Carbon capture can break the old energy equation

Hedonistic Sustainability turns Copenhagen's ARC waste-to-energy plant into a public playground, blending ski slope, climbing wall, and trails with carbon-neutral heating, renewables, circular economy design, and green growth for climate action and liveability.

Key Points

A design approach fusing public recreation with clean-energy infrastructure to drive carbon-neutral, livable urban growth.

✅ Waste-to-energy plant doubles as recreation hub

✅ Supports carbon-neutral heating and renewables

✅ Stakeholder-driven, scalable urban climate model

“We call it hedonistic sustainability,” says Jacob Simonsen of the decision to put an artificial ski slope on the roof of the £485m Amager Resource Centre (Arc), Copenhagen’s cutting-edge new waste-to-energy power plant that feeds the city’s district heating network as well. “It’s not just good for the environment, it’s good for life.”

Skiing is just one of the activities that Simonsen, Arc’s chief executive, and Bjarke Ingels, its lead architect, hope will enhance the latest jewel in Copenhagen’s sustainability crown. The incinerator building also incorporates hiking and running trails, a street fitness gym and the world’s highest outdoor climbing wall, an 85-metre “natural mountain” complete with overhangs that rises the full height of the main structure.

In Copenhagen, green transformation goes hand-in-hand with job creation, a growing economy and a better quality of life

Frank Jensen, lord mayor

It’s all part of Copenhagen’s plan to be net carbon-neutral by 2025. Even now, after a summer that saw wildfires ravagethe Arctic Circle and ice sheets in Greenland suffer near-record levels of melt, the goal seems ambitious. In 2009, when the project was formulated, it was positively revolutionary.

“A green, smart, carbon-neutral city,” declared the cover of the climate action plan, aligning with a broader electric planet vision, before detailing the scale of the challenge: 100 new wind turbines; a 20% reduction in both heat and commercial electricity consumption; 75% of all journeys to be by bike, on foot, or by public transport; the biogas-ification of all organic waste; 60,000 sq metres of new solar panels; and 100% of the city’s heating requirements to be met by renewables.

Radical and far-reaching, the scheme dared to rethink the very infrastructure underpinning the city. There’s still not a climate project anywhere else in the world that comes close, even as leaders elsewhere champion a fully renewable grid by 2030.

And, so far, it’s working. CO2 emissions have been reduced by 42% since 2005, and while challenges around mobility and energy consumption remain (new technologies such as better batteries and carbon capture are being implemented, and global calls for clean electricity investment grow), the city says it is on track to achieve its ultimate goal.

More significant still is that Copenhagen has achieved this while continuing to grow in traditional economic terms. Even as some commentators insist that nothing short of a total rethink of free-market economics and corporate structures is required to stave off global catastrophe, the Danish capital’s carbon transformation has happened alongside a 25% growth in its economy over two decades. Copenhagen’s experience will be a model for other world cities as the global energy transition unfolds.

The sentiment that lies behind Arc’s conception as a multi-use public good – “hedonistic sustainability” – is echoed by Bo Asmus Kjeldgaard, former mayor of Copenhagen for the environment and the man originally tasked, back in 2010, with making the plan a reality.

“We combined life quality with sustainability and called it ‘liveability’,” says Kjeldgaard, now CEO of his own climate adaptation company, Greenovation. “We succeeded in building a good narrative around this, one that everybody could believe in.”

The idea was first floated in the late 1990s, when the newly elected Kjeldgaard had a vision of Copenhagen as the environmental capital of Europe. His enthusiasm ran into political intransigence, however, and despite some success, a lack of budget meant most of his work became “just another branding exercise – it was greenwashing”.

We’re such a rich country – change should be easy for us

Claus Nielsen, furniture maker and designer

But after stints as mayor of family and the labour market, and children and young people, he ended up back at environment in 2010 with renewed determination and, crucially, a broader mandate from the city council. “I said: ‘This time, we have to do it right,’” he recalls, “so we made detailed, concrete plans for every area, set the carbon target, and demanded the money and the manpower to make it a reality.”

He brought on board more than 200 stakeholders, from businesses to academia to citizen representatives, and helped them develop 22 specific business plans and 65 separate projects. So far the plan appears on track: there has been a 15% reduction in heat consumption, 66% of all trips in the city are now by bike, on foot or public transport, and 51% of heat and power comes from renewable electricity sources.

The onus placed on ordinary Copenhageners to walk and cycle more, pay higher taxes (especially on cars) and put up with the inconvenience of infrastructure construction has generally been met with understanding and good grace. And while some people remain critical of the fact that Copenhagen airport is not factored into the CO2 calculations – it lies beyond the city’s boundaries – and grumble about precise definitions and formulae, dissent has been rare.

This relative lack of nimbyism and carping about change can, says Frank Jensen, the city’s lord mayor, be traced to longstanding political traditions.

“Caring for the environment and taking responsibility for society in general has been an integral part of the upbringing of many Danes,” he says. “Moreover, there is a general awareness that climate change now calls for immediate, ambitious and collective action.” A 2018 survey by Concito, a thinktank, found that such action was a top priority for voters.

Jensen is keen to stress the cooperative nature of the plan and says “our visions have to be grounded in the everyday lives of people to be politically feasible”. Indeed, involving so many stakeholders, and allowing them to actively help shape both the ends and the means, has been key to the plan’s success so far and the continued goodwill it enjoys. “It’s so important to note that we [the authorities] cannot do this alone,” says Jørgen Abildgaard, Copenhagen’s executive climate programme director.

Many businesses around the world have typically been reluctant to embrace sustainability when a dip in profits or inconvenience might be the result, but not in Copenhagen. Martin Manthorpe, director of strategy, business development and public affairs at NCC, one of Scandinavia’s largest construction and industrial groups, was brought in early on by Abildgaard to represent industry on the municipality’s climate panel, and to facilitate discussions with the wider business community. He thinks there are several reasons why.

“The Danes have a trading mindset, meaning ‘What will I have to sell tomorrow?’ is just as important as ‘What am I producing today?’” he says. “Also, many big Danish companies are still ultimately family-owned, so the culture leans more towards long-term thinking.”

It is, he says, natural for business to be concerned with issues around sustainability and be willing to endure short-term pain: “To do responsible, long-term business, you need to see yourself as part of the larger puzzle that is called ‘society’.”

Furthermore, in Denmark climate change denial is given extremely short shrift. “We believe in the science,” says Anders Haugaard, a local entrepreneur. “Why wouldn’t you? We’re told sustainability brings only benefits and we’ve got no reason to be suspicious.”

“No one would dare argue against the environment,” says his friend Claus Nielsen, a furniture maker and designer. “We’re such a rich country – change should be easy for us.” Nielsen talks about how enlightened his kids are – “my 11-year-old daughter is now a flexitarian ” – and says that nowadays he mainly buys organic; Haugaard doesn’t see a problem with getting rid of petrol cars (the whole country is aiming to be fossil fuel-free by 2050 as the EU electricity use by 2050 is expected to double).

Above all, there’s a belief that sustainability need not make the city poorer: that innovation and “green growth” can be lucrative in and of themselves. “In Copenhagen, green transformation goes hand-in-hand with job creation, a growing economy and a better quality of life,” says Jensen. “We have also shown that it’s possible to combine this transition with economic growth and market opportunities for businesses, and I think that other countries can learn from our example.”

Besides, as Jensen notes, there is little alternative, and even less time: “National states have failed to take enough responsibility, but cities have the power and will to create concrete solutions. We need to start accelerating their implementation – we need to act now.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

California Biofuels vs EV Subsidies examines tradeoffs in decarbonization, greenhouse gas reductions, clean energy deployment, charging infrastructure, energy security, lifecycle emissions, and transportation sector policy to meet climate goals and accelerate sustainable mobility.

Key Points

Policy tradeoffs weighing biofuels and EVs to cut GHGs, boost energy security, and advance clean transportation.

✅ Near-term blending cuts emissions from existing fleets

✅ EVs scale with a cleaner grid and charging buildout

✅ Lifecycle impacts and costs guide optimal subsidy mix

California is at the forefront of the transition to a greener economy, driven by its ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. As part of its strategy, the state is grappling with the question of whether it should subsidize out-of-state biofuels or in-state electric vehicles (EVs) to meet these goals. Both options come with their own sets of benefits and challenges, and the decision carries significant implications for the state’s environmental, economic, and energy landscapes.

The Case for Biofuels

Biofuels have long been promoted as a cleaner alternative to traditional fossil fuels like gasoline and diesel. They are made from organic materials such as agricultural crops, algae, and waste, which means they can potentially reduce carbon emissions in comparison to petroleum-based fuels. In the context of California, biofuels—particularly ethanol and biodiesel—are viewed as a way to decarbonize the transportation sector, which is one of the state’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Subsidizing out-of-state biofuels can help California reduce its reliance on imported oil while promoting the development of biofuel industries in other states. This approach may have immediate benefits, as biofuels are widely available and can be blended with conventional fuels to lower carbon emissions right away. It also allows the state to diversify its energy sources, improving energy security by reducing dependency on oil imports.

Moreover, biofuels can be produced in many regions across the United States, including rural areas. By subsidizing out-of-state biofuels, California could foster economic development in these regions, creating jobs and stimulating agricultural innovation. This approach could also support farmers who grow the feedstock for biofuel production, boosting the agricultural economy in the U.S.

However, there are drawbacks. The environmental benefits of biofuels are often debated. Critics argue that the production of biofuels—particularly those made from food crops like corn—can contribute to deforestation, water pollution, and increased food prices. Additionally, biofuels are not a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, as their production and combustion still release greenhouse gases. When considering whether to subsidize biofuels, California must also account for the full lifecycle emissions associated with their production and use.

The Case for Electric Vehicles

In contrast to biofuels, electric vehicles (EVs) offer a more direct pathway to reducing emissions from transportation. EVs are powered by electricity, and when coupled with renewable energy sources like solar or wind power, they can provide a nearly zero-emission solution for personal and commercial transportation. California has already invested heavily in EV infrastructure, including expanding its network of charging stations and exploring how EVs can support grid stability through vehicle-to-grid approaches, and offering incentives for consumers to purchase EVs.

Subsidizing in-state EVs could stimulate job creation and innovation within California's thriving clean-tech industry, with other states such as New Mexico projecting substantial economic gains from transportation electrification, and the state has already become a hub for electric vehicle manufacturers, including Tesla, Rivian, and several battery manufacturers. Supporting the EV industry could further strengthen California’s position as a global leader in green technology, attracting investment and fostering growth in related sectors such as battery manufacturing, renewable energy, and smart grid technology.

Additionally, the environmental benefits of EVs are substantial. As the electric grid becomes cleaner with an increasing share of renewable energy, EVs will become even greener, with lower lifecycle emissions than biofuels. By prioritizing EVs, California could further reduce its carbon footprint while also achieving its long-term climate goals, including reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

However, there are challenges. EV adoption in California remains a significant undertaking, requiring major investments in infrastructure as they challenge state power grids in the near term, technology, and consumer incentives. The cost of EVs, although decreasing, still remains a barrier for many consumers. Additionally, there are concerns about the environmental impact of lithium mining, which is essential for EV batteries. While renewable energy is expanding, California’s grid is still reliant on fossil fuels to some degree, and in other jurisdictions such as Canada's 2019 electricity mix fossil generation remains significant, meaning that the full emissions benefit of EVs is not realized until the grid is entirely powered by clean energy.

A Balancing Act

The debate between subsidizing out-of-state biofuels and in-state electric vehicles is ultimately a question of how best to allocate California’s resources to meet its climate and economic goals. Biofuels may offer a quicker fix for reducing emissions from existing vehicles, but their long-term benefits are more limited compared to the transformative potential of electric vehicles, even as some analysts warn of policy pitfalls that could complicate the transition.

However, biofuels still have a role to play in decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and heavy-duty transportation, where electrification may not be as feasible in the near future. Thus, a mixed strategy that includes both subsidies for EVs and biofuels may be the most effective approach.

Ultimately, California’s decision will likely depend on a combination of factors, including technological advancements, 2021 electricity lessons, and the pace of renewable energy deployment, and the state’s ability to balance short-term needs with long-term environmental goals. The road ahead is not easy, but California's leadership in clean energy will be crucial in shaping the nation’s response to climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

US Nuclear Generating Costs 2017 show USD33.50/MWh for nuclear energy, the lowest since 2008, as capital expenditures, fuel costs, and operating costs declined after license renewals and uprates, supporting a reliable, low-carbon grid.

Key Points

The 2017 US nuclear average was USD33.50/MWh, lowest since 2008, driven by reduced capital, fuel, and operating costs.

✅ Average cost USD33.50/MWh, lowest since 2008

✅ Capital, fuel, O&M costs fell sharply since 2012 peak

✅ License renewals, uprates, market reforms shape competitiveness

Average total generating costs for nuclear energy in 2017 in the USA were at their lowest since 2008, according to a study released by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), amid a continuing nuclear decline debate in other regions.

The report, Nuclear Costs in Context, found that in 2017 the average total generating cost - which includes capital, fuel and operating costs - for nuclear energy was USD33.50 per megawatt-hour (MWh), even as interest in next-generation nuclear designs grows among stakeholders. This is 3.3% lower than in 2016 and more than 19% below 2012's peak. The reduction in costs since 2012 is due to a 40.8% reduction in capital expenditures, a 17.2% reduction in fuel costs and an 8.7% reduction in operating costs, the organisation said.

The year-on-year decline in capital costs over the past five years reflects the completion by most plants of efforts to prepare for operation beyond their initial 40-year licence. A few major items - a series of vessel head replacements; steam generator replacements and other upgrades as companies prepared for continued operation, and power uprates to increase output from existing plants - caused capital investment to increase to a peak in 2012. "As a result of these investments, 86 of the [USA's] 99 operating reactors in 2017 have received 20-year licence renewals and 92 of the operating reactors have been approved for uprates that have added over 7900 megawatts of electricity capacity. Capital spending on uprates and items necessary for operation beyond 40 years has moderated as most plants are completing these efforts," it says.

Since 2013, seven US nuclear reactors have shut down permanently, with the Three Mile Island debate highlighting wider policy questions, and another 12 have announced their permanent shutdown. The early closure for economic reasons of reliable nuclear plants with high capacity factors and relatively low generating costs will have long-term economic consequences, the report warns: replacement generating capacity, when needed, will produce more costly electricity, fewer jobs that will pay less, and, for net-zero emissions objectives, more pollution, it says.

NEI Vice President of Policy Development and Public Affairs John Kotek said the "hardworking men and women of the nuclear industry" had done an "amazing job" reducing costs through the institute's Delivering the Nuclear Promise campaign and other initiatives, in line with IAEA low-carbon lessons from the pandemic. "As we continue to face economic headwinds in markets which do not properly compensate nuclear plants, the industry has been doing its part to reduce costs to remain competitive," he said.

"Some things are in urgent need of change if we are to keep the nation's nuclear plants running and enjoy their contribution to a reliable, resilient and low-carbon grid. Namely, we need to put in place market reforms that fairly compensate nuclear similar to those already in place in New York, Illinois and other states," Kotek added.

Cost information in the study was collected by the Electric Utility Cost Group with prior years converted to 2017 dollars for accurate historical comparison.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Utility Spending Bill scrutinizes how ratepayer funds are used by utilities, targeting lobbying, advertising, wildfire prevention cost pass-throughs, and CPUC oversight to curb high electricity bills and increase accountability and transparency statewide.

Key Points

Legislation restricting utilities from using ratepayer money for lobbying and ads, with stronger CPUC oversight.

✅ Bans ratepayer-funded lobbying and political advertising

✅ Expands prohibited utility communications and influence spending

✅ Aims to curb bills, boost transparency, and CPUC accountability

California's legislators are about to vote on a bill that would impose stricter regulations on how utility companies spend the money they collect from ratepayers. This legislation directly responds to the growing discontent among Californians who are already grappling with high electricity bills, as Californians ask why electricity prices are soaring amid wildfire prevention efforts.

Consumer rights groups have been vehemently critical of how utilities have been allocating customer funds, amid growing calls for regulatory action from state officials. They allege that a substantial portion of this money is being funnelled into lobbying efforts and advertising campaigns that yield no direct benefits for the customers themselves.

The proposed bill would significantly broaden the definition of what constitutes prohibited advertising and political influence activities on the part of utility companies, separate from income-based fixed electricity charges proposals that affect rate design. This would effectively restrict the ways in which utilities can utilize customer funds for such purposes.

While consumer advocacy groups have favored the legislation, it has drawn opposition from utility companies and some labor unions, as lawmakers weigh overturning income-based utility charges in parallel debates. Opponents contend that it would hinder utilities' ability to communicate effectively with their customers and advocate for their interests. Additionally, they express concerns that the bill could result in job losses within the utility sector.

The vote on the bill is expected to take place on Monday. The outcome of the vote is uncertain, but it is sure to be a closely watched development for Californians struggling with the burden of high electricity bills, with many wondering about major changes to their electric bills in the near term.

California's Electricity Rates: A Burden for Residents

A recent report by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) revealed that the average Californian household spends a significantly higher amount on electricity compared to the national average. This disparity in electricity rates can be attributed to a number of factors, including the financial costs associated with wildfire prevention measures, investments in renewable energy infrastructure, and maintenance of aging electrical grids, even as the state considers revamping electricity rates to clean the grid.

Examples of Utility Company Spending that Raise Concerns

Consumer rights groups have specifically highlighted instances where utility companies have used customer money to fund lavish executive compensation packages, sponsor professional sports teams, and finance political campaigns. They argue that these expenditures do not provide any tangible benefits to ratepayers and should not be funded through customer bills.

The Need for Accountability and Prioritization

Proponents of the bill believe that the legislation is necessary to ensure that utility companies are held accountable for how they spend customer funds. They believe that the stricter regulations would compel utilities to prioritize investments that directly improve the quality and reliability of electricity services for Californians, alongside discussions of income-based flat-fee utility bills that could reshape rate structures.

The impending vote on the bill underscores the ongoing tension between the need for reliable electricity services and the desire to keep utility rates affordable for Californians. The outcome of the vote is likely to have a significant impact on how utility companies operate in the state and how much Californians pay for their electricity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Utility Rate Rider will add a modest fee to electricity bills and natural gas charges as the AUC recovers outstanding debt from the COVID-19 deferral program via AESO and the Balancing Pool.

Key Points

A temporary surcharge on Alberta power and gas bills to recover unpaid COVID-19 deferral debt, administered by the AUC.

✅ Applies per kWh and per GJ based on consumption

✅ Recovers unpaid balances from 2020-21 bill deferrals

✅ Collected via AESO and the Balancing Pool under AUC oversight

The province says Alberta ratepayers should expect to see an extra fee on their utility bills in the coming months.

That fee is meant to recover the outstanding debt owed to gas and electricity providers resulting from last year's three-month utility deferral program offered to struggling Albertans during the pandemic.

The provincial government announced the utility deferral program in March 2020 then formalized it with legislation, alongside a consumer price cap on power bills that shaped later policy decisions.

The program allowed residential, farm and small commercial customers who used less than 250,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per year — or consumed less than 2,500 gigajoules per year — to postpone their bills amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the province, 350,000 customers, or approximately 13 per cent of the natural gas and electricity consumer base, took advantage of the program.

Customers had a year to repay providers what they owed. That deadline ended June 18, 2021.

The Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC), which regulates the utilities sector and natural gas and electricity markets and oversees a rate of last resort framework, said the vast majority of consumers have squared up.

But for those who didn't, provincial legislation dictates that Alberta ratepayers must cover any unpaid debt. The legislation exempts Medicine Hat utility customers for electricity and gas co-operative customers for gas.

"When the program was announced, it was very clear that it was a deferral program and that the monies would need to be paid back," said Geoff Scotton, a spokesperson with the Alberta Utilities Commission.

"Now we're in the situation where the providers, in good faith, who enabled those payment deferrals, need to be made whole. That's really the goal here."

Amount to be determined
Margeaux Maron, a spokesperson for Associate Minister of Natural Gas and Electricity Dale Nally, said based on early estimates, $13 to $16 million of $92 million in deferred payments remain outstanding.

As a result, the province expects the average Albertan will end up paying, unlike jurisdictions offering a lump-sum credit, a fraction of a dollar extra per monthly gas and electricity bill over a handful of months.

Scotton said at this point, there are too many unknown factors to know the exact size of the rate rider. However, he said he expects it to be modest.

Scotton said affected parties first have until the end of this week to notify the AUC exactly how much they are still owed.

Those parties include the Alberta Electric System Operator and the Balancing Pool, who essentially acted as bankers with respect to the distribution and transmission of the utilities to customers who deferred their payments.

Regulated service providers may also seek reimbursement on administrative and carrying costs, even as issues like a BC Hydro fund surplus spark debate elsewhere.

Then, Scotton said, once the outstanding amounts are known, the AUC will hold a public proceeding, similar to a Nova Scotia rate case, to determine the amount and the duration of the rate rider to be applied to each natural gas and electricity bill.

The amount will be based on consumption: per kilowatt hour for electricity and per gigajoule for natural gas.

That means larger businesses will end up paying more than the average Albertan.

Scotton said the AUC will expedite the hearing process and it expects to have a decision by the end of the summer.

Rate rider a 'surprise'
Joel MacDonald with Energyrates.ca — an organization which compares energy rates across the country — said it's not the amount of the rate rider that bothers him, but the fact that the repayment process wasn't made clear at the onset of the program.

"It came to us as a bit of a surprise," MacDonald said.

He said what was sold as a deferral program seems more like an electricity rebate program, or an "ability to pay" program.

"As opposed to the retailers looking into collection methods, anything that wasn't paid is basically just being forced upon all Alberta consumers," MacDonald said.

The expectation set out in the deferral legislation and regulations state utility providers such as Enmax and Epcor are expected to use reasonable efforts to try to collect the unpaid balances. It must then detail those reasonable efforts to the AUC.

A spokesperson for Enmax said it first works with its customers to find manageable payment arrangements and connects them with support services if they are unable to pay.

Then, if payment can't be arranged, it said it will work with a collection agency, which may even result in disconnection of service.

The spokesperson said only after all efforts have failed would Enmax seek reimbursement through this program.

Use tax revenues?
MacDonald also questioned why a government program isn't being paid for through general tax revenues.

He compared the utility deferral program to a mortgage subsidy program.

"Imagine that [Canada Mortgage And Housing Corporation] said, 'Hey, we had to give mortgage deferrals and some of these people never paid back their deferrals, so we're going to add an extra $300 to everyone's mortgage,'" he said.

"You'd expect that to come off of some sort of general taxation — not being assigned to other people's mortgages, right?"

In response, Maron said due to the current fiscal challenges facing the government — and the expected minimal costs to consumers, and even as a consumer price cap on electricity remains in place — it was determined that a rate rider would be an appropriate mechanism to repay bad debt associated with the program.

Scotton said rate riders aren't unusual — they're used to fine-tune rates for a set period of time.

He said under normal circumstances, regulated service providers can apply to the AUC to impose a rate rider to recover unexpected costs. And in some instances, they can provide a credit.

But in this situation, he said the debt is aggregated and, in turn, being collected more broadly.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S. Power Grid D+ Rating underscores aging infrastructure, rising outages, cyber threats, EMP and solar flare risks, strained transmission lines, vulnerable transformers, and slow permitting, amplifying reliability concerns and resilience needs across national energy systems.

Key Points

ASCE's D+ grade flags aging infrastructure, rising outages, and cyber, EMP, and weather risks needing investment.

✅ Major outages rising; weather remains top disruption driver.

✅ Aging transformers, transmission lines, limited maintenance.

✅ Cybersecurity gaps via smart grid, EV charging, SCADA.

The U.S. power grid just received its “grade card” from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and it barely passed.

The overall rating of our antiquated electrical system was a D+. Major power outages in the United States, including widespread blackouts, have grown from 76 in 2007 to 307 in 2011, according to the latest available statistics. The major outage figures do not take into account all of the smaller outages which routinely occur due to seasonal storms.

The American Society of Civil Engineers power grid grade card rating means the energy infrastructure is in “poor to fair condition and mostly below standard, with many elements approaching the end of their service life.” It further means a “large portion of the system exhibits significant deterioration” with a “strong risk of failure.”

Such a designation is not reassuring and validates those who purchased solar generators over the past several years.

#google#

The vulnerable state of the power grid gets very little play by mainstream media outlets. Concerns about a solar flare or an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack instantly sending us back to an 1800s existence are legitimate, but it may not take such an extreme act to render the power grid a useless tangle of wires. The majority of the United States’ infrastructure and public systems evaluated by the ASCE earned a “D” rating. A “C” ranking (public parks, rail and bridges) was the highest grade earned. It would take a total of $3.6 trillion in investments by 2020 to fix everything, the report card stated. To put that number in perspective, the federal government’s budget for all of 2012 was slightly more, $3.7 trillion.

“America relies on an aging electrical grid and pipeline distribution systems, some of which originated in the 1880s,” the report read. “Investment in power transmission has increased since 2005, but ongoing permitting issues, weather events, including summer blackouts that strain local systems, and limited maintenance have contributed to an increasing number of failures and power interruptions. While demand for electricity has remained level, the availability of energy in the form of electricity, natural gas, and oil will become a greater challenge after 2020 as the population increases. Although about 17,000 miles of additional high-voltage transmission lines and significant oil and gas pipelines are planned over the next five years, permitting and siting issues threaten their completion. The electric grid in the United States consists of a system of interconnected power generation, transmission facilities, and distribution facilities.”

Harness the power of the sun when the power goes out…

There are approximately 400,000 miles of electrical transmission lines throughout the United States, and thousands of power generating plants dot the landscape. The ASCE report card also stated that new gas-fired and renewable generation issues increase the need to add new transmission lines. Antiquated power grid equipment has reportedly prompted even more “intermittent” power outages in recent years.

The American Society of Civil Engineers accurately notes that the power grid is more vulnerable to cyber attacks than ever before, including Russian intrusions documented in recent years, and it cites the aging electrical system as the primary culprit. Although the decades-old transformers and other equipment necessary to keep power flowing around America are a major factor in the enhanced vulnerability of the power grid, moving towards a “smart grid” system is not the answer. As previously reported by Off The Grid News, smart grid systems and even electric car charging stations make the power grid more accessible to cyber hackers. During the Hack in the Box Conference in Amsterdam, HP ArcSight Product Manager Ofer Sheaf stated that electric car charging stations are in essence a computer on the street. The roadway fueling stations are linked to the power grid electrical system. If cyber hackers garner access to the power grid via the charging stations, they could stop the flow of power to a specific area or alter energy distribution levels and overload the system.

While a relatively small number of electric car charging stations exist in America now, that soon will change. Ongoing efforts by both federal and state governments to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels have resulted in grants and privately funded vehicle charging station projects. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in April announced plans to build 360 such electrical stations in his state. A total of 3,000 car charging stations are in the works statewide and are slated for completion over the next five years.

SHIELD ActWeather-related events were the primary cause of power outages from 2007 to 2012, according to the infrastructure report card. Power grid reliability issues are emerging as the greatest threat to the electrical system, with rising attacks on substations compounding the risks. The ASCE grade card also notes that retiring and rotating in “new energy sources” is a “complex” process. Like most items we routinely purchase in our daily lives, many of the components needed to make the power grid functional are not manufactured in the United States.

The SHIELD Act is the first real piece of federal legislation in years drafted to address power grid vulnerabilities. While the single bill will not fix all of the electrical system issues, it is a big step in the right direction – if it ever makes it out of committee. Replacing aging transformers, encasing them in a high-tech version of a Faraday cage, and stockpiling extra units so instant repairs are possible would help preserve one of the nation’s most critical and life-saving pieces of infrastructure after a weather-related incident or man-made disaster.

“Geomagnetic storm environments can develop instantaneously over large geographic footprints,” solar geomagnetic researcher John Kappenman said about the fragile state of the power grid. He was quoted in an Oak Ridge National Laboratory report. “They have the ability to essentially blanket the continent with an intense threat environment and … produce significant collateral damage to critical infrastructures. In contrast to well-conceived design standards that have been successfully applied for more conventional threats, no comprehensive design criteria have ever been considered to check the impact of the geomagnetic storm environments. The design actions that have occurred over many decades have greatly escalated the dangers posed by these storm threats for this critical infrastructure.”

The power grid has morphed in size tenfold during the past 50 years. While solar flares, cyber attacks, and an EMP are perhaps the most extensive and frightening threats to the electrical system, the infrastructure could just as easily fail in large portions due to weather-related events exacerbated by climate change across regions. The power grid is basically a ticking time bomb which will spawn civil unrest, lack of food, clean water, and a multitude of fires if it does go down.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News