China keeps demand for coal high

ITER Nuclear Fusion advances tokamak magnetic confinement, heating deuterium-tritium plasma with superconducting magnets, targeting net energy gain, tritium breeding, and steam-turbine power, while complementing laser inertial confinement milestones for grid-scale electricity and 2025 startup goals.

Key Points

ITER Nuclear Fusion is a tokamak project confining D-T plasma with magnets to achieve net energy gain and clean power.

✅ Tokamak magnetic confinement with high-temp superconducting coils

✅ Deuterium-tritium fuel cycle with on-site tritium breeding

✅ Targets net energy gain and grid-scale, low-carbon electricity

It sounds like the stuff of dreams: a virtually limitless source of energy that doesn’t produce greenhouse gases or radioactive waste. That’s the promise of nuclear fusion, often described as the holy grail of clean energy by proponents, which for decades has been nothing more than a fantasy due to insurmountable technical challenges. But things are heating up in what has turned into a race to create what amounts to an artificial sun here on Earth, one that can provide power for our kettles, cars and light bulbs.

Today’s nuclear power plants create electricity through nuclear fission, in which atoms are split, with next-gen nuclear power exploring smaller, cheaper, safer designs that remain distinct from fusion. Nuclear fusion however, involves combining atomic nuclei to release energy. It’s the same reaction that’s taking place at the Sun’s core. But overcoming the natural repulsion between atomic nuclei and maintaining the right conditions for fusion to occur isn’t straightforward. And doing so in a way that produces more energy than the reaction consumes has been beyond the grasp of the finest minds in physics for decades.

But perhaps not for much longer. Some major technical challenges have been overcome in the past few years and governments around the world have been pouring money into fusion power research as part of a broader green industrial revolution under way in several regions. There are also over 20 private ventures in the UK, US, Europe, China and Australia vying to be the first to make fusion energy production a reality.

“People are saying, ‘If it really is the ultimate solution, let’s find out whether it works or not,’” says Dr Tim Luce, head of science and operation at the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), being built in southeast France. ITER is the biggest throw of the fusion dice yet.

Its $22bn (£15.9bn) build cost is being met by the governments of two-thirds of the world’s population, including the EU, the US, China and Russia, at a time when Europe is losing nuclear power and needs energy, and when it’s fired up in 2025 it’ll be the world’s largest fusion reactor. If it works, ITER will transform fusion power from being the stuff of dreams into a viable energy source.

Constructing a nuclear fusion reactor
ITER will be a tokamak reactor – thought to be the best hope for fusion power. Inside a tokamak, a gas, often a hydrogen isotope called deuterium, is subjected to intense heat and pressure, forcing electrons out of the atoms. This creates a plasma – a superheated, ionised gas – that has to be contained by intense magnetic fields.

The containment is vital, as no material on Earth could withstand the intense heat (100,000,000°C and above) that the plasma has to reach so that fusion can begin. It’s close to 10 times the heat at the Sun’s core, and temperatures like that are needed in a tokamak because the gravitational pressure within the Sun can’t be recreated.

When atomic nuclei do start to fuse, vast amounts of energy are released. While the experimental reactors currently in operation release that energy as heat, in a fusion reactor power plant, the heat would be used to produce steam that would drive turbines to generate electricity, even as some envision nuclear beyond electricity for industrial heat and fuels.

Tokamaks aren’t the only fusion reactors being tried. Another type of reactor uses lasers to heat and compress a hydrogen fuel to initiate fusion. In August 2021, one such device at the National Ignition Facility, at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, generated 1.35 megajoules of energy. This record-breaking figure brings fusion power a step closer to net energy gain, but most hopes are still pinned on tokamak reactors rather than lasers.

In June 2021, China’s Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) reactor maintained a plasma for 101 seconds at 120,000,000°C. Before that, the record was 20 seconds. Ultimately, a fusion reactor would need to sustain the plasma indefinitely – or at least for eight-hour ‘pulses’ during periods of peak electricity demand.

A real game-changer for tokamaks has been the magnets used to produce the magnetic field. “We know how to make magnets that generate a very high magnetic field from copper or other kinds of metal, but you would pay a fortune for the electricity. It wouldn’t be a net energy gain from the plant,” says Luce.

One route for nuclear fusion is to use atoms of deuterium and tritium, both isotopes of hydrogen. They fuse under incredible heat and pressure, and the resulting products release energy as heat

The solution is to use high-temperature, superconducting magnets made from superconducting wire, or ‘tape’, that has no electrical resistance. These magnets can create intense magnetic fields and don’t lose energy as heat.

“High temperature superconductivity has been known about for 35 years. But the manufacturing capability to make tape in the lengths that would be required to make a reasonable fusion coil has just recently been developed,” says Luce. One of ITER’s magnets, the central solenoid, will produce a field of 13 tesla – 280,000 times Earth’s magnetic field.

The inner walls of ITER’s vacuum vessel, where the fusion will occur, will be lined with beryllium, a metal that won’t contaminate the plasma much if they touch. At the bottom is the divertor that will keep the temperature inside the reactor under control.

“The heat load on the divertor can be as large as in a rocket nozzle,” says Luce. “Rocket nozzles work because you can get into orbit within minutes and in space it’s really cold.” In a fusion reactor, a divertor would need to withstand this heat indefinitely and at ITER they’ll be testing one made out of tungsten.

Meanwhile, in the US, the National Spherical Torus Experiment – Upgrade (NSTX-U) fusion reactor will be fired up in the autumn of 2022, while efforts in advanced fission such as a mini-reactor design are also progressing. One of its priorities will be to see whether lining the reactor with lithium helps to keep the plasma stable.

Choosing a fuel
Instead of just using deuterium as the fusion fuel, ITER will use deuterium mixed with tritium, another hydrogen isotope. The deuterium-tritium blend offers the best chance of getting significantly more power out than is put in. Proponents of fusion power say one reason the technology is safe is that the fuel needs to be constantly fed into the reactor to keep fusion happening, making a runaway reaction impossible.

Deuterium can be extracted from seawater, so there’s a virtually limitless supply of it. But only 20kg of tritium are thought to exist worldwide, so fusion power plants will have to produce it (ITER will develop technology to ‘breed’ tritium). While some radioactive waste will be produced in a fusion plant, it’ll have a lifetime of around 100 years, rather than the thousands of years from fission.

At the time of writing in September, researchers at the Joint European Torus (JET) fusion reactor in Oxfordshire were due to start their deuterium-tritium fusion reactions. “JET will help ITER prepare a choice of machine parameters to optimise the fusion power,” says Dr Joelle Mailloux, one of the scientific programme leaders at JET. These parameters will include finding the best combination of deuterium and tritium, and establishing how the current is increased in the magnets before fusion starts.

The groundwork laid down at JET should accelerate ITER’s efforts to accomplish net energy gain. ITER will produce ‘first plasma’ in December 2025 and be cranked up to full power over the following decade. Its plasma temperature will reach 150,000,000°C and its target is to produce 500 megawatts of fusion power for every 50 megawatts of input heating power.

“If ITER is successful, it’ll eliminate most, if not all, doubts about the science and liberate money for technology development,” says Luce. That technology development will be demonstration fusion power plants that actually produce electricity, where advanced reactors can build on decades of expertise. “ITER is opening the door and saying, yeah, this works – the science is there.”

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

SM-1A Nuclear Plant Decommissioning details the US Army Corps of Engineers' removal of the Fort Greely reactor, Cold War facility dismantling, environmental monitoring, remote-site power history, and timeline to 2026 under a deactivated nuclear program.

Key Points

Army Corps plan to dismantle Fort Greely's SM-1A reactor and complete decommissioning of remaining systems by 2026.

✅ Built for remote Arctic radar support during the Cold War

✅ High costs beat diesel; program later deemed impractical

✅ Reactor parts removed; residuals monitored; removal by 2026

The US Army Corps of Engineers has begun decommissioning Alaska’s only nuclear power plant, SM-1A, which is located at Fort Greely, even as new US reactors continue to take shape nationwide. The $17m plant closed in 1972 after ten years of sporadic operation. It was out of commission from 1967 to 1969 for extensive repairs. Much of has already been dismantled and sent for disposal, and the rest, which is encased in concrete, is now to be removed.

The plant was built as part of an experimental programme to determine whether nuclear facilities, akin to next-generation nuclear concepts, could be built and operated at remote sites more cheaply than diesel-fuelled plants.

"The main approach was to reduce significant fuel-transportation costs by having a nuclear reactor that could operate for long terms, a concept echoed in the NuScale SMR safety evaluation process, with just one nuclear core," Brian Hearty said. Hearty manages the Army Corps of Engineers’ Deactivated Nuclear Power Plant Program.

#google#

He said the Army built SM-1A in 1962 hoping to provide power reliably at remote Arctic radar sites, where in similarly isolated regions today new US coal plants may still be considered, intended to detect incoming missiles from the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. He added that the programme worked but not as well as Pentagon officials had hoped. While SM-1A could be built and operated in a cold and remote location, its upfront costs were much higher than anticipated, and it costs more to maintain than a diesel power plant. Moreover, the programme became irrelevant because of advances in Soviet rocket science and the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Hearty said the reactor was partially dismantled soon after it was shut down. “All of the fuel in the reactor core was removed and shipped back to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) for them to either reprocess or dispose of,” he noted. “The highly activated control and absorber rods were also removed and shipped back to the AEC.”

The SM-1A plant produced 1.8MWe and 20MWt, including steam, which was used to heat the post. Because that part of the system was still needed, Army officials removed most of the nuclear-power system and linked the heat and steam components to a diesel-fired boiler. However, several parts of the nuclear system remained, including the reactor pressure vessel and reactor coolant pumps. “Those were either kept in place, or they were cut off and laid down in the tall vapour-containment building there,” Hearty said. “And then they were grouted and concreted in place.” The Corps of Engineers wants to remove all that remains of the plant, but it is as yet unclear whether that will be feasible.

Meanwhile, monitoring for radioactivity around the facility shows that it remains at acceptable levels. “It would be safe to say there’s no threat to human health in the environment,” said Brenda Barber, project manager for the decommissioning. Work is still in its early stages and is due to be completed in 2026 at the earliest. Barber said the Corps awarded the $4.6m contract in December to a Virginia-based firm to develop a long-range plan for the project, similar in scope to large reactor refurbishment efforts elsewhere. Among other things, this will help officials determine how much of the SM-1A will remain after it’s decommissioned. “There will still be buildings there,” she said. “There will still be components of some of the old structure there that may likely remain.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Canada Clean Electricity Regulations allow flexible, technology-neutral pathways to a 2035 net-zero grid, permitting limited natural gas with carbon capture, strict emissions standards, and exemptions for emergencies and peak demand across provinces and territories.

Key Points

Federal draft rules for a 2035 net-zero grid, allowing limited gas with CCS under strict performance and compliance standards.

✅ Performance cap: 30 tCO2 per GWh annually for gas plants

✅ CCS must sequester 95% of emissions to comply

✅ Emergency and peak demand exemptions permitted

After facing pushback from Alberta and Saskatchewan, and amid looming power challenges nationwide, Canada's draft net-zero electricity regulations — released today — will permit some natural gas power generation. 

Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault released Ottawa's proposed Clean Electricity Regulations on Thursday.

Provinces and territories will have a minimum 75-day window to comment on the draft regulations. The final rules are intended to pave the way to a net-zero power grid in Canada, aligning with 2035 clean electricity goals established nationally. 

Calling the regulations "technology neutral," Guilbeault said the federal government believes there's enough flexibility to accommodate the different energy needs of Canada's diverse provinces and territories, including how Ontario is embracing clean power in its planning. 

"What we're talking about is not a fossil fuel-free grid by 2035; it's a net zero grid by 2035," Guilbeault said. 

"We understand there will be some fossil fuels remaining … but we're working to minimize those, and the fossil fuels that will be used in 2035 will have to comply with rigorous environmental and emission standards," he added. 

Some analysts argue that scrapping coal-fired electricity can be costly and ineffective, underscoring the trade-offs in transition planning.

While non-emitting sources of electricity — hydroelectricity, wind and solar and nuclear — should not have any issues complying with the regulations, natural gas plants will have to meet specific criteria.

Those operations, the government said, will need to emit the equivalent of 30 tonnes of carbon dioxide per gigawatt hour or less annually to help balance demand and emissions across the grid.

Federal officials said existing natural gas power plants could comply with that performance standard with the help of carbon capture and storage systems, which would be required to sequester 95 per cent of their emissions.

"In other words, it's achievable, and it is achievable by existing technology," said a government official speaking to reporters Thursday on background and not for attribution.

The regulations will also allow a certain level of natural gas power production without the need to capture emissions. Capturing emissions will be exempted during emergencies and peak periods when renewables cannot keep up with demand. 

Some newer plants might not have to comply with the rules until the 2040s, because the regulations apply to plants 20 years after they are commissioned, which dovetails with net-zero by 2050 commitments from electricity associations. 

The two-decade grace period does not apply to plants that open after the regulations are expected to be finalized in 2025.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

ESCC COVID-19 Resource Guide outlines control center continuity, sequestration, social distancing, remote operations, testing priorities, mutual assistance, supply chain risk, and PPE protocols to sustain grid reliability and plant operations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Key Points

An industry guide to COVID-19 mitigation for the power sector covering control centers, testing, PPE, and mutual aid.

✅ Control center continuity: segregation, remote ops, reserve shifts

✅ Sequestration triggers, testing priorities, and PPE protocols

✅ Mutual assistance, supply chain risk, and workforce planning

The latest version of the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council’s (ESCC’s) resource guide to assess and mitigate COVID-19 suggests the U.S. power sector continues to grapple with key concerns involving control center continuity, power plant continuity, access to restricted and quarantined areas, mutual assistance, and supply chain challenges, alongside urban demand shifts seen in Ottawa’s electricity demand during closures.

In its fifth and sixth versions of the “ESCC Resource Guide—Assessing and Mitigating the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19),” released on April 16 and April 20, respectively, the ESCC expanded its guidance as it relates to social distancing and sequestration within tight power sector environments like control centers, crucial mitigation strategies that are designed to avoid attrition of essential workers.

The CEO-led power sector group that serves as a liaison with the federal government during emergencies introduced the guide on March 23, and it provides periodic updates  sourced from “tiger teams,” which are made up of representatives from investor-owned electric companies, public power utilities, electric cooperatives, independent power producers (IPPs), and other stakeholders. Collating regulatory updates and emerging resources, it serves as a general shareable blueprint for generators,  transmission and distribution (T&D) facilities, reliability coordinators, and balancing authorities across the nation on issues the sector is facing as the COVID-19 pandemic endures.

Controlling Spread at Control Centers
While control centers are typically well-isolated, physically secure, and may be conducive to on-site sequestration, the guide is emphatic that staff at these facilities are typically limited and they need long lead times to be trained to properly use the information technology (IT) and operational technology (OT) tools to keep control centers functioning and maintain grid visibility. Control room operators generally include: reliability engineers, dispatchers, area controllers, and their shift supervisors. Staff that directly support these function, also considered critical, consist of employees who maintain and secure the functionality of the IT and OT tools used by the control room operators.

In its latest update, the ESCC notes that many entities took “proactive steps to isolate their control center facilities from external visitors and non-essential employees early in the pandemic, leveraging the presence of back-up control centers, self-quarantining of employees, and multiple shifts to maximize social distancing.” To ensure all levels of logistical and operational challenges posed by the pandemic are addressed, it envisions several scenarios ranging from mild contagion—where a single operator is affected at one of two control center sites to the compromise of both sites.

Previous versions of the guide have set out universal mitigation strategies—such as clear symptom reporting, cleaning, and travel guidance. To ensure continuity even in the most dire of circumstances, for example, it recommends segregating shifts, and even sequestering a “complete healthy shift” as a “reserve” for times when minimum staffing levels cannot be met. It also encourages companies to develop a backup staff of retirees, supervisors, managers, and engineers that could backfill staffing needs.

Meanwhile, though social distancing has always been a universal mitigation strategy, the ESCC last week detailed what social distancing at a control room could look like. It says, for example, that entities should consider if personnel can do their jobs in spaces adjacent to the existing control room; moving workstations to allow at least six feet of space between employees; or designating workstations for individual operators. The guide also suggests remote operations outside of a single control room as an option, and some markets are exploring virtual power plant models in the UK to support flexibility, though it underscores that not all control center operations can be performed remotely, and remote operations increase the potential for security vulnerabilities. “The NERC [North American Electric Reliability Corp.] Reliability Standards address requirements for BES [bulk electric system] control centers and security controls for remote access of systems, applications, or data,” the resource guide notes.

Sequestration—Highly Effective but Difficult
Significantly, the new update also clarifies circumstances that could “trigger” sequestration—or keeping mission-essential workers at facilities. Sequestration, it notes, “is likely to be the most effective means of reducing risk to critical control center employees during a pandemic, but it is also the most resource- and cost-intensive option to implement.”

It is unclear exactly how many power sector workers are currently being sequestered at facilities. According to the  American Public Power Association (APPA), as of last week, the New York Power Authority was sequestering 82 power plant control room and transmission control operator, amid New York City’s shifting electric rhythms during COVID-19; the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) in California had begun sequestering critical employees; and the Electric & Gas Utility at the City of Tallahassee had 44 workers being rotated in and out of sequestration. Another 37 workers from the New York ISO were already being sequestered or housed onsite as of April 9. PJM began sequestering a team of operators on April 11, and National Grid was sequestering 200 employees as of April 12. 

Decisions to trigger sequestration at T&D and other grid monitoring facilities are typically driven by entities’ risk assessment, ESCC noted. Considerations may involve: 

The number of people showing symptoms or testing positive as a percentage of the population in a county or municipality where the control center is sited. One organization, for example, is considering a lower threshold of 10% community infection as a trigger of “officer-level decision” to determine whether to sequester. A higher threshold of 20% “mandates a move to sequestration,” ESCC said.
The number of essential workers showing symptoms or having tested positive. “Acceptable risk should be based on the minimum staffing requirements of the control center and should include the availability of a reserve shift for critical position backfills. For example, shift supervisors are commonly certified in all positions in the control center, and the unavailability of more than one-third of a single organization’s shift supervisors could compromise operations,” it said.
The rate of infection spread across a geographic region. In the April 20 version, the guide removes specific mention that cases are doubling “every 3–5 days or more frequently in some areas.” It now says:  “Considering the rapid spread of COVID-19, special care should be taken to identify the point at which control center personnel are more likely than not to come into contact with an infected individual during their off-shift hours.”
Generator Sequestration Measures Vary
Generators, meanwhile, have taken different approaches to sequester generation operators. Some have reacted to statewide outbreaks, others to low reserves, and others still, as with one IPP, to control exposure to smaller staffs, which cannot afford attrition. The IPP, for example, decided sequestration was necessary because it “did not want to wait for confirmed cases in the workforce.” That company sequestered all its control room operators, outside operators, and instrumentation and control technicians.

The ESCC resource guide says workers are being sequestered in several ways. On-site, these could range from housing workers in two separate areas, for example, or in trailers brought in. Off-site, workers may be housed in hotel rooms, which the guide notes, “are plentiful.”

Location makes a difference, it said: “Onsite requires more logistical co-ordination for accommodations, food, room sanitization, linens, and entertainment.”  To accommodate sequestered workers, generators have to consider off-site food and laundry services (left at gates for pick-up)—and even extending Wi-Fi for personal use. Generators are learning from each other about all aspects of sequestration—including how to pay sequestered workers. It suggests sequestered workers should receive pay for all hours inside the plant, including straight time for regularly scheduled hours and time-and-a-half for all other hours. To maintain non-sequestered employees, who are following stay-at-home protocols, pay should remain regularly scheduled, it says.

Testing Remains a Formidable Hurdle
Though decisions to sequester differ among different power entities, they appear commonly complicated by one prominent issue: a dearth of testing.

At the center of a scuffle between the federal and state governments of late, the number of tests has not kept pace with the severity of the pandemic, and while President Trump has for some weeks claimed that “Testing is a local thing,” state officials, business leaders—including from the power sector—and public health experts say that it is far short of the several hundred thousands or perhaps even millions of daily tests it might take to safely restart the economy, even as calls to keep electricity options open grow among policymakers, a three-phase approach for which the Trump administration rolled out this week. While the White House said the approach is “based on the advice of public health experts, the suggestions do not indicate a specific timeframe. Some hard-hit states have committed to keeping current restrictions in place. New York on April 16 said it would maintain a shutdown order through May 15, while California published its own guidelines and states in the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast entered regional pacts that may involve interstate coordination on COVID-19–related policy going forward.

On Sunday, responding to a call by governors across the political spectrum that insisted the federal government should step up efforts to help states obtain vital supplies for tests, Trump said the federal government will be “using” and “preparing to use” the Defense Production Act to increase swab production.

For the power entities that are part of the ESCC, widespread testing underlies many mitigation strategies. The group’s generation owners and operating companies, which include members from the full power spectrum, have said testing is central to “successful mitigation of risk to control center continuity.”

In the updated guide, the entities recommend requesting that governmental authorities—it is unclear whether the focus should be on the federal or state governments—“direct medical facilities to prioritize testing for asymptomatic generation control room operators, operator technicians, instrument and control technicians, and the operations supervisor (treat comparable to first responders) in advance of sequestered, extended-duration shifts; and obtain state regulatory approval for corporate health services organizations to administer testing for coronavirus to essential employees, if applicable.”

The second priority, as crucial, involves asking the government to direct medical facilities to prioritize testing for control room operators before they are sequestered or go into extended-duration shifts.

Generators also want local, regional, state, and federal governments to ensure operators of generating facilities are allowed to move freely if “populace-wide quarantine/curfew or other travel restrictions” are enacted. Meanwhile,  they have also asked federal agencies and state permitting agencies to allow for non-compliance operations of generating facilities in case enough workers are not available.

Lower on its list, but still “medium priority,” is that the government should obtain authority for priority supply of sanitizing supplies and personal protective equipment (PPE) for generating facilities. They are also asking states to allow power plant employees (as opposed to crucially redirected medical personnel) to administer health questionnaires and temperature checks without Americans with Disabilities Act or other legal constraints. Newly highlighted in the update, meanwhile, is an emphasis on enough fire retardant (FR) vests and hoods and PPE, including masks and face coverings, so technicians don’t have to share them.

The worst-case scenario envisioned for generators involves a 40% workforce attrition, a nine-month pandemic, and no mutual assistance. As the update suggests, along with universal mitigation strategies, some power companies are eliminating non-essential work that would require close contact, altering assignments so work tasks are done by paired teams that do not rotate, and ensuring workers wear masks. The resource guide includes case studies and lessons learned so far, and all suggest pandemic planning was crucial to response. 

Gearing Up for Mutual Assistance—Even for Generation—During COVID-19
Meanwhile, though the guide recognizes that protecting employees is a key priority for many entities, it also lauds the crucial role mutual assistance plays in the sector’s collective response to the pandemic, even as coal and nuclear plant closures test just transition planning across regions. Mutual assistance is a long-standing power sector practice in the U.S. Last week, for example, as severe weather impacted the southern and eastern portions of the U.S., causing power outages for 1.3 million customers at the peak, the sector demonstrated the “versatility of mutual assistance processes,” bringing in additional workers and equipment from nearby utilities and contractors to assist with assessment and repair. “Crews utilized PPE and social distancing per the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] guidelines to perform their restoration duties,” the Energy Department told POWER.

But as the ESCC’s guide points out, mutual assistance has traditionally been deployed to help restore electric service to customers, typically focused on T&D infrastructure. The COVID-19 pandemic, uniquely, “has motivated generation entities to consider the use of mutual assistance for generation plant operation” it notes. As with the model it proposes to ensure continuity of control centers, mutual aid poses key challenges, such as for task variance, knowledge of operational practice, system customization, and legal indemnification.

Among guidelines ESCC proposes for generators are to use existing employee work stoppage plans as a resource in planning for the use of personnel not currently assigned to plant operation. It urges, for example, that generators keep a list of workers with skills who can be called from corporate/tech support (such as former operators or plant engineers/managers), or retirees and other individuals who could be called upon to help operate the control room first. ESCC also recommends considering the use of third-party contractor operations to supplement plant operations.

Key to these efforts is to “Create a thorough list of experience and qualifications needed to operate a particular unit. Important details include fuel type, OEM [original equipment manufacturer] technology, DCS [distributed control system] type, environmental controls, certifications, etc,” it says. “Consider proactively sharing this information internally within your company first and then with neighboring companies”—and that includes sufficient detail from manufacturers (such as Emerson Ovation, GE Mark VI, ABB, Honeywell)—“without exposing proprietary information.” One way to control this information is to develop a mutual assistance agreement with “strategic” companies within the region or system, it says.

Of specific interest is that the ESCC also recommends that generators consider “leaving units in extended or planned maintenance outage in that state as long as possible.” That’s because, “Operators at these offline sites could be considered available for a site responding to pandemic challenges,” it says.

However, these guidelines differ by resource. Nuclear generators, for example, already have robust emergency plans that include minimum staffing requirements, and owing to regulations, mutual aid is managed by each license holder, it says. However, to provide possible relief for attrition at operating nuclear plants, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on March 28 outlined a streamlined process that could allow nuclear operators to obtain exemptions from work hour rules, while organizations also point to IAEA low-carbon electricity lessons for future planning.

Uncertainty of Supply Chain Endurance
As the guide stresses, operational continuity during the pandemic will require that all power entities maintain supply of inputs and physical equipment. To help entities plan ahead—by determining volumes needed and geographic location of suppliers—it lists the most important materials needed for power delivery and bulk chemicals. “Clearly, the extent and duration of this emergency will influence the importance of one supply chain component compared to another,” it says.

As Massachusetts Institute of Technology supply chain expert David Simchi-Levi noted on April 13, global supply chains have been heavily taxed by the pandemic, and manufacturing activities in the European Union and North America are still going offline. China is showing signs of slow recovery. Even in the best-case scenario, however—even if North America and Europe manage to control and reduce the pandemic—the supply chain will likely experience significant logistical capacity shortages, from transportation to warehousing. Owing to variability in timing, he suggested that companies plan to reconfigure supply chains and reposition inventory in case suppliers go out of business or face quarantine, while some industry groups urge investing in hydropower as part of resilient recovery strategies.

Also in short supply, according to ESCC, is industry-critical PPE. “While our sector recognizes that the priority is to ensure that PPE is available for workers in the healthcare sector and first responders, a reliable energy supply is required for healthcare and other sectors to deliver their critical services,” its resource guide notes. “The sector is not looking for PPE for the entire workforce. Rather, we are working to prioritize supplies for mission-essential workers – a subset of highly skilled energy workers who are unable to work remotely and who are mission-essential during this extraordinary time.”

Among critical industry PPE needs are nitrile gloves, shoe covers, Tyvek suits, goggles/glasses, hand sanitizer, dust masks, N95 respirators, antibacterial soap, and trashbags. While it provides a list of non-governmental PPE vendors and suppliers, the guide also provides several “creative” solutions. These include, for example, formulations for effective hand sanitizer; 3D printer face shield files; methods for decontaminating face piece respirators and other PPE; and instructions for homemade masks with pockets for high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter inserts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Western Canada Electric Grid could deliver interprovincial transmission, reliability, peak-load support, reserve sharing, and wind and solar integration, lowering costs versus new generation while respecting AESO markets and Crown utility structures.

Key Points

Interprovincial transmission to share reserves, boost reliability, integrate wind and solar, and cut peak capacity costs.

✅ Cuts reserve margins via diversity of peak loads

✅ Enables wind and solar balancing across provinces

✅ Saves ratepayers vs replacing retiring thermal plants

The 2017 Canadian Free Trade Agreement does not do much to encourage provinces to trade electric energy east and west. Would a western Canada electric grid help electricity consumers in the western provinces? Some Alberta officials feel that their electric utilities are investor owned and they perceive the Crown corporations of BC Hydro, SaskPower and Manitoba Hydro to be subsidized by their provincial governments, so an interprovincial electric energy trade would not be on a level playing field.

Because of the limited trade of electric energy between the western provinces, each utility maintains an excessive reserve of thermal and hydroelectric generation greater than their peak loads, to provide a reliable supply during peak load days as grids are increasingly exposed to harsh weather across Canada. This excess does not include variable wind and solar generation, which within a province can’t be guaranteed to be available when needed most.

This attitude must change. Transmission is cheaper than generation, and coordinated macrogrids can further improve reliability and cut costs. By constructing a substantial grid with low profile and aesthetically designed overhead transmission lines, the excess reserve of thermal and hydroelectric generation above the peak electric load can be reduced in each province over time. Detailed assessments will ensure each province retains its required reliability of electric supply.

As the provinces retire aging thermal and coal-fired generators, they only need to replace them to a much lower level, by just enough to meet their future electric loads and Canada's net-zero grid by 2050 goals. Some of the money not spent in replacing retired generation can be profitably invested in the transmission grid across the four western provinces.

But what about Alberta, which does not want to trade electric energy with the other western provinces? It can carry on as usual within the Alberta Electric System Operator’s (AESO) market and will save money by keeping the installed reserve of thermal and hydroelectric generation to a minimum. When Alberta experiences a peak electric load day and some generators are out of service due to unplanned maintenance, it can obtain the needed power from the interprovincial electric grid. None of the other three western provinces will peak at the same time, because of different weather and time zones, so they will have spare capacity to help Alberta over its peak. The peak load in a province only lasts for a few hours, so Alberta will get by with a little help from its friends if needed.

The grid will have no energy flowing on it for this purpose except to assist a province from time to time when it’s unable to meet its peak load. The grid may only carry load five per cent of the time in a year for this purpose. Under such circumstances, the empty grid can then be used for other profitable markets in electric energy. This includes more effective use of variable wind and solar energy, by enabling a province to better balance such intermittent power as well as allowing increased installation of it in every province. This is a challenge for AESO which the grid would substantially ease.

Natural Resources Canada promoted the “Regional Electricity Co-Operative and Strategic Infrastructure” initiative for completion this year and contracted through AESO, alongside an Atlantic grid study to explore regional improvements. This is a first step, but more is needed to achieve the full benefit of a western grid.

In 1970 a study was undertaken to electrically interconnect Britain with France, which was justified based on the ability to reduce reserve generation in both countries. Initially Britain rejected it, but France was partially supportive. In time, a substantial interconnection was built, and being a profitable venture, they are contemplating increasing the grid connections between them.

For the sake of the western consumers of electricity and to keep electricity rates from rising too quickly, as well as allowing productive expansion of wind and solar energy in places like British Columbia's clean energy shift efforts, an electric grid is essential across western Canada.

Dennis Woodford is president of Electranix Corporation in Winnipeg, which studies electric transmission problems, particularly involving renewable energy generators requiring firm connection to the grid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News