Reducing the energy cost of IT

Floating Rotating Eco Hotel harnesses renewable energy via VAWTAU, recycles rainwater for greywater, and follows zero-waste principles. This mobile, off-grid, Qatar-based resort generates electricity by slow 360-degree rotation while offering luxury amenities.

Key Points

A mobile, off-grid hotel that rotates to generate power, uses VAWTAU, recycles greywater, and targets zero-waste.

✅ Rotates 360 deg in 24 hours to produce electricity

✅ VAWTAU system: vertical-axis turbine and sun umbrella

✅ Rain capture and greywater recycling minimize waste

A new eco-friendly, floating hotel plans to generate its own electricity by rotating while guests relax on board, echoing developments like the solar Marriott hotel in sustainable hospitality.

Led by Hayri Atak Architectural Design Studio (HAADS), the structure will be completely mobile, meaning it can float from place to place, never sitting in a permanent position. Building began in March 2020 and the architects aim for it to be up and running by 2025.

It will be based in Qatar, but has the potential to be located in different areas due to its mobility, and it sits within a region advancing projects such as solar hydrogen production that signal a broader clean-energy shift.

The design includes minimum energy loss and a zero waste principle at its core, aligning with progress in wave energy research that aims to power a clean future. As it will rotate around all day long, this will generate electrical energy to power the whole hotel.

But guests won’t feel too dizzy, as it takes 24 hours for the hotel to spin 360 degrees.

The floating hotel will stay within areas with continuous currents, to ensure that it is always rotating, drawing on ideas from ocean and river power systems that exploit natural flows. This type of green energy production is called ‘vawtau’ (vertical axis wind turbine and umbrella) which works like a wind turbine on the vertical axis, while alternative approaches like kite-based wind energy target stronger, high-altitude currents as well, and functions as a sun umbrella on the coastal band.

Beyond marine-current concepts such as underwater kites, the structure will also make use of rainwater to create power. A cover on the top of the hotel will collect rain to be used for greywater recycling. This is when wastewater is plumbed straight back into toilets, washing machines or outside taps to maximise efficiency.

The whole surface area is around 35,000 m², comparable in scale to emerging floating solar plants that demonstrate modular, water-based infrastructure, and there are a total of 152 rooms. It will have three different entrances so that there is access to the land at any time of the day, thanks to the 140-degree pier that surrounds it.

There will also be indoor and outdoor swimming pools, a sauna, spa, gym, mini golf course and other activity areas.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

UK Nuclear Free Electricity Incentive proposes community benefits near reactors, echoing France, supporting net zero goals, energy security, and streamlined planning, while addressing regulation and judicial review challenges for Sizewell C and future nuclear projects.

Key Points

A proposed policy to give free power to residents near reactors, supporting net zero and energy security.

✅ Free power for communities near nuclear plants

✅ Aligns with net zero and energy security goals

✅ Seeks streamlined planning and fewer approvals

UK Business Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg has endorsed a French-style nuclear system that sees people living near nuclear power stations receive free electricity.

Speaking at an event organised by Policy Exchange think tank, Jacob Rees-Mogg said: “Nuclear power is just fundamental. There’s no way we can get to net zero emissions, or even have an intelligent electricity strategy and grid reform in the UK, without nuclear.”

Highlighting that this was his view and not a government policy announcement, he said: “We should copy the French. As I understand, if you live near a nuclear power station in France, you get free electricity and that’s great because then, I’ll have two in my garden if I get free electricity for my children as well.

“I think you want to recognise that things you do that are in the national interest, such as a state-owned generation company, must benefit those who make the sacrifice for the national interest.”

Earlier Mr Rees-Mogg stressed that he would like to see a simpler development consent process for new nuclear power plants to enable the next waves of reactors in the UK, amid concerns that Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy.

He said: “That’s a lot of regulation around that, as seen when nuclear plant plans collapsed in Wales and impacted the local economy. Did you know that Sizewell C will require 140 individual approvals from arms of the state, each one of which is potentially subject to judicial review.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

US Electricity Demand Outlook examines EIA forecasts, GDP decoupling, energy efficiency, electrification, electric vehicles, grid load growth, and weather variability to frame long term demand trends and utility planning scenarios.

Key Points

An analysis of EIA projections showing demand decoupling from GDP, with EV adoption and efficiency shaping future grid load.

✅ EIA lowers load growth; demand decouples from GDP.

✅ Efficiency and sector shifts depress kWh sales.

✅ EV adoption could revive load and capacity needs.

Electricity producers and distributors are in an unusual business. The product they provide is available to all customers instantaneously, literally at the flip of a switch. But the large amount of equipment, both hardware and software to do this takes years to design, site and install.

From a long range planning perspective, just as important as a good engineering design is an accurate sales projections. For the US electric utility industry the most authoritative electricity demand projec-tions come from the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA). EIA's compre-hensive reports combine econometric analysis with judgment calls on social and economic trends like the adoption rate of new technologies that could affect future electricity demand, things like LED light-ing and battery powered cars, and the rise of renewables overtaking coal in generation.

Before the Great Recession almost a decade ago, the EIA projected annual growth in US electricity production at roughly 1.5 percent per year. After the Great Recession began, the EIA lowered its projections of US electricity consumption growth to below 1 percent. Actual growth has been closer to zero. While the EIA did not antici-pate the last recession or its aftermath, we cannot fault them on that.

After the event, though, the EIA also trimmed its estimates of economic growth. For the 2015-2030 period it now predicts 2.1 percent economic and 0.3 percent electricity growth, down from previously projections of 2.7 percent and 1.3 percent respectively. (See Figures 1 and 2.)

Table 1. EIA electric generation projections by year of forecast (kWh billions)

Table 2. EIA forecast of GDP by year of forecast (billion 2009 $)

Back in 2007, the EIA figured that every one percent increase in economic activity required a 0.48 percent in-crease in electric generation to support it. By 2017, the EIA calculated that a 1 percent growth in economic activity now only required a 0.14 percent increase in electric output. What accounts for such a downgrade or disconnect between electricity usage and economic growth? And what factors might turn the numbers 
around?

First, the US economy lost energy intensive heavy industry like smelting, steel mills and refineries; patterns in China's electricity sector highlight how industrial shifts can reshape power demand. A more service oriented economy (think health care) relies more heavily on the movement of data or information and uses far less power than a manufacturing-oriented economy.

A small volcano in Argentina is about to fuel the next tech boom – and a little known company is going to be right at the center. Early investors stand to gain incredible profits and you can too. Read the report.

Second, internet shopping has hurt so-called "brick and mortar" retailers. Despite the departure of heavy industry, in years past a burgeoning US commercial sector increased its demand and usage of electricity to offset the industrial decline. But not anymore. Energy efficiency measures as well as per-haps greater concern about global warming and greenhouse gas emissions and have cut into electricity sales. “Do more with less” has the right ring to it.

But there may be other components to the ongoing decline in electricity usage. Academic studies show that electricity usage seems to increase with income along an S curve, and flattens out after a certain income level. That is, if you earn $1 billion per year you do not (or cannot) use ten times a much electricity as someone earning only $100 million.

But people at typical, middle income levels increase or decrease electricity usage when incomes rise or fall. The squeeze on middle income families was discussed often in the late presidential campaign. In recent decades an increasing percentage of income has gone to a small percentage of the population at the top of the income scale. This trend probably accounts for some weakness in residential sales. This suggests that government policy addressing income inequality would also boost electricity sales.

Population growth affects demand for electricity as well as the economy as a whole. The EIA has made few changes in its projections, showing 0.7 percent per year population growth in 2015- 2030 in both the 2007 and 2017 forecasts. Recent studies, however, have shown a drop in the birth rate to record lows. More troubling, from a national health perspective is that the average age of death may have stopped rising. Those two factors point to lower population growth, especially if the government also restricts immi-gration. Thus, the US may be approaching a period of rather modest population growth.

All of the above factors point to minimal sales growth for electricity producers in the US--perhaps even lower than the seemingly conservative EIA estimates. But the cloud on the horizon has a silver lining in the shape of an electric car. Both the United Kingdom and France have set dates to end of production of automobiles with internal combustion engines. Several European car makers have declared that 20 percent of their output will be electric vehicles by the early 2020s. If we adopt automobiles powered by electricity and not gasoline or diesel, electricity sales would increase by one third. For the power indus-try, electric vehicles represent the next big thing.

We don’t pretend to know how electric car sales will progress. But assume vehicle turnover rates re-main at the current 7 percent per year and electric cars account for 5 percent of sales in the first five years (as op-posed to 1 percent now), 20 percent in the next five years and 50 percent in the third five year period. Wildly optimistic assumptions? Maybe. By 2030, electric cars would constitute 28 percent of the vehicle fleet. They would add about 10 percent to kilowatt hour sales by that date, assuming that battery efficiencies do not improved by then. Those added sales would require increased electric generation output, with low-emissions sources expected to cover almost all the growth globally. They would also raise long term growth rates for 2015-2030 from the present 0.3 percent to 1.0 percent. The slow upturn in demand should give the electric companies time to gear up so to speak.

In the meantime, weather will continue to play a big role in electricity consumption. Record heat-induced demand peaks are being set here in the US even as surging global demand puts power systems under strain worldwide.

Can we discern a pattern in weather conditions 15 years out? Maybe we can, but that is one topic we don’t expect a government agency to tackle in public right now. Meantime, weather will affect sales more than anything else and we cannot predict the weather. Or can we?

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

Alberta Energy-Only Electricity Market faces capacity market debate, AESO price cap review, and coal-to-gas shifts by TransAlta and Capital Power, balancing reliability with volatility as investment signals evolve across Alberta's grid.

Key Points

An energy market paying generators only for electricity sold, with AESO oversight and a price cap guiding new capacity.

✅ AESO reviewing $999 per MW-h wholesale price cap.

✅ UCP retained energy-only; capacity market plan cancelled.

✅ TransAlta and Capital Power shift to coal-to-gas.

The Kenney government’s decision to cancel the redesign of Alberta’s electricity system to a capacity market won’t side-track two of the province’s largest power generators from converting coal-fired facilities to burn natural gas as part of Alberta’s shift from coal to cleaner energy overall.

But other changes could be coming to the province’s existing energy-only electricity market — including the alteration of the $999 per megawatt-hour (MW-h) wholesale price cap in Alberta.

The heads of TransAlta Corp. and Capital Power Corp. are proceeding with strategies to convert existing coal-fired power generating facilities to use natural gas in the coming years.

Calgary-based TransAlta first announced in 2017 that it would make the switch, as the NDP government was in the midst of overhauling the electricity sector and wind generation began to outpace coal in the province.

At the time, the Notley government planned to phase out coal-fired power by 2030, even as Alberta moved to retire coal by 2023 in practice, and shift Alberta into an electricity capacity market in 2021.

Such a move, made on the recommendation of the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), was intended to reduce price volatility and ensure system reliability.

Under the energy-only market, generators receive payments for electricity produced and sold into the grid. In a capacity market, generators are also paid for having power available on demand, regardless of how often they sell energy into the provincial grid.

The UCP government decided last month to ditch plans for a capacity market after consulting with the sector, saying it would be better for consumers.

On a conference call, TransAlta CEO Dawn Farrell said the company will convert coal-fired generating plants to burn gas, although it may alter the mix between simple conversions and switching to so-called “hybrid” plants.

(A hybrid conversion is a larger and more-expensive switch, as it includes installing a new gas turbine and heat-recovery steam generator, but it creates a highly efficient combined cycle unit.)

“Our view is fundamentally that carbon will be priced over the next 20 years no matter what,” she said Friday.

“We cannot get off coal fast enough in this company, and gas right now in Alberta is extremely inexpensive…

“So our coal-to-gas strategy is completely predicated on our belief that it’s not smart to be in carbon-intensive fuels for the future.”

Elsewhere in Canada, the Stop the Shock campaign has advocated for reviving coal power, underscoring ongoing policy debates.

The company said it’s planning the coal-to-gas conversion and re-powering of some or all of the units at its Keephills and Sundance facilities to gas-fired generation sometime between 2020 and 2023.

Similarly, Capital Power CEO Brian Vaasjo said the Edmonton-based company is moving ahead with a project that will allow it to burn both coal and natural gas at its Genesee generating station, even as Ontario’s energy minister sought to explore a halt to natural gas generation elsewhere.

In June, the company announced it would spend an estimated $50 million between 2019 and 2021 to allow it to use gas at the facility.

“What we’re doing is going to be dual fuel, so we will be able to operate 100 per cent natural gas or 100 per cent coal and everything in between,” Vaasjo said in an interview.

“You can expect to see we will be burning coal in the winter when natural gas prices are high, and we will be burning natural gas in summer when gas prices are real low.”

The transition comes as the government’s decision to stick with the energy-only market has been welcomed by players in the industry, and as Alberta's electricity future increasingly leans on wind resources.

A study by electricity consultancy EDC Associates found the capacity market would result in consumers paying an extra $1.4 billion in direct costs in 2021-22, as it required more generation to come online earlier than expected.

These additional costs would have accumulated to $10 billion by 2030, said EDC chief executive Duane-Reid Carlson.

For Capital Power, the decision to stick with the current system makes the province more investable in the future. Vaasjo said there was great uncertainty about the transition to a capacity market, and the possibility of rules shifting further.

Officials with Enmax Corp. said the city-owned utility would not have invested in future generation under the proposed capacity market.

“There is no short-term need (today) for new generation, so we’re just looking at the market and saying, ‘OK, as it evolves, we will see what happens,’” said Enmax vice-president Tim Boston.

Sticking with the energy-only market doesn’t mean Alberta will keep the existing rules.

In a July 25 letter, Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage directed AESO chair Will Bridge to examine if changes to the existing market are needed and report back by July 2020.

AESO, which manages the power grid, has been asked to investigate whether the current price cap of $999 per megawatt-hour (MW-h) should be changed.

The price ceiling hasn’t been altered since the energy-only market was implemented by the Klein government about two decades ago.

While allowing prices to go higher would increase volatility, reflecting lessons from Europe’s power crisis about scarcity pricing, during periods of rising demand and limited supply, it would send a signal to generators when investment in new generation is required, said Kent Fellows, a research associate at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.

“Keeping the price (cap) too low could end up costing us more in the long run,” he said.

In a 2016 report, AESO said the province examined raising the price cap to $5,000 per MW-h, but “determined that it was unlikely to be successful in attracting investment due to increased price volatility.”

However, the amount of future generation that will be required in Alberta has been scaled back by the province.

In the United States, the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) allows wholesale power prices in the state to climb to a cap of $9,000 per megawatt hours as demand rises — as it did Tuesday in the midst of a heat wave, according to Bloomberg.

Jim Wachowich, legal counsel for the Consumers’ Coalition of Alberta, said while few players are exposed to spot electricity prices, he has yet to be convinced raising the cap would be good for Albertans.

“Someone has to show me the evidence, and I suspect that’s what the minister has asked the AESO to do,” he said.

Generators say they believe some tinkering is needed to the energy-only market to ensure new generation is built when it’s required.

“The No. 1 change that the government has to … think about is in pricing,” added Farrell.

“If you don’t have enough of a price signal in an energy-only market to attract new capital, you won’t get new capital — and you’ll run up against the wall.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Great British Energy could cut UK electricity costs via public ownership, investing in clean energy like wind, solar, tidal, and nuclear, curbing windfall profits, stabilizing bills, and reinvesting returns through a state-backed generator.

Key Points

A proposed state-backed UK generator investing in clean power to cut costs and return gains to taxpayers.

✅ Publicly owned investment in wind, solar, tidal, and nuclear

✅ Cuts electricity bills by reducing generators' windfall profits

✅ Funded via bonds or asset buyouts; non-profit operations

A publicly owned electricity generation firm could save Britons nearly £21bn a year, according to new analysis that bolsters Labour’s case to launch a national energy company if the party gains power.

Thinktank Common Wealth has calculated that the cost of generating electricity to power homes and businesses could be reduced by £20.8bn or £252 per household a year under state ownership, according to a report seen by the Guardian.

The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, has committed to creating “a publicly owned national champion in clean energy” named Great British Energy.

Starmer is yet to lay out the exact structure of the mooted company, although he has said it would not involve nationalising existing assets, or become involved in the transmission grid or retail supply of energy.

Starmer instead hopes to create a state-backed entity that would invest in clean energy – wind, solar, tidal, nuclear, large-scale storage and other emerging technologies – creating jobs and ensuring windfalls from the growth in low carbon power feed back to the government.

The Common Wealth report, which analysed scenarios for reforming the electricity market, said that a huge saving on electricity costs could be made by buying out assets such as wind, solar and biomass generators on older contracts and running them on a non-profit basis. Funding the measure could require a government bond issuance, or some form of compulsory purchase process.

Last year the government attempted to get companies operating low carbon generators, including nuclear power plants, on older contracts to switch to contracts for difference (CfD), allowing any outsized profits to flow back to taxpayers. However, the government later decided to tax eligible firms through the electricity generator levy instead.

The Common Wealth study concluded that a publicly owned low carbon energy generator would best deliver on Britain’s climate and economic goals, would eliminate windfall profits made by generators and would cut household bills significantly.

MPs and campaigners have argued that Britain’s energy companies should be nationalised since the energy crisis, even as coal-free records have multiplied and renewables still need more support, which has resulted in North Sea oil and gas producers and electricity generators making windfall profits, and a string of retail suppliers collapsing, costing taxpayers billions. Detractors of nationalisation in energy argue it can stifle innovation and expose taxpayers to huge financial risks.

Common Wealth pointed out that more than 40% of the UK’s offshore wind generation capacity was publicly owned by overseas national entities, meaning the benefits of high electricity prices linked to the war in Ukraine had flowed back to other governments.

The study found the publicly owned generator model would create more savings than other options, including a drive for voluntary CfDs; splitting the generation market between low carbon and fossil fuel sources at a time when wind and solar have outproduced nuclear, and a “single buyer model” with nationalised retail suppliers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News