Hydropower largely an untapped resource in Kentucky

Renewable Energy Cost Trends highlight IRENA data showing solar and wind undercut coal, as utility-scale projects drive lower levelized electricity costs worldwide, with the Middle East and UAE advancing mega solar parks.

Key Points

They track how solar and wind undercut new fossil fuels as utility-scale costs drop and investment accelerates.

✅ IRENA reports renewables cheapest for new installations

✅ Solar and wind LCOE fell sharply since 2010

✅ Middle East and UAE scale mega utility projects

Renewable energy is now the cheapest option for new electricity installation in most of the world, a report from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) on Tuesday said.

Renewable power projects have undercut traditional coal fuel plants, with solar and wind power costs in particular falling as record-breaking growth continues worldwide.

“Installing new renewables increasingly costs less than the cheapest fossil fuels. With or without the health and economic crisis, dirty coal plants were overdue to be consigned to the past, said Francesco La Camera, director-general of IRENA said in the report.

In 2019, renewables accounted for around 72 percent of all new capacity added worldwide, IRENA said, following a 2016 record year that highlighted the momentum, with lowering costs and technological improvements in solar and wind power helping this dynamic. For solar energy, IRENA notes that the cost for electricity from utility-scale plants fell by 82 percent in the decade between 2010 and 2019, as China's solar PV growth underscored in 2016.

“More than half of the renewable capacity added in 2019 achieved lower electricity costs than new coal, while new solar and wind projects are also undercutting the cheapest and least sustainable of existing coal-fired plants,” Camera added.

Costs for solar and wind power also fell year-on-year by 13 and 9 percent, respectively, with offshore wind costs showing steep declines as well. In 2019, more than half of all newly commissioned utility-scale renewable power plants provided electricity cheaper than the lowest cost of a new fossil fuel plant.

The Middle East

In mid-May, a report by UK-based law firm Ashurst suggested the Middle East is the second most popular region for renewable energy investment after North America, at a time when clean energy investment is outpacing fossil fuels.

The region is home to some of the largest renewable energy bets in the world, with Saudi wind expansion gathering pace. The UAE, for instance, is currently developing the Mohammed Bin Rashid Solar Park, the world’s largest concentrated solar power project in the world.

Around 26 percent of Middle East respondents in Ashurst’s survey said that they were presently investing in energy transition, marking the region as the most popular for current investment in renewables, while 11 percent added that they were considering investing.

In North America, the most popular region, 28 percent said that they were currently investing, with 11 percent stating they are considering investing.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

China Power Demand-Emissions Gap highlights surging grid demand outpacing renewables, with coal filling shortages despite record solar, wind, EV charging, and hydrogen growth, threatening decarbonization targets and net-zero pathways through 2030.

Key Points

China's power demand outpaces renewables, keeping coal dominant and raising emissions risk through the 2020s.

✅ Record solar and wind still lag fast grid demand growth

✅ Coal fills gaps as EV charging and hydrogen loads rise

✅ Forecasts diverge: CEC bullish vs IEA, BNEF conservative

Here’s a new obstacle that could prevent the world finally turning the corner on climate change: Imagine that over the coming decade a whole new economy the size of Russia were to pop up out of nowhere. With the world’s fourth-largest electricity sector and largest burden of power plant emissions after China, the U.S. and India, this new economy on its own would be enough to throw out efforts to halt global warming — especially if it keeps on growing through the 2030s.

That’s the risk inherent in China’s seemingly insatiable appetite for grid power, as surging electricity demand is putting systems under strain worldwide.

From the cracking pace of renewable build-out last year, you might think the country had broken the back of its carbon addiction. A record 55 gigawatts of solar power and 48 gigawatts of wind were connected — comparable to installing the generation capacity of Mexico in less than 12 months. This year will see an even faster pace, with 93 GW of solar and 50 GW of wind added, according to a report last week from the China Electricity Council, an industry association.

That progress could in theory see the country’s power sector emissions peak within months, rather than the late-2020s date the government has hinted at. Combined with a smaller quantity of hydro and nuclear, low-emissions sources will probably add about 310 terawatt-hours to zero-carbon generation this year. That 3.8% increase would be sufficient to power the U.K.

Countries that have reached China’s levels of per-capita electricity consumption (already on a par with most of Europe) typically see growth rates at less than half that level, even as global power demand has surged past pre-pandemic levels in recent years. Grid supply could grow at a faster pace than Brazil, Iran, South Korea or Thailand managed over the past decade without adding a ton of additional carbon to the atmosphere.

There’s a problem with that picture, however. If electricity demand grows at an even more headlong pace, there simply won’t be enough renewables to supply the grid. Fossil fuels, overwhelmingly coal, will fill the gap, a reminder of the iron law of climate dynamics in energy transitions.

Such an outcome looks distinctly possible. Electricity consumption in 2021 grew at an extraordinary rate of 10%, and will increase again by between 5% and 6% this year, according to the CEC. That suggests the country is on pace to match the CEC’s forecasts of bullish grid demand over the coming decade, with generation hitting 11,300 terawatt-hours in 2030. External analysts, such as the International Energy Agency and BloombergNEF, envisage a more modest growth to around 10,000 TWh. 

The difference between those two outlooks is vast — equivalent to all the electricity produced by Russia or Japan. If the CEC is right and the IEA and BloombergNEF are wrong, even the furious rate of renewable installations we’re seeing now won’t be enough to rein in China’s power-sector emissions.

Who’s correct? On one hand, it’s fair to say that power planners usually err on the side of overestimation. If your forecast for electricity demand is too high, state-owned generators will be less profitable than they otherwise would have been — but if it’s too low, you’ll see power cuts and shutdowns like China witnessed last autumn, with resulting power woes affecting supply chains beyond its borders.

On the other hand, the decarbonization of China’s economy itself should drive electricity demand well above what we’ve seen in the past, with some projections such as electricity meeting 60% of energy use by 2060 pointing to a profound shift. Some 3.3 million electric vehicles were sold in 2021 and BloombergNEF estimates a further 5.7 million will be bought in 2022. Every million EVs will likely add in the region of 2 TWh of load to the grid. Those sums quickly mounts up in a country where electric drivetrains are taking over a market that shifts more than 25 million new cars a year.

Decarbonizing industry, a key element on China’s road to zero emissions, could also change the picture. The IEA sees the country building 25 GW of electolysers to produce hydrogen by 2030, enough to consume some 200 TWh on their own if run close to full-time.

That’s still not enough to justify the scale of demand being forecast, though. China is already one of the least efficient countries in the world when it comes to translating energy into economic growth, and despite official pressure on the most wasteful, so called “dual-high” industries such as steel, oil refining, glass and cement, its targets for more thrifty energy usage remain pedestrian.

The countries that have decarbonized fastest are those, such as Germany, the U.K and the U.S., where Americans are using less electricity, that have seen power demand plateau or even decline, giving new renewable power a chance to swap out fossil-fired generators without chasing an ever-increasing burden on the grid. China’s inability to do this as its population peaks and energy consumption hits developed-country levels isn’t a sign of strength.

Instead, it’s a sign of a country that’s chronically unable to make the transition away from polluting heavy industry and toward the common prosperity and ecological civilization that its president keeps promising. Until China reins in that credit-fueled development model, the risks to its economy and the global climate will only increase.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Rural Electrification Poverty Impact examines energy access, grid connections, and reliability, testing economic development claims via randomized trials; findings show minimal gains without appliances, reliable supply, and complementary services like education and job creation initiatives.

Key Points

Study of household grid connections showing modest poverty impact without reliable power and appliances.

✅ Randomized grid connections showed no short-term income gains.

✅ Low reliability and few appliances limited electricity use.

✅ Complementary investments in jobs, education, health may be needed.

The head of Swedfund, the development finance group, recently summarized a widely-held belief: “Access to reliable electricity drives development and is essential for job creation, women’s empowerment and combating poverty.” This view has been the driving force behind a number of efforts to provide electricity to the 1.1 billion people around the world living in energy poverty, such as India's village electrification initiatives in recent years.

But does electricity really help lift households out of poverty? My co-authors and I set out to answer this question. We designed an experiment in which we first identified a sample of “under grid” households in Western Kenya—structures that were located close to but not connected to a grid. These households were then randomly divided into treatment and control groups. In the treatment group, we worked closely with the rural electrification agency to connect the households to the grid for free or at various discounts. In the control group, we made no changes. After eighteen months, we surveyed people from both groups and collected data on an assortment of outcomes, including whether they were employed outside of subsistence agriculture (the most common type of work in the region) and how many assets they owned. We even gave children basic tests, as a frequent assertion is that electricity helps children perform better in school since they are able to study at night.

When we analyzed the data, we found no differences between the treatment and control groups. The rural electrification agency had spent more than $1,000 to connect each household. Yet eighteen months later, the households we connected seemed to be no better off. Even the children’s test scores were more or less the same. The results of our experiment were discouraging, and at odds with the popular view that supplying households with access to electricity will drive economic development. Lifting people out of poverty may require a more comprehensive approach to ensure that electricity is not only affordable (with some evidence that EV growth can benefit all customers in mature markets), but is also reliable, useable, and available to the whole community, paired with other important investments.

For instance, in many low-income countries, the grid has frequent blackouts and maintenance problems, making electricity unreliable, as seen in Nigeria's electricity crisis in recent years. Even if the grid were reliable, poor households may not be able to afford the appliances that would allow for more than just lighting and cell phone charging. In our data, households barely bought any appliances and they used just 3 kilowatt-hours per month. Compare that to the U.S. average of 900 kilowatt-hours per month, a figure that could rise as EV adoption increases electricity demand over time.

There are also other factors to consider. After all, correlation does not equal causation. There is no doubt that the 1.1 billion people without power are the world’s poorest citizens. But this is not the only challenge they face. The poor may also lack running water, basic sanitation, consistent food supplies, quality education, sufficient health care, political influence, and a host of other factors that may be harder to measure but are no less important to well-being. Prioritizing investments in some of these other factors may lead to higher immediate returns. Previous work by one of my co-authors, for example, shows substantial economic gains from government spending on treatment for intestinal worms in children.

It’s possible that our results don’t generalize. They certainly don’t apply to enhancing electricity services for non-residential customers, like factories, hospitals, and schools, and electric utilities adapting to new load patterns. Perhaps the households we studied in Western Kenya are particularly poor (although measures of well-being suggest they are comparable to rural households across Sub-Saharan Africa) or politically disenfranchised. Perhaps if we had waited longer, or if we had electrified an entire region, the household impacts we measured would have been much greater. But others who have studied this question have found similar results. One study, also conducted in Western Kenya, found that subsidizing solar lamps helped families save on kerosene, but did not lead children to study more. Another study found that installing solar-powered microgrids in Indian villages resulted in no socioeconomic benefits.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Canada Manufacturing Policy prioritizes affordable energy, trims carbon taxes, aligns with Buy America, and supports the resource sector, PPE and plastics supply, nearshoring, and resilient supply chains amid COVID-19, correcting costly green energy policies.

Key Points

A policy to boost industry with affordable energy, lower carbon taxes, resource ties, and aligned U.S. trade.

✅ Cuts energy costs and carbon tax burdens for competitiveness

✅ Rebuilds resource-sector linkages and domestic supply chains

✅ Seeks Buy America relief and clarity on plastics regulation

By Jocelyn Bamford

Since its inception in 2017, the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses has warned all levels of government that there would be catastrophic effects if policies that drove both the manufacturing and natural resources sectors out of the country were adopted.

The very origins of our coalition was in the fight for a competitive landscape in Ontario, a cornerstone of which is affordable energy and sounding the alarm that the Green Energy Policy in Ontario pushed many manufacturers out of the province.

The Green Energy Policy made electricity in Ontario four times the average North American rate. These unjust prices were largely there to subsidize the construction of expensive and inefficient wind and solar energy infrastructure, even as cleaning up Canada's grid is cited as critical to meeting climate pledges.

My company’s November hydro bill was $55,000 and $36,500 of that was the so-called global adjustment charge, the name given to these green energy costs.

Unaffordable electricity, illustrated by higher Alberta power costs in recent years, coupled with ever-more burdensome carbon taxes, have pushed Canadian manufacturing into the open arms of other countries that see the importance of affordable energy to attract business.

One can’t help but ask the question: If Canada had policies that attracted and maintained a robust manufacturing sector, would we be in the same situation with a lack of personal protective equipment and medical supplies for our front-line medical workers and our patients during this pandemic?  If our manufacturing sector wasn’t crippled by taxes and regulation, would it be more nimble and able to respond to a national emergency?

It seems that the federal government’s policies are designed to push manufacturing out, stifle our resource sector, and kill the very plastics industry that is so essential to keeping our front-line medical staff, patients, and citizens safe, even as the net-zero race accelerates federally.

As the federal government chased its obsession with a new green economy – a strange obsession given our country’s small contribution to global GHGs – including proposals for a fully renewable grid by 2030 advocated by some leaders, it has been blinded from the real threats to our country, threats that became very, very real with COVID-19.

After the pandemic has passed, the federal government must work to make Canada manufacturing and resource friendly again, recognizing that the IEA net-zero electricity report projects the need for more power. COVID-19 proves that Canada relies on a robust resource economy and manufacturing sector to survive. We need to ensure that we are prepared for future crises like the one we are facing now.

Here are five things our government can do now to meet that end:

1. End all carbon taxes immediately.

2. Create a mandate to bring manufacturing back to Canada through competitive offerings and favourable tax regimes.

3. Recognize the interconnections between the resource sector and manufacturing, including how fossil-fuel workers support the transition across supply chains. Many manufacturers supply parts and pieces to the resource sector, and they rely on affordable energy to compete globally.

4. Stop the current federal government initiative to label plastic as toxic. At a time when the government is appealing to manufacturers to re-tool and produce needed plastic products for the health care sector, labelling plastics as toxic is counterproductive.

5. Work to secure a Canadian exemption to Buy America. This crisis has clearly shown us that dependency on China is dangerous. We must forge closer ties with America and work as a trading block in order to be more self-sufficient.

These are troubling times. Many businesses will not survive.

We need to take back our manufacturing sector.  We need to take back our resource sector.

We need to understand the interconnected nature of these two important segments of our gross domestic production, and opportunities like an Alberta–B.C. grid link to strengthen reliability.
If we do not, in the next pandemic we may find ourselves not only without ventilators, masks and gowns but also without energy to operate our hospitals.

Jocelyn Bamford is a Toronto business executive and President of the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

UK Nuclear Energy Ten Point Plan outlines support for large reactors, SMRs, and AMRs, funding Sizewell C, hydrogen production, and industrial heat to reach net zero, decarbonize transport and heating, and expand clean electricity capacity.

Key Points

A UK plan backing large, small, and advanced reactors to drive net zero via clean power, hydrogen, and industrial heat.

✅ Funds large plants (e.g., Sizewell C) under value-for-money models

✅ Invests in SMRs for factory-built, modular, lower-cost deployment

✅ Backs AMRs for high-temperature heat, hydrogen, and industry

The UK government has just announced its “Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution”, in which it lays out a vision for the future of energy, transport and nature in the UK. As researchers into nuclear energy, my colleagues and I were pleased to see the plan is rather favourable to new nuclear power.

It follows the advice from the UK’s Nuclear Innovation and Research Advisory Board, pledging to pursue large power plants based on current technology, and following that up with financial support for two further waves of reactor technology (“small” and “advanced” modular reactors).

This support is an important part of the plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, as in the years to come nuclear power will be crucial to decarbonising not just the electricity supply but the whole of society.

This chart helps illustrate the extent of the challenge faced:

Electricity generation is only responsible for a small percentage of UK emissions. William Bodel. Data: UK Climate Change Committee

Efforts to reduce emissions have so far only partially decarbonised the electricity generation sector. Reaching net zero will require immense effort to also decarbonise heating, transport, as well as shipping and aviation. The plan proposes investment in hydrogen production and electric vehicles to address these three areas – which will require, as advocates of nuclear beyond electricity argue, a lot more energy generation.

Nuclear is well-placed to provide a proportion of this energy. Reaching net zero will be a huge challenge, and industry leaders warn it may be unachievable without nuclear energy. So here’s what the announcement means for the three “waves” of nuclear power.

Who will pay for it?
But first a word on financing. To understand the strategy, it is important to realise that the reason there has been so little new activity in the UK’s nuclear sector since the 1990s is due to difficulty in financing. Nuclear plants are cheap to fuel and operate and last for a long time. In theory, this offsets the enormous upfront capital cost, and results in competitively priced electricity overall.

But ever since the electricity sector was privatised, governments have been averse to spending public money on power plants. This, combined with resulting higher borrowing costs and cheaper alternatives (gas power), has meant that in practice nuclear has been sidelined for two decades. While climate change offers an opportunity for a revival, these financial concerns remain.

Large nuclear
Hinkley Point C is a large nuclear station currently under construction in Somerset, England. The project is well-advanced, with its first reactor installed and due to come online in the middle of this decade. While the plant will provide around 7% of current UK electricity demand, its agreed electricity price is relatively expensive.

Under construction: Hinkley Point C. Ben Birchall/PA

The government’s new plan states: “We are pursuing large-scale new nuclear projects, subject to value-for-money.” This is likely a reference to the proposed Sizewell C in Suffolk, on which a final decision is expected soon. Sizewell C would be a copy of the Hinkley plant – building follow-up identical reactors achieves capital cost reductions, and setbacks at Hinkley Point C have sharpened delivery focus as an alternative funding model will likely be implemented to reduce financing costs.

Other potential nuclear sites such as Wylfa and Moorside (shelved in 2018 and 2019 respectively for financial reasons) are also not mentioned, their futures presumably also covered by the “subject to value-for-money” clause.

Small nuclear
The next generation of nuclear technology, with various designs under development worldwide are smaller, cheaper, safer Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), such as the Rolls Royce “UK SMR”.

Reactors small enough to be manufactured in factories and delivered as modules can be assembled on site in much shorter times than larger designs, which in contrast are constructed mostly on site. In so doing, the capital costs per unit (and therefore borrowing costs) could be significantly lower than current new-builds.

The plan states “up to £215 million” will be made available for SMRs, Phase 2 of which will begin next year, with anticipated delivery of units around a decade from now.

Advanced nuclear
The third proposed wave of nuclear will be the Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs). These are truly innovative technologies, with a wide range of benefits over present designs and, like the small reactors, they are modular to keep prices down.

Crucially, advanced reactors operate at much higher temperatures – some promise in excess of 750°C compared to around 300°C in current reactors. This is important as that heat can be used in industrial processes which require high temperatures, such as ceramics, which they currently get through electrical heating or by directly burning fossil fuels. If those ceramics factories could instead use heat from AMRs placed nearby, it would reduce CO₂ emissions from industry (see chart above).

High temperatures can also be used to generate hydrogen, which the government’s plan recognises has the potential to replace natural gas in heating and eventually also in pioneering zero-emission vehicles, ships and aircraft. Most hydrogen is produced from natural gas, with the downside of generating CO₂ in the process. A carbon-free alternative involves splitting water using electricity (electrolysis), though this is rather inefficient. More efficient methods which require high temperatures are yet to achieve commercialisation, however if realised, this would make high temperature nuclear particularly useful.

The government is committing “up to £170 million” for AMR research, and specifies a target for a demonstrator plant by the early 2030s. The most promising candidate is likely a High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor which is possible, if ambitious, over this timescale. The Chinese currently lead the way with this technology, and their version of this reactor concept is expected soon.

In summary, the plan is welcome news for the nuclear sector, even as Europe loses nuclear capacity across the continent. While it lacks some specifics, these may be detailed in the government’s upcoming Energy White Paper. The advice to government has been acknowledged, and the sums of money mentioned throughout are significant enough to really get started on the necessary research and development.

Achieving net zero is a vast undertaking, and recognising that nuclear can make a substantial contribution if properly supported is an important step towards hitting that target.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Site C Dam Controversy highlights Peace River risks, BC Hydro claims, Indigenous rights under Treaty 8, environmental assessment findings, and potential impacts to agriculture and the Peace-Athabasca Delta across Alberta and the Northwest Territories.

Key Points

Debate over BC Hydro's Site C dam: clean energy vs Indigenous rights, Peace-Athabasca Delta impacts, and agriculture.

✅ Potential drying of Peace-Athabasca Delta and wildlife habitat

✅ Treaty 8 rights and First Nations legal challenges

✅ Loss of prime Peace Valley farmland; alternatives in renewables

One of the leading opponents of the Site C dam in northeastern B.C. is sharing her concerns with northerners this week.

Proponents of the Site C dam say it will be a cost-effective source of clean electricity, even as a major Alberta wind farm was scrapped elsewhere in Canada, and that it will be able to produce enough energy to power the equivalent of 450,000 homes per year in B.C. But a number of Indigenous groups and environmentalists are against the project.

Wendy Holm is an economist and agronomist who did an environmental assessment of the dam focusing on its potential impacts on agriculture.

On Tuesday she spoke at a town hall presentation in Fort Smith, N.W.T., organized by the Slave River Coalition. She is also speaking at an event in Yellowknife on Friday, as small modular reactors in Yukon receive study as a potential long-term option.

Worried about downstream impacts, Northern leaders urge action on Site C dam

"I learned that people outside of British Columbia are as concerned with this dam as we are," Holm said.

"There's just a lot of concern with what's happening on the Peace River and this dam and the implications for Alberta, where hydro's share has diminished in recent decades, and the Northwest Territories."

If completed, BC Hydro's Site C energy project will be the third dam on the Peace River in northeast B.C. and the largest public works project in B.C. history. The $10.7-billion project was approved by both the provincial and federal governments as B.C. moves to streamline clean energy permitting for future projects.

Amy Lusk, co-ordinator of the Slave River Coalition, said many issues were discussed at the town hall, but she also left with a sense of hope.

"I think sometimes in our little corner of the world, we are up against so much when it comes to industrial development and threats to our water," she said.

"To kind of take away that message of, this is not a done deal, and that we do have a few options in place to try and stop this and not to lose hope, I think was a very important message for the community."

Drying of the Peace-Athabasca Delta

Holm said her main concern for the Northwest Territories is how it could affect the Peace-Athabasca Delta. She said the two dams already on the river are responsible for two-thirds of the drying that's happening in the delta.

"These are very real issues and very present in the minds of northerners who want to stay connected to a traditional lifestyle, want to have access to those wild foods," she said.

Lusk said northerners are fed up with defending waters "time after time after time."

BC Hydro, however, said studies commissioned during the environmental assessment of Site C show the project will have no measurable effect on the delta, which is located 1,100 kilometres away.

Holm said the fight against the Site C dam is also important when it comes to First Nations treaty rights.

The West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations applied for an injunction to halt construction on Site C, as well as a treaty infringement lawsuit against the B.C. government. They argue the dam would cause irreparable harm to their territories and way of life, which are rights protected under Treaty 8.

Agricultural land

While the project is located in B.C., Holm said its impacts on prime horticulture land would also affect northerners, something that's important given issues of food security and nutrition.

"This is some of the best agriculture land in all of Canada," she said of the Peace Valley.

According to BC Hydro, around 2.6 million hectares of land in the Peace agricultural region would remain available for agricultural production while 3,800 hectares would be unavailable. It has also proposed a number of mitigation efforts, including a $20-million agricultural compensation fund.

Holm said renewable energy, including tidal energy for remote communities, will be cheaper and less destructive than the dam, and there's a connection between the dams on the Peace River and water sharing with the U.S.

"When you run out of water there's nothing else you can use. You can't use orange juice to irrigate your fields or to run your industries or to power your homes," she said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News