It's probably safe to dispense with the scam theory. The company has demonstrated that it's got something useful in its factory near Trois-Rivières, other than a CEO with a colourful past and a litigious streak. But what?
That CEO, one Dr. Heinz Schimmelbusch, began the company's annual meeting by apologizing that it had to be moved to 4 p.m. from 1 p.m. Why the switch? Ah, he explained, there's so much interest in the company now that they had to find a bigger venue, so they moved it to the Royal York Hotel's grand Imperial Room, which, back in the day, was a swank nightclub that hosted Tony Bennett. What better place for the Good Doctor to croon about Timminco's shiny prospects?
The story, if you haven't been following lately, is one of a minor economic miracle on the banks of the St. Lawrence. Timminco, a company worth less than $25-million at the end of 2006, says it has discovered a better, cheaper way of taking the impurities out of metallurgical silicon and using it for solar panels.
Silicon is a key element in converting the sun's energy to electricity. High-quality silicon (at least 99.999 per cent pure) is needed to make solar panels; it's also in hot demand because European countries are subsidizing new solar energy projects, and becauseÂ… well, perhaps you've seen the price of oil. For suppliers of polysilicon, the cost of producing a kilogram of solar-quality stuff is typically about $35 a kilogram. Timminco says it can do so for about $10 to $15 a kilogram, once the bugs are worked out.
Since the metallurgy department at The Globe and Mail was closed down years ago, we can't speak to the feasibility of Timminco's claims. But by the company's own admission, it's not exactly a high-tech process: it involves cooking lower-grade silicon with oxygen in a giant furnace to take out the unwanted stuff. They've applied for patents, but those are probably years away, if they are granted at all.
Anyway, enough about the technical side of things. What we're here to examine is the investment logic, especially now that Timminco has a $3.2-billion market value, after the stock went up 100-fold in 16 months. This is based not on the financial results, which are still barren, but a flurry of announcements, customer contracts, media hype, and so on. A consultant, paid by the company, made a one-day visit to the site and suggested Timminco's solar expansion project – for which the budget is less than $100-million – could earn between $270-million and $1-billion in operating profit in 2010. Really! If true, that might be the best return on a dollar in the history of capitalism. Astonishing.
All of which raises a few questions about Mr. Schimmelbusch's performance in Toronto this week. During the press conference, as he talked of Timminco's future, he looked to be having as much fun as if someone were pulling out his toenails – until a reporter asked about short sellers. Then his face lit up. This was a subject he could get animated about. He implied he was suing them. In which court? He wouldn't say.
Later, at the annual meeting, he repeated that claim: “There are a few short sellers here, running up and down the streets here, making idiotic, bizarre… statements on the company.… The matter is, by the way, before courts. If somebody oversteps a certain line, if he's over the line, it's straight going to the courts.”
Well, okay. No CEO likes short sellers. But Timminco is not a bank or an insurance firm, where nasty rumours must be fought because they can ruin a business faster than you can say “Bear Stearns.” It's just a factory, cooking silicon. If Mr. Schimmelbusch is confident the critics are dead wrong, why make threats? Just let the results speak and let the shorts eat losses.
So, let's return to the investment math. Work backwards: To justify a $3.2-billion value, how much would Timminco actually have to make? A good guess would be at least $400-million in EBITDA (that's earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization).
Timminco says it's selling solar silicon for at least $60 a kilogram. Prices are expected to fall, but assume they can get that much and also get their cost down to $20 a kilo (even though larger, better-capitalized competitors have never been able to). That leaves $40 in margin. So to get to $400-million in EBITDA means producing 10 million kilograms.
To date, Timminco has delivered 124,000 kilograms.
Now, we're not saying it's impossible for them to increase their silicon production 80-fold in the next couple of years, and to do it consistently, at a fraction of the cost of anyone else, and to derive these sorts of profits from a capital investment of less than $100-million. We're just saying that investing is all about probabilities, and you've got to ask, what is the probability of all that occurring?
Retail shareholders in Timminco quickly point to the presence of Eric Sprott, who's an investing genius and whose firm owns 17 per cent. Yes, true. We're tempted to point out that he bought the vast majority of his shares at $7 or less, and there's no evidence he bought much at $20, never mind at $30, the current price.
But we really don't want to say that too loudly. We'd rather not provoke the litigious Mr. Schimmelbusch.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
UK EV Per-Mile Taxes are reshaping road pricing and vehicle taxation for electric cars, raising fairness concerns, climate policy questions, and funding needs for infrastructure and charging networks across the country.
Key Points
They are per-mile road charges on EVs to fund infrastructure, raising fairness, emissions, and vehicle taxation concerns.
✅ Propose tax relief or credits for EV owners
✅ Consider emission-based road user charging
✅ Invest in charging networks and road infrastructure
As the UK continues its push towards a greener future with increased adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) and surging EV interest during supply disruptions, a growing number of electric car drivers are voicing their frustration over the current tax system. The debate centers around the per-mile vehicle taxes that are being proposed and implemented, which many argue are unfairly burdensome on EV owners. This issue has sparked a broader campaign advocating for a more equitable approach to vehicle taxation, one that reflects the evolving landscape of transportation and environmental policy.
Rising Costs for Electric Car Owners
Electric vehicles have been hailed as a crucial component in the UK’s strategy to reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change. Government incentives, such as grants for EV purchases and tax breaks, have been instrumental in encouraging the shift from petrol and diesel cars to cleaner alternatives, even as affordability concerns persist among many UK consumers. However, as the number of electric vehicles on the road grows, the financial dynamics of vehicle taxation are coming under scrutiny.
One of the key issues is the introduction and increase of per-mile vehicle taxes. While these taxes are designed to account for road usage and infrastructure costs, they have been met with resistance from EV drivers who argue that they are being disproportionately affected. Unlike traditional combustion engine vehicles, electric cars typically have lower running costs compared to petrol or diesel models and, in many cases, benefit from lower or zero emissions. Yet, the current tax system does not always reflect these advantages.
The Taxation Debate
The crux of the debate lies in how vehicle taxes are structured and implemented. Per-mile taxes are intended to ensure that all road users contribute fairly to the maintenance of transport infrastructure. However, the implementation of such taxes has raised concerns about fairness and affordability, particularly for those who have invested heavily in electric vehicles.
Critics argue that per-mile taxes do not adequately take into account the environmental benefits of driving an electric car, noting that the net impact depends on the electricity generation mix in each market. While EV owners are contributing to a cleaner environment by reducing emissions, they are also facing higher taxes that could undermine the financial benefits of their greener choice. This has led to calls for a reassessment of the tax system to ensure that it aligns with the UK’s climate goals and provides a fair deal for electric vehicle drivers.
Campaigns for Fairer Taxation
In response to these concerns, several advocacy groups and individual EV owners have launched campaigns calling for a more balanced approach to vehicle taxation. These campaigns emphasize the need for a system that supports the transition to electric vehicles and recognizes their role in reducing environmental impact, drawing on ambitious EV targets abroad as useful benchmarks.
Key proposals from these campaigns include:
Tax Relief for EV Owners: Advocates suggest providing targeted tax relief for electric vehicle owners to offset the costs of per-mile taxes. This could include subsidies or tax credits that acknowledge the environmental benefits of EVs and help to make up for higher road usage fees.
Emission-Based Taxation: An alternative approach is to design vehicle taxes based on emissions rather than mileage. This system would ensure that those driving high-emission vehicles contribute more to road maintenance, while EV owners, who are already reducing emissions, are not penalized.
Infrastructure Investments: Campaigners also call for increased investments in infrastructure that supports electric vehicles, such as charging networks and proper grid management practices that balance load. This would help to address concerns about the adequacy of current road maintenance and support the growing number of EVs on the road.
Government Response and Future Directions
The UK government faces the challenge of balancing revenue needs with environmental goals. While there is recognition of the need to update the tax system in light of increasing EV adoption, there is also a focus on ensuring that any changes are equitable and do not disincentivize the shift towards cleaner vehicles, while considering whether the UK grid can handle additional EV demand reliably.
Discussions are ongoing about how to best implement changes that address the concerns of electric vehicle owners while ensuring that the transportation infrastructure remains adequately funded. The outcome of these discussions will be critical in shaping the future of vehicle taxation in the UK and supporting the country’s broader environmental objectives.
Conclusion
As electric vehicle adoption continues to rise in the UK, the debate over vehicle taxation becomes increasingly important. The campaign for fairer per-mile taxes highlights the need for a tax system that supports the transition to cleaner transportation while also being fair to those who have made environmentally conscious choices. Balancing these factors will be key to achieving the UK’s climate goals and ensuring that all road users contribute equitably to the maintenance of transport infrastructure. The ongoing dialogue and policy adjustments will play a crucial role in shaping a sustainable and just future for transportation in the UK.
Global Power Sector CO2 Surge 2021 shows electricity demand outpacing renewable energy, with coal and fossil fuels rebounding, undermining green recovery goals and climate change targets flagged by the IEA and IPCC.
Key Points
Record rise in power sector CO2 in 2021 as demand outpaced renewables and coal rebounded, undermining a green recovery.
✅ Electricity demand rose 5% above pre-pandemic levels
✅ Fossil fuels supplied 61% of power; coal led the rebound
✅ Wind and solar grew 15% but lagged demand
Carbon dioxide emissions from the global electric power sector surged past pre-pandemic levels to record highs in the first half of 2021, according to new research by London-based environmental think tank Ember.
Electricity demand and emissions are now 5% higher than where they were before the Covid-19 outbreak, which prompted worldwide lockdowns that led to a temporary drop in global greenhouse gas emissions. Electricity demand also surpassed the growth of renewable energy, and surging electricity demand is putting power systems under strain, the analysis found.
The findings signal a failure of countries to achieve a so-called “green recovery” that would entail shifting away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy, though European responses to Covid-19 have accelerated the electricity system transition by about a decade, to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
The report found that 61% of the world’s electricity still came from fossil fuels in 2020. Five G-20 countries had more than 75% of their electricity supplied from fossil fuels last year, with Saudi Arabia at 100%, South Africa at 89%, Indonesia at 83%, Mexico at 75% and Australia at 75%.
Coal generation did fall a record 4% in 2020, but overall coal supplied 43% of the additional energy demand between 2019 and 2020, with soaring electricity and coal use underscoring persistent demand pressures. Asia currently generates 77% of the world’s coal electricity and China alone generates 53%, up from 44% in 2015.
The world’s transition out of coal power, which contributes to roughly 30% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, is happening far too slowly to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, the study warned. And the International Energy Agency forecasts coal generation will rebound in 2021 as electricity demand picks up again, even as renewables are poised to eclipse coal by 2025 according to other analyses.
“Progress is nowhere near fast enough. Despite coal’s record drop during the pandemic, it still fell short of what is needed,” Ember lead analyst Dave Jones said in a statement.
Jones said coal power usage must collapse by 80% by the end of the decade to avoid dangerous levels of global warming above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).
“We need to build enough clean electricity to simultaneously replace coal and electrify the global economy,” Jones said. “World leaders have yet to wake up to the enormity of the challenge.”
The findings come ahead of a major U.N. climate conference in Glasgow, Scotland, in November, where negotiators will push for more ambitious climate action and emissions reduction pledges from nations.
Without immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions to global emissions, scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warn that the average global temperature will likely cross the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold within 20 years.
The study also highlighted some upsides. Wind and solar generation, for instance, rose by 15% in 2020, and low-emissions sources are set to cover almost all the growth in global electricity demand in the next three years, producing nearly a tenth of the world’s electricity last year and doubling production since 2015.
Some countries now get about 10% of their electricity from wind and solar, including India, China, Japan, Brazil. The U.S. and Europe have experienced the biggest growth in wind and solar, and in the EU, wind and solar generated more electricity than gas last year, with Germany at 33% and the U.K. leads the G20 for wind power at 29%.
AI Load Forecasting for Utilities leverages machine learning, smart meters, and predictive analytics to balance energy demand during COVID-19 disruptions, optimize grid reliability, support demand response, and stabilize rates for residential and commercial customers.
Key Points
AI predicts utility demand with ML and smart meters to improve reliability and reduce costs.
✅ Adapts to rapid demand shifts with accurate short term forecasts
✅ Optimizes demand response and distributed energy resources
✅ Reduces outages risk while lowering procurement and operating costs
The spread of the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19 has prompted state and local governments around the U.S. to institute shelter-in-place orders and business closures. As millions suddenly find themselves confined to their homes, the shift has strained not only internet service providers, streaming platforms, and online retailers, but the utilities supplying power to the nation’s electrical grid, which face longer, more frequent outages as well.
U.S. electricity use on March 27, 2020 was 3% lower than it was on March 27, 2019, a loss of about three years of sales growth. Peter Fox-Penner, director of the Boston University Institute for Sustainable Energy, asserted in a recent op-ed that utility revenues will suffer because providers are halting shutoffs and deferring rate increases. Moreover, according to research firm Wood Mackenzie, the rise in household electricity demand won’t offset reduced business electricity demand, mainly because residential demand makes up just 40% of the total demand across North America.
Some utilities are employing AI and machine learning for the energy transition to address the windfalls and fluctuations in energy usage resulting from COVID-19. Precise load forecasting could ensure that operations aren’t interrupted in the coming months, thereby preventing blackouts and brownouts. And they might also bolster the efficiency of utilities’ internal processes, leading to reduced prices and improved service long after the pandemic ends.
Innowatts Innowatts, a startup developing an automated toolkit for energy monitoring and management, counts several major U.S. utility companies among its customers, including Portland General Electric, Gexa Energy, Avangrid, Arizona Public Service Electric, WGL, and Mega Energy. Its eUtility platform ingests data from over 34 million smart energy meters across 21 million customers in more than 13 regional energy markets, while its machine learning algorithms analyze the data to forecast short- and long-term loads, variances, weather sensitivity, and more.
Beyond these table-stakes predictions, Innowatts helps evaluate the effects of different rate configurations by mapping utilities’ rate structures against disaggregated cost models. It also produces cost curves for each customer that reveal the margin impacts on the wider business, and it validates the yield of products and cost of customer acquisition with models that learn the relationships between marketing efforts and customer behaviors (like real-time load).
Innowwatts told VentureBeat that it observed “dramatic” shifts in energy usage between the first and fourth weeks of March. In the Northeast, “non-essential” retailers like salons, clothing shops, and dry cleaners were using only 35% as much energy toward the end of the month (after shelter-in-place orders were enacted) versus the beginning of the month, while restaurants (excepting pizza chains) were using only 28%. In Texas, conversely, storage facilities were using 142% as much energy in the fourth week compared with the first.
Innowatts says that throughout these usage surges and declines, its clients took advantage of AI-based load forecasting to learn from short-term shocks and make timely adjustments. Within three days of shelter-in-place orders, the company said, its forecasting models were able to learn new consumption patterns and produce accurate forecasts, accounting for real-time changes.
Innowatts CEO Sid Sachdeva believes that if utility companies had not leveraged machine learning models, demand forecasts in mid-March would have seen variances of 10-20%, significantly impacting operations.
“During these turbulent times, AI-based load forecasting gives energy providers the ability to … develop informed, data-driven strategies for future success,” Sachdeva told VentureBeat. “With utilities and energy retailers seeing a once-in-a-lifetime 30%-plus drop in commercial energy consumption, accurate forecasting has never been more important. Without AI tools, utilities would see their forecasts swing wildly, leading to inaccuracies of 20% or more, placing an enormous strain on their operations and ultimately driving up costs for businesses and consumers.”
Autogrid Autogrid works with over 50 customers in 10 countries — including Energy Australia, Florida Power & Light, and Southern California Edison — to deliver AI-informed power usage insights. Its platform makes 10 million predictions every 10 minutes and optimizes over 50 megawatts of power, which is enough to supply the average suburb.
Flex, the company’s flagship product, predicts and controls tens of thousands of energy resources from millions of customers by ingesting, storing, and managing petabytes of data from trillions of endpoints. Using a combination of data science, machine learning, and network optimization algorithms, Flex models both physics and customer behavior, automatically anticipating and adjusting for supply and demand patterns through virtual power plants that coordinate distributed assets.
Autogrid also offers a fully managed solution for integrating and utilizing end-customer installations of grid batteries and microgrids. Like Flex, it automatically aggregates, forecasts, and optimizes capacity from assets at sub-stations and transformers, reacting to distribution management needs while providing capacity to avoid capital investments in system upgrades.
Autogrid CEO Dr. Amit Narayan told VentureBeat that the COVID-19 crisis has heavily shifted daily power distribution in California, where it’s having a “significant” downward impact on hourly prices in the energy market. He says that Autogrid has also heard from customers about transformer failures in some regions due to overloaded circuits, which he expects will become a problem in heavily residential and saturated load areas during the summer months (as utilities prepare for blackouts across the U.S. when air conditioning usage goes up).
“In California, [as you’ll recall], more than a million residents faced wildfire prevention-related outages in PG&E territory in 2019,” Narayan said, referring to the controversial planned outages orchestrated by Pacific Gas & Electric last summer. “The demand continues to be high in 2020 in spite of the COVID-19 crisis, as residents prepare to keep the lights on and brace for a similar situation this summer. If a 2019 repeat happens again, it will be even more devastating, given the health crisis and difficulty in buying groceries.”
AI making a difference AI and machine learning isn’t a silver bullet for the power grid — even with predictive tools at their disposal, utilities are beholden to a tumultuous demand curve and to mounting climate risks across the grid. But providers say they see evidence the tools are already helping to prevent the worst of the pandemic’s effects — chiefly by enabling them to better adjust to shifted daily and weekly power load profiles.
“The societal impact [of the pandemic] will continue to be felt — people may continue working remotely instead of going into the office, they may alter their commute times to avoid rush hour crowds, or may look to alternative modes of transportation,” Schneider Electric chief innovation officer Emmanuel Lagarrigue told VentureBeat. “All of this will impact the daily load curve, and that is where AI and automation can help us with maintenance, performance, and diagnostics within our homes, buildings, and in the grid.”
2040 Energy Outlook projects a shifting energy mix as renewables scale, EV adoption accelerates, and IEA forecasts plateauing oil demand alongside rising natural gas, highlighting policy, efficiency, and decarbonization trends that shape global consumption.
Key Points
A data-driven view of future energy mix, covering renewables, fossil fuels, EVs, oil demand, and policy impacts.
✅ Renewables reach 16-30% by 2040, higher with strong policy support.
✅ Fossil fuels remain dominant, with oil flat and natural gas rising.
Which is more plausible: flying taxis, wind turbine arrays stretching miles into the ocean, and a solar roof on every house--or a scorched-earth, flooded post-Apocalyptic world?
We have no way of peeking into the future, but we can certainly imagine it. There is plenty of information about where the world is headed and regardless of how reliable this information is—or isn’t—we never stop wondering. Will the energy world of 20 years from now be better or worse than the world we live in now?
The answer may very well lie in the observable trends.
A Growing Population
The global population is growing, and it will continue to grow in the next two decades. This will drive a steady growth in energy demand, at about 1 percent per year, according to the International Energy Agency.
This modest rate of growth is good news for all who are concerned about the future of the planet. Parts of the world are trying to reduce their energy consumption, and this should have a positive effect on the carbon footprint of humanity. The energy thirst of most parts of the world will continue growing, however, hence the overall growth.
The world’s population is currently growing at a rate of a little over 1 percent annually. This rate of growth has been slowing since its peak in the 1960s and forecasts suggest that it will continue to slow. Growth in energy demand, on the other hand, may at some point stop moving in tune with population growth trends as affluence in some parts of the world grows. The richer people get, the more energy they need. So, to the big question: where will this energy come from?
The Rise of Renewables
For all the headline space they have been claiming, it may come as a disappointing surprise to many that renewable energy, excluding hydropower, to date accounts for just 14 percent of the global primary energy mix.
Certainly, adoption of solar and wind energy has been growing in leaps and bounds, with their global share doubling in five years in many markets, but unless governments around the world commit a lot more money and effort to renewable energy, by 2040, solar and wind’s share in the energy mix will still only rise to about 16 to 17 percent. That’s according to the only comprehensive report on the future of energy that collates data from all the leading energy authorities in the world, by non-profit Resources for the Future.
The growth in renewables adoption, however, would be a lot more impressive if governments do make serious commitments. Under that scenario, the share of renewables will double to over 30 percent by 2040, echoing milestones like over 30% of global electricity reached recently: that’s the median rate of all authoritative forecasts. Amongst them, the adoption rates of renewables vary between 15 percent and 61 percent by 2040.
Even the most bullish of the forecasts on renewables is still far below the 100-percent renewable future many would like to fantasize about, although BNEF’s 50% by 2050 outlook points to what could be possible in the power sector.
But in 2040, most of the world’s energy will still come from fossil fuels.
EV Energy
Here, forecasters are more optimistic. Again, there is a wide variation between forecasts, but in each and every one of them the share of electric vehicles on the world’s roads in 2040 is a lot higher than the meagre 1 percent of the global car fleet EVs constitute today. Related: Gas Prices Languish As Storage Falls To Near-Record Lows
Government policy will be the key, as U.S. progress toward 30% wind and solar shows how policy steers the power mix that EVs ultimately depend on. Bans of internal combustion engines will go a long way toward boosting EV adoption, which is why some forecasters expect electric cars to come to account for more than 50 percent of cars on the road in 2040. Others, however, are more guarded in their forecasts, seeing their share of the global fleet at between 16 percent and a little over 40 percent.
Many pin their hopes for a less emission-intensive future on electric cars. Indeed, as the number of EVs rises, they displace ICE vehicles and, respectively, the emission-causing oil that fuels for ICE cars are made from. It should be a no brainer that the more EVs we drive, the less emissions we produce. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily the case: China is the world’s biggest EV market, and its solar PV expansion has been rapid, it has the most EVs—including passenger cars and buses—but it is also one of the biggest emitters.
Still, by 2040, if the more optimistic forecasts come true, the world will be consuming less oil than it is consuming now: anywhere from 1.2 million bpd to 20 million bpd less, the latter case envisaging an all-electric global fleet in 2040.
This Ain’t Your Daddy’s Oil
No, it ain’t. It’s your grandchildren’s oil, for good or for bad. The vision of an oil-free world where renewable power is both abundant and cheap enough to replace all the ways in which crude oil and natural gas are used will in 2040 still be just that--a vision, with practical U.S. grid constraints underscoring the challenges. Even the most optimistic energy scenarios for two decades from now see them as the dominant source of energy, with forecasts ranging between 60 percent and 79 percent. While these extremes are both below the over-80 percent share fossil fuels have in the world’s energy mix, they are well above 50 percent, and in the U.S. renewables are projected to reach about one-fourth of electricity soon, even as fossil fuels remain foundational.
Still, there is good news. Fuel efficiency alone will reduce oil demand significantly by 2040. In fact, according to the IEA, demand will plateau at a little over 100 million bpd by the mid-2030s. Combined with the influx of EVs many expect, the world of 20 years from now may indeed be consuming a lot less oil than the world of today. It will, however, likely consume a lot more natural gas. There is simply no way around fossil fuels, not yet. Unless a miracle of politics happens (complete with a ripple effect that will cost millions of people their jobs) in 2040 we will be as dependent on oil and gas as we are but we will hopefully breathe cleaner air.
US Termination of Ukraine Energy Grid Support signals a policy shift: USAID halts aid for grid restoration amid Russia attacks, impacting energy security, infrastructure resilience, winter readiness, and negotiations leverage with Moscow and allies.
Key Points
A US policy reversal ending USAID support for Ukraine's grid, impacting energy security, resilience, and leverage.
✅ USAID halt reduces funds for grid restoration and winter prep
✅ Policy shift may weaken Kyiv's leverage in talks with Russia
✅ Ukraine seeks EU, IFIs, private capital for energy resilience
The U.S. government has recently decided to terminate its support for Ukraine's energy grid restoration, a critical initiative managed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). This decision, reported by NBC News, comes at a time when Ukraine is grappling with significant challenges to its energy infrastructure due to ongoing Russian attacks. The termination of support was reportedly finalized before Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's scheduled visit to Washington, marking a significant shift in U.S. policy and raising concerns about the broader implications for Ukraine's energy resilience and its negotiations with Russia.
The Critical Role of U.S. Support
Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the country’s energy infrastructure has been one of the primary targets of military strikes. Russia has launched numerous attacks on Ukraine's power generation facilities, substations, and power lines, causing power outages across multiple regions. These attacks have led to significant material losses, with damage reaching billions of dollars. As part of its commitment to Ukraine, the U.S. government, through USAID, had been instrumental in funding restoration efforts aimed at rebuilding and reinforcing Ukraine’s energy grid.
USAID's support was crucial in helping Ukraine withstand the damage inflicted by Russian missile strikes. This aid was not just about restoring basic services but also about fortifying the energy grid to ensure that Ukraine could continue functioning amidst the war and keep the lights on this winter as temperatures drop. The U.S. contribution to Ukraine's energy sector, alongside international support, helped reduce the immediate vulnerabilities faced by Ukraine's civilians and industries.
The Abrupt Change in U.S. Policy
The decision to cut support for energy grid restoration is seen as a sharp reversal in U.S. policy, particularly as the Biden administration has previously shown strong backing for Ukraine in the aftermath of the invasion. This shift in policy was reportedly made by the U.S. State Department, which directed USAID to halt its involvement in the energy sector.
According to NBC News, USAID officials expressed concern about the timing of this decision. One official noted that terminating support for Ukraine’s energy grid restoration would severely undermine the U.S. government's ability to negotiate on issues like ceasefires and peace talks with Russia. The official argued that such a move would signal to Russia that the U.S. is backing away from its long-term investments in Ukraine, potentially weakening Ukraine's position in the ongoing war.
The abrupt end to this support is also seen as a blow to the morale of Ukraine’s government and people. Ukraine had been heavily reliant on the U.S. for resources to repair its critical infrastructure, and the decision to cut this support without warning has created uncertainty about the future of such recovery efforts.
Ukraine’s Response and Search for Alternatives
In response to the termination of U.S. support, Ukrainian officials have been seeking alternative sources of funding to continue the restoration of their energy grid. Deputy Prime Minister Olha Stefanishyna reported that Ukraine has already reached preliminary agreements with other international partners to secure financial support for energy resilience, cyber defense, and recovery programs including new energy solutions for winter blackouts.
These efforts come at a time when Ukraine is working to rebuild its war-torn economy and safeguard critical sectors like energy and infrastructure. The termination of U.S. support for energy restoration projects underscores the growing pressure on Ukraine to diversify its sources of aid and not become overly dependent on any one nation. Ukrainian leaders are in ongoing talks with European governments, international financial institutions, and private investors to ensure that essential programs do not stall due to the lack of funding from the U.S., as energy cooperation grows and Ukraine helps Spain amid blackouts in solidarity.
Implications for Ukraine’s Energy Security
Ukraine's energy security remains a critical issue in the context of the ongoing conflict with Russia. The war has made the country’s energy infrastructure vulnerable to repeated attacks, and the restoration of this infrastructure is essential for ensuring that Ukraine can keep the lights on and recover in the long term. The U.S. has been one of the largest contributors to Ukraine's energy security efforts, and its withdrawal could force Ukraine to look for other partners who may not have the same level of financial or technological resources.
This development also raises questions about the future of U.S. involvement in Ukraine's recovery efforts more broadly. As the war continues and winter looms over the battlefront for frontline communities, the need for reliable and sustained support from international partners will only increase. If the U.S. significantly scales back its aid, Ukraine may face even greater challenges in maintaining its energy infrastructure and achieving long-term recovery.
Moving Forward
The termination of U.S. support for Ukraine’s energy grid restoration serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in international aid and geopolitics during wartime. As Ukraine faces the ongoing realities of the war, it must adapt to a shifting international landscape where traditional allies may not always be reliable sources of support. Ukraine’s leadership will need to be strategic in its search for alternative sources of aid, while also focusing on strengthening its energy grid, managing electricity reserves to stabilize supply, and reducing its vulnerabilities to Russian attacks.
While the end of U.S. support for Ukraine's energy restoration is a significant setback, it also underscores the urgent need for Ukraine to diversify its international partnerships. The future of Ukraine’s energy resilience may depend on how effectively it can navigate these changing dynamics while maintaining the support of the international community in the fight against Russian aggression.
