Early closures could mean power shortages

Oil and Gas Profitability Decline reflects shale-driven oversupply, OPEC-Russia dynamics, LNG exports, renewables growth, and weak demand, signaling compressed margins for producers, stressed petrodollar budgets, and shifting energy markets post-Covid.

Key Points

A sustained squeeze on hydrocarbon margins from agile shale supply, weaker OPEC leverage, and expanding renewables.

✅ Shale responsiveness caps prices and erodes industry rents

✅ OPEC-Russia cuts face limited impact versus US supply

✅ Renewables and EVs slow long-term oil and gas demand

The oil-price crash of March 2020 will probably not last long. As in 2014, when the oil price dropped below $50 from $110 in a few weeks, this one will trigger a temporary collapse of the US shale industry. Unless the coronavirus outbreak causes Armageddon, cheap oil will also support policymakers’ efforts to help the global economy.

But there will be at least one important and lasting difference this time round — and it has major market and geopolitical implications.

The oil price crash is a foretaste of where the whole energy sector was going anyway — and that is down.

It may not look that way at first. Saudi Arabia will soon realise, as it did in 2015, that its lethal decision to pump more oil is not only killing US shale but its public finances as well. Riyadh will soon knock on Moscow’s door again. Once American shale supplies collapse, Russia will resume co-operation with Saudi Arabia.

With the world economy recovering from the Covid-19 crisis by then, and with electricity demand during COVID-19 shifting, moderate supply cuts by both countries will accelerate oil market recovery. In time, US shale producers will return too.

Yet this inevitable bounceback should not distract from two fundamental factors that were already remaking oil and gas markets. First, the shale revolution has fundamentally eroded industry profitability. Second, the renewables’ revolution will continue to depress growth in demand.

The combined result has put the profitability of the entire global hydrocarbon industry under pressure. That means fewer petrodollars to support oil-producing countries’ national budgets, including Canada's oil sector exposures. It also means less profitable oil companies, which traditionally make up a large segment of stock markets, an important component of so many western pension funds.

Start with the first factor to see why this is so. Historically, the geological advantages that made oil from countries such as Saudi Arabia so cheap to produce were unique. Because oil and gas were produced at costs far below the market price, the excess profits, or “rent”, enjoyed by the industry were very large.

Furthermore, collusion among low-cost producers has been a winning strategy. The loss of market share through output cuts was more than compensated by immediately higher prices. It was the raison d’être of Opec.

The US shale revolution changed all this, exposing the limits of U.S. energy dominance narratives. A large oil-producing region emerged with a remarkable ability to respond quickly to price changes and shrink its costs over time. Cutting back cheap Opec oil now only increases US supplies, with little effect on world prices.

That is why Russia refused to cut production this month. Even if its cuts did boost world prices — doubtful given the coronavirus outbreak’s huge shock to demand — that would slow the shrinkage of US shale that Moscow wants.

Shale has affected the natural gas industry even more. Exports of US liquefied natural gas now put an effective ceiling on global prices, and debates over a clean electricity push have intensified when gas prices spike.

On top of all this, there is also the renewables’ revolution, though a green revolution has not been guaranteed in the near term. Around the world, wind and solar have become ever-cheaper options to generate electricity. Storage costs have also dropped and network management improved. Even in the US, renewables are displacing coal and gas. Electrification of vehicle fleets will damp demand further, as U.S. electricity, gas, and EVs face evolving pressures.

Eliminating fossil fuel consumption completely would require sustained and costly government intervention, and reliability challenges such as coal and nuclear disruptions add to the complexity. That is far from certain. Meanwhile, though, market forces are depressing the sector’s usual profitability.

The end of oil and gas is not immediately around the corner. Still, the end of hydrocarbons as a lucrative industry is a distinct possibility. We are seeing that in dramatic form in the current oil price crash. But this collapse is merely a message from the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

SM-1A Nuclear Plant Decommissioning details the US Army Corps of Engineers' removal of the Fort Greely reactor, Cold War facility dismantling, environmental monitoring, remote-site power history, and timeline to 2026 under a deactivated nuclear program.

Key Points

Army Corps plan to dismantle Fort Greely's SM-1A reactor and complete decommissioning of remaining systems by 2026.

✅ Built for remote Arctic radar support during the Cold War

✅ High costs beat diesel; program later deemed impractical

✅ Reactor parts removed; residuals monitored; removal by 2026

The US Army Corps of Engineers has begun decommissioning Alaska’s only nuclear power plant, SM-1A, which is located at Fort Greely, even as new US reactors continue to take shape nationwide. The $17m plant closed in 1972 after ten years of sporadic operation. It was out of commission from 1967 to 1969 for extensive repairs. Much of has already been dismantled and sent for disposal, and the rest, which is encased in concrete, is now to be removed.

The plant was built as part of an experimental programme to determine whether nuclear facilities, akin to next-generation nuclear concepts, could be built and operated at remote sites more cheaply than diesel-fuelled plants.

"The main approach was to reduce significant fuel-transportation costs by having a nuclear reactor that could operate for long terms, a concept echoed in the NuScale SMR safety evaluation process, with just one nuclear core," Brian Hearty said. Hearty manages the Army Corps of Engineers’ Deactivated Nuclear Power Plant Program.

#google#

He said the Army built SM-1A in 1962 hoping to provide power reliably at remote Arctic radar sites, where in similarly isolated regions today new US coal plants may still be considered, intended to detect incoming missiles from the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. He added that the programme worked but not as well as Pentagon officials had hoped. While SM-1A could be built and operated in a cold and remote location, its upfront costs were much higher than anticipated, and it costs more to maintain than a diesel power plant. Moreover, the programme became irrelevant because of advances in Soviet rocket science and the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Hearty said the reactor was partially dismantled soon after it was shut down. “All of the fuel in the reactor core was removed and shipped back to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) for them to either reprocess or dispose of,” he noted. “The highly activated control and absorber rods were also removed and shipped back to the AEC.”

The SM-1A plant produced 1.8MWe and 20MWt, including steam, which was used to heat the post. Because that part of the system was still needed, Army officials removed most of the nuclear-power system and linked the heat and steam components to a diesel-fired boiler. However, several parts of the nuclear system remained, including the reactor pressure vessel and reactor coolant pumps. “Those were either kept in place, or they were cut off and laid down in the tall vapour-containment building there,” Hearty said. “And then they were grouted and concreted in place.” The Corps of Engineers wants to remove all that remains of the plant, but it is as yet unclear whether that will be feasible.

Meanwhile, monitoring for radioactivity around the facility shows that it remains at acceptable levels. “It would be safe to say there’s no threat to human health in the environment,” said Brenda Barber, project manager for the decommissioning. Work is still in its early stages and is due to be completed in 2026 at the earliest. Barber said the Corps awarded the $4.6m contract in December to a Virginia-based firm to develop a long-range plan for the project, similar in scope to large reactor refurbishment efforts elsewhere. Among other things, this will help officials determine how much of the SM-1A will remain after it’s decommissioned. “There will still be buildings there,” she said. “There will still be components of some of the old structure there that may likely remain.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Scotland Wind Energy October saw renewables supply the equivalent of 98 percent of electricity demand, as onshore wind outpaced National Grid needs, cutting emissions and powering households, per WWF Scotland and WeatherEnergy.

Key Points

A monthly update showing Scottish onshore wind met the equivalent of 98% of electricity demand in October.

✅ 98% of monthly electricity demand equivalent met by wind

✅ 16 days exceeded total national demand, per data

✅ WWF Scotland and WeatherEnergy cited; lower emissions

New figures publicized by WWF Scotland have revealed that wind energy generated the equivalent of 98% of the country’s electricity demand in October, or enough electricity to power millions of Scottish homes across the country.

Scotland has regularly been highlighted as a global wind energy leader, and over the last few years has repeatedly reported record-breaking months for wind generation. Now, it’s all very well and good to say that Scottish wind delivered 98% of the country’s electricity demand, but the specifics are a little different — hence why WWF Scotland always refers to it as wind providing “the equivalent of 98%” of Scotland’s electricity demand. That’s why it’s worth looking at the statistics provided by WWF Scotland, sourced from WeatherEnergy, part of the European EnergizAIR project:

• National Grid demand for the month – 1,850,512 MWh
• What % of this could have been provided by wind power across Scotland – 98%
• Best day – 23rd October 2018, generation was 105,900.94 MWh, powering 8.72m homes, 356% of households. Demand that day was 45,274.5MWh – wind generation was 234% of that.
• Worst day – 18th October 2018 when generation was 18,377.71MWh powering 1,512,568 homes, 62% of households. Demand that day was 73,628.5MWh – wind generation was 25%
• How many days generation was over 100% of households – 27
• How many days generation was over 100% of demand – 16

“What a month October proved to be, with wind powering on average 98 per cent of Scotland’s entire electricity demand for the month, at a time when wind became the UK’s main power source and exceeding our total demand for a staggering 16 out of 31 days,” said Dr Sam Gardner, acting director at WWF Scotland.

“These figures clearly show wind is working, it’s helping reduce our emissions and is the lowest cost form of new power generation. It’s also popular, with a recent survey also showing more and more people support turbines in rural areas. That’s why it’s essential that the UK Government unlocks market access for onshore wind at a time when we need to be scaling up electrification of heat and transport.”

Alex Wilcox Brooke, Weather Energy Project Manager at Severn Wye Energy Agency, added: “Octobers figures are a prime example of how reliable & consistent wind production can be, with production on 16 days outstripping national demand.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Utility Renewable Investment Gap highlights Oxford study in Nature Energy: most electric utilities favor fossil fuels over clean energy transition, expanding coal and gas, risking stranded assets and missing climate targets despite global decarbonization commitments.

Key Points

Most utilities grow fossil capacity over renewables, slowing decarbonization and jeopardizing climate goals.

✅ Only 10% expand renewables faster than coal and gas growth

✅ 60% still add fossil plants; 15% actively cut coal and gas

✅ Risks: stranded assets, missed climate targets, policy backlash

Only one in 10 of the world’s electric utility companies are prioritising clean energy investment over growing their capacity of fossil fuel power plants, according to research from the University of Oxford.

The study of more than 3,000 utilities found most remain heavily invested in fossil fuels despite international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and barriers to 100% renewables in the US that persist, and some are actively expanding their portfolio of polluting power plants.

The majority of the utility companies, many of which are state owned, have made little change to their generation portfolio in recent years.

Only 10% of the companies in the study, published in the research journal Nature Energy, are expanding their renewable energy capacity, mirroring global wind and solar growth patterns, at a faster rate than their gas- or coal-fired capacity.

Advertisement
Of the companies prioritising renewable energy growth, 60% have not stopped concurrently expanding their fossil fuel portfolio and only 15% of these companies are actively reducing their gas and coal capacity.

Galina Alova, the author of the report, said the research highlighted “a worrying gap between what is needed” to tackle the climate crisis, with calls for a fossil fuel lockdown gaining attention, and “what actions are being taken by the utility sector”.

The report found 10% of utilities were favouring growth in gas-fired power plants. This cluster is dominated by US utilities, even as renewables surpass coal in US generation in the broader market, eager to take advantage of the country’s shale gas reserves, followed by Russia and Germany.

Only 2% of utilities are actively growing their coal-fired power capacity ahead of renewables or gas. This cluster is dominated by Chinese utilities – which alone contributed more than 60% of coal-focused companies – followed by India and Vietnam.

The report found the majority of companies prioritising renewable energy were clustered in Europe. Many of the industry’s biggest players are investing in low-carbon energy and green technologies, even as clean energy's dirty secret prompts debate, to replace their ageing fossil fuel power plants.

Sign up to the daily Business Today email or follow Guardian Business on Twitter at @BusinessDesk
In the UK, amid UK renewables backlog that has stalled billions, coal plants are shutting at pace ahead of the government’s 2025 ban on coal-fired power in part because the UK’s domestic carbon tax on power plants make them uneconomic to run.

“Although there have been a few high-profile examples of individual electric utilities investing in renewables, this study shows that overall, the sector is making the transition to clean energy slowly or not at all,” Alova said.

“Utilities’ continued investment in fossil fuels leaves them at risk of stranded assets – where power plants will need to be retired early – and undermines global efforts to tackle climate change.”
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Millstone COVID-19 safety concerns center on a nuclear refueling outage in Connecticut, temporary workers, OSHA complaints, PPE shortages, and disinfecting protocols, as Dominion Energy addresses virus precautions, staffing, and cybersecurity for safe voting infrastructure.

Key Points

Employee and union claims about PPE, cleaning, and OSHA compliance during a refueling outage at the nuclear plant.

✅ 10 positive cases; 750 temporary workers during refueling outage

✅ Union cites PPE gaps, partitions, and disinfectant effectiveness

✅ Dominion Energy notes increased cleaning, communication, staffing

Workers at Connecticut's only nuclear power plant worry that managers are not taking enough precautions against the coronavirus, as some utilities weigh on-site staffing measures to maintain operations, after 750 temporary employees were brought in to help refuel one of the two active reactors.

Ten employees at the Millstone Power Station in Waterford have tested positive for the virus, and, amid a U.S. grid pandemic warning, the arrival of the temporary workers alarms some of the permanent employees, The Day newspaper reported Sunday.

"Speaking specifically for the guard force, there's a lot of frustration, there's a lot of concern, and I would say there's anger," said Millstone security officer Jim Foley.

Foley, vice president of the local chapter of the United Government Security Officers of America, noted broader labor concerns such as unpaid wages for Kentucky miners while saying security personnel have had to fight for personal protective equipment and for partitions at access points to separate staff from security.

Foley also has filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration saying Millstone staff are using ineffective cleaning materials and citing a lack of cleaning and sanitizing, as telework limits at the EPA drew scrutiny during the pandemic, he said.

Officials at Millstone, owned by Dominion Energy, have not heard internal criticism about the plant's virus precautions, Millstone spokesman Kenneth Holt said.

"We've actually gotten a lot of compliments from employees on the steps we've taken," he said. "We've stepped up communications with employees to let them know what's going on."

As another example of communication efforts, COVID-19 updates at Site C have been published to keep workers informed.

Millstone recently increased cleaning staff on the weekends, Holt said, and there is regular disinfecting at the plant.

Separately, utility resilience remains a concern, as extended outages for tornado survivors in Kentucky may last weeks, affecting essential services.

Responding to the complaint about ineffective cleaning materials, Holt said staff members early in the pandemic went to a Home Depot and got a bottle of disinfectant that wasn't approved by the federal government as effective against the coronavirus. An approved disinfectant was brought in the next day, he said.

The deaths of nearly 2,500 Connecticut residents have been linked to COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus. More than 29,000 state residents have tested positive. As of Sunday, hospitalizations had declined for 11 consecutive days, to over 1,480.

With more people working remotely, utilities have reported higher residential electricity use during the pandemic, affecting household bills.

For most people, the coronavirus causes mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough, that clear up in two to three weeks. For some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia, and death.

In other developments related to the coronavirus:

SAFE VOTING

Secretary of the State Denise Merrill released a plan Monday aimed at making voting safe during the Aug. 11 primary and Nov. 3 general election.

Merrill said her office is requiring all cities and towns in the state to submit plans for the two elections that include a list of cleaning and safety products to be used, a list of polling locations, staffing levels at each polling location, and the names of polling workers and moderators.

Municipalities will be eligible for grants to cover the extra costs of holding elections during a pandemic, including expenses for cleaning products and increased staffing.

Merrill also announced her office and the Connecticut National Guard will perform a high-level cybersecurity assessment of the election infrastructure of all 169 towns in the state to guard against malicious actors.

Merrill's office also will provide network upgrades to the election infrastructures of 20 towns that have had chronic problems with connecting to the elections system.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

Ontario Electricity Supply Gap threatens growth as demand from EVs, heat pumps, industry, and greenhouses surges, pressuring the grid and IESO to add nuclear, renewables, storage, transmission, and imports while meeting net-zero goals.

Key Points

The mismatch as Ontario's electricity demand outpaces supply, driven by electrification, EVs, and industrial growth.

✅ Demand growth from EVs, heat pumps, and electrified industry

✅ Capacity loss from Pickering retirement and Darlington refurb

✅ Options: SMRs, renewables, storage, conservation, imports

Ontario electricity demand is forecast to soon outstrip supply as it confronts a shortage in the coming years, a problem that needs attention in the upcoming provincial election.

Forecasters say Ontario will need to double its power supply by 2050 as industries ramp up demand for low-emission clean power options and consumers switch to electric vehicles and space heating. But while the Ford government has made a flurry of recent energy announcements, including a hydrogen project at Niagara Falls and an interprovincial agreement on small nuclear reactors, it has not laid out how it intends to bulk up the province’s power supply.

“Ontario is entering a period of widening electricity shortfalls,” says the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. “Having a plan to address those shortfalls is essential to ensure businesses can continue investing and growing in Ontario with confidence.”

The supply and demand mismatch is coming because of brisk economic growth combined with increasing electrification to balance demand and emissions and meet Canada’s goal to reduce CO2 emissions by 40 per cent by 2030 and to net-zero by 2050.

Hamilton’s ArcelorMittal Dofasco and Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie are leaders on this transformation. They plan to replace their blast furnaces and basic oxygen furnaces later this decade with electric arc furnaces (EAFs), reducing annual CO2 emissions by three million tonnes each.

Dofasco, which operates an EAF that is already the single largest electricity user in Ontario, plans to build a second EAF and a gas-fired ironmaking furnace, which can also be powered with zero-carbon hydrogen produced from electricity, once it becomes available.

Other new projects in the agriculture, mining and manufacturing sectors are also expected to be big power users, including the recently announced $5 billion Stellantis-LG electric vehicle battery plant in Windsor. Five new transmission lines will be built to service the plant and the burgeoning greenhouse industry in southwestern Ontario. The greenhouses alone will require enough additional electricity to power a city the size of Ottawa.

On top of these demands, growing numbers of Ontario drivers are expected to switch to electric vehicles and many homeowners and business owners are expected to convert from gas heating to heat pumps and electric heating.

Ontario is recognized as one of the cleanest electricity systems in the world, with over 90 per cent of its capacity from low-emission nuclear, hydro, wind and other renewable generation. Only nine per cent comes from CO2-emitting gas plants. But that’s about to get dirtier according to analysts.

Annual electricity demand is expected to grow from 140 terawatt hours (a terawatt hour is one trillion watts for one hour) currently to about 200 terawatt hours in 2042, according to the Independent Electricity System Operator, the agency that manages Ontario’s grid.

Demand is expected to outstrip currently contracted supply in 2026, reaching a growing supply gap of about 80 terawatt hours by 2042. A big part of this gap is due to the scheduled retirement of the Pickering nuclear station in 2025 and the current refurbishment of the Darlington nuclear station reactors. While the IESO doesn’t expect blackouts or brownouts, it forecasts the province will need to sharply increase expensive power imports and triple the amount of CO2-polluting gas-fired generation.

Without cleaner, lower-cost alternatives, this will mean “a vastly dirtier and more expensive electricity system,” York University researchers Mark Winfield and Collen Kaiser said in a recent commentary.

The party that wins the provincial election will have to make hard decisions on renewable energy, including new wind and solar projects, energy conservation, battery storage, new hydro plants, small nuclear reactors, gas generation and power imports from the U.S. and Quebec. In addition, the federal government is pressing the provinces to meet a new net-zero clean electricity standard by 2035. These decisions will have huge impact on Ontario’s future, with greening the grid costs highlighted in some reports as potentially very high.

With so much at stake, Ontario’s political parties need to tell voters during the upcoming campaign how they would address these enormous challenges.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News