Electricity from wind farms in Texas climbed to 7.8 percent of the power consumed in the state last year, up from 6.2 percent in 2009, the state grid operator said in a report.
Overall, electric use in the Texas market jumped 3.5 percent in 2010 to 319,097 gigawatt-hours for the year, boosted by extreme cold in the winter and hot weather in the summer, said the Electric Reliability Council of Texas.
Power use in 2009 slipped 1.3 percent from the previous year as economic activity slowed.
Across the United States, 2010 electricity output rebounded 3.7 percent from 2009, the largest annual jump since 2005. The rise was also attributed to extreme summer weather, according to the Edison Electric Institute.
U.S. electric use last year remained below levels seen before the recession began in late 2007 while Texas power use surpassed 2008's mark, ERCOT said.
Output from wind and coal-fired generation increased last year as new facilities came online, paring the share of power generated by natural gas-fired plants for a third straight year, ERCOT said.
Texas leads the nation in installed wind capacity, which grew to 9,528 megawatts at the end of 2010, up 612 MW from the previous year, ERCOT said.
Wind farm additions are expected to drop dramatically this year as developers await a $5 billion expansion of the transmission network to allow more wind power to flow from remote areas of the state to power-hungry cities.
In April and November, overall wind usage jumped to 12.1 percent and several hourly records were set during the year.
Coal plants supplied 39.5 percent of the power used in Texas last year, up from 36.6 percent in 2009 as four new coal units were completed.
Power from gas-fired generation slipped to 38.2 percent, down from 42.1 percent in 2009 and more than 45 percent back in 2007, according to ERCOT.
Weather played a large part in ERCOT's electric rebound. The region set an hourly winter peak on January 8 of 55,878 MW, nearly 5,000 MW above the previous winter peak set in 2007.
Over the summer, ERCOT set four hourly records, topping out at 65,776 MW on August 23.
Above-normal heat boosted energy use in August by 7 percent compared to 2009 as temperatures in the Dallas area were 4 degrees Fahrenheit hotter and Houston was 1 degree hotter, ERCOT said.
One megawatt can supply about 500 average Texas homes, but only 200 homes during hot weather when air conditioners run for extended periods.
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.
Renewable Electricity Generation is accelerating the shift from fossil fuels, as wind, solar, and hydro boost the electric power sector, lowering emissions and overtaking nuclear while displacing coal and natural gas in the U.S. grid.
Key Points
Renewable electricity generation is power from non-fossil sources like wind, solar, and hydro to cut emissions.
✅ Driven by wind, solar, and hydro adoption
✅ Reduces fossil fuel dependence and emissions
✅ Increasing share in the electric power sector
The transition to electric vehicles is largely driven by a need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and reduce emissions associated with burning fossil fuels, while declining US electricity use also shapes demand trends in the power sector. In 2021, 40% of the electricity produced by the electric power sector was derived from non-fossil fuel sources.
Since 2007, the increase in non-fossil fuel sources has been largely driven by “Other Renewables” which is predominantly wind and solar. This has resulted in renewables (including hydroelectric) overtaking nuclear power’s share of electricity generation in 2021 for the first time since 1984. An increasing share of electricity generation from renewables has also led to a declining share of electricity from fossil fuel sources like coal, natural gas, and petroleum, with renewables poised to eclipse coal globally as deployment accelerates.
Includes net generation of electricity from the electric power sector only, and monthly totals can fluctuate, as seen when January power generation jumped on a year-over-year basis.
Net generation of electricity is gross generation less the electrical energy consumed at the generating station(s) for station service or auxiliaries, and the projected mix of sources is sensitive to policies and natural gas prices over time. Electricity for pumping at pumped-storage plants is considered electricity for station service and is deducted from gross generation.
“Natural Gas” includes blast furnace gas and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels, while in the UK wind generation exceeded coal for the first time in 2016.
“Other Renewables” includes wood, waste, geo-thermal, solar and wind resources among others.
“Other” category includes batteries, chemicals, hydrogen, pitch, purchased steam, sulfur, miscellaneous technologies, and, beginning in 2001, non-renewable waste (municipal solid waste from non-biogenic sources, and tire-derived fuels), noting that trends vary by country, with UK low-carbon generation stalling in 2019.
Snohomish PUD rate increase addresses storm recovery after a bomb cyclone and extended cold snap, stabilizing finances and grid reliability while offering assistance programs, payment plans, and energy efficiency for customers.
Key Points
Temp 5.8% residential hike in Feb 2025 to recover storm costs, meet cold snap demand, and uphold reliable service.
✅ 5.8% residential increase effective Feb 2025
✅ Driven by bomb cyclone damage and cold snap demand
✅ Aid includes payment plans, efficiency rebates, low income support
In early February 2025, the Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) announced a temporary increase in electricity rates to offset the financial impact of severe weather events, including a bomb cyclone and an extended cold snap, that occurred in late 2024. This decision aims to stabilize the utility's finances, a pattern seen at other utilities such as Florida Power & Light, which pursued a hurricane surcharge to recover storm costs, while ensuring continued service reliability for its customers.
Background of the Weather Events
In November 2024, the Pacific Northwest experienced a powerful bomb cyclone—a rapidly intensifying storm characterized by a significant drop in atmospheric pressure. This event brought heavy rainfall, strong winds, and widespread power outages across the region. Compounding the situation, a prolonged cold weather period in December 2024 and January 2025 led to increased energy demand, and similar conditions drove up Pennsylvania power rates in the same winter season, as residents and businesses relied heavily on heating systems.
Impact on Snohomish PUD
The combination of the bomb cyclone and the subsequent cold weather placed considerable strain on the Snohomish PUD's infrastructure and financial resources. The utility incurred substantial costs for emergency repairs, restoration efforts, and the procurement of additional electricity to meet the heightened demand during the cold snap. These unforeseen expenses prompted the PUD to seek a temporary rate adjustment to maintain financial stability and continue providing reliable service to its customers.
Details of the Rate Increase
Effective February 2025, the Snohomish PUD implemented a temporary electricity rate increase of 5.8% for residential customers, compared with a 3% BC Hydro increase in the same region for context. This adjustment is designed to recover the additional costs incurred during the severe weather events. The PUD has communicated that this rate increase is temporary and will be reevaluated after a specified period to determine if further adjustments are necessary.
Customer Impact and Assistance Programs
While the rate increase is intended to be temporary, it may still pose a financial burden for some customers, even as some markets expect rates to stabilize in 2025 in other jurisdictions. To mitigate this impact, the Snohomish PUD has outlined several assistance programs:
Payment Plans: Customers facing financial hardship can enroll in extended payment plans to spread the cost of the increased rates over a longer period.
Energy Efficiency Programs: The PUD offers incentives and resources to help customers reduce energy consumption, potentially lowering their overall bills.
Low-Income Assistance: Eligible low-income customers may qualify for additional support through state and federal assistance programs.
The utility encourages customers to contact their customer service department to explore these options and find the best solutions for their individual circumstances.
Community Response and Future Considerations
The announcement of the rate increase has elicited mixed reactions from the community. Some residents express understanding, recognizing the necessity of maintaining infrastructure and service reliability. Others have voiced concerns about the financial impact, particularly among vulnerable populations, a debate also seen with higher BC Hydro rates in nearby British Columbia.
Looking ahead, the Snohomish PUD is committed to enhancing its infrastructure to better withstand future extreme weather events, an approach aligned with other utilities' multi-year rate proposals to fund upgrades. This includes investing in grid modernization, implementing advanced weather forecasting tools, and developing comprehensive emergency response plans. The utility also plans to engage with the community through public forums and surveys to gather feedback and collaboratively develop strategies that balance financial sustainability with customer affordability.
The temporary electricity rate increase by the Snohomish County Public Utility District reflects the financial challenges posed by severe weather events and parallels regional trends, including BC Hydro's 3.75% over two years adjustments, and underscores the importance of proactive infrastructure investment and community engagement. While the rate adjustment aims to stabilize the utility's finances, the PUD remains focused on supporting its customers through assistance programs and ongoing efforts to enhance service reliability and resilience against future climate-related events.
Renewable Energy Economic Recovery drives GDP gains, job growth, and climate targets by accelerating clean energy investment, green hydrogen, and grid modernization, delivering high ROI and a resilient, low-carbon transition through stimulus and policy alignment.
Key Points
A strategy to boost GDP and jobs by accelerating clean power and green hydrogen while meeting climate goals.
✅ Adds $98tn to global GDP by 2050; $3-$8 return per $1 invested
✅ Quadruples clean energy jobs to 42m; improves health and welfare
✅ Cuts CO2 70% by 2050; enables net-zero via green hydrogen
Renewable energy could power an economic recovery from Covid-19 through a green recovery that spurs global GDP gains of almost $100tn (£80tn) between now and 2050, according to a report.
The International Renewable Energy Agency’s new IRENA report found that accelerating investment in renewable energy could generate huge economic benefits while helping to tackle the global climate emergency.
The agency’s director general, Francesco La Camera, said the global crisis ignited by the coronavirus outbreak exposed “the deep vulnerabilities of the current system” and urged governments to invest in renewable energy to kickstart economic growth and help meet climate targets.
The agency’s landmark report found that accelerating investment in renewable energy would help tackle the climate crisis and would in effect pay for itself.
Investing in renewable energy would deliver global GDP gains of $98tn above a business-as-usual scenario by 2050, as clean energy investment significantly outpaces fossil fuels, by returning between $3 and $8 on every dollar invested.
It would also quadruple the number of jobs in the sector to 42m over the next 30 years, and measurably improve global health and welfare scores, according to the report.
“Governments are facing a difficult task of bringing the health emergency under control while introducing major stimulus and recovery measures, as a US power coalition demands action,” La Camera said. “By accelerating renewables and making the energy transition an integral part of the wider recovery, governments can achieve multiple economic and social objectives in the pursuit of a resilient future that leaves nobody behind.”
The report also found that renewable energy could curb the rise in global temperatures by helping to reduce the energy industry’s carbon dioxide emissions by 70% by 2050 by replacing fossil fuels, with measures like a fossil fuel lockdown hastening the shift.
Renewables could play a greater role in cutting carbon emissions from heavy industry and transport to reach virtually zero emissions by 2050, particularly by investing in green hydrogen.
The clean-burning fuel, which can replace the fossil fuel gas in steel and cement making, could be made by using vast amounts of clean electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen elements.
Andrew Steer, chief executive of the World Resources Institute, said: “As the world looks to recover from the current health and economic crises, we face a choice: we can pursue a modern, clean, healthy energy system, or we can go back to the old, polluting ways of doing business. We must choose the former.”
The call for a green economic recovery from the coronavirus crisis comes after a warning from Dr Fatih Birol, head of the International Energy Agency, that government policies must be put in place to avoid an investment hiatus in the energy transition, even as the solar and wind industry faces Covid-19 disruptions.
“We should not allow today’s crisis to compromise the clean energy transition, even as wind power growth persists despite Covid-19,” he said. “We have an important window of opportunity.”
Ignacio Galán, the chairman and CEO of the Spanish renewables giant Iberdrola, which owns Scottish Power, said the company would continue to invest billions in renewable energy as well as electricity networks and batteries to help integrate clean energy in the electricity.
“A green recovery is essential as we emerge from the Covid-19 crisis. The world will benefit economically, environmentally and socially by focusing on clean energy,” he said. “Aligning economic stimulus and policy packages with climate goals is crucial for a long-term viable and healthy economy.”
Fukushima Daiichi decommissioning delay highlights TEPCO's revised timeline, spent fuel removal at Units 1 and 2, safety enclosures, decontamination, fuel debris extraction by robot arm, and contaminated water management under stricter radiation control.
Key Points
A government revised schedule pushing back spent fuel removal and decommissioning milestones at Fukushima Daiichi.
✅ TEPCO delays spent fuel removal at Units 1 and 2 for safety.
✅ Enclosures, decontamination, and robotics mitigate radioactive risk.
✅ Contaminated water cut target: 170 tons/day to 100 by 2025.
The Japanese government decided Friday to delay the removal of spent fuel from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant's Nos. 1 and 2 reactors by as much as five years, casting doubt on whether it can stick to its timeframe for dismantling the crippled complex.
The process of removing the spent fuel from the units' pools had previously been scheduled to begin in the year through March 2024.
In its latest decommissioning plan, the government said the plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc., will not begin the roughly two-year process (a timeline comparable to major reactor refurbishment programs seen worldwide) at the No. 1 unit at least until the year through March 2028 and may wait until the year through March 2029.
Work at the No. 2 unit is now slated to start between the year through March 2025 and the year through March 2027, it said.
The delay is necessary to take further safety precautions such as the construction of an enclosure around the No. 1 unit to prevent the spread of radioactive dust, and decontamination of the No. 2 unit, even as authorities have begun reopening previously off-limits towns nearby, the government said. It is the fourth time it has revised its schedule for removing the spent fuel rods.
"It's a very difficult process and it's hard to know what to expect. The most important thing is the safety of the workers and the surrounding area," industry minister Hiroshi Kajiyama told a press conference.
The government set a new goal of finishing the removal of the 4,741 spent fuel rods across all six of the plant's reactors by the year through March 2032, amid ongoing debates about the consequences of early nuclear plant closures elsewhere.
Plant operator TEPCO has started the process at the No. 3 unit and already finished at the No. 4 unit, which was off-line for regular maintenance at the time of the disaster. A schedule has yet to be set for the Nos. 5 and 6 reactors.
While the government maintained its overarching timeframe of finishing the decommissioning of the plant 30 to 40 years from the 2011 crisis triggered by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami, there may be further delays, even as milestones at other nuclear projects are being reached worldwide.
The government said it will begin removing fuel debris from the three reactors that experienced core meltdowns in the year through March 2022, starting with the No. 2 unit as part of broader reactor decommissioning efforts.
The process, considered the most difficult part of the decommissioning plan, will involve using a robot arm, reflecting progress in advanced reactors technologies, to initially remove small amounts of debris, moving up to larger amounts.
The government also said it will aim to reduce the pace at which contaminated water at the plant increases. Water for cooling the melted cores, mixed with underground water, amounts to around 170 tons a day. That number will be brought down to 100 tons by 2025, it said.
The water is being treated to remove the most radioactive materials and stored in tanks on the plant's grounds, but already more than 1 million tons has been collected and space is expected to run out by the summer of 2022.
Global Energy Investment Decline risks future oil and electricity supply, says the IEA, as spending on upstream, coal plants, and grids falls while renewables, storage, and flexible generation lag in the energy transition.
Key Points
Multi-year cuts to oil, power, and grid spending that increase risks of future supply shortages and market tightness.
✅ China and India slow coal plant additions; renewables rise
✅ Batteries aid flexibility but cannot replace seasonal storage
An almost 20 per cent fall in global energy investment over the past three years could lead to oil and electricity shortages, as surging electricity demand persists, and there are concerns about whether current business models will encourage sufficient levels of spending in the future, according a new report.
The International Energy Agency’s second annual IEA benchmark analysis of energy investment found that while the world spent $US1.7 trillion ($2.2 trillion) on fossil-fuel exploration, new power plants and upgrades to electricity grids last year, with electricity investment surpassing oil and gas even as global energy investment was down 12 per cent from a year earlier and 17 per cent lower than 2014.
While the IEA said continued oversupply of oil and electricity globally would prevent any imminent shock, falling investment “points to a risk of market tightness and undercapacity at some point down the line’’.
The low crude oil price drove a 44 per cent drop in oil and gas investment between 2014 and 2016. It fell 26 per cent last year. It was due to falls in upstream activity and a slowdown in the sanctioning of conventional oilfields to the lowest level in more than 70 years.
“Given the depletion of existing fields, the pace of investment in conventional fields will need to rise to avoid a supply squeeze, even on optimistic assumptions about technology and the impact of climate policies on oil demand,’’ the IEA warned in its report released yesterday evening. “The energy transition has barely begun in several key sectors, such as transport and industry, which will continue to rely heavily on oil, gas and coal for the foreseeable future.’’
The fall in global energy spending also reflected declining investment in power generation, particularly from coal plants.
While 21 per cent of global energy investment was made by China in 2016, the world’s fastest growing economy had a 25 per cent decline in the commissioning of new coal-fired power plants, due largely to air pollution issues and investment in renewables.
Investment in new coal-fired plants also fell in India.
“India and China have slammed the brakes on coal-fired generation. That is the big change we have seen globally,’’ said Bruce Mountain a director at CME Australia.
“What it confirms is the pressures and the changes we are seeing in Australia, the restructuring of our energy supply, is just part of a global trend. We are facing the pressures more sharply in Australia because our power prices are very high. But that same shift in energy source in Australia are being mirrored internationally.’’ The IEA — a Paris-based adviser to the OECD on energy policy — also highlighted Australia’s reduced power reserves in its report and called for regulatory change to encourage greater use of renewables.
“Australia has one of the highest proportions of households with PV systems on their roof of any country in the world, and its electricity use in its National Electricity Market is spread out over a huge and weakly connected network,’’ the report said.
“It appears that a series of accompanying investments and regulatory changes are needed, including a plan to avoid supply threats, to use Australia’s abundant wind and solar potential: changing system operation methods and reliability procedures as well as investment into network capacity, flexible generation and storage.’’ The report found that in Australia there had been an increase in grid-scale installations mostly associated with large-scale solar PV plants.
Last month the Turnbull government revealed it was prepared to back the construction of new coal-fired power stations to prevent further shortfalls in electricity supplies, while the PM ruled out taxpayer-funded plants and declared it was open to using “clean coal” technology to replace existing generators.
He also pledged “immediate” action to boost the supply of gas by forcing exporters to divert production into the domestic market.
Since then technology billionaire Elon Musk has promised to solve South Australia’s energy issues by building the world’s largest lithium-ion battery in the state.
But the IEA report said batteries were unlikely to become a “one size fits all” single solution to electricity security and flexibility provision.
“While batteries are well-suited to frequency control and shifting hourly load, they cannot provide seasonal storage or substitute the full range of technical services that conventional plants provide to stabilise the system,’’ the report said.
“In the absence of a major technological breakthrough, it is most likely that batteries will complement rather than substitute conventional means of providing system flexibility. While conventional plants continue to provide essential system services, their business model is increasingly being called into question in unbundled systems.’’
Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person
instruction, our electrical training courses can be
tailored to meet your company's specific requirements
and delivered to your employees in one location or at
various locations.
