Alberta Ends Moratorium on Renewable Energy Projects

Ontario Nuclear Power Costs highlight LCOE, capex, refurbishment outlays, and waste management, compared with renewables, grid reliability, and emissions targets, informing Australia and Peter Dutton on feasibility, timelines, and electricity prices.

Key Points

They include high capex and LCOE from refurbishments and waste, offset by reliable, low-emission baseload.

✅ Refurbishment and maintenance drive lifecycle and LCOE variability.

✅ High capex and long timelines affect consumer electricity prices.

✅ Low emissions, but waste and safety compliance add costs.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton recently lauded Canada’s use of nuclear power as a model for Australia’s energy future. His praise comes as part of a broader push to incorporate nuclear energy into Australia’s energy strategy, which he argues could help address the country's energy needs and climate goals. However, the question arises: Is Ontario’s experience with nuclear power as cost-effective as Dutton suggests?

Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power strategy highlights a belief that nuclear energy could provide a stable, low-emission alternative to fossil fuels. He has pointed to Ontario’s substantial reliance on nuclear power, and the province’s exploration of new large-scale nuclear projects, as an example of how such an energy mix might benefit Australia. The province’s energy grid, which integrates a significant amount of nuclear power, is often cited as evidence that nuclear energy can be a viable component of a diversified energy portfolio.

The appeal of nuclear power lies in its ability to generate large amounts of electricity with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. This characteristic aligns with Australia’s climate goals, which emphasize reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change. Dutton’s advocacy for nuclear energy is based on the premise that it can offer a reliable and low-emission option compared to the fluctuating availability of renewable sources like wind and solar.

However, while Dutton’s enthusiasm for the Canadian model reflects its perceived successes, including recent concerns about Ontario’s grid getting dirtier amid supply changes, a closer look at Ontario’s nuclear energy costs raises questions about the financial feasibility of adopting a similar strategy in Australia. Despite the benefits of low emissions, the economic aspects of nuclear power remain complex and multifaceted.

In Ontario, the cost of nuclear power has been a topic of considerable debate. While the province benefits from a stable supply of electricity due to its nuclear plants, studies warn of a growing electricity supply gap in coming years. Ontario’s experience reveals that nuclear power involves significant capital expenditures, including the costs of building reactors, maintaining infrastructure, and ensuring safety standards. These expenses can be substantial and often translate into higher electricity prices for consumers.

The cost of maintaining existing nuclear reactors in Ontario has been a particular concern. Many of these reactors are aging and require costly upgrades and maintenance to continue operating safely and efficiently. These expenses can add to the overall cost of nuclear power, impacting the affordability of electricity for consumers.

Moreover, the development of new nuclear projects, as seen with Bruce C project exploration in Ontario, involves lengthy and expensive construction processes. Building new reactors can take over a decade and requires significant investment. The high initial costs associated with these projects can be a barrier to their economic viability, especially when compared to the rapidly decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies.

In contrast, the cost of renewable energy has been falling steadily, even as debates over nuclear power’s trajectory in Europe continue, making it a more attractive option for many jurisdictions. Solar and wind power, while variable and dependent on weather conditions, have seen dramatic reductions in installation and operational costs. These lower costs can make renewables more competitive compared to nuclear energy, particularly when considering the long-term financial implications.

Dutton’s praise for Ontario’s nuclear power model also overlooks some of the environmental and logistical challenges associated with nuclear energy. While nuclear power generates low emissions during operation, it produces radioactive waste that requires long-term storage solutions. The management of nuclear waste poses significant environmental and safety concerns, as well as additional costs for safe storage and disposal.

Additionally, the potential risks associated with nuclear power, including the possibility of accidents, contribute to the complexity of its adoption. The safety and environmental regulations surrounding nuclear energy are stringent and require continuous oversight, adding to the overall cost of maintaining nuclear facilities.

As Australia contemplates integrating nuclear power into its energy mix, it is crucial to weigh these financial and environmental considerations. While the Canadian model provides valuable insights, the unique context of Australia’s energy landscape, including its existing infrastructure, energy needs, and the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity in comparable jurisdictions, must be taken into account.

In summary, while Peter Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power model reflects a belief in its potential benefits for Australia’s energy strategy, the cost-effectiveness of Ontario’s nuclear power experience is more nuanced than it may appear. The high capital and maintenance costs associated with nuclear energy, combined with the challenges of managing radioactive waste and ensuring safety, present significant considerations. As Australia evaluates its energy future, a comprehensive analysis of both the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power will be essential to making informed decisions about its role in the country’s energy strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Polycrystalline Tin Selenide Thermoelectrics enable waste heat recovery with ZT 3.1, matching single crystals while cutting costs, powering greener car engines, industrial furnaces, and thermoelectric generators via p-type and emerging n-type designs.

Key Points

Low-cost tin selenide devices that turn waste heat into power, achieving ZT 3.1 and enabling p-type and n-type modules.

✅ Oxygen removal prevents heat-leaking tin oxide grain skins.

✅ Polycrystalline ingots match single-crystal ZT 3.1 at lower cost.

✅ N-type tin selenide in development to pair with p-type.

So-called thermoelectric generators turn waste heat into electricity without producing greenhouse gas emissions, providing what seems like a free lunch. But despite helping power the Mars rovers, the high cost of these devices has prevented their widespread use. Now, researchers have found a way to make cheap thermoelectrics that work just as well as the pricey kind. The work could pave the way for a new generation of greener car engines, industrial furnaces, and other energy-generating devices.

“This looks like a very smart way to realize high performance,” says Li-Dong Zhao, a materials scientist at Beihang University who was not involved with the work. He notes there are still a few more steps to take before these materials can become high-performing thermoelectric generators. However, he says, “I think this will be used in the not too far future.”

Thermoelectrics are semiconductor devices placed on a hot surface, like a gas-powered car engine or on heat-generating electronics using thin-film converters to capture waste heat. That gives them a hot side and a cool side, away from the hot surface. They work by using the heat to push electrical charges from one to the other, a process of turning thermal energy into electricity that depends on the temperature gradient. If a device allows the hot side to warm up the cool side, the electricity stops flowing. A device’s success at preventing this, as well as its ability to conduct electrons, feeds into a score known as the figure of merit, or ZT.

 Over the past 2 decades, researchers have produced thermoelectric materials with increasing ZTs, while related advances such as nighttime solar cells have broadened thermal-to-electric concepts. The record came in 2014 when Mercouri Kanatzidis, a materials scientist at Northwestern University, and his colleagues came up with a single crystal of tin selenide with a ZT of 3.1. Yet the material was difficult to make and too fragile to work with. “For practical applications, it’s a non-starter,” Kanatzidis says.

So, his team decided to make its thermoelectrics from readily available tin and selenium powders, an approach that, once processed, makes grains of polycrystalline tin selenide instead of the single crystals. The polycrystalline grains are cheap and can be heated and compressed into ingots that are 3 to 5 centimeters long, which can be made into devices. The polycrystalline ingots are also more robust, and Kanatzidis expected the boundaries between the individual grains to slow the passage of heat. But when his team tested the polycrystalline materials, the thermal conductivity shot up, dropping their ZT scores as low as 1.2.

In 2016, the Northwestern team discovered the source of the problem: an ultrathin skin of tin oxide was forming around individual grains of polycrystalline tin selenide before they were pressed into ingots. And that skin acted as an express lane for the heat to travel from grain to grain through the material. So, in their current study, Kanatzidis and his colleagues came up with a way to use heat to drive any oxygen away from the powdery precursors, leaving pristine polycrystalline tin selenide, whereas other devices can generate electricity from thin air using ambient moisture.

The result, which they report today in Nature Materials, was not only a thermal conductivity below that of single-crystal tin selenide but also a ZT of 3.1, a development that echoes nighttime renewable devices showing electricity from cold conditions. “This opens the door for new devices to be built from polycrystalline tin selenide pellets and their applications to be explored,” Kanatzidis says.

Getting through that door will still take some time. The polycrystalline tin selenide the team makes is spiked with sodium atoms, creating what is known as a “p-type” material that conducts positive charges. To make working devices, researchers also need an “n-type” version to conduct negative charges.

Zhao’s team recently reported making an n-type single-crystal tin selenide by spiking it with bromine atoms. And Kanatzidis says his team is now working on making an n-type polycrystalline version. Once n-type and p-type tin selenide devices are paired, researchers should have a clear path to making a new generation of ultra-efficient thermoelectric generators. Those could be installed everywhere from automobile exhaust pipes to water heaters and industrial furnaces to scavenge energy from some of the 65% of fossil fuel energy that winds up as waste heat. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Texas Blackout Liability Ruling clarifies appellate court findings in Houston, citing deregulated energy markets, ERCOT immunity, wholesale generators, retail providers, and 2021 winter storm lawsuits over grid failures and wrongful deaths.

Key Points

Houston judges held wholesale generators owe no duty to retail customers, limiting liability for 2021 blackout lawsuits.

✅ Court cites deregulated market and lack of privity to consumers

✅ Ruling shields generators from 2021 winter storm civil suits

✅ Plaintiffs plan appeals; legislature may address liability

Nearly three years after the devastating Texas blackout of 2021, a panel of judges from the First Court of Appeals in Houston has determined that major power companies cannot be held accountable for their failure to deliver electricity during the power grid crisis that unfolded, citing Texas' deregulated energy market as the reason.

This ruling appears likely to shield these companies from lawsuits that were filed against them in the aftermath of the blackout, leaving the families of those affected uncertain about where to seek justice.

In February 2021, a severe cold front swept over Texas, bringing extended periods of ice and snow. The extreme weather conditions increased energy demand while simultaneously reducing supply by causing power generators and the state's natural gas supply chain to freeze. This led to a blackout that left millions of Texans without power and water for nearly a week.

The state officially reported that almost 250 people lost their lives during the winter storm and subsequent blackout, although some analysts argue that this is a significant undercount and warn of blackout risks across the U.S. during severe heat as well.

In the wake of the storm, Texans affected by the energy system's failure began filing lawsuits, and lawmakers proposed a market bailout as political debate intensified. Some of these legal actions were directed against power generators whose plants either ceased to function during the storm or ran out of fuel for electricity generation.

After several years of legal proceedings, a three-judge panel was convened to evaluate the merits of these lawsuits.

This week, Chief Justice Terry Adams issued a unanimous opinion on behalf of the panel, stating, "Texas does not currently recognize a legal duty owed by wholesale power generators to retail customers to provide continuous electricity to the electric grid, and ultimately to the retail customers."

The opinion further clarified that major power generators "are now statutorily precluded by the legislature from having any direct relationship with retail customers of electricity."

This separation of power generation from transmission and retail electric sales in many parts of Texas resulted from energy market deregulation in the early 2000s, with the goal of reducing energy costs, and prompted electricity market reforms aimed at avoiding future blackouts.

Under the previous system, power companies were "vertically integrated," controlling generators, transmission lines, and selling the energy they produced directly to regional customers. However, in deregulated areas of Texas, competition was introduced, creating competing energy-generating companies and retail electric providers that purchase power wholesale and then sell it to residential consumers; meanwhile, electric cooperatives in other parts of the state remained member-owned providers.

Tré Fischer, a partner at the Jackson Walker law firm representing the power companies, explained, "One consequence of that was, because of the unbundling and the separation, you also don't have the same duties and obligations [to consumers]. The structure just doesn't allow for that direct relationship and correspondingly a direct obligation to continually supply the electricity even if there's a natural disaster or catastrophic event."

In the opinion, Justice Adams noted that when designing the Texas energy market, amid renewed interest in ways to improve electricity reliability across the grid, state lawmakers "could have codified the retail customers' asserted duty of continuous electricity on the part of wholesale power generators into law."

The recent ruling applies to five representative cases chosen by the panel out of hundreds filed after the blackout. Due to this decision, it is improbable that any of the lawsuits against power companies will succeed, according to the court's interpretation.

However, plaintiffs' attorneys have indicated their intention to appeal. They may request a review of the panel's opinion by the entire First Court of Appeals or appeal directly to the state supreme court.

The state Supreme Court had previously ruled that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the state's power grid operator, enjoys sovereign immunity and cannot be sued over the blackout.

This latest opinion raises the question of who, if anyone, can be held responsible for deaths and losses resulting from the blackout, a question left unaddressed by the court. Fischer commented, "If anything [the judges] were saying that is a question for the Texas legislature."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Competitive Energy Procurement accelerates renewables, boosts grid reliability, and invites competitive bids across solar, wind, natural gas, and storage, driving innovation, lower costs, and decarbonization to meet rising electricity demand and ensure power supply.

Key Points

Ontario Competitive Energy Procurement is a competitive bidding program to deliver reliable, low-carbon electricity.

✅ Competitive bids from renewables, gas, and storage

✅ Targets grid reliability, affordability, and emissions

✅ Phased evaluations: technical, financial, environmental

Ontario has recently marked a significant milestone in its energy sector with the launch of what is being touted as the largest competitive energy procurement process in the province’s history. This ambitious initiative is set to transform the province’s energy landscape through a broader market overhaul that fosters innovation, enhances reliability, and addresses the growing demands of Ontario’s diverse population.

A New Era of Energy Procurement

The Ontario government’s move to initiate this massive competitive procurement process underscores a strategic shift towards modernizing and diversifying the province’s energy portfolio. This procurement exercise will invite bids from a broad spectrum of energy suppliers and technologies, ranging from traditional sources like natural gas to renewable energy options such as solar and wind power. The aim is to secure a reliable and cost-effective energy supply that aligns with Ontario’s long-term environmental and economic goals.

This historic procurement process represents a major leap from previous approaches by emphasizing a competitive marketplace where various energy providers can compete on an equal footing through electricity auctions and transparent bidding. By doing so, the government hopes to drive down costs, encourage technological advancements, and ensure that Ontarians benefit from a more dynamic and resilient energy system.

Key Objectives and Benefits

The primary objectives of this procurement initiative are multifaceted. First and foremost, it seeks to enhance the reliability of Ontario’s electricity grid. As the province experiences population growth and increased energy demands, maintaining a stable and dependable supply of electricity is crucial, and interprovincial imports through an electricity deal with Quebec can complement local generation. This procurement process will help identify and integrate new sources of power that can meet these demands effectively.

Another significant goal is to promote environmental sustainability. Ontario has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions through Clean Electricity Regulations and transitioning to a cleaner energy mix. By inviting bids from renewable energy sources and innovative technologies, the government aims to support its climate action plan and contribute to the province’s carbon reduction targets.

Cost-effectiveness is also a central focus of the procurement process. By creating a competitive environment, the government anticipates that energy providers will strive to offer more attractive pricing structures and fair electricity cost allocation practices for ratepayers. This, in turn, could lead to lower energy costs for consumers and businesses, fostering economic growth and improving affordability.

The Competitive Landscape

The competitive energy procurement process will be structured to encourage participation from a wide range of energy providers. This includes not only established companies but also emerging players and startups with innovative technologies. By fostering a diverse pool of bidders, the government aims to ensure that all viable options are considered, ultimately leading to a more robust and adaptable energy system.

Additionally, the process will likely involve various stages of evaluation, including technical assessments, financial analyses, and environmental impact reviews. This thorough evaluation will help ensure that selected projects meet the highest standards of performance and sustainability.

Implications for Stakeholders

The implications of this procurement process extend beyond just energy providers and consumers. Local communities, businesses, and environmental organizations will all play a role in shaping the outcomes. For communities, this initiative could mean new job opportunities and economic development, particularly in regions where new energy projects are developed. For businesses, the potential for lower energy costs and access to innovative energy solutions, including demand-response initiatives like the Peak Perks program, could drive growth and competitiveness.

Environmental organizations will be keenly watching the process to ensure that it aligns with broader sustainability goals. The inclusion of renewable energy sources and advanced technologies will be a critical factor in evaluating the success of the initiative in meeting Ontario’s climate objectives.

Looking Ahead

As Ontario embarks on this unprecedented energy procurement journey, the outcomes will be closely watched by various stakeholders. The success of this initiative will depend on the quality and diversity of the bids received, the efficiency of the evaluation process, and the ability to integrate new energy sources into the existing grid, while advancing energy independence where feasible.

In conclusion, Ontario’s launch of the largest competitive energy procurement process in its history is a landmark event that holds promise for a more reliable, sustainable, and cost-effective energy future. By embracing competition and innovation, the province is setting a new standard for energy procurement that could serve as a model for other regions seeking to modernize their energy systems. The coming months will be crucial in determining how this bold initiative will shape Ontario’s energy landscape for years to come.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nordic Power Grid Dispute highlights cross-border interconnector congestion, curtailed exports and imports, hydropower priorities, winter demand spikes, rising spot prices, and transmission grid security amid decarbonization efforts across Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark.

Key Points

A clash over interconnectors and capacity cuts reshaping trade, prices, and reliability in the Nordic power market.

✅ Sweden cuts interconnector capacity to protect grid stability

✅ Norway prioritizes higher-priced exports via new cables

✅ Finland and Denmark seek EU action on capacity curtailments

A spat over electricity supplies is heating up in northern Europe. Sweden is blocking Norway from using its grids to transfer power from producers throughout the region. That’s angered Norway, which in turn has cut flows to its Nordic neighbor.

The dispute has built up around the use of cross-border power cables, which are a key part of Europe’s plans to decarbonize since they give adjacent countries access to low-carbon resources such as wind or hydropower. The electricity flows to wherever prices are higher, informed by how electricity is priced across Europe, without interference from grid operators -- but in the event of a supply squeeze, flows can be stopped.

Sweden moved to safeguard the security of its grid after Norway started increasing electricity exports through huge new cables to Germany and the U.K. Those exports at times have drawn energy away from Sweden, resulting in the country’s system operator cutting capacity at its Nordic borders, preventing exports but also hindering imports, which it relies on to handle demand spikes during winter.

“This is not a good situation in the long run,” Christian Holtz, a energy market consultant for Merlin & Metis AB.

Norway hit back last week by cutting flows to Sweden, this will prioritize better paying customers in Europe, amid Irish price spikes that highlight dispatchable shortages, giving them access to its vast hydro resources at the expense of its Nordic neighbors. 

By partially closing its borders Sweden can’t access imports either, which it relies on to handle demand spikes during the coldest days of the winter. 

In Denmark, unusual summer and autumn winds have at times delivered extraordinarily low electricity prices that ripple through regional markets.

The Swedish grid manager Svenska Kraftnat has reduced export capacity at cables across its borders by as much as half this year to keep operations secure. Finland and Denmark rely on imports too and the cuts will come at a cost for millions of homes and industries across the four nations already contending with record electricity rates this year. 

Finland and Denmark want the European Union to end the exemption to regulations that make such reductions possible in the first place, as Europe is losing nuclear power and facing tighter supply.

“Imports from our neighboring countries ensure adequacy at times of peak consumption,” said Reima Paivinen, head of operation at the Finland’s Fingrid. “The recent surge in electricity prices throughout Europe does not directly affect the adequacy of electricity, but prices may rise dramatically for short periods.”

Svenska Kraftnat says it’s not political -- it has no choice but to cut capacity until its old grids are expanded to handle the new direction of flows, a challenge mirrored by grid expansion woes in Germany that slow integration. That could take at least until 2030 to complete, it said earlier this year. At the same time, Norway halving available export capacity to about 1,200 megawatts will increase risk of shortages. 

“If we need more we will have to count on imports from other countries,” said Erik Ek, head of strategic operation at Svenska Kraftnat. “If that is not available, we will have to disconnect users the day it gets cold.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Nunavut electricity rate increase sees QEC raise domestic electricity rates 6.6% over two years, affecting customer rates, base rates, subsidies, and kWh overage charges across communities, with public housing exempt and territory-wide pricing denied.

Key Points

A 6.6% QEC hike over 2018-2019, affecting customer rates, subsidies, and kWh overage; public housing remains exempt.

✅ 3.3% on May 1, 2018; 3.3% on Apr 1, 2019

✅ Subsidy caps: 1,000 kWh Oct-Mar; 700 kWh Apr-Sep

✅ Territory-wide base rate denied; public housing exempt

Ahead of the Nunavut government's approval of the general rate increase for the Qulliq Energy Corporation, many Nunavummiut wondered how the change would impact their electricity bills.

QEC's request for a 6.6-per-cent increase was approved by the government last week. The increase will be spread out over two years, a pattern similar to BC Hydro's two-year rate plan, with the first increase (3.3 per cent) effective May 1, 2018. The remaining 3.3 per cent will be applied on April 1, 2019.

Public housing units, however, are exempt from the government's increase altogether.

The power corporation also asked for a territory-wide rate, so every community would pay the same base rate (we'll go over specific terms in a minute if you're not familiar with them). But that request was denied, even as Manitoba Hydro scaled back increases next year, and QEC will now take the next two years reassessing each community's base rate.

#google#

So, what does this mean for your home's power bill? Well, there's a few things you need to know, which we'll get to in a second.

But in essence, as long as you don't go over the government-subsidized monthly electricity usage limit, you're paying an extra 3.61 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh).

To be clear, we're talking about non-government domestic rates — basically, private homeowners — and those living in a government-owned unit but pay for their own power.

The basics

First, some quick terminology. The "base rate" term we're going to use (and used above) in this story refers to the community rate. As in, what QEC charges customers in every community. The "customer rate" is the rate customers actually pay, after the government's subsidy.

The first thing you need to know is everyone in Nunavut starts off by paying the same customer rate, unlike jurisdictions using a price cap to limit spikes.

That's because the government subsidizes electricity costs, and that subsidy is different in every community, because the base rate is different.

For example, Iqaluit's new base rate after the 3.3 per cent increase (remember, the 6.6 per cent is being applied over two years) is 56.69 cents per kWh, while Kugaaruk's base rate rose to 112.34 cents per kWh. Those, by the way, are the territory's lowest and highest respective base rates.

However, customers in both Iqaluit and Kugaaruk will each now pay 28.35 cents per kWh because, remember, the government subsidizes the base rates in every community.

Now, remember earlier we mentioned a "government-subsidized monthly electricity usage limit?" That's where customers in various communities start to pay different amounts.

As simply as we can explain it, the government will only cover so much electricity usage in a month, in every household.

Between October and March, the government will subsidize the first 1,000 kilowatt hours, and only 700 kilowatt hours from April to September. QEC says the average Nunavut home will use about 500 kilowatt hours every month over the course of a year.

But if your household goes over that limit, you're at the mercy of your community's base rate for any extra electricity you use. Homes in Kugaaruk in December, for instance, will have to pay that 122.34 cents for every extra kilowatt hour it uses, while homes in Iqaluit only have to pay 56.69 cents per kWh for its extra electricity.

That's where many Nunavummiut have criticized the current rate structure, because smaller communities are paying more for their extra costs than larger communities.

QEC had hoped — as it had asked for — to change the structure so every community pays the same base rate. So regardless of if people go over their electricity usage limits for the government subsidy, everyone would pay the same overage rates.

But the government denied that request.

New rate is actually lower

The one thing we should highlight, however, is the new rate after the increase is actually lower than what customers were paying in 2014.

For the past seven months, customers have been getting power from QEC at a discount, whereas Newfoundland customers began paying for Muskrat Falls during the same period, to different effect.

That's because when QEC sets its rates, it does so based on global oil price forecasts. Since 2014, the price of oil worldwide has slumped, and so QEC was able to purchase it at less than it had anticipated.

When that happens, and QEC makes more than $1 million within a six month period thanks to the lower oil prices, it refunds the excess profits back to customers through a discount on electricity base rates — a mechanism similar to a lump-sum credit used elsewhere — the government subsidy, however, doesn't change so the savings are passed on directly to customers.

Now, the 6.6 per cent increase to electricity rates, is actually being applied to the discounted base rate from the last seven months.

So again, while customers are paying more than they have been for the last seven months, it's lower than what they were paying in 2014.

Lastly, to be clear, all the figures used in this story are only for domestic non-government rates. Commercial rates and changes have not been explored in this story, given the differences in subsidy and rate application.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News