Ontario to Reintroduce Renewable Energy Projects 5 Years After Cancellations

Canada Renewable Energy Partnerships advance wind power and clean electricity in Alberta and Saskatchewan, cutting emissions and supporting net-zero goals through Capital Power and SaskPower agreements with Indigenous participation and 25-year supply contracts.

Key Points

Government-backed deals with Capital Power and SaskPower to deliver clean electricity and reduce emissions.

✅ 25-year renewable supply for federal facilities

✅ New Halkirk 2 Wind project in Alberta

✅ Emissions cuts with Indigenous participation

The Government of Canada has partnered with two major energy providers in Western Canada (Prairie provinces) on renewable energy projects.

Tourism Minister Randy Boissonnault appeared in Edmonton on Friday to announce a new Alberta wind-generation facility in partnership with Capital Power.

It's one of two new energy partnerships in Western Canada as part of the 2030 emissions reduction plan by Public Services and Procurement Canada.

On Jan. 1, the federal government awarded a contract worth up to $500 million to Capital Power to provide all federal facilities in Alberta with renewable electricity as part of Alberta's renewable energy surge for 25 years.

"We're proud to partner with the government of Canada to help them reach their 100 per cent clean electricity by 2025 goal," said Jason Comandante, Capital Power vice president of commercial services.

The agreement also includes opportunities for Indigenous participation, including facility development partnerships and employment and training opportunities.

"At Capital Power, we are committed to net-zero by 2045, and are proud to take action against climate change. Collaborative agreements like this help support our net-zero goals, provide us opportunities to meaningfully engage Indigenous communities, and help decarbonize Alberta's power grid," Comandante said.

Capital Power will provide around 250,000 megawatt-hours of electricity each year through existing renewable energy credits while the new Capital Power Halkirk 2 Wind facility is being developed.

Located near Paintearth, Alta., the proposed wind farm will have up to 35 turbines and generate enough power for the average yearly electricity needs of more than 70,000 Alberta homes.

The project is currently awaiting regulatory approval, within Alberta's energy landscape, with construction projected to begin this summer. When complete, it will supply 49 per cent of its output to the federal government.

"Through the agreement, the federal government is supporting the ongoing development of renewable energy infrastructure development within the province," Boissonnault said.

The new partnership will join another in Saskatchewan and complement Alberta solar facilities that have been contracted at lower cost than natural gas.

In 2022, the federal government signed an agreement with SaskPower to supply clean electricity to the approximately 600 federal facilities in Saskatchewan. That wind project is expected to come online by 2024.

Boissonnault said the two initiatives combined will reduce carbon dioxide emissions in Alberta and Saskatchewan by about 166 kilotonnes.

"That is the equivalent of the emissions from more than 50,000 cars driven for one year. So, if you think about that, that's a great reduction right here in Alberta and Saskatchewan," he said.

"These are concrete steps to ensuring that Canada remains a leader of renewable energy on the global stage and grid modernization projects to help the fight against climate change." 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

US Renewable Energy Transition is the shift from fossil fuels to wind, solar, and nuclear, targeting net-zero emissions via grid modernization, battery storage, and new transmission to replace legacy plants and meet rising electrification.

Key Points

The move to decarbonize electricity by scaling wind, solar, and nuclear with storage and transmission upgrades.

✅ Falling LCOE makes wind and solar competitive with gas and coal.

✅ 4-hour lithium-ion storage shifts solar to evening peak demand.

✅ New high-voltage transmission links resource-rich regions to load.

Generating electricity to power homes and businesses is a significant contributor to climate change. In the United States, one quarter of greenhouse gas emissions come from electricity production, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Solar panels and wind farms can generate electricity without releasing any greenhouse gas emissions, and recent research suggests wind and solar could meet about 80% of U.S. demand with supportive infrastructure. Nuclear power plants can too, although today’s plants generate long-lasting radioactive waste, which has no permanent storage repository.

But the U.S. electrical sector is still dependent on fossil fuels. In 2021, 61 percent of electricity generation came from burning coal, natural gas, or petroleum. Only 20 percent of the electricity in the U.S. came from renewables, mostly wind energy, hydropower and solar energy, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and in 2022 renewable electricity surpassed coal nationwide as portfolios shifted. Another 19 percent came from nuclear power.

The contribution from renewables has been increasing steadily since the 1990s, and the rate of increase has accelerated, with renewables projected to reach one-fourth of U.S. generation in the near term. For example, wind power provided only 2.8 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity in 1990, doubling to 5.6 billion in 2000. But from there, it skyrocketed, growing to 94.6 billion in 2010 and 379.8 billion in 2021.

That’s progress, as the U.S. moves toward 30% electricity from wind and solar this decade, but it’s not happening fast enough to eliminate the worst effects of climate change for our descendants.

“We need to eliminate global emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050,” philanthropist and technologist Bill Gates wrote in his 2023 annual letter. “Extreme weather is already causing more suffering, and if we don’t get to net-zero emissions, our grandchildren will grow up in a world that is dramatically worse off.”

And the problem is actually bigger than it looks, even as pathways to zero-emissions electricity by 2035 are being developed.

“We need not just to create as much electricity as we have now, but three times as much,” says Saul Griffith, an entrepreneur who’s sold companies to Google and Autodesk and has written books on mass electrification. To get to zero emissions, all the cars and heating systems and stoves will have to be powered with electricity, said Griffith. Electricity is not necessarily clean, but at least it it can be, unlike gas-powered stoves or gasoline-powered cars.

The technology to generate electricity with wind and solar has existed for decades. So why isn’t the electric grid already 100% powered by renewables? And what will it take to get there?

First of all, renewables have only recently become cost-competitive with fossil fuels for generating electricity. Even then, prices depend on the location, Paul Denholm of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory told CNBC.

In California and Arizona, where there is a lot of sun, solar energy is often the cheapest option, whereas in places like Maine, solar is just on the edge of being the cheapest energy source, Denholm said. In places with lots of wind like North Dakota, wind power is cost-competitive with fossil fuels, but in the Southeast, it’s still a close call.

Then there’s the cost of transitioning the current power generation infrastructure, which was built around burning fossil fuels, and policymakers are weighing ways to meet U.S. decarbonization goals as they plan grid investments.

“You’ve got an existing power plant, it’s paid off. Now you need renewables to be cheaper than running that plant to actually retire an old plant,” Denholm explained. “You need new renewables to be cheaper just in the variable costs, or the operating cost of that power plant.”

There are some places where that is true, but it’s not universally so.

“Primarily, it just takes a long time to turn over the capital stock of a multitrillion-dollar industry,” Denholm said. “We just have a huge amount of legacy equipment out there. And it just takes awhile for that all to be turned over.”

Intermittency and transmission
One of the biggest barriers to a 100% renewable grid is the intermittency of many renewable power sources, the dirty secret of clean energy that planners must manage. The wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine — and the windiest and sunniest places are not close to all the country’s major population centers.

Wind resources in the United States, according to the the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy.
Wind resources in the United States, according to the the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy.
The solution is a combination of batteries to store excess power for times when generation is low, and transmission lines to take the power where it is needed.

Long-duration batteries are under development, but Denholm said a lot of progress can be made simply with utility-scale batteries that store energy for a few hours.

“One of the biggest problems right now is shifting a little bit of solar energy, for instance, from say, 11 a.m. and noon to the peak demand at 6 p.m. or 7 p.m. So you really only need a few hours of batteries,” Denholm told CNBC. “You can actually meet that with conventional lithium ion batteries. This is very close to the type of batteries that are being put in cars today. You can go really far with that.”

So far, battery usage has been low because wind and solar are primarily used to buffer the grid when energy sources are low, rather than as a primary source. For the first 20% to 40% of the electricity in a region to come from wind and solar, battery storage is not needed, Denholm said. When renewable penetration starts reaching closer to 50%, then battery storage becomes necessary. And building and deploying all those batteries will take time and money.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Inflation Reduction Act Energy Credits help households electrify with tax credits and rebates for heat pumps, EVs, rooftop solar, battery storage, and efficiency upgrades, cutting utility bills, reducing carbon emissions, and accelerating home electrification nationwide.

Key Points

Federal incentives offering tax credits and rebates for heat pumps, EVs, solar, and efficiency to cut emissions.

✅ 30% rooftop solar and storage credit; $2,000 annual cap for heat pumps

✅ Up to $7,500 EV tax credit; price, income, and assembly rules apply

✅ Low-income rebates and discounts available via states starting mid-2023

Earlier this year, Congress passed the biggest climate bill in history — cloaked under the name the “Inflation Reduction Act,” a historic climate deal by any measure.

Starting in the new year, the bill will offer households thousands of dollars to transition over from fossil-fuel burning heaters, stoves and cars to cleaner versions as renewable electricity accelerates. On Jan. 1, middle-income households will be able to access over a half-dozen tax credits for electric stoves, cars, rooftop solar and more. And starting sometime in mid-2023, lower-income households will be able to get upfront discounts on some of those same appliances — without having to wait to file their taxes to get the cash back. This handy online tool shows what you might be eligible for, depending on your Zip code and income.

But which credits should Americans focus on — and which are best for the climate? Here’s a guide to the top climate-friendly benefits of the Inflation Reduction Act, and how to access them.

Heat pumps — the best choice for decarbonizing at home

Tax credit available on Jan. 1: 30 percent of the cost, up to $2,000

Income limit: None

Ah, heat pumps — one of the most popular technologies of the transition to clean energy and to net-zero electricity systems. “Heat pump” is a bit of a misnomer for these machines, which are more like super-efficient combo air conditioning and heating systems. These appliances run on electricity and move heat, instead of creating it, and so can be three to five times more efficient than traditional gas or electrical resistance heaters.

“For a lot of people, a heat pump is going to be their biggest personal impact,” said Sage Briscoe, the federal senior policy manager at Rewiring America, a clean-energy think tank. (Heat pumps have become so iconic that Rewiring America even has a heat pump mascot.)

Heat pumps can have enormous cost and carbon savings. According to one analysis using data from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, switching to a heat pump can save homeowners anywhere from $100 to $1,200 per year on heating bills and prevent anywhere from 1 to 8 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year. For comparison, going vegan for an entire year saves about 1 metric ton of CO2 emissions.

But many consumers encounter obstacles when switching over to heat pumps. In some areas, it can be difficult to find a contractor trained and willing to install them; some homeowners report that contractors share misinformation about heat pumps, including that they don’t work in cold climates. (Modern heat pumps do work in cold climates, and can heat a home even when outdoor temperatures are down to minus-31 degrees Fahrenheit.) Briscoe recommends that homeowners look for skilled contractors who know about heat pumps and do advance research to figure out which models might work best for their home.

Electric vehicles — top choice for cutting car emissions

Tax credit available on Jan. 1: Up to $7,500 depending on the make and model of the car

Income limit: <$150,000 for single filers; <$300,000 for joint filers

If you are like the millions of Americans who don’t live in a community with ample public transit, the best way to decarbonize your transport, as New Zealand's electricity transition shows, is switching to an electric car. But electric cars can be prohibitively expensive for many Americans.

Starting Jan. 1, a new EV tax credit will offer consumers up to $7,500 off the purchase of an electric vehicle. For the first few months, Americans will get somewhere between $3,751 and $7,500 off their purchase of an EV, depending on the size of the battery in the car.

There are limitations, per the new law. The vehicles will also have to be assembled in North America, where Canada's electricity progress is notable, and cars that cost more than $55,000 aren’t eligible, nor are vans or trucks that cost more than $80,000. This week, the Internal Revenue Service provided a list of vehicles that are expected to meet the criteria starting Jan. 1.

Beginning about March, however, that $7,500 credit will be split into two parts: Consumers can get a $3,750 credit if the vehicle has a battery containing at least 40 percent critical minerals from the United States (or a country that the United States has a free-trade agreement with) and another $3,750 credit if at least 50 percent of the battery’s components were assembled and manufactured in North America. Those rules haven’t been finalized yet, so the tax credit starting on Jan. 1 is a stopgap measure until the White House has ironed out the final version.

Joe Britton, the executive director of the EV industry group Zeta, said that means there will likely be a wider group of vehicles eligible for the full tax credit in January and February than there will be later in 2023. Because of this, he recommended that potential EV owners act fast in 2023.

“I would be buying a car in the first quarter,” he said.

Rooftop solar — the best choice for generating clean energy

Tax credit available now: 30 percent of the cost of installation, no cap

Income limit: None

For those who want to generate their own clean energy, there is always rooftop solar panels. This tax credit has actually been available since the Inflation Reduction Act was signed into law in August 2022. It offers a tax credit equal to 30 percent of the cost of installing rooftop solar, with no cap. According to Rewiring America, the average 6 kilowatt solar installation costs about $19,000, making the average solar tax credit about $5,700. (The Inflation Reduction Act also includes a 30 percent tax credit for homeowners that need to upgrade their electricity panel for rooftop solar, and a 30 percent tax credit for installing battery storage to support the shift toward carbon-free electricity solutions.)

Solar panels can save homeowners tens of thousands of dollars in utility bills as extreme heat boosts electricity bills and, when combined with battery storage, can also provide a power backup in the case of a blackout or other disaster. For someone trying to move their entire home away from fossil fuels, solar panels become even more enticing: Switch everything over to electricity, and then make the electricity super cheap with the help from the sun.

For people who don’t own their own homes, there are other options as well. Renters can subscribe to a community solar project to lower their electricity bills and get indirect benefits from the tax credits.

Tips, tricks and words of caution
There are many other credits also coming out in 2023: for EV chargers (up to $1,000), a boon for expanding carbon-free electricity across the grid, heat pump water heaters (up to $2,000), and even cash for sealing up the doors and windows of your home (up to $1,200).

The most important thing to know, Briscoe said, is whether you qualify for the upfront discounts for low- and moderate-income Americans — which won’t be available until later in 2023 — or the tax credits, which will be available Jan. 1. (Try this tool.) If going the tax credit route, it’s better to spread the upgrades out across multiple years, since there is an annual limit on how many of the credits you can claim in a given year. And, she warned, it is not always going to be easy: It can be hard to find the right installers and the right information for how to make use of all the available government resources.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Canada EV Manufacturing Strategy catalyzes electric vehicles growth via batteries, mining, and supply chain localization, with Unifor deals, Ford and FCA retooling, and government incentives safeguarding jobs and competitiveness across the auto industry.

Key Points

A coordinated plan to scale EV assembly, batteries, and mining supply chains in Canada via union deals and incentives.

✅ Government-backed Ford and FCA retooling for EV models.

✅ Battery cell, module, and pack production localizes value.

✅ Mining-to-mobility links metals to the EV supply chain.

As of a month ago Canada was just a speck on the global EV manufacturing map. We couldn’t honestly claim to be in the global race to electrify the automotive sector, even as EV shortages and wait times signalled surging demand.

An analysis published earlier this year by the International Council on Clean Transportation and Pembina Institute found that while Canada ranked 12th globally in vehicle production, EV production was a miniscule 0.4 per cent of that total and well off the average of 2.3 per cent amongst auto producing nations.

As the report’s co-author Ben Sharpe noted, “Canada is a huge auto producer. But nobody is really shining a light on the fact that if Canada’s doesn’t quickly ramp up its EV production, the steady decline we’ve seen in auto manufacturing over the past 20 years is going to accelerate.”

National strategy
While the report received relatively scant attention outside industry circles, its thesis was not lost on the leadership of Unifor, the union representing Canadian autoworkers.

In an August op-ed, Unifor national president Jerry Dias laid out the table stakes: “Global automakers are pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into electric vehicle investments, but no major programs are landing in Canada. Without a comprehensive national auto strategy, and active government engagement, the future is dim … securing our industry’s future requires a much bigger made-in-Canada style effort. An effort that government must lead.”

And then he got busy at the negotiating table.

The result? All of a sudden Canada is (or rather, will be) on the EV assembly map, just as the market hits an EV inflection point globally on adoption trends.

Late last month, contract negotiations between Unifor and Ford produced the Ford Oakville deal that will see $2 billion — including $590 million from the federal and Ontario governments ($295 million each) — invested towards production of five EV models in Oakville, Ont.

Three weeks later, Unifor reached a similar agreement with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles on a $1.5-billion investment, including retooling, to accommodate production of both a plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicle (including at least one additional model). 

Workforce implications
The primary motivation for Unifor in pushing for EVs in contract negotiations is, at minimum, preserving jobs — if not creating them. Unifor estimates that retooling the Ford plant in Oakville will save 3,000 of the 3,400 jobs there, contributing to Ontario's EV jobs boom as the transition accelerates. However, as VW CEO Herbert Diess has noted, “The reality is that building an electric car involves some 30 per cent less effort than one powered by an internal combustion engine.”

So, when it comes to the relationship between jobs and EVs, at first glance it might not seem to be a great news story. What exactly are the workforce implications?

To answer this question, and aid automakers and their suppliers in navigating the transition to EV production, the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) has done a study on the evolution of labour requirements along the automotive value chain. And the results, it turns out, are both illuminating and encouraging — so long as you look across the full value chain.

Common wisdom “inaccurate”
The study provides an in-depth unpacking of the similarities and differences between manufacturing an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle versus a battery EV (BEV), and in doing so it arrives at a surprising conclusion: “The common wisdom that BEVs are less labor intensive in assembly stages than traditional vehicles is inaccurate.” 

BCG’s analysis modeled how many labour hours were required to build an ICE vehicle versus a BEV, including the distribution of labour value across the automotive value chain.

While ICE vehicles require more labour associated with components, engine, motor and transmission assembly and installation, BEVs require the addition of battery manufacturing (cell production and module and battery pack assembly) and an increase in assembly-related labour. Meanwhile, labour requirements for press, body and paint shops don’t differ at all. Put that all together and labour requirements for BEVs are comparable to those of ICE vehicles when viewed across the full value chain.

Value chain shifting to parts suppliers
However, as BCG notes, this similarity not only masks, but even magnifies, a significant change that was already underway in the distribution of labour value across the value chain — an accelerating shift to parts suppliers.

This trend is a key reason why the Canadian Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association launched Project Arrow earlier this year, and just unveiled the winner of the EV concept design that will ultimately become a full-build, 100 per cent Canadian-equipped zero-emission concept vehicle. The project is a showcase for Canadian automotive SMEs.

The bulk of the value shift is into battery cell manufacturing, which is dominated by Asian players. In light of this, both the EU and UK are working hard to devise strategies to secure battery cell manufacturing, including projects like a Niagara Region battery plant that signal momentum, and hence capture this value domestically. Canada must now do the same — and in the process, capitalize on the unique opportunity we have buried underground: the metals and minerals needed for batteries.

The federal government is well aware of this opportunity, which Minister of Industry, Science and Economic Development Navdeep Bains has coined “mines to mobility.” But we’re playing catch up, and the window to effectively position to capture this opportunity will close quickly.

Cooperation and coordination needed
As Unifor’s Dias noted in an interview with Electric Autonomy after the FCA deal, the scale of the opportunity extends beyond the assembly plants in Oakville and Windsor: “This is about putting workers back in our steel plants. This is about making batteries. This is about saying to aluminum workers in Quebec and B.C. … to lithium workers in Quebec … cobalt workers in Northern Ontario, you’re going to be a part of the solution…It is a transformative time. … We’re on the cusp of leading globally for where this incredible industry is going.”

With their role in securing Ford’s EV production commitment, the federal and Ontario governments made clear that they understand the potential that EVs offer Canada, including how to capitalize on the U.S. auto sector's pivot as supply chains evolve, and their role in capitalizing on this opportunity.

But to ultimately succeed will require more than an open chequebook, it will take a coordinated industrial strategy that spans the full automotive value chain and extends beyond it into batteries and even mining, alongside Canada-U.S. collaboration to align supply chains. This will require effective cooperation and coordination between governments and across several industrial sectors and their associations.

Together they are Team Canada’s pit crew in the global EV race. How we fare will depend on how efficiently and effectively that crew works together. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

nanoFlowcell Bi-ION Flow Battery delivers renewable-energy storage for EVs and grids, using seawater-derived electrolyte, membrane stacks, fast refueling, low-cost materials, scalable tanks, and four-motor performance with long range and lightweight energy density.

Key Points

A flow cell using Bi-ION to power EVs and grids with fast refueling and scalable, low-cost storage.

✅ Seawater-derived Bi-ION electrolyte; safe, nonflammable, low cost

✅ Fast refueling via dual tanks; membrane stack generates power

✅ EV range up to 1200 miles; scalable for grid-scale storage

nanoFlowcell is a European company headquartered in London that focuses on flow battery technology. Flow batteries are an intriguing concept. Unlike lithium batteries or fuel cells, they store electricity in two liquid chambers separated by a membrane. They hold enormous potential for low cost, environmentally friendly energy storage because the basic materials are cheap and abundant. To add capacity, simply make the tanks larger.

While that makes flow batteries ideal for energy storage — whether in the basement of a building or as part of a grid scale installation that utilities weigh against options like hydrogen for power companies today in practice — their size and weight make them a challenge for use in vehicles. That hasn’t stopped nanoFlowcell from designing a number of concept and prototype vehicles over the past 10 years and introducing them to the public at the Geneva auto show. Its latest concept is a tasty little crumpet known as the Quantino 25.

The Flow Battery & Bi-ION Fluid
The thing that makes the nanoFlowcell ecosystem work is an electrically charged fluid called Bi- ION derived from seawater or reclaimed waste water. It works sort of like hydrogen in a fuel cell, a frequent rival in debates over the future of vehicles today for many buyers. Pump hydrogen in, run it through a fuel cell, and get electricity out. With the Quantino 25, which the company calls a “2+2 sports car,” you pump two liquids to the membrane interface to make electricity.

There are two 33-gallon tanks mounted low in the chassis much the way a lithium-ion battery pack fits into a normal electric car. Fill up with Bi-ION, and you have a car that will dash to 100 km/h in 2.5 seconds, thanks to its 4 electric motors with 80 horsepower each. And get this. According to Autoblog, the company says with full tanks, the Quantino 25 has a range of 1200 miles! Goodbye range anxiety, hello happy motoring.

We should point out that water weighs about 8 pounds per gallon, so the “fuel” to travel 1200 miles would weigh roughly 528 pounds. A conventional lithium-ion battery pack with its attendant cooling apparatus that could travel that far would weigh at least 3 times as much, even as EV battery recycling advances aim for a circular economy today. Granted, the Quantino 25 is not a production car and very few people have ever driven one, but that kind of range vs weight ratio has got to get your whiskers twitching a little in anticipation.

Actually, the folks at Autocar did drive an early prototype in 2016 at the TCS test track near Zurich, Switzerland, and determined that it was a real driveable car. My colleague Jennifer Sensiba reported in April of 2019 that the company’s Quantino test vehicle passed the 350,000 km mark (220,000 miles) with no signs of damage to the membrane or the pumps, and didn’t seem to have suffered any wear at all. The vehicle’s engineers pointed out that it had driven for 10,000 hours at this point. The company says it wants to offer its flow battery technology to EV manufacturers and give the system a 50,000-hour guarantee. That translates to well over 1 million miles of driving.

The problem, of course, is that there is no Bi-ION refueling infrastructure just yet, but that doesn’t mean someday there couldn’t be. Tesla had no Supercharger network when it first started either and things turned out reasonably well for Musk and company.

nanoFlowcell USA Announced
nanoFlowcell announced this week that it has established a new division based in New York to bring its flow battery technology to America. The mission of the new division is to adapt the nanoFlowcell process to US-specific applications and develop nanoFlowcell applications in America. Priority one is beginning series production of flow battery vehicles as well as the constructing a large scale bi-ION production facility that will provide transportable renewable energy and could complement vehicle-to-grid power models for communities for nanoFlowcell applications.

The Bi-ION electrolyte is a high density energy carrier that makes renewable energies storable and transportable in large quantities. The company says it will produce the energy carrier bi-ION from 100 percent renewable energy. Flow cell energy technology is an important solution to substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions as laid out in the Paris Agreement, the company says. Its many benefits include being a safe and clean energy source for many energy intensive processes and transportation services.

“Our nanoFlowcell flow cell and bi-ION energy carrier are key technologies for a successful energy transition,” says Nunzio La Vecchia, CEO of nanoFlowcell Holdings. “We need to make energy from renewable energy safe, storable and transportable to drive environmentally sustainable economic growth. This requires a well thought out strategy and the development of the appropriate infrastructure. With the establishment of nanoFlowcell USA, we are reaching an important milestone in this regard for our future corporate development.”

Focus On Renewable Energy
The production costs of Bi-ION are directly linked to the cost of electricity from renewable sources. With the accelerated expansion of renewable energy under the Inflation Reduction Act along with EV grid flexibility efforts across markets, nanoFlowcell expects the cost of electricity from solar power to be relatively low in the future which will further strengthen the competitiveness of energy sources such as Bi-ION.

“With the Inflation Reduction Act, the U.S. has made the largest investment in clean energy in U.S. history, and the potential implications for renewable energy are far-reaching.” But La Vecchia points out, “We will not seek government investments for nanoFlowcell USA to expand our manufacturing facilities and infrastructure in the United States. Where appropriate, we will enter into strategic partnerships to build and expand manufacturing and infrastructure, and to integrate nanoFlowcell technologies into all sectors of the economy.”

“More importantly, with nanoFlowcell USA, we want to help accelerate the decarbonization of the global economy and create economic, social and ecological prosperity. After all, estimates suggest that the clean energy sector will create 500,000 additional jobs. We want to do our part to make this happen.”

‍The Takeaway
nanoFlowcell is about more than electric cars. It wants to get involved in grid-scale energy storage, and moves like Mercedes-Benz energy storage venture signal momentum in the sector today. But to those of us soaking in the hot tub warmed by excess heat from a nearby data center here at CleanTechnica global headquarters, it seems that its contribution to emissions-free transportation could be enormous. Maybe some of those companies still chasing the hydrogen fuel cell dream, as a recent hydrogen fuel cell report notes Europe trailing Asia today, might find the company’s flow battery technology cheaper and more durable without all the headaches that go with making, storing, and transporting hydrogen.

A Bi-ION refueling station would probably cost less than a tenth as much as a hydrogen filling station. A link-up with a major manufacturer would make it easier to build out the infrastructure needed to make this dream a reality. Hey, people laughed at Tesla in 2010. If nothing else, this is a company we will be keeping our eye on.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Canada Coal Phase-Out Costs highlight Fraser Institute findings on renewable energy, wind and solar integration, grid reliability, natural gas backup, GDP impacts, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, nuclear alternatives, and transmission upgrades across provincial electricity systems.

Key Points

Costs to replace coal with renewables, impacting taxpayers and ratepayers while ensuring grid reliability.

✅ Fraser Institute estimates $16.8B-$33.7B annually for renewables.

✅ Emissions cut from coal phase-out estimated at only 7.4% nationally.

✅ Natural gas backup and grid upgrades drive major cost increases.

Replacing coal-fired electricity with renewable energy will cost Canadian taxpayers and hydro ratepayers up to $33.7 billion annually, with only minor reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change, according to a new study by the Fraser Institute.

The report, Canadian Climate Policy and its Implications for Electricity Grids by University of Victoria economics professor G. Cornelis van Kooten, said replacing coal-fired electricity with wind and solar power would only cut Canada’s annual emissions by 7.4%,

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s has promised a reduction of 40%-45% compared to Canada’s 2005 emissions by 2030, and progress toward the 2035 clean electricity goals remains uncertain.

The study says emission cuts would be relatively small because coal accounted for only 9.2% of Canada’s electricity generation in 2017. (According to Natural Resources Canada, that number is lower today at 7.4%).

In 2019, the last year for which federal data are available, Canada’s electricity sector generated 8.4% of emissions nationally — 61.1 million tonnes out of 730 million tonnes.

“Despite what advocates, claim, renewable power — including wind and solar — isn’t free and, as Europe's power crisis lessons suggest, comes with only modest benefits to the environment,” van Kooten said.

“Policy makers should be realistic about the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, which accounts for less than 2% of emissions worldwide.”

The report says the increased costs of operating the electricity grid across Canada — between $16.8 billion and $33.7 billion annually or 1% to 2% of Canada’s annual GDP — would result from having to retain natural gas, consistent with net-zero regulations allowing some natural gas in limited cases, as a backup to intermittent wind and solar power, which cannot provide baseload power to the electricity grid on demand.

Van Kooten said his cost estimates are conservative because his study “could not account for scenarios where the scale of intermittency turned out worse than indicated in our dataset … the costs associated with the value of land in other alternative uses, the need for added transmission lines, as analyses of greening Ontario's grid costs indicate, environmental and human health costs and the life-cycle costs of using intermittent renewable sources of energy, including costs related to the disposal of hazardous wastes from solar panels and wind turbines.”

If nuclear power was used to replace coal-fired electricity, the study says, costs would drop by half — $8.3 billion to $16.7 billion annually — but that’s unrealistic because of the time it takes to build nuclear plants and public opposition to them.

The study says to achieve the federal government’s target of reducing emissions to 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2050, would require building 30 nuclear power plants before 2030, highlighting Canada’s looming power problem as described by analysts — meaning one plant of 1,000-megawatt capacity coming online every four months between now and 2030.

Alternatively, it would take 28,340 wind turbines, each with 2.5-megawatts capacity, or 1,050 turbines being built every four months, plus the costs of upgrading transmission infrastructure.

Van Kooten said he based his calculations on Alberta, which generates 39.8% of its electricity from coal and the cost of Ontario eliminating coal-fired electricity, even as Ontario electricity getting dirtier in coming years, which generated 25% of its electricity, between 2003 and 2014, replacing it with a combination of natural gas, nuclear and wind and solar power.

According to Natural Resources Canada, Nova Scotia generates 49.9% of its electricity from coal, Saskatchewan 42.9%, and New Brunswick 17.2%.

In 2018, the Trudeau government announced plans to phase-out traditional coal-fired electricity by 2030, though the Stop the Shock campaign seeks to bring back coal power in some regions. 

Canada and the U.K. created the “Powering Past Coal Alliance” in 2017, aimed at getting other countries to phase out the use of coal to generate electricity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News