BC Hydro announces Power Smart Forum 2008

Geothermal Power Plant Risks include hydrogen sulfide leaks, toxic gases, lava flow hazards, well blowouts, and earthquake-induced releases at sites like PGV and the Geysers, threatening public health, grid reliability, and environmental safety.

Key Points

Geothermal Power Plant Risks include toxic gases, lava impacts, well failures, and induced quakes that threaten health.

✅ Hydrogen sulfide exposure can cause rapid pulmonary edema.

✅ Lava can breach wells, venting toxic gases into communities.

✅ Induced seismicity may disrupt grids near PGV and the Geysers.

If lava reaches Hawaii’s PGV geothermal power plant, it could release of deadly hydrogen sulfide gas. That’s the latest potential danger from the Kilauea volcanic eruption in Hawaii. Residents now fear that lava flow will trigger a meltdown at the Puna Geothermal Venture (PGV) power plant that would release even more toxic gases into the air.

Nobody knows what will happen if lava engulfs the PGV because magma has never engulfed a geothermal power plant, Reuters reported. A geothermal power plant uses steam and gas heated by lava deep in the earth to run turbines that make electricity.

The PGV power plant produces 25% of the power used on Hawaii’s “Big Island.” The plant is considered a source of clean energy because geothermal plants burn no fossil fuels and produce little pollution under normal circumstances, even as nuclear retirements like Three Mile Island reshape low-carbon options.

The Potential Danger from Geothermal Energy

The fear is that the lava would release chemicals used to make electricity at the plant. The PGV has been shut down and authorities moved an estimated 60,000 gallons of flammable liquids away from the facility. They also shut down wells that extract steam and gas used to run the turbines.

Another potential danger is that lava would open the wells and release clouds of toxic gases from them. The wells are typically sealed to prevent the gas from entering the atmosphere.

The most significant threat is hydrogen sulfide, a highly toxic and flammable gas that is colorless. Hydrogen sulfide normally has a rotten egg smell which people might not detect when the air is full of smoke. That means people can breathe hydrogen sulfide in without realizing they have been exposed.

The greatest danger from hydrogen sulfide is pulmonary edema; the accumulation of fluid in the lungs, which causes a person to stop breathing. People have died of pulmonary edema after just a few minutes of exposure to hydrogen sulfide gas. Many victims become unconscious before the gas kills them. Long-term dangers that survivors of pulmonary edema face include brain damage.

Hydrogen sulfide can also cause burns to the skin that are similar to frostbite. Persons exposed to hydrogen sulfide can also suffer from nausea, headaches, severe eye burns, and delirium. Children are more vulnerable to hydrogen sulfide because it is a heavy gas that stays close to the ground.

Geothermal Danger Extends Far Beyond Hawaii

The danger from geothermal energy extends far beyond Hawaii. The world’s largest collection of geothermal power plants is located at the Geysers in California’s Wine Country, and regulatory timelines such as the postponed closure of three Southern California plants can affect planning.

The Geysers field contains 350 steam production wells and 22 power plants in Sonoma, Lake, and Mendocino counties. Disturbingly, the Geysers are located just north of the heavily-populated San Francisco Bay Area and just west of Sacramento, where preemptive electricity shutdowns have been used during extreme fire weather. Problems at the Geysers might lead to significant blackouts because the field supplies around 20% of the green energy used in California.

Another danger from geothermal power is earthquakes because many geothermal power plants inject wastewater into hot rock deep below to produce steam to run turbines, a factor under review as SaskPower explores geothermal in new settings. A geothermal project in Switzerland created Earthquakes by injecting water into the Earth, Zero Hedge reported. A theoretical threat is that quakes caused by injection would cause the release of deadly gases at a geothermal power plant.

The dangers from geothermal power might be much greater than its advocates admit, potentially increasing reliance on natural-gas-based electricity during supply shortfalls.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario IESO COVID-19 Control Room Measures detail how essential operators safeguard the electricity grid with split shifts, backup control centres, real-time balancing, deep cleaning, social distancing, and shelter-in-place readiness to maintain reliable power.

Key Points

Measures that protect essential grid operators with split shifts, backup sites, and hygiene to keep power reliable.

✅ Split teams across primary and backup control centres

✅ 12-hour shifts with remote handoffs and deep cleaning

✅ Real-time grid modeling to balance demand and supply

A group of personnel key to keeping Ontario's electricity system functioning may end up locked down in their control centres due to the COVID-19 crisis, according to the head of the province's power operator.

But that has so far proven unnecessary with a change-up in routine, Independent Electricity System Operator CEO Peter Gregg said.

While about 90 per cent of staff were sent to work from home on March 13, another 48 control-room operators deemed essential are still going into work, Gregg said in an interview.

"We identified a smaller cohort of critical operations room staff that need to go in to operate the system out of our control centres," Gregg said. "My biggest concern is to maintain their health, their safety as we rely on them to do this critical work."

Some of the operators manage power demand and supply in real time as Ontario electricity demand shifts, by calling for more or less generation and keeping an eye on the distribution grid, which also allows power to flow to and from Ontario's neighbours. Others do scenario planning and modelling to prepare for changes.

The essential operators have been split into eight teams of six each working 12-hour shifts. The day crew works out of a control centre near Toronto and the night shift out of a backup centre in the city's west end, Gregg said.

"That means that we're not having physical hand-off between control room operators on shift change -- we can do it remotely -- and it also allows us to do deep cleansing," Gregg said. "We're fortunate that the way the room is set up allows us to practice good social distancing."

Should it become necessary, he said, bed, food and other on-site arrangements have been made to allow the operators to stay at their workplaces as a similar agency in New York has done.

"If we do need to shelter these critical employees in place, we've got the ability to do so."

IESO is responsible for ensuring a balance between supply and demand for electricity across the province. Because power cannot be stored, the IESO ensures generators produce enough power to meet peak demand while making sure they don't produce too much.

"You're seeing, obviously, commercial demand drop, some industrial demand drop," Gregg said. "But you're also seeing a shift in the demand curve as well, where normally you have people heading off to work and so residential demand would go down. But obviously with them staying home, you're seeing an increase in residential electricity use across the province."

Some utilities have indicated no cuts to peak rates for self-isolating customers, with Hydro One peak pricing remaining in place for now.

IESO also runs and settles the wholesale electricity markets. Market prices are set based on accepted offers to supply electricity, while programs supporting stable electricity pricing for industrial and commercial users can affect costs against forecast demand.

With the pandemic forcing many businesses to close and people to stay home, and provincial electricity relief for families and small businesses in place, typical power needs fallen about seven per cent at a time of year that would normally see demand soften anyway. It remains to be seen whether, and how much, power needs shift further amid stringent isolation measures and the ongoing economic impact of the outbreak.

Gregg said the operator is constantly modeling different possibilities.

"What we do normally is prepare for all of these sort of emergency scenarios, as reflected in the U.S. grid response coverage, and test and drill for these," he said. "What we're experiencing over the last few weeks is that those drills come in handy because they help us prepare for when the real-time situation actually happens."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

CO2 Tax for UK Offshore Energy Efficiency can accelerate adoption of aero-derivative gas turbines, flare gas recovery, and combined cycle power, reducing emissions on platforms like Equinor's Mariner and supporting net zero goals.

Key Points

A carbon price pushing operators to adopt efficient turbines, flare recovery, and combined cycle to cut emissions.

✅ Aero-derivative turbines beat industrial units on efficiency

✅ Flare gas recovery cuts routine flaring and fuel waste

✅ Combined cycle raises efficiency and lowers emissions

By Tom Baxter

The recent Energy Voice article from the Equinor chairman concerning the Mariner project heralding a ‘significant point of reference’ for growth highlighted the energy efficiency achievements associated with the platform.

I view energy efficiency as a key enabler to net zero, and alongside this the UK must start large-scale storage to meet system needs; it is a topic I have been involved with for many years.

As part of my energy efficiency work, I investigated Norwegian practices and compared them with the UK.

There were many differences, here are three;

1. Power for offshore installations is usually supplied from gas turbines burning fuel from the oil and gas processing plant, and even as the UK's offshore wind supply accelerates, installations convert that to electricity or couple the gas turbine to a machine such as a gas compressor.

There are two main generic types of gas turbine – aero-derivative and industrial. As the name implies aero-derivatives are aviation engines used in a static environment. Aero-derivative turbines are designed to be energy efficient as that is very import for the aviation industry.

Not so with industrial type gas turbines; they are typically 5-10% less efficient than a comparable aero-derivative.

Industrial machines do have some advantages – they can be cheaper, require less frequent maintenance, they have a wide fuel composition tolerance and they can be procured within a shorter time frame.

My comparison showed that aero-derivative machines prevailed in Norway because of the energy efficiency advantages – not the case in the UK where there are many more offshore industrial gas turbines.

Tom Baxter is visiting professor of chemical engineering at Strathclyde University and a retired technical director at Genesis Oil and Gas Consultants

2. Offshore gas flaring is probably the most obvious source of inefficient use of energy with consequent greenhouse gas emissions.

On UK installations gas is always flared due to the design of the oil and gas processing plant.

Though not a large quantity of gas, a continuous flow of gas is routinely sent to flare from some of the process plant.

In addition the flare requires pilot flames to be maintained burning at all times and, while Europe explores electricity storage in gas pipes, a purge of hydrocarbon gas is introduced into the pipes to prevent unsafe air ingress that could lead to an explosive mixture.

On many Norwegian installations the flare system is designed differently. Flare gas recovery systems are deployed which results in no flaring during continuous operations.

Flare gas recovery systems improve energy efficiency but they are costly and add additional operational complexity.

3. Returning to gas turbines, all UK offshore gas turbines are open cycle – gas is burned to produce energy and the very hot exhaust gases are vented to the atmosphere. Around 60 -70% of the energy is lost in the exhaust gases.

Some UK fields use this hot gas as a heat source for some of the oil and gas treatment operations hence improving energy efficiency.

There is another option for gas turbines that will significantly improve energy efficiency – combined cycle, and in parallel plans for nuclear power under the green industrial revolution aim to decarbonise supply.

Here the exhaust gases from an open cycle machine are taken to a separate turbine. This additional turbine utilises exhaust heat to produce steam with the steam used to drive a second turbine to generate supplementary electricity. It is the system used in most UK power stations, even as UK low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 across the grid.

Open cycle gas turbines are around 30 – 40% efficient whereas combined cycle turbines are typically 50 – 60%. Clearly deploying a combined cycle will result in a huge greenhouse gas saving.

I have worked on the development of many UK oil and gas fields and combined cycle has rarely been considered.

The reason being is that, despite the clear energy saving, they are too costly and complex to justify deploying offshore.

However that is not the case in Norway where combined cycle is used on Oseberg, Snorre and Eldfisk.

What makes the improved Norwegian energy efficiency practices different from the UK – the answer is clear; the Norwegian CO2 tax.

A tax that makes CO2 a significant part of offshore operating costs.

The consequence being that deploying energy efficient technology is much easier to justify in Norway when compared to the UK.

Do we need a CO2 tax in the UK to meet net zero – I am convinced we do. I am in good company. BP, Shell, ExxonMobil and Total are supporting a carbon tax.

Not without justification there has been much criticism of Labour’s recent oil tax plans, alongside proposals for state-owned electricity generation that aim to reshape the power market.

To my mind Labour’s laudable aims to tackle the Climate Emergency would be much better served by supporting a CO2 tax that complements the UK's coal-free energy record by strengthening renewable investment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California Rooftop Solar Rate Reforms propose shifting net metering to fixed access fees, peak-demand charges, and time-of-use pricing, aligning grid costs, distributed generation incentives, and retail rates for efficient, least-cost electricity and fair cost recovery.

Key Points

Policies replacing net metering with fixed fees, demand charges, and time-of-use rates to align costs and incentives.

✅ Large fixed access charge funds grid infrastructure

✅ Peak-demand pricing reflects capacity costs at system peak

✅ Time-varying rates align marginal costs and emissions

The California Public Service Commission has proposed revamping electricity rates for residential customers who produce electricity through their rooftop solar panels. In a recent New York Times op‐​ed, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger argued the changes pose an existential threat to residential rooftop solar. Interest groups favoring rooftop solar portray the current pricing system, often called net metering, in populist terms: “Net metering is the one opportunity for the little guy to get relief, and they want to put the kibosh on it.” And conventional news coverage suggests that because rooftop solar is an obvious good development and nefarious interests, incumbent utilities and their unionized employees, support the reform, well‐​meaning people should oppose it. A more thoughtful analysis would inquire about the characteristics and prices of a system that supplies electricity at least cost.

Currently, under net metering customers are billed for their net electricity use plus a minimum fixed charge each month. When their consumption exceeds their home production, they are billed for their net use from the electricity distribution system (the grid) at retail rates. When their production exceeds their consumption and the excess is supplied to the grid, residential consumers also are reimbursed at retail rates. During a billing period, if a consumer’s production equaled their consumption their electric bill would only be the monthly fixed charge.

Net metering would be fine if all the fixed costs of the electric distribution and transmission systems were included in the fixed monthly charge, but they are not. Between 66 and 77 percent of the expenses of California private utilities do not change when a customer increases or decreases consumption, but those expenses are recovered largely through charges per kWh of use rather than a large monthly fixed charge. Said differently, for every kWh that a PG&E solar household exported into the grid in 2019, it saved more than 26 cents, on average, while the utility’s costs only declined by about 8 cents or less including an estimate of the pollution costs of the system’s fossil fuel generators. The 18‐​cent difference pays for costs that don’t change with variation in a household’s consumptions, like much of the transmission and distribution system, energy efficiency programs, subsidies for low‐​income customers, and other fixed costs. Rooftop solar is so popular in California because its installation under a net metering system avoids the 18 cents, creating a solar cost shift onto non-solar customers. Rooftop solar is not the answer to all our environmental needs. It is simply a form of arbitrage around paying for the grid’s fixed costs.

What should electricity tariffs look like? This article in Regulation argues that efficient charges for electricity would consist of three components: a large fixed charge for the distribution and transmission lines, meter reading, vegetation trimming, etc.; a peak‐​demand charge related to your demand when the system’s peak demand occurs to pay for fixed capacity costs associated with peak use; and a charge for electricity use that reflects the time‐ and location‐​varying cost of additional electricity supply.

Actual utility tariffs do not reflect this ideal because of political concerns about the effects of large fixed monthly charges on low‐​income customers and the optics of explaining to customers that they must pay 50 or 60 dollars a month for access even if their use is zero. Instead, the current pricing system “taxes” electricity use to pay for fixed costs. And solar net metering is simply a way to avoid the tax. The proposed California rate reforms would explicitly impose a fixed monthly charge on rooftop solar systems that are also connected to the grid, a change that could bring major changes to your electric bill statewide, and would thus end the fixed‐​cost avoidance. Any distributional concerns that arise because of the effect of much larger fixed charges on lower‐​income customers could be managed through explicit tax deductions that are proportional to income.

The current rooftop solar subsidies in California also should end because they have perverse incentive effects on fossil fuel generators, even as the state exports its energy policies to neighbors. Solar output has increased so much in California that when it ends with every sunset, natural gas generated electricity has to increase very rapidly. But the natural gas generators whose output can be increased rapidly have more pollution and higher marginal costs than those natural gas plants (so called combined cycle plants) whose output is steadier. The rapid increase in California solar capacity has had the perverse effect of changing the composition of natural gas generators toward more costly and polluting units.

The reforms would not end the role of solar power. They would just shift production from high‐​cost rooftop to lower‐​cost centralized solar production, a transition cited in analyses of why electricity prices are soaring in California, whose average costs are comparable with electricity production in natural gas generators. And they would end the excessive subsidies to solar that have negatively altered the composition of natural gas generators.

Getting prices right does not generate citizen interest as much as the misguided notion that rooftop solar will save the world, and recent efforts to overturn income-based utility charges show how politicized the debate remains. But getting prices right would allow the decentralized choices of consumers and investors to achieve their goals at least cost.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Comprehensive Electricity Plan delivers Global Adjustment reductions for industrial and commercial non-RPP customers, lowering electricity rates, shifting renewable energy costs, and enhancing competitiveness across Ontario businesses in 2022, with additional 4 percent savings.

Key Points

Ontario's plan lowers Global Adjustment by shifting renewable costs, cutting industrial and commercial bills 15-17%.

✅ Shifts above-market non-hydro renewable costs to the Province

✅ Reduces GA for industrial and commercial non-RPP customers

✅ Additional 4% savings on 2022 bills after GA deferral

As of January 1, 2022, industrial and commercial electricity customers will benefit from the full savings introduced through the Ontario government’s Comprehensive Electricity Plan, which supports stable electricity pricing for industrial and commercial companies, announced in Budget 2020, and first implemented in January 2021. This year customers could see an additional four percent savings compared to their bills last year, bringing the full savings from the Comprehensive Electricity Plan to between 15 and 17 per cent, making Ontario a more competitive place to do business.

“Our Comprehensive Electricity Plan has helped reverse the trend of skyrocketing electricity prices that drove jobs out of Ontario,” said Todd Smith, Minister of Energy. “Over 50,000 customers are benefiting from our government’s plan which has reduced electricity rates on clean and reliable power, allowing them to focus on reinvesting in their operations and creating jobs here at home.”

Starting on January 1, 2021, the Comprehensive Electricity Plan reduced overall Global Adjustment (GA) costs for industrial and commercial customers who do not participate in the Regulated Price Plan (RPP) by shifting the forecast above-market costs of non-hydro renewable energy, such as wind, solar and bioenergy, from the rate base to the Province, alongside energy-efficiency programs that complement demand reduction efforts.

“Since taking office, our government has listened to job creators and worked to lower the costs of doing business in the province. Through these significant reductions in electricity prices through the Comprehensive Electricity Plan, customers all across Ontario will benefit from significant savings in their business operations in 2022,” said Vic Fedeli, Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. “By continuing to reduce electricity costs, lowering taxes, and cutting red tape our government has reduced the cost of doing business in Ontario by nearly $7 billion annually to ensure that we remain competitive, innovative and poised for economic recovery.”

As part of its COVID response, including electricity relief for families and small businesses, Ontario had deferred a portion of GA between April and June 2020 for industrial and non-RPP commercial customers, with more than 50,000 customers benefiting. Those same businesses paid back these deferred GA costs over 12 months, between January 2021 and December 2021, while the province prepared to extend disconnect moratoriums for residential customers.

During the pandemic, residential electricity use rose even as overall consumption dropped, underscoring shifts in load patterns.

Now that the GA deferral repayment period is over, industrial and non-RPP commercial customers will benefit from the full cost reductions provided to them by the Comprehensive Electricity Plan, alongside temporary off-peak rate relief that supported families and small businesses. This means that, beginning January 1, 2022, these businesses could see an additional four per cent savings on their bills compared to 2021, as new ultra-low overnight pricing options emerge depending on their location and consumption.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

CCUS in the U.S. Power Sector drives investments as DOE grants, 45Q tax credits, and EPA carbon rules spur carbon capture, geologic storage, and utilization, while debates persist over costs, transparency, reliability, and emissions safeguards.

Key Points

CCUS captures CO2 from power plants for storage or use, backed by 45Q tax credits, DOE funding, and EPA carbon rules.

✅ DOE grants and 45Q credits aim to de-risk project economics.

✅ EPA rules may require capture rates to meet emissions limits.

✅ Transparency and MRV guard against tax credit abuse.

New public and private funding, including DOE $110M for CCUS announced recently, and expected strong federal power plant emissions reduction standards have accelerated electricity sector investments in carbon capture, utilization and storage,’ or CCUS, projects but some worry it is good money thrown after bad.

CCUS separates carbon from a fossil fuel-burning power plant’s exhaust through carbon capture methods for geologic storage or use in industrial and other applications, according to the Department of Energy. Fossil fuel industry giants like Calpine and Chevron are looking to take advantage of new federal tax credits and grant funding for CCUS to manage potentially high costs in meeting power plant performance requirements, amid growing investor pressure for climate reporting, including new rules, expected from EPA soon, on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants.

Power companies have “ambitious plans” to add CCUS to power plants, estimated to cause 25% of U.S. CO2 emissions. As a result, the power sector “needs CCUS in its toolkit,” said DOE Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Assistant Secretary Brad Crabtree. Successful pilots and demonstrations “will add to investor confidence and lead to more deployment” to provide dispatchable clean energy, including emerging CO2-to-electricity approaches for power system reliability after 2030,| he added.

But environmentalists and others insist potentially cost-prohibitive CCUS infrastructure, including CO2 storage hub initiatives, must still prove itself effective under rigorous and transparent federal oversight.

“The vast majority of long-term U.S. power sector needs can be met without fossil generation, and better options are being deployed and in development,” Sierra Club Senior Advisor, Strategic Research and Development, Jeremy Fisher, said, pointing to carbon-free electricity investments gaining momentum in the market. CCUS “may be needed, but without better guardrails, power sector abuses of federal funding could lead to increased emissions and stranded fossil assets,” he added.

New DOE CCUS project grants, an increased $85 per metric ton, or tonne, federal 45Q tax credit, and the forthcoming EPA power plant carbon rules and the federal coal plan will do for CCUS what similar policies did for renewables, advocates and opponents agreed. But controversial past CCUS performance and tax credit abuses must be avoided with transparent reporting requirements for CO2 capture, opponents added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News