Energy expert urges efficiency over adding capacity

Canada Wind Energy Costs are plunging as renewable energy auctions, CfD contracts, and efficient turbines drive prices to 2-4 cents/kWh across Alberta and Saskatchewan, outcompeting grid power via competitive bidding and improved capacity factors.

Key Points

Averaging 2-4 cents/kWh via auctions, CfD support, and bigger turbines, wind is now cost-competitive across Canada.

✅ Alberta CfD bids as low as 3.9 cents/kWh.

✅ Turbine outputs rose from 1 MW to 3.3 MW per tower.

✅ Competitive auctions cut costs ~70% over nine years.

It's taken a decade of technological improvement and a new competitive bidding process for electrical generation contracts, but wind may have finally come into its own as one of the cheapest ways to create power.

Ten years ago, Ontario was developing new wind power projects at a cost of 28 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), the kind of above-market rate that the U.K., Portugal and other countries were offering to try to kick-start development of renewables. 

Now some wind companies say they've brought generation costs down to between 2 and 4 cents — something that appeals to provinces that are looking to significantly increase their renewable energy deployment plans.

The cost of electricity varies across Canada, by province and time of day, from an average of 6.5 cents per kWh in Quebec to as much as 15 cents in Halifax.

Capital Power, an Edmonton-based company, recently won a contract for the Whitla 298.8-megawatt (MW) wind project near Medicine Hat, Alta., with a bid of 3.9 cents per kWh, at a time when three new solar facilities in Alberta have been contracted at lower cost than natural gas, underscoring the trend. That price covers capital costs, transmission and connection to the grid, as well as the cost of building the project.

Jerry Bellikka, director of government relations, said Capital Power has been building wind projects for a decade, in the U.S., Alberta, B.C. and other provinces. In that time the price of wind generation equipment has been declining continually, while the efficiency of wind turbines increases.

Increased efficiency

"It used to be one tower was 1 MW; now each turbine generates 3.3 MW. There's more electricity generated per tower than several years ago," he said.

One wild card for Whitla may be steel prices — because of the U.S. and Canada slapping tariffs on one other's steel and aluminum products. Whitla's towers are set to come from Colorado, and many of the smaller components from China.

Canada introduces new surtaxes to curb flood of steel imports

"We haven't yet taken delivery of the steel. It remains to be seen if we are affected by the tariffs." Belikka said.

Another company had owned the site and had several years of meteorological data, including wind speeds at various heights on the site, which is in a part of southern Alberta known for its strong winds.

But the choice of site was also dependent on the municipality, with rural Forty Mile County eager for the development, Belikka said.

Alberta aims for 30% electricity from wind by 2030

Alberta wants 30 per cent of its electricity to come from renewable sources by 2030 and, as an energy powerhouse, is encouraging that with a guaranteed pricing mechanism in what is otherwise a market-bidding process.

While the cost of generating energy for the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) fluctuates hourly and can be a lot higher when there is high demand, the winners of the renewable energy contracts are guaranteed their fixed-bid price.

The average pool price of electricity last year in Alberta was 5 cents per kWh; in boom times it rose to closer to 8 cents. But if the price rises that high after the wind farm is operating, the renewable generator won't get it, instead rebating anything over 3.9 cents back to the government.

On the other hand, if the average or pool price is a low 2 cents kWh, the province will top up their return to 3.9 cents.

This contract-for-differences (CfD) payment mechanism has been tested in renewable contracts in the U.K. and other jurisdictions, including some U.S. states, according to AESO.

Competitive bidding in Saskatchewan

In Saskatchewan, the plan is to double its capacity of renewable electricity, to 50 per cent of generation capacity, by 2030, and it uses an open bidding system between the private sector generator and publicly owned SaskPower.

In bidding last year on a renewable contract, 15 renewable power developers submitted bids, with an average price of 4.2 cents per kWh.

One low bidder was Potentia with a proposal for a 200 MW project, which should provide electricity for 90,000 homes in the province, at less than 3 cents kWh, according to Robert Hornung of the Canadian Wind Energy Association.

"The cost of wind energy has fallen 70 per cent in the last nine years," he says. "In the last decade, more wind energy has been built than any other form of electricity."

Ontario remains the leading user of wind with 4,902 MW of wind generation as of December 2017, most of that capacity built under a system that offered an above-market price for renewable power, put in place by the previous Liberal government.

In June of last year, the new Conservative government of Doug Ford halted more than 700 renewable-energy projects, one of them a wind farm that is sitting half-built, even as plans to reintroduce renewable projects continue to advance.

The feed-in tariff system that offered a higher rate to early builders of renewable generation ended in 2016, but early contracts with guaranteed prices could last up to 20 years.

Hornung says Ontario now has an excess of generating capacity, as it went on building when the 2008-9 bust cut market consumption dramatically.

But he insists wind can compete in the open market, offering low prices for generation when Ontario needs new  capacity.

"I expect there will be competitive processes put in place. I'm quite confident wind projects will continue to go ahead. We're well positioned to do that."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

US Grid Pandemic Response coordinates control rooms, grid operators, and critical infrastructure, leveraging hydroelectric plants, backup control centers, mutual assistance networks, and deep cleaning protocols to maintain reliability amid reduced demand and COVID-19 risks.

Key Points

US Grid Pandemic Response encompasses measures by utilities and operators to safeguard power reliability during COVID-19

✅ Control rooms staffed on-site; operators split across backup centers

✅ Health screenings, deep cleaning, and isolation protocols mitigate contagion

✅ Reduced demand and mutual assistance improve grid resilience

Control rooms are the brains of NYPA’s power plants, which are mostly hydroelectric and supply about a quarter of all the electricity in New York state. They’re also a bit like human petri dishes. The control rooms are small, covered with frequently touched switches and surfaces, and occupied for hours on end by a half-dozen employees. Since social distancing and telecommuting isn’t an option in this context, NYPA has instituted regular health screenings and deep cleanings to keep the coronavirus out.

The problem is that each power plant relies on only a handful of control room operators. Since they have a specialized skill set, they can’t be easily replaced if they get sick. “They are very, very critical,” says Gil Quiniones, NYPA president and CEO. If the pandemic worsens, Quiniones says that NYPA may require control room operators to live on-site at power plants to reduce the chance of the virus making it in from the outside world. It sounds drastic, but Quiniones says NYPA has done it before during emergencies—once during the massive 2003 blackout, and again during Hurricane Sandy.

Meanwhile, PJM is one of North America’s nine regional grid operators and manages the transmission lines that move electricity from power plants to millions of customers in 13 states on the Eastern seaboard, including Washington, DC. PJM has had a pandemic response plan on the books for 15 years, but Mike Bryson, senior vice president of operations, says that this is the first time it’s gone into full effect. As of last week, about 80 percent of PJM’s 750 full-time employees have been working from home. But PJM also requires a skeleton crew of essential workers to be on-site at all times in its control centers. As part of its emergency planning, PJM built a backup control center years ago, and now it is splitting control center operators between the two to limit contact.

Past experience with large-scale disasters has helped the energy sector keep the lights on and ventilators running during the pandemic. Energy is one of 16 sectors that the US government has designated as “critical infrastructure,” which also includes the communications industry, transportation sector, and food and water systems. Each is seen as vital to the country and therefore has a duty to maintain operations during national emergencies.

“We need to be treated as first responders,” says Scott Aaronson, the vice president of security and preparedness at the Edison Electric Institute, a trade group representing private utilities. “Everybody's goal right now is to keep the public healthy, and to keep society functioning as best we can. A lack of electricity will certainly create a challenge for those goals.”

America’s electricity grid is a patchwork of regional grid operators connecting private and state-owned utilities. This means simply figuring out who’s in charge and coordinating among the various organizations is one of the biggest challenges to keeping the electricity flowing during a national emergency, according to Aaronson.

Generally, a lot of this responsibility falls on formal energy organizations like the nonprofit North American Electric Reliability Corporation and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. But during the coronavirus outbreak, an obscure organization run by the CEOs of electric utilities called the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council has also served as a primary liaison between the federal government and the thousands of utility companies around the US. Aaronson says the organization has been meeting twice a week for the past three weeks to ensure that utilities are implementing best practices in their response to the coronavirus, as well as to inform the government of material needs to keep the energy sector running smoothly.

This tight-knit coordination will be especially important if the pandemic gets worse, as many forecasts suggest it will. Most utilities belong to at least one mutual assistance group, an informal network of electricity suppliers that help each other out during a catastrophe. These mutual assistance networks are usually called upon following major storms that threaten prolonged outages. But they could, in principle, be used to help during the coronavirus pandemic too. For example, if a utility finds itself without enough operators to manage a power plant, it could conceivably borrow trained operators from another company to make sure the power plant stays online.

So far, utilities and grid operators have managed to make it work on their own. There have been a handful of coronavirus cases reported at power plants, but they haven’t yet affected these plants’ ability to deliver energy. The challenges of running a power plant with a skeleton crew is partially offset by the reduced power demand as businesses shut down and more people work from home, says Robert Hebner, the director of the Center for Electromechanics at the University of Texas. “The reduced demand for power gives utilities a little breathing room,” says Hebner.

A recent study by the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute found that electricity demand in Italy has plunged by 18 percent following the severe increase in coronavirus cases in the country. Energy demand in China also plummeted as a result of the pandemic. Bryson, at PJM, says the grid operator has seen about a 6 percent decrease in electricity demand in recent weeks, but expects an even greater drop if the pandemic gets worse.

Generally speaking, problems delivering electricity in the US occur when the grid is overloaded or physically damaged, such as during California wildfires or a hurricane.

An open question among coronavirus researchers is whether there will be a second wave of the pandemic later this year. During the Spanish flu pandemic in the early 20th century, the second wave turned out to be deadlier than the first. If the coronavirus remerges later this year, it could be a serious threat to reliable electricity in the US, says John MacWilliams, a former associate deputy secretary of the Department of Energy and a senior fellow at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.

“If this crisis extends into the fall, we're going to hit hurricane season along the coasts,” MacWilliams says. “Utilities are doing a very good job right now, but if we get unlucky and have an active hurricane season, they're going to get very stressed because the number of workers that are available to repair damage and restore power will become more limited.”

This was a sentiment echoed by Bryson at PJM. “Any one disaster is manageable, but when you start layering them on top of each other, it gets much more challenging,” he adds. The US electricity grid struggles to handle major storms as it is, and these challenges will be heightened if too many workers are home sick. In this sense, the energy sector’s ability to deliver the electricity needed to keep manufacturing medical supplies or keep ventilators running depends to a large extent on our ability to flatten the curve today. The coronavirus is bad enough without having to worry about the lights going out.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

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

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Hornsea One Offshore Wind Farm delivers first power to the UK grid, scaling renewable energy with 1.2GW capacity, giant offshore turbines, and Yorkshire coast infrastructure to replace delayed nuclear and cut fossil fuel emissions.

Key Points

Hornsea One Offshore Wind Farm is a 1.2GW UK project delivering offshore renewable power to about 1 million homes.

✅ 174 turbines over 407 km2; Siemens Gamesa supply chain in the UK

✅ 1.2GW capacity can power ~1m homes; phases scale with 10MW+ turbines

✅ Supports UK grid, replaces delayed nuclear, cuts fossil generation

An offshore windfarm on the Yorkshire coast that will dwarf the world’s largest when completed is to supply its first power to the UK electricity grid this week, mirroring advances in tidal electricity projects delivering to the grid as well.

The Danish developer Ørsted, which has installed the first of 174 turbines at Hornsea One, said it was ready to step up its plans and fill the gap left by failed nuclear power schemes.

The size of the project takes the burgeoning offshore wind power sector to a new scale, on a par with conventional fossil fuel-fired power stations.

Hornsea One will cover 407 square kilometres, five times the size of the nearby city of Hull. At 1.2GW of capacity it will power 1m homes, making it about twice as powerful as today’s biggest offshore windfarm once it is completed in the second half of this year.

“The ability to generate clean electricity offshore at this scale is a globally significant milestone at a time when urgent action needs to be taken to tackle climate change,” said Matthew Wright, UK managing director of Ørsted, the world’s biggest offshore windfarm builder.

The power station is only the first of four planned in the area, with a green light and subsidies already awarded to a second stage due for completion in the early 2020s, and interest from Japanese utilities underscoring growing investor appetite.

The first two phases will use 7MW turbines, which are taller than London’s Gherkin building.

But the latter stages of the Hornsea development could use even more powerful, 10MW-plus turbines. Bigger turbines will capture more of the energy from the wind and should lower costs by reducing the number of foundations and amount of cabling firms need to put into the water, with developers noting that offshore wind can compete with gas in the U.S. as costs fall.

Henrik Poulsen, Ørsted’s chief executive, said he was in close dialogue with major manufacturers to use the new generation of turbines, some of which are expected to approach the height of the Shard in London, the tallest building in the EU.

The UK has a great wind resource and shallow enough seabed to exploit it, and could even “power most of Europe if it [the UK] went to the extreme with offshore”, he said.

Offshore windfarms could help ministers fill the low carbon power gap created by Hitachi and Toshiba scrapping nuclear plants, the executive suggested. “If nuclear should play less of a role than expected, I believe offshore wind can step up,” he said.

New nuclear projects in Europe had been “dramatically delayed and over budget”, he added, in comparison to “the strong track record for delivering offshore [wind]”.

The UK and Germany installed 85% of new offshore wind power capacity in the EU last year, according to industry data, with wind leading power across several markets. The average power rating of the turbines is getting bigger too, up 15% in 2018.

The turbines for Hornsea One are built and shipped from Siemens Gamesa’s factory in Hull, part of a web of UK-based suppliers that has sprung up around the growing sector, such as Prysmian UK's land cables supporting grid connections.

Around half of the project’s transition pieces, the yellow part of the structure that connects the foundation to the tower, are made in Teeside. Many of the towers themselves are made by a firm in Campbeltown in the Scottish highlands. Altogether, about half of the components for the project are made in the UK.

Ørsted is not yet ready to bid for a share of a £60m pot of further offshore windfarm subsidies, to be auctioned by the government this summer, but expects the price to reach even more competitive levels than those seen in 2017.

Like other international energy companies, Ørsted has put in place contingency planning in event of a no-deal Brexit – but the hope is that will not come to pass. “We want a Brexit deal that will facilitate an orderly transition out of the union,” said Poulsen.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Puerto Rico Tesla Solar Power enables resilient microgrids using batteries, renewable energy, and energy storage to rebuild the hurricane-damaged grid, reduce fossil fuels, cut costs, and accelerate recovery with scalable solar-plus-storage solutions.

Key Points

A solar-plus-storage plan using Tesla microgrids and batteries to restore Puerto Rico's cleaner, resilient power.

✅ Microgrids cut diesel reliance and harden critical facilities.

✅ Batteries stabilize the grid and shave peak demand costs.

✅ Scalable solar enables faster, modular disaster recovery.

Puerto Rico’s governor Ricardo Rossello has said that he will speak to Elon Musk after the Tesla inventor said his innovative solar and battery systems could be used to restore electricity on the island.

Mr Musk was mentioned in a tweet, referencing an article discussing ways to restore Puerto Rico’s power grid, which was knocked out by Hurricane Maria on September 20.

Restoring the ageing and already-weakened network has proved slow: as of Friday 90 per cent of the island remained without power. The island’s electricity company was declared bankrupt in July.

Mr Musk was asked: “Could @ElonMusk go in and rebuild #PuertoRico’s electricity system with independent solar & battery systems?”

The South African entrepreneur replied: “The Tesla team has done this for many smaller islands around the world, but there is no scalability limit, so it can be done for Puerto Rico too.

“Such a decision would be in the hands of the PR govt, PUC, any commercial stakeholders and, most importantly, the people of PR.”

His suggestion was seized upon by Mr Rossello, who then tweeted: “@ElonMusk Let's talk. Do you want to show the world the power and scalability of your #TeslaTechnologies?

“PR could be that flagship project.”

Mr Musk replied that he was happy to talk.

Restoring power to the battered island is a priority for the government, and improving grid resilience remains critical, with hospitals still running on generators and the 3.5 million people struggling with a lack of refrigeration or air conditioning.

Radios broadcast messages advising people how to keep their insulin cool, and doctors are concerned about people not being able to access dialysis.

And, with its power grid wiped out, the Caribbean island could totally rethink the way it meets its energy needs, drawing on examples like a resilient school microgrid built locally. 

“This is an opportunity to completely transform the way electricity is generated in Puerto Rico and the federal government should support this,” said Judith Enck, the former administrator for the region with the environmental protection agency.

“They need a clean energy renewables plan and not spending hurricane money propping up the old fossil fuel infrastructure.”

Forty-seven per cent of Puerto Rico’s power needs were met by burning oil last year - a very expensive and outdated method of electricity generation. For the US as a whole, petroleum accounted for just 0.3 per cent of all electricity generated in 2016 even as the grid isn’t yet running on 100% renewable energy nationwide.

The majority of the rest of Puerto Rico’s energy came courtesy of coal and natural gas, with renewables, which later faced pandemic-related setbacks, accounting for only two per cent of electricity generation.

“In that time of extreme petroleum prices, the utility was borrowing money and buying oil in order to keep those plants operating,” said Luis Martinez, a lawyer at natural resources defense council and former special aide to the president of Puerto Rico’s environmental quality board.

“That precipitated the bankruptcy that followed. It was in pretty poor shape before the storm. Once the storm got there, it finished the job.”

But Mr Martinez told the website Earther that it might be difficult to secure the financing for rebuilding Puerto Rico with renewables from FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) funds.

“A lot of distribution lines were on wood poles,” he said.

“Concrete would make them more resistant to winds, but that would potentially not be authorized under the use of FEMA funds.

"We’re looking into if some of those requirements can be waived so rebuilding can be more resilient.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Shift from Fossil Fuels to Renewables signals an energy transition and decarbonization, as investors favor wind and solar over coal, oil, and gas due to falling ROI, policy shifts, and accelerating clean-tech innovation.

Key Points

An economic and policy-driven move redirecting capital from coal, oil, and gas to scalable wind and solar power.

✅ Driven by ROI, risk, and protests curbing fossil fuel projects

✅ Coal declines as wind and solar capacity surges globally

✅ Policy, technology, and markets speed the energy transition

This article is an excerpt from "Changing Tides: An Ecologist's Journey to Make Peace with the Anthropocene" by Alejandro Frid. Reproduced with permission from New Society Publishers. The book releases Oct. 15.

The climate and biodiversity crises reflect the stories that we have allowed to infiltrate the collective psyche of industrial civilization. It is high time to let go of these stories. Unclutter ourselves. Regain clarity. Make room for other stories that can help us reshape our ways of being in the world.

For starters, I’d love to let go of what has been our most venerated and ingrained story since the mid-1700s: that burning more fossil fuels is synonymous with prosperity. Letting go of that story shouldn’t be too hard these days. Financial investment over the past decade has been shifting very quickly away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energies, as Europe's oil majors increasingly pivot to electrification. Even Bob Dudley, group chief executive of BP — one of the largest fossil fuel corporations in the world — acknowledged the trend, writing in the "BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2017": "The relentless drive to improve energy efficiency is causing global energy consumption overall to decelerate. And, of course, the energy mix is shifting towards cleaner, lower carbon fuels, driven by environmental needs and technological advances." Dudley went on:

Coal consumption fell sharply for the second consecutive year, with its share within primary energy falling to its lowest level since 2004. Indeed, coal production and consumption in the U.K. completed an entire cycle, falling back to levels last seen almost 200 years ago around the time of the Industrial Revolution, with the U.K. power sector recording its first-ever coal-free day in April of this year. In contrast, renewable energy globally led by wind and solar power grew strongly, helped by continuing technological advances.

According to Dudley’s team, global production of oil and natural gas also slowed down in 2016. Meanwhile, that same year, the combined power provided by wind and solar energy increased by 14.6 percent: the biggest jump on record. All in all, since 2005, the installed capacity for renewable energy has grown exponentially, doubling every 5.5 years, as investment incentives expand to accelerate clean power.

The shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewables has been happening not because investors suddenly became science-literate, ethical beings, but because most investors follow the money, and Trump-era oil policies even reshaped Wall Street’s energy strategies.

It is important to celebrate that King Coal — that grand initiator of the Industrial Revolution and nastiest of fossil fuels — has just begun to lose its power over people and the atmosphere. But it is even more important to understand the underlying causes for these changes. The shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewables has been happening not because the bulk of investors suddenly became science-literate, ethical beings, but because most investors follow the money.

The easy fossil fuels — the kind you used to be able to extract with a large profit margin and relatively low risk of disaster — are essentially gone. Almost all that is left are the dregs: unconventional fossil fuels such as bitumen, or untapped offshore oil reserves in very deep water or otherwise challenging environments, like the Arctic. Sure, the dregs are massive enough to keep tempting investors. There is so much unconventional oil and shale gas left underground that, if we burned it, we would warm the world by 6 degrees or more. But unconventional fossil fuels are very expensive and energy-intensive to extract, refine and market. Additionally, new fossil fuel projects, at least in my part of the world, have become hair triggers for social unrest. For instance, Burnaby Mountain, near my home in British Columbia, where renewable electricity in B.C. is expanding, is the site of a proposed bitumen pipeline expansion where hundreds of people have been arrested since 2015 during multiple acts of civil disobedience against new fossil fuel infrastructure. By triggering legal action and delaying the project, these protests have dented corporate profits. So return on investment for fossil fuels has been dropping.

It is no coincidence that in 2017, Petronas, a huge transnational energy corporation, withdrew their massive proposal to build liquefied natural gas infrastructure on the north coast of British Columbia, as Canada's race to net-zero gathers pace across industry. Petronas backed out not because of climate change or to protect essential rearing habitat for salmon, but to backpedal from a deal that would fail to make them richer.

Shifting investment away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy, even as fossil-fuel workers signal readiness to support the transition, does not mean we have entirely ditched that tired old story about fossil fuel prosperity.

Neoliberal shifts to favor renewable energies can be completely devoid of concern for climate change. While in office, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry questioned climate science and cheered for the oil industry, yet that did not stop him from directing his state towards an expansion of wind and solar energy, even as President Obama argued that decarbonization is irreversible and anchored in long-term economics. Perry saw money to be made by batting for both teams, and merely did what most neoliberal entrepreneurs would have done.

The right change for the wrong reasons brings no guarantees. Shifting investment away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy does not mean we have entirely ditched that tired old story about fossil fuel prosperity. Once again, let’s look at Perry. As U.S. secretary of energy under Trump’s presidency, in 2017 he called the global shift from fossil fuels "immoral" and said the United States was "blessed" to provide fossil fuels for the world.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News