Groups oppose tax credits for biomass burning

Demand Flexibility Service rewards households and businesses for shifting peak-time electricity use, enhancing grid balancing, energy security, and net zero goals with ESO and Ofgem support, virtual power plants, and 2GW capacity this winter.

Key Points

A grid program paying homes and businesses to shift peak demand, boosting energy security and lowering winter costs.

✅ Pays £3,000/MWh for reduced peak-time usage

✅ Targets at least 2GW via virtual power plants

✅ Rolled out by suppliers with Ofgem and ESO

This month we published our analysis of the British electricity system this winter. Our message is clear: in the base case our analysis indicates that supply margins are expected to be adequate, however this winter will undoubtedly be challenging, with high winter energy costs adding pressure. Therefore, all of us in the electricity system operator (ESO) are working round the clock to manage the system, ensure the flow of energy and do our bit to keep costs down for consumers.

One of the tools we have developed is the demand flexibility service, designed to complement efforts to end the link between gas and electricity prices and reduce bills. From November, this new capability will reward homes and businesses for shifting their electricity consumption at peak times. And we are working with the government, businesses and energy providers to encourage as high a level of take-up as possible. We are confident this innovative approach can provide at least 2 gigawatts of power – about a million homes’ worth.

What began as an initiative to help achieve net zero and keep costs down is also proving to be an important tool in ensuring Britain’s energy security, alongside the Energy Security Bill progressing into law.

We are particularly keen to get businesses involved right across Britain. When the Guardian first reported on this service we had calls from businesses ranging from multinationals to an owner of a fish and chip shop asking how they could do their bit and get signed up.

We can now confirm our proposals for how much people and businesses can be paid for shifting their electricity use outside peak times. We anticipate paying a rate of £3,000 per megawatt hour, reflecting the dynamics of UK natural gas and electricity markets today. Businesses and homes can become virtual power plants and, crucially, get paid like one too. For a consumer that could mean a typical household could save approximately £100, and industrial and commercial businesses with larger energy usage could save multiples of this.

We are working with Ofgem to get this scheme launched in November and for it to be rolled out through energy suppliers. If you are interested in participating, or understanding what you could get paid, please contact your energy supplier.

Innovations such as these have never mattered more. Vladimir Putin’s unlawful aggression means we are facing unprecedented energy market volatility, across the continent where Europe’s worst energy nightmare is becoming reality, and pressures on energy supplies this winter.

As a result of Russia’s war in Ukraine, European gas is scarce and prices are high, prompting Europe to weigh emergency measures to limit electricity prices amid the crisis. Alongside this, France’s nuclear fleet has experienced a higher number of outages than expected. Energy shortages in Europe could have knock-on implications for energy supply in Britain.

We have put in place additional contingency arrangements for this winter. For example, the ability to call on generators to fire-up emergency coal units, even as the crisis is a wake-up call to ditch fossil fuels for many, giving Britain 2GW of additional capacity.

We need to be clear, it is possible that without these measures supply could be interrupted for some customers for limited periods of time. This could eventually force us to initiate a temporary rota of planned electricity outages, meaning that some customers could be without power for up to three hours at a time through a process called the electricity supply emergency code (ESEC).

Under the ESEC process we would advise the public the day before any disconnections. We are working with government and industry on planning for this so that the message can be spread across all communities as quickly and accurately as possible. This would include press conferences, social media campaigns, and working with influencers in different communities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

UAE Barakah Nuclear Plant connects Unit 1 to the grid, supplying clean electricity, nuclear baseload power, and lower carbon emissions, with IAEA oversight, FANR regulation, and South Korea collaboration, supporting energy security and economic diversification.

Key Points

The UAE Barakah Nuclear Plant is a four-reactor project delivering clean baseload power and reducing CO2.

✅ Unit 1 online; four reactors to supply 25% of UAE electricity

✅ Cuts 21 million tons CO2 annually; clean baseload for grid

✅ FANR-licensed; IAEA and WANO oversight ensure safety

Unit 1 of the UAE’s Barakah plant — the Arab world’s first nuclear energy plant in the region — has connected to the national power grid, in a historic moment enabling it to provide cleaner electricity to millions of residents and help reduce the oil-rich country’s reliance on fossil fuels. 

“This is a major milestone, we’ve been planning for this for the last 12 years now,” Mohamed Al Hammadi, CEO of Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC), told CNBC’s Dan Murphy in an exclusive interview ahead of the news.

Unit 1, which has reached 100% power as it steps closer to commercial operations, is the first of what will eventually be four reactors, which when fully operational are expected to provide 25% of the UAE’s electricity and reduce its carbon emissions by 21 million tons a year, according to ENEC. That’s roughly equivalent to the carbon emissions of 3.2 million cars annually.

The Gulf country of nearly 10 million is the newest member of a group of now 31 countries running nuclear power operations. It’s also the first new country to launch a nuclear power plant in three decades, the last being China’s nuclear energy program in 1990.

“The UAE has been growing from an electricity demand standpoint,”  Al Hammadi said. “That’s why we are trying to meet the demand (and) at the same time have it with less carbon emissions.”

The UAE’s electricity mix will continue to include gas and renewable energy, with “the baseload from nuclear,” including emerging next-gen nuclear designs, the CEO added, which he described as a “safe, clean and reliable source of electricity” for the country.

The project is also providing “highly compensated jobs” for the Emiratis and will introduce new industries for the country’s economy, Al Hammadi said. The company noted that it has awarded roughly 2,000 contracts worth more than $4.8 billion for local companies.

International collaboration
The UAE’s nuclear watchdog FANR, the Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation, granted the operating license for Unit 1 in February, after an extensive inspection process to ensure the plant’s compliance with regulatory requirements. The license is expected to last 60 years. The program also involved collaboration with external bodies including the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the government of South Korea, and its pre-start-up review was completed in January by the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO). The WANO and the IAEA have conducted over 40 inspection and review missions at Barakah.   

But the project has its critics, particularly some experts from the independent Nuclear Consulting Group non-profit, who have expressed concern about Barakah’s safety features and potential environmental risks.  

In response, ENEC said the “adherence to the highest standards of safety, quality and security is deeply embedded within the fabric of the UAE Peaceful Nuclear Energy Program.”

“The Barakah Plant meets all national and international regulatory requirements and standards for nuclear safety,” a  company statement said. It added that the reactor design had been certified by the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety, FANR and the US-based Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “demonstrating the robustness of this design for safety and operating reliability.”

Worries of regional proliferation 
The achievement for the UAE is particularly significant given tensions in the wider region over nuclear proliferation. 

Some observers have warned of a regional arms race, though the UAE already partakes in what nuclear energy experts call the “gold standard” of civilian nuclear partnerships: The U.S.-UAE 123 Agreement for Peaceful Civilian Nuclear Energy Cooperation. It allows the UAE to receive nuclear materials, equipment and know-how from the U.S. while precluding it from developing dual-use technology by barring uranium enrichment and fuel reprocessing, the processes required for building a bomb.

By contrast, nearby Iran has suspended its compliance to the multilateral 2015 deal that regulated its nuclear power development and many fear its approach toward bomb-making capability. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has voiced its desire to develop a nuclear energy program without adhering to a 123 agreement.

And most recently, in the wake of a historic deal that has seen the UAE become the first Gulf country to normalize relations with Israel, Iran responded by warning the agreement would bring a “dangerous future” for the Emirati government. 

But ENEC and UAE officials emphasize the program’s commitment to safety, transparency and international cooperation, and its necessity for meeting growing electricity demand by cleaner means. 

“The nuclear industry is growing, with milestones around the world being reached, and the UAE is no exception. We are pursuing our electricity demand to meet that in a safe, secure and stable manner, and also doing it in an environmentally friendly way,” Al Hammadi said.

“Having four reactors that will provide 25% of electricity for the nation and will avoid us emitting 21 million tons of CO2 on an annual basis, as part of a broader green industrial revolution approach, is a very serious step to take — and the UAE is not talking about it, it is doing it, and we are reaping the benefits of it as we speak right now.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Adams Nielson Solar Array, a 28 MW DC utility-scale project in Lind, WA, spans 200 acres with 81,700 panels, powering about 4,000 homes, supporting Avista’s Solar Select program and renewable energy, sustainability, and carbon reduction.

Key Points

Adams Nielson Solar Array is a 28 MW DC facility in Lind, WA, powering ~4,000 homes via Avista’s Solar Select.

✅ 81,700 panels across 200 acres in Eastern Washington

✅ Offsets emissions equal to removing 7,300 cars annually

✅ Collaboration by Avista, Strata Solar, WUTC, WSU Energy

Official commissioning of the Adams Nielson solar array located in Lind, WA occurred today. The 28 Megawatt DC array is comprised of 81,700 panels that span 200 acres and generates enough electricity to supply the equivalent of approximately 4,000 homes annually, similar to a new co-op solar project serving South Metro members.

“Avista’s interest in the development of Solar Select, a voluntary commercial solar program reflecting broader corporate adoption such as a corporate solar power plant commissioned by Arvato, is consistent with the Company’s ongoing commitment to provide customers with renewable energy choices at reasonable cost,” said Dennis Vermillion, president, Avista Corporation. “In recent years, an increasing number of Avista customers have expressed their expectations and challenges in acquiring renewable energy. Avista is pleased to lead this effort and develop renewable energy products that meet our customers’ needs today and into the future.” This interest is being generated by a mix of local and national customers across a variety of industries, including Huckleberry’s, Gonzaga University, Community Colleges of Spokane, Hotstart, Central Pre-Mix Concrete, a CRH Co., independently owned McDonald's franchise locations, Spokane City, Main Market and Community Building and VA Medical Center.

Jim Simon, director of sustainability at Gonzaga University said, “The Solar Select program helps Gonzaga University move even closer to achieving its goal of climate neutrality by 2050 by continuing to prioritize renewables in our energy portfolio, as other communities add projects like a municipal solar project to boost local supply. We are grateful for Avista’s leadership in this project and look forward to other opportunities to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.”

Spokane Mayor David Condon said, “The City of Spokane is pleased to partner with Avista through the Solar Select Program, as we continue to seek out opportunities that are both environmentally and financially responsible. The City already is a net producer of energy, generating more clean, green energy than our use of electricity, natural gas, and fuel, a milestone also seen with North Carolina's first wind farm now fully operational. We are excited to add even more clean energy to power City Hall.”

The Solar Select program created a cost-effective structure to bring solar energy to large business customers in Eastern Washington, allowing them to advance their desired sustainability goals and benefiting from industry service innovations led by companies like Omnidian expanding their global reach. The array is projected to deliver the environmental benefit equivalent of more than 7,300 cars removed from the road each year. This renewable energy program was made possible through a collaboration of Avista, Strata Solar, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, and the WSU Energy Program. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

California Biofuels vs EV Subsidies examines tradeoffs in decarbonization, greenhouse gas reductions, clean energy deployment, charging infrastructure, energy security, lifecycle emissions, and transportation sector policy to meet climate goals and accelerate sustainable mobility.

Key Points

Policy tradeoffs weighing biofuels and EVs to cut GHGs, boost energy security, and advance clean transportation.

✅ Near-term blending cuts emissions from existing fleets

✅ EVs scale with a cleaner grid and charging buildout

✅ Lifecycle impacts and costs guide optimal subsidy mix

California is at the forefront of the transition to a greener economy, driven by its ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. As part of its strategy, the state is grappling with the question of whether it should subsidize out-of-state biofuels or in-state electric vehicles (EVs) to meet these goals. Both options come with their own sets of benefits and challenges, and the decision carries significant implications for the state’s environmental, economic, and energy landscapes.

The Case for Biofuels

Biofuels have long been promoted as a cleaner alternative to traditional fossil fuels like gasoline and diesel. They are made from organic materials such as agricultural crops, algae, and waste, which means they can potentially reduce carbon emissions in comparison to petroleum-based fuels. In the context of California, biofuels—particularly ethanol and biodiesel—are viewed as a way to decarbonize the transportation sector, which is one of the state’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Subsidizing out-of-state biofuels can help California reduce its reliance on imported oil while promoting the development of biofuel industries in other states. This approach may have immediate benefits, as biofuels are widely available and can be blended with conventional fuels to lower carbon emissions right away. It also allows the state to diversify its energy sources, improving energy security by reducing dependency on oil imports.

Moreover, biofuels can be produced in many regions across the United States, including rural areas. By subsidizing out-of-state biofuels, California could foster economic development in these regions, creating jobs and stimulating agricultural innovation. This approach could also support farmers who grow the feedstock for biofuel production, boosting the agricultural economy in the U.S.

However, there are drawbacks. The environmental benefits of biofuels are often debated. Critics argue that the production of biofuels—particularly those made from food crops like corn—can contribute to deforestation, water pollution, and increased food prices. Additionally, biofuels are not a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, as their production and combustion still release greenhouse gases. When considering whether to subsidize biofuels, California must also account for the full lifecycle emissions associated with their production and use.

The Case for Electric Vehicles

In contrast to biofuels, electric vehicles (EVs) offer a more direct pathway to reducing emissions from transportation. EVs are powered by electricity, and when coupled with renewable energy sources like solar or wind power, they can provide a nearly zero-emission solution for personal and commercial transportation. California has already invested heavily in EV infrastructure, including expanding its network of charging stations and exploring how EVs can support grid stability through vehicle-to-grid approaches, and offering incentives for consumers to purchase EVs.

Subsidizing in-state EVs could stimulate job creation and innovation within California's thriving clean-tech industry, with other states such as New Mexico projecting substantial economic gains from transportation electrification, and the state has already become a hub for electric vehicle manufacturers, including Tesla, Rivian, and several battery manufacturers. Supporting the EV industry could further strengthen California’s position as a global leader in green technology, attracting investment and fostering growth in related sectors such as battery manufacturing, renewable energy, and smart grid technology.

Additionally, the environmental benefits of EVs are substantial. As the electric grid becomes cleaner with an increasing share of renewable energy, EVs will become even greener, with lower lifecycle emissions than biofuels. By prioritizing EVs, California could further reduce its carbon footprint while also achieving its long-term climate goals, including reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

However, there are challenges. EV adoption in California remains a significant undertaking, requiring major investments in infrastructure as they challenge state power grids in the near term, technology, and consumer incentives. The cost of EVs, although decreasing, still remains a barrier for many consumers. Additionally, there are concerns about the environmental impact of lithium mining, which is essential for EV batteries. While renewable energy is expanding, California’s grid is still reliant on fossil fuels to some degree, and in other jurisdictions such as Canada's 2019 electricity mix fossil generation remains significant, meaning that the full emissions benefit of EVs is not realized until the grid is entirely powered by clean energy.

A Balancing Act

The debate between subsidizing out-of-state biofuels and in-state electric vehicles is ultimately a question of how best to allocate California’s resources to meet its climate and economic goals. Biofuels may offer a quicker fix for reducing emissions from existing vehicles, but their long-term benefits are more limited compared to the transformative potential of electric vehicles, even as some analysts warn of policy pitfalls that could complicate the transition.

However, biofuels still have a role to play in decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and heavy-duty transportation, where electrification may not be as feasible in the near future. Thus, a mixed strategy that includes both subsidies for EVs and biofuels may be the most effective approach.

Ultimately, California’s decision will likely depend on a combination of factors, including technological advancements, 2021 electricity lessons, and the pace of renewable energy deployment, and the state’s ability to balance short-term needs with long-term environmental goals. The road ahead is not easy, but California's leadership in clean energy will be crucial in shaping the nation’s response to climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Geothermal Power Plant Risks include hydrogen sulfide leaks, toxic gases, lava flow hazards, well blowouts, and earthquake-induced releases at sites like PGV and the Geysers, threatening public health, grid reliability, and environmental safety.

Key Points

Geothermal Power Plant Risks include toxic gases, lava impacts, well failures, and induced quakes that threaten health.

✅ Hydrogen sulfide exposure can cause rapid pulmonary edema.

✅ Lava can breach wells, venting toxic gases into communities.

✅ Induced seismicity may disrupt grids near PGV and the Geysers.

If lava reaches Hawaii’s PGV geothermal power plant, it could release of deadly hydrogen sulfide gas. That’s the latest potential danger from the Kilauea volcanic eruption in Hawaii. Residents now fear that lava flow will trigger a meltdown at the Puna Geothermal Venture (PGV) power plant that would release even more toxic gases into the air.

Nobody knows what will happen if lava engulfs the PGV because magma has never engulfed a geothermal power plant, Reuters reported. A geothermal power plant uses steam and gas heated by lava deep in the earth to run turbines that make electricity.

The PGV power plant produces 25% of the power used on Hawaii’s “Big Island.” The plant is considered a source of clean energy because geothermal plants burn no fossil fuels and produce little pollution under normal circumstances, even as nuclear retirements like Three Mile Island reshape low-carbon options.

The Potential Danger from Geothermal Energy

The fear is that the lava would release chemicals used to make electricity at the plant. The PGV has been shut down and authorities moved an estimated 60,000 gallons of flammable liquids away from the facility. They also shut down wells that extract steam and gas used to run the turbines.

Another potential danger is that lava would open the wells and release clouds of toxic gases from them. The wells are typically sealed to prevent the gas from entering the atmosphere.

The most significant threat is hydrogen sulfide, a highly toxic and flammable gas that is colorless. Hydrogen sulfide normally has a rotten egg smell which people might not detect when the air is full of smoke. That means people can breathe hydrogen sulfide in without realizing they have been exposed.

The greatest danger from hydrogen sulfide is pulmonary edema; the accumulation of fluid in the lungs, which causes a person to stop breathing. People have died of pulmonary edema after just a few minutes of exposure to hydrogen sulfide gas. Many victims become unconscious before the gas kills them. Long-term dangers that survivors of pulmonary edema face include brain damage.

Hydrogen sulfide can also cause burns to the skin that are similar to frostbite. Persons exposed to hydrogen sulfide can also suffer from nausea, headaches, severe eye burns, and delirium. Children are more vulnerable to hydrogen sulfide because it is a heavy gas that stays close to the ground.

Geothermal Danger Extends Far Beyond Hawaii

The danger from geothermal energy extends far beyond Hawaii. The world’s largest collection of geothermal power plants is located at the Geysers in California’s Wine Country, and regulatory timelines such as the postponed closure of three Southern California plants can affect planning.

The Geysers field contains 350 steam production wells and 22 power plants in Sonoma, Lake, and Mendocino counties. Disturbingly, the Geysers are located just north of the heavily-populated San Francisco Bay Area and just west of Sacramento, where preemptive electricity shutdowns have been used during extreme fire weather. Problems at the Geysers might lead to significant blackouts because the field supplies around 20% of the green energy used in California.

Another danger from geothermal power is earthquakes because many geothermal power plants inject wastewater into hot rock deep below to produce steam to run turbines, a factor under review as SaskPower explores geothermal in new settings. A geothermal project in Switzerland created Earthquakes by injecting water into the Earth, Zero Hedge reported. A theoretical threat is that quakes caused by injection would cause the release of deadly gases at a geothermal power plant.

The dangers from geothermal power might be much greater than its advocates admit, potentially increasing reliance on natural-gas-based electricity during supply shortfalls.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

U.S. Russian Uranium Import Ban reshapes nuclear fuel supply, bolstering energy security, domestic enrichment, and sanctions policy while diversifying reactor-grade uranium sources and supply chains through allies, waivers, and funding to sustain utilities and reliability.

Key Points

A U.S. law halting Russian uranium imports to boost energy security diversify nuclear fuel and revive U.S. enrichment.

✅ Cuts Russian revenue; reduces geopolitical risk.

✅ Funds U.S. enrichment; supports reactor fuel supply.

✅ Enables waivers to prevent utility shutdowns.

In a move aimed at reducing reliance on Russia and fostering domestic energy security for the long term, the United States has banned imports of Russian uranium, a critical component of nuclear fuel. This decision, signed into law by President Biden in May 2024, marks a significant shift in the U.S. nuclear fuel supply chain and has far-reaching economic and geopolitical implications.

For decades, Russia has been a major supplier of enriched uranium, a processed form of uranium used to power nuclear reactors. The U.S. relies on Russia for roughly a quarter of its enriched uranium needs, feeding the nation's network of 94 nuclear reactors operated by utilities which generate nearly 20% of the country's electricity. This dependence has come under scrutiny in recent years, particularly following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The ban on Russian uranium is a multifaceted response. First and foremost, it aims to cripple a key revenue stream for the Russian government. Uranium exports are a significant source of income for Russia, and by severing this economic tie, the U.S. hopes to weaken Russia's financial capacity to wage war.

Second, the ban serves as a national energy security measure. Relying on a potentially hostile nation for such a critical resource creates vulnerabilities. The possibility of Russia disrupting uranium supplies, either through political pressure or in the event of a wider conflict, is a major concern. Diversifying the U.S. nuclear fuel supply chain mitigates this risk.

Third, the ban is intended to revitalize the domestic uranium mining and enrichment industry, building on earlier initiatives such as Trump's uranium order announced previously. The U.S. has historically been a major uranium producer, but environmental concerns and competition from cheaper foreign sources led to a decline in domestic production. The ban, coupled with $2.7 billion in federal funding allocated to expand domestic uranium enrichment capacity, aims to reverse this trend.

The transition away from Russian uranium won't be immediate. The law includes a grace period until mid-August 2024, and waivers can be granted to utilities facing potential shutdowns if alternative suppliers aren't readily available. Finding new sources of enriched uranium will require forging partnerships with other uranium-producing nations like Kazakhstan, Canada on minerals cooperation, and Australia.

The long-term success of this strategy hinges on several factors. First, successfully ramping up domestic uranium production will require overcoming regulatory hurdles and addressing environmental concerns, alongside nuclear innovation to modernize the fuel cycle. Second, securing reliable alternative suppliers at competitive prices is crucial, and supportive policy frameworks such as the Nuclear Innovation Act now in law can help. Finally, ensuring the continued safe and efficient operation of existing nuclear reactors is paramount.

The ban on Russian uranium is a bold move with significant economic and geopolitical implications. While challenges lie ahead, the potential benefits of a more secure and domestically sourced nuclear fuel supply chain are undeniable. The success of this initiative will be closely watched not only by the U.S. but also by other nations seeking to lessen their dependence on Russia for critical resources.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News