Spain Approves Installation Of Offshore Wind Farms

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Wind Power drives cheap electricity rates in Iowa via utility-scale wind turbines, integrated transmission, battery storage, and grid management, delivering renewable energy, stable pricing, and long-term rate freezes through 2028.

Key Points

A vertically integrated wind utility lowering Iowa rates via owned generation, transmission, and advanced grid control.

✅ Owned wind assets meet Iowa residential demand

✅ Integrated transmission lowers costs and losses

✅ Rate freeze through 2028 sustains cheap power

In his latest letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, Warren Buffett used the 20th anniversary of Berkshire Hathaway Energy to tout its cheap electricity bills for customers.

When Berkshire purchased the majority share of BHE in 2000, the cost of electricity for its residential customers in Iowa was 8.8 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) on average. Since then, these electricity rates have risen at a paltry <1% per year, with a freeze on rate hikes through 2028. As anyone who pays an electricity bill knows, that is an incredible deal.  

As Buffett himself notes with alacrity, “Last year, the rates [BHE’s competitor in Iowa] charged its residential customers were 61% higher than BHE’s. Recently, that utility received a rate increase that will widen the gap to 70%.”

The Winning Strategy

So, what’s Buffett’s secret to cheap electricity? Wind power.

“The extraordinary differential between our rates and theirs is largely the result of our huge accomplishments in converting wind into electricity,” Buffett explains. 

Wind turbines in Iowa that BHE owns and operates are expected to generate about 25.2 million megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity for its customers, as projects like Building Energy operations begin to contribute. By Buffett’s estimations, that will be enough to power all of its residential customers’ electricity needs in Iowa.  

The company has plans to increase its renewable energy generation in other regions as well. This year, BHE Canada is expected to start construction on a 117.6MW wind farm in Alberta, Canada with its partner, Renewable Energy Systems, that will provide electricity to 79,000 homes in Canada’s oil country.

Observers note that Alberta is a powerhouse for both green energy and fossil fuels, underscoring the region's unique transition.

But I would argue that the secret to BHE’s success perhaps goes deeper than transitioning to sources of renewable energy. There are plenty of other utility companies that have adopted wind and solar power as an energy source. In the U.S., where renewable electricity surpassed coal in 2022, at least 50% of electricity customers have the option to buy renewable electricity from their power supplier, according to the Department of Energy. And some states, such as New York, have gone so far as to allow customers to pick from providers who generate their electricity.

What differentiates BHE from a lot of the competition in the utility space is that it owns the means to generate, store, transmit and supply renewable power to its customers across the U.S., U.K. and Canada, with lessons from the U.K. about wind power informing policy.

In its financial filings for 2019, the company reported that it owns 33,600MW of generation capacity and has 33,400 miles of transmission lines, as well as a 50% interest in Electric Transmission Texas (ETT) that has approximately 1,200 miles of transmission lines. This scale and integration enables BHE to be efficient in the distribution and sale of electricity, including selling renewable energy across regions.

BHE is certainly not alone in building renewable-energy fueled electricity dominions. Its largest competitor, NextEra, built 15GW of wind capacity and has started to expand its utility-scale solar installations. Duke Energy owns and operates 2,900 MW of renewable energy, including wind and solar. Exelon operates 40 wind turbine sites across the U.S. that generate 1,500 MW.

Integrated Utilities Power Ahead

It’s easy to see why utility companies see wind as a competitive source of electricity compared to fossil fuels. As I explained in my previous post, Trump’s Wrong About Wind, the cost of building and generating wind energy have fallen significantly over the past decade. Meanwhile, improvements in battery storage and power management through new technological advancements have made it more reliable (Warren Buffett bet on that one too).

But what is also striking is that integrated power and transmission enables these utility companies to make those decisions; both in terms of sourcing power from renewable energy, as well as the pricing of the final product. Until wind and solar power are widespread, these utility companies are going to have an edge of the more fragmented ends of the industry who can’t make these purchasing or pricing decisions independently. 

Warren Buffett very rarely misses a beat. He’s not the Oracle of Omaha for nothing. Berkshire Hathaway’s ownership of BHE has been immensely profitable for its shareholders. In the year ended December 31, 2019, BHE and its subsidiaries reported net income attributable to BHE shareholders of $2.95 billion.

There’s no question that renewable energy will transform the utility industry over the next decade. That change will be led by the likes of BHE, who have the power to invest, control and manage their own energy generation assets.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

UK Nuclear Energy Ten Point Plan outlines support for large reactors, SMRs, and AMRs, funding Sizewell C, hydrogen production, and industrial heat to reach net zero, decarbonize transport and heating, and expand clean electricity capacity.

Key Points

A UK plan backing large, small, and advanced reactors to drive net zero via clean power, hydrogen, and industrial heat.

✅ Funds large plants (e.g., Sizewell C) under value-for-money models

✅ Invests in SMRs for factory-built, modular, lower-cost deployment

✅ Backs AMRs for high-temperature heat, hydrogen, and industry

The UK government has just announced its “Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution”, in which it lays out a vision for the future of energy, transport and nature in the UK. As researchers into nuclear energy, my colleagues and I were pleased to see the plan is rather favourable to new nuclear power.

It follows the advice from the UK’s Nuclear Innovation and Research Advisory Board, pledging to pursue large power plants based on current technology, and following that up with financial support for two further waves of reactor technology (“small” and “advanced” modular reactors).

This support is an important part of the plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, as in the years to come nuclear power will be crucial to decarbonising not just the electricity supply but the whole of society.

This chart helps illustrate the extent of the challenge faced:

Electricity generation is only responsible for a small percentage of UK emissions. William Bodel. Data: UK Climate Change Committee

Efforts to reduce emissions have so far only partially decarbonised the electricity generation sector. Reaching net zero will require immense effort to also decarbonise heating, transport, as well as shipping and aviation. The plan proposes investment in hydrogen production and electric vehicles to address these three areas – which will require, as advocates of nuclear beyond electricity argue, a lot more energy generation.

Nuclear is well-placed to provide a proportion of this energy. Reaching net zero will be a huge challenge, and industry leaders warn it may be unachievable without nuclear energy. So here’s what the announcement means for the three “waves” of nuclear power.

Who will pay for it?
But first a word on financing. To understand the strategy, it is important to realise that the reason there has been so little new activity in the UK’s nuclear sector since the 1990s is due to difficulty in financing. Nuclear plants are cheap to fuel and operate and last for a long time. In theory, this offsets the enormous upfront capital cost, and results in competitively priced electricity overall.

But ever since the electricity sector was privatised, governments have been averse to spending public money on power plants. This, combined with resulting higher borrowing costs and cheaper alternatives (gas power), has meant that in practice nuclear has been sidelined for two decades. While climate change offers an opportunity for a revival, these financial concerns remain.

Large nuclear
Hinkley Point C is a large nuclear station currently under construction in Somerset, England. The project is well-advanced, with its first reactor installed and due to come online in the middle of this decade. While the plant will provide around 7% of current UK electricity demand, its agreed electricity price is relatively expensive.

Under construction: Hinkley Point C. Ben Birchall/PA

The government’s new plan states: “We are pursuing large-scale new nuclear projects, subject to value-for-money.” This is likely a reference to the proposed Sizewell C in Suffolk, on which a final decision is expected soon. Sizewell C would be a copy of the Hinkley plant – building follow-up identical reactors achieves capital cost reductions, and setbacks at Hinkley Point C have sharpened delivery focus as an alternative funding model will likely be implemented to reduce financing costs.

Other potential nuclear sites such as Wylfa and Moorside (shelved in 2018 and 2019 respectively for financial reasons) are also not mentioned, their futures presumably also covered by the “subject to value-for-money” clause.

Small nuclear
The next generation of nuclear technology, with various designs under development worldwide are smaller, cheaper, safer Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), such as the Rolls Royce “UK SMR”.

Reactors small enough to be manufactured in factories and delivered as modules can be assembled on site in much shorter times than larger designs, which in contrast are constructed mostly on site. In so doing, the capital costs per unit (and therefore borrowing costs) could be significantly lower than current new-builds.

The plan states “up to £215 million” will be made available for SMRs, Phase 2 of which will begin next year, with anticipated delivery of units around a decade from now.

Advanced nuclear
The third proposed wave of nuclear will be the Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs). These are truly innovative technologies, with a wide range of benefits over present designs and, like the small reactors, they are modular to keep prices down.

Crucially, advanced reactors operate at much higher temperatures – some promise in excess of 750°C compared to around 300°C in current reactors. This is important as that heat can be used in industrial processes which require high temperatures, such as ceramics, which they currently get through electrical heating or by directly burning fossil fuels. If those ceramics factories could instead use heat from AMRs placed nearby, it would reduce CO₂ emissions from industry (see chart above).

High temperatures can also be used to generate hydrogen, which the government’s plan recognises has the potential to replace natural gas in heating and eventually also in pioneering zero-emission vehicles, ships and aircraft. Most hydrogen is produced from natural gas, with the downside of generating CO₂ in the process. A carbon-free alternative involves splitting water using electricity (electrolysis), though this is rather inefficient. More efficient methods which require high temperatures are yet to achieve commercialisation, however if realised, this would make high temperature nuclear particularly useful.

The government is committing “up to £170 million” for AMR research, and specifies a target for a demonstrator plant by the early 2030s. The most promising candidate is likely a High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor which is possible, if ambitious, over this timescale. The Chinese currently lead the way with this technology, and their version of this reactor concept is expected soon.

In summary, the plan is welcome news for the nuclear sector, even as Europe loses nuclear capacity across the continent. While it lacks some specifics, these may be detailed in the government’s upcoming Energy White Paper. The advice to government has been acknowledged, and the sums of money mentioned throughout are significant enough to really get started on the necessary research and development.

Achieving net zero is a vast undertaking, and recognising that nuclear can make a substantial contribution if properly supported is an important step towards hitting that target.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

TTC Battery-Electric Buses lead Toronto transit toward zero-emission mobility, improving air quality and climate goals with sustainable operations, advanced charging infrastructure, lower maintenance, energy efficiency, and reliable public transportation across the Toronto Transit Commission network.

Key Points

TTC battery-electric buses are zero-emission vehicles improving quality, lowering costs, and providing efficient service.

✅ Zero tailpipe emissions improve urban air quality

✅ Lower maintenance and energy costs increase savings

✅ Charging infrastructure enables reliable operations

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) has embarked on an exciting new chapter in its commitment to sustainability with the introduction of battery-electric buses to its fleet. This strategic move not only highlights the TTC's dedication to reducing its environmental impact but also positions Toronto as a leader in the evolution of public transportation. As cities worldwide strive for greener solutions, the TTC’s initiative stands as a significant milestone toward a more sustainable urban future.

Embracing Green Technology

The decision to integrate battery-electric buses into Toronto's transit system aligns with a growing trend among urban centers to adopt cleaner, more efficient technologies, including Metro Vancouver electric buses now in service. With climate change posing urgent challenges, transit authorities are rethinking their operations to foster cleaner air and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The TTC’s new fleet of battery-electric buses represents a proactive approach to addressing these concerns, aiming to create a cleaner, healthier environment for all Torontonians.

Battery-electric buses operate without producing tailpipe emissions, and deployments like Edmonton's first electric bus illustrate this shift, offering a stark contrast to traditional diesel-powered vehicles. This transition is crucial for improving air quality in urban areas, where transportation is a leading source of air pollution. By choosing electric options, the TTC not only enhances the city’s air quality but also contributes to the global effort to combat climate change.

Economic and Operational Advantages

Beyond environmental benefits, battery-electric buses present significant economic advantages. Although the initial investment for electric buses may be higher than that for conventional diesel buses, and broader adoption challenges persist, the long-term savings are substantial. Electric buses have lower operating costs due to reduced fuel expenses and less frequent maintenance requirements. The electric propulsion system generally involves fewer moving parts than traditional engines, resulting in lower overall maintenance costs and improved service reliability.

Moreover, the increased efficiency of electric buses translates into reduced energy consumption. Electric buses convert a larger proportion of energy from the grid into motion, minimizing waste and optimizing operational effectiveness. This not only benefits the TTC financially but also enhances the overall experience for riders by providing a more reliable and punctual service.

Infrastructure Development

To support the introduction of battery-electric buses, the TTC is also investing in necessary infrastructure upgrades, including the installation of charging stations throughout the city. These charging facilities are essential for ensuring that the electric fleet can operate smoothly and efficiently. By strategically placing charging stations at transit hubs and along bus routes, the TTC aims to create a seamless transition for both operators and riders.

This infrastructure development is critical not just for the operational capacity of the electric buses but also for fostering public confidence in this new technology, and consistent safety measures such as the TTC's winter safety policy on lithium-ion devices reinforce that trust. As the TTC rolls out these vehicles, clear communication regarding their operational logistics, including charging times and routes, will be essential to inform and engage the community.

Engaging the Community

The TTC is committed to engaging with Toronto’s diverse communities throughout the rollout of its battery-electric bus program. Community outreach initiatives will help educate residents about the benefits of electric transit, addressing any concerns and building public support, and will also discuss emerging alternatives like Mississauga fuel cell buses in the region. Informational campaigns, workshops, and public forums will provide opportunities for dialogue, allowing residents to voice their opinions and learn more about the technology.

This engagement is vital for ensuring that the transition is not just a top-down initiative but a collaborative effort that reflects the needs and interests of the community. By fostering a sense of ownership among residents, the TTC can cultivate support for its sustainable transit goals.

A Vision for the Future

The TTC’s introduction of battery-electric buses marks a transformative moment in Toronto’s public transit landscape. This initiative exemplifies the commission's broader vision of creating a more sustainable, efficient, and user-friendly transportation network. As the city continues to grow, the need for innovative solutions to urban mobility challenges becomes increasingly critical.

By embracing electric technology, the TTC is setting an example for other transit agencies across Canada and beyond, and piloting driverless EV shuttles locally underscores that leadership. This initiative is not just about introducing new vehicles; it is about reimagining public transportation in a way that prioritizes environmental responsibility and community engagement. As Toronto moves forward, the integration of battery-electric buses will play a crucial role in shaping a cleaner, greener future for urban transit, ultimately benefitting residents and the planet alike.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure 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

Bitcoin Energy Consumption drives debate on blockchain mining, proof-of-work, carbon footprint, and emissions, with CCAF estimates in terawatt hours highlighting electricity demand, fossil fuel reliance, and sustainability concerns for data centers and cryptocurrency networks.

Key Points

Electricity used by Bitcoin proof-of-work mining, often fossil-fueled, estimated by CCAF in terawatt hours.

✅ CCAF: 40-445 TWh, central estimate ~130 TWh

✅ ~66% of mining electricity sourced from fossil fuels

✅ Proof-of-work increases hash rate, energy, and emissions

The University of Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) studies the burgeoning business of cryptocurrencies.

It calculates that Bitcoin's total energy consumption is somewhere between 40 and 445 annualised terawatt hours (TWh), with a central estimate of about 130 terawatt hours.

The UK's electricity consumption is a little over 300 TWh a year, while Argentina uses around the same amount of power as the CCAF's best guess for Bitcoin, as countries like New Zealand's electricity future are debated to balance demand.

And the electricity the Bitcoin miners use overwhelmingly comes from polluting sources, with the U.S. grid not 100% renewable underscoring broader energy mix challenges worldwide.

The CCAF team surveys the people who manage the Bitcoin network around the world on their energy use and found that about two-thirds of it is from fossil fuels, and some regions are weighing curbs like Russia's proposed mining ban amid electricity deficits.

Huge computing power - and therefore energy use - is built into the way the blockchain technology that underpins the cryptocurrency has been designed.

It relies on a vast decentralised network of computers.

These are the so-called Bitcoin "miners" who enable new Bitcoins to be created, but also independently verify and record every transaction made in the currency.

In fact, the Bitcoins are the reward miners get for maintaining this record accurately.

It works like a lottery that runs every 10 minutes, explains Gina Pieters, an economics professor at the University of Chicago and a research fellow with the CCAF team.

Data processing centres around the world, including hotspots such as Iceland's mining strain, race to compile and submit this record of transactions in a way that is acceptable to the system.

They also have to guess a random number.

The first to submit the record and the correct number wins the prize - this becomes the next block in the blockchain.

Estimates for bitcoin's electricity consumption
At the moment, they are rewarded with six-and-a-quarter Bitcoins, valued at about $50,000 each.

As soon as one lottery is over, a new number is generated, and the whole process starts again.

The higher the price, says Prof Pieters, the more miners want to get into the game, and utilities like BC Hydro suspending new crypto connections highlight grid pressures.

"They want to get that revenue," she tells me, "and that's what's going to encourage them to introduce more and more powerful machines in order to guess this random number, and therefore you will see an increase in energy consumption," she says.

And there is another factor that drives Bitcoin's increasing energy consumption.

The software ensures it always takes 10 minutes for the puzzle to be solved, so if the number of miners is increasing, the puzzle gets harder and the more computing power needs to be thrown at it.

Bitcoin is therefore actually designed to encourage increased computing effort.

The idea is that the more computers that compete to maintain the blockchain, the safer it becomes, because anyone who might want to try and undermine the currency must control and operate at least as much computing power as the rest of the miners put together.

What this means is that, as Bitcoin gets more valuable, the computing effort expended on creating and maintaining it - and therefore the energy consumed - inevitably increases.

We can track how much effort miners are making to create the currency.

They are currently reckoned to be making 160 quintillion calculations every second - that's 160,000,000,000,000,000,000, in case you were wondering.

And this vast computational effort is the cryptocurrency's Achilles heel, says Alex de Vries, the founder of the Digiconomist website and an expert on Bitcoin.

All the millions of trillions of calculations it takes to keep the system running aren't really doing any useful work.

"They're computations that serve no other purpose," says de Vries, "they're just immediately discarded again. Right now we're using a whole lot of energy to produce those calculations, but also the majority of that is sourced from fossil energy, and clean energy's 'dirty secret' complicates substitution."

The vast effort it requires also makes Bitcoin inherently difficult to scale, he argues.

"If Bitcoin were to be adopted as a global reserve currency," he speculates, "the Bitcoin price will probably be in the millions, and those miners will have more money than the entire [US] Federal budget to spend on electricity."

"We'd have to double our global energy production," he says with a laugh, even as some argue cheap abundant electricity is getting closer to reality today. "For Bitcoin."

He says it also limits the number of transactions the system can process to about five per second.

This doesn't make for a useful currency, he argues.

Rising price of bitcoin graphic
And that view is echoed by many eminent figures in finance and economics.

The two essential features of a successful currency are that it is an effective form of exchange and a stable store of value, says Ken Rogoff, a professor of economics at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

He says Bitcoin is neither.

"The fact is, it's not really used much in the legal economy now. Yes, one rich person sells it to another, but that's not a final use. And without that it really doesn't have a long-term future."

What he is saying is that Bitcoin exists almost exclusively as a vehicle for speculation.

So, I want to know: is the bubble about to burst?

"That's my guess," says Prof Rogoff and pauses.

"But I really couldn't tell you when."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Poland Offshore Wind Energy accelerates as PGE exits nuclear leadership, PKN Orlen steps in, and Baltic Sea projects expand to cut coal reliance, meet EU emissions goals, attract investors, and bridge the power capacity gap.

Key Points

A shift from coal and nuclear to Baltic offshore wind to add capacity, cut EU emissions, and attract investment.

✅ PGE drops lead in nuclear; pivots $10bn to offshore wind.

✅ PKN Orlen may assume nuclear role; projects await approval.

✅ 6 GW offshore could add 60b zlotys and 77k jobs by 2030.

PGE, Poland’s biggest power group has decided to abandon a role in building the country’s first nuclear power plant and will instead focus investment on offshore wind energy.

Reuters reports state-run refiner PKN Orlen (PKN.WA) could take on PGE’s role, while the latter announces a $10bn offshore wind power project.

Both moves into renewables and nuclear represent a major change in Polish energy policy, diversifying away from the country’s traditional coal-fired power base, as regional efforts like the North Sea wind farms initiative expand, in a bid to fill an electricity shortfall and meet EU emission standards.

An unnamed source told the news agency, PGE could not fund both projects and cheap technology had swung the decision in favour of wind, with offshore wind competing with gas in some markets. PGE could still play a smaller role in the nuclear project which has been delayed and still needs government approval.

#google#

A proposed law is currently before the Polish parliament aiming at facilitating easy construction of wind turbines, mindful of Germany’s grid expansion challenges that have hindered rollout.

If the law is passed, as expected, several other wind farm projects could also proceed.

Polenergia has said it would like to build a wind farm in the Baltic by 2022. PKN Orlen is also considering building one.

PGE said in March that it wants to build offshore windfarms with a capacity of 2.5 gigawatts (GW) by 2030.

Analysts and investors say that offshore wind farms are the easiest and fastest way for Poland to fill the expected capacity gap from coal, with examples like the largest UK offshore wind farm coming online underscoring momentum, and reduce CO2 emissions in line with EU’s 2030 targets as Poland seeks improved ties with Brussels.

The decision to open up the offshore power industry could also draw in investors, as shown by Japanese utilities’ UK offshore investment attracting cross-border capital. Statoil said in April it would join Polenergia’s offshore project which has drawn interest from other international wind companies. “

The Polish Wind Energy Association (PWEA) estimates that offshore windfarms with a total capacity of 6 GW would help create around 77,000 new jobs and add around 60 billion zlotys to economic growth.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News