Trapping and burying carbon dioxide from power plants could become viable without public funding by 2030, helping nations reduce their dependence on energy imports and meet climate goals, a report said.
But that could happen only if obstacles to the technology are removed and polluters are forced to pay more to emit CO2 in cap and trade schemes, it added.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is seen by industry as a potential silver bullet to curb emissions from coal-fired power plants, which are multiplying rapidly in India and China, threatening to heat the atmosphere to dangerous levels.
Companies are working on cutting-edge technology to trap CO2 and pump it into empty gas fields and deep underground caverns, but utilities are reluctant to use the process as it adds about 1 billion euros ($1.42 billion) to the cost of each power plant.
The European Union wants up to 12 demonstration plants by 2015 in the hope they will find ways of cutting future costs. EU sources say the bloc is close to agreeing billions of euros of public funding to kick-start the pilot projects.
Once it has built momentum and been properly developed, the cost of burying CO2 could fall to 30-45 euros per tonne by 2030, said the report by consultancy McKinsey and Co.
"Costs at these levels would make CCS installations economically self-sustaining at a carbon price of 30-48 euros per tonne," it added, referring to the price of permits to emit CO2 under the EU's flagship Emission Trading Scheme (ETS).
The ETS caps how much CO2 industries may emit and establishes a system for trading in emissions permits.
The price of carbon being traded in the scheme on September 22 was around 25 euros, for December delivery, but the report cited five studies by financial institutions that forecast prices would rise significantly by 2030.
"On the one hand, (CCS) could provide greater energy security by making the burning of Europe's abundant coal more environmentally acceptable, and so reducing the dependency on imported natural gas," the report said.
"On the other, it could potentially improve the environmental impact of new energy forms such as electric cars and hydrogen, which could be produced with CCS-based electricity," it added.
Site C Dam Court Ruling could halt hydroelectric project near Fort St. John, as First Nations cite Treaty 8 rights in B.C. Supreme Court against BC Hydro, reservoir flooding, and Peace River Valley impacts.
Key Points
Potential B.C. Supreme Court stop to Site C, grounded in Treaty 8 rights claims by First Nations against BC Hydro.
✅ Trial expected in 2022 before planned 2023 reservoir flooding
✅ Treaty 8 rights and Peace River Valley impacts at issue
✅ Talks ongoing among B.C., BC Hydro, West Moberly, Prophet River
The Site C dam could still be stopped by an "eleventh hour" court ruling, according to the lawyer representing B.C. First Nations opposed to the massive hydroelectric project near Fort St. John.
The B.C. government, BC Hydro and West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations were in B.C. Supreme Court Feb. 28 to set a 120-day trial, expected to begin in March 2022.
That date means a ruling would come prior to the scheduled flooding of the dam's reservoir area in 2023 said Tim Thielmann, legal counsel for the West Moberly First Nation.
"The court has left itself the opportunity for an eleventh hour cancellation of the project," he said.
Construction continues
At the core of the case is First Nations arguments the multi-billion dollar BC Hydro dam will cause irreparable harm to its territory and way of life — even as drought strains hydro production elsewhere — rights protected under Treaty 8.
The West Moberly have previously warned it believes Site C constitutes a $1 billion treaty violation.
In 2018, the First Nations lost a bid for an injunction order, meaning construction of the dam is continuing despite warnings that delays could cost $600 million to the project.
First Nations 'deeply frustrated' after B.C. Supreme Court dismisses Site C injunction
The judge in the case said the ruling was made because if the First Nations lost the challenge, the project would be needlessly put into disarray.
Province, Nations enter talks to avoid litigation
Also this week the B.C. government announced it has entered into talks with BC Hydro and the two First Nations in an attempt to avoid the court process altogether, amid broader energy debates such as bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap for climate goals.
Thielmann said the details of the talk are confidential, but his clients are willing to pursue all avenues in order to stop the dam from moving forward.
"They are trying to save what little is left [of the Peace River Valley]", he said.
Tim Thielmann of Sage Legal is representing the West Moberly First Nation in its lawsuit aimed at stopping Site C. (Sage Legal)
In the meantime, the parties will continue to prepare for the 2022 court dates.
The latest figure on the cost of the dam is $10.7 billion, in a billions-over-budget project that the premier says will proceed. When complete, it would power the equivalent of 450,000 homes a year, though use of Site C's electricity remains a point of debate.
Nighttime Thermoelectric Generator converts radiative cooling into renewable energy, leveraging outer space cold; a Stanford-UCLA prototype complements solar, serving off-grid loads with low-power output during peak evening demand, using simple materials on a rooftop.
Key Points
A device converting nighttime radiative cooling into electricity, complementing solar for low-power evening needs.
✅ Uses thermocouples to convert temperature gradients to voltage.
✅ Exploits radiative cooling to outer space for night power.
✅ Complements solar; low-cost parts suit off-grid applications.
Two years ago, one freezing December night on a California rooftop, a tiny light shone weakly with a little help from the freezing night air. It wasn't a very bright glow. But it was enough to demonstrate the possibility of generating renewable power after the Sun goes down.
Working with Stanford University engineers Wei Li and Shanhui Fan, University of California Los Angeles materials scientist Aaswath Raman put together a device that produces a voltage by channelling the day's residual warmth into cooling air, effectively generating electricity from thin air with passive heat exchange.
"Our work highlights the many remaining opportunities for energy by taking advantage of the cold of outer space as a renewable energy resource," says Raman.
"We think this forms the basis of a complementary technology to solar. While the power output will always be substantially lower, it can operate at hours when solar cells cannot."
For all the merits of solar energy, it's just not a 24-7 source of power, although research into nighttime solar cells suggests new possibilities for after-dark generation. Sure, we can store it in a giant battery or use it to pump water up into a reservoir for later, but until we have more economical solutions, nighttime is going to be a quiet time for renewable solar power.
Most of us return home from work as the Sun is setting, and that's when energy demands spike to meet our needs for heating, cooking, entertaining, and lighting.
Unfortunately, we often turn to fossil fuels to make up the shortfall. For those living off the grid, it could require limiting options and going without a few luxuries.
Shanhui Fan understands the need for a night time renewable power source well. He's worked on a number of similar devices, including carbon nanotube generators that scavenge ambient energy, and a recent piece of technology that flipped photovoltaics on its head by squeezing electricity from the glow of heat radiating out of the planet's Sun-warmed surface.
While that clever item relied on the optical qualities of a warm object, this alternative device makes use of the good old thermoelectric effect, similar to thin-film waste-heat harvesting approaches now explored.
Using a material called a thermocouple, engineers can convert a change in temperature into a difference in voltage, effectively turning thermal energy into electricity with a measurable voltage. This demands something relatively toasty on one side and a place for that heat energy to escape to on the other.
The theory is the easy part – the real challenge is in arranging the right thermoelectric materials in such a way that they'll generate a voltage from our cooling surrounds that makes it worthwhile.
To keep costs down, the team used simple, off-the-shelf items that pretty much any of us could easily get our hands on.
They put together a cheap thermoelectric generator and linked it with a black aluminium disk to shed heat in the night air as it faced the sky. The generator was placed inside a polystyrene enclosure sealed with a window transparent to infrared light, and linked to a single tiny LED.
For six hours one evening, the box was left to cool on a roof-top in Stanford as the temperature fell just below freezing. As the heat flowed from the ground into the sky, the small generator produced just enough current to make the light flicker to life.
At its best, the device generated around 0.8 milliwatts of power, corresponding to 25 milliwatts of power per square metre.
That might just be enough to keep a hearing aid working. String several together and you might just be able to keep your cat amused with a simple laser pointer. So we're not talking massive amounts of power.
But as far as prototypes go, it's a fantastic starting point. The team suggests that with the right tweaks and the right conditions, 500 milliwatts per square metre isn't out of the question.
"Beyond lighting, we believe this could be a broadly enabling approach to power generation suitable for remote locations, and anywhere where power generation at night is needed," says Raman.
While we search for big, bright ideas to drive the revolution for renewables, it's important to make sure we don't let the smaller, simpler solutions like these slip away quietly into the night.
SCE Wildfire Lawsuits allege utility equipment and power lines sparked deadly Los Angeles blazes; investigations, inverse condemnation, and stricter utility regulations focus on liability, vegetation management, and wildfire safety amid Santa Ana winds.
Key Points
Residents sue SCE, alleging power lines ignited LA wildfires; seeking compensation under inverse condemnation.
✅ Videos cited show sparking lines near alleged ignition points.
✅ SCE denies wrongdoing; probes and inspections ongoing.
✅ Inverse condemnation may apply regardless of negligence.
In the aftermath of devastating wildfires in Los Angeles, residents have initiated legal action, similar to other mega-fire lawsuits underway in California, against Southern California Edison (SCE), alleging that the utility's equipment was responsible for sparking one of the most destructive fires. The fires have resulted in significant loss of life and property, prompting investigations into the causes and accountability of the involved parties.
The Fires and Their Impact
In early January 2025, Los Angeles experienced severe wildfires that ravaged neighborhoods, leading to the loss of at least 29 lives and the destruction of approximately 155 square kilometers of land. Areas such as Pacific Palisades and Altadena were among the hardest hit. The fires were exacerbated by arid conditions and strong Santa Ana winds, which contributed to their rapid spread and intensity.
Allegations Against Southern California Edison
Residents have filed lawsuits against SCE, asserting that the utility's equipment, particularly power lines, ignited the fires. Some plaintiffs have presented videos they claim show sparking power lines in the vicinity of the fire's origin. These legal actions seek to hold SCE accountable for the damages incurred, including property loss, personal injury, and emotional distress.
SCE's Response and Legal Context
Southern California Edison has denied any wrongdoing, stating that it has not detected any anomalies in its equipment that could have led to the fires. The utility has pledged to cooperate fully with investigations to determine the causes of the fires. California's legal framework, particularly the doctrine of "inverse condemnation," allows property owners to seek compensation from utilities for damages caused by public services, even without proof of negligence. This legal principle has been central in previous cases involving utility companies and wildfire damages, and similar allegations have arisen in other jurisdictions, such as an alleged faulty transformer case, highlighting shared risks.
Historical Context and Precedents
This situation is not unprecedented. In 2018, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) faced similar allegations when its equipment was implicated in the Camp Fire, the deadliest wildfire in California's history. PG&E's equipment was found to have ignited the fire, and the company later pleaded guilty in the Camp Fire, leading to extensive litigation and financial repercussions for the company, while its bankruptcy plan won support from wildfire victims during restructuring. The case highlighted the significant risks utilities face regarding wildfire safety and the importance of maintaining infrastructure to prevent such disasters.
Implications for California's Utility Regulations
The current lawsuits against SCE underscore the ongoing challenges California faces in balancing utility operations with wildfire prevention, as regulators face calls for action amid rising electricity bills. The state has implemented stricter regulations and oversight, and lawmakers have moved to crack down on utility spending to mitigate wildfire risks associated with utility infrastructure. Utilities are now required to invest in enhanced safety measures, including equipment inspections, vegetation management, and the implementation of advanced technologies to detect and prevent potential fire hazards. These regulatory changes aim to reduce the incidence of utility-related wildfires and protect communities from future disasters.
The legal actions against Southern California Edison reflect the complex interplay between utility operations, public safety, and environmental stewardship. As investigations continue, the outcomes of these lawsuits may influence future policies and practices concerning utility infrastructure and wildfire prevention in California. The state remains committed to enhancing safety measures to protect its residents and natural resources from the devastating effects of wildfires.
Honda Ontario EV Investment accelerates electric vehicle manufacturing in Canada, adding a battery plant, EV assembly capacity, clean energy supply chains, government subsidies, and thousands of jobs to expand North American production and innovation.
Key Points
The Honda Ontario EV Investment is a $18.4B plan for EV assembly and battery production, jobs, and clean growth.
✅ $18.4B for EV assembly and large-scale battery production
✅ Thousands of Ontario manufacturing jobs and supply chain growth
✅ Backed by Canadian subsidies to accelerate clean transportation
The automotive industry in Ontario is on the verge of a significant transformation amid an EV jobs boom across the province, as Honda announces plans to build a new electric vehicle (EV) assembly plant and a large-scale battery production facility in the province. According to several sources, Honda is prepared to invest an estimated $18.4 billion in this initiative, signalling a major commitment to accelerating the automaker's shift towards electrification.
Expanding Ontario's EV Ecosystem
This exciting new investment from Honda builds upon the growing momentum of electric vehicle development in Ontario. The province is already home to a burgeoning EV manufacturing ecosystem, with automakers like Stellantis and General Motors investing heavily in retooling existing plants for EV production, including GM's $1B Ontario EV plant in the province. Honda's new facilities will significantly expand Ontario's role in the North American electric vehicle market.
Canadian Government Supports Clean Vehicles
The Canadian government has been actively encouraging the transition to cleaner transportation by offering generous subsidies to bolster EV manufacturing and adoption, exemplified by the Ford Oakville upgrade that received $500M in support. These incentives have been instrumental in attracting major investments from automotive giants like Honda and solidifying Canada's position as a global leader in EV technology.
Thousands of New Jobs
Honda's investment is not only excellent news for the Canadian economy but also promises to create thousands of new jobs in Ontario, boosting the province's manufacturing sector. The presence of a significant EV and battery production hub will attract a skilled workforce, as seen with a Niagara Region battery plant that is bolstering the region's EV future, and likely lead to the creation of related businesses and industries that support the EV supply chain.
Details of the Plan
While the specific location of the proposed Honda plants has not yet been confirmed, sources indicate that the facilities will likely be built in Southwestern Ontario, near Ford's Oakville EV program and other established sites. Honda's existing assembly plant in Alliston will be converted to produce hybrid models as part of the company's broader plan to electrify its lineup.
Honda's Global EV Ambitions
This substantial investment in Canada aligns with Honda's global commitment to electrifying its vehicle offerings. The company has set ambitious goals to phase out traditional gasoline-powered cars and achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2040. Honda aims to expand EV production in North America to meet growing consumer demand and deepen Canada-U.S. collaboration in the EV industry.
The Future of Transportation
Honda's announcement signifies a turning point for the automotive landscape in Canada. This major investment reinforces the shift toward electric vehicles as an inevitable future, with EV assembly deals putting Canada in the race as well. The move highlights Canada's dedication to fostering a sustainable, clean-energy economy while establishing a robust automotive manufacturing industry for the 21st century.
California Gas Plant Extensions keep Ormond Beach, AES Alamitos, and Huntington Beach on standby for grid reliability during heat waves, as regulators balance renewables, battery storage, and power, pending State Water Resources Control Board approval.
Key Points
State plan extending three coastal gas plants to 2026, adding capacity as California expands renewables and storage.
✅ Extends Ormond Beach, AES Alamitos, AES Huntington Beach
✅ Mitigates blackout risk during extreme heat and peak demand
✅ Pending State Water Resources Control Board approval
Temperatures in many California cities are cooling down this week, but a debate is simmering on how to generate enough electricity to power the state through extreme weather events while transitioning away from a reliance on fossil fuels as clean energy progress indicates statewide.
The California Energy Commission voted Wednesday to extend the life of three gas power plants along the state’s southern coast through 2026, even as natural-gas electricity records persist nationwide, postponing a shutoff deadline previously set for the end of this year. The vote would keep the decades-old facilities _ Ormond Beach Generating Station, AES Alamitos and AES Huntington Beach — open so they can run during emergencies.
The state is at a greater risk of blackouts during major events when many Californians simultaneously crank up their air conditioning, such as a blistering heat wave, illustrated by widespread utility shutoffs in recent years.
“We need to move faster in incorporating renewable energy. We need to move faster at incorporating battery storage. We need to build out chargers faster,” commissioner Patricia Monahan said amid an ongoing debate over the classification of nuclear power in California. “We’re working with all the energy institutions to do that, but we are not there yet.”
The plan, put together by the state’s Department of Water Resources, still needs final approval from the State Water Resources Control Board, which may vote on the issue next week. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation last year creating an energy reserve the state could use as a last resort if there is likely to be an energy shortage, a challenge mirrored by Ontario electricity shortfall concerns elsewhere. The law allowed the Department of Water Resources to fund or secure power sources in those instances, after PG&E shutdown reasons drew attention to grid vulnerabilities.
The commission acknowledged it was a difficult decision. Environmentalists say the state needs to transition to more short- and long-term solutions that will help it move away from fossil fuels and to rely more on renewable energy sources like solar and wind, similar to Ontario's clean power push in recent years. They’re also concerned about the health impacts associated with pollution from gas plants.
Ontario Nuclear Expansion aims to meet rising electricity demand and decarbonization goals, complementing renewables with energy storage, hydroelectric, and SMRs, while reducing natural gas reliance and safeguarding grid reliability across the province.
Key Points
A plan to add large nuclear capacity to meet demand, support renewables, cut gas reliance, and maintain grid reliability
✅ Adds firm, low-carbon baseload to complement renewables
✅ Reduces reliance on natural gas during peak and outages
✅ Requires public and Indigenous engagement on siting
Ontario is exploring the possibility of building new, large-scale nuclear plants in order to meet increasing demand for electricity and phase out natural gas generation.
A report late last year by the Independent Electricity System Operator found that the province could fully eliminate natural gas from the electricity system by 2050, starting with a moratorium in 2027, but it will require about $400 billion in capital spending and more generation including new, large-scale nuclear plants.
Decarbonizing the grid, in addition to new nuclear, will require more conservation efforts, more renewable energy sources and more wind and solar power sources and more energy storage, the report concluded.
The IESO said work should start now to assess the reliability of new and relatively untested technologies and fuels to replace natural gas, and to set up large, new generation sources such as nuclear plants and hydroelectric facilities.
The province has not committed to a natural gas moratorium or phase-out, or to building new nuclear facilities other than its small modular reactor plans, but it is now consulting on the prospect.
A document recently posted to the government’s environmental registry asks for input on how best to engage the public and Indigenous communities on the planning and location of new generation and storage facilities.
Building new nuclear plants is “one pathway” toward a fully electrified system, Energy Minister Todd Smith said in an interview.
“It’s a possibility, for sure, and that’s why we’re looking for the feedback from Ontarians,” he said. “We’re considering all of the next steps.”
Environmental groups such as Environmental Defence oppose new nuclear builds, as well as the continued reliance on natural gas.
“The IESO’s report is peddling the continued use of natural gas under the guise of a decarbonization plan, and it takes as a given the ramping up of gas generation and continues to rely on gas generated electricity until 2050, which is embarrassingly late,” said Lana Goldberg, Environmental Defence’s Ontario climate program manager.
“Building new nuclear is absurd when we have safe and much cheaper alternatives such as wind and solar power.”
The IESO has said the flexibility natural gas provides, alongside new gas plants, is needed to keep the system stable while new and relatively untested technologies are explored and new infrastructure gets built, but also as an electricity supply crunch looms.
Ontario is facing a shortfall of electricity with the Pickering nuclear station set to be retired, others being refurbished, and increasing demands including from electric vehicles, new electric vehicle and battery manufacturing, electric arc furnaces for steelmaking, and growth in the greenhouse and mining industries.
The government consultation also asks whether “additional investment” should be made in clean energy in the short term in order to decrease reliance on natural gas, “even if this will increase costs to the electricity system and ratepayers.”
But Smith indicated the government isn’t keen on higher costs.
“We’re not going to sacrifice reliability and affordability,” he said. “We have to have a reliable and affordable system, otherwise we won’t have people moving to electrification.”
The former Liberal government faced widespread anger over high hydro bills _ highlighted often by the Progressive Conservatives, then in Opposition — driven up in part by long-term contracts at above-market rates with clean power producers secured to spur a green energy transition.
