Vibration batteries may be the future

CO2 Tax for UK Offshore Energy Efficiency can accelerate adoption of aero-derivative gas turbines, flare gas recovery, and combined cycle power, reducing emissions on platforms like Equinor's Mariner and supporting net zero goals.

Key Points

A carbon price pushing operators to adopt efficient turbines, flare recovery, and combined cycle to cut emissions.

✅ Aero-derivative turbines beat industrial units on efficiency

✅ Flare gas recovery cuts routine flaring and fuel waste

✅ Combined cycle raises efficiency and lowers emissions

By Tom Baxter

The recent Energy Voice article from the Equinor chairman concerning the Mariner project heralding a ‘significant point of reference’ for growth highlighted the energy efficiency achievements associated with the platform.

I view energy efficiency as a key enabler to net zero, and alongside this the UK must start large-scale storage to meet system needs; it is a topic I have been involved with for many years.

As part of my energy efficiency work, I investigated Norwegian practices and compared them with the UK.

There were many differences, here are three;

1. Power for offshore installations is usually supplied from gas turbines burning fuel from the oil and gas processing plant, and even as the UK's offshore wind supply accelerates, installations convert that to electricity or couple the gas turbine to a machine such as a gas compressor.

There are two main generic types of gas turbine – aero-derivative and industrial. As the name implies aero-derivatives are aviation engines used in a static environment. Aero-derivative turbines are designed to be energy efficient as that is very import for the aviation industry.

Not so with industrial type gas turbines; they are typically 5-10% less efficient than a comparable aero-derivative.

Industrial machines do have some advantages – they can be cheaper, require less frequent maintenance, they have a wide fuel composition tolerance and they can be procured within a shorter time frame.

My comparison showed that aero-derivative machines prevailed in Norway because of the energy efficiency advantages – not the case in the UK where there are many more offshore industrial gas turbines.

Tom Baxter is visiting professor of chemical engineering at Strathclyde University and a retired technical director at Genesis Oil and Gas Consultants

2. Offshore gas flaring is probably the most obvious source of inefficient use of energy with consequent greenhouse gas emissions.

On UK installations gas is always flared due to the design of the oil and gas processing plant.

Though not a large quantity of gas, a continuous flow of gas is routinely sent to flare from some of the process plant.

In addition the flare requires pilot flames to be maintained burning at all times and, while Europe explores electricity storage in gas pipes, a purge of hydrocarbon gas is introduced into the pipes to prevent unsafe air ingress that could lead to an explosive mixture.

On many Norwegian installations the flare system is designed differently. Flare gas recovery systems are deployed which results in no flaring during continuous operations.

Flare gas recovery systems improve energy efficiency but they are costly and add additional operational complexity.

3. Returning to gas turbines, all UK offshore gas turbines are open cycle – gas is burned to produce energy and the very hot exhaust gases are vented to the atmosphere. Around 60 -70% of the energy is lost in the exhaust gases.

Some UK fields use this hot gas as a heat source for some of the oil and gas treatment operations hence improving energy efficiency.

There is another option for gas turbines that will significantly improve energy efficiency – combined cycle, and in parallel plans for nuclear power under the green industrial revolution aim to decarbonise supply.

Here the exhaust gases from an open cycle machine are taken to a separate turbine. This additional turbine utilises exhaust heat to produce steam with the steam used to drive a second turbine to generate supplementary electricity. It is the system used in most UK power stations, even as UK low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 across the grid.

Open cycle gas turbines are around 30 – 40% efficient whereas combined cycle turbines are typically 50 – 60%. Clearly deploying a combined cycle will result in a huge greenhouse gas saving.

I have worked on the development of many UK oil and gas fields and combined cycle has rarely been considered.

The reason being is that, despite the clear energy saving, they are too costly and complex to justify deploying offshore.

However that is not the case in Norway where combined cycle is used on Oseberg, Snorre and Eldfisk.

What makes the improved Norwegian energy efficiency practices different from the UK – the answer is clear; the Norwegian CO2 tax.

A tax that makes CO2 a significant part of offshore operating costs.

The consequence being that deploying energy efficient technology is much easier to justify in Norway when compared to the UK.

Do we need a CO2 tax in the UK to meet net zero – I am convinced we do. I am in good company. BP, Shell, ExxonMobil and Total are supporting a carbon tax.

Not without justification there has been much criticism of Labour’s recent oil tax plans, alongside proposals for state-owned electricity generation that aim to reshape the power market.

To my mind Labour’s laudable aims to tackle the Climate Emergency would be much better served by supporting a CO2 tax that complements the UK's coal-free energy record by strengthening renewable investment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California clean electricity accelerates with renewables as solar and wind surge, battery storage strengthens grid resilience, natural gas declines, and coal fades, advancing SB 100 targets, carbon neutrality goals, and affordable, reliable power statewide.

Key Points

California clean electricity is the state's transition to renewable, zero-carbon power, scaling solar, wind and storage.

✅ Solar generation up nearly 20x since 2012

✅ Natural gas power down 20%; coal nearly phased out

✅ Battery storage shifts daytime surplus to evening demand

Data from the California Energy Commission (CEC) highlight California’s continued progress toward building a more resilient grid, achieving 100 percent clean electricity and meeting the state’s carbon neutrality goals.

Analysis of the state’s Total System Electric Generation report shows how California’s power mix has changed over the last decade. Since 2012:

Solar generation increased nearly twentyfold from 2,609 gigawatt-hours (GWh) to 48,950 GWh.

• Wind generation grew by 63 percent.
• Natural gas generation decreased 20 percent.
• Coal has been nearly phased-out of the power mix, and renewable electricity surpassed coal nationally in 2022 as well.

In addition to total utility generation, rooftop solar increased by 10 times generating 24,309 GWh of clean power in 2022. The state’s expanding fleet of battery storage resources also help support the grid by charging during the day using excess renewable power for use in the evening.

“This latest report card showing how solar energy boomed as natural gas powered electricity experienced a steady 20 percent decline over the last decade is encouraging,” said CEC Vice Chair Siva Gunda. “Even as climate impacts become increasingly severe, California remains committed to transitioning away from polluting fossil fuels and delivering on the promise to build a future power grid that is clean, reliable and affordable.”

Senate Bill 100 (2018) requires 100 percent of California’s electric retail sales be supplied by renewable and zero-carbon energy sources by 2045. To keep the state on track, last year Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 1020, establishing interim targets of 90 percent clean electricity by 2035 and 95 percent by 2040.

The state monitors progress through the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), which tracks the power mix of retail sales, and regional peers such as Nevada's RPS progress offer useful comparison. The latest data show that in 2021 more than 37 percent of the state’s electricity came from RPS-eligible sources such as solar and wind, an increase of 2.7 percent compared to 2020. When combined with other sources of zero-carbon energy such as large hydroelectric generation and nuclear, nearly 59 percent of the state’s retail electricity sales came from nonfossil fuel sources.

The total system electric generation report is based on electric generation from all in-state power plants rated 1 megawatt (MW) or larger and imported utility-scale power generation. It reflects the percentage of a specific resource compared to all power generation, not just retail sales. The total system electric generation report accounts for energy used for water conveyance and pumping, transmission and distribution losses and other uses not captured under RPS.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

New York faces soaring energy bills as utilities seek record rate hikes, aging grid infrastructure demands upgrades, and federal renewable policies shift. Consumers struggle with affordability, late payments, and rising costs of delivery and energy supply across the state.

Why is New York Facing Soaring Energy Bills?

New York faces soaring energy bills because utilities are raising rates to cover the costs of grid upgrades, inflation, and policy-driven changes in energy supply.

✅ Utilities seek double-digit rate hikes across the state

✅ Aging infrastructure and storm repairs increase delivery costs

✅ Federal policies and gas dependence push energy prices higher

New Yorkers are bracing for another wave of energy bill increases as utilities seek record-high rate hikes and policy changes ripple through the state’s power system. Electric bills in New York are the highest they’ve been in over a decade, and more than a million households are now at least two months behind on payments, a sign of pandemic energy insecurity that continues to strain budgets, owing utilities nearly $2 billion.

Record numbers of households have had their electricity or gas shut off this year — more than 61,000 in May alone — despite pandemic shut-off suspensions that had offered temporary relief, the highest the Public Utility Law Project (PULP) has ever recorded. “This August was the group’s busiest month ever,” said Laurie Wheelock, PULP’s executive director, citing a surge in calls to its hotline. “The top concern on people’s minds: rate hikes.”

Utilities across the state are pushing for significant price increases, citing aging infrastructure, the need for climate adaptation, and higher operating costs, as California regulators face calls for action amid rising bills. “We used to see single-digit rate hikes and now we see double-digit rate hikes,” said Jessica Azulay, executive director of the Alliance for a Green Economy. “That’s a new normal that is unacceptable.”

Several utilities have requested delivery rate increases of 25 percent or more, with some proposals as high as 39 percent. Upstate utilities NYSEG and RG&E are seeking to raise electric and gas bills by about $33 a month, although regulators are unlikely to approve the full amount.

The companies argue the hikes are needed “to pay for rebuilding an aging grid and expanding its capacity to meet residents’ and businesses’ service demands,” including storm repairs. They also claim the plan would create more than 1,000 jobs.

James Denn, a spokesperson for the Public Service Commission (PSC), said much of the cost pressure stems from “inflation, higher interest rates, supply chain disruptions, the global push to upgrade electrical infrastructure, and, most recently, the rising risk and uncertainty from tariffs,” trends reflected in U.S. electricity price data over the past two years.

While some have blamed New York’s clean-energy transition, a PSC report found that state climate policies account for only 5 to 9.5 percent of the average household’s electric bill, or approximately $10 to $12 per month. The bulk of the increases still come from traditional spending on infrastructure, storm resilience, and system expansion.

On the supply side, costs are rising too. President Donald Trump’s recent policies have threatened renewable-energy investment nationwide, even as states’ renewable ambitions carry significant costs, potentially adding to New York’s woes. His July “megabill” phases out a 30 percent federal tax credit for solar and wind unless projects begin construction by mid-2026. Industry experts warn that the changes could make renewables “more expensive to build” and “increase reliance on gas.”

“It just means more expensive power,” said Marguerite Wells of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York.

The state estimates Trump’s policy shifts could cost New York $60 billion in lost renewable investment. With fewer clean-energy projects moving forward, gas — which already supplies roughly half of the state’s electricity — will remain the dominant source, tying energy prices to volatile global markets and the kinds of price drivers seen in California in recent years.

Governor Kathy Hochul has called affordability “our greatest short-term challenge,” while consumer advocates are demanding reforms to reduce utility profits and overhaul “rate design,” and to strengthen protections such as the emergency disconnection moratorium that applies during declared emergencies.

“There is definitely a groundswell of concern,” Wheelock said. “We go to meetings and we’re getting questions about rate design, like, ‘What is the revenue decoupling mechanism?’ Never had that question before.”

Related Articles

• USA Electricity News

Income Graduated Fixed Charge aligns CPUC billing with utility fixed costs, lowers usage rates, supports electrification, and shifts California investor-owned utilities' electric bills by income, with CARE and Climate Credit offsets for low-income households.

Key Points

A CPUC proposal: an income-based monthly fixed fee with lower usage rates to align costs and aid low-income customers.

✅ Income-tiered fixed fees: $0-$42; CARE: $14-$22, by utility territory

✅ Usage rates drop 16%-22% to support electrification and cost-reflective billing

✅ Lowest-income save ~$10-$20; some higher earners pay ~$10+ more monthly

The Public Advocates Office (PAO) for the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has proposed adding a monthly income-based fixed charge on electric utility bills based on income level.  

The rate change is designed to lower bills for the lowest-income residents while aligning billing more directly with utility costs. 

PAO’s recommendation for the Income Graduated Fixed Charge places fees between $22 and $42 per month in the three major investor-owned utilities’ territories, including an SDG&E minimum charge debate under way, for customers not enrolled in the California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) program. As seen below, CARE customers would be charged between $14 per month and $22 a month, depending on income level and territory.

For households earning $50,000 or less per year, the fixed charge would be $0, but only if the California Climate Credit is applied to offset the fixed cost.

Meanwhile, usage-based electricity rates are lowered in the PAO proposal, part of major changes to electric bills statewide. Average rates would be reduced between 16% to 22% for the three major investor-owned utilities.

The lowest-income bracket of Californians is expected to save roughly $10 to $20 a month under the proposal, while middle-income customers may see costs rise by about $20 a month, even as lawmakers seek to overturn income-based charges in Sacramento.

“We anticipate the vast majority of low-income customers ($50,000 or less per year) will have their monthly bills decrease by $10 or more, and a small proportion of the highest income earners ($100,000+ per year) will see their monthly bills rise by $10 or more,” said the PAO.

The charges are an effort to help suppress ever-increasing electricity generation and transmission rates, which are among the highest in the country, with soaring electricity prices reported across California. Rates are expected to rise sharply as wildfire mitigation efforts are implemented by the utilities found at fault for their origin.

“We are very concerned. However, we do not see the increases stopping at this point,” Linda Serizawa, deputy director for energy, PAO, told pv magazine. “We think the pace and scale of the [rate] increases is growing faster than we would have anticipated for several years now.”

Consumer advocates and regulators face calls for action on surging electricity bills across the state.

The proposed changes are also meant to more directly couple billing with the fixed charges that utilities incur, as California considers revamping electricity rates to clean the grid. For example, activities like power line maintenance, energy efficiency programs, and wildfire prevention are not expected to vary with usage, so these activities would be funded through a fixed charge.

Michael Campbell of the PAO’s customer programs team, and leader of the proposed program, likened paying for grid enhancements and other social programs with utility rate increases to “paying for food stamps by taxing food.” Instead, a fixed charge would cover these costs.

PAO said the move to lower rates for usage should help encourage electrification as California moves to replace heating and cooling, appliances, and gas combustion cars with electrified counterparts. In addition, lower rates mean the cost burden of running these devices is improved.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Competitive Energy Procurement accelerates renewables, boosts grid reliability, and invites competitive bids across solar, wind, natural gas, and storage, driving innovation, lower costs, and decarbonization to meet rising electricity demand and ensure power supply.

Key Points

Ontario Competitive Energy Procurement is a competitive bidding program to deliver reliable, low-carbon electricity.

✅ Competitive bids from renewables, gas, and storage

✅ Targets grid reliability, affordability, and emissions

✅ Phased evaluations: technical, financial, environmental

Ontario has recently marked a significant milestone in its energy sector with the launch of what is being touted as the largest competitive energy procurement process in the province’s history. This ambitious initiative is set to transform the province’s energy landscape through a broader market overhaul that fosters innovation, enhances reliability, and addresses the growing demands of Ontario’s diverse population.

A New Era of Energy Procurement

The Ontario government’s move to initiate this massive competitive procurement process underscores a strategic shift towards modernizing and diversifying the province’s energy portfolio. This procurement exercise will invite bids from a broad spectrum of energy suppliers and technologies, ranging from traditional sources like natural gas to renewable energy options such as solar and wind power. The aim is to secure a reliable and cost-effective energy supply that aligns with Ontario’s long-term environmental and economic goals.

This historic procurement process represents a major leap from previous approaches by emphasizing a competitive marketplace where various energy providers can compete on an equal footing through electricity auctions and transparent bidding. By doing so, the government hopes to drive down costs, encourage technological advancements, and ensure that Ontarians benefit from a more dynamic and resilient energy system.

Key Objectives and Benefits

The primary objectives of this procurement initiative are multifaceted. First and foremost, it seeks to enhance the reliability of Ontario’s electricity grid. As the province experiences population growth and increased energy demands, maintaining a stable and dependable supply of electricity is crucial, and interprovincial imports through an electricity deal with Quebec can complement local generation. This procurement process will help identify and integrate new sources of power that can meet these demands effectively.

Another significant goal is to promote environmental sustainability. Ontario has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions through Clean Electricity Regulations and transitioning to a cleaner energy mix. By inviting bids from renewable energy sources and innovative technologies, the government aims to support its climate action plan and contribute to the province’s carbon reduction targets.

Cost-effectiveness is also a central focus of the procurement process. By creating a competitive environment, the government anticipates that energy providers will strive to offer more attractive pricing structures and fair electricity cost allocation practices for ratepayers. This, in turn, could lead to lower energy costs for consumers and businesses, fostering economic growth and improving affordability.

The Competitive Landscape

The competitive energy procurement process will be structured to encourage participation from a wide range of energy providers. This includes not only established companies but also emerging players and startups with innovative technologies. By fostering a diverse pool of bidders, the government aims to ensure that all viable options are considered, ultimately leading to a more robust and adaptable energy system.

Additionally, the process will likely involve various stages of evaluation, including technical assessments, financial analyses, and environmental impact reviews. This thorough evaluation will help ensure that selected projects meet the highest standards of performance and sustainability.

Implications for Stakeholders

The implications of this procurement process extend beyond just energy providers and consumers. Local communities, businesses, and environmental organizations will all play a role in shaping the outcomes. For communities, this initiative could mean new job opportunities and economic development, particularly in regions where new energy projects are developed. For businesses, the potential for lower energy costs and access to innovative energy solutions, including demand-response initiatives like the Peak Perks program, could drive growth and competitiveness.

Environmental organizations will be keenly watching the process to ensure that it aligns with broader sustainability goals. The inclusion of renewable energy sources and advanced technologies will be a critical factor in evaluating the success of the initiative in meeting Ontario’s climate objectives.

Looking Ahead

As Ontario embarks on this unprecedented energy procurement journey, the outcomes will be closely watched by various stakeholders. The success of this initiative will depend on the quality and diversity of the bids received, the efficiency of the evaluation process, and the ability to integrate new energy sources into the existing grid, while advancing energy independence where feasible.

In conclusion, Ontario’s launch of the largest competitive energy procurement process in its history is a landmark event that holds promise for a more reliable, sustainable, and cost-effective energy future. By embracing competition and innovation, the province is setting a new standard for energy procurement that could serve as a model for other regions seeking to modernize their energy systems. The coming months will be crucial in determining how this bold initiative will shape Ontario’s energy landscape for years to come.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

SM-1A Nuclear Plant Decommissioning details the US Army Corps of Engineers' removal of the Fort Greely reactor, Cold War facility dismantling, environmental monitoring, remote-site power history, and timeline to 2026 under a deactivated nuclear program.

Key Points

Army Corps plan to dismantle Fort Greely's SM-1A reactor and complete decommissioning of remaining systems by 2026.

✅ Built for remote Arctic radar support during the Cold War

✅ High costs beat diesel; program later deemed impractical

✅ Reactor parts removed; residuals monitored; removal by 2026

The US Army Corps of Engineers has begun decommissioning Alaska’s only nuclear power plant, SM-1A, which is located at Fort Greely, even as new US reactors continue to take shape nationwide. The $17m plant closed in 1972 after ten years of sporadic operation. It was out of commission from 1967 to 1969 for extensive repairs. Much of has already been dismantled and sent for disposal, and the rest, which is encased in concrete, is now to be removed.

The plant was built as part of an experimental programme to determine whether nuclear facilities, akin to next-generation nuclear concepts, could be built and operated at remote sites more cheaply than diesel-fuelled plants.

"The main approach was to reduce significant fuel-transportation costs by having a nuclear reactor that could operate for long terms, a concept echoed in the NuScale SMR safety evaluation process, with just one nuclear core," Brian Hearty said. Hearty manages the Army Corps of Engineers’ Deactivated Nuclear Power Plant Program.

#google#

He said the Army built SM-1A in 1962 hoping to provide power reliably at remote Arctic radar sites, where in similarly isolated regions today new US coal plants may still be considered, intended to detect incoming missiles from the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. He added that the programme worked but not as well as Pentagon officials had hoped. While SM-1A could be built and operated in a cold and remote location, its upfront costs were much higher than anticipated, and it costs more to maintain than a diesel power plant. Moreover, the programme became irrelevant because of advances in Soviet rocket science and the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Hearty said the reactor was partially dismantled soon after it was shut down. “All of the fuel in the reactor core was removed and shipped back to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) for them to either reprocess or dispose of,” he noted. “The highly activated control and absorber rods were also removed and shipped back to the AEC.”

The SM-1A plant produced 1.8MWe and 20MWt, including steam, which was used to heat the post. Because that part of the system was still needed, Army officials removed most of the nuclear-power system and linked the heat and steam components to a diesel-fired boiler. However, several parts of the nuclear system remained, including the reactor pressure vessel and reactor coolant pumps. “Those were either kept in place, or they were cut off and laid down in the tall vapour-containment building there,” Hearty said. “And then they were grouted and concreted in place.” The Corps of Engineers wants to remove all that remains of the plant, but it is as yet unclear whether that will be feasible.

Meanwhile, monitoring for radioactivity around the facility shows that it remains at acceptable levels. “It would be safe to say there’s no threat to human health in the environment,” said Brenda Barber, project manager for the decommissioning. Work is still in its early stages and is due to be completed in 2026 at the earliest. Barber said the Corps awarded the $4.6m contract in December to a Virginia-based firm to develop a long-range plan for the project, similar in scope to large reactor refurbishment efforts elsewhere. Among other things, this will help officials determine how much of the SM-1A will remain after it’s decommissioned. “There will still be buildings there,” she said. “There will still be components of some of the old structure there that may likely remain.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News