Carbon capture project leaking, say neighbours

US Electricity Generation H1 2018 saw wind and solar gains but hydro declines, as natural gas led the grid mix and coal fell; renewables' share, GWh, emissions, and capacity additions shaped the power sector.

Key Points

It is the H1 2018 US power mix, where natural gas led, coal declined, and wind and solar grew while hydro fell.

✅ Natural gas reached 32% of generation, highest share

✅ Coal fell; renewables roughly tied nuclear at ~20%

✅ Wind and solar up; hydro output down vs 2017

To complement our revival of US electricity capacity reports, here’s a revival of our reports on US electricity generation.

As with the fresh new capacity report, things are not looking too bright when it comes to electricity generation. There’s still a lot of grey — in the bar charts below, in the skies near fossil fuel power plants, and in the human and planetary outlook based on how slowly we are cutting fossil fuel electricity generation.

As you can see in the charts above, wind and solar energy generation increased notably from the first half of 2017 to the first half of 2018, and the EIA expected larger summer solar and wind generation in subsequent months, reinforcing that momentum.

A large positive when it comes to the environment and human health is that coal generation dropped a great deal year over year — by even more than renewables increased, though the EIA later noted an increase in coal-fired generation in a subsequent year, complicating the trend. However, on the down side, natural gas soared as it became the #1 source of electricity generation in the United States (32% of US electricity). Furthermore, coal was still solidly in the #2 position (27% of US electricity). Renewables and nuclear were essentially in a tie at 19.8% of generation, with renewables just a tad above nuclear.

Actually, combined with an increase in nuclear power generation, natural gas electricity production increased so much that the renewable energy share of electricity generation actually dropped in the first half of 2018 versus the first half of 2017, even amid declining electricity use in some periods. It was 19.8% this year and 20% last year.

Again, solar and wind saw a significant growth in its market share, from 9% to 9.9%, but hydro brought the whole category down due to a decrease from 9% to 8%.

The visuals above are probably the best way to examine it all. The H1 2018 chart was still dominated by fossil fuels, which together accounted for approximately 60% of electricity generation, even though by 2021 non-fossil sources supplied about 40% of U.S. electricity, highlighting the longer-term shift. In H1 2017, the figure was 59.7%. Furthermore, if you switch to the “Change H1 2018 vs H1 2017 (GWh)” chart, you can watch a giant grey bar representing natural gas take over the top of the chart. It almost looks like it’s part of the border of the chart. The biggest glimmer of positivity in that chart is seeing the decline in coal at the bottom.

What will the second half of the year bring? Well, the gigantic US electricity generation market shifts slowly, even as monthly figures can swing, as January generation jumped 9.3% year over year according to the EIA, reminding us about volatility. There is so much base capacity, and power plants last so long, that it takes a special kind of magic to create a rapid transition to renewable energy. As you know from reading this quarter’s US renewable energy capacity report, only 43% of new US power capacity in the first half of the year was from renewables. The majority of it was from natural gas. Along with other portions of the calculation, that means that electricity generation from natural gas is likely to increase more than electricity generation from renewables.

Jump into the numbers below and let us know if you have any more thoughts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Quebec Windstorm 2025 disrupted Montreal and surrounding regions, triggering power outages, Hydro-Québec repairs, fallen trees, infrastructure damage, and transport delays, while emergency response and community resilience accelerated restoration and recovery efforts across the province.

Key Points

A severe April 29 windstorm with 100 km/h gusts caused outages, damage, and emergency recovery across Quebec.

✅ Gusts exceeded 100 km/h across Montreal and nearby regions

✅ Hydro-Québec restored power; crews cleared debris and lines

✅ Communities shared resources, shelters, and volunteer support

A powerful windstorm swept across Quebec on April 29, 2025, leaving tens of thousands of residents without electricity and causing significant damage to infrastructure. The storm's intensity disrupted daily life, leading to widespread outages across the province, fallen trees, and transportation delays.

Storm's Impact

The windstorm, characterized by gusts exceeding 100 km/h, struck various regions of Quebec, including Montreal and its surrounding areas. Hydro-Québec reported extensive power outages affecting numerous customers. The storm's ferocity led to the uprooting of trees, downing of power lines, and significant damage to buildings and vehicles.

Response and Recovery Efforts

In the aftermath, emergency services and utility companies mobilized to restore power and clear debris. Hydro-Québec crews worked tirelessly, much like Sudbury Hydro teams did in Ontario, to repair damaged infrastructure, while municipal authorities coordinated efforts to ensure public safety and facilitate the restoration process. Despite these efforts, some areas experienced prolonged outages, highlighting the storm's severity.

Community Resilience

Residents demonstrated remarkable resilience during the crisis. Many communities came together to support one another, as seen when Toronto neighborhoods rallied during lingering outages, sharing resources and providing assistance to those in need. Local shelters were set up to offer warmth and supplies to displaced individuals, and volunteers played a crucial role in the recovery process.

Lessons Learned

The storm underscored the importance of preparedness and infrastructure resilience, including vulnerabilities highlighted by a recent manhole fire affecting Hydro-Québec customers. In response, discussions have been initiated regarding the strengthening of power grids and the implementation of more robust emergency response strategies to mitigate the impact of future natural disasters.

As Quebec continues to recover, the collective efforts of its residents and emergency services serve as a testament to the province's strength and unity, even as similar strong-wind outages affect other regions, in the face of adversity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

PG&E Bankruptcy Plan outlines wildfire victims compensation via a $13.5B trust funded by cash and stock, aiming CPUC and court approval before June 30 to access the state wildfire insurance fund and finalize settlement.

Key Points

A regulator-approved plan funding a $13.5B wildfire victims trust with cash and PG&E stock to exit bankruptcy.

✅ $13.5B trust split between cash and PG&E shares

✅ Targets CPUC and court approval to meet June 30 deadline

✅ Accesses state wildfire insurance fund for future risks

Pacific Gas & Electric's plan for getting out of bankruptcy has won overwhelming support from the victims of deadly Northern California wildfires ignited by the utility's fraying electrical grid, while some have pursued mega-fire lawsuits through the courts as well, despite concerns that they will be shortchanged by a $13.5 billion fund that's supposed to cover their losses.

The company announced the preliminary results of the vote on Monday without providing a specific tally. Those numbers are supposed to be filed with U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali by Friday.

The backing of the wildfire victims keeps PG&E on track to meet a June 30 deadline to emerge from bankruptcy in time to qualify for a coverage from a California wildfire insurance fund created to help protect the utility from getting into financial trouble again.

The current bankruptcy case, which began early last year, will require PG&E to pay out about $25.5 billion to cover the devastation caused by its neglect, including a Camp Fire guilty plea that underscored liabilities in court proceedings. It's the second time in less than 20 years that PG&E has filed for bankruptcy.

The backing for PG&E's plan isn't a surprise, even though some of the roughly 80,000 wildfire victims had been trying to rally resistance to what they consider to be a deeply flawed plan. The misgivings mostly center on the massive debt that the utility will take on to finance the plan and uncertainties about the fluctuating value of the $6.75 billion in company stock that comprises half of the $13.5 billion promised them.

As it became apparent that the COVID-19 pandemic would drive the economy into a deep recession, PG&E's shares plunged along with the rest of the stock market during March, even as it announced pandemic response measures for customers and employees during that period. That led one financial expert to estimate the PG&E stock earmarked for the wildfire victims' trust would be worth only $4.85 billion, a nearly 30% markdown.

But PG&E's stock price has rebounded in recent weeks and it's now worth more than it was when the deal setting up the victims' trust was struck last December. The shares surged more than 8% to $12.28 in Monday's late afternoon trading. The stock stood at $9.65 when PG&E reached its settlement the wildfire victims.

Critics of the utility's plan also are upset because the company still hasn't specified when the fire victims will be able to sell the shares. It now seems likely the victims will have to hold the stock through the upcoming wildfire season in Northern California, raising the specter that another calamity caused by the utility's badly outdated equipment, as power line fire reports have underscored, could cause the shares to plummet before they can cash out.

A petition signed by more than 3,100 wildfire victims recently urged Gov. Gavin Newsom to consider pushing back the deadline for qualifying for the state's wildfire from June 30 to late August to allow for more time to revise PG&E's plan, as many also turn to a wildfire assistance program for interim aid while they wait. Newsom's office hasn't responded to inquiry about the plan from The Associated Press.

But the lawyers representing the wildfire victims advised their clients to vote in favor of PG&E's plan, contending that it's the best deal they are going to get.

PG&E still must get its plan approved by the judge supervising its case, and a recent judge order on dividend use underscores the focus on wildfire mitigation. The confirmation hearings are scheduled to begin May 27. The judge, though, has indicated he will give great weight to the wishes of the wildfire victims.

California state regulators also must approve PG&E's plan, amid projections that rates will stabilize in 2025 for customers. A vote on that is scheduled Thursday before the Public Utilities Commission.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

US Summer Energy Bills Crisis is driven by record heatwaves, soaring electricity prices, AC cooling demand, energy poverty risks, and LIHEAP relief, straining low-income households, vulnerable seniors, and budgets amid volatile utilities and peak demand.

Key Points

Rising household energy costs from extreme heat, higher electricity prices, and AC demand, straining vulnerable families.

✅ Record heatwaves drive peak electricity and cooling loads

✅ Tiered rates and volatile markets inflate utility bills

✅ LIHEAP aid and cooling centers offer short-term relief

As the sweltering heat of summer continues to grip much of the United States, American households are grappling with a staggering rise in energy bills. The combination of record-breaking temperatures and rising electricity prices is placing an unprecedented financial strain on families, raising concerns about the long-term impact on household budgets and overall well-being.

Record Heat and Energy Consumption

This summer has witnessed some of the hottest temperatures on record across the country. With many regions experiencing prolonged heatwaves, the demand for air conditioning and cooling systems has surged amid unprecedented electricity demand across parts of the U.S. The increased use of these energy-intensive appliances has led to a sharp rise in electricity consumption, which, combined with elevated energy prices, has pushed household energy bills to new heights.

The situation is particularly dire for households that are already struggling financially. Many families are facing energy bills that are not only higher than usual but are reaching levels that are unsustainable, underscoring electricity struggles for thousands of families across the country. This has prompted concerns about the potential for energy poverty, where individuals are forced to make difficult choices between paying for essential services and covering other necessary expenses.

Impact on Low-Income and Vulnerable Households

Low-income households and vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected by these soaring energy costs. For many, the financial burden of high energy bills is compounded by energy insecurity during the pandemic and other economic pressures, such as rising food prices and stagnant wages. The strain of paying for electricity during extreme heat can lead to tough decisions, including cutting back on other essential needs like healthcare or education.

Moreover, the heat itself poses a serious health risk, particularly for the elderly, children, and individuals with pre-existing health conditions. High temperatures can exacerbate conditions such as cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses, making the need for reliable cooling even more critical. For those struggling to afford adequate cooling, the risk of heat-related illnesses and fatalities increases significantly.

Utilities and Energy Pricing

The sharp rise in energy bills can be attributed to several factors, including higher costs of electricity production and distribution. The ongoing transition to cleaner energy sources, while necessary for long-term environmental sustainability, has introduced short-term volatility in energy markets. Additionally, power-company supply chain crises and increased demand during peak summer months have contributed to higher prices.

Utilities are often criticized for their pricing structures, which can be complex and opaque. Some regions, including areas where California electricity bills soar under scrutiny, use tiered pricing models that charge higher rates as energy consumption increases. This can disproportionately impact households that need to use more energy during extreme heat, further exacerbating financial strain.

Government and Community Response

In response to the crisis, various government and community initiatives are being rolled out to provide relief. Federal and state programs aimed at assisting low-income households with energy costs are being expanded. These programs, such as the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), offer financial assistance to help with utility bills, but demand often outstrips available resources.

Local community organizations are also stepping in to offer support. Initiatives include distributing fans and portable air conditioners, providing temporary cooling centers, and offering financial assistance to help cover energy costs. These efforts are crucial in helping to mitigate the immediate impact of high energy bills on vulnerable households.

Long-Term Solutions and Sustainability

The current crisis highlights the need for long-term solutions to address both the causes and consequences of high energy costs. Investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies can help reduce the overall demand for electricity and lower long-term costs. Improvements in building insulation, the adoption of energy-efficient appliances, and advancements in smart grid technologies to prevent summer power outages are all essential components of a sustainable energy future.

Furthermore, addressing income inequality and supporting economic stability are critical to ensuring that all households can manage their energy needs without facing financial hardship. Policymakers will need to consider a range of strategies, including financial support programs, regulatory reforms, and infrastructure investments, to create a more equitable and resilient energy system.

Conclusion

As American households endure the double burden of extreme summer heat and skyrocketing energy bills, the need for immediate relief and long-term solutions has never been clearer. The current crisis serves as a reminder of the broader challenges facing the nation’s energy system and the importance of addressing both short-term needs and long-term sustainability. By investing in efficient technologies, supporting vulnerable populations, and developing resilient infrastructure, the U.S. can work towards a future where energy costs are manageable, and everyone has access to the resources they need to stay safe and comfortable.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Pickering Nuclear Generating Station Refurbishment will enable OPG to deliver reliable, clean electricity in Ontario, cut CO2 emissions, support jobs, boost Cobalt-60 medical isotopes supply, and proceed under CNSC oversight alongside small modular reactor leadership.

Key Points

A plan to assess and renew Pickering's B units, extending safe, clean, low-cost power in Ontario for up to 30 years.

✅ Extends zero-emissions baseload by up to 30 years

✅ Requires CNSC approval and rigorous safety oversight

✅ Supports Ontario jobs and Cobalt-60 isotope production

The Ontario government is supporting Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) continued safe operation of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. At the Ontario government’s request, as a formal extension request deadline approaches, OPG reviewed their operational plans and concluded that the facility could continue to safely generate electricity.

“Keeping Pickering safely operating will provide clean, low-cost, and reliable electricity to support the incredible economic growth and new jobs we’re seeing, while building a healthier Ontario for everyone,” said Todd Smith, Minister of Energy. “Nuclear power has been the safe and reliable backbone of Ontario’s electricity system since the 1970s and our government is working to secure that legacy for the future. Our leadership on Small Modular Reactors and consideration of a refurbishment of Pickering Nuclear Generating Station are critical steps on that path.”

Maintaining operations of Pickering Nuclear Generation Station will also protect good-paying jobs for thousands of workers in the region and across the province. OPG, which reported 2016 financial results that provide context for its operations, employs approximately 4,500 staff to support ongoing operation at its Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. In total, there are about 7,500 jobs across Ontario related to the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station.

Further operation of Pickering Nuclear Generating Station beyond September 2026 would require a complete refurbishment. The last feasibility study was conducted between 2006 and 2009. With significant economic growth and increasing electrification of industry and transportation, and a growing electricity supply gap across the province, Ontario has asked OPG to update its feasibility assessment for refurbishing Pickering “B” units at the Nuclear Generating Station, based on the latest information, as a prudent due diligence measure to support future electricity planning decisions. Refurbishment of Pickering Nuclear Generating Station could result in an additional 30 years of reliable, clean and zero-emissions electricity from the facility.

“Pickering Nuclear Generating Station has never been stronger in terms of both safety and performance,” said Ken Hartwick, OPG President and CEO. “Due to ongoing investments and the efforts of highly skilled and dedicated employees, Pickering can continue to safely and reliably produce the clean electricity Ontarians need.”

Keeping Pickering Nuclear Generating Station operational would ensure Ontario has reliable, clean, and low-cost energy, even as planning for clean energy when Pickering closes continues across the system, while reducing CO2 emissions by 2.1 megatonnes in 2026. This represents an approximate 20 per cent reduction in projected emissions from the electricity sector in that year, which is the equivalent of taking up to 643,000 cars off the road annually. It would also increase North America’s supply of Cobalt-60, a medical isotope used in cancer treatments and medical equipment sterilization, by about 10 to 20 per cent.

OPG requires approval from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) for its revised schedule. The CNSC, which employs a rigorous and transparent decision-making process, will make the final decision regarding Pickering’s safe operating life, even though the station was slated to close as planned earlier. OPG will continue to ensure the safety of the Pickering facility through rigorous monitoring, inspections, and testing.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News