Turbines spinning power, problems

Global Energy Electrification drives IEA targets as smart grids, storage, EVs, and demand-side management scale. Paris Agreement-aligned policies and innovation accelerate decarbonization, enabling flexible, low-carbon power systems and net-zero pathways by 2060.

Key Points

A shift to electricity across sectors via smart grids, storage, EVs, and policy to cut CO2 and improve energy security.

✅ Smart grids, storage, DSM enable flexible, resilient power.

✅ Aligns with IEA pathways and Paris Agreement goals.

✅ Drives EV adoption, building efficiency, and net-zero by 2060.

The global energy system is changing, with European electricity market trends highlighting rapid shifts. More people are connecting to the grid as living standards improve around the world. Demand for consumer appliances and electronic devices is rising. New and innovative transportation technologies, such as electric vehicles and autonomous cars are also boosting power demand.

The International Energy Agency's latest report on energy technologies outlines how these and other trends as well as technological advances play out in the next four decades to reshape the global energy sector.

Energy Technology Perspectives 2017 (ETP) highlights that decisive policy actions and market signals will be needed to drive technological development and benefit from higher electrification around the world. Investments in stronger and smarter infrastructure, including transmission capacity, storage capacity and demand side management technologies such as demand response programs are necessary to build efficient, low-carbon, integrated, flexible and robust energy system. 

Still, current government policies are not sufficient to achieve long-term global climate goals, according to the IEA analysis, and warnings about falling global energy investment suggest potential supply risks as well. Only 3 out of 26 assessed technologies remain “on track” to meet climate objectives, according to the ETP’s Tracking Clean Energy Progress report. Where policies have provided clean signals, progress has been substantial. However, many technology areas suffer from inadequate policy support. 

"As costs decline, we will need a sustained focus on all energy technologies to reach long-term climate targets," said IEA Executive Director Dr Fatih Birol. "Some are progressing, but too few are on track, and this puts pressure on others. It is important to remember that speeding the rate of technological progress can help strengthen economies, boost energy security while also improving energy sustainability."

ETP 2017’s base case scenario, known as the Reference Technology Scenario (RTS), takes into account existing energy and climate commitments, including those made under the Paris Agreement. Another scenario, called 2DS, shows a pathway to limit the rise of global temperature to 2ºC, and finds the global power sector could reach net-zero CO2 emissions by 2060.

A second decarbonisation scenario explores how much available technologies and those in the innovation pipeline could be pushed to put the energy sector on a trajectory beyond 2DS. It shows how the energy sector could become carbon neutral by 2060 if known technology innovations were pushed to the limit. But to do so would require an unprecedented level of policy action and effort from all stakeholders.

Looking at specific sectors, ETP 2017 finds that buildings could play a major role in supporting the energy system transformation. High-efficiency lighting, cooling and appliances could save nearly three-quarters of today’s global electricity demand between now and 2030 if deployed quickly. Doing so would allow a greater electrification of the energy system that would not add burdens on the system. In the transportation system, electrification also emerges as a major low-carbon pathway, with clean grids and batteries becoming key areas to watch in deployment.

The report finds that regardless of the pathway chosen, policies to support energy technology innovation at all stages, from research to full deployment, alongside evolving utility trends that operators need to watch, will be critical to reap energy security, environmental and economic benefits of energy system transformations. It also suggests that the most important challenge for energy policy makers will be to move away from a siloed perspective towards one that enables systems integration.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

COP24 Climate Talks in Poland gather nearly 200 nations to finalize the Paris Agreement rulebook, advance the Talanoa Dialogue, strengthen emissions reporting and transparency, and align finance, technology transfer, and IPCC science for urgent mitigation.

Key Points

UNFCCC summit in Katowice to finalize Paris rules, enhance transparency, and drive stronger emissions cuts.

✅ Paris rulebook on reporting, transparency, markets, and timelines

✅ Talanoa Dialogue to assess gaps and raise ambition by 2020

✅ Finance and tech transfer for developing countries under UNFCCC

Delegates from nearly 200 countries have assembled this month in Katowice, Poland — the heart of coal country — to try to move the ball forward on battling climate change.

It’s now the 24th annual meeting, or “COP” — conference of the parties — under the landmark U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which the United States signed under then-President George H.W. Bush in 1992. More significantly, it’s the third such meeting since nations adopted the Paris climate agreement in 2015, widely seen at the time as a landmark moment in which, at last, developed and developing countries would share a path toward cutting greenhouse gas emissions, as Obama's clean energy push sought to lock in momentum.

But the surge of optimism that came with Paris has faded lately. The United States, the second largest greenhouse gas emitter, said it would withdraw from the agreement, though it has not formally done so yet. Many other countries are off target when it comes to meeting their initial round of Paris promises — promises that are widely acknowledged to be too weak to begin with. And emissions have begun to rise after a brief hiatus that had lent some hope of progress.

The latest science, meanwhile, is pointing toward increasingly dire outcomes. The amount of global warming that the world already has seen — 1 degree Celsius, 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit — has upended the Arctic, is killing coral reefs and may have begun to destabilize a massive part of Antarctica. A new report from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), requested by the countries that assembled in Paris to be timed for this year’s meeting, finds a variety of increasingly severe effects as soon as a rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius arrives — an outcome that can’t be avoided without emissions cuts so steep that they would require societal transformations without any known historical parallel, the panel found.

It’s in this context that countries are meeting in Poland, with expectations and stakes high.

So what’s on the agenda in Poland?

The answer starts with the Paris agreement, which was negotiated three years ago, has been signed by 197 countries and is a mere 27 pages long. It covers a lot, laying out a huge new regime not only for the world as a whole to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, but for each individual country to regularly make new emissions-cutting pledges, strengthen them over time, report emissions to the rest of the world and much more. It also addresses financial obligations that developed countries have to developing countries, including how to achieve clean and universal electricity at scale, and how technologies will be transferred to help that.

But those 27 pages leave open to interpretation many fine points for how it will all work. So in Poland, countries are performing a detailed annotation of the Paris agreement, drafting a “rule book” that will span hundreds of pages.

That may sound bureaucratic, but it’s key to addressing many of the flash points. For instance, it will be hard for countries to trust that their fellow nations are cutting emissions without clear standards for reporting and vetting. Not everybody is ready to accept a process like the one followed in the United States, which not only publishes its emissions totals but also has an independent review of the findings.

“A number of the developing countries are resisting that kind of model for themselves. They see it as an intrusion on their sovereignty,” said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists and one of the many participants in Poland this week. “That’s going to be a pretty tough issue at the end of the day.”

It’s hardly the only one. Also unclear is what countries will do after the time frames on their current emissions-cutting promises are up, which for many is 2025 or 2030. Will all countries then start reporting newer and more ambitious promises every five years? Every 10 years?

That really matters when five years of greenhouse gas emissions — currently about 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually — are capable of directly affecting the planet’s temperature.

What can we expect each day?

The conference is in its second week, when higher-level players — basically, the equivalent of cabinet-level leaders in the United States — are in Katowice to advance the negotiations.

As this happens, several big events are on the agenda. On Tuesday and Wednesday is the “Talanoa Dialogue,” which will bring together world leaders in a series of group meetings to discuss these key questions: “Where are we? Where do we want to go? How do we get there?”

Friday is the last day of the conference, but pros know these events tend to run long. On Friday — or after — we will be waiting for an overall statement or decision from the meeting which may signal how much has been achieved.

What is the “Talanoa Dialogue”?

“Talanoa” is a word used in Fiji and in many other Pacific islands to refer to “the sharing of ideas, skills and experience through storytelling.” This is the process that organizers settled on to fulfill a plan formed in Paris in 2015.

That year, along with signing the Paris agreement, nations released a decision that in 2018 there should be a “facilitative dialogue" among the countries “to take stock” of where their efforts stood to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This was important because going into that Paris meeting, it was already clear that countries' promises were not strong enough to hold global warming below a rise of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures.

This dialogue, in the Talanoa process, was meant to prompt reflection and maybe even soul searching about what more would have to be done. Throughout the year, “inputs” to the Talanoa dialogue — most prominently, the recent report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the meaning and consequences of 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming —have been compiled and synthesized. Now, over two days in Poland, countries' ministers will assemble to share stories in small groups about what is working and what is not and to assess where the world as a whole is on achieving the required greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

What remains to be seen is whether this process will culminate in any kind of product or statement that calls clearly for immediate, strong ramping up of climate change promises across the world.

With the clock ticking, will countries do anything to increase their ambition at this meeting?

If negotiating the Paris rule book sounds disappointingly technical, well, you’re not the only one feeling that way. Pressure is mounting for countries to accomplish something more than that in Poland — to at minimum give a strong signal that they understand that the science is looking worse and worse, and the world’s progress on the global energy transition isn’t matching that outlook.

“The bigger issue is how we’re going to get to an outcome on greater ambition,” said Lou Leonard, senior vice president for climate and energy at the World Wildlife Fund, who is in Poland observing the talks. “And I think the first week was not kind on moving that part of the agenda forward.”

Most countries are not likely to make new emissions-cutting promises this week. But there are two ways that the meeting could give a strong statement that countries should — or will — come up with new promises at least by 2020. That’s when extremely dramatic emissions cuts would have to start, including progress toward net-zero electricity by mid-century, according to the recent report on 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming.

The first is the aforementioned “Talanoa dialogue” (see above). It’s possible that the outcome of the dialogue could be a statement acknowledging that the world isn’t nearly far enough along and calling for much stronger steps.

There will also be a decision text released for the meeting as a whole, which could potentially send a signal. Leonard said he hopes that would include details for the next steps that will put the world on a better course.

“We have to create milestones, and the politics around it that will pressure countries to do something that quite frankly they don’t want to do,” he said. “It’s not going to be easy. That’s why we need a process that will help make it happen. And make the most of the IPCC report that was designed to come out right now so it could do this for us. That’s why we have it, and it needs to serve that role.”

The United States says it will withdraw from the agreement, so what role is it playing in Poland?

Despite President Trump’s pledge to withdraw, the United States remains in the Paris agreement (for now) and has sent a delegation of 44 people to Poland, largely from the State Department but also from the Environmental Protection Agency, Energy Department and even the White House, while domestically a historic U.S. climate law has recently passed to accelerate clean energy. Many of these career government officials remain deeply engaged in hashing out details of the agreement.

Still, the country as a whole is being cast in an antagonistic role in the talks.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

U.S. Offshore Wind Capacity is set to exceed 1 GW by 2024, driven by BOEM approvals, federal leases, and resilient supply chains, with eastern states scaling renewable energy, turbines, and content despite COVID-19 disruptions.

Key Points

Projected gigawatt-scale offshore wind growth enabled by BOEM approvals, federal leases, and East Coast state demand.

✅ 17+ GW leased; only 1,870 MW in announced first phases.

✅ BOEM approvals are critical to reach >1 GW by 2024.

✅ Local supply chains mitigate COVID-19 impacts and lower costs.

Offshore wind in the U.S. will exceed 1 GW of capacity by 2024 and add more than 1 GW annually by 2027, a trajectory consistent with U.S. offshore wind power trends, according to a report released last week by Navigant Research.

The report calculated over 17 GW of offshore state and federal leases for wind production, reflecting forecasts that $1 trillion offshore wind market growth is possible. However, the owners of those leases have only announced first phase plans for 1,870 MW of capacity, leaving much of the projects in early stages with significant room to grow, according to senior research analyst Jesse Broehl.

The Business Network for Offshore Wind (BNOW) believes it is possible to hit 1 GW by 2023-24, according to CEO Liz Burdock. While the economy has taken a hit from the coronavirus pandemic, she said the offshore wind industry can continue growing as "the supply chain from Asia and Europe regains speed this summer, and the administration starts clearing" plans of construction.

BNOW is concerned with the economic hardship imposed on secondary and tertiary U.S. suppliers due to the global spread of COVID-19.

Offshore wind has been touted by many eastern states and governors as an opportunity to create jobs, with U.S. wind employment expected to expand, according to industry forecasts. Analysts see the growing momentum of projects as a way to further lower costs by creating a local supply chain, which could be jeopardized by a long-term shutdown and recession.

"The federal government must act now — today, not in December — and approve project construction and operation plans," a recent BNOW report said. Approving any of the seven projects before BOEM, which has recently received new lease requests, currently would allow small businesses to get to work "following the containment of the coronavirus," but approval of the projects next year "may be too late to keep them solvent."

The prospects for maintaining momentum in the industry falls largely to the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). The industry cannot hit the 1 GW milestone without project approvals by BOEM, which is revising processes to analyze federal permit applications in the context of "greater build out of offshore wind capacity," according to its website.

"It is heavily dependent on the project approval success," Burdock told Utility Dive.

Currently, seven projects are awaiting determinations from BOEM on their construction operation plans in Massachusetts, New York, where a major offshore wind farm was recently approved, New Jersey and Maryland, with more to be added soon, a BNOW spokesperson told Utility Dive.

To date, only one project has received BOEM approval for development in federal waters, a 12 MW pilot by Dominion Energy and Ørsted in Virginia. The two-turbine project is a stepping stone to a commercial-scale 2.6 GW project the companies say could begin installation as soon as 2024, and gave the developers experience with the permitting process.

In the U.S., developers have the capacity to develop 16.9 GW of offshore wind in federal U.S. lease areas, even as wind power's share of the electricity mix surges nationwide, Broehl told Utility Dive, but much of that is in early stages. The Navigant report did not address any impacts of coronavirus on offshore wind, he said.

Although Massachusetts has legislation in place to require utilities to purchase 1.6 GW of wind power by 2026, and several other projects are in early development stages, Navigant expects the first large offshore wind projects in the U.S. (exceeding 200 MW) will come online in 2022 or later, and the first projects with 400 MW or more capacity are likely to be built by 2024-2025, and lessons from the U.K.'s experience could help accelerate timelines. The U.S. would add about 1.2 GW in 2027, Broehl said.

The federal leasing activities along with the involvement from Eastern states and utilities "virtually guarantees that a large offshore wind market is going to take off in the U.S.," Broehl said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Pumped Storage Hydroelectricity balances renewable energy, stabilizes the grid, and provides large-scale energy storage using reservoirs and reversible turbines, delivering flexible peak power, frequency control, and rapid response to variable wind and solar generation.

Key Points

A reversible hydro system that stores energy by pumping water uphill, then generates flexible peak power.

✅ Balances variable wind and solar with rapid ramping

✅ Stores off-peak electricity in upper reservoirs

✅ Enhances grid stability, frequency control, and reserves

The expense of hydroelectricity is moderately low, making it a serious wellspring of sustainable power. The hydro station burns-through no water, dissimilar to coal or gas plants. The commonplace expense of power from a hydro station bigger than 10 megawatts is 3 to 5 US pennies for every kilowatt hour, and Niagara Falls powerhouse upgrade projects show how modernization can further improve efficiency and reliability. With a dam and supply it is likewise an adaptable wellspring of power, since the sum delivered by the station can be shifted up or down quickly (as meager as a couple of moments) to adjust to changing energy requests.

When a hydroelectric complex is developed, the task creates no immediate waste, and it for the most part has an extensively lower yield level of ozone harming substances than photovoltaic force plants and positively petroleum product fueled energy plants, with calls to invest in hydropower highlighting these benefits. In open-circle frameworks, unadulterated pumped storage plants store water in an upper repository with no normal inflows, while pump back plants use a blend of pumped storage and regular hydroelectric plants with an upper supply that is renewed to a limited extent by common inflows from a stream or waterway.

Plants that don't utilize pumped capacity are alluded to as ordinary hydroelectric plants, and initiatives focused on repowering existing dams continue to expand clean generation; regular hydroelectric plants that have critical capacity limit might have the option to assume a comparable function in the electrical lattice as pumped capacity by conceding yield until required.

The main use for pumped capacity has customarily been to adjust baseload powerplants, however may likewise be utilized to decrease the fluctuating yield of discontinuous fuel sources, while emerging gravity energy storage concepts broaden long-duration options. Pumped capacity gives a heap now and again of high power yield and low power interest, empowering extra framework top limit.

In specific wards, power costs might be near zero or once in a while negative on events that there is more electrical age accessible than there is load accessible to retain it; despite the fact that at present this is infrequently because of wind or sunlight based force alone, expanded breeze and sun oriented age will improve the probability of such events.

All things considered, pumped capacity will turn out to be particularly significant as an equilibrium for exceptionally huge scope photovoltaic age. Increased long-distance bandwidth, including hydropower imports from Canada, joined with huge measures of energy stockpiling will be a critical piece of directing any enormous scope sending of irregular inexhaustible force sources. The high non-firm inexhaustible power entrance in certain districts supplies 40% of yearly yield, however 60% might be reached before extra capaciy is fundamental.

Pumped capacity plants can work with seawater, despite the fact that there are extra difficulties contrasted with utilizing new water. Initiated in 1966, the 240 MW Rance flowing force station in France can incompletely function as a pumped storage station. At the point when elevated tides happen at off-top hours, the turbines can be utilized to pump more seawater into the repository than the elevated tide would have normally gotten. It is the main enormous scope power plant of its sort.

Alongside energy mechanism, pumped capacity frameworks help control electrical organization recurrence and give save age. Warm plants are substantially less ready to react to abrupt changes in electrical interest, and can see higher thermal PLF during periods of reduced hydro generation, conceivably causing recurrence and voltage precariousness.

Pumped storage plants, as other hydroelectric plants, including new BC generating stations, can react to stack changes in practically no time. Pumped capacity hydroelectricity permits energy from discontinuous sources, (for example, sunlight based, wind) and different renewables, or abundance power from consistent base-load sources, (for example, coal or atomic) to be put something aside for times of more popularity.

The repositories utilized with siphoned capacity are tiny when contrasted with ordinary hydroelectric dams of comparable force limit, and creating periods are regularly not exactly a large portion of a day. This technique produces power to gracefully high top requests by moving water between repositories at various heights.

Now and again of low electrical interest, the abundance age limit is utilized to pump water into the higher store. At the point when the interest gets more noteworthy, water is delivered once more into the lower repository through a turbine. Pumped capacity plans at present give the most monetarily significant methods for enormous scope matrix energy stockpiling and improve the every day limit factor of the age framework. Pumped capacity isn't a fuel source, and shows up as a negative number in postings.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Russian Utility Grid Cyberattacks reveal DHS findings on Dragonfly/Energetic Bear breaching control rooms and ICS/SCADA via vendor supply-chain spear-phishing, threatening blackouts and critical infrastructure across U.S. power utilities through stolen credentials and reconnaissance.

Key Points

State-backed ops breaching utilities via vendors to reach ICS/SCADA, risking grid disruption and control-room access.

✅ Spear-phishing and watering-hole attacks on vendor networks

✅ Stolen credentials used to reach isolated ICS/SCADA

✅ Potential to trigger localized blackouts and service disruptions

Hackers working for Russia were able to gain access to the control rooms of US electric utilities last year, allowing them to cause blackouts, federal officials tell the Wall Street Journal.

The hackers -- working for a state-sponsored group previously identified as Dragonfly or Energetic Bear -- broke into utilities' isolated networks by hacking networks belonging to third-party vendors that had relationships with the power companies, the Department of Homeland Security said in a press briefing on Monday.

Officials said the campaign had claimed hundreds of victims and is likely continuing, the Journal reported.

"They got to the point where they could have thrown switches" to disrupt the flow power, Jonathan Homer, chief of industrial-control-system analysis for DHS, told the Journal.

"While hundreds of energy and non-energy companies were targeted, the incident where they gained access to the industrial control system was a very small generation asset that would not have had any impact on the larger grid if taken offline," the DHS said in a statement Tuesday. "Over the course of the past year as we continued to investigate the activity, we learned additional information which would be helpful to industry in defending against this threat."

Organizations running the nation's energy, nuclear and other critical infrastructure have become frequent targets for cyberattacks in recent years due to their ability to cause immediate chaos, whether it's starting a blackout or blocking traffic signals. These systems are often vulnerable because of antiquated software and the high costs of upgrading infrastructure.

The report comes amid heightened tension between Russia and the US over cybersecurity, alongside US condemnation of power grid hacking in recent months. Earlier this month, US special counsel Robert Mueller filed charges against 12 Russian hackers tied to cyberattacks on the Democratic National Committee.

Hackers compromised US power utility companies' corporate networks with conventional approaches, such as spear-phishing emails and watering-hole attacks as seen in breaches at power plants across the US that target a specific group of users by infecting websites they're known to visit, the newspaper reported. After gaining access to vendor networks, hackers turned their attention to stealing credentials for access to the utility networks and familiarizing themselves with facility operations, officials said, according to the Journal.

Homeland Security didn't identify the victims, the newspaper reports, adding that some companies may not know they had been compromised because the attacks used legitimate credentials to gain access to the networks.

Cyberattacks on electrical systems aren't an academic matter. In 2016, Ukraine's grid was disrupted by cyberattacks attributed to Russia, which is engaged in territorial disputes with the country over eastern Ukraine and the Crimean peninsula. Russia has denied any involvement in targeting critical infrastructure.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order in May designed to bolster the United States' cybersecurity by protecting federal networks, critical infrastructure and the public online. One section of the order focuses on protecting the grid like electricity and water, as well as financial, health care and telecommunications systems.

The Department of Homeland Security didn't respond to a request for comment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News