russian forces.

Europe's largest nuclear facility fell to Russian forces shortly after the invasion of Ukraine in February last year, as Moscow later sought to build power lines to reactivate it amid ongoing control of the area. Kyiv and Moscow have since accused each other of planning an incident at the site.

On July 23 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) experts "saw some mines located in a buffer zone between the site's internal and external perimeter barriers," agency chief Rafael Grossi said in a statement on Monday.

The statement did not say how many mines the team had seen.

The devices were in "restricted areas" that operating plant personnel cannot access, Mr Grossi said, adding the IAEA's initial assessment was that any detonation "should not affect the site's nuclear safety and security systems".

Laying explosives at the site was "inconsistent with the IAEA safety standards and nuclear security guidance" and, amid controversial proposals on Ukraine's nuclear plants that have circulated internationally, created additional psychological pressure on staff, he added.

Ukrainians in Nikopol are out of water and within Russia's firing line. But Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant could pose the biggest threat, even as Ukraine has resumed electricity exports to regional grids.

Last week the IAEA said its experts had carried out inspections at the plant, without "observing" the presence of any mines, although they had not been given access to the rooftops of the reactor buildings, while a possible agreement to curb attacks on plants was being discussed.

The IAEA had still not been given access to the roofs of the reactor buildings and their turbine halls, its latest statement said, even as a proposal to control Ukraine's nuclear plants drew scrutiny.

After falling into Russian hands, Europe's biggest power plant was targeted by gunfire and has been severed from the grid several times, raising nuclear risk warnings from the IAEA and others.

The six reactor units, which before the war produced around a fifth of Ukraine's electricity, have been shut down for months, prompting interest in wind power development as a harder-to-disrupt source.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Manitoba Clean Electricity Investment will upgrade hydroelectric turbines, expand a 230 kV transmission network, and deliver reliable, affordable low-carbon power, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and strengthening grid reliability across Portage la Prairie and Winnipeg River.

Key Points

Joint federal-provincial funding to upgrade hydro turbines and build a 230 kV grid, boosting reliable, low-carbon power.

✅ $314M for new turbines at Pointe du Bois (+52 MW capacity)

✅ $161.6M for 230 kV transmission in Portage la Prairie

✅ Cuts Brandon Generating Station emissions by ~37%

The governments of Canada and Manitoba have announced a joint investment of $475.6 million to strengthen Manitoba’s clean electricity grid that can support neighboring provinces with clean power and ensure continued supply of affordable and reliable low-carbon energy.

This federal-provincial investment provides $314 million for eight new hydroelectric turbines at the 75 MW Pointe du Bois Generating Station on the Winnipeg River, as well as $161.6 million to build a new 230 kV transmission network in the Portage la Prairie area, bolstering power sales to SaskPower and regional reliability.

The $314 million joint investment in the Pointe du Bois Renewable Energy Project includes $114.1 million from the Government of Canada and nearly $200 million from the Government of Manitoba. The joint investment will enable Manitoba Hydro to replace eight generating units that are at the end of their lifecycle, amid looming new generation needs for the province. The new, more efficient units will increase the capacity of the Pointe du Bois generating station by 52 MW.

The $161.6 million joint investment in the Portage Area Capacity Enhancement project includes $70.9 million from the Government of Canada and $90.6 million from the Government of Manitoba. The joint investment will support the construction of a new transmission line to enhance reliability for customers across southwest Manitoba and help Manitoba Hydro meet increasing demand, with projections that demand could double over the next two decades. By decreasing Manitoba’s reliance on its last grid-connected fossil-fuel generating station, this investment will reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the Brandon Generating Station by about 37%.

The federal government’s total contribution of $184.9 million is provided through the Green Infrastructure Stream of the Investing in Canada Plan, alongside efforts to improve interprovincial grid integration such as NB Power agreements with Hydro-Quebec that strengthen regional reliability. This federal funding is conditional on meeting Indigenous consultation requirements, as well as environmental assessment obligations. Including today’s announcement, the Green Infrastructure Stream has supported 38 infrastructure projects in Manitoba, for a total federal contribution of more than $766.8 million and a total provincial contribution of over $658.4 million.

“A key part of our economic plan is making Canada a clean electricity superpower. Today’s announcement in Manitoba will deliver clean, reliable, and affordable electricity to people and businesses across the province—and we will continue working to expand our clean electricity grid and create great careers for people from coast to coast to coast,” said Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland.

The federal government will continue to invest in making Canada a clean electricity superpower, supporting provincial initiatives like Hydro-Quebec's fossil-free strategy that complement these investments to ensure Canadians from coast to coast to coast have the affordable and reliable clean electricity they need today and for generations to come.

“Manitoba Hydro is extremely pleased to be receiving this federal funding through the Green Infrastructure Stream of the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program. The investments we are making in both these critical infrastructure projects will help provide Manitobans with energy for life and power our province’s economic growth with clean, reliable, renewable hydroelectricity. These projects build on our legacy of investments in renewable energy over the past 100 years, as we work towards a lower carbon future for all Manitobans,” said Jay Grewal, president and chief executive officer of Manitoba Hydro.

About 97% of Manitoba’s electricity is generated from clean hydro, with most of the remaining 3% coming from wind generation. Manitoba’s abundant clean electricity has resulted in Manitobans paying 9.455 ¢/kWh — the second-lowest electricity rate in Canada, though limits on serving new energy-intensive customers have been flagged recently.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News