State lawmakers will head back to Springfield for the fall veto session where they will wrestle with whether to commit Illinois consumers to a 30-year electricity contract so a "clean-coal" plant can be built in Taylorville, Ill., by Nebraska-based Tenaska Inc.
Normally, a 30-year contract on a commodity earns you one heck of a good price point. But when it comes to the proposed Taylorville Energy Center, the opposite is true. The contract would cost Illinois electricity customers $286 million more per year, for 30 years, than if the plant never existed. That's $8.6 billion vanishing into thin air.
And this is only if everything goes as planned. It may be difficult to imagine a huge, multiyear, infrastructure project going over budget. But it has been known to happen. If it does in this case, Illinois consumers will be wishing they were on the hook for only $286 million per year.
To avoid a groundswell of public opposition, the proposal cleverly calls for a 2 percent annual cap on increases to residential customers. Everything over and above that gets dumped on businesses, governments and public service organizations. For instance, this increase would cost the Chicago Public Schools a minimum of $1 million per year the Cook County Water Reclamation District, $1.2 million per year and Metra and CTA, about $1 million. These organizations and the thousands of businesses that employ millions of Illinoisans will get nothing in return.
Supporters of the center argue that it will create many jobs. You can't help but feel that the entire project is nothing more than a jobs program. Yes, some jobs will be created as a result of the plant. Tenaska's own estimate puts it at 2,500 temporary construction jobs and "hundreds" of permanent jobs. However, it is worth noting that a much larger plant in Indiana produced only half of the jobs that Tenaska promises in Taylorville.
Nevertheless, in all of Tenaska's analysis, never once did the company examine the net impact that increasing electricity costs so much would have on jobs statewide.
Common sense tells us that when the cost of doing business goes up, jobs are lost. Using standard economic formulas, this kind of increase in electricity rates will cost anywhere from 15,000 to 35,000 jobs — many times more than the jobs the plant would create. A program that kills 10 times more jobs than it creates would surely earn enshrinement in the bad policy hall of fame.
But wait. Maybe the environmental benefit of the clean-coal plant is so extraordinary that it justifies such job loss and electricity price increases. Sadly, the answer is a resounding "no." Under the very best-case scenario, the plant would emit as much greenhouse gas as a traditional natural gas-fired power plant.
It's an impressive trick to create an issue that both the Chamber of Commerce and the Sierra Club can agree on. But the proposed Taylorville Energy Center has pulled it off. Businesses are offended that their costs will go up without getting anything in return. Environmentalists are offended that this plant is touted as "green" when it is anything but.
Some argue that the Taylorville plant will put our state at the forefront. But Illinois legislators should ask themselves, at the forefront of what? At the forefront of an unproven technology that, by any measure, is the most expensive route to carbon reduction? At the forefront of public policies that put all the risk on consumers versus the private developer? At the forefront of creating jobs programs that actually kill jobs?
Illinois cannot afford to be a leader in this regard.
Ontario electricity shortage is looming, RBC and IESO warn, as EV electrification surges, Pickering nuclear faces delays, and gas plants backstop expiring renewables, raising GHG emissions and grid reliability concerns across the province.
Key Points
A projected supply shortfall as demand rises from electrification, expiring contracts, and delayed nuclear capacity.
✅ RBC warns shortages as early as 2026, significant by 2030
✅ IESO sees EV-driven demand; 5,000-15,000 MW by 2035
✅ Gas reliance boosts GHGs; Pickering life extension assessed
In a fit of ideological pique, Doug Ford’s government spent more than $200 million to scrap more than 700 green energy projects soon after winning the 2018 election, amid calls to make clean, affordable power a central issue, portraying them as “unnecessary and expensive energy schemes.”
A year later, then Associate Energy Minister Bill Walker defended the decision, declaring, “Ontario has an adequate supply of power right now.”
Well, life moves fast. At the time, scrapping the renewable energy projects was criticized as short-sighted and wasteful, raising doubts about whether Ontario was embracing clean power in a meaningful way. It seems especially so now as Ontario confronts the reality of being short of electricity in the coming years.
How short? A recent report by RBC calls the situation “urgent,” saying that Canada’s most populous province could face energy shortages as early as 2026. As contracts for non-hydro renewables and gas plants expire, the shortages could be “significant” by 2030, the bank report said, with grid greening costs adding to the challenge.
The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), which manages the electrical supply in Ontario, says demand for electricity could rise at rates not seen in many years, as the government moves to add new gas plants to boost capacity. “Economic growth coming out of the pandemic, along with electrification in many sectors, is driving energy use up,” the agency said in a December assessment.
The good news is that demand is being driven, in part, by the transition to “green” power – carbon-emission-free electricity – by sectors such as transportation and manufacturing. That will help reduce emissions. Yet meeting that demand presents some challenges, prompting the province to outline a plan to address growing needs across the system. The shift to electric vehicles alone is expected to cause a spike in demand starting in 2030. By 2035, the province could need an additional 5,000 to 15,000 megawatts of electricity, the IESO estimates.
It was perhaps no surprise then to see the province announce last week that it wants to delay the long-planned closing of the Pickering nuclear plant by a year to 2026, even as others note the station is slated to close as planned. Operations beyond that would require refurbishing the facility. The province said it’s taking a fresh look at whether that would make sense to extend its life by another 30 years.
In the interim, the province will be forced to dramatically ramp up its reliance on natural gas plants for electricity generation – and, as analysts warn, Ontario’s power mix could get dirtier even before new non-emitting capacity is built, and in the process, increase greenhouse gas emissions from the energy grid by 400 per cent. Broader electrification is expected to produce “significant” GHG emissions reductions in Ontario over the next two decades, according to the IESO. Still, it’s working at cross-purposes if your electric car is charged by electricity generated by fossil fuels.
Solar-Wind-Water West Africa integrates hydropower with solar and wind to boost grid flexibility, clean electricity, and decarbonization, leveraging the West African Power Pool and climate data modeling reported in Nature Sustainability.
Key Points
A strategy using hydropower to balance solar and wind, enabling reliable, low-carbon electricity across West Africa.
✅ Hydropower dispatch covers solar and wind shortfalls.
✅ Regional interconnection via West African Power Pool.
✅ Cuts CO2 versus gas while limiting new dam projects.
Hydropower plants can support solar and wind power, rather unpredictable by nature, in a climate-friendly manner. A new study in the scientific journal Nature Sustainability has now mapped the potential for such "solar-wind-water" strategies for West Africa: an important region where the power sector is still under development, amid IEA investment needs for universal access, and where generation capacity and power grids will be greatly expanded in the coming years. "Countries in West Africa therefore now have the opportunity to plan this expansion according to strategies that rely on modern, climate-friendly energy generation," says Sebastian Sterl, energy and climate scientist at Vrije Universiteit Brussel and KU Leuven and lead author of the study. "A completely different situation from Europe, where power supply has been dependent on polluting power plants for many decades - which many countries now want to rid themselves of."
Solar and wind power generation is increasing worldwide and becoming cheaper and cheaper. This helps to keep climate targets in sight, but also poses challenges. For instance, critics often argue that these energy sources are too unpredictable and variable to be part of a reliable electricity mix on a large scale, though combining multiple resources can enhance project performance.
"Indeed, our electricity systems will have to become much more flexible if we are to feed large amounts of solar and wind power into the grid. Flexibility is currently mostly provided by gas power plants. Unfortunately, these cause a lot of CO2 emissions," says Sebastian Sterl, energy and climate expert at Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) and KU Leuven. "But in many countries, hydropower plants can be a fossil fuel-free alternative to support solar and wind energy. After all, hydropower plants can be dispatched at times when insufficient solar and wind power is available."
The research team, composed of experts from VUB, KU Leuven, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), and Climate Analytics, designed a new computer model for their study, running on detailed water, weather and climate data. They used this model to investigate how renewable power sources in West Africa could be exploited as effectively as possible for a reliable power supply, even without large-scale storage, in line with World Bank support for wind in developing countries. All this without losing sight of the environmental impact of large hydropower plants.
"This is far from trivial to calculate," says Prof. Wim Thiery, climate scientist at the VUB, who was also involved in the study. "Hydroelectric power stations in West Africa depend on the monsoon; in the dry season they run on their reserves. Both sun and wind, as well as power requirements, have their own typical hourly, daily and seasonal patterns. Solar, wind and hydropower all vary from year to year and may be impacted by climate change, including projections that wind resources shift southward in coming years. In addition, their potential is spatially very unevenly distributed."
West African Power Pool
The study demonstrates that it will be particularly important to create a "West African Power Pool", a regional interconnection of national power grids to serve as a path to universal electricity access across the region. Countries with a tropical climate, such as Ghana and the Ivory Coast, typically have a lot of potential for hydropower and quite high solar radiation, but hardly any wind. The drier and more desert-like countries, such as Senegal and Niger, hardly have any opportunities for hydropower, but receive more sunlight and more wind. The potential for reliable, clean power generation based on solar and wind power, supported by flexibly dispatched hydropower, increases by more than 30% when countries can share their potential regionally, the researchers discovered.
All measures taken together would allow roughly 60% of the current electricity demand in West Africa to be met with complementary renewable sources, despite concerns about slow greening of Africa's electricity, of which roughly half would be solar and wind power and the other half hydropower - without the need for large-scale battery or other storage plants. According to the study, within a few years, the cost of solar and wind power generation in West Africa is also expected to drop to such an extent that the proposed solar-wind-water strategies will provide cheaper electricity than gas-fired power plants, which currently still account for more than half of all electricity supply in West Africa.
Better ecological footprint
Hydropower plants can have a considerable negative impact on local ecology. In many developing countries, piles of controversial plans for new hydropower plants have been proposed. The study can help to make future investments in hydropower more sustainable. "By using existing and planned hydropower plants as optimally as possible to massively support solar and wind energy, one can at the same time make certain new dams superfluous," says Sterl. "This way two birds can be caught with one stone. Simultaneously, one avoids CO2 emissions from gas-fired power stations and the environmental impact of hydropower overexploitation."
Global relevance
The methods developed for the study are easily transferable to other regions, and the research has worldwide relevance, as shown by a US 80% study on high variable renewable shares. Sterl: "Nearly all regions with a lot of hydropower, or hydropower potential, could use it to compensate shortfalls in solar and wind power." Various European countries, with Norway at the front, have shown increased interest in recent years to deploy their hydropower to support solar and wind power in EU countries. Exporting Norwegian hydropower during times when other countries undergo solar and wind power shortfalls, the European energy transition can be advanced.
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.”
US utilities COVID-19 resilience shows electric utilities maintaining demand stability, reaffirming earnings guidance, and accessing the bond market for low-cost financing, as Dominion, NextEra, and Con Edison manage recession risks.
Key Points
It is the sector's capacity to sustain demand, financing access, and guidance despite pandemic recession pressures.
✅ Bond market access locks in low-cost, long-term debt
Dominion Energy (D) expects "incremental residential load" gains, consistent with COVID-19 electricity demand patterns, as a result of COVID-19 fallout. Southern Company CEO Tom Fanning says his company is "nowhere near" a need to review earnings guidance because of a potential recession, in a region where efficiency and demand response can help level electricity demand for years.
Sempra Energy (SRE) has reaffirmed earnings per share guidance for 2020 and 2021, as well timing for the sale of assets in Chile and Peru, and peers such as Duke Energy's renewables plan have reaffirmed capital investments to deliver cleaner energy and economic growth. And Xcel Energy (XEL) says it still "hasn’t seen material impact on its business."
Several electric utilities have demonstrated ability to tap the bond market, in line with utility sector trends in recent years, to lock in low-cost financing, as America moves toward broader electrification, despite ongoing turmoil. Their ranks include Dominion Energy, renewable energy leader NextEra Energy (NEE) and Consolidated Edison (ED), which last week sold $1 billion of 30-year bonds at a coupon rate of just 3.95 percent.
It’s still early days for US COVID-19 fallout. And most electric companies have yet to issue guidance. That’s understandable, since so much is still unknown about the virus and the damage it will ultimately do to human health and the global economy. But so far, the US power industry is showing typical resilience in tough times, as it coordinates closely with federal partners to maintain reliability.
Will it last? We won’t know for certain until there’s a lot more data. NextEra is usually first to report its Q1 earnings reports and detailed guidance. But that’s not expected until April 23. And companies may delay financials further, should the virus and efforts to control it impede collection and analysis of data, and as they address electricity shut-off risks affecting customers.
Mercury Energy Tilt Renewables acquisition signals a trans-Tasman energy push as PowAR and Mercury split assets via a scheme of arrangement, offering $7.80 per share and a $2.96b valuation across Australia and New Zealand.
Key Points
A PowAR-Mercury deal to buy Tilt Renewables, splitting Australian and New Zealand assets via a court-approved scheme.
✅ $7.80 per share, valuing Tilt at $2.96b
✅ PowAR takes AU assets; Mercury gets NZ business
✅ Infratil and Mercury to vote for the scheme
Mercury Energy and an Australian partner appear to have won the race to buy Tilt Renewables, an Australasian wind farm developer which was spun out of TrustPower, bidding almost $3 billion, amid wider utility consolidation such as the Peterborough Distribution sale to Hydro One.
Yesterday Tilt Renewables announced that it had entered a scheme implementation agreement under which it was proposed that PowAR would acquire its Australian business and Mercury would acquire the New Zealand business, mirroring cross-border approvals where U.S. antitrust clearance shaped Hydro One's bid for Avista.
Conducted through a scheme of arrangement, Tilt shareholders will be offered $7.80 a share, valuing Tilt at $2.96b.
Yesterday morning shares in Tilt opened about 18 per cent up at $7.65, though regulatory outcomes can swing valuations as seen when Hydro One-Avista reconsideration of a U.S. order came into play.
In early December Infratil, which owns around two thirds of Tilt's shares, announced it was undertaking a review of its investment after receiving approaches, with investor sentiment sensitive to governance shifts as when Hydro One shares fell after leadership changes in Ontario.
According to a report in the Australian Financial Review, the transtasman bid beat out other parties including ASX-listed APA Group, Canadian pension fund CDPQ and Australian fund manager Infrastructure Capital Group, as Canadian investors like Ontario Teachers' Plan pursue similar infrastructure deals.
“This compelling acquisition proposal is a result of Tilt Renewables’ constant focus on delivering long-term value for shareholders and the board is pleased that, with these new owners, the transition to renewables in Australia and New Zealand will continue to accelerate,” Tilt’s chairman Bruce Harker said.
Comparable community-led clean energy partnerships, such as initiatives with British Columbia First Nations highlighted in clean-energy generation, underscore the broader momentum.
Just prior to the announcement, Tilt shares had been trading for less than $4. Such repricing reflects how utilities can face perceived uncertainties, as one investor argued too many unknowns at the time.
Mercury is already Tilt’s second largest shareholder, at just under 20 per cent. Both Infratil and Mercury have agreed to vote in favour of the scheme. The deal values Tilt’s New Zealand business at $770m, however the value of Mercury’s existing shareholding is around $585m, meaning the company will increase debt by around $185m.
Canada Electrification Costs: report estimates $580B-$1.4T to scale renewable energy, wind, solar, and storage capacity to 2050, shifting from natural gas toward net-zero emissions and raising average household energy spending by $1,300-$3,200 annually.
Key Points
Projected national expense to expand renewables and electrify energy systems by 2050, impacting household energy bills.
✅ $580B-$1.4T forecast for 2020-2050 energy transition
✅ 278-422 GW wind, solar, storage capacity by 2050
✅ Household costs up $1,300-$3,200 per year on average
The Canadian Gas Association says building renewable electricity capacity to replace just half of Canada's current fossil fuel-generated energy, a shift with significant policy implications for grids across provinces, could increase national costs by as much as $1.4 trillion over the next 30 years.
In a report, it contends, echoing an IEA report on net-zero, that growing electricity's contribution to Canada's energy mix from its current 19 per cent to about 60 per cent, a step critical to meeting climate pledges that policymakers emphasize, will require an expansion from 141 gigawatts today to between 278 and 422 GW of renewable wind, solar and storage capacity by 2050.
It says that will increase national energy costs by between $580 billion and $1.4 trillion between 2020 and 2050, a projection consistent with recent reports of higher electricity prices in Alberta amid policy shifts, translating into an average increase in Canadian household spending of $1,300 to $3,200 per year.
The study, prepared by consulting firm ICF for the association, assumes electrification begins in 2020 and is applied in all feasible applications by 2050, with investments in the electricity system, guided by the implications of decarbonizing the grid for reliability and cost, proceeding as existing natural gas and electric end use equipment reaches normal end of life.
Association CEO Tim Egan says the numbers are "pretty daunting" and support the integration of natural gas with electric, amid Canada's race to net-zero commitments, instead of using an electric-only option as the most cost-efficient way for Canada to reach environmental policy goals.
But Keith Stewart, senior energy strategist with Greenpeace Canada, says scientists are calling for the world to get to net-zero emissions by 2050, and Canada's net-zero by 2050 target underscores that urgency to avoid "catastrophic" levels of warming, so investing in natural gas infrastructure to then shut it down seems a "very expensive option."
