Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Station, which is 240 kilometers northwest of Tokyo in the Niigata prefecture, experienced a shutdown due to a massive earthquake on July 16, 2007. The epicenter of the Chuuetsu Offshore Earthquake, measured at magnitude 6.6, occurred off the coast of Niigata, some 19 kilometers from Kashiwazaki-Kariwa.
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, which is owned and operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company Incorporated TEPCO, began operations in 1985 and has an output of 7,965 megawatts MW, generated by five 1,067-MW boiling water reactors and two 1,315-MW advanced boiling water reactors.
At the time of the earthquake, units 1, 5 and 6 were down for scheduled maintenance. The remaining four units powered down safely in response to the earthquake as per protocol. TEPCO wanted to resume operations the day following the earthquake, but was ordered to keep Kashiwazaki-Kariwa powered down by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry METI. The International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA conducted an inspection of the power station, concluding that no significant damage had been sustained and that TEPCO should re-evaluate seismic safety.
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa remained down for 21 months and was brought back online in May 2009, after Unit 7 was deemed seismically fit to resume operations. Units 6 and 1 soon followed.
According to recent information provided by TEPCO, units 1 and 7 have resumed normal operations, and Unit 5 is undergoing a full-capacity test run. Unit 5 is expected to enter normal operations very soon, and Unit 6 is down for scheduled maintenance. BWR units 2, 3 and 4 are still down and under inspection with no definite restart dates.
In the next year, units 7 and 6 are expected to undergo scheduled inspection and refueling. Part of the inspection will include an earthquake resistance examination. Unit 7 will be powered down for three months from the third quarter of 2011 to the fourth quarter of 2011, while Unit 6's three-month outage is expected to take place starting in the first quarter of 2012. Total investment value for inspection and refueling is expected to be about $218 million per unit.
Electricity Investment Surpasses Oil and Gas 2016, driven by renewable energy, power grids, and energy efficiency, as IEA reports lower oil and gas spending, rising solar and wind capacity, and declining coal power plant approvals.
Key Points
A 2016 milestone where electricity topped global energy investment, led by renewables, grids, and efficiency, per the IEA.
✅ IEA: electricity investment hit $718b; oil and gas fell to $650b.
✅ Renewables led with $297b; solar and wind unit costs declined.
✅ Coal plant approvals plunged; networks and storage spending rose.
Investments in electricity surpassed those in oil and gas for the first time ever in 2016 on a spending splurge on renewable energy and power grids as the fall in crude prices led to deep cuts, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said.
Total energy investment fell for the second straight year by 12 per cent to US$1.7 trillion compared with 2015, the IEA said. Oil and gas investments plunged 26 per cent to US$650 billion, down by over a quarter in 2016, and electricity generation slipped 5 per cent.
"This decline (in energy investment) is attributed to two reasons," IEA chief economist Laszlo Varro told journalists.
"The reaction of the oil and gas industry to the prolonged period of low oil prices which was a period of harsh investment cuts; and technological progress which is reducing investment costs in both renewable power and in oil and gas," he said.
Oil and gas investment is expected to rebound modestly by 3 per cent in 2017, driven by a 53 per cent upswing in U.S. shale, and spending in Russia and the Middle East, the IEA said in a report.
"The rapid ramp up of U.S. shale activities has triggered an increase of U.S. shale costs of 16 per cent in 2017 after having almost halved from 2014-16," the report said.
The global electricity sector, however, was the largest recipient of energy investment in 2016 for the first time ever, overtaking oil, gas and coal combined, the report said.
"Robust investments in renewable energy and increased spending in electricity networks, which supports the outlook that low-emissions sources will cover most demand growth, made electricity the biggest area of capital investments," Varro said.
Electricity investment worldwide was US$718 billion, lifted by higher spending in power grids which offset the fall in power generation investments.
"Investment in new renewables-based power capacity, at US$297 billion, remained the largest area of electricity spending, despite falling back by 3 per cent as clean energy investment in developing nations slipped, the report said."
Although renewables investments was 3 per cent lower than five years ago, capacity additions were 50 per cent higher and expected output from this capacity about 35 per cent higher, thanks to the fall in unit costs and technology improvements in solar PV and wind generation, the IEA said.
COAL INVESTMENT IS COMING TO AN END
Investments in coal-fired electricity plants fell sharply. Sanctioning of new coal power plants fell to the lowest level in nearly 15 years, reflecting concerns about local air pollution, and emergence of overcapacity and competition from renewables, with renewables poised to eclipse coal in global power generation, notably in China. Coal investments, however, grew in India.
"Coal investment is coming to an end. At the very least, it is coming to a pause," Varro said.
The IEA report said energy efficiency investments continued to expand in 2016, reaching US$231 billion, with most of it going to the building sector globally.
Electric vehicles sales rose 38 per cent in 2016 to 750,000 vehicles at $6 billion, and represented 10 per cent of all transport efficiency spending. Some US$6 billion was spent globally on electronic vehicle charging stations, the IEA said.
Spending on electricity networks and storage continued the steady rise of the past five years, as surging electricity demand puts power systems under strain, reaching an all-time high of US$277 billion in 2016, with 30 per cent of the expansion driven by China’s spending in its distribution system, the report said.
China led the world in energy investments with 21 per cent of global total share, the report said, driven by low-carbon electricity supply and networks projects.
Although oil and gas investments fell in the United States in 2016, its total energy investments rose 16 per cent, even as Americans use less electricity in recent years, on the back of spending in renewables projects, the IEA report said.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
Alberta Ends Renewable Energy Moratorium, accelerating wind and solar deployment while prioritizing grid stability, reliability, and infrastructure upgrades to attract investment, cut emissions, meet climate targets, and integrate renewables into the provincial power system.
Key Points
It is Alberta's decision to lift a pause on new wind and solar projects while enhancing grid reliability.
✅ Resumes wind and solar development across Alberta.
✅ Focuses on grid stability and infrastructure upgrades.
✅ Aims to attract investment and meet climate targets.
The Alberta government has announced the end of a temporary suspension on the development of new renewable energy projects, as the power grid operator prepares to accept green energy bids across the market. This pause, which had been in place since May 2023, was initially implemented to evaluate the effects of rapid growth in renewable energy installations on the province's power grid and overall energy system. However, the decision to lift the moratorium reflects a shift in the government’s approach to balancing energy needs and environmental goals.
The suspension was introduced amid concerns that the swift expansion of wind and solar energy projects, including documented challenges with solar energy expansion in the province, could place undue stress on Alberta's electrical grid and infrastructure. Officials expressed worries about the ability of the grid to handle the increased load and the potential need for upgrades to accommodate new renewable energy sources. The government aimed to assess the implications of this growth and determine appropriate measures to ensure that the energy system could support both existing and future demands.
The moratorium drew significant criticism from various sectors, including renewable energy companies, environmental advocates, and local communities. Critics argued that the pause was detrimental to Alberta's efforts to transition to cleaner energy sources and meet climate targets, citing cases like TransAlta scrapping a wind farm amid policy uncertainty. They pointed out that halting projects could delay investments and job creation associated with the renewable energy sector, potentially impeding progress towards a more sustainable energy future.
In response to these concerns, the Alberta government conducted further reviews and consultations. The decision to cancel the pause reflects the government’s recognition of the importance of advancing renewable energy initiatives while also addressing the need for grid stability and infrastructure development. By ending the moratorium, the government aims to support the continued growth of renewable energy projects and maintain momentum in the shift towards greener energy solutions.
The lifting of the moratorium is expected to have a positive impact on the renewable energy industry in Alberta. Several planned projects that were put on hold can now proceed, leading to renewed investment and economic benefits, including a renewable energy surge that could power 4,500 jobs across the province. The government’s decision signals a commitment to integrating renewable energy sources into the provincial grid in a way that ensures both reliability and sustainability.
Going forward, the Alberta government plans to implement measures to better manage the integration of renewable energy into the existing power infrastructure. This includes addressing any potential challenges related to grid capacity and ensuring that the growth of renewable energy projects aligns with the province's overall energy strategy, as recent federal procurement such as a $500M green electricity contract with an Edmonton company underscores demand that integration efforts must accommodate. The goal is to create a balanced approach that supports the development of clean energy while maintaining the stability and efficiency of the energy system.
The end of the moratorium aligns with Alberta’s broader objectives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote environmental sustainability within a province recognized as a powerhouse for both green energy and fossil fuels in Canada. The government’s approach reflects a willingness to adapt policies and strategies in response to evolving industry needs and environmental priorities. By removing the pause, Alberta demonstrates its commitment to fostering a diverse and resilient energy sector that can meet both current and future demands.
The decision to cancel the moratorium is also seen as a move to reinforce Alberta’s position as a leader in renewable energy development. With the lifting of restrictions, the province can continue to attract investment in clean energy projects, as neighboring jurisdictions such as B.C. streamline clean energy approvals to accelerate deployment, enhance its reputation as a progressive energy market, and contribute to global efforts to address climate change.
In summary, the Alberta government’s decision to lift the pause on renewable energy projects represents a significant shift in its approach to energy policy. The move reflects an acknowledgment of the importance of advancing renewable energy while addressing the practical challenges associated with grid management and infrastructure development. By ending the moratorium, Alberta aims to support the growth of clean energy initiatives and maintain its commitment to sustainability and environmental responsibility.
EV Grid Capacity Management shows how smart charging, load balancing, and off-peak pricing align with utility demand response, DC fast charging networks, and renewable integration to keep national electricity infrastructure reliable as EV adoption scales
Key Points
EV Grid Capacity Management schedules charging and balances load to keep EV demand within utility capacity.
✅ Off-peak pricing and time-of-use tariffs shift charging demand.
✅ Smart chargers enable demand response and local load balancing.
✅ Gradual EV adoption allows utilities to plan upgrades efficiently.
One of the most frequent concerns you will see from electric vehicle haters is that the electricity grid can’t possibly cope with all cars becoming EVs, or that EVs will crash the grid entirely. However, they haven’t done the math properly. The grids in most developed nations will be just fine, so long as the demand is properly management. Here’s how.
The biggest mistake the social media keyboard warriors make is the very strange assumption that all cars could be charging at once. In the UK, there are currently 32,697,408 cars according to the UK Department of Transport. The UK national grid had a capacity of 75.8GW in 2020. If all the cars in the UK were EVs and charging at the same time at 7kW (the typical home charger rate), they would need 229GW – three times the UK grid capacity. If they were all charging at 50kW (a common public DC charger rate), they would need 1.6TW – 21.5 times the UK grid capacity. That sounds unworkable, and this is usually the kind of thinking behind those who claim the UK grid can't cope with EVs.
What they don’t seem to realize is that the chances of every single car charging all at once are infinitesimally low. Their arguments seem to assume that nobody ever drives their car, and just charges it all the time. If you look at averages, the absurdity of this position becomes particularly clear. The distance each UK car travels per year has been slowly dropping, and was 7,400 miles on average in 2019, again according to the UK Department of Transport. An EV will do somewhere between 2.5 and 4.5 miles per kWh on average, so let’s go in the middle and say 3.5 miles. In other words, each car will consume an average of 2,114kWh per year. Multiply that by the number of cars, and you get 69.1TWh. But the UK national grid produced 323TWh of power in 2019, so that is only 21.4% of the energy it produced for the year. Before you argue that’s still a problem, the UK grid produced 402TWh in 2005, which is more than the 2019 figure plus charging all the EVs in the UK put together. The capacity is there, and energy storage can help manage EV-driven peaks as well.
Let’s do the same calculation for the USA, where an EV boom is about to begin and planning matters. In 2020, there were 286.9 million cars registered in America. In 2020, while the US grid had 1,117.5TW of utility electricity capacity and 27.7GW of solar, according to the US Energy Information Administration. If all the cars were EVs charging at 7kW, they would need 2,008.3TW – nearly twice the grid capacity. If they charged at 50kW, they would need 14,345TW – 12.8 times the capacity.
However, in 2020, the US grid generated 4,007TWh of electricity. Americans drive further on average than Brits – 13,500 miles per year, according to the US Department of Transport’s Federal Highway Administration. That means an American car, if it were an EV, would need 3,857kWh per year, assuming the average efficiency figures above. If all US cars were EVs, they would need a total of 1,106.6TWh, which is 27.6% of what the American grid produced in 2020. US electricity consumption hasn’t shrunk in the same way since 2005 as it has in the UK, but it is clearly not unfeasible for all American cars to be EVs. The US grid could cope too, even as state power grids face challenges during the transition.
After all, the transition to electric isn’t going to happen overnight. The sales of EVs are growing fast, with for example more plug-ins sold in the UK in 2021 so far than the whole of the previous decade (2010-19) put together. Battery-electric vehicles are closing in on 10% of the market in the UK, and they were already 77.5% of new cars sold in Norway in September 2021. But that is new cars, leaving the vast majority of cars on the road fossil fuel powered. A gradual introduction is essential, too, because an overnight switchover would require a massive ramp up in charge point installation, particularly devices for people who don’t have the luxury of home charging. This will require considerable investment, but could be served by lots of chargers on street lamps, which allegedly only cost £1,000 ($1,300) each to install, usually with no need for extra wiring.
This would be a perfectly viable way to provide charging for most people. For example, as I write this article, my own EV is attached to a lamppost down the street from my house. It is receiving 5.5kW costing 24p (32 cents) per kWh through SimpleSocket, a service run by Ubitricity (now owned by Shell) and installed by my local London council, Barnet. I plugged in at 11am and by 7.30pm, my car (which was on about 28% when I started) will have around 275 miles of range – enough for a couple more weeks. It will have cost me around £12 ($16) – way less than a tank of fossil fuel. It was a super-easy process involving the scanning of a QR code and entering of a credit card, very similar to many parking systems nowadays. If most lampposts had one of these charging plugs, not having off-street parking would be no problem at all for owning an EV.
With most EVs having a range of at least 200 miles these days, and the average mileage per day being 20 miles in the UK (the 7,400-mile annual figure divided by 365 days) or 37 miles in the USA, EVs won’t need charging more than once a week or even every week or two. On average, therefore, the grids in most developed nations will be fine. The important consideration is to balance the load, because if too many EVs are charging at once, there could be a problem, and some regions like California are looking to EVs for grid stability as part of the solution. This will be a matter of incentivizing charging during off-peak times such as at night, or making peak charging more expensive. It might also be necessary to have the option to reduce charging power rates locally, while providing the ability to prioritize where necessary – such as emergency services workers. But the problem is one of logistics, not impossibility.
There will be grids around the world that are not in such a good place for an EV revolution, at least not yet, and some critics argue that policies like Canada's 2035 EV mandate are unrealistic. But to argue that widespread EV adoption will be an insurmountable catastrophe for electricity supply in developed nations is just plain wrong. So long as the supply is managed correctly to make use of spare capacity when it’s available as much as possible, the grids will cope just fine.
California Battery Storage is transforming grid reliability as distributed energy, solar-plus-storage, and demand response mitigate rolling blackouts, replace peaker plants, and supply flexible capacity during heat waves and evening peaks across utilities and homes.
Key Points
California Battery Storage uses distributed and utility batteries to stabilize power, shift solar, and curb blackouts.
✅ Supplies flexible capacity during peak demand and heat waves
✅ Enables demand response and replaces gas peaker plants
✅ Aggregated assets form virtual power plants for grid support
Last month as a heat wave slammed California, state regulators sent an email to a group of energy executives pleading for help to keep the lights on statewide. “Please consider this an urgent inquiry on behalf of the state,” the message said.
The manager of the state’s grid was struggling to increase the supply of electricity because power plants had unexpectedly shut down and demand was surging. The imbalance was forcing officials to order rolling blackouts across the state for the first time in nearly two decades.
What was unusual about the emails was whom they were sent to: people who managed thousands of batteries installed at utilities, businesses, government facilities and even homes. California officials were seeking the energy stored in those machines to help bail out a poorly managed grid and reduce the need for blackouts.
Many energy experts have predicted that batteries could turn homes and businesses into mini-power plants that are able to play a critical role in the electricity system. They could soak up excess power from solar panels and wind turbines and provide electricity in the evenings when the sun went down or after wildfires and hurricanes, which have grown more devastating because of climate change in recent years. Over the next decade, the argument went, large rows of batteries owned by utilities could start replacing power plants fueled by natural gas.
But that day appears to be closer than earlier thought, at least in California, which leads the country in energy storage. During the state’s recent electricity crisis, more than 30,000 batteries supplied as much power as a midsize natural gas plant. And experts say the machines, which range in size from large wall-mounted televisions to shipping containers, will become even more important because utilities, businesses and homeowners are investing billions of dollars in such devices.
“People are starting to realize energy storage isn’t just a project or two here or there, it’s a whole new approach to managing power,” said John Zahurancik, chief operating officer at Fluence, which makes large energy storage systems bought by utilities and large businesses. That’s a big difference from a few years ago, he said, when electricity storage was seen as a holy grail — “perfect, but unattainable.”
On Friday, Aug. 14, the first day California ordered rolling blackouts, Stem, an energy company based in the San Francisco Bay Area, delivered 50 megawatts — enough to power 20,000 homes — from batteries it had installed at businesses, local governments and other customers. Some of those devices were at the Orange County Sanitation District, which installed the batteries to reduce emissions by making it less reliant on natural gas when energy use peaks.
John Carrington, Stem’s chief executive, said his company would have provided even more electricity to the grid had it not been for state regulations that, among other things, prevent businesses from selling power from their batteries directly to other companies.
“We could have done two or three times more,” he said.
The California Independent System Operator, which manages about 80 percent of the state’s grid, has blamed the rolling blackouts on a confluence of unfortunate events, including extreme weather impacts on the grid that limited supply: A gas plant abruptly went offline, a lack of wind stilled thousands of turbines, and power plants in other states couldn’t export enough electricity. (On Thursday, the grid manager urged Californians to reduce electricity use over Labor Day weekend because temperatures are expected to be 10 to 20 degrees above normal.)
But in recent weeks it has become clear that California’s grid managers also made mistakes last month, highlighting the challenge of fixing California’s electric grid in real time, that were reminiscent of an energy crisis in 2000 and 2001 when millions of homes went dark and wholesale electricity prices soared.
Grid managers did not contact Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office until moments before it ordered a blackout on Aug. 14. Had it acted sooner, the governor could have called on homeowners and businesses to reduce electricity use, something he did two days later. He could have also called on the State Department of Water Resources to provide electricity from its hydroelectric plants.
Weather forecasters had warned about the heat wave for days. The agency could have developed a plan to harness the electricity in numerous batteries across the state that largely sat idle while grid managers and large utilities such as Pacific Gas & Electric scrounged around for more electricity.
That search culminated in frantic last-minute pleas from the California Public Utilities Commission to the California Solar and Storage Association. The commission asked the group to get its members to discharge batteries they managed for customers like the sanitation department into the grid. (Businesses and homeowners typically buy batteries with solar panels from companies like Stem and Sunrun, which manage the systems for their customers.)
“They were texting and emailing and calling us: ‘We need all of your battery customers giving us power,’” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, executive director of the solar and storage association. “It was in a very last-minute, herky-jerky way.”
At the time of blackouts on Aug. 14, battery power to the electric grid climbed to a peak of about 147 megawatts, illustrating how virtual power plants can rapidly scale, according to data from California I.S.O. After officials asked for more power the next day, that supply shot up to as much as 310 megawatts.
Had grid managers and regulators done a better job coordinating with battery managers, the devices could have supplied as much as 530 megawatts, Ms. Del Chiaro said. That supply would have exceeded the amount of electricity the grid lost when the natural gas plant, which grid managers have refused to identify, went offline.
Officials at California I.S.O. and the public utilities commission said they were working to determine the “root causes” of the crisis after the governor requested an investigation.
Grid managers and state officials have previously endorsed the use of batteries, using AI to adapt as they integrate them at scale. The utilities commission last week approved a proposal by Southern California Edison, which serves five million customers, to add 770 megawatts of energy storage in the second half of 2021, more than doubling its battery capacity.
And Mr. Zahurancik’s company, Fluence, is building a 400 megawatt-hour battery system at the site of an older natural gas power plant at the Alamitos Energy Center in Long Beach. Regulators this week also approved a plan to extend the life of the power plant, which was scheduled to close at the end of the year, to support the grid.
But regulations have been slow to catch up with the rapidly developing battery technology.
Regulators and utilities have not answered many of the legal and logistical questions that have limited how batteries owned by homeowners and businesses are used. How should battery owners be compensated for the electricity they provide to the grid? Can grid managers or utilities force batteries to discharge even if homeowners or businesses want to keep them charged up for their own use during blackouts?
During the recent blackouts, Ms. Del Chiaro said, commercial and industrial battery owners like Stem’s customers were compensated at the rates similar to those that are paid to businesses to not use power during periods of high electricity demand. But residential customers were not paid and acted “altruistically,” she said.
Ontario Renewable Energy Cancellations highlight Doug Ford's move to scrap wind turbine contracts, citing electricity rate relief and taxpayer savings, while critics, the NDP, and industry warn of job losses, termination fees, and auditor scrutiny.
Key Points
Ontario's termination of renewable contracts, defended as cost and rate relief, faces disputes over savings and jobs.
✅ PCs cite electricity rate relief and taxpayer savings.
✅ Critics warn of job losses and termination fees.
✅ Auditor inquiry sought into contract cancellation costs.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford, whose new stance on wind power has drawn attention, said Thursday he is “proud” of his decision to tear up hundreds of renewable energy deals, a move that his government acknowledges could cost taxpayers more than $230 million.
Ford dismissed criticism that his Progressive Conservatives are wasting public money, telling a news conference that the cancellation of 750 contracts signed by the previous Liberal government will save cash, even as Ontario moves to reintroduce renewable energy projects in the coming years.
“I’m so proud of that,” Ford said of his decision. “I’m proud that we actually saved the taxpayers $790 million when we cancelled those terrible, terrible, terrible wind turbines that really for the last 15 years have destroyed our energy file.”
Later Thursday, Ford went further in defending the cancelled contracts, saying “if we had the chance to get rid of all the wind mills we would,” though a court ruling near Cornwall challenged such cancellations.
The NDP first reported the cost of the cancellations Tuesday, saying the $231 million figure was listed as “other transactions”, buried in government documents detailing spending in the 2018-2019 fiscal year.
The Progressive Conservatives have said the final cost of the cancellations, which include the decommissioning of a wind farm already under construction in Prince Edward County, Ont., has yet to be established, amid warnings about wind project cancellation costs from developers.
The government has said it tore up the deals because the province didn’t need the power and it was driving up electricity rates, and the decision will save millions over the life of the contracts. Industry officials have disputed those savings, saying the cancellations will just mean job losses for small business, and ignore wind power’s growing competitiveness in electricity markets.
NDP Leader Andrea Horwath has asked Ontario’s auditor general to investigate the contracts and their termination fees, amid debates over Ontario’s electricity future among leadership contenders. She called Ford’s remarks on Thursday “ridiculous.”
“Every jurisdiction around the world is trying to figure out how to bring more renewables onto their electricity grids,” she said. “This government is taking us backwards and costing us at the very least $231 million in tearing these energy contracts.”
At the federal level, a recent green electricity contract with an Edmonton company underscores that shift.
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.
