South Carolina nuke plant back at full power

Australia Energy Policy Debate highlights IPCC warnings, Paris Agreement goals, coal phase-out, emissions reduction, renewables, gas, pumped hydro, storage, reliability, and investment certainty amid NEG uncertainty and federal-state tensions over targets.

Key Points

Debate over coal, emissions targets, and grid reliability, guided by IPCC science, Paris goals, and market reforms.

✅ IPCC urges rapid cuts and coal phase-out by 2050

✅ NEG's emissions pillar stalled; reliability obligation alive

✅ States, market operators push investment certainty and storage

The United Nation’s climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on Monday said radical emissions reduction across the world’s economies, including a phase-out of coal by 2050, was required to avoid the most devastating climate change impacts.

The Morrison government dismissed the findings. Treasurer Josh Frydenberg insisted this week that “coal is an important part of the energy mix”.

“If we were to take coal out of the system the lights would go out on the east coast of Australia overnight. It provides more than 60 per cent of our power," he said.

Ms Zibelman, whose organisation operates the nation’s largest gas and electricity markets, said if Australia was to make an orderly transition to low-emissions electricity generation, aligning with the sustainable electric planet vision, “then certainly we would keep the lights on”.

Ms Zibelman said coal assets should be maintained “as long as they are economically viable and we should have a plan to replace them with resources that are lowest cost”.

Those options comprised gas, renewables, pumped hydro and other energy storage, she told ABC radio, as New Zealand weighs electrification to replace fossil fuels.

Under the Paris treaty the government has pledged to lower emissions by 26 per cent by 2030, based on 2005 levels, even as national emissions rose 2% recently according to industry reports.

Labor would increase the goal to a 45 per cent cut - a policy Prime Minister Scott Morrison said last month would " shut down every coal-fired power station in the country and ... increase people’s power bill by about $1,400 on average for every single household”.

The federal government has scrapped its proposed National Energy Guarantee, which would have cut emissions in the electricity sector, but the reliability component of the plan may continue in some form.

The policy was being developed by the Energy Security Board. The group’s chairwoman Kerry Schott has expressed anger at its demise but on Thursday revealed the board was still working on the policy because “nobody told us to stop”.

Speaking at the Melbourne Institute's Outlook conference, she urged the government to revive the emissions reduction component of the plan to provide investment certainty, noting the IEA net-zero report on Canada shows electricity demand rises in decarbonisation.

Energy Minister Angus Taylor, an energy consultant before entering Parliament, on Thursday said the electricity sector would reduce emissions in line with the Paris deal without a mandated target.

Mr Taylor said only a “very brave state” would not support the policy’s reliability obligation.

The federal government has called a COAG energy council meeting for October 26 in Sydney to discuss electricity reliability.

It is understood Mr Taylor has not contacted Victoria, Queensland or the ACT since taking the portfolio, despite needing unanimous support from the states to progress the issue.

The Victorian government goes into caretaker mode on October 30 ahead of that state's election.

Victorian Energy Minister Lily D’Ambrosio said the federal government was “a rabble when it comes to energy policy, and we won’t be signing anything until after the election".

Speaking at the Melbourne Institute conference, prominent business leaders on Thursday bemoaned a lack of political leadership on energy policy and climate change, saying the only way forward appeared to be for companies to take action themselves, with some pointing to Canada's race to net-zero as a case study in the role of renewables.

Jayne Hrdlicka, chief executive of ASX-listed dairy and infant-formula company a2 Milk, said "we all have an obligation to do the very best job we can in managing our carbon footprint".

"We just need to get on doing what we can .. and then hope that policy will catch up. But we can’t wait," she said.

Ms Hrdlicka said the recent federal political turmoil had been frustrating "because if you invest in building relationships as most of us do in Canberra and then overnight they are all changed, you’re starting from scratch".

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

U.S. Hybrid Vehicle Sales Outlook highlights rising hybrid demand as an EV bridge, driven by emissions rules, range anxiety, charging infrastructure gaps, and automaker strategies from Ford, Toyota, and Stellantis across U.S. markets.

Key Points

Forecast of U.S. hybrid sales shaped by EV adoption, emissions rules, charging access, and automaker strategies.

✅ S&P sees hybrids at 24% of U.S. sales by 2028

✅ Bridges ICE to EV amid range and charging concerns

✅ Ford, Toyota, Stellantis expand U.S. hybrid lineups

Hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles may not be dying as fast as some predicted in the auto sector’s rush to develop all-electric models.

Ford Motor is the latest of several top automakers, including Toyota and Stellantis, planning to build and sell hundreds of thousands of hybrid vehicles in the U.S. over the next five years, industry forecasters told Reuters.

The companies are pitching hybrids as an alternative for retail and commercial customers who are seeking more sustainable transportation, but may not be ready to make the leap to a full electric vehicle.

"Hybrids really serve a lot of America," said Tim Ghriskey, senior portfolio strategist at New York-based investment manager Ingalls & Snyder. "Hybrid is a great alternative to a pure electric vehicle (and) it's an easier sell to a lot of customers."

Interest in hybrids is rebounding as consumer demand for pure electrics has not accelerated as quickly as expected, with EV market share dipping in Q1 2024 according to some analyses. Surveys cite a variety of reasons for tepid EV demand, from high initial cost and concerns about range to lengthy charging times and a shortage of public charging infrastructure in many regions.

“With the tightening of emissions requirements, hybrids provide a cleaner fleet without requiring buyers to take the leap into pure electrics,” said Sam Fiorani, vice president at AutoForecast Solutions.

S&P Global Mobility estimates hybrids will more than triple over the next five years, accounting for 24% of U.S. new vehicle sales in 2028. Sales of pure electrics will claim about 37%, supported by strong U.S. EV sales into 2024 momentum, leaving combustion vehicles — including so-called “mild” hybrids — with a nearly 40% share.

S&P estimates hybrids will account for just 7% of U.S. sales this year, and pure electrics 9%, underscoring that EV sales still lag gas cars as internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles take more than 80%.

Historically, hybrids have accounted for less than 10% of total U.S. sales, with Toyota’s long-running Prius among the most popular models. The Japanese automaker has consistently said hybrids will play a key role in the company's long-range electrification plans as it slowly ramps up investment in pure EVs.

Ford is the latest to roll out more aggressive hybrid plans. On its second-quarter earnings call in late July, Chief Executive Jim Farley surprised analysts, saying Ford expects to quadruple its hybrid sales over the next five years after earlier promising an aggressive push into all-electric vehicles.

“This transition to EVs will be dynamic,” Farley told analysts. “We expect the EV market to remain volatile until the winners and losers shake out.”

Among Ford’s competitors, General Motors appears to have little interest in hybrids in the U.S., while Stellantis will follow Toyota and Ford’s hedge by offering U.S. buyers a choice of different powertrains, including hybrids, until sales of pure electric vehicles start to take off after mid-decade, a potential EV inflection point according to forecaster GlobalData.

In a statement, GM said it, echoing leadership's view that EVs won't go mainstream until key issues are addressed, "continues to be committed to its all-electric future ... While we will have hybrid vehicles in our global fleet, our focus remains on transitioning our portfolio to electric by 2030.”

Stellantis said hybrids now account for 36% of Jeep Wrangler sales and 19% of Chrysler Pacifica sales. In addition to new pure electric models coming soon, "we are very bullish on hybrids going forward," a spokesperson said.

This year, manufacturers are marketing more than 60 hybrids in the U.S. Toyota and its premium Lexus brand are selling at least 18 different hybrid models, enabling the Japanese automaker to maintain its stranglehold on the sector.

Hyundai and sister brand Kia offer seven hybrid models, with Ford and Lincoln six. Stellantis offers just three, and GM’s sole entry, due out later this year, is a hybrid version of the Chevrolet Corvette sports car.

But hybrids remain in short supply at many U.S. dealerships.

Andrew DiFeo, dealer principal at Hyundai of St. Augustine, south of Jacksonville, FL, doesn't see EV adoption hitting the levels the Biden administration wants until EV charging networks are as ubiquitous as gas stations.

"Hybrids are a great bridge to whatever the future holds,” said DiFeo, adding, “I've got zero in stock (and) I've got customers that want all of them."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Canada Manufacturing Policy prioritizes affordable energy, trims carbon taxes, aligns with Buy America, and supports the resource sector, PPE and plastics supply, nearshoring, and resilient supply chains amid COVID-19, correcting costly green energy policies.

Key Points

A policy to boost industry with affordable energy, lower carbon taxes, resource ties, and aligned U.S. trade.

✅ Cuts energy costs and carbon tax burdens for competitiveness

✅ Rebuilds resource-sector linkages and domestic supply chains

✅ Seeks Buy America relief and clarity on plastics regulation

By Jocelyn Bamford

Since its inception in 2017, the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses has warned all levels of government that there would be catastrophic effects if policies that drove both the manufacturing and natural resources sectors out of the country were adopted.

The very origins of our coalition was in the fight for a competitive landscape in Ontario, a cornerstone of which is affordable energy and sounding the alarm that the Green Energy Policy in Ontario pushed many manufacturers out of the province.

The Green Energy Policy made electricity in Ontario four times the average North American rate. These unjust prices were largely there to subsidize the construction of expensive and inefficient wind and solar energy infrastructure, even as cleaning up Canada's grid is cited as critical to meeting climate pledges.

My company’s November hydro bill was $55,000 and $36,500 of that was the so-called global adjustment charge, the name given to these green energy costs.

Unaffordable electricity, illustrated by higher Alberta power costs in recent years, coupled with ever-more burdensome carbon taxes, have pushed Canadian manufacturing into the open arms of other countries that see the importance of affordable energy to attract business.

One can’t help but ask the question: If Canada had policies that attracted and maintained a robust manufacturing sector, would we be in the same situation with a lack of personal protective equipment and medical supplies for our front-line medical workers and our patients during this pandemic?  If our manufacturing sector wasn’t crippled by taxes and regulation, would it be more nimble and able to respond to a national emergency?

It seems that the federal government’s policies are designed to push manufacturing out, stifle our resource sector, and kill the very plastics industry that is so essential to keeping our front-line medical staff, patients, and citizens safe, even as the net-zero race accelerates federally.

As the federal government chased its obsession with a new green economy – a strange obsession given our country’s small contribution to global GHGs – including proposals for a fully renewable grid by 2030 advocated by some leaders, it has been blinded from the real threats to our country, threats that became very, very real with COVID-19.

After the pandemic has passed, the federal government must work to make Canada manufacturing and resource friendly again, recognizing that the IEA net-zero electricity report projects the need for more power. COVID-19 proves that Canada relies on a robust resource economy and manufacturing sector to survive. We need to ensure that we are prepared for future crises like the one we are facing now.

Here are five things our government can do now to meet that end:

1. End all carbon taxes immediately.

2. Create a mandate to bring manufacturing back to Canada through competitive offerings and favourable tax regimes.

3. Recognize the interconnections between the resource sector and manufacturing, including how fossil-fuel workers support the transition across supply chains. Many manufacturers supply parts and pieces to the resource sector, and they rely on affordable energy to compete globally.

4. Stop the current federal government initiative to label plastic as toxic. At a time when the government is appealing to manufacturers to re-tool and produce needed plastic products for the health care sector, labelling plastics as toxic is counterproductive.

5. Work to secure a Canadian exemption to Buy America. This crisis has clearly shown us that dependency on China is dangerous. We must forge closer ties with America and work as a trading block in order to be more self-sufficient.

These are troubling times. Many businesses will not survive.

We need to take back our manufacturing sector.  We need to take back our resource sector.

We need to understand the interconnected nature of these two important segments of our gross domestic production, and opportunities like an Alberta–B.C. grid link to strengthen reliability.
If we do not, in the next pandemic we may find ourselves not only without ventilators, masks and gowns but also without energy to operate our hospitals.

Jocelyn Bamford is a Toronto business executive and President of the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

IAEA Nuclear Security Mission in China reviews regulatory frameworks, physical protection, and compliance at nuclear power plants, endorsing CAEA efforts, IPPAS guidance, and capacity building to strengthen safeguards, risk management, and global cooperation.

Key Points

An IAEA advisory visit assessing China's nuclear security, physical protection, and regulatory frameworks.

✅ Reviews laws, regulations, and physical protection measures

✅ Endorses CAEA, COE, and IPPAS-aligned best practices

✅ Recommends accelerated rulemaking for expanding reactors

The International Atomic Energy Agency commended China's efforts and accomplishments in nuclear security after conducting its first nuclear security advisory mission to the nation, according to the China Atomic Energy Authority.

The two-week International Physical Protection Advisory Service mission, from Aug 28to Saturday, reviewed the legislative and regulatory framework for nuclear security as well as the physical protection of nuclear material and facilities, including worker safety protocols during health emergencies.

An eight-member expert team led by Joseph Sandoval of the United States' Sandia National Laboratories visited Fangjiashan Nuclear Power Plant, part of the Qinshan Nuclear Power Station in Zhejiang province, to examine security arrangements and observe physical protection measures, where recognized safety culture practices can reinforce performance.

The experts also met with officials from several Chinese government bodies involved in nuclear security such as the China Atomic Energy Authority, National Nuclear Safety Administration and Ministry of Public Security.

The international agency has carried out 78 of the protection missions in 48 member states since 1995. This was the first in China, it said.

The China Atomic Energy Authority said on Tuesday that a report by the experts highly approves of the Chinese government's continuous efforts to strengthen nuclear safety, to boost the sustainable development of the nuclear power industry and to help establish a global nuclear security system.

The report identifies the positive roles played by the State Nuclear Security Technology Center and its subsidiary, the Center of Excellence on Nuclear Security, in enhancing China's nuclear security capability and supporting regional and global cooperation in the field, such as bilateral cooperation agreements that advance research and standards, officials at the China Atomic Energy Authority said.

"A strong commitment to nuclear security is a must for any state that uses nuclear power for electricity generation and that is planning to significantly expand this capacity by constructing new power reactors," said Muhammad Khaliq, head of the international agency's nuclear security of materials and facilities section. "China'sexample in applying IAEA nuclear security guidance and using IAEA advisory services demonstrates its strong commitment to nuclear security and its enhancement worldwide."

The report notes that along with the rapid growth of China's nuclear power sector, challenges have emerged when it comes to the country's nuclear security mechanism and management, as highlighted by grid reliability warnings during pandemics in other markets.

It suggests that the Chinese government accelerate the making of laws and regulations to better govern this sector.

Deng Ge, director of the State Nuclear Security Technology Center, said the IAEAmission would help China strengthen its nuclear security since the nation could learn from other countries' successful experience, including on-site staffing measures to maintain critical operations, and find out its weaknesses for rectification.

Deng added that the mission's report can help the international community understand China's contributions to the global nuclear security system and also offer China's best practices to other nations.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

RBC Renewable Energy PPA supports a 39 MW Alberta solar project, with Bullfrog Power and BluEarth Renewables, advancing clean energy in a deregulated market through a long-term power purchase agreement in Canada today.

Key Points

A long-term power purchase agreement where RBC buys most output from a 39 MW Alberta solar project via Bullfrog Power.

✅ 39 MW solar build in County of Forty Mile, Alberta

✅ Majority of output purchased by RBC via Bullfrog Power

✅ Supports cost-competitive renewables in deregulated market

The Royal Bank of Canada says it is the first Canadian bank to sign a long-term renewable energy power purchase agreement, a deal that will support the development of a 39-megawatt, $70-million solar project in southern Alberta, within an energy powerhouse province.

The bank has agreed with green energy retailer Bullfrog Power to buy the majority of the electricity produced by the project, as a recent federal green electricity contract highlights growing demand, to be designed and built by BluEarth Renewables of Calgary.

The project is to provide enough power for over 6,400 homes and the panel installations will cover 120 hectares, amid a provincial renewable energy surge that could create thousands of jobs, the size of 170 soccer fields.

The solar installation is to be built in the County of Forty Mile, a hot spot for renewable power that was also chosen by Suncor Energy Inc. for its $300-million 200-MW wind power project (approved last year and then put on hold during the COVID-19 pandemic), and home to another planned wind power farm in Alberta.

BluEarth says commercial operations at its Burdett and Yellow Lake Solar Project are expected to start up in April 2021, underscoring solar power growth in the province.

READ MORE: Wind power developers upbeat about Alberta despite end of power project auctions

It says the agreement shows that renewable energy can be cost-competitive, with lower-cost solar contracts in a deregulated electricity market like Alberta’s, adding the province has some of the best solar and wind resources in Canada.

“We’re proud to be the first Canadian bank to sign a long-term renewable energy power purchase agreement, demonstrating our commitment to clean, sustainable power, as Alberta explores selling renewable energy at scale,” said Scott Foster, senior vice-president and global head of corporate real estate at RBC.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News