After spending years prospecting for uranium in northern Saskatchewan, geologist Neil Downey has returned to his roots in Atlantic Canada, drawn by an exploration rush as prices for the radioactive mineral have skyrocketed.
In the past seven years, uranium spot prices have jumped ten-fold, recently levelling off at about $75 per pound.
"The price of uranium has driven demand, and therefore companies are now exploring in areas that might not have been looked at before," says Downey, senior geologist at Dartmouth-based Tripple Uranium Resources Inc., a subsidiary of Vancouver-based Capella Resources Ltd.
"In Labrador, some of the geological environments are very similar to Saskatchewan, and they're the prime targets right now."
As a result, East Coast geologists like Downey are coming home to work claims that would have been passed over not so long ago.
There are now over a dozen junior firms holding licences across the region, with the largest companies focused on the central mineral belt of Labrador.
Downey says prospects in New Brunswick and Labrador are particularly promising.
The soaring demand for uranium, which is primarily used to create fuel for nuclear power plants, is being driven by a growing list of countries seeking "greener" energy sources that will help them reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The World Nuclear Association estimates 30 reactors are now under construction around the world, and 64 more are planned, including a second reactor in New Brunswick at Point Lepreau.
Mark O'Dea, the 40-year-old chief executive of Vancouver-based Aurora Energy, is behind a plan to build the first Canadian uranium mine outside Saskatchewan.
O'Dea, who grew up in Newfoundland, currently divides his time between Labrador and British Columbia.
He says his company will seek environmental approval for an underground and open-pit operation at Michelin and Jacques Lake in Labrador. Combined, the two ore bodies southwest of Postville could yield up to 100 million pounds of uranium.
"When you assess what's present in Canada, outside of the Athabaska basin (in Saskatchewan), this is one of the only big, viable uranium projects," O'Dea said in an interview.
"We've got the heart of this new uranium district... and we own it."
But the world's renewed interest in uranium is raising alarm among an increasingly vocal group of environmentalists and ordinary citizens who have spotted prospectors making their rounds in and around their communities.
The industry's detractors warn that uranium mining produces dangerous waste that is difficult to contain.
"Uranium mine tailings are among the most difficult to manage wastes on the planet," said Mark Winfield, an assistant professor of environmental studies at York University in Toronto.
"They contain toxic substances, particularly heavy metals. About 85 per cent of the radionucleides from the ore end up in the tailings, so it's radioactive. They're typically acidic and semi liquid and hard to contain."
Winfield, who has conducted research for the Pembina Institute in Alberta, argues the proposed ventures in the Maritimes are of particular concern because they represent marginal business propositions.
"In the Maritimes, because you'd be dealing with relatively low-grade ore, you'd tend to produce more tailings per tonne of ore."
O'Dea says his Labrador mine would produce about 2.2 pounds of uranium per tonne of ore – that's on par with worldwide averages.
But Jerry Grandey, chief executive of Cameco Ltd., says that grade is low when compared with what is mined in Saskatchewan.
"Will it (Labrador's mines) be economic?... It's yet to be determined," says Grandey, whose company describes itself as the largest uranium producer in Canada.
"They've got quite a bit of work to do."
Grandey says the emergence of an Atlantic uranium industry will likely start with a major public debate.
"Every political jurisdiction starts out with a mythology, generally with an anti bias," he says. "But when they get into the facts... then they say of all human activity and endeavours, this is one of the least risky."
In New Brunswick, the debate has already started.
Citizens groups are writing letters to newspaper editors, taking aim at exploration carried out last summer by Vale Inco Ltd. near Moncton.
In Nova Scotia, where the provincial government imposed a moratorium on uranium mining in 1982, the debate has been revived by reports that claim staking for uranium has started up again despite the law.
The province's Opposition New Democrats have accused the Tory minority government of using "subterfuge" to allow staking in areas near previous uranium finds.
Robert Krienke, president of Tripple Uranium Resources, insists the company's work in Nova Scotia is aimed at finding other minerals.
Still, he admits that recent public meetings in New Brunswick have made it clear there is growing opposition to anything that hints at a revival of uranium prospecting.
"It's been geared towards a mob that wants to lynch you because you're in exploration," he says.
The mining industry has taken note, with some stock analysts warning there is a history of community opposition blocking even the brightest of prospects.
Raymond Goldie, an analyst with Toronto-based Salman Partners, says even though there have been impressive finds in Labrador, "the biggest immediate issue they face is the social problem.
"Not everyone who lives in that area is pro uranium mining."
Canada Net-Zero Electricity Buildout will double or triple power capacity, scaling clean energy, renewables, nuclear, hydro, and grid transmission, with faster permitting, Indigenous consultation, and trillions in investment to meet 2035 non-emitting regulations.
Key Points
A national plan to rapidly expand clean, non-emitting power and grid capacity to enable a net-zero economy by 2050.
✅ Double to triple generation; all sources non-emitting by 2035
✅ Accelerate permitting, transmission, and Indigenous partnerships
✅ Trillions in investment; cross-jurisdictional coordination
Canada must build more electricity generation in the next 25 years than it has over the last century in order to support a net-zero emissions economy by 2050, says a new report from the Public Policy Forum.
Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and shifting to emissions-free electricity, as provinces such as Ontario pursue new wind and solar to ease a supply crunch, to propel our cars, heat our homes and run our factories will require doubling — possibly tripling — the amount of power we make now, the federal government estimates.
"Imagine every dam, turbine, nuclear plant and solar panel across Canada and then picture a couple more next to them," said the report, which will be published Wednesday.
It's going to cost a lot, and in Ontario, greening the grid could cost $400 billion according to one report. Most estimates are in the trillions.
It's also going to require the kind of cross-jurisdictional co-operation, with lessons from Europe's power crisis underscoring the stakes, Indigenous consultation and swift decision-making and construction that Canada just isn't very good at, the report said.
"We have a date with destiny," said Edward Greenspon, president of the Public Policy Forum. "We need to build, build, build. We're way behind where we need to be and we don't have a lot of a lot of time remaining."
Later this summer, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault will publish new regulations to require that all power be generated from non-emitting sources by 2035 clean electricity goals, as proposed.
Greenspon said that means there are two major challenges ahead: massively expanding how much power we make and making all of it clean, even though some natural gas generation will be permitted under federal rules.
On average, it takes more than four years just to get a new electricity generating project approved by Ottawa, and more than three years for new transmission lines.
That's before a single shovel touches any dirt.
Building these facilities is another thing, and provinces such as Ontario face looming electricity shortfalls as projects drag on. The Site C dam in British Columbia won't come on line until 2025 and has been under construction since 2015. A new transmission line from northern Manitoba to the south took more than 11 years from the first proposal to operation.
"We need to move very quickly, and probably with a different approach ... no hurdles, no timeouts," Greenspon said.
There are significant unanswered questions about the new power mix, and the pace at which Canada moves away from fossil fuel power is one of the biggest political issues facing the country, with debates over whether scrapping coal-fired electricity is cost-effective still unresolved.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
Northern Ireland No-Deal Power Contingency outlines Whitehall plans to deploy thousands of generators on barges in the Irish Sea, safeguard the electricity market, and avert blackouts if Brexit disrupts imports from the Republic of Ireland.
Key Points
A UK Whitehall plan to prevent NI blackouts by deploying generators and protecting cross-border electricity flows.
✅ Barges in Irish Sea to host temporary power generators
✅ Mitigates loss of EU market access in a no-deal Brexit
✅ Ensures NI supply if Republic cuts electricity exports
Such a scenario could see thousands of electricity generators being requisitioned at short notice and positioned on barges in the Irish Sea, even as Great Britain's generation mix shapes wider supply dynamics, to help keep the region going, a Whitehall document quoted by the Financial Times states.
An emergency operation could see equipment being brought back from places like Afghanistan, where the UK still has a military presence, the newspaper said.
The extreme situation could arise because Northern Ireland shares a single energy market with the Irish Republic, where Irish grid price spikes have heightened concern about stability.
The region relies on energy imports from the Republic because it does not have enough generating capacity itself, and the UK is aiming to negotiate a deal to allow that single electricity market on the island of Ireland to continue post-EU withdrawal, while virtual power plant proposals for UK homes are explored to avoid outages, the FT stated.
However, if no Brexit deal is agreed Whitehall fears suppliers in the Irish Republic could cut off power because the UK would no longer be part of the European electricity market, and a recent short supply warning from National Grid underscores the risk.
In a bid to prevent blackouts in Northern Ireland in a worse case situation the Government would need to put thousands of generators into place, even as an emergency energy plan has reportedly not gone ahead nationwide, according to the report.
And officials fear they may need to commandeer some generators from the military in such a scenario, the FT reports.
An official was quoted by the newspaper as saying the preparations were “gob-smacking”.
Offshore wind power accelerates low-carbon electrification, leveraging floating turbines, high capacity factors, HVDC transmission, and hydrogen production to decarbonize grids, cut CO2, and deliver competitive, reliable renewable energy near demand centers.
Key Points
Offshore wind power uses offshore turbines to deliver low-carbon electricity with high capacity factors and falling costs.
✅ Sea-based wind farms with 40-50% capacity factors
✅ Enables hydrogen production and strengthens grid reliability
The need for affordable low-carbon technologies is greater than ever
Global energy-related CO2 emissions reached a historic high in 2018, driven by an increase in coal use in the power sector. Despite impressive gains for renewables, fossil fuels still account for nearly two-thirds of electricity generation, the same share as 20 years ago. There are signs of a shift, with increasing pledges to decarbonise economies and tackle air pollution, and with World Bank support helping developing countries scale wind, but action needs to accelerate to meet sustainable energy goals. As electrification of the global energy system continues, the need for clean and affordable low-carbon technologies to produce this electricity is more pressing than ever. This World Energy Outlook special report offers a deep dive on a technology that today has a total capacity of 23 GW (80% of it in Europe) and accounts for only 0.3% of global electricity generation, but has the potential to become a mainstay of the world's power supply. The report provides the most comprehensive analysis to date of the global outlook for offshore wind, its contributions to electricity systems and its role in clean energy transitions.
The offshore wind market has been gaining momentum
The global offshore wind market grew nearly 30% per year between 2010 and 2018, benefitting from rapid technology improvements. Over the next five years, about 150 new offshore wind projects are scheduled to be completed around the world, pointing to an increasing role for offshore wind in power supplies. Europe has fostered the technology's development, led by the UK offshore wind sector alongside Germany and Denmark. The United Kingdom and Germany currently have the largest offshore wind capacity in operation, while Denmark produced 15% of its electricity from offshore wind in 2018. China added more capacity than any other country in 2018.
The untapped potential of offshore wind is vast
The best offshore wind sites could supply more than the total amount of electricity consumed worldwide today. And that would involve tapping only the sites close to shores. The IEA initiated a new geospatial analysis for this report to assess offshore wind technical potential country by country. The analysis was based on the latest global weather data on wind speed and quality while factoring in the newest turbine designs. Offshore wind's technical potential is 36 000 TWh per year for installations in water less than 60 metres deep and within 60 km from shore. Global electricity demand is currently 23 000 TWh. Moving further from shore and into deeper waters, floating turbines could unlock enough potential to meet the world's total electricity demand 11 times over in 2040. Our new geospatial analysis indicates that offshore wind alone could meet several times electricity demand in a number of countries, including in Europe, the United States and Japan. The industry is adapting various floating foundation technologies that have already been proven in the oil and gas sector. The first projects are under development and look to prove the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of floating offshore wind technologies.
Offshore wind's attributes are very promising for power systems
New offshore wind projects have capacity factors of 40-50%, as larger turbines and other technology improvements are helping to make the most of available wind resources. At these levels, offshore wind matches the capacity factors of gas- and coal-fired power plants in some regions – though offshore wind is not available at all times. Its capacity factors exceed those of onshore wind and are about double those of solar PV. Offshore wind output varies according to the strength of the wind, but its hourly variability is lower than that of solar PV. Offshore wind typically fluctuates within a narrower band, up to 20% from hour to hour, than solar PV, which varies up to 40%.
Offshore wind's high capacity factors and lower variability make its system value comparable to baseload technologies, placing it in a category of its own – a variable baseload technology. Offshore wind can generate electricity during all hours of the day and tends to produce more electricity in winter months in Europe, the United States and China, as well as during the monsoon season in India. These characteristics mean that offshore wind's system value is generally higher than that of its onshore counterpart and more stable over time than that of solar PV. Offshore wind also contributes to electricity security, with its high availability and seasonality patterns it is able to make a stronger contribution to system needs than other variable renewables. In doing so, offshore wind contributes to reducing CO2 and air pollutant emissions while also lowering the need for investment in dispatchable power plants. Offshore wind also has the advantage of avoiding many land use and social acceptance issues that other variable renewables are facing.
Offshore wind is on track to be a competitive source of electricity
Offshore wind is set to be competitive with fossil fuels within the next decade, as well as with other renewables including solar PV. The cost of offshore wind is declining and is set to fall further. Financing costs account for 35% to 50% of overall generation cost, and supportive policy frameworks are now enabling projects to secure low cost financing in Europe, with zero-subsidy tenders being awarded. Technology costs are also falling. The levelised cost of electricity produced by offshore wind is projected to decline by nearly 60% by 2040. Combined with its relatively high value to the system, this will make offshore wind one of the most competitive sources of electricity. In Europe, recent auctions indicate that offshore wind will soon beat new natural gas-fired capacity on cost and be on a par with solar PV and onshore wind. In China, offshore wind is set to become competitive with new coal-fired capacity around 2030 and be on par with solar PV and onshore wind. In the United States, recent project proposals indicate that offshore wind will soon be an affordable option, even as the 1 GW timeline continues to evolve, with potential to serve demand centres along the country's east coast.
Innovation is delivering deep cost reductions in offshore wind, and transmission costs will become increasingly important. The average upfront cost to build a 1 gigawatt offshore wind project, including transmission, was over $4 billion in 2018, but the cost is set to drop by more than 40% over the next decade. This overall decline is driven by a 60% reduction in the costs of turbines, foundations and their installation. Transmission accounts for around one-quarter of total offshore wind costs today, but its share in total costs is set to increase to about one-half as new projects move further from shore. Innovation in transmission, for example through work to expand the limits of direct current technologies, will be essential to support new projects without raising their overall costs.
Offshore wind is set to become a $1 trillion business
Offshore wind power capacity is set to increase by at least 15-fold worldwide by 2040, becoming a $1 trillion business. Under current investment plans and policies, the global offshore wind market is set to expand by 13% per year, reflecting its growth despite Covid-19 in recent years, passing 20 GW of additions per year by 2030. This will require capital spending of $840 billion over the next two decades, almost matching that for natural gas-fired or coal-fired capacity. Achieving global climate and sustainability goals would require faster growth: capacity additions would need to approach 40 GW per year in the 2030s, pushing cumulative investment to over $1.2 trillion.
The promising outlook for offshore wind is underpinned by policy support in an increasing number of regions. Several European North Seas countries – including the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark – have policy targets supporting offshore wind. Although a relative newcomer to the technology, China is quickly building up its offshore wind industry, aiming to develop a project pipeline of 10 GW by 2020. In the United States, state-level targets and federal incentives are set to kick-start the U.S. offshore wind surge in the coming years. Additionally, policy targets are in place and projects under development in Korea, Japan, Chinese Taipei and Viet Nam.
The synergies between offshore wind and offshore oil and gas activities provide new market opportunities. Since offshore energy operations share technologies and elements of their supply chains, oil and gas companies started investing in offshore wind projects many years ago. We estimate that about 40% of the full lifetime costs of an offshore wind project, including construction and maintenance, have significant synergies with the offshore oil and gas sector. That translates into a market opportunity of $400 billion or more in Europe and China over the next two decades. The construction of foundations and subsea structures offers potential crossover business, as do practices related to the maintenance and inspection of platforms. In addition to these opportunities, offshore oil and gas platforms require electricity that is often supplied by gas turbines or diesel engines, but that could be provided by nearby wind farms, thereby reducing CO2 emissions, air pollutants and costs.
Offshore wind can accelerate clean energy transitions
Offshore wind can help drive energy transitions by decarbonising electricity and by producing low-carbon fuels. Over the next two decades, its expansion could avoid between 5 billion and 7 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions from the power sector globally, while also reducing air pollution and enhancing energy security by reducing reliance on imported fuels. The European Union is poised to continue leading the wind energy at sea in Europe industry in support of its climate goals: its offshore wind capacity is set to increase by at least fourfold by 2030. This growth puts offshore wind on track to become the European Union's largest source of electricity in the 2040s. Beyond electricity, offshore wind's high capacity factors and falling costs makes it a good match to produce low-carbon hydrogen, a versatile product that could help decarbonise the buildings sector and some of the hardest to abate activities in industry and transport. For example, a 1 gigawatt offshore wind project could produce enough low-carbon hydrogen to heat about 250 000 homes. Rising demand for low-carbon hydrogen could also dramatically increase the market potential for offshore wind. Europe is looking to develop offshore "hubs" for producing electricity and clean hydrogen from offshore wind.
It's not all smooth sailing
Offshore wind faces several challenges that could slow its growth in established and emerging markets, but policy makers and regulators can clear the path ahead. Developing efficient supply chains is crucial for the offshore wind industry to deliver low-cost projects. Doing so is likely to call for multibillion-dollar investments in ever-larger support vessels and construction equipment. Such investment is especially difficult in the face of uncertainty. Governments can facilitate investment of this kind by establishing a long-term vision for offshore wind and by drawing on U.K. policy lessons to define the measures to be taken to help make that vision a reality. Long-term clarity would also enable effective system integration of offshore wind, including system planning to ensure reliability during periods of low wind availability.
The success of offshore wind depends on developing onshore grid infrastructure. Whether the responsibility for developing offshore transmission lies with project developers or transmission system operators, regulations should encourage efficient planning and design practices that support the long-term vision for offshore wind. Those regulations should recognise that the development of onshore grid infrastructure is essential to the efficient integration of power production from offshore wind. Without appropriate grid reinforcements and expansion, there is a risk of large amounts of offshore wind power going unused, and opportunities for further expansion could be stifled. Development could also be slowed by marine planning practices, regulations for awarding development rights and public acceptance issues.
The future of offshore wind looks bright but hinges on the right policies
The outlook for offshore wind is very positive as efforts to decarbonise and reduce local pollution accelerate. While offshore wind provides just 0.3% of global electricity supply today, it has vast potential around the world and an important role to play in the broader energy system. Offshore wind can drive down CO2 emissions and air pollutants from electricity generation. It can also do so in other sectors through the production of clean hydrogen and related fuels. The high system value of offshore wind offers advantages that make a strong case for its role alongside other renewables and low-carbon technologies. Government policies will continue to play a critical role in the future of offshore wind and the overall pace of clean energy transitions around the world.
Fukushima Daiichi decommissioning delay highlights TEPCO's revised timeline, spent fuel removal at Units 1 and 2, safety enclosures, decontamination, fuel debris extraction by robot arm, and contaminated water management under stricter radiation control.
Key Points
A government revised schedule pushing back spent fuel removal and decommissioning milestones at Fukushima Daiichi.
✅ TEPCO delays spent fuel removal at Units 1 and 2 for safety.
✅ Enclosures, decontamination, and robotics mitigate radioactive risk.
✅ Contaminated water cut target: 170 tons/day to 100 by 2025.
The Japanese government decided Friday to delay the removal of spent fuel from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant's Nos. 1 and 2 reactors by as much as five years, casting doubt on whether it can stick to its timeframe for dismantling the crippled complex.
The process of removing the spent fuel from the units' pools had previously been scheduled to begin in the year through March 2024.
In its latest decommissioning plan, the government said the plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc., will not begin the roughly two-year process (a timeline comparable to major reactor refurbishment programs seen worldwide) at the No. 1 unit at least until the year through March 2028 and may wait until the year through March 2029.
Work at the No. 2 unit is now slated to start between the year through March 2025 and the year through March 2027, it said.
The delay is necessary to take further safety precautions such as the construction of an enclosure around the No. 1 unit to prevent the spread of radioactive dust, and decontamination of the No. 2 unit, even as authorities have begun reopening previously off-limits towns nearby, the government said. It is the fourth time it has revised its schedule for removing the spent fuel rods.
"It's a very difficult process and it's hard to know what to expect. The most important thing is the safety of the workers and the surrounding area," industry minister Hiroshi Kajiyama told a press conference.
The government set a new goal of finishing the removal of the 4,741 spent fuel rods across all six of the plant's reactors by the year through March 2032, amid ongoing debates about the consequences of early nuclear plant closures elsewhere.
Plant operator TEPCO has started the process at the No. 3 unit and already finished at the No. 4 unit, which was off-line for regular maintenance at the time of the disaster. A schedule has yet to be set for the Nos. 5 and 6 reactors.
While the government maintained its overarching timeframe of finishing the decommissioning of the plant 30 to 40 years from the 2011 crisis triggered by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami, there may be further delays, even as milestones at other nuclear projects are being reached worldwide.
The government said it will begin removing fuel debris from the three reactors that experienced core meltdowns in the year through March 2022, starting with the No. 2 unit as part of broader reactor decommissioning efforts.
The process, considered the most difficult part of the decommissioning plan, will involve using a robot arm, reflecting progress in advanced reactors technologies, to initially remove small amounts of debris, moving up to larger amounts.
The government also said it will aim to reduce the pace at which contaminated water at the plant increases. Water for cooling the melted cores, mixed with underground water, amounts to around 170 tons a day. That number will be brought down to 100 tons by 2025, it said.
The water is being treated to remove the most radioactive materials and stored in tanks on the plant's grounds, but already more than 1 million tons has been collected and space is expected to run out by the summer of 2022.
Tunisia Smart Grid Project advances with an AFD loan as STEG deploys smart meters in Sfax, upgrades grid infrastructure, boosts energy efficiency, curbs losses, and integrates renewable energy through digitalization and advanced communication systems.
Key Points
A national program funded by an AFD $131.7M loan to modernize STEG, deploy smart meters, and integrate renewable energy.
The Tunisian parliament has approved taking a $131.7 million loan from the French Development Agency for the implementation of a smart grid project.
Parliament passed legislation regarding the 400 million dinar ($131.7 million) loan plus a grant of $1.1 million.
The loan, to be repaid over 20 years with a grace period of up to 7 years, is part of the Tunisian government’s efforts to establish a strategy of energy switching aimed at reducing costs and enhancing operational efficiency.
The move to the smart grid had been postponed after the Tunisian Company of Electricity and Gas (STEG) announced in March 2017 that implementation of the first phase of the project would begin in early 2018 and cover the entire country by 2023.
STEG was to have received funding some time ago. Last year at the Africa Smart Grid Summit in Tunis, the company said it would initiate an international tender during the first quarter of 2019 to start the project.
The French funding is to be allocated to implementation of the first phase only, which will involve development of control and communication stations and the improvement of infrastructure, where regulatory outcomes such as the Hydro One T&D rates decision can influence investment planning in comparable markets.
It includes installation of 430,000 “intelligent” metres over three years in Sfax governorate in southern Tunisia. The second phase of the project is planned to extend the programme to the rest of the country.
Smart metres to be installed in homes and businesses in Sfax account for about 10% of the total number of metres to be deployed in Tunisia.
At the beginning of 2017, the Industrial Company of Metallic Articles (SIAM), a Tunisian industrial electrical equipment and machinery company, signed an agreement with Huawei for the Chinese company to supply smart electricity metres. The value of the deal was not disclosed.
The smart grid is designed to reduce power waste, reduce the number of unpaid bills, prevent consumer fraud such as power theft in India across distribution networks, improve the ecosystem and increase competitiveness in the electricity sector.
Experts said the main difference between the traditional and smart grids is the adoption of advanced infrastructure for measuring electricity consumption and for communication between the power plant and consumers. The data exchange allows power plants to coordinate electricity production with actual demand.
STEG previously indicated that it had implemented measures to ensure the transition to the smart grid, especially since digitalisation is playing an important role in the energy sector.
The project, which translates Tunisia’s energy plans in the form of a partnership between the public and private sectors, aims at reaching 30% of the country’s electricity need from renewable sources by 2025, even as entities like the TVA face climate goals scrutiny that can affect electricity rates in other markets.
The development of the smart grid will allow STEG to monitor consumption patterns, detect abuses and remotely monitor the grid’s power supply, at a time when regulators have questioned UK network profits to spur efficiency, underscoring the value of transparency.
“The smart grid will change the face of the energy system towards the use of renewable energies,” said Tunisian Industry Minister Slim Feriani. At the forum on alternative energies, he pointed out that energy sector digitisation requires investments in technology and a change in the consumption mentality, as new entrants consider roles like Tesla electricity retailer plans in advanced markets.
Official data indicate that Tunisia’s energy deficit accounts for one-third of the country’s annual trade deficit, which reached record levels of more than $6 billion last year.
STEG, whose debts have reached $329 million over the past eight years, a situation resembling Manitoba Hydro debt pressures in Canada, has not disclosed when and how funding would be secured for the completion of the second phase. The company insists it is working to prevent further losses and to collect its unpaid bills.
STEG CEO Moncef Harrabi, earlier this year, said: “The current situation of the company has forced us to take immediate action to reduce the worsening of the crisis and stop the financial bleeding caused by losses.”
He said the company had repeatedly asked the government to pay subsidy instalments due to the company and to enact binding decisions to force government institutions and departments to pay electricity bills, while elsewhere measures like Thailand power bill cuts have been used to support consumers.
The Tunisian government has yet to disburse the subsidy instalments due STEG for 2018 and 2019, which amount to $658 million. STEG also imports natural gas from Algeria for its power plants at a cost of $1.1 billion a year.
