Permit sought for biomass power plant

Hydro-Quebec hydropower exports deliver low-carbon electricity to New England, sparking debate on greenhouse gas accounting, grid attributes, and REC-style certificates as Quebec modernizes monitoring to verify emissions, integrate renewables, and meet ambitious climate targets.

Key Points

Low-carbon electricity to New England, with improved emissions tracking and verifiable grid attributes.

✅ Deep, narrow reservoirs cut lifecycle GHGs in cold boreal waters

✅ Attribute certificates trace source, type, and carbon intensity

✅ Contracts require facility-level tagging for compliance

For 40 years, through the most vicious interprovincial battles, even as proposals for bridging the Alberta-B.C. gap aimed to improve grid resilience, Canadians could agree on one way Quebec is undeniably superior to the rest of the country.

It’s hydropower, and specifically the mammoth dam system in Northern Quebec that has been paying dividends since it was first built in the 70s. “Quebec continues to boast North America’s lowest electricity prices,” was last year’s business-as-usual update in one trade publication, even as Newfoundland's rate strategy seeks relief for consumers.

With climate crisis looming, that long-ago decision earns even more envy and reflects Canada's electricity progress across the grid today. Not only do they pay less, but Quebeckers also emit the least carbon per capita of any province.

It may surprise most Canadians, then, to hear how most of New England has reacted to the idea of being able to buy permanently into Quebec’s power grid.

​​​​​​Hydro-Québec’s efforts to strike major export deals have been rebuffed in the U.S., by environmentalists more than anyone. They question everything about Quebec hydropower, including asking “is it really low-carbon?”

These doubts may sound nonsensical to regular Quebeckers. But airing them has, in fact, pushed Hydro-Québec to learn more about itself and adopt new technology.

We know far more about hydropower than we knew 40 years ago, including whether it’s really zero-emission (it’s not), how to make it as close to zero-emission as possible, and how to account for it as precisely as new clean energies like solar and wind, underscoring how cleaning up Canada's electricity is vital to meeting climate pledges.

The export deals haven’t gone through yet, but they’ve already helped drag Hydro-Québec—roughly the fourth-biggest hydropower system on the planet—into the climate era.

Fighting to export
One of the first signs of trouble for Quebec hydro was in New Hampshire, almost 10 years ago. People there began pasting protest signs on their barns and buildings. One citizens’ group accused Hydro of planning a “monstrous extension cord” across the state.

Similar accusations have since come from Maine, Massachusetts and New York.

The criticism isn’t coming from state governments, which mostly want a more permanent relationship with Hydro-Québec. They already rely on Quebec power, but in a piecemeal way, topping up their own power grid when needed (with the exception of Vermont, which has a small permanent contract for Quebec hydropower).

Last year, Quebec provided about 15 percent of New England’s total power, plus another substantial amount to New York, which is officially not considered to be part of New England, and has its own energy market separate from the New England grid.

Now, northeastern states need an energy lynch pin, rather than a top-up, with existing power plants nearing the end of their lifespans. In Massachusetts, for example, one major nuclear plant shut down this year and another will be retired in 2021. State authorities want a hydro-based energy plan that would send $10 billion to Hydro-Québec over 20 years.

New England has some of North America’s most ambitious climate goals, with every state in the region pledging to cut emissions by at least 80 percent over the next 30 years.

What’s the downside? Ask the citizens’ groups and nonprofits that have written countless op-eds, organized petitions and staged protests. They argue that hydropower isn’t as clean as cutting-edge clean energy such as solar and wind power, and that Hydro-Québec isn’t trying hard enough to integrate itself into the most innovative carbon-counting energy system. Right as these other energy sources finally become viable, they say, it’s a step backwards to commit to hydro.

As Hydro-Québec will point out, many of these critics are legitimate nonprofits, but others may have questionable connections. The Portland Press Herald in Maine reported in September 2018 that a supposedly grassroot citizens’ group called “Stand Up For Maine” was actually funded by the New England Power Generators Association, which is based in Boston and represents such power plant owners as Calpine Corp., Vistra Energy and NextEra Energy.

But in the end, that may not matter. Arguably the biggest motivator to strike these deals comes not from New England’s needs, but from within Quebec. The province has spent more than $10 billion in the last 15 years to expand its dam and reservoir system, and in order to stay financially healthy, it needs to double its revenue in the next 10 years—a plan that relies largely on exports.

With so much at stake, it has spent the last decade trying to prove it can be an energy of the future.

“Learning as you go”
American critics, justified or not, have been forcing advances at Hydro for a long time.

When the famously huge northern Quebec hydro dams were built at James Bay—construction began in the early 1970s—the logic was purely economic. The term “climate change” didn’t exist. The province didn’t even have an environment department.

The only reason Quebec scientists started trying to measure carbon emissions from hydro reservoirs was “basically because of the U.S.,” said Alain Tremblay, a senior environmental advisor at Hydro Quebec.

Alain Tremblay, senior environmental advisor at Hydro-Québec. Photograph courtesy of Hydro-Québec
In the early 1990s, Hydro began to export power to the U.S., and “because we were a good company in terms of cost and efficiency, some Americans didn't like that,” he said—mainly competitors, though he couldn’t say specifically who. “They said our reservoirs were emitting a lot of greenhouse gases.”

The detractors had no research to back up that claim, but Hydro-Québec had none to refute it, either, said Tremblay. “At that time we didn’t have any information, but from back-of-the envelope calculations, it was impossible to have the emissions the Americans were expecting we have.”

So research began, first to design methods to take the measurements, and then to carry them out. Hydro began a five-year project with a Quebec university.

It took about 10 years to develop a solid methodology, Tremblay said, with “a lot of error and learning-as-you-go.” There have been major strides since then.

“Twenty years ago we were taking a sample of water, bringing it back to the lab and analyzing that with what we call a gas chromatograph,” said Tremblay. “Now, we have an automated system that can measure directly in the water,” reading concentrations of CO2 and methane every three hours and sending its data to a processing centre.

The tools Hydro-Québec uses are built in California. Researchers around the world now follow the same standard methods.

At this point, it’s common knowledge that hydropower does emit greenhouse gases. Experts know these emissions are much higher than previously thought.

Workers on the Eastmain-1 project environmental monitoring program. Photography courtesy of Alain Tremblay.
​But Hydro-Québec now has the evidence, also, to rebut the original accusations from the early 1990s and many similar ones today.

“All our research from Université Laval [found] that it’s about a thousand years before trees decompose in cold Canadian waters,” said Tremblay.

Hydro reservoirs emit greenhouse gases because vegetation and sometimes other biological materials, like soil runoff, decay under the surface.

But that decay depends partly on the warmth of the water. In tropical regions, including the southern U.S., hydro dams can have very high emissions. But in boreal zones like northern Quebec (or Manitoba, Labrador and most other Canadian locations with massive hydro dams), the cold, well-oxygenated water vastly slows the process.

Hydro emissions have “a huge range,” said Laura Scherer, an industrial ecology professor at Leiden University in the Netherlands who led a study of almost 1,500 hydro dams around the world.

“It can be as low as other renewable energy sources, but it can also be as high as fossil fuel energy,” in rare cases, she said.

While her study found that climate was important, the single biggest factor was “sizing and design” of each dam, and specifically its shape, she said. Ideally, hydro dams should be deep and narrow to minimize surface area, perhaps using a natural valley.

Hydro-Québec’s first generation of dams, the ones around James Bay, were built the opposite way—they’re wide and shallow, infamously flooding giant tracts of land.

Alain Tremblay, senior environmental advisor at Hydro-Québec testing emission levels. Photography courtesy of Alain Tremblay
Newly built ones take that new information into account, said Tremblay. Its most recent project is the Romaine River complex, which will eventually include four reservoirs near Quebec’s northeastern border with Labrador. Construction began in 2016.

The site was picked partly for its topography, said Tremblay.

“It’s a valley-type reservoir, so large volume, small surface area, and because of that there’s a pretty limited amount of vegetation that’s going to be flooded,” he said.

There’s a dramatic emissions difference with the project built just before that, commissioned in 2006. Called Eastmain, it’s built near James Bay.

“The preliminary results indicate with the same amount of energy generated [by Romaine] as with Eastmain, you’re going to have about 10 times less emissions,” said Tremblay.

Tracing energy to its source
These signs of progress likely won’t satisfy the critics, who have publicly argued back and forth with Hydro about exactly how emissions should be tallied up.

But Hydro-Québec also faces a different kind of growing gap when it comes to accounting publicly for its product. In the New England energy market, a sophisticated system “tags” all the energy in order to delineate exactly how much comes from which source—nuclear, wind, solar, and others—and allows buyers to single out clean power, or at least the bragging rights to say they bought only clean power.

Really, of course, it’s all the same mix of energy—you can’t pick what you consume. But creating certificates prevents energy producers from, in worst-case scenarios, being able to launder regular power through their clean-power facilities. Wind farms, for example, can’t oversell what their own turbines have produced.

What started out as a fraud prevention tool has “evolved to make it possible to also track carbon emissions,” said Deborah Donovan, Massachusetts director at the Acadia Center, a climate-focused nonprofit.

But Hydro-Québec isn’t doing enough to integrate itself into this system, she says.

It’s “the tool that all of our regulators in New England rely on when we are confirming to ourselves that we’ve met our clean energy and our carbon goals. And…New York has a tool just like that,” said Donovan. “There isn’t a tracking system in Canada that’s comparable, though provinces like Nova Scotia are tapping the Western Climate Initiative for technical support.”

Hydro Quebec Chénier-Vignan transmission line crossing the Outaouais river. Photography courtesy of Hydro-Québec
Developing this system is more a question of Canadian climate policy than technology.

Energy companies have long had the same basic tracking device—a meter, said Tanya Bodell, a consultant and expert in New England’s energy market. But in New England, on top of measuring “every time there’s a physical flow of electricity” from a given source, said Bodell, a meter “generates an attribute or a GIS certificate,” which certifies exactly where it’s from. The certificate can show the owner, the location, type of power and its average emissions.

Since 2006, Hydro-Québec has had the ability to attach the same certificates to its exports, and it sometimes does.

“It could be wind farm generation, even large hydro these days—we can do it,” said Louis Guilbault, who works in regulatory affairs at Hydro-Québec. For Quebec-produced wind energy, for example, “I can trade those to whoever’s willing to buy it,” he said.

But, despite having the ability, he also has the choice not to attach a detailed code—which Hydro doesn’t do for most of its hydropower—and to have it counted instead under the generic term of “system mix.”

Once that hydropower hits the New England market, the administrators there have their own way of packaging it. The market perhaps “tries to determine emissions, GHG content,” Guilbault said. “They have their own rules; they do their own calculations.”

This is the crux of what bothers people like Donovan and Bodell. Hydro-Québec is fully meeting its contractual obligations, since it’s not required to attach a code to every export. But the critics wish it would, whether by future obligation or on its own volition.

Quebec wants it both ways, Donovan argued; it wants the benefits of selling low-emission energy without joining the New England system of checks and balances.

“We could just buy undifferentiated power and be done with it, but we want carbon-free power,” Donovan said. “We’re buying it because of its carbon content—that’s the reason.”

Still, the requirements are slowly increasing. Under Hydro-Québec’s future contract with Massachusetts (which still has several regulatory steps to go through before it’s approved) it’s asked to sell the power’s attributes, not just the power itself. That means that, at least on paper, Massachusetts wants to be able to trace the energy back to a single location in Quebec.

“It’s part of the contract we just signed with them,” said Guilbault. “We’re going to deliver those attributes. I’m going to select a specific hydro facility, put the number in...and transfer that to the buyers.”

Hydro-Québec says it’s voluntarily increasing its accounting in other ways. “Even though this is not strictly required,” said spokeswoman Lynn St. Laurent, Hydro is tracking its entire output with a continent-wide registry, the North American Renewables Registry.

That registry is separate from New England’s, so as far as Bodell is concerned, the measure doesn’t really help. But she and others also expect the entire tracking system to grow and mature, perhaps integrating into one. If it had been created today, in fact, rather than in the 1990s, maybe it would use blockchain technology rather than a varied set of administrators, she said.

Counting emissions through tracking still has a long way to go, as well, said Donovan, and it will increasingly matter in Canada's race to net-zero as standards tighten. For example, natural gas is assigned an emissions number that’s meant to reflect the emissions when it’s consumed. But “we do not take into account what the upstream carbon emissions are through the pipeline leakage, methane releases during fracking, any of that,” she said.

Now that the search for exactitude has begun, Hydro-Québec won’t be exempt, whether or not Quebeckers share that curiosity. “We don’t know what Hydro-Québec is doing on the other side of the border,” said Donovan.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Geothermal Power Plant Risks include hydrogen sulfide leaks, toxic gases, lava flow hazards, well blowouts, and earthquake-induced releases at sites like PGV and the Geysers, threatening public health, grid reliability, and environmental safety.

Key Points

Geothermal Power Plant Risks include toxic gases, lava impacts, well failures, and induced quakes that threaten health.

✅ Hydrogen sulfide exposure can cause rapid pulmonary edema.

✅ Lava can breach wells, venting toxic gases into communities.

✅ Induced seismicity may disrupt grids near PGV and the Geysers.

If lava reaches Hawaii’s PGV geothermal power plant, it could release of deadly hydrogen sulfide gas. That’s the latest potential danger from the Kilauea volcanic eruption in Hawaii. Residents now fear that lava flow will trigger a meltdown at the Puna Geothermal Venture (PGV) power plant that would release even more toxic gases into the air.

Nobody knows what will happen if lava engulfs the PGV because magma has never engulfed a geothermal power plant, Reuters reported. A geothermal power plant uses steam and gas heated by lava deep in the earth to run turbines that make electricity.

The PGV power plant produces 25% of the power used on Hawaii’s “Big Island.” The plant is considered a source of clean energy because geothermal plants burn no fossil fuels and produce little pollution under normal circumstances, even as nuclear retirements like Three Mile Island reshape low-carbon options.

The Potential Danger from Geothermal Energy

The fear is that the lava would release chemicals used to make electricity at the plant. The PGV has been shut down and authorities moved an estimated 60,000 gallons of flammable liquids away from the facility. They also shut down wells that extract steam and gas used to run the turbines.

Another potential danger is that lava would open the wells and release clouds of toxic gases from them. The wells are typically sealed to prevent the gas from entering the atmosphere.

The most significant threat is hydrogen sulfide, a highly toxic and flammable gas that is colorless. Hydrogen sulfide normally has a rotten egg smell which people might not detect when the air is full of smoke. That means people can breathe hydrogen sulfide in without realizing they have been exposed.

The greatest danger from hydrogen sulfide is pulmonary edema; the accumulation of fluid in the lungs, which causes a person to stop breathing. People have died of pulmonary edema after just a few minutes of exposure to hydrogen sulfide gas. Many victims become unconscious before the gas kills them. Long-term dangers that survivors of pulmonary edema face include brain damage.

Hydrogen sulfide can also cause burns to the skin that are similar to frostbite. Persons exposed to hydrogen sulfide can also suffer from nausea, headaches, severe eye burns, and delirium. Children are more vulnerable to hydrogen sulfide because it is a heavy gas that stays close to the ground.

Geothermal Danger Extends Far Beyond Hawaii

The danger from geothermal energy extends far beyond Hawaii. The world’s largest collection of geothermal power plants is located at the Geysers in California’s Wine Country, and regulatory timelines such as the postponed closure of three Southern California plants can affect planning.

The Geysers field contains 350 steam production wells and 22 power plants in Sonoma, Lake, and Mendocino counties. Disturbingly, the Geysers are located just north of the heavily-populated San Francisco Bay Area and just west of Sacramento, where preemptive electricity shutdowns have been used during extreme fire weather. Problems at the Geysers might lead to significant blackouts because the field supplies around 20% of the green energy used in California.

Another danger from geothermal power is earthquakes because many geothermal power plants inject wastewater into hot rock deep below to produce steam to run turbines, a factor under review as SaskPower explores geothermal in new settings. A geothermal project in Switzerland created Earthquakes by injecting water into the Earth, Zero Hedge reported. A theoretical threat is that quakes caused by injection would cause the release of deadly gases at a geothermal power plant.

The dangers from geothermal power might be much greater than its advocates admit, potentially increasing reliance on natural-gas-based electricity during supply shortfalls.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

DTEK Rotterdam+ price-fixing case scrutinizes alleged collusion over coal-based electricity tariffs in Ukraine, with NABU probing NERC regulators, market manipulation, consumer overpayment, and wholesale pricing tied to imported coal benchmarks.

Key Points

NABU probes alleged DTEK-NERC collusion to inflate coal power tariffs via Rotterdam+; all suspects deny wrongdoing.

✅ NABU alleges tariff manipulation tied to coal import benchmarks.

✅ Four DTEK execs and four NERC officials reportedly charged.

✅ Probe centers on 2016-2017 overpayments; defendants contest.

Two more executives of DTEK, Ukraine’s largest private power and coal producer and recently in energy talks with Octopus Energy, have been charged in a criminal case on August 14 involving an alleged conspiracy to fix electricity prices with the state energy regulator, Interfax reported.

They are Ivan Helyukh, the CEO of subsidiary DTEK Grid, which operates as Ukraine modernizes its network alongside global moves toward a smart electricity grid, and Borys Lisoviy, a top manager of power generation company Skhidenergo, according to Kyiv-based Concorde Capital investment bank.

Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) alleges that now four DTEK managers “pressured” and colluded with four regulators at the National Energy and Utilities Regulatory Commission to manipulate tariffs on electricity generated from coal that forced consumers to overpay, reflecting debates about unjustified profits in the UK, $747 million in 2016-2017.

DTEK allegedly benefited $560 million in the scheme.

All eight suspects are charged with “abuse of office” and deny wrongdoing, similar to findings in a B.C. Hydro regulator report published in Canada.

There is “no legitimate basis for suspicions set out in the investigation,” DTEK said in an August 8 statement.

Suspect Dmytro Vovk, the former head of NERC, dismissed the investigation as a “wild goose chase” on Facebook.

In separate statements over the past week, DTEK said the managers who are charged have prematurely returned from vacation to “fully cooperate” with authorities in order to “help establish the truth.”

A Kyiv court on August 14 set bail at $400,000 for one DTEK manager who wasn’t named, as enforcement actions like the NT Power penalty highlight regulatory consequences.

The so-called Rotterdam+ pricing formula that NABU has been investigating since March 2017, similar to federal scrutiny of TVA rates, was in place from April 2016 until July of this year.

It based the wholesale price of electricity by Ukrainian thermal power plants on coal prices set in the Rotterdam port plus delivery costs to Ukraine.

NABU alleges that at certain times it has not seen documented proof that the purchased coal originated in Rotterdam, insisting that there was no justification for the price hikes, echoing issues around paying for electricity in India in some markets.

Ukraine started facing thermal-coal shortages after fighting between government forces and Russia-backed separatists in the eastern part of the country erupted in April 2014. A vast majority of the anthracite-coal mines on which many Ukrainian plants rely are located on territory controlled by the separatists.

Overnight, Ukraine went from being a net exporter of coal to a net importer and started purchasing coal from as far away as South Africa and Australia.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Wall Street Fossil Fuel Pivot signals banks reassessing ESG, net-zero, and decarbonization goals, reviving oil, gas, and coal financing while recalibrating clean energy exposure amid policy shifts, regulatory rollbacks, and investment risk realignment.

Key Points

A shift as major U.S. banks ease ESG limits to fund oil, gas, coal while rebalancing alongside renewables.

✅ Banks revisit lending to oil, gas, and coal after policy shifts.

✅ ESG and net-zero commitments face reassessment amid returns.

✅ Renewables compete for capital as risk models are updated.

The global energy finance sector, worth a staggering $1.4 trillion, is undergoing a significant transformation, largely due to former President Donald Trump's renewed support for the oil, gas, and coal industries. Wall Street, which had previously aligned itself with global climate initiatives and the energy transition and net-zero goals, is now reassessing its strategy and pivoting toward a more fossil-fuel-friendly stance.

This shift represents a major change from the earlier stance, where many of the largest U.S. banks and financial institutions took a firm stance on decarbonization push, including limiting their exposure to fossil-fuel projects. Just a few years ago, these institutions were vocal supporters of the global push for a sustainable future, with many committing to support clean energy solutions and abandon investments in high-carbon energy sources.

However, with the change in administration and the resurgence of support for traditional energy sectors under Trump’s policies, these same banks are now rethinking their strategies. Financial institutions are increasingly discussing the possibility of lifting long-standing restrictions that limited their investments in controversial fossil-fuel projects, including coal mining, where emissions drop as coal declines, and offshore drilling. The change reflects a broader realignment within the energy finance sector, with Wall Street reexamining its role in shaping the future of energy.

One of the most significant developments is the Biden administration’s policy reversal, which emphasized reducing the U.S. carbon footprint in favor of carbon-free electricity strategies. Under Trump, however, there has been a renewed focus on supporting the traditional energy sectors. His administration has pushed to reduce regulatory burdens on fossil-fuel companies, particularly oil and gas, while simultaneously reintroducing favorable tax incentives for the coal and gas industries. This is a stark contrast to the Biden administration's efforts to incentivize the transition toward renewable energy and zero-emissions goals.

Trump's policies have, in effect, sent a strong signal to financial markets that the fossil-fuel industry could see a resurgence. U.S. banks, which had previously distanced themselves from financing oil and gas ventures due to the pressure from environmental activists and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investors, as seen in investor pressure on Duke Energy, are now reconsidering their positions. Major players like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs are reportedly having internal discussions about revisiting financing for energy projects that involve high carbon emissions, including controversial oil extraction and gas drilling initiatives.

The implications of this shift are far-reaching. In the past, a growing number of institutional investors had embraced ESG principles, with the goal of supporting the transition to renewable energy sources. However, Trump’s pro-fossil fuel stance appears to be emboldening Wall Street’s biggest players to rethink their commitment to green investing. Some are now advocating for a “balanced approach” that would allow for continued investment in traditional energy sectors, while also acknowledging the growing importance of renewable energy investments, a trend echoed by European oil majors going electric in recent years.

This reversal has led to confusion among investors and analysts, who are now grappling with how to navigate a rapidly changing landscape. Wall Street's newfound support for the fossil-fuel industry comes amid a backdrop of global concerns about climate change. Many investors, who had previously embraced policies aimed at curbing the effects of global warming, are now finding it harder to reconcile their environmental commitments with the shift toward fossil-fuel-heavy portfolios. The reemergence of fossil-fuel-friendly policies is forcing institutional investors to rethink their long-term strategies.

The consequences of this policy shift are also being felt by renewable energy companies, which now face increased competition for investment dollars from traditional energy sectors. The shift towards oil and gas projects has made it more challenging for renewable energy companies to attract the same level of financial backing, even as demand for clean energy continues to rise and as doubling electricity investment becomes a key policy call. This could result in a deceleration of renewable energy projects, potentially delaying the progress needed to meet the world’s climate targets.

Despite this, some analysts remain optimistic that the long-term shift toward green energy is inevitable, even if fossil-fuel investments gain a temporary boost. As the world continues to grapple with the effects of climate change, and as technological advancements in clean energy continue to reduce costs, the transition to renewables is likely to persist, regardless of the political climate.

The shift in Wall Street’s approach to energy investments, spurred by Trump’s pro-fossil fuel policies, is reshaping the $1.4 trillion global energy finance market. While the pivot towards fossil fuels may offer short-term gains, the long-term trajectory for energy markets remains firmly in the direction of renewables. The next few years will be crucial in determining whether financial institutions can balance the demand for short-term profitability with their long-term environmental responsibilities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Energy Transition Grid Reforms address transmission capacity, interconnection, congestion management, and flexibility markets, enabling renewable integration and grid stability while optimizing network charges and access in Australia, Ireland, and Great Britain.

Key Points

Measures to expand transmission, boost flexibility, and manage congestion for reliable, low-carbon electricity systems.

✅ Transmission upgrades and interconnectors ease congestion

✅ Flexible markets, DER, and storage bolster grid stability

✅ Evolving network charges and access incentivize siting

Electricity networks globally are experiencing significant increases in the volume of renewable capacity as countries seek to decarbonise their power sectors, even as clean energy's 'dirty secret' highlights integration trade-offs, without impacting the security of supply. The scale of this change is creating new challenges for power networks and those responsible for keeping the lights on.

The latest insight paper from Cornwall Insight – Market design amidst global energy transition – looks into this issue. It examines the outlook for transmission networks, and how legacy design and policies are supporting decarbonisation, aligning with IRENA findings on renewables and shaping the system. The paper focuses on three key markets; Australia, Ireland and Great Britain (GB).

Australia's main priority is to enhance transmission capacity and network efficiency; as concerns over excess solar risking blackouts grow in distribution networks, without this, the transmission system will be a barrier to growth for decentralised flexibility and renewables. In contrast, GB and Ireland benefit from interconnection with other national markets. This provides them with additional levers that can be pulled to manage system security and supply. However, they are still trying to hone and optimise network flexibility in light of steepening decarbonisation objectives.

Unsurprisingly, renewable energy resources have been growing in all three markets, with Ireland regarded as a leader in grid integration, with this expected to continue for the foreseeable future. Many of these projects are often located in places where network infrastructure is not as well developed, creating pressure on system operation as a result.

In all three markets, unit charges are rising, driven by a reduced charging base as decentralised energy grows quickly. This combination of changes is leading to network congestion, a challenge mirrored by the US grid overhaul for renewables underway, as transmission network development struggles to keep up, and flexibility markets are being optimised and changed.

In summary, reforms are on-going in each jurisdiction to accommodate the rapid physical transformation of the generation mix. Each has its objectives and tensions which are reflective of wider global reform programmes being undertaken in most developed, liberalised and decarbonising energy markets.

Gareth Miller, CEO of Cornwall Insight, said: “Despite differences in market design and characteristics, all three markets are grappling with similar issues, that comes from committing to deep decarbonisation. This includes the most appropriate methods for charging for networks, managing access to them and dealing with issues such as network congestion and constraint.

“In all three countries, renewable projects are often placed in isolated locations, as seen in Scotland where more pylons are needed to keep the lights on, away from the traditional infrastructure that is closer to demand. However, as renewable growth is set to continue, the networks will need to transition from being demand-centric to more supply orientated.

“Both system operators and stakeholders will need to continually evaluate their market structures and designs to alleviate issues surrounding locational congestion and grid stability. Each market is at very different stages in the process in trying to improve any problems implementing solutions to allow for higher efficiencies in renewable energy integration.

“It is uncertain whether any of the proposed changes will fundamentally resolve the issues that come with increased renewables on the system. However, despite marked differences, they certainly could all learn from each other and elements of their network arrangements, as well as from US decarbonisation strategies research.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Fukushima Daiichi decommissioning delay highlights TEPCO's revised timeline, spent fuel removal at Units 1 and 2, safety enclosures, decontamination, fuel debris extraction by robot arm, and contaminated water management under stricter radiation control.

Key Points

A government revised schedule pushing back spent fuel removal and decommissioning milestones at Fukushima Daiichi.

✅ TEPCO delays spent fuel removal at Units 1 and 2 for safety.

✅ Enclosures, decontamination, and robotics mitigate radioactive risk.

✅ Contaminated water cut target: 170 tons/day to 100 by 2025.

The Japanese government decided Friday to delay the removal of spent fuel from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant's Nos. 1 and 2 reactors by as much as five years, casting doubt on whether it can stick to its timeframe for dismantling the crippled complex.

The process of removing the spent fuel from the units' pools had previously been scheduled to begin in the year through March 2024.

In its latest decommissioning plan, the government said the plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc., will not begin the roughly two-year process (a timeline comparable to major reactor refurbishment programs seen worldwide) at the No. 1 unit at least until the year through March 2028 and may wait until the year through March 2029.

Work at the No. 2 unit is now slated to start between the year through March 2025 and the year through March 2027, it said.

The delay is necessary to take further safety precautions such as the construction of an enclosure around the No. 1 unit to prevent the spread of radioactive dust, and decontamination of the No. 2 unit, even as authorities have begun reopening previously off-limits towns nearby, the government said. It is the fourth time it has revised its schedule for removing the spent fuel rods.

"It's a very difficult process and it's hard to know what to expect. The most important thing is the safety of the workers and the surrounding area," industry minister Hiroshi Kajiyama told a press conference.

The government set a new goal of finishing the removal of the 4,741 spent fuel rods across all six of the plant's reactors by the year through March 2032, amid ongoing debates about the consequences of early nuclear plant closures elsewhere.

Plant operator TEPCO has started the process at the No. 3 unit and already finished at the No. 4 unit, which was off-line for regular maintenance at the time of the disaster. A schedule has yet to be set for the Nos. 5 and 6 reactors.

While the government maintained its overarching timeframe of finishing the decommissioning of the plant 30 to 40 years from the 2011 crisis triggered by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami, there may be further delays, even as milestones at other nuclear projects are being reached worldwide.

The government said it will begin removing fuel debris from the three reactors that experienced core meltdowns in the year through March 2022, starting with the No. 2 unit as part of broader reactor decommissioning efforts.

The process, considered the most difficult part of the decommissioning plan, will involve using a robot arm, reflecting progress in advanced reactors technologies, to initially remove small amounts of debris, moving up to larger amounts.

The government also said it will aim to reduce the pace at which contaminated water at the plant increases. Water for cooling the melted cores, mixed with underground water, amounts to around 170 tons a day. That number will be brought down to 100 tons by 2025, it said.

The water is being treated to remove the most radioactive materials and stored in tanks on the plant's grounds, but already more than 1 million tons has been collected and space is expected to run out by the summer of 2022.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News