Power-hungry Ontario wants new sources of electricity near Toronto. Hard-hit Durham Region wants jobs. Those factors won out over environmental fears and huge costs as the province announced that the Darlington nuclear plant will be expanded to accommodate two giant reactors.
Canada's first new reactors in two decades are expected to generate up to 3,200 megawatts of power. That is almost enough to power all homes and businesses in Toronto and nearly doubles Darlington's current capacity.
Energy Minister Gerry Phillips said construction should begin at the existing station in 2012 with electricity being generated by July 1, 2018. Phillips declined to give a price tag for the Darlington project other than to say it would fit within the province's $26.3 billion plan to upgrade its nuclear capacity over the next 20 years. Phillips said Darlington was selected because its transmission capacity is more accessible than the privately operated Bruce site on Lake Huron.
The news was greeted with glee by politicians in Durham Region, which has suffered thousands of job cuts at General Motors in Oshawa and its parts suppliers.
"In the long run, it's a big win for us," said Roger Anderson, chair of Durham Region. "There's about 3,500 jobs involved during the construction period."
It helps offset the GM cuts, he said. "The fact you're going to have highly skilled employees there for a long time will create an economic boost in Durham and, hopefully, research and development companies will come in as well."
"We're ecstatic," said Jim Abernethy, mayor of Clarington, the municipality that is home to the Darlington plant. "And I think the majority of the community is as well."
But environmentalist Dan McDermott of the Sierra Club believes the province is throwing good money after bad, and he voices concern about the long-term disposal of nuclear waste. "Nuclear power is the most expensive and dangerous means of generating electricity ever created," he said.
New Democrat MPP Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth) said the province should be weaning itself off expensive nuclear power, and he warned the total bill could double to more than $50 billion.
"The history in Ontario is we've had plants come in at double the original estimate – in the case of Darlington (three) times," said Tabuns, referring to a $4 billion estimate in the 1970s that ballooned to more than $14 billion.
"It's not the way to go. You can create tens of thousands of jobs by developing renewable power.
The reactors will be operated by publicly owned Ontario Power Generation. Before construction can begin, an environmental assessment and licensing by federal regulators must be completed.
Three firms are bidding to design the reactors – the federally owned Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL), which makes the existing Candu reactors; U.S.-based Westinghouse Electric; and Areva of France, the world's largest nuclear company. The winning bid will be selected in November.
The new reactors should generate up to 3,200 megawatts of power. In total, Ontario plans to maintain the existing capacity of 14,000 megawatts of nuclear-generated electricity, or about half of the province's peak demand.
Darlington, home to a nuclear generating station for 15 years, currently has four Candu reactors generating about 3,500 megawatts and was engineered by AECL.
Phillips insisted no company has an inside track.
Federal sources have warned AECL could go out of business if it fails to sell its newest generation of Candus domestically.
"AECL is one of the three bidders; they're owned by the federal government. I'm going to assume that the federal government, as the owner of AECL, is anxious for them to compete well," Phillips said.
"We truly have a fair and transparent process. All three of them appreciate that we are going to select the one that's best for the long-term interest of Ontario," he said.
Phillips declined to give a price tag for the Darlington project other than to say it would fit within the overall $26.3 billion replacement and refurbishment nuclear plan over the next 20 years.
"I won't give you an estimate today. The reason for that is we are going to use this very good, competitive process to get the possible deal," he said, acknowledging that even though the winning company would face "penalties" for some extra costs, ratepayers would be on the hook for the cost overruns.
"It will be paid for by the people who use it," Phillips said.
Cost overruns have dogged every nuclear project in Ontario history.
Experts say new nuclear plants can cost $8 billion to $15 billion.
Given that the coal-fired plants that provide about a quarter of the province's electricity generation – and spew out smog and greenhouse gases – will be phased out by 2014, Progressive Conservative MPP John Yakabuski accused the Liberals of dragging their heels on new nuclear reactors.
"The question I would have is why are we talking about this in June of 2008? We should have been talking about this in June of 2004," said Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke). "And that's one of the reasons that the costs of these projects are going to be a lot more than they could have been," he said.
AWS Renewable Energy Projects deliver new wind power for AWS data centers in Ireland, Sweden, and the US, adding 229 MW and 670,000 MWh annually, supporting 100% renewable targets and global cloud sustainability.
Key Points
AWS projects add wind power in Ireland, Sweden, and the US to supply clean energy for AWS data centers.
✅ 229 MW new wind capacity; 670,000 MWh annual generation
✅ Advances 100% renewable goal for global AWS infrastructure
Amazon has announced three new clean energy projects as part of its long-term goal to power all Amazon Web Services (AWS) global infrastructure with renewable energy. These projects – one in Ireland, one in Sweden, and one in the United States – will deliver wind-generated energy that will total over 229 megawatts (MW) of power, with expected generation of over 670,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of renewable energy annually. The new projects are part of AWS’s long-term commitment to achieve 100 percent renewable energy for its global infrastructure. In 2018, AWS exceeded 50 percent renewable energy for its global infrastructure.
Once complete, these projects, combined with AWS’s previous nine renewable energy projects, reflect how renewable power developers benefit from diversified sources and are expected to generate more than 2,700,000 MWh of renewable energy annually – equivalent to the annual electricity consumption of over 262,000 US homes, which is approximately the size of the city of Nashville, Tennessee.
“Each of these projects brings us closer to our long-term commitment to use 100 percent renewable energy to power our global AWS infrastructure,” said Peter DeSantis, Vice President of Global Infrastructure and Customer Support, Amazon Web Services. “These projects are well-positioned to serve AWS data centers in Ireland, Sweden, and the US. We expect more projects in 2019 as we continue toward our goal of powering all AWS global infrastructure with renewable energy.”
Amazon has committed to buying the energy from a new wind project in Ireland, a 91.2 MW wind farm in Donegal. The Donegal wind farm project is expected to deliver clean energy no later than the end of 2021.
“AWS’s investment in renewable projects in Ireland illustrates their continued commitment to adding clean energy to the grid and it will make a positive contribution to Ireland’s renewable energy goals,” said Leo Varadkar, An Taoiseach of Ireland. “As a significant employer in Ireland, it is very encouraging to see Amazon taking a lead on this issue. We look forward to continuing to work with Amazon as we strive to make Ireland a leader on renewable energy.”
Amazon will also purchase 91 MW of power from a new wind farm in Bäckhammar, Sweden, which is expected to deliver renewable energy by the end of 2020.
“Sweden has long been known for ambitious renewable energy goals, and this new wind farm showcases both our country’s leadership and AWS’s commitment to renewable energy,” said Anders Ygeman, Sweden’s Minister for Energy and Digital Development. “This is a significant step in Sweden’s renewable energy production as we work toward our target of 100 percent renewable energy by 2040.”
California leads the United States in renewable electricity generation from non-hydroelectric sources, as US solar and wind growth accelerates, and the state’s Tehachapi Mountains, where AWS’s wind farm will be located, contain some of the largest wind farms in the country. The wind farm project in Tehachapi is expected to bring up to 47 MW of new renewable energy capacity by the end of 2020.
“This announcement from AWS is great news, not just for California, but for the entire country, as it reaffirms our role as a leader in renewable energy and allows us to take an important step forward on deploying the clean energy we need to respond to climate change,” said California State Senator Jerry Hill, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications.
Beyond the sustainability initiatives focused on powering the AWS global infrastructure, Amazon recently announced Shipment Zero, which is Amazon’s vision to make all Amazon shipments net zero carbon, with 50 percent of all shipments net zero by 2030. Additional sustainability programs across the company include Amazon Wind Farm Texas, which adds more than 1 million MWh of clean energy each year, alongside Amazon Wind Farm US East that is now fully operational, demonstrating scale. In total, Amazon has enabled 53 wind and solar projects worldwide, which produce more than 1,016 MW and are expected to deliver over 3,075,636 million MWh of energy annually, while peers like Arvato's solar power plant underscore broader momentum across the industry. These projects support hundreds of jobs, while providing tens of millions of dollars of investment in local communities, with Iowa wind power offering a strong example. Amazon has also set a goal to host solar energy systems at 50 fulfillment centers by 2020. This deployment of rooftop solar systems, aided by cheap batteries that enhance storage, is part of a long-term initiative that will start in North America and spread across the globe. Amazon also implemented the District Energy Project that uses recycled energy for heating Amazon offices in Seattle. For more information on Amazon’s sustainability initiatives, visit www.amazon.com/sustainability.
Hydro-Qu e9bec COVID-19 M&A Pause signals a halt to international expansion as falling electricity demand, weaker exports, and revenue pressure shift capital to the Quebec economy, prioritizing domestic investment, strategic plan revisions, and risk management.
Key Points
Hydro-Qu e9bec COVID-19 M&A Pause halts overseas deals, shifting investment to Quebec as demand, exports and revenue fall.
✅ International M&A on hold; capital reallocated to Quebec projects
✅ Lower electricity demand reduces exports and spot prices
✅ Strategic plan and 2020 guidance revised downward
Quebec’s state-owned power generator and distributor has put international mergers and acquisitions on hold for the foreseeable future because of the COVID-19 crisis, chief financial officer Jean-Hugues Lafleur said Friday.
Former chief executive officer Éric Martel, who left last month, had made foreign expansion a key tenet of his growth strategy.
“We’re in revision mode” as pertains to acquisitions, Lafleur told reporters on a conference call, as the company pursues a long-term strategy to wean the province off fossil fuels at home as well. “I don’t see how Hydro-Québec could take $5 billion now and invest it in Chile because we have an investment opportunity there. Instead, the $5 billion will be invested here to support the Quebec economy. We’re going to make sure the Quebec economy recovers the right way before we go abroad.”
Lafleur spoke after Hydro-Québec reported a 14-per-cent drop in first-quarter profit and warned full-year results will fall short of expectations as COVID-19 weighs on power demand.
Net income in the three-month period ended March 31 was $1.53 billion, down from $1.77 billion a year ago, Hydro-Québec said in a statement. Revenue fell about six per cent to $4.37 billion.
“Due to the economic downturn resulting from the current crisis, we’re anticipating lower electricity sales in all of our markets,” Lafleur said. “Consequently, the financial outlook for 2020 set out in the strategic plan 2020–2024, which also reflects the province’s no-nuclear stance, will be revised downward.”
It’s still too early to determine the scope of the revision, the company said in its quarterly report. Hydro-Québec was targeting net income of between $2.8 billion and $3 billion in 2020, according to its strategic plan.
The first quarter was the utility’s last under Martel, who quit to take over at jetmaker Bombardier Inc. Quebec appointed former Énergir CEO Sophie Brochu to replace him, effective April 6.
First-quarter results “weren’t significantly affected” by the pandemic, Lafleur said on a conference call with reporters. Electricity sales generated $294 million less than a year ago due primarily to milder temperatures, he said.
Results will start to reflect COVID-19’s impact in the second quarter, though NB Power has signed three deals to bring more Quebec electricity into the province that could cushion some exports.
Electricity consumption in Quebec has fallen five per cent in the past two months, paced by an 11-per-cent plunge for commercial and institutional clients, and cities such as Ottawa saw a demand plunge during closures.
Industrial customers such as pulp and paper producers have also curbed power use, and it’s hard to see demand rebounding this year, Lafleur said.
“What we’ve lost since the start of the pandemic is not coming back,” he said.
Demand on export markets, meanwhile, has shrunk between six per cent and nine per cent since mid-March. The drop has been particularly steep in Ontario, reaching as much as 12 per cent, after the province chose not to renew its electricity deal with Quebec earlier this year, compared with declines of up to five per cent in New England and eight per cent in New York.
Spot prices in the U.S. have retreated in tandem, falling this week to as low as 1.5 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour, Lafleur said. Hydro-Québec’s hedging strategy — which involves entering into fixed-price sales contracts about a year ahead of time — allowed the company to export power for an average of 4.9 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour in the first quarter, compared with the 2.2 cents it would have otherwise made.
Investments will decline this year as construction activity proceeds at reduced speed, Lafleur said. Hydro-Québec was initially planning to invest about $4 billion in the province, he said, as it works to increase hydropower capacity to more than 37,000 MW across its fleet.
Physical distancing measures “are having an impact on productivity,” Lafleur said. “We can’t work the way we wanted, and project costs are going to be affected. Anytime we send workers north on a plane, we need to leave an empty seat beside them.”
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.
Remote Work Energy Costs are rising as home offices and telecommuting boost electricity bills; utilities, broadband usage, and COVID-19-driven stay-at-home policies affect productivity, consumption patterns, and household budgets across the U.K. and Europe.
Key Points
Remote Work Energy Costs are increased household electricity and utility expenses from telecommuting and home office use.
✅ WFH shifts energy load from offices to households.
✅ Higher device, lighting, and heating/cooling usage drives bills.
✅ Broadband access gaps limit remote work equity.
Household electricity bills are set to soar, with rising residential electricity use tied to the millions of people now working at home to avoid catching the coronavirus.
Running laptops and other home appliances will cost consumers an extra 52 million pounds ($60 million) each week in the U.K., according to a study from Uswitch, a website that helps consumers compare the energy prices that utilities charge.
For each home-bound household, the pain to the pocketbook may be about 195 pounds per year extra, even as some utilities pursue pandemic cost-cutting to manage financial pressures.
The rise in price for households comes even as overall demand is falling rapidly in Europe, with wide swaths of the economy shut down to keep workers from gathering in one place, and the U.S. grid overseer issuing warnings about potential pandemic impacts on operations.
People stuck at home will plug in computers, lights and appliances when they’d normally be at the office, increasing their consumption.
With the Canadian government declaring a state of emergency due to the coronavirus, companies are enabling work-from-home structures to keep business running and help employees follow social distancing guidelines, and some utilities have even considered housing critical staff on site to maintain operations. However, working remotely has been on the rise for a while.
“The coronavirus is going to be a tipping point. We plodded along at about 10% growth a year for the last 10 years, but I foresee that this is going to really accelerate the trend,” Kate Lister, president of Global Workplace Analytics.
Gallup’s State of the Workplace 2017 study found that 43% of employees work remotely with some frequency. Research indicates that in a five-day workweek, working remotely for two to three days is the most productive. That gives the employee two to three days of meetings, collaboration and interaction, with the opportunity to just focus on the work for the other half of the week.
Remote work seems like a logical precaution for many companies that employ people in the digital economy, even as some federal agencies sparked debate with an EPA telework policy during the pandemic. However, not all Americans have access to the internet at home, and many work in industries that require in-person work.
According to the Pew Research Center, roughly three-quarters of American adults have broadband internet service at home. However, the study found that racial minorities, older adults, rural residents and people with lower levels of education and income are less likely to have broadband service at home. In addition, 1 in 5 American adults access the internet only through their smartphone and do not have traditional broadband access.
Full-time employees are four times more likely to have remote work options than part-time employees. A typical remote worker is college-educated, at least 45 years old and earns an annual salary of $58,000 while working for a company with more than 100 employees, according to Global Workplace Analytics, and in Canada there is growing interest in electricity-sector careers among younger workers.
New York, California and other states have enacted strict policies for people to remain at home during the coronavirus pandemic, which could change the future of work, and Canadian provinces such as Saskatchewan have documented how the crisis has reshaped local economies across sectors.
“I don’t think we’ll go back to the same way we used to operate,” Jennifer Christie, chief HR officer at Twitter, told CNBC. “I really don’t.”
California Renewable Energy Record highlights near-100% clean power as CAISO reports solar, wind, and storage meeting demand, with Interstate 10 arrays and distributed rooftop photovoltaics boosting the grid during Stagecoach, signaling progress toward 100%.
Key Points
CA Renewable Energy Record marks CAISO's peak when renewables nearly met total load, led by utility solar and storage.
✅ CAISO hit 99.87% renewables serving load at 2:50 p.m.
✅ Two-thirds of power came from utility-scale solar along I-10.
Renewable electricity met just shy of 100% of California's demand for the first time on Saturday, officials said, much of it from large amounts of solar power, part of a California solar boom, produced along Interstate 10, an hour east of the Coachella Valley.
While partygoers celebrated in the blazing sunshine at the Stagecoach music festival, "at 2:50 (p.m.), we reached 99.87 % of load served by all renewables, which broke the previous record," said Anna Gonzales, spokeswoman for California Independent System Operator, a nonprofit that oversees the state's bulk electric power system and transmission lines. Solar power provided two-thirds of the amount needed.
Environmentalists who've pushed for years for all of California's power to come from renewables and meet clean energy targets were jubilant as they watched the tracker edge to 100% and slightly beyond.
"California busts past 100% on this historic day for clean energy!" Dan Jacobson, senior adviser to Environment California, tweeted.
"Once it hit 100%, we were very excited," said Laura Deehan, executive director for Environment California. She said the organization and others have worked for 20 years to push the Golden State to complete renewable power via a series of ever tougher mandates, even as solar and wind curtailments increase across the grid. "California solar plants play a really big role."
But Gonzales said CAISO double-checked the data Monday and had to adjust it slightly because of reserves and other resource needs, an example of rising curtailments in the state.
Environment California pushed for 1 million solar rooftops statewide, which has been achieved, adding what some say is a more environmentally friendly form of solar power, though wildfire smoke can undermine gains, than the solar farms, which eat up large swaths of the Mojave desert and fragile landscapes.
Want more climate news? Sign up for Climate Point once a week in your inbox
What's everyone talking about? Sign up for our trending newsletter to get the latest news of the day
'Need to act with that same boldness':A record 10% of the world's power was generated by wind, solar methods in 2021
Deehan said in a statement that more needs to be done, especially at the federal level. "Despite incredible progress illustrated by the milestone this weekend, and the fact that U.S. renewable electricity surpassed coal in 2022, a baffling regulatory misstep by the Biden administration has advocates concerned about backsliding on California’s clean energy targets."
Deehan said a Department of Commerce inquiry into tariffs on imported solar panels is delaying thousands of megawatts of solar-storage projects in California, even as U.S. renewable energy hit a record 28% in April across the grid.
Still, Deehan said, “California has shown that, for one brief and shining moment, we could do it! It's time to move to 100% clean energy, 100% of the time.”
Australian Electric Vehicle Sales tripled in 2019 amid expanding charging infrastructure and more models, but market share remains low, constrained by limited government policy, weak incentives, and absent emissions standards despite growing ultra-fast chargers.
Key Points
EV units sold in Australia; in 2019 they tripled to 6,718, but market share was just 0.6%.
✅ Sales rose from 2,216 (2018) to 6,718 (2019); ~80% were BEVs.
✅ Public charging sites reached 2,307; fast chargers up 40% year-on-year.
✅ Policy gaps and absent standards limit model supply and EV uptake.
Sales of electric vehicles in Australia tripled in 2019 despite a lack of government support, according to the industry’s peak body.
The country’s network of EV charging stations was also growing, the Electric Vehicle Council’s annual report found, including a rise in the number of faster charging stations that let drivers recharge a car in about 15 minutes.
But the report, released on Wednesday, found the market share for electric vehicles was still only 0.6% of new vehicle sales – well behind the 2.5% to 5% in other developed countries.
The chief executive of the council, Behyad Jafari, said the rise in sales was down to more models becoming available. There are now 28 electric models on sale, with eight priced below $65,000.
Six more were due to arrive before the end of 2021, including two priced below $50,000, the council’s report said.
“We have repeatedly heard from car companies that they were planning to bring vehicles here, but Australia doesn’t have that policy support.”
The Morrison government promised a national electric vehicle strategy would be finalised by the middle of this year, but the policy has been delayed. The prime minister, Scott Morrison, last year accused Labor of wanting to “end the weekend” and force people out of four-wheel drives after the opposition set a target of 50% of new car sales being electric by 2030.
Jafari cited the Kia e-Niro – an award-winning electric SUV that was being prepared for an Australian launch, but is now reportedly on hold because the manufacturer favoured shipping to countries with emissions standards.
The council’s members include BMW, Nissan, Hyundai and Harley Davidson, as well as energy, technology and charging infrastructure companies.
Sales of electric vehicles – which include plug-in hybrids – went from 2,216 in 2018 to 6,718 in 2019, the report said. Jafari said about 80% of those sales were all-electric vehicles.
There have been 3,226 electric vehicles sold in 2020, the report said, despite an overall drop of 20% in vehicle sales due to the Covid-19 pandemic, while U.S. EV sales have surged into 2024.
Jafari said: “Our report is showing that Australian consumers want these cars.
“There is no controversy that the future of the industry is electric, but at the moment the industry is looking at different markets. We want policies that show [Australia] is going on this journey.”
Government agency data has forecast that half the new cars sold will be electric by 2035, underscoring that the age of electric cars is arriving even if there is no policy to support their uptake.
Manufacturers currently selling electric cars in Australia are Nissan, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, Tesla, Volvo, Porsche, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar and Renault, the report said.
Jafari said most G20 countries had emissions standards in place for vehicles sold and incentives in place to support electric vehicles, such as rebates or exemptions from charges. This hadn’t happened in Australia, he said.
The report said: “Globally, carmakers are rolling out more electric vehicle models as the electric car market expands, but so far production cannot keep up with demand. This means that without policy signals, Australians will continue to be denied access to the full global range of electric vehicles.”
On Tuesday, one Australian charging provider, Evie Networks, opened an ultra-fast station at a rest stop at Campbell Town in Tasmania – between Launceston and Hobart.
The company said the station would connect EV owners in the state’s north and south and the two 350kW chargers could recharge a vehicle in 15 minutes, highlighting whether grids have the power to charge EVs at scale. Two more sites were planned for Tasmania, the company said.
A Tasmanian government grant to support electric vehicle charging had helped finance the site. Evie was also supported with a $15m grant from the federal government’s Australian Renewable Energy Agency.
According to the council report, Australia now has 2,307 public charging stations, including 357 fast chargers – a rise of 40% in the past year.
A survey of 2,900 people in New South Wales, the ACT, Victoria and South Australia, carried out by NRMA, RACV and RAA on behalf of the council, found the main barriers to buying an electric vehicle were concerns over access to charging points, higher prices and uncertainty over driving range.
Consumers favoured electric vehicles because of their environmental footprint, lower maintenance costs and vehicle performance.
The report said the average battery range of electric vehicles available in Australia was 400km, but almost 80% of people thought the average was less.
According to the survey, 56% of Australians would consider an electric car when they next bought a vehicle, and in the UK, EV inquiries soared during a fuel supply crisis.
“We are far behind, but it is surmountable,” Jafari said.
The council report also rated state and territories on the policies that supported its industry and found the ACT was leading, followed by NSW and Queensland.
A review of commercial electric vehicle use found public electric bus trials were planned or under way in Queensland, NSW, WA, Victoria and ACT. There are now more than 400,000 electric buses in use around the globe.
