Scientists make ultrathin superconducting films

SM-1A Nuclear Plant Decommissioning details the US Army Corps of Engineers' removal of the Fort Greely reactor, Cold War facility dismantling, environmental monitoring, remote-site power history, and timeline to 2026 under a deactivated nuclear program.

Key Points

Army Corps plan to dismantle Fort Greely's SM-1A reactor and complete decommissioning of remaining systems by 2026.

✅ Built for remote Arctic radar support during the Cold War

✅ High costs beat diesel; program later deemed impractical

✅ Reactor parts removed; residuals monitored; removal by 2026

The US Army Corps of Engineers has begun decommissioning Alaska’s only nuclear power plant, SM-1A, which is located at Fort Greely, even as new US reactors continue to take shape nationwide. The $17m plant closed in 1972 after ten years of sporadic operation. It was out of commission from 1967 to 1969 for extensive repairs. Much of has already been dismantled and sent for disposal, and the rest, which is encased in concrete, is now to be removed.

The plant was built as part of an experimental programme to determine whether nuclear facilities, akin to next-generation nuclear concepts, could be built and operated at remote sites more cheaply than diesel-fuelled plants.

"The main approach was to reduce significant fuel-transportation costs by having a nuclear reactor that could operate for long terms, a concept echoed in the NuScale SMR safety evaluation process, with just one nuclear core," Brian Hearty said. Hearty manages the Army Corps of Engineers’ Deactivated Nuclear Power Plant Program.

#google#

He said the Army built SM-1A in 1962 hoping to provide power reliably at remote Arctic radar sites, where in similarly isolated regions today new US coal plants may still be considered, intended to detect incoming missiles from the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. He added that the programme worked but not as well as Pentagon officials had hoped. While SM-1A could be built and operated in a cold and remote location, its upfront costs were much higher than anticipated, and it costs more to maintain than a diesel power plant. Moreover, the programme became irrelevant because of advances in Soviet rocket science and the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Hearty said the reactor was partially dismantled soon after it was shut down. “All of the fuel in the reactor core was removed and shipped back to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) for them to either reprocess or dispose of,” he noted. “The highly activated control and absorber rods were also removed and shipped back to the AEC.”

The SM-1A plant produced 1.8MWe and 20MWt, including steam, which was used to heat the post. Because that part of the system was still needed, Army officials removed most of the nuclear-power system and linked the heat and steam components to a diesel-fired boiler. However, several parts of the nuclear system remained, including the reactor pressure vessel and reactor coolant pumps. “Those were either kept in place, or they were cut off and laid down in the tall vapour-containment building there,” Hearty said. “And then they were grouted and concreted in place.” The Corps of Engineers wants to remove all that remains of the plant, but it is as yet unclear whether that will be feasible.

Meanwhile, monitoring for radioactivity around the facility shows that it remains at acceptable levels. “It would be safe to say there’s no threat to human health in the environment,” said Brenda Barber, project manager for the decommissioning. Work is still in its early stages and is due to be completed in 2026 at the earliest. Barber said the Corps awarded the $4.6m contract in December to a Virginia-based firm to develop a long-range plan for the project, similar in scope to large reactor refurbishment efforts elsewhere. Among other things, this will help officials determine how much of the SM-1A will remain after it’s decommissioned. “There will still be buildings there,” she said. “There will still be components of some of the old structure there that may likely remain.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

U.S. Energy Dominance envisions deregulation, oil and gas growth, LNG exports, pipelines, and geopolitical leverage, while facing OPEC pricing power, infrastructure bottlenecks, climate policy pressures, and accelerating renewables in global markets.

Key Points

U.S. policy to grow fossil fuel output and exports via deregulation, bolstering energy security, geopolitical influence.

✅ Deregulation to expand drilling, pipelines, and export capacity

✅ Exposed to OPEC pricing, global shocks, and cost competitiveness

✅ Faces infrastructure, ESG finance, and renewables transition risks

Former President Donald Trump has consistently advocated for “energy dominance” as a cornerstone of his energy policy. In his vision, the United States would leverage its abundant natural resources to achieve energy self-sufficiency, flood global markets with cheap energy, and undercut competitors like Russia and OPEC nations. However, while the rhetoric resonates with many Americans, particularly those in energy-producing states, the pursuit of energy dominance faces significant real-world challenges that could limit its feasibility and impact.

The Energy Dominance Vision

Trump’s energy dominance strategy revolves around deregulation, increased domestic production of oil and gas, and the rollback of climate-oriented restrictions. During his presidency, he emphasized opening federal lands to drilling, accelerating the approval of pipelines, and, through an executive order, boosting uranium and nuclear energy initiatives, as well as withdrawing from international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord. The goal was not only to meet domestic energy demands but also to establish the U.S. as a major exporter of fossil fuels, thereby reducing reliance on foreign energy sources.

This approach gained traction during Trump’s first term, with the U.S. achieving record levels of oil and natural gas production. Energy exports surged, making the U.S. a net energy exporter for the first time in decades. Yet, critics argue that this policy prioritizes short-term economic gains over long-term sustainability, while supporters believe it provides a roadmap for energy security and geopolitical leverage.

Market Realities

The energy market is complex, influenced by factors beyond the control of any single administration, with energy crisis impacts often cascading across sectors. While the U.S. has significant reserves of oil and gas, the global market sets prices. Even if the U.S. ramps up production, it cannot insulate itself entirely from price shocks caused by geopolitical instability, OPEC production cuts, or natural disasters.

For instance, despite record production in the late 2010s, American consumers faced volatile gasoline prices during an energy crisis driven by $5 gas and external factors like tensions in the Middle East and fluctuating global demand. Additionally, the cost of production in the U.S. is often higher than in countries with more easily accessible reserves, such as Saudi Arabia. This limits the competitive advantage of U.S. energy producers in global markets.

Infrastructure and Environmental Concerns

A major obstacle to achieving energy dominance is infrastructure. Expanding oil and gas production requires investments in pipelines, export terminals, and refineries. However, these projects often face delays due to regulatory hurdles, legal challenges, and public opposition. High-profile pipeline projects like Keystone XL and Dakota Access have become battlegrounds between industry proponents and environmental activists, and cross-border dynamics such as support for Canadian energy projects amid tariff threats further complicate permitting, highlighting the difficulty of reconciling energy expansion with environmental and community concerns.

Moreover, the transition to cleaner energy sources is accelerating globally, with many countries committing to net-zero emissions targets. This trend could reduce the demand for fossil fuels in the long run, potentially leaving U.S. producers with stranded assets if global markets shift more quickly than anticipated.

Geopolitical Implications

Trump’s energy dominance strategy also hinges on the belief that U.S. energy exports can weaken adversaries like Russia and Iran. While increased American exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe have reduced the continent’s reliance on Russian gas, achieving total energy independence for allies is a monumental task. Europe’s energy infrastructure, designed for pipeline imports from Russia, cannot be overhauled overnight to accommodate LNG shipments.

Additionally, the influence of major producers like Saudi Arabia and the OPEC+ alliance remains significant, even as shifts in U.S. policy affect neighbors; in Canada, some viewed Biden as better for the energy sector than alternatives. These countries can adjust production levels to influence prices, sometimes undercutting U.S. efforts to expand its market share.

The Renewable Energy Challenge

The growing focus on renewable energy adds another layer of complexity. Solar, wind, and battery storage technologies are becoming increasingly cost-competitive with fossil fuels. Many U.S. states and private companies are investing heavily in clean energy to align with consumer preferences and global trends, amid arguments that stepping away from fossil fuels can bolster national security. This shift could dampen the domestic demand for oil and gas, challenging the long-term viability of Trump’s energy dominance agenda.

Moreover, international pressure to address climate change could limit the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure. Financial institutions and investors are increasingly reluctant to fund projects perceived as environmentally harmful, further constraining growth in the sector.

While Trump’s call for U.S. energy dominance taps into a desire for economic growth and energy security, it faces numerous challenges. Global market dynamics, infrastructure bottlenecks, environmental concerns, and the transition to renewable energy all pose significant barriers to achieving the ambitious vision.

For the U.S. to navigate these challenges effectively, a balanced approach that incorporates both traditional energy sources and investments in clean energy is likely needed. Striking this balance will require careful policymaking that considers not just immediate economic gains but also long-term sustainability and global competitiveness.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Managed Decline of Fossil Fuels aligns oil phaseout with carbon neutrality, leveraging ZEV adoption, solar and wind growth, severance taxes, drilling setbacks, fracking oversight, CARB rules, and CalGEM regulation to deliver a just transition.

Key Points

California's strategy to phase out oil and gas while meeting carbon-neutral goals through policy, regulation, and equity.

✅ Severance taxes fund clean energy and workforce transition.

✅ Setbacks restrict drilling near schools, homes, and hospitals.

✅ CARB and CalGEM tighten fracking oversight and ZEV targets.

California’s energy past is on a collision course with its future. Think of major oil-producing U.S. states, and Texas, Alaska or North Dakota probably come to mind. Although its position relative to other states has been falling for 20 years, California remains the seventh-largest oil-producing state, with 162 million barrels of crude coming up in 2018, translating to tax revenue and jobs.

At the same time, California leads the nation in solar rooftops and electric vehicles on the road by a wide margin and ranking fifth in installed wind capacity. Clean energy is the state’s future, and the state is increasingly exporting its energy policies across the West, influencing regional markets. By law, California must have 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045, and an executive order signed by former Governor Jerry Brown calls for economywide carbon-neutrality by the same year.

So how can the state reconcile its divergent energy path? How should clean-energy-minded lawmakers wind down California’s oil and gas sector in a way that aligns with the state’s long-term climate targets while providing a just transition for the industry’s workforce?

Any efforts to reduce fossil fuel supply must run parallel to aggressive demand-reduction measures such as California’s push to have 5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2030, said Ethan Elkind, director of Berkeley Law's climate program, especially amid debates over keeping the lights on without fossil fuels in the near term. After all, if oil demand in California remains strong, crude from outside the state will simply fill the void.

“If we don’t stop using it, then that supply is going to get here, even if it’s not produced in-state,” Elkind said in an interview.

Lawmakers have a number of options for policies that would draw down and eventually phase out fossil fuel production in California, according to a new report from the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment at the UC Berkeley School of Law, co-authored by Elkind and Ted Lamm.

They could impose a higher price on California's oil production through a "severance" tax or carbon-based fee, with the revenue directed to measures that wean the state from fossil fuels. (California, alone among major oil-producing states, does not have an oil severance tax.)

Lawmakers could establish a minimum drilling setback from schools, playgrounds, homes and other sensitive sites. They could push the state's oil and gas regulator, the California Geologic Energy Management Division, to prioritize environmental and climate concerns.

A major factor holding lawmakers back is, of course, politics, including debates over blackouts and climate policy that shape public perception. Given the state’s clean-energy ambitions, it might surprise non-Californians that the oil and gas industry is one of the Golden State’s most powerful special interest groups.

Overcoming a "third-rail issue" in California politics
The Western States Petroleum Association, the sector’s trade group in California's capital of Sacramento, spent $8.8 million lobbying state policymakers in 2019, more than any other interest group. Over the last five years, the group, which cultivates both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, has spent $43.3 million on lobbying, nearly double the total of the second-largest lobbying spender.

Despite former Governor Brown’s reputation as a climate champion, critics say he was unwilling to forcefully take on the oil and gas industry. However, things may take a different turn under Brown's successor, Governor Gavin Newsom.

In May 2019, when Newsom released California's midyear budget revision (PDF), the governor's office noted the need for "careful study and planning to decrease demand and supply of fossil fuels, while managing the decline in a way that is economically responsible and sustainable.”

Related reliability concerns surfaced as blackouts revealed lapses in power supply across the state.

Writing for the advocacy organization Oil Change International, David Turnbull observed, “This may mark the first time that a sitting governor in California has recognized the need to embark upon a managed decline of fossil fuel supply in the state.”

“It is significant because typically this is one of those third-rail issues, kind of a hot potato that governors don’t even want to touch at all — including Jerry Brown, to a large extent, who really focused much more on the demand side of fuel consumption in the state,” said Berkeley Law’s Elkind.

California's revised budget included $1.5 million for a Transition to a Carbon-Neutral Economy report, which is being prepared by University of California researchers for the California Environmental Protection Agency. In an email, a CalEPA spokesperson said the report is due by the end of this year.

Winding down oil and gas production
Since the release of the revised budget last May, Newsom has taken initial steps to increase oversight of the oil and gas industry. In July 2019, he fired the state’s top oil and gas regulator for issuing too many permits to hydraulically fracture, or frack, wells.

Later in the year, he appointed new leadership to oversee oil and gas regulation in the state, and he signed a package of bills that placed constraints on fossil fuel production. The next month, Newsom halted the approval of new fracking operations until pending permits could be reviewed by a panel of scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) did not resume issuing fracking permit approvals until April of this year.

Not all steps have been in the same direction. This month Newsom dropped a proposal to add dozens of analysts, engineers and geologists at CalGEM, citing COVID-related economic pressure. The move would have increased regulatory oversight on fossil fuel producers and was opposed by the state's oil industry.

Ultimately, more durable measures to wind down fossil fuel supply and demand will require new legislation, even as regulators weigh whether the state needs more power plants to maintain reliability.

A 2019 bill by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance), AB 345, would have codified the minimum 2,500-foot setback for new oil and gas wells. However, before the final vote in the Assembly, the bill’s buffer requirement was dropped and replaced with a requirement for CalGEM “to consider a setback distance of 2,500 feet.” The bill passed the Assembly in January over "no" votes from several moderate Democrats; it now awaits action in the Senate.

A bill previously introduced by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), AB 1745, didn’t even make it that far. Ting’s bill would have required that all new passenger cars registered in the state after January 1, 2040, be zero-emission vehicles (ZEV). The bill died in committee without a vote in April 2018.

But the backing of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), one of the world's most powerful air-quality regulators, could change the political conversation. In March, CARB chair Mary Nichols said she now supports consideration of California establishing a 100 percent zero-emission vehicle sales target by 2030, as policymakers also consider a revamp of electricity rates to clean the grid.

“In the past, I’ve been skeptical about whether that would do more harm than good in terms of the backlash by dealers and others against something that sounded so un-California like,” Nichols said during an online event. “But as time has gone on, I’ve become more convinced that we need to send the longer-term signal about where we’re headed.”

Another complicating factor for California’s political leaders is the lack of a willing federal partner — at least in the short term — in winding down oil and gas production, amid warnings about a looming electricity shortage that could pressure the grid.

Under the Trump administration, the Bureau of Land Management, which oversees 15 million acres of federal land in California, has pushed to open more than 1 million acres of public and private land across eight counties in Central California to fracking. In January 2020, California filed a federal lawsuit to block the move.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Western Washington Bomb Cyclone unleashed gale-force winds, torrential rain, and coastal flooding, causing massive power outages from Seattle to Tacoma; storm surge, downed trees, and blocked roads hindered emergency response and infrastructure repairs.

Key Points

A rapidly deepening storm with severe winds, rain, flooding, and major power outages across Western Washington.

✅ Rapid barometric pressure drop intensified the system

✅ Gale-force winds downed trees and power lines

✅ Coastal flooding and storm surge disrupted transport

A powerful "bomb cyclone" recently hit Western Washington, causing widespread destruction across the region. The intense storm left more than half a million residents without power, similar to B.C. bomb cyclone outages seen to the north, with outages affecting communities from Seattle to Olympia. This weather phenomenon, marked by a rapid drop in atmospheric pressure, unleashed severe wind gusts, heavy rain, and flooding, causing significant disruption to daily life.

The bomb cyclone, which is a rapidly intensifying storm, typically features a sharp drop in barometric pressure over a short period of time. This creates extreme weather conditions, including gale-force winds, torrential rain, and coastal flooding, as seen during California storm impacts earlier in the season. In Western Washington, the storm struck just as the region was beginning to prepare for the winter season, catching many off guard with its strength and unpredictability.

The storm's impact was immediately felt as high winds downed trees, power lines, and other infrastructure. By the time the worst of the storm had passed, utility companies had reported widespread power outages, with more than 500,000 customers losing electricity. The outages were particularly severe in areas like Seattle, Tacoma, and the surrounding communities. Crews worked tirelessly in difficult conditions to restore power, but many residents faced extended outages, underscoring US grid climate vulnerabilities that complicate recovery efforts, with some lasting for days due to the scope of the damage.

The power outages were accompanied by heavy rainfall, leading to localized flooding. Roads were inundated, making it difficult for first responders and repair crews to reach affected areas. Emergency services were stretched thin as they dealt with downed trees, blocked roads, and flooded neighborhoods. In some areas, floodwaters reached homes, forcing people to evacuate. In addition, several schools were closed, and public transportation services were temporarily halted, leaving commuters stranded and businesses unable to operate.

As the storm moved inland, its effects continued to be felt. Western Washington’s coastal regions were hammered by high waves and storm surges, further exacerbating the damage. The combination of wind and rain also led to hazardous driving conditions, prompting authorities to advise people to stay off the roads unless absolutely necessary.

While power companies worked around the clock to restore electricity, informed by grid resilience strategies that could help utilities prepare for future events, challenges persisted. Fallen trees and debris blocked access to repair sites, and the sheer number of outages made it difficult for crews to restore power quickly. Some customers were left in the dark for days, forced to rely on generators, candles, and other makeshift solutions. The storm's intensity left a trail of destruction, requiring significant resources to address the damages and rebuild critical infrastructure.

In addition to the immediate impacts on power and transportation, the bomb cyclone raised important concerns about climate change and the increasing frequency of extreme weather events. Experts note that storms like these are becoming more common, with rapid intensification leading to more severe consequences and compounding pressures such as extreme-heat electricity costs for households. As the planet warms, scientists predict that such weather systems will continue to grow in strength, posing greater challenges to cities and regions that are not always prepared for such extreme events.

In the aftermath of the storm, local governments and utility companies faced the daunting task of not only restoring services but also assessing the broader impact of the storm on communities. Many areas, especially those hit hardest by flooding and power outages, will require substantial recovery efforts. The devastation of the bomb cyclone highlighted the vulnerability of infrastructure in the face of rapidly changing weather patterns and water availability, as seen in BC Hydro drought adaptations nearby, and reinforced the need for greater resilience in the face of future storms.

The storm's impact on the Pacific Northwest is a reminder of the power of nature and the importance of preparedness. As Western Washington recovers, there is a renewed focus on strengthening infrastructure, including expanded renewable electricity to diversify supply, improving emergency response systems, and ensuring that communities are better equipped to handle the challenges posed by increasingly severe weather events. For now, residents remain hopeful that the worst is behind them and are working together to rebuild and prepare for whatever future storms may bring.

The bomb cyclone has left an indelible mark on Western Washington, but it also serves as a call to action for better preparedness, more robust infrastructure, and a greater focus on combating climate change to mitigate the impact of such extreme weather in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Hydro One Avista takeover rejection signals Washington regulators blocking a utility acquisition over governance risk, EPS dilution, and balance sheet impact, as investors applaud share price gains and a potential US$103M break fee.

Key Points

A regulator-led block of Hydro One's Avista bid, citing EPS dilution, balance sheet risk, and governance concerns.

✅ Washington denies approval; Idaho, Oregon decisions pending.

✅ EPS dilution avoided; balance sheet strength preserved.

✅ Shares rise 5.7%; US$103M break fee if deal collapses.

Opposition politicians may not like it but investors are applauding the rejection of Hydro One Ltd.'s $6.7-billion Avista takeover of U.S.-based utility Avista Corp.

Shares in the power company controlled by the Ontario government, which has also proposed a bill redesign to simplify statements, closed at $21.53, up $1.16 or 5.7 per cent, on the Toronto Stock Exchange on Thursday.

On Wednesday, Washington State regulators said they would not allow Ontario's largest utility to buy Avista over concerns about political risk that the provincial government, which owns 47 per cent of Hydro One's shares, might meddle in Avista's operations.

Financial analysts had predicted investors would welcome the news because the deal, announced in July 2017, would have eroded earnings per share and weakened Hydro One's balance sheet.

"The Washington regulator's denial of Avista is a positive development for the shares, in our opinion," said analyst Ben Pham of BMO Capital Markets in a report on Wednesday.

"While this may sound odd, we note that the Avista deal is expected to be EPS dilutive and result in a weaker balance sheet for (Hydro One). Not acquiring Avista and refocusing its attention on its core Ontario franchise ... along with related interprovincial arrangements such as the Ontario-Quebec electricity deal under discussion would likely be viewed positively if the deal ultimately breaks."

Decisions are yet to come from Idaho and Oregon state regulators, but Washington was probably the most important as the state contains customers making up about 60 per cent of Avista's rate base, Pham said.

He pointed out that a US$103-million break fee is to be paid to Avista if the deal collapses due to a failure to obtain regulatory approval.

CIBC analyst Robert Catellier raised his 12-month Hydro One target price by 25 cents and said many shareholders will feel "relieved" that the deal had failed.

He warned that the company's earnings power could deteriorate as the province seeks to reduce power bills by 12 per cent, despite an Ontario-Quebec hydro deal that may not lower costs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Fukushima Hydrogen Energy System leverages a 10,000 kW H2 production hub for grid balancing, demand response, and renewable integration, delivering hydrogen supply across Tohoku while supporting storage, forecasting, and flexible power management.

Key Points

A 10,000 kW H2 project in Namie for grid balancing, renewable integration, and regional hydrogen supply.

✅ 10,000 kW H2 production hub in Namie, Fukushima

✅ Balances renewable-heavy grids via demand response

✅ Supported by NEDO; partners Toshiba, Tohoku Electric, Iwatani

Toshiba Corporation, Tohoku Electric Power Co. and Iwatani Corporation have announced they will construct and operate a large-scale hydrogen (H2) energy system in Japan, based on a 10,000 kilowat class H2 production facility, which reflects advances in PEM hydrogen R&D worldwide.

The system, which will be built in Namie-Cho, Fukushima, will use H2 to offset grid loads and deliver H2 to locations in Tohoku and beyond, while complementary approaches like power-to-gas storage in Europe demonstrate broader storage options, and will seek to demonstrate the advantages of H2 as a solution in grid balancing and as a H2 gas supply.

The product has won a positive evaluation from Japan’s New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organisation (NEDO), and its continued support for the transition to the technical demonstration phase. The practical effectiveness of the large-scale system will be determined by verification testing in financial year 2020, even as interest grows in nuclear beyond electricity for complementary services.

The main objectives of the partners are to promote expanded use of renewable energy in the electricity grid, including UK offshore wind investment by Japanese utilities, in order to balance supply and demand and process load management; and to realise a new control system that optimises H2 production and supply with demand forecasting for H2.

Hiroyuki Ota, General Manager of Toshiba’s Energy Systems and Solutions Company, said, “Through this project, Toshiba will continue to provide comprehensive H2 solutions, encompassing all processes from the production to utilisation of hydrogen.”

Manager of Tohoku Electric Power Co., Ltd, Mitsuhiro Matsumoto, added, “We will study how to use H2 energy systems to stabilize electricity grids with the aim of increasing the use of renewable energy and contributing to Fukushima.”

Moriyuki Fujimoto, General Manager of Iwatani Corporation, commented, “Iwatani considers that this project will contribute to the early establishment of a H2 economy that draws on our experience in the transportation, storage and supply of industrial H2, and the construction and operation of H2stations.”

Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry’s ‘Long-term Energy Supply and Demand Outlook’ targets increasing the share of renewable energy in Japan’s overall power generation mix from 10.7% in 2013 to 22-24% by 2030. Since output from renewable energy sources is intermittent and fluctuates widely with the weather and season, grid management requires another compensatory power source, as highlighted by a near-blackout event in Japan. The large hydrogen energy system is expected to provide a solution for grids with a high penetration of renewables.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News