Hydro-Québec and France region to collaborate on battery R&D

California Nuclear Renewable Bill AB 2898 seeks to add nuclear to the Renewables Portfolio Standard, impacting Diablo Canyon, PG&E compliance, carbon-free targets, and potential license extensions while addressing climate goals and natural gas reliance.

Key Points

A bill to add nuclear to California's RPS, influencing Diablo Canyon, PG&E planning, and carbon-free climate targets.

✅ Reclassifies nuclear as renewable in California's RPS.

✅ Could influence Diablo Canyon license extension and ownership.

✅ Targets carbon-free goals while limiting natural gas reliance.

Although he admits it's a long shot, a member of the California Legislature from the district that includes the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant has introduced a bill that would add nuclear power to the state's list of renewable energy sources.

"I think that nuclear power is an important component of generating large-scale electricity that's good for the environment," said Jordan Cunningham, R-San Luis Obispo. "Without nuclear as part of the renewable portfolio, we're going to have tremendous difficulty meeting the state's climate goals without a significant cost increase on electricity ratepayers."

Established in 2002, California's Renewables Portfolio Standard spells out the power sources eligible to count toward the state's goals to wean itself of fossil fuels. The list includes solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, small hydroelectric facilities and even tidal currents. The standard has been updated, currently calling for 60 percent of California's electricity to come from renewables by 2030 and 100 percent from carbon-free sources by 2045, even as some analyses argue net-zero emissions may be difficult to achieve without nuclear power.

Nuclear power is not part of the portfolio standard and Diablo Canyon — the only remaining nuclear plant in California — is scheduled to stop producing electricity by 2025, even as some Southern California plant closures face postponement to maintain grid reliability.

Pacific Gas & Electric, the operators of Diablo Canyon, announced in 2016 an agreement with a collection of environmental and labor groups to shut down the plant, often framed as part of a just transition for workers and communities. PG&E said Diablo will become uneconomical to run due to changes in California's power grid — such as growth of renewable energy sources, increased energy efficiency measures and the migration of customers from traditional utilities to community choice energy programs.

But Cunningham thinks the passage of Assembly Bill 2898, which he introduced last week, — as innovators like Bill Gates' mini-reactor venture tout new designs — could give the plant literally a new lease on life.

"If PG&E were able to count the power produced (at Diablo) toward its renewable goals, it might — I'm not saying it will or would, but it might — cause them to reconsider applying to extend the operating license at Diablo," Cunningham said.

Passing the bill, supporters say, could also make Diablo Canyon attractive to an outside investor to purchase and then apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license extension.

But nuclear power has long generated opposition in California and AB 2898 will face long odds in Sacramento, and similar efforts elsewhere have drawn opposition from power producers as well. The Legislature is dominated by Democrats, who have expressed more interest in further developing wind and solar energy projects than offering a lifeline to nuclear.

And if the bill managed to generate momentum, anti-nuclear groups will certainly be quick to mobilize, reflecting a national energy debate over Three Mile Island and whether to save struggling plants.

When told of Cunningham's bill, David Weisman, outreach coordinator for the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, said flatly, "Diablo Canyon has become a burdensome, costly nuclear white elephant."

Critics say nuclear power by definition cannot be considered renewable because it leaves behind waste in the form of spent nuclear fuel that then has to be stored, while supporters point to next-gen nuclear designs that aim to improve safety and costs. The federal government has not found a site to deposit the waste that has built up over decades from commercial nuclear power plants.

Even though Diablo Canyon is the only nuclear plant left in the Golden State, it accounts for 9 percent of California's power mix. Cunningham says if the plant closes, the state's reliance on natural gas — a fossil fuel — will increase, pointing to what happened when the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station closed.

In 2011, the final full year operations for San Onofre, nuclear accounted for 18.2 percent of in-state generation and natural gas made up 45.4 percent. The following year, nuclear dropped to 9.3 percent and gas shot up to 61.1 percent of in-state generation.

"If we're going to get serious about being a national leader as California has been on dealing with climate change, I think nuclear is part of the answer," Cunningham said.

But judging from the response to an email from the Union-Tribune, PG&E isn't exactly embracing Cunningham's bill.

"We remain focused on safely and reliably operating Diablo Canyon Power Plant until the end of its current operating licenses and planning for a successful decommissioning," said Suzanne Hosn, a PG&E senior manager at Diablo Canyon. "The Assemblyman's proposal does not change any of PG&E's plans for the plant."

Cunningham concedes AB 2898 is "a Hail Mary pass" but said "it's an important conversation that needs to be had."

The second-term assemblyman introduced a similar measure late last year that sought to have the Legislature bring the question before voters as an amendment to the state constitution. But the legislation, which would require a two-thirds majority vote in the Assembly and the Senate, is still waiting for a committee assignment.

AB 2898, on the other hand, requires a simple majority to move through the Legislature. Cunningham said he hopes the bill will receive a committee assignment by the end of next month.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Nuclear Power Costs highlight LCOE, capex, refurbishment outlays, and waste management, compared with renewables, grid reliability, and emissions targets, informing Australia and Peter Dutton on feasibility, timelines, and electricity prices.

Key Points

They include high capex and LCOE from refurbishments and waste, offset by reliable, low-emission baseload.

✅ Refurbishment and maintenance drive lifecycle and LCOE variability.

✅ High capex and long timelines affect consumer electricity prices.

✅ Low emissions, but waste and safety compliance add costs.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton recently lauded Canada’s use of nuclear power as a model for Australia’s energy future. His praise comes as part of a broader push to incorporate nuclear energy into Australia’s energy strategy, which he argues could help address the country's energy needs and climate goals. However, the question arises: Is Ontario’s experience with nuclear power as cost-effective as Dutton suggests?

Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power strategy highlights a belief that nuclear energy could provide a stable, low-emission alternative to fossil fuels. He has pointed to Ontario’s substantial reliance on nuclear power, and the province’s exploration of new large-scale nuclear projects, as an example of how such an energy mix might benefit Australia. The province’s energy grid, which integrates a significant amount of nuclear power, is often cited as evidence that nuclear energy can be a viable component of a diversified energy portfolio.

The appeal of nuclear power lies in its ability to generate large amounts of electricity with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. This characteristic aligns with Australia’s climate goals, which emphasize reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change. Dutton’s advocacy for nuclear energy is based on the premise that it can offer a reliable and low-emission option compared to the fluctuating availability of renewable sources like wind and solar.

However, while Dutton’s enthusiasm for the Canadian model reflects its perceived successes, including recent concerns about Ontario’s grid getting dirtier amid supply changes, a closer look at Ontario’s nuclear energy costs raises questions about the financial feasibility of adopting a similar strategy in Australia. Despite the benefits of low emissions, the economic aspects of nuclear power remain complex and multifaceted.

In Ontario, the cost of nuclear power has been a topic of considerable debate. While the province benefits from a stable supply of electricity due to its nuclear plants, studies warn of a growing electricity supply gap in coming years. Ontario’s experience reveals that nuclear power involves significant capital expenditures, including the costs of building reactors, maintaining infrastructure, and ensuring safety standards. These expenses can be substantial and often translate into higher electricity prices for consumers.

The cost of maintaining existing nuclear reactors in Ontario has been a particular concern. Many of these reactors are aging and require costly upgrades and maintenance to continue operating safely and efficiently. These expenses can add to the overall cost of nuclear power, impacting the affordability of electricity for consumers.

Moreover, the development of new nuclear projects, as seen with Bruce C project exploration in Ontario, involves lengthy and expensive construction processes. Building new reactors can take over a decade and requires significant investment. The high initial costs associated with these projects can be a barrier to their economic viability, especially when compared to the rapidly decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies.

In contrast, the cost of renewable energy has been falling steadily, even as debates over nuclear power’s trajectory in Europe continue, making it a more attractive option for many jurisdictions. Solar and wind power, while variable and dependent on weather conditions, have seen dramatic reductions in installation and operational costs. These lower costs can make renewables more competitive compared to nuclear energy, particularly when considering the long-term financial implications.

Dutton’s praise for Ontario’s nuclear power model also overlooks some of the environmental and logistical challenges associated with nuclear energy. While nuclear power generates low emissions during operation, it produces radioactive waste that requires long-term storage solutions. The management of nuclear waste poses significant environmental and safety concerns, as well as additional costs for safe storage and disposal.

Additionally, the potential risks associated with nuclear power, including the possibility of accidents, contribute to the complexity of its adoption. The safety and environmental regulations surrounding nuclear energy are stringent and require continuous oversight, adding to the overall cost of maintaining nuclear facilities.

As Australia contemplates integrating nuclear power into its energy mix, it is crucial to weigh these financial and environmental considerations. While the Canadian model provides valuable insights, the unique context of Australia’s energy landscape, including its existing infrastructure, energy needs, and the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity in comparable jurisdictions, must be taken into account.

In summary, while Peter Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power model reflects a belief in its potential benefits for Australia’s energy strategy, the cost-effectiveness of Ontario’s nuclear power experience is more nuanced than it may appear. The high capital and maintenance costs associated with nuclear energy, combined with the challenges of managing radioactive waste and ensuring safety, present significant considerations. As Australia evaluates its energy future, a comprehensive analysis of both the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power will be essential to making informed decisions about its role in the country’s energy strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Clean Power Plan Rollback signals EPA's shift to inside-the-fence efficiency at coal plants, emphasizing heat-rate improvements over sector-wide decarbonization, renewables, natural gas switching, demand-side efficiency, and carbon capture under Clean Air Act constraints.

Key Points

A policy shift by the EPA to replace broad emissions rules with plant-level efficiency standards, limiting CO2 cuts.

✅ Inside-the-fence heat-rate improvements at coal units

✅ Potential CO2 cuts limited to about 6% per plant

✅ Alternatives: fuel switching, renewables, carbon capture

President Barack Obama’s signature plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electrical generation took years to develop and touched every aspect of power production and use, from smokestacks to home insulation.

The Trump administration is moving to scrap that plan and has signaled that any alternative it might adopt would take a much less expansive approach, possibly just telling utilities to operate their plants more efficiently.

That’s a strategy environmentalists say is almost certain to fall short of what’s needed.

The Trump administration is making "a wholesale retreat from EPA’s legal, scientific and moral obligation to address the threats of climate change," said former Environmental Protection Agency head Gina McCarthy, the architect of Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

President Donald Trump promised to rip up the initiative, echoing an end to the 'war on coal' message from his campaign, which mandated that states change their overall power mix, displacing coal-fired electricity with that from wind, solar and natural gas. The EPA is about to make it official, arguing the prior administration violated the Clean Air Act by requiring those broad changes to the electricity sector, according to a draft obtained by Bloomberg.

Possible Replacements

Later, the agency will also ask the public to weigh in on possible replacements. The administration will ask whether the EPA can or should develop a replacement rule -- and, if so, what actions can be mandated at individual power plants, though some policymakers favor a clean electricity standard to drive broader decarbonization.

Follow the Trump Administration’s Every Move

Such changes -- such as adding automation or replacing worn turbine seals -- would yield at most a 6 percent gain in efficiency, along with a corresponding fall in greenhouse gas emissions, according to earlier modeling by the Environmental Protection Agency and other analysts. That compares to the 32 percent drop in emissions by 2030 under Obama’s Clean Power Plan.

"In these existing plants, there’s only so many places to look for savings," said John Larsen, a director of the Rhodium Group, a research firm. "There’s only so many opportunities within a big spinning machine like that."

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt outlined such an "inside-the-fence-line" approach in 2014, later embodied in the Affordable Clean Energy rule that industry groups backed, when he served as Oklahoma’s attorney general. Under his blueprint, states would set emissions standards after a detailed unit-by-unit analysis, looking at what reductions are possible given "the engineering limits of each facility."

The EPA has not decided whether it will promulgate a new rule at all, though it has also proposed new pollution limits for coal and gas plants in separate actions. In a forthcoming advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, the EPA will ask "what inside-the-fence-line options are legal, feasible and appropriate," according to a document obtained by Bloomberg.

Increased efficiency at a coal plant -- known as heat-rate improvement -- translates into fewer carbon-dioxide emissions per unit of electric power generated.

Under Obama, the EPA envisioned utilities would make some straightforward efficiency improvements at coal-fired power plants as the first step to comply with the Clean Power Plan. But that was expected to coincide with bigger, broader changes -- such as using more cleaner-burning natural gas, adding more renewable power projects and simply encouraging customers to do a better job turning down their thermostats and turning off their lights.

Obama’s EPA didn’t ask utilities to wring every ounce of efficiency they could out of coal-fired power plants because they saw the other options as cheaper. A plant-specific approach "would be grossly insufficient to address the public health and environmental impacts from CO2 emissions," Obama’s EPA said.

That approach might yield modest emissions reductions and, in a perverse twist, might event have the opposite effect. If utilities make coal plants more efficient -- thereby driving down operating costs -- they also make them more competitive with natural gas and renewables, "so they might run more and pollute more," said Conrad Schneider, advocacy director for the Clean Air Task Force.  

In a competitive market, any improvement in emissions produced for each unit of energy could be overwhelmed by an increase in electrical output, and debates over changes to electricity pricing under Trump and Perry added further uncertainty.

"A very minor heat rate improvement program would very likely result in increased emissions," Schneider said. "It might be worse than nothing."

Power companies want to get as much electricity as possible from every pound of coal, so they already have an incentive to keep efficiency high, said Jeff Holmstead, a former assistant EPA administrator now at Bracewell LLP. But an EPA regulation known as “new source review” has discouraged some from making those changes, for fear of triggering other pollution-control requirements, he said.

"If EPA’s replacement rule allows companies to improve efficiency without triggering new source review, it would make a real difference in terms of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions," Holmstead said.

Modest Impact

A plant-specific approach doesn’t have to mean modest impact.

"If you’re thinking about what can be done at the power plants by themselves, you don’t stop at efficiency tune-ups," said David Doniger, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate and clean air program. "You look at things like switching to natural gas or installing carbon capture and storage."

Requirements that facilities use carbon capture technology or swap in natural gas for coal could actually come close to hitting the same goals as in Obama’s Clean Power Plan -- if not go even further, Schneider said. They just would cost more.

The benefit of the Clean Power Plan "is that it enabled states to create programs and enabled companies to find a reduction strategy that was the most efficient and made the most sense for their own content," said Kathryn Zyla, deputy director of the Georgetown Climate Center. "And that flexibility was really important for the states and companies."

Some utilities, including Houston-based Calpine Corp., PG&E Corp. and Dominion Resources Inc., backed the Obama-era approach. And they are still pushing the Trump administration to be creative now.

"The Clean Power Plan achieved a thoughtful, balanced approach that gave companies and states considerable flexibility on how best to pursue that goal," said Melissa Lavinson, vice president of federal affairs and policy for PG&E’s Pacific Gas and Electric utility. “We look forward to working with the administration to devise an alternative plan for decarbonizing the U.S. economy."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Maritime Link Cable Burial safeguards 200-kV subsea cables in the Cabot Strait as Emera and Nova Scotia Power trench lines to mitigate bottom trawling risks from a redfish boom, ensuring Muskrat Falls hydro delivery.

Key Points

Trenching Cabot Strait subsea power cables to prevent redfish-driven bottom trawling and ensure Muskrat Falls power.

✅ $14.492M spent trenching 59 km at 400 m depth

✅ Protects 200-kV, 170-km subsea interconnects from trawls

✅ Driven by Gulf redfish boom; DFO and UARB consultations

The parent company of Nova Scotia Power disclosed this week to the Utility and Review Board, amid Site C dam watchdog attention to major hydro projects, that it spent almost $14,492,000 this summer to bury its Maritime Links cables lying on the floor of the Cabot Strait between Newfoundland and Cape Breton.

It's a fish story no one saw coming, at least not Halifax-based energy conglomerate Emera.

The parent company of Nova Scotia Power disclosed this week to the Utility and Review Board that it spent almost $14,492,000 this summer to bury its Maritime Link cables lying on the floor of the Cabot Strait between Newfoundland and Cape Breton.

The cables were protected because an unprecedented explosion in the redfish population in the Gulf of St Lawrence is about to trigger a corresponding boom in bottom trawling in the area.

Also known as ocean perch, redfish were not on anyone's radar when the $1.5-billion Maritime Link was designed and built to carry Muskrat Falls hydroelectricity from Newfoundland to Nova Scotia.

The two 200-kilovolt electrical submarine cables spanning the Cabot Strait are the longest in North America, compared with projects like the New England Clean Power Link planned further south. They are each 170 kilometres long and weigh 5,500 tonnes.

Nova Scotia Power customers are paying for the Maritime Link in return for a minimum of 20 per cent of the electricity generated by Muskrat Falls over 35 years.

The electricity is supposed to start sending first electricity through the Maritime Link in mid-2020.

First time cost disclosed
In August, the company buried 59 kilometres of subsea cables one metre below the bottom at depths of 400 metres.

"These cables had not been previously trenched due to the absence of fishing activities at those depths when the cables were originally installed," spokesperson Jeff Myrick wrote in an email to CBC News in October.

Ratepayers will get the bill next year, as utilities also face risks like copper theft that can drive costs in the region. Until now, the company had declined to release costs relating to protecting the Maritime Link.

The bill will be presented to regulators, a process that has affected projects such as a Manitoba Hydro line to Minnesota, when the company applies to recover Maritime Link costs from Nova Scotia Power ratepayers in 2020.

Myrick said the company was acting after consultation with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Unexpected consequences
After years of overfishing in the 1980s and early 1990s, redfish quotas were slashed and a moratorium imposed on some redfish.

Confusingly, there are actually two redfish species in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

But very strong recent year classes, that have coincided with warming waters in the gulf, as utilities adapt to climate change considerations grow, have produced redfish in massive numbers.

After years of overfishing, the redfish population is now booming in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. (Submitted by Marine Institute)
There is now believed to be three-million tonnes of redfish in the Gulf of St Lawrence.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is expected to increase quotas in the coming years and the fishing industry is gearing up in a big way.

Earlier this month, Scotia Harvest announced it will begin construction of a new $14-million fish plant in Digby next spring in part to process increased redfish catches.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Attosecond Electron Transport uses ultrafast lasers and single-cycle light pulses to drive tunneling in bowtie gold nanoantennas, enabling sub-femtosecond switching in optoelectronic nanostructures and surpassing picosecond silicon limits for next-gen computing.

Key Points

A light-driven method that manipulates electrons with ultrafast pulses to switch currents within attoseconds.

✅ Uses single-cycle light pulses to drive electron tunneling

✅ Achieves 600 attosecond current switching in nano-gaps

✅ Enables optoelectronic, plasmonic devices beyond silicon

When it comes to data transfer and computing, the faster we can shift electrons and conduct electricity the better – and scientists have just been able to transport electrons at sub-femtosecond speeds (less than one quadrillionth of a second) in an experimental setup.

The trick is manipulating the electrons with light waves that are specially crafted and produced by an ultrafast laser. It might be a long while before this sort of setup makes it into your laptop, but similar precision is seen in noninvasive interventions where targeted electrical stimulation can boost short-term memory for limited periods, and the fact they pulled it off promises a significant step forward in terms of what we can expect from our devices.

Right now, the fastest electronic components can be switched on or off in picoseconds (trillionths of a second), a pace that intersects with debates over 5G electricity use as systems scale, around 1,000 times slower than a femtosecond.

With their new method, the physicists were able to switch electric currents at around 600 attoseconds (one femtosecond is 1,000 attoseconds).

"This may well be the distant future of electronics," says physicist Alfred Leitenstorfer from the University of Konstanz in Germany. "Our experiments with single-cycle light pulses have taken us well into the attosecond range of electron transport."

Leitenstorfer and his colleagues were able to build a precise setup at the Centre for Applied Photonics in Konstanz. Their machinery included both the ability to carefully manipulate ultrashort light pulses, and to construct the necessary nanostructures, including graphene architectures, where appropriate.

The laser used by the team was able to push out one hundred million single-cycle light pulses every single second in order to generate a measurable current. Using nanoscale gold antennae in a bowtie shape (see the image above), the electric field of the pulse was concentrated down into a gap measuring just six nanometres wide (six thousand-millionths of a metre).

As a result of their specialist setup and the electron tunnelling and accelerating it produced, the researchers could switch electric currents at well under a femtosecond – less than half an oscillation period of the electric field of the light pulses.

Getting beyond the restrictions of conventional silicon semiconductor technology has proved a challenge for scientists, but using the insanely fast oscillations of light to help electrons pick up speed could provide new avenues for pushing the limits on electronics, as our power infrastructure is increasingly digitized and integrated with photonics.

And that's something that could be very advantageous in the next generation of computers: scientists are currently experimenting with the way that light and electronics could work together in all sorts of different ways, from noninvasive brain stimulation to novel sensors.

Eventually, Leitenstorfer and his team think that the limitations of today's computing systems could be overcome using plasmonic nanoparticles and optoelectronic devices, using the characteristics of light pulses to manipulate electrons at super-small scales, with related work even exploring electricity from snowfall under specific conditions.

"This is very basic research we are talking about here and may take decades to implement," says Leitenstorfer.

The next step is to experiment with a variety of different setups using the same principle. This approach might even offer insights into quantum computing, the researchers say, although there's a lot more work to get through yet - we can't wait to see what they'll achieve next.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Canada Clean Electricity leads decarbonization, slashing power-sector emissions through coal phase-out, renewables like hydro, wind, and solar, and nuclear. Provinces cut carbon intensity, enabling electrification of transport and buildings toward net-zero goals.

Key Points

Canada Clean Electricity is the shift to low-emission power by phasing out coal and scaling renewables and nuclear.

✅ 38% cut in electricity emissions since 2005; 84% fossil-free power.

✅ Provinces lead coal phase-out; carbon intensity plummets.

✅ Enables EVs, heat pumps, and building electrification.

It's our country’s one big climate success so far.

"All across Canada, electricity generation has been getting much cleaner. It's our country’s one big climate success so far,"

To illustrate how quickly electric power is being cleaned up, what's still left to do, and the benefits it brings, I've dug into Canada's latest emissions inventory and created a series of charts below.

The sector that could

Climate pollution by Canadian economic sector, 2005 to 2017My first chart shows how Canada's economic sectors have changed their climate pollution since 2005.

While most sectors have increased their pollution or made little progress in the climate fight, our electricity sector has shined.

As the green line shows, Canadians have eliminated an impressive 38 per cent of the climate pollution from electricity generation in just over a decade.

To put these shifts into context, I've shown Canada's 2020 climate target on the chart as a gray star. This target was set by the Harper government as part of the global Copenhagen Accord. Specifically, Canada pledged to cut our climate pollution 17 per cent below 2005 levels under evolving Canadian climate policy frameworks of the time.

As you can see, the electricity sector is the only one to have done that so far. And it didn’t just hit the target — it cut more than twice as much.

Change in Canada's electricity generation, 2005 to 2017My next chart shows how the electricity mix changed. The big climate pollution cuts came primarily from reductions in coal burning, highlighting the broader implications of decarbonizing Canada's electricity grid for fuel choices.

The decline in coal-fired power was replaced (and then some) by increases in renewable electricity and other zero-emissions sources — hydro, wind, solar and nuclear.

As a result, Canada's overall electricity generation is now 84 per cent fossil free.

Every province making progress

A primary reason why electricity emissions fell so quickly is because every province worked to clean up Canada's electricity together.

Change in Canadian provincial electricity carbon intensity, 2005 to 2017

My next chart illustrates this rare example of Canada-wide climate progress. It shows how quickly the carbon-intensity of electricity generation has declined in different provinces.

(Note: carbon-intensity is the amount of climate pollution emitted per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated: gCO2e/kWh).

Ontario clearly led the way with an amazing 92 per cent reduction in climate pollution per kWh in just twelve years. Most of that came from ending the burning of coal in their power plants. But a big chunk also came from cutting in half the amount of natural gas they burn for electricity.

Manitoba, Quebec and B.C. also made huge improvements.

Even Alberta and Saskatchewan, which were otherwise busy increasing their overall climate pollution, made progress in cleaning up their electricity.

These real-world examples show that rapid and substantial climate progress can happen in Canada when a broad-spectrum of political parties and provinces decide to act.

Most Canadians now have superclean electricity

As a result of this rapid cleanup, most Canadians now have access to superclean energy.

Canadian provincial electricity carbon intensity in 2017

Who has it? And how clean is it?

The biggest climate story here is the superclean electricity generated by the four provinces shown on the left side — Quebec, Manitoba, B.C. and Ontario. Eighty per cent of Canadians live in these provinces and have access to this climate-safe energy source.

Those living in Alberta and Saskatchewan, however, still have fairly dirty electricity — as shown in orange on the right — and options like bridging the electricity gap between Alberta and B.C. could accelerate progress in the West.

A lot more cleanup must happen here before the families and businesses in these provinces have a climate-safe energy supply.

What's left to do?

Canada's electricity sector has two big climate tasks remaining: finishing the cleanup of existing power and generating even more clean energy to replace fossil fuels like the gasoline and natural gas used by vehicles, factories and other buildings.

Finishing the clean up

Climate pollution from Canadian provincial electricity 2005 and 2017

As we saw above, more than a third of the climate pollution from electricity has already been eliminated. That leaves nearly two-thirds still to clean up.

Back in 2005, Canada's total electricity emissions were 125 million tonnes (MtCO2).

Over the next twelve years, emissions fell by more than a third (-46 MtCO2). Ontario did most of the work by cutting 33 MtCO2. Alberta, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia made the next biggest cuts of around 4 MtCO2 each.

Now nearly eighty million tonnes of climate pollution remain.

As you can see, nearly all of that now comes from Alberta and Saskatchewan. As a result, continuing Canada's climate progress in the power sector now requires big cuts in the electricity emissions from these two provinces.

Generating more clean electricity

The second big climate task remaining for Canada's electricity is to generate more clean electricity to replace the fossil fuels burned in other sectors. My next chart lets you see how big a task this is.

Clean electricity generation by Canadian province, 2017

It shows how much climate-safe electricity is currently generated in major provinces. This includes zero-emissions renewables (blue bars) and nuclear power (pale blue).

Quebec tops the list with 191 terawatt-hours (TWh) per year. While impressive, it only accounts for around half of the energy Quebecers use. The other half still comes from climate-damaging fossil fuels and to replace those, Quebec will need to build out more clean energy.

The good news here is that electricity is more efficient for most tasks, so fossil fuels can be replaced with significantly less electric energy. In addition, other efficiency and reduction measures can further reduce the amount of new electricity needed.

Newfoundland and Labrador is in the best situation. They are the only province that already generates more climate-safe electricity than they would need to replace all the fossil fuels they burn. They currently export most of that clean electricity.

At the other extreme are Alberta and Saskatchewan. These provinces currently produce very little climate-safe energy. For example, Alberta's 7 TWh of climate-safe electricity is only enough to cover 1 per cent of the energy used in the province.

All told, Canadians currently burn fossil fuels for three-quarters of the energy we use. To preserve a safe-and-sane climate, most provinces will soon need lots more clean electricity in the race to net-zero to replace the fossil fuels we burn.

How soon will they need it?

According to the most recent report from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), avoiding a full-blown climate crisis will require humanity to cut emissions by 45 per cent over the next decade.

Using electricity to clean up other sectors

Finally, let's look at how electricity can help clean up two of Canada’s other high-emission sectors — transportation and buildings.

Cleaning up transportation

Transportation is now the second biggest climate polluting sector in Canada (after the oil and gas industry). So, it’s a top priority to reduce the amount of gasoline we use.

Canadian provincial electricity carbon intensity in 2017, plus gasoline equivalent

Switching to electric vehicles (EVs) can reduce transportation emissions by a little, or a lot. It depends on how clean the electricity supply is.

To make it easy to compare gasoline to each province's electricity I've added a new grey-striped zone at the top of the carbon-intensity chart.

This new zone shows that burning gasoline in cars and trucks has a carbon-intensity equivalent to more than 1,000 gCO2e/kWh. (If you are interested in the details of this and other data points, see the geeky endnotes.)

The good news is that every province's electricity is now much cleaner than gasoline as a transportation fuel.

In fact, most Canadians have electricity that is at least 95 per cent less climate polluting than gasoline. Electrifying vehicles in these provinces virtually eliminates those transportation emissions.

Even in Alberta, which has the dirtiest electricity, it is 20 per cent cleaner than gasoline. That's a help, for sure. But it also means that Albertans must electrify many more vehicles to achieve the same emissions reductions as regions with cleaner electricity.

In addition to reducing climate pollution, switching transportation to electricity brings other big benefits:

It reduces air pollution in cities — a major health hazard.

It cuts the energy required for transportation by 75 per cent — because electric motors are so much more efficient.

It reduces fuel costs up to 80 per cent — saving tens of thousands of dollars.

And for gasoline-importing provinces, using local electricity keeps billions of fuel dollars inside their provincial economy.

As an extra bonus, it makes it hard for companies to manipulate the price or for outsiders to "turn off the taps.”

Cleaning up buildings

Canada's third biggest source of climate pollution is the buildings sector.

Burning natural gas for heating is the primary cause. So, reducing the amount of fossil gas burned in buildings is another top climate requirement.

Canadian provincial electricity carbon intensity in 2017, plus gasoline and nat gas heating equivalent

Heating with electricity is a common alternative. However, it's not always less climate polluting. It depends on how clean the electricity is.

To compare these two heating sources, look at the lower grey-striped zone I've added to the chart.

It shows that heating with natural gas has a carbon-intensity of 200 to 300 gCO2 per kWh of heat delivered. High-efficiency gas furnaces are at the lower end of this range.

As you can see, for most Canadians, electric heat is now the much cleaner choice — nearly eliminating emissions from buildings. But in Alberta and Saskatchewan, electricity is still too dirty to replace natural gas heat.

The climate benefits of electric heat can be improved further by using the newer high-efficiency air-source heat pump technologies like mini-splits. These can heat using one half to one third of the electricity of standard electric baseboard heaters. That means it is possible to use electricity that is a bit dirtier than natural gas and still deliver cleaner heating. As a bonus, heat pumps can free up a lot of existing electricity supply when used to replace existing electric baseboards.

Electrify everything

You’ve probably heard people say that to fight climate breakdown, we need to “electrify everything.” Of course, the electricity itself needs to be clean and what we’ve seen is that Canada is making important progress on that front. The electricity industry, and the politicians that prodded them, all deserve kudos for slashing emissions at more than twice the rate of any other sector.

We still need to finish the cleanup job, but we also need to turn our sights to the even bigger task ahead: requiring that everything fossil fuelled — every building, every factory, every vehicle — switches to clean Canadian power.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News