New material makes electricity from waste heat

Duration Portfolio Energy Storage aligns layered peak demand with right-sized batteries, enabling peak shaving, gas peaker replacement, and solar-plus-storage synergy while improving grid flexibility, reliability, and T&D deferral through two- to four-hour battery durations.

Key Points

An approach that layers battery durations to match peaks, cut costs, replace peakers, and boost grid reliability.

✅ Layers 2- to 4-hour batteries by peak duration

✅ Enables solar-plus-storage and peak shaving

✅ Cuts T&D upgrades, emissions, and fuel costs

The debate over energy storage replacing gas-fired peakers has raged for years, but a new approach that shifts the terms of the argument could lead to an acceleration of storage deployments.

Rather than looking at peak demand as a single mountainous peak, some analysts now advocate a layered approach that allows energy storage to better match peak needs and complement ongoing efforts to improve solar and wind power across the grid.

"You don’t have to have batteries that run to infinity."

Some developers of solar-plus-storage projects, bolstered by cheap batteries, say they can already compete head-to-head with gas-fired peakers. "I can beat a gas peaker anywhere in the country today with a solar-plus-storage power plant," Tom Buttgenbach, president and CEO of developer 8minutenergy Renewables, recently told S&P Global.

Customers are very busy these days and rebate programs need to fit the speed of their life. Participation should be quick, easy, and accessible anywhere.

Others disagree. Storage is not disruptive for generation, but will be disruptive for transmission and distribution, Kris Zadlo, executive vice president and chief development officer at Invenergy, told the audience at a Bloomberg New Energy Finance conference last spring. Invenergy, like many renewable power developers, develops generation, energy storage and transmission projects.

But there is another path that avoids the pitfalls of positions on either end of the all-or-none approach. "Do the analysis of the need itself," Ray Hohenstein, market applications director at Fluence, told Utility Dive. If the need is only two hours in duration, it may be best served by a two-hour battery. "You don’t have to have batteries that run to infinity."

Storage vs. fossil fuel peakers

Energy storage has several benefits over traditional fossil fuel peaking plants, Hohenstein said. It is instantaneous, it has no emissions and requires no fuel, and has limited infrastructure needs. It can also help the grid absorb higher levels of renewable generation by soaking up excess output, such as solar power at noon, and many planned storage additions will be paired with solar in the next few years. But the one thing energy storage cannot do, he said, is provide limitless energy.

So, instead of looking at replacing an individual peaker, Hohenstein advocated a "duration portfolio" approach that uses energy storage to shave peak load.

If the need is for 150 MW of resources that will never need to run for more than two hours at a time, then a battery is "quite cheap," significantly less than a four or eight-hour battery, said Hohenstein. "If you fill up your peak by duration layer, it could be more cost effective."

NREL research driver

Fluence’s approach is informed by research by Paul Denholm and Robert Margolis at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), released last spring.

The NREL researchers looked at the California market where they said 11 GW of fossil fuel capacity is expected to be retired by 2029 because of new once-through-cooling requirements that are taking effect. A lot of that capacity is peaking capacity and, according to NREL’s analysis, a large fraction could be replaced with four-hour energy storage, assuming continued storage cost reductions and growth in solar installations.

The key in NREL’s research was the level of solar power penetration. There is a "synergistic" relationship between solar penetration and storage deployment, the researchers wrote, and other studies suggest wind and solar could meet 80% of U.S. demand as these trends continue.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis highlights nuclear power vs coal and natural gas, renewables and hydropower limits, carbon emissions, energy security, and baseload reliability during Russia-related supply shocks and winter demand.

Key Points

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis weighs reactor extensions vs coal revival to bolster security, curb emissions.

✅ Coal plants restarted; nuclear shutdown stays on schedule.

✅ Energy security prioritized amid Russian gas supply cuts.

✅ Emissions likely rise despite renewables expansion.

Peel away the politics and the passion, the doomsaying and the denialism, and climate change largely boils down to this: energy. To avoid the chances of catastrophic climate change while ensuring the world can continue to grow — especially for poor people who live in chronically energy-starved areas — we’ll need to produce ever more energy from sources that emit little or no greenhouse gases.

It’s that simple — and, of course, that complicated.

Zero-carbon sources of renewable energy like wind and solar have seen tremendous increases in capacity and equally impressive decreases in price in recent years, while the decades-old technology of hydropower is still what the International Energy Agency calls the “forgotten giant of low-carbon electricity.”

And then there’s nuclear power. Viewed strictly through the lens of climate change, nuclear power can claim to be a green dream, even as Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy most.

Unlike coal or natural gas, nuclear plants do not produce direct carbon dioxide emissions when they generate electricity, and over the past 50 years they’ve reduced CO2 emissions by nearly 60 gigatonnes. Unlike solar or wind, nuclear plants aren’t intermittent, and they require significantly less land area per megawatt produced. Unlike hydropower — which has reached its natural limits in many developed countries, including the US — nuclear plants don’t require environmentally intensive dams.

As accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown, when nuclear power goes wrong, it can go really wrong. But newer plant designs reduce the risk of such catastrophes, which themselves tend to garner far more attention than the steady stream of deaths from climate change and air pollution linked to the normal operation of conventional power plants.

So you might imagine that those who see climate change as an unparalleled existential threat would cheer the development of new nuclear plants and support the extension of nuclear power already in service.

In practice, however, that’s often not the case, as recent events in Germany underline.

When is a Green not green?
The Russian war in Ukraine has made a mess of global energy markets, but perhaps no country has proven more vulnerable than Germany, reigniting debate over a possible resurgence of nuclear energy in Germany among policymakers.

At the start of the year, Russian exports supplied more than half of Germany’s natural gas, along with significant portions of its oil and coal imports. Since the war began, Russia has severely curtailed the flow of gas to Germany, putting the country in a state of acute energy crisis, with fears growing as next winter looms.

With little natural gas supplies of the country’s own, and its heavily supported renewable sector unable to fully make up the shortfall, German leaders faced a dilemma. To maintain enough gas reserves to get the country through the winter, they could try to put off the closure of Germany’s last three remaining nuclear reactors temporarily, which were scheduled to shutter by the end of 2022 as part of Germany’s post-Fukushima turn against nuclear power, and even restart already closed reactors.

Or they could try to reactivate mothballed coal-fired power plants, and make up some of the electricity deficit with Germany’s still-ample coal reserves.

Based on carbon emissions alone, you’d presumably go for the nuclear option. Coal is by far the dirtiest of fossil fuels, responsible for a fifth of all global greenhouse gas emissions — more than any other single source — as well as a soup of conventional air pollutants. Nuclear power produces none of these.

German legislators saw it differently. Last week, the country’s parliament, with the backing of members of the Green Party in the coalition government, passed emergency legislation to reopen coal-powered plants, as well as further measures to boost the production of renewable energy. There would be no effort to restart closed nuclear power plants, or even consider a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout for the last active reactors.

“The gas storage tanks must be full by winter,” Robert Habeck, Germany’s economy minister and a member of the Green Party, said in June, echoing arguments that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue for the coming winter.

Partially as a result of that prioritization, Germany — which has already seen carbon emissions rise over the past two years, missing its ambitious emissions targets — will emit even more carbon in 2022.

To be fair, restarting closed nuclear power plants is a far more complex undertaking than lighting up old coal plants. Plant operators had only bought enough uranium to make it to the end of 2022, so nuclear fuel supplies are set to run out regardless.

But that’s also the point. Germany, which views itself as a global leader on climate, is grasping at the most carbon-intensive fuel source in part because it made the decision in 2011 to fully turn its back on nuclear for good at the time, enshrining what had been a planned phase-out into law.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Renewable Energy Tax Incentive Extensions urged by US trade groups to offset COVID-19 supply chain delays, tax equity shortages, and financing risks, enabling direct pay, PTC and ITC qualification, and standalone energy storage credits.

Key Points

Policy measures that extend and monetize clean energy credits to counter COVID-19 disruptions and financing shortfalls.

✅ Extend start construction and safe harbor deadlines

✅ Enable direct pay to offset reduced tax equity

✅ Add a standalone energy storage credit

Renewable energy and other trade bodies in the US are calling on Capitol Hill to extend provision of tax incentives to help the sector “surmount the impacts” of the COVID-19 crisis facing clean energy.

In a signed joint letter, the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), Energy Storage Association (ESA), National Hydropower Association (NHA), Renewable Energy Buyers Alliance (REBA), and the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) stated: “With over $50bn in annual investment over each of the past five years, the clean energy sector is one of the nation’s most important economic drivers. But that growth is placed at risk by a range of COVID-19 related impacts”.

These include “supply chain disruptions that have the potential to delay utility solar construction timetables and undermine the ability of wind, solar and hydropower developers to qualify for time-sensitive tax credits, and a sudden reduction in the availability of tax equity, which is crucial to monetising tax credits and financing clean energy projects of all types.”
The letter goes onto state: “Like all sectors of our economy the renewable and clean grid industry – including developers, manufacturers, construction workers, electric utilities, investors and major corporate consumers of renewable power – needs stability.

“The current uncertainty about the ability to qualify for and monetise tax incentives will have real and substantial negative impacts to the entire economy.

On behalf of the thousands of companies that participate in America’s renewable and clean energy economy, the coalition of organisations is requesting the US Government, echoing Senate calls to support clean energy, take three “critical” steps to address pandemic-related disruptions.

The first is an extension of start construction and safe harbour deadlines to ensure that renewable projects can qualify for renewable tax credits amid the Solar ITC extension debate and despite delays associated with supply chain disruptions.

The second is the implementation of provisions that will allow renewable tax credits to be available for direct pay to facilitate their monetisation, supporting U.S. solar and wind growth in the face of reduced availability of tax equity.

Thirdly, the signatories have requested the enactment of a direct pay tax credit for standalone energy storage to foster renewable growth as the industry sets sights on market majority and help secure a more resilient grid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

BC Hydro Electricity Imports shape CleanBC claims as Powerex trades cross-border electricity, blending hydro with coal and gas supplies, affecting emissions, grid carbon intensity, and how electric vehicles and households assess "clean" power.

Key Points

Powerex buys power for BC Hydro, mixing hydro with coal and gas, shifting emissions and affecting CleanBC targets.

✅ Powerex trades optimize price, not carbon intensity

✅ Imports can include coal- and gas-fired generation

✅ Emissions affect EV and CleanBC decarbonization claims

British Columbians naturally assume they’re using clean power when they fire up holiday lights, juice up a cell phone or plug in a shiny new electric car. 

That’s the message conveyed in advertisements for the CleanBC initiative launched by the NDP government, amid indications that residents are split on going nuclear according to a survey, which has spent $3.17 million on a CleanBC “information campaign,” including almost $570,000 for focus group testing and telephone town halls, according to the B.C. finance ministry.

“We’ll reduce air pollution by shifting to clean B.C. energy,” say the CleanBC ads, which feature scenic photos of hydro reservoirs. “CleanBC: Our Nature. Our Power. Our Future.” 

Yet despite all the bumph, British Columbians have no way of knowing if the electricity they use comes from a coal-fired plant in Alberta or Wyoming, a nuclear plant in Washington, a gas-fired plant in California or a hydro dam in B.C. 

Here’s why. 

BC Hydro’s wholly-owned corporate subsidiary, Powerex Corp., exports B.C. power when prices are high and imports power from other jurisdictions when prices are low. 

In 2018, for instance, B.C. imported more electricity than it exported — not because B.C. has a power shortage (it has a growing surplus due to the recent spate of mill closures and the commissioning of two new generating stations in B.C.) but because Powerex reaps bigger profits when BC Hydro slows down generators to import cheaper power, especially at night.

“B.C. buys its power from outside B.C., which we would argue is not clean,” says Martin Mullany, interim executive director for Clean Energy BC. 

“A good chunk of the electricity we use is imported,” Mullany says. “In reality we are trading for brown power” — meaning power generated from conventional ‘dirty’ sources such as coal and gas. 

Wyoming, which generates almost 90 per cent of its power from coal, was among the 12 U.S. states that exported power to B.C. last year. (Notably, B.C. did not export any electricity to Wyoming in 2018.)

Utah, where coal-fired power plants produce 70 per cent of the state’s energy amid debate over the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity, and Montana, which derives about 55 per cent of its power from coal, also exported power to B.C. last year. 

So did Nebraska, which gets 63 per cent of its power from coal, 15 per cent from nuclear plants, 14 per cent from wind and three per cent from natural gas.   

Coal is responsible for about 23 per cent of the power generated in Arizona, another exporter to B.C., while gas produces about 44 per cent of the electricity in that state.  

In 2017, the latest year for which statistics are available, electricity imports to B.C. totalled just over 1.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, according to the B.C. environment ministry — roughly the equivalent of putting 255,000 new cars on the road, using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s calculation of 4.71 tonnes of annual carbon emissions for a standard passenger vehicle. 

These figures far outstrip the estimated local and upstream emissions from the contested Woodfibre LNG plant in Squamish that is expected to release annual emissions equivalent to 170,000 new cars on the road.

Import emissions cast a new light on B.C.’s latest “milestone” announcement that 30,000 electric cars are now among 3.7 million registered vehicles in the province.

BC Electric Vehicles Announcement Horgan Heyman Mungall Weaver
In November of 2018 the province announced a new target to have all new light-duty cars and trucks sold to be zero-emission vehicles by the year 2040. Photo: Province of B.C. / Flickr

“Making sure more of the vehicles driven in the province are powered by BC Hydro’s clean electricity is one of the most important steps to reduce [carbon] pollution,” said the November 28 release from the energy ministry, noting that electrification has prompted a first call for power in 15 years from BC Hydro.

Mullany points out that Powerex’s priority is to make money for the province and not to reduce emissions.

“It’s not there for the cleanest outcome,” he said. “At some time we have to step up to say it’s either the money or the clean power, which is more important to us?”

Electricity bought and sold by little-known, unregulated Powerex
These transactions are money-makers for Powerex, an opaque entity that is exempt from B.C.’s freedom of information laws. 

Little detailed information is available to the public about the dealings of Powerex, which is overseen by a board of directors comprised of BC Hydro board members and BC Hydro CEO and president Chris O’Reilly. 

According to BC Hydro’s annual service plan, Powerex’s net income ranged from $59 million to $436 million from 2014 to 2018. 

“We will never know the true picture. It’s a black box.” 

Powerex’s CEO Tom Bechard — the highest paid public servant in the province — took home $939,000 in pay and benefits last year, earning $430,000 of his executive compensation through a bonus and holdback based on his individual and company performance.  

“The problem is that all of the trade goes on at Powerex and Powerex is an unregulated entity,” Mullany says. 

“We will never know the true picture. It’s a black box.” 

In 2018, Powerex exported 8.7 million megawatt hours of electricity to the U.S. for a total value of almost $570 million, according to data from the Canada Energy Regulator. That same year, Powerex imported 9.6 million megawatt hours of electricity from the U.S. for almost $360 million. 

Powerex sold B.C.’s publicly subsidized power for an average of $87 per megawatt hour in 2018, according to the Canada Energy Regulator. It imported electricity for an average of $58 per megawatt hour that year. 

In an emailed statement in response to questions from The Narwhal, BC Hydro said “there can be a need to import some power to meet our electricity needs” due to dam reservoir fluctuations during the year and from year to year.

‘Impossible’ to determine if electricity is from coal or wind power
Emissions associated with electricity imports are on average “significantly lower than the emissions of a natural gas generating plant because we mostly import electricity from hydro generation and, increasingly, power produced from wind and solar,” BC Hydro claimed in its statement. 

But U.S. energy economist Robert McCullough says there’s no way to distinguish gas and coal-fired U.S. power exports to B.C. from wind or hydro power, noting that “electrons lack labels.” 

Similarly, when B.C. imports power from Alberta, where generators are shifting to gas and 48.5 per cent of electricity production is coal-fired and 38 per cent comes from natural gas, there’s no way to tell if the electricity is from coal, wind or gas, McCullough says.

“It really is impossible to make that determination.” 

Wyoming Gilette coal pits NASA
The Gillette coal pits in Wyoming, one of the largest coal-producers in the U.S. Photo: NASA Earth Observatory

Neither the Canada Energy Regulator nor Statistics Canada could provide annual data on electricity imports and exports between B.C. and Alberta. 

But you can watch imports and exports in real time on this handy Alberta website, which also lists Alberta’s power sources. 

In 2018, California, Washington and Oregon supplied considerably more power to B.C. than other states, according to data from Canada Energy Regulator. 

Washington, where about one-quarter of generated power comes from fossil fuels, led the pack, with more than $339 million in electricity exports to B.C. 

California, which still gets more than half of its power from gas-fired plants even though it leads the U.S. in renewable energy with substantial investments in wind, solar and geothermal, was in second place, selling about $18.4 million worth of power to B.C. 

And Oregon, which produces about 43 per cent of its power from natural gas and six per cent from coal, exported about $6.2 million worth of electricity to B.C. last year. 

By comparison, Nebraska’s power exports to B.C. totalled about $1.6 million, Montana’s added up to $1.3 million,  Nevada’s were about $706,000 and Wyoming’s were about $346,000.

Clean electrons or dirty electrons?
Dan Woynillowicz, deputy director of Clean Energy Canada, which co-chaired the B.C. government’s Climate Solutions and Clean Growth Advisory Council, says B.C. typically exports power to other jurisdictions during peak demand. 

Gas-fired plants and hydro power can generate electricity quickly, while coal-fired power plants take longer to ramp up and wind power is variable, Woynillowicz notes. 

“When you need power fast and there aren’t many sources that can supply it you’re willing to pay more for it.”

Woynillowicz says “the odds are high” that B.C. power exports are displacing dirty power.

Elsewhere in Canada, analysts warn that Ontario's electricity could get dirtier as policies change, raising similar concerns.

“As a consumer you never know whether you’re getting a clean electron or a dirty electron. You’re just getting an electron.” 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hinkley Point C Reactor Installation signals UK energy security, nuclear power expansion, and low-carbon baseload, featuring EPR technology in Somerset to cut emissions, support net-zero goals, and deliver reliable electricity for homes and businesses.

Key Points

First EPR unit fitted at Hinkley Point C, boosting low-carbon baseload, grid reliability, and UK energy security.

✅ Generates 3.2 GW across two EPRs for 7% of UK electricity.

✅ Provides low-carbon baseload to complement wind and solar.

✅ Creates jobs and strengthens supply chains during construction.

The United Kingdom has made a significant stride toward securing its energy future with the installation of the first reactor at its newest nuclear power station. This development marks an important milestone in the nation’s efforts to combat climate change, reduce carbon emissions, and ensure a stable and sustainable energy supply. As the world moves towards greener alternatives to fossil fuels, nuclear power remains a key part of the UK's green industrial revolution and low-carbon energy strategy.

The new power station, located at Hinkley Point C in Somerset, is set to be one of the most advanced nuclear facilities in the country. The installation of its reactor represents a crucial step in the construction of the plant, with earlier milestones like the reactor roof lifted into place underscoring steady progress, which is expected to provide reliable, low-carbon electricity for millions of homes and businesses across the UK. The completion of the first reactor is seen as a pivotal moment in the journey to bring the station online, with the second reactor expected to follow shortly after.

A Historic Milestone

Hinkley Point C will be the UK’s first nuclear power station built in over two decades. The plant, once fully operational, will play a key role in the country's energy transition. The reactors at Hinkley Point C are designed to be state-of-the-art, using advanced technology that is both safer and more efficient than older nuclear reactors. Each of the two reactors will have the capacity to generate 1.6 gigawatts of electricity, enough to power approximately six million homes. Together, they will contribute about 7% of the UK’s electricity needs, providing a steady, reliable source of energy even during periods of high demand.

The installation of the first reactor at Hinkley Point C is not just a technical achievement; it is also symbolic of the UK’s commitment to energy security and its goal to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, a target that industry leaders say multiple new stations will be needed to meet effectively. Nuclear power is a crucial part of this equation, as it provides a stable, baseload source of energy that does not rely on weather conditions, unlike wind or solar power.

Boosting the UK’s Energy Capacity

The addition of Hinkley Point C to the UK’s energy infrastructure is expected to significantly boost the country’s energy capacity and reduce its reliance on fossil fuels. The UK government has been focused on increasing the share of renewable energy in its mix, and nuclear power is seen as an essential complement to intermittent renewable sources, especially as wind and solar have surpassed nuclear in generation at times. Nuclear energy is considered a low-carbon, reliable energy source that can fill the gaps when renewable generation is insufficient, such as on cloudy or calm days when solar and wind energy output may be low.

With the aging of the UK’s existing nuclear fleet and the gradual phase-out of coal-fired power plants, Hinkley Point C will help ensure that the country does not face an energy shortage as it transitions to cleaner energy sources. The plant will help to bridge the gap between the current energy infrastructure and the future, enabling the UK to phase out coal while maintaining a steady, low-carbon energy supply.

Safety and Technological Innovation

The reactors at Hinkley Point C are being constructed using the latest in nuclear technology. They are based on the European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) design, which is known for its enhanced safety features and efficiency, and has been deployed in projects within China's nuclear program as well, making it a proven platform. These reactors are designed to withstand extreme conditions, including earthquakes and flooding, making them highly resilient. Additionally, the EPR technology ensures that the reactors have a low environmental impact, producing minimal waste and offering the potential for increased sustainability compared to older reactor designs.

One of the key innovations in the Hinkley Point C reactors is their advanced cooling system, which is designed to be more efficient and environmentally friendly than previous generations. This system ensures that the reactors operate at optimal temperatures while minimizing the environmental footprint of the plant.

Economic and Job Creation Benefits

The construction of Hinkley Point C has already provided a significant boost to the local economy. Thousands of jobs have been created, not only in the construction phase but also in the ongoing operation and maintenance of the facility. The plant is expected to create more than 25,000 jobs during its construction and around 900 permanent jobs once it is operational.

The project is also expected to have a positive impact on the wider UK economy. As a major infrastructure project, Hinkley Point C will provide long-term economic benefits, including boosting supply chains and providing opportunities for local businesses.

Challenges and the Road Ahead

Despite the progress, the construction of Hinkley Point C has not been without its challenges. The project has faced delays and cost overruns, with setbacks at Hinkley Point C documented by industry observers, and the total estimated cost now standing at around £22 billion. However, the successful installation of the first reactor is a step toward overcoming these hurdles and completing the project on schedule.

Looking ahead, Hinkley Point C’s successful operation could pave the way for future nuclear developments in the UK, including next-gen nuclear designs that aim to be smaller, cheaper, and safer. As the world grapples with the pressing need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear energy may play an even more critical role in ensuring a clean, reliable energy future.

The installation of the first reactor at Hinkley Point C marks a crucial moment in the UK’s energy journey. As the country seeks to meet its carbon reduction targets and bolster its energy security, the new nuclear power station will be a cornerstone of its efforts. With its advanced technology, safety features, and potential to provide low-carbon energy for decades to come, Hinkley Point C offers a glimpse into the future of energy production in the UK and beyond.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Clean Grid Plan outlines emissions-free electricity growth, renewable energy procurement, nuclear expansion at Bruce and Darlington, reduced natural gas, grid reliability, and net-zero alignment to meet IESO demand forecasts and EV manufacturing loads.

Key Points

A plan to expand emissions-free power via renewables and nuclear, cut natural gas use, and meet growing demand.

✅ Targets renewables, hydro, and nuclear capacity growth

✅ Aims to reduce reliance on gas for grid reliability

✅ Aligns with IESO demand forecasts and EV manufacturing loads

Ontario is working toward filling all of the province’s quickly growing electricity needs with emissions-free sources, including a plan to secure new renewable generation and clean power options, but isn’t quite ready to commit to a moratorium on natural gas.

Energy Minister Todd Smith announced Monday a plan to address growing energy needs for 2030 to 2050 — the Independent Electricity System Operator projects Ontario’s electricity demand could double by mid-century — and next steps involve looking for new wind, solar and hydroelectric power.

“While we may not need to start building today, government and those in the energy sector need to start planning immediately, so we have new clean, zero-emissions projects ready to go when we need them,” Smith said in Windsor, Ont.

The strategy also includes two nuclear projects announced last week — a new large-scale nuclear plant at Bruce Power on the shore of Lake Huron and three new small modular reactors at the site of the Darlington nuclear plant east of Toronto.

Those projects, enough to power six million homes, will help Ontario end its reliance on natural gas to generate electricity, said Smith, but committing to a natural gas moratorium in 2027 and eliminating natural gas by 2050 is contingent on the federal government helping to speed up the new nuclear facilities.

“Today’s report, the Powering Ontario’s Growth plan, commits us to working towards a 100 per cent clean grid,” Smith said in an interview.

“Hopefully the federal government can get on board with our intentions to build this clean generation as quickly as possible … That will put us in a much better position to use our natural gas facilities less in the future, if we can get those new projects online.”

The IESO has said that natural gas is required to ensure supply and stability in the short to medium term, as Ontario works on balancing demand and emissions across the grid, but that it will also increase greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector.

The province is expected to face increased demand for electricity from expanded electric vehicle use and manufacturing in the coming years, even as a $400-billion cost estimate for greening the grid is debated.

Keith Brooks, programs director for Environmental Defence, said the provincial plan could have been much more robust, containing firm timelines and commitments.

“This plan does not commit to getting emissions out of the system,” he said.

“It doesn’t commit to net zero, doesn’t set a timeline for a net zero goal or have any projection around emissions from Ontario’s electricity sector going forward. In fact, it’s not really a plan. It doesn’t set out any real goals and it doesn’t it doesn’t project what Ontario’s supply mix might look like.”

The Canadian Climate Institute applauded the plan’s focus on reducing reliance on gas-fired generation and emphasizing non-emitting generation, but also said there are still some question marks.

“The plan is silent on whether the province intends to construct new gas-fired generation facilities,” even as new gas plant expansions are proposed, senior research director Jason Dion wrote in a statement.

“The province should avoid building new gas plants since cost-effective alternatives are available, and such facilities are likely to end up as stranded assets. The province’s timeline for reaching net zero generation is also unclear. Canada and other G7 countries have set a target for 2035, something Ontario will need to address if it wants to remain competitive.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News