The environmental cost of Three Gorges

New Zealand Renewable Energy Strategy examines decarbonisation, GHG emissions, and net energy as electrification accelerates, expanding hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar PV while weighing intermittency, storage, materials, and energy security for a resilient power system.

Key Points

A plan to expand electricity generation, balancing decarbonisation, net energy limits, and energy security.

✅ Distinguishes decarbonisation targets from renewable capacity growth

✅ Highlights net energy limits, intermittency, and storage needs

✅ Addresses materials, GHG build-out costs, and energy security

The Electricity Authority has released a document outlining a plan to achieve the Government’s goal of more than doubling the amount of electricity generated in New Zealand over the next few decades.

This goal is seen as a way of both reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions overall, as everything becomes electrified, and ensuring we have a 100 percent renewable energy system at our disposal. Often these two goals are seen as being the same – to decarbonise we must transition to more renewable energy to power our society.

But they are quite different goals and should be clearly differentiated. GHG emissions could be controlled very effectively by rationing the use of a fossil fuel lockdown approach, with declining rations being available over a few years. Such a direct method of controlling emissions would ensure we do our bit to remain within a safe carbon budget.

If we took this dramatic step we could stop fretting about how to reduce emissions (that would be guaranteed by the rationing), and instead focus on how to adapt our lives to the absence of fossil fuels.

Again, these may seem like the same task, but they are not. Decarbonising is generally thought of in terms of replacing fossil fuels with some other energy source, signalling that a green recovery must address more than just wind capacity. Adapting our lives to the absence of fossil fuels pushes us to ask more fundamental questions about how much energy we actually need, what we need energy for, and the impact of that energy on our environment.

MBIE data indicate that between 1990 and 2020, New Zealand almost doubled the total amount of energy it produced from renewable energy sources - hydro, geothermal and some solar PV and wind turbines.

Over this same time period our GHG emissions increased by about 25 percent. The increase in renewables didn’t result in less GHG emissions because we increased our total energy use by almost 50 percent, mostly by using fossil fuels. The largest fossil fuel increases were used in transport, agriculture, forestry and fisheries (approximately 60 percent increases for each).

These data clearly demonstrate that increasing renewable energy sources do not necessarily result in reduced GHG emissions.

The same MBIE data indicate that over this same time period, the amount of Losses and Own Use category for energy use more than doubled. As of 2020 almost 30 percent of all energy consumed in New Zealand fell into this category.

These data indicate that more renewable energy sources are historically associated with less energy actually being available to do work in society.

While the category Losses and Own Use is not a net energy analysis, the large increase in this category makes the call for a system-wide net energy analysis all the more urgent.

Net energy is the amount of energy available after the energy inputs to produce and deliver the energy is subtracted. There is considerable data available indicating that solar PV and wind turbines have a much lower net energy surplus than fossil fuels.

And there is further evidence that when the intermittency and storage requirements are engineered into a total renewable energy system, the net energy of the entire system declines sharply. Could the Losses and Other Uses increase over this 30-year period be an indication of things to come?

Despite the importance of net energy analysis in designing a national energy system which is intended to provide energy security and resilience, there is not a single mention of net energy surplus in the EA reference document.

So over the last 30 years, New Zealand has doubled its renewable energy capacity, and at the same time increased its GHG emissions and reduced the overall efficiency of the national energy system.

And we are now planning to more than double our renewable energy system yet again over the next 30 years, even as zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is being debated elsewhere. We need to ask if this is a good idea.

How can we expand New Zealand’s solar PV and wind turbines without using fossil fuels? We can’t.

How could we expand our solar PV and wind turbines without mining rare minerals and the hidden costs of clean energy they entail, further contributing to ecological destruction and often increasing social injustices? We can't.

Even if we could construct, deliver, install and maintain solar PV and wind turbines without generating more GHG emissions and destroying ecosystems and poor communities, this “renewable” infrastructure would have to be replaced in a few decades. But there are at least two major problems with this assumed scenario.

The rare earth minerals required for this replacement will already be exhausted by the initial build out. Recycling will only provide a limited amount of replacements.

The other challenge is that a mostly “renewable” energy system will likely have a considerably lower net energy surplus. So where, in 2060, will the energy come from to either mine or recycle the raw materials, and to rebuild, reinstall and maintain the next iteration of a renewable energy system?

There is currently no plan for this replacement. It is a serious misnomer to call these energy technologies “renewable”. They are not as they rely on considerable raw material inputs and fossil energy for their production and never ending replacement.

New Zealand is, of course, blessed with an unusually high level of hydro electric and geothermal power. New Zealand currently uses over 170 GJ of total energy per capita, 40 percent of which is “renewable”. This provides approximately 70 GJ of “renewable” energy per capita with our current population.

This is the average global per capita energy level from all sources across all nations, as calls for 100% renewable energy globally emphasize. Several nations operate with roughly this amount of total energy per capita that New Zealand can generate just from “renewables”.

It is worth reflecting on the 170 GJ of total energy use we currently consume. Different studies give very different results regarding what levels are necessary for a good life.

For a complex industrial society such as ours, 100 GJ pc is said to be necessary for a high levels of wellbeing, determined both subjectively (life satisfaction/ happiness measures), and objectively (e.g. infant mortality levels, female morbidity as an index of population health, access to nutritious food and educational and health resources, etc). These studies do not take into account the large amount of energy that is wasted either through inefficient technologies, or frivolous use, which effective decarbonization strategies seek to reduce.

Other studies that consider the minimal energy needed for wellbeing suggest a much lower level of per capita energy consumption is required. These studies take a different approach and focus on ensuring basic wellbeing is maintained, but not necessarily with all the trappings of a complex industrial society. Their results indicate a level of approximately 20 GJ per capita is adequate.

In either case, we in New Zealand are wasting a lot of energy, both in terms of the efficiency of our technologies (see the Losses and Own Use info above), and also in our uses which do not contribute to wellbeing (think of the private vehicle travel that could be done by active or public transport – if we had good infrastructure in place).

We in New Zealand need a national dialogue about our future. And energy availability is only one aspect. We need to discuss what our carrying capacity is, what level of consumption is sustainable for our population, and whether we wish to make adjustments in either our per capita consumption or our population. Both together determine whether we are on the sustainable side of carrying capacity. Currently we are on the unsustainable side, meaning our way of life cannot endure. Not a good look for being a good ancestor.

The current trajectory of the Government and Electricity Authority appears to be grossly unsustainable. At the very least they should be able to answer the questions posed here about the GHG emissions from implementing a totally renewable energy system, the net energy of such a system, and the related environmental and social consequences.

Public dialogue is critical to collectively working out our future. Allowing the current profit-driven trajectory to unfold is a recipe for disasters for our children and grandchildren.

Being silent on these issues amounts to complicity in allowing short-term financial interests and an addiction to convenience jeopardise a genuinely secure and resilient future. Let’s get some answers from the Government and Electricity Authority to critical questions about energy security.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Canada Clean Electricity drives a net-zero grid by 2035, scaling renewables like wind, solar, and hydro, with storage, smart grids, interprovincial transmission, and electrification of vehicles, buildings, and industry to cut emissions and costs.

Key Points

Canada Clean Electricity is a shift to a net-zero grid by 2035 using renewables, storage, and smart grids to decarbonize

✅ Doubles non-emitting generation for electrified transport and heating

✅ Expands wind, solar, hydro with storage and smart-grid balancing

✅ Builds interprovincial lines and faster permitting with Indigenous partners

By Merran Smith and Mark Zacharias

Canada is an electricity heavyweight. In addition to being the world’s sixth-largest electricity producer and third-largest electricity exporter in the global electricity market today, Canada can boast an electricity grid that is now 83 per cent emission-free, not to mention residential electricity rates that are the cheapest in the Group of Seven countries.

Indeed, on the face of it, the country’s clean electricity system appears poised for success. With an abundance of sunshine and blustery plains, Alberta and Saskatchewan, the Prairie provinces most often cited for wind and solar, have wind- and solar-power potential that rivals the best on the continent. Meanwhile, British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador have long excelled at generating low-cost hydro power.

So it would only be natural to assume that Canada, with this solid head start and its generous geography, is already positioned to provide enough affordable clean electricity to power our much-touted net-zero and economic ambitions.

But the reality is that Canada, like most countries, is not yet prepared for a world increasingly committed to carbon neutrality, in part because demand for solar electricity has lagged, even as overall momentum grows.

The federal government’s forthcoming Clean Electricity Standard – a policy promised by the governing Liberals during the most recent election campaign and restated for an international audience by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the United Nations’ COP26 climate summit – would require all electricity in the country to be net zero by 2035 nationwide, setting a new benchmark. But while that’s an encouraging start, it is by no means the end goal. Electrification – that is, hooking up our vehicles, heating systems and industry to a clean electricity grid – will require Canada to produce roughly twice as much non-emitting electricity as it does today in just under three decades.

This massive ramp-up in clean electricity will require significant investment from governments and utilities, along with their co-operation on measures and projects such as interprovincial power lines to build an electric, connected and clean system that can deliver benefits nationwide. It will require energy storage solutions, smart grids to balance supply and demand, and energy-efficient buildings and appliances to cut energy waste.

While Canada has mostly relied on large-scale hydroelectric and nuclear power in the past, newer sources of electricity such as solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass with carbon capture and storage will, in many cases, be the superior option going forward, thanks to the rapidly falling costs of such technology and shorter construction times. And yet Canada added less solar and wind generation in the past five years than all but three G20 countries – Indonesia, Russia and Saudi Arabia, with some experts calling it a solar power laggard in recent years. That will need to change, quickly.

In addition, Canada’s Constitution places electricity policy under provincial jurisdiction, which has produced a patchwork of electricity systems across the country that use different energy sources, regulatory models, and approaches to trade and collaboration. While this model has worked to date, given our low consumer rates and high power reliability, collaborative action and a cohesive vision will be needed – not just for a 100-per-cent clean grid by 2035, but for a net-zero-enabling one by 2050.

Right now, it takes too long to move a clean power project from the proposal stage to operation – and far too long if we hope to attain a clean grid by 2035 and a net-zero-enabling one by 2050. This means that federal, provincial, territorial and Indigenous governments must work with rural communities and industry stakeholders to accelerate the approvals, financing and construction of clean energy projects and provide investor certainty.

In doing so, Canada can set a course to carbon neutrality while driving job creation and economic competitiveness, a transition many analyses deem practical and profitable in the long run. Our closest trading partners and many of the world’s largest companies and investors are demanding cleaner goods. A clean grid underpins clean production, just as it underpins our climate goals.

The International Energy Agency estimates that, for the world to reach net zero by 2050, clean electricity generation worldwide must increase by more than 2.5 times between today and 2050. Countries are already plotting their energy pathways, and there is much to learn from each other.

Consider South Australia. The state currently gets 62 per cent of its electricity from wind and solar and, combined with grid-scale battery storage, has not lost a single hour of electricity in the past five years. South Australia expects 100 per cent of its electricity to come from renewable sources before 2030. An added bonus given today’s high energy prices: Annual household electricity costs have declined there by 303 Australian dollars ($276) since 2018.

The transition to clean energy is not about sacrificing our way of life – it’s about improving it. But we’ll need the power to make it happen. That work needs to start now.

Merran Smith is the executive director of Clean Energy Canada, a program at the Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver. Mark Zacharias is a special adviser at Clean Energy Canada and visiting professor at the Simon Fraser University School of Public Policy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Tesla Supercharger Billing Update details kWh-based pricing that now includes HVAC, battery thermal management, and other HV loads during charging sessions, improving cost transparency across pay-per-use markets and extreme climate scenarios.

Key Points

Tesla's update bills for kWh used by HVAC, battery heating, and HV loads during charging, reflecting true energy costs.

✅ kWh charges now include HVAC and battery thermal management

✅ Expect 10-25 kWh increases in extreme climates during sessions

✅ Some regions still bill per minute due to regulations

Tesla has updated its Supercharger billing policy to add the cost of electricity use for things other than charging, like HVAC, battery thermal management, etc, while charging at a Supercharger station, a shift that impacts overall EV charging costs for drivers. 

For a long time, Tesla’s Superchargers were free to use, or rather the use was included in the price of its vehicles. But the automaker has been moving to a pay-to-use model over the last two years in order to finance the growth of the charging network amid the Biden-era charging expansion in the United States.

Not charging owners for the electricity enabled Tesla to wait on developing a payment system for its Supercharger network.

It didn’t need one for the first five years of the network, and now the automaker has been fine-tuning its approach to charge owners for the electricity they consume as part of building better charging networks across markets.

At first, it meant fluctuating prices, and now Tesla is also adjusting how it calculates the total power consumption.

Last weekend, Tesla sent a memo to its staff to inform them that they are updating the calculation used to bill Supercharging sessions in order to take into account all the electricity used:

The calculation used to bill for Supercharging has been updated. Owners will also be billed for kWhs consumed by the car going toward the HVAC system, battery heater, and other HV loads during the session. Previously, owners were only billed for the energy used to charge the battery during the charging session.

Tesla says that the new method should more “accurately reflect the value delivered to the customer and the cost incurred by Tesla,” which mirrors recent moves in its solar and home battery pricing strategy as well.

The automaker says that customers in “extreme climates” could see a difference of 10 to 25 kWh for the energy consumed during a charging session:

Owners may see a noticeable increase in billed kWh if they are using energy-consuming features while charging, e.g., air conditioning, heating etc. This is more likely in extreme climates and could be a 10-25 kWh difference from what a customer experienced previously, as states like California explore grid-stability uses for EVs during peak events.

Of course, this is applicable where Tesla is able to charge by the kWh for charging sessions. In some markets, regulations push Tesla to charge by the minute amid ongoing fights over charging control between utilities and private operators.

Electrek’s Take
It actually looks like an oversight from Tesla in the first place. It’s fair to charge for the total electricity used during a session, and not just what was used to charge your battery pack, since Tesla is paying for both, even as some states add EV ownership fees like the Texas EV fee that further shape costs.

However, I wish Tesla would have a clearer way to break down the charging sessions and their costs.

There have been some complaints about Tesla wrongly billing owners for charging sessions, and this is bound to create more confusion if people see a difference between the kWhs gained during charging and what is shown on the bill.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

China Energy Crisis drives electricity shortages, power cuts, and blackouts as coal prices surge, carbon-neutrality rules tighten, and manufacturing hubs ration energy, disrupting supply chains and industrial output ahead of winter demand peaks.

Key Points

A power shortfall from costly coal, price caps, and emissions targets, causing blackouts and industrial rationing.

✅ Coal prices soar while electricity tariffs are capped

✅ Factories in northeast hubs face rationing and downtime

✅ Supply chains risk delays ahead of winter demand

China is struggling with a severe shortage of electricity which has left millions of homes and businesses hit by power cuts.

Blackouts are not that unusual in the country but this year a number of factors have contributed to a perfect storm for electricity suppliers, including surging electricity demand globally.

The problem is particularly serious in China's north eastern industrial hubs as winter approaches - and is something that could have implications for the rest of the world.

Why has China been hit by power shortages?
The country has in the past struggled to balance electricity supplies with demand, which has often left many of China's provinces at risk of power outages.

During times of peak power consumption in the summer and winter the problem becomes particularly acute.

But this year a number of factors have come together to make the issue especially serious.

As the world starts to reopen after the pandemic, demand for Chinese goods is surging and the factories making them need a lot more power, highlighting China's electricity appetite in recent months.

Rules imposed by Beijing as it attempts to make the country carbon neutral by 2060 have seen coal production slow, even as the country still relies on coal for more than half of its power and as low-emissions generation is set to cover most global demand growth.

And as electricity demand has risen, the price of coal has been pushed up.

But with the government strictly controlling electricity prices, coal-fired power plants are unwilling to operate at a loss, with many drastically reducing their output instead.

Who is being affected by the blackouts?
Homes and businesses have been affected by power cuts as electricity has been rationed in several provinces and regions.

A coal-burning power plant can be seen behind a factory in China"s Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region

The state-run Global Times newspaper said there had been outages in four provinces - Guangdong in the south and Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning in the north east. There are also reports of power cuts in other parts of the country.

Companies in major manufacturing areas have been called on to reduce energy usage during periods of peak demand or limit the number of days that they operate.

Energy-intensive industries such as steel-making, aluminium smelting, cement manufacturing and fertiliser production are among the businesses hardest hit by the outages.

What has the impact been on China's economy?
Official figures have shown that in September 2021, Chinese factory activity shrunk to the lowest it had been since February 2020, when power demand dropped as coronavirus lockdowns crippled the economy.

Concerns over the power cuts have contributed to global investment banks cutting their forecasts for the country's economic growth.

Goldman Sachs has estimated that as much as 44% of the country's industrial activity has been affected by power shortages. It now expects the world's second largest economy to expand by 7.8% this year, down from its previous prediction of 8.2%.

Globally, the outages could affect supply chains, including solar supply chains as the end-of-the-year shopping season approaches.

Since economies have reopened, retailers around the world have already been facing widespread disruption amid a surge in demand for imports.

China's economic planner, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), has outlined a number of measures to resolve the problem, with energy supplies in the northeast of the country as its main priority this winter.

The measures include working closely with generating firms to increase output, ensuring full supplies of coal and promoting the rationing of electricity.

The China Electricity Council, which represents generating firms, has also said that coal-fired power companies were now "expanding their procurement channels at any cost" in order to guarantee winter heat and electricity supplies.

However, finding new sources of coal imports may not be straightforward.

Russia is already focused on its customers in Europe, Indonesian output has been hit by heavy rains and nearby Mongolia is facing a shortage of road haulage capacity,

Are energy shortages around the world connected?
Power cuts in China, UK petrol stations running out of fuel, energy bills jumping in Europe, near-blackouts in Japan and soaring crude oil, natural gas and coal prices on wholesale markets - it would be tempting to assume the world is suddenly in the grip of a global energy drought.

However, it is not quite as simple as that - there are some distinctly different issues around the world.

For example, in the UK petrol stations have run dry as motorists rushed to fill up their vehicles over concerns that a shortage of tanker drivers would mean fuel would soon become scarce.

Meanwhile, mainland Europe's rising energy bills and record electricity prices are due to a number of local factors, including low stockpiles of natural gas, weak output from the region's windmills and solar farms and maintenance work that has put generating operations out of action.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California fossil fuel grid reliability plan addresses heat wave demand, rolling blackouts, and grid stability by temporarily procuring gas generation while accelerating renewables, storage, and transmission to meet clean energy and carbon-neutral targets by 2045.

Key Points

A stop-gap policy to prevent blackouts by buying fossil power while fast-tracking renewables, storage, and grid upgrades.

✅ Temporary procurement of gas to avoid rolling blackouts

✅ Accelerates renewables, storage, transmission permitting

✅ Aims for carbon neutrality by 2045 without new gas plants

California wants to quit fossil fuels. Just not yet Faced with a fragile electrical grid and the prospect of summertime blackouts, the state agreed to put aside hundreds of millions of dollars to buy power from fossil fuel plants that are scheduled to shut down as soon as next year.

That has prompted a backlash from environmental groups and lawmakers who say Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s approach could end up extending the life of gas plants that have been on-track to close for more than a decade and could threaten the state’s goal to be carbon neutral by 2045.

“The emphasis that the governor has been making is ‘We’re going to be Climate Leaders; we’re going to do 100 percent clean energy; we’re going to lead the nation and the world,’” said V. John White, executive director of the Sacramento-based Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, a non-profit group of environmental advocates and clean energy companies. “Yet, at least a part of this plan means going the opposite direction.”

That plan was a last-minute addition to the state’s energy budget, which lawmakers in the Democratic-controlled Legislature reluctantly passed. Backers say it’s necessary to avoid the rolling blackouts like the state experienced during a heat wave in 2020. Critics see a muddled strategy on energy, and not what they expected from a nationally ambitious governor who has made climate action a centerpiece of his agenda.

The legislation, which some Democrats labeled as “lousy” and “crappy,” reflects the reality of climate change. Heat waves are already straining power capacity, and the transition to cleaner energy isn’t coming fast enough to meet immediate needs in the nation’s most populous state.

Officials have warned that outages would be possible this summer, as the grid faces heat wave tests again, with as many as 3.75 million California homes losing power in a worst-case scenario of a West-wide heat wave and insufficient electrical supplies, particularly in the evenings.

It’s also an acknowledgment of the political reality that blackout politics are hazardous to elected officials, even in a state dominated by one party.

Newsom emphasized that the money to prop up the power grid, part of a larger $4.3 billion energy spending package, is meant as a stop-gap measure. The bill allows the Department of Water Resources to spend $2.2 billion on “new emergency and temporary generators, new storage systems, clean generation projects, and funding on extension of existing generation operations, if any occur,” the governor said in a statement after signing the bill.

“Action is needed now to maintain reliable energy service as the State accelerates the transition to clean energy,” Newsom said.

Following the signing, the governor called for the state California Air Resources Board to add a set of ambitious goals to its 2022 Scoping Plan, which lays out California’s path for reducing carbon emissions.

Among Newsom’s requested changes is a move away from fossil fuels, asking state agencies to prepare for an energy transition that avoids the need for new natural gas plants.

Alex Stack, a spokesman for the governor, said in a statement that California has been a global leader in reducing pollution and exporting energy policies across Western states, and pointed to Newsom’s recent letter to the Air Resources Board as well as one sent to President Joe Biden outlining how states can work with the federal government to combat climate change.

“California took action to streamline permitting for clean energy projects to accelerate the build out of clean energy that is needed to meet our climate goals and help maintain reliability in the face of extreme heat, wildfires, and drought,” Stack said.

But the prospect of using state money on fossil fuel power, even in the short term, has raised ire among the state’s many environmental advocacy groups, and raised questions about whether California will be able to achieve its goals.

“What is so frustrating about an energy bill like this is that we are at crunch time to meet these goals,” said Mary Creasman, CEO of California Environmental Voters. “And we’re investing a scale of funding into things that exacerbate those goals.”
 
Emmanuelle Chriqui and Mary Creasman speak during the 2021 Environmental Media Association IMPACT Summit at Pendry West Hollywood on September 2, 2021 in West Hollywood, California. | Jesse Grant/Getty Images for Environmental Media Association

With climate change-induced drought and high temperatures continuing to ravage the West, California anticipates the demand on the grid will only continue to grow. Despite more than a decade of bold posturing and efforts to transition to solar, wind and hydropower, the state worries it doesn’t have enough renewable energy sources on hand to keep the power on in an emergency right now, amid a looming shortage that will test reliability.

The specter of power outages poses a hazard to Newsom, and Democrats in general, especially ahead of November. While the governor is widely expected to sail to reelection, rolling blackouts are a serious political liability — in 2003, they were the catalyst for recalling Democratic Gov. Gray Davis. A lack of power isn’t just about people sweating in the dark, said Steven Maviglio, a longtime Democratic consultant who served as communications director for Davis, it can affect businesses, travel and have an outsized impact on the economy.

It behooves any state official to keep the power on, but, unlike Davis, Newsom is under serious pressure to make sure the state also adheres to its climate goals.

“Gavin Newsom’s brand is based on climate change and clean air, so it’s a little more difficult for him to say ‘well that’s not as important as keeping the power on,’” Maviglio said.

The same bill effectively ends local government control over those projects, for the time being. It hopes to speed up the state’s production of renewable energy sources by giving exclusive authority over the siting of those projects to a single state agency for the next seven years.

Environmental advocates say the state is now scrambling to address an issue they’ve long known was coming. In 2010, California officials set a schedule to retire a number of coastal gas plants that rely on what’s known as once-through cooling systems, which are damaging to the environment, especially marine life, even as regulators weigh more power plants to maintain reliability today. Many of those plants have been retired since 2010, but others have received extensions.

The remaining plants have various deadlines for when they must cease operations, with the soonest being the end of 2023.

Also at issue is the embattled Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, California’s largest electricity source. The Pacific Gas & Electric-owned plant is scheduled to close in 2025, but the strain on the grid has officials considering the possibility of seeking an extension. Newsom said earlier this spring he would be open to extending the life of the plant. Doing so would also require federal approval.

Al Muratsuchi stands and talks into a microphone with a mask on. 
Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi speaks during an Assembly session in Sacramento, Calif., on Jan. 31, 2022. | Rich Pedroncelli/AP Photo

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 1245, a labor union, sees the energy package as a way to preserve Diablo Canyon, and jobs at the plant.

“The value to 1245 PG&E members at Diablo Canyon is clear — funding to keep the plant open,” the union said of the bill.

Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Los Angeles) criticized the bill as “crappy” when it came to the floor in late June, describing it as “a rushed, unvetted and fossil-fuel-heavy response” to the state’s need to bolster the grid.

“The state has had over 12 years to procure and bring online renewable energy generation to replace these once through cooling gas power plants,” Muratsuchi said. “Yet, the state has reneged on its promise to shut down these plants, not once, but twice already.”

Not all details of the state’s energy budget are final. Lawmakers still have $3.8 billion to allocate when they return on Aug. 1 for the final stretch of the year.

Creasman, at California Environmental Voters, said she wants lawmakers to set specific guidelines for how and where it will spend the $2.2 billion when they return in August to dole out the remaining money in the budget. Newsom and legislators also need to ensure that this is the last time California has to spend money on fossil fuel, she said.

“Californians deserve to see what the plan is to make sure we’re not in this position again of having to choose between making climate impacts worse or keeping our lights on,” Creasman said. “That’s a false choice.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Complements renewables; displaces coal for faster decarbonization

✅ Cuts system costs via standardization and lower cost of capital

✅ Provides firm, low-carbon baseload and grid reliability

By Kirill Komarov, Chairman, World Nuclear Association.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News