A looming government clampdown on CO2 emissions is about to confront an already embattled U.S. coal power industry with two stark options: capture carbon or die.
Legislation from Congress or tough new regulatory demands could make it costly to spew greenhouse gases, posing a serious threat to the nation's coal-fired power plants.
With coal the single biggest source of carbon emissions, industry backers are pinning their hopes on technology to trap and store these emissions blamed for heating up the planet.
Carbon capture technology is far from a done deal, however. Unproven on a commercial scale, the process is extremely expensive and there are a multitude of safety concerns.
"Right now we have politicians making promises about the technology of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) that scientists don't know that they can meet," said Graham Thomson, author of a peer-reviewed study for the University of Toronto.
The stakes in this technology are also high for American consumers, who rely on abundant domestic coal for around half of the country's electricity generation.
On the global stage, leaders from around the world will meet next month in Copenhagen to try to agree on binding international targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
With coal the source of 40 percent of global carbon emissions, talks on funding for carbon capture will also likely be a key part of these negotiations.
For American Electric Power Chief Executive Mike Morris, there is no question that this technology is necessary and feasible.
In his office atop AEP's headquarters in Columbus, Ohio, Morris told Reuters: "This country and countries of the world are going to have an approach to cap carbon."
The U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed climate legislation this year that would limit U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by requiring major polluters to get permits for the carbon they release into the atmosphere.
Although most permits would be free at first, eventually companies would have to pay for or reduce their emissions, which could possibly put major emitters out of business.
In the Senate, key lawmakers are working to craft a similar law that would garner enough support for passage.
If no bill emerges from Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency has taken steps to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act.
One of the country's largest electricity generators, AEP is spending money to match the rhetoric. Partnering with the French engineering company Alstom, AEP is pioneering a project that will trap coal emissions and inject the carbon underground at its Mountaineer power plant in West Virginia.
The $73 million test project, which began fully operating last month, is billed as the first in the world that brings all the components of trapping, transporting and storing carbon together at an existing coal plant.
The company hopes it will lead to the first U.S. commercial-scale CCS project, at a cost of about $670 million.
Located amid rolling hills along the Ohio River, AEP's existing plant is a 1,300-megawatt behemoth consuming 12,000 tonnes of coal daily at full capacity.
Using technology developed by Alstom, the demonstration project at Mountaineer captures some of the carbon dioxide produced by the plant and transfers it through pipelines to two sites where it is pumped underground.
"The issue of global warming control is a technology challenge and this project and others like it will demonstrate there is a technological answer," Morris said. "But... we all need to realize it isn't a free move."
The cost of carbon capture will be high. Earlier this month the International Energy Agency said the world will need to spend $56 billion by 2020 to build 100 such projects, with an additional $646 billion needed from 2021-30.
A report released by the Global CCS Institute in Australia earlier this year said technology development is caught in a classic "Catch-22" situation.
"The only way costs can decrease is by installing a large number of CCS projects worldwide," it said.
Governments may have to foot the bill for many of the upfront costs. AEP has applied to have the U.S. government cover about half the cost of its commercial-scale project.
The technology uses up to 30 percent of a plant's power, meaning it uses more coal and makes less electricity for sale.
Even with advances in technology, consumers will still face some of the costs, said Franklin Orr, director of the Precourt Institute for Energy at California's Stanford University.
"We're going to have to charge ourselves enough for the electricity to pay those costs," he said.
Although hailed by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu as an essential technology, some critics question whether it will be possible to safely trap and store carbon for decades on the scale necessary to address global warming.
To make a serious dent in carbon emissions, billions of tons of CO2 will have to be injected underground.
There are also concerns about leaks from the storage areas. Carbon dioxide in high concentrations can cause asphyxiation but such accidents are considered unlikely. And there are also worries that drinking water sources could be contaminated.
"We're putting a lot of our eggs in one basket, when in fact it may not work at a commercial scale," Thomson said.
Other experts say these concerns can be addressed by ensuring that companies only inject carbon underground in areas that are geologically suited to hold and absorb the gas.
"I'm convinced that can be done safely," Orr said. He noted that industries routinely handle much more dangerous compounds such as methane gas.
While there are many doubters, the march toward deployment of carbon capture technology continues. Governments around the world continue to offer incentives, and funding to trap carbon may be part of international climate change negotiations.
"CCS is the only climate change solution we have for the existing fleet of coal-powered power plants," said Sarah Forbes of the World Resources Institute.
Australia Renewable Energy Transition: solar capacity growth, net-zero goals, rising electricity demand, coal reliance, EV adoption, grid decarbonization, heat waves, air conditioning loads, and policy incentives shaping clean power, efficiency, and emissions reduction.
Key Points
Australia targets net-zero by 2050 by scaling renewables, curbing demand, and phasing down coal and gas.
✅ Solar capacity up 200% since 2018, yet coal remains dominant.
✅ Transport leads energy use; EV uptake lags global average.
✅ Heat waves boost AC load, stressing grids and emissions goals.
A more than 200% increase in installed solar power generation capacity since 2018 helped Australia rank sixth globally in terms of solar capacity last year and emerge as one of the world's fastest-growing major renewable energy producers, aligning with forecasts that renewables to surpass coal in global power generation by 2025.
However, to realise its goal of becoming a net-zero carbon emitter by 2050, Australia must reverse the trajectory of its energy use, which remains on a rising path, even as Asia set to use half of electricity underscores regional demand growth, in contrast with several peers that have curbed energy use in recent years.
Australia's total electricity consumption has grown nearly 8% over the past decade, amid a global power demand surge that has exceeded pre-pandemic levels, compared with contractions over the same period of more than 7% in France, Germany and Japan, and a 14% drop in the United Kingdom, data from Ember shows.
Sustained growth in Australia's electricity demand has in turn meant that power producers must continue to heavily rely on coal for electricity generation on top of recent additions in supply of renewable energy sources, with low-emissions generation growth expected to cover most new demand.
Australia has sharply boosted clean energy capacity in recent years, but remains heavily reliant on coal & natural gas for electricity generation To accomplish emissions reduction targets on time, Australia's energy use must decline while clean energy supplies climb further, as that would give power producers the scope to shut high-polluting fossil-powered energy generation systems ahead of the 2050 deadline.
DEMAND DRIVERS Reducing overall electricity and energy use is a major challenge in all countries, where China's electricity appetite highlights shifting consumption patterns, but will be especially tough in Australia which is a relative laggard in terms of the electrification of transport systems and is prone to sustained heat waves that trigger heavy use of air conditioners.
The transport sector uses more energy than any other part of the Australian economy, including industry, and accounted for roughly 40% of total final energy use as of 2020, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA.)
Transport energy demand has also expanded more quickly than other sectors, growing by over 5% from 2010 to 2020 compared to industry's 1.3% growth over the same period.
Transport is Australia's main energy use sector, and oil products are the main source of energy type To reduce energy use, and cut the country's fuel import bill which topped AUD $65 billion in 2022 alone, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian government is keen to electrify car fleets and is offering large incentives for electric vehicle purchases.
Even so, electric vehicles accounted for only 5.1% of total Australian car sales in 2022, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
That compares to 13% in New Zealand, 21% in the European Union, and a global average of 14%.
More incentives for EV purchases are expected, but any rapid adoption of EVs would only serve to increase overall electricity demand, and with surging electricity demand already straining power systems worldwide, place further pressure on power producers to increase electricity supplies.
Heating and cooling for homes and businesses is another major energy demand driver in Australia, and accounts for roughly 40% of total electricity use in the country.
Australia is exposed to harsh weather conditions, especially heat waves which are expected to increase in frequency, intensity and duration over the coming decades due to climate change, according to the New South Wales government.
To cope, Australians are expected to resort to increased use of air conditioners during the hottest times of the year, and with reduced power reserves flagged by the market operator, adding yet more strain to electricity systems.
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
Canadian Electricity Innovation drives a customer-centric, data-driven grid, integrating renewable energy, EVs, storage, and responsive loads to boost reliability, resilience, affordability, and sustainability while aligning regulators, utilities, and policy for decarbonization.
Key Points
A plan to modernize the grid, aligning utilities, regulators, and tech to deliver clean, reliable, affordable power.
✅ Smart grid supports EVs, storage, solar, and responsive loads.
✅ Innovation funding and regulatory alignment cut long-term costs.
✅ Resilience rises against extreme weather and outage risks.
For more than 100 years, Canadian electricity companies had a very simple mandate: provide reliable, safe power to all. Keep the lights on, as some would say. And they did just that.
Today, however, they are expected to also provide a broad range of energy services through a data-driven, customer-centric system operations platform that can manage, among other things, responsive loads, electric vehicles, storage devices and solar generation. All the while meeting environmental and social sustainability — and delivering on affordability.
That’s why this new mandate requires an ironclad commitment to innovation excellence. Not simply replacing “like with like,” or to make incremental progress, but to fundamentally reimagine our electricity system and how Canadians relate to it.
Our innovators in the electricity sector are stepping up to the plate and coming up with ingenious ideas, thanks to an annual investment of some $20 billion.
#google#
But they are presented with a dilemma.
Although Canada enjoys among the cleanest, most reliable electricity in the world, we have seen a sharp spike in its politicization. Electricity rates have become the rage and a top-of-mind issue for many Canadians, as highlighted by the Ontario hydro debate over rate plans. Ontario’s election reflects that passion.
This heightened attention places greater pressure on provincial governments, who regulate prices, and in jurisdictions like the Alberta electricity market questions about competition further influence those decisions. In turn, they delegate down to the actual regulators where, at their public hearings, the overwhelming and almost exclusive objective becomes: Keeping costs down.
Consequently, innovation pilot applications by Canadian electricity companies are routinely rejected by regulators, all in the name of cost constraints.
Clearly, electricity companies must be frugal and keep rates as low as possible.
No one likes paying more for their electricity. Homeowners don’t like it and neither do businesses.
Ironically, our rates are actually among the lowest in the world. But the mission of our political leaders should not be a race to the basement suite of prices. Nor should cheap gimmicks masquerade as serious policy solutions. Not if we are to be responsible to future generations.
We must therefore avoid, at all costs, building on the cheap.
Without constant innovation, reliability will suffer, especially as we battle more extreme weather events. In addition, we will not meet the future climate and clean energy targets such as the Clean Electricity Regulations for 2050 that all governments have set and continuously talk about. It is therefore incumbent upon our governments to spur a dynamic culture of innovation. And they must sync this with their regulators.
This year’s federal budget failed to build on the 2017 investments. One-time public-sector funding mechanisms are not enough. Investments must be sustained for the long haul.
To help promote and celebrate what happens when innovation is empowered by utilities, the Canadian Electricity Association has launched Canada’s first Centre of Excellence on electricity. The centre showcases cutting-edge development in how electricity is produced, delivered and consumed. Moreover, it highlights the economic, social and environmental benefits for Canadians.
One of the innovations celebrated by the centre was developed by Nova Scotia’s own NS Power. The company has been recognized for its groundbreaking Intelligent Feeder Project that generates power through a combination of a wind farm, a substation, and nearly a dozen Tesla batteries, reflecting broader clean grid and battery trends across Canada.
Political leaders must, of course, respond to the emotions and needs of their electors. But they must also lead.
That’s why ongoing long-term investments must be embedded in the policies of federal, provincial and territorial governments, and their respective regulatory systems. And Canada’s private sector cannot just point the finger to governments. They, too, must deliver, by incorporating meaningful innovation strategies into their corporate cultures and vision.
That’s the straightforward innovation challenge, as it is for the debate over rates.
But it also represents a generational opportunity, because if we get innovation right we will build that better, greener future that Canadians aspire to.
Sergio Marchi is president and CEO of the Canadian Electricity Association. He is a former Member of Parliament, cabinet minister, and Canadian Ambassador to the World Trade Organization and United Nations in Geneva.
Duke Energy Carolinas Solar RFP draws 3.9 GW of utility-scale bids, oversubscribed in DEP and DEC, below avoided cost rates, minimal battery storage, strict PPA terms, and interconnection challenges across North and South Carolina.
Key Points
Utility-scale solar procurement in DEC and DEP, evaluated against avoided cost, with few storage bids and PPA terms.
✅ 3.9 GW bids for 680 MW; DEP most oversubscribed
✅ Most projects 7-80 MWac; few include battery storage
✅ Bids must price below 20-year avoided cost estimate
Last week the independent administrator for Duke’s 680 MW solar solicitation revealed data about the projects which have bid in response to the offer, showing a massive amount of interest in the opportunity.
Overall, 18 individuals submitted bids for projects in Duke Energy Carolinas (DEC) territory and 10 in Duke Energy Progress (DEP), with a total of more than 3.9 GW of proposals – more nearly 6x the available volume. DEP was relatively more over-subscribed, with 1.2 GWac of projects vying for only 80 MW of available capacity.
This is despite a requirement that such projects come in below the estimate of Duke’s avoided cost for the next 20 years, and amid changes in solar compensation that could affect project economics. Individual projects varied in capacity from 7-80 MWac, with most coming within the upper portion of that range.
These bids will be evaluated in the spring of 2019, and as Duke Energy Renewables continues to expand its portfolio, Duke Energy Communications Manager Randy Wheeless says he expects the plants to come online in a year or two.
Lack of storage
Despite recent trends in affordable batteries, of the 78 bids that came in only four included integrated battery storage. Tyler Norris, Cypress Creek Renewables’ market lead for North Carolina, says that this reflects that the methodology used is not properly valuing storage.
“The lack of storage in these bids is a missed opportunity for the state, and it reflects a poorly designed avoided cost rate structure that improperly values storage resources, commercially unreasonable PPA provisions, and unfavorable interconnection treatment toward independent storage,” Norris told pv magazine.
“We’re hopeful that these issues will be addressed in the second RFP tranche and in the current regulatory proceedings on avoided cost and state interconnection standards and grid upgrades across the region.”
Limited volume for North Carolina?
Another curious feature of the bids is that nearly the same volume of solar has been proposed for South Carolina as North Carolina – despite this solicitation being in response to a North Carolina law and ongoing legal disputes such as a church solar case that challenged the state’s monopoly model.
Poland Offshore Wind Energy accelerates as PGE exits nuclear leadership, PKN Orlen steps in, and Baltic Sea projects expand to cut coal reliance, meet EU emissions goals, attract investors, and bridge the power capacity gap.
Key Points
A shift from coal and nuclear to Baltic offshore wind to add capacity, cut EU emissions, and attract investment.
✅ PGE drops lead in nuclear; pivots $10bn to offshore wind.
✅ PKN Orlen may assume nuclear role; projects await approval.
✅ 6 GW offshore could add 60b zlotys and 77k jobs by 2030.
PGE, Poland’s biggest power group has decided to abandon a role in building the country’s first nuclear power plant and will instead focus investment on offshore wind energy.
Reuters reports state-run refiner PKN Orlen (PKN.WA) could take on PGE’s role, while the latter announces a $10bn offshore wind power project.
Both moves into renewables and nuclear represent a major change in Polish energy policy, diversifying away from the country’s traditional coal-fired power base, as regional efforts like the North Sea wind farms initiative expand, in a bid to fill an electricity shortfall and meet EU emission standards.
An unnamed source told the news agency, PGE could not fund both projects and cheap technology had swung the decision in favour of wind, with offshore wind competing with gas in some markets. PGE could still play a smaller role in the nuclear project which has been delayed and still needs government approval.
#google#
A proposed law is currently before the Polish parliament aiming at facilitating easy construction of wind turbines, mindful of Germany’s grid expansion challenges that have hindered rollout.
If the law is passed, as expected, several other wind farm projects could also proceed.
Polenergia has said it would like to build a wind farm in the Baltic by 2022. PKN Orlen is also considering building one.
PGE said in March that it wants to build offshore windfarms with a capacity of 2.5 gigawatts (GW) by 2030.
Analysts and investors say that offshore wind farms are the easiest and fastest way for Poland to fill the expected capacity gap from coal, with examples like the largest UK offshore wind farm coming online underscoring momentum, and reduce CO2 emissions in line with EU’s 2030 targets as Poland seeks improved ties with Brussels.
The decision to open up the offshore power industry could also draw in investors, as shown by Japanese utilities’ UK offshore investment attracting cross-border capital. Statoil said in April it would join Polenergia’s offshore project which has drawn interest from other international wind companies. “
The Polish Wind Energy Association (PWEA) estimates that offshore windfarms with a total capacity of 6 GW would help create around 77,000 new jobs and add around 60 billion zlotys to economic growth.
Just Transition for Coal and Nuclear Workers explains policy frameworks, compensation packages, retraining, and community support during decarbonization, plant closures, and energy shifts across Europe and the U.S., including Diablo Canyon and Uniper strategies.
Key Points
A policy approach to protect and retrain legacy power workers as coal and nuclear plants retire during decarbonization.
✅ Germany and Spain fund closures with compensation and retraining.
✅ U.S. lacks federal support; Diablo Canyon is a notable exception.
✅ Firms like Uniper convert coal sites to gas and clean energy roles.
The coronavirus pandemic has not changed the grim reality facing workers at coal and nuclear power plants in the U.S. and Europe. How those workers will fare in the years ahead will vary greatly based on where they live and the prevailing political winds.
In Europe, the retirement of aging plants is increasingly seen as a matter of national concern. Germany this year agreed to a €40 billion ($45 billion) compensation package for workers affected by the country's planned phaseout of coal generation by 2038, amid its broader exit from nuclear power as part of its energy transition. Last month the Spanish authorities agreed on a just transition plan affecting 2,300 workers across 12 thermal power plants that are due to close this year.
In contrast, there is no federal support plan for such workers in the U.S., said Tim Judson, executive director at the Maryland-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service, which lobbies for an end to nuclear and fossil-fuel power.
For all of President Donald Trump’s professed love of blue-collar workers in sectors such as coal, “where there are economic transitions going on, we’re terrible at supporting workers and communities,” Judson said of the U.S. Even at the state level, support for such workers is "almost nonexistent,” he said, “although there are a lot of efforts going on right now to start putting in place just transition programs, especially for the energy sector.”
One example that stands out in the U.S. is the support package secured for workers at utility PG&E's Diablo Canyon Power Plant, California's last operating nuclear power plant that is scheduled for permanent closure in 2025. “There was a settlement between the utility, environmental groups and labor unions to phase out that plant that included a very robust just transition package for the workers and the local community,” Judson said.
Are there enough clean energy jobs to replace those being lost? Governments are more likely to step in with "just transition" plans where they have been responsible for plant closures in the first place. This is the case for California, Germany and Spain, all moving aggressively to decarbonize their energy sectors and pursue net-zero emissions policy goals.
Some companies are beginning to take a more proactive approach to helping their workers with the transition. German energy giant Uniper, for example, is working with authorities to save jobs by seeking to turn coal plants into lower-emissions gas-fired units.
Germany’s coal phaseout will force Uniper to shut down 1.5 gigawatts of hard-coal capacity by 2022, but the company has said it is looking at "forward-looking" options for its plants that "will be geared toward tomorrow's energy world and offer long-term employment prospects."
Christine Bossak, Uniper’s manager of external communications, told GTM this approach would be adopted in all the countries where Uniper operates coal plants.
Job losses are usually inevitable when a plant is closed, Bossak acknowledged. “But the extent of the reduction depends on the alternative possibilities that can be created at the site or other locations. We will take care of every single employee, should he or she be affected by a closure. We work with the works council and our local partners to find sustainable solutions.”
Diana Junquera Curiel, energy industry director for the global union federation IndustriALL, said such corporate commitments looked good on paper — but the level of practical support depends on the prevailing political sentiment in a country, as seen in Germany's nuclear debate over climate strategy.
Even in Spain, where the closure of coal plants was being discussed 15 years ago, a final agreement had to be rushed through at the last minute upon the arrival of a socialist government, Junquera Curiel said. An earlier right-wing administration had sat on the plan for eight years, she added.
The hope is that heel-dragging over just transition programs will diminish as the scale of legacy plant closures grows.
Nuclear industry facing a similar challenge as coal One reason why government support is so important is there's no guarantee a burgeoning clean energy economy will be able to absorb all the workers losing legacy generation jobs. Although the construction of renewable energy projects requires large crews, it often takes no more than a handful of people to operate and maintain a wind or solar plant once it's up and running, Junquera Curiel observed.
Meanwhile, the job losses are unlikely to slow. In Europe, Austria and Sweden both closed their last coal-fired units recently, even as Europe loses nuclear capacity in key markets.
In the U.S., the Energy Information Administration's base-case prediction is that coal's share of power generation will fall from 24 percent in 2019 to 13 percent in 2050, while nuclear's will fall from 20 percent to 12 percent over that time horizon. The EIA has long underestimated the growth trajectory of renewables in the mix; only in 2020 did it concede that renewables will eventually overtake natural gas as the country's largest source of power.
The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis has predicted that even a coronavirus-inspired halt to renewables is unlikely to stop a calamitous drop in coal’s contribution to U.S. generation.
The nuclear sector faces a similar challenge as coal, albeit over a longer timeline. Last year saw the nuclear industry starting to lose capacity worldwide in what could be the beginning of a terminal decline, highlighted by Germany's shutdown of its last three reactors in 2023. Last week, the Indian Point Energy Center closed permanently after nearly half a century of cranking out power for New York City.*
“Amid ongoing debates over whether to keep struggling reactors online in certain markets, the industry position would be that governments should support continued operation of existing reactors and new build as part of an overall policy to transition to a sustainable clean energy system,” said Jonathan Cobb, senior communication manager at the World Nuclear Association.
If this doesn’t happen, plant workers will be hoping they can at least get a Diablo Canyon treatment. Based on the progress of just transition plans so far, that may depend on how they vote just as much as who they work for.
