Pondering a 30-year commitment to clean coal

Scotland Wind Energy October saw renewables supply the equivalent of 98 percent of electricity demand, as onshore wind outpaced National Grid needs, cutting emissions and powering households, per WWF Scotland and WeatherEnergy.

Key Points

A monthly update showing Scottish onshore wind met the equivalent of 98% of electricity demand in October.

✅ 98% of monthly electricity demand equivalent met by wind

✅ 16 days exceeded total national demand, per data

✅ WWF Scotland and WeatherEnergy cited; lower emissions

New figures publicized by WWF Scotland have revealed that wind energy generated the equivalent of 98% of the country’s electricity demand in October, or enough electricity to power millions of Scottish homes across the country.

Scotland has regularly been highlighted as a global wind energy leader, and over the last few years has repeatedly reported record-breaking months for wind generation. Now, it’s all very well and good to say that Scottish wind delivered 98% of the country’s electricity demand, but the specifics are a little different — hence why WWF Scotland always refers to it as wind providing “the equivalent of 98%” of Scotland’s electricity demand. That’s why it’s worth looking at the statistics provided by WWF Scotland, sourced from WeatherEnergy, part of the European EnergizAIR project:

• National Grid demand for the month – 1,850,512 MWh
• What % of this could have been provided by wind power across Scotland – 98%
• Best day – 23rd October 2018, generation was 105,900.94 MWh, powering 8.72m homes, 356% of households. Demand that day was 45,274.5MWh – wind generation was 234% of that.
• Worst day – 18th October 2018 when generation was 18,377.71MWh powering 1,512,568 homes, 62% of households. Demand that day was 73,628.5MWh – wind generation was 25%
• How many days generation was over 100% of households – 27
• How many days generation was over 100% of demand – 16

“What a month October proved to be, with wind powering on average 98 per cent of Scotland’s entire electricity demand for the month, at a time when wind became the UK’s main power source and exceeding our total demand for a staggering 16 out of 31 days,” said Dr Sam Gardner, acting director at WWF Scotland.

“These figures clearly show wind is working, it’s helping reduce our emissions and is the lowest cost form of new power generation. It’s also popular, with a recent survey also showing more and more people support turbines in rural areas. That’s why it’s essential that the UK Government unlocks market access for onshore wind at a time when we need to be scaling up electrification of heat and transport.”

Alex Wilcox Brooke, Weather Energy Project Manager at Severn Wye Energy Agency, added: “Octobers figures are a prime example of how reliable & consistent wind production can be, with production on 16 days outstripping national demand.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Ontario Global Adjustment and ICI balance hydro rates, renewable cost shift, and peak demand. Class A and Class B customers face demand response decisions amid pandemic occupancy uncertainty and volatile GA charges through 2022.

Key Points

A pricing model where GA costs and ICI peak allocation shape Class A/B bills, driven by renewables cost shifts.

✅ Renewable cost shift trims GA; larger Class A savings expected.

✅ Class A peak strategy returns; occupancy uncertainty persists.

✅ Class B faces volatile GA; limited levers beyond efficiency.

Ontario’s large commercial electricity customers can approach the looming annual decision about their billing structure for the 12 months beginning July 1 with the assurance of long-term relief on a portion of their costs, amid changes coming for electricity consumers that could affect planning. That’s to be weighed against uncertainties around energy demand and whether a locked-in cost allocation formula that looked favourable in pre-pandemic times will remain so until June 30, 2022.

“The biggest unknown is we just don’t know when the people are coming back,” Jon Douglas, director of sustainability with Menkes Property Management Services, reflected during a webinar sponsored by the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) of Greater Toronto last week. “The occupancy in our office buildings this fall, and going into the new year, could really impact the outcome of the decision.”

After a year of operational upheaval and more modifications to provincial electricity pricing policies, BOMA Toronto’s regularly scheduled workshop ahead of the June 15 deadline for eligible customers to opt into the Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI) program had a lot of ground to cover. Notably, beginning in January, all commercial customers have seen a reduction in the global adjustment (GA) component of their monthly hydro bills after the Ontario government shifted costs associated with contracted non-hydroelectric renewable supply to reduce the burden on industrial ratepayers from electricity rates to the general provincial account — a move that trims approximately $258 million per month from the total GA charged to industrial and commercial customers. However, they won’t garner the full benefit of that until 2022 since they’re currently repaying about $333 million in GA costs that were deferred in April, May and June of 2020.

Renewable cost shift pares the global adjustment
For now, Ontario government officials estimate the renewable cost shift equates to a 12 per cent discount relative to 2020 prices, even as typical bills may rise about 2% as fixed pricing ends in some cases. Once last year’s GA deferral is repaid at the end of 2021, they project the average Class A customer participating in the ICI program should realize a 16 per cent saving on the total hydro bill, while Class B customers paying the GA on a volumetric per kilowatt-hour (kWh) basis will see a slightly more moderate 15 per cent decrease.

“This is the biggest change to electricity pricing that’s happened since the introduction of ICI,” Tim Christie, director of electricity policy, economics and system planning for Ontario’s Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines, told online workshop attendees. “The government is funding the out-of-market costs of renewables. It does tail off into the 2030s as those contracts (for wind, solar and biomass generation) expire, but over the next eight-ish years, it’s pretty steady at around just over $3 billion per year.”

Extrapolating from 2020 costs, he pegged average electricity costs at roughly 9.1 cents/kWh for Class A commercial customers and 13.2 cents/kWh for Class B, a point of concern for Ontario manufacturers facing high rates as well. However, energy management specialists suggest actual 2021 numbers haven’t proved that out.

“In commercial buildings, we’re averaging 10 to 12 cents for Class A in 2021, and we’re seeing more than that for about 14, 15 cents for Class B,” reported Scott Rouse, managing partner with the consulting firm, Energy@Work.

GA costs for Class B customers dropped nearly 30 per cent in the first four months of 2021 compared to the last four months of 2020, when they averaged 11.8 cents/kWh. Thus far, though, there have been significant month-to-month fluctuations, with a low of 5.04 cents/kWh in February and a high of 10.9 cents/kWh in April contributing to the four-month average of 8.3 cents/kWh.

“In 2020, system-wide GA very often averaged more than $1 billion per month,” Rouse said. “This February it dropped to $500 million, which was really quite surprising. So it is a very volatile cost.”

Although welcome, the renewable cost shift does alter the payback on energy-saving investments, particularly for demand response mechanisms like energy storage. When combined with pandemic-related uncertainty and a series of policy and program reversals alongside calls to clean up Ontario’s hydro policy in recent years, the industry’s appetite for some more capital-intensive technologies appears to be flagging.

“Volatility puts a pause on some of the innovation,” said Terry Flynn, general manager with BentallGreenOak and chair of BOMA Toronto’s energy committee. “It could be a leading edge, but it might be a bleeding edge that won’t bear any fruit because the way the commodity costs are structured will change.”

“There’s kind of a wait-and-see approach on some of these bigger investments,” Douglas concurred.

Industrial Conservation Initiative underpins commercial class divide
Turning to the ICI, Class A customers — defined as those with average monthly energy demand of at least 1 megawatt (MW) — encountered some unexpected changes to the program rules during 2020. Meanwhile, Class B customers — encompassing the vast share of commercial properties smaller than about 350,000 square feet — confront the persistent reality of electricity cost allocation that offloads the burden from larger players onto them.

Through the ICI, participating Class A customers pay a share of the global adjustment that’s prorated to their energy use during the five hours of the period from May 1 to April 30 when the highest overall system demand is recorded. This gives Class A customers the opportunity to lock in a favourable factor for calculating their share of monthly system-wide global adjustment costs if they can successful project and curtail energy loads during those five hours of peak demand. On the flipside, Class B customers pay the remainder of those system-wide costs, on a straightforward per-kWh basis, once Class A payments have been reconciled.

“Class B has sometimes been regarded as the forgotten middle child of the customer classes in Ontario where all the shifted costs in the system kind of pile up,” acknowledged Mark Olsheski, vice president, energy and environment, with Sussex Strategy Group. “Likewise, there can be big unpredictable and uncontrollable swings in the global adjustment rate from month to month and, outside of pure energy efficiency, there really is precious little opportunity or empowerment for a Class B customer to take actions to lower their bills.”

Nevertheless, COVID-19 presents a few extra hiccups for Class A customers this year. Conventionally, late May is when they receive notification of the cost allocation factor that would be used to determine their GA for the upcoming July 1 to June 30 period. This year, though, all current ICI participants will retain the factor they secured by responding to the five hours of peak demand during the 12 months from May 1, 2019 to April 30, 2020 after the Ontario government placed a temporary halt on the peak demand response aspect of the program last summer. Regardless, eligible ICI participants must formally opt into the program by June 15 or they will be billed as Class B customers.

Peak chasing resumes for summer 2021
Since peak demand hours conventionally occur from June to September, Class A customers will once again be studying forecasts intently and preparing to respond via Peak Perks as the heat wave season sets in. That should help alleviate some of the system stresses that arose last summer — prompting policy-makers to reject lobbying for a continued pause on peak demand response.

“The policy rationale was to allow consumers to focus on their operations when recovering from COVID as opposed to reducing peaks. The other issue was that we did not expect the peaks to be high last summer given COVID shutdowns,” Christie recounted. “But due to some hot weather, more people at home and also the lack of ICI response, we saw peaks we haven’t seen in many, many years come up last summer. So the peak hiatus has ended and this summer we’ll be back to responding to ICI as per normal.”

Among Class A customers, owners/managers of office and retail facilities generally have the most to lose from a billing formula tied to the energy demand of more densely occupied buildings in the summer of 2019. However, they could be much more competitively positioned for 2022-23 if their buildings remain below full occupancy and energy demand stays lower than usual this summer.

“Where we can improve is the IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator) and the LDCs (local distribution companies) need to help customers get their real-time data, especially in light of the phantom demand issue, interpret their bills and their Class A versus B scenarios much more easily and comprehensively,” urged Lee Hodgkinson, vice president, technical services, sustainability and ESG, with Dream Unlimited. “ I look for APIs (application programming interface) and direct data flow from the LDCs to the building owners so that we can access that data really easily.”

Given Class A’s historic advantages, few eligible ICI participants are expected to migrate out to Class B. From a sustainability perspective, there’s perhaps more cause to question how the ICI’s 1-MW threshold encourages strategies to move in the other direction.

“You could jack up demand in some buildings and get them into Class A basically by firing up the chillers on the weekend and then pouring cooling outside to get rid of it,” Douglas noted. “That has nothing to do with climate change strategy or sustainability, but it’s a cost- saving strategy, and, sometimes, when you look at the math, it’s hundreds of thousands of dollars you can save.”

Brian Hewson, vice president, consumer protection and industry performance with the Ontario Energy Board (OEB), confirmed the OEB is currently scrutinizing the discrepancy that leaves Class B as the only consumer group with no flexibility to curtail energy load during higher-priced periods, and will be providing advice to the Ministry of Energy. In the interim, that status does, at least, simplify tactics.

“Just reduce your kWh and it doesn’t matter what time of day because you’re paying that fixed rate for 24 hours a day. So if you can curb your demand at night, you get a big bang for your dollar,” Rouse advised.

“We do talk about rates a lot, but if you’re not using it, you’re not paying for it,” Flynn agreed. “A lot of our focus is still on really to try to reduce the number of kilowatts that we use. That seems to be the best thing to do.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Carbon Price Support, the UK carbon tax on power, slashed coal generation, cut CO2 emissions, boosted gas and imports via interconnectors, and signaled effective electricity market decarbonization across Great Britain and the EU.

Key Points

A UK power-sector carbon tax that drove coal off the grid, cut emissions, and shifted generation toward gas and imports.

✅ Coal generation fell from 40% to 3% in six years

✅ Rate rose to £18/tCO2 in 2015, boosting the coal-to-gas switch

✅ Added ~£39 to 2018 bills; imports via interconnectors eased prices

A tax on carbon dioxide emissions in Great Britain, introduced in 2013, has led to the proportion of electricity generated from coal falling from 40% to 3% over six years, a trend mirrored by global coal decline in power generation, according to research led by UCL.

British electricity generated from coal fell from 13.1 TWh (terawatt hours) in 2013 to 0.97 TWh in September 2019, and was replaced by other less emission-heavy forms of generation such as gas, as producers move away from coal in many markets. The decline in coal generation accelerated substantially after the tax was increased in 2015.

In the report, 'The Value of International Electricity Trading', researchers from UCL and the University of Cambridge also showed that the tax—called Carbon Price Support—added on average £39 to British household electricity bills, within the broader context of UK net zero policies shaping the energy transition, collecting around £740m for the Treasury, in 2018.

Academics researched how the tax affected electricity flows to connected countries and interconnector (the large cables connecting the countries) revenue between 2015—when the tax was increased to £18 per tonne of carbon dioxide—and 2018. Following this increase, the share of coal-fired electricity generation fell from 28% in 2015 to 5% in 2018, reaching 3% by September 2019. Increased electricity imports from the continent, alongside the EU electricity demand outlook across member states, reduced the price impact in the UK, and meant that some of the cost was paid through a slight increase in continental electricity prices (mainly in France and the Netherlands).

Project lead Dr. Giorgio Castagneto Gissey (Bartlett Institute for Sustainable Resources, UCL) said: "Should EU countries also adopt a high carbon tax we would likely see huge carbon emission reductions throughout the Continent, as we've seen in Great Britain over the last few years."

Lead author, Professor David Newbery (University of Cambridge), said: "The Carbon Price Support provides a clear signal to our neighbours of its efficacy at reducing CO2 emissions."

The Carbon Price Support was introduced in England, Scotland and Wales at a rate of £4.94 per tonne of carbon dioxide-equivalent and is now capped at £18 until 2021.The tax is one part of the Total Carbon Price, which also includes the price of EU Emissions Trading System permits and reflects global CO2 emissions trends shaping policy design.

Report co-author Bowei Guo (University of Cambridge) said: "The Carbon Price Support has been instrumental in driving coal off the grid, but we show how it also creates distortions to cross-border trade, making a case for EU-wide adoption."

Professor Michael Grubb (Bartlett Institute for Sustainable Resources, UCL) said: "Great Britain's electricity transition is a monumental achievement of global interest, and has also demonstrated the power of an effective carbon price in lowering dependence on electricity generated from coal."

The overall report on electricity trading also covers the value of EU interconnectors to Great Britain, measures the efficiency of cross-border electricity trading and considers the value of post-Brexit decoupling from EU electricity markets, setting these findings against the global energy transition underway.

Published today, the report annex focusing on the Carbon Price Support was produced by UCL to focus on the impact of the tax on British energy bills, with comparisons to Canadian climate policy debates informing grid impacts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

India Coal Power PLF rose as capacity utilisation improved on rising peak demand and hydropower shortfall; thermal plants lifted plant load factor, IPPs lagged, and generation beat program targets amid weak rainfall and slower snowmelt.

Key Points

Coal plant load factor in India rose in May on higher demand and weak hydropower, with generation beating targets.

✅ PLF rose to 65.3% as demand climbed

✅ Hydel generation fell 14% YoY on poor rainfall

✅ IPP PLF at 57.8%, below 60% debt comfort

Capacity utilisation levels of coal-based power plants improved in May because of a surge in electricity demand and lower generation from hydroelectric sources. The plant load factor (PLF) of thermal power plants went up to 65.3% in the month, 1.7 percentage points higher than the year-ago period.

While PLFs of central and state government-owned plants were 75.5% and 64.5%, respectively, the same for independent power producers (IPPs) stood at 57.8%, even as coal and electricity shortages eased across the market. Though PLFs of IPPs were higher than May 2017 levels, it failed to cross the 60% mark, which eases debt servicing capabilities of power generation assets.

Thermal power plants generated 96,580 million units (MU) in May, 4% more than the programme set for the month and 5.2% higher than last year, partly supported by higher imported coal volumes in the market. On the other hand, hydel plants produced 10,638 MU, 10% lower than the target, reflecting a 14% decline from last year.

#google#

Peak demand of power on the last day of the month was 1,62,132 MW, 4.3% higher than the demand registered in the same day a year ago, underscoring India's position as the third-largest electricity producer globally.

According to sources, hydropower plants have been generating lesser than expected electricity due to inadequate rainfall and snow melting at a slower pace than previous years, even as the US reported a power generation jump year on year. Data for power generation from renewable sources have not been made available yet.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Netherlands vs Canada Solar Power compares per capita capacity, renewable energy policies, photovoltaics adoption, rooftop installations, grid integration, and incentives like feed-in tariffs and BIPV, highlighting efficiency, costs, and public engagement.

Key Points

Concise comparison of per capita capacity, policies, technology, and engagement in Dutch and Canadian solar adoption.

✅ Dutch per capita PV capacity exceeds Canada's by wide margin.

✅ Strong incentives: net metering, feed-in tariffs, rooftop focus.

✅ Climate, grid density, and awareness drive higher yields.

When it comes to harnessing solar power, the Netherlands stands as a shining example of efficient and widespread adoption, far surpassing Canada in solar energy generation per capita. Despite Canada's vast landmass and abundance of sunlight, the Netherlands has managed to outpace its North American counterpart, which some experts call a solar power laggard in solar energy production. This article explores the factors behind the Netherlands' success in solar power generation and compares it to Canada's approach.

Solar Power Capacity and Policy Support

The Netherlands has rapidly expanded its solar power capacity in recent years, driven by a combination of favorable policies, technological advancements, and public support. According to recent data, the Netherlands boasts a significantly higher per capita solar power capacity compared to Canada, where demand for solar electricity lags relative to deployment in many regions, leveraging its smaller geographical size and dense population centers to maximize solar panel installations on rooftops and in urban areas.

In contrast, Canada's solar energy development has been slower, despite having vast areas of suitable land for solar farms. Challenges such as regulatory hurdles, varying provincial policies, and the high initial costs of solar installations have contributed to a more gradual adoption of solar power across the country. However, provinces like Ontario have seen significant growth in solar installations due to supportive government incentives and favorable feed-in tariff programs, though growth projections were scaled back after Ontario scrapped a key program.

Innovation and Technological Advancements

The Netherlands has also benefited from ongoing innovations in solar technology and efficiency improvements. Dutch companies and research institutions have been at the forefront of developing new solar panel technologies, improving efficiency rates, and exploring innovative applications such as building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV). These advancements have helped drive down the cost of solar energy and increase its competitiveness with traditional fossil fuels.

In contrast, while Canada has made strides in solar technology research and development, commercialization and widespread adoption have been more restrained due to factors like market fragmentation and the country's reliance on other energy sources such as hydroelectricity.

Public Awareness and Community Engagement

Public awareness and community engagement play a crucial role in the Netherlands' success in solar power adoption. The Dutch government has actively promoted renewable energy through public campaigns, educational programs, and financial incentives for homeowners and businesses to install solar panels. This proactive approach has fostered a culture of energy conservation and sustainability among the Dutch population.

In Canada, while there is growing public support for renewable energy, varying levels of awareness and engagement across different provinces have impacted the pace of solar energy adoption. Provinces like British Columbia and Alberta have seen increasing interest in solar power, driven by environmental concerns, technological advancements, and economic benefits, as the country is set to hit 5 GW of installed capacity in the near term.

Climate and Geographic Considerations

Climate and geographic considerations also influence the disparity in solar power generation between the Netherlands and Canada. The Netherlands, despite its northern latitude, benefits from relatively mild winters and a higher average annual sunlight exposure compared to most regions of Canada. This favorable climate has facilitated higher solar energy yields and made solar power a more viable option for electricity generation.

In contrast, Canada's diverse climate and geography present unique challenges for solar energy deployment. Northern regions experience extended periods of darkness during winter months, limiting the effectiveness of solar panels in those areas. Despite these challenges, advancements in energy storage technologies and hybrid solar-diesel systems are making solar power increasingly feasible in remote and off-grid communities across Canada, even as Alberta faces expansion challenges related to grid integration and policy.

Future Prospects and Challenges

Looking ahead, both the Netherlands and Canada face opportunities and challenges in expanding their respective solar power capacities. In the Netherlands, continued investments in solar technology, grid infrastructure upgrades, and policy support will be crucial for maintaining momentum in renewable energy development.

In Canada, enhancing regulatory consistency, scaling up solar installations in urban and rural areas, and leveraging emerging technologies will be essential for narrowing the gap with global leaders in solar energy generation and for seizing opportunities in the global electricity market as the energy transition accelerates.

In conclusion, while the Netherlands currently generates more solar power per capita than Canada, with the Prairie Provinces poised to lead growth in the Canadian market, both countries have unique strengths and challenges in their pursuit of a sustainable energy future. By learning from each other's successes and leveraging technological advancements, both nations can further accelerate the adoption of solar power and contribute to global efforts to combat climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News