Solar power executives are seeing encouraging signs of what could be a major recovery in U.S. solar demand, but they are still cautious about the rest of this year after being pummeled by the global credit crisis.
"The prospects for 2010 and beyond are quite significant," Suntech Power Holdings Co Ltd Chief Strategy Officer Steven Chan told the Reuters Global Energy Summit. "Next year, I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. market tripled off of this year."
The solar industry was virtually unscathed by the economic downturn until late last year, when funding for all types of projects dried up.
That lack of financing combined with a pullback in solar tax breaks in Spain released a flood of solar panels into the market, driving prices down and hurting producers' profits.
But Chan and Tom Werner, the chief executive of U.S. rival SunPower Corp, see positive signs in both the credit markets and in U.S. policy to support renewable energy.
Despite the weak economy, Chan expects the solar market in the United States to be about flat in 2009 compared with 2008. At the same time, Suntech expects to double its U.S. market share to 20 percent this year from 10 percent last year.
The federal stimulus package has already helped improve sentiment in the market, Werner said, though he does not expect those funds to affect the company's bottom line until "the back half of the year, perhaps Q4." He sees a much larger impact in 2010.
SunPower has seen six weeks of encouraging trends during the first half of this quarter, Werner added, but was quick to warn that the Unites States could be in the middle of a W-shaped recovery that would not be sustained.
Energy Conversion Devices Inc CEO Mark Morelli was more sober in his outlook for the U.S. solar market this year, arguing that access to project financing remains scarce and government stimulus funds have yet to kick in.
"It's marginally better," said Morelli, whose company reported an 81 percent drop in quarterly profit in May and declined to provide any outlook.
"The issue is really the pace by which things are moving," he said. "It's very slow. The U.S. market in particular is very slow."
ECD makes lightweight, flexible solar laminates for rooftops and buildings that convert sunlight into electricity. The thin film products are made from amorphous silicon and unlike traditional solar panels, do not rely on costly crystalline silicon as their primary raw material.
Like its larger competitor, First Solar Inc, the company has resorted to providing financing to its customers in order to get projects started.
But even Morelli said he was "a bit optimistic" about 2010.
"We don't know when the financing will come back; we just hope it will come back," he said.
For its part, Suntech said it was seeking between $200 million and $500 million from Chinese banks to help fund solar projects outside of China.
"They are now open to funding for overseas projects and overseas trade finance," Chan said of the discussions the company is having with Chinese banks. "It's just a question of their due diligence and getting them comfortable with the projects."
Duke Energy Clean Energy Strategy advances renewables, battery storage, grid modernization, and energy efficiency to cut carbon, retire coal, and target net-zero by 2050 across the Carolinas with robust IRPs and capital investments.
Key Points
Plan to expand renewables, storage, and grid upgrades to cut carbon and reach net-zero electricity by 2050.
✅ 56B investment in renewables, storage, and grid modernization
✅ Targets 50% carbon reduction by 2030 and net-zero by 2050
✅ Retires coal units; expands energy efficiency and IRPs
Duke Energy says that the company will continue advancing its ambitious clean energy goals without the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) by investing in renewables, battery storage, energy efficiency programs and grid projects that support U.S. electrification efforts.
Duke Energy, the nation's largest electric utility, unveils its new logo. (PRNewsFoto/Duke Energy) (PRNewsfoto/Duke Energy)
Duke Energy's $56 billion capital investment plan will deliver significant customer benefits and create jobs at a time when policymakers at all levels are looking for ways to rebuild the economy in 2020 and beyond. These investments will deliver cleaner energy for customers and communities while enhancing the energy grid to provide greater reliability and resiliency.
"Sustainability and the reduction of carbon emissions are closely tied to our region's success," said Lynn Good, Duke Energy Chair, President and CEO. "In our recent Climate Report, we shared a vision of a cleaner electricity future with an increasing focus on renewables and battery storage in addition to a diverse mix of zero-carbon nuclear, natural gas, hydro and energy efficiency programs.
"Achieving this clean energy vision will require all of us working together to develop a plan that is smart, equitable and ensures the reliability and affordability that will spur economic growth in the region. While we're disappointed that we're not able to move forward with ACP, we will continue exploring ways to help our customers and communities, particularly in eastern North Carolina where the need is great," said Good.
Already a clean-energy leader, Duke Energy has reduced its carbon emissions by 39% from 2005 and remains on track to cut its carbon emissions by at least 50% by 2030, as peers like Alliant's carbon-neutral plan demonstrate broader industry momentum toward decarbonization. The company also has an ambitious clean energy goal of reaching net-zero emissions from electricity generation by 2050.
In September 2020, Duke Energy plans to file its Integrated Resource Plans (IRP) for the Carolinas after an extensive process of working with the state's leaders, policymakers, customers and other stakeholders. The IRPs will include multiple scenarios to support a path to a cleaner energy future in the Carolinas, reflecting key utility trends shaping resource planning.
Since 2010, Duke Energy has retired 51 coal units totaling more than 6,500 megawatts (MW) and plans to retire at least an additional 900 MW by the end of 2024. In 2019, the company proposed to shorten the book lives of another approximately 7,700 MW of coal capacity in North Carolina and Indiana.
Duke Energy will host an analyst call in early August 2020 to discuss second quarter 2020 financial results and other business and financial updates. The company will also host its inaugural Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investor day in October 2020.
Duke Energy
Duke Energy is transforming its customers' experience, modernizing the energy grid, generating cleaner energy and expanding natural gas infrastructure to create a smarter energy future for the people and communities it serves. The Electric Utilities and Infrastructure unit's regulated utilities serve 7.8 million retail electric customers in six states: North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky. The Gas Utilities and Infrastructure unit distributes natural gas to 1.6 million customers in five states: North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio and Kentucky. The Duke Energy Renewables unit operates wind and solar generation facilities across the U.S., as well as energy storage and microgrid projects.
Duke Energy was named to Fortune's 2020 "World's Most Admired Companies" list and Forbes' "America's Best Employers" list. More information about the company is available at duke-energy.com. The Duke Energy News Center contains news releases, fact sheets, photos, videos and other materials. Duke Energy's illumination features stories about people, innovations, community topics and environmental issues. Follow Duke Energy on Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook.
Forward-Looking Information
This document includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Forward-looking statements are based on management's beliefs and assumptions and can often be identified by terms and phrases that include "anticipate," "believe," "intend," "estimate," "expect," "continue," "should," "could," "may," "plan," "project," "predict," "will," "potential," "forecast," "target," "guidance," "outlook" or other similar terminology. Various factors may cause actual results to be materially different than the suggested outcomes within forward-looking statements; accordingly, there is no assurance that such results will be realized. These factors include, but are not limited to:
State, federal and foreign legislative and regulatory initiatives, including costs of compliance with existing and future environmental requirements, including those related to climate change, as well as rulings that affect cost and investment recovery or have an impact on rate structures or market prices;
The extent and timing of costs and liabilities to comply with federal and state laws, regulations and legal requirements related to coal ash remediation, including amounts for required closure of certain ash impoundments, are uncertain and difficult to estimate;
The ability to recover eligible costs, including amounts associated with coal ash impoundment retirement obligations and costs related to significant weather events, and to earn an adequate return on investment through rate case proceedings and the regulatory process;
The costs of decommissioning nuclear facilities could prove to be more extensive than amounts estimated and all costs may not be fully recoverable through the regulatory process;
Costs and effects of legal and administrative proceedings, settlements, investigations and claims;
Industrial, commercial and residential growth or decline in service territories or customer bases resulting from sustained downturns of the economy and the economic health of our service territories or variations in customer usage patterns, including energy efficiency and demand response efforts and use of alternative energy sources, such as self-generation and distributed generation technologies;
Federal and state regulations, laws and other efforts designed to promote and expand the use of energy efficiency measures and distributed generation technologies, such as private solar and battery storage, in Duke Energy service territories could result in customers leaving the electric distribution system, excess generation resources as well as stranded costs;
Advancements in technology;
Additional competition in electric and natural gas markets and continued industry consolidation;
The influence of weather and other natural phenomena on operations, including the economic, operational and other effects of severe storms, hurricanes, droughts, earthquakes and tornadoes, including extreme weather associated with climate change;
The ability to successfully operate electric generating facilities and deliver electricity to customers including direct or indirect effects to the company resulting from an incident that affects the U.S. electric grid or generating resources;
The ability to obtain the necessary permits and approvals and to complete necessary or desirable pipeline expansion or infrastructure projects in our natural gas business;
Operational interruptions to our natural gas distribution and transmission activities;
The availability of adequate interstate pipeline transportation capacity and natural gas supply;
The impact on facilities and business from a terrorist attack, cybersecurity threats, data security breaches, operational accidents, information technology failures or other catastrophic events, such as fires, explosions, pandemic health events or other similar occurrences;
The inherent risks associated with the operation of nuclear facilities, including environmental, health, safety, regulatory and financial risks, including the financial stability of third-party service providers;
The timing and extent of changes in commodity prices and interest rates and the ability to recover such costs through the regulatory process, where appropriate, and their impact on liquidity positions and the value of underlying assets;
The results of financing efforts, including the ability to obtain financing on favorable terms, which can be affected by various factors, including credit ratings, interest rate fluctuations, compliance with debt covenants and conditions and general market and economic conditions;
Credit ratings of the Duke Energy Registrants may be different from what is expected;
Declines in the market prices of equity and fixed-income securities and resultant cash funding requirements for defined benefit pension plans, other post-retirement benefit plans and nuclear decommissioning trust funds;
Construction and development risks associated with the completion of the Duke Energy Registrants' capital investment projects, including risks related to financing, obtaining and complying with terms of permits, meeting construction budgets and schedules and satisfying operating and environmental performance standards, as well as the ability to recover costs from customers in a timely manner, or at all;
Changes in rules for regional transmission organizations, including FERC debates on coal and nuclear subsidies and new and evolving capacity markets, and risks related to obligations created by the default of other participants;
The ability to control operation and maintenance costs;
The level of creditworthiness of counterparties to transactions;
The ability to obtain adequate insurance at acceptable costs;
Employee workforce factors, including the potential inability to attract and retain key personnel;
The ability of subsidiaries to pay dividends or distributions to Duke Energy Corporation holding company (the Parent);
The performance of projects undertaken by our nonregulated businesses and the success of efforts to invest in and develop new opportunities;
The effect of accounting pronouncements issued periodically by accounting standard-setting bodies;
The impact of U.S. tax legislation to our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows and our credit ratings;
The impacts from potential impairments of goodwill or equity method investment carrying values; and
The ability to implement our business strategy, including enhancing existing technology systems.
Additional risks and uncertainties are identified and discussed in the Duke Energy Registrants' reports filed with the SEC and available at the SEC's website at sec.gov. In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the events described in the forward-looking statements might not occur or might occur to a different extent or at a different time than described. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made and the Duke Energy Registrants expressly disclaim an obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
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 Clean Electricity Record as wind, solar, and biomass boost renewable energy output, slashing carbon emissions and wholesale power prices during lockdown, while lower demand challenges grid balancing and drives a drop to 153 g/kWh.
Key Points
A milestone where wind, solar and biomass lifted renewables, cutting carbon intensity to 153 g/kWh during lockdown.
✅ Carbon intensity averaged 153 g/kWh in Q2 2020.
✅ Renewables output rose 32% via wind, solar, biomass.
✅ Wholesale power prices slumped 42% amid lower demand.
U.K electricity has never been cleaner. As wind, solar and biomass plants produced more power than ever in the second quarter, with a new wind generation record set, carbon emissions fell by a third from a year earlier, according to Drax Electric Insight’s quarterly report. Power prices slumped 42 per cent as demand plunged during lockdown. Total renewable energy output jumped 32 per cent in the period, as wind became the main source of electricity at times.
“The past few months have given the country a glimpse into the future for our power system, with higher levels of renewable energy, as wind led the power mix, and lower demand making for a difficult balancing act,”said Iain Staffell, from Imperial College London and lead author of the report.
The findings of the report point to the impact energy efficiency can have on reducing emissions, as coal's share fell to record lows across the electricity system. Millions of people furloughed or working from home and shuttered shops up and down the country resulted in daily electricity demand dropping about 10% and being about four gigawatts lower than expected in the three months through June.
Yukon SMR Feasibility Study examines small modular reactors as low-emissions nuclear power for Yukon's grid and remote communities, comparing costs, safety, waste, and reliability with diesel generation, renewables, and energy efficiency.
Key Points
An official assessment of small modular reactors as low-emission power options for Yukon's grid and remote sites.
✅ Compares SMR costs vs diesel, hydro, wind, and solar
✅ Considers remote community loads and grid integration
The Yukon government is looking for ways to reduce the territory's emissions, and wondering if nuclear power is one way to go.
The territory is undertaking a feasibility study, and, as some developers note, combining multiple energy sources can make better projects, to determine whether there's a future for SMRs — small modular reactors — as a low-emissions alternative to things such as diesel power.
The idea, said John Streicker, Yukon's minister of energy, mines and resources, is to bring the SMRs into the Yukon to generate electricity.
"Even the micro ones, you could consider in our remote communities or wherever you've got a point load of energy demand," Streicker said. "Especially electricity demand."
For remote coastal communities elsewhere in Canada, tidal energy is being explored as a low-emissions option as well.
SMRs are nuclear reactors that use fission to produce energy, similar to existing large reactors, but with a smaller power capacity. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) defines reactors as "small" if their output is under 300 MW. A traditional nuclear power plant produces about three times as much power or more.
They're "modular" because they're designed to be factory-assembled, and then installed where needed.
Several provinces have already signed an agreement supporting the development of SMRs, and in Alberta's energy mix that conversation spans both green and fossil power, and Canada's first grid-scale SMRs could be in place in Ontario by 2028 and Saskatchewan by 2032.
A year ago, the government of Yukon endorsed Canada's SMR action plan, at a time when analysts argue that zero-emission electricity by 2035 is practical and profitable, agreeing to "monitor the progress of SMR technologies throughout Canada with the goal of identifying potential for applicability in our northern jurisdiction."
The territory is now following through by hiring someone to look at whether SMRs could make sense as a cleaner-energy alternative in Yukon.
The territorial government has set a goal of reducing emissions by 45 per cent by 2030, excluding mining emissions, even as some analyses argue that zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is possible, and "future emissions actions for post-2030 have not yet been identified," reads the government's request for proposals to do the SMR study.
Streicker acknowledges the potential for nuclear power in Yukon is a bit of "long shot" — but says it's one that can't be ignored.
"We need to look at all possible solutions," he said, as countries such as New Zealand's electricity sector debate their future pathways.
"I don't want to give the sense like we're putting all of our emphasis and energy towards nuclear power. We're not."
According to Streicker, it's nothing more than a study at this point.
Don't bother, researcher says Still, M.V. Ramana, a professor at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia, said it's a study that's likely a waste of time and money. He says there's been plenty of research already, and to him, SMRs are just not a realistic option for Yukon or anywhere in Canada.
"I would say that, you know, that study can be done in two weeks by a graduate student, essentially, all right? They just have to go look at the literature on SMRs and look at the critical literature on this," Ramana said.
Ramana co-authored a research paper last year, looking at the potential for SMRs in remote communities or mine sites. The conclusion was that SMRs will be too expensive and there won't be enough demand to justify investing in them.
He said nuclear reactors are expensive, which is why their construction has "dried up" in much of the world.
"They generate electricity at very high prices," he said.
'They just have to go look at the literature,' said M.V. Ramana, a professor at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia. (Paul Joseph) "[For] smaller reactors, the overall costs go down. But the amount of electricity that they will generate goes down even further."
The environmental case is also shaky, according to a statement signed last year by dozens of Canadian environmental and community groups, including the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the Council of Canadians and the Canadian Environmental Law Associaton (CELA). The statement calls SMRs a "dirty, dangerous distraction" from tackling climate change and criticized the federal government for investing in the technology.
"We have to remember that the majority of the rhetoric we hear is from nuclear advocates. And so they are promoting what I would call, and other legal scholars and academics have called, a nuclear fantasy," said Kerrie Blaise of CELA.
Blaise describes the nuclear industry as facing an unknown future, with some of North America's larger reactors set to be decommissioned in the coming years. SMRs are therefore touted as the future.
"They're looking for a solution. And so that I would say climate change presents that timely solution for them."
Blaise argues the same safety and environmental questions exist for SMRs as for any nuclear reactors — such as how to produce and transport fuel safely, what to do with waste, and how to decommission them — and those can't be glossed over in a single-minded pursuit of lower carbon emissions.
Main focus is still renewables, minister says Yukon's energy minister agrees, and he's eager to emphasize that the territory is not committed to anything right now beyond a study.
"Every government has a responsibility to do diligence around this," Streicker said.
A solar farm in Old Crow, Yukon. The territory's energy minister says Yukon is still primarily focussed on renewables, and energy efficiency. (Caleb Charlie) He also dismisses the idea that studying nuclear power is any sort of distraction from his government's response to climate change right now. Yukon's main focus is still renewable energy such as solar and wind power, though Canada's solar progress is often criticized as lagging, increasing efficiency, and connecting Yukon's grid to the hydro project in Atlin, B.C., he said.
Streicker has been open to nuclear energy in the past. As a federal Green Party candidate in 2008, Streicker broke with the party line to suggest that nuclear could be a viable energy alternative.
He acknowledges that nuclear power is always a hot-button issue, and Yukoners will have strong feelings about it. A lot will depend on how any future regulatory process works, he says.
In taking action on climate, this Arctic community wants to be a beacon to the world Cameco signs agreement with nuclear reactor company "There's some people that think it's the 'Hail Mary,' and some people that think it's evil incarnate," he said.
"Buried deep within Our Clean Future [Yukon's climate change strategy], there's a line in there that says we should keep an eye on other technologies, for example, nuclear. That's what this [study] is — it's to keep an eye on it."
Washington Grid Resilience Grant funds DOE-backed modernization to harden Washington's electric grid against extreme weather, advancing clean energy, affordable and reliable electricity, and community resilience under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law via projects and utility partnerships.
Key Points
A $23.4M DOE grant to modernize Washington's grid, boost weather resilience, and deliver clean, reliable power.
✅ Targets outages, reliability, and community resilience statewide.
✅ Prioritizes disadvantaged areas and quality clean energy jobs.
✅ Backed by Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and DOE funding.
Washington state has received a $23.4 million Grid Resilience State and Tribal Formula Grant from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to modernize the electric grid through smarter electricity infrastructure and reduce impacts due to extreme weather and natural disasters. Grid Resilience State and Tribal Formula Grants aim to ensure the reliability of power sector infrastructure so that communities have access to affordable, reliable, clean electricity.
“Electricity is an essential lifeline for communities. Improving our systems by reducing disruptive events is key as we cross the finish line of a 100% clean electricity grid and ensure equitable benefits from the clean energy economy reach every community,” said Gov. Jay Inslee.
The federal funding for energy resilience will enhance and expand ongoing current grid modernization and resilience efforts throughout the state. For example, working directly with rural and typical end-of-the-line customers to develop resilience plans and collaborating with communities and utilities, including smart city efforts in Spokane as examples, on building resilient and renewable infrastructure for essential services.
“This is a significant opportunity to supplement our state investments in building a robust, resilient electric grid that supports our long-term vision for clean, affordable and reliable electricity – the foundation for economic growth and job creation that strengthens our communities and keeps Washington globally competitive. It shows once again that we are maximizing the federal funding being made available by the Biden-Harris Administration to invest in the country’s infrastructure,” said Washington State Department of Commerce Director Mike Fong.
Reducing the frequency, duration and impact of outages as climate change impacts on the grid intensify while enhancing resiliency in historically disadvantaged communities. Strengthening prosperity by expanding well-paying, safe clean energy jobs accessible to all workers and ensuring investments have a positive effect on quality job creation and equitable economic development.
Building a community of practice and maximizing project scalability by identifying pathways for scaling innovations such as integrating solar into the grid across programs.
“The Grid Resilience Formula Grants will enable communities in Washington to protect households and businesses from blackouts or power shutdowns during extreme weather,” said Maria Robinson, Director, Grid Deployment Office, U.S. Department of Energy. “Projects selected through this program will benefit communities by creating good-paying jobs to deliver clean, affordable, and reliable energy across the country.”
“An innovative, reliable, and efficient power grid is vital to Washington’s continued economic growth and for community resilience especially in disadvantaged areas,” said U.S. Rep. Strickland, Co-Lead of the bipartisan Grid Innovation Caucus. “The funding announced today will invest in our energy grid, support good-paying jobs, and means a cleaner, more energy-efficient future.”
Funded through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and administered by DOE’s Grid Deployment Office, with related efforts such as California grid upgrades advancing nationwide, the Grid Resilience State and Tribal Formula Grants distribute funding to states, territories, and federally recognized Indian Tribes, over five years based on a formula that includes factors such as population size, land area, probability and severity of disruptive events, and a locality’s historical expenditures on mitigation efforts. Priority will be given to projects that generate the greatest community benefit providing clean, affordable, and reliable energy.
BC Hydro Trespassing Surge highlights risky social media stunts at dams and power stations, with restricted areas breached for selfies, electrocution hazards ignored, and safety signage violated across Buntzen Lake, Jones Lake, and Jordan River.
Key Points
A spike in illegal entries at BC Hydro sites for social media, increasing electrocution and drowning risks.
✅ 200% rise in trespassing over five years
✅ Risks: electrocution, drowning, deadly falls
✅ Obey signage; avoid restricted dam and substation areas
More and more daredevils are climbing onto dangerous dams and power stations to gain likes and social media followers, according to a new report from BC Hydro.
The power provider says it's seen a 200 per cent uptick in trespassing into restricted areas over the past five years, with many of the incidents posted onto sites like YouTube, Facebook and Instagram.
"It's concerning for us because our infrastructure has risk with it," said David Conway, a community relations manager for BC Hydro.
"There's a risk of electrocution in regards to our transmission towers and our substations ... and people can be severely injured, as seen in serious injuries cases, or killed," he said.
The company released a report Tuesday, noting specific incidents of users trespassing onto sites at Buntzen Lake in Anmore, Jones Lake in the Fraser Valley and Jordan River near Victoria; it has also been issuing Site C updates during the pandemic. The incidents ranged from climbing transmission towers to swimming in restricted areas at dam sites.
Conway says annual incidents climbed from a handful to about one dozen, but BC Hydro expects the figures to be even higher. He says many more events likely go unreported.
The report ties the increase in incidents to the pursuit of "social media glory." Between 2011 and 2017, at least 259 people were killed worldwide in selfie-related incidents, according to the Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, and a knowledge gap in electrical safety remains a factor. Many of the incidents involved water, electrical equipment or dangerous heights.
In 2018, three social media personalities died after falling off a cliff at Shannon Falls near Squamish, B.C.
North Shore Rescue attributes about 30 per cent of its calls to outdoor users attempting to capture content for social media.
Survey results highlighted in the BC Hydro report show that 15 per cent of British Columbians admit to putting themselves in a dangerous position "to achieve the 'perfect' shot."
Awareness also influences careers, as many young Canadians say they would work in electricity if they knew more.
The survey was conducted online by 800 B.C. residents. For comparison purposes, a probability sample of the same size would yield a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 per cent, 19 times out of 20.
During the pandemic, the U.S. grid overseer issued a coronavirus warning to highlight operational risks.
Risky activities include standing at the edge of a cliff, knowingly disobeying safety signage or trespassing, or taking a selfie from a dangerous height.
Two per cent of British Columbians admit to injuring themselves in the name of a selfie.
"We want people to stay safe. We want to remind the public to stay a safe distance away from our infrastructure, and follow safety guidance near downed lines, as electricity and generating facilities can be dangerous," said Conway.
BC Hydro is urging all visitors to obey signage, steer clear of power-generating equipment and to stay on designated trails.
Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person
instruction, our electrical training courses can be
tailored to meet your company's specific requirements
and delivered to your employees in one location or at
various locations.
