OEB moves to penalize two marketing companies

Ontario Nuclear Power Costs highlight LCOE, capex, refurbishment outlays, and waste management, compared with renewables, grid reliability, and emissions targets, informing Australia and Peter Dutton on feasibility, timelines, and electricity prices.

Key Points

They include high capex and LCOE from refurbishments and waste, offset by reliable, low-emission baseload.

✅ Refurbishment and maintenance drive lifecycle and LCOE variability.

✅ High capex and long timelines affect consumer electricity prices.

✅ Low emissions, but waste and safety compliance add costs.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton recently lauded Canada’s use of nuclear power as a model for Australia’s energy future. His praise comes as part of a broader push to incorporate nuclear energy into Australia’s energy strategy, which he argues could help address the country's energy needs and climate goals. However, the question arises: Is Ontario’s experience with nuclear power as cost-effective as Dutton suggests?

Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power strategy highlights a belief that nuclear energy could provide a stable, low-emission alternative to fossil fuels. He has pointed to Ontario’s substantial reliance on nuclear power, and the province’s exploration of new large-scale nuclear projects, as an example of how such an energy mix might benefit Australia. The province’s energy grid, which integrates a significant amount of nuclear power, is often cited as evidence that nuclear energy can be a viable component of a diversified energy portfolio.

The appeal of nuclear power lies in its ability to generate large amounts of electricity with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. This characteristic aligns with Australia’s climate goals, which emphasize reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change. Dutton’s advocacy for nuclear energy is based on the premise that it can offer a reliable and low-emission option compared to the fluctuating availability of renewable sources like wind and solar.

However, while Dutton’s enthusiasm for the Canadian model reflects its perceived successes, including recent concerns about Ontario’s grid getting dirtier amid supply changes, a closer look at Ontario’s nuclear energy costs raises questions about the financial feasibility of adopting a similar strategy in Australia. Despite the benefits of low emissions, the economic aspects of nuclear power remain complex and multifaceted.

In Ontario, the cost of nuclear power has been a topic of considerable debate. While the province benefits from a stable supply of electricity due to its nuclear plants, studies warn of a growing electricity supply gap in coming years. Ontario’s experience reveals that nuclear power involves significant capital expenditures, including the costs of building reactors, maintaining infrastructure, and ensuring safety standards. These expenses can be substantial and often translate into higher electricity prices for consumers.

The cost of maintaining existing nuclear reactors in Ontario has been a particular concern. Many of these reactors are aging and require costly upgrades and maintenance to continue operating safely and efficiently. These expenses can add to the overall cost of nuclear power, impacting the affordability of electricity for consumers.

Moreover, the development of new nuclear projects, as seen with Bruce C project exploration in Ontario, involves lengthy and expensive construction processes. Building new reactors can take over a decade and requires significant investment. The high initial costs associated with these projects can be a barrier to their economic viability, especially when compared to the rapidly decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies.

In contrast, the cost of renewable energy has been falling steadily, even as debates over nuclear power’s trajectory in Europe continue, making it a more attractive option for many jurisdictions. Solar and wind power, while variable and dependent on weather conditions, have seen dramatic reductions in installation and operational costs. These lower costs can make renewables more competitive compared to nuclear energy, particularly when considering the long-term financial implications.

Dutton’s praise for Ontario’s nuclear power model also overlooks some of the environmental and logistical challenges associated with nuclear energy. While nuclear power generates low emissions during operation, it produces radioactive waste that requires long-term storage solutions. The management of nuclear waste poses significant environmental and safety concerns, as well as additional costs for safe storage and disposal.

Additionally, the potential risks associated with nuclear power, including the possibility of accidents, contribute to the complexity of its adoption. The safety and environmental regulations surrounding nuclear energy are stringent and require continuous oversight, adding to the overall cost of maintaining nuclear facilities.

As Australia contemplates integrating nuclear power into its energy mix, it is crucial to weigh these financial and environmental considerations. While the Canadian model provides valuable insights, the unique context of Australia’s energy landscape, including its existing infrastructure, energy needs, and the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity in comparable jurisdictions, must be taken into account.

In summary, while Peter Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power model reflects a belief in its potential benefits for Australia’s energy strategy, the cost-effectiveness of Ontario’s nuclear power experience is more nuanced than it may appear. The high capital and maintenance costs associated with nuclear energy, combined with the challenges of managing radioactive waste and ensuring safety, present significant considerations. As Australia evaluates its energy future, a comprehensive analysis of both the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power will be essential to making informed decisions about its role in the country’s energy strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Rolling Blackouts expose grid reliability risks amid a heatwave, as CAISO curtails power while solar output fades at sunset, wind stalls, and scarce natural gas and nuclear capacity plus PG&E issues strain imports.

Key Points

Grid outages during heatwaves from low reserves, fading solar, weak wind, and limited firm capacity.

✅ Heatwave demand rose as solar output dropped at sunset

✅ Limited imports and gas, nuclear shortfalls cut reserves

✅ Policy, pricing, and maintenance gaps increased outage risk

Millions of Californians were denied electrical power and thus air conditioning during a heatwave, raising the risk of heatstroke and death, particularly among the elderly and sick. 

The blackouts come at a time when people, particularly the elderly, are forced to remain indoors due to Covid-19, and as later heat waves would test the grid again statewide.

At first, the state’s electrical grid operator last night asked customers to voluntarily reduce electricity use. But after lapses in power supply pushed reserves to dangerous levels it declared a “Stage 3 emergency” cutting off power to people across the state at 6:30 pm.

The immediate reason for the black-outs was the failure of a 500-megawatt power plant and an out-of-service 750-megawatt unit not being available. “There is nothing nefarious going on here,” said a spokeswoman for California Independent System Operator (CAISO). “We are just trying to run the grid.”

But the underlying reasons that California is experiencing rolling black-outs for the second time in less than a year stem from the state’s climate policies, which California policymakers have justified as necessary to prevent deaths from heatwaves, and which it is increasingly exporting to Western states as a model.

In October, Pacific Gas and Electric cut off power to homes across California to avoid starting forest fires after reports that its power lines may have started fires in recent seasons. The utility and California’s leaders had over the previous decade diverted billions meant for grid maintenance to renewables. 

And yesterday, California had to impose rolling blackouts because it had failed to maintain sufficient reliable power from natural gas and nuclear plants, or pay in advance for enough guaranteed electricity imports from other states.

It may be that California’s utilities and their regulator, the California Public Utilities Commission, which is also controlled by Gov. Newsom, didn’t want to spend the extra money to guarantee the additional electricity out of fears of raising California’s electricity prices even more than they had already raised them.

California saw its electricity prices rise six times more than the rest of the United States from 2011 to 2019, helping explain why electricity prices are soaring across the state, due to its huge expansion of renewables. Republicans in the U.S. Congress point to that massive increase to challenge justifications by Democrats to spend $2 trillion on renewables in the name of climate change.

Even though the cost of solar panels declined dramatically between 2011 and 2019, their unreliable and weather-dependent nature meant that they imposed large new costs in the form of storage and transmission to keep electricity as reliable. California’s solar panels and farms were all turning off as the blackouts began, with no help available from the states to the East already in nightfall.

Electricity from solar goes away at the very moment when the demand for electricity rises. “The peak demand was steady in late hours,” said the spokesperson for CAISO, which is controlled by Gov. Gavin Newsom, “and we had thousands of megawatts of solar reducing their output as the sunset.”

The two blackouts in less than a year are strong evidence that the tens of billions that Californians have spent on renewables come with high human, economic, and environmental costs.

Last December, a report by done for PG&E concluded that the utility’s customers could see blackouts double over the next 15 years and quadruple over the next 30.

California’s anti-nuclear policies also contributed to the blackouts. In 2013, Gov. Jerry Brown forced a nuclear power plant, San Onofre, in southern California to close.

Had San Onofre still been operating, there almost certainly would not have been blackouts on Friday as the reserve margin would have been significantly larger. The capacity of San Onofre was double that of the lost generation capacity that triggered the blackout.

California's current and former large nuclear plants are located on the coast, which allows for their electricity to travel shorter distances, and through less-constrained transmission lines than the state’s industrial solar farms, to get to the coastal cities where electricity is in highest demand.

There has been very little electricity from wind during the summer heatwave in California and the broader western U.S., further driving up demand. In fact, the same weather pattern, a stable high-pressure bubble, is the cause of heatwaves, since it brought very low wind for days on end along with very high temperatures.

Things won’t be any better, and may be worse, in the winter, with a looming shortage as it produces far less solar electricity than the summer. Solar plus storage, an expensive attempt to fix problems like what led to this blackout, cannot help through long winters of low output.

California’s electricity prices will continue to rise if it continues to add more renewables to its grid, and goes forward with plans to shut down its last nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, in 2025.

Had California spent an estimated $100 billion on nuclear instead of on wind and solar, it would have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels in its in-state electricity mix.

To manage the increasingly unreliable grid, California will either need to keep its nuclear plant operating, build more natural gas plants, underscoring its reliance on fossil fuels for reliability, or pay ever more money annually to reserve emergency electricity supplies from its neighbors.

After the blackouts last October, Gov. Newsom attacked PG&E Corp. for “greed and mismanagement” and named a top aide, Ana Matosantos, to be his “energy czar.” 

“This is not the new normal, and this does not take 10 years to solve,” Newsom said. “The entire system needs to be reimagined.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Washington sets 2027 depreciation for Colstrip units

✅ Montana reviews jobs, ratepayer impacts, community fund

✅ Avista seeks renewables; no binding shutdown commitment

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

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

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

#google#

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Energy Vault Gravity Storage uses crane-stacked concrete blocks to deliver long-duration, grid-scale renewable energy; a SoftBank Vision Fund-backed, pumped-hydro analog enabling baseload power and a lithium-ion alternative with proprietary control algorithms.

Key Points

Gravity-based cranes stack blocks to store and dispatch power for hours, enabling grid-scale, low-cost storage.

✅ 4 MW/35 MWh modules; ~9-hour duration

✅ Estimated $200-$250/kWh; lower LCOE than lithium-ion

✅ Backed by SoftBank Vision Fund; Cemex and Tata support

Energy Vault, the Swiss-U.S. startup that says it can store and discharge electrical energy through a super-sized concrete-and-steel version of a child’s erector set, has landed a $110 million investment from Japan’s SoftBank Vision Fund to take its technology to commercial scale.

Energy Vault, a spinout of Pasadena-based incubator Idealab and co-founded by Idealab CEO and billionaire investor Bill Gross, unstealthed in November with its novel approach to using gravity to store energy.

Simply put, Energy Vault plans to build storage plants — dubbed “Evies” — consisting of a 35-story crane with six arms, surrounded by a tower consisting of thousands of concrete bricks, each weighing about 35 tons.

This plant will “store” energy by using electricity to run the cranes that lift bricks from the ground and stack them atop of the tower, and “discharge” energy by reversing that process. It’s a mechanical twist on the world’s most common energy storage technology, pumped hydro, which “stores” energy by pumping water uphill, and lets it fall to spin turbines when electricity is needed, even as California funds 100-hour long-duration storage pilots to expand flexibility worldwide.

But behind this simplicity lies some heavy-duty software to orchestrate the cranes and blocks, with a "unique stack of proprietary algorithms" to balance energy supply and demand, volatility, grid stability, weather elements and other variables.

CEO and co-founder Robert Piconi said in a November interview with GTM that the standard array would deliver 4 megawatts/35 megawatt-hours of storage, which translates to nearly 9 hours of duration — the equivalent of building the tower to its height, and then reducing it to ground level. It can be built on-site in partnership with crane manufacturers and recycled concrete material, and can run fully automated for decades with little deterioration, he said.

And the cost, which Piconi pegged in the $200 to $250 per kilowatt-hour range, with room to decline further, is roughly 50 percent below the upfront price of the conventional storage market today, and 80 percent below it on levelized cost, he said, a trend utilities see benefits in as they plan resources.

The result, according to Wednesday’s statement, is a technology that could allow “renewables to deliver baseload power for less than the cost of fossil fuels 24 hours a day,” in applications such as community microgrids serving low-income housing.

Wednesday’s announcement builds on a recent investment from Mexico's Cemex Ventures, the corporate venture capital unit of building materials giant Cemex, along with a promise of deployment support from Cemex's strategic network, and also follows project financing for a California green hydrogen microgrid led by the company. Piconi said in November that the company had sufficient investment from two funding rounds to carry it through initial customer deployments, though he declined to disclose figures.

This is the first energy storage investment for Vision Fund, the $100 billion venture fund set up by SoftBank founder Masayoshi Son. While large by startup standards, it’s in keeping with the capital costs that Energy Vault will face in scaling up its technology to meet its commitments, amid mounting demand in regions like Ontario energy storage that face supply crunches. Those include a 35 megawatt-hour order with Tata Power Company, the energy-producing arm of the Indian industrial conglomerate, first unveiled in November, as well as plans to demonstrate its first storage tower in northern Italy in 2019.

For Vision Fund, it’s also an unusual choice for a storage investment, given that the vast majority of venture capital in the industry today is being directed toward lithium-ion batteries, and even Mercedes-Benz energy storage ventures targeting the U.S. market. Lithium-ion batteries are limited in terms of how many hours they can provide cost-effectively, with about 4 hours being seen as the limit today.

The search for long-duration energy storage has driven investment into flow battery technologies such as grid-scale vanadium systems deployed on utility networks, compressed-air energy storage and variations on gravity-based storage, including a previous startup backed by Gross and Idealab, Energy Cache, whose idea of using a ski lift carrying buckets of gravel up a hill to store energy petered out with a 50-kilowatt pilot project.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Karpowership LNG powership in Senegal will supply 15% of the grid, a 235 MW floating power plant bound for Dakar, enabling fast deployment, base-load electricity, and cleaner natural gas generation for West Africa.

Key Points

A 235 MW floating plant supplying 15% of Senegal's grid with fast, reliable, lower-emission LNG electricity.

✅ 235 MW LNG-ready floating plant meets 15% of Senegal's demand

✅ Rapid deployment: commercial operations expected early October

✅ Cleaner natural gas conversion planned after six months

Turkey's Karpowership company, the designer and builder of the world's first floating power plants and the global brand of Karadeniz Holding, will meet 15% of Senegal's electricity needs from liquefied natural gas (LNG) with the 235-megawatt (MW) powership Ayşegül Sultan, which started its voyage from Turkey to Senegal, where an African Development Bank review of a coal plant is underway, on Sunday.

Karpowership, operating 22 floating power plants in more than 10 countries around the world, where France's first offshore wind turbine is now producing electricity, has invested over $5 billion in this area.

In a statement to members of the press at Karmarine Shipyard, Karpowership Trade Group Chair Zeynep Harezi said they aimed to provide affordable electricity to countries in need of electricity quickly and reliably, as projects like the Egypt-Saudi power link expand regional grids, adding that they could commission energy ships capable of generating the base electric charge of the countries, as tidal power in Nova Scotia begins supplying the grid, in a period of about a month.

Harezi recalled that Karpowership commissioned the first floating energy ship in 2007 in Iraq, followed by Lebanon, Ghana, Indonesia, Mozambique, Zambia, Gambia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Cuba, Guinea Bissau and Senegal, while Scottish tidal power demonstrates marine potential as well. "We meet the electricity needs of 34 million people in many countries," she stressed. Harezi stated that the energy ships, all designed and produced by Turkish engineers, use liquid fuel, but all ships can covert to the second fuel.

Considering the impact of electricity production on the environment, Harezi noted that they plan to convert the entire fleet from liquid fuel to natural gas, with complementary approaches like power-to-gas in Europe helping integrate renewables. "With a capacity of 480 megawatts each, the world's largest floating energy vessels operate in Indonesia and Ghana. The conversion to gas has been completed in our project in Indonesia. We have also initiated the conversion of the Ghana vessel into gas," she said.

Harezi explained that they would continue to convert their fleets to natural gas in the coming period. "Our 235-MW floating electric vessel, the Ayşegül Sultan, sets sail today to meet 15% of Senegal's electricity needs on its own. After an approximately 20-day cruise, the vessel will reach Dakar, the capital of Senegal, and will begin commercial operation in early October," Harezi continued. "We plan to use liquid fuel as bridging fuel in the first six months. At the end of the first six months, we will start to produce electricity from LNG on our ship. Thus, Ayşegül Sultan will be the first project to generate electricity from LNG in Africa, while the world's most powerful tidal turbine is delivering power to the grid, officials said. Our floating power plant to be sent to Mozambique is designed to generate electricity from LNG. It is also scheduled to start operations in the next year."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Downed Power Line Vehicle Safety: Follow stay-in-the-car protocol, call 911, avoid live wires and utility poles, and use the bunny hop to escape only for fire. Electrical hazards demand emergency response caution.

Key Points

Stay in the car, call 911, and use a bunny hop escape only if fire threatens during downed power line incidents.

✅ Stay in vehicle; tell bystanders to keep back and call 911.

✅ Exit only for fire; jump clear and bunny hop away.

✅ Treat all downed lines as live; avoid paths to ground.

Ameren Illinois and Safe Electricity are urging the public to stay in their cars and call 911 in the event of an accident involving a power pole that brings down power lines on or around the car.

In a media simulation Tuesday at the Ameren facility on West Lafayette Avenue, Ameren Illinois employees demonstrated the proper way to react if a power line has fallen on or around a vehicle, as some utilities consider on-site staffing measures during outbreaks. Although the situation might seem rare, Illinois motorists alone hit 3,000 power poles each year, said Krista Lisser, communications director for Safe Energy.

“We want to get the word out that, if you hit a utility pole and a live wire falls on your vehicle, stay in your car,” Lisser said. “Our first reaction is we panic and think we need to get out, a sign of the electrical knowledge gap many people have. That’s not the case, you need to stay in because, when that live wire comes down, electricity is all around you. You may not see it, it may not arc, it may not flash, you may not know if there’s electricity there.”

Should someoneinvolved in such an accident see a good Samaritan attempting to help, he should try to tell the would-be rescuer to stay back to prevent injury to the Samaritan, Ameren Illinois Communications Executive Brian Bretsch said.

“We have seen instances where someone comes up and wants to help you,” Bretsch said. “You want to yell, ‘Please stay away from the vehicle. Everyone is OK. Please stay away.’ You’ll see … instances every now and then where the Samaritan will come up, create that path to ground and get injured, and there are also climbers seeking social media glory who put themselves at risk.”

The only instance in which one should exit a car in the vicinity of a downed wire is if the vehicle is on fire and there is no choice but to exit. In that situation, those in the car should “bunny hop” out of the car by jumping from the car without touching the car and the ground at the same time, Bretsch and Lisser said.

After the initial jump, those escaping the vehicle should continue jumping with both feet together and hands tucked in and away from danger until they are safely clear of the downed wire.

It’s important for everyone to be informed, because an encounter with a live wire could easily result in serious injury, as in the Hydro One worker injury case, or death, Lisser said.

“They’re so close to our roads, especially in our rural communities, that it’s quite a common occurrence,” Lisser said. “Just stay away from (downed lines), especially after storms and amid grid oversight warnings that highlight reliability risks … Always treat a downed line as a live wire. Never assume the line is dead.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News