Charest puts faith in mega hydro projects

IAEA Nuclear Reactor Simulators enable virtual nuclear power plant training on IPWR/PWR systems, load-following operations, baseload dynamics, and turbine coupling, supporting advanced reactor education, flexible grid integration, and low-carbon electricity skills development during remote learning.

Key Points

IAEA Nuclear Reactor Simulators are tools for training on reactor operations, safety, and flexible power management.

✅ Simulates IPWR/PWR systems with real-time parameter visualization.

✅ Practices load-following, baseload, and grid flexibility scenarios.

✅ Supports remote training on safety, controls, and turbine coupling.

Students and professionals in the nuclear field are making use of learning opportunities during lockdown made necessary by the Covid-19 pandemic, drawing on IAEA low-carbon electricity lessons for the future.

Requests to use the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) basic principle nuclear reactor simulators have risen sharply in recent weeks, IAEA said on 1 May, as India takes steps to get nuclear back on track. New users will have the opportunity to learn more about operating them.

“This suite of nuclear power plant simulators is part of the IAEA education and training programmes on technology development of advanced reactors worldwide. [It] can be accessed upon request by interested parties from around the world,” said Stefano Monti, head of the IAEA’s Nuclear Power Technology Development Section.

Simulators include several features to help users understand fundamental concepts behind the behaviour of nuclear plants and their reactors. They also provide an overview of how various plant systems and components work to power turbines and produce low-carbon electricity, while illustrating roles beyond electricity as well.

In the integral pressurised water reactor (IPWR) simulator, for instance, a type of advanced nuclear power design, users can navigate through several screens, each containing information allowing them to adjust certain variables. One provides a summary of reactor parameters such as primary pressure, flow and temperature. Another view lays out the status of the reactor core.

The “Systems” screen provides a visual overview of how the plant’s main systems, including the reactor and turbines, work together. On the “Controls” screen, users can adjust values which affect reactor performance and power output.

This simulator provides insight into how the IPWR works, and also allows users to see how the changes they make to plant variables alter the plant’s operation. Operators can also perform manoeuvres similar to those that would take place in the course of real plant operations e.g. in load following mode.

“Currently, most nuclear plants operate in ‘baseload’ mode, continually generating electricity at their maximum capacity. However, there is a trend of countries, aligned with green industrial revolution strategies, moving toward hybrid energy systems which incorporate nuclear together with a diverse mix of renewable energy sources. A greater need for flexible operations is emerging, and many advanced power plants offer standard features for load following,” said Gerardo Martinez-Guridi, an IAEA nuclear engineer who specialises in water-cooled reactor technology.

Prospective nuclear engineers need to understand the dynamics of the consequences of reducing a reactor’s power output, for example, especially in the context of next-generation nuclear systems and emerging grids, and simulators can help students visualise these processes, he noted.

“Many reactor variables change when the power output is adjusted, and it is useful to see how this occurs in real-time,” said Chirayu Batra, an IAEA nuclear engineer, who will lead the webinar on 12 May.

“Users will know that the operation is complete once the various parameters have stabilised at their new values.”

Observing and comparing the parameter changes helps users know what to expect during a real power manoeuvre, he added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Fukushima Daiichi decommissioning delay highlights TEPCO's revised timeline, spent fuel removal at Units 1 and 2, safety enclosures, decontamination, fuel debris extraction by robot arm, and contaminated water management under stricter radiation control.

Key Points

A government revised schedule pushing back spent fuel removal and decommissioning milestones at Fukushima Daiichi.

✅ TEPCO delays spent fuel removal at Units 1 and 2 for safety.

✅ Enclosures, decontamination, and robotics mitigate radioactive risk.

✅ Contaminated water cut target: 170 tons/day to 100 by 2025.

The Japanese government decided Friday to delay the removal of spent fuel from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant's Nos. 1 and 2 reactors by as much as five years, casting doubt on whether it can stick to its timeframe for dismantling the crippled complex.

The process of removing the spent fuel from the units' pools had previously been scheduled to begin in the year through March 2024.

In its latest decommissioning plan, the government said the plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc., will not begin the roughly two-year process (a timeline comparable to major reactor refurbishment programs seen worldwide) at the No. 1 unit at least until the year through March 2028 and may wait until the year through March 2029.

Work at the No. 2 unit is now slated to start between the year through March 2025 and the year through March 2027, it said.

The delay is necessary to take further safety precautions such as the construction of an enclosure around the No. 1 unit to prevent the spread of radioactive dust, and decontamination of the No. 2 unit, even as authorities have begun reopening previously off-limits towns nearby, the government said. It is the fourth time it has revised its schedule for removing the spent fuel rods.

"It's a very difficult process and it's hard to know what to expect. The most important thing is the safety of the workers and the surrounding area," industry minister Hiroshi Kajiyama told a press conference.

The government set a new goal of finishing the removal of the 4,741 spent fuel rods across all six of the plant's reactors by the year through March 2032, amid ongoing debates about the consequences of early nuclear plant closures elsewhere.

Plant operator TEPCO has started the process at the No. 3 unit and already finished at the No. 4 unit, which was off-line for regular maintenance at the time of the disaster. A schedule has yet to be set for the Nos. 5 and 6 reactors.

While the government maintained its overarching timeframe of finishing the decommissioning of the plant 30 to 40 years from the 2011 crisis triggered by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami, there may be further delays, even as milestones at other nuclear projects are being reached worldwide.

The government said it will begin removing fuel debris from the three reactors that experienced core meltdowns in the year through March 2022, starting with the No. 2 unit as part of broader reactor decommissioning efforts.

The process, considered the most difficult part of the decommissioning plan, will involve using a robot arm, reflecting progress in advanced reactors technologies, to initially remove small amounts of debris, moving up to larger amounts.

The government also said it will aim to reduce the pace at which contaminated water at the plant increases. Water for cooling the melted cores, mixed with underground water, amounts to around 170 tons a day. That number will be brought down to 100 tons by 2025, it said.

The water is being treated to remove the most radioactive materials and stored in tanks on the plant's grounds, but already more than 1 million tons has been collected and space is expected to run out by the summer of 2022.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.

Key Points

Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐​ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐​meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.

Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.

Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐​cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐​income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.

What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐​demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐​varying cost of additional electricity supply.

Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐​income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐​cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐​income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.

The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.

The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐​cost rooftop to lower‐​cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.

Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canada Oil and Gas Emissions Cap sets five-year targets to cut sector emissions toward net-zero by 2050, alongside an EV mandate, carbon pricing signals, and support for carbon capture, clean energy jobs, climate policy.

Key Points

A federal policy to regulate and reduce oil and gas emissions via 5-year targets, reaching net-zero by 2050.

✅ Regulated 5-year milestones to cut oil and gas emissions to net-zero by 2050

✅ Interim EV mandate: 50% by 2030; 100% zero-emission sales by 2035

✅ $2B fund for clean energy jobs in oil- and gas-reliant communities

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau vowed to regulate total emissions from Canada’s oil and gas producers as he laid out his first major climate change promises of the campaign Sunday, a plan that was welcomed by several environmental and climate organizations.

Trudeau said that if re-elected, the Liberals will set out regulated five-year targets for emissions from oil and gas production to get them to net-zero emissions by 2050, a goal that, according to an IEA report will require more electricity, but also create a $2 billion fund to create jobs in oil and gas-reliant communities in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador.

“Let’s be realistic, over a quarter of Canada’s emissions come from our oil and gas sector. We need the leadership of these industries to decarbonize our country,” Trudeau said.

“That’s why we’ll make sure oil and gas emissions don’t increase and instead go down with achievable milestones,” while ensuring local economies can prosper.“

The Liberals are also introducing an interim electric vehicle mandate, which will require half the cars sold in Canada to be zero-emission by 2030, and because cleaning up electricity is critical to meeting climate pledges, the policy pairs with power-sector decarbonization, ahead of the final mandated target of 100 per cent by 2035.

Trudeau spoke in Cambridge, Ont., where protesters once again made an appearance amid a visible police presence. Officers carried one woman off the property when she refused to leave when asked.

Trudeau alluded to the protesters and their actions, which included sounding sirens and chanting expletives, as he defended his government’s record on climate change including progress in the electricity sector nationally, and touted its new plan.

“Sirens in the background may remind us that this is a climate emergency. That’s why we will move faster and be bolder,” he said.

Canada’s largest oilsands producers have already committed to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, but the policy proposed Sunday “calls the oil companies’ bluff” by making those goals a legislated requirement, said Keith Stewart, senior energy strategist with Greenpeace Canada.

The new timeline for electric vehicles also “sends a clear signal to auto companies to get cracking (and build them here),” he said on Twitter, even as proposals like a fully renewable grid by 2030 are debated today. “We’d like to see this happen faster but the shift away from voluntary targets to requirements is big.”

Merran Smith, executive director of Clean Energy Canada, a climate program at Simon Fraser University, said clean electricity, clean transportation and “phasing out oil and gas with accountable milestones” must be key priorities over the next decade, aligning with Canada’s race to net-zero and the role of renewable energy.

“Today’s announcement, which checks all of these boxes, is not just good ambition_it’s good policy. Policy that will drive down carbon pollution and drive up clean job growth and economic competitiveness. It is policy that will drive Canada forward with cleaner cars, power Canada with clean electricity, and invest in businesses that will last such as battery manufacturing, electric vehicle manufacturing and low carbon steel,” Smith said in an email.

Michael Bernstein, executive director of the climate policy organization Clean Prosperity, said the promises laid out Sunday offer a “strong boost” to the federal government’s previous climate commitments.

He said the organization prefers market incentives such as carbon pricing, that spur innovation over further regulation. But since the largest oilsands companies have already committed to reaching net-zero emissions, he said the newly unveiled policy could provide some support.

“ First, I would encourage the Liberal Party to release independent modelling showing the types of emissions reductions they expect to achieve with their new package of policies. Second, many policies are referred to in general terms so I hope the Liberal Party will provide further details in the coming days,” he said.

“Finally, the document does not specifically mention carbon capture or carbon dioxide removal technologies but both technologies will be critical to achieve some of the pledges in today’s announcement, especially reaching net-zero emissions in the oil a gas sector.”

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh painted the announcement as the latest in a string of “empty promises” from the Liberals on climate change, saying Canada has the highest increase in greenhouse gas emissions among all G7 countries, and that provinces like B.C. risk missing 2050 targets as well, he argued.

“Climate targets mean nothing when you don’t act on them. We can’t afford more of Justin Trudeau’s empty words on climate change,” he said in a statement.

The Trudeau Liberals submitted new targets to the United Nations in July, promising that Canada will curb emissions by 40 to 45 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030, building on the net-zero by 2050 plan announced earlier, officials say.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Georgia Power June bill credit delivers PSC-approved savings, lower fuel rates, and COVID-19 relief for residential customers, driven by natural gas prices and 2018 earnings, with typical 1,000 kWh users seeing June bill reductions.

Key Points

A PSC-approved one-time credit and lower fuel rates reducing June bills for Georgia Power residential customers.

✅ $11.29 credit for 1,000 kWh usage on June bills

✅ Fuel rate cut saves $10.26 per month from June to September 2020

✅ PSC-approved $51.5M credit based on Georgia Power's 2018 results

Georgia Power announced that the typical residential customer using 1,000-kilowatt hours will receive an $11.29 credit on their June bill, reflecting a lump-sum credit model also used elsewhere.

This reflects implementation of a one-time $51.5 million credit for customers, similar to Gulf Power's bill decrease efforts, approved by the Georgia Public Service Commission, as a result of

Georgia Power's 2018 financial results.

Pairing the June credit with new, lower fuel rates recently announced, the typical residential customer would see a reduction of $21.55 in June, even as some regions face increases like Pennsylvania's winter price hikes elsewhere.

The amount each customer receives will vary based on their 2018 usage. Georgia Power will apply the credit to June bills for customers who had active accounts as of Dec. 31, 2018, and are still active or receiving a final bill as of June 2020, and the company has issued pandemic scam warnings to help customers stay informed.

Fuel rate lowered 17.2 percent

In addition to the approved one-time credit in June, the Georgia PSC recently approved Georgia Power’s plan to reduce its fuel rates by 17.2 percent and total billings by approximately $740 million over a two-year period. The implementation of a special interim reduction will provide customers additional relief during the COVID-19 pandemic through even lower fuel rates over the upcoming 2020 summer months. The lower fuel rate and special interim reduction will lower the total bill of a typical residential customer using an average of 1,000-kilowatt hours by a total of $10.26 per month from June through September 2020.

The reduction in the company’s fuel rate is driven primarily by lower natural gas prices, even as FPL proposed multiyear rate hikes in Florida, as a result of increased natural gas supplies, which the company is able to take advantage of to benefit customers due to its diverse generation sources.

February bill credit due to tax law savings

Georgia Power completed earlier this year the third and final bill credit associated with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, resulting in credits totaling $106 million. The typical residential customer using an average of 1,000 kilowatt-hours per month received a credit of approximately $22 on their February Georgia Power bill, a helpful offset as U.S. electric bills rose 5% in 2022 according to national data.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News