A new rule that increases incentives for people to install solar panels on homes and businesses was approved by the Florida Public Service Commission.
The "net metering" rule expands a requirement for investor-owned utilities to buy back electricity from people who produce it from renewable resources.
"These are some of the most important policies Florida can enact if we are going to grow renewable energy industries in Florida," said Holly Binns, field director for the group Environment Florida.
The rule does not apply to electric cooperatives or utilities owned by cities and counties. But some of those utilities, including Tallahassee's city-owned utility, already pay their customers for producing renewable energy.
The Legislature in 2005 and 2006 adopted laws encouraging the use of renewable energy in Florida. Environmentalists at a January 2007 workshop told the PSC that limits on net metering were major barriers to producing cleaner energy.
The PSC rule expands the size of eligible systems from 10 kilowatts, which is about the size of solar panels that would go on a home, to 2 megawatts, which is the size of solar panels that could go on an office building or big box store, said Kirsten Olsen, a PSC spokeswoman. The rule change also expands the type of systems covered from solely photovoltaic to all renewable technologies.
Some farmers are considering taking advantage of the rule by producing electricity by burning methane gas produced from cattle waste, said Andrew Walmsley, environmental services coordinator for the Florida Farm Bureau Federation. But there also are challenges, he said, because the technology is expensive and more research is needed.
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.”
BC Hydro Rate Freeze Rejection details the BCUC decision enabling a 3% rate increase, citing revenue requirements, debt, and capital costs, affecting electricity bills, with NDP government proposing lifeline rates and low-income relief.
Key Points
It is the BCUC ruling allowing a 3% BC Hydro rate hike, citing cost recovery, debt, and capital needs.
✅ BCUC rejects freeze; 3% increase proceeds April 1, 2018
✅ Rationale: cost recovery, debt, capital expenditures
✅ Relief: lifeline rate, $600 grants, winter payment plan
The B.C. Utilities Commission has rejected a request by the provincial government to freeze rates at BC Hydro for the coming year, meaning a pending rate increase of three percent will come into effect as higher BC Hydro rates on April 1, 2018.
BC Hydro had asked for the three per cent increase, aligning with a rate increase proposal that would add about $2 a month, but, last year, Energy Minister Michelle Mungall directed the Crown corporation to resubmit its request in order to meet an NDP election promise.
"After years of escalating electricity costs, British Columbians deserve a break on their bills," she said at the time.
However, the utilities commission found there was "insufficient regulatory justification to approve the zero per cent rate increase."
"Even these increases do not fully recover B.C. Hydro's forecast revenue requirement, which includes items such as operating costs, new capital expenditures and carrying costs on capital expenditures," the commission wrote in a news release.
Mungall said she was disappointed by the decision.
"We were always clear we were going to the BCUC. We need to respect the role the BCUC has here for the ratepayers and for the public. I'm very disappointed obviously with their decision."
Mungall blamed the previous government for leaving BC Hydro in a financial state where a rate freeze was ultimately not possible.
Last month, Moody's Investors Service calculated BC Hydro's total debt at $22 billion and said it was one of the province's two credit challenges going forward.
"There's quite a financial mess that is a B.C. Liberal legacy after 16 years of government. We have the responsibility as a new government to clean that up."
B.C. Liberal leader Andrew Wilkinson said it was an example of the new government not living up to its campaign promises.
"British Columbians, particularly those on fixed incomes, believed the B.C. NDP when they promised a freeze on hydro bills. They planned accordingly and are now left in the lurch and face higher expenses. This is a government that stumbles into messes that cost all of us because they put rhetoric ahead of planning," he said.
Help on the way?
With the freeze being rejected, Mungall said the government would be going forward on other initiatives to help low-income ratepayers, as advocates' call for change after a fund surplus, including:
Legislating a "lifeline rate" program, allowing people with "demonstrated need" to apply for a lower rate for electricity.
Starting in May, providing an emergency grant of $600 for customers who have an outstanding BC Hydro bill.
Hydro's annual winter payment plan also allows people the chance to spread the payment of bills from December to February out over six months, and, with a two-year rate increase on the horizon, a new pilot program to help people paying their bills begins in July.
Mungall couldn't say whether the government would apply for rate freezes in the future.
"I don't have a crystal ball, and can't predict what might happen in two or three years from now, but we need to act swiftly now," she said.
"I appreciate the [BCUC's] rationale, I understand it, and we'll be moving forward with other alternatives for making life more affordable."
Power Grid Attacks surge across substations and transmission lines, straining critical infrastructure as DHS and FBI cite vandalism, domestic extremists, and cybersecurity risks impacting resilience, outages, and grid reliability nationwide.
Key Points
Power Grid Attacks are deliberate strikes on substations and lines to disrupt power and weaken grid reliability.
✅ Physical attacks rose across multiple states and utilities.
✅ DHS and FBI warn of threats to critical infrastructure.
✅ Substation security and grid resilience upgrades urged.
Even before Christmas Day attacks on power substations in five states in the Pacific Northwest and Southeast, similar incidents of attacks, vandalism and suspicious activity were on the rise.
Federal energy reports through August – the most recent available – show an increase in physical attacks at electrical facilities across the nation this year, continuing a trend seen since 2017.
At least 108 human-related events were reported during the first eight months of 2022, compared with 99 in all of 2021 and 97 in 2020. More than a dozen cases of vandalism have been reported since September.
The attacks have prompted a flurry of calls to better protect the nation's power grid, with a renewed focus on protecting the U.S. power grid across sectors, but experts have warned for more than three decades that stepped-up protection was needed.
Attacks on power stations on the rise Twice this year, the Department of Homeland Security warned "a heightened threat environment" remains for the nation, including its critical infrastructure amid reports of suspected Russian breaches of power plant systems.
At least 20 actual physical attacks were reported, compared with six in all of 2021. Suspicious-activity reports jumped three years ago, nearly doubling in 2020 to 32 events. In the first eight months of this year, 34 suspicious incidents were reported. Total human-related incidents – including vandalism, suspicious activity and cyber events such as Russian hackers and U.S. utilities in recent years – are on track to be the highest since the reports started showing such activity in 2011.
Attacks reported in at least 5 states Since September, attacks or potential attacks have been reported on at least 18 additional substations and one power plant in Florida, Oregon, Washington and the Carolinas. Several involved firearms.
In Florida: Six "intrusion events" occurred at Duke Energy substations in September, resulting in at least one brief power outage, according to the News Nation television network, which cited a report the utility sent to the Energy Department. Duke Energy spokesperson Ana Gibbs confirmed a related arrest, but the company declined to comment further.
In Oregon and Washington state: Substations were attacked at least six times in November and December, with firearms used in some cases, local news outlets reported. On Christmas Day, four additional substations were vandalized in Washington State, cutting power to more than 14,000 customers.
In North Carolina: A substation in Maysville was vandalized on Nov. 11. On Dec. 3, shootings that authorities called a "targeted attack" damaged two power substations in Moore County, leaving tens of thousands without power amid freezing temperatures.
In South Carolina: Days later, gunfire was reported near a hydropower plant, but police said the shooting was a "random act."
It's not yet clear whether any of the attacks were coordinated. After the North Carolina attacks, a coordinating council between the electric power industry and the federal government ordered a security evaluation.
FBI mum on its investigations The FBI is looking into some of the attacks, including cyber intrusions where hackers accessed control rooms in past cases, but it hasn't said how many it's investigating or where.
Shelley Lynch, a spokesperson for the FBI's Charlotte field office, confirmed the bureau was investigating the North Carolina attack. The Kershaw County Sheriff's Office reported the FBI was looking into the South Carolina incident.
Utilities in Oregon and Washington told news outlets they were cooperating with the FBI, but spokespeople for the agency's Seattle and Portland field offices said they couldn't confirm or deny an investigation.
Could domestic extremists be involved? In January, the Department of Homeland Security said domestic extremists had been developing "credible, specific plans" since at least 2020, including a Neo-Nazi plot against power stations detailed in a federal complaint, and would continue to "encourage physical attacks against electrical infrastructure."
In February, three men who ascribed to white supremacy and Neo-Nazism pleaded guilty to federal crimes related to a scheme to attack the grid with rifles.
In a news release, Timothy Langan, assistant director of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, said the defendants "wanted to attack regional power substations and expected the damage would lead to economic distress and civil unrest."
Why is the power grid so hard to protect? Industry experts, federal officials and others have warned in one report after another since at least 1990 that the power grid was at risk, and a recent grid vulnerability report card highlights dangerous weak points, said Granger Morgan, an engineering professor at Carnegie Mellon University who chaired three National Academies of Sciences reports.
The reports urged state and federal agencies to collaborate to make the system more resilient to attacks and natural disasters such as hurricanes and storms.
"The system is inherently vulnerable, with the U.S. grid experiencing more blackouts than other developed nations in one study. It's spread all across the countryside," which makes the lines and substations easy targets, Morgan said. The grid includes more than 7,300 power plants, 160,000 miles of high-voltage power lines and 55,000 transmission substations.
One challenge is that there's no single entity whose responsibilities span the entire system, Morgan said. And the risks are only increasing as the grid expands to include renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, he said.
Pickering Nuclear Alert Error prompts Ontario investigation into the Alert Ready emergency alert system, Pelmorex safeguards, and public response at Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, including potassium iodide orders and geo-targeted notification issues.
Key Points
A mistaken Ontario emergency alert about the Pickering plant, now under probe for human error and system safeguards.
✅ Investigation led by Emergency Management Ontario
✅ Alert Ready and Pelmorex safeguards under review
✅ KI pill demand surged; geo-targeting questioned
A number of questions still remain a week after an emergency alert was mistakenly sent out to people across Ontario warning of an unspecified incident at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station.
The province’s solicitor general has stepped in and says an investigation into the incident should be completed fairly quickly according to the minister.
However, the nuclear scare has still left residents on edge with tens of thousands of people ordering potassium iodide, or KI, pills that protect the body from radioactive elements in the days following the incident.
Here’s what we know and still don’t know about the mistaken Pickering nuclear plant alert:
Who sent the alert?
According to the Alert Ready Emergency Alert System website, the agency works with several federal, provincial and territorial emergency management officials, Environment and Climate Change Canada and Pelmorex, a broadcasting industry and wireless service provider, to send the alerts.
Martin Belanger, the director of public alerting for Pelmorex, a company that operates the alert system, said there are a number of safeguards built in, including having two separate platforms for training and live alerts.
"The software has some steps and some features built in to minimize that risk and to make sure that users will be able to know whether or not they're sending an alert through the... training platform or whether they're accessing the live system in the case of a real emergency," he said.
Only authorized users have access to the system and the province manages that, Belanger said. Once in the live system, features make the user aware of which platform they are using, with various prompts and messages requiring the user's confirmation. There is a final step that also requires the user to confirm their intent of issuing an alert to cellphones, radio and TVs, Belanger said.
Last Sunday, a follow-up alert was sent to cellphones nearly two hours after the original notification, and during separate service disruptions such as a power outage in London residents also sought timely information.
What has the investigation revealed?
It’s still unclear as to how exactly the alert was sent in error, but Solicitor General Sylvia Jones has tapped the Chief of Emergency Management Ontario to investigate.
"It's very important for me, for the people of Ontario, to know exactly what happened on Sunday morning," Jones said.
Jones said initial observations suggest human error was responsible for the alert that was sent out during routine tests of the emergency alert.
“I want to know what happened and equally important, I want some recommendations on insurances and changes we can make to the system to make sure it doesn't happen again,” Jones said.
Jones said she expects the results of the probe to be made public.
Can you unsubscribe from emergency alerts?
It’s not possible to opt out of receiving the alerts, according to the Alert Ready Emergency Alert System website, and Ontario utilities warn about scams to help customers distinguish official notices.
“Given the importance of warning Canadians of imminent threats to the safety of life and property, the CRTC requires wireless service providers to distribute alerts on all compatible wireless devices connected to an LTE network in the target area,” the website reads.
The agency explains that unlike radio and TV broadcasting, the wireless public alerting system is geo-targeted and is specific to the a “limited area of coverage”, and examples like an Alberta grid alert have highlighted how jurisdictions tailor notices for their systems.
“As a result, if an emergency alert reaches your wireless device, you are located in an area where there is an imminent danger.”
The Pickering alert, however, was received by people from as far as Ottawa to Windsor.
Is the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station closing?
The Pickering nuclear plant has been operating since 1971, and had been scheduled to be decommissioned this year, but the former Liberal government -- and the current Progressive Conservative government -- committed to keeping it open until 2024. Decommissioning is now set to start in 2028.
It operates six CANDU reactors, and in contingency planning operators have considered locking down key staff to maintain reliability, generates 14 per cent of Ontario's electricity and is responsible for 4,500 jobs across the region, according to OPG, while utilities such as Hydro One's relief programs have supported customers during broader crises.
What should I do if I receive an emergency alert?
Alert Ready says that if you received an alert on your wireless device it’s important to take action “safely”.
“Stop what you are doing when it is safe to do so and read the emergency alert,” the agency says on their website.
“Alerting authorities will include within the emergency alert the information you need and guidance for any action you are required to take, and insights from U.S. grid pandemic response underscore how critical infrastructure plans intersect with public safety.”
“This could include but is not limited to: limit unnecessary travel, evacuate the areas, seek shelter, etc.”
The wording of last Sunday's alert caused much initial confusion, warning residents within 10 kilometres of the plant of "an incident," though there was no "abnormal" release of radioactivity and residents didn't need to take protective steps, but emergency crews were responding.
“In the event of a real emergency, the wording would be different,” Jones said.
Nuclear decarbonization leverages low-carbon electricity, process heat, and hydrogen from advanced reactors and SMRs to electrify industry, buildings, and transport, supporting net-zero strategies and grid flexibility alongside renewables with dispatchable baseload capacity.
Key Points
Nuclear decarbonization uses reactors to supply low-carbon power, heat, and hydrogen, cutting emissions across industry.
✅ Advanced reactors and SMRs enable high-temperature process heat
✅ Nuclear-powered electrolysis and HTSE produce low-carbon hydrogen
✅ District heating from reactors reduces pollution and coal use
By Dr Henri Paillere, Head of the Planning and Economics Studies Section of the IAEA
Decarbonising the power sector will not be sufficient to achieving net-zero emissions, with assessments indicating nuclear may be essential across sectors. We also need to decarbonise the non-power sectors - transport, buildings and industry - which represent 60% of emissions from the energy sector today. The way to do that is: electrification with low-carbon electricity as much as possible; using low-carbon heat sources; and using low-carbon fuels, including hydrogen, produced from clean electricity. The International Energy Agency (IEA) says that: 'Almost half of the emissions reductions needed to reach net zero by 2050 will need to come from technologies that have not reached the market today.' So there is a need to innovate and push the research, development and deployment of technologies. That includes nuclear beyond electricity.
Today, most of the scenario projections see nuclear's role ONLY in the power sector, despite ongoing debates over whether nuclear power is in decline globally, but increased electrification will require more low-carbon electricity, so potentially more nuclear. Nuclear energy is also a source of low-carbon heat, and could also be used to produce low-carbon fuels such as hydrogen. This is a virtually untapped potential.
There is an opportunity for the nuclear energy sector - from advanced reactors, next-gen nuclear small modular reactors, and non-power applications - but it requires a level playing field, not only in terms of financing today's technologies, but also in terms of promoting innovation and supporting research up to market deployment. And of course technology readiness and economics will be key to their success.
On process heat and district heating, I would draw attention to the fact there have been decades of experience in nuclear district heating. Not well spread, but experience nonetheless, in Russia, Hungary and Switzerland. Last year, we had two new projects. One floating nuclear power plant in Russia (Akademik Lomonosov), which provides not only electricity but district heating to the region of Pevek where it is connected. And in China, the Haiyang nuclear power plant (AP1000 technology) has started delivering commercial district heating. In China, there is an additional motivation to reducing emissions, namely to cut air pollution because in northern China a lot of the heating in winter is provided by coal-fired boilers. By going nuclear with district heating they are therefore cutting down on this pollution and helping with reducing carbon emissions as well. And Poland is looking at high-temperature reactors to replace its fleet of coal-fired boilers and so that's a technology that could also be a game-changer on the industry side.
There have also been decades of research into the production of hydrogen using nuclear energy, but no real deployment. Now, from a climate point of view, there is a clear drive to find substitute fuels for the hydrocarbon fuels that we use today, and multiple new nuclear stations are seen by industry leaders as necessary to meet net-zero targets. In the near term, we will be able to produce hydrogen with electrolysis using low-carbon electricity, from renewables and nuclear. But the cheapest source of low-carbon power is from the long-term operation of existing nuclear power plants which, combined with their high capacity factors, can give the cheapest low-carbon hydrogen of all.
In the mid to long term, there is research on-going with processes that are more efficient than low-temperature electrolysis, which is high temperature steam electrolysis or thermal splitting of water. These may offer higher efficiencies and effectiveness but they also require advanced reactors that are still under development. Demonstration projects are being considered in several countries and we at the IAEA are developing a publication that looks into the business opportunities for nuclear production of hydrogen from existing reactors. In some countries, there is a need to boost the economics of the existing fleet, especially in the electricity systems where you have low or even negative market prices for electricity. So, we are looking at other products that have higher values to improve the competitiveness of existing nuclear power plants.
The future means not only looking at electricity, but also at industry and transport, and so integrated energy systems. Electricity will be the main workhorse of our global decarbonisation effort, but through heat and hydrogen. How you model this is the object of a lot of research work being done by different institutes and we at the IAEA are developing some modelling capabilities with the objective of optimising low-carbon emissions and overall costs.
This is just a picture of what the future might look like: a low-carbon power system with nuclear lightwater reactors (large reactors, small modular reactors and fast reactors) drawing on the green industrial revolution reactor waves in planning; solar, wind, anything that produces low-carbon electricity that can be used to electrify industry, transport, and the heating and cooling of buildings. But we know there is a need for high-temperature process steam that electricity cannot bring but which can be delivered directly by high-temperature reactors. And there are a number of ways of producing low-carbon hydrogen. The beauty of hydrogen is that it can be stored and it could possibly be injected into gas networks that could be run in the future on 100% hydrogen, and this could be converted back into electricity.
So, for decarbonising power, there are many options - nuclear, hydro, variable renewables, with renewables poised to surpass coal in global generation, and fossil with carbon capture and storage - and it's up to countries and industries to invest in the ones they prefer. We find that nuclear can actually reduce the overall cost of systems due to its dispatchability and the fact that variable renewables have a cost because of their intermittency. There is a need for appropriate market designs and the role of governments to encourage investments in nuclear.
Decarbonising other sectors will be as important as decarbonising electricity, from ways to produce low-carbon heat and low-carbon hydrogen. It's not so obvious who will be the clear winners, but I would say that since nuclear can produce all three low-carbon vectors - electricity, heat and hydrogen - it should have the advantage. We at the IAEA will be organising a webinar next month with the IEA looking at long-term nuclear projections in a net-zero world, building on IAEA analysis on COVID-19 and low-carbon electricity insights. That will be our contribution from the point of view of nuclear to the IEA's special report on roadmaps to net zero that it will publish in May.
Spain Electricity Prices surge to record highs as the wholesale market hits €339.84/MWh, driven by gas costs and CO2 permits, impacting PVPC regulated tariffs, free-market contracts, and household energy bills, OMIE data show.
Key Points
Rates in Spain's wholesale market that shape PVPC tariffs and free-market bills, moving with gas prices and CO2 costs.
✅ Record €339.84/MWh; peak 20:00-21:00; low 04:00-05:00 (OMIE).
✅ PVPC users and free-market contracts face higher bills.
✅ Drivers: high gas prices and rising CO2 emission rights.
Electricity in Spain's wholesale market will rise in price once more as European electricity prices continue to surge. Once again, it will set a historical record in Spain, reaching €339.84/MWh. With this figure, it is already the fifth time that the threshold of €300 has been exceeded.
This new high is a 6.32 per cent increase on today’s average price of €319.63/MWh, which is also a historic record, while Germany's power prices nearly doubled over the past year. Monday’s energy price will make it 682.65 per cent higher than the corresponding date in 2020, when the average was €43.42.
According to data published by the Iberian Energy Market Operator (OMIE), Monday’s maximum will be between the hours of 8pm and 9pm, reaching €375/MWh, a pattern echoed by markets where Electric Ireland price hikes reflect wholesale volatility. The cheapest will be from 4am to 5am, at €267.99.
The prices of the ‘pool’ have a direct effect on the regulated tariff – PVPC – to which almost 11 million consumers in the country are connected, and serve as a reference for the other 17 million who have contracted their supply in the free market, where rolling back prices is proving difficult across Europe.
These spiraling prices in recent months, which have fueled EU energy inflation, are being blamed on high gas prices in the markets, and carbon dioxide (CO2) emission rights, both of which reached record highs this year.
According to an analysis by Facua-Consumidores en Acción, if the same rates were maintained for the rest of the month, the last invoice of the year would reach €134.45 for the average user. That would be 94.1 per cent above the €69.28 for December 2020, while U.S. residential electricity bills rose about 5% in 2022 after inflation adjustments.
The average user’s bill so far this year has increased by 15.1 per cent compared to 2018, as US electricity prices posted their largest jump in 41 years. Thus, compared to the €77.18 of three years ago, the average monthly bill now reaches €90.87 euros. However, the Government continues to insist that this year households will end up paying the same as in 2018.
As Ruben Sanchez, the general secretary of Facua commented, “The electricity bill for December would have to be negative for President Sanchez, and Minister Ribera, to fulfill their promise that this year consumers will pay the same as in 2018 once the CPI has been discounted”.
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.
