Japan halts 3 reactors after quake threat

Ireland 65% Renewable Grid Capability showcases world leading integration of intermittent wind and solar, smart grid flexibility, EU-SysFlex learnings, and the Celtic Interconnector to enhance stability, exports, and energy security across the European grid.

Key Points

Ireland can run its isolated power system with 65% variable wind and solar, informing EU grid integration and scaling.

✅ 65% system non-synchronous penetration on an isolated grid

✅ EU-SysFlex roadmap supports large-scale renewables integration

✅ Celtic Interconnector adds 700MW capacity and stability

Ireland is now able to cope with 65% of its electricity coming from intermittent electricity sources like wind and solar, as highlighted by Ireland's green electricity outlook today – an expertise Energy Minister Denish Naugthen believes can be replicated on a larger scale as Europe moves towards 50% renewable power by 2030.

Denis Naughten is an Irish politician who serves as Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment since May 2016.

Naughten spoke to editor Frédéric Simon on the sidelines of a EURACTIV event in the European  Parliament to mark the launch of EU-SysFlex, an EU-funded project, which aims to create a long-term roadmap for the large-scale integration of renewable energy on electricity grids.

What is the reason for your presence in Brussels today and the main message that you came to deliver?

The reason that I’m here today is that we’re going to share the knowledge what we have developed in Ireland, right across Europe. We are now the global leaders in taking variable renewable electricity like wind and solar onto our grid.

We can take a 65% loading on to the grid today – there is no other isolated grid in the world that can do that. We’re going to get up to 75% by 2020. This is a huge technical challenge for any electricity grid and it’s going to be a problem that is going to grow and grow across Europe, even as Europe's electricity demand rises in the coming years, as we move to 50% renewables onto our grid by 2030.

And our knowledge and understanding can be used to help solve the problems right across Europe. And the sharing of technology can mean that we can make our own grid in Ireland far more robust.

What is the contribution of Ireland when it comes to the debate which is currently taking place in Europe about raising the ambition on renewable energy and make the grid fit for that? What are the main milestones that you see looking ahead for Europe and Ireland?

It is a challenge for Europe to do this, but we’ve done it Ireland. We have been able to take a 65% loading of wind power on our grid, with Irish wind generation hitting records recently, so we can replicate that across Europe.

Yes it is about a much larger scale and yes, we need to work collaboratively together, reflecting common goals for electricity networks worldwide – not just in dealing with the technical solutions that we have in Ireland at the fore of this technology, but also replicating them on a larger scale across Europe.

And I believe we can do that, I believe we can use the learnings that we have developed in Ireland and amplify those to deal with far bigger challenges that we have on the European electricity grid.

Trialogue talks have started at European level about the reform of the electricity market. There is talk about decentralised energy generation coming from small-scale producers. Do you see support from all the member states in doing that? And how do you see the challenges ahead on a political level to get everyone on board on such a vision?

I don’t believe there is a political problem here in relation to this. I think there is unanimity across Europe that we need to support consumers in producing electricity for self-consumption and to be able to either store or put that back into the grid.

The issues here are more technical in nature. And how you support a grid to do that. And who actually pays for that. Ireland is very much a microcosm of the pan-European grid and how we can deal with those challenges.

What we’re doing at the moment in Ireland is looking at a pilot scheme to support consumers to generate their own electricity to meet their own needs and to be able to store that on site.

I think in the years to come a lot of that will be actually done with more battery storage in the form of electric vehicles and people would be able to transport that energy from one location to another as and when it’s needed. In the short term, we’re looking at some novel solutions to support consumers producing their own electricity and meeting their own needs.

So I think this is complex from a technical point of view at the moment, I don’t think there is an unwillingness from a political perspective to do it, and I think working with this particular initiative and other initiatives across Europe, we can crack those technical challenges.

To conclude, last year, the European Commission allocated €4 million to a project to link up the Irish electricity grid to France. How is that going to benefit Ireland? And is that related to worries that you may have over Brexit?

The plan, which is called the Celtic Interconnector, is to link France with the Irish electricity grid. It’s going to have a capacity of about 700MW. It allows us to provide additional stability on our grid and enables us to take more renewables onto the grid. It also allows us to export renewable electricity onto the main European grid as well, and provide stability to the French network.

So it’s a benefit to both individual networks as well as allowing far more renewables onto the grid. We’ve been working quite closely with RTE in France and with both regulators. We’re hoping to get the support of the European Commission to move it now from the design stage onto the construction stage. And I understand discussions are ongoing with the Commission at present with regard to that.

And that is going to diversify potential sources of electricity coming in for Ireland in a situation which is pretty uncertain because of Brexit, correct?

Well, I don’t think there is uncertainty because of Brexit in that we have agreements with the United Kingdom, we’re still going to be part of the broader energy family in relation to back-and-forth supply across the Irish Sea, with grid reinforcements in Scotland underscoring reliability needs.  But I think it is important in terms of meeting the 15% interconnectivity that the EU has set in relation to electricity.

And also in relation of providing us with an alternative support in relation to electricity supply outside of Britain. Because Britain is now leaving the European Union and I think this is important from a political point of view, and from a broader energy security point of view. But we don’t see it in the short term as causing threats in relation to security of supply.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Wholesale prices averaged $123/MWh in December

✅ Gas costs surged; supply constraints and outages

✅ Carbon tax and decarbonization policies raised costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Ontario ICI Electricity Pricing Freeze helps Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI) participants by stabilizing Global Adjustment charges, suspending peak hours curtailment, and reducing COVID-19-related electricity cost volatility to support large employers returning operations to full capacity.

Key Points

A two-year policy stabilizing GA costs and pausing peak-hour cuts to aid industrial and commercial recovery.

✅ GA cost share frozen for two years

✅ No peak-hour curtailment obligations

✅ Supports industrial and commercial restart

The Ontario government is helping large industrial and commercial companies return to full levels of operation without the fear of electricity costs spiking by providing more stable electricity pricing for two years. Effective immediately, companies that participate in the Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI) will not be required to reduce their electricity usage during peak hours or shift some load to ultra-low overnight pricing where applicable, as their proportion of Global Adjustment (GA) charges for these companies will be frozen.

"Ontario's industrial and commercial electricity consumers continue to experience unprecedented economic challenges during COVID-19, with electricity relief for households and small businesses introduced to help," said Greg Rickford, Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines. "Today's announcement will allow large industrial employers to focus on getting their operations up and running and employees back to work, instead of adjusting operations in response to peak electricity demand hours."

Due to COVID-19, electricity consumption in Ontario has been below average as fall in demand as people stayed home across the province, and the province is forecast to have a reliable supply of electricity, supported by the system operator's staffing contingency plans during the pandemic, to accommodate increased usage. Peak hours generally occur during the summer when the weather is hot and electricity demand from cooling systems is high.

"Today's action will reduce the burden of anticipating and responding to peak hours for more than 1,300 ICI participants with 2,000 primarily industrial facilities in Ontario," said Bill Walker, Associate Minister of Energy. "Now these large employers can focus on getting their operations back up and running at full tilt and explore new energy-efficiency programs to manage costs."

The government previously announced it was providing temporary relief for industrial and commercial electricity consumers that do not participate in the Regulated Price Plan (RPP) by deferring a portion of GA charges for April, May and June 2020 and by extending off-peak rates for many customers, as well as a disconnect moratorium extension for residential electricity users.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

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

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Global Adjustment Appeal spotlights Ontario's electricity fee, regulatory charge vs tax debate, FIT contracts, green energy policy, and constitutional challenge as National Steel Car contests soaring power costs before the Ontario Superior Court.

Key Points

Court challenge over Ontario's global adjustment fee, disputing its status as a regulatory charge instead of a tax.

✅ Challenges classification of global adjustment as tax vs regulatory charge.

✅ Focuses on FIT contracts, renewable energy payments, power cost impacts.

✅ Appeals Ontario ruling; implications for ratepayers and policy.

A manufacturer of steel rail cars is pursuing an appeal after its lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a major Ontario electricity fee was struck down earlier this year.

Lawyers for Hamilton, Ont.-based National Steel Car Ltd. filed a notice of appeal in July after Ontario Superior Court Justice Wendy Matheson ruled in June that an electricity fee known as the global adjustment charge was a regulatory charge, and not an unconstitutional tax used to finance policy goals, as National Steel Car alleges.

The company, the decision noted, began its legal crusade last year after seeing its electricity bills had “increased dramatically” since the Ontario government passed green energy legislation nearly a decade ago, and amid concerns that high electricity rates are hurting Ontario manufacturers.

Under that legislation, the judge wrote, “private suppliers of renewable energy were paid to ’feed in’ energy into Ontario’s electricity grid.” The contracts for these so-called “feed-in tariff” contracts, or FIT contracts, were the “primary focus” of the lawsuit.

“The applicant seeks a declaration that part of the amount it has paid for electricity is an unconstitutional tax rather than a valid regulatory charge,” the judge added. “More specifically, it challenges part of the Global Adjustment, which is a component of electricity pricing and incorporates obligations under FIT contracts.”

Chiefly representing the difference between Ontario’s market price for power and the guaranteed price owed to generators, global adjustment now makes up the bulk of the commodity cost of electricity in the province. The fee has risen over the past decade, amid calls to reject steep Nova Scotia rate hikes as well — costing electricity customers $37 billion in global adjustment from 2006 to 2014, according to the province’s auditor general — because of investments in the electricity grid and green-energy contracts, among other reasons.

National Steel Car argued the global adjustment is a tax, and an unconstitutional one at that because it violated a section of the Constitution Act requiring taxes to be authorized by the legislature. The company also said the imposition of the global adjustment broke an Ontario law requiring a referendum to be held for new taxes.

The province, Justice Matheson wrote, had argued “that it is plain and obvious that these applications will fail.” In a decision released in June, the judge granted motions to strike out National Steel Car’s applications.

“The Global Adjustment,” she added, “is not a tax because its purpose, in pith and substance, is not to tax, and it is a regulatory charge and therefore, again, not a tax.”

Now, National Steel Car is arguing that the judge erred in several ways, including in fact, “by finding that the FIT contracts must be paid, when they can be cancelled.”

There has been a change in government at Queen’s Park since National Steel Car first filed its lawsuit last year, and that change has put green energy contracts under fire. The Progressive Conservative government of new Premier Doug Ford has already made a number of decisions on the electricity file, such as moving to cancel and wind down more than 750 renewable energy contracts, as well as repealing the province’s Green Energy Act.

The Tories also struck a commission of inquiry into the province’s finances that warned the global adjustment “may be struck down as unconstitutional,” a warning delivered amid cases where Nova Scotia's regulator approved a 14% rate hike in a high-profile decision.

“There is a risk that a court may find the global adjustment is not a valid regulatory charge if shifting costs over a longer period of time inadvertently results in future ratepayers cross-subsidizing today’s ratepayers,” the commission’s report said.

A spokesperson for Ontario’s Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines said in an email that it would be “inappropriate to comment about the specifics of any case before the courts or currently under arbitration.”

National Steel Car is also prepared to fight its case all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, according to its lawyer.

“What is clear from our proceeding with the appeal is National Steel Car has every intention of seeing that lawsuit through to its conclusion if this government isn’t interested or prepared to reasonably settle it,” Jerome Morse said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis highlights nuclear power vs coal and natural gas, renewables and hydropower limits, carbon emissions, energy security, and baseload reliability during Russia-related supply shocks and winter demand.

Key Points

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis weighs reactor extensions vs coal revival to bolster security, curb emissions.

✅ Coal plants restarted; nuclear shutdown stays on schedule.

✅ Energy security prioritized amid Russian gas supply cuts.

✅ Emissions likely rise despite renewables expansion.

Peel away the politics and the passion, the doomsaying and the denialism, and climate change largely boils down to this: energy. To avoid the chances of catastrophic climate change while ensuring the world can continue to grow — especially for poor people who live in chronically energy-starved areas — we’ll need to produce ever more energy from sources that emit little or no greenhouse gases.

It’s that simple — and, of course, that complicated.

Zero-carbon sources of renewable energy like wind and solar have seen tremendous increases in capacity and equally impressive decreases in price in recent years, while the decades-old technology of hydropower is still what the International Energy Agency calls the “forgotten giant of low-carbon electricity.”

And then there’s nuclear power. Viewed strictly through the lens of climate change, nuclear power can claim to be a green dream, even as Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy most.

Unlike coal or natural gas, nuclear plants do not produce direct carbon dioxide emissions when they generate electricity, and over the past 50 years they’ve reduced CO2 emissions by nearly 60 gigatonnes. Unlike solar or wind, nuclear plants aren’t intermittent, and they require significantly less land area per megawatt produced. Unlike hydropower — which has reached its natural limits in many developed countries, including the US — nuclear plants don’t require environmentally intensive dams.

As accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown, when nuclear power goes wrong, it can go really wrong. But newer plant designs reduce the risk of such catastrophes, which themselves tend to garner far more attention than the steady stream of deaths from climate change and air pollution linked to the normal operation of conventional power plants.

So you might imagine that those who see climate change as an unparalleled existential threat would cheer the development of new nuclear plants and support the extension of nuclear power already in service.

In practice, however, that’s often not the case, as recent events in Germany underline.

When is a Green not green?
The Russian war in Ukraine has made a mess of global energy markets, but perhaps no country has proven more vulnerable than Germany, reigniting debate over a possible resurgence of nuclear energy in Germany among policymakers.

At the start of the year, Russian exports supplied more than half of Germany’s natural gas, along with significant portions of its oil and coal imports. Since the war began, Russia has severely curtailed the flow of gas to Germany, putting the country in a state of acute energy crisis, with fears growing as next winter looms.

With little natural gas supplies of the country’s own, and its heavily supported renewable sector unable to fully make up the shortfall, German leaders faced a dilemma. To maintain enough gas reserves to get the country through the winter, they could try to put off the closure of Germany’s last three remaining nuclear reactors temporarily, which were scheduled to shutter by the end of 2022 as part of Germany’s post-Fukushima turn against nuclear power, and even restart already closed reactors.

Or they could try to reactivate mothballed coal-fired power plants, and make up some of the electricity deficit with Germany’s still-ample coal reserves.

Based on carbon emissions alone, you’d presumably go for the nuclear option. Coal is by far the dirtiest of fossil fuels, responsible for a fifth of all global greenhouse gas emissions — more than any other single source — as well as a soup of conventional air pollutants. Nuclear power produces none of these.

German legislators saw it differently. Last week, the country’s parliament, with the backing of members of the Green Party in the coalition government, passed emergency legislation to reopen coal-powered plants, as well as further measures to boost the production of renewable energy. There would be no effort to restart closed nuclear power plants, or even consider a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout for the last active reactors.

“The gas storage tanks must be full by winter,” Robert Habeck, Germany’s economy minister and a member of the Green Party, said in June, echoing arguments that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue for the coming winter.

Partially as a result of that prioritization, Germany — which has already seen carbon emissions rise over the past two years, missing its ambitious emissions targets — will emit even more carbon in 2022.

To be fair, restarting closed nuclear power plants is a far more complex undertaking than lighting up old coal plants. Plant operators had only bought enough uranium to make it to the end of 2022, so nuclear fuel supplies are set to run out regardless.

But that’s also the point. Germany, which views itself as a global leader on climate, is grasping at the most carbon-intensive fuel source in part because it made the decision in 2011 to fully turn its back on nuclear for good at the time, enshrining what had been a planned phase-out into law.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News