Enviro group seeks federal help in coal project

Electric Ireland Electricity Price Increase stems from rising wholesale costs as energy suppliers adjust tariffs. Customers face higher electricity bills, while gas remains unchanged; switching provider could deliver savings during winter.

Key Points

A 4% increase in Electric Ireland electricity prices from 1 Feb 2018, driven by wholesale costs; gas unchanged.

✅ 4% electricity rise effective 1 Feb 2018

✅ Increase attributed to rising wholesale energy costs

✅ Switching supplier may reduce bills and boost savings

ELECTRIC IRELAND has announced that it will increase its household electricity prices by 4% from 1 February 2018.

This comes just a week after both Bord Gáis Energy and SSE Airtricity announced increases in their gas and electricity prices, while national efforts to secure electricity supplies continue in parallel.

Electric Ireland has said that the electricity price increase is unavoidable due to the rising wholesale cost of electricity, with EU electricity prices trending higher as well.

The electricity provider said it has no plans to increase residential gas prices at the moment.

Commenting on the latest announcement, Eoin Clarke, managing director of Switcher.ie, said: “This is the third largest energy supplier to announce a price increase in the last week, so the other suppliers are probably not far behind.

“The fact that the rise is not coming into effect until 1 February will be welcomed by Electric Ireland customers who are worried about the rising cost of energy as winter sets in,” he said.

However, any increase is still bad news, especially as a quarter of consumers (27%) say their energy bill already puts them under financial pressure, and EU energy inflation has disproportionately affected lower-income households.

According to Electric Ireland, this will amount to a €2.91 per month increase for an average electricity customer, amounting to €35 per year.

Meanwhile, SSE Airtricity’s change amounts to an increase of 90 cent per week or €46.80 per year for someone with average consumption on their 24hr SmartSaver standard tariff, far below the dramatic Spain electricity price surge seen recently.

Bord Gáis Energy said its announcement will increase a typical gas bill by €2.12 a month and a typical electricity bill by €4.77 a month, reflecting wider trends such as the Germany power price spike reported recently.

In a statement, Bord Gáis Energy said: “The changes, which will take effect from 1st November 2017, are due to significant increases in the wholesale cost of energy as well as higher costs associated with distributing energy on the gas and electricity networks.

“In percentage terms, the increase represents 3.4% in a typical customer’s gas bill and an increase of 5.9% in a typical customer’s electricity bill.”

Clark said that if customers haven’t switched electricity provider in over a year that they should review the deals available at the moment.

“The market is highly competitive so there are huge savings to be made by switching,” he said.

“All suppliers use the same cables to supply electricity to your home, so you don’t need to worry about any loss in service, and you could save up to 324 by switching from typical standard tariffs to the cheapest deals on the market.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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

Finland Shadow Fleet Cable Investigation details suspected Russia-linked sabotage of Baltic Sea undersea cables, AIS dark activity, and false-flag tactics threatening critical infrastructure, prompting NATO and EU vigilance against hybrid warfare across Northern Europe.

Key Points

Finland probes suspected sabotage of undersea cables by a Russia-linked vessel using flag of convenience and AIS off.

✅ Undersea cable damage in Baltic Sea sparks security alerts

✅ Suspected shadow fleet ship ran AIS dark under false flag

✅ NATO and EU boost maritime surveillance, critical infrastructure

In December 2024, Finland launched an investigation into a ship allegedly linked to Russia’s “shadow fleet” following a series of incidents involving damage to undersea cables. The investigation has raised significant concerns in Finland and across Europe, as it suggests possible sabotage or other intentional acts related to the disruption of vital communication and energy infrastructure in the Baltic Sea region. This article explores the key details of the investigation, the role of Russia’s shadow fleet, and the broader geopolitical implications of this event.

The "Shadow Fleet" and Its Role

The term “shadow fleet” refers to a collection of ships, often disguised or operating under false flags, that are believed to be part of Russia's covert maritime operations. These vessels are typically used for activities such as smuggling, surveillance, and potentially military operations, mirroring the covert hacker infrastructure documented by researchers in related domains. In recent years, the "shadow fleet" has been under increasing scrutiny due to its involvement in various clandestine actions, especially in regions close to NATO member countries and areas with sensitive infrastructure.

Russia’s "shadow fleet" operates in the shadows of regular international shipping, often difficult to track due to the use of deceptive practices like turning off automatic identification systems (AIS). This makes it difficult for authorities to monitor their movements and assess their true purpose, raising alarm bells when one of these ships is suspected of being involved in damaging vital infrastructure like undersea cables.

The Cable Damage Incident

The investigation was sparked after damage was discovered to an undersea cable in the Baltic Sea, a vital link for communication, data transmission, and energy supply between Finland and other parts of Europe. These undersea cables are crucial for everything from internet connections to energy grid stability, with recent Nordic grid constraints underscoring their importance, and any disruption to them can have serious consequences.

Finnish authorities reported that the damage appeared to be deliberate, raising suspicions of potential sabotage. The timing of the damage coincides with a period of heightened tensions between Russia and the West, particularly following the escalation of the war in Ukraine, with recent strikes on Ukraine's power grid highlighting the stakes, and ongoing geopolitical instability. This has led many to speculate that the damage to the cables could be part of a broader strategy to undermine European security and disrupt critical infrastructure.

Upon further investigation, a vessel that had been in the vicinity at the time of the damage was identified as potentially being part of Russia’s "shadow fleet." The ship had been operating under a false flag and had disabled its AIS system, making it challenging for authorities to track its movements. The vessel’s activities raised red flags, and Finnish authorities are now working closely with international partners to ascertain its involvement in the incident.

Geopolitical Implications

The damage to undersea cables and the suspected involvement of Russia’s "shadow fleet" have broader geopolitical implications, particularly in the context of Europe’s security landscape. Undersea cables are considered critical infrastructure, akin to electric utilities where intrusions into US control rooms have been documented, and any deliberate attack on them could be seen as an act of war or an attempt to destabilize regional security.

In the wake of the investigation, there has been increased concern about the vulnerability of Europe’s energy and communication networks, which are increasingly reliant on these undersea connections, and as the Baltics pursue grid synchronization with the EU to reduce dependencies, policymakers are reassessing resilience measures. The European Union, alongside NATO, has expressed growing alarm over potential threats to this infrastructure, especially as tensions with Russia continue to escalate.

The incident also highlights the growing risks associated with hybrid warfare tactics, which combine conventional military actions with cyberattacks, including the U.S. condemnation of power grid hacking as a cautionary example, sabotage, and disinformation campaigns. The targeting of undersea cables could be part of a broader strategy by Russia to disrupt Europe’s ability to coordinate and respond effectively, particularly in the context of ongoing sanctions and diplomatic pressure.

Furthermore, the suspected involvement of a "shadow fleet" ship raises questions about the transparency and accountability of maritime activities in the region. The use of vessels operating under false flags or without identification systems complicates efforts to monitor and regulate shipping in international waters. This has led to calls for stronger maritime security measures and greater cooperation between European countries to ensure the safety and integrity of critical infrastructure.

Finland’s Response and Ongoing Investigation

In response to the cable damage incident, Finnish authorities have mobilized a comprehensive investigation, seeking to determine the extent of the damage and whether the actions were deliberate or accidental. The Finnish government has called for increased vigilance and cooperation with international partners to identify and address potential threats to undersea infrastructure, drawing on Symantec's Dragonfly research for insights into hostile capabilities.

Finland, which shares a border with Russia and has been increasingly concerned about its security in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, has ramped up its defense posture. The damage to undersea cables serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities that come with an interconnected global infrastructure, and Finland’s security services are likely to scrutinize the incident as part of their broader defense strategy.

Additionally, the incident is being closely monitored by NATO and the European Union, both of which have emphasized the importance of safeguarding critical infrastructure. As an EU member and NATO partner, Finland’s response to this situation could influence how Europe addresses similar challenges in the future.

The investigation into the damage to undersea cables in the Baltic Sea, allegedly linked to Russia’s "shadow fleet," has significant implications for European security. The use of covert operations, including the deployment of ships under false flags, underscores the growing threats to vital infrastructure in the region. With tensions between Russia and the West continuing to rise, the potential for future incidents targeting critical communication and energy networks is a pressing concern.

As Finland continues its investigation, the incident highlights the need for greater international cooperation and vigilance in safeguarding undersea cables and other critical infrastructure. In a world where hybrid warfare tactics are becoming increasingly common, ensuring the security of these vital connections will be crucial for maintaining stability in Europe. The outcome of this investigation may serve as a crucial case study in the ongoing efforts to protect infrastructure from emerging and unconventional threats.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Pennsylvania Electricity Market Deregulation has driven competitive pricing, leveraged low-cost natural gas, and spurred private investment, jobs, and efficient power plants, while nuclear subsidies threaten wholesale market signals and long-term consumer savings.

Key Points

Policy that opens generation to competition, leverages cheap gas, lowers rates, and resists subsidies for nuclear plants.

✅ Competitive wholesale pricing benefits consumers statewide

✅ Gas-driven plants add efficient, flexible capacity and jobs

✅ Nuclear subsidies distort market signals and raise costs

For decades, the government regulation of Pennsylvania's electricity markets dictated all aspects of power generation resources in the state, thus restricting market-driven prices for consumers and hindering new power plant development and investment.

Deregulation has enabled competitive markets to drive energy prices downward, as recent grid auction payouts fell 64% indicate, which has transformed Pennsylvania from a higher-electricity-cost state to one with prices below the national average.

Recently, the economic advantage of abundant low-cost natural gas has spurred an influx of billions of dollars of private capital investment and thousands of jobs to construct environmentally responsible natural gas power generation facilities throughout the commonwealth — including our three power generation facilities in operation and one presently under construction.

Calpine is an independent power provider with a national portfolio of 80 highly efficient power plants in operation or under construction with an electric generating capacity of approximately 26,000 megawatts. Collectively, these resources can provide sufficient power for more than 30 million residential homes. We are not a regulated utility receiving a guaranteed rate of return on investment. Rather, Calpine competes to sell wholesale power into the electric markets, and the economics of supply and demand are fundamental to the success of our business.

Pennsylvania's deregulated electricity market is working. Consumers are benefiting from low-cost natural gas, as broader evidence shows competition benefits consumers and the environment across markets, and companies such as Calpine are investing billions of dollars and creating thousands of jobs to build advanced, energy efficient, environmentally responsible and flexible power generating facilities.

There are presently seven electric generating projects under construction in the commonwealth, representing about a $7 billion capital investment that will produce about 7,000 megawatts of efficient electrical power, with additional facilities being planned.

Looking back 20 years following the enactment of the Pennsylvania Electricity Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act, Pennsylvania's regulators and policymakers must conclude that the results of a free and fair market-driven structure have delivered indisputable benefits to the consumer, even amid potential winter rate spikes for residents, and the Pennsylvania economy.

While consumers are now reaping the benefits of open and competitive electricity markets, we see challenges on the horizon that could threaten the foundation of those markets. Due to pressure from nuclear power generators, state policymakers throughout the nation have been increasing efforts to impact the generation mix in their respective states by offering ratepayer funded subsidies to existing nuclear generation resources or by considering a market structure overhaul in New England.

Subsidizing one power generation type over others is having a significant, negative impact on wholesale electric markets, competitive retails markets and ultimately the cost the consumer will have to pay, and can exacerbate disruptions in coal and nuclear industries that strain the economy and risk brownouts.

In Pennsylvania, these subsidies would follow nearly $9 billion already paid by ratepayers to help the commonwealth's nuclear industry transition from regulated to competitive energy markets.

The deregulation of Pennsylvania's electricity markets in the late 1990s allowed the nuclear industry to receive billions of dollars from ratepayers to recover "stranded costs" related to investments in the commonwealth's nuclear plants. These costs were negotiated amounts based on settlements with Pennsylvania's Public Utility Commission to allow the nuclear industry to prepare and transition to competitive electricity markets.

Enough is enough. Regulatory or governmental interference in well functioning markets does not lead to better outcomes. Pennsylvania's state Legislature should not pick winners and losers by enacting legislation that would create an uneven playing field that subsidizes nuclear generating resources in the commonwealth.

William Ferguson is regional vice president for Calpine Corp.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Australia's greenhouse gas emissions rose in Q2 as electricity and transport pollution increased, despite renewable energy growth. Net zero targets, carbon dioxide equivalent metrics, and land use changes underscore mixed trends in decarbonisation.

Key Points

About 499-500 Mt CO2-e annually, with a 2% quarterly rise led by electricity and transport.

✅ Q2 emissions rose to 127 Mt from 124.4 Mt seasonally adjusted

✅ Electricity sector up to 41.6 Mt; transport added nearly 1 Mt

✅ Land use remains a net sink; renewables expanded capacity

Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions rose in the June quarter by about 2% as pollution from the electricity sector and transport increased.

Figures released on Tuesday by the Morrison government showed that on a year to year basis, emissions for the 12 months to last June totalled 498.9m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. That tally was down 2.1%, or 10.8m tonnes compared with the same period a year earlier.

However, on a seasonally adjusted quarterly basis, emissions increased to 127m tonnes, or just over 2%, from the 124.4m tonnes reported in the March quarter. For the year to March, emissions totalled 494.2m tonnes, underscoring the pickup in pollution in the more recent quarter even as global coal power declines worldwide.

A stable pollution rate, if not a rising one, is also implied by the government’s release of preliminary figures for the September quarter. They point to 125m tonnes of emissions in trend terms for the July-September months, bringing the year to September total to about 500m tonnes, the latest report said.

The government has made much of Australia “meeting and beating” climate targets. However, the latest statistics show mostly emissions are not in decline despite its pledge ahead of the Glasgow climate summit that the country would hit net zero by 2050, and AEMO says supply can remain uninterrupted as coal phases out over the next three decades.

“Nothing’s happening except for the electricity sector,” said Hugh Saddler, an honorary associate professor at the Australian National University. Once Covid curbs on the economy eased, such as during the current quarter, emission sources such as from transport will show a rise, he predicted.

Falling costs for new wind and solar farms, with the IEA naming solar the cheapest in history worldwide, are pushing coal and gas out of electricity generation, as well as pushing down power prices. In seasonally adjusted terms, though, emissions for that sector rose from 39.7m tonnes the March quarter to 41.6m in the June one.

Most other sectors were steady, with pollution from transport adding almost 1m tonnes in the June quarter.

On an annual basis, a 500m tonnes tally is the lowest since records began in the 1990s, and IEA reported global emissions flatlined in 2019 for context. That lower trajectory, though, is lower due much to the land sector remaining a net sink even as some experts raise questions about the true trends when it comes to land clearing.

According to the government, this sector – known as land use, land-use change and forestry – amounted to a net reduction of emissions of 24.4m tonnes, or almost negative 5% of the national total, in the year to June.

Sign up to receive an email with the top stories from Guardian Australia every morning

“The magnitude of this net sink has decreased by 0.6% (0.2 Mt CO2-e) on the previous 12 months due to an increase in emissions from agricultural soils, partially offset by a continuing decline in land clearing emissions,” the latest report said.

For its part, the government also touted the increase of renewable energy, as seen in Canada's electricity progress too, as central to driving emissions lower.

“Since 2017, Australia’s consumption of renewable energy has grown at a compound annual rate of 4.6%, with more than $40bn invested in Australia’s renewable energy sector,” Angus Taylor, the federal energy minister said, while UK net zero policy changes show a different approach. “Last year, Australia deployed new solar and wind at eight times the global per capita average.”

ANU’s Saddler said the main driver had been the 2020 Renewable Energy Target that the Coalition government had cut, and had anyway been implemented “a very considerable time ago”.

Tim Baxter, the Climate Council’s senior researcher, said “the time for leaning on the achievements of others is long since past”.

“We need a federal government willing to step up on emissions reductions and take charge with real policy, not wishlists,” he said, referring to the government’s net zero plan to rely on technologies to cut pollution in pursuit of a sustainable electric planet in practice, some of which don’t exist now.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

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.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News