Alstom takes the initiative on CO2 capture

National Grid power supply warning highlights electricity shortage risks amid low wind output, generator outages, and cold weather, reducing capacity margins and grid stability; considering demand response and reserve power to avoid blackout risk.

Key Points

An alert that reduced capacity from low wind and outages requires actions to maintain UK grid stability.

✅ Low wind output and generator outages reduce capacity margins

✅ ESO exploring demand response and reserve generation options

✅ Aim: maintain grid stability and avoid blackout risk

National Grid has warned that Britain’s electricity will be in short supply over the next few days after a string of unplanned power plant outages and unusually low wind speeds this week, as cheap wind power wanes across the system.

The electricity system operator said it will take action to “make sure there is enough generation” during the cold weather spell, including virtual power plants and other demand-side measures, to prevent a second major blackout in as many years.

“Unusually low wind output coinciding with a number of generator outages means the cushion of spare capacity we operate the system with has been reduced,” the company told its Twitter followers.

“We’re exploring measures and actions to make sure there is enough generation available to increase our buffer of capacity.”

A spokeswoman for National Grid said the latest electricity supply squeeze was not expected to be as severe as recorded last month, following reports that the government’s emergency energy plan was not going ahead, and added that the company did not expect to issue an official warning in the next 24 hours.

“We’re monitoring how the situation develops,” she said.

The warning is the second from the electricity system operator in recent weeks. In mid-September the company issued an official warning to the electricity market as peak power prices climbed, that its ‘buffer’ of power reserves had fallen below 500MW and it may need to call on more power plants to help prevent a blackout. The notice was later withdrawn.

Concerns over National Grid’s electricity supplies have been relatively rare in recent years. It was forced in November 2015 to ask businesses to cut their demand as a “last resort” measure to keep the lights on after a string of coal plant breakdowns.

But since then, National Grid’s greater challenge has been an oversupply of electricity, partly due to record wind generation, which has threatened to overwhelm the grid during times of low electricity demand.

National Grid has already spent almost £1bn on extra measures to prevent blackouts over the first half of the year by paying generators to produce less electricity during the coronavirus lockdown, as daily demand fell.

The company paid wind farms to turn off, and EDF Energy to halve the nuclear generation from its Sizewell B nuclear plant, to avoid overwhelming the grid when demand for electricity fell by almost a quarter from last year.

The electricity supply squeeze comes a little over a year after National Grid left large parts of England and Wales without electricity after the biggest blackout in a decade left a million homes in the dark. National Grid blamed a lightning strike for the widespread power failure.

Similar supply strains have recently caused power cuts in China, underscoring how weather and generation mix can trigger blackouts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

UK Energy Price Guarantee Cost forecasts from Cornwall Insight suggest an £89bn bill, tied to wholesale gas prices, OBR projections, and fiscal policy, to shield households amid the cost of living crisis.

Key Points

It is the projected government spend to cap household bills, driven by wholesale gas prices and OBR market forecasts.

✅ Base case: £89bn over two years, per Cornwall Insight

✅ Range: £72bn to £140bn, volatile wholesale gas costs

✅ Excludes 6-month business support estimated at £22bn-£48bn

Liz Truss’s intervention to freeze energy prices for households for two years is expected to cost the government £89bn, according to the first major costing of the policy by the sector’s leading consultancy.

The analysis from Cornwall Insight, seen exclusively by the Guardian, shows the prime minister’s plan to tackle the cost of living crisis could cost as much as £140bn in a worst-case scenario.

Truss announced in early September that the average annual bill for a typical household would be capped at £2,500 to protect consumers from the intensifying cost of living crisis amid high winter energy costs and a scheduled 80% rise in the cap to £3,549.

The ultimate cost of the policy is uncertain as it is highly dependent on the wholesale cost of gas, including UK natural gas prices which have soared since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine put a squeeze on already-volatile international markets. Ballpark projections had put the cost anywhere from £100bn to £150bn.

The Office for Budget Responsibility is expected to give its forecast for the bill when it provides its independent assessment of Kwasi Kwarteng’s medium-term fiscal plan, which the chancellor said on Tuesday would still happen on 23 November despite previous reports that it would be brought forward.

Cornwall Insight analysed projections of wholesale market moves to cost the intervention. In its base case scenario, analysts expect the policy to cost £89bn. That assumes the cost of supporting each household would be just over £1,000 in the first year, and about £2,000 in the second year.

The study’s authors said the wholesale price of gas would be influenced by energy demand, the severity of weather, “geo-political uncertainty” and prices for liquified natural gas as Europe seeks to refill storage facilities, which countries have rushed to fill up this winter but which could be relatively empty by next spring.

In the best-case outcome, the policy would cost £72bn, with some projections pointing to a 16% decrease in energy bills in April for households, while the “extreme high” outlook would see the government shell out £140bn to protect 29m UK households.

Gas prices are expected to push even higher if the Kremlin decides to completely cut off Russian gas exports into Europe.

Cornwall Insight’s projection does not include a separate six-month initiative to cap costs for companies, charities and public sector organisations, which is forecast to cost £22bn to £48bn.

The consultancy’s chief executive, Gareth Miller, said the £70bn range in its forecasts reflected “a febrile wholesale market continuing to be beset by geopolitical instability, sensitivity to demand, weather and infrastructure resilience”.

He said: “Fortune befriends the bold, but it also favours the prepared. The large uncertainties around commodity markets over the next two years means that the government could get lucky with costs coming out at the low end of the range, but the opposite could also be true.

“In each case, the government may find itself passengers to circumstances outside its control, having made policy that is a hostage to surprises, events and volatile factors. That’s a difficult position to be in.”

Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
The government has faced criticism, as some British MPs urge tighter limits on prices, that the policy is effectively a “blank cheque” and is not targeted at the most vulnerable in society.

Concerns over how Truss and Kwarteng intend to fund a series of measures, including the price guarantee, have spooked financial markets.

The EU, which has outlined possible gas price cap strategies in recent proposals, said last week it planned to cap the revenues of low-carbon electricity generators at €180 a megawatt hour, which is less than half current market prices. Truss has so far resisted calls to extend a levy on North Sea oil and gas operators to electricity generators, who have benefited from a link between gas and electricity prices in Britain.

Truss hopes to strike voluntary long-term deals with generators including Centrica and EDF, alongside the government’s Energy Security Bill measures, to bring down wholesale prices.

The Financial Times reported on Tuesday that the government has threatened companies with legislation to cap their revenues if voluntary deals cannot be agreed.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

BPA Privatization would sell the Bonneville Power Administration's transmission lines, raising FERC-regulated grid rates for ratepayers, impacting hydropower and the California-Oregon Intertie under the Trump 2018 budget proposal in the Pacific Northwest region.

Key Points

Selling Bonneville's transmission grid to private owners, raising rates and returns, shifting costs to ratepayers.

✅ Trump 2018 budget targets BPA transmission assets for sale.

✅ Higher capital costs, taxes, and profit would raise transmission rates.

✅ California-Oregon Intertie and hydropower flows face price impacts.

President Trump's 2018 budget proposal is so chock-full of noxious elements — replacing food stamps with "food boxes," drastically cutting Medicaid and Medicare, for a start — that it's unsurprising that one of its most misguided pieces has slipped under the radar.

That's the proposal to privatize the government-owned Bonneville Power Administration, which owns about three-quarters of the high-voltage electric transmission lines in a region that includes California, Washington state and Oregon, serving more than 13.5 million customers. By one authoritative estimate, any such sale would drive up the cost of transmission by 26%-44%.

The $5.2-billon price cited by the Trump administration, moreover, is nearly 20% below the actual value of the Bonneville grid — meaning that a private buyer would pocket an immediate windfall of $1.2 billion, at the expense of federal taxpayers and Bonneville customers.

Trump's plan for Portland, Ore.-based Bonneville is part of a larger proposal to sell off other government-owned electricity bodies, including the Colorado-based Western Area Power Administration and the Oklahoma-based Southwestern Power Administration. But Bonneville is by far the largest of the three, accounting for nearly 90% of the total $5.8 billion the budget anticipates collecting from the sales. The proposal is also part of the administration's

Both plans are said to be politically dead-on-arrival in Washington. But they offer a window into the thinking in the Trump White House.

"The word 'muddle' comes to mind," says Robert McCullough, a respected Portland energy consultant, referring to the justification for the privatization sale included in the Trump budget.

The White House suggests that selling the Bonneville grid would result in lower costs. But that narrative, McCullough wrote in a blistering assessment of the proposal, "displays a severe lack of understanding about the process of setting transmission rates."

McCullough's assessment is an update of a similar analysis he performed when the privatization scheme was first raised by the Trump administration last year. In that analysis issued in June, McCullough said the proposal "raises the question of why these valuable assets would be sold at a discount — and who would get the benefit of the discounted price."

The implications of a sale could be dire for Californians. Bonneville is the majority owner of the California-Oregon Intertie, an electrical transmission system that carries power, including Columbia River-generated hydropower and other clean-energy generation in British Columbia that supports the regional exchange, south to California in the summer and excess California generation to the Pacific Northwest in the winter.

But the idea has drawn fire throughout the region. When it was first broached last year, the Public Power Council, an association of utilities in the Northwest, assailed it as an apparent "transfer of value from the people of the Northwest to the U.S. Treasury," drawing parallels to Manitoba Hydro governance issues elsewhere.

The region's political leaders had especially harsh words for the idea this time around. "Oregonians raised hell last year when Trump tried to raise power bills for Pacific Northwesterners by selling off Bonneville Power, and yet his administration is back at it again," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said after the idea reappeared. "Our investment shouldn't be put up for sale to free up money for runaway military spending or tax cuts for billionaires." Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) promised in a statement to work to "stop this bad idea in its tracks."

The notion of privatizing Bonneville predates the Trump administration; it was raised by Bill Clinton and again by George W. Bush, who thought the public would gain if the administration could sell its power at market rates. Both initiatives failed.

The same free-enterprise ideology underlies the Trump proposal. Privatizing the transmission lines "encourages a more efficient allocation of economic resources and mitigates unnecessary risk to taxpayers," the budget asserts. "Ownership of transmission assets is best carried out by the private sector where there are appropriate market and regulatory incentives."

But that's based on a misunderstanding of how transmission rates are set, McCullough says. Transmission is essentially a monopoly enterprise, with rates overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission based on the grid's costs, and with federal scrutiny of public utilities such as the TVA underscoring that oversight. There's very little in the way of market "incentives" involved in transmission, since no one has come forward to build a competing grid.

Those include the owners' cost of capital — which would be much higher for a private owner than a government agency, McCullough observes, as Hydro One investor uncertainty demonstrates in practice. A private owner, unlike the government-owned Bonneville, also would owe federal income taxes, which would be passed on to consumers.

Then there's the profit motive. Bonneville "currently sells and delivers its power at cost," McCullough wrote last year. "Under a private regime, an investor-owned utility would likely charge a higher rate of return, a pattern seen when UK network profits drew regulatory rebukes."

None of these considerations appears to have been factored into the White House budget proposal. "Either there's an unsophisticated person at the Office of Management and Budget thinking up these numbers himself," McCullough told me, "or there would seem to be ongoing negotiations with an unidentified third party." No such buyer has emerged in the past, however.

What's left is a blind faith in the magic of the market, compounded by ignorance about how the transmission market operates. Put it together, and there's reason to wonder if Trump is even serious about this plan.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Muskrat Falls rate mitigation offsets Newfoundland Power's rate stabilization decrease as NL Hydro begins cost recovery; Public Utilities Board approval enables collections while Labrador-Island Link nears commissioning, stabilizing electricity rates despite megaproject delays, overruns.

Key Points

Muskrat Falls rate mitigation is NL Hydro's cost recovery via power rates to stabilize bills as commissioning nears.

✅ Offsets 6.4% decrease with a 6.1% rate increase

✅ About 6% now funds NL Hydro's rate mitigation

✅ Collections begin as Labrador-Island Link nears commissioning

With their July electricity bill, Newfoundland Power customers have begun paying for Muskrat Falls, though a lump-sum credit was also announced to offset costs and bills haven't significantly increased — yet.

In a July newsletter, Newfoundland Power said electricity bills were set to decrease by 6.4 per cent as part of the annual rate stabilization adjustment, which reflects the cost of electricity generation.

Instead, that decrease has been offset by a 6.1 increase in electricity rates so Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro can begin recovering the cost of Muskrat Falls, with a $5.2-billion federal package also underpinning the project, the $13-billion hydroelectric megaproject that is billions over budget and years behind schedule.

That means for residential customers, electricity rates will decrease to 12.346 cents per kilowatt, though the basic customer charge will go up slightly from $15.81 to $15.83. According to an N.L. Hydro spokesperson, about six per cent of electricity bills will now go toward what it calls a "rate mitigation fund." 

N.L. Hydro claims victory in Muskrat Falls arbitration dispute with Astaldi
Software troubles blamed for $260M Muskrat Falls cost increase, with N.L. power rates stable for now
The spokesperson said N.L. Hydro is expecting the rate increase to result in $43 million this year, according to a recent financial update from the energy corporation — a tiny fraction of the project's cost. 

N.L. Hydro asked the Public Utilities Board to approve the rate increase, a process similar to Nova Scotia's recent 14% approval by its regulator, in May. In a letter, Energy, Industry and Technology Minister Andrew Parsons supported the increase, though he asked N.L. Hydro to keep electricity rates "as close to current levels as possible. 

Province modifies order in council
Muskrat Falls is not yet fully online — largely due to software problems with the Labrador-Island Link transmission line — and an order in council dictated that ratepayers on the island of Newfoundland would not begin paying for the project until the project was fully commissioned. 

The provincial government modified that order in council so N.L. Hydro can begin collecting costs associated with Muskrat Falls once the project is "nearing" commissioning.

In June, N.L. Hydro said the project was expected to finally be completed by the end of the year.

In an interview with CBC News, Progressive Conservative interim leader David Brazil said the decision to begin recovering the cost of Muskrat Falls from consumers should have been delayed.

"There was an opportunity here for people to get some reprieve when it came to their electricity bills and this administration chose not to do that, not to help the people while they're struggling," he said.

In a statement, Parsons said reducing the rate was not an option, and would have resulted in increased borrowing costs for Muskrat Falls.

"Reducing the rate for one year to have it increase significantly the following year is not consistent with rate mitigation and also places an increased financial burden on taxpayers one year from now," Parsons said.

Decision 'reasonable': Consumer advocate
Brazil said his party didn't know the payments from Muskrat Falls would start in July, and criticized the government for not being more transparent.

A person wearing a blue shirt and black blazer stands outside on a lawn.
N.L. consumer advocate Dennis Browne says it makes sense to begin recouping the cost of Muskrat Falls. (Garrett Barry/CBC)
Newfoundland and Labrador consumer advocate Dennis Browne said the decision to begin collecting costs from consumers was "reasonable."

"We're into a financial hole due to Muskrat Falls, and what has happened is in order to stabilize rates, we have gone into rate stabilization efforts," he said.

In February, the provincial and federal governments signed a complex agreement to shield ratepayers aimed at softening the worst of the financial impact from Muskrat Falls. Browne noted even with the agreement, the provincial government will have to pay hundreds of millions in order to stabilize electricity rates.

"Muskrat Falls would cost us $0.23 a kilowatt, and that is out of the range of affordability for most people, and that's why we're into rate mitigation," he said. "This was part of a rate mitigation effort, and I accepted it as part of that."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Atlantic Canada EV adoption lags, a new poll finds, as fewer buyers consider electric vehicles amid limited charging infrastructure, lower provincial rebates, and affordability pressures in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland compared to B.C. and Quebec.

Key Points

Atlantic Canada EV adoption reflects demand, shaped by rebates, charging access, costs, and the regional energy mix.

✅ Poll shows lowest purchase intent in Atlantic Canada

✅ Lack of rebates and charging slows EV consideration

✅ Income and energy mix affect affordability and benefits

Atlantic Canadians are the least likely to buy a car, truck or SUV in the next year and the most skittish about going electric, according to a new poll. 

Only 31 per cent of Nova Scotians are looking at buying a new or used vehicle before December 2021 rolls around. And just 13 per cent of Newfoundlanders who are planning to buy are considering an electric vehicle. Both those numbers are the lowest in the country. Still, 47 per cent of Nova Scotians considering buying in the next year are thinking about electric options, according to the numbers gathered online by Logit Group and analyzed by Halifax-based Narrative Research. That compares to 41 per cent of Canadians contemplating a vehicle purchase within the next year, with 54 per cent of them considering going electric. 

“There’s still a high level of interest,” said Margaret Chapman, chief operating officer at Narrative Research.  

“I think half of people who are thinking about buying a vehicle thinking about electric is pretty significant. But I think it’s a little lower in Atlantic Canada compared to other parts of the country probably because the infrastructure isn’t quite what it might be elsewhere. And I think also it’s the availability of vehicles as well. Maybe it just hasn’t quite caught on here to the extent that it might have in, say, Ontario or B.C., where the highest level of interest is.” 

Provincial rebates
Provincial rebates also serve to create more interest, she said, citing New Brunswick's rebate program as an example in the region. 

“There’s a $7,500 rebate on top of the $5,000 you get from the feds in B.C. But in Nova Scotia there’s no provincial rebate,” Chapman said. “So I think that kind of thing actually is significant in whether you’re interested in buying an electric vehicle or not.” 

The survey was conducted online Nov. 11–13 with 1,231 Canadian adults. 

Of the people across Canada who said they were not considering an electric vehicle purchase, 55 per cent said a provincial rebate would make them more likely to consider one, she said.  

In Nova Scotia, that number drops to 43 per cent. 

Nova Scotia families have the lowest median after-tax income in the country, according to numbers released earlier this year.  

The national median in 2018 was $61,400, according to Statistics Canada. Nova Scotia was at the bottom of the pack with $52,200, up from $51,400 in 2017. 

So big price tags on electric vehicles might put them out of reach for many Nova Scotians, and a recent cost-focused survey found similar concerns nationwide. 

“I think it’s probably that combination of cost and infrastructure,” Chapman said. 

“But you saw this week in the financial update from the federal government that they’re putting $150 million into new charging station, so were some of that cash to be spread in Atlantic Canada, I’m sure there would be an increase in interest … The more charging stations around you see, you think ‘Alright, it might not be so hard to ensure that I don’t run out of power for my car.’ All of that stuff I think will start to pick up. But right now it is a little bit lagging in Atlantic Canada, and in Labrador infrastructure still lags despite a government push in N.L. to expand EVs.” 

'Simple dollars and cents'
The lack of a provincial government rebate here for electric vehicles definitely factors into the equation, said Sean O’Regan, president and chief executive officer of O'Regan's Automotive Group.  

“Where you see the highest adoption are in the provinces where there are large government rebates,” he said. “It’s a simple dollars and cents (thing). In Quebec, when you combine the rebates it’s up to over $10,000, if not $12,000, towards the car. If you can get that kind of a rebate on a car, I don’t know that it would matter much what it was – it would help sell it.” 

A lot of people who want to buy electric cars are trying to make a conscious decision about the environment, O’Regan said. 

While Nova Scotia Power is moving towards renewable energy, he points out that much of our electricity still comes from burning coal and other fossil fuels, and N.L. lags in energy efficiency as the region works to improve.  

“So the power that you get is not necessarily the cleanest of power,” O’Regan said. “The green advantage is not the same (in Nova Scotia as it is in provinces that produce a lot of hydro power).” 

Compared to five years ago, the charging infrastructure here is a lot better, he said. But it doesn’t compare well to provinces including Quebec and B.C., though Newfoundland recently completed its first fast-charging network for electric car owners. 

“Certainly (with) electric cars – we're selling more and more and more of them,” O'Regan said, noting the per centage would be in the single digits of his overall sales. “But you're starting from zero a few years ago.” 

The highest number of people looking at buying electric cars was in B.C., with 57 per cent of those looking at buying a car saying they’d go electric, and even in southern Alberta interest is growing; like Bob Dylan in 1965 at the Newport Folk Festival.  

“The trends move from west to east across Canada,” said Jeff Farwell, chief executive officer of the All EV Canada electric car store in Burnside.  

“I would use the example of the craft beer market. It started in B.C. about 15 years before it finally went crazy in Nova Scotia. And if you look at Vancouver right now there’s (electric vehicles) everywhere.” 

Expectations high
Farwell expects electric vehicle sales to take off faster in Atlantic Canada than the craft beer market. “A lot faster.” 

His company also sells used electric vehicles in Prince Edward Island and is making moves to set up in Moncton, N.B. 

He’s been talking to Nova Scotia’s Department of Energy and Mines about creating rebates here for new and used electric vehicles. 

 “I guess they’re interested, but nothing’s happened,” Farwell said.  

Electric vehicles require “a bit of a lifestyle change,” he said. 

“The misconception is it takes a lot longer to charge a vehicle if it’s electric and gas only takes me 10 minutes to fill up at the gas station,” Farwell said.  

“The reality is when I go home at night, I plug my vehicle in,” he said. “I get up in the morning and I unplug it and I never have to think about it. It takes two seconds.”  
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Nuclear Power for Net-Zero Grids anchors reliable baseload, integrating renewables with grid stability as solar, wind, and battery storage scale. Advanced reactors complement hydropower, curb natural gas reliance, and accelerate deep decarbonization of electricity systems.

Key Points

Uses nuclear baseload and advanced reactors to stabilize power grids and integrate higher shares of variable renewables.

✅ Provides firm, zero-carbon baseload for renewable-heavy grids

✅ Reduces natural gas dependence and peaker emissions

✅ Advanced reactors enhance safety, flexibility, and cost

Declining solar, wind, and battery technology costs are helping to grow the share of renewables in the world’s power mix to the point that governments are pledging net-zero emission electricity generation in two to three decades to fight global warming.

Yet, electricity grids will continue to require stable baseload to incorporate growing shares of renewable energy sources and ensure lights are on even when the sun doesn’t shine, or the wind doesn’t blow. Until battery technology evolves enough—and costs fall far enough—to allow massive storage and deployment of net-zero electricity to the grid, the systems will continue to need power from sources other than solar and wind.

And these will be natural gas and nuclear power, regardless of concerns about emissions from the fossil fuel natural gas and potential disasters at nuclear power facilities such as the ones in Chernobyl or Fukushima.

As natural gas is increasingly considered as just another fossil fuel, nuclear power generation provides carbon-free electricity to the countries that have it, even as debates over nuclear power’s outlook continue worldwide, and could be the key to ensuring a stable power grid capable of taking in growing shares of solar and wind power generation.

The United States, where nuclear energy currently provides more than half of the carbon-free electricity, is supporting the development of advanced nuclear reactors as part of the clean energy strategy.

But Europe, which has set a goal to reach carbon neutrality by 2050, could find itself with growing emissions from the power sector in a decade, as many nuclear reactors are slated for decommissioning and questions remain over whether its aging reactors can bridge the gap. The gap left by lost nuclear power is most easily filled by natural gas-powered electricity generation—and this, if it happens, could undermine the net-zero goals of the European Union (EU) and the bloc’s ambition to be a world leader in the fight against climate change.

U.S. Power Grid Will Need Nuclear For Net-Zero Emissions

A 2020 report from the University of California, Berkeley, said that rapidly declining solar, wind, and storage prices make it entirely feasible for the U.S. to meet 90 percent of its power needs from zero-emission energy sources by 2035 with zero increases in customer costs from today’s levels.

Still, natural gas-fired generation will be needed for 10 percent of America’s power needs. According to the report, in 2035 it would be possible that “during normal periods of generation and demand, wind, solar, and batteries provide 70% of annual generation, while hydropower and nuclear provide 20%.” Even with an exponential rise in renewable power generation, the U.S. grid will need nuclear power and hydropower to be stable with such a large share of solar and wind.

The U.S. Backs Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technology

The U.S. Department of Energy is funding programs of private companies under DOE’s new Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP) to showcase next-gen nuclear designs for U.S. deployment.

“Taking leadership in advanced technology is so important to the country’s future because nuclear energy plays such a key role in our clean energy strategy,” U.S. Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette said at the end of December when DOE announced it was financially backing five teams to develop and demonstrate advanced nuclear reactors in the United States.

“All of these projects will put the U.S. on an accelerated timeline to domestically and globally deploy advanced nuclear reactors that will enhance safety and be affordable to construct and operate,” Secretary Brouillette said.

According to Washington DC-based Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a policy organization of the nuclear technologies industry, nuclear energy provides nearly 55 percent of America’s carbon-free electricity. That is more than 2.5 times the amount generated by hydropower, nearly 3 times the amount generated by wind, and more than 12 times the amount generated by solar. Nuclear energy can help the United States to get to the deep carbonization needed to hit climate goals.

Europe Could See Rising Emissions Without Nuclear Power

While the United States is doubling down on efforts to develop advanced and cheaper nuclear reactors, including microreactors and such with new types of technology, Europe could be headed to growing emissions from the electricity sector as nuclear power facilities are scheduled to be decommissioned over the next decade and Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy, according to a Reuters analysis from last month.

In many cases, it will be natural gas that will come to the rescue to power grids to ensure grid stability and enough capacity during peak demand because solar and wind generation is variable and dependent on the weather.

For example, Germany, the biggest economy in Europe, is boosting its renewables targets, but it is also phasing out nuclear by next year, amid a nuclear option debate over climate strategy, while its deadline to phase out coal-fired generation is 2038—more than a decade later compared to phase-out plans in the UK and Italy, for example, where the deadline is the mid-2020s.

The UK, which left the EU last year, included support for nuclear power generation as one of the ten pillars in ‘The Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution’ unveiled in November.

The UK’s National Grid has issued several warnings about tight supply since the fall of 2020, due to low renewable output amid high demand.

“National Grid’s announcement underscores the urgency of investing in new nuclear capacity, to secure reliable, always-on, emissions-free power, alongside other zero-carbon sources. Otherwise, we will continue to burn gas and coal as a fallback and fall short of our net zero ambitions,” Tom Greatrex, Chief Executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, said in response to one of those warnings.

But it’s in the UK that one major nuclear power plant project has notoriously seen a delay of nearly a decade—Hinkley Point C, originally planned in 2007 to help UK households to “cook their 2017 Christmas turkeys”, is now set for start-up in the middle of the 2020s.

Nuclear power development and plant construction is expensive, but it could save the plans for low-carbon emission power generation in many developed economies, including in the United States.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News