New cracks found in Crystal River plant

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

✅ TransAlta cancels 300 MW Riplinger project

✅ Market redesign uncertainty chills renewables investment

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.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Germany Nuclear Phase-Out reflects a decisive energy policy shift, retiring reactors as firms shun new builds amid high costs, radioactive waste challenges, climate goals, insurance gaps, and debate over small modular reactors and subsidies.

Key Points

Germany's policy to end nuclear plants and block new builds, emphasizing safety, waste, climate goals, and viability.

✅ Driven by safety risks, waste storage limits, and insurance gaps

✅ High capital costs and subsidies make new reactors uneconomic

✅ Political debate persists; SMRs raise cost and proliferation concerns

A year has passed since Germany deactivated its last three nuclear power plants, marking a significant shift in its energy policy.

Nuclear fission once heralded as the future of energy in Germany during the 1960s, was initially embraced with minimal concern for the potential risks of nuclear accidents. As Heinz Smital from Greenpeace recalls, the early optimism was partly driven by national interest in nuclear weapon technology rather than energy companies' initiatives.

Jochen Flasbarth, State Secretary in the Ministry of Development, reflects on that era, noting Germany's strong, almost naive, belief in technology. Germany, particularly the Ruhr region, grappled with smog-filled skies at that time due to heavy industrialization and coal-fired power plants. Nuclear energy presented a "clean" alternative at the time.

This sentiment was also prevalent in East Germany, where the first commercial nuclear power plant came online in 1961. In total, 37 nuclear reactors were activated across Germany, reflecting a widespread confidence in nuclear technology.

However, the 1970s saw a shift in attitudes. Environmental activists protested the construction of new power plants, symbolizing a generational rift. The 1979 Three Mile Island incident in the US, followed by the catastrophic Chornobyl disaster in 1986, further eroded public trust in nuclear energy.

The Chornobyl accident, in particular, significantly dampened Germany's nuclear ambitions, according to Smital. Post-Chernobyl, plans for additional nuclear power plants in Germany, once numbering 60, drastically declined.

The emergence of the Green Party in 1980, rooted in anti-nuclear sentiment, and its subsequent rise to political prominence further influenced Germany's energy policy. The Greens, joining forces with the Social Democrats in 1998, initiated a move away from nuclear energy, facing opposition from the Christian Democrats (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU).

However, the Fukushima disaster in 2011 prompted a policy reversal from CDU and CSU under Chancellor Angela Merkel, leading to Germany's eventual nuclear phase-out in March 2023, after briefly extending nuclear power amid the energy crisis.

Recently, the CDU and CSU have revised their stance once more, signaling a potential U-turn on the nuclear phaseout, advocating for new nuclear reactors and the reactivation of the last shut-down plants, citing climate protection and rising fossil fuel costs. CDU leader Friedrich Merz has lamented the shutdown as a "black day for Germany." However, these suggestions have garnered little enthusiasm from German energy companies.

Steffi Lemke, the Federal Environment Minister, isn't surprised by the companies' reluctance, noting their longstanding opposition to nuclear power, which she argues would do little to solve the gas issue in Germany, due to its high-risk nature and the long-term challenge of radioactive waste management.

Globally, 412 reactors are operational across 32 countries, even as Europe is losing nuclear power during an energy crunch, with the total number remaining relatively stable over the years. While countries like China, France, and the UK plan new constructions, there's a growing interest in small, modern reactors, which Smital of Greenpeace views with skepticism, noting their potential military applications.

In Germany, the unresolved issue of nuclear waste storage looms large. With temporary storage facilities near power plants proving inadequate for long-term needs, the search for permanent sites faces resistance from local communities and poses financial and logistical challenges.

Environment Minister Lemke underscores the economic impracticality of nuclear energy in Germany, citing prohibitive costs and the necessity of substantial subsidies and insurance exemptions.

As things stand, the resurgence of nuclear power in Germany appears unlikely, with economic factors playing a decisive role in its future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Alberta Electricity Price Surge reflects soaring wholesale rates, natural gas spikes, carbon tax pressures, and grid decarbonization challenges amid cold-weather demand, constrained supply, and Europe-style energy crisis impacts across the province.

Key Points

An exceptional jump in Alberta's power costs driven by gas price spikes, high demand, policy costs, and tight supply.

✅ Wholesale prices averaged $123/MWh in December

✅ Gas costs surged; supply constraints and outages

✅ Carbon tax and decarbonization policies raised costs

Albertans just endured the highest electricity prices in 21 years. Wholesale prices averaged $123 per megawatt-hour in December, more than triple the level from the previous year and highest for December since 2000.

The situation in Alberta mirrors the energy crisis striking Europe where electricity prices are also surging, largely due to a shocking five-fold increase in natural gas prices in 2021 compared to the prior year.

The situation should give pause to Albertans when they consider aggressive plans to “decarbonize” the electric grid, including proposals for a fully renewable grid by 2030 from some policymakers.

The explanation for skyrocketing energy prices is simple: increased demand (because of Calgary's frigid February demand and a slowly-reviving post-pandemic economy) coupled with constrained supply.

In the nitty gritty details, there are always particular transitory causes, such as disputes with Russian gas companies (in the case of Europe) or plant outages (in the case of Alberta).

But beyond these fleeting factors, there are more permanent systemic constraints on natural gas (and even more so, coal-fired) power plants.

I refer of course to the climate change policies of the Trudeau government at the federal level and some of the more aggressive provincial governments, which have notable implications for electricity grids across Canada.

The most obvious example is the carbon tax, the repeal of which Premier Jason Kenney made a staple of his government.

Putting aside the constitutional issues (on which the Supreme Court ruled in March of last year that the federal government could impose a carbon tax on Alberta), the obvious economic impact will be to make carbon-sourced electricity more expensive.

This isn’t a bug or undesired side-effect, it’s the explicit purpose of a carbon tax.

Right now, the federal carbon tax is $40 per tonne, is scheduled to increase to $50 in April, and will ultimately max out at a whopping $170 per tonne in 2030.

Again, the conscious rationale of the tax, aligned with goals for cleaning up Canada's electricity, is to make coal, oil and natural gas more expensive to induce consumers and businesses to use alternative energy sources.

As Albertans experience sticker shock this winter, they should ask themselves — do we want the government intentionally making electricity and heating oil more expensive?

Of course, the proponent of a carbon tax (and other measures designed to shift Canadians away from carbon-based fuels) would respond that it’s a necessary measure in the fight against climate change, and that Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero according to the IEA.

Yet the reality is that Canada is a bit player on the world stage when it comes to carbon dioxide, responsible for only 1.5% of global emissions (as of 2018).

As reported at this “climate tracker” website, if we look at the actual policies put in place by governments around the world, they’re collectively on track for the Earth to warm 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, far above the official target codified in the Paris Agreement.

Canadians can’t do much to alter the global temperature, but federal and provincial governments can make energy more expensive if policymakers so choose, and large-scale electrification could be costly—the Canadian Gas Association warns of $1.4 trillion— if pursued rapidly.

As renewable technologies become more reliable and affordable, business and consumers will naturally adopt them; it didn’t take a “manure tax” to force people to use cars rather than horses.

As official policy continues to make electricity more expensive, Albertans should ask if this approach is really worth it, or whether options like bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap could better balance costs.

Robert P. Murphy is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

USAID GE Mobile Power Plant Ukraine supplies 28MW of emergency power and distributed generation to bolster energy security, grid resilience, and critical infrastructure reliability across cities and regions amid ongoing attacks.

Key Points

A 28MW GE gas turbine from USAID providing mobile, distributed power to strengthen Ukraine's grid resilience.

✅ 28MW GE gas turbine; power for 100,000 homes

✅ Mobile deployment to cities and regions as needed

✅ Supports hospitals, schools, and critical infrastructure

Deputy U.S. Administrator Isobel Coleman announced during her visit to Kyiv that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has provided the Government of Ukraine with a mobile gas turbine power plant purchased from General Electric (GE), as discussions of a possible agreement on power plant attacks continue among stakeholders.

The mobile power plant was manufactured in the United States by GE’s Gas Power business and has a total output capacity of approximately 28MW, which is enough to provide the equivalent electricity to at least 100,000 homes. This will help Ukraine increase the supply of electricity to homes, hospitals, schools, critical infrastructure providers, and other institutions, as the country has even resumed electricity exports in recent months. The mobile power plant can be operated in different cities or regions depending on need, strengthening Ukraine’s energy security amid the Russian Federation’s continuing strikes against critical infrastructure.   

Since the February 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and particularly since October 2022, the Russian Federation has deliberately targeted critical civilian heating, power, and gas infrastructure in an effort to weaponize the winter, raising nuclear risks to grid stability noted by international monitors. Ukraine has demonstrated tremendous resilience in the wake of these attacks, with utility workers routinely risking their lives to repair the damage, often within hours of air strikes, even as Russia builds power lines to reactivate the Zaporizhzhia plant to influence the energy situation.

The collaboration between USAID and GE reflects the U.S. government’s emphasis on engaging American private sector expertise and procuring proven and reliable equipment to meet Ukraine’s needs. Since the start of Putin’s full-scale war against Ukraine, USAID has both directly procured equipment for Ukraine from American companies and engaged the private sector in partnerships to meet Ukraine’s urgent wartime needs, with U.S. policy debates such as a proposal on Ukraine’s nuclear plants drawing scrutiny.

This mobile power plant is the latest example of USAID assistance to Ukraine’s energy sector since the start of the Russian Federation’s full-scale invasion, during which Ukraine has resumed electricity exports as conditions improved. USAID has already delivered more than 1,700 generators to 22 oblasts across Ukraine, with many more on the way. These generators ensure electricity and heating for schools, hospitals, accommodation centers for internally-displaced persons, district heating companies, and water systems if and when power is knocked out by the Russian Federation’s relentless, systematic and cruel attacks against critical civil infrastructure. USAID has invested $55 million in Ukraine’s heating infrastructure to help the Ukrainian people get through winter. This support will benefit up to seven million Ukrainians by supporting repairs and maintenance of pipes and other equipment necessary to deliver heating to homes, hospitals, schools, and businesses across Ukraine. USAID’s assistance builds on over two decades of support to Ukraine to strengthen the country’s energy security, complementing growth in wind power that is harder to destroy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Electric Ireland Electricity Price Increase stems from rising wholesale costs as energy suppliers adjust tariffs. Customers face higher electricity bills, while gas remains unchanged; switching provider could deliver savings during winter.

Key Points

A 4% increase in Electric Ireland electricity prices from 1 Feb 2018, driven by wholesale costs; gas unchanged.

✅ 4% electricity rise effective 1 Feb 2018

✅ Increase attributed to rising wholesale energy costs

✅ Switching supplier may reduce bills and boost savings

ELECTRIC IRELAND has announced that it will increase its household electricity prices by 4% from 1 February 2018.

This comes just a week after both Bord Gáis Energy and SSE Airtricity announced increases in their gas and electricity prices, while national efforts to secure electricity supplies continue in parallel.

Electric Ireland has said that the electricity price increase is unavoidable due to the rising wholesale cost of electricity, with EU electricity prices trending higher as well.

The electricity provider said it has no plans to increase residential gas prices at the moment.

Commenting on the latest announcement, Eoin Clarke, managing director of Switcher.ie, said: “This is the third largest energy supplier to announce a price increase in the last week, so the other suppliers are probably not far behind.

“The fact that the rise is not coming into effect until 1 February will be welcomed by Electric Ireland customers who are worried about the rising cost of energy as winter sets in,” he said.

However, any increase is still bad news, especially as a quarter of consumers (27%) say their energy bill already puts them under financial pressure, and EU energy inflation has disproportionately affected lower-income households.

According to Electric Ireland, this will amount to a €2.91 per month increase for an average electricity customer, amounting to €35 per year.

Meanwhile, SSE Airtricity’s change amounts to an increase of 90 cent per week or €46.80 per year for someone with average consumption on their 24hr SmartSaver standard tariff, far below the dramatic Spain electricity price surge seen recently.

Bord Gáis Energy said its announcement will increase a typical gas bill by €2.12 a month and a typical electricity bill by €4.77 a month, reflecting wider trends such as the Germany power price spike reported recently.

In a statement, Bord Gáis Energy said: “The changes, which will take effect from 1st November 2017, are due to significant increases in the wholesale cost of energy as well as higher costs associated with distributing energy on the gas and electricity networks.

“In percentage terms, the increase represents 3.4% in a typical customer’s gas bill and an increase of 5.9% in a typical customer’s electricity bill.”

Clark said that if customers haven’t switched electricity provider in over a year that they should review the deals available at the moment.

“The market is highly competitive so there are huge savings to be made by switching,” he said.

“All suppliers use the same cables to supply electricity to your home, so you don’t need to worry about any loss in service, and you could save up to 324 by switching from typical standard tariffs to the cheapest deals on the market.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ukraine Nuclear Plant Ownership Proposal outlines U.S. management of Ukrainian reactors amid the Russia-Ukraine war, citing nuclear safety, energy security, and IAEA oversight; Kyiv rejects ownership transfer, especially regarding Zaporizhzhia under Russian control.

Key Points

U.S. control of Ukraine's nuclear plants for safety; Kyiv rejects transfer, citing sovereignty risks at Zaporizhzhia.

✅ U.S. proposal to manage Ukraine's reactors amid war

✅ Kyiv refuses ownership transfer; open to investment

✅ Zaporizhzhia under Russian control raises safety risks

In the midst of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed a controversial idea: Ukraine should give its nuclear power plants to the United States for safekeeping and management. This suggestion came during a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, wherein Trump expressed the belief that American ownership of these nuclear plants could offer them the best protection amid the ongoing war. But Kyiv, while open to foreign support, has firmly rejected the idea of transferring ownership, especially as the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant remains under Russian occupation.

Ukraine’s nuclear energy infrastructure has always been a vital component of its power generation. Before the war, the country’s four nuclear plants supplied nearly half of its electricity. As Russia's military forces target Ukraine's energy infrastructure, including power plants and coal mines, international watchdogs like the IAEA have warned of nuclear risks as these nuclear facilities have become crucial to maintaining the nation’s energy stability. The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, has attracted international concern due to its size and the ongoing threat of a potential nuclear disaster.

Trump’s Proposal and Ukraine’s Response

Trump’s proposal of U.S. ownership came as a response to the ongoing threats posed by Russia’s occupation of the Zaporizhzhia plant. Trump argued that the U.S., with its expertise in running nuclear power plants, could safeguard these facilities from further damage and potential nuclear accidents. However, Zelenskyy quickly clarified that the discussion was only focused on the Zaporizhzhia plant, which is currently under Russian control. The Ukrainian president emphasized that Kyiv would not entertain the idea of permanently transferring ownership of its nuclear plants, even though they would welcome investment in their restoration and modernization, particularly after the war.

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant has been a focal point of geopolitical tensions since Russia's occupation in 2022. Despite being in "cold shutdown" to prevent further risk of explosions, the facility remains a major concern due to its potential to cause a nuclear disaster. Ukrainian officials, along with international observers, have raised alarm about the safety risks posed by the plant, including mines at Zaporizhzhia reported by UN watchdogs, which is situated in a war zone and under the control of Russian forces who are reportedly neglecting proper safety protocols.

The Fear of a Nuclear Provocation

Ukrainians have expressed concerns that Trump’s proposal could embolden Russia to escalate tensions further, even as a potential agreement on power-plant attacks has been discussed by some parties. Some fear that any attempt to reclaim the plant by Ukraine could trigger a Russian provocation, including a deliberate attack on the plant, which would have catastrophic consequences for both Ukraine and the broader region. The analogy is drawn with the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam, which Ukraine accuses Russia of sabotaging, an act that severely disrupted water supplies to the Zaporizhzhia plant. Ukrainian military officials, including Ihor Romanenko, a former deputy head of Ukraine’s armed forces, warned that Trump’s suggestion might be an exploitation of Ukraine’s vulnerable position in the ongoing war.

Despite these fears, there are some voices within Ukraine, including former employees of the Zaporizhzhia plant, who believe that a deliberate attack by Russian forces is unlikely. They argue that the Russian military needs the plant in functioning condition for future negotiations, with Russia building new power lines to reactivate the site as part of that calculus, and any damage could reduce its value in such exchanges. However, the possibility of Russian negligence or mismanagement remains a significant risk.

The Strategic Role of Ukraine's Nuclear Plants

Ukraine's nuclear plants were a cornerstone of the country’s energy sector long before the conflict began. In recent years, as Ukraine lost access to coal resources in the Donbas region due to Russian occupation, nuclear power became even more vital, alongside a growing focus on wind power to improve resilience. The country’s reliance on these plants grew as Russia launched a sustained campaign to destroy Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, including attacks on nuclear power stations.

The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, holds strategic importance not only due to its size but also because of its location in southeastern Ukraine, an area that has been at the heart of the conflict. Despite being in Russian hands, the plant’s reactors have been safely shut down, reducing the immediate risk of a nuclear explosion. However, the plant’s future remains uncertain, as Russia’s long-term control over it could disrupt Ukraine’s energy security for years to come.

Wider Concerns About Aging Nuclear Infrastructure

Beyond the geopolitical tensions, there are broader concerns about the aging infrastructure of Ukraine's nuclear power plants. International watchdogs, including the environmentalist group Bankwatch, have criticized these facilities as “zombie reactors” due to their outdated designs and safety risks. Experts have called for Ukraine to decommission some of these reactors, fearing that they are increasingly unsafe, especially in the context of a war.

However, Ukrainian officials, including Petro Kotin, head of Energoatom (Ukraine's state-owned nuclear energy company), argue that these reactors are still functional and critical to Ukraine's energy needs. The ongoing conflict, however, complicates efforts to modernize and secure these facilities, which are increasingly vulnerable to both physical damage and potential nuclear hazards.

The Global Implications

Trump's suggestion to take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants has raised significant concerns on the international stage. Some fear that such a move could set a dangerous precedent for nuclear security and sovereignty. Others see it as an opportunistic proposal that exploits Ukraine's wartime vulnerability.

While the future of Ukraine's nuclear plants remains uncertain, one thing is clear: these facilities are now at the center of a geopolitical struggle that could have far-reaching consequences for the energy security of Europe and the world. The safety of these plants and their role in Ukraine's energy future will remain a critical issue as the war continues and as Ukraine navigates its relations with both the U.S. and Russia, with the grid even having resumed electricity exports at times.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News