Labrador power flowing through Quebec

NB Power Hydrogen-from-Seawater Project explores clean energy R&D with Joi Scientific, targeting zero-emission electricity for Belledune using Bay of Chaleur seawater, hydrogen production, and possible carbon credits within Canada's climate plan.

Key Points

An NB Power R&D initiative with Joi Scientific to produce hydrogen from seawater for zero-emission power at Belledune.

✅ Targets coal phase-out by 2030 at Belledune

✅ Evaluates costs, efficiency, and carbon credits

✅ Seawater-to-hydrogen tech via proprietary R&D

NB Power is betting $7 million on a promising but untested new way to generate electricity without emitting greenhouse gases: turning seawater from the Bay of Chaleur into energy, a marine approach similar to Nova Scotia's Bay of Fundy tidal tests in recent years.

CEO Gaëtan Thomas talked last month about converting the Belledune generating station to hydrogen power by 2030, after coal is phased out, though some argue planning should be led by an independent planning body to ensure long-term oversight.

But the public utility is tight-lipped so far o

"Unfortunately, it is too early in the process to be discussing details of this research and development project," said NB Power spokesperson Marie-Andrée Bolduc.

Joi Scientific's vice-president of marketing, Vicky Harris, said in an email statement that the company is "involved in multiple research projects, in many different sectors, but, as I am sure you would understand, we are not sharing details of our proprietary research and development work at this time."

On its website, the company calls hydrogen "the universe's most abundant element and the world's cleanest source of energy."

In its collaboration with Florida-based Joi Scientific, a start-up headquartered at the Kennedy Space Centre.

What to do with Belledune?

The federal government has set 2030 as the deadline for provinces to phase out coal-powered electricity under its national climate plan, and NB Power has pursued deals to import Quebec power as part of its transition.

NB Power says other options for Belledune include burning natural gas or biomass, and small nuclear reactors have been discussed provincially as well. But those options would still generate some carbon dioxide emissions.

Green Party Leader David Coon said last month that it was "news to me" that hydrogen power could be generated affordably enough to use in a power plant.

University of New Brunswick chemical engineering professor Willy Cook says turning hydrogen into energy is simple, but it's not necessarily cost-effective because the process itself requires a lot of electricity, while Nova Scotia is pursuing more wind and solar to meet its goals.

"You can't get something for nothing," he said. "Using electricity to produce hydrogen to go back to the process to produce electricity--that in itself probably isn't economically viable."

But he said he's not familiar with Joi Scientific's technology and it's possible the company has come up with "a more efficient process."

He also said if NB Power earned carbon credits for reducing emissions, hydrogen technology might become competitive with other energy sources.

"I have faith in the NB Power engineers to come through and do that assessment properly," he said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ohio gas-fired generation accelerates as combined-cycle plants join PJM Interconnection, challenging FirstEnergy's Davis-Besse baseload in Lucas County with 869-955 MW capacity and lower costs than nuclear, this summer and a new 2020 project.

Key Points

Ohio gas-fired generation is new combined-cycle capacity for PJM, adding 955 MW and competing with nuclear baseload.

✅ 955 MW Lucas County plant approved by Ohio Power Siting Board

✅ 869 MW Oregon Clean Energy Center entered service this summer

✅ PJM says reliability unaffected without FirstEnergy nuclear

Nuclear generators already struggling in Ohio will face even more competition from almost 900 MW of gas-fired generation that came online this summer, amid concerns over a growing supply gap in some regions, and another 950 MW plant now in the works.

Both plants will connect to the PJM Integration market, according to the Toledo Blade, and will generate more power than FirstEnergy's nearby Davis-Besse nuclear plant overall.

The Clean Energy Future–Oregon project will cost an estimated $900 million to construct, and is expected to begin operation in 2020. The project was initially approved more than four years ago.

Nuclear plants in Ohio have pressed for subsidies to remain in operation, as their emissions-free power is being pushed off the grid by cheaper natural gas, reflecting a broader debate over the future of struggling nuclear plants across the U.S. In May, FirstEnergy CEO Chuck Jones told the Ohio Senate Public Utilities Committee that its Davis-Besse and Perry nuclear plants are unlikely to successfully compete with low cost gas-fired generation in the wholesale power market.

Proponents of supporting baseload generation like coal and nuclear have pointed to their contributions to the reliability and resiliency of the power system, and some jurisdictions are considering new large-scale nuclear to meet those goals. But FirstEnergy's Ohio nuclear plants are not necessary for system reliability, according to Craig Glazer, vice president of federal government policy at PJM Interconnection and the former chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.

The Ohio Power Siting Board last week authorized Clean Energy Future-Oregon LLC to construct a 955 MW gas-fired, combined-cycle power plant in Lucas County.

The plant will be located on a 30-acre parcel of land in Oregon, Ohio, and will interconnect to the regional electric transmission grid via nearby 138 and 345 kV transmission lines.

The project is being developed by CME Energy, which this summer also brought online the Oregon Clean Energy Center, an 869 MW gas-fired power plant at a nearby location, while governments elsewhere weigh new gas plants to boost electricity production.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Grid Inertia and Stability underpin synchronous generation, frequency control, and voltage resilience, with virtual inertia, fast governor response, and hydro ramping mitigating oscillations when gas turbines or large generators trip or interconnectors fail.

Key Points

Grid inertia and stability show how synchronous assets resist frequency swings and damp oscillations in AC grids.

✅ Synchronous machines and loads collectively stiffen system frequency.

✅ Fast governor, hydro ramps, and virtual inertia arrest deviations.

✅ Excess inertia is costly; smart controls can replace part of it.

The discussion on inertia and synchronous generation is rather confused. Inertia is necessary because it provides stability to the grid. “Strength” and “stiffness” are terms that are used to show that lots of rotating inertia is “good’ or even essential to a stable grid. Because it was free it is often assumed that the system needs as much generator inertia as it always had, though some argue for keeping electricity options open to manage reliability during transition.

But inertia is just one way to supply stability and it can be argued that beyond more than a certain minimum level, generator inertia is an expensive and anachronistic way of providing stability.

Stability is required to protect timing circuits, minimise mechanical loads on motors and generators caused by changing speed, prevent overheating of inductive loads like AC motors and most of all to prevent voltage/frequency oscillations after fast changes in load or generation e.g. from a loss of a connection or generator or even start-up of all the hot water services at 10PM.

Inertia is one simple way of providing stability because the rotating mass of the generators absorbs or disburses energy by small changes in speed.

While the inertia of turbines is large, it is only useful as a store of energy if you can use it.  Most of the energy stored in a rotating turbo-generator is unavailable because the energy is 1/2Jω2 where ω is the angular velocity and J the rotary inertia. As the angular velocity is only supposed to vary by 0.15Hz in 50Hz you can only use 0.6% (49.85/50)2 of the inertia in the system to stabilise the load. Even if a 1Hz short term deviation is allowed it is still only 4% of the system inertia.

The key to stability is not so much the inertia itself but the synchronous nature of an AC system which locks all the turbines and loads together at the same frequency, thus inertia is not just that of one generator but all the synchronous generators, the capacitance of the transmission and distribution network and even all the AC motors and loads on the load side. These later contributors are still there, even if some of the generation is no longer synchronous, and recent low-carbon electricity lessons emphasize system-level coordination.

The downside of inertia is that once it is given up it must be replaced. So, if system frequency falls by 1Hz, to recover the frequency a large fraction of the output response from the remaining generators is used just to spin all the generators and loads back up to speed rather than just supply lost power to the grid. In the best case, it will prolong the frequency disturbance. In worst case the extended frequency deviation will trigger protection circuits and more widespread faults.

In a conventional system inertia provides the first 0.1-10 seconds of load disturbance response and it was free. A steam plant is quite good for the next 3-6 seconds after a disturbance because there is a quantity of steam in the steam chest which can be released quickly.

If the lost generation stays off line steam is then limited because it has slow ramping after that first steam dump. Hydro comes up after 20-150 seconds but has excellent stability and very fast ramps, especially in pumped storage hydro configurations where response is rapid. The combination of inertia of water in the penstock and rotary inertia of the generator gives very stable ramping and for large scale power changes, hydro seems to offer the best combination of ramp rate and stability.

Gas turbines respond quite well after 8-30 seconds, then ramp quickly if they don’t stall or oscillate which they are prone to do at low loads. It is clear that “the straw that broke the camel’s back” in the SA blackout was the failure of gas turbine generators at the Quarantine station to respond properly to rapidly increasing demand, a contrast to California shutdowns that raised questions about grid management practices.

However, even if inertia is seen as desirable at the plant level, gas turbine plants have no more inertia per MW than wind and many of them are operated slaved to the largest generator(s) because it is simpler and more efficient, and recent moves like new Ontario gas plants aim to boost capacity.

But if the key large generator(s) are for some reason isolated from the grid, the gas turbines will sag under the increased load and they will have limited mechanism or perhaps, if they are already at full load, even capacity, to respond. So, within fractions of a second their frequency will start to fall just as quickly as a group of wind turbines.

Even if governor response is fast, maximum stable ramp rates are around 5-10% per minute usually starting at less than that (they tend to have S shaped response curves) Gas turbines have another weakness which means that their inertia is of less value to the grid.

If frequency falls the compressors slow down reducing compression ratio and thus power so even more so more of the governor response is needed just to compensate for reduced air flow.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Zambia Mining Electricity Tariff Agreement signals a shift to a 9.33 cents/kWh flat rate for mining companies, as Zesco and the ERB steer power pricing talks, with backdating, copper output, and tariffs in focus.

Key Points

A policy to set a 9.33 cents/kWh flat rate for mines, with Zesco backdating terms still under negotiation.

✅ 9.33 cents/kWh flat tariff accepted by most mining houses

✅ Talks involve Zesco, ERB, First Quantum, Glencore, Vale, Vedanta

✅ Backdating to January remains under negotiation

Zambia is close to reaching an agreement with mining companies over its plans to increase electricity prices, in line with recent increases in Hong Kong seen elsewhere, Finance Minister Felix Mutati reports.

The government last month proposed introducing a flat tariff of 9.30 U.S. cents/kilowatt hour (kWh) backdated to January for mining companies, instead of individually negotiated rates that have averaged 6 U.S. cents/kWh, a structure echoing Manitoba's planned 2.5% yearly hikes over three years, but mining companies opposed the plan.

A team headed by the minister of energy was due to hold talks with mining companies this week, including First Quantum Minerals,.

"We have concluded with all the mining houses except for one. They have accepted our proposal to actually pay 9.33 cents/kwh," Mutati told Reuters in a move comparable to BC Hydro's 3.75% rate plan over two years.

However, an agreement has not yet been reached on backdating the higher tariffs to January as proposed by power firm Zesco Ltd, a point comparable to issues outlined in Nunavut's electricity price hike analysis, he said.

"It is part of the negotiations but ideally that is what the government is considering," Mutati said.

Other mining companies operating in Zambia, Africa's No. 2 copper producer, include Glencore of Switzerland, Brazil's Vale and London-listed Vedanta Resources .

Last week Zambia's Energy Regulation Board (ERB) approved a 75 percent increase in the price of electricity for retail customers, whereas utilities such as BC Hydro's $2 per month proposal in Canada have pursued more gradual adjustments. (Reporting by Chris Mfula; Editing by James Macharia and Susan Fenton)

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

SaskPower Geothermal Power aims to deliver renewable baseload energy in Saskatchewan, complementing wind and solar. With DEEP's 5 MW pilot near Estevan tapping aquifers, it supports grid reliability alongside LED streetlights and flare gas.

Key Points

SaskPower Geothermal Power is a baseload plan using DEEP's aquifers to deliver zero-emission power in Saskatchewan.

✅ 5 MW DEEP pilot near Estevan targets hot sedimentary aquifers

✅ Provides 24/7 renewable baseload, complementing wind and solar

✅ Higher upfront costs and timelines challenge rapid deployment

It would be a first for Saskatchewan and Canada.

SaskPower‘s efforts to double renewable electricity by 2030 could potentially include geothermal power stations.

 Regina and Saskatoon areas were selected to provide a range of settings to test the new LED streetlights SaskPower is piloting. SaskPower pilot project converting streetlights to LED

 The second project in SaskPower’s flare gas power generation program is contributing 750 kilowatts of electricity to Saskatchewan’s power grid. SaskPower turning waste flare gas into electricity

 SaskPower reporting power outages in some regions as high winds sweep across Saskatchewan. SaskPower launches homeowner energy efficiency assessment tool

“If projections hold true, we’re going to need to find over 2,000 megawatts of renewable power,” Kirsten Marcia, president and CEO of Deep Earth Energy Production (DEEP), said.

“Geothermal is not the only solution here, but we hope to have a very significant place at the table.”

With a power purchase agreement with SaskPower signed in May, and ongoing initiatives such as purchasing power from Flying Dust First Nation to diversify supply, DEEP hopes to build a five megawatt, zero emission power plant near Estevan, where subterranean water is the warmest in Saskatchewan.

Typically, geothermal operations use the water for heat, as in Manitoba's geothermal homes initiative where thousands of residences would be converted; however DEEP’s plant will pass water through an exchanger to create steam, which will drive a turbine and generate energy.

“You think of our potash resources, our oil and gas resources, and at the very bottom of those sedimentary units is thick, 150 metre deep aquifer,” Marcia said. “We could drill it here in Saskatoon, but it’s too shallow to be hot enough, and the same aquifer continues to deepen as we go towards the United States, it’s about 3.4 kilometers in depth, so that’s what gives it the heat.”

But is investment in geothermal power generation worth it for the province? Experts say they’re cautiously optimistic, but initial costs may drive away potential interest, which is why SaskPower is also planning to buy more electricity from Manitoba Hydro as a complementary measure.

“The payback period is going to be much longer,” said Grant Ferguson, an associate professor of geological engineering at the University of Saskatchewan. “So we’re going to run into problems with risk and financing and these sorts of things that might not be in play with something like a wind or solar project.”

Time is also a factor.

Each unit is expected to generate between five and 10 megawatts of power; multiple unites would be required to generate the amount of power needed in Saskatchewan. Nearly a decade of work has gone into DEEP’s first station.

“If we’re looking towards 2030 and we’re taking 10 years for one, then it’s going to take a while to pull all this off,” Ferguson said.

“Maybe if it's on the space of two or three years then we can build these things up.”

The benefit geothermal electricity has over solar and wind generated power? Electricity is consistently being generated, even during record power demand events in Saskatchewan.

“Ideally, this becomes a baseload power supply,” Marcia said, “so unlike wind and solar, which provide an intermittent power supply, geothermal is the only renewable that provides power 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”

DEEP’s first plant is expected to be built in two years. It’s expected the aquifer will be able to support a capacity of roughly 200 megawatts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Leningrad II VVER-1200 Reactor Vessel assembly completed in Sosnovy Bor, with Rosenergoatom preparing for first criticality, hydraulic tests, and physical startup checks of neutron physics, control systems, and passive heat removal safety.

Key Points

Core vessel for Leningrad II Unit 1, completed, sealed, and prepared for hydraulic tests ahead of first criticality.

✅ Hydraulic tests to verify circuit integrity and equipment density

✅ Physical tests to refine neutron-physics of initial fuel loading

✅ Passive heat removal system testing completed; fuel loading began

Rosenergoatom has completed the assembly of the reactor vessel for unit 1 of the Leningrad Phase II nuclear power plant, which is in Sosnovy Bor in western Russia, even as it develops power lines to reactivate the Zaporizhzhia plant in a separate project. The nuclear power plant operator subsidiary of state nuclear corporation Rosatom said yesterday the VVER-1200 is now being prepared for first criticality this month.

Alexander Belyaev, chief engineer of Leningrad NPP, said in the company statement, noting industry-wide nuclear project milestones this year: "The reactor is fully assembled, sealed and ready for hydraulic tests of the first and second circuits, during which we will once again check the equipment of the reactor installation, and finally confirm its density. After that, it will be possible to start the reactor at the minimum controlled power level."

Belyaev said this preparatory phase "envisages a whole series of physical tests that will make it possible to refine the neutron-physical characteristics of the first fuel loading of the nuclear reactor, as well as prove the reliability of the entire control and safety system (in line with the US NRC's final safety evaluation for the NuScale SMR) of the reactor installation".

The existing Leningrad plant site has four operating RMBK-1000 units, while Leningrad II will have four VVER-1200 units, as projects like the Georgia nuclear expansion continue to take shape globally. Testing of the passive heat removal system of unit 1 of Leningrad II was completed in late August and fuel loading began in December, while a new U.S. reactor startup underscored the broader resurgence.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News