Small businesses go solar

DOE Environmental Management Funding Boost seeks $7.25B to accelerate nuclear cleanup, upgrade Savannah River Site infrastructure, create jobs, and support small businesses, echoing ARRA 2009 results and expediting DOE EM waste remediation nationwide.

Key Points

A proposed $7.25B stimulus for DOE's EM to accelerate nuclear cleanup, modernize infrastructure, and create jobs.

✅ $7.25B one-time stimulus for DOE EM cleanup and infrastructure.

✅ Targets Savannah River Site; supports jobs and small businesses.

✅ Builds on ARRA 2009; accelerates nuclear waste remediation.

A bloc of local governments and nuclear industry, nuclear innovation efforts, labor and community groups are pressing Congress to provide a one-time multibillion-dollar boost to the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management, the remediation-focused Savannah River Site landlord.

The organizations and officials -- including Citizens For Nuclear Technology Awareness Executive Director Jim Marra and Savannah River Site Community Reuse Organization President and CEO Rick McLeod -- sent a letter Friday to U.S. House and Senate leadership "strongly" supporting a $7.25 billion funding injection, even as ACORE challenges coal and nuclear subsidies in separate regulatory proceedings, arguing it "will help reignite the national economy," help revive small businesses and create thousands of new jobs despite the novel coronavirus crisis.

More than 30 million Americans have filed unemployment claims in the past two months, with additional clean energy job losses reported, too. Hundreds of thousands of claims have been filed in South Carolina since mid-March, compounding issues like unpaid utility bills in neighboring states.

The requested money could, too, speed Environmental Management's nuclear waste cleanup missions and be used to fix ailing infrastructure and strengthen energy security for rural communities nationwide -- some of which dates back to the Cold War -- at sites across the country. That's a "rare" opportunity, reads the letter, which prominently features the Energy Communities Alliance logo and its chairman's signature.

Similar funding programs, like what was done with the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and recent clean energy funding initiatives, have been successful.

At the time, amid a staggering economic downturn nationwide, Environmental Management contractors "hired over 20,000 new workers," putting them "to work to reduce the overall cleanup complex footprint by 688 square miles while strengthening local economies," the Friday letter reads.

The Energy Department's cleanup office estimates the $6 billion investment years ago reduced its environmental liability by $13 billion, according to a 2012 report.

Such a leap forward, the coalition believes, is repeatable, a view reflected in current plans to revitalize coal communities with clean energy projects across the country.

"We are confident that DOE can successfully manage increased funding and leverage it for future economic development as it has in the past," the letter states. It continues: "We take pride in working together to support jobs and development of infrastructure and work that make our country stronger and assists us to recover from the impacts of COVID-19."

As of Monday afternoon, 8,942 cases of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, have been logged in South Carolina. Aiken County is home to 155 of those cases.

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

Global Electricity Demand Surge underscores rising coal generation, lagging renewables deployment, and escalating emissions, as nations prioritize reliable power; nuclear energy and grid decarbonization emerge as pivotal solutions to the electricity transition.

Key Points

A rapid post-lockdown rise in power consumption, outpacing renewables growth and driving higher coal use and emissions.

✅ Coal generation rises faster than wind and solar additions

✅ Emissions increase as economies prioritize reliable baseload power

✅ Nuclear power touted for rapid grid decarbonization

By Robert Bryce

As the Covid lockdowns are easing, the global economy is recovering and that recovery is fueling blistering growth in electricity use. The latest data from Ember, the London-based “climate and energy think tank focused on accelerating the global electricity transition,” show that global power demand soared by about 5% in the first half of 2021. That’s faster growth than was happening back in 2018 when electricity use was increasing by about 4% per year.

The numbers from Ember also show that despite lots of talk about the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, coal demand for power generation continues to grow and emissions from the electric sector continue to grow: up by 5% over the first half of 2019. In addition, they show that while about half of the growth in electricity demand was met by wind and solar, as low-emissions sources are set to cover almost all new demand over the next three years, overall growth in electricity use is still outstripping the growth in renewables. 

The soaring use of electricity, and increasing emissions from power generation confirm the sage wisdom of Rasheed Wallace, the volatile former power forward with the Detroit Pistons and other NBA teams, and now an assistant coach at the  University of Memphis, who coined the catchphrase: “Ball don’t lie.” If Wallace or one of his teammates was called for a foul during a basketball game that he thought was undeserved, and the opposing player missed the ensuing free throws, Wallace would often holler, “ball don’t lie,” as if the basketball itself was pronouncing judgment on the referee’s errant call. 

I often think about Wallace’s catchphrase while looking at global energy and power trends and substitute my own phrase: numbers don’t lie.

Over the past few weeks Ember, BP, and the International Energy Agency have all published reports which come to the same two conclusions: that countries all around the world — and China's electricity sector in particular — are doing whatever they need to do to get the electricity they need to grow their economies. Second, they are using lots of coal to get that juice. 

As I discuss in my recent book, A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations, Electricity is the world’s most important and fastest-growing form of energy. The Ember data proves that. At a growth rate of 5%, global electricity use will double in about 14 years, and as surging electricity demand is putting power systems under strain around the world, the electricity sector also accounts for the biggest single share of global carbon dioxide emissions: about 25 percent. Thus, if we are to have any hope of cutting global emissions, the electricity sector is pivotal. Further, the soaring use of electricity shows that low-income people and countries around the world are not content to stay in the dark. They want to live high-energy lives with access to all the electronic riches that we take for granted.  

 Ember’s data clearly shows that decarbonizing the global electric grid will require finding a substitute for coal. Indeed, coal use may be plummeting in the U.S. and western Europe, where U.S. electricity consumption has been declining, but over the past two years, several developing countries including Mongolia, China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, and India, all boosted their use of coal. This was particularly obvious in China, where, between the first half of 2019 and the first half of 2021, electricity demand jumped by about 14%. Of that increase, coal-fired generation provided roughly twice as much new electricity as wind and solar combined. In Pakistan, electricity demand jumped by about 7%, and coal provided more than three times as much new electricity as nuclear and about three times as much as hydro. (Wind and solar did not grow at all in Pakistan over that period.) 

Hate coal all you like, but its century-long persistence in power generation proves its importance. That persistence proves that climate change concerns are not as important to most consumers and policymakers as reliable electricity. In 2010, Roger Pielke Jr. dubbed this the Iron Law of Climate Policy which says “When policies on emissions reductions collide with policies focused on economic growth, economic growth will win out every time.” Pielke elaborated on that point, saying the Iron Law is a “boundary condition on policy design that is every bit as limiting as is the second law of thermodynamics, and it holds everywhere around the world, in rich and poor countries alike. It says that even if people are willing to bear some costs to reduce emissions (and experience shows that they are), they are willing to go only so far.”

Over the past five years, I’ve written a book about electricity, co-produced a feature-length documentary film about it (Juice: How Electricity Explains the World), and launched a podcast that focuses largely on energy and power. I’m convinced that Pielke’s claim is exactly right and should be extended to electricity and dubbed the Iron Law of Electricity which says, “when forced to choose between dirty electricity and no electricity, people will choose dirty electricity every time.” I saw this at work in electricity-poor places all over the world, including India, Lebanon, and Puerto Rico. 

Pielke, a professor at the University of Colorado as well as a highly regarded author on the politics of climate change and sports governance, has since elaborated on the Iron Law. During an interview in Juice, he explained it thusly: “The Iron Law says we’re not going to reduce emissions by willingly getting poor. Rich people aren't going to want to get poorer, poor people aren't going to want to get poorer.” He continued, “If there is one thing that we can count on it is that policymakers will be rewarded by populations if they make people wealthier. We're doing everything we can to try to get richer as nations, as communities, as individuals. If we want to reduce emissions, we really have only one place to go and that's technology.”

Pielke’s point reminds me of another of my favorite energy analysts, Robert Rapier, who made a salient point in his Forbes column last week. He wrote, “Despite the blistering growth rate of renewables, it’s important to keep in mind that overall global energy consumption is growing. Even though global renewable energy consumption has increased by about 21 exajoules in the past decade, overall energy consumption has increased by 51 exajoules. Increased fossil fuel consumption made up most of this growth, with every category of fossil fuels showing increased consumption over the decade.” 

The punchline here – despite my tangential reference to Rasheed Wallace — is obvious: The claims that massive reductions in global carbon dioxide emissions must happen soon are being mocked by the numbers. Countries around the world are acting in their interest, particularly when it comes to their electricity needs and that is resulting in big increases in emissions. As Ember concludes in their report, wind and solar are growing, and some analyses suggest renewables could eclipse coal by 2025, but the “electricity transition” is “not happening fast enough.”

Ember explains that in the first half of 2021, wind and solar output exceeded the output of the world’s nuclear reactors for the first time. It also noted that over the past two years, “Nuclear generation fell by 2% compared to pre-pandemic levels, as closures at older plants across the OECD, especially amid debates over European nuclear trends, exceeded the new capacity in China.” While that may cheer anti-nuclear activists at groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, the truth is obvious: the only way – repeat, the only way – the electric sector will achieve significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions is if we can replace lots of coal-fired generation with nuclear reactors and do so in relatively short order, meaning the next decade or so. Renewables are politically popular and they are growing, but they cannot, will not, be able to match the soaring demand for the electricity that is needed to sustain modern economies and bring developing countries out of the darkness and into modernity. 

Countries like China, Vietnam, India, and others need an alternative to coal for power generation. They need new nuclear reactors that are smaller, safer, and cheaper than the existing designs. And they need it soon. I will be writing about those reactors in future columns.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Summerland Solar+Storage Project brings renewable energy to a municipal utility with photovoltaic panels and battery storage, generating 1,200 megawatts from 3,200 panels on Cartwright Mountain to boost grid resilience and local clean power.

Key Points

A municipal solar PV and battery system enabling Summerland Power to self-generate electricity on Cartwright Mountain.

✅ 3,200 panels, 20-year batteries, 35-year panel lifespan

✅ Estimated $7M cost, $6M in grants, utility reserve funding

✅ Site near grid lines; 2-year timeline with 18-month lead

A proposed solar energy project, to be constructed on municipally-owned property on Cartwright Mountain, will allow Summerland Power to produce some of its own electricity, similar to how Summerside's wind power supplies a large share locally.

On Monday evening, municipal staff described the Solar+Storage project, aligning with insights from renewable power developers that combining resources yields better projects.

The project will include around 3,200 solar panels and storage batteries, giving Summerland Power the ability to generate 1,200 megawatts of electrical power.

This is the amount of energy used by 100 homes over the course of a year.

The solar panels have an estimated life expectancy of 35 years, while the batteries have a life expectancy of 20 years.

“It’s a really big step for a small utility like ours,” said Tami Rothery, sustainability/alternative energy coordinator for Summerland. “We’re looking forward to moving towards a bright, sunny energy future.”

She said the price of solar panels has been dropping, with lower-cost solar contracts reported in Alberta, and the quality and efficiency of the panels has increased in recent years.

The total cost of the project is around $7 million, with $6 million to come from grant funding and the remainder to come from the municipality’s electrical utility reserve fund, while policy changes such as Nova Scotia's solar charge delay illustrate evolving market conditions.

The site, a former public works yard and storage area, was selected from 108 parcels of land considered by the municipality.

She said the site, vacant since the 1970s, is close to main electrical lines and will not be highly visible once the panels are in place, much like unobtrusive rooftop solar arrays in urban settings.

Access to the site is restricted, resulting in natural security to the solar installation.

Jeremy Storvold, general manager of Summerland’s electrical utility, said the site is 2.5 kilometres from the Prairie Valley electrical substation and close to the existing public works yard.

However, some in the audience on Monday questioned the location of the proposed solar installation, suggesting the site would be better suited for affordable housing in the community.

The timeline for the project calls for roughly two years before the work will be completed, since there is an 18-month lead time in order to receive good quality solar panels, reflecting the surge in Alberta's solar growth that is straining supply chains.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Alberta Electricity Market Overhaul will add renewables like wind and solar, curb price volatility tied to natural gas, boost competition, and reward energy efficiency, while safeguarding grid reliability and investor confidence through a transition roadmap.

Key Points

Alberta's 2027 market redesign adds renewables, boosts competition, and cuts volatility to protect reliability.

✅ Integrates wind and solar to meet climate and affordability goals.

✅ Increases competition and efficiency; reduces price volatility.

✅ Plans transition measures to maintain reliability and investment.

Alberta's electricity market is on the precipice of a significant transformation. The province, long reliant on fossil fuels for power generation, has committed to a market overhaul by 2027. This ambitious plan promises to shake up the current system, but industry players are wary of a lengthy period of uncertainty that could stifle much-needed investment in the sector.

The impetus for change stems from a confluence of factors. Soaring energy bills for consumers, reflecting rising electricity prices across the province, coupled with concerns about Alberta's environmental footprint, have pressured the government to seek a more sustainable and cost-effective electricity system. The current market, heavily influenced by natural gas prices, has been criticized for volatility and a lack of incentive for renewable energy development.

The details of the new electricity market design are still being formulated. However, the government has outlined some key objectives. One priority is to incorporate more renewable energy sources like wind and solar power into the grid. This aligns with Alberta's climate change goals and could lead to cleaner electricity generation, supporting the province's path to clean electricity in the coming years.

Another objective is to introduce more competition within the market. The current system is dominated by a few large players, and the government hopes increased competition will drive down prices for consumers, as the market needs more competition to function efficiently.

While the potential benefits of the overhaul are undeniable, industry leaders are apprehensive about the transition period, with a Calgary retailer urging the government to scrap the overhaul amid uncertainty. The lack of clarity surrounding the new market design creates uncertainty for power companies. This could discourage investment in new generation facilities, both renewable and traditional, potentially leading to supply shortages in the future.

John Kousinioris, CEO of TransAlta, a major Alberta power generator, expressed these concerns. "We need a clear roadmap for the future," he stated. "Uncertainty makes it difficult to justify significant investments in new power plants, which are essential to ensure a reliable electricity supply for Albertans."

The government acknowledges the need to minimize disruption during the transition. They have promised to engage in consultations with industry stakeholders throughout the redesign process, as the province changes how it produces and pays for electricity to support long-term stability. Additionally, measures may be implemented to ensure a smooth transition and provide some level of certainty for investors.

The success of Alberta's electricity market overhaul will depend on several factors. Striking a balance between environmental sustainability, affordability, and energy security will be crucial. The government must design a system that incentivizes investment in new, cleaner power generation while maintaining reliable electricity supply at a reasonable cost for consumers.

The role of natural gas, a dominant player in Alberta's current electricity mix, is another point of contention. While the government aims to incorporate more renewables, natural gas is likely to remain a part of the equation for some time. Determining the appropriate role for natural gas in the future market will be a critical decision.

The upcoming years will be a period of significant change for Alberta's electricity market. The province's commitment to a cleaner and more competitive system holds promise, but navigating the transition effectively will be a complex challenge. Open communication, collaboration between stakeholders, and a well-defined roadmap for the future will be essential for ensuring a successful electricity market overhaul and a brighter energy future for Alberta.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Foote Creek I Wind Farm Repowering upgrades Wyoming turbines with new nacelles, towers, and blades, cutting 68 units to 12 while sustaining 41.6 MW, under PacifiCorp and Rocky Mountain Power's Energy Vision 2020 plan.

Key Points

Replacement at Foote Creek Rim I, cutting to 12 turbines while sustaining about 41.6 MW using modern 2-4.2 MW units.

✅ 12 turbines replace 68, output steady near 41.6 MW

✅ New nacelles, towers, blades; taller 500 ft turbines

✅ Part of PacifiCorp Energy Vision 2020 and Gateway West

A Wyoming utility company has filed a permit to replace its first wind farm—originally commissioned in 1998, composed of over 65 turbines—amid new gas capacity competing with nuclear in Ohio, located at Foote Creek Rim I. The replacement would downsize the number of turbines to 12, which would still generate roughly the same energy output.

According to the Star Tribune, PacifiCorp’s new installation would involve new nacelles, new towers and new blades. The permit was filed with Carbon County.

New WY Wind Farm

The replacement wind turbines will stand more than twice as tall as the old: Those currently installed stand 200 feet tall, whereas their replacements will tower closer to 500 feet. Though this move is part of the company’s overall plan to expand its state wind fleet as some utilities respond to declining coal returns in the Midwest, the work going into the Foote Creek site is somewhat special, noted David Eskelsen, spokesperson for Rocky Mountain Power, the western arm of PacifiCorp.

“Foote Creek I repowering is somewhat different from the repowering projects announced in the (Energy Vision) 2020 initiative,” he said. “Foote Creek is a complete replacement of the existing 68 foundations, towers, turbine nacelles and rotors (blades).”

Currently, the turbines at Foote Creek have 600 kilowatts capacity each; the replacements’ maximum production ranges from 2 megawatts to 4.2 megawatts each, with the total output remaining steady at 41.4 megawatts, a scale similar to a 30-megawatt wind expansion in Eastern Kings, though there will be a slight capacity increase to 41.6 megawatts, according to the Star Tribune.

As part of the wind farm repowering initiative, PacifiCorp is to become full owner and operator of the Foote Creek site. When the farm was originally built, an Oregon-based water and electric board was 21 percent owner; 37 percent of the project’s output was tied into a contract with the Bonneville Power Administration.

Otherwise, PacifiCorp is moving to further expand its state wind fleet in line with initiatives like doubling renewable electricity by 2030 in Saskatchewan, with the addition of three new wind farms—to be located in Carbon, Albany and Converse counties—which may add up to 1,150 megawatts of power.

According to PacifiCorp, the company has more than 1,000 megawatts of owned wind generation capability, along with long-term purchase agreements for more than 600 megawatts from other wind farms owned by other entities. Energy Vision 2020 refers to a $3.5 billion investment and company move that is looking to upgrade the company's existing wind fleet with newer technology, adding 1,150 megawatts of new wind resources by 2020 and a a new 140-mile Gateway West transmission segment in Wyoming, comparable to a transmission project in Missouri just energized.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News