Japan scheme barely helps renewable power in 2010

Canada Nuclear Power Expansion highlights SMRs, clean energy, net-zero targets, and robust regulation to deliver safe, reliable baseload electricity, spur investment, and economically decarbonize remote communities, mines, and grids across provinces securely.

Key Points

Canada Nuclear Power Expansion grows SMRs and reactors to meet climate targets with safe, reliable baseload power.

✅ Deploys SMRs for remote communities, mines, and industrial sites

✅ Streamlines regulation to ensure safety, trust, and timely approvals

✅ Provides clean, reliable baseload to hit net-zero electricity goals

Canada must expand its nuclear power capacity if it is to reach its climate targets, according to Canadian Minister of Natural Resources Seamus Oregan.

Speaking to the Canadian Nuclear Association’s annual conference, Seamus O’Regan said the industry has to grow.

“As the world tackles a changing climate, nuclear power is poised to provide the next wave of clean, affordable, safe and reliable power,” he told a packed room.

The Ottawa conference was the largest the industry has run with dozens of companies and more than 900 people in attendance. Provincial cabinet ministers from Saskatchewan and Ontario were also there. Those two provinces, along with New Brunswick, signed a memorandum in December as part of a premiers' nuclear initiative to work together on small modular reactor technology.

People need to know that it’s safe

Small modular reactors are units that produce less power than large generating stations, but can be constructed easier and are expected to be safer to operate. Canadian firms have about a dozen of the proposed reactors working their way through the regulatory process, with New Brunswick's SMR plans drawing scrutiny.

The smaller reactors could be used in groups to replace large units, but the industry also hopes to use them in rural or isolated communities, mines or even oilsands projects, potentially replacing the diesel power generators some remote communities use.

The Canadian government issued a road map to support the industry in 2018 and O’Regan committed Thursday to putting some teeth on that proposal later this year, as provinces like Ontario explore new large-scale nuclear plants to meet demand, with specific steps the government will take.

“We have been working so hard to support this industry. We are placing nuclear energy front and centre, something that has never been done before.”

O’Regan said the government’s role is a clear, streamlined regulatory system that will promote the industry, but also help the Canadian public to trust the reactors will be safe.

“People need to know that it’s safe. They need to know that it’s regulated. They need to know that it’s safe for them,” he said.

The Liberals promised during the campaign that they would gradually reduce Canada’s carbon emissions even after hitting the targets in the Paris Agreement by 2030. By 2050, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he expects Canada to be carbon neutral, mindful of lessons from Europe's power crisis on reliability.

The government hasn’t outlined how it will achieve that goal. O’Regan said more detail is coming, but it’s clear that nuclear is going to have to play a major part, echoing the UK’s green industrial revolution approach to reactor deployment.

“I have not seen a credible plan for net zero without nuclear as part of the mix. I don’t think we are going to be relying on any one technology. I think it’s going to be a whole host of things.”

O’Regan said large investors are looking for countries that are on the path to net zero.

“Everybody has their shirt sleeves rolled up and we know we need to work on this, not only do we have to work on this for the urgency of the planet, but we have to work on it for Canadian jobs.”

He added, “We must focus on those areas where Canada can and should lead, like nuclear.”

Canadians are ready to take a fresh look at nuclear

John Gorman, president of the Canadian Nuclear Association, said he was thrilled with O’Regan’s comments.

“I took the minister’s remarks this morning as being perhaps the strongest language of support for the nuclear industry in a number of years.”

Gorman said the industry is in strong shape and is working with utility companies such as Ontario Power Generation and regulators to move projects forward.

“It’s this amazing collaboration and coordination that is enabling us to beat others to the roll out of these small modular reactors,” he said.

He said provinces that might not have looked at nuclear before now have an incentive to do it, because of climate change. A former solar industry executive, Gorman said solar and wind power are important, as Ontario plans to seek new wind and solar power to ease supply pressures, but they won’t be able to keep up with rising power demands.

“Globally we are seeing increased recognition that climate change is real and that it’s a crisis, we are also seeing recognition that we are not making as much progress on decarbonizing our electricity system as we thought,” he said. “Canadians are ready to take a fresh look at nuclear and see the real facts.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EV Flood Fire Risks highlight climate change impacts, lithium-ion battery hazards, water damage, post-submersion inspection, first responder precautions, manufacturer safeguards, and insurance considerations for extreme weather, flood-prone areas, and hurricane aftermaths.

Key Points

Water-exposed EV lithium-ion batteries may ignite later, requiring inspection, isolation, and trained responders.

✅ Avoid driving through floodwaters; park on high ground.

✅ After submersion, isolate vehicle; seek qualified inspection.

✅ Inform first responders and insurers about EV water damage.

As climate change intensifies the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, concerns about electric vehicle (EV) safety in flood-prone areas have come to the forefront. Recent warnings from officials regarding the risks of electric vehicles catching fire due to flooding from Hurricane Idalia underscore the need for heightened awareness and preparedness among consumers and emergency responders, as well as attention to grid reliability during disasters.

The alarming incidents of EVs igniting after being submerged in floodwaters have raised critical questions about the safety of these vehicles during severe weather conditions. While electric vehicles are often touted for their environmental benefits and lower emissions, it is crucial to understand the potential risks associated with their battery systems when exposed to water, even as many drivers weigh whether to buy an electric car for daily use.

The Risks of Submerging Electric Vehicles

Electric vehicles primarily rely on lithium-ion batteries, which can be sensitive to water exposure. When these batteries are submerged, they risk short-circuiting, which may lead to fires. Unlike traditional gasoline vehicles, where fuel may leak out, the sealed nature of an EV’s battery can create hazardous situations when compromised. Experts warn that even after water exposure, the risk of fire can persist, sometimes occurring days or weeks later.

Officials emphasize the importance of vigilance in flood-prone areas, including planning for contingencies like mobile charging and energy storage that support recovery. If an electric vehicle has been submerged, it is crucial to have it inspected by a qualified technician before attempting to drive it again. Ignoring this can lead to catastrophic consequences not only for the vehicle owner but also for surrounding individuals and properties.

Official Warnings and Recommendations

In light of these dangers, safety officials have issued guidelines for electric vehicle owners in flood-prone areas. Key recommendations include:

1. Avoid Driving in Flooded Areas: The most straightforward advice is to refrain from driving through flooded streets, which can not only damage the vehicle but also pose risks to personal safety.

2. Inspection After Flooding: If an EV has been submerged, owners should seek immediate professional inspection. Technicians can evaluate the battery and electrical systems for damage and determine if the vehicle is safe to operate.

3. Inform Emergency Responders: In flood situations, informing emergency personnel about the presence of electric vehicles can help them mitigate risks during rescue operations, including firefighter health risks that may arise. First responders are trained to handle conventional vehicles but may need additional precautions when dealing with EVs.

Industry Response and Innovations

In response to rising concerns, electric vehicle manufacturers are working to enhance the safety features of their vehicles. This includes developing waterproof battery enclosures and improving drainage systems to prevent water intrusion, as well as exploring vehicle-to-home power for resilience during outages. Some manufacturers are also investing in research to improve battery chemistry, making them more resilient in extreme conditions.

The automotive industry recognizes that consumer education is equally important, particularly around utility impacts from mass-market EVs that affect planning. Manufacturers and safety organizations are encouraged to disseminate information about proper EV maintenance, the importance of inspections after flooding, and safety protocols for both owners and first responders.

The Role of Insurance Companies

As the risks associated with electric vehicle flooding become more apparent, insurance companies are also reassessing their policies. With increasing incidences of extreme weather, insurers are likely to adapt coverage options related to water damage and fire risks specific to electric vehicles. Policyholders should consult with their insurance providers to ensure they understand their coverage in the event of flooding.

Preparing for the Future

With the increasing adoption of electric vehicles, it is vital to prepare for the challenges posed by climate change and evolving state power grids capacity. Community awareness campaigns can play a significant role in educating residents about the risks and safety measures associated with electric vehicles during flooding events. By fostering a well-informed public, the likelihood of accidents and emergencies can be reduced.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

UK Energy Price Guarantee Cost forecasts from Cornwall Insight suggest an £89bn bill, tied to wholesale gas prices, OBR projections, and fiscal policy, to shield households amid the cost of living crisis.

Key Points

It is the projected government spend to cap household bills, driven by wholesale gas prices and OBR market forecasts.

✅ Base case: £89bn over two years, per Cornwall Insight

✅ Range: £72bn to £140bn, volatile wholesale gas costs

✅ Excludes 6-month business support estimated at £22bn-£48bn

Liz Truss’s intervention to freeze energy prices for households for two years is expected to cost the government £89bn, according to the first major costing of the policy by the sector’s leading consultancy.

The analysis from Cornwall Insight, seen exclusively by the Guardian, shows the prime minister’s plan to tackle the cost of living crisis could cost as much as £140bn in a worst-case scenario.

Truss announced in early September that the average annual bill for a typical household would be capped at £2,500 to protect consumers from the intensifying cost of living crisis amid high winter energy costs and a scheduled 80% rise in the cap to £3,549.

The ultimate cost of the policy is uncertain as it is highly dependent on the wholesale cost of gas, including UK natural gas prices which have soared since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine put a squeeze on already-volatile international markets. Ballpark projections had put the cost anywhere from £100bn to £150bn.

The Office for Budget Responsibility is expected to give its forecast for the bill when it provides its independent assessment of Kwasi Kwarteng’s medium-term fiscal plan, which the chancellor said on Tuesday would still happen on 23 November despite previous reports that it would be brought forward.

Cornwall Insight analysed projections of wholesale market moves to cost the intervention. In its base case scenario, analysts expect the policy to cost £89bn. That assumes the cost of supporting each household would be just over £1,000 in the first year, and about £2,000 in the second year.

The study’s authors said the wholesale price of gas would be influenced by energy demand, the severity of weather, “geo-political uncertainty” and prices for liquified natural gas as Europe seeks to refill storage facilities, which countries have rushed to fill up this winter but which could be relatively empty by next spring.

In the best-case outcome, the policy would cost £72bn, with some projections pointing to a 16% decrease in energy bills in April for households, while the “extreme high” outlook would see the government shell out £140bn to protect 29m UK households.

Gas prices are expected to push even higher if the Kremlin decides to completely cut off Russian gas exports into Europe.

Cornwall Insight’s projection does not include a separate six-month initiative to cap costs for companies, charities and public sector organisations, which is forecast to cost £22bn to £48bn.

The consultancy’s chief executive, Gareth Miller, said the £70bn range in its forecasts reflected “a febrile wholesale market continuing to be beset by geopolitical instability, sensitivity to demand, weather and infrastructure resilience”.

He said: “Fortune befriends the bold, but it also favours the prepared. The large uncertainties around commodity markets over the next two years means that the government could get lucky with costs coming out at the low end of the range, but the opposite could also be true.

“In each case, the government may find itself passengers to circumstances outside its control, having made policy that is a hostage to surprises, events and volatile factors. That’s a difficult position to be in.”

Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
The government has faced criticism, as some British MPs urge tighter limits on prices, that the policy is effectively a “blank cheque” and is not targeted at the most vulnerable in society.

Concerns over how Truss and Kwarteng intend to fund a series of measures, including the price guarantee, have spooked financial markets.

The EU, which has outlined possible gas price cap strategies in recent proposals, said last week it planned to cap the revenues of low-carbon electricity generators at €180 a megawatt hour, which is less than half current market prices. Truss has so far resisted calls to extend a levy on North Sea oil and gas operators to electricity generators, who have benefited from a link between gas and electricity prices in Britain.

Truss hopes to strike voluntary long-term deals with generators including Centrica and EDF, alongside the government’s Energy Security Bill measures, to bring down wholesale prices.

The Financial Times reported on Tuesday that the government has threatened companies with legislation to cap their revenues if voluntary deals cannot be agreed.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

ERCOT Ancillary Services Clawback and VOLL Pricing summarize PUCT and IMM actions on load shed, real-time pricing adders, clawbacks, and settlement corrections after the 2021 winter storm in the Texas power grid market.

Key Points

Policies addressing clawbacks for unprovided AS and correcting VOLL-based price adders after load shed ended in ERCOT.

✅ PUCT ordered clawbacks for ancillary services not delivered.

✅ IMM urged price correction after firm load shed ceased.

✅ ERCOT's VOLL adder raised costs by $16B during 32 hours.

Potomac Economics, the Independent Market Monitor (IMM) for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), filed a report with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) that certain payments were made by ERCOT for Ancillary Services (AS) that were not provided, even as ERCOT later issued a winter reliability RFP to procure capacity during subsequent seasons.

According to the IMM (emphasis added):

There were a number of instances during the operating days outlined above in which AS was not provided in real time because of forced outages or derations. For market participants that are not able to meet their AS responsibility, typically the ERCOT operator marks the short amount in the software. This causes the AS responsibility to be effectively removed and the day-ahead AS payment to be clawed back in settlement. However, the ERCOT operators did not complete this task during the winter event, echoing issues like the Ontario IESO phantom demand that cost customers millions, and therefore the "failure to provide" settlements were not invoked in real time.

Removing the operator intervention step and automating the "failure to provide" settlement was contemplated in NPRR947: Clarification to Ancillary Service Supply Responsibility Definition and Improvements to Determining and Charging for Ancillary Service Failed Quantities; however, the NPRR was withdrawn in August 2020 amid ongoing market reform discussions because of the system cost, some complexities related to AS trades, and the implementation of real-time co-optimization.

Invoking the "failure to provide" settlement for all AS that market participants failed to provide during the operating days outlined above will produce market outcomes and settlements consistent with underlying market principles. In this case, the principle is that market participants should not be paid for services that they do not provide, even as a separate ruling found power plants exempt from providing electricity in emergencies under Texas law, underscoring the distinction between obligations and settlements. Whether ERCOT marked the short amount in real-time or not should not affect the settlement of these ancillary services.

On March 3, 2021, the PUCT ordered (a related press release is here) that:

ERCOT shall claw back all payments for ancillary service that were made to an entity that did not provide its required ancillary service during real time on ERCOT operating days starting February 14, 2021 and ending on February 19,2021.

On March 4, 2021, the IMM filed another report and recommended that:

the [PUCT] direct ERCOT to correct the real-time prices from 0:00 February 18,2021, to 09:00 February 19, 2021, to remove the inappropriate pricing intervention that occurred during that time period.

The IMM approvingly noted the PUCT's February 15, 2021 order, which mandated that real-time energy prices reflect firm load shed by setting prices at the value of lost load (VOLL).1

According to the IMM (emphasis added):

This is essential in an energy-only market, like ERCOT's, where the Texas power grid faces recurring crisis risks, because it provides efficient economic signals to increase the electric generation needed to restore the load and service it reliably over the long term.

Conversely, it is equally important that prices not reflect VOLL when the system is not in shortage and load is being served, and experiences in capacity markets show auction payouts can fall sharply under different conditions. The Commission recognized this principle in its Order, expressly stating it is only ERCOT's out-of-market shedding firm load that is required to be reflected in prices. Unfortunately, ERCOT exceeded the mandate of the Commission by continuing to set process at VOLL long after it ceased the firm load shed.

ERCOT recalled the last of the firm load shed instructions at 23:55 on February 17, 2021. Therefore, in order to comply with the Commission Order, the pricing intervention that raised prices to VOLL should have ended immediately at that time. However, ERCOT continued to hold prices at VOLL by inflating the Real-Time On-Line Reliability Deployment Price Adder for an additional 32 hours through the morning of February 19. This decision resulted in $16 billion in additional costs to ERCOT's market, prompting legislative bailout proposals in Austin, of which roughly $1.5 billion was uplifted to load-serving entities to provide make-whole payments to generators for energy that was not needed or produced.

However, at its March 5, 2021, open meeting (related discussion begins around minute 20), although the PUCT acknowledged the "good points" raised by the IMM, the PUCT was not willing to retrospectively adjust its real-time pricing for this period out of concerns that some related transactions (ICE futures and others) may have already settled and for unintended consequences of such retroactive adjustments.  

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

eRex Biomass Power Plant will deliver 300 MW in Japan, offering stable baseload renewable energy, coal-cost parity, and feed-in tariff independence through economies of scale, efficient fuel procurement, and utility-scale operations supporting RE100 demand.

Key Points

A 300 MW Japan biomass project targeting coal-cost parity and FIT-free, stable baseload renewable power.

✅ 300 MW capacity; enough for about 700,000 households

✅ Aims to skip feed-in tariff via economies of scale

✅ Targets coal-cost parity with stable, dispatchable output

Power supplier eRex will build its largest biomass power plant to date in Japan, hoping the facility's scale will provide healthy margins, a strategy increasingly seen among renewable developers pursuing diverse energy sources, and a means of skipping the government's feed-in tariff program.

The Tokyo-based electric company is in the process of selecting a location, most likely in eastern Japan. It aims to open the plant around 2024 or 2025 following a feasibility study. The facility will cost an estimated 90 billion yen ($812 million) or so, and have an output of 300 megawatts -- enough to supply about 700,000 households. ERex may work with a regional utility or other partner

The biggest biomass power plant operating in Japan currently has an output of 100 MW. With roughly triple that output, the new facility will rank among the world's largest, reflecting momentum toward 100% renewable energy globally that is shaping investment decisions.

Nearly all biomass power facilities in Japan sell their output through the government-mediated feed-in tariff program, which requires utilities to buy renewable energy at a fixed price. For large biomass plants that burn wood or agricultural waste, the rate is set at 21 yen per kilowatt-hour. But the program costs the Japanese public more than 2 trillion yen a year, and is said to hamper price competition.

ERex aims to forgo the feed-in tariff with its new plant by reaping economies of scale in operation and fuel procurement. The goal is to make the undertaking as economical as coal energy, which costs around 12 yen per kilowatt-hour, even as solar's rise in the U.S. underscores evolving benchmarks for competitive renewables.

Much of the renewable energy available in Japan is solar power, which fluctuates widely according to weather conditions, though power prediction accuracy has improved at Japanese PV projects. Biomass plants, which use such materials as wood chips and palm kernel shells as fuel, offer a more stable alternative.

Demand for reliable sources of renewable energy is on the rise in the business world, as shown by the RE100 initiative, in which 100 of the world's biggest companies, such as Olympus, have announced their commitment to get 100% of their power from renewable sources. ERex's new facility may spur competition.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

US Utilities Shift From Coal as natural gas stays cheap, renewables like wind and solar scale, Clean Power Plan uncertainty lingers, and investors, state policies, and emissions targets drive generation choices and accelerate retirements.

Key Points

A long-term shift by utilities from coal to cheap natural gas, expanding renewables, and lower-emission generation.

✅ Cheap natural gas undercuts coal on price and flexibility.

✅ Renewables costs falling; wind and solar add competitive capacity.

✅ State policies and investors sustain emissions reductions.

When President Donald Trump signed an executive order last week to sweep away Obama-era climate change regulations, he said it would end America's "war on coal", usher in a new era of energy production and put miners back to work.

But the biggest consumers of U.S. coal - power generating companies - remain unconvinced about efforts to replace Obama's power plant overhaul with a lighter-touch approach.

Reuters surveyed 32 utilities with operations in the 26 states that sued former President Barack Obama's administration to block its Clean Power Plan, the main target of Trump's executive order. The bulk of them have no plans to alter their multi-billion dollar, years-long shift away from coal, suggesting demand for the fuel will keep falling despite Trump's efforts.

The utilities gave many reasons, mainly economic: Natural gas - coal’s top competitor - is cheap and abundant; solar and wind power costs are falling; state environmental laws remain in place; and Trump's regulatory rollback may not survive legal challenges, as rushed pricing changes draw warnings from energy groups.

Meanwhile, big investors aligned with the global push to fight climate change – such as the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund – have been pressuring U.S. utilities in which they own stakes to cut coal use.

"I’m not going to build new coal plants in today’s environment," said Ben Fowke, CEO of Xcel Energy, which operates in eight states and uses coal for about 36 percent of its electricity production. "And if I’m not going to build new ones, eventually there won’t be any."

Of the 32 utilities contacted by Reuters, 20 said Trump's order would have no impact on their investment plans; five said they were reviewing the implications of the order; six gave no response. Just one said it would prolong the life of some of its older coal-fired power units.

North Dakota's Basin Electric Power Cooperative was the sole utility to identify an immediate positive impact of Trump's order on the outlook for coal.

"We're in the situation where the executive order takes a lot of pressure off the decisions we had to make in the near term, such as whether to retrofit and retire older coal plants," said Dale Niezwaag, a spokesman for Basin Electric. "But Trump can be a one-termer, so the reprieve out there is short."

Trump's executive order triggered a review aimed at killing the Clean Power Plan and paving the way for the EPA's Affordable Clean Energy rule to replace it, though litigation is ongoing. The Obama-era law would have required states, by 2030, to collectively cut carbon emissions from existing power plants by 30 percent from 2005 levels. It was designed as a primary strategy in U.S. efforts to fight global climate change.

The U.S. coal industry, without increases in domestic demand, would need to rely on export markets for growth. Shipments of U.S. metallurgical coal, used in the production of steel, have recently shown up in China following a two-year hiatus - in part to offset banned shipments from North Korea and temporary delays from cyclone-hit Australian producers.

RETIRING AND RETROFITTING

Coal had been the primary fuel source for U.S. power plants for the last century, but its use has fallen more than a third since 2008 after advancements in drilling technology unlocked new reserves of natural gas.

Hundreds of aging coal-fired power plants have been retired or retrofitted. Huge coal mining companies like Peabody Energy Corp and Arch Coal fell into bankruptcy, and production last year hit its lowest point since 1978.

The slide appears likely to continue: U.S. power companies now expect to retire or convert more than 8,000 megawatts of coal-fired plants in 2017 after shutting almost 13,000 MW last year, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration and Thomson Reuters data.

Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, acknowledged Trump's efforts would not return the coal industry to its "glory days," but offered some hope.

"There may not be immediate plans for utilities to bring on more coal, but the future is always uncertain in this market," he said.

Many of the companies in the Reuters survey said they had been focused on reducing carbon emissions for a decade or more while tracking 2017 utility trends that reinforce long-term planning, and were hesitant to change direction based on shifting political winds in Washington D.C.

"Utility planning typically takes place over much longer periods than presidential terms of office," Berkshire Hathaway Inc-owned Pacificorp spokesman Tom Gauntt said.

Several utilities also cited falling costs for wind and solar power, which are now often as cheap as coal or natural gas, thanks in part to government subsidies for renewable energy and recent FERC decisions affecting the grid.

In the meantime, activist investors have increased pressure on U.S. utilities to shun coal.

In the last year, Norway's sovereign wealth fund, the world's largest, has excluded more than a dozen U.S. power companies - including Xcel, American Electric Power Co Inc and NRG Energy Inc - from its investments because of their reliance on coal-fired power.

Another eight companies, including Southern Co and NorthWestern Corp, are "under observation" by the fund.

Wyoming-based coal miner Cloud Peak Energy said it doesn't blame utilities for being lukewarm to Trump's order.

"For eight years, if you were a utility running coal, you got the hell kicked out of you," said Richard Reavey, a spokesman for the company. "Are you going to turn around tomorrow and say, 'Let's buy lots of coal plants'? Pretty unlikely."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News