European wind potential 20 times greater than demand

BC Utilities Commission Site C Dam Questions press BC Hydro on geotechnical risks, stability issues, cost overruns, oversight gaps, seeking transparency for ratepayers and clarity on contracts, mitigation, and the powerhouse and spillway foundations.

Key Points

Inquiry seeking explanations from BC Hydro on geotechnical risks, costs, timelines and oversight for Site C.

✅ Timeline of studies, monitoring, and mitigation actions

✅ Rationale for contracts, costs, and right bank construction

✅ Implications for ratepayers, oversight, and project stability

The watchdog B.C. Utilities Commission has sent BC Hydro 70 questions about the troubled Site C dam, asking when geotechnical risks were first identified and when the project’s assurance board was first made aware of potential issues related to the dam’s stability. 

“I think they’ve come to the conclusion — but they don’t say it — that there’s been a cover-up by BC Hydro and by the government of British Columbia,” former BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen told The Narwhal. 

On Oct. 21, The Narwhal reported that two top B.C. civil servants, including the senior bureaucrat who prepares Site C dam documents for cabinet, knew in May 2019 that the project faced serious geotechnical problems due to its “weak foundation” and the stability of the dam was “a significant risk.” 

Get The Narwhal in your inbox!
People always tell us they love our newsletter. Find out yourself with a weekly dose of our ad‑free, independent journalism

“They [the civil servants] would have reported to their ministers and to the government in general,” said Eliesen, who is among 18 prominent Canadians calling for a halt to Site C work until an independent team of experts can determine if the geotechnical problems can be resolved and at what cost.  

“It’s disingenuous for Premier [John] Horgan to try to suggest, ‘Well, I just found out about it recently.’ If that’s the case, he should fire the public servants who are representing the province.” 

The public only found out about significant issues with the Site C dam at the end of July, when BC Hydro released overdue reports saying the project faces unknown cost overruns, schedule delays and, even as it achieved a transmission line milestone earlier, such profound geotechnical troubles that its overall health is classified as ‘red,’ meaning it is in serious trouble. 

“The geotechnical challenges have been there all these years.”

The Site C dam is the largest publicly funded infrastructure project in B.C.’s history. If completed, it will flood 128 kilometres of the Peace River and its tributaries, forcing families from their homes and destroying Indigenous gravesites, hundreds of protected archeological sites, some of Canada’s best farmland and habitat for more than 100 species vulnerable to extinction.

Eliesen said geotechnical risks were a key reason BC Hydro’s board of directors rejected the project in the early 1990s, when he was at the helm of BC Hydro.

“The geotechnical challenges have been there all these years,” said Eliesen, who is also the former Chair and CEO of Ontario Hydro, where Ontario First Nations have urged intervention on a critical electricity line, the former Chair of Manitoba Hydro and the former Chair and CEO of the Manitoba Energy Authority.

Elsewhere, a Manitoba Hydro line to Minnesota has faced potential delays, highlighting broader grid planning challenges.

The B.C. Utilities Commission is an independent watchdog that makes sure ratepayers — including BC Hydro customers — receive safe and reliable energy services, as utilities adapt to climate change risks, “at fair rates.”

The commission’s questions to BC Hydro include 14 about the “foundational enhancements” BC Hydro now says are necessary to shore up the Site C dam, powerhouse and spillways. 

The commission is asking BC Hydro to provide a timeline and overview of all geotechnical engineering studies and monitoring activities for the powerhouse, spillway and dam core areas, and to explain what specific risk management and mitigation practices were put into effect once risks were identified.

The commission also wants to know why construction activities continued on the right bank of the Peace River, where the powerhouse would be located, “after geotechnical risks materialized.” 

It’s asking if geotechnical risks played a role in BC Hydro’s decision in March “to suspend or not resume work” on any components of the generating station and spillways.

The commission also wants BC Hydro to provide an itemized breakdown of a $690 million increase in the main civil works contract — held by Spain’s Acciona S.A. and the South Korean multinational conglomerate Samsung C&T Corp. — and to explain the rationale for awarding a no-bid contract to an unnamed First Nation and if other parties were made aware of that contract. 

Peace River Jewels of the Peace Site C The Narwhal
Islands in the Peace River, known as the ‘jewels of the Peace’ will be destroyed for fill for the Site C dam or will be submerged underwater by the dam’s reservoir, a loss that opponents are sharing with northerners in community discussions. Photo: Byron Dueck

B.C. Utilities Commission chair and CEO David Morton said it’s not the first time the commission has requested additional information after receiving BC Hydro’s quarterly progress reports on the Site C dam. 

“Our staff reads them to make sure they understand them and if there’s anything in then that’s not clear we go then we do go through this, we call it the IR — information request — process,” Morton said in an interview.

“There are things reported in here that we felt required a little more clarity, and we needed a little more understanding of them, so that’s why we asked the questions.”

The questions were sent to BC Hydro on Oct. 23, the day before the provincial election, but Morton said the commission is extraordinarily busy this year and that’s just a coincidence. 

“Our resources are fairly strained. It would have been nice if it could have been done faster, it would be nice if everything could be done faster.” 

“These questions are not politically motivated,” Morton said. “They’re not political questions. There’s no reason not to issue them when they’re ready.”

The commission has asked BC Hydro to respond by Nov. 19.

Read more: Top B.C. government officials knew Site C dam was in serious trouble over a year ago: FOI docs

Morton said the independent commission’s jurisdiction is limited because the B.C. government removed it from oversight of the project. 

The commission, which would normally determine if a large dam like the Site C project is in the public’s financial interest, first examined BC Hydro’s proposal to build the dam in the early 1980s.

After almost two years of hearings, including testimony under oath, the commission concluded B.C. did not need the electricity. It found the Site C dam would have negative social and environmental impacts and said geothermal power should be investigated to meet future energy needs. 

The project was revived in 2010 by the BC Liberal government, which touted energy from the Site C dam as a potential source of electricity for California and a way to supply B.C.’s future LNG industry with cheap power.

Not willing to countenance another rejection from the utilities commission, the government changed the law, stripping the commission of oversight for the project. The NDP government, which came to power in 2017, chose not to restore that oversight.

“The approval of the project was exempt from our oversight,” Morton said. “We can’t come along and say ‘there’s something we don’t like about what you’re doing, we’re going to stop construction.’ We’re not in that position and that’s not the focus of these questions.” 

But the commission still retains oversight for the cost of construction once the project is complete, Morton said. 

“The cost of construction has to be recovered in [hydro] rates. That means BC Hydro will need our approval to recover their construction cost in rates, and those are not insignificant amounts, more than $10.7 billion, in all likelihood.” 

In order to recover the cost from ratepayers, the commission needs to be satisfied BC Hydro didn’t spend more money than necessary on the project, Morton said. 

“As you can imagine, that’s not a straight forward review to do after the fact, after a 10-year construction project or whatever it ends up being … so we’re using these quarterly reports as an opportunity to try to stay on top of it and to flag any areas where we think there may be areas we need to look into in the future.”

The price tag for the Site C dam was $10.7 billion before BC Hydro’s announcement at the end of July — a leap from $6.6 billion when the project was first announced in 2010 and $8.8 billion when construction began in 2015. 

Eliesen said the utilities commission should have been asking tough questions about the Site C dam far earlier. 

“They’ve been remiss in their due diligence activities … They should have been quicker in raising questions with BC Hydro, rather than allowing BC Hydro to be exceptionally late in submitting their reports.” 

BC Hydro is late in filing another Site C quarterly report, covering the period from April 1 to June 30. 

The quarterly reports provide the B.C. public with rare glimpses of a project that international hydro expert Harvey Elwin described as being more secretive than any hydro project he has encountered in five decades working on large dams around the world, including in China.

Read more: Site C dam secrecy ‘extraordinary’, international hydro construction expert tells court proceeding

Morton said the commission could have ordered regular reporting for the Site C project if it had its previous oversight capability.

“Then we would have had the ability to follow up and ultimately order any delinquent reports to be filed. In this circumstance, they are being filed voluntarily. They can file it as late as they choose. We don’t have any jurisdiction.” 

In addition to the six dozen questions, the commission has also filed confidential questions with BC Hydro. Morton said confidential information could include things such as competitive bid information. “BC Hydro itself may be under a confidentiality agreement not to disclose it.” 

With oversight, the commission would also have been able to drill down into specific project elements,  Morton said. 

“We would have wanted to ensure that the construction followed what was approved. BC Hydro wouldn’t have the ability to make significant changes to the design and nature of the project as they went along.”

BC Hydro has been criticized for changing the design of the Site C dam to an L-shape, which Eliesen said “has never been done anywhere in the world for an earthen dam.” 

Morton said an empowered commission could have opted to hold a public hearing about the design change and engage its own technical consultants, as it did in 2017 when the new NDP government asked it to conduct a fast-tracked review of the project’s economics. 

Construction Site C Dam
A recent report by a U.S. energy economist found cancelling the Site C dam project would save BC Hydro customers an initial $116 million a year, with increasing savings growing over time. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

The commission’s final report found the dam could cost more than $12 billion, that BC Hydro had a historical pattern of overestimating energy demand and that the same amount of energy could be produced by a suite of renewables, including wind and proposed pumped storage such as the Meaford project, for $8.8 billion or less. 

The NDP government, under pressure from construction trade unions, opted to continue the project, refusing to disclose key financial information related to its decision. 

When the geotechnical problems were revealed in July, the government announced the appointment of former deputy finance minister Peter Milburn as a special Site C project advisor who will work with BC Hydro and the Site C project assurance board to examine the project and provide the government with independent advice.

Eliesen said BC Hydro and the B.C. government should never have allowed the recent diversion of the Peace River to take place given the tremendous geotechnical challenges the project faces and its unknown cost and schedule for completion. 

“It’s a disgrace and scandalous,” he said. “You can halt the river diversion, but you’ve got another four or five years left in construction of the dam. What are you going to do about all the cement you’ve poured if you’ve got stability problems?”

He said it’s counter-productive to continue with advice “from the same people who have been wrong, wrong, wrong,” without calling in independent global experts to examine the geotechnical problems. 

“If you stop construction, whether it takes three or six months, that’s the time that’s required in order to give yourself a comfort level. But continuing to do what you’ve been doing is not the right course. You should have to sit back.”

Eliesen said it reminded him of the Pete Seeger song Waist Deep in the Big Muddy, which tells the story of a captain ordering his troops to keep slogging through a river because they will soon be on dry ground. After the captain drowns, the troops turn around.

“It’s a reflection of the fact that if you don’t look at what’s new, you just keep on doing what you’ve been doing in the past and that, unfortunately, is what’s happening here in this province with this project.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

US Offshore Wind Lease Sales signal soaring renewable energy growth, drawing oil and gas developers, requiring BOEM auctions, seismic surveying, transmission planning, with $70B investment, 8 GW milestones, and substantial job creation in coastal communities.

Key Points

BOEM-run auctions granting areas for offshore wind, spurring projects, investment, and jobs in federal waters.

✅ $70B investment needed by 2030 to meet current demand

✅ 8 GW early buildout could create 40,000 US jobs

✅ Requires BOEM auctions, seismic surveying, transmission corridors

Recent offshore lease sales demonstrate that not only has offshore wind arrived in the U.S., but it is clearly set to soar, as forecasts point to a $1 trillion global market in the coming decades. The level of participation today, especially from seasoned offshore oil and gas developers, exemplifies that the offshore industry is an advocate for the 'all of the above' energy portfolio.

Offshore wind could generate 160,000 direct, indirect and induced jobs, with 40,000 new U.S. jobs with the first 8 gigawatts of production, while broader forecasts see a quarter-million U.S. wind jobs within four years.

In fact, a recent report from the Special Initiative on Offshore Wind (SIOW), said that offshore wind investment in U.S. waters will require $70 billion by 2030 just based on current demand, and the UK's rapid scale-up offers a relevant benchmark.

Maintaining this tremendous level of interest from offshore wind developers requires a reliable inventory of regularly scheduled offshore wind sales and the ability to develop those resources. Coastal communities and extreme environmental groups opposing seismic surveying and the issuance of incidental harassment authorizations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act may literally take the wind out of these sales. Just as it is for offshore oil and gas development, seismic surveying is vital for offshore wind development, specifically in the siting of wind turbines and transmission corridors.

Unfortunately, a long-term pipeline of wind lease sales does not currently exist. In fact, with the exception of a sale proposed offshore New York offshore wind or potentially California in 2020, there aren't any future lease sales scheduled, leaving nothing upon which developers can plan future investments and prompting questions about when 1 GW will be on the grid nationwide.

NOIA is dedicated to working with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and coastal communities, consumers, energy producers and other stakeholders, drawing on U.K. wind lessons where applicable, in working through these challenges to make offshore wind a reality for millions of Americans.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

California Net Zero Grid Investment will fuel electrification, renewable energy buildout, EV adoption, and grid modernization, boosting utilities, solar, and storage, while policy, IRA incentives, and transmission upgrades drive reliability and long-term rate base growth.

Key Points

Funding to electrify sectors and modernize the grid, scaling renewables, EVs, and storage to meet 2045 net zero goals.

✅ $370B over 22 years to meet 2045 net zero target

✅ Utilities lead gains via grid modernization and rate base growth

✅ EVs, solar, storage scale; IRA credits offset costs

$370 billion: That’s the investment Edison International CEO Pedro Pizarro says is needed for California’s power grid to meet the state’s “net zero” goal for CO2 emissions by 2045.

Getting there will require replacing fossil fuels with electricity in transportation, HVAC systems for buildings and industrial processes. Combined with population growth and data demand potentially augmented by artificial intelligence, that adds up to an 82 percent increase in electricity demand over 22 years, or 3 percent annually, and a potential looming shortage if buildout lags.

California’s plans also call for phasing out fossil fuel generation in the state, despite ongoing dependence on fossil power during peaks. And presumably, its last nuclear plant—PG&E Corp’s (PCG) Diablo Canyon—will be eventually be shuttered as well. So getting there also means trebling the state’s renewable energy generation and doubling usage of rooftop solar.

Assuming this investment is made, it’s relatively easy to put together a list of beneficiaries. Electric vehicles hit 20 percent market share in the state in Q2, even as pandemic-era demand shifts complicate load forecasting. And while competition from manufacturers has increased, leading manufacturers like Tesla TSLA -3% Inc (TSLA) can look forward to rising sales for some time—though that’s more than priced in for Elon Musk’s company at 65 times expected next 12 months earnings.

In the past year, California regulators have dialed back net metering through pricing changes affecting compensation, a subsidy previously paying rooftop solar owners premium prices for power sold back to the grid. That’s hit share prices of SunPower Corp (SPWR) and Sunrun Inc (RUN) quite hard, by further undermining business plans yet to demonstrate consistent profitability.

Nonetheless, these companies too can expect robust sales growth, as global prices for solar components drop and Inflation Reduction Act tax credits at least somewhat offset higher interest rates. And the combination of IRA tax credits and U.S. tariff walls will continue to boost sales at solar manufacturers like JinkoSolar Holding (JKS).

The surest, biggest beneficiaries of California’s drive to Net Zero are the utilities, reflecting broader utility trends in grid modernization, with investment increasing earnings and dividends. And as the state’s largest pure electric company, Edison has the clearest path.

Edison is currently requesting California regulators OK recovery over a 30-year period of $2.4 billion in losses related to 2017 wildfires. Assuming a amicable decision by early next year, management can then turn its attention to upgrading the grid. That investment is expected to generate long-term rate base growth of 8 percent at year, fueling 5 to 7 percent annual earnings growth through 2028 with commensurate dividend increases.

That’s a strong value proposition Edison stock, with trades at just 14 times expected next 12 months earnings. The yield of roughly 4.4 percent at current prices was increased 5.4 percent this year and is headed for a similar boost in December.

When California deregulated electricity in 1996, it required utilities with rare exceptions to divest their power generation. As a result, Edison’s growth opportunity is 100 percent upgrading its transmission and distribution grid. And its projects can typically be proposed, sited, permitted and built in less than a year, limiting risk of cost overruns to ensure regulatory approval and strong investment returns.

Edison’s investment plan is also pretty much immune to an unlikely backtracking on Net Zero goals by the state. And the company has a cost argument as well: Dr Pizarro cites U.S. Department of Energy and Department of Transportation data to project inflation-adjusted savings of 40 percent in California’s total customer energy bills from full electrification.

There’s even a reason to believe 40 percent savings will prove conservative. Mainly, gasoline currently accounts for a bit more than half energy expenditures. And after a more than 10-year global oil and gas investment drought, supplies are likely get tighter and prices possibly much higher in coming years.

Of course, those savings will only show up after significant investment is made. At this point, no major utility system in the world runs on 100 percent renewable energy, and California’s blackout politics underscore how reliability concerns shape deployment. And the magnitude of storage technology needed to overcome intermittency in solar and wind generation is not currently available let alone affordable, though both cost and efficiency are advancing.

Taking EVs from 20 to 100 percent of California’s new vehicle sales calls for a similar leap in efficiency and cost, even with generous federal and state subsidy. And while technology to fully electrify buildings and homes is there, economically retrofitting statewide is almost certainly going to be a slog.

At the end of the day, political will is likely to be as important as future technological advance for how much of Pizarro’s $370 billion actually gets spent. And the same will be true across the U.S., with state governments and regulators still by and large calling the shots for how electricity gets generated, transmitted and distributed—as well as who pays for it and how much, even as California’s exported policies influence Western markets.

Ironically, the one state where investors don’t need to worry about renewable energy’s prospects is one of the currently reddest politically. That’s Florida, where NextEra Energy NEE +2.8% (NEE) and other utilities can dramatically cut costs to customers and boost reliability by deploying solar and energy storage.

You won’t hear management asserting it can run the Sunshine State on 100 percent renewable energy, as utilities and regulators do in some of the bluer parts of the country. But by demonstrating the cost and reliability argument for solar deployment, NextEra is also making the case why its stock is America’s highest percentage bet on renewables’ growth—particularly at a time when all things energy are unfortunately becoming increasingly, intensely political.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

US Electricity Generation H1 2018 saw wind and solar gains but hydro declines, as natural gas led the grid mix and coal fell; renewables' share, GWh, emissions, and capacity additions shaped the power sector.

Key Points

It is the H1 2018 US power mix, where natural gas led, coal declined, and wind and solar grew while hydro fell.

✅ Natural gas reached 32% of generation, highest share

✅ Coal fell; renewables roughly tied nuclear at ~20%

✅ Wind and solar up; hydro output down vs 2017

To complement our revival of US electricity capacity reports, here’s a revival of our reports on US electricity generation.

As with the fresh new capacity report, things are not looking too bright when it comes to electricity generation. There’s still a lot of grey — in the bar charts below, in the skies near fossil fuel power plants, and in the human and planetary outlook based on how slowly we are cutting fossil fuel electricity generation.

As you can see in the charts above, wind and solar energy generation increased notably from the first half of 2017 to the first half of 2018, and the EIA expected larger summer solar and wind generation in subsequent months, reinforcing that momentum.

A large positive when it comes to the environment and human health is that coal generation dropped a great deal year over year — by even more than renewables increased, though the EIA later noted an increase in coal-fired generation in a subsequent year, complicating the trend. However, on the down side, natural gas soared as it became the #1 source of electricity generation in the United States (32% of US electricity). Furthermore, coal was still solidly in the #2 position (27% of US electricity). Renewables and nuclear were essentially in a tie at 19.8% of generation, with renewables just a tad above nuclear.

Actually, combined with an increase in nuclear power generation, natural gas electricity production increased so much that the renewable energy share of electricity generation actually dropped in the first half of 2018 versus the first half of 2017, even amid declining electricity use in some periods. It was 19.8% this year and 20% last year.

Again, solar and wind saw a significant growth in its market share, from 9% to 9.9%, but hydro brought the whole category down due to a decrease from 9% to 8%.

The visuals above are probably the best way to examine it all. The H1 2018 chart was still dominated by fossil fuels, which together accounted for approximately 60% of electricity generation, even though by 2021 non-fossil sources supplied about 40% of U.S. electricity, highlighting the longer-term shift. In H1 2017, the figure was 59.7%. Furthermore, if you switch to the “Change H1 2018 vs H1 2017 (GWh)” chart, you can watch a giant grey bar representing natural gas take over the top of the chart. It almost looks like it’s part of the border of the chart. The biggest glimmer of positivity in that chart is seeing the decline in coal at the bottom.

What will the second half of the year bring? Well, the gigantic US electricity generation market shifts slowly, even as monthly figures can swing, as January generation jumped 9.3% year over year according to the EIA, reminding us about volatility. There is so much base capacity, and power plants last so long, that it takes a special kind of magic to create a rapid transition to renewable energy. As you know from reading this quarter’s US renewable energy capacity report, only 43% of new US power capacity in the first half of the year was from renewables. The majority of it was from natural gas. Along with other portions of the calculation, that means that electricity generation from natural gas is likely to increase more than electricity generation from renewables.

Jump into the numbers below and let us know if you have any more thoughts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Natrium small modular reactor pairs a sodium-cooled fast reactor with molten salt storage to deliver load-following, dispatchable nuclear power, enhancing grid flexibility and peaking capacity as TerraPower and GE Hitachi pursue factory-built, affordable deployment.

Key Points

A TerraPower-GE Hitachi SMR joining a sodium-cooled reactor with molten salt storage for flexible, dispatchable power.

✅ 345 MW base; 500 MW for 5.5 hours via thermal storage

✅ Sodium-cooled coolant and molten salt storage enable load-following

✅ Backed by major utilities; factory-built modules aim lower costs

Nuclear power is the Immovable Object of generation sources. It can take days just to bring a nuclear plant completely online, rendering it useless as a tool to manage the fluctuations in the supply and demand on a modern energy grid.  

Now a firm launched by Bill Gates in 2006, TerraPower, in partnership with GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, believes it has found a way to make the infamously unwieldy energy source a great deal nimbler, drawing on next-gen nuclear ideas — and for an affordable price. 

The new design, announced by TerraPower on August 27th, is a combination of a "sodium-cooled fast reactor" — a type of small reactor in which liquid sodium is used as a coolant — and an energy storage system. While the reactor could pump out 345 megawatts of electrical power indefinitely, the attached storage system would retain heat in the form of molten salt and could discharge the heat when needed, increasing the plant’s overall power output to 500 megawatts for more than 5.5 hours. 

“This allows for a nuclear design that follows daily electric load changes and helps customers capitalize on peaking opportunities driven by renewable energy fluctuations,” TerraPower said. 

Dubbed Natrium after the Latin name for sodium ('natrium'), the new design will be available in the late 2020s, said Chris Levesque, TerraPower's president and CEO.

TerraPower said it has the support of a handful of top U.S. utilities, including Berkshire Hathaway Energy subsidiary Pacificorp, Energy Northwest, and Duke Energy. 

The reactor's molten salt storage add-on would essentially reprise the role currently played by coal- or gas-fired power stations or grid-scale batteries: each is a dispatchable form of power generation that can quickly ratchet up or down in response to changes in grid demand or supply. As the power demands of modern grids become ever more variable with additions of wind and solar power — which only provide energy when the wind is blowing or the sun shining — low-carbon sources of dispatchable power are needed more and more, and Europe is losing nuclear power at a difficult moment for energy security. California’s rolling blackouts are one example of what can happen when not enough power is available to be dispatched to meet peak demand. 

The use of molten salt, which retains heat at extremely high temperatures, as a storage technology is not new. Concentrated solar power plants also collect energy in the form of molten salt, although such plants have largely been abandoned in the U.S. The technology could enjoy new life alongside nuclear plants: TerraPower and GE Hitachi Nuclear are only two of several private firms working to develop reactor designs that incorporate molten salt storage units, including U.K.- and Canada-based developer Moltex Energy.

The Gates-backed venture and its partner touted the "significant cost savings" that would be achieved by building major portions of their Natrium plants through not a custom but an industrial process — a defining feature of the newest generation of advanced reactors is that their parts can be made in factories and assembled on-site — although more details on cost weren't available. Reuters reported earlier that each plant would cost around $1 billion.

NuScale Power

A day after TerraPower and GE Hitachi's unveiled their new design, another nuclear firm — Portland, Oregon-based NuScale Power — announced that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) had completed its final safety evaluation of NuScale’s new small modular reactor design.

It was the first small modular reactor design ever to receive design approval from the NRC, NuScale said. 

The approval means customers can now pursue plans to develop its reactor design confident that the NRC has signed off on its safety aspects. NuScale said it has signed agreements with interested parties in the U.S., Canada, Romania, the Czech Republic, and Jordan, and is in the process of negotiating more. 

NuScale previously said that construction on one of its plants could begin in Utah in 2023, with the aim of completing the first Power Module in 2026 and the remaining 11 modules in 2027.

NuScale
An artist’s rendering of NuScale Power’s small modular nuclear reactor plant. NUSCALE POWER
NuScale’s reactor is smaller than TerraPower’s. Entirely factory-built, each of its Power Modules would generate 60 megawatts of power. The design, typical of advanced reactors, uses pressurized water reactor technology, with one power plant able to house up to 12 individual Power Modules. 

In a sign of the huge amounts of time and resources it takes to get new nuclear technology to the market’s doorstep, NuScale said it first completed its Design Certification Application in December 2016. NRC officials then spent as many as 115,000 hours reviewing it, NuScale said, in what was only the first of several phases in the review process. 

In January 2019, President Donald Trump signed into law the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA), designed to speed the licensing process for advanced nuclear reactors, and the DOE under Secretary Rick Perry moved to advance nuclear development through parallel initiatives. The law had widespread bipartisan support, underscoring Democrats' recent tentative embrace of nuclear power.

An industry eager to turn the page

After a boom in the construction of massive nuclear power plants in the 1960s and 70s, the world's aging fleet of nuclear plants suffers from rising costs and flagging public support. Nuclear advocates have for years heralded so-called small modular reactors or SMRs as the cheaper and more agile successors to the first generation of plants, and policy moves such as the UK's green industrial revolution lay out pathways for successive waves of reactors. But so far a breakthrough on cost has proved elusive, and delays in development timelines have been abundant. 

Edwin Lyman, the director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, suggested on Twitter that the nuclear designs used by TerraPower and GE Hitachi had fallen short of a major innovation. “Oh brother. The last thing the world needs is a fleet of sodium-cooled fast reactors,” he wrote.  

Still, climate scientists view nuclear energy as a crucial source of zero-carbon energy, with analyses arguing that net-zero emissions may be impossible without nuclear in many scenarios, if the world stands a chance at limiting global temperature increases to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Nearly all mainstream projections of the world’s path to keeping the temperature increase below those levels feature nuclear energy in a prominent role, including those by the United Nations and the International Energy Agency (IEA). 

According to the IEA: “Achieving the clean energy transition with less nuclear power is possible but would require an extraordinary effort.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ukraine Electricity Imports surge to record levels as EU neighbors bolster grid stability amid Russian strikes, supporting energy security, preventing blackouts, and straining cross-border transmission capacity while Ukraine rebuilds damaged infrastructure and diversifies with renewables.

Key Points

Emergency EU power purchases stabilizing Ukraine’s grid after war damage.

✅ Record 19,000 MWh per day from EU interconnectors

✅ Supports grid stability and blackout prevention

✅ Cost and transmission upgrades challenge sustainability

Russia's ongoing war in Ukraine has extended far beyond the battlefield, with critical infrastructure becoming a target. Ukraine's once-robust energy system has sustained significant damage amid energy ceasefire violations and Russian missile and drone strikes. To cope with these disruptions and maintain power supplies for Ukrainian citizens, the country is turning to record-breaking electricity imports from neighboring European nations.

Prior to the war, Ukraine enjoyed a self-sufficient energy sector, even exporting electricity to neighboring countries. However, targeted attacks on power plants and transmission lines have crippled generation capacity. The situation is particularly dire in eastern and southern Ukraine, where ongoing fighting has caused extensive damage.

Faced with this energy crisis, Ukraine is looking to Europe for a lifeline. The country's energy ministry has announced plans to import a staggering amount of electricity – exceeding 19,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) per day – to prepare for winter and stabilize supplies. This surpasses the previous record set in March 2024 and represents a significant increase in Ukraine's reliance on external power sources.

Several European nations are stepping up to support Ukraine. Countries like Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, which maintains quiet energy ties with Russia today, and Moldova have agreed to provide emergency electricity supplies. These imports will help stabilize Ukraine's power grid and prevent widespread blackouts, especially during peak consumption hours.

The reliance on imports, however, presents its own set of challenges. Firstly, the sheer volume of electricity needed puts a strain on the capacity of neighboring grids. Upgrading and expanding transmission infrastructure will be crucial to ensure a smooth flow of electricity. Secondly, the cost of imported electricity can be higher than domestically generated power amid price hikes and instability globally, placing additional pressure on Ukraine's already strained finances.

Beyond these immediate concerns, the long-term implications of relying on external energy sources need to be considered. Ukraine's long-term goal is to rebuild its own energy infrastructure and regain energy independence. International assistance, including energy security support measures, will be crucial in this endeavor. Financial aid and technical expertise can help Ukraine repair damaged power plants, diversify its energy mix through further investment in renewables, and develop more resilient grid infrastructure.

The war in Ukraine has underscored the importance of energy security. A nation's dependence on a single source of energy, be it domestic or foreign, leaves it vulnerable to disruption, as others consider national security and fossil fuels in their own policies. For Ukraine, diversification and building a more resilient energy infrastructure are key takeaways from this crisis.

The international community also has a role to play. Supporting Ukraine's energy sector not only helps the nation weather the current crisis but also strengthens European energy security as a whole, where concerns over Europe's energy nightmare remain pronounced. A stable and independent Ukraine, less reliant on Russian energy, contributes to a more secure and prosperous Europe.

As the war in Ukraine continues, the battle for energy security rages on. While the immediate focus is on keeping the lights on through imports, the long-term goal for Ukraine is to rebuild a stronger, more resilient energy sector that can power the nation's future. The international community's support will be crucial in helping Ukraine achieve this goal.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News