-- Honeywell and Kansas City Power & Light (KCP&L), a subsidiary of Great Plains Energy, announced a contract extension to the utilityÂ’s Energy Optimizer program.
Managed by Honeywell, Energy Optimizer is designed to reduce peak energy consumption from June to September, when air-conditioning use reaches its highest levels of the year.
The demand-response program, which was launched in 2005, features the installation of programmable thermostats in residential homes and small businesses. The thermostats include a paging system that allows KCP&L to communicate with the thermostats and cycle air conditioners off and on for brief intervals. This only happens on the hottest days of the year, when energy consumption peaks.
Energy Optimizer is part of KCP&LÂ’s strategy for meeting Kansas CityÂ’s future energy needs. To date, 18,000 thermostats have been installed, exceeding the three-year program goal in less than two years. By extending the program, the utility plans to install an additional 13,000 thermostats.
“We are very pleased with the success of this program,” said Kevin Bryant, vice president of Energy Solutions for Kansas City Power & Light. “The Energy Optimizer program helps us defer the need to build additional peaking-power plants while helping customers save on heating and cooling costs year-round.”
KCP&L customers who enroll in the program receive a free, professionally installed programmable thermostat, which can reduce the home heating and cooling costs by as much as 20 percent. The thermostat also includes online programming capabilities, allowing users to easily adjust their settings from work or other remote locations.
Honeywell provides all program management, marketing, installation and customer service functions for Energy Optimizer.
“Almost every house has an air conditioner, and a variety of appliances and electronics, and the burden on the electrical grid continues to grow as a result,” said Kent Anson, vice president of Global Energy for Honeywell Building Solutions. “Programs like Energy Optimizer are essential to help utilities keep electricity affordable and protect the environment for future generations.”
ITER Nuclear Fusion advances tokamak magnetic confinement, heating deuterium-tritium plasma with superconducting magnets, targeting net energy gain, tritium breeding, and steam-turbine power, while complementing laser inertial confinement milestones for grid-scale electricity and 2025 startup goals.
Key Points
ITER Nuclear Fusion is a tokamak project confining D-T plasma with magnets to achieve net energy gain and clean power.
✅ Tokamak magnetic confinement with high-temp superconducting coils
✅ Deuterium-tritium fuel cycle with on-site tritium breeding
✅ Targets net energy gain and grid-scale, low-carbon electricity
It sounds like the stuff of dreams: a virtually limitless source of energy that doesn’t produce greenhouse gases or radioactive waste. That’s the promise of nuclear fusion, often described as the holy grail of clean energy by proponents, which for decades has been nothing more than a fantasy due to insurmountable technical challenges. But things are heating up in what has turned into a race to create what amounts to an artificial sun here on Earth, one that can provide power for our kettles, cars and light bulbs.
Today’s nuclear power plants create electricity through nuclear fission, in which atoms are split, with next-gen nuclear power exploring smaller, cheaper, safer designs that remain distinct from fusion. Nuclear fusion however, involves combining atomic nuclei to release energy. It’s the same reaction that’s taking place at the Sun’s core. But overcoming the natural repulsion between atomic nuclei and maintaining the right conditions for fusion to occur isn’t straightforward. And doing so in a way that produces more energy than the reaction consumes has been beyond the grasp of the finest minds in physics for decades.
But perhaps not for much longer. Some major technical challenges have been overcome in the past few years and governments around the world have been pouring money into fusion power research as part of a broader green industrial revolution under way in several regions. There are also over 20 private ventures in the UK, US, Europe, China and Australia vying to be the first to make fusion energy production a reality.
“People are saying, ‘If it really is the ultimate solution, let’s find out whether it works or not,’” says Dr Tim Luce, head of science and operation at the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), being built in southeast France. ITER is the biggest throw of the fusion dice yet.
Its $22bn (£15.9bn) build cost is being met by the governments of two-thirds of the world’s population, including the EU, the US, China and Russia, at a time when Europe is losing nuclear power and needs energy, and when it’s fired up in 2025 it’ll be the world’s largest fusion reactor. If it works, ITER will transform fusion power from being the stuff of dreams into a viable energy source.
Constructing a nuclear fusion reactor ITER will be a tokamak reactor – thought to be the best hope for fusion power. Inside a tokamak, a gas, often a hydrogen isotope called deuterium, is subjected to intense heat and pressure, forcing electrons out of the atoms. This creates a plasma – a superheated, ionised gas – that has to be contained by intense magnetic fields.
The containment is vital, as no material on Earth could withstand the intense heat (100,000,000°C and above) that the plasma has to reach so that fusion can begin. It’s close to 10 times the heat at the Sun’s core, and temperatures like that are needed in a tokamak because the gravitational pressure within the Sun can’t be recreated.
When atomic nuclei do start to fuse, vast amounts of energy are released. While the experimental reactors currently in operation release that energy as heat, in a fusion reactor power plant, the heat would be used to produce steam that would drive turbines to generate electricity, even as some envision nuclear beyond electricity for industrial heat and fuels.
Tokamaks aren’t the only fusion reactors being tried. Another type of reactor uses lasers to heat and compress a hydrogen fuel to initiate fusion. In August 2021, one such device at the National Ignition Facility, at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, generated 1.35 megajoules of energy. This record-breaking figure brings fusion power a step closer to net energy gain, but most hopes are still pinned on tokamak reactors rather than lasers.
In June 2021, China’s Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) reactor maintained a plasma for 101 seconds at 120,000,000°C. Before that, the record was 20 seconds. Ultimately, a fusion reactor would need to sustain the plasma indefinitely – or at least for eight-hour ‘pulses’ during periods of peak electricity demand.
A real game-changer for tokamaks has been the magnets used to produce the magnetic field. “We know how to make magnets that generate a very high magnetic field from copper or other kinds of metal, but you would pay a fortune for the electricity. It wouldn’t be a net energy gain from the plant,” says Luce.
One route for nuclear fusion is to use atoms of deuterium and tritium, both isotopes of hydrogen. They fuse under incredible heat and pressure, and the resulting products release energy as heat
The solution is to use high-temperature, superconducting magnets made from superconducting wire, or ‘tape’, that has no electrical resistance. These magnets can create intense magnetic fields and don’t lose energy as heat.
“High temperature superconductivity has been known about for 35 years. But the manufacturing capability to make tape in the lengths that would be required to make a reasonable fusion coil has just recently been developed,” says Luce. One of ITER’s magnets, the central solenoid, will produce a field of 13 tesla – 280,000 times Earth’s magnetic field.
The inner walls of ITER’s vacuum vessel, where the fusion will occur, will be lined with beryllium, a metal that won’t contaminate the plasma much if they touch. At the bottom is the divertor that will keep the temperature inside the reactor under control.
“The heat load on the divertor can be as large as in a rocket nozzle,” says Luce. “Rocket nozzles work because you can get into orbit within minutes and in space it’s really cold.” In a fusion reactor, a divertor would need to withstand this heat indefinitely and at ITER they’ll be testing one made out of tungsten.
Meanwhile, in the US, the National Spherical Torus Experiment – Upgrade (NSTX-U) fusion reactor will be fired up in the autumn of 2022, while efforts in advanced fission such as a mini-reactor design are also progressing. One of its priorities will be to see whether lining the reactor with lithium helps to keep the plasma stable.
Choosing a fuel Instead of just using deuterium as the fusion fuel, ITER will use deuterium mixed with tritium, another hydrogen isotope. The deuterium-tritium blend offers the best chance of getting significantly more power out than is put in. Proponents of fusion power say one reason the technology is safe is that the fuel needs to be constantly fed into the reactor to keep fusion happening, making a runaway reaction impossible.
Deuterium can be extracted from seawater, so there’s a virtually limitless supply of it. But only 20kg of tritium are thought to exist worldwide, so fusion power plants will have to produce it (ITER will develop technology to ‘breed’ tritium). While some radioactive waste will be produced in a fusion plant, it’ll have a lifetime of around 100 years, rather than the thousands of years from fission.
At the time of writing in September, researchers at the Joint European Torus (JET) fusion reactor in Oxfordshire were due to start their deuterium-tritium fusion reactions. “JET will help ITER prepare a choice of machine parameters to optimise the fusion power,” says Dr Joelle Mailloux, one of the scientific programme leaders at JET. These parameters will include finding the best combination of deuterium and tritium, and establishing how the current is increased in the magnets before fusion starts.
The groundwork laid down at JET should accelerate ITER’s efforts to accomplish net energy gain. ITER will produce ‘first plasma’ in December 2025 and be cranked up to full power over the following decade. Its plasma temperature will reach 150,000,000°C and its target is to produce 500 megawatts of fusion power for every 50 megawatts of input heating power.
“If ITER is successful, it’ll eliminate most, if not all, doubts about the science and liberate money for technology development,” says Luce. That technology development will be demonstration fusion power plants that actually produce electricity, where advanced reactors can build on decades of expertise. “ITER is opening the door and saying, yeah, this works – the science is there.”
COVID-19 Impact on U.S. Electricity Consumption shows commercial and industrial demand dropped as residential use rose, with flattened peak loads, weekday-weekend convergence, Texas hourly data, and energy demand as a real-time economic indicator.
Key Points
It reduced commercial and industrial demand while raising residential use, shifting peaks and weekday patterns.
✅ Commercial electricity down 12%; industrial down 14% in Q2 2020
✅ Residential use up 10% amid work-from-home and lockdowns
✅ Peaks flattened; weekday-weekend loads converged in Texas
This is an important turning point for the United States. We have a long road ahead. But one of the reasons I’m optimistic about Biden-Harris is that we will once again have an administration that believes in science.
To embrace this return to science, I want to write today about a fascinating new working paper by Tufts economist Steve Cicala.
Professor Cicala has been studying the effect of Covid on electricity consumption since back in March, when the Wall Street Journal picked up his work documenting an 18% decrease in electricity consumption in Italy.
The new work, focused on the United States, is particularly compelling because it uses data that allows him to distinguish between residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, against a backdrop of declining U.S. electricity sales over recent years.
Fact #1: Firms Are Using Less U.S. commercial electricity consumption fell 12% during the second quarter of 2020. U.S. industrial electricity consumption fell 14% over the same period.
This makes sense. The second quarter was by some measures, the worst quarter for the U.S. economy in over 145 years!
Economic activity shrank. Schools closed. Offices closed. Factories closed. Restaurants closed. Malls closed. Even health care offices closed as patients delayed going to the dentist and other routine care. All this means less heating and cooling, less lighting, less refrigeration, less power for computers and other office equipment, less everything.
The decrease in the industrial sector is a little more surprising. My impression had been that the industrial sector had not fallen as far as commercial, but amid broader disruptions in coal and nuclear power that strained parts of the energy economy, the patterns for both sectors are quite similar with the decline peaking in May and then partially rebounding by July. The paper also shows that areas with higher unemployment rates experienced larger declines in both sectors.
Fact #2: Households Are Using More While firms are using less, households are using more. U.S. residential electricity consumption increased 10% during the second quarter of 2020. Consumption surged during March, April, and May, a reflection of the lockdown lifestyle many adopted, and then leveled off in June and July – with much less of the rebound observed on the commercial/industrial side.
This pattern makes sense, too. In Professor Cicala’s words, “people are spending an inordinate amount of time at home”. Many of us switched over to working from home almost immediately, and haven’t looked back. This means more air conditioning, more running the dishwasher, more CNN (especially last week), more Zoom, and so on.
The paper also examines the correlates of the decline. Areas in the U.S. where more people can work from home experienced larger increases. Unemployment rates, however, are almost completely uncorrelated with the increase.
Fact #3: Firms are Less Peaky The paper next turns to a novel dataset from Texas, where Texas grid reliability is under active discussion, that makes it possible to measure hourly electricity consumption by sector.
As the figure above illustrates, the biggest declines in commercial/industrial electricity consumption have occurred Monday through Friday between 9AM and 5PM.
The dashed line shows the pattern during 2019. Notice the large spikes in electricity consumption during business hours. The solid line shows the pattern during 2020. Much smaller spikes during business hours.
Fact #4: Everyday is Like Sunday Finally, we have what I would like to nominate as the “Energy Figure of the Year”.
Again, start with the pattern for 2019, reflected by the dashed line. Prior to Covid, Texas households used a lot more electricity on Saturdays and Sundays.
Then along comes Covid, and turned every day into the weekend. Residential electricity consumption in Texas during business hours Monday-Friday is up 16%(!).
In the pattern for 2020, it isn’t easy to distinguish weekends from weekdays. If you feel like weekdays and weekends are becoming a big blur – you are not alone.
Conclusion Researchers are increasingly thinking about electricity consumption as a real-time indicator of economic activity, even as flat electricity demand complicates utility planning and investment. This is an intriguing idea, but Professor Cicala’s new paper shows that it is important to look sector-by-sector.
While commercial and industrial consumption indeed seem to measure the strength of an economy, residential consumption has been sharply countercylical – increasing exactly when people are not at work and not at school.
These large changes in behavior are specific to the pandemic. Still, with the increased blurring of home and non-home activities we may look back on 2020 as a key turning point in how we think about these three sectors of the economy.
More broadly, Professor Cicala’s paper highlights the value of social science research. We need facts, data, and yes, science, if we are to understand the economy and craft effective policies on energy insecurity and shut-offs as well.
EU Electricity Market Reform CFDs seek stable prices via contracts for difference, balancing renewables and nuclear, shielding consumers, and boosting competitiveness as France and Germany clash over scope, grid expansion, and hydrogen production.
Key Points
EU framework using contracts for difference to stabilize power prices, support renewables and nuclear, and protect users.
✅ Guarantees strike prices for new low-carbon generation
✅ Balances consumer protection with industrial competitiveness
Despite record temperatures this October, Europe is slowly shifting towards winter - its second since the Ukraine war started and prompted Russia to cut gas supplies to the continent amid an energy crisis that has reshaped policy.
After prices surged last winter, when gas and electricity bills “nearly doubled in all EU capitals”, the EU decided to take emergency measures to limit prices.
In March, the European Commission proposed a reform to revamp the electricity market “to boost renewables, better protect consumers and enhance industrial competitiveness”.
However, France and Germany are struggling to find a compromise as rolling back prices is tougher than it appears and the clock is ticking as European energy ministers prepare to meet on 17 October in Luxembourg.
The controversy around CFDs At the heart of the issue are contracts for difference (CFDs).
By providing a guaranteed price for electricity, CFDs aim to support investment in renewable energy projects.
France - having 56 nuclear reactors - is lobbying for nuclear energy to be included in the CFDs, but this has caught the withering eye of Germany.
Berlin suspects Paris of wanting an exception that would give its industry a competitive advantage and plead that it should only apply to new investments.
France wants ‘to regain control of the price’ The disagreement is at the heart of the bilateral talks in Hamburg, which started on Monday, between the French and German governments.
French President Emmanuel Macron promised “to regain control of the price of electricity, at the French and European level” and outlined a new pricing scheme in a speech at the end of September.
As gas electricity is much more expensive than nuclear electricity, France might be tempted to switch to a national system rather than a European one after a deal with EDF on prices to be more competitive economically.
However, France is "confident" that it will reach an agreement with Germany on electricity market reforms, Macron said on Friday.
Siding with France are other pro-nuclear countries such as Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland, while Germany can count on the support of Austria, Luxembourg, Belgium and Italy amid opposition from nine EU countries to treating market reforms as a price fix.
But even if a last-minute agreement is reached, the two countries’ struggles over energy are creeping into all current European negotiations on the subject.
Germany wants a massive extension of electricity grids on the continent so that it can import energy; France is banking on energy sovereignty and national production.
France wants to be able to use nuclear energy to produce clean hydrogen, while Germany is reluctant, and so on.
North American Grid Reliability faces extreme weather, climate change, demand spikes, and renewable variability; utilities, AESO, and NERC stress resilience, dispatchable capacity, interconnections, and grid alerts to prevent blackouts during heatwaves and cold snaps.
Key Points
North American grid reliability is the ability to meet demand during extreme weather while maintaining stability.
✅ Extreme heat and cold drive record demand and resource strain.
✅ Balance dispatchable and intermittent generation for resilience.
✅ Expand interconnections, capacity, and demand response to avert outages.
The recent alerts in Alberta's electricity grid during extreme cold have highlighted a broader North American issue, where power systems are more susceptible to being overwhelmed by extreme weather impacts on reliability.
Electricity Canada's chief executive emphasized that no part of the grid is safe from the escalating intensity and frequency of weather extremes linked to climate change across the sector.
“In recent years, during these extreme weather events, we’ve observed record highs in electricity demand,” he stated.
“It’s a nationwide phenomenon. For instance, last summer in Ontario and last winter in Quebec, we experienced unprecedented demand levels. This pattern of extremes is becoming more pronounced across the country.”
The U.S. has also experienced strain on its electricity grids due to extreme weather, with more blackouts than peers documented in studies. Texas faced power outages in 2021 due to winter storms, and California has had to issue several emergency grid alerts during heat waves.
In Canada, Albertans received a government emergency alert two weeks ago, urging an immediate reduction in electricity use to prevent potential rotating blackouts as temperatures neared -40°C. No blackouts occurred, with a notable decrease in electricity use following the alert, according to the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO).
AESO's data indicates an increase in grid alerts in Alberta for both heatwaves and cold spells, reflecting dangerous vulnerabilities noted nationwide. The period between 2017 and 2020 saw only four alerts, in contrast to 17 since 2021.
Alberta's electricity grid reliability has sparked political debate, including proposals for a western Canadian grid to improve reliability, particularly with the transition from coal-fired plants to increased reliance on intermittent wind and solar power. Despite this debate, the AESO noted that the crisis eased when wind and solar generation resumed, despite challenges with two idled gas plants.
Bradley pointed out that Alberta's grid issues are not isolated. Every Canadian region is experiencing growing electricity demand, partly due to the surge in electric vehicles and clean energy technologies. No province has a complete solution yet.
“Ontario has had to request reduced consumption during heatwaves,” he noted. “Similar concerns about energy mix are present in British Columbia or Manitoba, especially now with drought affecting their hydro-dependent systems.”
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) released a report in November warning of elevated risks across North America this winter for insufficient energy supplies, particularly under extreme conditions like prolonged cold snaps.
While the U.S. is generally more susceptible to winter grid disruptions, and summer blackout warnings remain a concern, the report also highlights risks in parts of Canada. Saskatchewan faces a “high” risk due to increased demand, power plant retirements, and maintenance, whereas Quebec and the Maritimes are at “elevated risk.”
Mark Olson, NERC’s manager of reliability assessments, mentioned that Alberta wasn't initially considered at risk, illustrating the challenges in predicting electricity demand amid intensifying extreme weather.
Rob Thornton, president and CEO of the International District Energy Association, acknowledged public concerns about grid alerts but reassured that the risk of a catastrophic grid failure remains very low.
“The North American grid is exceptionally reliable. It’s a remarkably efficient system,” he said.
However, Thornton emphasized the importance of policies for a resilient and reliable electricity system through 2050 and beyond. This involves balancing dispatchable and intermittent electricity sources, investing in extra capacity, enhancing macrogrids and inter-jurisdictional connections, and more.
“These grid alerts raise awareness, if not anxiety, about our energy future,” Thornton concluded.
CO2 Removal Technologies address climate change via negative emissions, including carbon capture, reforestation, soil carbon, biochar, BECCS, DAC, and mineralization, helping meet Paris Agreement targets while managing costs, land use, and infrastructure demands.
Key Points
Methods to extract or sequester atmospheric CO2, combining natural and engineered approaches to limit warming.
✅ Includes reforestation, soil carbon, biochar, BECCS, DAC, mineralization
✅ Balances climate goals with costs, land, energy, and infrastructure
✅ Key to Paris Agreement targets under 1.5-2.0 °C warming
The world is, on average, 1.1 degrees Celsius warmer today than it was in 1850. If this trend continues, our planet will be 2 – 3 degrees hotter by the end of this century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The main reason for this temperature rise is higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which cause the atmosphere to trap heat radiating from the Earth into space. Since 1850, the proportion of CO2 in the air has increased, with record greenhouse gas concentrations documented, from 0.029% to 0.041% (288 ppm to 414 ppm).
This is directly related to the burning of coal, oil and gas, which were created from forests, plankton and plants over millions of years. Back then, they stored CO2 and kept it out of the atmosphere, but as fossil fuels are burned, that CO2 is released. Other contributing factors include industrialized agriculture and slash-and-burn land clearing techniques, and emissions from SF6 in electrical equipment are also concerning today.
Over the past 50 years, more than 1200 billion tons of CO2 have been emitted into the planet's atmosphere — 36.6 billion tons in 2018 alone, though global emissions flatlined in 2019 before rising again. As a result, the global average temperature has risen by 0.8 degrees in just half a century.
Atmospheric CO2 should remain at a minimum In 2015, the world came together to sign the Paris Climate Agreement which set the goal of limiting global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees — 1.5 degrees, if possible.
The agreement limits the amount of CO2 that can be released into the atmosphere, providing a benchmark for the global energy transition now underway. According to the IPCC, if a maximum of around 300 billion tons were emitted, there would be a 50% chance of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. If CO2 emissions remain the same, however, the CO2 'budget' would be used up in just seven years.
According to the IPCC's report on the 1.5 degree target, negative emissions are also necessary to achieve the climate targets.
Using reforestation to remove CO2 One planned measure to stop too much CO2 from being released into the atmosphere is reforestation. According to studies, 3.6 billion tons of CO2 — around 10% of current CO2 emissions — could be saved every year during the growth phase. However, a study by researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ETH Zurich, stresses that achieving this would require the use of land areas equivalent in size to the entire US.
Young trees at a reforestation project in Africa (picture-alliance/OKAPIA KG, Germany) Reforestation has potential to tackle the climate crisis by capturing CO2. But it would require a large amount of space
More humus in the soil Humus in the soil stores a lot of carbon. But this is being released through the industrialization of agriculture. The amount of humus in the soil can be increased by using catch crops and plants with deep roots as well as by working harvest remnants back into the ground and avoiding deep plowing. According to a study by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) on using targeted CO2 extraction as a part of EU climate policy, between two and five billion tons of CO2 could be saved with a global build-up of humus reserves.
Biochar shows promise Some scientists see biochar as a promising technology for keeping CO2 out of the atmosphere. Biochar is created when organic material is heated and pressurized in a zero or very low-oxygen environment. In powdered form, the biochar is then spread on arable land where it acts as a fertilizer. This also increases the amount of carbon content in the soil. According to the same study from the SWP, global application of this technology could save between 0.5 and two billion tons of CO2 every year.
Storing CO2 in the ground Storing CO2 deep in the Earth is already well-known and practiced on Norway's oil fields, for example. However, the process is still controversial, as storing CO2 underground can lead to earthquakes and leakage in the long-term. A different method is currently being practiced in Iceland, in which CO2 is sequestered into porous basalt rock to be mineralized into stone. Both methods still require more research, however, with new DOE funding supporting carbon capture, utilization, and storage.
Capturing CO2 to be held underground is done by using chemical processes which effectively extract the gas from the ambient air, and some researchers are exploring CO2-to-electricity concepts for utilization. This method is known as direct air capture (DAC) and is already practiced in other parts of Europe. As there is no limit to the amount of CO2 that can be captured, it is considered to have great potential. However, the main disadvantage is the cost — currently around €550 ($650) per ton. Some scientists believe that mass production of DAC systems could bring prices down to €50 per ton by 2050. It is already considered a key technology for future climate protection.
The inside of a carbon capture facility in the Netherlands (RWE AG) Carbon capture facilities are still very expensive and take up a huge amount of space
Another way of extracting CO2 from the air is via biomass. Plants grow and are burned in a power plant to produce electricity. CO2 is then extracted from the exhaust gas of the power plant and stored deep in the Earth, with new U.S. power plant rules poised to test such carbon capture approaches.
The big problem with this technology, known as bio-energy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is the huge amount of space required. According to Felix Creutzig from the Mercator Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) in Berlin, it will therefore only play "a minor role" in CO2 removal technologies.
CO2 bound by rock minerals In this process, carbonate and silicate rocks are mined, ground and scattered on agricultural land or on the surface water of the ocean, where they collect CO2 over a period of years. According to researchers, by the middle of this century it would be possible to capture two to four billion tons of CO2 every year using this technique. The main challenges are primarily the quantities of stone required, and building the necessary infrastructure. Concrete plans have not yet been researched.
Not an option: Fertilizing the sea with iron The idea is use iron to fertilize the ocean, thereby increasing its nuturient content, which would allow plankton to grow stronger and capture more CO2. However, both the process and possible side effects are very controversial. "This is rarely treated as a serious option in research," concludes SWP study authors Oliver Geden and Felix Schenuit.
✅ Control rooms protected; backup sites and cross-trained staff
✅ Mutual aid and Ofgem coordination bolster grid resilience
National Grid ESO is predicting a reduction in electricity demand, consistent with residential use trends observed during the pandemic, in the case of the coronavirus spread prompting a lockdown across the country.
Its analysis shows the reduction in commercial and industrial use would outweigh an upsurge in domestic demand, mirroring Ontario demand data seen as people stayed home, according to similar analyses.
The prediction was included in an update from the Energy Networks Association (ENA), in which it sought to reassure the public that contingency plans are in place, reflecting utility disaster planning across electric and gas networks, to ensure services are unaffected by the coronavirus spread.
The body, which represents the UK's electricity and gas network companies, said "robust measures" had been put in place to protect control rooms and contact centres, similar to staff lockdown protocols considered by other system operators, to maintain resilience. To provide additional resilience, engineers have been trained across multiple disciplines and backup centres exist should operations need to be moved if, for example, deep cleaning is required, the ENA said.
Networks also have industry-wide mutual aid arrangements, similar to grid response measures outlined in the U.S., for people and the equipment needed to keep gas and electricity flowing.
ENA chief executive, David Smith, said, echoing system reliability assurances from other markets: "The UK's electricity and gas network is one of the most reliable in the world and network operators are working with the authorities to ensure that their contingency plans are reviewed and delivered in accordance with the latest expert advice. We are following this advice closely and reassuring customers that energy networks are continuing to operate as normal for the public."
Utility Week spoke to a senior figure at one of the networks who reiterated the robust measures in place to keep the lights on, even as grid alerts elsewhere highlight the importance of contingency planning. However, they pleaded for more clarity from Ofgem and government on how its workers will be treated if the coronavirus spread becomes a pandemic in the UK.
Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person
instruction, our electrical training courses can be
tailored to meet your company's specific requirements
and delivered to your employees in one location or at
various locations.
