Utility eyes $13 million Cape Ann power boost

Energy Poverty in Extreme Heat exposes vulnerable households to heatwaves, utility shutoffs, and unreliable grid infrastructure, straining public health. Community nonprofits, cooling centers, and policy reform aim to improve electricity access, resilience, and affordable energy.

Key Points

Without reliable, affordable power in heatwaves, health risks rise and cooling, food storage, and daily needs suffer.

✅ Risks: heat illness, dehydration, and indoor temperatures above 90F

✅ Causes: utility shutoffs, aging grid, unpaid bills, remote areas

✅ Relief: cooling centers, aid programs, weatherization, bill credits

In a particular pocket of America, approximately 13,000 families endure the dual challenges of sweltering heat and living without electricity, and the broader risk of summer shut-offs highlights how widespread these pressures have become across the country. This article examines the factors contributing to their plight, the impact of living without electricity during hot weather, and efforts to alleviate these hardships.

Challenges Faced by Families

For these 13,000 families, daily life is significantly impacted by the absence of electricity, especially during the scorching summer months. Without access to cooling systems such as air conditioners or fans, residents are exposed to dangerously high temperatures, which can lead to heat-related illnesses and discomfort, particularly among vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and individuals with health conditions, where electricity's role in public health became especially evident.

Causes of Electricity Shortages

The reasons behind the electricity shortages vary. In some cases, it may be due to economic challenges that prevent families from paying utility bills, resulting in disconnections. Other factors include outdated or unreliable electrical infrastructure in underserved communities, as reflected in a recent grid vulnerability report that underscores systemic risks, where maintenance and upgrades are often insufficient to meet growing demand.

Impact of Extreme Heat

During heatwaves, the lack of electricity exacerbates health risks and quality of life issues for affected families, aligning with reports of more frequent outages across the U.S. Furthermore, the absence of refrigeration and cooking facilities can compromise food safety and nutritional intake, further impacting household well-being.

Community Support and Resilience

Despite these challenges, communities and organizations often rally to support families living without electricity. Local nonprofits, community centers, and government agencies provide assistance such as distributing fans, organizing cooling centers, and delivering essentials like bottled water and non-perishable food items during heatwaves to alleviate immediate hardships and improve summer blackout preparedness in vulnerable neighborhoods.

Long-term Solutions

Addressing electricity access issues requires comprehensive, long-term solutions. These may include policy reforms to ensure equitable access to affordable energy, investments in upgrading infrastructure in underserved areas, and expanding financial assistance programs to help families maintain uninterrupted electricity service, in recognition that climate change risks increasingly stress the grid.

Advocacy and Awareness

Advocacy efforts play a crucial role in raising awareness about the challenges faced by families living without electricity and advocating for sustainable solutions. By highlighting these issues, community leaders, activists, and policymakers can work together to drive policy changes, secure funding for infrastructure improvements, and promote energy efficiency initiatives, drawing lessons from Canada's harsh-weather grid exposures that illustrate regional vulnerabilities.

Building Resilience

Building resilience in vulnerable communities involves not only improving access to reliable electricity but also enhancing preparedness for extreme weather events. This includes developing emergency response plans, educating residents about heat safety measures, and fostering community partnerships to support those in need during crises.

Conclusion

As temperatures rise and climate impacts intensify, addressing the plight of families living without electricity becomes increasingly urgent. By prioritizing equitable access to energy, investing in resilient infrastructure, and fostering community resilience, stakeholders can work towards ensuring that all families have access to essential services, even during the hottest months of the year. Collaborative efforts between government, nonprofit organizations, and community members are essential in creating sustainable solutions that improve quality of life and promote health and well-being for all residents.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

B.C. EV Electrification 2055 projects grid capacity needs doubling to 37 GW, driven by electric vehicles, renewable energy expansion, wind and solar generation, limited natural gas, and policy mandates for zero-emission transportation.

Key Points

A projection that electrifying all B.C. road transport by 2055 would more than double grid demand to 37 GW.

✅ Site C adds 1.1 GW; rest from wind, solar, limited natural gas.

✅ Electricity price per kWh rises 9%, but fuel savings offset.

✅ Significant GHG cuts with 93% renewable grid under Clean Energy Act.

Researchers at the University of Victoria say that if B.C. were to shift to electric power for all road vehicles by 2055, the province would require more than double the electricity now being generated.

The findings are included in a study to be published in the November issue of the Applied Energy journal.

According to co-author and UVic professor Curran Crawford, the team at the university's Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions took B.C.'s 2015 electrical capacity of 15.6 gigawatts as a baseline, and added projected demands from population and economic growth, then added the increase that shifting to electric vehicles would require, while acknowledging power supply challenges that could arise.

They calculated the demand in 2055 would amount to 37 gigawatts, more than double 15.6 gigawatts used in 2015 as a baseline, and utilities warn of a potential EV charging bottleneck if demand ramps up faster than infrastructure.

"We wanted to understand what the electricity requirements are if you want to do that," he said. "It's possible — it would take some policy direction."

B.C. announces $4M in rebates for home and work EV charging stations across the province
The team took the planned Site C dam project into account, but that would only add 1.1 gigawatts of power. So assuming no other hydroelectric dams are planned, the remainder would likely have to come from wind and solar projects and some natural gas.

"Geothermal and biomass were also in the model," said Crawford, adding that they are more expensive electricity sources. "The model we were using, essentially, we're looking for the cheapest options."
Wind turbines on the Tantramar Marsh between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick tower over the Trans-Canada Highway. If British Columbia were to shift to 100 per cent electric-powered ground transportation by 2055, the province would have to significantly increase its wind and solar power generation. (Eric Woolliscroft/CBC)
The electricity bill, per kilowatt hour, would increase by nine per cent, according to the team's research, but Crawford said getting rid of the gasoline and diesel now used to fuel vehicles could amount to an overall cost saving, especially when combined with zero-emission vehicle incentives available to consumers.

The province introduced a law this year requiring that all new light-duty vehicles sold in B.C. be zero emission by 2040, while the federal 2035 EV mandate adds another policy signal, so the researchers figured 2055 was a reasonable date to imagine all vehicles on the road to be electric.

Crawford said hydrogen-powered vehicles weren't considered in the study, as the model used was already complicated enough, but hydrogen fuel would actually require more electricity for the electrolysis, when compared to energy stored in batteries.

Electric vehicles are approaching a tipping point as faster charging becomes more available — here's why
The study also found that shifting to all-electric ground transportation in B.C. would also mean a significant decrease in greenhouse gas emissions, assuming the Clean Energy Act remains in place, which mandates that 93 per cent of grid electricity must come from renewable resources, whereas nationally, about 18 per cent of electricity still comes from fossil fuels, according to 2019 data. 

"Doing the electrification makes some sense — If you're thinking of spending some money to reduce carbon emissions, this is a pretty cost effective way of doing that," said Crawford.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Electric Ireland Electricity Price Increase stems from rising wholesale costs as energy suppliers adjust tariffs. Customers face higher electricity bills, while gas remains unchanged; switching provider could deliver savings during winter.

Key Points

A 4% increase in Electric Ireland electricity prices from 1 Feb 2018, driven by wholesale costs; gas unchanged.

✅ 4% electricity rise effective 1 Feb 2018

✅ Increase attributed to rising wholesale energy costs

✅ Switching supplier may reduce bills and boost savings

ELECTRIC IRELAND has announced that it will increase its household electricity prices by 4% from 1 February 2018.

This comes just a week after both Bord Gáis Energy and SSE Airtricity announced increases in their gas and electricity prices, while national efforts to secure electricity supplies continue in parallel.

Electric Ireland has said that the electricity price increase is unavoidable due to the rising wholesale cost of electricity, with EU electricity prices trending higher as well.

The electricity provider said it has no plans to increase residential gas prices at the moment.

Commenting on the latest announcement, Eoin Clarke, managing director of Switcher.ie, said: “This is the third largest energy supplier to announce a price increase in the last week, so the other suppliers are probably not far behind.

“The fact that the rise is not coming into effect until 1 February will be welcomed by Electric Ireland customers who are worried about the rising cost of energy as winter sets in,” he said.

However, any increase is still bad news, especially as a quarter of consumers (27%) say their energy bill already puts them under financial pressure, and EU energy inflation has disproportionately affected lower-income households.

According to Electric Ireland, this will amount to a €2.91 per month increase for an average electricity customer, amounting to €35 per year.

Meanwhile, SSE Airtricity’s change amounts to an increase of 90 cent per week or €46.80 per year for someone with average consumption on their 24hr SmartSaver standard tariff, far below the dramatic Spain electricity price surge seen recently.

Bord Gáis Energy said its announcement will increase a typical gas bill by €2.12 a month and a typical electricity bill by €4.77 a month, reflecting wider trends such as the Germany power price spike reported recently.

In a statement, Bord Gáis Energy said: “The changes, which will take effect from 1st November 2017, are due to significant increases in the wholesale cost of energy as well as higher costs associated with distributing energy on the gas and electricity networks.

“In percentage terms, the increase represents 3.4% in a typical customer’s gas bill and an increase of 5.9% in a typical customer’s electricity bill.”

Clark said that if customers haven’t switched electricity provider in over a year that they should review the deals available at the moment.

“The market is highly competitive so there are huge savings to be made by switching,” he said.

“All suppliers use the same cables to supply electricity to your home, so you don’t need to worry about any loss in service, and you could save up to 324 by switching from typical standard tariffs to the cheapest deals on the market.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S. Energy Dominance envisions deregulation, oil and gas growth, LNG exports, pipelines, and geopolitical leverage, while facing OPEC pricing power, infrastructure bottlenecks, climate policy pressures, and accelerating renewables in global markets.

Key Points

U.S. policy to grow fossil fuel output and exports via deregulation, bolstering energy security, geopolitical influence.

✅ Deregulation to expand drilling, pipelines, and export capacity

✅ Exposed to OPEC pricing, global shocks, and cost competitiveness

✅ Faces infrastructure, ESG finance, and renewables transition risks

Former President Donald Trump has consistently advocated for “energy dominance” as a cornerstone of his energy policy. In his vision, the United States would leverage its abundant natural resources to achieve energy self-sufficiency, flood global markets with cheap energy, and undercut competitors like Russia and OPEC nations. However, while the rhetoric resonates with many Americans, particularly those in energy-producing states, the pursuit of energy dominance faces significant real-world challenges that could limit its feasibility and impact.

The Energy Dominance Vision

Trump’s energy dominance strategy revolves around deregulation, increased domestic production of oil and gas, and the rollback of climate-oriented restrictions. During his presidency, he emphasized opening federal lands to drilling, accelerating the approval of pipelines, and, through an executive order, boosting uranium and nuclear energy initiatives, as well as withdrawing from international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord. The goal was not only to meet domestic energy demands but also to establish the U.S. as a major exporter of fossil fuels, thereby reducing reliance on foreign energy sources.

This approach gained traction during Trump’s first term, with the U.S. achieving record levels of oil and natural gas production. Energy exports surged, making the U.S. a net energy exporter for the first time in decades. Yet, critics argue that this policy prioritizes short-term economic gains over long-term sustainability, while supporters believe it provides a roadmap for energy security and geopolitical leverage.

Market Realities

The energy market is complex, influenced by factors beyond the control of any single administration, with energy crisis impacts often cascading across sectors. While the U.S. has significant reserves of oil and gas, the global market sets prices. Even if the U.S. ramps up production, it cannot insulate itself entirely from price shocks caused by geopolitical instability, OPEC production cuts, or natural disasters.

For instance, despite record production in the late 2010s, American consumers faced volatile gasoline prices during an energy crisis driven by $5 gas and external factors like tensions in the Middle East and fluctuating global demand. Additionally, the cost of production in the U.S. is often higher than in countries with more easily accessible reserves, such as Saudi Arabia. This limits the competitive advantage of U.S. energy producers in global markets.

Infrastructure and Environmental Concerns

A major obstacle to achieving energy dominance is infrastructure. Expanding oil and gas production requires investments in pipelines, export terminals, and refineries. However, these projects often face delays due to regulatory hurdles, legal challenges, and public opposition. High-profile pipeline projects like Keystone XL and Dakota Access have become battlegrounds between industry proponents and environmental activists, and cross-border dynamics such as support for Canadian energy projects amid tariff threats further complicate permitting, highlighting the difficulty of reconciling energy expansion with environmental and community concerns.

Moreover, the transition to cleaner energy sources is accelerating globally, with many countries committing to net-zero emissions targets. This trend could reduce the demand for fossil fuels in the long run, potentially leaving U.S. producers with stranded assets if global markets shift more quickly than anticipated.

Geopolitical Implications

Trump’s energy dominance strategy also hinges on the belief that U.S. energy exports can weaken adversaries like Russia and Iran. While increased American exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe have reduced the continent’s reliance on Russian gas, achieving total energy independence for allies is a monumental task. Europe’s energy infrastructure, designed for pipeline imports from Russia, cannot be overhauled overnight to accommodate LNG shipments.

Additionally, the influence of major producers like Saudi Arabia and the OPEC+ alliance remains significant, even as shifts in U.S. policy affect neighbors; in Canada, some viewed Biden as better for the energy sector than alternatives. These countries can adjust production levels to influence prices, sometimes undercutting U.S. efforts to expand its market share.

The Renewable Energy Challenge

The growing focus on renewable energy adds another layer of complexity. Solar, wind, and battery storage technologies are becoming increasingly cost-competitive with fossil fuels. Many U.S. states and private companies are investing heavily in clean energy to align with consumer preferences and global trends, amid arguments that stepping away from fossil fuels can bolster national security. This shift could dampen the domestic demand for oil and gas, challenging the long-term viability of Trump’s energy dominance agenda.

Moreover, international pressure to address climate change could limit the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure. Financial institutions and investors are increasingly reluctant to fund projects perceived as environmentally harmful, further constraining growth in the sector.

While Trump’s call for U.S. energy dominance taps into a desire for economic growth and energy security, it faces numerous challenges. Global market dynamics, infrastructure bottlenecks, environmental concerns, and the transition to renewable energy all pose significant barriers to achieving the ambitious vision.

For the U.S. to navigate these challenges effectively, a balanced approach that incorporates both traditional energy sources and investments in clean energy is likely needed. Striking this balance will require careful policymaking that considers not just immediate economic gains but also long-term sustainability and global competitiveness.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Energy-Only Electricity Market faces capacity market debate, AESO price cap review, and coal-to-gas shifts by TransAlta and Capital Power, balancing reliability with volatility as investment signals evolve across Alberta's grid.

Key Points

An energy market paying generators only for electricity sold, with AESO oversight and a price cap guiding new capacity.

✅ AESO reviewing $999 per MW-h wholesale price cap.

✅ UCP retained energy-only; capacity market plan cancelled.

✅ TransAlta and Capital Power shift to coal-to-gas.

The Kenney government’s decision to cancel the redesign of Alberta’s electricity system to a capacity market won’t side-track two of the province’s largest power generators from converting coal-fired facilities to burn natural gas as part of Alberta’s shift from coal to cleaner energy overall.

But other changes could be coming to the province’s existing energy-only electricity market — including the alteration of the $999 per megawatt-hour (MW-h) wholesale price cap in Alberta.

The heads of TransAlta Corp. and Capital Power Corp. are proceeding with strategies to convert existing coal-fired power generating facilities to use natural gas in the coming years.

Calgary-based TransAlta first announced in 2017 that it would make the switch, as the NDP government was in the midst of overhauling the electricity sector and wind generation began to outpace coal in the province.

At the time, the Notley government planned to phase out coal-fired power by 2030, even as Alberta moved to retire coal by 2023 in practice, and shift Alberta into an electricity capacity market in 2021.

Such a move, made on the recommendation of the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), was intended to reduce price volatility and ensure system reliability.

Under the energy-only market, generators receive payments for electricity produced and sold into the grid. In a capacity market, generators are also paid for having power available on demand, regardless of how often they sell energy into the provincial grid.

The UCP government decided last month to ditch plans for a capacity market after consulting with the sector, saying it would be better for consumers.

On a conference call, TransAlta CEO Dawn Farrell said the company will convert coal-fired generating plants to burn gas, although it may alter the mix between simple conversions and switching to so-called “hybrid” plants.

(A hybrid conversion is a larger and more-expensive switch, as it includes installing a new gas turbine and heat-recovery steam generator, but it creates a highly efficient combined cycle unit.)

“Our view is fundamentally that carbon will be priced over the next 20 years no matter what,” she said Friday.

“We cannot get off coal fast enough in this company, and gas right now in Alberta is extremely inexpensive…

“So our coal-to-gas strategy is completely predicated on our belief that it’s not smart to be in carbon-intensive fuels for the future.”

Elsewhere in Canada, the Stop the Shock campaign has advocated for reviving coal power, underscoring ongoing policy debates.

The company said it’s planning the coal-to-gas conversion and re-powering of some or all of the units at its Keephills and Sundance facilities to gas-fired generation sometime between 2020 and 2023.

Similarly, Capital Power CEO Brian Vaasjo said the Edmonton-based company is moving ahead with a project that will allow it to burn both coal and natural gas at its Genesee generating station, even as Ontario’s energy minister sought to explore a halt to natural gas generation elsewhere.

In June, the company announced it would spend an estimated $50 million between 2019 and 2021 to allow it to use gas at the facility.

“What we’re doing is going to be dual fuel, so we will be able to operate 100 per cent natural gas or 100 per cent coal and everything in between,” Vaasjo said in an interview.

“You can expect to see we will be burning coal in the winter when natural gas prices are high, and we will be burning natural gas in summer when gas prices are real low.”

The transition comes as the government’s decision to stick with the energy-only market has been welcomed by players in the industry, and as Alberta's electricity future increasingly leans on wind resources.

A study by electricity consultancy EDC Associates found the capacity market would result in consumers paying an extra $1.4 billion in direct costs in 2021-22, as it required more generation to come online earlier than expected.

These additional costs would have accumulated to $10 billion by 2030, said EDC chief executive Duane-Reid Carlson.

For Capital Power, the decision to stick with the current system makes the province more investable in the future. Vaasjo said there was great uncertainty about the transition to a capacity market, and the possibility of rules shifting further.

Officials with Enmax Corp. said the city-owned utility would not have invested in future generation under the proposed capacity market.

“There is no short-term need (today) for new generation, so we’re just looking at the market and saying, ‘OK, as it evolves, we will see what happens,’” said Enmax vice-president Tim Boston.

Sticking with the energy-only market doesn’t mean Alberta will keep the existing rules.

In a July 25 letter, Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage directed AESO chair Will Bridge to examine if changes to the existing market are needed and report back by July 2020.

AESO, which manages the power grid, has been asked to investigate whether the current price cap of $999 per megawatt-hour (MW-h) should be changed.

The price ceiling hasn’t been altered since the energy-only market was implemented by the Klein government about two decades ago.

While allowing prices to go higher would increase volatility, reflecting lessons from Europe’s power crisis about scarcity pricing, during periods of rising demand and limited supply, it would send a signal to generators when investment in new generation is required, said Kent Fellows, a research associate at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.

“Keeping the price (cap) too low could end up costing us more in the long run,” he said.

In a 2016 report, AESO said the province examined raising the price cap to $5,000 per MW-h, but “determined that it was unlikely to be successful in attracting investment due to increased price volatility.”

However, the amount of future generation that will be required in Alberta has been scaled back by the province.

In the United States, the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) allows wholesale power prices in the state to climb to a cap of $9,000 per megawatt hours as demand rises — as it did Tuesday in the midst of a heat wave, according to Bloomberg.

Jim Wachowich, legal counsel for the Consumers’ Coalition of Alberta, said while few players are exposed to spot electricity prices, he has yet to be convinced raising the cap would be good for Albertans.

“Someone has to show me the evidence, and I suspect that’s what the minister has asked the AESO to do,” he said.

Generators say they believe some tinkering is needed to the energy-only market to ensure new generation is built when it’s required.

“The No. 1 change that the government has to … think about is in pricing,” added Farrell.

“If you don’t have enough of a price signal in an energy-only market to attract new capital, you won’t get new capital — and you’ll run up against the wall.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Nuclear Energy Growth accelerates as nations pursue decarbonization, complement renewables, displace coal, and ensure grid reliability with firm, low-carbon baseload, benefiting from standardized builds, lower cost of capital, and learning-curve cost reductions.

Key Points

Expansion of nuclear capacity to cut CO2, complement renewables, replace coal, and stabilize grids at low-carbon cost.

✅ Complements renewables; displaces coal for faster decarbonization

✅ Cuts system costs via standardization and lower cost of capital

✅ Provides firm, low-carbon baseload and grid reliability

By Kirill Komarov, Chairman, World Nuclear Association.

As Europe and the wider world begins to wake up to the need to cut emissions, Dr Kirill Komarov argues that tackling climate change will see the use of nuclear energy grow in the coming years, not as a competitor to renewables but as a competitor to coal.

The nuclear industry keeps making headlines and spurring debates on energy policy, including the green industrial revolution agenda in several countries. With each new build project, the detractors of nuclear power crowd the bandwagon to portray renewables as an easy and cheap alternative to ‘increasingly costly’ nuclear: if solar and wind are virtually free why bother splitting atoms?

Yet, paradoxically as it may seem, if we are serious about policy response to climate change, nuclear energy is seeing an atomic energy resurgence in the coming decade or two.

Growth has already started to pick up with about 3.1 GW new capacity added in the first half of 2018 in Russia and China while, at the very least, 4GW more to be completed by the end of the year – more than doubling the capacity additions in 2017.

In 2019 new connections to the grid would exceed 10GW by a significant margin.

If nuclear is in decline, why then do China, India, Russia and other countries keep building nuclear power plants?

To begin with, the issue of cost, argued by those opposed to nuclear, is in fact largely a bogus one, which does not make a fully rounded like for like comparison.

It is true that the latest generation reactors, especially those under construction in the US and Western Europe, have encountered significant construction delays and cost overruns.

But the main, and often the only, reason for that is the ‘first-of-a-kind’ nature of those projects.

If you build something for the first time, be it nuclear, wind or solar, it is expensive. Experience shows that with series build, standardised construction economies of scale and the learning curve from multiple projects, costs come down by around one-third; and this is exactly what is already happening in some parts of the world.

Furthermore, those first-of-a-kind projects were forced to be financed 100% privately and investors had to bear all political risks. It sent the cost of capital soaring, increasing at one stroke the final electricity price by about one third.

While, according to the International Energy Agency, at 3% cost of capital rate, nuclear is the cheapest source of energy: on average 1% increase adds about US$6-7 per MWh to the final price.

When it comes to solar and wind, the truth, inconvenient for those cherishing the fantasy of a world relying 100% on renewables, is that the ‘plummeting prices’ (which, by the way, haven’t changed much over the last three years, reaching a plateau) do not factor in so-called system and balancing costs associated with the need to smooth the intermittency of renewables.

Put simply, the fact the sun doesn’t shine at night and wind doesn’t blow all the time means wind and solar generation needs to be backed up.

According to a study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, integration of intermittent renewables into the grid is estimated in some cases to be as expensive as power generation itself.

Delivering the highest possible renewable content means customers’ bills will have to cover: renewable generation costs, energy storage solutions, major grid updates and interconnections investment, as well as gas or coal peaking power plants or ‘peakers’, which work only from time to time when needed to back up wind and solar.

The expected cost for kWh for peakers, according to investment bank Lazard is about twice that of conventional power plants due to much lower capacity factors.

Despite exceptionally low fossil fuel prices, peaking natural gas generation had an eye-watering cost of $156-210 per MWh in 2017 while electricity storage, replacing ‘peakers’, would imply an extra cost of $186-413 per MWh.

Burning fossil fuels is cheaper but comes with a great deal of environmental concern and extensive use of coal would make net-zero emissions targets all but unattainable.

So, contrary to some claims, nuclear does not compete with renewables. Moreover, a recent study by the MIT Energy Initiative showed, most convincingly, that renewables and load following advanced nuclear are complementary.

Nuclear competes with coal. Phasing out coal is crucial to fighting climate change. Putting off decisions to build new nuclear capacities while increasing the share of intermittent renewables makes coal indispensable and extends its life.

Scientists at the Brattle group, a consultancy, argue that “since CO2 emissions persist for many years in the atmosphere, near-term emission reductions are more helpful for climate protection than later ones”.

The longer we hesitate with new nuclear build the more difficult it becomes to save the Earth.

Nuclear power accounta for about one-tenth of global electricity production, but as much as one-third of generation from low-carbon sources. 1GWe of installed nuclear capacity prevents emissions of 4-7 million metric tons of CO2 emissions per year, depending on the region.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that in order to limit the average global temperature increase to 2°C and still meet global power demand, we need to connect to the grid at least 20GW of new nuclear energy each year.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) sets the target even higher with the total of 1,000 GWe by 2050, or about 10 GWe per year before 2020; 25 GWe per year from 2021 to 2025; and on average 33 GWe from 2026 to 2050.

Regulatory and political challenges in the West have made life for nuclear businesses in the US and in Europe's nuclear sector very difficult, driving many of them to the edge of insolvency; but in the rest of the world nuclear energy is thriving.

Nuclear vendors and utilities post healthy profits and invest heavily in next-gen nuclear innovation and expansion. The BRICS countries are leading the way, taking over the initiative in the global climate agenda. From their perspective, it’s the opposite of decline.

Dr Kirill Komarov is first deputy CEO of Russian state nuclear energy operator Rosatom and chairman of the World Nuclear Association.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News