Duke to invest 100 million in solar

Texas Deep Freeze Energy Crisis strains grids as polar vortex triggers rolling blackouts, record natural gas and electricity prices, refinery shutdowns, WTI gains, and scarcity pricing across Texas, Oklahoma, SPP, and Mexico.

Key Points

A polar vortex slamming Texas energy: outages, record power prices, gas spikes, and reduced oil output.

✅ Record gas trades near $500/mmBtu; power hits $6,000/MWh

✅ WTI tops $60 as Texas shuts in ~1 million bpd

✅ Rolling blackouts across SPP; ERCOT scarcity pricing

A deep freeze is roiling electricity markets in more than a dozen U.S. states, leading to record-setting prices for electricity and natural gas, knocking oil production off line and shutting down some of North America’s largest refineries.

“It’s freakishly cold,” said Eric Fell, a senior natural gas analyst with Wood Mackenzie in Houston, where record cold temperatures and snow have blanketed the city, caused rolling power outages, shut down refineries and sent both natural gas and electricity prices soaring.

'It’s freakishly cold': Deep freeze slams North American energy sector

The polar vortex has led to freezing temperatures in every county in Texas, the largest energy-producing state in the U.S., and caused massive disruptions across the North American energy complex, triggering Texas power outages as far south as Mexico.

As the plunge in temperatures forced oil companies to shut in an estimated one million barrels of oil production in Texas on Monday, the West Texas Intermediate benchmark price rose above the US$60 per barrel threshold for the first time in a year to settle up 1 per cent, or US65 cents, at US$60.12 per barrel.

President Joe Biden declared an emergency on Monday, unlocking federal assistance to Texas.

People carry groceries from a local gas station on Monday in Austin, Texas. Winter storm Uri has brought historic cold weather to Texas, causing traffic delays and power outages. 

Frozen wind farms are just a small piece of Texas’s power grid woes right now.

Fell said regional natural gas and electricity prices in Oklahoma and Texas broke U.S. records over the weekend.

On Friday, Oklahoma gas transmission prices averaged US$350 per million British thermal units and Fell said one trade went as high as US$600 per mmBtu. In parts of the Texas panhandle and elsewhere, prices jumped to US$200, “all of which individually would have been new records,” Fell said, noting the previous record was US$160.

On Monday, natural gas for physical delivery in the U.S. was trading for as much as US$500 per mmBtu as demand for the heating and power plant fuel soared.  Spot gas has been trading for hundreds of dollars across the central U.S. since Thursday with a surge in heating demand triggering widespread blackouts and sending electricity prices soaring. The fuel normally trades in the region for less than US$3 per mmBtu.

Similarly, electricity prices in Texas surged to US$6,000 per megawatt hour on Monday, as U.S. power companies grapple with supply-chain constraints, which Fell said is “100 times the normal price.”

“You’re seeing scarcity pricing in power and gas. The only thing that’s different this time is it’s staying there – it’s not just an hour or two hours, it’s the whole day,” he said.

The blast of Arctic cold, which has blanketed Canada and much of the U.S., has created a massive draw on natural gas supplies, used both for home heating and industrial uses like electricity generation.

Little Rock, Ark.-based Southwest Power Pool, which coordinates electricity distribution for parts of 14 states including Oklahoma Kansas, Nebraska and even as far north as North Dakota, announced rolling blackouts across its network on Monday as a result of the power outages.

“In our history as a grid operator, this is an unprecedented event and marks the first time SPP has ever had to call for controlled interruptions of service” SPP’s executive vice-president and chief operating officer Lanny Nickell said in a release, adding the move was “a last resort” to “prevent circumstances from getting worse.”

The frigid conditions have led to a surge in natural gas prices across the continent, including in Alberta where the AECO benchmark price jumped to a seven-year high of $6.36 per thousand cubic feet last week, a price not seen since 2014.

Energy systems in Texas and Oklahoma, which are major energy exporters to other U.S. states, are built to withstand severe heat – not extreme cold. The result is a disruption to the gas supply at exactly the time the U.S. energy system is demanding those molecules.

“Given how far south it’s gone into Texas, this is where you have a lot of gas production that isn’t properly winterized,” said Jeremy McCrea, an analyst with Raymond James covering the natural gas industry.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nuclear Energy Growth accelerates as nations pursue decarbonization, complement renewables, displace coal, and ensure grid reliability with firm, low-carbon baseload, benefiting from standardized builds, lower cost of capital, and learning-curve cost reductions.

Key Points

Expansion of nuclear capacity to cut CO2, complement renewables, replace coal, and stabilize grids at low-carbon cost.

✅ Complements renewables; displaces coal for faster decarbonization

✅ Cuts system costs via standardization and lower cost of capital

✅ Provides firm, low-carbon baseload and grid reliability

By Kirill Komarov, Chairman, World Nuclear Association.

As Europe and the wider world begins to wake up to the need to cut emissions, Dr Kirill Komarov argues that tackling climate change will see the use of nuclear energy grow in the coming years, not as a competitor to renewables but as a competitor to coal.

The nuclear industry keeps making headlines and spurring debates on energy policy, including the green industrial revolution agenda in several countries. With each new build project, the detractors of nuclear power crowd the bandwagon to portray renewables as an easy and cheap alternative to ‘increasingly costly’ nuclear: if solar and wind are virtually free why bother splitting atoms?

Yet, paradoxically as it may seem, if we are serious about policy response to climate change, nuclear energy is seeing an atomic energy resurgence in the coming decade or two.

Growth has already started to pick up with about 3.1 GW new capacity added in the first half of 2018 in Russia and China while, at the very least, 4GW more to be completed by the end of the year – more than doubling the capacity additions in 2017.

In 2019 new connections to the grid would exceed 10GW by a significant margin.

If nuclear is in decline, why then do China, India, Russia and other countries keep building nuclear power plants?

To begin with, the issue of cost, argued by those opposed to nuclear, is in fact largely a bogus one, which does not make a fully rounded like for like comparison.

It is true that the latest generation reactors, especially those under construction in the US and Western Europe, have encountered significant construction delays and cost overruns.

But the main, and often the only, reason for that is the ‘first-of-a-kind’ nature of those projects.

If you build something for the first time, be it nuclear, wind or solar, it is expensive. Experience shows that with series build, standardised construction economies of scale and the learning curve from multiple projects, costs come down by around one-third; and this is exactly what is already happening in some parts of the world.

Furthermore, those first-of-a-kind projects were forced to be financed 100% privately and investors had to bear all political risks. It sent the cost of capital soaring, increasing at one stroke the final electricity price by about one third.

While, according to the International Energy Agency, at 3% cost of capital rate, nuclear is the cheapest source of energy: on average 1% increase adds about US$6-7 per MWh to the final price.

When it comes to solar and wind, the truth, inconvenient for those cherishing the fantasy of a world relying 100% on renewables, is that the ‘plummeting prices’ (which, by the way, haven’t changed much over the last three years, reaching a plateau) do not factor in so-called system and balancing costs associated with the need to smooth the intermittency of renewables.

Put simply, the fact the sun doesn’t shine at night and wind doesn’t blow all the time means wind and solar generation needs to be backed up.

According to a study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, integration of intermittent renewables into the grid is estimated in some cases to be as expensive as power generation itself.

Delivering the highest possible renewable content means customers’ bills will have to cover: renewable generation costs, energy storage solutions, major grid updates and interconnections investment, as well as gas or coal peaking power plants or ‘peakers’, which work only from time to time when needed to back up wind and solar.

The expected cost for kWh for peakers, according to investment bank Lazard is about twice that of conventional power plants due to much lower capacity factors.

Despite exceptionally low fossil fuel prices, peaking natural gas generation had an eye-watering cost of $156-210 per MWh in 2017 while electricity storage, replacing ‘peakers’, would imply an extra cost of $186-413 per MWh.

Burning fossil fuels is cheaper but comes with a great deal of environmental concern and extensive use of coal would make net-zero emissions targets all but unattainable.

So, contrary to some claims, nuclear does not compete with renewables. Moreover, a recent study by the MIT Energy Initiative showed, most convincingly, that renewables and load following advanced nuclear are complementary.

Nuclear competes with coal. Phasing out coal is crucial to fighting climate change. Putting off decisions to build new nuclear capacities while increasing the share of intermittent renewables makes coal indispensable and extends its life.

Scientists at the Brattle group, a consultancy, argue that “since CO2 emissions persist for many years in the atmosphere, near-term emission reductions are more helpful for climate protection than later ones”.

The longer we hesitate with new nuclear build the more difficult it becomes to save the Earth.

Nuclear power accounta for about one-tenth of global electricity production, but as much as one-third of generation from low-carbon sources. 1GWe of installed nuclear capacity prevents emissions of 4-7 million metric tons of CO2 emissions per year, depending on the region.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that in order to limit the average global temperature increase to 2°C and still meet global power demand, we need to connect to the grid at least 20GW of new nuclear energy each year.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) sets the target even higher with the total of 1,000 GWe by 2050, or about 10 GWe per year before 2020; 25 GWe per year from 2021 to 2025; and on average 33 GWe from 2026 to 2050.

Regulatory and political challenges in the West have made life for nuclear businesses in the US and in Europe's nuclear sector very difficult, driving many of them to the edge of insolvency; but in the rest of the world nuclear energy is thriving.

Nuclear vendors and utilities post healthy profits and invest heavily in next-gen nuclear innovation and expansion. The BRICS countries are leading the way, taking over the initiative in the global climate agenda. From their perspective, it’s the opposite of decline.

Dr Kirill Komarov is first deputy CEO of Russian state nuclear energy operator Rosatom and chairman of the World Nuclear Association.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

BNEF 2019 New Energy Outlook projects surging renewable energy demand, aggressive decarbonization, wind and solar cost declines, battery storage growth, coal phase-out, and power market reform to meet Paris Agreement targets through 2050.

Key Points

Bloomberg's NEO 2019 forecasts power demand, renewables growth, and decarbonization pathways through 2050.

✅ Predicts wind/solar to ~50% of global electricity by 2050

✅ Foresees coal decline; Asia transitions slower than Europe

✅ Calls for power market reform and battery integration

In a report that examines the ways in which renewable energy demand is expected to increase, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) finds that “aggressive decarbonization” will be required beyond 2030 to meet the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change.

Focusing on electricity, BNEF’s 2019 New Energy Outlook (NEO) predicts a 62% increase in global power demand, leading to global generating capacity tripling between now and 2050, when wind and solar are expected to make up almost 50% of world electricity, as wind and solar gains indicate, due to decreasing costs.

The report concludes that coal will collapse everywhere except Asia, and, by 2032, there will be more wind and solar electricity than coal-fired electricity. It forecasts that coal’s role in the global power mix will decrease from 37% today, as renewables surpass 30% globally, to 12% by 2050 with the virtual elimination of oil as a power-generating source.

Highlighting regional differences, the report finds that:

Western European economies are already on a strong decarbonization path due to carbon pricing and strong policy support, with offshore wind costs dropping bolstering progress;

by 2040, renewables will comprise 90% of the electricity mix in Europe, with wind and solar accounting for 80%;

the US, with low-priced natural gas, and China, with its coal-fired plants, will transition more slowly even as 30% from wind and solar becomes feasible; and

China’s power sector emissions will peak in 2026 and then fall by more than half over the next 20 years, as solar PV growth accelerates, with wind and solar increasing from 8% to 48% of total electricity generation by 2050.

Power markets must be reformed to ensure wind, solar and batteries are properly remunerated for their contributions to the grid.

The 2019 report finds that wind and solar now represent the cheapest option for adding new power-generating capacity in much of the world, amid record-setting momentum, which is expected to attract USD 13.3 trillion in new investment. While solar, wind, batteries and other renewables are expected to attract USD 10 trillion in investment by 2050, the report warns that curbing emissions will require other technologies as well.

Speaking about the report, Matthias Kimmel, NEO 2019 lead analyst, said solar photovoltaic modules, wind turbines and lithium-ion batteries are set to continue on aggressive cost reduction curves of 28%, 14% and 18%, respectively, for every doubling in global installed capacity. He explained that by 2030, energy generated or stored and dispatched by these technologies will undercut electricity generated by existing coal and gas plants.

To achieve this level of transition and decarbonization, the report stresses, power markets must be reformed to ensure wind, solar and batteries are “properly remunerated for their contributions to the grid.”

Additionally, the 2019 NEO includes a number of updates such as:

• new scenarios on global warming of 2°C above preindustrial levels, electrified heat and road transport, and an updated coal phase-out scenario;
• new sections on coal and gas power technology, the future grid, energy access, and costs related to decarbonization technology such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), biogas, hydrogen fuel cells, nuclear and solar thermal;
• sub-national results for China;
• the addition of commercial electric vehicles;
• an expanded air-conditioning analysis; and
• modeling of Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Turkey and Southeast Asia in greater detail.

Every year, the NEO compares the costs of competing energy technologies, informing projections like US renewables at one-fourth in the near term. The 2019 report brought together 65 market and technology experts from 12 countries to provide their views on how the market might evolve.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Ontario Nuclear Power Costs highlight LCOE, capex, refurbishment outlays, and waste management, compared with renewables, grid reliability, and emissions targets, informing Australia and Peter Dutton on feasibility, timelines, and electricity prices.

Key Points

They include high capex and LCOE from refurbishments and waste, offset by reliable, low-emission baseload.

✅ Refurbishment and maintenance drive lifecycle and LCOE variability.

✅ High capex and long timelines affect consumer electricity prices.

✅ Low emissions, but waste and safety compliance add costs.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton recently lauded Canada’s use of nuclear power as a model for Australia’s energy future. His praise comes as part of a broader push to incorporate nuclear energy into Australia’s energy strategy, which he argues could help address the country's energy needs and climate goals. However, the question arises: Is Ontario’s experience with nuclear power as cost-effective as Dutton suggests?

Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power strategy highlights a belief that nuclear energy could provide a stable, low-emission alternative to fossil fuels. He has pointed to Ontario’s substantial reliance on nuclear power, and the province’s exploration of new large-scale nuclear projects, as an example of how such an energy mix might benefit Australia. The province’s energy grid, which integrates a significant amount of nuclear power, is often cited as evidence that nuclear energy can be a viable component of a diversified energy portfolio.

The appeal of nuclear power lies in its ability to generate large amounts of electricity with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. This characteristic aligns with Australia’s climate goals, which emphasize reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change. Dutton’s advocacy for nuclear energy is based on the premise that it can offer a reliable and low-emission option compared to the fluctuating availability of renewable sources like wind and solar.

However, while Dutton’s enthusiasm for the Canadian model reflects its perceived successes, including recent concerns about Ontario’s grid getting dirtier amid supply changes, a closer look at Ontario’s nuclear energy costs raises questions about the financial feasibility of adopting a similar strategy in Australia. Despite the benefits of low emissions, the economic aspects of nuclear power remain complex and multifaceted.

In Ontario, the cost of nuclear power has been a topic of considerable debate. While the province benefits from a stable supply of electricity due to its nuclear plants, studies warn of a growing electricity supply gap in coming years. Ontario’s experience reveals that nuclear power involves significant capital expenditures, including the costs of building reactors, maintaining infrastructure, and ensuring safety standards. These expenses can be substantial and often translate into higher electricity prices for consumers.

The cost of maintaining existing nuclear reactors in Ontario has been a particular concern. Many of these reactors are aging and require costly upgrades and maintenance to continue operating safely and efficiently. These expenses can add to the overall cost of nuclear power, impacting the affordability of electricity for consumers.

Moreover, the development of new nuclear projects, as seen with Bruce C project exploration in Ontario, involves lengthy and expensive construction processes. Building new reactors can take over a decade and requires significant investment. The high initial costs associated with these projects can be a barrier to their economic viability, especially when compared to the rapidly decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies.

In contrast, the cost of renewable energy has been falling steadily, even as debates over nuclear power’s trajectory in Europe continue, making it a more attractive option for many jurisdictions. Solar and wind power, while variable and dependent on weather conditions, have seen dramatic reductions in installation and operational costs. These lower costs can make renewables more competitive compared to nuclear energy, particularly when considering the long-term financial implications.

Dutton’s praise for Ontario’s nuclear power model also overlooks some of the environmental and logistical challenges associated with nuclear energy. While nuclear power generates low emissions during operation, it produces radioactive waste that requires long-term storage solutions. The management of nuclear waste poses significant environmental and safety concerns, as well as additional costs for safe storage and disposal.

Additionally, the potential risks associated with nuclear power, including the possibility of accidents, contribute to the complexity of its adoption. The safety and environmental regulations surrounding nuclear energy are stringent and require continuous oversight, adding to the overall cost of maintaining nuclear facilities.

As Australia contemplates integrating nuclear power into its energy mix, it is crucial to weigh these financial and environmental considerations. While the Canadian model provides valuable insights, the unique context of Australia’s energy landscape, including its existing infrastructure, energy needs, and the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity in comparable jurisdictions, must be taken into account.

In summary, while Peter Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power model reflects a belief in its potential benefits for Australia’s energy strategy, the cost-effectiveness of Ontario’s nuclear power experience is more nuanced than it may appear. The high capital and maintenance costs associated with nuclear energy, combined with the challenges of managing radioactive waste and ensuring safety, present significant considerations. As Australia evaluates its energy future, a comprehensive analysis of both the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power will be essential to making informed decisions about its role in the country’s energy strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Inventoried Energy Program pays ISO-NE generators for fuel security to boost winter reliability, with FERC approval, covering fossil, nuclear, hydropower, and batteries, complementing capacity markets to enhance grid resilience during severe cold snaps.

Key Points

ISO-NE program paying generators to hold fuel or energy reserves for emergencies, boosting winter reliability.

✅ FERC-approved stopgap for 2023 and 2024 winter seasons

✅ Pays for on-site fuel or stored energy during cold-trigger events

✅ Open to fossil, nuclear, hydro, batteries; limited gas participation

Electricity ratepayers in New England will pay tens of millions of dollars to fossil fuel and nuclear power plants later this decade under a program that proponents say is needed to keep the lights on during severe winters but which critics call a subsidy with little benefit to consumers or the grid, even as Connecticut is pushing a market overhaul across the region.

Last week the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said ISO-New England, which runs the six-state power grid, can create what it calls the Inventoried Energy Program or IEP. This basically will pay certain power plants to stockpile of fuel for use in emergencies during two upcoming winters as longer-term solutions are developed.

The federal commission called it a reasonable short-term solution to avoid brownouts which doesn’t favor any given technology.

Not all agree, however, including FERC Commissioner Richard Glick, who wrote a fiery dissent to the other three commissioners.

“The program will hand out tens of millions of dollars to nuclear, coal and hydropower generators without any indication that those payments will cause the slightest change in those generators’ behavior,” Glick wrote. “Handing out money for nothing is a windfall, not a just and reasonable rate.”

The program is the latest reaction by ISO-NE to the winter of 2013-14 when New England almost saw brownouts because of a shortage of natural gas to create electricity during a pair of week-long deep freezes.

ISO-New England says the situation is more critical now because of the possible retirement of the gas-fired Mystic Generating Station in Massachusetts. As with closed nuclear plants such as Vermont Yankee and Pilgrim in Massachusetts, power plant owners say lower electricity prices, partly due to cheap renewables and partly to stagnant demand, means they can’t be profitable just by selling power.

Programs like the IEP are meant to subsidize such plants – “incentivize” is the industry term – even though some argue there is no need to subsidize nuclear in deregulated markets so they’ll stay open if they are needed.

The IEP approved last week will be applied to the winters of 2023 and 2024, after a different subsidy program expires. It sets prices, despite warnings about rushing pricing changes from industry groups, for stocking certain amounts of fuel and payments during any “trigger” event, defined as a day when the average of high and low temperatures at Bradley International Airport in Connecticut is no more than 17 degrees Fahrenheit.

These payments will be made on top of a complex system of grid auctions used to decide how much various plants get paid for generating electricity at which times.

ISO-NE estimates the new program will cost between $102 million and $148 million each winter, depending on weather and market conditions.

It says the payments are open to plants that burn oil, coal, nuclear fuel, wood chips or trash; utility-scale battery storage facilities; and hydropower dams “that store water in a pond or reservoir.” Natural gas plants can participate if they guarantee to have fuel available, but that seems less likely because of winter heating contracts.

A major complaint and groups that filed petitions opposing the project is that ISO-NE presented little supporting evidence of how prices, amount and overall cost were determined. ISO-NE argued that there wasn’t time for such analysis before the Mystic shutdown, and FERC agreed.

“The proposal is a step in the right direction … while ISO-NE finishes developing a long-term market solution,” the commission said in its ruling.

The program is the latest example of complexities facing the nation’s electricity system evolves in the face of solar and wind power, which produce electricity so cheaply that they can render traditional power uneconomic but which can’t always produce power on demand, prompting discussions of Texas grid improvements among policymakers. Another major factor is climate change, which has increased the pressure to support renewable alternatives to plants that burn fossil fuels, as well as stagnant electricity demand caused by increased efficiency.

Opponents, including many environmental groups, say electricity utilities and regulators are too quick to prop up existing systems, as the 145-mile Maine transmission line debate shows, built when electricity was sent one way from a few big plants to many customers. They argue that to combat climate change as well as limit cost, the emphasis must be on developing “non-wire alternatives” such as smart systems for controlling demand, in order to take advantage of the current system in which electricity goes two ways, such as from rooftop solar back into the grid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

SaskPower 2019-20 Annual Report highlights $205M net income, grid capacity upgrades, emissions reduction progress, Chinook Power Station natural gas baseload, and wind and solar renewable energy to support Saskatchewan's Growth Plan and Prairie Resilience.

Key Points

SaskPower's 2019-20 results: $205M income, grid upgrades, emissions cuts, and new gas baseload with wind and solar.

✅ $205M net income, up $8M year-over-year

✅ Chinook Power Station adds stable natural gas baseload

✅ Increased grid capacity enables more wind and solar

SaskPower presented its annual report on Monday, with a net income of $205 million in 2019-20, even as Manitoba Hydro's financial pressures highlight regional market dynamics.

This figure shows an increase of $8 million from 2018-19, despite record provincial power demand that tested the grid.

“Reliable, sustainable and cost-effective electricity is crucial to achieving the economic goals laid out in the Government of Saskatchewan’s Growth Plan and the emissions reductions targets outlined in Prairie Resilience, our made-in-Saskatchewan climate change strategy,” Minister Responsible for SaskPower Dustin Duncan said.

In the last year, SaskPower has repaired and upgraded old infrastructure, invested in growth projects and increased grid capacity, including plans to buy more electricity from Manitoba Hydro to support reliability and benefiting from new turbine investments across the region.

The utility is also exploring procurement partnerships, including a plan to purchase power from Flying Dust First Nation to diversify supply.

“During the past year, we continued to move toward our target to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 40 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030, as part of efforts to double renewable electricity by 2030 across Saskatchewan,” SaskPower President and CEO Mike Marsh said. “The newly commissioned natural gas-fired Chinook Power Station will provide a stable source of baseload power while enabling the ongoing addition of intermittent renewable generation capacity, and exploring geothermal power alongside wind and solar generation.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News