Cambridge and North Dumfries Hydro buys Brant County Power

UK Nuclear Energy Ten Point Plan outlines support for large reactors, SMRs, and AMRs, funding Sizewell C, hydrogen production, and industrial heat to reach net zero, decarbonize transport and heating, and expand clean electricity capacity.

Key Points

A UK plan backing large, small, and advanced reactors to drive net zero via clean power, hydrogen, and industrial heat.

✅ Funds large plants (e.g., Sizewell C) under value-for-money models

✅ Invests in SMRs for factory-built, modular, lower-cost deployment

✅ Backs AMRs for high-temperature heat, hydrogen, and industry

The UK government has just announced its “Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution”, in which it lays out a vision for the future of energy, transport and nature in the UK. As researchers into nuclear energy, my colleagues and I were pleased to see the plan is rather favourable to new nuclear power.

It follows the advice from the UK’s Nuclear Innovation and Research Advisory Board, pledging to pursue large power plants based on current technology, and following that up with financial support for two further waves of reactor technology (“small” and “advanced” modular reactors).

This support is an important part of the plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, as in the years to come nuclear power will be crucial to decarbonising not just the electricity supply but the whole of society.

This chart helps illustrate the extent of the challenge faced:

Electricity generation is only responsible for a small percentage of UK emissions. William Bodel. Data: UK Climate Change Committee

Efforts to reduce emissions have so far only partially decarbonised the electricity generation sector. Reaching net zero will require immense effort to also decarbonise heating, transport, as well as shipping and aviation. The plan proposes investment in hydrogen production and electric vehicles to address these three areas – which will require, as advocates of nuclear beyond electricity argue, a lot more energy generation.

Nuclear is well-placed to provide a proportion of this energy. Reaching net zero will be a huge challenge, and industry leaders warn it may be unachievable without nuclear energy. So here’s what the announcement means for the three “waves” of nuclear power.

Who will pay for it?
But first a word on financing. To understand the strategy, it is important to realise that the reason there has been so little new activity in the UK’s nuclear sector since the 1990s is due to difficulty in financing. Nuclear plants are cheap to fuel and operate and last for a long time. In theory, this offsets the enormous upfront capital cost, and results in competitively priced electricity overall.

But ever since the electricity sector was privatised, governments have been averse to spending public money on power plants. This, combined with resulting higher borrowing costs and cheaper alternatives (gas power), has meant that in practice nuclear has been sidelined for two decades. While climate change offers an opportunity for a revival, these financial concerns remain.

Large nuclear
Hinkley Point C is a large nuclear station currently under construction in Somerset, England. The project is well-advanced, with its first reactor installed and due to come online in the middle of this decade. While the plant will provide around 7% of current UK electricity demand, its agreed electricity price is relatively expensive.

Under construction: Hinkley Point C. Ben Birchall/PA

The government’s new plan states: “We are pursuing large-scale new nuclear projects, subject to value-for-money.” This is likely a reference to the proposed Sizewell C in Suffolk, on which a final decision is expected soon. Sizewell C would be a copy of the Hinkley plant – building follow-up identical reactors achieves capital cost reductions, and setbacks at Hinkley Point C have sharpened delivery focus as an alternative funding model will likely be implemented to reduce financing costs.

Other potential nuclear sites such as Wylfa and Moorside (shelved in 2018 and 2019 respectively for financial reasons) are also not mentioned, their futures presumably also covered by the “subject to value-for-money” clause.

Small nuclear
The next generation of nuclear technology, with various designs under development worldwide are smaller, cheaper, safer Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), such as the Rolls Royce “UK SMR”.

Reactors small enough to be manufactured in factories and delivered as modules can be assembled on site in much shorter times than larger designs, which in contrast are constructed mostly on site. In so doing, the capital costs per unit (and therefore borrowing costs) could be significantly lower than current new-builds.

The plan states “up to £215 million” will be made available for SMRs, Phase 2 of which will begin next year, with anticipated delivery of units around a decade from now.

Advanced nuclear
The third proposed wave of nuclear will be the Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs). These are truly innovative technologies, with a wide range of benefits over present designs and, like the small reactors, they are modular to keep prices down.

Crucially, advanced reactors operate at much higher temperatures – some promise in excess of 750°C compared to around 300°C in current reactors. This is important as that heat can be used in industrial processes which require high temperatures, such as ceramics, which they currently get through electrical heating or by directly burning fossil fuels. If those ceramics factories could instead use heat from AMRs placed nearby, it would reduce CO₂ emissions from industry (see chart above).

High temperatures can also be used to generate hydrogen, which the government’s plan recognises has the potential to replace natural gas in heating and eventually also in pioneering zero-emission vehicles, ships and aircraft. Most hydrogen is produced from natural gas, with the downside of generating CO₂ in the process. A carbon-free alternative involves splitting water using electricity (electrolysis), though this is rather inefficient. More efficient methods which require high temperatures are yet to achieve commercialisation, however if realised, this would make high temperature nuclear particularly useful.

The government is committing “up to £170 million” for AMR research, and specifies a target for a demonstrator plant by the early 2030s. The most promising candidate is likely a High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor which is possible, if ambitious, over this timescale. The Chinese currently lead the way with this technology, and their version of this reactor concept is expected soon.

In summary, the plan is welcome news for the nuclear sector, even as Europe loses nuclear capacity across the continent. While it lacks some specifics, these may be detailed in the government’s upcoming Energy White Paper. The advice to government has been acknowledged, and the sums of money mentioned throughout are significant enough to really get started on the necessary research and development.

Achieving net zero is a vast undertaking, and recognising that nuclear can make a substantial contribution if properly supported is an important step towards hitting that target.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EU-UK Coal Power Decline 2020 underscores Covid-19's impact on power generation, with renewables rising, carbon emissions falling, and electricity demand down, revealing resilient grids and accelerating the energy transition across European markets.

Key Points

Covid-19's impact on EU-UK power: coal down, renewables up, lower emissions intensity and reduced electricity demand.

✅ Coal generation down 25.5% EU-UK; 29% in March 10-April 10 period

✅ Renewables share up to 46%; grids remained stable and flexible

✅ Electricity demand fell 10%; emissions intensity dropped 19.5%

Coal based power generation has fallen by over a quarter (25.5%) across the European Union (EU) and United Kingdom (UK) in the first three months of 2020, compared to 2019, as a result of the response to Covid-19, with renewable energy reaching a 43% share, as wind and solar outpaced gas across the EU, according to new analysis by the technology group Wärtsilä.

The impact is even more stark in the last month, with coal generation collapsing by almost one third (29%) between March 10 and April 10 compared to the same period in 2019, making up only 12% of total EU and UK generation. By contrast, renewables delivered almost half (46%) of generation – an increase of 8% compared to 2019.

In total, demand for electricity across the continent is down by one tenth (10%), mirroring global demand declines of around 15%, due to measures taken to combat Covid-19, the biggest drop in demand since the Second World War. The result is an unprecedented fall in carbon emissions from the power sector, with emission intensity falling by 19.5% compared to the same March 10-April 10 period last year. The analysis comes from the Wärtsilä Energy Transition Lab, a new free-to-use data platform developed by Wärtsilä to help the industry, policy makers and the public understand the impact of Covid-19 on European electricity markets and analyse what this means for the future design and operation of its energy systems. The goal is to help accelerate the transition to 100% renewables.

Björn Ullbro, Vice President for Europe & Africa at Wärtsilä Energy Business, said: “The impact of the Covid-19 crisis on European energy systems is extraordinary. We are seeing levels of renewable electricity that some people believed would cause systems to collapse, yet they haven’t – in fact they are coping well. The question is, what does this mean for the future?”

“What we can see today is how our energy systems cope with much more renewable power – knowledge that will be invaluable, aligning with IAEA low-carbon insights, to accelerate the energy transition. We are making this new platform freely available to support the energy industry to adapt and use the momentum this tragic crisis has created to deliver a better, cleaner energy system, faster.”

The figures mark a dramatic shift in Europe’s energy mix – one that was not anticipated to occur until the end of the decade. The impact of the Covid-19 crisis has effectively accelerated the energy transition in the short-term, even as later lockdowns saw power demand hold firm in parts of Europe, providing a unique opportunity to see how energy systems function with far higher levels of renewables.

Ullbro added: “Electricity demand across Europe has fallen due to the lockdown measures applied by governments to stop the spread of the coronavirus. However, total renewable generation has remained at pre-crisis levels with low electricity prices, combined with renewables-friendly policy measures, crowding out gas and fossil fuel power generation, especially coal. This sets the scene for the next decade of the energy transition.”

These Europe-wide impacts are mirrored at a national level, for example:

• In the UK, renewables now have a 43% share of generation, following a stall in low-carbon progress in 2019 (up 10% on the same March 10-April 10 period in 2019) with coal power down 35% and gas down 24%.
• Germany has seen the share of renewables reach 60% (up 12%) and coal generation fall 44%, resulting in a fall in the carbon intensity of its electricity of over 30%.
• Spain currently has 49% renewables with coal power down by 41%.
• Italy has seen the steepest fall in demand, down 21% so far.

An industry first, the Wärtsilä Energy Transition Lab has been specifically developed as an open-data platform for the energy industry to understand the impact of Covid-19 and help accelerate the energy transition. The tool provides detailed data on electricity generation, demand and pricing for all 27 EU countries and the UK, combining Entso-E data in a single, easy to use platform. It will also allow users to model how systems could operate in future with higher renewables, as global power demand surpasses pre-pandemic levels, helping pinpoint problem areas and highlight where to focus policy and investment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Washington-Led Lawsuit Against Energy Emergency challenges President Trump's executive order, citing state rights, environmental reviews, permitting, and federal overreach; coalition argues record energy output undermines emergency claims in Seattle federal court.

Key Points

Multistate suit to void Trump's energy emergency, alleging federal overreach and weakened environmental safeguards.

✅ Challenges executive order's legal basis and scope

✅ Claims expedited permitting skirts environmental reviews

✅ Seeks to halt emergency permits for non-emergencies

In a significant legal move, Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown has spearheaded a coalition of 15 states in filing a lawsuit against President Donald Trump's executive order declaring a national energy emergency. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Seattle on May 9, 2025, challenges the legality of the emergency declaration, which aims to expedite permitting processes for fossil fuel projects in pursuit of an energy dominance vision by bypassing key environmental reviews.

Background of the Energy Emergency Declaration

President Trump's executive order, issued on January 20, 2025, asserts that the United States faces an inadequate and unreliable energy grid, particularly affecting the Northeast and West Coast regions. The order directs federal agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior, to utilize "any lawful emergency authorities" to facilitate the development of domestic energy resources, with a focus on oil, gas, and coal projects. This includes expediting reviews under the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act, potentially reducing public input and environmental oversight.

Legal Grounds for the Lawsuit

The coalition of states, led by Washington and California, argues that the emergency declaration is an overreach of presidential authority, echoing disputes over the Affordable Clean Energy rule in federal courts. They contend that U.S. energy production is already at record levels, and the declaration undermines state rights and environmental protections. The lawsuit seeks to have the executive order declared unlawful and to halt the issuance of emergency permits for non-emergency projects. 

Implications for Environmental Protections

Critics of the energy emergency declaration express concern that it could lead to significant environmental degradation. By expediting permitting processes, including geothermal permitting, and reducing public participation, the order may allow projects to proceed without adequate consideration of their impact on water quality, wildlife habitats, and cultural resources. Environmental advocates argue that such actions could set a dangerous precedent, enabling future administrations to bypass essential environmental safeguards under the guise of national emergencies, even as the EPA advances new pollution limits for coal and gas plants to address the climate crisis.

Political and Legal Reactions

The Trump administration defends the executive order, asserting that the president has the authority to declare national emergencies and that the energy emergency is necessary to address perceived deficiencies in the nation's energy infrastructure and potential electricity pricing changes debated by industry groups. However, legal experts suggest that the broad application of emergency powers in this context may face challenges in court. The outcome of the lawsuit could have significant implications for the balance of power between state and federal authorities, as well as the future of environmental regulations in the United States.

The legal challenge led by Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown represents a critical juncture in the ongoing debate over energy policy and environmental protection. As the lawsuit progresses through the courts, it will likely serve as a bellwether for future conflicts between state and federal governments regarding the scope of executive authority and the preservation of environmental standards, amid ongoing efforts to expand uranium and nuclear energy programs nationwide. The outcome may set a precedent for how national emergencies are declared and managed, particularly concerning their impact on state governance and environmental laws.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Methane Hydrate CO2 Sequestration uses carbon capture and nitrogen injection to swap gases in seafloor hydrates along the Gulf of Mexico, releasing methane for electricity while storing CO2, according to new simulation research.

Key Points

A method injecting CO2 and nitrogen into hydrates to store CO2 while releasing methane for power.

✅ Nitrogen aids CO2-methane swap in hydrate cages, speeding sequestration

✅ Gulf Coast proximity to emitters lowers transport and power costs

✅ Revenue from methane electricity could offset carbon capture

The world is quickly realizing it may need to actively pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to stave off the ill effects of climate change. Scientists and engineers have proposed various carbon capture techniques, but most would be extremely expensive—without generating any revenue. No one wants to foot the bill.

One method explored in the past decade might now be a step closer to becoming practical, as a result of a new computer simulation study. The process would involve pumping airborne CO2 down into methane hydrates—large deposits of icy water and methane right under the seafloor, beneath water 500 to 1,000 feet deep—where the gas would be permanently stored, or sequestered. The incoming CO2 would push out the methane, which would be piped to the surface and burned to generate electricity, whether sold locally or via exporters like Hydro-Que9bec to help defray costs, to power the sequestration operation or to bring in revenue to pay for it.

Many methane hydrate deposits exist along the Gulf of Mexico shore and other coastlines. Large power plants and industrial facilities that emit CO2 also line the Gulf Coast, where EPA power plant rules could shape deployment, so one option would be to capture the gas directly from nearby smokestacks, keeping it out of the atmosphere to begin with. And the plants and industries themselves could provide a ready market for the electricity generated.

A methane hydrate is a deposit of frozen, latticelike water molecules. The loose network has many empty, molecular-size pores, or “cages,” that can trap methane molecules rising through cracks in the rock below. The computer simulation shows that pushing out the methane with CO2 is greatly enhanced if a high concentration of nitrogen is also injected, and that the gas swap is a two-step process. (Nitrogen is readily available anywhere, because it makes up 78 percent of the earth’s atmosphere.) In one step the nitrogen enters the cages; this destabilizes the trapped methane, which escapes the cages. In a separate step, the nitrogen helps CO2 crystallize in the emptied cages. The disturbed system “tries to reach a new equilibrium; the balance goes to more CO2 and less methane,” says Kris Darnell, who led the study, published June 27 in the journal Water Resources Research. Darnell recently joined the petroleum engineering software company Novi Labs as a data scientist, after receiving his Ph.D. in geoscience from the University of Texas, where the study was done.

A group of labs, universities and companies had tested the technique in a limited feasibility trial in 2012 on Alaska’s North Slope, where methane hydrates form in sandstone under deep permafrost. They sent CO2 and nitrogen down a pipe into the hydrate. Some CO2 ended up being stored, and some methane was released up the same pipe. That is as far as the experiment was intended to go. “It’s good that Kris [Darnell] could make headway” from that experience, says Ray Boswell at the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, who was one of the Alaska experiment leaders but was not involved in the new study. The new simulation also showed that the swap of CO2 for methane is likely to be much more extensive—and to happen quicker—if CO2 enters at one end of a hydrate deposit and methane is collected at a distant end.

The technique is somewhat similar in concept to one investigated in the early 2010s by Steven Bryant and others at the University of Texas. In addition to numerous methane hydrate deposits, the Gulf Coast has large pools of hot, salty brine in sedimentary rock under the coastline. In this system, pumps would send CO2 down into one end of a deposit, which would force brine into a pipe that is placed at the other end and leads back to the surface. There the hot brine would flow through a heat exchanger, where heat could be extracted and used for industrial processes or to generate electricity, supporting projects such as electrified LNG in some markets. The upwelling brine also contains some methane that could be siphoned off and burned. The CO2 dissolves into the underground brine, becomes dense and sinks further belowground, where it theoretically remains.

Either system faces big practical challenges, and building shared CO2 storage hubs to aggregate captured gas is still evolving. One is creating a concentrated flow of CO2; the gas makes up only .04 percent of air, and roughly 10 percent of the smokestack emission from a typical power plant or industrial facility. If an efficient methane hydrate or brine system requires an input that is 90 percent CO2, for example, concentrating the gas will require an enormous amount of energy—making the process very expensive. “But if you only need a 50 percent concentration, that could be more attractive,” says Bryant, who is now a professor of chemical and petroleum engineering at the University of Calgary. “You have to reduce the [CO2] capture cost.”

Another major challenge for the methane hydrate approach is how to collect the freed methane, which could simply seep out of the deposit through numerous cracks and in all directions. “What kind of well [and pipe] structure would you use to grab it?” Bryant asks.

Given these realities, there is little economic incentive today to use methane hydrates for sequestering CO2. But as concentrations rise in the atmosphere and the planet warms further, and as calls for an electric planet intensify, systems that could capture the gas and also provide energy or revenue to run the process might become more viable than techniques that simply pull CO2 from the air and lock it away, offering nothing in return.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Hydro One CEO Salary shapes debate on Ontario electricity costs, executive compensation, sunshine list transparency, and public disclosure rules, as officials argue pay is not driving planned hydro rate cuts for consumers.

Key Points

Hydro One CEO pay disclosed in public filings, central to debates on Ontario electricity rates and transparency.

✅ 2016 compensation: $4.5M (salary + bonuses)

✅ Excluded from Ontario's sunshine list after privatization

✅ Government says pay won't affect planned hydro rate cuts

The $4.5 million in pay received by Hydro One's CEO is not a factor in the government's plan to cut electricity costs for consumers, an Ontario cabinet minister said Thursday amid opposition concerns about the executive's compensation and wider sector pressures such as Manitoba Hydro's rising debt in other provinces.

Treasury Board President Liz Sandals made her comments on the eve of the release of the province's so-called sunshine list.

The annual disclosure of public-sector salaries over $100,000 will be released Friday, but Hydro One salaries such as that of company boss Mayo Schmidt won't be on it.Though the government still owns most of Hydro One — 30 per cent has been sold — the company is required to follow the financial disclosure rules of publicly traded companies, which means disclosing the salaries of its CEO, CFO and next three highest-paid executives, and financial results such as a Q2 profit decline in filings.

New filings show that Schmidt was paid $4.5 million in 2016 — an $850,000 salary plus bonuses — and those top five executives were paid a total of about $11.7 million. 

"Clearly that's a very large amount," said Sandals. Sandals wouldn't say whether or not she thought the pay was appropriate at a time when the government is trying to reduce system costs and cut people's hydro bills.

Mayo Schmidt, President & CEO of Hydro One Limited and Hydro One Inc. (Hydro One )

But she suggested the CEO's salary was not a factor in efforts to bring down hydro prices, even as Hydro One shares fell after a leadership shakeup in a later period. "The CEO salary is not part of the equation of will 'we be able to make the cut,"' she said. "Regardless of what those salaries are, we will make a 25-per-cent-off cut." The cut coming this summer is actually an average of 17 per cent -- the 25-per-cent figure factors in an earlier eight-per-cent rebate.

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath, who has proposed to make hydro public again in Ontario, said the executive salaries are relevant to cutting hydro costs.

"All of this is cost of operating the electricity system, it's part of the operating of Hydro One and so of course those increased salaries are going to impact the cost of our electricity," she said.

Schmidt was appointed Aug. 31, 2015, and in the last four months of that year earned $1.3 million, but the former CEO was paid $745,000 in 2014. About 3,800 workers were paid over $100,000 that year, none of whom will be on the sunshine list this year.

Progressive Conservative energy critic Todd Smith has a private member's bill that would put Hydro One salaries back on the list, amid investor concerns about Hydro One that cite too many unknowns.

"The Wynne Liberals don't want the people of Ontario to know that their rates have helped create a new millionaire's club at Hydro One," Smith said. "Hydro One is still under the majority ownership of the public, but Premier Kathleen Wynne has removed these salaries from the public's watchful eye."

The previous sunshine list showed 115,431 people were earning more than $100,000 — an increase of nearly 4,000 people despite the fact 3,774 Hydro One workers were not on the list for the first time.

Tom Mitchell, the former CEO at Ontario Power Generation who resigned last summer, topped the 2015 list at $1.59 million.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

UK Coal-Free Grid Streak highlights record hours without coal, as renewable energy, wind and solar boost electricity generation, cutting CO2 emissions, reducing fossil fuel reliance, and accelerating grid decarbonization amid volatile gas markets.

Key Points

It is the UKs longest coal-free power run, driven by renewables, signaling decarbonization and reduced gas reliance.

✅ Record-breaking hours of electricity with zero coal generation

✅ Enabled by wind, solar, and growing offshore wind capacity

✅ Highlights need to cut gas use and expand renewable investment

Today is the fourth the UK has entered with not a watt of electricity generated by coal.

It’s the longest such streak since the 1880s and comes only days after the last modern era coal-free power record of 55 hours was set.

That represents good news for those of us who have children and would rather like there to be a planet for them to live on when we’re gone.

Coal generated power is dirty power, and not just through the carbon that gets pumped into the atmosphere when it burns.

The fact that the UK is increasingly able to call upon cleaner alternatives for its requirements, to the extent that records are being regularly broken and coal's share has fallen to record lows, is a welcome development.

The trouble is one of those alternatives is gas, and while it is better than coal it still throws off CO2, among other pollutants. The UK’s use of it, for electricity generation and most of its heating, comes with the added disadvantage of leaving it in hock to volatile international markets and producers that aren’t always friendly.

It was only last month, with the country in the middle of a cold snap, that the Grid was issuing a deficit warning (its first in eight years).

As I wrote at the time, we need to burn less of the stuff as low-carbon progress stalled in 2019 shows, too.

As such, Greenpeace’s call for more investment in renewable energy technology and generation, including solar, onshore wind and offshore wind, which is making an increasing contribution as wind beat coal in 2016 demonstrated, was well made.

Those who complain about onshore wind farms, particularly when they are built in windy places that are pretty, seem willfully blind to the pollution caused by gas.

The need to be listened to less. So do those, like British Gas owner Centrica, that bellyache about green taxes.

It bears repeating that fossil fuels are subsidised still more. It’s just that the subsidies are typically hidden.

A report issued last year by a coalition of environmental organisations found the UK provided $972m (£695m) of annual financing for fossil fuels on average between 2013 and 2015, compared with $172m for renewable energy.

But while they come up with wildly varying amounts as a result of wildly varying approaches, the OECD, the IMF and the International Energy Agency have all quantified substantial subsidies for fossils fuels. Their annual estimates have ranged from $160bn to $5.3tn (yes you read that rate and the number was the IMF’s) globally.

So by all means celebrate coal free days, and a full week without coal power as milestones. But we need more of them more quickly and we need more renewable energy to pick up the slack. As such, the philosophy and approach of government needs to change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News