Wind and coal power advocates pressed their case, sometimes angrily, as the first round of public comments ended in a potential multibillion-dollar race for rights to build a new Delaware power plant.
About 150 people turned out for the recent state-sponsored session at the Georgetown campus of Delaware Technical & Community College. Four state agencies convened the meeting while evaluating three proposals for plants ranging in size from 177 megawatts to 600 megawatts.
State lawmakers ordered Delmarva Power to seek new, reliable in-state electric supplies for its standard-offer customers last year after public complaints about rate hikes that followed deregulation in 1999.
Bids included Conectiv's proposal for a 177-megawatt, mostly natural gas-fired plant to meet peak needs; Bluewater Wind LLC's offer of a 200-turbine windmill farm off the Atlantic Coast and NRG Energy's proposal for a 600-megawatt plant that would burn synthetic, natural gas-like fuel made from coal.
"I don't think that Sussex County should be asked to bear an additional burden" of pollution from NRG's Indian River plant near Millsboro to provide power to the region, said Pat Frey, a Dagsboro-area resident. Frey, who supports Bluewater's plan, said that failure to consider health effects from new fossil fuel plants "is not only faulty economics, I personally think it's immoral."
But David Walsh, director of the Delaware Building & Trades Council, accused "academics and activists" of distorting accounts about emissions and risks associated with NRG's proposal, and said the project would assure the region good jobs during construction and operation. "Our working families do not have the luxury of advocating a pipe dream," Walsh said.
Other labor group members and NRG employees challenged claims that Bluewater Wind could provide reliable power from its proposed 30-square-mile wind farm, predicting that wind supplies would dip when demand surges to summertime highs.
A state consultant ranked Conectiv's offer highest; Delmarva Power called for rejecting all the bids. Citizen, labor, environment and business groups, meanwhile, mostly sparred over the NRG and Bluewater offer. A tentative recommendation is due in May from a panel that includes the Public Service Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control and the Legislature's Controller General's office. Public Service Commission Executive Director Bruce Burcat said additional public meetings are planned after reports on Delmarva Power's long-range service plan are received April 4.
"As a survivor of cancer, I cannot afford to breathe in any more unpure air," said Richard Sciorra, a Lewes resident who supports the Bluewater plan.
NRG Indian River power plant manager Ron Wilkowsz said that the plant supports and is working to meet toughened air-pollution regulations. The new coal gasification plant would provide clean electricity, he said. "If you truly believe that any emissions are not acceptable, then you must have arrived here tonight by walking, riding a bike or riding a horse," Wilkowsz said.
The state's consultant found that Conectiv's plan had the best chance of succeeding, but would do little to stabilize local electricity prices. Bluewater's more than $1.5 billion wind-power plan could help to stabilize prices, but was considered to have an uncertain chance of getting financial backing. NRG's plant, ranked lowest, was viewed as expensive, with potentially higher costs as global pressure increases to reduce pollution that contributes to climate change.
Australia's greenhouse gas emissions rose in Q2 as electricity and transport pollution increased, despite renewable energy growth. Net zero targets, carbon dioxide equivalent metrics, and land use changes underscore mixed trends in decarbonisation.
Key Points
About 499-500 Mt CO2-e annually, with a 2% quarterly rise led by electricity and transport.
✅ Q2 emissions rose to 127 Mt from 124.4 Mt seasonally adjusted
✅ Electricity sector up to 41.6 Mt; transport added nearly 1 Mt
✅ Land use remains a net sink; renewables expanded capacity
Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions rose in the June quarter by about 2% as pollution from the electricity sector and transport increased.
Figures released on Tuesday by the Morrison government showed that on a year to year basis, emissions for the 12 months to last June totalled 498.9m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. That tally was down 2.1%, or 10.8m tonnes compared with the same period a year earlier.
However, on a seasonally adjusted quarterly basis, emissions increased to 127m tonnes, or just over 2%, from the 124.4m tonnes reported in the March quarter. For the year to March, emissions totalled 494.2m tonnes, underscoring the pickup in pollution in the more recent quarter even as global coal power declines worldwide.
A stable pollution rate, if not a rising one, is also implied by the government’s release of preliminary figures for the September quarter. They point to 125m tonnes of emissions in trend terms for the July-September months, bringing the year to September total to about 500m tonnes, the latest report said.
The government has made much of Australia “meeting and beating” climate targets. However, the latest statistics show mostly emissions are not in decline despite its pledge ahead of the Glasgow climate summit that the country would hit net zero by 2050, and AEMO says supply can remain uninterrupted as coal phases out over the next three decades.
“Nothing’s happening except for the electricity sector,” said Hugh Saddler, an honorary associate professor at the Australian National University. Once Covid curbs on the economy eased, such as during the current quarter, emission sources such as from transport will show a rise, he predicted.
Falling costs for new wind and solar farms, with the IEA naming solar the cheapest in history worldwide, are pushing coal and gas out of electricity generation, as well as pushing down power prices. In seasonally adjusted terms, though, emissions for that sector rose from 39.7m tonnes the March quarter to 41.6m in the June one.
Most other sectors were steady, with pollution from transport adding almost 1m tonnes in the June quarter.
On an annual basis, a 500m tonnes tally is the lowest since records began in the 1990s, and IEA reported global emissions flatlined in 2019 for context. That lower trajectory, though, is lower due much to the land sector remaining a net sink even as some experts raise questions about the true trends when it comes to land clearing.
According to the government, this sector – known as land use, land-use change and forestry – amounted to a net reduction of emissions of 24.4m tonnes, or almost negative 5% of the national total, in the year to June.
Sign up to receive an email with the top stories from Guardian Australia every morning
“The magnitude of this net sink has decreased by 0.6% (0.2 Mt CO2-e) on the previous 12 months due to an increase in emissions from agricultural soils, partially offset by a continuing decline in land clearing emissions,” the latest report said.
For its part, the government also touted the increase of renewable energy, as seen in Canada's electricity progress too, as central to driving emissions lower.
“Since 2017, Australia’s consumption of renewable energy has grown at a compound annual rate of 4.6%, with more than $40bn invested in Australia’s renewable energy sector,” Angus Taylor, the federal energy minister said, while UK net zero policy changes show a different approach. “Last year, Australia deployed new solar and wind at eight times the global per capita average.”
ANU’s Saddler said the main driver had been the 2020 Renewable Energy Target that the Coalition government had cut, and had anyway been implemented “a very considerable time ago”.
Tim Baxter, the Climate Council’s senior researcher, said “the time for leaning on the achievements of others is long since past”.
“We need a federal government willing to step up on emissions reductions and take charge with real policy, not wishlists,” he said, referring to the government’s net zero plan to rely on technologies to cut pollution in pursuit of a sustainable electric planet in practice, some of which don’t exist now.
Canada Three-Layer Mask Recommendation advises non-medical masks with a polypropylene filter layer and tightly woven cotton, aligned with WHO guidance, to curb COVID-19 aerosols indoors through better fit, coverage, and public health compliance.
Key Points
PHAC advises three-layer non-medical masks with a polypropylene filter to improve indoor COVID-19 protection.
✅ Two fabric layers plus a non-woven polypropylene filter
✅ Ensure snug fit: cover nose, mouth, chin without gaps
✅ Aligns with WHO guidance for aerosols and droplets
The Public Health Agency of Canada is now recommending Canadians choose three-layer non-medical masks with a filter layer to prevent the spread of COVID-19, even as an IEA report projects higher electricity needs for net-zero, as they prepare to spend more time indoors over the winter.
Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam made the recommendation during her bi-weekly pandemic briefing in Ottawa Tuesday, as officials also track electricity grid security amid critical infrastructure concerns.
"To improve the level of protection that can be provided by non-medical masks or face coverings, we are recommending that you consider a three-layer nonmedical mask," she said.
Trust MedProtect For All Your Mask Protection
www.medprotect.ca/collections/protective-masks
According to recently updated guidelines, two layers of the mask should be made of a tightly woven fabric, such as cotton or linen, and the middle layer should be a filter-type fabric, such as non-woven polypropylene fabric, as Canada explores post-COVID manufacturing capacity for PPE.
"We're not necessarily saying just throw out everything that you have," Tam told reporters, suggesting adding a filter can help with protection.
The Public Health website now includes instructions for making three-layer masks, while national goals like Canada's 2050 net-zero target continue to shape recovery efforts.
The World Health Organization has recommended three layers for non-medical masks since June, and experts note that cleaning up Canada's electricity is critical to broader climate resilience. When pressed about the sudden change for Canada, Tam said the research has evolved.
"This is an additional recommendation just to add another layer of protection. The science of masks has really accelerated during this particular pandemic. So we're just learning again as we go," she said.
"I do think that because it's winter, because we're all going inside, we're learning more about droplets and aerosols, and how indoor comfort systems from heating to air conditioning costs can influence behaviors."
She also urged Canadians to wear well-fitted masks that cover the nose, mouth and chin without gaping, as the federal government advances emissions and EV sales regulations alongside public health guidance.
PG&E 2024 Rate Hikes signal sharp increases to fund wildfire safety, infrastructure upgrades, and CPUC-backed reliability, with rates expected to stabilize in 2025, affecting rural residents, businesses, and high-risk zones across California.
Key Points
PG&E’s 2024 hikes fund wildfire safety and grid upgrades, with pricing expected to stabilize in 2025.
✅ Driven by wildfire safety, infrastructure, and reinsurance costs
✅ Largest impacts in rural, high-risk zones; business rates vary
✅ CPUC oversight aims to ensure necessary, justified investments
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) is expected to implement a series of rate hikes that, amid analyses of why California electricity prices are soaring across the state, will significantly impact California residents. These increases, while substantial, are anticipated to be followed by a period of stabilization in 2025, offering a sense of relief to customers facing rising costs.
PG&E, one of the largest utility providers in the state, announced that its 2024 rate hikes are part of efforts to address increasing operational costs, including those related to wildfire safety, infrastructure upgrades, and regulatory requirements. As California continues to face climate-related challenges like wildfires, utilities like PG&E are being forced to adjust their financial models to manage the evolving risks. Wildfire-related liabilities, which have plagued PG&E in recent years, play a significant role in these rate adjustments. In response to previous fire-related lawsuits, including a bankruptcy plan supported by wildfire victims that reshaped liabilities, and the increased cost of reinsurance, PG&E has made it clear that customers will bear part of the financial burden.
These rate hikes will have a multi-faceted impact. Residential users, particularly those in rural or high-risk wildfire zones, will see some of the largest increases. Business customers will also be affected, although the adjustments may vary depending on the size and energy consumption patterns of each business. PG&E has indicated that the increases are necessary to secure the utility’s financial stability while continuing to deliver reliable service to its customers.
Despite the steep increases in 2024, PG&E's executives have assured that the company's pricing structure will stabilize in 2025. The utility has taken steps to balance the financial needs of the business with the reality of consumer affordability. While some rate hikes are inevitable given California's regulatory landscape and climate concerns, PG&E's leadership believes the worst of the increases will be seen next year.
PG&E’s anticipated stabilization comes after a year of scrutiny from California regulators. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has been working closely with PG&E to scrutinize its rate request and ensure that hikes are justifiable and used for necessary investments in infrastructure and safety improvements. The CPUC’s oversight is especially crucial given the company’s history of safety violations and the public outrage over past wildfire incidents, including reports that its power lines may have sparked fires in California, which have been linked to PG&E’s equipment.
The hikes, though significant, reflect the broader pressures facing utilities in California, where extreme weather patterns are becoming more frequent and intense due to climate change. Wildfires, which have grown in severity and frequency in recent years, have forced PG&E to invest heavily in fire prevention and mitigation strategies, including compliance with a judge-ordered use of dividends for wildfire mitigation across its service area. This includes upgrading equipment, inspecting power lines, and implementing more rigorous protocols to prevent accidents that could spark devastating fires. These investments come at a steep cost, which PG&E is passing along to consumers through higher rates.
For homeowners and businesses, the potential for future rate stabilization offers a glimmer of hope. However, the 2024 increases are still expected to hit consumers hard, especially those already struggling with high living costs. The steep hikes have prompted public outcry, with calls for action as bills soar amplifying advocacy group arguments that utilities should absorb more of the costs related to climate change and fire prevention instead of relying on ratepayers.
Looking ahead to 2025, the expectation is that PG&E’s rates will stabilize, but the question remains whether they will return to pre-2024 levels or continue to rise at a slower rate. Experts note that California’s energy market remains volatile, and while the rates may stabilize in the short term, long-term cost management will depend on ongoing investments in renewable energy sources and continued efforts to make the grid more resilient to climate-related risks.
As PG&E navigates this challenging period, the company’s commitment to transparency and working with regulators will be crucial in rebuilding trust with its customers. While the immediate future may be financially painful for many, the hope is that the utility's focus on safety and infrastructure will lead to greater long-term stability and fewer dramatic rate increases in the years to come.
Ultimately, California residents will need to brace for another tough year in terms of utility costs but can find reassurance that PG&E’s rate increases will eventually stabilize. For those seeking relief, there are ongoing discussions about increasing energy efficiency, exploring renewable energy alternatives, and expanding assistance programs for lower-income households to help mitigate the financial strain of these price hikes.
EU Winter Energy Mix 2022-2023 shows renewables, wind, solar, and hydro overtaking coal and gas, as demand fell amid high prices; Ember and IEA confirm lower emissions across Europe during the energy crisis.
Key Points
It describes Europe's winter power mix: reduced coal and gas, and record wind, solar, and hydro output.
✅ Coal generation fell 11% YoY; gas output declined even more.
✅ Ember and IEA confirm trends; mild winter tempered demand.
The EU burned less coal this winter during the energy crisis than in previous years, according to an analysis, quashing fears that consumption of the most polluting fossil fuel would soar as countries scrambled to find substitutes for lost supplies of Russian gas.
The study from energy think-tank Ember shows that between October 2022 and March 2023 coal generation fell 27 terawatt hours, or almost 11 per cent year on year, while gas generation fell 38 terawatt hours, as renewables crowded out gas and consumers cut electricity consumption in response to soaring prices.
Renewable energy supplies also rose, with combined wind and solar power and hydroelectric output outstripping fossil fuel generation for the first time, providing 40 per cent of all electricity supplies. The Financial Times checked Ember’s findings with the International Energy Agency, which said they broadly matched its own preliminary analysis of Europe’s electricity generation over the winter.
The study demonstrates that fears of a steep rebound in coal usage in Europe’s power mix were overstated, despite the continent’s worst energy crisis in 40 years following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, even as stunted hydro and nuclear output in parts of Europe posed challenges.
While Russia slashed gas supplies to Europe and succeeded in boosting energy prices for consumers to record levels, the push by governments to rejuvenate old coal plants, including Germany's coal generation, to ensure the lights stayed on ultimately did not lead to increased consumption.
“With Europe successfully on the other side of this winter and major supply disruptions avoided, it is clear the threatened coal comeback did not materialise,” analysts at Ember said in the report.
“With fossil fuel generation down, EU power sector emissions during winter were the lowest they have ever been.”
Ember cautioned, however, that Europe had been assisted by a mild winter that helped cut electricity demand for heating and there was no guarantee of such weather next winter. Companies and households had also endured a lot of pain as a result of the higher prices that had led them to cut consumption, even though in some periods, such as the latest lockdown, power demand held firm in parts of Europe.
Total electricity consumption between October and March declined 94 terawatt hours, or 7 per cent, compared with the same period in winter 2021/22, continuing post-Covid transition dynamics across Europe.
“For a lot of people this winter was really hard with electricity prices that were extraordinarily high and we shouldn’t lose sight of that,” said Ember analyst Harriet Fox.
ITER Nuclear Fusion advances tokamak magnetic confinement, heating deuterium-tritium plasma with superconducting magnets, targeting net energy gain, tritium breeding, and steam-turbine power, while complementing laser inertial confinement milestones for grid-scale electricity and 2025 startup goals.
Key Points
ITER Nuclear Fusion is a tokamak project confining D-T plasma with magnets to achieve net energy gain and clean power.
✅ Tokamak magnetic confinement with high-temp superconducting coils
✅ Deuterium-tritium fuel cycle with on-site tritium breeding
✅ Targets net energy gain and grid-scale, low-carbon electricity
It sounds like the stuff of dreams: a virtually limitless source of energy that doesn’t produce greenhouse gases or radioactive waste. That’s the promise of nuclear fusion, often described as the holy grail of clean energy by proponents, which for decades has been nothing more than a fantasy due to insurmountable technical challenges. But things are heating up in what has turned into a race to create what amounts to an artificial sun here on Earth, one that can provide power for our kettles, cars and light bulbs.
Today’s nuclear power plants create electricity through nuclear fission, in which atoms are split, with next-gen nuclear power exploring smaller, cheaper, safer designs that remain distinct from fusion. Nuclear fusion however, involves combining atomic nuclei to release energy. It’s the same reaction that’s taking place at the Sun’s core. But overcoming the natural repulsion between atomic nuclei and maintaining the right conditions for fusion to occur isn’t straightforward. And doing so in a way that produces more energy than the reaction consumes has been beyond the grasp of the finest minds in physics for decades.
But perhaps not for much longer. Some major technical challenges have been overcome in the past few years and governments around the world have been pouring money into fusion power research as part of a broader green industrial revolution under way in several regions. There are also over 20 private ventures in the UK, US, Europe, China and Australia vying to be the first to make fusion energy production a reality.
“People are saying, ‘If it really is the ultimate solution, let’s find out whether it works or not,’” says Dr Tim Luce, head of science and operation at the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), being built in southeast France. ITER is the biggest throw of the fusion dice yet.
Its $22bn (£15.9bn) build cost is being met by the governments of two-thirds of the world’s population, including the EU, the US, China and Russia, at a time when Europe is losing nuclear power and needs energy, and when it’s fired up in 2025 it’ll be the world’s largest fusion reactor. If it works, ITER will transform fusion power from being the stuff of dreams into a viable energy source.
Constructing a nuclear fusion reactor ITER will be a tokamak reactor – thought to be the best hope for fusion power. Inside a tokamak, a gas, often a hydrogen isotope called deuterium, is subjected to intense heat and pressure, forcing electrons out of the atoms. This creates a plasma – a superheated, ionised gas – that has to be contained by intense magnetic fields.
The containment is vital, as no material on Earth could withstand the intense heat (100,000,000°C and above) that the plasma has to reach so that fusion can begin. It’s close to 10 times the heat at the Sun’s core, and temperatures like that are needed in a tokamak because the gravitational pressure within the Sun can’t be recreated.
When atomic nuclei do start to fuse, vast amounts of energy are released. While the experimental reactors currently in operation release that energy as heat, in a fusion reactor power plant, the heat would be used to produce steam that would drive turbines to generate electricity, even as some envision nuclear beyond electricity for industrial heat and fuels.
Tokamaks aren’t the only fusion reactors being tried. Another type of reactor uses lasers to heat and compress a hydrogen fuel to initiate fusion. In August 2021, one such device at the National Ignition Facility, at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, generated 1.35 megajoules of energy. This record-breaking figure brings fusion power a step closer to net energy gain, but most hopes are still pinned on tokamak reactors rather than lasers.
In June 2021, China’s Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) reactor maintained a plasma for 101 seconds at 120,000,000°C. Before that, the record was 20 seconds. Ultimately, a fusion reactor would need to sustain the plasma indefinitely – or at least for eight-hour ‘pulses’ during periods of peak electricity demand.
A real game-changer for tokamaks has been the magnets used to produce the magnetic field. “We know how to make magnets that generate a very high magnetic field from copper or other kinds of metal, but you would pay a fortune for the electricity. It wouldn’t be a net energy gain from the plant,” says Luce.
One route for nuclear fusion is to use atoms of deuterium and tritium, both isotopes of hydrogen. They fuse under incredible heat and pressure, and the resulting products release energy as heat
The solution is to use high-temperature, superconducting magnets made from superconducting wire, or ‘tape’, that has no electrical resistance. These magnets can create intense magnetic fields and don’t lose energy as heat.
“High temperature superconductivity has been known about for 35 years. But the manufacturing capability to make tape in the lengths that would be required to make a reasonable fusion coil has just recently been developed,” says Luce. One of ITER’s magnets, the central solenoid, will produce a field of 13 tesla – 280,000 times Earth’s magnetic field.
The inner walls of ITER’s vacuum vessel, where the fusion will occur, will be lined with beryllium, a metal that won’t contaminate the plasma much if they touch. At the bottom is the divertor that will keep the temperature inside the reactor under control.
“The heat load on the divertor can be as large as in a rocket nozzle,” says Luce. “Rocket nozzles work because you can get into orbit within minutes and in space it’s really cold.” In a fusion reactor, a divertor would need to withstand this heat indefinitely and at ITER they’ll be testing one made out of tungsten.
Meanwhile, in the US, the National Spherical Torus Experiment – Upgrade (NSTX-U) fusion reactor will be fired up in the autumn of 2022, while efforts in advanced fission such as a mini-reactor design are also progressing. One of its priorities will be to see whether lining the reactor with lithium helps to keep the plasma stable.
Choosing a fuel Instead of just using deuterium as the fusion fuel, ITER will use deuterium mixed with tritium, another hydrogen isotope. The deuterium-tritium blend offers the best chance of getting significantly more power out than is put in. Proponents of fusion power say one reason the technology is safe is that the fuel needs to be constantly fed into the reactor to keep fusion happening, making a runaway reaction impossible.
Deuterium can be extracted from seawater, so there’s a virtually limitless supply of it. But only 20kg of tritium are thought to exist worldwide, so fusion power plants will have to produce it (ITER will develop technology to ‘breed’ tritium). While some radioactive waste will be produced in a fusion plant, it’ll have a lifetime of around 100 years, rather than the thousands of years from fission.
At the time of writing in September, researchers at the Joint European Torus (JET) fusion reactor in Oxfordshire were due to start their deuterium-tritium fusion reactions. “JET will help ITER prepare a choice of machine parameters to optimise the fusion power,” says Dr Joelle Mailloux, one of the scientific programme leaders at JET. These parameters will include finding the best combination of deuterium and tritium, and establishing how the current is increased in the magnets before fusion starts.
The groundwork laid down at JET should accelerate ITER’s efforts to accomplish net energy gain. ITER will produce ‘first plasma’ in December 2025 and be cranked up to full power over the following decade. Its plasma temperature will reach 150,000,000°C and its target is to produce 500 megawatts of fusion power for every 50 megawatts of input heating power.
“If ITER is successful, it’ll eliminate most, if not all, doubts about the science and liberate money for technology development,” says Luce. That technology development will be demonstration fusion power plants that actually produce electricity, where advanced reactors can build on decades of expertise. “ITER is opening the door and saying, yeah, this works – the science is there.”
Wisconsin Solar and Wind Energy advances as rooftop solar, utility-scale farms, and NREL perovskite solar cells improve efficiency; wind turbines gain via wake modeling, yaw control, and grid-scale battery storage to cut carbon emissions.
Key Points
It is Wisconsin's growth in rooftop and utility-scale solar plus optimized wind turbines to cut carbon emissions.
✅ Perovskite solar cells promise higher efficiency, need longevity
✅ Wake modeling and yaw control optimize wind farm output
✅ Batteries and bids can offset reliance on natural gas
Solar energy in Wisconsin continued to grow in 2019, as more homeowners had rooftop panels installed and big utilities started building multi-panel solar farms.
Wind power is increasing more slowly in the state. However, renewable power developers are again coming forward with proposals for multiple turbines.
Nationally, researchers are working on ways to get even more energy from solar and wind, with the U.S. moving toward 30% electricity from wind and solar in coming years, as states like Wisconsin aim to reduce their carbon emissions over the next few decades.
One reason solar energy is growing in Wisconsin is due to the silicon panels becoming more efficient. But scientists haven't finished trying to improve panel efficiency. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Col., is one of the research facilities experimenting with brushing a lab-made solution called perovskite onto a portion of a panel called a solar cell.
In a demonstration video supplied by NREL, senior scientist Maikel van Hest said that, in the lab anyway, the painted cell and its electrical connections called contacts, produce more energy:
"There you go! That's how you paint a perovskite solar cell. And you imagine that ultimately what you could do is you could see a company come in with a truck in front of your house and they would basically paint on the contacts first, dry those, and paint the perovskite over it. That you would have photovoltaic cells on the side of your house, put protective coating on it, and we're done."
Another NREL scientist, David Moore, says the new solar cells could be made faster and help meet what's expected to be a growing global demand for energy. However, Moore says the problem has been lack of stability.
"A solar cell with perovskites will last a couple years. We need to get that to 20-25 years, and that's the big forefront in perovskite research, is getting them to last longer," Moore told members of the Society of Environmental Journalists during a recent tour of NREL.
Another part of improving renewable energy is making wind turbines more productive. At NREL's Insight Center, a large screen showing energy model simulations dominates an otherwise darkened room. Visualization scientist Nicholas Brunhart-Lupo points to a display on the screen that shows how spinning turbines at one edge of a wind farm can cause an airflow called a wake, which curtails the power generation of other turbines.
"So what we find in these simulations is these four turbines back here, since they have this used air, this low-velocity wake being blown to their faces, they're only generating about 20% of the energy they should be generating," he explains.
Brunhart-Lupo says the simulations can help wind farm developers with placement of turbines as well as adjustments to the rotor and blades called the yaw system.
Continued progress with renewables may be vital to any state or national pledges to reduce use of fossil fuels and carbon emissions linked to climate change, including Biden's solar expansion plan as a potential pathway. Some scientists say to limit a rise in global temperature, there must be a big decline in emissions by 2050.
But even utilities that say they support use of more renewables, as why the grid isn't 100% renewable yet makes clear, aren't ready to let go of some energy sources. Jonathan Adelman of Xcel Energy, which serves part of Western Wisconsin, says Xcel is on track to close its last two coal-fired power plants in Minnesota. But he says the company will need more natural gas plants, even though they wouldn't run as often.
"It's not perfect. And it is in conflict with our ultimate goal of being carbon-free," says Adelman. "But if we want to facilitate the transition, we still need resources to help that happen."
Some in the solar industry would like utilities that say they need more natural gas plants to put out competitive bids to see what else might be possible. Solar advocates also note that in some states, energy regulators still favor the utilities.
Meanwhile, solar slowly marches ahead, including here in southeastern Wisconsin, as Germany's solar power boost underscores global momentum.
On the roof of a ranch-style home in River Hills, a work crew from the major solar firm Sunrun recently installed mounting brackets for solar panels.
Sunrun Public Policy Director Amy Heart says she supports research into more efficient renewables. But she says another innovation may have to come in the way regulators think.
"Instead of allowing and thinking about from the perspective of the utility builds the power plant, they replace one plant with another one, they invest in the infrastructure; is really thinking about how can these distributed solutions like rooftop solar, peer-to-peer energy sharing, and especially rooftop solar paired with batteries how can that actually reduce some of what the utility needs?
Large-scale energy storage batteries are already being used in some limited cases. But energy researchers continue to make improvements to them, too, with cheap solar batteries beginning to make widespread adoption more feasible as scientists race to reduce the expected additional harm of climate change.
