The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) government in Punjab has “political motives” behind initiating the perceived unfeasible 44 megawatt power plant on Chashma-Jhelum Link Canal, according to Sindh Minister for Irrigation and Power Murad Ali Shah.
“They (PML-N) want to damage the vote bank of PPP in two provinces by creating acrimony among the provinces,” the minister told Sindh Assembly. He said that the Sindh government has taken up the issue of power plant with Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani who has been informed about the situation. He, however, added that the problem lies with Indus River System Authority (Irsa).
He alleged that Irsa was not distributing water among the provinces judiciously. “We cannot respect institutions if they snatch rights or democracy from the people,” declared Murad Shah. He opined that Chashma-Jhelum (CJ) canal power plant would also be damaging for Punjab as at present water flow to D.G. Canal and Muzaffar Garh Canal has been stopped to divert 5,000 cusecs water daily to the CJ canal. He said that the Balochistan government has sacked its representative in Irsa on February 12, who had voted in favour of opening the CJ canal by neglecting his province’s interests. He believed that legal complications will remain until the federal government issues a notification in this regard.
He alleged that the sacked representative of Balochistan in Irsa wanted to trigger confrontation among the provinces. But, he added, the Balochistan government immediately realized the gravity of the situation and rectified it. He said that Irsa had mala fide intentions behind its decision to transfer 5,000 cusecs water daily from Indus River to the CJ link canal. He announced that Sindh would fight a legal battle to reverse this decision.
In his lengthy statement before the house, the irrigation minister also traced history of water dispute between Sindh and Punjab starting from 1945. He said that from 1948 till 1960, “weak” federal governments tended to give money to India to get water from rivers. He claimed that India’s interests dominated in that treaty, adding that Sindh was not a part of that treaty and subsequently Punjab focused its attention towards River Indus.
Murad Ali Shah said that the work on the CJ canal was also started by the then dictator and it was completed in 1971. He recalled that later the democratic government had set up the “Akbar Commission” to get Sindh’s opinion. It was decided at that time that water would be transferred to the CJ canal only when there would be surplus water in Indus and shortage in Jhelum. He said that the then chief minister Sindh and governor Punjab also signed an agreement in 1972 under which “explicit permission” of Sindh chief minister was required each year to open the CJ canal. It was followed till 1985 when another military dictator stopped getting permission, he added.
The minister said that the Water Accord of 1991 also did not mention the CJ link canal, hence there was no water share for it in the accord. He said that the work on the CJ canal power plant was initiated by another military ruler in November 2007, adding, National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Nepra) issued ads in newspapers on June 20, 2009, inviting objections. Murad Shah said that the Sindh government objected to it on June 27, followed by another letter written by the chief minister to the premier on July 7.
Nepra started hearings in August and September, he said and added that the Sindh government filed a review petition before Nepra on February 11, urging it to reconsider its decision to issue licence to a private power producer for setting up the plant. The minister claimed that no licence has so far been issued, adding, the Sindh government has also taken up this matter with the prime minister. Culture Minister Sassui Palijo and Humera Alwani also spoke and criticized the project and the PML-N.
Electric mining equipment enables zero-emission, diesel-free operations at Goldcorp's Borden mine, using Sandvik battery-electric drills and LHD trucks to cut ventilation costs, noise, and maintenance while improving underground air quality.
Key Points
Battery-powered mining equipment replaces diesel, cutting emissions and ventilation costs in underground operations.
✅ Cuts diesel use, heat load, and noise in underground headings.
✅ Reduces ventilation infrastructure and operating expense.
✅ Improves air quality, worker health, and equipment uptime.
Mining operations get a lot of flack for creating environmental problems around the world. Yet they provide much of the basic material that keeps the global economy humming. Some mining companies are drilling down in their efforts to clean up their acts, exploring solutions such as recovering mine heat for power to reduce environmental impact.
As the world’s fourth-largest gold mining company Goldcorp has received its share of criticism about the impact it has on the environment.
In 2016, the Canadian company decided to do something about it. It partnered with mining-equipment company Sandvik and began to convert one of its mines into an all-electric operation, a process that is expected to take until 2021.
The efforts to build an all-electric mine began with the Sandvik DD422iE in Goldcorp’s Borden mine in Ontario, Canada.
Goldcorp's Borden mine in Borden, Ontario, CanadaGoldcorp's Borden mine in Borden, Ontario, Canada
The machine weighs 60,000 pounds and runs non-stop on a giant cord. It has a 75-kwh sodium nickel chloride battery to buffer power demands, a crucial consideration as power-hungry Bitcoin facilities can trigger curtailments during heat waves, and to move the drill from one part of the mine to another.
This electric rock-chewing machine removes the need for the immense ventilation systems needed to clean the emissions that diesel engines normally spew beneath the surface in a conventional mining operation, though the overall footprint depends on electricity sources, as regions with Clean B.C. power imports illustrate in practice.
These electric devices improve air quality, dramatically reduce noise pollution, and remove costly maintenance of internal combustion engines, Goldcorp says.
More importantly, when these electric boring machines are used across the board, it will eliminate the negative health effects those diesel drills have on miners.
“It would be a challenge to go back,” says big drill operator Adam Ladouceur.
Mining with electric equipment also removes second- or third-highest expenditure in mining, the diesel fuel used to power the drills, said Goldcorp spokesman Pierre Noel, even as industries pursue dedicated energy deals like Bitcoin mining in Medicine Hat to manage power costs. (The biggest expense is the cost of labor.)
Electric load, haul, dump machine at Goldcorp Borden mine in OntarioElectric load, haul, dump machine at Goldcorp Borden mine in Ontario
Aside from initial cost, the electric Borden mine will save approximately $7 million ($9 million Canadian) annually just on diesel, propane and electricity.
Along with various sizes of electric drills and excavating tools, Goldcorp has started using electric powered LHD (load, haul, dump) trucks to crush and remove the ore it extracts, and Sandvik is working to increase the charging speed for battery packs in the 40-ton electric trucks which transport the ore out of the mines, while utilities add capacity with new BC generating stations coming online.
Belarus Nuclear Power Infrastructure Review evaluates IAEA INIR Phase 3 readiness at Ostrovets NPP, VVER-1200 reactors, legal and regulatory framework, commissioning, safety, emergency preparedness, and energy diversification in a low-carbon program.
Key Points
An IAEA INIR Phase 3 assessment of Belarus readiness to commission and operate the Ostrovets NPP with VVER-1200 units.
✅ Reviews legal, regulatory, and institutional arrangements
✅ Confirms Phase 3 readiness for safe commissioning and operation
✅ Highlights good practices in peer reviews and emergency planning
An International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team of experts today concluded a 12-day mission to Belarus to review its infrastructure development for a nuclear power programme. The Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR) was carried out at the invitation of the Government of Belarus.
Belarus, seeking to diversify its energy production with a reliable low-carbon source, and aware of the benefits of energy storage for grid flexibility, is building its first nuclear power plant (NPP) at the Ostrovets site, about 130 km north-west of the capital Minsk. The country has engaged with the Russian Federation to construct and commission two VVER-1200 pressurised water reactors at this site and expects the first unit to be connected to the grid this year.
The INIR mission reviewed the status of nuclear infrastructure development using the Phase 3 conditions of the IAEA’s Milestones Approach. The Ministry of Energy of Belarus hosted the mission.
The INIR team said Belarus is close to completing the required nuclear power infrastructure for starting the operation of its first NPP. The team made recommendations and suggestions aimed at assisting Belarus in making further progress in its readiness to commission and operate it, including planning for integration with variable renewables, as advances in new wind turbines are being deployed elsewhere to strengthen the overall energy mix.
“This mission marks an important step for Belarus in its preparations for the introduction of nuclear power,” said team leader Milko Kovachev, Head of the IAEA’s Nuclear Infrastructure Development Section. “We met well-prepared, motivated and competent professionals ready to openly discuss all infrastructure issues. The team saw a clear drive to meet the objectives of the programme and deliver benefits to the Belarusian people, such as supporting the country’s economic development, including growth in EV battery manufacturing sectors.”
The team comprised one expert from Algeria and two experts from the United Kingdom, as well as seven IAEA staff. It reviewed the status of 19 nuclear infrastructure issues using the IAEA evaluation methodology for Phase 3 of the Milestones Approach, noting that regional integration via an electricity highway can shape planning assumptions as well. It was the second INIR mission to Belarus, who hosted a mission covering Phases 1 and 2 in 2012.
Prior to the latest mission, Belarus prepared a Self-Evaluation Report covering all infrastructure issues and submitted the report and supporting documents to the IAEA.
The team highlighted areas where further actions would benefit Belarus, including the need to improve institutional arrangements and the legal and regulatory framework, drawing on international examples of streamlined licensing for advanced reactors to ensure a stable and predictable environment for the programme; and to finalize the remaining arrangements needed for sustainable operation of the nuclear power plant.
The team also identified good practices that would benefit other countries developing nuclear power in the areas of programme and project coordination, the use of independent peer reviews, cooperation with regulators from other countries, engagement with international stakeholders and emergency preparedness, and awareness of regional initiatives such as new electricity interconnectors that can enhance system resilience.
Mikhail Chudakov, IAEA Deputy Director General and Head of the Department of Nuclear Energy attended the Mission’s closing meeting. “Developing the infrastructure required for a nuclear power programme requires significant financial and human resources, and long lead times for preparation and the approval of major transmission projects that support clean power flows, and the construction activities,” he said. “Belarus has made commendable progress since the decision to launch a nuclear power programme 10 years ago.”
“Hosting the INIR mission, Belarus demonstrated its transparency and genuine interest to receive an objective professional assessment of the readiness of its nuclear power infrastructure for the commissioning of the country’s first nuclear power plant,” said Mikhail Mikhadyuk, Deputy Minister of Energy of the Republic of Belarus. ”The recommendations and suggestions we received will be an important guidance for our continuous efforts aimed at ensuring the highest level of safety and reliability of the Belarusian NPP."
Boeing 787 More-Electric Architecture replaces pneumatics with bleedless pressurization, VFSG starter-generators, electric brakes, and heated wing anti-ice, leveraging APU, RAT, batteries, and airport ground power for efficient, redundant electrical power distribution.
Key Points
An integrated, bleedless electrical system powering start, pressurization, brakes, and anti-ice via VFSGs, APU and RAT.
✅ VFSGs start engines, then generate 235Vac variable-frequency power
✅ Bleedless pressurization, electric anti-ice improve fuel efficiency
✅ Electric brakes cut hydraulic weight and simplify maintenance
The 787 Dreamliner is different to most commercial aircraft flying the skies today. On the surface it may seem pretty similar to the likes of the 777 and A350, but get under the skin and it’s a whole different aircraft.
When Boeing designed the 787, in order to make it as fuel efficient as possible, it had to completely shake up the way some of the normal aircraft systems operated. Traditionally, systems such as the pressurization, engine start and wing anti-ice were powered by pneumatics. The wheel brakes were powered by the hydraulics. These essential systems required a lot of physical architecture and with that comes weight and maintenance. This got engineers thinking.
What if the brakes didn’t need the hydraulics? What if the engines could be started without the pneumatic system? What if the pressurisation system didn’t need bleed air from the engines? Imagine if all these systems could be powered electrically… so that’s what they did.
Power sources
The 787 uses a lot of electricity. Therefore, to keep up with the demand, it has a number of sources of power, much as grid operators track supply on the GB energy dashboard to balance loads. Depending on whether the aircraft is on the ground with its engines off or in the air with both engines running, different combinations of the power sources are used.
Engine starter/generators
The main source of power comes from four 235Vac variable frequency engine starter/generators (VFSGs). There are two of these in each engine. These function as electrically powered starter motors for the engine start, and once the engine is running, then act as engine driven generators.
The generators in the left engine are designated as L1 and L2, the two in the right engine are R1 and R2. They are connected to their respective engine gearbox to generate electrical power directly proportional to the engine speed. With the engines running, the generators provide electrical power to all the aircraft systems.
APU starter/generators
In the tail of most commercial aircraft sits a small engine, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). While this does not provide any power for aircraft propulsion, it does provide electrics for when the engines are not running.
The APU of the 787 has the same generators as each of the engines — two 235Vac VFSGs, designated L and R. They act as starter motors to get the APU going and once running, then act as generators. The power generated is once again directly proportional to the APU speed.
The APU not only provides power to the aircraft on the ground when the engines are switched off, but it can also provide power in flight should there be a problem with one of the engine generators.
Battery power
The aircraft has one main battery and one APU battery. The latter is quite basic, providing power to start the APU and for some of the external aircraft lighting.
The main battery is there to power the aircraft up when everything has been switched off and also in cases of extreme electrical failure in flight, and in the grid context, alternatives such as gravity power storage are being explored for long-duration resilience. It provides power to start the APU, acts as a back-up for the brakes and also feeds the captain’s flight instruments until the Ram Air Turbine deploys.
Ram air turbine (RAT) generator
When you need this, you’re really not having a great day. The RAT is a small propeller which automatically drops out of the underside of the aircraft in the event of a double engine failure (or when all three hydraulics system pressures are low). It can also be deployed manually by pressing a switch in the flight deck.
Once deployed into the airflow, the RAT spins up and turns the RAT generator. This provides enough electrical power to operate the captain’s flight instruments and other essentials items for communication, navigation and flight controls.
External power
Using the APU on the ground for electrics is fine, but they do tend to be quite noisy. Not great for airports wishing to keep their noise footprint down. To enable aircraft to be powered without the APU, most big airports will have a ground power system drawing from national grids, including output from facilities such as Barakah Unit 1 as part of the mix. Large cables from the airport power supply connect 115Vac to the aircraft and allow pilots to shut down the APU. This not only keeps the noise down but also saves on the fuel which the APU would use.
The 787 has three external power inputs — two at the front and one at the rear. The forward system is used to power systems required for ground operations such as lighting, cargo door operation and some cabin systems. If only one forward power source is connected, only very limited functions will be available.
The aft external power is only used when the ground power is required for engine start.
Circuit breakers
Most flight decks you visit will have the back wall covered in circuit breakers — CBs. If there is a problem with a system, the circuit breaker may “pop” to preserve the aircraft electrical system. If a particular system is not working, part of the engineers procedure may require them to pull and “collar” a CB — placing a small ring around the CB to stop it from being pushed back in. However, on the 787 there are no physical circuit breakers. You’ve guessed it, they’re electric.
Within the Multi Function Display screen is the Circuit Breaker Indication and Control (CBIC). From here, engineers and pilots are able to access all the “CBs” which would normally be on the back wall of the flight deck. If an operational procedure requires it, engineers are able to electrically pull and collar a CB giving the same result as a conventional CB.
Not only does this mean that the there are no physical CBs which may need replacing, it also creates space behind the flight deck which can be utilised for the galley area and cabin.
A normal flight
While it’s useful to have all these systems, they are never all used at the same time, and, as the power sector’s COVID-19 mitigation strategies showed, resilience planning matters across operations. Depending on the stage of the flight, different power sources will be used, sometimes in conjunction with others, to supply the required power.
On the ground
When we arrive at the aircraft, more often than not the aircraft is plugged into the external power with the APU off. Electricity is the blood of the 787 and it doesn’t like to be without a good supply constantly pumping through its system, and, as seen in NYC electric rhythms during COVID-19, demand patterns can shift quickly. Ground staff will connect two forward external power sources, as this enables us to operate the maximum number of systems as we prepare the aircraft for departure.
Whilst connected to the external source, there is not enough power to run the air conditioning system. As a result, whilst the APU is off, air conditioning is provided by Preconditioned Air (PCA) units on the ground. These connect to the aircraft by a pipe and pump cool air into the cabin to keep the temperature at a comfortable level.
APU start
As we near departure time, we need to start making some changes to the configuration of the electrical system. Before we can push back , the external power needs to be disconnected — the airports don’t take too kindly to us taking their cables with us — and since that supply ultimately comes from the grid, projects like the Bruce Power upgrade increase available capacity during peaks, but we need to generate our own power before we start the engines so to do this, we use the APU.
The APU, like any engine, takes a little time to start up, around 90 seconds or so. If you remember from before, the external power only supplies 115Vac whereas the two VFSGs in the APU each provide 235Vac. As a result, as soon as the APU is running, it automatically takes over the running of the electrical systems. The ground staff are then clear to disconnect the ground power.
If you read my article on how the 787 is pressurised, you’ll know that it’s powered by the electrical system. As soon as the APU is supplying the electricity, there is enough power to run the aircraft air conditioning. The PCA can then be removed.
Engine start
Once all doors and hatches are closed, external cables and pipes have been removed and the APU is running, we’re ready to push back from the gate and start our engines. Both engines are normally started at the same time, unless the outside air temperature is below 5°C.
On other aircraft types, the engines require high pressure air from the APU to turn the starter in the engine. This requires a lot of power from the APU and is also quite noisy. On the 787, the engine start is entirely electrical.
Power is drawn from the APU and feeds the VFSGs in the engines. If you remember from earlier, these fist act as starter motors. The starter motor starts the turn the turbines in the middle of the engine. These in turn start to turn the forward stages of the engine. Once there is enough airflow through the engine, and the fuel is igniting, there is enough energy to continue running itself.
After start
Once the engine is running, the VFSGs stop acting as starter motors and revert to acting as generators. As these generators are the preferred power source, they automatically take over the running of the electrical systems from the APU, which can then be switched off. The aircraft is now in the desired configuration for flight, with the 4 VFSGs in both engines providing all the power the aircraft needs.
As the aircraft moves away towards the runway, another electrically powered system is used — the brakes. On other aircraft types, the brakes are powered by the hydraulics system. This requires extra pipe work and the associated weight that goes with that. Hydraulically powered brake units can also be time consuming to replace.
By having electric brakes, the 787 is able to reduce the weight of the hydraulics system and it also makes it easier to change brake units. “Plug in and play” brakes are far quicker to change, keeping maintenance costs down and reducing flight delays.
In-flight
Another system which is powered electrically on the 787 is the anti-ice system. As aircraft fly though clouds in cold temperatures, ice can build up along the leading edge of the wing. As this reduces the efficiency of the the wing, we need to get rid of this.
Other aircraft types use hot air from the engines to melt it. On the 787, we have electrically powered pads along the leading edge which heat up to melt the ice.
Not only does this keep more power in the engines, but it also reduces the drag created as the hot air leaves the structure of the wing. A double win for fuel savings.
Once on the ground at the destination, it’s time to start thinking about the electrical configuration again. As we make our way to the gate, we start the APU in preparation for the engine shut down. However, because the engine generators have a high priority than the APU generators, the APU does not automatically take over. Instead, an indication on the EICAS shows APU RUNNING, to inform us that the APU is ready to take the electrical load.
Shutdown
With the park brake set, it’s time to shut the engines down. A final check that the APU is indeed running is made before moving the engine control switches to shut off. Plunging the cabin into darkness isn’t a smooth move. As the engines are shut down, the APU automatically takes over the power supply for the aircraft. Once the ground staff have connected the external power, we then have the option to also shut down the APU.
However, before doing this, we consider the cabin environment. If there is no PCA available and it’s hot outside, without the APU the cabin temperature will rise pretty quickly. In situations like this we’ll wait until all the passengers are off the aircraft until we shut down the APU.
Once on external power, the full flight cycle is complete. The aircraft can now be cleaned and catered, ready for the next crew to take over.
Bottom line
Electricity is a fundamental part of operating the 787. Even when there are no passengers on board, some power is required to keep the systems running, ready for the arrival of the next crew. As we prepare the aircraft for departure and start the engines, various methods of powering the aircraft are used.
The aircraft has six electrical generators, of which only four are used in normal flights. Should one fail, there are back-ups available. Should these back-ups fail, there are back-ups for the back-ups in the form of the battery. Should this back-up fail, there is yet another layer of contingency in the form of the RAT. A highly unlikely event.
The 787 was built around improving efficiency and lowering carbon emissions whilst ensuring unrivalled levels safety, and, in the wider energy landscape, perspectives like nuclear beyond electricity highlight complementary paths to decarbonization — a mission it’s able to achieve on hundreds of flights every single day.
Earth Hour BC highlights BC Hydro data on electricity use, energy savings, and participation in the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island amid climate change and hydroelectric power dynamics.
Key Points
BC observance tracking BC Hydro electricity use and conservation during Earth Hour, amid hydroelectric power dominance.
✅ BC Hydro reports rising electricity use during Earth Hour 2018
✅ Savings fell from 2% in 2008 to near zero province-wide
✅ Hydroelectric grid yields low GHG emissions in BC
For the first time since it began tracking electricity use in the province during Earth Hour, BC Hydro said customers used more power during the 60-minute period when lights are expected to dim, mirroring all-time high electricity demand seen recently.
The World Wildlife Fund launched Earth Hour in Sydney, Australia in 2007. Residents and businesses there turned off lights and non-essential power as a symbol to mark the importance of combating climate change.
The event was adopted in B.C. the next year and, as part of that, BC Hydro began tracking the megawatt hours saved.
#google#
In 2008, residents and businesses achieved a two per cent savings in electricity use. But since then, BC Hydro says the savings have plummeted.
The event was adopted in B.C. the next year and, as part of that, BC Hydro began tracking the megawatt hours saved.
In 2008, residents and businesses achieved a two per cent savings in electricity use. But since then, BC Hydro says the savings have plummeted, as record-breaking demand in 2021 and beyond changed consumption patterns.
Lights on
For Earth Hour this year, which took place 8:30-9:30 p.m. on March 24, BC Hydro says electricity use in the Lower Mainland increased by 0.5 per cent, even as it activated a winter payment plan to help customers manage bills. On Vancouver Island it increased 0.6 per cent.
In the province's southern Interior and northern Interior, power use remained the same during the event.
On Friday, the utility released a report called: "lights out". Why Earth Hour is dimming in BC. which explores the decline of energy savings related to Earth Hour in the province.
The WWF says the way in which hydro companies track electricity savings during Earth Hour is not an accurate measure of participation, and tracking of emerging loads like crypto mining electricity use remains opaque, and noted that more countries than ever are turning off lights for the event.
For 2018, the WWF shifted the focus of Earth Hour to the loss of wildlife across the globe.
BC Hydro says in its report that the symbolism of Earth Hour is still important to British Columbians, but almost all power generation in B.C. is hydroelectric, though recent drought conditions have required operational adjustments, and only accounts for one per cent of greenhouse gas emissions.
California Rolling Blackouts expose grid reliability risks amid a heatwave, as CAISO curtails power while solar output fades at sunset, wind stalls, and scarce natural gas and nuclear capacity plus PG&E issues strain imports.
Key Points
Grid outages during heatwaves from low reserves, fading solar, weak wind, and limited firm capacity.
✅ Heatwave demand rose as solar output dropped at sunset
✅ Limited imports and gas, nuclear shortfalls cut reserves
✅ Policy, pricing, and maintenance gaps increased outage risk
Millions of Californians were denied electrical power and thus air conditioning during a heatwave, raising the risk of heatstroke and death, particularly among the elderly and sick.
The blackouts come at a time when people, particularly the elderly, are forced to remain indoors due to Covid-19, and as later heat waves would test the grid again statewide.
At first, the state’s electrical grid operator last night asked customers to voluntarily reduce electricity use. But after lapses in power supply pushed reserves to dangerous levels it declared a “Stage 3 emergency” cutting off power to people across the state at 6:30 pm.
The immediate reason for the black-outs was the failure of a 500-megawatt power plant and an out-of-service 750-megawatt unit not being available. “There is nothing nefarious going on here,” said a spokeswoman for California Independent System Operator (CAISO). “We are just trying to run the grid.”
But the underlying reasons that California is experiencing rolling black-outs for the second time in less than a year stem from the state’s climate policies, which California policymakers have justified as necessary to prevent deaths from heatwaves, and which it is increasingly exporting to Western states as a model.
In October, Pacific Gas and Electric cut off power to homes across California to avoid starting forest fires after reports that its power lines may have started fires in recent seasons. The utility and California’s leaders had over the previous decade diverted billions meant for grid maintenance to renewables.
And yesterday, California had to impose rolling blackouts because it had failed to maintain sufficient reliable power from natural gas and nuclear plants, or pay in advance for enough guaranteed electricity imports from other states.
It may be that California’s utilities and their regulator, the California Public Utilities Commission, which is also controlled by Gov. Newsom, didn’t want to spend the extra money to guarantee the additional electricity out of fears of raising California’s electricity prices even more than they had already raised them.
California saw its electricity prices rise six times more than the rest of the United States from 2011 to 2019, helping explain why electricity prices are soaring across the state, due to its huge expansion of renewables. Republicans in the U.S. Congress point to that massive increase to challenge justifications by Democrats to spend $2 trillion on renewables in the name of climate change.
Even though the cost of solar panels declined dramatically between 2011 and 2019, their unreliable and weather-dependent nature meant that they imposed large new costs in the form of storage and transmission to keep electricity as reliable. California’s solar panels and farms were all turning off as the blackouts began, with no help available from the states to the East already in nightfall.
Electricity from solar goes away at the very moment when the demand for electricity rises. “The peak demand was steady in late hours,” said the spokesperson for CAISO, which is controlled by Gov. Gavin Newsom, “and we had thousands of megawatts of solar reducing their output as the sunset.”
The two blackouts in less than a year are strong evidence that the tens of billions that Californians have spent on renewables come with high human, economic, and environmental costs.
Last December, a report by done for PG&E concluded that the utility’s customers could see blackouts double over the next 15 years and quadruple over the next 30.
California’s anti-nuclear policies also contributed to the blackouts. In 2013, Gov. Jerry Brown forced a nuclear power plant, San Onofre, in southern California to close.
Had San Onofre still been operating, there almost certainly would not have been blackouts on Friday as the reserve margin would have been significantly larger. The capacity of San Onofre was double that of the lost generation capacity that triggered the blackout.
California's current and former large nuclear plants are located on the coast, which allows for their electricity to travel shorter distances, and through less-constrained transmission lines than the state’s industrial solar farms, to get to the coastal cities where electricity is in highest demand.
There has been very little electricity from wind during the summer heatwave in California and the broader western U.S., further driving up demand. In fact, the same weather pattern, a stable high-pressure bubble, is the cause of heatwaves, since it brought very low wind for days on end along with very high temperatures.
Things won’t be any better, and may be worse, in the winter, with a looming shortage as it produces far less solar electricity than the summer. Solar plus storage, an expensive attempt to fix problems like what led to this blackout, cannot help through long winters of low output.
California’s electricity prices will continue to rise if it continues to add more renewables to its grid, and goes forward with plans to shut down its last nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, in 2025.
Had California spent an estimated $100 billion on nuclear instead of on wind and solar, it would have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels in its in-state electricity mix.
To manage the increasingly unreliable grid, California will either need to keep its nuclear plant operating, build more natural gas plants, underscoring its reliance on fossil fuels for reliability, or pay ever more money annually to reserve emergency electricity supplies from its neighbors.
After the blackouts last October, Gov. Newsom attacked PG&E Corp. for “greed and mismanagement” and named a top aide, Ana Matosantos, to be his “energy czar.”
“This is not the new normal, and this does not take 10 years to solve,” Newsom said. “The entire system needs to be reimagined.”
Hydro Quebec transmission expansion aims to move surplus hydroelectric capacity from record reservoirs to the US grid via new interties, increasing exports to New England and New York amid rising winter peak demand.
Key Points
A plan to add capacity and intertie links to export surplus hydro power from Quebec's reservoirs to the US grid.
✅ 245 MW added in 2021; portfolio reaches 37,012 MW
✅ Reservoirs at unprecedented levels; export potential high
✅ Lacks US transmission; working on new interties
Hydro Quebec plans to add an incremental 245 MW of hydro-electric generation capacity in 2021 to its expansive portfolio in the north of the province, while Quebec authorized nearly 1,000 MW for industrial projects across the region, bringing the total capacity to 37,012 MW, an official said Friday
Quebec`s highest peak demand of 39,240 MW occurred on January 22, 2014.
The province-owned company produced 205.1 TWh of power in 2017 and its net exports were 34.4 TWh that year, while Ontario chose not to renew a power deal in a separate development.
Sutherland said Hydro Quebec`s reservoirs are currently at "unprecedented levels" and the company could export more of its electricity to New England and New York, but faces transmission constraints that limit its ability to do so.
Hydro Quebec is working with US transmission developers, electric distribution companies, independent system operators and state government agencies to expand that transmission capacity in order to delivery more power from its hydro system to the US, Sutherland said.
Separately, NB Power signed three deals to bring more Quebec electricity into the province, reflecting growing regional demand.
The last major intertie connection between Quebec and the US was completed close to 30 years ago. The roughly 2,000 MW capacity transmission line that connects into the Boston area was completed in the late 1990s, according to Hydro Quebec spokeswoman Lynn St-Laurent.
