B.C. still committed to green power

Smart EV Charging orchestrates vehicle-to-grid (V2G), demand response, and fast charging to balance the power grid, integrating renewables, electrolyzers for hydrogen, and megawatt chargers for fleets with advanced control and co-optimization.

Key Points

Smart EV charging coordinates EV load to stabilize the grid, cut peaks, and integrate renewable energy efficiently.

✅ Reduces peak demand via coordinated, flexible load control

✅ Enables V2G services with renewables and battery storage

✅ Supports megawatt fast charging for heavy-duty fleets

As electric vehicle (EV) sales continue to rev up in the United States, the power grid is in parallel contending with the greatest transformation in its 100-year history: the large-scale integration of renewable energy and power electronic devices. The expected expansion of EVs will shift those challenges into high gear, causing cities to face gigawatt-growth in electricity demand, as analyses of EV grid impacts indicate, and higher amounts of variable energy.

Coordinating large numbers of EVs with the power system presents a highly complex challenge. EVs introduce variable electrical loads that are highly dependent on customer behavior. Electrified transportation involves co-optimization with other energy systems, like natural gas and bulk battery storage, including mobile energy storage flexibility for new operational options. It could involve fleets of automated ride-hailing EVs and lead to hybrid-energy truck stops that provide hydrogen and fast-charging to heavy-duty vehicles.

Those changes will all test the limits of grid integration, but the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) sees opportunity at the intersection of energy systems and transportation. With powerful resources for simulating and evaluating complex systems, several NREL projects are determining the coordination required for fast charging, balancing electrical supply and demand, and efficient use of all energy assets.

Smart and Not-So-Smart Control
To appreciate the value of coordinated EV charging, it is helpful to imagine the opposite scenario.

"Our first question is how much benefit or burden the super simple, uncoordinated approach to electric vehicle charging offers the grid," said Andrew Meintz, the researcher leading NREL's Electric Vehicle Grid Integration team, as well as the RECHARGE project for smart EV charging. "Then we compare that to the 'whiz-bang,' everything-is-connected approach. We want to know the difference in value."

In the "super simple" approach, Meintz explained that battery-powered electric vehicles grow in market share, exemplified by mass-market EVs, without any evolution in vehicle charging coordination. Picture every employee at your workplace driving home at 5 p.m. and charging their vehicle. That is the grid's equivalent of going 0 to 100 mph, and if it does not wreck the system, it is at least very expensive. According to NREL's Electrification Futures Study, a comprehensive analysis of the impacts of widespread electrification across all U.S. economic sectors, in 2050 EVs could contribute to a 33% increase in energy use during peak electrical demand, underscoring state grid challenges that make these intervals costly when energy reserves are procured. In duck curve parlance, EVs will further strain the duck's neck.

The Optimization and Control Lab's Electric Vehicle Grid Integration bays allow researchers to determine how advanced high power chargers can be added safely and effectively to the grid, with the potential to explore how to combine buildings and EV charging. Credit: Dennis Schroeder, NREL
Meintz's "whiz-bang" approach instead imagines EV control strategies that are deliberate and serve to smooth, rather than intensify, the upcoming demand for electricity. It means managing both when and where vehicles charge to create flexible load on the grid.

At NREL, smart strategies to dispatch vehicles for optimal charging are being developed for both the grid edge, where consumers and energy users connect to the grid, as in RECHARGEPDF, and the entire distribution system, as in the GEMINI-XFC projectPDF. Both projects, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Vehicle Technologies Office, lean on advanced capabilities at NREL's Energy Systems Integration Facility to simulate future energy systems.

At the grid edge, EVs can be co-optimized with distributed energy resources—small-scale generation or storage technologies—the subject of a partnership with Eaton that brought industry perspectives to bear on coordinated management of EV fleets.

At the larger-system level, the GEMINI-XFC project has extended EV optimization scenarios to the city scale—the San Francisco Bay Area, to be specific.

"GEMINI-XFC involves the highest-ever-fidelity modeling of transportation and the grid," said NREL Research Manager of Grid-Connected Energy Systems Bryan Palmintier.

"We're combining future transportation scenarios with a large metro area co-simulationPDF—millions of simulated customers and a realistic distribution system model—to find the best approaches to vehicles helping the grid."

GEMINI-XFC and RECHARGE can foresee future electrification scenarios and then insert controls that reduce grid congestion or offset peak demand, for example. Charging EVs involves a sort of shell game, where loads are continually moved among charging stations to accommodate grid demand.

But for heavy-duty vehicles, the load is harder to hide. Electrified truck fleets will hit the road soon, creating power needs for electric truck fleets that translate to megawatts of localized demand. No amount of rerouting can avoid the requirements of charging heavy-duty vehicles or other instances of extreme fast-charging (XFC). To address this challenge, NREL is working with industry and other national laboratories to study and demonstrate the technological buildout necessary to achieve 1+ MW charging stationsPDF that are capable of fast charging at very high energy levels for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.

To reach such a scale, NREL is also considering new power conversion hardware based on advanced materials like wide-bandgap semiconductors, as well as new controllers and algorithms that are uniquely suited for fleets of charge-hungry vehicles. The challenge to integrate 1+ MW charging is also pushing NREL research to higher power: Upcoming capabilities will look at many-megawatt systems that tie in the support of other energy sectors.

Renewable In-Roads for Hydrogen

At NREL, the drive toward larger charging demands is being met with larger research capabilities. The announcement of ARIES opens the door to energy systems integration research at a scale 10-times greater than current capabilities: 20 MW, up from 2 MW. Critically, it presents an opportunity to understand how mobility with high energy demands can be co-optimized with other utility-scale assets to benefit grid stability.

"If you've got a grid humming along with a steady load, then a truck requires 500 kW or more of power, it could create a large disruption for the grid," said Keith Wipke, the laboratory program manager for fuel cells and hydrogen technologies at NREL.

Such a high power demand could be partially served by battery storage systems. Or it could be hidden entirely with hydrogen production. Wipke's program, with support from the DOE's Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office, has been performing studies into how electrolyzers—devices that use electricity to break water into hydrogen and oxygen—could offset the grid impacts of XFC. These efforts are also closely aligned with DOE's H2@Scale vision for affordable and effective hydrogen use across multiple sectors, including heavy-duty transportation, power generation, and metals manufacturing, among others.

"We're simulating electrolyzers that can match the charging load of heavy-duty battery electric vehicles. When fast charging begins, the electrolyzers are ramped down. When fast charging ends, the electrolyzers are ramped back up," Wipke said. "If done smoothly, the utility doesn't even know it's happening."

NREL Researchers Rishabh Jain, Kazunori Nagasawa, and Jen Kurtz are working on how grid integration of electrolyzers—devices that use electricity to break water into hydrogen and oxygen—could offset the grid impacts of extreme fast-charging. Credit: National Renewable Energy Laboratory
As electrolyzers harness the cheap electrons from off-demand periods, a significant amount of hydrogen can be produced on site. That creates a natural energy pathway from discount electricity into a fuel. It is no wonder, then, that several well-known transportation and fuel companies have recently initiated a multimillion-dollar partnership with NREL to advance heavy-duty hydrogen vehicle technologies.

"The logistics of expanding electric charging infrastructure from 50 kW for a single demonstration battery electric truck to 5,000 kW for a fleet of 100 could present challenges," Wipke said. "Hydrogen scales very nicely; you're basically bringing hydrogen to a fueling station or producing it on site, but either way the hydrogen fueling events are decoupled in time from hydrogen production, providing benefits to the grid."

The long driving range and fast refuel times—including a DOE target of achieving 10-minutes refuel for a truck—have already made hydrogen the standout solution for applications in warehouse forklifts. Further, NREL is finding that distributed electrolyzers can simultaneously produce hydrogen and improve voltage conditions, which can add much-needed stability to a grid that is accommodating more energy from variable resources.

Those examples that co-optimize mobility with the grid, using diverse technologies, are encouraging NREL and its partners to pursue a new scale of systems integration. Several forward-thinking projects are reimagining urban mobility as a mix of energy solutions that integrate the relative strengths of transportation technologies, which complement each other to fill important gaps in grid reliability.

The Future of Urban Mobility
What will electrified transportation look like at high penetrations? A few NREL projects offer some perspective. Among the most experimental, NREL is helping the city of Denver develop a smart community, integrated with electrified mobility and featuring automated charging and vehicle dispatch.

On another path to advanced mobility, Los Angeles has embarked on a plan to modernize its electricity system infrastructure, reflecting California EV grid stability goals—aiming for a 100% renewable energy supply by 2045, along with aggressive electrification targets for buildings and vehicles. Through the Los Angeles 100% Renewable Energy Study, the city is currently working with NREL to assess the full-scale impacts of the transition in a detailed analysis that integrates diverse capabilities across the laboratory.

The transition would include the Port of Long Beach, the busiest container port in the United States.

At the port, NREL is applying the same sort of scenario forecasting and controls evaluation as other projects, in order to find the optimal mix of technologies that can be integrated for both grid stability and a reliable quality of service: a mix of hydrogen fuel-cell and battery EVs, battery storage systems, on-site renewable generation, and extreme coordination among everything.

"Hydrogen at ports makes sense for the same reason as trucks: Marine applications have big power and energy demands," Wipke said. "But it's really the synergies between diverse technologies—the existing infrastructure for EVs and the flexibility of bulk battery systems—that will truly make the transition to high renewable energy possible."

Like the Port of Long Beach, transportation hubs across the nation are adapting to a complex environment of new mobility solutions. Airports and public transit stations involve the movement of passengers, goods, and services at a volume exceeding anywhere else. With the transition to digitally connected electric mobility changing how airports plan for the future, NREL projects such as Athena are using the power of high-performance computing to demonstrate how these hubs can maximize the value of passenger and freight mobility per unit of energy, time, and/or cost.

The growth in complexity for transportation hubs has just begun, however. Looking ahead, fleets of ride-sharing EVs, automated vehicles, and automated ride-sharing EV fleets could present the largest effort to manage mobility yet.

A Self-Driving Power Grid
To understand the full impact of future mobility-service providers, NREL developed the HIVE (Highly Integrated Vehicle Ecosystem) simulation framework. HIVE combines factors related to serving mobility needs and grid operations—such as a customer's willingness to carpool or delay travel, and potentially time-variable costs of recharging—and simulates the outcome in an integrated environment.

"Our question is, how do you optimize the management of a fleet whose primary purpose is to provide rides and improve that fleet's dispatch and charging?" said Eric Wood, an NREL vehicle systems engineer.

HIVE was developed as part of NREL's Autonomous Energy Systems research to optimize the control of automated vehicle fleets. That is, optimized routing and dispatch of automated electric vehicles.

The project imagines how price signals could influence dispatch algorithms. Consider one customer booking a commute through a ride-hailing app. Out of the fleet of vehicles nearby—variously charged and continually changing locations—which one should pick up the customer?

Now consider the movements of thousands of passengers in a city and thousands of vehicles providing transportation services. Among the number of agents, the moment-to-moment change in energy supply and demand, and the broad diversity in vendor technologies, "we're playing with a lot of parameters," Wood said.

But cutting through all the complexity, and in the midst of massive simulations, the end goal for vehicle-to-grid integration is consistent:

"The motivation for our work is that there are forecasts for significant load on the grid from the electrification of transportation," Wood said. "We want to ensure that this load is safely and effectively integrated, while meeting the expectations and needs of passengers."

The Port of Long Beach uses a mix of hydrogen fuel-cell and battery EVs, battery storage systems, on-site renewable generation, and extreme coordination among everything. Credit: National Renewable Energy Laboratory
True Replacement without Caveats

Electric vehicles are not necessarily helpful to the grid, but they can be. As EVs become established in the transportation sector, NREL is studying how to even out any bumps that electrified mobility could cause on the grid and advance any benefits to commuters or industry.

"It all comes down to load flexibility," Meintz said. "We're trying to decide how to optimally dispatch vehicle charging to meet quality-of-service considerations, while also minimizing charging costs."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Alberta Wind Energy Policy Changes highlight TransAlta's Riplinger cancellation amid UCP buffer zones for pristine viewscapes, regulatory uncertainty, and market redesign debates, reshaping Alberta's renewables investment climate and clean energy diversification plans.

Key Points

UCP rules and market shifts reshaping wind siting, permits, and finance, increasing uncertainty and delays for new projects.

✅ 35-km buffer near pristine viewscapes limits wind siting

✅ TransAlta cancels 300 MW Riplinger project

✅ Market redesign uncertainty chills renewables investment

The winds of change are blowing through Alberta's energy landscape today, and they're not necessarily carrying good news for renewable energy development. TransAlta, a major Canadian energy company, recently announced the cancellation of a significant wind farm project, citing a confluence of factors that create uncertainty for the future of wind power in the province. This decision throws a spotlight on the ongoing debate between responsible development and fostering a clean energy future in Alberta.

The scrapped project, the Riplinger wind farm near Cardston, Alberta, was envisioned as a 300-megawatt facility capable of providing clean electricity to the province. However, TransAlta pointed to recent regulatory changes implemented by the United Conservative Party (UCP) government, following the end of the renewable energy moratorium in Alberta, as a key reason for the project's demise. These changes include the establishment of a 35-kilometer buffer zone around designated "pristine viewscapes," which significantly restricts potential wind farm locations.

John Kousinioris, CEO of TransAlta, expressed frustration with the lack of clarity surrounding the future of renewable energy policy in Alberta. He highlighted this, along with the aforementioned rule changes, as major factors in the project's cancellation. TransAlta has also placed three other power projects on hold, indicating a broader concern about the current investment climate for renewable energy in the province.

The news has been met with mixed reactions. While some residents living near the proposed wind farm site celebrate the decision due to concerns about potential impacts on tourism and the environment, others worry about the implications for Alberta's clean energy ambitions, including renewable energy job growth in the province. The province, a major energy producer in Canada, has traditionally relied heavily on fossil fuels, and this decision might be seen as a setback for its goals of diversifying its energy mix.

The Alberta government defends its changes to renewable energy policy, arguing that they are necessary to ensure responsible development and protect sensitive ecological areas. However, the TransAlta decision raises questions about the potential unintended consequences of these changes. Critics argue that the restrictions might discourage investment in renewable energy and the province's ability to sell clean power to wider markets altogether, hindering Alberta's progress towards a more sustainable future.

Adding to the uncertainty is the ongoing process of redesigning Alberta's energy market. The aim is to incorporate more renewable energy sources, including solar energy expansion across the grid, but the details of this redesign remain unclear. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for companies like TransAlta to make sound investment decisions, further dampening enthusiasm for renewable energy projects.

The future of wind energy development in Alberta remains to be seen. TransAlta's decision to scrap the Riplinger project is a significant development, and it will be interesting to observe how other companies respond to the changing regulatory landscape, as a Warren Buffett-linked developer pursues a $200 million wind project in Alberta. Striking a balance between responsible development, protecting the environment, and fostering a clean energy future will be a crucial challenge for Alberta moving forward.

This situation highlights the complex considerations involved in transitioning to a renewable energy future, where court rulings on wind projects can influence policy and investment decisions. While environmental concerns are paramount, ensuring a stable and predictable investment climate is equally important. Open communication and collaboration between industry, government, and stakeholders will be key to navigating these challenges and ensuring Alberta can harness the power of wind energy for a sustainable future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Muskrat Falls funding deal delivers federal relief to Newfoundland and Labrador: Justin Trudeau outlines loan guarantees, transmission investment, Hibernia royalties, and $10-a-day child care to stabilize hydroelectric costs and curb electricity rate hikes.

Key Points

A $5.2b federal plan aiding NL hydro via loan guarantees, transmission funds, and Hibernia royalties to curb power rates.

✅ $1b for transmission and $1b in federal loan guarantees

✅ $3.2b via Hibernia royalty transfers through 2047

✅ Limits power rate hikes; adds $10-a-day child care in NL

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was in Newfoundland and Labrador Wednesday to announce a $5.2-billion ratepayer protection plan to help the province cover the costs of a troubled hydroelectric project ahead of an expected federal election call.

Trudeau's visit to St. John's, N.L., wrapped up a two-day tour of Atlantic Canada that featured several major funding commitments, and he concluded his day in Newfoundland and Labrador by announcing the province will become the fourth to strike a deal with Ottawa for a $10-a-day child-care program.

As he addressed reporters, the prime minister was flanked by the six Liberal members of Parliament from the province. He alluded to the mismanagement that led the over-budget Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project to become what Liberal Premier Andrew Furey has called an "anchor around the collective souls" of the province.

"The pressures and challenges faced by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for mistakes made in the past is something that Canadians all needed to step up on, and that's exactly what we did," Trudeau said.

Furey, who joined Trudeau for the two announcements and was effusive in his praise for the federal government, said the federal funding will help Newfoundland and Labrador avoid a spike in electricity rates as customers start paying for Muskrat Falls ahead of when the project begins generating power this November.

"Muskrat Falls has been the No. 1 issue facing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians now for well over a decade," Furey said, adding that he is regularly asked by people whether their electricity rates are going to double, a concern other provinces address through rate legislation in Ontario as well.

"We landed on a deal today that I think -- I know -- is a big deal for Newfoundland and Labrador and will finally get the muskrat off our back," he said.

The agreement-in-principle between the two governments includes a $1-billion investment from Ottawa in a transmission through Quebec portion of the project, as well as $1 billion in loan guarantees. The rest will come from annual transfers from Ottawa equivalent to its annual royalty gains from its share in the Hibernia offshore oilfield, which sits off the coast of St. John's. Those transfers are expected to add up to about $3.2 billion between now and 2047, when the oilfield is expected to run dry.

The money will help cover costs set to come due when the Labrador project comes online, preventing rate increases that would have been needed to pay the bills, and officials have discussed a lump-sum bill credit to help households. Though electricity rates in the province will still rise, to 14.7 cents per kilowatt hour from the current 12.5 cents, that's well below the projected 23 cents that officials had said would be needed to cover the project's costs.

Muskrat Falls was commissioned in 2012 at a cost of $7.4 billion, but its price tag has since ballooned to $13.1 billion. Ottawa previously backed the project with billions of dollars in loan guarantees, and in December, Trudeau announced he had appointed Serge Dupont, former deputy clerk of the Privy Council, to oversee rate mitigation talks with the province about financially restructuring the project.

Its looming impact on the provincial budget is set against an already grim financial situation: the province projected an $826-million deficit in its latest budget, and a recent financial update from the provincial energy corporation reflected pandemic impacts, coupled with $17.2 billion in net debt.

After visiting with children from a daycare centre in the College of the North Atlantic, Trudeau and Furey announced that in 2023, the average cost of regulated child care in the province for children under six would be cut to $10 a day from $25 a day. Trudeau said that within five years, almost 6,000 new daycare spaces would be created in the province.

"As part of the agreement, a new full-day, year-round pre-kindergarten program for four-year-olds will also start rolling out in 2023," the prime minister told reporters. "For parents, this agreement is huge."

Newfoundland and Labrador is the fourth province, after Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and British Columbia, to sign on to the federal government's child-care program.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

European Oil Majors Energy Transition highlights BP, Shell, and Total rapidly scaling renewables, wind and solar assets, hydrogen, electricity, and EV charging while cutting upstream capex, aligning with net-zero goals and utility-style energy services.

Key Points

It is the shift by BP, Shell, Total and peers toward renewables, electricity, hydrogen, and EV charging to meet net-zero goals.

✅ Offshore wind, solar, and hydrogen projects scale across Europe

✅ Capex shifts, fossil output declines, net-zero targets by 2050

✅ EV charging, utilities, and power trading become core services

Under pressure from governments and investors, including rising investor pressure at utilities that reverberates across the sector, industry leaders like BP and Shell are accelerating their production of cleaner energy.

This may turn out to be the year that oil giants, especially in Europe, started looking more like electric companies.

Late last month, Royal Dutch Shell won a deal to build a vast wind farm off the coast of the Netherlands. Earlier in the year, France’s Total, which owns a battery maker, agreed to make several large investments in solar power in Spain and a wind farm off Scotland. Total also bought an electric and natural gas utility in Spain and is joining Shell and BP in expanding its electric vehicle charging business.

At the same time, the companies are ditching plans to drill more wells as they chop back capital budgets. Shell recently said it would delay new fields in the Gulf of Mexico and in the North Sea, while BP has promised not to hunt for oil in any new countries.

Prodded by governments and investors to address climate change concerns about their products, Europe’s oil companies are accelerating their production of cleaner energy — usually electricity, sometimes hydrogen — and promoting natural gas, which they argue can be a cleaner transition fuel from coal and oil to renewables, as carbon emissions drop in power generation.

For some executives, the sudden plunge in demand for oil caused by the pandemic — and the accompanying collapse in earnings — is another warning that unless they change the composition of their businesses, they risk being dinosaurs headed for extinction.

This evolving vision is more striking because it is shared by many longtime veterans of the oil business.

“During the last six years, we had extreme volatility in the oil commodities,” said Claudio Descalzi, 65, the chief executive of Eni, who has been with that Italian company for nearly 40 years. He said he wanted to build a business increasingly based on green energy rather than oil.

“We want to stay away from the volatility and the uncertainty,” he added.

Bernard Looney, a 29-year BP veteran who became chief executive in February, recently told journalists, “What the world wants from energy is changing, and so we need to change, quite frankly, what we offer the world.”

The bet is that electricity will be the prime means of delivering cleaner energy in the future and, therefore, will grow rapidly as clean-energy investment incentives scale globally.

American giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron have been slower than their European counterparts to commit to climate-related goals that are as far reaching, analysts say, partly because they face less government and investor pressure (although Wall Street investors are increasingly vocal of late).

“We are seeing a much bigger differentiation in corporate strategy” separating American and European oil companies “than at any point in my career,” said Jason Gammel, a veteran oil analyst at Jefferies, an investment bank.

Companies like Shell and BP are trying to position themselves for an era when they will rely much less on extracting natural resources from the earth than on providing energy as a service tailored to the needs of customers — more akin to electric utilities than to oil drillers.

They hope to take advantage of the thousands of engineers on their payrolls to manage the construction of new types of energy plants; their vast networks of retail stations to provide services like charging electric vehicles; and their trading desks, which typically buy and hedge a wide variety of energy futures, to arrange low-carbon energy supplies for cities or large companies.

All of Europe’s large oil companies have now set targets to reduce the carbon emissions that contribute to climate change. Most have set a ”net zero” ambition by 2050, a goal also embraced by governments like the European Union and Britain.

The companies plan to get there by selling more and more renewable energy and by investing in carbon-free electricity across their portfolios, and, in some cases, by offsetting emissions with so-called nature-based solutions like planting forests to soak up carbon.

Electricity is the key to most of these strategies. Hydrogen, a clean-burning gas that can store energy and generate electric power for vehicles, also plays an increasingly large role.

The coming changes are clearest at BP. Mr. Looney said this month that he planned to increase investment in low-emission businesses like renewable energy by tenfold in the next decade to $5 billion a year, while cutting back oil and gas production by 40 percent. By 2030, BP aims to generate renewable electricity comparable to a few dozen large offshore wind farms.

Mr. Looney, though, has said oil and gas production need to be retained to generate cash to finance the company’s future.

Environmentalists and analysts described Mr. Looney’s statement that BP’s oil and gas production would decline in the future as a breakthrough that would put pressure on other companies to follow.

BP’s move “clearly differentiates them from peers,” said Andrew Grant, an analyst at Carbon Tracker, a London nonprofit. He noted that most other oil companies had so far been unwilling to confront “the prospect of producing less fossil fuels.”

While there is skepticism in both the environmental and the investment communities about whether century-old companies like BP and Shell can learn new tricks, they do bring scale and know-how to the task.

“To make a switch from a global economy that depends on fossil fuels for 80 percent of its energy to something else is a very, very big job,” said Daniel Yergin, the energy historian who has a forthcoming book, “The New Map,” on the global energy transition now occurring in energy. But he noted, “These companies are really good at big, complex engineering management that will be required for a transition of that scale.”

Financial analysts say the dreadnoughts are already changing course.

“They are doing it because management believes it is the right thing to do and also because shareholders are severely pressuring them,” said Michele Della Vigna, head of natural resources research at Goldman Sachs.

Already, he said, investments by the large oil companies in low-carbon energy have risen to as much as 15 percent of capital spending, on average, for 2020 and 2021 and around 50 percent if natural gas is included.

Oswald Clint, an analyst at Bernstein, forecast that the large oil companies would expand their renewable-energy businesses like wind, solar and hydrogen by around 25 percent or more each year over the next decade.

Shares in oil companies, once stock market stalwarts, have been marked down by investors in part because of the risk that climate change concerns will erode demand for their products. European electric companies are perceived as having done more than the oil industry to embrace the new energy era.

“It is very tricky for an investor to have confidence that they can pull this off,” Mr. Clint said, referring to the oil industry’s aspirations to change.

But, he said, he expects funds to flow back into oil stocks as the new businesses gather momentum.

At times, supplying electricity has been less profitable than drilling for oil and gas. Executives, though, figure that wind farms and solar parks are likely to produce more predictable revenue, partly because customers want to buy products labeled green.

Mr. Descalzi of Eni said converted refineries in Venice and Sicily that the company uses to make lower-carbon fuel from plant matter have produced better financial results in this difficult year than its traditional businesses.

Oil companies insist that they must continue with some oil and gas investments, not least because those earnings can finance future energy sources. “Not to make any mistake,” Patrick Pouyanné, chief executive of Total, said to analysts recently: Low-cost oil projects will be a part of the future.

During the pandemic, BP, Total and Shell have all scrutinized their portfolios, partly to determine if climate change pressures and lingering effects from the pandemic mean that petroleum reserves on their books — developed for perhaps billions of dollars, when oil was at the center of their business — might never be produced or earn less than previously expected. These exercises have led to tens of billions of dollars of write-offs for the second quarter, and there are likely to be more as companies recalibrate their plans.

“We haven’t seen the last of these,” said Luke Parker, vice president for corporate analysis at Wood Mackenzie, a market research firm. “There will be more to come as the realities of the energy transition bite.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

New Zealand Renewable Energy Strategy examines decarbonisation, GHG emissions, and net energy as electrification accelerates, expanding hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar PV while weighing intermittency, storage, materials, and energy security for a resilient power system.

Key Points

A plan to expand electricity generation, balancing decarbonisation, net energy limits, and energy security.

✅ Distinguishes decarbonisation targets from renewable capacity growth

✅ Highlights net energy limits, intermittency, and storage needs

✅ Addresses materials, GHG build-out costs, and energy security

The Electricity Authority has released a document outlining a plan to achieve the Government’s goal of more than doubling the amount of electricity generated in New Zealand over the next few decades.

This goal is seen as a way of both reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions overall, as everything becomes electrified, and ensuring we have a 100 percent renewable energy system at our disposal. Often these two goals are seen as being the same – to decarbonise we must transition to more renewable energy to power our society.

But they are quite different goals and should be clearly differentiated. GHG emissions could be controlled very effectively by rationing the use of a fossil fuel lockdown approach, with declining rations being available over a few years. Such a direct method of controlling emissions would ensure we do our bit to remain within a safe carbon budget.

If we took this dramatic step we could stop fretting about how to reduce emissions (that would be guaranteed by the rationing), and instead focus on how to adapt our lives to the absence of fossil fuels.

Again, these may seem like the same task, but they are not. Decarbonising is generally thought of in terms of replacing fossil fuels with some other energy source, signalling that a green recovery must address more than just wind capacity. Adapting our lives to the absence of fossil fuels pushes us to ask more fundamental questions about how much energy we actually need, what we need energy for, and the impact of that energy on our environment.

MBIE data indicate that between 1990 and 2020, New Zealand almost doubled the total amount of energy it produced from renewable energy sources - hydro, geothermal and some solar PV and wind turbines.

Over this same time period our GHG emissions increased by about 25 percent. The increase in renewables didn’t result in less GHG emissions because we increased our total energy use by almost 50 percent, mostly by using fossil fuels. The largest fossil fuel increases were used in transport, agriculture, forestry and fisheries (approximately 60 percent increases for each).

These data clearly demonstrate that increasing renewable energy sources do not necessarily result in reduced GHG emissions.

The same MBIE data indicate that over this same time period, the amount of Losses and Own Use category for energy use more than doubled. As of 2020 almost 30 percent of all energy consumed in New Zealand fell into this category.

These data indicate that more renewable energy sources are historically associated with less energy actually being available to do work in society.

While the category Losses and Own Use is not a net energy analysis, the large increase in this category makes the call for a system-wide net energy analysis all the more urgent.

Net energy is the amount of energy available after the energy inputs to produce and deliver the energy is subtracted. There is considerable data available indicating that solar PV and wind turbines have a much lower net energy surplus than fossil fuels.

And there is further evidence that when the intermittency and storage requirements are engineered into a total renewable energy system, the net energy of the entire system declines sharply. Could the Losses and Other Uses increase over this 30-year period be an indication of things to come?

Despite the importance of net energy analysis in designing a national energy system which is intended to provide energy security and resilience, there is not a single mention of net energy surplus in the EA reference document.

So over the last 30 years, New Zealand has doubled its renewable energy capacity, and at the same time increased its GHG emissions and reduced the overall efficiency of the national energy system.

And we are now planning to more than double our renewable energy system yet again over the next 30 years, even as zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is being debated elsewhere. We need to ask if this is a good idea.

How can we expand New Zealand’s solar PV and wind turbines without using fossil fuels? We can’t.

How could we expand our solar PV and wind turbines without mining rare minerals and the hidden costs of clean energy they entail, further contributing to ecological destruction and often increasing social injustices? We can't.

Even if we could construct, deliver, install and maintain solar PV and wind turbines without generating more GHG emissions and destroying ecosystems and poor communities, this “renewable” infrastructure would have to be replaced in a few decades. But there are at least two major problems with this assumed scenario.

The rare earth minerals required for this replacement will already be exhausted by the initial build out. Recycling will only provide a limited amount of replacements.

The other challenge is that a mostly “renewable” energy system will likely have a considerably lower net energy surplus. So where, in 2060, will the energy come from to either mine or recycle the raw materials, and to rebuild, reinstall and maintain the next iteration of a renewable energy system?

There is currently no plan for this replacement. It is a serious misnomer to call these energy technologies “renewable”. They are not as they rely on considerable raw material inputs and fossil energy for their production and never ending replacement.

New Zealand is, of course, blessed with an unusually high level of hydro electric and geothermal power. New Zealand currently uses over 170 GJ of total energy per capita, 40 percent of which is “renewable”. This provides approximately 70 GJ of “renewable” energy per capita with our current population.

This is the average global per capita energy level from all sources across all nations, as calls for 100% renewable energy globally emphasize. Several nations operate with roughly this amount of total energy per capita that New Zealand can generate just from “renewables”.

It is worth reflecting on the 170 GJ of total energy use we currently consume. Different studies give very different results regarding what levels are necessary for a good life.

For a complex industrial society such as ours, 100 GJ pc is said to be necessary for a high levels of wellbeing, determined both subjectively (life satisfaction/ happiness measures), and objectively (e.g. infant mortality levels, female morbidity as an index of population health, access to nutritious food and educational and health resources, etc). These studies do not take into account the large amount of energy that is wasted either through inefficient technologies, or frivolous use, which effective decarbonization strategies seek to reduce.

Other studies that consider the minimal energy needed for wellbeing suggest a much lower level of per capita energy consumption is required. These studies take a different approach and focus on ensuring basic wellbeing is maintained, but not necessarily with all the trappings of a complex industrial society. Their results indicate a level of approximately 20 GJ per capita is adequate.

In either case, we in New Zealand are wasting a lot of energy, both in terms of the efficiency of our technologies (see the Losses and Own Use info above), and also in our uses which do not contribute to wellbeing (think of the private vehicle travel that could be done by active or public transport – if we had good infrastructure in place).

We in New Zealand need a national dialogue about our future. And energy availability is only one aspect. We need to discuss what our carrying capacity is, what level of consumption is sustainable for our population, and whether we wish to make adjustments in either our per capita consumption or our population. Both together determine whether we are on the sustainable side of carrying capacity. Currently we are on the unsustainable side, meaning our way of life cannot endure. Not a good look for being a good ancestor.

The current trajectory of the Government and Electricity Authority appears to be grossly unsustainable. At the very least they should be able to answer the questions posed here about the GHG emissions from implementing a totally renewable energy system, the net energy of such a system, and the related environmental and social consequences.

Public dialogue is critical to collectively working out our future. Allowing the current profit-driven trajectory to unfold is a recipe for disasters for our children and grandchildren.

Being silent on these issues amounts to complicity in allowing short-term financial interests and an addiction to convenience jeopardise a genuinely secure and resilient future. Let’s get some answers from the Government and Electricity Authority to critical questions about energy security.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Small Modular Reactors in Canada are advancing through provincial collaboration, offering nuclear energy, clean power and carbon reductions for grids, remote communities, and mines, with factory-built modules, regulatory roadmaps, and pre-licensing by the nuclear regulator.

Key Points

Compact, factory-built nuclear units for clean power, cutting carbon for grids, remote communities, and industry.

✅ Provinces: Ontario, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick collaborate

✅ Targets coal replacement, carbon cuts, clean baseload power

✅ Modular, factory-made units; 5-10 year deployment horizon

The premiers of Ontario, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick have committed to collaborate on developing nuclear reactor technology in Canada. 

Doug Ford, Scott Moe and Blaine Higgs made the announcement and signed a memorandum of understanding on Sunday in advance of a meeting of all the premiers. 

They will be working on the research, development and building of small modular reactors as a way to help their individual provinces reduce carbon emissions and move away from non-renewable energy sources like coal. 

Small modular reactors are easy to construct, are safer than large reactors and are regarded as cleaner energy than coal, the premiers say. They can be small enough to fit in a school gym. 

SMRs are actually not very close to entering operation in Canada, though Ontario broke ground on its first SMR at Darlington recently, signaling early progress. Natural Resources Canada released an "SMR roadmap" last year, with a series of recommendations about regulation readiness and waste management for SMRs.

In Canada, about a dozen companies are currently in pre-licensing with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which is reviewing their designs.

"Canadians working together, like we are here today, from coast to coast, can play an even larger role in addressing climate change in Canada and around the world," Moe said.  

Canada's Paris targets are to lower total emissions 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, and nuclear's role in climate goals has been emphasized by the federal minister in recent remarks. Moe says the reactors would help Saskatchewan reach a 70 per cent reduction by that year.

The provinces' three energy ministries will meet in the new year to discuss how to move forward and by the fall a fully-fledged strategy for the reactors is expected to be ready.

However, don't expect to see them popping up in a nearby field anytime soon. It's estimated it will take five to 10 years before they're built. 

Ford lauds economic possibilities
The provincial leaders said it could be an opportunity for economic growth, estimating the Canadian market for this energy at $10 billion and the global market at $150 billion.

Ford called it an "opportunity for Canada to be a true leader." At a time when Ottawa and the provinces are at odds, Higgs said it's the perfect time to show unity. 

"It's showing how provinces come together on issues of the future." 

P.E.I. premier predicts unity at Toronto premiers' meeting
No other premiers have signed on to the deal at this point, but Ford said all are welcome and "the more, the merrier."

But developing new energy technologies is a daunting task. Higgs admitted the project will need national support of some kind, though he didn't specify what. The agreement signed by the premiers is also not binding. 

About 8.6 per cent of Canada's electricity comes from coal-fired generation. In New Brunswick that figure is much higher — 15.8 per cent — and New Brunswick's small-nuclear debate has intensified as New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs has said he worries about his province's energy producers being hit by the federal carbon tax.

Ontario has no coal-fired power plants, and OPG's SMR commitment aligns with its clean electricity strategy today. In Saskatchewan, burning coal generates 46.6 per cent of the province's electricity.

How would it work?
The federal government describes small modular reactors (SMRs) as the "next wave of innovation" in nuclear energy technology, and collaborations like the OPG and TVA partnership are advancing development efforts, and an "important technology opportunity for Canada."

Traditional nuclear reactors used in Canada typically generate about 800 megawatts of electricity, and Ontario is exploring new large-scale nuclear plants alongside SMRs, or enough to power about 600,000 homes at once (assuming that 1 megawatt can power about 750 homes).

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN organization for nuclear co-operation, considers a nuclear reactor to be "small" if it generates under 300 megawatts.

Designs for small reactors ranging from just 3 megawatts to 300 megawatts have been submitted to Canada's nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, for review as part of a pre-licensing process, while plans for four SMRs at Darlington outline a potential build-out pathway that regulators will assess.

Ford rallying premiers to call for large increase in federal health transfers
Such reactors are considered "modular" because they're designed to work either independently or as modules in a bigger complex (as is already the case with traditional, larger reactors at most Canadian nuclear power plants). A power plant could be expanded incrementally by adding additional modules.

Modules are generally designed to be small enough to make in a factory and be transported easily — for example, via a standard shipping container.

In Canada, there are three main areas where SMRs could be used:

Traditional, on-grid power generation, especially in provinces looking for zero-emissions replacements for CO2-emitting coal plants.
Remote communities that currently rely on polluting diesel generation.
Resource extraction sites, such as mining and oil and gas.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News