Canada's nuclear power play

Energy Vault Gravity Storage uses crane-stacked concrete blocks to deliver long-duration, grid-scale renewable energy; a SoftBank Vision Fund-backed, pumped-hydro analog enabling baseload power and a lithium-ion alternative with proprietary control algorithms.

Key Points

Gravity-based cranes stack blocks to store and dispatch power for hours, enabling grid-scale, low-cost storage.

✅ 4 MW/35 MWh modules; ~9-hour duration

✅ Estimated $200-$250/kWh; lower LCOE than lithium-ion

✅ Backed by SoftBank Vision Fund; Cemex and Tata support

Energy Vault, the Swiss-U.S. startup that says it can store and discharge electrical energy through a super-sized concrete-and-steel version of a child’s erector set, has landed a $110 million investment from Japan’s SoftBank Vision Fund to take its technology to commercial scale.

Energy Vault, a spinout of Pasadena-based incubator Idealab and co-founded by Idealab CEO and billionaire investor Bill Gross, unstealthed in November with its novel approach to using gravity to store energy.

Simply put, Energy Vault plans to build storage plants — dubbed “Evies” — consisting of a 35-story crane with six arms, surrounded by a tower consisting of thousands of concrete bricks, each weighing about 35 tons.

This plant will “store” energy by using electricity to run the cranes that lift bricks from the ground and stack them atop of the tower, and “discharge” energy by reversing that process. It’s a mechanical twist on the world’s most common energy storage technology, pumped hydro, which “stores” energy by pumping water uphill, and lets it fall to spin turbines when electricity is needed, even as California funds 100-hour long-duration storage pilots to expand flexibility worldwide.

But behind this simplicity lies some heavy-duty software to orchestrate the cranes and blocks, with a "unique stack of proprietary algorithms" to balance energy supply and demand, volatility, grid stability, weather elements and other variables.

CEO and co-founder Robert Piconi said in a November interview with GTM that the standard array would deliver 4 megawatts/35 megawatt-hours of storage, which translates to nearly 9 hours of duration — the equivalent of building the tower to its height, and then reducing it to ground level. It can be built on-site in partnership with crane manufacturers and recycled concrete material, and can run fully automated for decades with little deterioration, he said.

And the cost, which Piconi pegged in the $200 to $250 per kilowatt-hour range, with room to decline further, is roughly 50 percent below the upfront price of the conventional storage market today, and 80 percent below it on levelized cost, he said, a trend utilities see benefits in as they plan resources.

The result, according to Wednesday’s statement, is a technology that could allow “renewables to deliver baseload power for less than the cost of fossil fuels 24 hours a day,” in applications such as community microgrids serving low-income housing.

Wednesday’s announcement builds on a recent investment from Mexico's Cemex Ventures, the corporate venture capital unit of building materials giant Cemex, along with a promise of deployment support from Cemex's strategic network, and also follows project financing for a California green hydrogen microgrid led by the company. Piconi said in November that the company had sufficient investment from two funding rounds to carry it through initial customer deployments, though he declined to disclose figures.

This is the first energy storage investment for Vision Fund, the $100 billion venture fund set up by SoftBank founder Masayoshi Son. While large by startup standards, it’s in keeping with the capital costs that Energy Vault will face in scaling up its technology to meet its commitments, amid mounting demand in regions like Ontario energy storage that face supply crunches. Those include a 35 megawatt-hour order with Tata Power Company, the energy-producing arm of the Indian industrial conglomerate, first unveiled in November, as well as plans to demonstrate its first storage tower in northern Italy in 2019.

For Vision Fund, it’s also an unusual choice for a storage investment, given that the vast majority of venture capital in the industry today is being directed toward lithium-ion batteries, and even Mercedes-Benz energy storage ventures targeting the U.S. market. Lithium-ion batteries are limited in terms of how many hours they can provide cost-effectively, with about 4 hours being seen as the limit today.

The search for long-duration energy storage has driven investment into flow battery technologies such as grid-scale vanadium systems deployed on utility networks, compressed-air energy storage and variations on gravity-based storage, including a previous startup backed by Gross and Idealab, Energy Cache, whose idea of using a ski lift carrying buckets of gravel up a hill to store energy petered out with a 50-kilowatt pilot project.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Hydro One-Avista Merger outlines a utility acquisition shaped by Washington regulators, Colstrip coal plant depreciation, and plans for renewables, clean energy, and emissions cuts, while Montana reviews implications for jobs, ratepayers, and a 2027 closure.

Key Points

A utility deal setting Colstrip depreciation and renewables, without committing to an early coal plant closure.

✅ Washington sets 2027 depreciation for Colstrip units

✅ Montana reviews jobs, ratepayer impacts, community fund

✅ Avista seeks renewables; no binding shutdown commitment

The Washington power company Hydro One is buying will be ready to close its huge coal-fired generating station ahead of schedule, thanks to conditions put on the corporate merger by state regulators there.

Not that we actually plan to do that, the company is telling other regulators in Montana, where coal unit retirements are under debate, the huge coal-fired generating station in question employs hundreds of people. We’ll be in the coal business for a good long time yet.

Hydro One, in which the Ontario government now owns a big minority stake, is still working on its purchase of Avista, a private power utility based in Spokane. The $6.7-billion deal, which Hydro One announced in July, includes a 15 per cent share in two of the four generating units in a coal plant in Colstrip, Montana, one of the biggest in the western United States. Avista gets most of its electricity from hydro dams and gas but uses the Colstrip plant when demand for power is high and water levels at its dams are low.

#google#

Colstrip’s a town of fewer than 2,500 people whose industries are the power plant and the open-pit mines that feed it about 10 million tonnes of coal a year. Two of Colstrip’s generators, older ones Avista doesn’t have any stake in, are closing in 2022. The other two will be all that keep the town in business.

In Washington, they don’t like the coal plant and its pollution. In Montana, the future of Colstrip is a much bigger concern. The companies have to satisfy regulators in both places that letting Hydro One buy Avista is in the public interest.

Ontario proudly closed the last of our coal plants in 2014 and outlawed new ones as environmental menaces, and Alberta's coal phase-out is now slated to finish by 2023. When Hydro One said it was buying Avista, which makes about $100 million in profit a year, Premier Kathleen Wynne said she hoped Ontario’s “value system” would spread to Avista’s operations.

The settlement is “an important step towards bringing together two historic companies,” Hydro One’s chief executive Mayo Schmidt said in announcing it.

The deal has approval from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission staff but is subject to a vote by the group’s three commissioners. It doesn’t commit Avista to closing anything at Colstrip or selling its share. But Avista and Hydro One will budget as if the Colstrip coal burners will close in 2027, instead of running into the 2040s as their owners had once planned, a timeline that echoes debates over the San Juan Generating Station in New Mexico.

In accounting terms, they’ll depreciate the value of their share of the plant to zero over the next nine years, reflecting what they say is the end of the plant’s “useful life.” Another of Colstrip’s owners, Puget Sound Energy, has previously agreed with Washington regulators that it’ll budget for a Colstrip closure in 2027 as well.

Avista and Hydro One will look for sources of 50 megawatts of renewable electricity, including independent power projects where feasible, in the next four years and another 90 megawatts to supplement Avista’s supply once the Colstrip plant eventually closes, they promise in Washington. They’ll put $3 million into a “community transition fund” for Colstrip.

The money will come from the companies’ profits and cash, the agreement says. “Hydro One will not seek cost recovery for such funds from ratepayers in Ontario,” it says specifically.

“Ontario has always been a global leader in the transition away from dirty coal power and towards clean energy,” said Doug Howell, an anti-coal campaigner with the Sierra Club, which is a party to the agreement. “This settlement continues that tradition, paving the way for the closure of the largest single source of climate pollution in the American West by 2027, if not earlier.”

Montanans aren’t as thrilled. That state has its own public services commission, doing its own examination of the corporate merger, which has asked Hydro One and Avista to explain in detail why they want to write off the value of the Colstrip burners early. The City of Colstrip has filed a petition saying it wants in on Montana hearings because “the potential closure of (Avista’s units) would be devastating to our community.”

Don’t get too worked up, an Avista vice-president urged the Montana commission just before Easter.

“Just because an asset is depreciated does not mean that one would otherwise remove that asset from service if the asset is still performing as intended,” Jason Thackston testified in a session that dealt only with what the deal with Washington state would mean to Colstrip. We’re talking strictly about an accounting manoeuvre, not an operational commitment.

Six joint owners will have to agree to close the Colstrip generators and there’s “no other tacit understanding or unstated agreement” to do that, he said.

Besides Washington and Montana, state regulators in Idaho, including those overseeing the Idaho Power settlement process, Alaska and Oregon and multiple federal authorities have to sign off on the deal before it can happen. Hydro One hopes it’ll be done in the second half of this year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Clean Energy Industry Support includes tax credits, refundability, safe harbor extensions, EV incentives, and stimulus measures to stabilize renewable energy projects, protect the workforce, and ensure financing continuity during economic recovery.

Key Points

Policies and funding to stabilize renewables, protect jobs, and extend tax incentives for workforce continuity.

✅ Extend PTC/ITC and remove phase-outs to sustain projects

✅ Enable direct pay or refundability to unlock financing

✅ Preserve safe harbor timelines disrupted by supply chains

U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) led 17 Senate colleagues, as the Senate moves to modernize public-land renewables, in sending a letter calling on Congress to include support for the United States' clean energy industry and workforce in any economic aid packages.

"As Congress takes steps to ensure that our nation's workforce is prepared to emerge stronger from the coronavirus health and economic crisis, we must act to shore up clean energy businesses and workers who are uniquely impacted by the crisis, echoing a power-sector call for action from industry groups," said the senators. "This action, which has precedent in prior financial recovery efforts, could take several forms, including tax credit extensions or removal of the current phase-out schedule, direct payment or refundability, or extensions of safe harbor continuity."

"We need to make sure that any package protects workers and helps families stay afloat in these challenging times. Providing support to the clean energy industry will give much-needed certainty and confidence, as the sector targets a market majority, for those workers that they will be able to keep their paychecks and their jobs in this critical industry," the senators also said.

In addition to Senator Cortez Masto, the letter was also signed by Senators Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.).

Dear Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Wyden:

As Congress takes steps to ensure that our nation's workforce is prepared to emerge stronger from the coronavirus health and economic crisis, we must act to shore up clean energy businesses and workers who are uniquely impacted by the crisis, with wind investments at risk amid the pandemic. This action, which has precedent in prior financial recovery efforts, could take several forms, including tax credit extensions or removal of the current phase-out schedule, direct payment or refundability, or extensions of safe harbor continuity.

First and foremost, we need to take care of workers' health and immediate needs to stay in their homes and provide for their families, and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act is a critical down payment. Now, we must make sure the workforce has jobs to return to and that employers remain able to pay for critical benefits like paid sick and family leave, healthcare, and Unemployment Insurance.

The renewable energy industry employs over 800,000 people across every state in the United States. This industry and its workers could suffer significant harms as a result of the coronavirus emergency and resulting financial impact. Renewable energy businesses are already seeing project cancellations or delays, as the Covid-19 crisis hits solar and wind across the sector, with the solar industry reporting delays of 30 percent. Likewise, the energy efficiency sector is susceptible to similar impacts. As the coronavirus pandemic intensifies in the United States, that rate of delay or cancellations will only continue to skyrocket. Global and domestic supply chains are already facing chaotic changes, with equipment delays of three to four months for parts of the industry. A major collapse in financing is all but certain as investment firms' profits turn to losses and capital is suddenly unavailable for large labor-intensive investments.

To ensure that we do not lose years of progress on clean energy and the source of employment for tens of thousands of renewable energy workers, Congress should look to previous relief packages as an example for how to support this sector and the broader American economy. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (also known as the Recovery Act or ARRA) provided over $90 billion in funding for clean energy and grid modernization, along with emergency relief programs. Specifically, ARRA provided immediate funding streams like the 1603 Cash Grant program for renewables and the 30 percent clean energy manufacturing tax credit to give immediate relief for the clean energy industry. As Congress develops this new package, it should consider these immediate relief programs for the renewable and clean energy industry, especially as analyses suggest green energy could drive Covid-19 recovery at scale. This could include direct payment or refundability, extensions of safe harbor continuity, tax credit extensions, electric vehicle credit expansion, or removal of the current phase-out schedules for the clean energy industry.

We need to make sure that any package protects workers and helps families stay afloat in these challenging times. Providing support to the clean energy industry will give much-needed certainty and confidence for those workers that they will be able to keep their paychecks and their jobs in this critical industry.

These strategies to provide assistance to the clean energy industry must be included in any financial recovery discussions, particularly if the Trump Administration continues its push to aid the oil industry, even as some advocate a total fossil fuel lockdown to accelerate climate action. We appreciate your consideration and collaboration as we do everything in our power to quickly recover from this health and economic emergency.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Ukraine Nuclear Plant Ownership Proposal outlines U.S. management of Ukrainian reactors amid the Russia-Ukraine war, citing nuclear safety, energy security, and IAEA oversight; Kyiv rejects ownership transfer, especially regarding Zaporizhzhia under Russian control.

Key Points

U.S. control of Ukraine's nuclear plants for safety; Kyiv rejects transfer, citing sovereignty risks at Zaporizhzhia.

✅ U.S. proposal to manage Ukraine's reactors amid war

✅ Kyiv refuses ownership transfer; open to investment

✅ Zaporizhzhia under Russian control raises safety risks

In the midst of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed a controversial idea: Ukraine should give its nuclear power plants to the United States for safekeeping and management. This suggestion came during a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, wherein Trump expressed the belief that American ownership of these nuclear plants could offer them the best protection amid the ongoing war. But Kyiv, while open to foreign support, has firmly rejected the idea of transferring ownership, especially as the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant remains under Russian occupation.

Ukraine’s nuclear energy infrastructure has always been a vital component of its power generation. Before the war, the country’s four nuclear plants supplied nearly half of its electricity. As Russia's military forces target Ukraine's energy infrastructure, including power plants and coal mines, international watchdogs like the IAEA have warned of nuclear risks as these nuclear facilities have become crucial to maintaining the nation’s energy stability. The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, has attracted international concern due to its size and the ongoing threat of a potential nuclear disaster.

Trump’s Proposal and Ukraine’s Response

Trump’s proposal of U.S. ownership came as a response to the ongoing threats posed by Russia’s occupation of the Zaporizhzhia plant. Trump argued that the U.S., with its expertise in running nuclear power plants, could safeguard these facilities from further damage and potential nuclear accidents. However, Zelenskyy quickly clarified that the discussion was only focused on the Zaporizhzhia plant, which is currently under Russian control. The Ukrainian president emphasized that Kyiv would not entertain the idea of permanently transferring ownership of its nuclear plants, even though they would welcome investment in their restoration and modernization, particularly after the war.

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant has been a focal point of geopolitical tensions since Russia's occupation in 2022. Despite being in "cold shutdown" to prevent further risk of explosions, the facility remains a major concern due to its potential to cause a nuclear disaster. Ukrainian officials, along with international observers, have raised alarm about the safety risks posed by the plant, including mines at Zaporizhzhia reported by UN watchdogs, which is situated in a war zone and under the control of Russian forces who are reportedly neglecting proper safety protocols.

The Fear of a Nuclear Provocation

Ukrainians have expressed concerns that Trump’s proposal could embolden Russia to escalate tensions further, even as a potential agreement on power-plant attacks has been discussed by some parties. Some fear that any attempt to reclaim the plant by Ukraine could trigger a Russian provocation, including a deliberate attack on the plant, which would have catastrophic consequences for both Ukraine and the broader region. The analogy is drawn with the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam, which Ukraine accuses Russia of sabotaging, an act that severely disrupted water supplies to the Zaporizhzhia plant. Ukrainian military officials, including Ihor Romanenko, a former deputy head of Ukraine’s armed forces, warned that Trump’s suggestion might be an exploitation of Ukraine’s vulnerable position in the ongoing war.

Despite these fears, there are some voices within Ukraine, including former employees of the Zaporizhzhia plant, who believe that a deliberate attack by Russian forces is unlikely. They argue that the Russian military needs the plant in functioning condition for future negotiations, with Russia building new power lines to reactivate the site as part of that calculus, and any damage could reduce its value in such exchanges. However, the possibility of Russian negligence or mismanagement remains a significant risk.

The Strategic Role of Ukraine's Nuclear Plants

Ukraine's nuclear plants were a cornerstone of the country’s energy sector long before the conflict began. In recent years, as Ukraine lost access to coal resources in the Donbas region due to Russian occupation, nuclear power became even more vital, alongside a growing focus on wind power to improve resilience. The country’s reliance on these plants grew as Russia launched a sustained campaign to destroy Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, including attacks on nuclear power stations.

The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, holds strategic importance not only due to its size but also because of its location in southeastern Ukraine, an area that has been at the heart of the conflict. Despite being in Russian hands, the plant’s reactors have been safely shut down, reducing the immediate risk of a nuclear explosion. However, the plant’s future remains uncertain, as Russia’s long-term control over it could disrupt Ukraine’s energy security for years to come.

Wider Concerns About Aging Nuclear Infrastructure

Beyond the geopolitical tensions, there are broader concerns about the aging infrastructure of Ukraine's nuclear power plants. International watchdogs, including the environmentalist group Bankwatch, have criticized these facilities as “zombie reactors” due to their outdated designs and safety risks. Experts have called for Ukraine to decommission some of these reactors, fearing that they are increasingly unsafe, especially in the context of a war.

However, Ukrainian officials, including Petro Kotin, head of Energoatom (Ukraine's state-owned nuclear energy company), argue that these reactors are still functional and critical to Ukraine's energy needs. The ongoing conflict, however, complicates efforts to modernize and secure these facilities, which are increasingly vulnerable to both physical damage and potential nuclear hazards.

The Global Implications

Trump's suggestion to take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants has raised significant concerns on the international stage. Some fear that such a move could set a dangerous precedent for nuclear security and sovereignty. Others see it as an opportunistic proposal that exploits Ukraine's wartime vulnerability.

While the future of Ukraine's nuclear plants remains uncertain, one thing is clear: these facilities are now at the center of a geopolitical struggle that could have far-reaching consequences for the energy security of Europe and the world. The safety of these plants and their role in Ukraine's energy future will remain a critical issue as the war continues and as Ukraine navigates its relations with both the U.S. and Russia, with the grid even having resumed electricity exports at times.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

BC Hydro Rate Freeze delivers immediate relief on electricity rates in British Columbia, reversing a planned 3% hike, as BCUC oversight, a utility review, and Site C project debates shape provincial energy policy.

Key Points

A one-year provincial policy halting BC Hydro electricity rate hikes while a utility review finds cost savings.

✅ Freeze replaces planned 3% hike approved by BCUC.

✅ Government to conduct comprehensive BC Hydro review.

✅ Critics warn $150M revenue loss impacts capital projects.

British Columbia's NDP government has announced it will freeze BC Hydro rates effective immediately, fulfilling a key election promise.

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Minister Michelle Mungall says hydro rates have gone up by more than 24 per cent in the last four years and by more than 70 per cent since 2001, reflecting proposals such as a 3.75% increase over two years announced previously.

"After years of escalating electricity costs, British Columbians deserve a break on their bills," Mungall said in a news release.

BC Hydro had been approved by the B.C. Utilities Commission to increase the rate by three per cent next year, but Mungall said it will pull back its request in order to comply with the freeze.

In the meantime, the government says it will undertake a comprehensive review of the utility meant to identify cost-savings measures for customers often asked to pay an extra $2 a month on electricity bills.

The Liberal critic, Tracy Redies, says the one year rate freeze is going to cost BC Hydro, calling it a distraction from the bigger issue of the future of the Site C project and the oversight of a BC Hydro fund surplus as well.

"A one year rate freeze costs Hydro $150 million," Redies said. "That means there's $150 million less to invest in capital projects and other investments that the utility needs to make."

"This is putting off decisions that should be made today to the future."

Recommendations from the review — including possible new rates — will be implemented starting in April 2019.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Germany Industrial Electricity Price Subsidy weighs subsidies for energy-intensive industries to bolster competitiveness as Germany shifts to renewables, expands grid capacity, and debates free-market tax cuts versus targeted relief and long-term policies.

Key Points

Policy to subsidize power for energy-intensive industry, preserving competitiveness during the energy transition.

✅ SPD backs 5-7 cents per kWh for 10-15 years

✅ FDP prefers tax cuts and free-market pricing

✅ Scholz urges cheap renewables and grid expansion first

Germany’s three-party coalition is debating whether electricity prices for energy-intensive industries should be subsidised in a market where rolling back European electricity prices can be tougher than it appears, to prevent companies from moving production abroad.

Calls to reduce the electricity bill for big industrial producers are being made by leading politicians, who, like others in Germany, fear the country could lose its position as an industrial powerhouse as it gradually shifts away from fossil fuel-based production, amid historic low energy demand and economic stagnation concerns.

“It is in the interest of all of us that this strong industry, which we undoubtedly have in Germany, is preserved,” Lars Klingbeil, head of Germany’s leading government party SPD (S&D), told Bayrischer Rundfunk on Wednesday.

To achieve this, Klingbeil is advocating a reduced electricity price for the industry of about 5 to 7 cents per Kilowatt hour, which the federal government would subsidise. This should be introduced within the next year and last for about 10 to 15 years, he said.

Under the current support scheme, which was financed as part of the €200 billion “rescue shield” against the energy crisis, energy-intensive industries already pay 13 cents per Kilowatt hour (KWh) for 70% of their previous electricity needs, which is substantially lower than the 30 to 40 cents per KWh that private consumers pay.

“We see that the Americans, for example, are spending $450 billion on the Inflation Reduction Act, and we see what China is doing in terms of economic policy,” Klingbeil said.

“If we find out in 10 years that we have let all the large industrial companies slip away because the investments are not being made here in Germany or Europe, and jobs and prosperity and growth are being lost here, then we will lose as a country,” he added.

However, not everyone in the German coalition favours subsidising electricity prices.

Finance Minister Christian Lindner of the liberal FDP (Renew), for example, has argued against such a step, instead promoting free-market principles and, amid rising household energy costs, reducing taxes on electricity for all.

“Privileging industrial companies would only be feasible at the expense of other electricity consumers and taxpayers, for example, private households or the small trade sector,” Lindner wrote in an op-ed for Handelsblatt on Tuesday.

“Increasing competitiveness for some would mean a loss of competitiveness for others,” he added.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz, himself a member of SPD, was more careful with his words, amid ongoing EU electricity reform debates in Brussels.

Asked about a subsidised electricity price for the industry at a town hall event on Monday, Scholz said he does not “want to make any promises now”.

“First of all, we have to make sure that we have cheap electricity in Germany in the first place,” Scholz said, promoting the expansion of renewable energy such as wind and solar, as local utilities cry for help, as well as more electricity grid infrastructure.

“What we will not be able to do as an economy, even as France’s new electricity pricing scheme advances, is to subsidise everything that takes place in normal economic activity,” Scholz said. “We should not get into the habit of doing that,” he added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News