Ripped solar wing adds to shuttle mission woes

Hybrid Electric Ships leverage marine batteries, LNG engines, and clean propulsion to cut emissions in shipping. From ferries to cargo vessels, electrification and sustainability meet IMO regulations, Corvus Energy systems, and dockside fast charging.

Key Points

Hybrid electric ships use batteries with diesel or LNG engines to cut fuel and emissions and meet stricter IMO rules.

✅ LNG or diesel gensets recharge marine battery packs.

✅ Cuts CO2, NOx, and particulate emissions in port and at sea.

✅ Complies with IMO standards; enables quiet, efficient operations.

The river is running strong and currents are swirling as the 150-metre-long Seaspan Reliant slides gently into place against its steel loading ramp on the shores of B.C.'s silty Fraser River.

The crew hustles to tie up the ship, and then begins offloading dozens of transport trucks that have been brought over from Vancouver Island.

While it looks like many vessels working the B.C. coast, below decks, the ship is very different. The Reliant is a hybrid, partly powered by electricity, and joins BC Ferries' hybrid ships in the region, the seagoing equivalent of a Toyota Prius.

Down below decks, Sean Puchalski walks past a whirring internal combustion motor that can run on either diesel or natural gas. He opens the door to a gleaming white room full of electrical cables and equipment racks along the walls.

"As with many modes of transportation, we're seeing electrification, from electric planes to ferries," said Puchalski, who works with Corvus Energy, a Richmond, B.C. company that builds large battery systems for the marine industry.

In this case, the batteries are recharged by large engines burning natural gas.

"It's definitely the way of the future," said Puchalski.

The 10-year-old company's battery system is now in use on 200 vessels around the world. Business has spiked recently, driven by the need to reduce emissions, and by landmark projects such as battery-electric high-speed ferries taking shape in the U.S.

"When you're building a new vessel, you want it to last for, say, 30 years. You don't want to adopt a technology that's on the margins in terms of obsolescence," said Puchalski. "You want to build it to be future-proof."

Dirty ships

For years, the shipping industry has been criticized for being slow to clean up its act. Most ships use heavy fuel oil, a cheap, viscous form of petroleum that produces immense exhaust. According to the European Commission, shipping currently pumps out about 940 million tonnes of CO2 each year, nearly three per cent of the global total.

That share is expected to climb even higher as other sectors reduce emissions.

When it comes to electric ships, Scandinavia is leading the world. Several of the region's car and passenger ferries are completely battery powered — recharged at the dock by relatively clean hydro power, and projects such as Kootenay Lake's electric-ready ferry show similar progress in Canada.

Tougher regulations and retailer pressure

The push for cleaner alternatives is being partly driven by worldwide regulations, with international shipping regulators bringing in tougher emission standards after a decade of talk and study, while financing initiatives are helping B.C. electric ferries scale up.

At the same time, pressure is building from customers, such as Mountain Equipment Co-op, which closely tracks its environmental footprint. Kevin Lee, who heads MEC's supply chain, said large companies are realizing they are accountable for their contributions to climate change, from the factory to the retail floor.

"You're hearing more companies build it into their DNA in terms of how they do business, and that's cool to see," said Lee. "It's not just MEC anymore trying to do this, there's a lot more partners out there."

In the global race to cut emissions, all kinds of options are on the table for ships, including giant kites being tested to harvest wind power at sea, and ports piloting hydrogen-powered cranes to cut dockside emissions.

Modern versions of sailing ships are also being examined to haul cargo with minimal fuel consumption.

But in practical terms, hybrids and, in the future, pure electrics are likely to play a larger role in keeping the propellers turning along Canada's coast, with neighboring fleets like Washington State Ferries' upgrade underscoring the shift.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Cal ISO Flex Alert urges Southern California energy conservation as a Stage 2 emergency strains the power grid, with potential rolling blackouts during peak hours from 3 to 10 p.m., if demand exceeds supply.

Key Points

A statewide call to conserve power during high demand, issued by the grid operator to prevent rolling blackouts.

✅ Stage 2 emergency signals severe grid strain

✅ Peak Flex Alert hours: 3 to 10 p.m. statewide

✅ Set thermostats to 78 and avoid major appliances

Residents and businesses across Southern California were urged to conserve power Tuesday afternoon amid ongoing electricity inequities across the state as the manager of the state’s power grid warned rolling blackouts could be imminent for some power customers.

The California Independent System Operator (Cal ISO), which manages the state power grid, declared a Stage 2 emergency as of 2:30 p.m., indicating severe strain on the electrical system, similar to a recent grid alert in Alberta that relied on reserves.

ADVERTISING

Rolling blackouts for some customers could occur in a Stage 3 emergency, distinct from the intentional shut-offs some utilities use to reduce wildfire risk.

Cal ISO issued a statewide Flex Alert in effect from 3 to 10 p.m. Tuesday and Wednesday, with conservation considered especially critical during those hours, a concern heightened by pandemic-era grid operations this year.

Officials told reporters rolling blackouts might be avoided Tuesday evening if residents repeat the level of conservation seen Monday.
“If we can get the same sort of response we got yesterday, we can minimize this, or perhaps avoid it altogether,” Cal-ISO President/CEO Steve Berberich said, noting that some operators have even planned staff lockdowns during COVID-19 to maintain reliability.

Cal-ISO controls roughly 80% of the state’s power grid through Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., with the utility recently restoring power after shut-offs in affected communities, and San Diego Gas & Electric.

Residents are urged to set thermostats at 78 in the afternoon and evening hours and avoiding the use of air conditioning and major appliances during the Flex Alert hours, as utilities like PG&E prepare for winter storms to improve resilience.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Alberta Energy-Only Electricity Market faces capacity market debate, AESO price cap review, and coal-to-gas shifts by TransAlta and Capital Power, balancing reliability with volatility as investment signals evolve across Alberta's grid.

Key Points

An energy market paying generators only for electricity sold, with AESO oversight and a price cap guiding new capacity.

✅ AESO reviewing $999 per MW-h wholesale price cap.

✅ UCP retained energy-only; capacity market plan cancelled.

✅ TransAlta and Capital Power shift to coal-to-gas.

The Kenney government’s decision to cancel the redesign of Alberta’s electricity system to a capacity market won’t side-track two of the province’s largest power generators from converting coal-fired facilities to burn natural gas as part of Alberta’s shift from coal to cleaner energy overall.

But other changes could be coming to the province’s existing energy-only electricity market — including the alteration of the $999 per megawatt-hour (MW-h) wholesale price cap in Alberta.

The heads of TransAlta Corp. and Capital Power Corp. are proceeding with strategies to convert existing coal-fired power generating facilities to use natural gas in the coming years.

Calgary-based TransAlta first announced in 2017 that it would make the switch, as the NDP government was in the midst of overhauling the electricity sector and wind generation began to outpace coal in the province.

At the time, the Notley government planned to phase out coal-fired power by 2030, even as Alberta moved to retire coal by 2023 in practice, and shift Alberta into an electricity capacity market in 2021.

Such a move, made on the recommendation of the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), was intended to reduce price volatility and ensure system reliability.

Under the energy-only market, generators receive payments for electricity produced and sold into the grid. In a capacity market, generators are also paid for having power available on demand, regardless of how often they sell energy into the provincial grid.

The UCP government decided last month to ditch plans for a capacity market after consulting with the sector, saying it would be better for consumers.

On a conference call, TransAlta CEO Dawn Farrell said the company will convert coal-fired generating plants to burn gas, although it may alter the mix between simple conversions and switching to so-called “hybrid” plants.

(A hybrid conversion is a larger and more-expensive switch, as it includes installing a new gas turbine and heat-recovery steam generator, but it creates a highly efficient combined cycle unit.)

“Our view is fundamentally that carbon will be priced over the next 20 years no matter what,” she said Friday.

“We cannot get off coal fast enough in this company, and gas right now in Alberta is extremely inexpensive…

“So our coal-to-gas strategy is completely predicated on our belief that it’s not smart to be in carbon-intensive fuels for the future.”

Elsewhere in Canada, the Stop the Shock campaign has advocated for reviving coal power, underscoring ongoing policy debates.

The company said it’s planning the coal-to-gas conversion and re-powering of some or all of the units at its Keephills and Sundance facilities to gas-fired generation sometime between 2020 and 2023.

Similarly, Capital Power CEO Brian Vaasjo said the Edmonton-based company is moving ahead with a project that will allow it to burn both coal and natural gas at its Genesee generating station, even as Ontario’s energy minister sought to explore a halt to natural gas generation elsewhere.

In June, the company announced it would spend an estimated $50 million between 2019 and 2021 to allow it to use gas at the facility.

“What we’re doing is going to be dual fuel, so we will be able to operate 100 per cent natural gas or 100 per cent coal and everything in between,” Vaasjo said in an interview.

“You can expect to see we will be burning coal in the winter when natural gas prices are high, and we will be burning natural gas in summer when gas prices are real low.”

The transition comes as the government’s decision to stick with the energy-only market has been welcomed by players in the industry, and as Alberta's electricity future increasingly leans on wind resources.

A study by electricity consultancy EDC Associates found the capacity market would result in consumers paying an extra $1.4 billion in direct costs in 2021-22, as it required more generation to come online earlier than expected.

These additional costs would have accumulated to $10 billion by 2030, said EDC chief executive Duane-Reid Carlson.

For Capital Power, the decision to stick with the current system makes the province more investable in the future. Vaasjo said there was great uncertainty about the transition to a capacity market, and the possibility of rules shifting further.

Officials with Enmax Corp. said the city-owned utility would not have invested in future generation under the proposed capacity market.

“There is no short-term need (today) for new generation, so we’re just looking at the market and saying, ‘OK, as it evolves, we will see what happens,’” said Enmax vice-president Tim Boston.

Sticking with the energy-only market doesn’t mean Alberta will keep the existing rules.

In a July 25 letter, Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage directed AESO chair Will Bridge to examine if changes to the existing market are needed and report back by July 2020.

AESO, which manages the power grid, has been asked to investigate whether the current price cap of $999 per megawatt-hour (MW-h) should be changed.

The price ceiling hasn’t been altered since the energy-only market was implemented by the Klein government about two decades ago.

While allowing prices to go higher would increase volatility, reflecting lessons from Europe’s power crisis about scarcity pricing, during periods of rising demand and limited supply, it would send a signal to generators when investment in new generation is required, said Kent Fellows, a research associate at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.

“Keeping the price (cap) too low could end up costing us more in the long run,” he said.

In a 2016 report, AESO said the province examined raising the price cap to $5,000 per MW-h, but “determined that it was unlikely to be successful in attracting investment due to increased price volatility.”

However, the amount of future generation that will be required in Alberta has been scaled back by the province.

In the United States, the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) allows wholesale power prices in the state to climb to a cap of $9,000 per megawatt hours as demand rises — as it did Tuesday in the midst of a heat wave, according to Bloomberg.

Jim Wachowich, legal counsel for the Consumers’ Coalition of Alberta, said while few players are exposed to spot electricity prices, he has yet to be convinced raising the cap would be good for Albertans.

“Someone has to show me the evidence, and I suspect that’s what the minister has asked the AESO to do,” he said.

Generators say they believe some tinkering is needed to the energy-only market to ensure new generation is built when it’s required.

“The No. 1 change that the government has to … think about is in pricing,” added Farrell.

“If you don’t have enough of a price signal in an energy-only market to attract new capital, you won’t get new capital — and you’ll run up against the wall.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Toronto Hydro Scam Warning urges customers to spot phishing emails, fraudulent texts, fake bills, and door-to-door threats demanding bitcoin or prepaid cards, with disconnection threats; report scams to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre.

Key Points

Advisory on phishing, fake bills, and payment scams posing as Toronto Hydro, with steps to avoid fraud and report.

✅ Hang up suspicious calls; never pay via bitcoin or prepaid cards.

✅ Do not click links in emails or texts; compare bills and account numbers.

✅ Report fraud to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre: 1-888-495-8501.

Toronto Hydro has sent out a notice that criminals posing as Toronto Hydro are sending out fraudulent texts, letters and emails, similar to a recent BC Hydro scam reported in British Columbia.

The warning comes in a tweet, along with suggestions on how to protect yourself from fraud, especially as policy debates like an NDP public hydro plan can generate confusing messages.

According to Toronto Hydro, fraudsters are contacting people by phone, text, email, fake electricity bills, and even travelling door-to-door.

They threaten to disconnect the power unless an immediate payment is made, even though legitimate utilities must follow proper disconnection notices processes. The website states that in some cases, criminals request payment via pre-paid credit card or bitcoin.

It’s written on the website that Toronto Hydro does not accept these methods of payment, and they do not threaten to immediately disconnect power, a reminder that stories about power theft abroad are not a model for local billing.

If you suspect you are being targeted, you should immediately hang up any suspicious phone calls. Don’t click on any links in emails or texts asking you to accept electronic transfers, as scammers may impersonate well-known utilities during high-profile news such as Hydro One profit changes to appear credible.

Avoid sharing any personal information over the phone or in-person, and do not make any payments related to Smart Meter Deposits, as this fee does not exist and rate-setting is overseen by the Ontario Energy Board in Ontario.

And remember to always compare bills to previous ones, including the amount and account number, since major accounting decisions like a BC Hydro deferral report can fuel confusing narratives.

To report fraudulent activity, please contact:
Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre at 1-888-495-8501; quote file number 844396

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Ontario Nuclear Power Costs highlight LCOE, capex, refurbishment outlays, and waste management, compared with renewables, grid reliability, and emissions targets, informing Australia and Peter Dutton on feasibility, timelines, and electricity prices.

Key Points

They include high capex and LCOE from refurbishments and waste, offset by reliable, low-emission baseload.

✅ Refurbishment and maintenance drive lifecycle and LCOE variability.

✅ High capex and long timelines affect consumer electricity prices.

✅ Low emissions, but waste and safety compliance add costs.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton recently lauded Canada’s use of nuclear power as a model for Australia’s energy future. His praise comes as part of a broader push to incorporate nuclear energy into Australia’s energy strategy, which he argues could help address the country's energy needs and climate goals. However, the question arises: Is Ontario’s experience with nuclear power as cost-effective as Dutton suggests?

Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power strategy highlights a belief that nuclear energy could provide a stable, low-emission alternative to fossil fuels. He has pointed to Ontario’s substantial reliance on nuclear power, and the province’s exploration of new large-scale nuclear projects, as an example of how such an energy mix might benefit Australia. The province’s energy grid, which integrates a significant amount of nuclear power, is often cited as evidence that nuclear energy can be a viable component of a diversified energy portfolio.

The appeal of nuclear power lies in its ability to generate large amounts of electricity with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. This characteristic aligns with Australia’s climate goals, which emphasize reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change. Dutton’s advocacy for nuclear energy is based on the premise that it can offer a reliable and low-emission option compared to the fluctuating availability of renewable sources like wind and solar.

However, while Dutton’s enthusiasm for the Canadian model reflects its perceived successes, including recent concerns about Ontario’s grid getting dirtier amid supply changes, a closer look at Ontario’s nuclear energy costs raises questions about the financial feasibility of adopting a similar strategy in Australia. Despite the benefits of low emissions, the economic aspects of nuclear power remain complex and multifaceted.

In Ontario, the cost of nuclear power has been a topic of considerable debate. While the province benefits from a stable supply of electricity due to its nuclear plants, studies warn of a growing electricity supply gap in coming years. Ontario’s experience reveals that nuclear power involves significant capital expenditures, including the costs of building reactors, maintaining infrastructure, and ensuring safety standards. These expenses can be substantial and often translate into higher electricity prices for consumers.

The cost of maintaining existing nuclear reactors in Ontario has been a particular concern. Many of these reactors are aging and require costly upgrades and maintenance to continue operating safely and efficiently. These expenses can add to the overall cost of nuclear power, impacting the affordability of electricity for consumers.

Moreover, the development of new nuclear projects, as seen with Bruce C project exploration in Ontario, involves lengthy and expensive construction processes. Building new reactors can take over a decade and requires significant investment. The high initial costs associated with these projects can be a barrier to their economic viability, especially when compared to the rapidly decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies.

In contrast, the cost of renewable energy has been falling steadily, even as debates over nuclear power’s trajectory in Europe continue, making it a more attractive option for many jurisdictions. Solar and wind power, while variable and dependent on weather conditions, have seen dramatic reductions in installation and operational costs. These lower costs can make renewables more competitive compared to nuclear energy, particularly when considering the long-term financial implications.

Dutton’s praise for Ontario’s nuclear power model also overlooks some of the environmental and logistical challenges associated with nuclear energy. While nuclear power generates low emissions during operation, it produces radioactive waste that requires long-term storage solutions. The management of nuclear waste poses significant environmental and safety concerns, as well as additional costs for safe storage and disposal.

Additionally, the potential risks associated with nuclear power, including the possibility of accidents, contribute to the complexity of its adoption. The safety and environmental regulations surrounding nuclear energy are stringent and require continuous oversight, adding to the overall cost of maintaining nuclear facilities.

As Australia contemplates integrating nuclear power into its energy mix, it is crucial to weigh these financial and environmental considerations. While the Canadian model provides valuable insights, the unique context of Australia’s energy landscape, including its existing infrastructure, energy needs, and the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity in comparable jurisdictions, must be taken into account.

In summary, while Peter Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power model reflects a belief in its potential benefits for Australia’s energy strategy, the cost-effectiveness of Ontario’s nuclear power experience is more nuanced than it may appear. The high capital and maintenance costs associated with nuclear energy, combined with the challenges of managing radioactive waste and ensuring safety, present significant considerations. As Australia evaluates its energy future, a comprehensive analysis of both the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power will be essential to making informed decisions about its role in the country’s energy strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Foote Creek I Wind Farm Repowering upgrades Wyoming turbines with new nacelles, towers, and blades, cutting 68 units to 12 while sustaining 41.6 MW, under PacifiCorp and Rocky Mountain Power's Energy Vision 2020 plan.

Key Points

Replacement at Foote Creek Rim I, cutting to 12 turbines while sustaining about 41.6 MW using modern 2-4.2 MW units.

✅ 12 turbines replace 68, output steady near 41.6 MW

✅ New nacelles, towers, blades; taller 500 ft turbines

✅ Part of PacifiCorp Energy Vision 2020 and Gateway West

A Wyoming utility company has filed a permit to replace its first wind farm—originally commissioned in 1998, composed of over 65 turbines—amid new gas capacity competing with nuclear in Ohio, located at Foote Creek Rim I. The replacement would downsize the number of turbines to 12, which would still generate roughly the same energy output.

According to the Star Tribune, PacifiCorp’s new installation would involve new nacelles, new towers and new blades. The permit was filed with Carbon County.

New WY Wind Farm

The replacement wind turbines will stand more than twice as tall as the old: Those currently installed stand 200 feet tall, whereas their replacements will tower closer to 500 feet. Though this move is part of the company’s overall plan to expand its state wind fleet as some utilities respond to declining coal returns in the Midwest, the work going into the Foote Creek site is somewhat special, noted David Eskelsen, spokesperson for Rocky Mountain Power, the western arm of PacifiCorp.

“Foote Creek I repowering is somewhat different from the repowering projects announced in the (Energy Vision) 2020 initiative,” he said. “Foote Creek is a complete replacement of the existing 68 foundations, towers, turbine nacelles and rotors (blades).”

Currently, the turbines at Foote Creek have 600 kilowatts capacity each; the replacements’ maximum production ranges from 2 megawatts to 4.2 megawatts each, with the total output remaining steady at 41.4 megawatts, a scale similar to a 30-megawatt wind expansion in Eastern Kings, though there will be a slight capacity increase to 41.6 megawatts, according to the Star Tribune.

As part of the wind farm repowering initiative, PacifiCorp is to become full owner and operator of the Foote Creek site. When the farm was originally built, an Oregon-based water and electric board was 21 percent owner; 37 percent of the project’s output was tied into a contract with the Bonneville Power Administration.

Otherwise, PacifiCorp is moving to further expand its state wind fleet in line with initiatives like doubling renewable electricity by 2030 in Saskatchewan, with the addition of three new wind farms—to be located in Carbon, Albany and Converse counties—which may add up to 1,150 megawatts of power.

According to PacifiCorp, the company has more than 1,000 megawatts of owned wind generation capability, along with long-term purchase agreements for more than 600 megawatts from other wind farms owned by other entities. Energy Vision 2020 refers to a $3.5 billion investment and company move that is looking to upgrade the company's existing wind fleet with newer technology, adding 1,150 megawatts of new wind resources by 2020 and a a new 140-mile Gateway West transmission segment in Wyoming, comparable to a transmission project in Missouri just energized.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News