Not putting clocks back will save energy

Advanced Nuclear Technology drives decarbonization through innovation, SMRs, and a stable grid, bolstering U.S. leadership, energy security, and clean power exports under supportive regulation and policy to meet climate goals cost-effectively.

Key Points

Advanced nuclear technology uses SMRs to deliver low-carbon, reliable power and strengthen energy security.

✅ Accelerates decarbonization with firm, low-carbon baseload power

✅ Enhances grid reliability via SMRs and advanced fuel cycles

✅ Supports U.S. leadership through exports, R&D, and modern regulation

The most cost-effective way--indeed the only reasonable way-- to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and foster our national economic and security interests is through innovation, especially next-gen nuclear power innovation. That's from Rep. Greg Walden, R-Oregon, ranking Republican member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, speaking to a Subcommittee on Energy hearing titled, "Building a 100 Percent Clean Economy: Advanced Nuclear Technology's Role in a Decarbonized Future."

Here are the balance of his remarks.

Encouraging the deployment of atomic energy technology, strengthening our nuclear industrial base, implementing policies that helps reassert U.S. nuclear leadership globally... all provide a promising path to meet both our environmental and energy security priorities. In fact, it's the only way to meet these priorities.

So today can help us focus on what is possible and what is necessary to build on recent policies we've enacted to ensure we have the right regulatory landscape, the right policies to strengthen our domestic civil industry, and the advanced nuclear reactors on the horizon.

U.S. global leadership here is sorely needed. Exporting clean power and clean power technologies will do more to drive down global Co2 emissions on the path to net-zero emissions worldwide than arbitrary caps that countries fail to meet.

In May last year, the International Energy Agency released an informative report on the role of nuclear power in clean energy systems; it did not find current trends encouraging.

The report noted that nuclear and hydropower "form the backbone of low-carbon electricity generation," responsible for three-quarters of global low-carbon generation and the reduction of over 60 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions over the past 50 years.

Yet IEA found in advanced economies, nuclear power is in decline, with closing plants and little new investment, "just when the world requires more low-carbon electricity."

There are various reasons for this, some relating to cost overruns and delays, others to policies that fail to value the "low-carbon and energy security attributes" of nuclear. In any case, the report found this failure to encourage nuclear will undermine global efforts to develop cleaner electricity systems.

Germany demonstrates the problem. As it chose to shut down its nuclear industry, it has doubled down on expanding renewables like solar and wind. Ironically, to make this work, it also doubled down on coal. This nuclear phase out has cost Germany $12 billion a year, 70% of which is from increased mortality risk from stronger air pollutants (this according to the National Bureau of Economic Research). If other less technologically advanced nations even could match the rate of renewables growth reached by Germany, they would only hit about a fifth of what is necessary to reach climate goals--and with more expensive energy. So, would they then be forced to bring online even more coal-fired sources than Germany?

On the other hand, as outlined by the authors of the pro-nuclear book "A Bright Future," France and Sweden have both demonstrated in the 1970s and 1980s, how to do it. They showed that the build out of nuclear can be done at five times the rate of Germany's experience with renewables, with increased electricity production and relatively lower prices.

I think the answer is obvious about the importance of nuclear. The question will be "can the United States take the lead going forward?"

We can help to do this in Congress if we fully acknowledge what U.S. leadership on nuclear will mean--both for cleaner power and industrial systems beyond electricity, here and abroad--and for the ever-important national security attributes of a strong U.S. industry.

Witnesses have noted in recent hearings that recognizing how U.S. energy and climate policy effects energy and energy technology relationships world-wide is critical to addressing emissions where they are growing the fastest and for strengthening our national security relationships.

Resurrecting technological leadership in nuclear technology around the world will meet our broader national and energy security reasons--much as unleashing U.S. LNG from our shale revolution restored our ability to counter Russia in energy markets, while also driving cleaner technology. Our nuclear energy exports boost our national security priorities.

We on Energy and Commerce have been working, in a bipartisan manner over the past few Congresses to enhance U.S. nuclear policies. There is most certainly more to do. And I think today's hearing will help us explore what can be done, both administratively and legislatively, to pave the way for advanced nuclear energy.

Let me welcome the panel today. Which, I'm pleased to see, represents several important perspectives, including industry, regulatory, safety, and international expertise, to two innovative companies--Terrapower and my home state of Oregon's NuScale. All of these witnesses can speak to what we need to do to build, operate and lead with these new technologies.

We should work to get our nation's nuclear policy in order, learning from global frameworks like the green industrial revolution abroad. Today represents a good step in that effort.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

China Renewable Energy Law drives growth in wind power, solar thermal, and photovoltaic capacity, supporting grid integration and five-year plans, even as China leads CO2 emissions, with policy incentives, compliance inspections, and national resource assessments.

Key Points

A legal framework that speeds wind, solar thermal, and PV growth in China via mandates, incentives, and grid rules.

✅ 2018 renewables: 1.87T kWh, 26.7% of national power

✅ Over 100 State Council policies enabling deployment

✅ Law inspections and regional oversight across six provinces

China leads renewable energies, installing more wind power, solar thermal and photovoltaic than any other country, as seen in the China solar PV growth reported in 2016, but also leads CO2 emissions, and much remains to be done.

The effective application of Chinas renewable energy law has boosted the use of renewable energy in the country and facilitated the rapid development of the sector, as solar parity across Chinese cities indicates, a report said.

The report on compliance with renewable energy law was presented today at the current bimonthly session of the Standing Committee of the National Peoples Assembly (APN).

Electricity generated by renewable energy amounted to about 1.87 trillion kilowatts per hour in 2018, representing 26.7 percent of Chinas total energy production in the year, aligning with trends where wind and solar doubling globally over five years, the report said.

Ding Zhongli, vice president of the NPC Standing Committee, presented the report to the legislators at the second plenary meeting of the session.

An inspection of the law enforcement was carried out from August to November, as U.S. renewables hit 28% record showed momentum elsewhere. A total of 21 members of the NPC Standing Committee and the NPC Environmental Protection and Resource Conservation Committee, as well as national legislators, traveled to six regions at the provincial level on inspection visits. Twelve legislative bodies at the provincial level inspected the law enforcement efforts in their jurisdictions.

The relevant State Council agencies have implemented more than 100 regulations and policies to foster a good policy environment for the development of renewable energy, as seen in markets where U.S. renewable electricity surpassed coal in 2022. Local regulations have also been formulated based on local conditions, according to the report.

In accordance with the law, a thorough investigation of the national conditions of renewable energy resources was undertaken.

In 2008 and 2014 atlas of solar energy resources and wind energy evaluation of China were issued. The relevant agencies of the State Council have also implemented five-year plans for the development of renewable energy, which have provided guidance to the sector, while countries like Ireland's one-third green power target remain in focus within four years.

The main provisions of the law have been met, the law has been effectively applied and the purpose of the legislation has been met, and this momentum is echoed abroad, with U.S. renewables near one-fourth according to projections, Ding said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Ontario CDM Programs expand energy efficiency, demand response, and DER incentives via IESO's Save on Energy, cutting peak demand, lowering bills, and supporting electrification, retrofits, and LED lighting to meet Ontario's growing electricity needs.

Key Points

Ontario CDM Programs are IESO incentives that cut peak demand and energy use via demand response, retrofits and DERs.

✅ Delivered by IESO's Save on Energy to reduce peak demand

✅ Incentives for demand response, retrofits, LEDs, and DER solutions

✅ Help homes, businesses, and greenhouses lower bills and emissions

Ontario will be making available four new and expanded energy-efficiency programs, also known as Conservation and Demand Management (CDM) programs, to ensure a reliable, affordable, and clean electricity system, including ultra-low overnight pricing options to power the province, drive electrification and support strong economic growth. As there will be a need for additional electricity capacity in Ontario beginning in 2025, and continuing through the decade, CDM programs are among the fastest and most cost-effective ways of meeting electricity system needs.

Conservation and Demand Management

The Ontario government launched the 2021-2024 CDM Framework on January 1, 2021. The framework focuses on cost-effectively meeting the needs of Ontario’s electricity system, including by focusing on the achievement of provincial peak demand reductions and initiatives such as extended off-peak electricity rates, as well as on targeted approaches to address regional and/or local electricity system needs.

CDM programs are delivered by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), which implemented staff lockdown measures during COVID-19, through the Save on Energy brand. These programs address electricity system needs and help consumers reduce their electricity consumption to lower their bills. CDM programs and incentives are available for homeowners, small businesses, large businesses, and contractors, and First Nations communities.

New and Expanded Programs

The four new and expanded CDM programs will include:

A new Residential Demand Response Program for homes with existing central air conditioning and smart thermostats to help deliver peak demand reductions. Households who meet the criteria could voluntarily enroll in this program and, alongside protections like disconnection moratoriums for residential customers, be paid an incentive in return for the IESO being able to reduce their cooling load on a select number of summer afternoons to reduce peak demand. There are an estimated 600,000 smart thermostats installed in Ontario.
Targeted support for greenhouses in Southwest Ontario, including incentives to install LED lighting, non-lighting measures or behind-the-meter distributed energy resources (DER), such as combined solar generation and battery storage.
Enhancements to the Save On Energy Retrofit Program for business, municipalities, institutional and industrial consumers to include custom energy-efficiency projects. Examples of potential projects could include chiller and other HVAC upgrades for a local arena, building automation and air handling systems for a hospital, or building envelope upgrades for a local business.
Enhancements to the Local Initiatives Program to reduce barriers to participation and to add flexibility for incentives for DER solutions.
It is the government’s intention that the new and expanded CDM programs will be available to eligible electricity customers beginning in Spring 2023.

The IESO estimates that the new program offers will deliver total provincial peak electricity demand savings of 285 megawatts (MW) and annual energy savings of 1.1 terawatt hours (TWh) by 2025, reflecting pandemic-era electricity usage shifts across Ontario. Savings will persist beyond 2025 with a total reduction in system costs by approximately $650 million over the lifetime of the measures, and will support economic recovery, as seen with electricity relief during COVID-19 measures, decarbonization and energy cost management for homes and businesses.

These enhancements will have a particular impact in Southwest Ontario, with regional peak demand savings of 225 MW, helping to alleviate electricity system constraints in the region and foster economic development, supported by stable electricity pricing for industrial and commercial companies in Ontario.

The overall savings from this CDM programming will result in an estimated three million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions reductions over the lifetime of the energy-efficiency measures to help achieve Ontario’s climate targets and protect the environment for the future.

The IESO will be updating the CDM Framework Program Plan, which provides a detailed breakdown of program budgets and energy savings and peak demand targets expected to be achieved.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Negative Electricity Prices in France signal oversupply from wind and solar, stressing the wholesale market and grid. Better storage, demand response, and interconnections help balance renewables and stabilize prices today.

Key Points

They occur when renewable output exceeds demand, pushing power prices below zero as excess energy strains the grid.

✅ Driven by wind and solar surges with low demand

✅ Challenges thermal plants; erodes margins at negative prices

✅ Needs storage, demand response, and cross-border interties

France has recently experienced an unusual and unprecedented situation in its electricity market: negative electricity prices. This development, driven by a significant influx of renewable energy sources, highlights the evolving dynamics of energy markets as countries increasingly rely on clean energy technologies. The phenomenon of negative pricing reflects both the opportunities and renewable curtailment challenges associated with the integration of renewable energy into national grids.

Negative electricity prices occur when the supply of electricity exceeds demand to such an extent that producers are willing to pay consumers to take the excess energy off their hands. This situation typically arises during periods of high renewable energy generation coupled with low energy demand. In France, this has been driven primarily by a surge in wind and solar power production, which has overwhelmed the grid and created an oversupply of electricity.

The recent surge in renewable energy generation can be attributed to a combination of favorable weather conditions and increased capacity from new renewable energy installations. France has been investing heavily in wind and solar energy as part of its commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning towards a more sustainable energy system, in line with renewables surpassing fossil fuels in Europe in recent years. While these investments are essential for achieving long-term climate goals, they have also led to challenges in managing energy supply and demand in the short term.

One of the key factors contributing to the negative prices is the variability of renewable energy sources. Wind and solar power are intermittent by nature, meaning their output can fluctuate significantly depending on weather conditions, with solar reshaping price patterns in Northern Europe as deployment grows. During times of high wind or intense sunshine, the electricity generated can far exceed the immediate demand, leading to an oversupply. When the grid is unable to store or export this excess energy, prices can drop below zero as producers seek to offload the surplus.

The impact of negative prices on the energy market is multifaceted. For consumers, negative prices can lead to lower energy costs as wholesale electricity prices fall during oversupply, and even potential credits or payments from energy providers. This can be a welcome relief for households and businesses facing high energy bills. However, negative prices can also create financial challenges for energy producers, particularly those relying on conventional power generation methods. Fossil fuel and nuclear power plants, which have higher operating costs, may struggle to compete when prices are negative, potentially affecting their profitability and operational stability.

The phenomenon also underscores the need for enhanced energy storage and grid management solutions. Excess energy generated from renewable sources needs to be stored or redirected to maintain grid stability and avoid negative pricing situations. Advances in battery storage technology, such as France's largest battery storage platform, and improvements in grid infrastructure are essential to addressing these challenges and optimizing the integration of renewable energy into the grid. By developing more efficient storage solutions and expanding grid capacity, France can better manage fluctuations in renewable energy production and reduce the likelihood of negative prices.

France's experience with negative electricity prices is part of a broader trend observed in other countries with high levels of renewable energy penetration. Similar situations have occurred in Germany, where solar plus storage is now cheaper than conventional power, the United States, and other regions where renewable energy capacity is rapidly expanding. These instances highlight the growing pains associated with transitioning to a cleaner energy system and the need for innovative solutions to balance supply and demand.

The French government and energy regulators are closely monitoring the situation and exploring measures to mitigate the impact of negative prices. Policy adjustments, market reforms, and investments in energy infrastructure are all potential strategies to address the challenges posed by high renewable energy generation. Additionally, encouraging the development of flexible demand response programs and enhancing grid interconnections with neighboring countries can help manage excess energy and stabilize prices.

In the long term, the rise of renewable energy and the occurrence of negative prices represent a positive development for the energy transition. They indicate progress towards cleaner energy sources and a more sustainable energy system. However, managing the associated challenges is crucial for ensuring that the transition is smooth and economically viable for all stakeholders involved.

In conclusion, the recent instance of negative electricity prices in France highlights the complexities of integrating renewable energy into the national grid. While the phenomenon reflects the success of France’s efforts to expand its renewable energy capacity, it also underscores the need for advanced grid management and storage solutions. As the country continues to navigate the transition to a more sustainable energy system, addressing these challenges will be essential for maintaining a stable and efficient energy market. The experience serves as a valuable lesson for other nations undergoing similar transitions and reinforces the importance of innovation and adaptability in the evolving energy landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Pickering Nuclear Plant Extension faces CNSC approval as Ontario Power Generation pursues license renewal before the June 30, 2023 deadline, amid a 2025 capacity crunch and grid reliability risks from decommissioning and overlapping nuclear outages.

Key Points

A plan to run Pickering past 2024 to Sept 2026, pending CNSC license renewal to address Ontario's 2025 capacity gap.

✅ CNSC approval needed for operation beyond Dec 31, 2024

✅ OPG aims to file by June 30, 2023 deadline

✅ Extension targets grid reliability through 2026

Ontario’s electricity generator has yet to file an official application to extend the life of the Pickering nuclear power plant, more than eight months after the Ford government announced a plan to continue operating Pickering for longer.

As the province faces an electricity shortfall in 2025 and beyond, the Ford government scrambled to prolong the Pickering power plant until September 2026, in order to guarantee a steady supply of power as the province experiences a rise in demand and shutdowns at other nuclear power plants.

The life extension may come down to the wire, however, as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), the federal regulator tasked with approving or denying the extension, tells Global News the province has yet to file key paperwork.

The information is required for the application, including materials related to the proposed Pickering B refurbishment, and the government now has a month before the deadline runs out.

“The Commission requires that Ontario Power Generation submit specific information by June 30, 2023, if it intends to operate the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station beyond December 31, 2024,” the CNSC told Global News in a statement. “The Commission Registry has not yet received an application from Ontario Power Generation.”

If Ontario doesn’t receive the green light, the power plant which currently is responsible for 14 per cent of the province’s energy grid will be decommissioned in 2025, leaving the province with a significant electricity supply gap if replacement sources are not secured.

For its part, the Ford government doesn’t seem concerned about the impending timeline, even though the station was slated to close as planned, suggesting the Crown corporation responsible for the application will get it in on time.

“OPG is on track to submit their application before the end of June and has already started to submit supporting materials as part of the regulatory process toward clean power goals,” a spokesperson for energy minister Todd Smith said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News