As lawmakers in Washington, D.C., debate new federal climate-change legislation, WisconsinÂ’s dairy industry is leading the way in demonstrating the benefits of using cow manure methane digester biogas.
In the last several years, a growing number of dairy farms in Wisconsin have installed GE EnergyÂ’s Jenbacher biogas engines to generate needed renewable electricity for onsite power and the local grid.
GEÂ’s newly installed, advanced Jenbacher biogas engine technology is generating 633 kilowatts (kW) in renewable energy at the Crave Brothers Farm, LLC in Waterloo, Wisc.
“Installing GE Energy’s Jenbacher biogas technology is playing an important role in our ongoing initiatives to reduce the operational costs as well as the environmental impacts of our dairy operations,” said Charles Crave, one of the farm’s co-owners. “We hope that other dairy farms around the country adopt similar technologies in recognition of the agricultural community’s increasingly important role in addressing the country’s energy and climate-change concerns.”
Crave Brothers is hosting the 2009 Farm Technology Days, one of the countryÂ’s largest agricultural technology expositions. More than 80,000 people are expected to visit the Crave Brothers site, which is located about an hour west of Milwaukee.
Crave Brothers is a 29-year-old, family run dairy farm and on-site cheese plant that is nationally known for its progressive use of technologies to reduce the environmental impacts of its operations. The 1,700-acre farm currently has nearly 1,000 milk cows and 700 heifers.
By converting the manure to methane biogas and using it to generate electricity in GEÂ’s Jenbacher unit, less greenhouse gas is able to escape into the atmosphere. The system also is helping Crave Brothers lower its operational costs, including through the sale of energy to the regional grid and more cost-effective manure management.
Crave Brothers originally had operated an older, less powerful biogas system to support some of the farmÂ’s electricity requirements. However, the owners later installed GEÂ’s Jenbacher technology after deciding they could be generating even more electricity with a more powerful Jenbacher engine, Crave said.
In May 2009, one of GEÂ’s ecomagination-certified Jenbacher J312 biogas engines was commissioned at the Crave Brothers site and is generating 633 kW of electricity to support the siteÂ’s dairy operations. Surplus power from the engine is being sold to the regional grid in Wisconsin, which is aggressively supporting the expansion of renewable energy production.
Renewable energy developer Clear Horizons, which built and owns the digester biogas plant at the Crave Brothers site, is supplying the engineÂ’s electricity to regional grid operator WE Energies, the trade name of Wisconsin Electric Power Co. and Wisconsin Gas LLC, the principal utility subsidiaries of Wisconsin Energy Corporation.
Widely accepted in Europe, the use of biogas digester systems with GEÂ’s Jenbacher engines is a fairly new U.S. agri-business trend. In the past, some U.S. farmers had used old diesel motors and smaller gas engines until they began installing more durable, robust gas engines in recent years.
“Agricultural waste is one of the country’s leading sources of methane gas emissions and GE is pleased to help supply its proven gas engine technology to Crave Brothers as the U.S. farming community embraces this renewable energy technology,” said Roger George, general manager for GE’s Jenbacher gas engine business in North America.
TTC Winter E-Bike and E-Scooter Ban addresses lithium-ion battery safety, mitigating fire risk on Toronto public transit during cold weather across buses, subways, and streetcars, while balancing micro-mobility access, infrastructure gaps, and evolving regulations.
Key Points
A seasonal TTC policy limiting lithium-ion e-bikes and scooters on transit in winter to cut battery fire risk.
✅ Targets lithium-ion fire hazards in confined transit spaces
✅ Applies Nov-Mar across buses, subways, and streetcars
✅ Sparks debate on equity, accessibility, and policy alternatives
The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) Board recently voted to implement a ban on lithium-ion-powered electric bikes (e-bikes) and electric scooters during the winter months, a decision that reflects growing safety concerns. This new policy has generated significant debate within the city, particularly regarding the role of these transportation modes in the lives of Torontonians, and the potential risks posed by the technology during cold weather.
A Growing Safety Concern
The move to ban lithium-ion-powered e-bikes and scooters from TTC services during the winter months stems from increasing safety concerns related to battery fires. Lithium-ion batteries, commonly used in e-bikes and scooters, are known to pose a fire risk, especially in colder temperatures, and as systems like Metro Vancouver's battery-electric buses expand, robust safety practices are paramount. In recent years, Toronto has experienced several high-profile incidents involving fires caused by these batteries. In some cases, these fires have occurred on TTC property, including on buses and subway cars, raising alarm among transit officials.
The TTC Board's decision was largely driven by the fear that the cold temperatures during winter months could make lithium-ion batteries more prone to malfunction, leading to potential fires. These batteries are particularly vulnerable to damage when exposed to low temperatures, which can cause them to overheat or fail during charging or use. Since public transit systems are densely populated and rely on close quarters, the risk of a battery fire in a confined space such as a bus or subway is considered too high.
The New Ban
The new rule, which is expected to take effect in the coming months, will prohibit e-bikes and scooters powered by lithium-ion batteries from being brought onto TTC vehicles, including buses, streetcars, and subway trains, even as the agency rolls out battery electric buses across its fleet, during the winter months. While the TTC had previously allowed passengers to bring these devices on board, it had issued warnings regarding their safety. The policy change reflects a more cautious approach to mitigating risk in light of growing concerns.
The winter months, typically from November to March, are when these batteries are at their most vulnerable. In addition to environmental factors, the challenges posed by winter weather—such as snow, ice, and the damp conditions—can exacerbate the potential for damage to these devices. The TTC Board hopes the new ban will prevent further incidents and keep transit riders safe.
Pushback and Debate
Not everyone agrees with the TTC Board's decision. Some residents and advocacy groups have expressed concern that this ban unfairly targets individuals who rely on e-bikes and scooters as an affordable and sustainable mode of transportation, while international examples like Paris's e-scooter vote illustrate how contentious rental devices can be elsewhere, adding fuel to the debate. E-bikes, in particular, have become a popular choice among commuters who want an eco-friendly alternative to driving, especially in a city like Toronto, where traffic congestion can be severe.
Advocates argue that instead of an outright ban, the TTC should invest in safer infrastructure, such as designated storage areas for e-bikes and scooters, or offer guidelines on how to safely store and transport these devices during winter, and, in assessing climate impacts, consider Canada's electricity mix alongside local safety measures. They also point out that other forms of electric transportation, such as electric wheelchairs and mobility scooters, are not subject to the same restrictions, raising questions about the fairness of the new policy.
In response to these concerns, the TTC has assured the public that it remains committed to finding alternative solutions that balance safety with accessibility. Transit officials have stated that they will continue to monitor the situation and consider adjustments to the policy if necessary.
Broader Implications for Transportation in Toronto
The TTC’s decision to ban lithium-ion-powered e-bikes and scooters is part of a broader conversation about the future of transportation in urban centers like Toronto. The rise of electric micro-mobility devices has been seen as a step toward reducing carbon emissions and addressing the city’s growing congestion issues, aligning with Canada's EV goals that push for widespread adoption. However, as more people turn to e-bikes and scooters for daily commuting, concerns about safety and infrastructure have become more pronounced.
The city of Toronto has yet to roll out comprehensive regulations for electric scooters and bikes, and this issue is further complicated by the ongoing push for sustainable urban mobility and pilots like driverless electric shuttles that test new models. While transit authorities grapple with safety risks, the public is increasingly looking for ways to integrate these devices into a broader, more holistic transportation system that prioritizes both convenience and safety.
The TTC’s decision to ban lithium-ion-powered e-bikes and scooters during the winter months is a necessary step to address growing safety concerns in Toronto's public transit system. Although the decision has been met with some resistance, it highlights the ongoing challenges in managing the growing use of electric transportation in urban environments, where initiatives like TTC's electric bus fleet offer lessons on scaling safely. With winter weather exacerbating the risks associated with lithium-ion batteries, the policy seeks to reduce the chances of fires and ensure the safety of all transit users. As the city moves forward, it will need to find ways to balance innovation with public safety to create a more sustainable and safe urban transportation network.
B.C. LNG Electrification embeds clean hydro and wind power into low-emission liquefied natural gas, cutting carbon intensity, enabling coal displacement in Asia, and opening grid-scale demand for independent power producers and ITMO-based climate accounting.
Key Points
Powering LNG with clean electricity cuts carbon intensity, displaces coal, and grows demand for B.C.'s clean power.
✅ Electric-drive LNG cuts emissions intensity by up to 80%.
✅ Creates major grid load, boosting B.C. independent power producers.
✅ Enables ITMO crediting when coal displacement is verified.
B.C. has abundant clean power – if only there was a way to ship those electrons across the sea to help coal-dependent countries reduce their emissions, and even regionally, Alberta–B.C. grid link benefits could help move surplus power domestically.
Natural gas that is liquefied using clean hydro and wind power and then exported would be, in a sense, a way of embedding B.C.’s low emission electricity in another form of energy, and, alongside the Canada–Germany clean energy pact, part of a broader export strategy.
Given the increased demand that could come from an LNG industry – especially one that moves towards greater electrification and, as the IEA net-zero electricity report notes, broader system demand – poses some potentially big opportunities for B.C.’s clean energy independent power sector, as those attending the Clean Energy Association of BC's annual at the Generate conference heard recently.
At a session on LNG electrification, delegates were told that LNG produced in B.C. with electricity could have some significant environmental benefits.
Given how much power an LNG plant that uses electric drive consumes, an electrified LNG industry could also pose some significant opportunities for independent power producers – a sector that had the wind taken out of its sails with the sanctioning of the Site C dam project.
Only one LNG plant being built in B.C. – Woodfibre LNG – will use electric drive to produce LNG, although the companies behind Kitimat LNG have changed their original design plans, and now plan to use electric drive drive as well.
Even small LNG plants that use electric drive require a lot of power.
“We’re talking about a lot of power, since it’s one of the biggest consumers you can connect to a grid,” said Sven Demmig, head of project development for Siemens.
Most LNG plants still burn natural gas to drive the liquefaction process – a choice that intersects with climate policy and electricity grids in Canada. They typically generate 0.35 tonnes of CO2e per tonne of LNG produced.
Because it will use electric drive, LNG produced by Woodfibre LNG will have an emissions intensity that is 80% less than LNG produced in the Gulf of Mexico, said Woodfibre president David Keane.
In B.C., the benchmark for GHG intensities for LNG plants has been set at 0.16 tonnes of CO2e per tonne of LNG. Above that, LNG producers would need to pay higher carbon taxes than those that are below the benchmark.
The LNG Canada plant has an intensity of 0.15 tonnes og CO2e per tonne of LNG. Woodfibre LNG will have an emissions intensity of just 0.059, thanks to electric drive.
“So we will be significantly less than any operating facility in the world,” Keane said.
Keane said Sinopec has recently estimated that it expects China’s demand for natural gas to grow by 82% by 2030.
“So China will, in fact, get its gas supply,” Keane said. “The question is: where will that supply come from?
“For every tonne of LNG that’s being produced today in the United States -- and tonne of LNG that we’re not producing in Canada -- we’re seeing about 10 million tonnes of carbon leakage every single year.”
The first Canadian company to produce LNG that ended up in China is FortisBC. Small independent operators have been buying LNG from FortisBC’s Tilbury Island plant and shipping to China in ISO containers on container ships.
David Bennett, director of communications for FortisBC, said those shipments are traced to industries in China that are, indeed, using LNG instead of coal power now.
“We know where those shipping containers are going,” he said. “They’re actually going to displace coal in factories in China.”
Verifying what the LNG is used for is important, if Canadian producers want to claim any kind of climate credit. LNG shipped to Japan or South Korea to displace nuclear power, for example, would actually result in a net increase in GHGs. But used to displace coal, the emissions reductions can be significant, since natural gas produces about half the CO2 that coal does.
The problem for LNG producers here is B.C.’s emissions reduction targets as they stand today. Even LNG produced with electricity will produce some GHGs. The fact that LNG that could dramatically reduce GHGs in other countries, if it displaces coal power, does not count in B.C.’s carbon accounting.
Under the Paris Agreement, countries agree to set their own reduction targets, and, for Canada, cleaning up Canada’s electricity remains critical to meeting climate pledges, but don’t typically get to claim any reductions that might result outside their own country.
Canada is exploring the use of Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMO) under the Under the Paris Agreement to allow Canada to claim some of the GHG reductions that result in other countries, like China, through the export of Canadian LNG.
“For example, if I were producing 4 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in B.C. and I was selling 100% of my LNG to China, and I can verify that they’re replacing coal…they would have a reduction of about 60 or million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions,” Keane said.
“So if they’re buying 4 million tonnes of emissions from us, under these ITMOs, then they have net reduction of 56 million tonnes, we’d have a net increase of zero.”
But even if China and Canada agreed to such a trading arrangement, the United Nations still hasn’t decided just how the rules around ITMOs will work.
EU Renewable Energy Shift is cutting gas dependence as wind and solar expand, reshaping Europe's power mix, curbing emissions, and pressuring coal use amid a supply crisis and rising natural gas prices.
Key Points
An EU trend where wind and solar growth reduce gas reliance, curb coal, and lower power-sector emissions.
✅ Wind and solar displace gas in EU power mix
✅ Coal use rises as gas prices surge
✅ Emissions fall, but not fast enough for 1.5 C target
The European Union’s renewable energy sources are helping reduce its dependence on natural gas, under the current European electricity pricing framework, that’s still costing the region dearly.
Renewables growth has helped reduce the EU’s dependence on gas, as wind and solar outpaced gas across the bloc last year, which has soared in price since the middle of last year as the region grapples with a supply crisis that’s dealt blows to industries as well as ordinary consumers’ pockets. More than half of new renewable generation since 2019 has replaced gas power, according to a study by London-based climate think tank Ember, with the rest replacing mainly nuclear and coal sources.
“These are moments and paradigm shifts when governments and businesses start taking this much more seriously,” said Charles Moore, the lead author on the study, amid Covid-19 responses accelerating the transition across Europe. “The alternatives are available, they are cheaper, and they are likely to get even cheaper and more competitive. Renewables are now an opportunity, not a cost.”
The high price of gas relative to coal has meant utilities are leaning more on coal as a back-up for renewable generation, as stunted hydro and nuclear output has constrained low-carbon alternatives in parts of Europe, which risks the trajectory of Europe’s phase-out of the dirtiest fossil fuel. Last year, the EU’s coal use jumped disproportionately high relative to the rise in power generation as high gas prices boosted the relative profitability of burning coal instead.
Europe Coal Use Jumps as Costly Gas Turns Firms to Dirty Fuel EU power generation from renewables reached a record high in 2021 of 547 terawatt-hours last year, accounting for an 11% increase compared to two years before, according to Ember’s Europe Electricity Review. It’s more than doubled in a decade, representing a 157% increase since 2011.
Gas use declined last year for the second year in a row, as Europe explores storing electricity in gas pipelines to leverage existing infrastructure, reaching a level 8.1% lower than 2019. By contrast, coal use fell just 3.3% in the same period. Put simply, wind and solar did a great job of replacing coal during 2011-2019 but since then renewables have mostly been nudging out gas-fired power stations.
Ember’s Moore warned that the slowing phase-out of coal might require legislation to accelerate. The International Energy Agency recommends OECD countries cease using coal by the end of the decade to ensure alignment with the Paris Agreement target of keeping the world’s temperature increase below 1.5 Celsius, with renewables poised to eclipse coal globally by the mid-2020s lending momentum.
“Europe can accelerate the phasing out of coal by building more renewable energy and faster,” said Felicia Aminoff, an energy-transition analyst at BloombergNEF. “Wind and solar have no fuel costs, so as soon as you have made the initial investments to build wind and solar capacity it will start replacing generation that uses any kind of fuel, whether it is coal or gas.”
Overall, EU power sector emissions fell at less than half the rate required to hit that target, Ember’s report said. Spain produced the largest emissions reduction in the last two years, with renewables adding about 25 TWh and gas falling 15 TWh, and in Germany renewables topped coal and nuclear for the first time to support the shift. In contrast, heavy use of coal dragged down the bloc’s climate progress in Poland, where coal use rose about 8 TWh and renewables gained only 4 TWh.
ITER Nuclear Fusion advances tokamak magnetic confinement, heating deuterium-tritium plasma with superconducting magnets, targeting net energy gain, tritium breeding, and steam-turbine power, while complementing laser inertial confinement milestones for grid-scale electricity and 2025 startup goals.
Key Points
ITER Nuclear Fusion is a tokamak project confining D-T plasma with magnets to achieve net energy gain and clean power.
✅ Tokamak magnetic confinement with high-temp superconducting coils
✅ Deuterium-tritium fuel cycle with on-site tritium breeding
✅ Targets net energy gain and grid-scale, low-carbon electricity
It sounds like the stuff of dreams: a virtually limitless source of energy that doesn’t produce greenhouse gases or radioactive waste. That’s the promise of nuclear fusion, often described as the holy grail of clean energy by proponents, which for decades has been nothing more than a fantasy due to insurmountable technical challenges. But things are heating up in what has turned into a race to create what amounts to an artificial sun here on Earth, one that can provide power for our kettles, cars and light bulbs.
Today’s nuclear power plants create electricity through nuclear fission, in which atoms are split, with next-gen nuclear power exploring smaller, cheaper, safer designs that remain distinct from fusion. Nuclear fusion however, involves combining atomic nuclei to release energy. It’s the same reaction that’s taking place at the Sun’s core. But overcoming the natural repulsion between atomic nuclei and maintaining the right conditions for fusion to occur isn’t straightforward. And doing so in a way that produces more energy than the reaction consumes has been beyond the grasp of the finest minds in physics for decades.
But perhaps not for much longer. Some major technical challenges have been overcome in the past few years and governments around the world have been pouring money into fusion power research as part of a broader green industrial revolution under way in several regions. There are also over 20 private ventures in the UK, US, Europe, China and Australia vying to be the first to make fusion energy production a reality.
“People are saying, ‘If it really is the ultimate solution, let’s find out whether it works or not,’” says Dr Tim Luce, head of science and operation at the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), being built in southeast France. ITER is the biggest throw of the fusion dice yet.
Its $22bn (£15.9bn) build cost is being met by the governments of two-thirds of the world’s population, including the EU, the US, China and Russia, at a time when Europe is losing nuclear power and needs energy, and when it’s fired up in 2025 it’ll be the world’s largest fusion reactor. If it works, ITER will transform fusion power from being the stuff of dreams into a viable energy source.
Constructing a nuclear fusion reactor ITER will be a tokamak reactor – thought to be the best hope for fusion power. Inside a tokamak, a gas, often a hydrogen isotope called deuterium, is subjected to intense heat and pressure, forcing electrons out of the atoms. This creates a plasma – a superheated, ionised gas – that has to be contained by intense magnetic fields.
The containment is vital, as no material on Earth could withstand the intense heat (100,000,000°C and above) that the plasma has to reach so that fusion can begin. It’s close to 10 times the heat at the Sun’s core, and temperatures like that are needed in a tokamak because the gravitational pressure within the Sun can’t be recreated.
When atomic nuclei do start to fuse, vast amounts of energy are released. While the experimental reactors currently in operation release that energy as heat, in a fusion reactor power plant, the heat would be used to produce steam that would drive turbines to generate electricity, even as some envision nuclear beyond electricity for industrial heat and fuels.
Tokamaks aren’t the only fusion reactors being tried. Another type of reactor uses lasers to heat and compress a hydrogen fuel to initiate fusion. In August 2021, one such device at the National Ignition Facility, at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, generated 1.35 megajoules of energy. This record-breaking figure brings fusion power a step closer to net energy gain, but most hopes are still pinned on tokamak reactors rather than lasers.
In June 2021, China’s Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) reactor maintained a plasma for 101 seconds at 120,000,000°C. Before that, the record was 20 seconds. Ultimately, a fusion reactor would need to sustain the plasma indefinitely – or at least for eight-hour ‘pulses’ during periods of peak electricity demand.
A real game-changer for tokamaks has been the magnets used to produce the magnetic field. “We know how to make magnets that generate a very high magnetic field from copper or other kinds of metal, but you would pay a fortune for the electricity. It wouldn’t be a net energy gain from the plant,” says Luce.
One route for nuclear fusion is to use atoms of deuterium and tritium, both isotopes of hydrogen. They fuse under incredible heat and pressure, and the resulting products release energy as heat
The solution is to use high-temperature, superconducting magnets made from superconducting wire, or ‘tape’, that has no electrical resistance. These magnets can create intense magnetic fields and don’t lose energy as heat.
“High temperature superconductivity has been known about for 35 years. But the manufacturing capability to make tape in the lengths that would be required to make a reasonable fusion coil has just recently been developed,” says Luce. One of ITER’s magnets, the central solenoid, will produce a field of 13 tesla – 280,000 times Earth’s magnetic field.
The inner walls of ITER’s vacuum vessel, where the fusion will occur, will be lined with beryllium, a metal that won’t contaminate the plasma much if they touch. At the bottom is the divertor that will keep the temperature inside the reactor under control.
“The heat load on the divertor can be as large as in a rocket nozzle,” says Luce. “Rocket nozzles work because you can get into orbit within minutes and in space it’s really cold.” In a fusion reactor, a divertor would need to withstand this heat indefinitely and at ITER they’ll be testing one made out of tungsten.
Meanwhile, in the US, the National Spherical Torus Experiment – Upgrade (NSTX-U) fusion reactor will be fired up in the autumn of 2022, while efforts in advanced fission such as a mini-reactor design are also progressing. One of its priorities will be to see whether lining the reactor with lithium helps to keep the plasma stable.
Choosing a fuel Instead of just using deuterium as the fusion fuel, ITER will use deuterium mixed with tritium, another hydrogen isotope. The deuterium-tritium blend offers the best chance of getting significantly more power out than is put in. Proponents of fusion power say one reason the technology is safe is that the fuel needs to be constantly fed into the reactor to keep fusion happening, making a runaway reaction impossible.
Deuterium can be extracted from seawater, so there’s a virtually limitless supply of it. But only 20kg of tritium are thought to exist worldwide, so fusion power plants will have to produce it (ITER will develop technology to ‘breed’ tritium). While some radioactive waste will be produced in a fusion plant, it’ll have a lifetime of around 100 years, rather than the thousands of years from fission.
At the time of writing in September, researchers at the Joint European Torus (JET) fusion reactor in Oxfordshire were due to start their deuterium-tritium fusion reactions. “JET will help ITER prepare a choice of machine parameters to optimise the fusion power,” says Dr Joelle Mailloux, one of the scientific programme leaders at JET. These parameters will include finding the best combination of deuterium and tritium, and establishing how the current is increased in the magnets before fusion starts.
The groundwork laid down at JET should accelerate ITER’s efforts to accomplish net energy gain. ITER will produce ‘first plasma’ in December 2025 and be cranked up to full power over the following decade. Its plasma temperature will reach 150,000,000°C and its target is to produce 500 megawatts of fusion power for every 50 megawatts of input heating power.
“If ITER is successful, it’ll eliminate most, if not all, doubts about the science and liberate money for technology development,” says Luce. That technology development will be demonstration fusion power plants that actually produce electricity, where advanced reactors can build on decades of expertise. “ITER is opening the door and saying, yeah, this works – the science is there.”
TEPCO Kashiwazaki-Kariwa restart plan clears NRA fitness review, anchored by a seven-point safety code, Niigata consent, Fukushima lessons, seismic risk analysis, and upgrades to No. 6 and No. 7 reactors, each rated 1.35 GW.
Key Points
TEPCO's plan to restart Kashiwazaki-Kariwa under NRA rules, pending Niigata consent and upgrades to Units 6 and 7.
✅ Local consent required: Niigata review of evacuation and health impacts
✅ Initial focus on Units 6 and 7; 1.35 GW each, seismic upgrades
Tokyo Electric Power Co. cleared a major regulatory hurdle toward restarting a nuclear power plant in Niigata Prefecture, but the utility’s bid to resume its operations still hangs in the balance of a series of political approvals.
The government’s nuclear watchdog concluded Sept. 23 that the utility is fit to operate the plant, based on new legally binding safety rules TEPCO drafted and pledged to follow, even as nuclear projects worldwide mark milestones across different regulatory environments today. If TEPCO is found to be in breach of those regulations, it could be ordered to halt the plant’s operations.
The Nuclear Regulation Authority’s green light now shifts the focus over to whether local governments will agree in the coming months to restart the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant.
TEPCO is keen to get the plant back up and running. It has been financially reeling from the closure of its nuclear plants in Fukushima Prefecture following the triple meltdown at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant in 2011 triggered by the earthquake and tsunami disaster.
In parallel, Japan is investing in clean energy innovations such as a large hydrogen system being developed by Toshiba, Tohoku Electric Power and Iwatani.
The company plans to bring the No. 6 and No. 7 reactors back online at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear complex, which is among the world’s largest nuclear plants, amid China’s nuclear energy continuing on a steady development track in the region.
The two reactors each boast 1.35 gigawatts in output capacity, while Kenya’s nuclear plant aims to power industry as part of that country’s expansion. They are the newest of the seven reactors there, first put into service between 1996 and 1997.
TEPCO has not revealed specific plans yet on what to do with the older five reactors.
In 2017, the NRA cleared the No. 6 and No. 7 reactors under the tougher new reactor regulations established in 2013 in response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster, while jurisdictions such as Ontario support continued operation at Pickering under strict oversight.
It also closely scrutinized the operator’s ability to run the Niigata Prefecture plant safely, given its history as the entity responsible for the nation’s most serious nuclear accident.
After several rounds of meetings with top TEPCO managers, the NRA managed to hold the utility’s feet to the fire enough to make it pledge, in writing, to abide by a new seven-point safety code for the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant.
The creation of the new code, which is legally binding, is meant to hold the company accountable for safety measures at the facility.
“As the top executive, the president of TEPCO will take responsibility for the safety of nuclear power,” one of the points reads. “TEPCO will not put the facility’s economic performance above its safety,” reads another.
The company promised to abide by the points set out in writing during the NRA’s examination of its safety regulations.
TEPCO also vowed to set up a system where the president is directly briefed on risks to the nuclear complex, including the likelihood of earthquakes more powerful than what the plant is designed to withstand. It must also draft safeguard measures to deal with those kinds of earthquakes and confirm whether precautionary steps are in place.
The utility additionally pledged to promptly release public records on the decision-making process concerning crucial matters related to nuclear safety, and to preserve the documents until the facility is decommissioned.
TEPCO plans to complete its work to reinforce the safety of the No. 7 reactor in December. It has not set a definite deadline for similar work for the No. 6 reactor.
To restart the Kashiwazki-Kariwa plant, TEPCO needs to obtain consent from local governments, including the Niigata prefectural government.
The prefectural government is studying the plant’s safety through a panel of experts, which is reviewing whether evacuation plans are adequate as off-limits areas reopen and the health impact on residents from the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
Niigata Governor Hideyo Hanazumi said he will not decide on the restart until the panel completes its review.
The nuclear complex suffered damage, including from fire at an electric transformer, when an earthquake it deemed able to withstand hit in 2007.
Electrical Grounding and Bonding NEC 250 Training equips electricians with Article 250 expertise, OSHA compliance knowledge, lightning protection strategies, and low-impedance fault current path design for safer industrial, commercial, and institutional power systems.
Key Points
Live NEC 250 course on grounding and bonding, covering safety, testing, and OSHA-compliant design.
✅ Interprets NEC Article 250 grounding and bonding rules
✅ Designs low-impedance fault current paths for safety
✅ Aligns with OSHA, lightning protection, and testing best practices
The Electricity Forum is organizing a series of live online Electrical Grounding and Bonding - NEC 250 training courses this Fall:
September 8-9 , 2020 - 10:00 am - 4:30 pm ET
October 29-30 , 2020 - 10:00 am - 4:30 pm ET
November 23-24 , 2020 - 10:00 am - 4:30 pm ET
This interactive 12-hour live online instructor-led Grounding and Bonding and the NEC Training course takes an in-depth look at Article 250 of the National Electrical Code (NEC) and is designed to give students the correct information they need to design, install and maintain effective electrical grounding and bonding systems in industrial, commercial and institutional power systems, with substation maintenance training also relevant in many facilities.
One of the most important AND least understood sections of the NEC is the section on Electrical Grounding, where resources like grounding guidelines can help practitioners navigate key concepts.
No other section of the National Electrical Code can match Article 250 (Grounding and Bonding) for confusion that leads to misapplication, violation, and misinterpretation. It's generally agreed that the terminology used in Section 250 has been a source for much confusion for industrial, commercial and institutional electricians. Thankfully, this has improved during the last few revisions to Article 250.
Article 250 covers the grounding requirements for providing a path to the earth to reduce overvoltage from lightning, with lightning protection training providing useful context, and the bonding requirements for a low-impedance fault current path back to the source of the electrical supply to facilitate the operation of overcurrent devices in the event of a ground fault.
Our Electrical Grounding Training course will address all the latest changes to the Electrical Grounding rules included in the NEC, and relate them to VFD drive training considerations for modern systems.
Our course will cover grounding fundamentals, identify which grounding system tests can prevent safety and operational issues at your facilities, and introduce related motor testing training topics, and details regarding which tests can be conducted while the plant is in operation versus which tests require a shutdown will be discussed.
Proper electrical grounding and bonding of equipment helps ensure that the electrical equipment and systems safely remove the possibility of electric shock, by limiting the voltage imposed on electrical equipment and systems from lightning, line surges, unintentional contact with higher-voltage lines, or ground-fault conditions. Proper grounding and bonding is important for personnel protection, with electrical safety tips offering practical guidance, as well as for compliance with OSHA 29 CFR 1910.304(g) Grounding.
It has been determined that more than 70 per cent of all electrical problems in industrial, commercial and institutional power systems, including large projects like the New England Clean Power Link, are due to poor grounding, and bonding errors. Without proper electrical grounding and bonding, sensitive electronic equipment is subjected to destruction of data, erratic equipment operation, and catastrophic damage. This electrical grounding and bonding training course will National Electrical Code.
Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person
instruction, our electrical training courses can be
tailored to meet your company's specific requirements
and delivered to your employees in one location or at
various locations.
