An idiotÂ’s guide to green power

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.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Site C Dam Update outlines hydroelectric budget overruns, geotechnical risks, COVID-19 construction delays, BC Hydro timelines, cancellation costs, and First Nations treaty rights concerns affecting renewable energy, ratepayers, and Peace Valley impacts.

Key Points

Overview of Site C costs, delays, geotechnical risks, and concerns shaping BC Hydro hydroelectric plans.

✅ Cost to cancel estimated at least $10B

✅ Final budget now about $16B; completion pushed to 2025

✅ COVID-19 and geotechnical risks drove delays and redesigns

The cost to cancel a massive B.C. energy development project would be at least $10 billion, provincial officials revealed in an update on the future of Site C.

Thus the project will go ahead, Premier John Horgan and Energy Minister Bruce Ralston announced Friday, but with an increased budget and timeline.

Horgan and Ralston spoke at a news conference in Victoria about the findings of a status report into the hydroelectric dam project in northeastern B.C.

Peter Milburn, former deputy finance minister, finished the report earlier this year, but the findings were not initially made public.

$10B more than initial estimate
On Friday, it was announced that the project's final price tag has once again ballooned by billions of dollars.

Site C was initially estimated to cost $6 billion, and the first approved budget, back in 2014, was $8.775 billion. The budget increased to $10.8 billion in 2018.

But the latest update suggests it will cost about $16 billion in total.

And, in addition to a higher budget, the date of completion has been pushed back to 2025 – a year later than the initial target.

Among the reasons for the revisions, according to the province, is the impact of COVID-19. While officials did not get into details, there have been multiple cases of the disease publicly reported at Site C work camps.

Additionally, fewer workers were permitted on site to allow for physical distancing, and construction was scaled back.

Also cited as a cause for the increased cost were "unforeseeable" geotechnical issues at the site, which required installation of an enhanced drainage system.

Speaking to reporters Friday, the premier deflected blame.

“Managing the contract the BC Liberals signed has been difficult because it transfers the vast majority of the geotechnical risk back to BC Hydro,” said Horgan.

Former Premier Christy Clark vowed to get the project to a point of no return, and in 2017 the NDP decided to continue with the project because of the cost of cancelling it.

The Liberals now say the clean energy project should continue, but deny they shoulder any of the blame.

“Someone has to take ownership – and it's got to be government in power,” said MLA Tom Shypitka, BC Liberal critic for energy. 

There are also several reviews underway, including how to change contractor schedules to reflect delays and potential cost impacts from COVID-19, and how to keep the work environment safe during the pandemic.

A total of 17 recommendations were made in Milburn's report, all of which have been accepted by BC Hydro and the province.

Among these recommendations is a restructured project assurance board with a focus on skill-specific membership and autonomy from BC Hydro.

Cost of cancelling the project
The report looked into whether it would be better to scrap the project altogether, but the cost of cancelling it at this point would be at least $10 billion, Horgan and Ralston said.

That cost does not include replacing lost energy and capacity that Site C's electricity would have provided, according to the province.

A study conducted in 2019 suggested B.C. will need to double its electricity production by 2055, especially as drought conditions are forcing BC Hydro to adapt power generation. 

The NDP government says the cost to ratepayers of cancelling the project would be $216 a year for 10 years. Going forward will still have a cost, but instead, that payment will be split over more than 70 years, the estimated lifetime of Site C, meaning BC Hydro customers will pay about $36 more a year once the site goes live, the NDP says, even as cryptocurrency mining raises questions about electricity use.

“We will not put jobs at risk; we will not shock people's hydro bills,” said Horgan.

"Our government has taken this situation very seriously, and with the advice of independent experts guiding us, I am confident in the path forward for Site C," Ralston said.

"B.C. needs more renewable energy to bridge the electricity gap with Alberta and electrify our economy, transition away from fossil fuels and meet our climate targets."

The minister said the site is currently employing about 4,500 people.

Arguments against Site C
While there are benefits to the project, there has also been vocal opposition.

In a statement released following the announcement that the project would go ahead, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs suggested the decision violated the premier's commitment to a UN declaration.

"The Site C dam has never had the free, prior and informed consent of all impacted First Nations, and proceeding with the project is a clear infringement of the treaty rights of the West Moberly First Nation," the UBCIC's secretary treasurer said.

Kukpi7 Judy Wilson said the UN's Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has called for a suspension of the project until it has the consent of Indigenous peoples.

"B.C. did not even attempt to engage First Nations about the safety risks associated with the stability of the dam in the recent reviews," she said.

"It is unfathomable that such clear human rights violations are somehow OK by this government."

Chief Roland Wilson of the West Moberly First Nation said he was disappointed the province didn’t consult his and other communities prior to making this announcement. In an interview with CTV News, he said he was offered an opportunity to join a call this morning.

“We signed a treaty in 1814,” he said. “Our treaty rights are being trampled on.”

Wilson said his nation has ongoing concerns about safety issues and the plans to flood the Peace Valley. West Moberly is in a bitter court battle with the province.

At the BC Legislature, Green Party Leader Sonia Furstenau slammed the government’s decision.

“It is an astonishingly terrible business case in any circumstances, but considering that we lose the agricultural land, the biodiversity, the traditional treaty lands of Treaty 8, this is particularly catastrophic,” she told reporters.

She went on to accuse the NDP government of keeping bad news from the public. She alleged the NDP knew of serious problems before last fall’s unscheduled election, but chose not to release information.

Prior to the decision former BC Hydro president and a former federal fisheries minister are among those who added their voices to calls to halt work on the dam.

They were among 18 Canadians who wrote an open letter to the province calling for an independent team of experts to explore geotechnical problems at the site.

In the letter, signed in September, the group that also included Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the UBCIC wrote that going ahead would be a "costly and potentially catastrophic mistake." 

According to Friday's update, independent experts have confirmed the site is safe, though improvements have been recommended to enhance oversight and risk management.

Earlier in the project, a B.C. First Nation claimed it was a $1-billion treaty violation, though an agreement was reached in 2020 after the province promised to improve land management and restore traditional place names in areas of cultural significance.

The Prophet River First Nation will also receive payments while the site is operating, and some Crown land will be transferred to the nation as part of the agreement. 

Additionally, residents of a tiny community not far from the site is suing the province over two slow-moving landslides they claim caused property values to plummet.

Nearly three dozen residents of Old Fort are behind the allegations of negligence and breach of their charter right to security of person. The claim is tied to two landslides, in 2018 and 2020, that the group alleges were caused by ground destabilization from construction related to Site C.

One of the landslides damaged the only road into the community, leaving residents under evacuation for a month.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Northern Pass Hydropower Project Rehearing faces review by New Hampshire's Site Evaluation Committee as Eversource seeks approval for a 192-mile transmission line, citing energy cost relief, while Massachusetts eyes Central Maine Power as an alternative.

Key Points

A review of Eversource's halted NH transmission plan, weighing impacts, costs, and alternatives.

✅ SEC denied project, Eversource seeks rehearing

✅ 192-mile line to bring Canadian hydropower to NE

✅ Alternative bids include Central Maine Power corridor

Groups supporting and opposing the Northern Pass hydropower project in New Hampshire filed statements Friday in advance of a state committee’s meeting next week on whether it should rehear the project.

The Site Evaluation Committee rejected the transmission proposal last month over concerns about potential negative impacts. It is scheduled to deliberate Monday on Eversource’s request for a rehearing.

The $1.6 billion project would deliver hydropower from Canada, including Hydro-Quebec exports, to customers in southern New England through a 192-mile transmission line in New Hampshire.

If the Northern Pass project fails to ultimately win New Hampshire approval, the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources has announced it will begin negotiating with a team led by Central Maine Power Co. for a $950 million project through a 145-mile Maine transmission line as an alternative.

Separately, construction later began on the disputed $1 billion electricity corridor despite ongoing legal and political challenges.

The Business and Industry Association voted last month to endorse the project after remaining neutral on it since it was first proposed in 2010. A letter sent to the committee Friday urges it to resume deliberations. The association said it is concerned about the severe impact the committee’s decision could have on New Hampshire’s economic future, even as Connecticut overhauls electricity market structure across New England.

“The BIA believes this decision was premature and puts New Hampshire’s economy at risk,” organization President Jim Roche wrote. “New Hampshire’s electrical energy prices are consistently 50-60 percent higher than the national average. This has forced employers to explore options outside New Hampshire and new England to obtain lower electricity prices. Businesses from outside New Hampshire and others now here are reversing plans to grow in New Hampshire due to the Site Evaluation Committee’s decision.”

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Coos County Business and Employers Group also filed a statement in support of rehearing the project.

The Society to Protect New Hampshire Forests, which is opposed to the project, said Eversource’s request is premature because the committee hasn’t issued a final written decision yet. It also said Eversource hasn’t proven committee members “made an unlawful or unreasonable decision or mistakenly overlooked matters it should have considered.”

As part of its request for reconsideration, Eversource said it is offering up to $300 million in reductions to low-income and business customers in the state.

It also is offering to allocate $95 million from a previously announced $200 million community fund — $25 million to compensate for declining property values, $25 million for economic development and $25 million to promote tourism in affected areas. Another $20 million would fund energy efficiency programs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alliant Energy Net-Zero Carbon Plan outlines carbon-neutral electricity by 2050, coal retirements by 2040, major solar and wind additions, gas transition, battery storage, hydrogen, and carbon credits to reduce emissions and lower customer costs.

Key Points

Alliant Energy's strategy to reach carbon-neutral power by 2050 via coal phaseout, renewables, storage, and offsets.

✅ Targets net-zero electricity by 2050

✅ Retires all coal by 2040; expands solar and wind

✅ Uses storage, hydrogen, and offsets to bridge gaps

Alliant Energy has joined a small but growing group of utilities aiming for carbon-neutral electricity by 2050.

In a report released Wednesday, the Madison-based company announced a goal of “net-zero carbon dioxide emissions” from its electricity generation along with plans to eliminate all coal-powered generation by 2040, a decade earlier than the company’s previous target.

Alliant, which is pursuing plans that would make it the largest solar energy generator in Wisconsin, said it is on track to cut its 2005 carbon emissions in half by 2030.

Both goals are in line with targets an international group of scientists warn is necessary to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. But reducing greenhouse gasses was not the primary motivation, said executive vice president and general counsel Jim Gallegos.

“The primary driver is focused on our customers and communities and setting them up … to be competitive,” Gallegos said. “We do think renewables are going to do it better than fossil fuels.”

Alliant has told regulators it can save customers up to $6.5 billion over the next 35 years by adding more than 1,600 megawatts of renewable generation, closing one of its two remaining Wisconsin coal plants and taking other undisclosed actions.

In a statement, Alliant chairman and CEO John Larsen said the goal is part of broader corporate and social responsibility efforts “guided by our strategy and designed to deliver on our purpose — to serve customers and build stronger communities.”

Coal out; gas remains
The goal applies only to Alliant’s electricity generation — the company has no plans to stop distributing natural gas for heating — and is “net-zero,” meaning the company could use some form of carbon capture or purchase carbon credits to offset continuing emissions.

The plan relies heavily on renewable generation — seen in regions embracing clean power across North America — including the addition of up to 1,000 megawatts of new Wisconsin solar plants by the end of 2023 and 1,000 megawatts of Iowa wind generation added over the past four years — as well as natural gas generators to replace its aging coal fleet.

But Jeff Hanson, Alliant’s director of sustainability, said eliminating or offsetting all carbon emissions will require new tools, such as battery storage or possibly carbon-free fuels such as hydrogen, and awareness of the Three Mile Island debate over the role of nuclear power in the mix.

“Getting to the 2040 goals, that’s all based on the technologies of today,” Hanson said. “Can we get to net zero today? The challenge would be a pretty high bar to clear.”

Gallegos said the plan does not call for the construction of more large-scale natural gas generators like the recently completed $700 million West Riverside Energy Center in Beloit, though natural gas will remain a key piece of Alliant’s generation portfolio.

Alliant announced plans in May to close its 400-megawatt Edgewater plant in Sheboygan by the end of 2022, echoing how Alberta is retiring coal by 2023 as markets shift, but has not provided a date for the shutdown of the jointly owned 1,100-megawatt Columbia Energy Center near Portage, which received about $1 billion worth of pollution-control upgrades in the past decade.

Alliant’s Iowa subsidiary plans to convert its 52-year-old, 200-megawatt Burlington plant to natural gas by the end of next year and a pair of small coal-fired generators in Linn County by 2025. That leaves the 250-megawatt plant in Lansing, which is now 43 years old, and the 734-megawatt Ottumwa plant as the remaining coal-fired generators, even as others keep a U.S. coal plant running indefinitely elsewhere.

Earlier this year, the utility asked regulators to approve a roughly $900 million investment in six solar farms across the state with a total capacity of 675 megawatts, similar to plans in Ontario to seek new wind and solar to address supply needs. The company plans to apply next year for permission to add up to 325 additional megawatts.

Alliant said the carbon-neutral plan, which entails closing Edgewater along with other undisclosed actions, would save customers between $2 billion and $6.5 billion through 2055 compared to the status quo.

Tom Content, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, said the consumer advocacy group wants to ensure that ratepayers aren’t forced to continue paying for coal plants that are no longer needed while also paying for new energy sources and would like to see a bigger role for energy efficiency and more transparency about the utilities’ pathways to decarbonization.

‘They could do better’
Environmental groups said the announcement is a step in the right direction, though they say utilities need to do even more to protect the environment and consumers.

Amid competition from cheaper natural gas and renewable energy and pressure from environmentally conscious investors, U.S. utilities have been closing coal plants at a record pace in recent years, as industry CEOs say a coal comeback is unlikely in the U.S., a trend that is expected to continue through the next decade.

“This is not industry leadership when we’re talking about emission reductions,” said Elizabeth Katt Reinders, regional campaign director for the Sierra Club, which has called on Alliant to retire the Columbia plant by 2026.

Closing Edgewater and Columbia would get Alliant nearly halfway to its emissions goals while saving customers more than $250 million over the next decade, according to a Sierra Club study released earlier this year.

“Retiring Edgewater was a really good decision. Investing in 1,000 megawatts of new solar is game-changing for Wisconsin,” Katt Reinders said. “In the same breath we can say this emissions reduction goal is unambitious. Our analysis has shown they can do far more far sooner.”

Scott Blankman, a former Alliant executive who now works as director of energy and air programs for Clean Wisconsin, said Alliant should not run the Columbia plant for another 20 years.

“If they’re saying they’re looking to get out of coal by 2040 in Wisconsin I’d be very disappointed,” Blankman said. “I do think they could do better.”

Alliant is the 15th U.S. investor-owned utility to set a net-zero target, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, joining Madison Gas and Electric, which announced a similar goal last year. Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, which serves customers in western Wisconsin, was the first large investor-owned utility to set such a target, as state utilities report declining returns in coal operations.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nova Scotia Power Rate Regulation explains how the privately owned utility is governed by the Utility Review Board, limiting government authority, while COVID-19 relief measures include suspended disconnections, waived fees, payment plans, and emergency assistance.

Key Points

URB oversight where the board, not the province, sets power rates, with COVID-19 relief pausing disconnections and fees.

✅ Province lacks authority to order rate cuts

✅ URB regulates Nova Scotia Power rates

✅ Relief: no disconnections, waived fees, payment plans

The province can't ask Nova Scotia Power to lower its rates to ease the financial pressure on out-of-work residents because it lacks the authority to take that kind of action, even as the Nova Scotia regulator approved a 14% hike in a separate proceeding, the provincial energy minister said Thursday.

Derek Mombourquette said he is in "constant contact" with the privately owned utility.

"The conversations are ongoing with Nova Scotia Power," he said after a cabinet meeting.

When asked if the Liberal government would order the utility to lower electricity rates as households and businesses struggle with the financial fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic, Mombourquette said there was nothing he could do.

"We don't have the regulatory authority as a government to reduce the rates," he told reporters during a conference call.

"They're independent, and they are regulated through the (Nova Scotia Utility Review Board). My conversations with Nova Scotia Power essentially have been to do whatever they can to support Nova Scotians, whether it's residents or businesses in this very difficult time."

Asked if the board would take action, the minister said: "I'm not aware of that," despite the premier's appeals to regulators in separate rate cases.

However, the minister noted that the utility, owned by Emera Inc., has suspended disconnections for bill non-payment for at least 90 days, a step similar to reconnection efforts by Hydro One announced in Ontario.

It has also relaxed payment timelines and waived penalties and fees, while some jurisdictions offered lump-sum credits to help with bills.

Nova Scotia Power CEO Wayne O'Connor has also said the company is making additional donations to a fund available to help low-income individuals and families pay their energy bills.

In late March, Ontario cut electricity rates for residential consumers, farms and small businesses in response to a surge in people forced to work from home as a result of the pandemic, alongside bill support measures for ratepayers.

Premier Doug Ford said there would be a 45-day switch to off-peak rates, later moving to a recovery rate framework, which meant electricity consumers would be paying the lowest rate possible at any time of day.

The change was expected to cost the province about $162 million.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario EV Battery Storage ROI leverages V2B, V2G, two-way charging, demand response, and second-life batteries to monetize peak pricing, cut GHG emissions, and unlock up to $38,000 in lifetime value for commuters and buildings.

Key Points

The economic return from V2B/V2G two-way charging and second-life storage using EV batteries within Ontario's grid.

✅ Monetize peak pricing via workplace V2B discharging

✅ Earn up to $8,400 per EV over vehicle life

✅ Reduce gas generation and GHGs with demand response

The payback that usually comes to mind when people buy an electric vehicle is to drive an emissions-free, low-maintenance, better-performing mode of transportation.

On top of that, you can now add $38,000.

That, according to a new report from Ontario electric vehicle education and advocacy nonprofit, Plug‘n Drive, is the potential lifetime return for an electric car driven as a commuter vehicle while also being used as an electricity storage option amid an energy storage crunch in Ontario’s electricity system.

“EVs contain large batteries that store electric energy,” says the report. “Besides driving the car, [those] batteries have two other potentially useful applications: mobile storage via vehicle-to-grid while they are installed in the vehicle, and second-life storage after the vehicle batteries are retired.”

Pricing and demand differentials
The study, prepared by the research firm Strategic Policy Economics, modeled a two-stage scenario calculating the total benefits from both mobile and second-life storage when taking advantage of differences in daytime and nighttime electricity pricing and demand.

If done systematically and at scale, the combined benefits to EV owners, building operators and the electricity system in Ontario could reach $129 million per year by 2035, according to the report. Along with the financial gains, the province would also cut GHG emissions by up to 67.2 kilotons annually.

The math might sound complicated, but the concepts are simple. All it requires is for drivers to charge their batteries with low-cost electricity overnight at home, then plug them into two-way EV charging stations at work and discharge their stored electricity for use by the building by day when buying power from the grid is more expensive.

“Workplace buildings could avoid high daytime prices by purchasing electricity from EVs parked onsite and enjoy savings as a result,” says the report.

Based on average commuting distances, EVs in this scenario could make half their storage capacity available for discharge. Drivers would be paid out of the building’s savings, effectively selling electricity back to the grid and earning up to $8,400 over the life of their vehicle.

According to the report, Ontario could have as many as 18,555 vehicles participating in mobile storage by 2030. At this level, the daily electricity demand would be reduced by 565 MWh. This, in turn, would reduce demand for natural gas-fired electricity generation, a fossil-fuel electricity source, avoiding the expense of gas purchases while reducing GHG emissions.

The second-life storage opportunity begins when the vehicle lifespan ends. “EV batteries will still have over 80% of their storage capacity after being driven for 13 years and providing mobile storage,” the report states. “Those-second life batteries could provide a low-cost energy storage solution for the electricity grid and enhance grid stability over time.”

Some of the savings could be shared with EV owners in the form of a rebate worth up to 20 per cent of the batteries’ initial cost.

Call to action
The report concludes with a call to action for EV advocates to press policy makers and other stakeholders to take actions on building codes, the federal Clean Fuel Standard and other business models in order to maximize the benefits of using EV batteries for the electricity system in this way, even as growing adoption could challenge power grids in some regions.

“EVs are often approached as an environmental solution to climate change,” says Cara Clairman, Plug’n Drive president and CEO. “While this is true, there are significant economic opportunities that are often overlooked.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News