Gas-fuelled power plant on agenda

Nuclear Waste Corrosion accelerates as stainless steel, glass, and ceramics interact in aqueous conditions, driving localized corrosion in repositories like Yucca Mountain, according to Nature Materials research on high-level radioactive waste storage.

Key Points

Degradation of waste forms and canisters from water-driven chemistry, causing accelerated, localized corrosion in storage.

✅ Stainless steel-glass contact triggers severe localized attack

✅ Ceramics and steel co-corrosion observed under aqueous conditions

✅ Yucca Mountain-like chemistry accelerates waste form degradation

The materials the United States and other countries plan to use to store high-level nuclear waste, even as utilities expand carbon-free electricity portfolios, will likely degrade faster than anyone previously knew because of the way those materials interact, new research shows.

The findings, published today in the journal Nature Materials (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41563-019-0579-x), show that corrosion of nuclear waste storage materials accelerates because of changes in the chemistry of the nuclear waste solution, and because of the way the materials interact with one another.

"This indicates that the current models may not be sufficient to keep this waste safely stored," said Xiaolei Guo, lead author of the study and deputy director of Ohio State's Center for Performance and Design of Nuclear Waste Forms and Containers, part of the university's College of Engineering. "And it shows that we need to develop a new model for storing nuclear waste."

Beyond waste storage, options like carbon capture technologies are being explored to reduce atmospheric CO2 alongside nuclear energy.

The team's research focused on storage materials for high-level nuclear waste -- primarily defense waste, the legacy of past nuclear arms production. The waste is highly radioactive. While some types of the waste have half-lives of about 30 years, others -- for example, plutonium -- have a half-life that can be tens of thousands of years. The half-life of a radioactive element is the time needed for half of the material to decay.

The United States currently has no disposal site for that waste; according to the U.S. General Accountability Office, it is typically stored near the nuclear power plants where it is produced. A permanent site has been proposed for Yucca Mountain in Nevada, though plans have stalled. Countries around the world have debated the best way to deal with nuclear waste; only one, Finland, has started construction on a long-term repository for high-level nuclear waste.

But the long-term plan for high-level defense waste disposal and storage around the globe is largely the same, even as the U.S. works to sustain nuclear power for decarbonization efforts. It involves mixing the nuclear waste with other materials to form glass or ceramics, and then encasing those pieces of glass or ceramics -- now radioactive -- inside metallic canisters. The canisters then would be buried deep underground in a repository to isolate it.

At the generation level, regulators are advancing EPA power plant rules on carbon capture to curb emissions while nuclear waste strategies evolve.

In this study, the researchers found that when exposed to an aqueous environment, glass and ceramics interact with stainless steel to accelerate corrosion, especially of the glass and ceramic materials holding nuclear waste.

In parallel, the electrical grid's reliance on SF6 insulating gas has raised warming concerns across Europe.

The study qualitatively measured the difference between accelerated corrosion and natural corrosion of the storage materials. Guo called it "severe."

"In the real-life scenario, the glass or ceramic waste forms would be in close contact with stainless steel canisters. Under specific conditions, the corrosion of stainless steel will go crazy," he said. "It creates a super-aggressive environment that can corrode surrounding materials."

To analyze corrosion, the research team pressed glass or ceramic "waste forms" -- the shapes into which nuclear waste is encapsulated -- against stainless steel and immersed them in solutions for up to 30 days, under conditions that simulate those under Yucca Mountain, the proposed nuclear waste repository.

Those experiments showed that when glass and stainless steel were pressed against one another, stainless steel corrosion was "severe" and "localized," according to the study. The researchers also noted cracks and enhanced corrosion on the parts of the glass that had been in contact with stainless steel.

Part of the problem lies in the Periodic Table. Stainless steel is made primarily of iron mixed with other elements, including nickel and chromium. Iron has a chemical affinity for silicon, which is a key element of glass.

The experiments also showed that when ceramics -- another potential holder for nuclear waste -- were pressed against stainless steel under conditions that mimicked those beneath Yucca Mountain, both the ceramics and stainless steel corroded in a "severe localized" way.

Other Ohio State researchers involved in this study include Gopal Viswanathan, Tianshu Li and Gerald Frankel.

This work was funded in part by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science.

Meanwhile, U.S. monitoring shows potent greenhouse gas declines confirming the impact of control efforts across the energy sector.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Canada EV Tariffs weigh protectionism, import duties, and trade policy against affordable electric vehicles, climate goals, and consumer costs, balancing domestic manufacturing, critical minerals, battery supply chains, and China relations amid US-EU actions.

Key Points

Canada EV Tariffs are proposed duties on Chinese EV imports to protect jobs vs. prices, climate goals, and trade risks.

✅ Shield domestic automakers; counter subsidies

✅ Raise EV prices; slow adoption, climate targets

✅ Spark China retaliation; hit exports, supply chains

Canada, a rising star in critical EV battery minerals, finds itself at a crossroads. The question: should they follow the US and EU and impose tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), after the U.S. 100% tariff on Chinese EVs set a precedent?

The Allure of Protectionism

Proponents see tariffs as a shield for Canada's auto industry, supported by recent EV assembly deals that put Canada in the race, a vital job creator. They argue that cheaper Chinese EVs, potentially boosted by government subsidies, threaten Canadian manufacturers. Tariffs, they believe, would level the playing field.

Consumer Concerns and Environmental Impact

Opponents fear tariffs will translate to higher prices, deterring Canadians from buying EVs, especially amid EV shortages and wait times already affecting the market. This could slow down Canada's transition to cleaner transportation, crucial for meeting climate goals. A slower EV adoption could also impact Canada's potential as an EV leader.

The Looming Trade War Shadow

Tariffs risk escalating tensions with China, Canada's second-largest trading partner. China might retaliate with tariffs on Canadian exports, jeopardizing sectors like oil and lumber. This could harm the Canadian economy and disrupt critical mineral and battery development, areas where Canada is strategically positioned, even as opportunities to capitalize on the U.S. EV pivot continue to emerge across North America.

Navigating a Charged Path

The Canadian government faces a complex decision. Protecting domestic jobs is important, but so is keeping EVs affordable for a greener future and advancing EV sales regulations that shape the market. Canada must carefully consider the potential benefits of tariffs against the risks of higher consumer costs and a potential trade war.

This path forward could involve exploring alternative solutions. Canada could invest in its domestic EV industry, providing incentives for both consumers and manufacturers. Additionally, collaborating with other countries, including Canada-U.S. collaboration as companies turn to EVs, to address China's alleged unfair trade practices might be a more strategic approach.

Canada's decision on EV tariffs will have far-reaching consequences. Striking a balance between protecting its domestic industry and fostering a robust, environmentally friendly transportation sector, and meeting ambitious EV goals set by policymakers, is crucial. Only time will tell which path Canada chooses, but the stakes are high, impacting not just jobs, but also the environment and Canada's position in the global EV race.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Electric power market crisis highlights grid reliability risks as coal and nuclear retire amid subsidies, mandates, and cheap natural gas; intermittent wind and solar raise blackout concerns, resilience costs, and pricing distortions across regulated markets.

Key Points

Reliability and cost risks as coal and nuclear retire; subsidies distort prices; intermittent renewables strain grid.

✅ Coal and nuclear retirements reduce baseload capacity

✅ Subsidies and mandates distort market pricing signals

✅ Intermittent renewables increase blackout and grid risk

Is anyone paying any attention to the crisis that is going on in our electric power markets?

Over the past six months at least four major nuclear power plants have been slated for shutdown, including the last one in operation in California. Meanwhile, dozens of coal plants have been shuttered as well — despite low prices and cleaner coal. Some of our major coal companies may go into bankruptcy.

This is a dangerous game we are playing here with our most valuable resource — outside of clean air and water. Traditionally, we've received almost half our electric power nationwide from coal and nuclear power, and for good reason. They are cheap sources of power and they are highly resilient and reliable.

The disruption to coal and nuclear power wouldn't be disturbing if this were happening as a result of market forces. That's only partially the case.

#google#

The amazing shale oil and gas revolution is providing Americans with cheap gas for home heating and power generation. Hooray. The price of natural gas has fallen by nearly two-thirds over the last decade and this has put enormous price pressure on other forms of power generation.

But this is not a free-market story of Schumpeterian creative destruction. If it were, then wind and solar power would have been shutdown years ago. They can't possibly compete on a level playing field with $3 natural gas.

In most markets solar and wind power survive purely because the states mandate that as much as 30 percent of residential and commercial power come from these sources. The utilities have to buy it regardless of price, even as electricity demand is flat in many regions. What a sweet deal. The California state legislature just mandated that every new home spend $10,000 on solar panels on the roof.

Well over $100 billion of subsidies to big wind and big solar were doled out over the last decade, and even with the avalanche of taxpayer subsidies and bailout funds many of these companies like Solyndra (which received $500 million in handouts) failed, underscoring why a green revolution hasn't materialized as promised.

These industries are not anywhere close to self sufficiency. In 2017 amid utility trends to watch the wind industry admitted that without a continuation of a multi-billion tax credit, the wind turbines would stop turning.

This combines with the left's war on coal through regulations that have destroyed coal plants in many areas. (Thank goodness for the exports of coal or the industry would be in much bigger trouble.)

Bottom line: Our power market is a Soviet central planner's dream come true and it is extinguishing our coal and nuclear industries.

Why should anyone care?

First, because government subsidies, regulations and mandates make electric power more expensive. Natural gas prices have fallen by two-thirds, but electric power costs have still risen in most areas — thanks to the renewable mandates.

More importantly, the electric power market isn't accurately pricing in the value of resilience and reliability. What is the value of making sure the lights don't go off? What is the cost to the economy and human health if we have rolling brownouts and blackouts because the aging U.S. grid doesn't have enough juice during peak demand.

Politicians, utilities and federal regulators are shortsightedly killing our coal and nuclear capacities without considering the risk of future energy shortages and power disruptions. Once a nuclear plant is shutdown, you can't just fire it back up again when you need it.

Wind and solar are notoriously unreliable. Most places where wind power is used, coal plants are needed to back up the system during peak energy use and when the wind isn't blowing.

The first choice to fix energy markets is to finally end the tangled web of layers and layers of taxpayer subsidies and mandates and let the market choose. Alas, that's nearly impossible given the political clout of big wind and solar.

The second best solution is for the regulators and utilities to take into account the grid reliability and safety of our energy. Would people be willing to pay a little more for their power to ensure against brownouts? I sure would. The cost of having too little energy far exceeds the cost of having too much.

A glass of water costs pennies, but if you're in a desert dying of thirst, that water may be worth thousands of dollars.

I'll admit I'm not sure what the best solution is to the power plant closures. But if we have major towns and cities in the country without electric power for stretches of time because of green energy fixation, Americans are going to be mighty angry and our economy will take a major hit.

When our manufacturers, schools, hospitals, the internet and iPhones shut down, we're not going to think wind and solar power are so chic.

If the lights start to go out five or 10 years from now, we will look back at what is happening today and wonder how we could have been so darn stupid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Utility Pandemic Preparedness strengthens grid resilience through continuity planning, critical infrastructure protection, DOE-DHS coordination, onsite sequestration, skeleton crews, and deferred maintenance to ensure reliable electric and gas service for commercial and industrial customers.

Key Points

Plans that sustain grid operations during outbreaks using staffing limits, access controls, and deferred maintenance.

✅ Deferred maintenance and restricted site access

✅ Onsite sequestering and skeleton crew operations

✅ DOE-DHS coordination and control center staffing

Commercial and industrial businesses can rest assured that the current pandemic poses no real threat to our utilities, with the U.S. grid remaining reliable for now, as disaster planning has been key to electric and gas utilities in recent years, writes Forbes. Beginning a decade ago, the utility and energy industries evolved detailed pandemic plans, outlining what to know about the U.S. grid during outbreaks, which include putting off maintenance and routine activities until the worst of the pandemic has passed, restricting site access to essential personnel, and being able to run on a skeleton crew as more and more people become ill, a capability underscored by FPL's massive Irma response when crews faced prolonged outages.

One possible outcome of the current situation is that the US electric industry may require essential staff to live onsite at power plants and control centers, similar to Ontario work-site lockdown plans under consideration, if the outbreak worsens; bedding, food and other supplies are being stockpiled, reflecting local response preparations many utilities practice, Reuters reported. The Great River Energy cooperative, for example, has had a plan to sequester essential staff in place since the H1N1 bird flu crisis in 2009. The cooperative, which runs 10 power plants in Minnesota, says its disaster planning ensured it has enough cots, blankets and other necessities on site to keep staff healthy.

Electricity providers are now taking part in twice-weekly phone calls with officials at the DOE, the Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies, as Ontario demand shifts are monitored, according to the Los Angeles Times. By planning for a variety of worst case scenarios, including weeks-long restorations after major storms, “I have confidence that the sector will be prepared to respond no matter how this evolves,” says Scott Aaronson, VP of security and preparedness for the Edison Electric Institute.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Ontario Pickering Nuclear Closure will shift supply to natural gas, raising emissions as the electricity grid manages nuclear refurbishment, IESO planning, clean power imports, and new wind, solar, and storage to support electrification.

Key Points

Ontario will close Pickering and rely on natural gas, increasing emissions while other nuclear units are refurbished.

✅ 14% of Ontario electricity supplied by Pickering now

✅ Natural gas use rises; grid emissions projected up 375%

✅ IESO warns gas phaseout by 2030 risks blackouts, costs

The Ontario government will not reconsider plans to close the Pickering nuclear station and instead stop-gap the consequent electricity shortfall with natural gas-generated power in a move that will, as an analysis of Ontario's grid shows, hike the province’s greenhouse gas emissions substantially in the coming years.

In a report released this week, a nuclear advocacy group urged Ontario to refurbish the aging facility east of Toronto, which is set to be shuttered in phases in 2024 and 2025, prompting debate over a clean energy plan after Pickering as the closure nears. The closure of Pickering, which provides 14 per cent of the province’s annual electricity supply, comes at the same time as Ontario’s other two nuclear stations are undergoing refurbishment and operating at reduced capacity.

Canadians for Nuclear Energy, which is largely funded by power workers' unions, argued closing the 50-year-old facility will result in job losses, emissions increases, heightened reliance on imported natural gas and an electricity supply gap across Ontario.

But Palmer Lockridge, spokesperson for the provincial energy minister, said further extending Pickering’s lifespan isn’t on the table.

“As previously announced in 2020, our government is supporting Ontario Power Generation’s plan to safely extend the life of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station through the end of 2025,” said Lockridge in an emailed response to questions.

“Going forward, we are ensuring a reliable, affordable and clean electricity system for decades to come. That’s why we put a plan in place that ensures we are prepared for the emerging energy needs following the closure of Pickering, and as a result of our government’s success in growing and electrifying the province’s economy.”

The Progressive Conservative government under Premier Doug Ford has invested heavily in electrification, sinking billions into electric vehicle and battery manufacturing and industries like steel-making to retool plants to run on electricity rather than coal, and exploring new large-scale nuclear plants to bolster baseload supply.

Natural gas now provides about seven per cent of the province’s energy, a piece of the pie that will rise significantly as nuclear energy dwindles. Emissions from Ontario’s electricity grid, which is currently one of the world’s cleanest with 94 per cent zero-emission power generation, are projected to rise a whopping 375 per cent as the province turns increasingly to natural gas generation. Those increases will effectively undo a third of the hard-won emissions reductions the province achieved by phasing out coal-fired power generation.

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), which manages Ontario’s grid, studied whether the province could phase out natural gas generation by 2030 and concluded that “would result in blackouts and hinder electrification” and increase average residential electricity costs by $100 per month.

The Ontario Clean Air Alliance, however, obtained draft documents from the electricity operator that showed it had studied, but not released publicly, other scenarios that involved phasing out natural gas without energy shortfalls, price hikes or increases in emissions.

The Ontario government will not reconsider plans to close the Pickering nuclear station and instead stop-gap the consequent electricity shortfall facing Ontario with natural gas-generated power in a move that will hike the province’s greenhouse gas emissions.

One model suggested increasing carbon taxes and imports of clean energy from other provinces could keep blackouts, costs and emissions at bay, while another involved increasing energy efficiency, wind generation and storage.

“By banning gas-fired electricity exports to the U.S., importing all the Quebec water power we can with the existing transmission lines and investing in energy efficiency and wind and solar and storage — do all those things and you can phase out gas-fired power and lower our bills,” said Jack Gibbons, chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance.

The IESO has argued in response that the study of those scenarios was not complete and did not include many of the challenges associated with phasing out natural gas plants.

Ontario Energy Minister Todd Smith asked the IESO to develop “an achievable pathway to zero-emissions in the electricity sector and evaluate a moratorium on new-build natural gas generation stations,” said his spokesperson. That report, an early look at halting gas power, is expected in November.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Maine Hydropower Transmission Line revived by high court after referendum challenge, advancing NECEC, Hydro-Quebec supply, Central Maine Power partnership, clean energy integration, grid reliability, and lower rates across New England pending land-lease ruling.

Key Points

A court-revived NECEC line delivering 1,200 MW of Hydro-Quebec hydropower via CMP to strengthen the New England grid.

✅ Maine high court deems retroactive referendum unconstitutional

✅ Pending state land lease case may affect final route

✅ Project could lower rates and cut emissions in New England

Maine's highest court on Tuesday breathed new life into a $1-billion US transmission line that aims to serve as conduit for Canadian hydropower, after construction starts drew scrutiny, ruling that a statewide vote rebuking the project was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the retroactive nature of the referendum last year violated the project developer's constitutional rights, sending it back to a lower court for further proceedings.

The court did not rule in a separate case that focuses on a lease for a 1.6-kilometre portion of the proposed power line that crosses state land.

Central Maine Power's parent company and Hydro-Québec teamed up on the project that would supply up to 1,200 megawatts of Canadian hydropower, amid the ongoing Maine-Quebec corridor debate in the region. That's enough electricity for one million homes.

Most of the proposed 233-kilometre power transmission line would be built along existing corridors, but a new 85-kilometre section was needed to reach the Canadian border, echoing debates around the Northern Pass clash in New Hampshire.

Workers were already clearing trees and setting poles when the governor asked for work to be suspended after the referendum in November 2021, mirroring New Hampshire's earlier rejection of a Quebec-Massachusetts proposal that rerouted regional plans. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection later suspended its permit, but that could be reversed depending on the outcome of legal proceedings.

The high court was asked to weigh in on two separate lawsuits. Developers sought to declare the referendum unconstitutional while another lawsuit focused on a lease allowing transmission lines to cross a short segment of state-owned land.

Supporters say bold projects such as this one, funded by ratepayers in Massachusetts, are necessary to battle climate change and introduce additional electricity into a region that's heavily reliant on natural gas, which can cause spikes in energy costs, as seen with Nova Scotia rate increases recently across the Atlantic region.

Critics say the project's environmental benefits are overstated — and that it would harm the woodlands in western Maine.

It was the second time the Supreme Judicial Court was asked to weigh in on a referendum aimed at killing the project. The first referendum proposal never made it onto the ballot after the court raised constitutional concerns.

Although the project is funded by Massachusetts ratepayers, the introduction of so much electricity to the grid would serve to stabilize or reduce electricity rates for all consumers, proponents contend, even as Manitoba Hydro rate hikes face opposition elsewhere.

The referendum on the project was the costliest in Maine history, topping $90 million US and underscoring deep divisions.

The high-stakes campaign put environmental and conservation groups at odds, and pitted utilities backing the project, amid the Hydro One-Avista backlash, against operators of fossil fuel-powered plants that stand to lose money.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News