Milk, check. Bread, check. And don't forget $100 million in backup generators.
That's how much money at least one Florida grocery chain expects to spend on large electrical generators to keep stores operating in case a hurricane blows out some or all of Florida's electrical grid.
The investment will be worth it, company executives say, after some hard lessons from the active 2004 hurricane season when four storms walloped the state in close sequence.
The scenario that Publix and other grocery chains are trying to avoid: dark stores filled with rotting food and thousands of customers looking for supplies.
Although some chains are spending heavily on generators, others are taking a more cautious approach and buying a handful of portable generators to truck in if a storm strikes.
Publix is making the biggest bet on backup generators.
The Lakeland-based chain is almost finished with a $100 million project to install permanent backup generators that run on diesel at stores considered "hurricane-prone." That means nearly every Publix store in Florida, coastal Georgia and South Carolina. Other Publix sites have been rewired so portable generators can be plugged in quickly.
Publix has finished installing backup generators at more than 500 stores. Each generator is the size of a minivan and powerful enough to power the entire location: lights, refrigerators, air conditioning and cash registers.
Publix officials say they eventually will install generators at nearly all 932 stores in the Southeast. All new Publix stores are being built with generators on site or portable hookups if the layout doesn't permit a permanent generator.
Some stores had a brief test when Florida suffered an unexpected rolling blackout in February. Generators in several Publix stores automatically kicked on, said Publix spokeswoman Shannon Patten.
Sweetbay, by contrast, is heading in a somewhat different direction for hurricane season. The chain has bought six large, portable electrical generators, including three that can power every function of a store. The smaller generators can run refrigeration and cash registers. Total cost: about $1.5 million.
Sweetbay's strategy is to store mobile generators at strategic sites in the Southeast and move them to any of the roughly 100 Florida Sweetbay stores that lose power. Toward that end, the company has installed new wiring in all of its stores so generators can be plugged in quickly.
Whether they will have enough generators will depend on the hurricane season, Sweetbay officials say.
"It depends on the need, and last year there wasn't the need for generators," said Sweetbay spokeswoman Nicole Lebeau. The odds are slim, she said, that stores in different areas of Florida would go out at once.
She also notes Sweetbay, owned by Delhaize Group, is a relatively new company compared with Publix and is still investing heavily on expansion.
Wal-Mart, which may have deep pockets as one of the world's biggest companies, has no plans to invest heavily in store generators. Wal-Mart operates 158 Supercenter stores with groceries in Florida and 19 Neighborhood Markets.
In most cases, Wal-Mart does not have generators at store locations.
"We do have a number of portable generators that we can move to strategic locations in advance of a predictable natural disaster, such as a hurricane," said a Wal-Mart spokesman, Dan Fogleman.
The grocery giant has struck deals with generator suppliers if the company needs more, he said.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
AEMC Storage Charging Rules spark industry backlash as Tesla, Snowy Hydro, and investors warn transmission charges on batteries and pumped hydro could deter grid-scale storage, distort the National Electricity Market, and slow decarbonisation.
Key Points
AEMC Storage Charging Rules are proposals to bill grid storage for network use, shaping costs and investment.
✅ Charges apply when batteries draw power; double-charging concerns.
✅ Tesla and Snowy Hydro warn of reduced viability and delays.
Tesla, Snowy Hydro and other big suppliers of storage capacity on Australia’s main electricity grid warn proposed rule changes amount to a tax on their operations that will deter investors and slow the decarbonisation of the industry.
The Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) will release its final decision this Thursday on new rules for integrating batteries, pumped hydro and other forms of storage.
The AEMC’s draft decision, released in July, angered many firms because it proposed charging storage providers for drawing power, ignoring a recommendation by the Australian Electricity Market Operator (AEMO) that they be exempt.
Battery maker Tesla, which has supplied some of the largest storage to the National Electricity Market, said in a submission that the charges would “kill the commercial viability of all grid storage projects, causing inefficient investment in alternative network”, with consumers paying higher costs.
Snowy Hydro, which is building the giant Snowy 2 pumped storage project and already operates a smaller one, said in its submission the proposed changes if implemented would jeopardise investment.
“This is a major policy change, amounting to a tax on infrastructure critical to achieving a renewable future,” Snowy Hydro said.
AEMO itself argued it was important storage providers were not “disincentivised from connecting to the transmission network, as they generally provide a net benefit to the power system by charging at periods of low demand”.
Australia’s electricity grid faces economic and engineering challenges, similar to Ontario's storage push as it adjusts to the arrival of lower cost and also lower carbon alternatives to fossil fuels.
While rule changes are necessary to account for operators that can both draw from and supply power, how they are implemented can have long-lasting effects on the technologies that get encouraged or repelled, including control of EV charging issues, independent experts say.
“It doesn’t have to be this way,” said Bruce Mountain, director of the Victoria Energy Policy Centre. “In Britain, where the UK grid transformation is underway, the regulator dealing with the same issues has said that storage devices don’t pay the system charges when they withdraw electricity from the grid,” he said.
The prospect that storage operators will have to pay transmission charges could “drastically” affect their profitability since their business models rely on the difference between the price their pay for power and how much they can sell it for. Gas generators and network monopolies would benefit from the change, Mountain said.
Sign up to receive an email with the top stories from Guardian Australia every morning
An AEMC spokesperson said the commission had consulted widely, including from those who objected to the payment for transmission access.
“The market is moving towards a future that will be increasingly reliant on energy storage to firm up the growing volume of renewable energy and deliver on the increasing need for critical system security services, with examples such as EVs supporting grid stability in California as the ageing fleet of thermal generators retire,” the spokesperson said, declining to elaborate on the final ruling before it is published.
“The regulatory framework needs to facilitate this transition as the energy sector continues to decarbonise,” the official said.
AusNet, which operates the Victorian energy transmission grid, said that while “technological neutrality is paramount for battery and hybrid unit connections to both the distribution and transmission networks,” it did not back charging storage access to networks in all cases.
“[Ausnet] supports a clear exemptions framework for energy storage providers,” a spokesperson said. “We recommend that batteries and other hybrid facilities should have transmission use of system charges waived if they provide a net benefit to network customers.”
We are not aware of anyone that supports the charging storage access to networks in all circumstances.
“Batteries and hybrid facilities that consume energy from the network should be provided no preferential treatment relative to other customers and generators.”
Jonathan Upson, a principal at Strategic Renewable Consulting, though, said the AEMC wants electricity flowing through batteries to be taxed twice to pay network charges – once when the electricity charges the battery and then again when the same electricity is sent out by the battery an hour or two later but this time with customers paying.
“The AEMC’s draft decision has the identical rationale for eliminating franking credits on all dividends, resulting in double taxing of company profits,” he said.
Christiaan Zuur, director of energy transformation at the Clean Energy Council, said that while much of AEMC’s draft proposal was constructive, “those benefits are either nullified or maybe even outweighed” by uncertainty over charges.
“Risk perception” will be important since potential newcomers won’t be sure of what charges they will pay to connect to the grid and existing operators could have their connection agreements reopened, Zuur said.
“Investors focus on the potential risk. It does factor through to the integral costs for projects,” he said.
The outcome of new charges may prompt more people to put batteries on their premises and draw power from their own solar panels, Mountain said, with rising EV adoption introducing new grid challenges, cutting their reliance on a centralised network.
“Ironically, it encourages customers to depend less and less on the grid,” he said. “It’s almost like the capture of the dominant interests playing out over time at their own expense.”
Separately, the latest edition of the Clean Energy Council Confidence Index shows leadership by state governments is helping to shore up investor appetite for investing in renewable energy amid 2021 electricity lessons even with higher 2030 emissions reduction goals from the federal government.
Overall, investor confidence increased by a point in the last six months – from 6.3 to 7.3 out of 10 – following strong commitments and policy development from state governments, particularly on the east coast, the council said.
“The results of this latest survey illustrate the economic value in policy that lowers the emissions footprint of our electricity generation, supporting regional centres and creating jobs. Investors recognise the opportunities created by limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees,” said council chief executive Kane Thornton.
Among the states, NSW, Victoria and Queensland led in terms of positive investor sentiment.
Correction: this article was amended on 30 November. An earlier version stated Ausnet supported charging storage for network access. A spokesperson said it backed a waiver on charges if certain conditions are met.
Earth Hour BC highlights BC Hydro data on electricity use, energy savings, and participation in the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island amid climate change and hydroelectric power dynamics.
Key Points
BC observance tracking BC Hydro electricity use and conservation during Earth Hour, amid hydroelectric power dominance.
✅ BC Hydro reports rising electricity use during Earth Hour 2018
✅ Savings fell from 2% in 2008 to near zero province-wide
✅ Hydroelectric grid yields low GHG emissions in BC
For the first time since it began tracking electricity use in the province during Earth Hour, BC Hydro said customers used more power during the 60-minute period when lights are expected to dim, mirroring all-time high electricity demand seen recently.
The World Wildlife Fund launched Earth Hour in Sydney, Australia in 2007. Residents and businesses there turned off lights and non-essential power as a symbol to mark the importance of combating climate change.
The event was adopted in B.C. the next year and, as part of that, BC Hydro began tracking the megawatt hours saved.
#google#
In 2008, residents and businesses achieved a two per cent savings in electricity use. But since then, BC Hydro says the savings have plummeted.
The event was adopted in B.C. the next year and, as part of that, BC Hydro began tracking the megawatt hours saved.
In 2008, residents and businesses achieved a two per cent savings in electricity use. But since then, BC Hydro says the savings have plummeted, as record-breaking demand in 2021 and beyond changed consumption patterns.
Lights on
For Earth Hour this year, which took place 8:30-9:30 p.m. on March 24, BC Hydro says electricity use in the Lower Mainland increased by 0.5 per cent, even as it activated a winter payment plan to help customers manage bills. On Vancouver Island it increased 0.6 per cent.
In the province's southern Interior and northern Interior, power use remained the same during the event.
On Friday, the utility released a report called: "lights out". Why Earth Hour is dimming in BC. which explores the decline of energy savings related to Earth Hour in the province.
The WWF says the way in which hydro companies track electricity savings during Earth Hour is not an accurate measure of participation, and tracking of emerging loads like crypto mining electricity use remains opaque, and noted that more countries than ever are turning off lights for the event.
For 2018, the WWF shifted the focus of Earth Hour to the loss of wildlife across the globe.
BC Hydro says in its report that the symbolism of Earth Hour is still important to British Columbians, but almost all power generation in B.C. is hydroelectric, though recent drought conditions have required operational adjustments, and only accounts for one per cent of greenhouse gas emissions.
Neste wind power agreement boosts renewable electricity in Finland, partnering with Ilmatar and Fortum to supply Porvoo and Naantali sites, cutting Scope 2 emissions and advancing a 2035 carbon-neutral production target via long-term PPAs.
Key Points
A PPA to source wind power for sites, cutting Scope 2 emissions and supporting Neste's 2035 carbon-neutral goal.
✅ Supplies ~7% of Porvoo-Naantali electricity; capacity >20 MW.
✅ Cuts Scope 2 emissions by ~55 kt CO2e per year toward 2035 neutrality.
Neste is committed to reaching carbon neutral production by 2035, mirroring efforts such as Olympus 100% renewable electricity commitments across industry.
As part of this effort, the company is increasing the use of renewable electricity at its production sites in Finland, reflecting trends such as Ireland's green electricity targets across Europe, and has signed a wind power agreement with Ilmatar, a wind power company. The agreement has been made together with Borealis, Neste's long-term partner in the Kilpilahti area in Porvoo, Finland.
As a result of the agreement with Ilmatar, as well as that signed with Fortum at the end of 2019, and in line with global growth such as Enel's 450 MW wind project in the U.S., nearly 30% of the energy used at Neste's production sites in Porvoo and Naantali will be renewable wind power in 2022.
'Neste's purpose is to create a healthier planet for our children. Our two climate commitments play an important role in living up to this ambition, and one of them is to reach carbon neutral production by 2035. It is an enormous challenge and requires several concrete measures and investments, including innovations like offshore green hydrogen initiatives. Wind power, including advances like UK offshore wind projects, is one of the over 70 measures we have identified to reduce our production's greenhouse gas emissions,' Neste's President and CEO Peter Vanacker says.
With the ten year contract, Neste is committed to purchase about one-third of the production of Ilmatar's two wind farms, reflecting broader market moves such as BC Hydro wind deals in Canada. The total capacity of the agreement is more than 20 MW, and the energy produced will correspond to around 7% of the electricity consumption at Neste's sites in Porvoo and Naantali. The wind power deliveries are expected to begin in 2022.
The two wind power agreements help Neste to reduce the indirect greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 2 emissions defined by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol) of electricity purchases at its Finnish production sites, a trend mirrored by Dutch green electricity growth across Europe, annually by approximately 55 kilotons. 55 kt/a CO2e equals annual carbon footprint of more than 8,500 EU citizens.
Germany Energiewende Lessons highlight climate policy tradeoffs, as renewables, wind and solar face grid constraints, coal phase-out delays, rising electricity prices, and public opposition, informing Canada on diversification, hydro, oil and gas, and balanced transition.
Key Points
Insights from Germany's renewable shift on costs, grid limits, and emissions to guide Canada's balanced energy policy.
✅ Evidence: high power prices, delayed coal exit, limited grid buildout
✅ Land, materials, and wildlife impacts challenge wind and solar scale-up
✅ Diversification: hydro, nuclear, gas, and storage balance reliability
News that Greta Thunberg is visiting Alberta should be welcomed by all Canadians.
The teenaged Swedish environmentalist has focused global attention on the climate change debate like never before. So as she tours our province, where selling renewable energy could be Alberta's next big thing, what better time for a reality check than to look at a country that is furthest ahead in already adapting steps that Greta is advocating.
That country is Germany. And it’s not a pretty sight.
Germany’s largest newsmagazine Der Spiegel published an article on May 3 of this year entitled “A Botched Job in Germany.” The cover showed broken wind turbines and half-finished transition towers against a dark silhouette of Berlin.
Germany’s renewable energy transition, Energiewende, is a bust. After spending and committing a total of US$580 billion to it from 2000 to 2025.
Why is that? Because it’s been a nightmare of foolish dreams based on hope rather than fact, resulting in stalled projects and dreadfully poor returns.
Last year Germany admitted it had to delay its phase-out of coal and would not meet its 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction commitment. Only eight per cent of the transmission lines needed to support this new approach to powering Germany have been built.
Opposition to renewables is growing due to electricity prices rising to the point they are now among the highest in the world. Wind energy projects in Germany are now facing the same opposition that pipelines are here in Canada.
Opposition to renewables in Germany, reports Forbes, is coming from people who live in rural or suburban areas, in opposition to the “urbane, cosmopolitan elites who fetishize their solar roofs and Teslas as a sign of virtue.” Sound familiar?
So, if renewables cannot successfully power Germany, one of the richest and most technologically advanced countries in the world, who can do it better?
The biggest problem with using wind and solar power on a large scale is that the physics just don’t work. They need too much land and equipment to produce sufficient amounts of electricity.
Solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear power plants to produce the same amount of electricity. Wind farms take 700 times more land than natural gas wells.
The amount of metal required to build these sites is enormous, requiring new mines. Wind farms are killing hundreds of endangered birds.
No amount of marketing or spin can change the poor physics of resource-intensive and land-intensive renewables.
But, wait. Isn’t Norway, Greta’s neighbour, dumping its energy investments and moving into alternative energy like wind farms in a big way?
No, not really. Fact is only 0.8 per cent of Norway’s power comes from wind turbines. The country is blessed with a lot of hydroelectric power, but that’s a historical strength owing to the country’s geography, nothing new.
And yet we’re being told the US$1-trillion Oslo-based Government Pension Fund Global is moving out of the energy sector to instead invest in wind, solar and other alternative energy technologies. According to 350.org activist Nicolo Wojewoda this is “yet another nail in the coffin of the coal, oil, and gas industry.”
Well, no.
Norway’s pension fund is indeed investing in new energy forms, but not while pulling out of traditional investments in oil and gas. Rather, as any prudent fund manager will, they are diversifying by making modest investments in emerging industries such as Alberta's renewable energy surge that will likely pay off down the road while maintaining existing investments, spreading their investments around to reduce risk. Unfortunately for climate alarmists, the reality is far more nuanced and not nearly as explosive as they’d like us to think.
Yet, that’s enough for them to spin this tale to argue Canada should exit oil and gas investment and put all of our money into wind and solar, even as Canada remains a solar power laggard according to experts.
That is not to say renewable energy projects like wind and solar don’t have a place. They do, and we must continue to innovate and research lower-polluting ways to power our societies on the path to zero-emissions electricity by 2035 in Canada.
But like it actually is in Norway, investment in renewables should supplement — not replace — fossil fuel energy systems if we aim for zero-emission electricity in Canada by 2035 without undermining reliability. We need both.
And that’s the message that Greta should hear when she arrives in Canada.
Rick Peterson is the Edmonton-based founder and Beth Bailey is a Calgary-based supporter of Suits and Boots, a national not-for-profit group of investment industry professionals that supports resource sector workers and their families.
Manitoba Clean Electricity Investment will upgrade hydroelectric turbines, expand a 230 kV transmission network, and deliver reliable, affordable low-carbon power, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and strengthening grid reliability across Portage la Prairie and Winnipeg River.
Key Points
Joint federal-provincial funding to upgrade hydro turbines and build a 230 kV grid, boosting reliable, low-carbon power.
✅ $314M for new turbines at Pointe du Bois (+52 MW capacity)
✅ $161.6M for 230 kV transmission in Portage la Prairie
✅ Cuts Brandon Generating Station emissions by ~37%
The governments of Canada and Manitoba have announced a joint investment of $475.6 million to strengthen Manitoba’s clean electricity grid that can support neighboring provinces with clean power and ensure continued supply of affordable and reliable low-carbon energy.
This federal-provincial investment provides $314 million for eight new hydroelectric turbines at the 75 MW Pointe du Bois Generating Station on the Winnipeg River, as well as $161.6 million to build a new 230 kV transmission network in the Portage la Prairie area, bolstering power sales to SaskPower and regional reliability.
The $314 million joint investment in the Pointe du Bois Renewable Energy Project includes $114.1 million from the Government of Canada and nearly $200 million from the Government of Manitoba. The joint investment will enable Manitoba Hydro to replace eight generating units that are at the end of their lifecycle, amid looming new generation needs for the province. The new, more efficient units will increase the capacity of the Pointe du Bois generating station by 52 MW.
The $161.6 million joint investment in the Portage Area Capacity Enhancement project includes $70.9 million from the Government of Canada and $90.6 million from the Government of Manitoba. The joint investment will support the construction of a new transmission line to enhance reliability for customers across southwest Manitoba and help Manitoba Hydro meet increasing demand, with projections that demand could double over the next two decades. By decreasing Manitoba’s reliance on its last grid-connected fossil-fuel generating station, this investment will reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the Brandon Generating Station by about 37%.
The federal government’s total contribution of $184.9 million is provided through the Green Infrastructure Stream of the Investing in Canada Plan, alongside efforts to improve interprovincial grid integration such as NB Power agreements with Hydro-Quebec that strengthen regional reliability. This federal funding is conditional on meeting Indigenous consultation requirements, as well as environmental assessment obligations. Including today’s announcement, the Green Infrastructure Stream has supported 38 infrastructure projects in Manitoba, for a total federal contribution of more than $766.8 million and a total provincial contribution of over $658.4 million.
“A key part of our economic plan is making Canada a clean electricity superpower. Today’s announcement in Manitoba will deliver clean, reliable, and affordable electricity to people and businesses across the province—and we will continue working to expand our clean electricity grid and create great careers for people from coast to coast to coast,” said Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland.
The federal government will continue to invest in making Canada a clean electricity superpower, supporting provincial initiatives like Hydro-Quebec's fossil-free strategy that complement these investments to ensure Canadians from coast to coast to coast have the affordable and reliable clean electricity they need today and for generations to come.
“Manitoba Hydro is extremely pleased to be receiving this federal funding through the Green Infrastructure Stream of the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program. The investments we are making in both these critical infrastructure projects will help provide Manitobans with energy for life and power our province’s economic growth with clean, reliable, renewable hydroelectricity. These projects build on our legacy of investments in renewable energy over the past 100 years, as we work towards a lower carbon future for all Manitobans,” said Jay Grewal, president and chief executive officer of Manitoba Hydro.
About 97% of Manitoba’s electricity is generated from clean hydro, with most of the remaining 3% coming from wind generation. Manitoba’s abundant clean electricity has resulted in Manitobans paying 9.455 ¢/kWh — the second-lowest electricity rate in Canada, though limits on serving new energy-intensive customers have been flagged recently.
Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person
instruction, our electrical training courses can be
tailored to meet your company's specific requirements
and delivered to your employees in one location or at
various locations.
