Daunting technical and cost gaps must be closed before Canada can turn the corner on climate change.
The federal government unveiled an aggressive plan to reduce Canadian greenhouse gas emissions 20 per cent by 2020. The centre piece of the plan is a requirement for carbon capture and storage to be built into all new coal-fired power plants and oil sands facilities beginning in 2012, and be fully operating by 2018.
The Canadian electricity industry and Epcor support the federal goals and have already made substantial investments that reduce the carbon intensity of power generation. But in our view the plan underestimates the scale, scope, time and cost required to achieve its objectives.
There are two key challenges. First, it demands that industry go from a standing start to full implementation of a technology no one in the world has commercially deployed. The second challenge is the cost. Best estimates put the cost of electricity from one of the most promising clean power technologies at nearly five times the cost of a new natural gas plant.
Unless we find a way to close the gap by flowing increased costs through to consumers, the short-run effect will be to meet the growing demand for power with natural gas. This will, in turn, put pressure on Canada's dwindling natural gas supply, drive up electricity and home heating prices, and make Canada more dependent on energy imports. In our eagerness to reach a cleaner future by legislating aggressive targets we'll have traded one problem for another.
These issues do not mean the federal plan is without merit. From an environmental perspective, the plan gets the most important points right. The best way to permanently reduce emissions is through breakthrough technologies such as carbon capture and storage and intensity-based targets.
As a nation we can't solely use conservation and efficiency measures to diet our way to zero emissions. Changing light bulbs and driving more fuel-efficient cars are worthy activities, but population growth will quickly overwhelm these incremental gains. Meanwhile the efficiency paradox suggests that consumers will continue to use the economic benefits from efficiency gains to support increased consumption. National forecasts call for at least 14,000 megawatts of new power generation by 2020 to meet demand growth.
The key is not to tinker at the margins, but to invest in transformative technology. The electricity industry has already made large strides to reduce the carbon intensity of power generation. Renewables are growing rapidly, and investments have been made in cleaner power sources. The Genesee 3 power plant opened by Epcor in 2005 is the cleanest coal-fired generator in the country, and its greenhouse gas emissions are 18 to 24 per cent lower than those from recently retired facilities.
The next step is to replace today's facilities with near-zero emission power generation, allowing Canada's economy and population to grow without increasing emissions. Through partnerships such as the Canadian Clean Power Coalition (CCPC), the Integrated Carbon Dioxide Network (ICO2N) and the Alberta Saline Aquifer Project (ASAP), industry and governments are working together to develop the power plants, carbon pipelines and long-term carbon storage to make this a reality.
The CCPC's flagship project is the design and engineering of an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plant at Epcor's Genesee, Alta., site. The work is backed by $11-million investments from each of Natural Resources Canada, the Alberta Energy Research Institute and Epcor. The plant would transform coal into a synthesis gas composed mainly of hydrogen, and use the gas for electricity production. It would also allow the capture of both carbon dioxide and air pollutants.
Worldwide, there are only four IGCC facilities operating and producing electricity. None have carbon capture and sequestration. Likewise, there is limited experience with carbon pipelines and underground storage, but not at the scale and real-time reliability required by large utility operations. Putting all three pieces together is an extraordinary engineering challenge, and one that will also require the resolution of regulatory and permitting issues related to the storage of carbon dioxide.
Best estimates suggest commercial operation of the first facilities could be achieved by 2015, but a great deal of uncertainty remains. We will need to test these early demonstration facilities and ensure that utility-scale operations are capable of delivering the reliable performance required to keep the lights on.
Epcor remains optimistic that time and effort will close the technical gaps, and we will continue to invest in these technologies. We also recognize that the new federal policy helps industry accelerate design and engineering through precertified investment credits that can be used as offsets against emission targets. But we caution that the scale, cost and timeline required to meet the federal targets is not well understood.
Furthermore, Canada's aggressive greenhouse gas reduction goals need to be synchronized with those of its major trading partners. Failing that, rising energy input costs could lead to the export of Canadian manufacturing jobs to lower-cost jurisdictions and an increase in Canadian carbon emissions from the prolonged and increased combustion of natural gas.
If Canadians aspire to a cleaner environment with lower emissions we should not wait for the market to close the gap. Instead, we should bridge the gap by creating a mechanism to flow the costs of cleaner electricity through to consumers today. The cost should ultimately be borne by each of us as citizens and consumers of power because we will each reap the environmental benefits. The price signal, carbon tax or fee would be a further incentive to conservation.
One of Canada's strengths is its diversity of fuels, which enhances our energy security, the reliability of our power supplies and price stability. Building on that strength, we believe that all fuels - including hydro, coal, natural gas, nuclear and renewables - have an important role to play in meeting the energy needs of the future.
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.
We Energies rate increase driven by nuclear energy costs at Point Beach, Wisconsin PSC filings, and rising utility rates, affecting electricity prices for residential, commercial, and industrial customers while supporting WEC carbon reduction goals.
Key Points
A 2021 utility rate hike to recover Point Beach nuclear costs, modestly raising Wisconsin electricity bills.
✅ Residential bills rise about $0.73 per month
✅ Driven by $55.82/MWh Point Beach contract price
✅ PSC review and consumer advocates assessing alternatives
Wisconsin's largest utility company is again asking regulators to raise rates to pay for the rising cost of nuclear energy.
We Energies says it needs to collect an additional $26.5 million next year, an increase of about 3.4%.
For residential customers, that would translate to about 73 cents more per month, or an increase of about 0.7%, while some nearby states face steeper winter rate hikes according to regulators. Commercial and industrial customers would see an increase of 1% to 1.5%, according to documents filed with the Public Service Commission.
If approved, it would be the second rate increase in as many years for about 1.1 million We Energies customers, who saw a roughly 0.7% increase in 2020 after four years of no change, while Manitoba Hydro rate increase has been scaled back for next year, highlighting regional contrasts.
We Energies' sister utility, Wisconsin Public Service Corp., has requested a 0.13% increase, which would add about 8 cents to the average monthly residential bill, which went up 1.6% this year.
We Energies said a rate increase is needed to cover the cost of electricity purchased from the Point Beach nuclear power plant, which according to filings with the Securities Exchange Commission will be $55.82 per megawatt-hour next year.
So far this year, the average wholesale price of electricity in the Midwestern market was a little more than $25.50 per megawatt-hour, and recent capacity market payouts on the largest U.S. grid have fallen sharply, reflecting broader market conditions.
Owned and operated by NextEra Energy Resources, the 1,200-megawatt Point Beach Nuclear Plant is Wisconsin's last operational reactor. We Energies sold the plant for $924 million in 2007 and entered into a contract to purchase its output for the next two decades.
Brendan Conway, a spokesman for WEC Energy Group, said customers have benefited from the sale of the plant, which will supply more than a third of We Energies' demand and is a key component in WEC's strategy to cut 80% of its carbon emissions by 2050, amid broader electrification trends nationwide.
"Without the Point Beach plant, carbon emissions in Wisconsin would be significantly higher," Conway said.
As part of negotiations on its last rate case, WEC agreed to work with consumer advocates and the PSC to review alternatives to the contracted price increases, which were structured to begin rising steeply in 2018.
Tom Content, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, said the contract will be an issue for We Energies customers into the next decade
"It's a significant source (of energy) for the entire state," Content said. "But nuclear is not cheap."
WEC filed the rate requests Monday, one week after the withdrawing similar applications. Conway said the largely unchanged filings had "undergone additional review by senior management."
WEC last week raised its second quarter profit forecast to 67 to 69 cents per share, up from the previous range of 58 to 62 cents per share.
The company credited better than expected sales in April and May along with operational cost savings and higher authorized profit margin for American Transmission Company, of which WEC is the majority owner.
Wisconsin's other investor-owned utilities have reported lower than expected fuel costs for 2020 and 2021, even as emergency fuel stock programs in New England are expected to cost millions this year.
Alliant Energy has proposed using about $31 million in fuel savings to help freeze rates in 2021, aligning with its carbon-neutral electricity plans as it rolls out long-term strategy, while Xcel Energy is proposing to lower its rates by 0.8% next year and refund its customers about $9.7 million in fuel costs for this year.
Madison Gas and Electric is negotiating a two-year rate structure with consumer groups who are optimistic that fuel savings can help prevent or offset rate increases, though some utilities are exploring higher minimum charges for low-usage customers to recover fixed costs.
Global Electricity Demand Surge strains power markets, fuels price volatility, and boosts coal and gas generation as renewables lag, driving emissions, according to the IEA, with grids and clean energy investment crucial through 2024.
Key Points
A surge in power use that strained supply, raised prices, and drove power-sector CO2 emissions to record highs.
✅ 6% demand growth in 2021; largest absolute rise ever
✅ Coal up 9%; gas +2%; renewables +6% could not meet demand
✅ Prices doubled vs 2020; volatility hit EU, China, India
Global electricity demand surged above pre-pandemic levels in 2021, creating strains in major markets, pushing prices to unprecedented levels and driving the power sector’s emissions to a record high. Electricity is central to modern life and clean electricity is pivotal to energy transitions, but in the absence of faster structural change in the sector, rising demand over the next three years could result in additional market volatility and continued high emissions, according an IEA report released today.
Driven by the rapid economic rebound, and more extreme weather conditions than in 2020, including a colder than average winter, last year’s 6% rise in global electricity demand was the largest in percentage terms since 2010 when the world was recovering from the global financial crisis. In absolute terms, last year’s increase of over 1 500 terawatt-hours was the largest ever, according to the January 2022 edition of the IEA’s semi-annual Electricity Market Report.
The steep increase in demand outstripped the ability of sources of electricity supply to keep pace in some major markets, with shortages of natural gas and coal leading to volatile prices, demand destruction and negative effects on power generators, retailers and end users, notably in China, Europe and India. Around half of last year’s global growth in electricity demand took place in China, where demand grew by an estimated 10%, highlighting that Asia is set to use half of global electricity by 2025 according to the IEA. China and India suffered from power cuts at certain points in the second half of the year because of coal shortages.
“Sharp spikes in electricity prices in recent times have been causing hardship for many households and businesses around the world and risk becoming a driver of social and political tensions,” said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol. “Policy makers should be taking action now to soften the impacts on the most vulnerable and to address the underlying causes. Higher investment in low-carbon energy technologies including renewables, energy efficiency and nuclear power – alongside an expansion of robust and smart electricity grids – can help us get out of today’s difficulties.”
The IEA’s price index for major wholesale electricity markets almost doubled compared with 2020 and was up 64% from the 2016-2020 average. In Europe, average wholesale electricity prices in the fourth quarter of 2021 were more than four times their 2015-2020 average, and wind and solar generated more electricity than gas in the EU during the year. Besides Europe, there were also sharp price increases in Japan and India, while they were more moderate in the United States where gas supplies were less perturbed.
Electricity produced from renewable sources grew by 6% in 2021, but it was not enough to keep up with galloping demand. Coal-fired generation grew by 9%, with soaring electricity and coal use serving more than half of the increase in demand and reaching a new all-time peak as high natural gas prices led to gas-to-coal switching. Gas-fired generation grew by 2%, while nuclear increased by 3.5%, almost reaching its 2019 levels. In total, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power generation rose by 7%, also reaching a record high, after having declined the two previous years.
“Emissions from electricity need to decline by 55% by 2030 to meet our Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario, but in the absence of major policy action from governments, those emissions are set to remain around the same level for the next three years,” said Dr Birol. “Not only does this highlight how far off track we currently are from a pathway to net zero emissions by 2050, but it also underscores the massive changes needed for the electricity sector to fulfil its critical role in decarbonising the broader energy system.”
For 2022-2024, the report anticipates electricity demand growing 2.7% a year on average, although the Covid-19 pandemic and high energy prices bring some uncertainty to this outlook. Renewables are set to grow by 8% per year on average, and low-emissions sources are expected to serve more than 90% of net demand growth during this period. We expect nuclear-based generation to grow by 1% annually during the same period.
As a consequence of slowing electricity demand growth and significant renewables additions, fossil fuel-based generation is expected to stagnate in the coming years, and renewables are set to surpass coal by 2025 with coal-fired generation falling slightly as phase-outs and declining competitiveness in the United States and Europe are balanced by growth in markets like China, where electricity demand trends remain a puzzle in recent analyses, and India. Gas-fired generation is seen growing by around 1% a year.
NB Power Smart Meter Opt-Out Fees reflect cost causation principles set before the Energy and Utilities Board, covering meter reading charges, transmitter-disable options, rollout targets, and education plans across New Brunswick's smart metering program.
Key Points
Fees NB Power may apply to customers opting out of smart meters, reflecting cost causation and meter-reading costs.
✅ Based on cost causation and meter reading expenses
✅ BC and Quebec charge monthly opt-out surcharges
✅ Policy finalized during rollout after EUB review
NB Power customers who do not want a smart meter installed on their home could be facing a stiff fee for that decision, but so far the utility is not saying how much it might be.
"It will be based on the principles of cost causation, but we have not gotten into the detail of what that fee would be at this point," said NB Power Senior Vice President of Operations Lori Clark at Energy and Utilities Board hearings on Friday.
In other jurisdictions that have already adopted smart meters, customers not wanting to participate have faced hundreds of dollars in extra charges, while Texas utilities' pullback from smart-home networks shows approaches can differ.
In British Columbia, power customers are charged a meter reading fee of $32.40 per month if they refuse a smart meter, or $20 per month if they accept a smart meter but insist its radio transmitter be turned off. That's a cost of between $240 and $388.80 per year for customers to opt out.
In Quebec, smart meters were installed beginning in 2012. Customers who refused the devices were initially charged $98 to opt out plus a meter reading fee of $17 per month. That was eventually cut by Quebec's energy board in 2014 to a $15 refusal fee and a $5 per month meter reading surcharge.
NB Power said it may be a year or more before it settles on its own fee.
"The opt out policy will be developed and implemented as part of the roll out. It will be one of the last things we do," said Clark.
Customers need to be on board
NB Power is in front of the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board seeking permission to spend $122.7 million to install 350,000 smart meters province wide, as neighboring markets grapple with major rate increases that heighten affordability concerns.
The meters are capable of transmitting consumption data of customers back to NB Power in real time, which the utility said will allow for a number of innovations in pricing and service, and help address old meter inaccuracies that affected some households.
The meters require near universal adoption by customers to maximize their financial benefit — like eliminating more than $20 million a year NB Power currently spends to read meters manually. The utility has said the switch will not succeed if too many customers opt out.
"We certainly wouldn't be looking at making an investment of this size without having the customer with us," said Clark.
On Thursday, Kent County resident Daniel LeBlanc, who along with Roger Richard, is opposing the introduction of smart meters for health reasons, predicted a cool reception for the technology in many parts of the province, given concerns that include health effects and billing disputes in Nova Scotia reported elsewhere.
"If one were to ask most of the people in the rural areas, I'm not sure you would get a lot of takers for this infrastructure," said LeBlanc, who is concerned with the long-term effect microwave frequencies used by the meters to transmit data may have on human health.
That issue is before the EUB next week.
Haven't tested the waters
NB Power acknowledged it has not measured public opinion on adopting smart meters but is confident it can convince customers it is a good idea for them and the utility, even as seasonal rate proposals in New Brunswick have prompted consumer backlash.
"People don't understand what the smart meter is," said Clark. "We need to educate our customers first to allow them to make an informed decision so that will be part of the roll out plan."
Clark noted that smart meters, helped by stiff opting out penalties, were eventually accepted by 98 per cent of customers in British Columbia and by 97.4 per cent of customers in Quebec.
"We will check and adjust along the way if there are issues with customer uptake," said Clark.
"This is very similar to what has been done in other jurisdictions and they haven't had those challenges."
Alberta Wind Energy Policy Changes highlight TransAlta's Riplinger cancellation amid UCP buffer zones for pristine viewscapes, regulatory uncertainty, and market redesign debates, reshaping Alberta's renewables investment climate and clean energy diversification plans.
Key Points
UCP rules and market shifts reshaping wind siting, permits, and finance, increasing uncertainty and delays for new projects.
✅ 35-km buffer near pristine viewscapes limits wind siting
The winds of change are blowing through Alberta's energy landscape today, and they're not necessarily carrying good news for renewable energy development. TransAlta, a major Canadian energy company, recently announced the cancellation of a significant wind farm project, citing a confluence of factors that create uncertainty for the future of wind power in the province. This decision throws a spotlight on the ongoing debate between responsible development and fostering a clean energy future in Alberta.
The scrapped project, the Riplinger wind farm near Cardston, Alberta, was envisioned as a 300-megawatt facility capable of providing clean electricity to the province. However, TransAlta pointed to recent regulatory changes implemented by the United Conservative Party (UCP) government, following the end of the renewable energy moratorium in Alberta, as a key reason for the project's demise. These changes include the establishment of a 35-kilometer buffer zone around designated "pristine viewscapes," which significantly restricts potential wind farm locations.
John Kousinioris, CEO of TransAlta, expressed frustration with the lack of clarity surrounding the future of renewable energy policy in Alberta. He highlighted this, along with the aforementioned rule changes, as major factors in the project's cancellation. TransAlta has also placed three other power projects on hold, indicating a broader concern about the current investment climate for renewable energy in the province.
The news has been met with mixed reactions. While some residents living near the proposed wind farm site celebrate the decision due to concerns about potential impacts on tourism and the environment, others worry about the implications for Alberta's clean energy ambitions, including renewable energy job growth in the province. The province, a major energy producer in Canada, has traditionally relied heavily on fossil fuels, and this decision might be seen as a setback for its goals of diversifying its energy mix.
The Alberta government defends its changes to renewable energy policy, arguing that they are necessary to ensure responsible development and protect sensitive ecological areas. However, the TransAlta decision raises questions about the potential unintended consequences of these changes. Critics argue that the restrictions might discourage investment in renewable energy and the province's ability to sell clean power to wider markets altogether, hindering Alberta's progress towards a more sustainable future.
Adding to the uncertainty is the ongoing process of redesigning Alberta's energy market. The aim is to incorporate more renewable energy sources, including solar energy expansion across the grid, but the details of this redesign remain unclear. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for companies like TransAlta to make sound investment decisions, further dampening enthusiasm for renewable energy projects.
The future of wind energy development in Alberta remains to be seen. TransAlta's decision to scrap the Riplinger project is a significant development, and it will be interesting to observe how other companies respond to the changing regulatory landscape, as a Warren Buffett-linked developer pursues a $200 million wind project in Alberta. Striking a balance between responsible development, protecting the environment, and fostering a clean energy future will be a crucial challenge for Alberta moving forward.
This situation highlights the complex considerations involved in transitioning to a renewable energy future, where court rulings on wind projects can influence policy and investment decisions. While environmental concerns are paramount, ensuring a stable and predictable investment climate is equally important. Open communication and collaboration between industry, government, and stakeholders will be key to navigating these challenges and ensuring Alberta can harness the power of wind energy for a sustainable future.
Nuclear Waste Corrosion accelerates as stainless steel, glass, and ceramics interact in aqueous conditions, driving localized corrosion in repositories like Yucca Mountain, according to Nature Materials research on high-level radioactive waste storage.
Key Points
Degradation of waste forms and canisters from water-driven chemistry, causing accelerated, localized corrosion in storage.
✅ Stainless steel-glass contact triggers severe localized attack
✅ Ceramics and steel co-corrosion observed under aqueous conditions
✅ Yucca Mountain-like chemistry accelerates waste form degradation
The materials the United States and other countries plan to use to store high-level nuclear waste, even as utilities expand carbon-free electricity portfolios, will likely degrade faster than anyone previously knew because of the way those materials interact, new research shows.
The findings, published today in the journal Nature Materials (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41563-019-0579-x), show that corrosion of nuclear waste storage materials accelerates because of changes in the chemistry of the nuclear waste solution, and because of the way the materials interact with one another.
"This indicates that the current models may not be sufficient to keep this waste safely stored," said Xiaolei Guo, lead author of the study and deputy director of Ohio State's Center for Performance and Design of Nuclear Waste Forms and Containers, part of the university's College of Engineering. "And it shows that we need to develop a new model for storing nuclear waste."
Beyond waste storage, options like carbon capture technologies are being explored to reduce atmospheric CO2 alongside nuclear energy.
The team's research focused on storage materials for high-level nuclear waste -- primarily defense waste, the legacy of past nuclear arms production. The waste is highly radioactive. While some types of the waste have half-lives of about 30 years, others -- for example, plutonium -- have a half-life that can be tens of thousands of years. The half-life of a radioactive element is the time needed for half of the material to decay.
The United States currently has no disposal site for that waste; according to the U.S. General Accountability Office, it is typically stored near the nuclear power plants where it is produced. A permanent site has been proposed for Yucca Mountain in Nevada, though plans have stalled. Countries around the world have debated the best way to deal with nuclear waste; only one, Finland, has started construction on a long-term repository for high-level nuclear waste.
But the long-term plan for high-level defense waste disposal and storage around the globe is largely the same, even as the U.S. works to sustain nuclear power for decarbonization efforts. It involves mixing the nuclear waste with other materials to form glass or ceramics, and then encasing those pieces of glass or ceramics -- now radioactive -- inside metallic canisters. The canisters then would be buried deep underground in a repository to isolate it.
In this study, the researchers found that when exposed to an aqueous environment, glass and ceramics interact with stainless steel to accelerate corrosion, especially of the glass and ceramic materials holding nuclear waste.
In parallel, the electrical grid's reliance on SF6 insulating gas has raised warming concerns across Europe.
The study qualitatively measured the difference between accelerated corrosion and natural corrosion of the storage materials. Guo called it "severe."
"In the real-life scenario, the glass or ceramic waste forms would be in close contact with stainless steel canisters. Under specific conditions, the corrosion of stainless steel will go crazy," he said. "It creates a super-aggressive environment that can corrode surrounding materials."
To analyze corrosion, the research team pressed glass or ceramic "waste forms" -- the shapes into which nuclear waste is encapsulated -- against stainless steel and immersed them in solutions for up to 30 days, under conditions that simulate those under Yucca Mountain, the proposed nuclear waste repository.
Those experiments showed that when glass and stainless steel were pressed against one another, stainless steel corrosion was "severe" and "localized," according to the study. The researchers also noted cracks and enhanced corrosion on the parts of the glass that had been in contact with stainless steel.
Part of the problem lies in the Periodic Table. Stainless steel is made primarily of iron mixed with other elements, including nickel and chromium. Iron has a chemical affinity for silicon, which is a key element of glass.
The experiments also showed that when ceramics -- another potential holder for nuclear waste -- were pressed against stainless steel under conditions that mimicked those beneath Yucca Mountain, both the ceramics and stainless steel corroded in a "severe localized" way.
Other Ohio State researchers involved in this study include Gopal Viswanathan, Tianshu Li and Gerald Frankel.
This work was funded in part by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science.
Meanwhile, U.S. monitoring shows potent greenhouse gas declines confirming the impact of control efforts across the energy sector.
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.
