Let's use real energy numbers

Russia-Ukraine Energy War disrupts infrastructure, oil, gas, and electricity, triggering supply shocks, price spikes, and inflation. Global markets face volatility, import risks, and cybersecurity threats, underscoring energy security, grid resilience, and diversified supply.

Key Points

It is Russia's strategic targeting of Ukraine's energy system to disrupt supplies, raise prices, and hit global markets.

✅ Attacks weaponize energy to strain Ukraine and allies

✅ Supply shocks risk oil, gas, and electricity price spikes

✅ Urgent need for cybersecurity, grid resilience, diversification

Russia's targeting of Ukraine's energy infrastructure has unleashed an "energy war" that could lead to widespread price increases, supply disruptions, and ripple effects throughout the global energy market, felt across the continent, with warnings of Europe's energy nightmare taking shape.

This highlights the unprecedented scale and severity of the attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure. These attacks have disrupted power supplies, prompting increased electricity imports to keep the lights on, hindered oil and gas production, and damaged refineries, impacting Ukraine and the broader global energy system.

Energy as a Weapon

Experts claim that Russia's deliberate attacks on Ukraine's energy infrastructure represent a strategic escalation, amid energy ceasefire violations alleged by both sides, demonstrating the Kremlin's willingness to weaponize energy as part of its war effort. By crippling Ukraine's energy system, Russia aims to destabilize the country, inflict suffering on civilians, and undermine Western support for Ukraine.

Impacts on Global Oil and Gas Markets

The ongoing attacks on Ukraine's energy infrastructure could significantly impact global oil and gas markets, leading to supply shortages and dramatic price increases, even as European gas prices briefly returned to pre-war levels earlier this year, underscoring extreme volatility. Ukraine's oil and gas production, while not massive in global terms, is still significant, and its disruption feeds into existing anxieties about global energy supplies already affected by the war.

Ripple Effects Beyond Ukraine

The impacts of the "energy war" won't be limited to Ukraine or its immediate neighbours. Price increases for oil, gas, and electricity are expected worldwide, further fueling inflation and exacerbating the global cost of living crisis.  Additionally, supply disruptions could disproportionately affect developing nations and regions heavily dependent on energy imports, making targeted energy security support to Ukraine and other vulnerable importers vital.

Vulnerability of Energy Infrastructure

The attacks on Ukraine highlight the vulnerability of critical energy infrastructure worldwide, as the country prepares for winter under persistent threats. The potential for other state or non-state actors to use similar tactics raises concerns about security and long-term stability in the global energy sector.

Strengthening Resilience

Experts emphasize the urgent need for global cooperation in strengthening the resilience of energy infrastructure. Investments in cybersecurity, diverse energy sources, and decentralized grids are crucial for mitigating the risks of future attacks, with some arguing that stepping away from fossil fuels would improve US energy security over time. International cooperation will be key in identifying vulnerable areas and providing aid to nations whose infrastructure is under threat.

The Unpredictable Future of Energy

The "energy war" unleashed by Russia has injected a new level of uncertainty into the global energy market. In addition to short-term price fluctuations and supply issues, the conflict could accelerate the long-term transition towards renewable energy sources and reshape how nations approach energy security.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

100% Clean Energy Targets drive renewable electricity, decarbonization, and cost savings through state policies, CCAs, RECs, and mandates, with timelines and interim goals that boost jobs, resilience, and public health across cities, counties, and utilities.

Key Points

Policies for cities and states to reach 100% clean power by set dates, using mandates, RECs, and interim goals.

✅ Define eligible clean vs renewable resources

✅ Mandate vs goal framework with enforcement

✅ Timelines with interim targets and escape clauses

“An enormous amount of authority still rests with the states for determining your energy future. So we can build these policies that will become a postcard from the future for the rest of the country,” said David Hochschild, chair of the California Energy Commission, speaking last week at a UCLA summit on state and local progress toward 100 percent clean energy.

According to a new report from the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation, 13 states, districts and territories, as well as more than 200 cities and counties, with standout clean energy purchases by Southeast cities helping drive momentum, have committed to a 100 percent clean electricity target — and dozens of cities have already hit it.

This means that one of every three Americans, or roughly 111 million U.S. residents representing 34 percent of the population, live in a community that has committed to or has already achieved 100 percent clean electricity, including communities like Frisco, Colorado that have set ambitious targets.

“We’re going to look back on this moment as the moment when local action and state commitments began to push the entire nation toward this goal,” said J.R. DeShazo, director of the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation.

Not all 100 percent targets are alike, however. The report notes that these targets vary based on 1) what resources are eligible, 2) how binding the 100 percent target is, and 3) how and when the target will be achieved.

These distinctions will carry a lot of weight as the policy discussion shifts from setting goals to actually meeting targets. They also have implications for communities in terms of health benefits, cost savings and employment opportunities.

100% targets come in different forms

One key attribute is whether a target is based on "renewable" or "clean" energy resources. Some 100 percent targets, like Hawaii’s and Rhode Island’s 2030 plan, are focused exclusively on renewable energy, or sources that cannot be depleted, such as wind, solar and geothermal. But most jurisdictions use the broader term “clean energy,” which can also include resources like large hydroelectric generation and nuclear power.

States also vary in their treatment of renewable energy certificates, used to track and assign ownership to renewable energy generation and use. Unbundled RECs allow for the environmental attributes of the renewable energy resource to be purchased separately from the physical electricity delivery.

The binding nature of these targets is also noteworthy. Seven states, as well as Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, have passed 100 percent clean energy transition laws. Of the jurisdictions that have passed 100 percent legislation, all but one specifies that the target is a “mandate,” according to the report. Nevada is the only state to call the target a “goal.”

Governors in four other states have signed executive orders with 100 percent clean energy goals.

Target timelines also vary. Washington, D.C. has set the most ambitious target date, with a mandate to achieve 100 percent renewable electricity by 2032. Other states and cities have set deadline years between 2040 and 2050. All "100 percent" state laws, and some city and county policies, also include interim targets to keep clean energy deployment on track.

In addition, some locations have included some form of escape clause. For instance, Salt Lake City, which last month passed a resolution establishing a goal of powering the county with 100 percent clean electricity by 2030, included “exit strategies” in its policy in order to encourage stakeholder buy-in, said Mayor Jackie Biskupski, speaking last week at the UCLA summit.

“We don’t think they’ll get used, but they’re there,” she said.

Other locales, meanwhile, have decided to go well beyond 100 percent clean electricity. The State of California and 44 cities have set even more challenging targets to also transition their entire transportation, heating and cooling sectors to 100 percent clean energy sources, and proposals like requiring solar panels on new buildings underscore how policy can accelerate progress across sectors.

Businesses are simultaneously electing to adopt more clean and renewable energy. Six utilities across the United States have set their own 100 percent clean or carbon-free electricity targets. UCLA researchers did not include populations served by these utilities in their analysis of locations with state and city 100 percent clean commitments.

“We cannot wait”

All state and local policies that require a certain share of electricity to come from renewable energy resources have contributed to more efficient project development and financing mechanisms, which have supported continued technology cost declines and contributed to a near doubling of renewable energy generation since 2008.

Many communities are switching to clean energy in order to save money, now that the cost calculation is increasingly in favor of renewables over fossil fuels, as more jurisdictions get on the road to 100% renewables worldwide. Additional benefits include local job creation, cleaner air and electricity system resilience due to greater reliance on local energy resources.

Another major motivator is climate change. The electricity sector is responsible for 28 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, second only to transportation. Decarbonizing the grid also helps to clean up the transportation sector as more vehicles move to electricity as their fuel source.

“The now-constant threat of wildfires, droughts, severe storms and habitat loss driven by climate change signals a crisis we can no longer ignore,” said Carla Peterman, senior vice president of regulatory affairs at investor-owned utility Southern California Edison. “We cannot wait and we should not wait when there are viable solutions to pursue now.”

Prior to joining SCE on October 1, Peterman served as a member of the California Public Utilities Commission, which implements and administers renewable portfolio standard (RPS) compliance rules for California’s retail sellers of electricity. California’s target requires 60 percent of the state’s electricity to come from renewable energy resources by 2030, and all the state's electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045.  

How CCAs are driving renewable energy deployment

One way California communities are working to meet the state’s ambitious targets is through community-choice aggregation, especially after California's near-100% renewable milestone underscored what's possible, via which cities and counties can take control of their energy procurement decisions to suit their preferences. Investor-owned utilities no longer purchase energy for these jurisdictions, but they continue to operate the transmission and distribution grid for all electricity users.                           

A second paper released by the Luskin Center for Innovation in recent days examines how community-choice aggregators are affecting levels of renewable energy deployment in California and contributing to the state’s 100 percent target.

The paper finds that 19 CCAs have launched in California since 2010, growing to include more than 160 towns, cities and counties. Of those communities, 64 have a 100 percent renewable or clean energy policy as their default energy program.

Because of these policies, the UCLA paper finds that “CCAs have had both direct and indirect effects that have led to increases in the clean energy sold in excess of the state’s RPS.”

From 2011 to 2018, CCAs directly procured 24 terawatt-hours of RPS-eligible electricity, 11 TWh of which have been voluntary or in excess of RPS compliance, according to the paper.

The formation of CCAs has also had an indirect effect on investor-owned utilities. As customers have left investor-owned utilities to join CCAs, the utilities have been left holding contracts for more renewable energy than they need to comply with California’s clean energy targets, amid rising solar and wind curtailments that complicate procurement decisions. UCLA researchers estimate that this indirect effect of CCA formation has left IOUs holding 13 terawatt-hours in excess of RPS requirements.

The paper concludes that CCAs have helped to accelerate California’s ability to meet state renewable energy targets over the past decade. However, the future contributions of CCAs to the RPS are more uncertain as communities make new power-purchasing decisions and utilities seek to reduce their excess renewable energy contracts.

“CCAs offer a way for communities to put their desire for clean energy into action. They're growing fast in California, one of only eight states where this kind of mechanism is allowed," said UCLA's Kelly Trumbull, an author of the report. "State and federal policies could be reformed to better enable communities to meet local demand for renewable energy.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Rolls-Royce and Exelon UKSMR Partnership accelerates factory-built small modular reactors, nuclear power, clean energy, 440MW units, advanced manufacturing, fleet deployment, net zero goals, and resilient, low-cost baseload generation in the UK and globally.

Key Points

A partnership to deploy factory-built SMR stations, providing 440MW low-carbon baseload for the UK and export markets.

✅ 440MW factory-built SMR units with rapid modular assembly

✅ Exelon to operate and enhance high capacity factors

✅ Supports UK net zero, jobs, and export-led manufacturing

Rolls-Royce and Exelon Generation have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to pursue the potential for Exelon Generation to operate compact nuclear power stations both in the UK and internationally, including markets such as Canada where New Brunswick SMR questions are prompting public debate today.

Exelon Generation will be using their operational experience to assist Rolls Royce in the development and deployment of the UKSMR.

Rolls-Royce is leading a consortium that is designing a low-cost factory built nuclear power station, known as a small modular reactor (SMR), with UK mini-reactor approval anticipated as development progresses. Its standardised, factory-made components and advanced manufacturing processes push costs down, while the rapid assembly of the modules and components inside a weatherproof canopy on the power station site itself avoid costly schedule disruptions.

The consortium is working with its partners and UK Government to secure a commitment for a fleet of factory built nuclear power stations, each providing 440MW of electricity, to be operational within a decade, helping the UK meet its net zero obligations in line with the green industrial revolution policy set out by government. A fleet deployment in the UK will lead to the creation of new factories that will make the components and modules which will help the economy recover from the Covid-19 pandemic and pave the way for significant export opportunities as well.

The consortium members feature the best of nuclear engineering, construction and infrastructure expertise in Assystem, Atkins, BAM Nuttall, Jacobs, Laing O'Rourke, National Nuclear Laboratory, Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, Rolls-Royce and TWI. Exelon will add valuable operational experience to the team.

Tom Samson, interim Chief Executive Officer of the UKSMR consortium, said: 'Nuclear power is central to tackling climate change and economic recovery, but it must be affordable, reliable and investable and the way we manufacture and assemble our power station brings its cost down to be comparable with offshore wind.

'It's a compelling proposition that could draw new players into the UK's power generation landscape, improving choice for consumers and providing uninterrupted low carbon energy to homes and businesses.

'The opportunity to partner with Exelon is a very exciting prospect for our program, complementing our existing Consortium partnerships with one of the world's largest nuclear operator adds an important dimension to our growth ambitions, embodies the strength of the UK and USA alliance on nuclear matters and reflects wider international moves, such as a Canadian premiers' SMR initiative to accelerate technology development, and offers our future customers the ability to achieve the highest performance standards associated with Exelon's outstanding operational track record.'

The power stations will be built by the UKSMR consortium, before being handed over to be operated by power generation companies. Exelon Generation will work closely with the consortium during the pre-operation period. Exelon Nuclear operates 21 nuclear reactors in America, and U.S. regulators recently issued a final safety evaluation for a NuScale SMR that underscores momentum in the sector. The Exelon nuclear fleet is an integral part of the U.S. clean power mix; it produces more than 158 million megawatt-hours of clean electricity every year.

Bryan Hanson, EVP and COO of Exelon Generation said: 'We believe that SMRs are a crucial part of the world's clean energy mix, as projects like Darlington SMRs advance in Ontario. With our experience both in the US and internationally, Exelon is confident that we can help Rolls Royce ensure SMRs play a key role in the UK's energy future. We've had a very strong record of performance for 20 consecutive years, with a 2019 capacity factor of 95.7 percent. We will leverage this experience to achieve sustainably high capacity factors for the UKSMRs.'

Ralph Hunter, Managing Director of Exelon Nuclear Partners, who runs Exelon's international clean energy business, said: 'We have a strong track record of success to be the operator of choice for the UKSMR. We will help develop operational capability, training and human capacity development in the UK, as utilities such as Ontario Power Generation commit to SMRs abroad, ensuring localisation of skills and a strong culture of safety, performance and efficiency.'

By 2050 a full UK programme of a fleet of factory built nuclear power stations in the UK could create:

Up to 40,000 jobs GBP52BN of value to the UK economy GBP250BN of exports

The current phase of the programme has been jointly funded by all consortium members and UK Research and Innovation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Belgium Energy Mix 2019 shows strong nuclear output, rising offshore wind, net electricity exports, and robust interconnections, per Elia, as the nuclear phaseout drives 3.9GW new capacity needs after improved reactor availability.

Key Points

High nuclear share, offshore wind, net exports, interconnections; 3.9GW capacity needed amid nuclear phaseout.

✅ Nuclear supplied 48.8% of generation in 2019.

✅ Net exporter: 1.8 TWh, aided by interconnections.

✅ Elia projects 3.9GW new capacity for phaseout.

Belgium's electricity transmission system operator, Elia, said that the major trends in 2019 were a steady increase in (mainly offshore) renewable power generation, illustrated by EU wind and solar records across the bloc, better availability of nuclear-generating facilities and an increase in electricity exports.

In 2019, 48.8% of the power generated in Belgium came from nuclear plants. This was in line with the total for 2017 (50%) and significantly more than in 2018 (31.2%) when several reactors were unavailable amid stunted hydro and nuclear output in Europe as well.

Belgium exported more electricity in 2019, as neighbors like Germany saw renewables overtake coal and nuclear generation, with net exports of 1.8TWh (2.1% of the energy mix), in contrast to 2018 when Belgium imported 17.5TWh (20%).

Elia said this “should be viewed in its wider context, of declining nuclear capacity in Europe and regional market shifts, against the backdrop of an increasingly Europeanised market, and can be explained primarily by the good availability of Belgium's generating facilities (especially its nuclear power stations).”

The development of interconnections was also a key factor in the circulation of these electricity flows, as seen with Irish grid price spikes highlighting regional stress, Elia noted.

“Belgium had not been a net exporter of electricity for almost 10 years, the last time being in 2009 and 2010, when total net exports represented 2.8% and 0.2% respectively of Belgium’s energy mix,” it said.

Belgian has seven nuclear reactors – three at Tihange near Liege and four at Doel near Antwerp – and, regionally, nuclear-powered France faces outage risks that influence cross-border reliability.

In 2003, Belgium decided to phase out nuclear power and passed a law to that effect, with neighbors like Germany navigating a balancing act during their energy transition, which was reaffirmed in 2015 and 2018.

A commission appointed to assess the impact of the nuclear phaseout is scheduled to be completed in 2025 but has yet to report any findings.

Elia estimates that some 3.9GW of new power generating capacity will be needed to compensate for Belgium's nuclear phaseout.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario electricity emissions forecast highlights rising grid CO2 as nuclear refurbishments and the Pickering closure drive more natural gas, limited renewables, and delayed Quebec hydro imports, pending advances in storage and transmission upgrades.

Key Points

A projection that Ontario's grid CO2 will rise as nuclear units refurbish or retire, increasing natural gas use.

✅ Nuclear refurbs and Pickering shutdown cut zero-carbon baseload

✅ Gas plants fill capacity gaps, boosting GHG emissions

✅ Quebec hydro imports face cost, transmission, and timing limits

Ontario's energy grid is among the cleanest in North America — but the province’s nuclear plans mean that some of our progress will be reversed over the next decade.

What was once Canada’s largest single source of greenhouse-gas emissions is now a solar-power plant. The Nanticoke Generating Station, a coal-fired power plant in Haldimand County, was decommissioned in stages from 2010 to 2013 — and even before the last remaining structures were demolished earlier this year, Ontario Power Generation had replaced its nearly 4,000 megawatts with a 44-megawatt solar project in partnership with the Six Nations of the Grand River Development Corporation and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

But neither wind nor solar has done much to replace coal in Ontario’s hydro sector, a sign of how slowly Ontario is embracing clean power in practice across the province. At Nanticoke, the solar panels make up less than 2 per cent of the capacity that once flowed out to southern Ontario over high-voltage transmission lines. In cleaning up its electricity system, the province relied primarily on nuclear power — but the need to extend the nuclear system’s lifespan will end up making our electricity dirtier again.

“We’ve made some pretty great strides since 2005 with the fuel mix,” says Terry Young, vice-president of corporate communications at the Independent Electricity System Operator, the provincial agency whose job it is to balance supply and demand in Ontario’s electricity sector. “There have been big changes since 2005, but, yes, we will see an increase because of the closure of Pickering and the refurbs coming.”

“The refurbs” is industry-speak for the major rebuilds of both the Darlington and Bruce nuclear-power stations. The two are both in the early stages of major overhauls intended to extend their operating lives into the 2060s: in the coming years, they’ll be taken offline and rebuilt. (The Pickering nuclear plant will not be refurbished and will shut down in 2024.)

The catch is that, as the province loses its nuclear capacity in increments, Ontario will be short of electricity in the coming years and the IESO will need to find capacity elsewhere to make sure the lights stay on. And that could mean burning a lot more natural gas — and creating more greenhouse-gas emissions.

According to the IESO’s planning assumptions, electricity will be responsible for 11 megatonnes of greenhouse-gas emissions annually by 2035 (last year, it was three megatonnes). That’s the “reference case” scenario: if conservation and efficiency policies shave off some electricity demand, we could get it down to something like nine megatonnes. But if demand is higher than expected, it could be as high as 13 megatonnes — more than quadruple Ontario’s 2018 emissions.

Even in the worst-case scenario, the province’s emissions from electricity would still be less than half of what they were in 2005, before the province began phasing out its coal generation. But it’s still a reversal of a trend that both Liberals and Progressive Conservatives have boasted about — the Liberals to justify their energy policies, the PCs to justify their hostility to a federal carbon tax.

Young emphasized that technology can change and that the IESO’s planning assumptions are just that: projections based on the information available today. A revolution in electricity storage could make it possible to store the province’s cleaner power sources overnight for use during the day, but that’s still only in the realm of speculation — and the natural-gas infrastructure exists in the real world, today.

Ontario Power Generation — the Crown corporation that operates many of the province’s power plants, including Pickering and Darlington — recently bought four gas plants, two of them outright (two it already owned in part). All were nearly complete or already operational, so the purchase itself won’t change the province’s emissions prospects. Rather, OPG is simply looking to maintain its share of the electricity market after the Pickering shutdown.

“It will allow us to maintain our scale, with the upcoming end of Pickering’s commercial operations, so that we can continue our role as the driver of Ontario’s lower carbon future,” Neal Kelly, OPG’s director of media, issues, and management, told TVO.org via email. “Further, there is a growing need for flexible gas fired generation to support intermittent wind and solar generation.”

The shift to more gas-fired generation has been coming for a while, and critics say that Ontario has missed an opportunity to replace the lost Pickering capacity with something cleaner. MPP Mike Schreiner, leader of the Green party, has argued for years that Ontario should have pursued an agreement with Quebec to import clean hydroelectricity.

“To me, it’s a cost-effective solution, and it’s a zero-emissions solution,” Schreiner says. “Regardless of your position on sources of electricity, I think everyone could agree that waterpower from Quebec is going to be less expensive.”

Quebec is eager to sell Ontario its surplus hydro power, but not everyone agrees that importing power would be cheaper. A study published by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce (and commissioned by Ontario Power Generation) calls the claim a “myth” and states that upgrading electric-transmission wires between Ontario and Quebec would cost $1.2 billion and take 10 years, while some estimates suggest fully greening Ontario's grid would cost far more overall.

With Quebec imports seemingly a non-starter and major changes to Ontario’s nuclear fleet already underway, there’s only one path left for this province’s greenhouse-gas emissions: upwards.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News