Pleasanton to offer eco-friendly energy plan

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis highlights nuclear power vs coal and natural gas, renewables and hydropower limits, carbon emissions, energy security, and baseload reliability during Russia-related supply shocks and winter demand.

Key Points

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis weighs reactor extensions vs coal revival to bolster security, curb emissions.

✅ Coal plants restarted; nuclear shutdown stays on schedule.

✅ Energy security prioritized amid Russian gas supply cuts.

✅ Emissions likely rise despite renewables expansion.

Peel away the politics and the passion, the doomsaying and the denialism, and climate change largely boils down to this: energy. To avoid the chances of catastrophic climate change while ensuring the world can continue to grow — especially for poor people who live in chronically energy-starved areas — we’ll need to produce ever more energy from sources that emit little or no greenhouse gases.

It’s that simple — and, of course, that complicated.

Zero-carbon sources of renewable energy like wind and solar have seen tremendous increases in capacity and equally impressive decreases in price in recent years, while the decades-old technology of hydropower is still what the International Energy Agency calls the “forgotten giant of low-carbon electricity.”

And then there’s nuclear power. Viewed strictly through the lens of climate change, nuclear power can claim to be a green dream, even as Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy most.

Unlike coal or natural gas, nuclear plants do not produce direct carbon dioxide emissions when they generate electricity, and over the past 50 years they’ve reduced CO2 emissions by nearly 60 gigatonnes. Unlike solar or wind, nuclear plants aren’t intermittent, and they require significantly less land area per megawatt produced. Unlike hydropower — which has reached its natural limits in many developed countries, including the US — nuclear plants don’t require environmentally intensive dams.

As accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown, when nuclear power goes wrong, it can go really wrong. But newer plant designs reduce the risk of such catastrophes, which themselves tend to garner far more attention than the steady stream of deaths from climate change and air pollution linked to the normal operation of conventional power plants.

So you might imagine that those who see climate change as an unparalleled existential threat would cheer the development of new nuclear plants and support the extension of nuclear power already in service.

In practice, however, that’s often not the case, as recent events in Germany underline.

When is a Green not green?
The Russian war in Ukraine has made a mess of global energy markets, but perhaps no country has proven more vulnerable than Germany, reigniting debate over a possible resurgence of nuclear energy in Germany among policymakers.

At the start of the year, Russian exports supplied more than half of Germany’s natural gas, along with significant portions of its oil and coal imports. Since the war began, Russia has severely curtailed the flow of gas to Germany, putting the country in a state of acute energy crisis, with fears growing as next winter looms.

With little natural gas supplies of the country’s own, and its heavily supported renewable sector unable to fully make up the shortfall, German leaders faced a dilemma. To maintain enough gas reserves to get the country through the winter, they could try to put off the closure of Germany’s last three remaining nuclear reactors temporarily, which were scheduled to shutter by the end of 2022 as part of Germany’s post-Fukushima turn against nuclear power, and even restart already closed reactors.

Or they could try to reactivate mothballed coal-fired power plants, and make up some of the electricity deficit with Germany’s still-ample coal reserves.

Based on carbon emissions alone, you’d presumably go for the nuclear option. Coal is by far the dirtiest of fossil fuels, responsible for a fifth of all global greenhouse gas emissions — more than any other single source — as well as a soup of conventional air pollutants. Nuclear power produces none of these.

German legislators saw it differently. Last week, the country’s parliament, with the backing of members of the Green Party in the coalition government, passed emergency legislation to reopen coal-powered plants, as well as further measures to boost the production of renewable energy. There would be no effort to restart closed nuclear power plants, or even consider a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout for the last active reactors.

“The gas storage tanks must be full by winter,” Robert Habeck, Germany’s economy minister and a member of the Green Party, said in June, echoing arguments that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue for the coming winter.

Partially as a result of that prioritization, Germany — which has already seen carbon emissions rise over the past two years, missing its ambitious emissions targets — will emit even more carbon in 2022.

To be fair, restarting closed nuclear power plants is a far more complex undertaking than lighting up old coal plants. Plant operators had only bought enough uranium to make it to the end of 2022, so nuclear fuel supplies are set to run out regardless.

But that’s also the point. Germany, which views itself as a global leader on climate, is grasping at the most carbon-intensive fuel source in part because it made the decision in 2011 to fully turn its back on nuclear for good at the time, enshrining what had been a planned phase-out into law.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hydro One Avista merger faces regulatory scrutiny in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, as political risk outweighs defensive utilities fundamentals like stable cash flow, rate base growth, EPS outlook, and a near 5% dividend yield.

Key Points

A planned Hydro One-Avista acquisition awaiting key state approvals amid elevated political and regulatory risk.

✅ Hold rating, $24 price target, 28.1% implied return

✅ EPS forecast: $1.27 in 2018; $1.38 in 2019

✅ Defensive utility: stable cash flow, 4-6% rate base growth

A seemingly positive development for Hydro One is overshadowed by ongoing political and regulatory risk, as seen after the CEO and board ouster, Industrial Alliance Securities analyst Jeremy Rosenfield says.

On October 4, staff from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission filed updated testimony in support of the merger of Hydro One and natural gas distributor Avista, which had previously received U.S. antitrust clearance from federal authorities.

The merger, which was announced in July of 2017 has received the green light from federal and key states, with Washington, Oregon and Idaho being exceptions, though the companies would later seek reconsideration from U.S. regulators in the process.

But Rosenfield says even though decisions from Oregon and Idaho are expected by December, there are still too many unknowns about Hydro One to recommend investors jump into the stock.

Hydro One stock defensive but risky

“We continue to view Hydro One as a fundamentally defensive investment, underpinned by (1) stable earnings and cash flows from its regulated utility businesses (2) healthy organic rate base and earning growth (4-6%/year through 2022) and (3) an attractive dividend (~5% yield, 70-80% target payout),” the analyst says. “In the meantime, and ahead of key regulatory approvals in the AVA transaction, we continue to see heightened political/regulatory risk as an overhand on the stock, outweighing Hydro One’s fundamentals in the near term.”

In a research update to clients today, Rosenfield maintained his “Hold” rating and one year price target of $24.00 on Hydro One, implying a return of 28.1 per cent at the time of publication.

Rosenfield thinks Hydro One will generate EPS of $1.27 per share in fiscal 2018, even though its Q2 profit plunged 23% as electricity revenue fell. He expects that number will improve to EPS of $1.38 a share the following year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

France Nuclear Power Strategy illustrates a low-carbon, reliable baseload complementing renewables in the energy transition, enhancing grid reliability, energy security, and emissions reduction, offering actionable lessons for Germany on infrastructure, policy, and public acceptance.

Key Points

France's nuclear strategy is a low-carbon baseload model supporting renewables, grid reliability, and energy security.

✅ Stable low-carbon baseload complements intermittent renewables

✅ Enhances grid reliability and national energy security

✅ Requires long-term investment, safety, and waste management

In recent months, France has showcased the critical role that nuclear power plants can play in an energy transition, offering valuable lessons for Germany and other countries grappling with their own energy challenges. As Europe continues to navigate its path towards a sustainable and reliable energy system, France's experience with nuclear energy underscores its potential benefits and the complexities involved, including outage risks in France that operators must manage effectively.

France, a long-time proponent of nuclear energy, generates about 70% of its electricity from nuclear power, making it one of the most nuclear-dependent countries in the world. This high reliance on nuclear energy has allowed France to maintain a stable and low-carbon electricity supply, which is increasingly significant as nations aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, even as Europe's nuclear capacity declines in several markets, and combat climate change.

Recent events in France have highlighted several key aspects of nuclear power's role in energy transition:

1. Reliability and Stability: During periods of high renewable energy generation or extreme weather events, nuclear power plants have proven to be a stable and reliable source of electricity. Unlike solar and wind power, which are intermittent and depend on weather conditions, nuclear plants provide a consistent and continuous supply of power. This stability is crucial for maintaining grid reliability and ensuring that energy demand is met even when renewable sources are not producing electricity.

2. Low Carbon Footprint: France’s commitment to nuclear energy has significantly contributed to its low carbon emissions. By relying heavily on nuclear power, France has managed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions substantially compared to many other countries. This achievement is particularly relevant as Europe strives to meet ambitious climate targets, with debates over a nuclear option in Germany highlighting climate trade-offs, and reduce overall carbon footprints. The low emissions associated with nuclear power make it an important tool for achieving climate goals and transitioning away from fossil fuels.

3. Energy Security: Nuclear power has played a vital role in France's energy security. The country’s extensive network of nuclear power plants ensures a stable and secure supply of electricity, reducing its dependency on imported energy sources. This energy security is particularly important in the context of global energy market fluctuations and geopolitical uncertainties. France’s experience demonstrates how nuclear energy can contribute to a nation’s energy independence and resilience.

4. Economic Benefits: The nuclear industry in France also provides significant economic benefits. It supports thousands of jobs in construction, operation, and maintenance of power plants, as well as in the supply chain for nuclear fuel and waste management. Additionally, the stable and relatively low cost of nuclear-generated electricity can contribute to lower energy prices for consumers and businesses, enhancing economic stability.

Germany, in contrast, has been moving away from nuclear energy, particularly following the Fukushima disaster in 2011. The country has committed to phasing out its nuclear reactors by 2022 and focusing on expanding renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. While Germany's renewable energy transition has made significant strides, it has also faced challenges related to grid stability, as Germany's energy balancing act illustrates for policymakers, energy storage, and maintaining reliable power supplies during periods of low renewable generation.

France’s experience with nuclear energy offers several lessons for Germany and other nations considering their own energy strategies:

• Balanced Energy Mix: A diverse energy mix that includes nuclear power alongside renewable sources can help ensure a stable and reliable electricity supply, as ongoing discussions about a nuclear resurgence in Germany emphasize for policymakers today. While renewable energy is essential for reducing carbon emissions, it can be intermittent and may require backup from other sources to maintain grid reliability. Nuclear power can complement renewable energy by providing a steady and consistent supply of electricity.

• Investment in Infrastructure: To maximize the benefits of nuclear energy, investment in infrastructure is crucial. This includes not only the construction and maintenance of power plants but also the development of waste management systems and safety protocols. France’s experience demonstrates the importance of long-term planning and investment to ensure the safe and effective use of nuclear technology.

• Public Perception and Policy: Public perception of nuclear energy can significantly impact its adoption and deployment, and ongoing Franco-German nuclear disputes show how politics shape outcomes across borders. Transparent communication, rigorous safety standards, and effective waste management are essential for addressing public concerns and building trust in nuclear technology. France’s successful use of nuclear power is partly due to its emphasis on safety and regulatory compliance.

In conclusion, France's experience with nuclear power provides valuable insights into the role that this technology can play in an energy transition. By offering a stable, low-carbon, and reliable source of electricity, nuclear power complements renewable energy sources and supports overall energy security. As Germany and other countries navigate their energy transitions, France's example underscores the importance of a balanced energy mix, robust infrastructure, and effective public engagement in harnessing the benefits of nuclear power while addressing associated challenges, with industry voices such as Eon boss on nuclear debate underscoring the sensitivity of cross-border critiques.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

MeyGen Tidal Stream Project delivers record 13.8 GWh to Scotland's grid, showcasing renewable ocean energy. Simec Atlantis Energy's 6 MW array of tidal turbines advances EU power goals and plans an ocean-powered data center.

Key Points

A Scottish tidal energy array exporting record power, using four 1.5 MW turbines and driving renewable innovation.

✅ Delivered 13.8 GWh to the grid in 2019, a project record.

✅ Four 1.5 MW turbines in Phase 1A, 6 MW installed.

✅ Plans include an ocean-powered data center near site.

A tidal power project in waters off the north coast of Scotland, where Scotland’s wind farms also deliver significant output, sent more than 13.8 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity to the grid last year, according to an operational update issued Monday. This figure – a record – almost doubled the previous high of 7.4 GWh in 2018.

In total, the MeyGen tidal stream array has now exported more than 25.5 GWh of electricity to the grid since the start of 2017, according to owners Simec Atlantis Energy. Phase 1A of the project is made up of four 1.5 megawatt (MW) turbines.

The 13.8 GWh of electricity exported in 2019 equates to the average yearly electricity consumption of roughly 3,800 “typical” homes in the U.K., where wind power records have been set recently, according to the company, with revenue generation amounting to £3.9 million ($5.09 million).

Onshore maintenance is now set to be carried out on the AR1500 turbine used by the scheme, with Atlantis aiming to redeploy the technology in spring.

In addition to the production of electricity, Atlantis is also planning to develop an “ocean-powered data centre” near the MeyGen project.

The European Commission has described “ocean energy” as being both abundant and renewable, and milestones like the biggest offshore windfarm starting U.K. supply underscore wider momentum, too. It’s estimated that ocean energy could potentially contribute roughly 10% of the European Union’s power demand by the year 2050, according to the Commission.

While tidal power has been around for decades — EDF’s 240 MW La Rance Tidal Power Plant in France was built as far back as 1966, and the country’s first offshore wind turbine has begun producing electricity — recent years have seen a number of new projects take shape.

In December last year, Scottish tidal energy business Nova Innovation was issued with a permit to develop a project in Nova Scotia, Canada, aiming to harness the Bay of Fundy tides in the region further.

In an announcement at the time, the firm said a total of 15 tidal stream turbines would be installed by the year 2023. The project, according to the firm, will produce enough electricity to power 600 homes, as companies like Sustainable Marine begin delivering tidal energy to the Nova Scotia grid.

Elsewhere, a business called Orbital Marine Power is developing what it describes as the world’s most powerful tidal turbine, with grid-supplied output already demonstrated.

The company says the turbine will have a swept area of more than 600 square meters and be able to generate “over 2 MW from tidal stream resources.” It will use a 72-meter-long “floating superstructure” to support two 1 MW turbines.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Nuclear Energy Growth accelerates as nations pursue decarbonization, complement renewables, displace coal, and ensure grid reliability with firm, low-carbon baseload, benefiting from standardized builds, lower cost of capital, and learning-curve cost reductions.

Key Points

Expansion of nuclear capacity to cut CO2, complement renewables, replace coal, and stabilize grids at low-carbon cost.

✅ Complements renewables; displaces coal for faster decarbonization

✅ Cuts system costs via standardization and lower cost of capital

✅ Provides firm, low-carbon baseload and grid reliability

By Kirill Komarov, Chairman, World Nuclear Association.

As Europe and the wider world begins to wake up to the need to cut emissions, Dr Kirill Komarov argues that tackling climate change will see the use of nuclear energy grow in the coming years, not as a competitor to renewables but as a competitor to coal.

The nuclear industry keeps making headlines and spurring debates on energy policy, including the green industrial revolution agenda in several countries. With each new build project, the detractors of nuclear power crowd the bandwagon to portray renewables as an easy and cheap alternative to ‘increasingly costly’ nuclear: if solar and wind are virtually free why bother splitting atoms?

Yet, paradoxically as it may seem, if we are serious about policy response to climate change, nuclear energy is seeing an atomic energy resurgence in the coming decade or two.

Growth has already started to pick up with about 3.1 GW new capacity added in the first half of 2018 in Russia and China while, at the very least, 4GW more to be completed by the end of the year – more than doubling the capacity additions in 2017.

In 2019 new connections to the grid would exceed 10GW by a significant margin.

If nuclear is in decline, why then do China, India, Russia and other countries keep building nuclear power plants?

To begin with, the issue of cost, argued by those opposed to nuclear, is in fact largely a bogus one, which does not make a fully rounded like for like comparison.

It is true that the latest generation reactors, especially those under construction in the US and Western Europe, have encountered significant construction delays and cost overruns.

But the main, and often the only, reason for that is the ‘first-of-a-kind’ nature of those projects.

If you build something for the first time, be it nuclear, wind or solar, it is expensive. Experience shows that with series build, standardised construction economies of scale and the learning curve from multiple projects, costs come down by around one-third; and this is exactly what is already happening in some parts of the world.

Furthermore, those first-of-a-kind projects were forced to be financed 100% privately and investors had to bear all political risks. It sent the cost of capital soaring, increasing at one stroke the final electricity price by about one third.

While, according to the International Energy Agency, at 3% cost of capital rate, nuclear is the cheapest source of energy: on average 1% increase adds about US$6-7 per MWh to the final price.

When it comes to solar and wind, the truth, inconvenient for those cherishing the fantasy of a world relying 100% on renewables, is that the ‘plummeting prices’ (which, by the way, haven’t changed much over the last three years, reaching a plateau) do not factor in so-called system and balancing costs associated with the need to smooth the intermittency of renewables.

Put simply, the fact the sun doesn’t shine at night and wind doesn’t blow all the time means wind and solar generation needs to be backed up.

According to a study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, integration of intermittent renewables into the grid is estimated in some cases to be as expensive as power generation itself.

Delivering the highest possible renewable content means customers’ bills will have to cover: renewable generation costs, energy storage solutions, major grid updates and interconnections investment, as well as gas or coal peaking power plants or ‘peakers’, which work only from time to time when needed to back up wind and solar.

The expected cost for kWh for peakers, according to investment bank Lazard is about twice that of conventional power plants due to much lower capacity factors.

Despite exceptionally low fossil fuel prices, peaking natural gas generation had an eye-watering cost of $156-210 per MWh in 2017 while electricity storage, replacing ‘peakers’, would imply an extra cost of $186-413 per MWh.

Burning fossil fuels is cheaper but comes with a great deal of environmental concern and extensive use of coal would make net-zero emissions targets all but unattainable.

So, contrary to some claims, nuclear does not compete with renewables. Moreover, a recent study by the MIT Energy Initiative showed, most convincingly, that renewables and load following advanced nuclear are complementary.

Nuclear competes with coal. Phasing out coal is crucial to fighting climate change. Putting off decisions to build new nuclear capacities while increasing the share of intermittent renewables makes coal indispensable and extends its life.

Scientists at the Brattle group, a consultancy, argue that “since CO2 emissions persist for many years in the atmosphere, near-term emission reductions are more helpful for climate protection than later ones”.

The longer we hesitate with new nuclear build the more difficult it becomes to save the Earth.

Nuclear power accounta for about one-tenth of global electricity production, but as much as one-third of generation from low-carbon sources. 1GWe of installed nuclear capacity prevents emissions of 4-7 million metric tons of CO2 emissions per year, depending on the region.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that in order to limit the average global temperature increase to 2°C and still meet global power demand, we need to connect to the grid at least 20GW of new nuclear energy each year.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) sets the target even higher with the total of 1,000 GWe by 2050, or about 10 GWe per year before 2020; 25 GWe per year from 2021 to 2025; and on average 33 GWe from 2026 to 2050.

Regulatory and political challenges in the West have made life for nuclear businesses in the US and in Europe's nuclear sector very difficult, driving many of them to the edge of insolvency; but in the rest of the world nuclear energy is thriving.

Nuclear vendors and utilities post healthy profits and invest heavily in next-gen nuclear innovation and expansion. The BRICS countries are leading the way, taking over the initiative in the global climate agenda. From their perspective, it’s the opposite of decline.

Dr Kirill Komarov is first deputy CEO of Russian state nuclear energy operator Rosatom and chairman of the World Nuclear Association.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hydro One-Avista Merger outlines a utility acquisition shaped by Washington regulators, Colstrip coal plant depreciation, and plans for renewables, clean energy, and emissions cuts, while Montana reviews implications for jobs, ratepayers, and a 2027 closure.

Key Points

A utility deal setting Colstrip depreciation and renewables, without committing to an early coal plant closure.

✅ Washington sets 2027 depreciation for Colstrip units

✅ Montana reviews jobs, ratepayer impacts, community fund

✅ Avista seeks renewables; no binding shutdown commitment

The Washington power company Hydro One is buying will be ready to close its huge coal-fired generating station ahead of schedule, thanks to conditions put on the corporate merger by state regulators there.

Not that we actually plan to do that, the company is telling other regulators in Montana, where coal unit retirements are under debate, the huge coal-fired generating station in question employs hundreds of people. We’ll be in the coal business for a good long time yet.

Hydro One, in which the Ontario government now owns a big minority stake, is still working on its purchase of Avista, a private power utility based in Spokane. The $6.7-billion deal, which Hydro One announced in July, includes a 15 per cent share in two of the four generating units in a coal plant in Colstrip, Montana, one of the biggest in the western United States. Avista gets most of its electricity from hydro dams and gas but uses the Colstrip plant when demand for power is high and water levels at its dams are low.

#google#

Colstrip’s a town of fewer than 2,500 people whose industries are the power plant and the open-pit mines that feed it about 10 million tonnes of coal a year. Two of Colstrip’s generators, older ones Avista doesn’t have any stake in, are closing in 2022. The other two will be all that keep the town in business.

In Washington, they don’t like the coal plant and its pollution. In Montana, the future of Colstrip is a much bigger concern. The companies have to satisfy regulators in both places that letting Hydro One buy Avista is in the public interest.

Ontario proudly closed the last of our coal plants in 2014 and outlawed new ones as environmental menaces, and Alberta's coal phase-out is now slated to finish by 2023. When Hydro One said it was buying Avista, which makes about $100 million in profit a year, Premier Kathleen Wynne said she hoped Ontario’s “value system” would spread to Avista’s operations.

The settlement is “an important step towards bringing together two historic companies,” Hydro One’s chief executive Mayo Schmidt said in announcing it.

The deal has approval from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission staff but is subject to a vote by the group’s three commissioners. It doesn’t commit Avista to closing anything at Colstrip or selling its share. But Avista and Hydro One will budget as if the Colstrip coal burners will close in 2027, instead of running into the 2040s as their owners had once planned, a timeline that echoes debates over the San Juan Generating Station in New Mexico.

In accounting terms, they’ll depreciate the value of their share of the plant to zero over the next nine years, reflecting what they say is the end of the plant’s “useful life.” Another of Colstrip’s owners, Puget Sound Energy, has previously agreed with Washington regulators that it’ll budget for a Colstrip closure in 2027 as well.

Avista and Hydro One will look for sources of 50 megawatts of renewable electricity, including independent power projects where feasible, in the next four years and another 90 megawatts to supplement Avista’s supply once the Colstrip plant eventually closes, they promise in Washington. They’ll put $3 million into a “community transition fund” for Colstrip.

The money will come from the companies’ profits and cash, the agreement says. “Hydro One will not seek cost recovery for such funds from ratepayers in Ontario,” it says specifically.

“Ontario has always been a global leader in the transition away from dirty coal power and towards clean energy,” said Doug Howell, an anti-coal campaigner with the Sierra Club, which is a party to the agreement. “This settlement continues that tradition, paving the way for the closure of the largest single source of climate pollution in the American West by 2027, if not earlier.”

Montanans aren’t as thrilled. That state has its own public services commission, doing its own examination of the corporate merger, which has asked Hydro One and Avista to explain in detail why they want to write off the value of the Colstrip burners early. The City of Colstrip has filed a petition saying it wants in on Montana hearings because “the potential closure of (Avista’s units) would be devastating to our community.”

Don’t get too worked up, an Avista vice-president urged the Montana commission just before Easter.

“Just because an asset is depreciated does not mean that one would otherwise remove that asset from service if the asset is still performing as intended,” Jason Thackston testified in a session that dealt only with what the deal with Washington state would mean to Colstrip. We’re talking strictly about an accounting manoeuvre, not an operational commitment.

Six joint owners will have to agree to close the Colstrip generators and there’s “no other tacit understanding or unstated agreement” to do that, he said.

Besides Washington and Montana, state regulators in Idaho, including those overseeing the Idaho Power settlement process, Alaska and Oregon and multiple federal authorities have to sign off on the deal before it can happen. Hydro One hopes it’ll be done in the second half of this year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News