PPL announces support for Solar Scholars program

Canada Renewable Energy Jobs rank top 10 in hydropower, says IRENA, but trail in solar PV, wind power, and liquid biofuels; clean tech growth, EV manufacturing, and Canada Infrastructure Bank funding signal broader carbon-neutral opportunities.

Key Points

Canada counts 61,130 clean energy roles, top 10 in hydropower, with potential in solar, wind, biofuels, and EV manufacturing.

✅ 61,130 clean energy jobs in Canada per IRENA

✅ Top 10 share in hydropower employment

✅ Growth expected in solar, wind, biofuels, and EVs

Canada has made the top 10 list of countries for the number of jobs in hydropower, but didn’t rank in three other key renewable energy technologies, according to new international figures.

Although Canada has only two per cent of the global workforce, it had one of the 10 largest slices of the world’s jobs in hydropower in 2019, says the Abu Dhabi-based International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)

Canada didn’t make IRENA’s other top-10 employment lists, for solar photovoltaic (PV) technology, where solar power lags by international standards, liquid biofuels or wind power, released Sept. 30. Figures from the agency show the whole sector represents 61,130 jobs across Canada, or 0.5 per cent of the world’s 11.5 million jobs in renewables.

The numbers show Canada needs to move faster to minimize the climate crisis, including by joining trade blocs that put tariffs on high-carbon goods, argued the Victoria-based BC Sustainable Energy Association after reviewing IRENA’s report. The Canadian Renewable Energy Association also said it showed the country has untapped job creation potential, even as growth projections were scaled back after Ontario scrapped a clean energy program.

But other clean tech advocates say there’s more to the story. When tallying clean energy jobs, it's worth a broader look, Clean Energy Canada argued, pointing to the recent Ford-Unifor deal that includes a $1.8-billion commitment to produce electric vehicles in Oakville, Ont.

Natural Resources Minister Seamus O'Regan’s office also pointed out the renewables employment figures from IRENA are proportional to global population. “While Canada's share of the global clean energy job market is in line with our population size, we produce almost 2.7 per cent of the world’s total primary renewable energy supply. As only 0.5 per cent of the global population, we punch above our weight,” said O'Regan's press secretary, Ian Cameron.

Canada joined IRENA in January 2019 and the country has been described by the association as an “important market” for renewables over the long term.

On Thursday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a new $10-billion “Growth Plan” to be run by the Canada Infrastructure Bank that would include “$2.5 billion for clean power to support renewable generation and storage and to transmit clean electricity between provinces, territories, and regions, including to northern and Indigenous communities.” The infrastructure bank's plan is expected to create 60,000 jobs, the government said, and in Alberta an Alberta renewables surge could power 4,500 jobs as projects scale up.

World ‘building the renewable energy revolution now’

A powerful renewables sector is not just about job creation. It is also imperative if we are to meet global climate objectives, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Renewable energy sources have to make up at least a 63 per cent share of the global electricity market by mid-century to battle the more extreme effects of climate change, it said.

“The IRENA report shows that people all over of the world are building the renewable energy revolution now,” said Tom Hackney, policy adviser for the BC Sustainable Energy Association.

“Many people in Canada are doing so, too. But we need to move faster to minimize climate change. For example, at the level of trade policy, a great idea would be to develop low-carbon trading blocs that put tariffs on goods with high embodied carbon emissions.”

Canadian Renewable Energy Association president and CEO Robert Hornung said the IRENA jobs review highlights “significant job creation potential” in Canada. As governments explore how to stimulate economic recovery from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, said Hornung, it's important to “capitalize on Canada's untapped renewable energy resources.”

In Canada, 82 per cent of the electricity grid is already non-emitting, noted Sarah Petrevan, policy director for Clean Energy Canada.

With the federal government committing to a 90 per cent non-emitting grid by 2030, said Petrevan, more wind and solar deployment can be expected, even though solar demand has lagged in recent years, especially in the Prairies where renewables are needed to help with Canada’s coal-fired power plant phase out.

One example of renewables in the Prairies, where the provinces are poised to lead growth, is the Travers Solar project, which is expected to be constructed in Alberta through 2021, and is being touted as “Canada's largest solar farm.”

But renewables are only “one part of the broader clean energy sector,” said Petrevan. Clean Energy Canada has outlined how Canada could be electric and clean with the right choices, and has calculated clean tech supports around 300,000 jobs, projected to grow to half a million by 2030.

“We’re talking about a transition of our energy system in every sense — not just in the power we produce. So while the IRENA figures provide global context, they reflect only a portion of both our current reality and the opportunity for Canada,” she said.

The organization’s research has shown that manufacturing of electric vehicles would be one of the fastest-growing job creators over the next decade. Putting a punctuation mark on that is a recent $1.8-billion deal with Ford Motor Company of Canada to produce five models of electric vehicles in Oakville, Ont.

China ‘remains the clear leader’ in renewables jobs

With 4.3 million renewable energy jobs in 2019, or 38 per cent of all renewables jobs, China “remains the clear leader in renewable energy employment worldwide,” the IRENA report states. China has the world's largest population and the second-largest GDP.

The country is also by far the world’s largest emitter of carbon pollution, at 28 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and has significant fossil fuel interests. Chinese President Xi Jinping called for a “green revolution” last month, and pledged to “achieve carbon neutrality before 2060.”

China holds the largest proportion of jobs in hydropower, with 29 per cent of all jobs, followed by India at 19 per cent, Brazil at 11 per cent and Pakistan at five per cent, said IRENA.

Canada, with 32,359 jobs in the industry, and Turkey and Colombia hold two per cent each of the world’s hydropower jobs, while Myanmar and Russia hold three per cent each and Vietnam has four per cent.

China also dominates the global solar PV workforce, with 59 per cent of all jobs, followed by Japan, the United States, India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brazil, Germany and the Philippines. There are 4,261 jobs in solar PV in Canada, IRENA calculated, and the country is set to hit a 5 GW solar milestone as capacity expands, out of a global workforce of 3.8 million jobs.

In wind power, China again leads, with 44 per cent of all jobs. Germany, the United States and India come after, with the United Kingdom, Denmark, Mexico, Spain, the Philippines and Brazil following suit. Canada has 6,527 jobs in wind power out of 1.17 million worldwide.

As for liquid biofuels, Brazil leads that industry, with 34 per cent of all jobs. Indonesia, the United States, Colombia, Thailand, Malaysia, China, Poland, Romania and the Philippines fill out the top 10. There are 17,691 jobs in Canada in liquid biofuels.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Nuclear Power Resilience During COVID-19 shows low-carbon electricity supporting renewables integration with grid flexibility, reliability, and inertia, sustaining decarbonization, stable baseload, and system security while prices fell and demand dropped across markets.

Key Points

It shows nuclear plants providing reliable, low-carbon power and supporting grid stability despite demand declines.

✅ Low prices challenge investment; lifetime extensions are cost-effective.

✅ Nuclear provides inertia, reliability, and dispatchable capacity.

✅ Market reforms should reward flexibility and grid services.

The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed the operation of power systems across the globe, including European responses that many argue accelerated the transition, and offered a glimpse of a future electricity mix dominated by low carbon sources.

The performance of nuclear power, in particular, demonstrates how it can support the transition to a resilient, clean energy system well beyond the COVID-19 recovery phase, and its role in net-zero pathways is increasingly highlighted by analysts today.

Restrictions on economic and social activity during the COVID-19 outbreak have led to an unprecedented and sustained decline in demand for electricity in many countries, in the order of 10% or more relative to 2019 levels over a period of a few months, thereby creating challenging conditions for both electricity generators and system operators (Fig. 1). The recent Sustainable Recovery Report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) projects a 5% reduction in global electricity usage for the entire year 2020, with a record 5.7% decline foreseen in the United States alone. The sustainable economic recovery will be discussed at today's IEA Clean Energy Transitions Summit, where Fatih Birol's call to keep options open will be prominent as IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi participates.

Electricity generation from fossil fuels has been hard hit, due to relatively high operating costs compared to nuclear power and renewables, as well as simple price-setting mechanisms on electricity markets. By contrast, low-carbon electricity prevailed during these extraordinary circumstances, with the contribution of renewable electricity rising in a number of countries as analyses see renewables eclipsing coal by 2025, due to an obligation on transmission system operators to schedule and dispatch renewable electricity ahead of other generators, as well as due to favourable weather conditions.

Nuclear power generation also proved to be resilient, reliable and adaptable. The nuclear industry rapidly implemented special measures to cope with the pandemic, avoiding the need to shut down plants due to the effects of COVID-19 on the workforce or supply chains. Nuclear generators also swiftly adapted to the changed market conditions. For example, EDF Energy was able to respond to the need of the UK grid operator by curtailing sporadically the generation of its Sizewell B reactor and maintain a cost-efficient and secure electricity service for consumers.

Despite the nuclear industry's performance during the pandemic, faced with significant decreases in demand, many generators have still needed to reduce their overall output appreciably, for example in France, Sweden, Ukraine, the UK and to a lesser extent Germany (Fig. 2), even as the nuclear decline debate continues in Europe. Declining demand in France up to the end of March already contributed to a 1% drop in first quarter revenues at EDF, with nuclear output more than 9% lower than in the year before. Similarly, Russia's Rosatom experienced a significant demand contraction in April and May, contributing to an 11% decline in revenues for the first five months of the year.

Overall, the competitiveness and resilience of low carbon technologies have resulted in higher market shares for nuclear, solar and wind power in many countries since the start of lockdowns (Fig. 3), and low-emissions sources to meet demand growth over the next three years. The share of nuclear generation in South Korea rose by almost 9 percentage points during the pandemic, while in the UK, nuclear played a big part in almost eliminating coal generation for a period of two months. For the whole of 2020, the US Energy Information Administration's Short-Term Energy Outlook sees the share of nuclear generation increasing by more than one percentage point compared to 2019. In China, power production decreased during January-February 2020 by more than 8% year on year: coal power decreased by nearly 9%, hydropower by nearly 12%. Nuclear has proved more resilient with a 2% reduction only. The benefits of these higher shares of clean energy in terms of reduced emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants have been on full display worldwide over the past months.

Challenges for the future

Despite the demonstrated performance of a cleaner energy system through the crisis - including the capacity of existing nuclear power plants to deliver a competitive, reliable, and low carbon electricity service when needed - both short- and long-term challenges remain.

In the shorter term, the collapse in electricity demand has accelerated recent falls in electricity prices, particularly in Europe (Fig. 4), from already economically unsustainable levels. According to Standard and Poor's Midyear Update, the large price drops in Europe result from not only COVID-19 lockdown measures but also collapsing demand due to an unusually warm winter, increased supply from renewables in a context of lower gas prices and CO2 allowances . Such low prices further exacerbate the challenging environment faced by many electricity generators, including nuclear plants. These may impede the required investments in the clean energy transition, with longer term consequences on the achievement of climate goals.

For nuclear power, maintaining and extending the operation of existing plants is essential to support and accelerate the transition to low carbon energy systems. With a supportive investment environment, a 10-20 year lifetime extension can be realized at an average cost of US $30-40/MW*h, making it among the most cost-effective low-carbon options, while also maintaining dispatchable capacity and lowering the overall cost of the clean energy transition. The IEA Sustainable Recovery report indicates that without such extensions 40% of the nuclear fleet in developed economies may be retired within a decade, adding around US$ 80 billion per year to electricity bills. The IEA note the potential for nuclear plant maintenance and extension programmes to support recovery measures by generating significant economic activity and employment.

The need for flexibility

New nuclear power projects can provide similar economic and environmental benefits and applications beyond electricity, but will be all the more challenging to finance without strong policy support and more substantive power market reforms, including improved frameworks for remunerating reliability, flexibility and other services. The need for flexibility in electricity generation and system operation - a trend accelerated by the crisis - will increasingly characterize future energy systems over the medium to longer term.

Looking further ahead, while generators and system operators successfully responded to the crisis, the observed decline in fossil fuel generation draws attention to additional grid stability challenges likely to emerge further into the energy transition. Heavy rotating steam and gas turbines provide mechanical inertia to an electricity system, thereby maintaining its balance. Replacing these capacities with variable renewables may result in greater instability, poorer power quality and increased incidence of blackouts. Large nuclear power plants along with other technologies can fill this role, alleviating the risk of supply disruptions in fully decarbonized electricity systems.

The challenges created by COVID-19 have also brought into focus the need to ensure resilience is built-in to future energy systems to cope with a broader range of external shocks, including more variable and extreme weather patterns expected from climate change.

The performance of nuclear power during the crisis provides a timely reminder of its ongoing contribution and future potential in creating a more sustainable, reliable, low carbon energy system.

Data sources for electricity demand, generation and prices: European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (Europe), Ukrenergo National Power Company (Ukraine), Power System Operation Corporation (India), Korea Power Exchange (South Korea), Operador Nacional do Sistema Eletrico (Brazil), Independent Electricity System Operator (Ontario, Canada), EIA (USA). Data cover 1 January to May/June.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation 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

Ontario Wind Power Policy Shift signals renewed investment in renewable energy, wind farms, and grid resilience, aligning with climate goals, lower electricity costs, job creation, and turbine technology for cleaner, diversified power.

Key Points

A provincial pivot to expand wind energy, meet climate goals, lower costs, and boost jobs across Ontario’s power system.

✅ Diversifies Ontario's grid with scalable renewable capacity.

✅ Targets emissions cuts while stabilizing electricity prices.

✅ Spurs rural investment, supply chains, and skilled jobs.

Ontario’s energy landscape is undergoing a significant transformation as Premier Doug Ford makes a notable shift in his approach to wind power. This change represents a strategic pivot in the province’s energy policy, potentially altering the future of Ontario’s power generation, environmental goals, and economic prospects.

The Backdrop: Ford’s Initial Stance on Wind Power

When Doug Ford first assumed the role of Premier in 2018, his administration was marked by a strong stance against renewable energy projects, including wind power, with Ford later saying he was proud of tearing up contracts as part of this shift. Ford’s government inherited a legacy of ambitious renewable energy commitments from the previous Liberal administration under Kathleen Wynne, which had invested heavily in wind and solar energy. The Ford government, however, was critical of these initiatives, arguing that they resulted in high energy costs and a surplus of power that was not always needed.

In 2019, Ford’s government began rolling back several renewable energy projects, including wind farms, and was soon tested by the Cornwall wind farm ruling that scrutinized a cancellation. This move was driven by a promise to reduce electricity bills and cut what was perceived as wasteful spending on green energy. The cancellation of several wind projects led to frustration among environmental advocates and the renewable energy sector, who viewed the decision as a setback for Ontario’s climate goals.

The Shift: Embracing Wind Power

Fast forward to 2024, and Premier Ford’s administration is taking a markedly different approach. The recent policy shift, which moves to reintroduce renewable projects, indicates a newfound openness to wind power, reflecting a broader acknowledgment of the changing dynamics in energy needs and environmental priorities.

Several factors appear to have influenced this shift:

1. Rising Energy Demands and Climate Goals: Ontario’s growing energy demands, coupled with the pressing need to address climate change, have necessitated a reevaluation of the province’s energy strategy. As Canada commits to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning to cleaner energy sources, wind power is increasingly seen as a crucial component of this strategy. Ford’s change in direction aligns with these national and global goals.

2. Economic Considerations: The economic landscape has also evolved since Ford’s initial opposition to wind power. The cost of wind energy has decreased significantly over the past few years, making it a more competitive and viable option compared to traditional energy sources, as competitive wind power gains momentum in markets worldwide. Additionally, the wind energy sector promises substantial job creation and economic benefits, which are appealing in the context of post-pandemic recovery and economic growth.

3. Public Opinion and Pressure: Public opinion and advocacy groups have played a role in shaping policy. There has been a growing demand from Ontarians for more sustainable and environmentally friendly energy solutions. The Ford administration has been responsive to these concerns, recognizing the importance of addressing public and environmental pressures.

4. Technological Advancements: Advances in wind turbine technology have improved efficiency and reduced the impact on wildlife and local communities. Modern wind farms are less intrusive and more effective, addressing some of the concerns that were previously associated with wind power.

Implications of the Policy Shift

The implications of Ford’s shift towards wind power are far-reaching. Here are some key areas affected by this change:

1. Energy Portfolio Diversification: By reembracing wind power, Ontario will diversify its energy portfolio, reducing its reliance on fossil fuels and increasing the proportion of renewable energy in the mix. This shift will contribute to a more resilient and sustainable energy system.

2. Environmental Impact: Increased investment in wind power will contribute to Ontario’s efforts to combat climate change. Wind energy is a clean, renewable source that produces no greenhouse gas emissions during operation. This aligns with broader environmental goals and helps mitigate the impact of climate change.

3. Economic Growth and Job Creation: The wind power sector has the potential to drive significant economic growth and create jobs. Investments in wind farms and associated infrastructure can stimulate local economies, particularly in rural areas where many wind farms are located.

4. Energy Prices: While the initial shift away from wind power was partly motivated by concerns about high energy costs, including exposure to costly cancellation fees in some cases, the decreasing cost of wind energy could help stabilize or even lower electricity prices in the long term. As wind power becomes a larger component of Ontario’s energy supply, it could contribute to a more stable and affordable energy market.

Moving Forward: Challenges and Opportunities

Despite the positive aspects of this policy shift, there are challenges to consider, and other provinces have faced setbacks such as the Alberta wind farm scrapped by TransAlta that illustrate potential hurdles. Integrating wind power into the existing grid requires careful planning and investment in grid infrastructure. Additionally, addressing local concerns about wind farms, such as their impact on landscapes and wildlife, will be crucial to gaining broader acceptance.

Overall, Doug Ford’s shift towards wind power represents a significant and strategic change in Ontario’s energy policy. It reflects a broader understanding of the evolving energy landscape and the need for a sustainable and economically viable energy future. As the province navigates this new direction, the success of this policy will depend on effective implementation, ongoing stakeholder engagement, and a commitment to balancing environmental, economic, and social considerations, even as the electricity future debate continues among party leaders.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Renewable Electricity Generation is accelerating the shift from fossil fuels, as wind, solar, and hydro boost the electric power sector, lowering emissions and overtaking nuclear while displacing coal and natural gas in the U.S. grid.

Key Points

Renewable electricity generation is power from non-fossil sources like wind, solar, and hydro to cut emissions.

✅ Driven by wind, solar, and hydro adoption

✅ Reduces fossil fuel dependence and emissions

✅ Increasing share in the electric power sector

The transition to electric vehicles is largely driven by a need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and reduce emissions associated with burning fossil fuels, while declining US electricity use also shapes demand trends in the power sector. In 2021, 40% of the electricity produced by the electric power sector was derived from non-fossil fuel sources.

Since 2007, the increase in non-fossil fuel sources has been largely driven by “Other Renewables” which is predominantly wind and solar. This has resulted in renewables (including hydroelectric) overtaking nuclear power’s share of electricity generation in 2021 for the first time since 1984. An increasing share of electricity generation from renewables has also led to a declining share of electricity from fossil fuel sources like coal, natural gas, and petroleum, with renewables poised to eclipse coal globally as deployment accelerates.

Includes net generation of electricity from the electric power sector only, and monthly totals can fluctuate, as seen when January power generation jumped on a year-over-year basis.

Net generation of electricity is gross generation less the electrical energy consumed at the generating station(s) for station service or auxiliaries, and the projected mix of sources is sensitive to policies and natural gas prices over time. Electricity for pumping at pumped-storage plants is considered electricity for station service and is deducted from gross generation.

“Natural Gas” includes blast furnace gas and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels, while in the UK wind generation exceeded coal for the first time in 2016.

“Other Renewables” includes wood, waste, geo-thermal, solar and wind resources among others.

“Other” category includes batteries, chemicals, hydrogen, pitch, purchased steam, sulfur, miscellaneous technologies, and, beginning in 2001, non-renewable waste (municipal solid waste from non-biogenic sources, and tire-derived fuels), noting that trends vary by country, with UK low-carbon generation stalling in 2019.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Enbridge Alberta CCS Project targets carbon capture and storage in Alberta, capturing emissions from industrial emitters to advance net-zero goals, leveraging carbon pricing, regulatory support, and a hub model despite a key partner's exit.

Key Points

A proposed Alberta carbon capture hub by Enbridge to store industrial emissions and support net-zero targets.

✅ Seeks emitters across power, oil and gas, and heavy industry

✅ Backed by carbon pricing, regulation, and net-zero mandates

✅ Faces high capex, storage risk, and anchor-tenant uncertainty

Enbridge Inc., a Canadian energy giant, is digging its heels in on its proposed carbon capture and storage (CCS) project in Alberta. This comes despite the recent withdrawal of Capital Power, a major potential emitter that was expected to utilize the CCS technology. Enbridge maintains the project remains viable, but questions linger about its future viability without a cornerstone anchor.

The CCS project, envisioned as a major carbon capture hub in Alberta, aimed to capture emissions from industrial facilities and permanently store them underground. This technology has the potential to play a significant role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change, alongside grid solutions like bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap that can complement decarbonization efforts.

Capital Power's decision to shelve its $2.4 billion Genesee Generating Station project, which was designed to integrate with the CCS hub, threw a wrench into Enbridge's plans. The Genesee project was expected to be a key source of emissions for capture and storage, and its status is being weighed as Ottawa advances the federal coal plan to phase out unabated coal.

Enbridge, however, remains optimistic. The company cites ongoing discussions with other potential emitters interested in utilizing the CCS technology, amid new funding signals such as the U.S. DOE's $110M for CCUS that highlight momentum. They believe the project holds significant value despite Capital Power's departure.

"We are confident in the long-term viability of the project and continue to actively engage with potential customers," said Enbridge spokesperson Rachel Giroux. "Carbon capture and storage is a critical technology for achieving net-zero emissions, and we believe there is a strong business case for our CCS project."

Enbridge's confidence hinges on several factors. Firstly, they believe there is a growing appetite for CCS technology amongst industrial facilities facing increasing pressure to reduce their carbon footprint. Regulations and carbon pricing mechanisms, including new U.S. EPA power plant rules that test CCS readiness, could further incentivize companies to adopt CCS solutions.

Secondly, Enbridge highlights the potential for capturing emissions from not just power plants but also from other industrial sectors like oil and gas production and clean hydrogen projects in Canada, where reforming processes can generate CO2. This broader application could significantly increase the captured carbon volume and strengthen the project's economic viability.

However, skepticism remains. Critics point to the high upfront costs associated with CCS development and the nascent stage of the technology. They argue that without a guaranteed stream of captured emissions, the project might not be financially sound. Additionally, the long-term safety and effectiveness of large-scale carbon storage solutions remain under scrutiny.

The success of Enbridge's CCS project hinges on attracting new emitters. Replacing Capital Power's contribution will be a significant challenge. Enbridge will need to demonstrate the project's economic viability and navigate the complex regulatory landscape surrounding CCS technology.

The Alberta government's position on CCS is crucial. While the government has expressed support for the technology, the level of financial and regulatory incentives offered will significantly impact investor confidence, especially as the IEA net-zero outlook underscores Canada's need for much more electricity. A clear and stable policy framework will be essential for attracting emitters to the project.

The future of Enbridge's CCS project remains uncertain. Capital Power's withdrawal is a setback, but Enbridge's continued commitment suggests they believe the technology holds promise. Whether they can find enough emitters to justify the project's development will be a critical test. The outcome will have significant implications for the future of CCS technology in Alberta and Canada's broader efforts to achieve net-zero emissions, including Canada-Germany clean energy cooperation that seeks to scale low-carbon fuels.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News