Physicists Just Achieved Conduction of Electricity at Close to The Speed of Light

EU Energy Price Surge is driving up electricity and gas costs, inflation, and cost of living across the EU, prompting tax cuts, price caps, subsidies, and household support measures in France, Italy, Spain, and Germany.

Key Points

A surge in EU gas and electricity costs driving inflation and prompting government subsidies, tax cuts, and price caps.

✅ Low-income EU households now spend 50-70 percent more on energy.

✅ Governments deploy tax cuts, price caps, and direct subsidies.

✅ Gas-dependent power markets drive electricity price spikes.

Higher energy prices, including for natural gas, are pushing up electricity prices and the cost of living for households across the EU, prompting governments to cut taxes and provide financial support to the tune of several billion euros.

In the United Kingdom, households are bracing for high winter energy bills this season.

A series of reports published by Cambridge Econometrics in October and November 2022 found that households in EU countries are spending much more on energy than in 2020 and that governments are spending billions of euros to help consumers pay bills and cut taxes.

In France, for example, the poorest households now spend roughly one-third more on energy than in 2020. Between August 2020 and August 2022, household energy prices increased by 37 percent, while overall inflation increased by 9.2 percent.

“We estimate that the increase in household energy prices make an average French household €410 worse off in 2022 compared to 2020, mostly due to higher gas prices,” said the report.

In response to rising energy prices, the French government has adopted price caps and support measures forecast to cost over €71 billion, equivalent to 2.9 percent of French GDP, according to the U.K.-based consultancy.

In Italy, fossil fuels alone were responsible for roughly 30 percent of the country’s annual rate of inflation during spring 2022, according to Cambridge Econometrics. Unlike in other European countries, retail electricity prices have outpaced other energy prices in Italy and were 112 percent higher in July 2022 than in August 2020, the report found. Over the same time period, retail petrol prices were up 14 percent, diesel up 22 percent, and natural gas up 42 percent.

We estimate that households in the lowest-income quintile now spend about 50 percent more on energy than in 2020.

“We estimate that before government support, an average Italian household will be spending around €1,400 more on energy and fuel bills this year than in 2020,” the report said. “Low-income households are worse affected by the increasing energy prices: we estimate that households in the lowest-income quintile now spend about 50 percent more on energy than in 2020.”

Electricity production in Italy is dominated by natural gas, which has also led to a spike in wholesale electricity prices. In 2010, natural gas accounted for 50 percent of all electricity production. The share of natural gas fell to 33 percent in 2014, but then rose again, reaching 48 percent in 2021, and 56 percent in the first half of 2022, according to the report, as gas filled the gap of record low hydro power production in 2022.

In Spain, where electricity prices have seen extreme spikes, low-income households are now spending an estimated 70% more on energy than in 2020, according to Cambridge Econometrics.

Low-income squeeze
In Spain, low-income households are now spending an estimated 70% more on energy than in 2020, according to Cambridge Econometrics. It noted that the Spanish government has intervened heavily in energy markets by cutting taxes, introducing cash transfers for households, and capping the price of natural gas for power generators. The latter has led to lower electricity prices than in many other EU countries.

These support measures are forecast to cost the Spanish government over €35 billion, equivalent to nearly 3 percent of Spain’s GDP. Yet consumers will still feel the burden of higher costs of living, and rolling back electricity prices may prove difficult in the near term.

In March, electricity prices alone were responsible for 45 percent of year-on-year inflation in Spain but prices have since fallen as a result of government intervention, Cambridge Econometrics said. Between May and July, fossil fuels prices accounted for 19-25 percent of the overall inflation rate, and electricity prices for 16 percent.

Support measures
Rising inflation is also a real challenge in Germany, Europe’s largest economy, where German power prices have surged this year, adding pressure. Also there, higher gas prices are to blame.

“We estimate that the increase in energy prices currently make an average household €735 worse off in 2022 compared to 2020, mostly due to higher gas prices,” Cambridge Econometrics said, in a report focused on Germany.

The German government has introduced a number of support measures in order to help households, businesses and industry to pay energy bills, amid rising heating and electricity costs for consumers, including price caps that are expected to take effect in March next year. Moreover, households’ energy bills for December this year will be paid by the state. According to the report, these interventions will mitigate the impact of higher prices “to some extent”, but the aid measures are forecast to cost the government nearly 5 percent of GDP.

Fossil-fuel effect
In addition to gas, higher coal prices have also pushed up inflation in some countries, and U.S. electricity prices have reached multi-decade highs as inflation endures.

In Poland, which is heavily dependent on coal for electricity generation, fossil fuels accounted for roughly 40 percent of Poland’s overall year-on-year inflation rate in June 2022, which stood at over 14 percent, the consultancy said.

The price of household coal, which is widely used in heating Polish homes, increased by 157 percent between August 2021 and August 2022.

Higher energy prices in Poland are partly due to Polish and EU sanctions against Russian gas and coal. Other drivers are the weakening of the Polish zloty against the U.S. dollar and the euro, and the uptick in global demand after COVID-19 lockdowns, said Cambridge Econometrics.

Electricity prices have risen at a much slower pace than energy for transport and heating, with an annualized increase of 5.1 percent.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ukraine Nuclear Plant Ownership Proposal outlines U.S. management of Ukrainian reactors amid the Russia-Ukraine war, citing nuclear safety, energy security, and IAEA oversight; Kyiv rejects ownership transfer, especially regarding Zaporizhzhia under Russian control.

Key Points

U.S. control of Ukraine's nuclear plants for safety; Kyiv rejects transfer, citing sovereignty risks at Zaporizhzhia.

✅ U.S. proposal to manage Ukraine's reactors amid war

✅ Kyiv refuses ownership transfer; open to investment

✅ Zaporizhzhia under Russian control raises safety risks

In the midst of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed a controversial idea: Ukraine should give its nuclear power plants to the United States for safekeeping and management. This suggestion came during a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, wherein Trump expressed the belief that American ownership of these nuclear plants could offer them the best protection amid the ongoing war. But Kyiv, while open to foreign support, has firmly rejected the idea of transferring ownership, especially as the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant remains under Russian occupation.

Ukraine’s nuclear energy infrastructure has always been a vital component of its power generation. Before the war, the country’s four nuclear plants supplied nearly half of its electricity. As Russia's military forces target Ukraine's energy infrastructure, including power plants and coal mines, international watchdogs like the IAEA have warned of nuclear risks as these nuclear facilities have become crucial to maintaining the nation’s energy stability. The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, has attracted international concern due to its size and the ongoing threat of a potential nuclear disaster.

Trump’s Proposal and Ukraine’s Response

Trump’s proposal of U.S. ownership came as a response to the ongoing threats posed by Russia’s occupation of the Zaporizhzhia plant. Trump argued that the U.S., with its expertise in running nuclear power plants, could safeguard these facilities from further damage and potential nuclear accidents. However, Zelenskyy quickly clarified that the discussion was only focused on the Zaporizhzhia plant, which is currently under Russian control. The Ukrainian president emphasized that Kyiv would not entertain the idea of permanently transferring ownership of its nuclear plants, even though they would welcome investment in their restoration and modernization, particularly after the war.

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant has been a focal point of geopolitical tensions since Russia's occupation in 2022. Despite being in "cold shutdown" to prevent further risk of explosions, the facility remains a major concern due to its potential to cause a nuclear disaster. Ukrainian officials, along with international observers, have raised alarm about the safety risks posed by the plant, including mines at Zaporizhzhia reported by UN watchdogs, which is situated in a war zone and under the control of Russian forces who are reportedly neglecting proper safety protocols.

The Fear of a Nuclear Provocation

Ukrainians have expressed concerns that Trump’s proposal could embolden Russia to escalate tensions further, even as a potential agreement on power-plant attacks has been discussed by some parties. Some fear that any attempt to reclaim the plant by Ukraine could trigger a Russian provocation, including a deliberate attack on the plant, which would have catastrophic consequences for both Ukraine and the broader region. The analogy is drawn with the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam, which Ukraine accuses Russia of sabotaging, an act that severely disrupted water supplies to the Zaporizhzhia plant. Ukrainian military officials, including Ihor Romanenko, a former deputy head of Ukraine’s armed forces, warned that Trump’s suggestion might be an exploitation of Ukraine’s vulnerable position in the ongoing war.

Despite these fears, there are some voices within Ukraine, including former employees of the Zaporizhzhia plant, who believe that a deliberate attack by Russian forces is unlikely. They argue that the Russian military needs the plant in functioning condition for future negotiations, with Russia building new power lines to reactivate the site as part of that calculus, and any damage could reduce its value in such exchanges. However, the possibility of Russian negligence or mismanagement remains a significant risk.

The Strategic Role of Ukraine's Nuclear Plants

Ukraine's nuclear plants were a cornerstone of the country’s energy sector long before the conflict began. In recent years, as Ukraine lost access to coal resources in the Donbas region due to Russian occupation, nuclear power became even more vital, alongside a growing focus on wind power to improve resilience. The country’s reliance on these plants grew as Russia launched a sustained campaign to destroy Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, including attacks on nuclear power stations.

The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, holds strategic importance not only due to its size but also because of its location in southeastern Ukraine, an area that has been at the heart of the conflict. Despite being in Russian hands, the plant’s reactors have been safely shut down, reducing the immediate risk of a nuclear explosion. However, the plant’s future remains uncertain, as Russia’s long-term control over it could disrupt Ukraine’s energy security for years to come.

Wider Concerns About Aging Nuclear Infrastructure

Beyond the geopolitical tensions, there are broader concerns about the aging infrastructure of Ukraine's nuclear power plants. International watchdogs, including the environmentalist group Bankwatch, have criticized these facilities as “zombie reactors” due to their outdated designs and safety risks. Experts have called for Ukraine to decommission some of these reactors, fearing that they are increasingly unsafe, especially in the context of a war.

However, Ukrainian officials, including Petro Kotin, head of Energoatom (Ukraine's state-owned nuclear energy company), argue that these reactors are still functional and critical to Ukraine's energy needs. The ongoing conflict, however, complicates efforts to modernize and secure these facilities, which are increasingly vulnerable to both physical damage and potential nuclear hazards.

The Global Implications

Trump's suggestion to take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants has raised significant concerns on the international stage. Some fear that such a move could set a dangerous precedent for nuclear security and sovereignty. Others see it as an opportunistic proposal that exploits Ukraine's wartime vulnerability.

While the future of Ukraine's nuclear plants remains uncertain, one thing is clear: these facilities are now at the center of a geopolitical struggle that could have far-reaching consequences for the energy security of Europe and the world. The safety of these plants and their role in Ukraine's energy future will remain a critical issue as the war continues and as Ukraine navigates its relations with both the U.S. and Russia, with the grid even having resumed electricity exports at times.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hydro One Power Restoration showcases outage recovery after a severe windstorm, with crews repairing downed power lines, broken poles and crossarms, partnering with utilities and contractors to boost grid resilience and promote emergency kit preparedness.

Key Points

A coordinated response by Hydro One and partners to repair storm damage, restore outages, strengthen grid resilience.

✅ Crews repaired downed lines, broken poles, and crossarms

✅ Partners and contractors aided rapid outage restoration

✅ Investments improve grid resilience and emergency readiness

Hydro One crews have restored power to more than 277,000 customers following back-to-back storms, with impacts felt in communities like Sudbury where local crews worked to reconnect service, including a damaging windstorm on that caused 57 broken poles, 27 broken crossarms, as well as downed power lines and fallen trees on lines. Hydro One crews restored power to more than 140,000 customers within 24 hours of Friday's windstorm, even as Toronto outages persisted for some customers elsewhere.

'We understand power outages bring life to a halt, which is why we are continuously improving our storm response, as employee COVID-19 support demonstrated, while making smart investments in a resilient, reliable and sustainable electricity system to energize life for families, businesses and communities for years to come,' said David Lebeter, Chief Operating Officer, Hydro One. 'We thank our customers for their patience as our crews worked tirelessly, alongside our utility partners and contractors, including Ontario crews in Florida, to restore power as quickly and as safely as possible.'

Hydro One thanks all of its utility partners and contractors who assisted with restoration efforts following the windstorm (alongside similar Quebec outages that highlighted the broader impact), including Durham High Voltage, EPCOR, ERTH Power, K-Line Construction Ltd., Lakeland Power Distribution Ltd., North Bay Hydro, Sproule Powerline Construction Ltd. and Valard Construction.

Hydro One encourages customers to restock their emergency kits following these storms, which utilities such as BC Hydro have also characterized as atypical, and to be aware of support programs like our pandemic relief fund that can help during difficult periods, to ensure they're prepared for an emergency or extended power outage.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

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

Key Points

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

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

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

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

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

Global Decarbonization Strategies align renewable energy, electrification, clean air policies, IMO sulfur cap, LNG fuels, and the EU 2050 roadmap to cut carbon intensity and meet Paris Agreement targets via EVs and efficiency.

Key Points

Frameworks that cut emissions via renewables, EVs, efficiency, cleaner marine fuels, and EU policy roadmaps.

✅ Renewables scale as wind and solar outcompete new coal and gas.

✅ Electrification of transport grows as EV costs fall and charging expands.

✅ IMO 2020 sulfur cap and LNG shift cut shipping emissions and particulates.

Are we doing enough to save the planet? Silly question. The latest prognosis from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made for gloomy reading. Fundamental to the Paris Agreement is the target of keeping global average temperatures from rising beyond 2°C. The UN argues that radical measures are needed, and investment incentives for clean electricity are seen as critical by many leaders to accelerate progress to meet that target.

Renewable power and electrification of transport are the pillars of decarbonization. It’s well underway in renewables - the collapse in costs make wind and solar generation competitive with new build coal and gas.

Renewables’ share of the global power market will triple by 2040 from its current level of 6% according to our forecasts.

The consumption side is slower, awaiting technological breakthrough and informed by efforts in countries such as New Zealand’s electricity transition to replace fossil fuels with electricity. The lower battery costs needed for electric vehicles (EVs) to compete head on and displace internal combustion engine (ICE)  cars are some years away. These forces only start to have a significant impact on global carbon intensity in the 2030s. Our forecasts fall well short of the 2°C target, as does the IEA’s base case scenario.

Yet we can’t just wait for new technology to come to the rescue. There are encouraging signs that society sees the need to deal with a deteriorating environment. Three areas of focus came out in discussion during Wood Mackenzie’s London Energy Forum - unrelated, different in scope and scale, each pointing the way forward.

First, clean air in cities.  China has shown how to clean up a local environment quickly. The government reacted to poor air quality in Beijing and other major cities by closing older coal power plants and forcing energy intensive industry and the residential sector to shift away from coal. The country’s return on investment will include a substantial future health care dividend.

European cities are introducing restrictions on diesel cars to improve air quality. London’s 2017 “toxicity charge” is a precursor of an Ultra-Low Emission Zone in 2019, and aligns with UK net-zero policy changes that affect transport planning, to be extended across much of the city by 2020. Paris wants to ban diesel cars from the city centre by 2025 and ICE vehicles by 2030. Barcelona, Madrid, Hamburg and Stuttgart are hatching similar plans.

College Promise In California: Community-Wide Efforts To Support Student Success

Second, desulphurisation of global shipping. High sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) meets around 3.5 million barrels per day (b/d) of the total marine market of 5 million b/d. A maximum of 3.5% sulphur content is allowed currently. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) implements a 0.5% limit on all shipping in 2020, dramatically reducing the release of sulphur oxides into the atmosphere.

Some ships will switch to very low sulphur fuel oil, of which only around 1.4 million b/d will be available in 2020. Others will have to choose between investing in scrubbers or buying premium-priced low sulphur marine gas oil.

Longer-term, lower carbon-intensity gas is a winner as liquefied natural gas becomes fuel of choice for many newbuilds. Marine LNG demand climbs from near zero to 50 million tonnes per annum (tpa) by 2040 on our forecasts, behind only China, India and Japan as a demand centre. LNG will displace over 1 million b/d of oil demand in shipping by 2040.

Third, Europe’s radical decarbonisation plans. Already in the vanguard of emissions reductions policy, the European Commission is proposing to reduce carbon emissions for new cars and vans by 30% by 2030 versus 2020. The targets come with incentives for car manufacturers linked to the uptake of EVs.

The 2050 roadmap, presently at the concept stage, envisages a far more demanding regime, with EU electricity plans for 2050 implying a much larger power system. The mooted 80% reduction in emissions compared with 1990 will embrace all sectors. Power and transport are already moving in this direction, but the legacy fuel mix in many other sectors will be disrupted, too.

Near zero-energy buildings and homes might be possible with energy efficiency improvements, renewables and heat pumps. Electrification, recycling and bioenergy could reduce fossil fuel use in energy intensive sectors like steel and aluminium, and Europe’s oil majors going electric illustrates how incumbents are adapting. Some sectors will cite the risk decarbonisation poses to Europe’s global competitiveness. If change is to come, industry will need to build new partnerships with society to meet these targets.

The 2050 roadmap signals the ambition and will be game changing for Europe if it is adopted. It would provide a template for a global roll out that would go a long way toward meeting UN’s concerns.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News