OPG estimates 1.5 billion dollars for coal scrubbers

U.S. Power Grid D+ Rating underscores aging infrastructure, rising outages, cyber threats, EMP and solar flare risks, strained transmission lines, vulnerable transformers, and slow permitting, amplifying reliability concerns and resilience needs across national energy systems.

Key Points

ASCE's D+ grade flags aging infrastructure, rising outages, and cyber, EMP, and weather risks needing investment.

✅ Major outages rising; weather remains top disruption driver.

✅ Aging transformers, transmission lines, limited maintenance.

✅ Cybersecurity gaps via smart grid, EV charging, SCADA.

The U.S. power grid just received its “grade card” from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and it barely passed.

The overall rating of our antiquated electrical system was a D+. Major power outages in the United States, including widespread blackouts, have grown from 76 in 2007 to 307 in 2011, according to the latest available statistics. The major outage figures do not take into account all of the smaller outages which routinely occur due to seasonal storms.

The American Society of Civil Engineers power grid grade card rating means the energy infrastructure is in “poor to fair condition and mostly below standard, with many elements approaching the end of their service life.” It further means a “large portion of the system exhibits significant deterioration” with a “strong risk of failure.”

Such a designation is not reassuring and validates those who purchased solar generators over the past several years.

#google#

The vulnerable state of the power grid gets very little play by mainstream media outlets. Concerns about a solar flare or an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack instantly sending us back to an 1800s existence are legitimate, but it may not take such an extreme act to render the power grid a useless tangle of wires. The majority of the United States’ infrastructure and public systems evaluated by the ASCE earned a “D” rating. A “C” ranking (public parks, rail and bridges) was the highest grade earned. It would take a total of $3.6 trillion in investments by 2020 to fix everything, the report card stated. To put that number in perspective, the federal government’s budget for all of 2012 was slightly more, $3.7 trillion.

“America relies on an aging electrical grid and pipeline distribution systems, some of which originated in the 1880s,” the report read. “Investment in power transmission has increased since 2005, but ongoing permitting issues, weather events, including summer blackouts that strain local systems, and limited maintenance have contributed to an increasing number of failures and power interruptions. While demand for electricity has remained level, the availability of energy in the form of electricity, natural gas, and oil will become a greater challenge after 2020 as the population increases. Although about 17,000 miles of additional high-voltage transmission lines and significant oil and gas pipelines are planned over the next five years, permitting and siting issues threaten their completion. The electric grid in the United States consists of a system of interconnected power generation, transmission facilities, and distribution facilities.”

Harness the power of the sun when the power goes out…

There are approximately 400,000 miles of electrical transmission lines throughout the United States, and thousands of power generating plants dot the landscape. The ASCE report card also stated that new gas-fired and renewable generation issues increase the need to add new transmission lines. Antiquated power grid equipment has reportedly prompted even more “intermittent” power outages in recent years.

The American Society of Civil Engineers accurately notes that the power grid is more vulnerable to cyber attacks than ever before, including Russian intrusions documented in recent years, and it cites the aging electrical system as the primary culprit. Although the decades-old transformers and other equipment necessary to keep power flowing around America are a major factor in the enhanced vulnerability of the power grid, moving towards a “smart grid” system is not the answer. As previously reported by Off The Grid News, smart grid systems and even electric car charging stations make the power grid more accessible to cyber hackers. During the Hack in the Box Conference in Amsterdam, HP ArcSight Product Manager Ofer Sheaf stated that electric car charging stations are in essence a computer on the street. The roadway fueling stations are linked to the power grid electrical system. If cyber hackers garner access to the power grid via the charging stations, they could stop the flow of power to a specific area or alter energy distribution levels and overload the system.

While a relatively small number of electric car charging stations exist in America now, that soon will change. Ongoing efforts by both federal and state governments to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels have resulted in grants and privately funded vehicle charging station projects. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in April announced plans to build 360 such electrical stations in his state. A total of 3,000 car charging stations are in the works statewide and are slated for completion over the next five years.

SHIELD ActWeather-related events were the primary cause of power outages from 2007 to 2012, according to the infrastructure report card. Power grid reliability issues are emerging as the greatest threat to the electrical system, with rising attacks on substations compounding the risks. The ASCE grade card also notes that retiring and rotating in “new energy sources” is a “complex” process. Like most items we routinely purchase in our daily lives, many of the components needed to make the power grid functional are not manufactured in the United States.

The SHIELD Act is the first real piece of federal legislation in years drafted to address power grid vulnerabilities. While the single bill will not fix all of the electrical system issues, it is a big step in the right direction – if it ever makes it out of committee. Replacing aging transformers, encasing them in a high-tech version of a Faraday cage, and stockpiling extra units so instant repairs are possible would help preserve one of the nation’s most critical and life-saving pieces of infrastructure after a weather-related incident or man-made disaster.

“Geomagnetic storm environments can develop instantaneously over large geographic footprints,” solar geomagnetic researcher John Kappenman said about the fragile state of the power grid. He was quoted in an Oak Ridge National Laboratory report. “They have the ability to essentially blanket the continent with an intense threat environment and … produce significant collateral damage to critical infrastructures. In contrast to well-conceived design standards that have been successfully applied for more conventional threats, no comprehensive design criteria have ever been considered to check the impact of the geomagnetic storm environments. The design actions that have occurred over many decades have greatly escalated the dangers posed by these storm threats for this critical infrastructure.”

The power grid has morphed in size tenfold during the past 50 years. While solar flares, cyber attacks, and an EMP are perhaps the most extensive and frightening threats to the electrical system, the infrastructure could just as easily fail in large portions due to weather-related events exacerbated by climate change across regions. The power grid is basically a ticking time bomb which will spawn civil unrest, lack of food, clean water, and a multitude of fires if it does go down.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Texas Electric Cooperatives outperformed during Winter Storm Uri, with higher customer satisfaction, equitable rolling blackouts, and stronger grid reliability compared to deregulated markets, according to ERCOT-area survey data of regulated utilities and commercial providers.

Key Points

Member-owned utilities in Texas delivering power, noted for reliability and fair outages during Winter Storm Uri.

✅ Member-owned, regulated utilities serving local communities

✅ Rated higher for blackout management and communication

✅ Operate outside deregulated markets; align incentives with users

Winter Storm Uri began to hit parts of Texas on February 13, 2021 and its onslaught left close to 4.5 million Texas homes and businesses without power, and many faced power and water disruptions at its peak. By some accounts, the preliminary number of deaths attributed to the storm is nearly 200, and the economic toll for the Lone Star State is estimated to be as high as $295 billion. 

The more than two-thirds of Texans who lost power during this devastating storm were notably more negative than positive in their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, mirrored by a rise in electricity complaints statewide, with one exception. That exception are the members of the more than 60 electric cooperatives operating within the Texas Interconnection electrical grid, which, in sharp contrast to the customers of the commercial utilities that provide power to the majority of Texans, gave their local utility a positive evaluation related to its performance during the storm.

In order to study Winter Storm Uri’s impact on Texas, the Hobby School of Public Affairs at the University of Houston conducted an online survey during the first half of March of residents 18 and older who live in the 213 counties (91.5% of the state population) served by the Texas power grid, which is managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). 

Three-quarters of the survey population (75%) live in areas with a deregulated utility market, where a specified transmission and delivery utility by region is responsible for delivering the electricity (purchased from one of a myriad of private companies by the consumer) to homes and businesses. The four main utility providers are Oncor, CenterPoint CNP -2.2%, American Electric Power (AEP) North, and American Electric Power (AEP) Central. 

The other 25% of the survey population live in areas with regulated markets, where a single company is responsible for both delivering the electricity to homes and businesses and serves as the only source from which electricity is purchased. Municipal-owned and operated utilities (e.g., Austin Energy, Bryan Texas Utilities, Burnet Electric Department, Denton Municipal Electric, New Braunfels Utilities, San Antonio’s CPS Energy CMS -2.1%) serve 73% of the regulated market. Electric cooperatives (e.g., Bluebonnet Electric Cooperative, Central Texas Electric Cooperative, Guadalupe Valley Cooperative, Lamb County Electric Cooperative, Pedernales Electricity Cooperative, Wood County Electric Cooperative) serve one-fifth of this market (21%), with private companies accounting for 6% of the regulated market.

The overall distribution of the survey population by electric utility providers is: Oncor (38%), CenterPoint (21%), municipal-owned utilities (18%), AEP Central & AEP North combined (12%), electric cooperatives (6%), other providers in the deregulated market (4%) and other providers in the regulated market (1%). 

There were no noteworthy differences among the 31% of Texans who did not lose power during the winter storm in regard to their evaluations of their local electricity provider or their belief that the power cuts in their locale were carried out in an equitable manner.  

However, among the 69% of Texans who lost power, those served by electric cooperatives in the regulated market and those served by private electric utilities in the deregulated market differed notably regarding their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, both in regard to their management of the rolling blackouts, amid debates over market reforms to avoid blackouts, and to their overall performance during the winter storm. Those Texans who lost power and are served by electric cooperatives in a regulated market had a significantly more positive evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility than did those Texans who lost power and are served by a private company in a deregulated electricity market. 

For example, only 24% of Texans served by electric cooperatives had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s overall performance during the winter storm, compared to 55%, 56% and 61% of those served by AEP, Oncor and CenterPoint respectively. A slightly smaller proportion of Texans served by electric cooperatives (22%) had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s performance managing the rolling blackouts during the winter storm, compared to 58%, 61% and 71% of Texans served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint, respectively.

Texans served by electric cooperatives in regulated markets were more likely to agree that the power cuts in their local area were carried out in an equitable manner compared to Texans served by commercial electricity utilities in deregulated markets. More than half (52%) of those served by an electric cooperative agreed that power cuts during the winter storm in their area were carried out in an equitable manner, compared to only 26%, 23% and 23% of those served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint respectively

The survey data did not allow us to provide a conclusive explanation as to why the performance during the winter storm by electric cooperatives (and to a much lesser extent municipal utilities) in the regulated markets was viewed more favorably by their customers than was the performance of the private companies in the deregulated markets viewed by their customers. Yet here are three, far from exhaustive, possible explanations.

First, electric cooperatives might have performed better (based on objective empirical metrics) during the winter storm, perhaps because they are more committed to their customers, who are effectively their bosses. .  

Second, members of electric cooperatives may believe their electric utility prioritizes their interests more than do customers of commercial electric utilities and therefore, even if equal empirical performance were the case, are more likely to rate their electric utility in a positive manner than are customers of commercial utilities.  

Third, regulated electric utilities where a single entity is responsible for the commercialization, transmission and distribution of electricity might be better able to respond to the type of challenges presented by the February 2021 winter storm than are deregulated electric utilities where one entity is responsible for commercialization and another is responsible for transmission and distribution, aligning with calls to improve electricity reliability across Texas.

Other explanations for these findings may exist, which in addition to the three posited above, await future empirical verification via new and more comprehensive studies designed specifically to study electric cooperatives, large commercial utilities, and the incentives that these entities face under the regulatory system governing production, commercialization and distribution of electricity, including rulings that some plants are exempt from providing electricity in emergencies under state law. 

Still, opinion about electricity providers during Winter Storm Uri is clear: Texans served by regulated electricity markets, especially by electric cooperatives, were much more satisfied with their providers’ performance than were those in deregulated markets. Throughout its history, Texas has staunchly supported the free market. Could Winter Storm Uri change this propensity, or will attempts to regulate electricity lessen as the memories of the storm’s havoc fades? With a hotter summer predicted to be on the horizon in 2021 and growing awareness of severe heat blackout risks, we may soon get an answer.   

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Sir Adam Beck I refurbishment boosts hydropower capacity in Niagara, upgrading turbines, generators, and controls for Ontario Power Generation. The billion-dollar project enhances grid reliability, clean energy output, and preserves heritage architecture.

Key Points

An OPG upgrade of the historic Niagara plant to replace equipment, add 150 MW, and extend clean power life.

✅ Adds at least 150 MW to Ontario's clean energy supply

✅ Replaces turbines, generators, transformers, and controls

✅ Creates hundreds of skilled construction and engineering jobs

Ontario's iconic Sir Adam Beck hydroelectric generating station in Niagara is set to undergo a massive, billion-dollar refurbishment. The project will significantly boost the power station's capacity and extend its lifespan, with efforts similar to revitalizing older dams seen across North America, ensuring a reliable supply of clean energy for decades to come.

A Century of Power Generation

The Sir Adam Beck generating stations have played a pivotal role in Ontario's power grid for over a century. The first generating station, Sir Adam Beck I, went online in 1922, followed by Sir Adam Beck II in 1954. A third station, the Sir Adam Beck Pump Generating Station, was added in 1957, highlighting the role of pumped storage in Ontario for grid flexibility, Collectively, they form one of the largest hydroelectric complexes in the world, harnessing the power of the Niagara River.

Preparing for Increased Demand

The planned refurbishment of Sir Adam Beck I is part of Ontario Power Generation's broader strategy, which includes the life extension at Pickering NGS among other initiatives, to meet the growing energy demands of the province. With the population expanding and a shift towards electrification, Ontario will need to increase its power generation capacity while also focusing on sustainable and clean sources of energy.

Billions to Secure Sustainable Energy

The project to upgrade Sir Adam Beck I carries a hefty price tag of over a billion dollars but is considered a vital investment in Ontario's energy infrastructure, and recent OPG financial results underscore the utility's capacity to manage long-term capital plans. The refurbishment will see the replacement of aging turbines, generators, and transformers, and a significant upgrade to the station's control systems. Following the refurbishment, the output of Sir Adam Beck I is expected to increase by at least 150 megawatts – enough to power thousands of homes and businesses.

Creating Green Jobs

In addition to securing the province's energy future, the upgrade presents significant economic benefits to the Niagara region. The project will create hundreds of well-paying construction and engineering jobs, similar to employment from the continued operation of Pickering Station across Ontario, during the several years it will take to implement the upgrades.

Commitment to Hydropower

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has long touted the benefits of hydropower as a reliable, renewable, and affordable source of energy, even as an analysis of rising grid emissions underscores the importance of clean generation to meet demand. The Sir Adam Beck complex is a shining example and represents a significant asset in the fight against climate change while providing reliable power to Ontario's businesses and residents.

Balancing Energy Needs with Heritage Preservation

The refurbishment will also carefully integrate modern design with the station's heritage elements, paralleling decisions such as the refurbishment of Pickering B that weigh system needs and public trust. Sir Adam Beck I is a designated historic site, and the project aims to preserve the station's architectural significance while enhancing its energy generation capabilities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

US Termination of Ukraine Energy Grid Support signals a policy shift: USAID halts aid for grid restoration amid Russia attacks, impacting energy security, infrastructure resilience, winter readiness, and negotiations leverage with Moscow and allies.

Key Points

A US policy reversal ending USAID support for Ukraine's grid, impacting energy security, resilience, and leverage.

✅ USAID halt reduces funds for grid restoration and winter prep

✅ Policy shift may weaken Kyiv's leverage in talks with Russia

✅ Ukraine seeks EU, IFIs, private capital for energy resilience

The U.S. government has recently decided to terminate its support for Ukraine's energy grid restoration, a critical initiative managed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). This decision, reported by NBC News, comes at a time when Ukraine is grappling with significant challenges to its energy infrastructure due to ongoing Russian attacks. The termination of support was reportedly finalized before Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's scheduled visit to Washington, marking a significant shift in U.S. policy and raising concerns about the broader implications for Ukraine's energy resilience and its negotiations with Russia.

The Critical Role of U.S. Support

Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the country’s energy infrastructure has been one of the primary targets of military strikes. Russia has launched numerous attacks on Ukraine's power generation facilities, substations, and power lines, causing power outages across multiple regions. These attacks have led to significant material losses, with damage reaching billions of dollars. As part of its commitment to Ukraine, the U.S. government, through USAID, had been instrumental in funding restoration efforts aimed at rebuilding and reinforcing Ukraine’s energy grid.

USAID's support was crucial in helping Ukraine withstand the damage inflicted by Russian missile strikes. This aid was not just about restoring basic services but also about fortifying the energy grid to ensure that Ukraine could continue functioning amidst the war and keep the lights on this winter as temperatures drop. The U.S. contribution to Ukraine's energy sector, alongside international support, helped reduce the immediate vulnerabilities faced by Ukraine's civilians and industries.

The Abrupt Change in U.S. Policy

The decision to cut support for energy grid restoration is seen as a sharp reversal in U.S. policy, particularly as the Biden administration has previously shown strong backing for Ukraine in the aftermath of the invasion. This shift in policy was reportedly made by the U.S. State Department, which directed USAID to halt its involvement in the energy sector.

According to NBC News, USAID officials expressed concern about the timing of this decision. One official noted that terminating support for Ukraine’s energy grid restoration would severely undermine the U.S. government's ability to negotiate on issues like ceasefires and peace talks with Russia. The official argued that such a move would signal to Russia that the U.S. is backing away from its long-term investments in Ukraine, potentially weakening Ukraine's position in the ongoing war.

The abrupt end to this support is also seen as a blow to the morale of Ukraine’s government and people. Ukraine had been heavily reliant on the U.S. for resources to repair its critical infrastructure, and the decision to cut this support without warning has created uncertainty about the future of such recovery efforts.

Ukraine’s Response and Search for Alternatives

In response to the termination of U.S. support, Ukrainian officials have been seeking alternative sources of funding to continue the restoration of their energy grid. Deputy Prime Minister Olha Stefanishyna reported that Ukraine has already reached preliminary agreements with other international partners to secure financial support for energy resilience, cyber defense, and recovery programs including new energy solutions for winter blackouts.

These efforts come at a time when Ukraine is working to rebuild its war-torn economy and safeguard critical sectors like energy and infrastructure. The termination of U.S. support for energy restoration projects underscores the growing pressure on Ukraine to diversify its sources of aid and not become overly dependent on any one nation. Ukrainian leaders are in ongoing talks with European governments, international financial institutions, and private investors to ensure that essential programs do not stall due to the lack of funding from the U.S., as energy cooperation grows and Ukraine helps Spain amid blackouts in solidarity.

Implications for Ukraine’s Energy Security

Ukraine's energy security remains a critical issue in the context of the ongoing conflict with Russia. The war has made the country’s energy infrastructure vulnerable to repeated attacks, and the restoration of this infrastructure is essential for ensuring that Ukraine can keep the lights on and recover in the long term. The U.S. has been one of the largest contributors to Ukraine's energy security efforts, and its withdrawal could force Ukraine to look for other partners who may not have the same level of financial or technological resources.

This development also raises questions about the future of U.S. involvement in Ukraine's recovery efforts more broadly. As the war continues and winter looms over the battlefront for frontline communities, the need for reliable and sustained support from international partners will only increase. If the U.S. significantly scales back its aid, Ukraine may face even greater challenges in maintaining its energy infrastructure and achieving long-term recovery.

Moving Forward

The termination of U.S. support for Ukraine’s energy grid restoration serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in international aid and geopolitics during wartime. As Ukraine faces the ongoing realities of the war, it must adapt to a shifting international landscape where traditional allies may not always be reliable sources of support. Ukraine’s leadership will need to be strategic in its search for alternative sources of aid, while also focusing on strengthening its energy grid, managing electricity reserves to stabilize supply, and reducing its vulnerabilities to Russian attacks.

While the end of U.S. support for Ukraine's energy restoration is a significant setback, it also underscores the urgent need for Ukraine to diversify its international partnerships. The future of Ukraine’s energy resilience may depend on how effectively it can navigate these changing dynamics while maintaining the support of the international community in the fight against Russian aggression.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Drax Biomass Conversion accelerates renewable energy by replacing coal with wood pellets, sustainable forestry feedstock, and piloting carbon capture and storage, supporting the UK grid, emissions cuts, and a net-zero pathway.

Key Points

Drax Biomass Conversion is Drax's shift from coal to biomass with CCS pilots to cut emissions and aid UK's net-zero.

✅ Coal units converted to biomass wood pellets

✅ Sourced from sustainable forestry residues

✅ CCS pilots target lifecycle emissions cuts

A power station that used to be the biggest polluter in western Europe has made a near-complete switch to renewable energy, mirroring broader shifts as Denmark's largest energy company plans to end coal by 2023.

The Drax Power Station in Yorkshire, England, used to spew out millions of tons of carbon dioxide a year by burning coal. But over the past eight years, it has overhauled its operations by converting four of its six coal-fired units to biomass. The plant's owners say it now generates 15% of the country's renewable power, as Britain recently went a full week without coal power for the first time.

The change means that just 6% of the utility's power now comes from coal, as the wider UK coal share hits record lows across the national electricity system. The ultimate goal is to stop using coal altogether.

"We've probably reduced our emissions more than any other utility in the world by transforming the way we generate power," Will Gardner, CEO of the Drax Group, told CNN Business.

Subsidies have helped finance the switch to biomass, which consists of plant and agricultural matter and is viewed as a promising substitute for coal, and utilities such as Nova Scotia Power are also increasing biomass use. Last year, Drax received £789 million ($1 billion) in government support.

Is biomass good for the environment?

While scientists disagree over the extent to which biomass as a fuel is environmentally friendly, and some environmentalists urge reducing biomass use amid concerns about lifecycle emissions, Drax highlights that its supplies come from from sustainably managed and growing forests.

Most of the biomass used by Drax consists of low-grade wood, sawmill residue and trees with little commercial value from the United States. The material is compressed into sawdust pellets.

Gardner says that by purchasing bits of wood not used for construction or furniture, Drax makes it more financially viable for forests to be replanted. And planting new trees helps offset biomass emissions.

Forests "absorb carbon as they're growing, once they reach maturity, they stop absorbing carbon," said Raphael Slade, a senior research fellow at Imperial College London.

But John Sterman, a professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management, says that in the short term burning wood pellets adds more carbon to the atmosphere than burning coal.

That carbon can be absorbed by new trees, but Sterman says the process can take decades.

"If you're looking at five years, [biomass is] not very good ... If you're looking at a century-long time scale, which is the sort of time scale that many foresters plan, then [biomass] can be a lot more beneficial," says Slade.

Carbon capture

Enter carbon capture and storage technology, which seeks to prevent CO2 emissions from entering the atmosphere and has been touted as a possible solution to the climate crisis.

Drax, for example, is developing a system to capture the carbon it produces from burning biomass. But that could be 10 years away.

The Coal King is racing to avoid bankruptcy

The power station is currently capturing just 1 metric ton of CO2 emissions per day. Gardner says it hopes to increase this to 10,000 metric tons per day by the mid to late 2020s.

"The technology works but scaling it up and rolling it out, and financing it, are going to be significant challenges," says Slade.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shares this view. The group said in a 2018 report that while the potential for CO2 capture and storage was considerable, its importance in the fight against climate change would depend on financial incentives for deployment, and whether the risks of storage could be successfully managed. These include a potential CO2 pipeline break.

In the United Kingdom, the government believes that carbon capture and storage will be crucial to reaching its goal of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, even as low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 according to industry analysis.

It has committed to consulting on a market-based industrial carbon capture framework and in June awarded £26 million ($33 million) in funding for nine carbon capture, usage and storage projects, amid record coal-free generation on the British grid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News