4,000-MW Zhexi project to begin in 2010

Nuclear Energy Growth accelerates as nations pursue decarbonization, complement renewables, displace coal, and ensure grid reliability with firm, low-carbon baseload, benefiting from standardized builds, lower cost of capital, and learning-curve cost reductions.

Key Points

Expansion of nuclear capacity to cut CO2, complement renewables, replace coal, and stabilize grids at low-carbon cost.

✅ Complements renewables; displaces coal for faster decarbonization

✅ Cuts system costs via standardization and lower cost of capital

✅ Provides firm, low-carbon baseload and grid reliability

By Kirill Komarov, Chairman, World Nuclear Association.

As Europe and the wider world begins to wake up to the need to cut emissions, Dr Kirill Komarov argues that tackling climate change will see the use of nuclear energy grow in the coming years, not as a competitor to renewables but as a competitor to coal.

The nuclear industry keeps making headlines and spurring debates on energy policy, including the green industrial revolution agenda in several countries. With each new build project, the detractors of nuclear power crowd the bandwagon to portray renewables as an easy and cheap alternative to ‘increasingly costly’ nuclear: if solar and wind are virtually free why bother splitting atoms?

Yet, paradoxically as it may seem, if we are serious about policy response to climate change, nuclear energy is seeing an atomic energy resurgence in the coming decade or two.

Growth has already started to pick up with about 3.1 GW new capacity added in the first half of 2018 in Russia and China while, at the very least, 4GW more to be completed by the end of the year – more than doubling the capacity additions in 2017.

In 2019 new connections to the grid would exceed 10GW by a significant margin.

If nuclear is in decline, why then do China, India, Russia and other countries keep building nuclear power plants?

To begin with, the issue of cost, argued by those opposed to nuclear, is in fact largely a bogus one, which does not make a fully rounded like for like comparison.

It is true that the latest generation reactors, especially those under construction in the US and Western Europe, have encountered significant construction delays and cost overruns.

But the main, and often the only, reason for that is the ‘first-of-a-kind’ nature of those projects.

If you build something for the first time, be it nuclear, wind or solar, it is expensive. Experience shows that with series build, standardised construction economies of scale and the learning curve from multiple projects, costs come down by around one-third; and this is exactly what is already happening in some parts of the world.

Furthermore, those first-of-a-kind projects were forced to be financed 100% privately and investors had to bear all political risks. It sent the cost of capital soaring, increasing at one stroke the final electricity price by about one third.

While, according to the International Energy Agency, at 3% cost of capital rate, nuclear is the cheapest source of energy: on average 1% increase adds about US$6-7 per MWh to the final price.

When it comes to solar and wind, the truth, inconvenient for those cherishing the fantasy of a world relying 100% on renewables, is that the ‘plummeting prices’ (which, by the way, haven’t changed much over the last three years, reaching a plateau) do not factor in so-called system and balancing costs associated with the need to smooth the intermittency of renewables.

Put simply, the fact the sun doesn’t shine at night and wind doesn’t blow all the time means wind and solar generation needs to be backed up.

According to a study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, integration of intermittent renewables into the grid is estimated in some cases to be as expensive as power generation itself.

Delivering the highest possible renewable content means customers’ bills will have to cover: renewable generation costs, energy storage solutions, major grid updates and interconnections investment, as well as gas or coal peaking power plants or ‘peakers’, which work only from time to time when needed to back up wind and solar.

The expected cost for kWh for peakers, according to investment bank Lazard is about twice that of conventional power plants due to much lower capacity factors.

Despite exceptionally low fossil fuel prices, peaking natural gas generation had an eye-watering cost of $156-210 per MWh in 2017 while electricity storage, replacing ‘peakers’, would imply an extra cost of $186-413 per MWh.

Burning fossil fuels is cheaper but comes with a great deal of environmental concern and extensive use of coal would make net-zero emissions targets all but unattainable.

So, contrary to some claims, nuclear does not compete with renewables. Moreover, a recent study by the MIT Energy Initiative showed, most convincingly, that renewables and load following advanced nuclear are complementary.

Nuclear competes with coal. Phasing out coal is crucial to fighting climate change. Putting off decisions to build new nuclear capacities while increasing the share of intermittent renewables makes coal indispensable and extends its life.

Scientists at the Brattle group, a consultancy, argue that “since CO2 emissions persist for many years in the atmosphere, near-term emission reductions are more helpful for climate protection than later ones”.

The longer we hesitate with new nuclear build the more difficult it becomes to save the Earth.

Nuclear power accounta for about one-tenth of global electricity production, but as much as one-third of generation from low-carbon sources. 1GWe of installed nuclear capacity prevents emissions of 4-7 million metric tons of CO2 emissions per year, depending on the region.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that in order to limit the average global temperature increase to 2°C and still meet global power demand, we need to connect to the grid at least 20GW of new nuclear energy each year.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) sets the target even higher with the total of 1,000 GWe by 2050, or about 10 GWe per year before 2020; 25 GWe per year from 2021 to 2025; and on average 33 GWe from 2026 to 2050.

Regulatory and political challenges in the West have made life for nuclear businesses in the US and in Europe's nuclear sector very difficult, driving many of them to the edge of insolvency; but in the rest of the world nuclear energy is thriving.

Nuclear vendors and utilities post healthy profits and invest heavily in next-gen nuclear innovation and expansion. The BRICS countries are leading the way, taking over the initiative in the global climate agenda. From their perspective, it’s the opposite of decline.

Dr Kirill Komarov is first deputy CEO of Russian state nuclear energy operator Rosatom and chairman of the World Nuclear Association.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Rio Tinto Off-Grid Solar Power Plant showcases renewable energy at the Diavik Diamond Mine in Canada's Northwest Territories, cutting diesel use, lowering carbon emissions, and boosting remote mining resilience with advanced photovoltaic technology.

Key Points

A remote solar PV plant at Diavik mine supplying clean power while cutting diesel use, carbon emissions, and costs.

✅ Largest off-grid solar in Northwest Territories

✅ Replaces diesel generators during peak solar hours

✅ Enhances sustainability and lowers operating costs

In a significant step towards sustainable mining practices, Rio Tinto has completed the largest off-grid solar power plant in Canada’s Northwest Territories. This groundbreaking achievement not only highlights the company's commitment to renewable energy, as Canada nears 5 GW of solar capacity nationwide, but also sets a new standard for the mining industry in remote and off-grid locations.

Located in the remote Diavik Diamond Mine, approximately 220 kilometers south of the Arctic Circle, Rio Tinto's off-grid solar power plant represents a technological feat in harnessing renewable energy in challenging environments. The plant is designed to reduce reliance on diesel fuel, traditionally used to power the mine's operations, and mitigate carbon emissions associated with mining activities.

The decision to build the solar power plant aligns with Rio Tinto's broader sustainability goals and commitment to reducing its environmental footprint. By integrating renewable energy sources like solar power, a strategy that renewable developers say leads to better, more resilient projects, the company aims to enhance energy efficiency, lower operational costs, and contribute to global efforts to combat climate change.

The Diavik Diamond Mine, jointly owned by Rio Tinto and Dominion Diamond Mines, operates in a remote region where access to traditional energy infrastructure is limited, and where, despite lagging solar demand in Canada, off-grid solutions are increasingly vital for reliability. Historically, diesel generators have been the primary source of power for the mine's operations, posing logistical challenges and environmental impacts due to fuel transportation and combustion.

Rio Tinto's investment in the off-grid solar power plant addresses these challenges by leveraging abundant sunlight in the Northwest Territories to generate clean electricity directly at the mine site. The solar array, equipped with advanced photovoltaic technology, which mirrors deployments such as Arvato's first solar plant in other sectors, is capable of producing a significant portion of the mine's electricity needs during peak solar hours, reducing reliance on diesel generators and lowering overall carbon emissions.

Moreover, the completion of the largest off-grid solar power plant in Canada's Northwest Territories underscores the feasibility and scalability of renewable energy solutions, from rooftop arrays like Edmonton's largest rooftop solar to off-grid systems in remote and resource-intensive industries like mining. The success of this project serves as a model for other mining companies seeking to enhance sustainability practices and operational resilience in challenging geographical locations.

Beyond environmental benefits, Rio Tinto's initiative is expected to have positive economic and social impacts on the local community. By reducing diesel consumption, the company mitigates air pollution and noise levels associated with mining operations, improving environmental quality and contributing to the well-being of nearby residents and wildlife.

Looking ahead, Rio Tinto's investment in renewable energy at the Diavik Diamond Mine sets a precedent for responsible resource development and sustainable mining practices in Canada, where solar growth in Alberta is accelerating, and globally. As the mining industry continues to evolve, integrating renewable energy solutions like off-grid solar power plants will play a crucial role in achieving long-term environmental sustainability and operational efficiency.

In conclusion, Rio Tinto's completion of the largest off-grid solar power plant in Canada's Northwest Territories marks a significant milestone in the mining industry's transition towards renewable energy. By harnessing solar power to reduce reliance on diesel generators, the company not only improves operational efficiency and environmental stewardship but also adds to momentum from corporate power purchase agreements like RBC's Alberta solar deal, setting a positive example for sustainable development in remote regions. As global demand for responsible mining practices grows, initiatives like Rio Tinto's off-grid solar project demonstrate the potential of renewable energy to drive positive change in resource-intensive industries.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

European Gas Prices hit pre-invasion lows as LNG inflows, EU storage gains, and softer oil markets ease the energy crisis, while recession risks, windfall taxes, and ExxonMobil's challenge shape demand and policy.

Key Points

European gas prices reflect supply, LNG inflows, storage, and policy, shaping energy costs for households and industry.

✅ Month-ahead hit €76.78/MWh, rebounding to €85.50/MWh.

✅ EU storage 83.2% filled; autumn peak exceeded 95%.

✅ Demand tempered by recession risks; LNG inflows offset Russian cuts.

European gas prices have dipped to a level last seen before Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine in February, after warmer weather across the continent eased concerns over shortages and as coal demand dropped across Europe during winter.

The month-ahead European gas future contract dropped as low as €76.78 per megawatt hour on Wednesday, the lowest level in 10 months, amid EU talks on gas price cap strategies that could shape markets, before closing higher at €83.70, according to Refinitiv, a data company.

The invasion roiled global energy markets, serving as a wake-up call to ditch fossil fuels for policymakers, and forced European countries, including industrial powerhouse Germany, to look for alternative suppliers to those funding the Kremlin. Europe had continued to rely on Russian gas even after its 2014 annexation of Crimea and support for separatists in eastern Ukraine.

On Tuesday 83.2% of EU gas storage was filled, data from industry body Gas Infrastructure Europe showed. The EU in May set a target of filling 80% of its gas storage capacity by the start of November to prepare for winter, and weighed emergency electricity measures to curb prices as needed. It hit that target in August, and by mid-November it had peaked at more than 95%.

Gas prices bounced further off the 10-month low on Thursday to reach €85.50 per megawatt hour.

Europe has several months of domestic heating demand ahead, and some industry bosses believe energy shortages could also be a problem next winter, with a worst energy nightmare still possible if supplies tighten. However, traders have also had to weigh the effects of recessions expected in several big European economies, which could dent energy demand.

UK gas prices have also dropped back from their highs earlier this year, and forecasts suggest UK energy bills to drop in April. The day-ahead gas price closed at 155p per therm on Wednesday, compared with 200p/therm at the start of 2022, and more than 500p/therm in August.

Europe’s response to the prospect of gas shortages also included campaigns to reduce energy use – a strategy belatedly adopted by the UK – and windfall taxes on energy companies to help raise revenues for governments, many of which have started expensive subsidies to cushion the impact of high energy prices for households and consumers. Energy companies have enjoyed huge profits at the expense of businesses and households this year, as EU inflation accelerated, but costs remained much the same.

However, the US oil company ExxonMobil on Wednesday launched a legal challenge against EU plans for a windfall tax on oil companies, according to filings by its German and Dutch subsidiaries at the European general court in Luxembourg. ExxonMobil argued that the windfall tax would be “counter-productive” because it said it would result in lower investment in fossil fuel extraction, and that the EU did not have the legal jurisdiction to impose it.

ExxonMobil’s move has prompted anger among European politicians. A message posted on the Twitter account of Paolo Gentiloni, the EU’s commissioner for the economy, on Thursday stated: “Fairness and solidarity, even for corporate giants. #Exxon.”

Oil prices are significantly lower than they were before the start of Russia’s invasion, and only marginally above where they were at the start of 2022. Brent crude oil futures traded at $100 a barrel on 28 February, but were at $81.84 on Thursday.

Oil prices dropped by 1.7% on Thursday. Prices had risen from 12-month lows in early December as traders hoped for increased demand from China after it relaxed its coronavirus restrictions. However, Covid-19 infection numbers are thought to have surged in the country, prompting the US to require travellers from China to show a negative test for the disease and tempering expectations for a rapid increase in oil demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electric power market crisis highlights grid reliability risks as coal and nuclear retire amid subsidies, mandates, and cheap natural gas; intermittent wind and solar raise blackout concerns, resilience costs, and pricing distortions across regulated markets.

Key Points

Reliability and cost risks as coal and nuclear retire; subsidies distort prices; intermittent renewables strain grid.

✅ Coal and nuclear retirements reduce baseload capacity

✅ Subsidies and mandates distort market pricing signals

✅ Intermittent renewables increase blackout and grid risk

Is anyone paying any attention to the crisis that is going on in our electric power markets?

Over the past six months at least four major nuclear power plants have been slated for shutdown, including the last one in operation in California. Meanwhile, dozens of coal plants have been shuttered as well — despite low prices and cleaner coal. Some of our major coal companies may go into bankruptcy.

This is a dangerous game we are playing here with our most valuable resource — outside of clean air and water. Traditionally, we've received almost half our electric power nationwide from coal and nuclear power, and for good reason. They are cheap sources of power and they are highly resilient and reliable.

The disruption to coal and nuclear power wouldn't be disturbing if this were happening as a result of market forces. That's only partially the case.

#google#

The amazing shale oil and gas revolution is providing Americans with cheap gas for home heating and power generation. Hooray. The price of natural gas has fallen by nearly two-thirds over the last decade and this has put enormous price pressure on other forms of power generation.

But this is not a free-market story of Schumpeterian creative destruction. If it were, then wind and solar power would have been shutdown years ago. They can't possibly compete on a level playing field with $3 natural gas.

In most markets solar and wind power survive purely because the states mandate that as much as 30 percent of residential and commercial power come from these sources. The utilities have to buy it regardless of price, even as electricity demand is flat in many regions. What a sweet deal. The California state legislature just mandated that every new home spend $10,000 on solar panels on the roof.

Well over $100 billion of subsidies to big wind and big solar were doled out over the last decade, and even with the avalanche of taxpayer subsidies and bailout funds many of these companies like Solyndra (which received $500 million in handouts) failed, underscoring why a green revolution hasn't materialized as promised.

These industries are not anywhere close to self sufficiency. In 2017 amid utility trends to watch the wind industry admitted that without a continuation of a multi-billion tax credit, the wind turbines would stop turning.

This combines with the left's war on coal through regulations that have destroyed coal plants in many areas. (Thank goodness for the exports of coal or the industry would be in much bigger trouble.)

Bottom line: Our power market is a Soviet central planner's dream come true and it is extinguishing our coal and nuclear industries.

Why should anyone care?

First, because government subsidies, regulations and mandates make electric power more expensive. Natural gas prices have fallen by two-thirds, but electric power costs have still risen in most areas — thanks to the renewable mandates.

More importantly, the electric power market isn't accurately pricing in the value of resilience and reliability. What is the value of making sure the lights don't go off? What is the cost to the economy and human health if we have rolling brownouts and blackouts because the aging U.S. grid doesn't have enough juice during peak demand.

Politicians, utilities and federal regulators are shortsightedly killing our coal and nuclear capacities without considering the risk of future energy shortages and power disruptions. Once a nuclear plant is shutdown, you can't just fire it back up again when you need it.

Wind and solar are notoriously unreliable. Most places where wind power is used, coal plants are needed to back up the system during peak energy use and when the wind isn't blowing.

The first choice to fix energy markets is to finally end the tangled web of layers and layers of taxpayer subsidies and mandates and let the market choose. Alas, that's nearly impossible given the political clout of big wind and solar.

The second best solution is for the regulators and utilities to take into account the grid reliability and safety of our energy. Would people be willing to pay a little more for their power to ensure against brownouts? I sure would. The cost of having too little energy far exceeds the cost of having too much.

A glass of water costs pennies, but if you're in a desert dying of thirst, that water may be worth thousands of dollars.

I'll admit I'm not sure what the best solution is to the power plant closures. But if we have major towns and cities in the country without electric power for stretches of time because of green energy fixation, Americans are going to be mighty angry and our economy will take a major hit.

When our manufacturers, schools, hospitals, the internet and iPhones shut down, we're not going to think wind and solar power are so chic.

If the lights start to go out five or 10 years from now, we will look back at what is happening today and wonder how we could have been so darn stupid.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Covid-19 Energy Transition and Machine Learning reshape climate change policy, electricity planning, and grid operations, from demand forecasting and decarbonization strategies in Europe to scalable electrification modeling and renewable integration across Africa.

Key Points

How the pandemic reshapes energy policy and how ML improves planning, demand forecasts, and grid reliability in Africa.

✅ Pandemic-driven demand shifts strain grid operations and markets

✅ Policy momentum risks rollback; favor future-oriented decarbonization

✅ ML boosts demand prediction, electrification, and grid reliability in Africa

The impact of Covid-19 on the energy system was discussed in an online climate change workshop that also considered how machine learning can help electricity planning in Africa.

This year’s International Conference on Learning Representations event included a workshop held by the Climate Change AI group of academics and artificial intelligence industry representatives, which considered how machine learning can help tackle climate change and highlighted advances by European electricity prediction specialists working in this field.

Bjarne Steffen, senior researcher at the energy politics group at ETH Zürich, shared his insights at the workshop on how Covid-19 and the accompanying economic crisis are affecting recently introduced ‘green’ policies. “The crisis hit at a time when energy policies were experiencing increasing momentum towards climate action, especially in Europe, and in proposals to invest in smarter electricity infrastructure for long-term resilience,” said Steffen, who added the coronavirus pandemic has cast into doubt the implementation of such progressive policies.

The academic said there was a risk of overreacting to the public health crisis, as far as progress towards climate change goals was concerned.

Lobbying

“Many interest groups from carbon-intensive industries are pushing to remove the emissions trading system and other green policies,” said Steffen. “In cases where those policies are having a serious impact on carbon-emitting industries, governments should offer temporary waivers during this temporary crisis, instead of overhauling the regulatory structure.”

However, the ETH Zürich researcher said any temptation to impose environmental conditions to bail-outs for carbon-intensive industries should be resisted. “While it is tempting to push a green agenda in the relief packages, tying short-term environmental conditions to bail-outs is impractical, given the uncertainty in how long this crisis will last,” he said. “It is better to include provisions that will give more control over future decisions to decarbonize industries, such as the government taking equity shares in companies.”

Steffen shared with pv magazine readers an article published in Joule which can be accessed here, and which articulates his arguments about how Covid-19 could affect the energy transition.

Covid-19 in the U.K.

The electricity system in the U.K. is also being affected by Covid-19, even as the U.S. electric grid grapples with climate risks, according to Jack Kelly, founder of London-based, not-for-profit, greenhouse gas emission reduction research laboratory Open Climate Fix.

“The crisis has reduced overall electricity use in the U.K.,” said Kelly. “Residential use has increased but this has not offset reductions in commercial and industrial loads.”

Steve Wallace, a power system manager at British electricity system operator National Grid ESO recently told U.K. broadcaster the BBC electricity demand has fallen 15-20% across the U.K. The National Grid ESO blog has stated the fall-off makes managing grid functions such as voltage regulation more challenging.

Open Climate Fix’s Kelly noted even events such as a nationally-coordinated round of applause for key workers was followed by a dramatic surge in demand, stating: “On April 16, the National Grid saw a nearly 1 GW spike in electricity demand over 10 minutes after everyone finished clapping for healthcare workers and went about the rest of their evenings.”

Climate Change AI workshop panelists also discussed the impact machine learning could have on improving electricity planning in Africa. The Electricity Growth and Use in Developing Economies (e-Guide) initiative funded by fossil fuel philanthropic organization the Rockefeller Foundation aims to use data to improve the planning and operation of electricity systems in developing countries.

E-Guide members Nathan Williams, an assistant professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) in New York state, and Simone Fobi, a PhD student at Columbia University in NYC, spoke about their work at the Climate Change AI workshop, which closed on Thursday. Williams emphasized the importance of demand prediction, saying: “Uncertainty around current and future electricity consumption leads to inefficient planning. The weak link for energy planning tools is the poor quality of demand data.”

Fobi said: “We are trying to use machine learning to make use of lower-quality data and still be able to make strong predictions.”

The market maturity of individual solar home systems and PV mini-grids in Africa mean more complex electrification plan modeling is required, similar to integrating AI data centers into Canada's grids at scale.

Modeling

“When we are doing [electricity] access planning, we are trying to figure out where the demand will be and how much demand will exist so we can propose the right technology,” added Fobi. “This makes demand estimation crucial to efficient planning.”

Unlike many traditional modeling approaches, machine learning is scalable and transferable. Rochester’s Williams has been using data from nations such as Kenya, which are more advanced in their electrification efforts, to train machine learning models to make predictions to guide electrification efforts in countries which are not as far down the track.

Williams also discussed work being undertaken by e-Guide members at the Colorado School of Mines, which uses nighttime satellite imagery and machine learning to assess the reliability of grid infrastructure in India, where new algorithms to prevent ransomware-induced blackouts are also advancing.

Rural power

Another e-Guide project, led by Jay Taneja at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst – and co-funded by the Energy and Economic Growth program on development spending based at Berkeley – uses satellite imagery to identify productive uses of electricity in rural areas by detecting pollution signals from diesel irrigation pumps.

Though good quality data is often not readily available for Africa, Williams added, it does exist.

“We have spent years developing trusting relationships with utilities,” said the RIT academic. “Once our partners realize the value proposition we can offer, they are enthusiastic about sharing their data … We can’t do machine learning without high-quality data and this requires that organizations can effectively collect, organize, store and work with data. Data can transform the electricity sector, as shown by Canadian projects to use AI for energy savings, but capacity building is crucial.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News