Niles considers reviving dam to supply power

Great Britain electricity generation spans renewables and baseload: wind, solar, nuclear, gas, and biomass, supported by National Grid interconnectors, embedded energy estimates, and BMRS data for dynamic imports and exports across Europe.

Key Points

A diverse, weather-driven mix of renewables, gas, nuclear, and imports coordinated by National Grid.

✅ Baseload from nuclear and biomass; intermittent wind and solar

✅ Interconnectors trade zero carbon imports via subsea cables

✅ Data from BMRS and ESO covers embedded energy estimates

Great Britain has one of the most diverse ranges of electricity generation in Europe, with everything from windfarms off the coast of Scotland to a nuclear power station in Suffolk tasked with keeping the lights on. The increasing reliance on renewable energy sources, as part of the country’s green ambitions, also means there can be rapid shifts in the main source of electricity generation. On windy days, most electricity generation comes from record wind generation across onshore and offshore windfarms. When conditions are cold and still, gas-fired power stations known as peaking plants are called into action.

The electricity system in Great Britain relies on a combination of “baseload” power – from stable generators such as nuclear and biomass plants – and “intermittent” sources, such as wind and solar farms that need the right weather conditions to feed energy into the grid. National Grid also imports energy from overseas, through subsea cables known as interconnectors that link to France, Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands. They allow companies to trade excess power, such as renewable energy created by the sun, wind and water, between different countries. By 2030 it is hoped that 90% of the energy imported by interconnectors will be from zero carbon energy sources, though low-carbon electricity generation stalled in 2019 for the UK.

The technology behind Great Britain’s power generation has evolved significantly over the last century, and at times wind has been the main source of electricity. The first integrated national grid in the world was formed in 1935 linking seven regions of the UK. In the aftermath of industrialisation, coal provided the vast majority of power, before oil began to play an increasingly important part in the 1950s. In 1956, the world’s first commercial nuclear reactor, Calder Hall 1 at Windscale (later Sellafield), was opened by Queen Elizabeth II. Coal use fell significantly in the 1990s while the use of combined cycle gas turbines grew, and in 2016 wind generated more electricity than coal for the first time. Now a combination of gas, wind, nuclear and biomass provide the bulk of Great Britain’s energy, with smaller sources such as solar and hydroelectric power also used. From October 2024, coal will no longer be used to generate electricity, following coal-free power records set in recent years.

Energy generation data is fetched from the Balancing Mechanism Reporting Service public feed, provided by Elexon – which runs the wholesale energy market – and is updated every five minutes, covering periods when wind led the power mix as well.

Elexon’s data does not include embedded energy, which is unmetered and therefore invisible to Great Britain’s National Grid. Embedded energy comprises all solar energy and wind energy generated from non-metered turbines. To account for these figures we use embedded energy estimates from the National Grid electricity system operator, which are published every 30 minutes.

Import figures refer to the net flow of electricity from the interconnectors with Europe and with Northern Ireland. A positive value represents import into the GB transmission system, while a negative value represents an export.

Hydro figures combine renewable run-of-the-river hydropower and pumped storage.

Biomass figures include Elexon’s “other” category, which comprises coal-to-biomass conversions and biomass combined heat and power plants.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario Hydro Crisis highlights soaring electricity rates, costly subsidies, nuclear refurbishments, and stalled renewables in Ontario. Policy missteps, weak planning, and rising natural gas emissions burden ratepayers while energy efficiency and storage remain underused.

Key Points

High power costs and subsidies from policy errors, nuclear refurbishments, stalled efficiency and renewables in Ontario.

✅ $5.6B yearly subsidy masks electricity rates and deficits

✅ Nuclear refurbishments embed rising costs for decades

✅ Efficiency, storage, and DERs stalled amid weak planning

By Mark Winfield

While the troubled Site C and Muskrat Falls hydroelectric dam projects in B.C. and Newfoundland and Labrador have drawn a great deal of national attention over the past few months, Ontario has quietly been having a hydro crisis of its own.

One of the central promises in the 2018 platform of the Ontario Progressive Conservative party was to “clean up the hydro mess,” and then-PC leader Doug Ford vowed to fire Hydro One's leadership as part of that effort. There certainly is a mess, with the costs of subsidies taken from general provincial revenues to artificially lower hydro rates nearing $7 billion annually. That is a level approaching the province’s total pre-COVID-19 annual deficit. After only two years, that will also exceed total expected cost overruns of the Site C and Muskrat Falls projects, currently estimated at $12 billion ($6 billion each).

There is no doubt that Doug Ford’s government inherited a significant mess around the province’s electricity system from the previous Liberal governments of former premiers Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. But the Ford government has also demonstrated a remarkable capacity for undoing the things its predecessors had managed to get right while doubling down on their mistakes.

The Liberals did have some significant achievements. Most notably: coal-fired electricity generation, which constituted 25 per cent of the province’s electricity supply in the early 2000s, was phased out in 2014. The phaseout dramatically improved air quality in the province. There was also a significant growth in renewable energy production. From  virtually zero in 2003, the province installed 4,500 MW of wind-powered generation, and 450 MW of solar photovoltaic by 2018, a total capacity more than double that of the Sir Adam Beck Generating Stations at Niagara Falls.

At the same time, public concerns over rising hydro rates flowing from a major reconstruction of the province’s electricity system from 2003 onwards became a central political issue in the province. But rather than reconsider the role of the key drivers of the continuing rate increases – namely the massively expensive and risky refurbishments of the Darlington and Bruce nuclear facilities, the Liberals adopted a financially ruinous Fair Hydro Plan. The central feature of the 2017 plan was a short-term 25 per cent reduction in hydro rates, financed by removing the provincial portion of the HST from hydro bills, and by extending the amortization period for capital projects within the system. The total cost of the plan in terms of lost revenues and financing costs has been estimated in excess of $40 billion over 29 years, with the burden largely falling on future ratepayers and taxpayers.

Decision-making around the electricity system became deeply politicized, and a secret cabinet forecast of soaring prices intensified public debate across Ontario. Legislation adopted by the Wynne government in 2016 eliminated the requirement for the development of system plans to be subject to any form of meaningful regulatory oversight or review. Instead, the system was guided through directives from the provincial cabinet. Major investments like the Darlington and Bruce refurbishments proceeded without meaningful, public, external reviews of their feasibility, costs or alternatives.

The Ford government proceeded to add more layers to these troubles. The province’s relatively comprehensive framework for energy efficiency was effectively dismantled in March, 2019, with little meaningful replacement. That was despite strong evidence that energy efficiency offered the most cost-effective strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and electricity costs.

The Ford government basically retained the Fair Hydro Plan and promised further rate reductions, later tabling legislation to lower electricity rates as well. To its credit, the government did take steps to clarify real costs of the plan. Last year, these were revealed to amount to a de facto $5.6 billion-per-year subsidy coming from general revenues, and rising. That constituted the major portion of the province’s $7.4 billion pre-COVID-19 deficit. The financial hole was deepened further through November’s financial statement, with the addition of a further $1.3 billion subsidy to commercial and industrial consumers. The numbers can only get worse as the costs of the Darlington and Bruce refurbishments become embedded more fully into electricity rates.

The government also quietly dispensed with the last public vestige of an energy planning framework, relieving itself of the requirement to produce a Long-Term Energy Plan every three years. The next plan would normally have been due next month, in February.

Even the gains from the 2014 phaseout of coal-fired electricity are at risk. Major increases are projected in emissions of greenhouse gases, smog-causing nitrogen oxides and particulate matter from natural gas-fired power plants as the plants are run to cover electricity needs during the Bruce and Darlington refurbishments over the next decade. These developments could erode as much as 40 per cent of the improvements in air quality and greenhouse gas emission gained through the coal phaseout.

The province’s activities around renewable energy, energy storage and distributed energy resources are at a standstill, with exception of a few experimental “sandbox” projects, while other jurisdictions face profound electricity-sector change and adapt. Globally, these technologies are seen as the leading edge of energy-system development and decarbonization. Ontario seems to have chosen to make itself an energy innovation wasteland instead.

The overall result is a system with little or no space for innovation that is embedding ever-higher costs while trying to disguise those costs at enormous expense to the provincial treasury and still failing to provide effective relief to low-income electricity consumers.

The decline in electricity demand associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, along with the introduction of a temporary recovery rate for electricity, gives the province an opportunity to step back and consider its next steps with the electricity system. A phaseout of the Fair Hydro Plan electricity-rate reduction and its replacement with a more cost-effective strategy of targeted relief aimed at those most heavily burdened by rising hydro rates, particularly rural and low-income consumers, as reconnection efforts for nonpayment have underscored the hardship faced by many households, would be a good place to start.

Next, the province needs to conduct a comprehensive, public review of electricity options available to it, including additional renewables – the costs of which have fallen dramatically over the past decade – distributed energy resources, hydro imports from Quebec and energy efficiency before proceeding with further nuclear refurbishments.

In the longer term, a transparent, evidence-based process for electricity system planning needs to be established – one that is subject to substantive public and regulatory oversight and review. Finally, the province needs to establish a new organization to be called Energy Efficiency Ontario to revive its efforts around energy efficiency, developing a comprehensive energy-efficiency strategy for the province, covering electricity and natural gas use, and addressing the needs of marginalized communities.

Without these kinds of steps, the province seems destined to continue to lurch from contradictory decision after contradictory decision as the economic and environmental costs of the system’s existing trajectory continue to rise.

Mark Winfield is a professor of environmental studies at York University and co-chair of the university’s Sustainable Energy Initiative.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Texas After-Labor Day School Start could ease ERCOT's power grid strain by shifting peak demand, lowering air-conditioning loads in schools, improving grid reliability, reducing electricity costs, and curbing emissions during extreme heat the summer months.

Key Points

A proposed calendar shift to start school after Labor Day to lower ERCOT peak demand, costs, and grid risk.

✅ Cuts school HVAC loads during peak summer heat

✅ Lowers costly peaker plant use and electricity rates

✅ Requires calendar changes, testing and activities shifts

As Texas faces increasing demands on its power grid, a new proposal is gaining traction: starting the school year after Labor Day. This idea, reported by the Dallas News, suggests that delaying the start of the academic year could help alleviate some of the pressure on the state’s electricity grid during the peak summer months, potentially leading to both grid stability and financial savings. Here’s an in-depth look at how this proposed change could impact Texas’s energy landscape and education system.

The Context of Power Grid Strain

Texas's power grid, operated by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), has faced significant challenges in recent years. Extreme weather events, record-breaking temperatures, and high energy demand have strained the grid, and some analyses argue that climate change, not demand is the biggest challenge today, leading to concerns about reliability and stability. The summer months are particularly taxing, as the demand for air conditioning surges, often pushing the grid to its limits.

In this context, the idea of adjusting the school calendar to start after Labor Day has been proposed as a potential strategy to help manage electricity demand. By delaying the start of school, proponents argue that it could reduce the load on the power grid during peak usage periods, thereby easing some of the stress on energy resources.

Potential Benefits for the Power Grid

The concept of delaying the school year is rooted in the potential benefits for the power grid. During the hottest months of summer, the demand for electricity often spikes as families use air conditioning to stay cool, and utilities warn to prepare for blackouts as summer takes hold. School buildings, typically large and energy-intensive facilities, contribute significantly to this demand when they are in operation.

Starting school later could help reduce this peak demand, as schools would be closed during the hottest months when the grid is under the most pressure. This reduction in demand could help prevent grid overloads and reduce the risk of power outages, at a time when longer, more frequent outages are afflicting the U.S. power grid, ultimately contributing to a more stable and reliable electricity supply.

Additionally, a decrease in peak demand could help lower electricity costs. Power plants, particularly those that are less efficient and more expensive to operate, are often brought online during periods of high demand. By reducing the peak load, the state could potentially minimize the need for these costly power sources, leading to lower overall energy costs.

Financial and Environmental Considerations

The financial implications of starting school after Labor Day extend beyond just the power grid. By reducing energy consumption during peak periods, the state could see significant savings on electricity costs. This, in turn, could lead to lower utility bills for schools, businesses, and residents alike, a meaningful relief as millions risk electricity shut-offs during summer heat.

Moreover, reducing the demand for electricity from fossil fuel sources can have positive environmental impacts. Lower peak demand may reduce the reliance on less environmentally friendly energy sources, and aligns with calls to invest in a smarter electricity infrastructure nationwide, thereby decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and contributing to overall environmental sustainability.

Challenges and Trade-offs

While the proposal offers potential benefits, it also comes with challenges and trade-offs. Adjusting the school calendar would require significant changes to the academic schedule, potentially affecting extracurricular activities, summer programs, and family plans, and comparisons to California's reliability challenges underscore the complexity. Additionally, there could be resistance from various stakeholders, including parents, educators, and students, who are accustomed to the current school calendar.

There are also logistical considerations to address, such as how a delayed start might impact standardized testing schedules and the academic calendar for higher education institutions. These factors would need to be carefully evaluated to ensure that the proposed changes do not adversely affect educational outcomes or create unintended consequences.

Looking Ahead

The idea of starting Texas schools after Labor Day represents an innovative approach to addressing the challenges facing the state’s power grid. By potentially reducing peak demand and lowering energy costs, and alongside efforts to connect Texas's grid to the rest of the nation, this proposal could contribute to greater grid stability and financial savings. However, careful consideration and planning will be essential to navigate the complexities of altering the school calendar and to ensure that the benefits outweigh the challenges.

As Texas continues to explore solutions for managing its power grid and energy resources, the proposal to shift the school year schedule provides an intriguing possibility. It reflects a broader trend of seeking creative and multifaceted approaches to balancing energy demand, environmental sustainability, and public needs.

In conclusion, starting schools after Labor Day could offer tangible benefits for Texas’s power grid and financial well-being. As discussions on this proposal advance, it will be important to weigh all factors and engage stakeholders to ensure a successful and equitable implementation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

MidAmerican Energy Wind XI expands Iowa wind power with the Beaver Creek and Prairie farms, 169 turbines and 338 MW, delivering renewable energy, grid reliability, rural jobs, and long-term tax revenue through major investment.

Key Points

MidAmerican Energy Wind XI is a $3.6B Iowa wind buildout adding 2,000 MW to enhance reliability, jobs, and tax revenue.

✅ 169 turbines at Beaver Creek and Prairie deliver 338 MW.

✅ Wind supplies 36.6 percent of Iowa electricity generation.

✅ Projects forecast $62.4M in property taxes over 20 years.

Power company MidAmerican Energy recently announced the beginning of operations at two huge wind farms in the US state of Iowa.

The two projects, called Beaver Creek and Prairie, total 169 turbines and have a combined capacity of 338 megawatts (MW), enough to meet the annual electricity needs of 140,000 homes in the state.

“We’re committed to providing reliable service and outstanding value to our customers, and wind energy accomplishes both,” said Mike Fehr, vice president of resource development at MidAmerican. “Wind energy is good for our customers, and it’s an abundant, renewable resource that also energizes the economy.”

The wind farms form part of MidAmerican Energy’s major Wind XI project, which will see an extra 2,000MW of wind power built, and $3.6 billion invested amid notable wind farm acquisitions shaping the market by the end of 2019. The company estimates it is the largest economic development project in Iowa’s history.

Iowa is something of a hidden powerhouse in American wind energy. The technology provides an astonishing 36.6 percent of the state’s entire electricity generation and plays a growing role in the U.S. electricity mix according to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). It also has the second largest amount of installed capacity in the nation at 6917MW; Texas is first with over 21,000MW.

Along with capital investment, wind power brings significant job opportunities and tax revenues for the state. An estimated 9,000 jobs are supported by the industry, something a U.S. wind jobs forecast stated could grow to over 15,000 within a couple of years.

MidAmerican Energy is also keen to stress the economic benefits of its new giant projects, claiming that they will bring in $62.4 million of property tax revenue over their 20-year lifetime.

Tom Kiernan, AWEA’s CEO, revealed last year that, as the most-used source of renewable electricity in the U.S., wind energy is providing more than five states in the American Midwest with over 20 percent of electricity generation, “a testament to American leadership and innovation”.

“For these states, and across America, wind is welcome because it means jobs, investment, and a better tomorrow for rural communities”, he added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Ukraine Electricity Exports resume as the EU grid links stabilize; ENTSO-E caps, megawatt capacity, renewables, and infrastructure repairs enable power flows to Moldova, Poland, Slovakia, and Romania despite ongoing Russian strikes.

Key Points

Resumed cross-border power sales showing grid stability under ENTSO-E limits and surplus generation.

✅ Exports restart to Moldova; Poland, Slovakia, Romania next.

✅ ENTSO-E cap limits to 400 MW; more capacity under negotiation.

✅ Revenues fund grid repairs after Russian strikes.

Ukraine began resuming electricity exports to European countries on Tuesday, its energy minister said, a dramatic turnaround from six months ago when fierce Russian bombardment of power stations plunged much of the country into darkness in a bid to demoralize the population.

The announcement by Energy Minister Herman Halushchenko that Ukraine was not only meeting domestic consumption demands but also ready to restart exports to its neighbors was a clear message that Moscow’s attempt to weaken Ukraine by targeting its infrastructure did not work.

Ukraine’s domestic energy demand is “100%” supplied, he told The Associated Press in an interview, and it has reserves to export due to the “titanic work” of its engineers and international partners.

Russia ramped up infrastructure attacks in September, when waves of missiles and exploding drones destroyed about half of Ukraine's energy system, even as it built lines to reactivate the Zaporizhzhia plant in occupied territory. Power cuts were common across the country as temperatures dropped below freezing and tens of millions struggled to keep warm.

Moscow said the strikes were aimed at weakening Ukraine’s ability to defend itself, and both sides have floated a possible agreement on power plant attacks amid mounting civilian harm, while Western officials said the blackouts that caused civilians to suffer amounted to war crimes. Ukrainians said the timing was designed to destroy their morale as the war marked its first anniversary.

Ukraine had to stop exporting electricity in October to meet domestic needs.

Engineers worked around the clock, often risking their lives to come into work at power plants and keep the electricity flowing. Kyiv’s allies also provided help. In December, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced $53 million in bilateral aid to help the country acquire electricity grid equipment, on top of $55 million for energy sector support.

Much more work remains to be done, Halushchenko said. Ukraine needs funding to repair damaged generation and transmission lines, and revenue from electricity exports would be one way to do that.

The first country to receive Ukraine’s energy exports will be Moldova, he said.

Besides the heroic work by engineers and Western aid, warmer temperatures are enabling the resumption of exports by making domestic demand lower, and across Europe initiatives like virtual power plants for homes are helping balance grids. Nationwide consumption was already down at least 30% due to the war, Halushchenko said, with many industries having to operate with less power.

Renewables like solar and wind power also come into play as temperatures rise, taking some pressure off nuclear and coal-fired power plants.

But it’s unclear if Ukraine can keep up exports amid the constant threat of Russian bombardment.

“Unfortunately now a lot of things depend on the war,” Halushchenko said. “I would say we feel quite confident now until the next winter.”

Exports to Poland, Slovakia and Romania are also on schedule to resume, he said.

“Today we are starting with Moldova, and we are talking about Poland, we are talking about Slovakia and Romania,” Halushchenko added, noting that how much will depend on their needs.

“For Poland, we have only one line that allows us to export 200 megawatts, but I think this month we will finish another line which will increase this to an additional 400 MW, so these figures could change,” he said.

Export revenue will depend on fluctuating electricity prices in Europe, where stunted hydro and nuclear output may hobble recovery efforts. In 2022, while Ukraine was still able to export energy, Ukrainian companies averaged 40 million to 70 million euros a month depending on prices, Halushchenko said.

“Even if it’s 20 (million euros) it’s still good money. We need financial resources now to restore generation and transmission lines,” he said.

Ukraine has the ability to export more than the 400 megawatt capacity limit imposed by the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity, or ENTSO-E, and rising EU wind and solar output is reshaping cross-border flows. “We are in negotiations to increase this cap because today we can export even more, we have the necessary reserves in the system,” the minister said.

The current capacity limit is in line with what Ukraine was exporting in September 2022 before Ukraine diverted resources to meet domestic needs amid the Russian onslaught.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

CO2 Removal Technologies address climate change via negative emissions, including carbon capture, reforestation, soil carbon, biochar, BECCS, DAC, and mineralization, helping meet Paris Agreement targets while managing costs, land use, and infrastructure demands.

Key Points

Methods to extract or sequester atmospheric CO2, combining natural and engineered approaches to limit warming.

✅ Includes reforestation, soil carbon, biochar, BECCS, DAC, mineralization

✅ Balances climate goals with costs, land, energy, and infrastructure

✅ Key to Paris Agreement targets under 1.5-2.0 °C warming

The world is, on average, 1.1 degrees Celsius warmer today than it was in 1850. If this trend continues, our planet will be 2 – 3 degrees hotter by the end of this century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The main reason for this temperature rise is higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which cause the atmosphere to trap heat radiating from the Earth into space. Since 1850, the proportion of CO2 in the air has increased, with record greenhouse gas concentrations documented, from 0.029% to 0.041% (288 ppm to 414 ppm).

This is directly related to the burning of coal, oil and gas, which were created from forests, plankton and plants over millions of years. Back then, they stored CO2 and kept it out of the atmosphere, but as fossil fuels are burned, that CO2 is released. Other contributing factors include industrialized agriculture and slash-and-burn land clearing techniques, and emissions from SF6 in electrical equipment are also concerning today.

Over the past 50 years, more than 1200 billion tons of CO2 have been emitted into the planet's atmosphere — 36.6 billion tons in 2018 alone, though global emissions flatlined in 2019 before rising again. As a result, the global average temperature has risen by 0.8 degrees in just half a century.

Atmospheric CO2 should remain at a minimum
In 2015, the world came together to sign the Paris Climate Agreement which set the goal of limiting global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees — 1.5 degrees, if possible.

The agreement limits the amount of CO2 that can be released into the atmosphere, providing a benchmark for the global energy transition now underway. According to the IPCC, if a maximum of around 300 billion tons were emitted, there would be a 50% chance of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. If CO2 emissions remain the same, however, the CO2 'budget' would be used up in just seven years.

According to the IPCC's report on the 1.5 degree target, negative emissions are also necessary to achieve the climate targets.

Using reforestation to remove CO2
One planned measure to stop too much CO2 from being released into the atmosphere is reforestation. According to studies, 3.6 billion tons of CO2 — around 10% of current CO2 emissions — could be saved every year during the growth phase. However, a study by researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ETH Zurich, stresses that achieving this would require the use of land areas equivalent in size to the entire US.

Young trees at a reforestation project in Africa (picture-alliance/OKAPIA KG, Germany)
Reforestation has potential to tackle the climate crisis by capturing CO2. But it would require a large amount of space

More humus in the soil
Humus in the soil stores a lot of carbon. But this is being released through the industrialization of agriculture. The amount of humus in the soil can be increased by using catch crops and plants with deep roots as well as by working harvest remnants back into the ground and avoiding deep plowing. According to a study by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) on using targeted CO2 extraction as a part of EU climate policy, between two and five billion tons of CO2 could be saved with a global build-up of humus reserves.

Biochar shows promise
Some scientists see biochar as a promising technology for keeping CO2 out of the atmosphere. Biochar is created when organic material is heated and pressurized in a zero or very low-oxygen environment. In powdered form, the biochar is then spread on arable land where it acts as a fertilizer. This also increases the amount of carbon content in the soil. According to the same study from the SWP, global application of this technology could save between 0.5 and two billion tons of CO2 every year.

Storing CO2 in the ground
Storing CO2 deep in the Earth is already well-known and practiced on Norway's oil fields, for example. However, the process is still controversial, as storing CO2 underground can lead to earthquakes and leakage in the long-term. A different method is currently being practiced in Iceland, in which CO2 is sequestered into porous basalt rock to be mineralized into stone. Both methods still require more research, however, with new DOE funding supporting carbon capture, utilization, and storage.

Capturing CO2 to be held underground is done by using chemical processes which effectively extract the gas from the ambient air, and some researchers are exploring CO2-to-electricity concepts for utilization. This method is known as direct air capture (DAC) and is already practiced in other parts of Europe.  As there is no limit to the amount of CO2 that can be captured, it is considered to have great potential. However, the main disadvantage is the cost — currently around €550 ($650) per ton. Some scientists believe that mass production of DAC systems could bring prices down to €50 per ton by 2050. It is already considered a key technology for future climate protection.

The inside of a carbon capture facility in the Netherlands (RWE AG)
Carbon capture facilities are still very expensive and take up a huge amount of space

Another way of extracting CO2 from the air is via biomass. Plants grow and are burned in a power plant to produce electricity. CO2 is then extracted from the exhaust gas of the power plant and stored deep in the Earth, with new U.S. power plant rules poised to test such carbon capture approaches.

The big problem with this technology, known as bio-energy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is the huge amount of space required. According to Felix Creutzig from the Mercator Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) in Berlin, it will therefore only play "a minor role" in CO2 removal technologies.

CO2 bound by rock minerals
In this process, carbonate and silicate rocks are mined, ground and scattered on agricultural land or on the surface water of the ocean, where they collect CO2 over a period of years. According to researchers, by the middle of this century it would be possible to capture two to four billion tons of CO2 every year using this technique. The main challenges are primarily the quantities of stone required, and building the necessary infrastructure. Concrete plans have not yet been researched.

Not an option: Fertilizing the sea with iron
The idea is use iron to fertilize the ocean, thereby increasing its nuturient content, which would allow plankton to grow stronger and capture more CO2. However, both the process and possible side effects are very controversial. "This is rarely treated as a serious option in research," concludes SWP study authors Oliver Geden and Felix Schenuit.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News