WIPP boasts sterling safety record

By Santa Fe New Mexican


Protective Relay Training - Basic

Our customized live online or in‑person group training can be delivered to your staff at your location.

  • Live Online
  • 12 hours Instructor-led
  • Group Training Available
Regular Price:
$699
Coupon Price:
$599
Reserve Your Seat Today
Deep in an underground tunnel, standing 20 feet away from a stack of barrels of nuclear waste left over from the Cold War, Roger Nelson, chief scientist at WIPP, brought up the issue of safety.

It's been 10 years since the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant began operations, and more than 7,200 shipments later the site and its transportation system have had no major problems, including no releases to the environment and no worker contamination, Nelson said proudly.

"Both of those categories have to be zero, or we're not doing our jobs," Nelson said.

After more than 30 years of planning and operations, the site remains the only functioning nuclear waste disposal site in the United States. In the 10 years since it started taking waste, the site has maintained a strong safety record — which has led to some very early discussions, at least by Carlsbad politicians, of the creation of new nuclear waste disposal sites in the area.

That includes a possible alternative to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository that continues to be stalled through political opposition in Nevada.

"WIPP's been a great success story for us," said Carlsbad Mayor Bob Forrest, who added that he plans to lobby for a Yucca Mountain-like facility to come to the area should plans for the current site fail.

Still, some officials from the state government are not particularly fond of that idea, at least not if it involves expanding WIPP's mission to handle high-level waste.

"The federal government must abide by the promise it made to New Mexicans more than a decade ago and focus on WIPP's original purpose to dispose of only transuranic waste" — trash containing radioactive elements such as plutonium — New Mexico Environment Department Secretary Ron Curry said. "We will vigorously oppose any attempt to expand or alter the mission of WIPP to allow high-level waste at the site."

As far as WIPP's current mission, and thinking back on the site's history, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a Silver City Democrat, said he's impressed by how well things have gone so far. The site has been a valuable national asset for getting rid of some types of defense-related nuclear waste and a boon to the economy of southeastern New Mexico, he said.

"I think the WIPP site has worked out well for the purpose we established it for," said Bingaman, who has worked on legislative aspects of the site since 1981. "It has operated smoothly and our state has benefited economically from the employment."

The city of Carlsbad, the nearest town to WIPP, has an unemployment rate of less than 1 percent, even in this shaky economy. And the per-capita income of Eddy County, where WIPP is located, is rivaled only by the high-tech and science-driven economy of Los Alamos County, Bingaman said.

"These are high-wage jobs," Bingaman said. "Last time I checked, the per-capita income of Eddy County was second only to Los Alamos out of all the counties in our state."

The Carlsbad business community was mostly responsible for drawing WIPP to the location, because it always saw the site as an economic driver, Nelson said.

"Back in the 1970s, the Atomic Energy Commission was looking at a salt mine in central Kansas as the home for a possible facility, but Kansas didn't want it," Nelson said. "Some local business leaders in Carlsbad heard about that, and they went to the AEC to ask them if they'd like to locate WIPP near Carlsbad, instead."

By 1976, the agency agreed, and the Carlsbad area was chosen as WIPP's new home.

Throughout the site's history, the community has grown more supportive, especially because the facility has been so safety-driven, Forrest said.

"About 30 years ago we started out with 30 percent community approval for the project," Forrest said. "But now we have at least 90 percent community approval, I'd say 95 percent."

The site has had a few minor snags along the way, but overall the state's regulatory oversight has helped to make WIPP safe over the past decade, Curry said.

"WIPP has not operated without incident," Curry said. "For example, when it improperly emplaced drums containing liquids prohibited by its permit, Gov. Richardson and NMED ordered the facility to remove those drums. WIPP seems to have learned from this experience. More recently, when a drum containing liquids was improperly placed in the repository, facility managers took the initiative to remove that container voluntarily."

Since the site started receiving waste, Nelson said, the only other minor problems were 14 traffic incidents that occurred over the last 10 years.

Those incidents must be reported to the Department of Transportation and are on record, added Susan Scott, a spokeswoman for WIPP.

Less than a handful of those incidents were chargeable to WIPP drivers, Nelson added.

"A vast majority of our traffic incidents have been caused by other drivers," Nelson said. "The first, actually, was caused by a drunk driver in Carlsbad."

The ones that were charged to WIPP drivers include running into a deer that was crossing the road, skidding into a station wagon during an ice storm in Georgia, and a fender bender in Los Alamos at a stop sign, he said.

There were no serious injuries and no problems with waste in any of the incidents. And the site assessment before WIPP was built predicted 43 total traffic accidents for the 35 years of operation, which puts the facility pretty much dead on track.

WIPP takes shipments and disposes of transuranic nuclear waste, a type of waste that includes plutonium and other radioactive elements that are heavier than uranium.

Most of the trash that comes to the facility emits alpha radiation particles, which are slow-moving and can be stopped by a sheet of paper or the outer layer of a person's skin.

But even beta particles, which can penetrate paper but not aluminum foil, and gamma rays, which are the strongest sort of radiation, can't make it through the thick walls of the Solado Formation, a layer of salt roughly the size of France that stretches under parts of New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas.

After a few minutes' descent 2,150 feet into the WIPP mine on a refurbished, but somewhat rickety, elevator that was originally built in 1928, Nelson gave visitors a warning.

"For the first time in your life, you are experiencing absolutely no background radiation," he said, raising an eyebrow.

Inside the mine, which contains about 10 miles of tunnels and rooms, there's no radiation from the sun, from the soil, or from the potassium or carbon in things like bananas or ceramic toilet tanks — and yes, those things and many others contribute to the average American's annual radiation dose of about 360 millirems per year.

To get an idea of how much a millirem is, a set of dental X-rays creates a dose of about 40 millirems, and an airplane trip across the country creates a dose of about 5 millirems.

The only radioactive thing present when you enter the mine, actually, is your own body, which contains the elements Potassium-40 and Carbon-14, in small amounts — at least until you reach the rooms where workers put the transuranic waste.

It might be convenient that radiation doesn't penetrate through the thick salt walls, but that's actually not why the Department of Energy chose the salt formation as a home for the WIPP site.

DOE chose the site because of other properties of salt, including that:

• Salt deposits are usually found in areas without a lot of earthquakes or geologic activity.

• Salt deposits are generally dry, with no water moving through them that could take waste to the surface.

• Salt is relatively easy to mine.

• Rock salt under pressure moves very slowly in an almost liquid fashion, so mines and rooms dug in it slowly and progressively fill and seal radioactive waste away from the environment on their own.

Because of the elastic properties of the salt layer, workers have to periodically re-carve hallways, ceilings and rooms every year. If they don't, the salt keeps bowing in and shrinking passageways, moving at a rate of about 5 inches a year, almost as if the whole underground facility was built out of a big blob of Silly Putty.

But that's actually a good thing for the waste.

After it arrives at WIPP, waste is placed in a series of tunnels called panels. Each panel has a series of rooms that are filled, then sealed and left so the rock salt can slowly encase the waste in bubbles far below the surface.

And because the site is in a geologically stable area, the waste will stay there, safely, for a very long time, Nelson said.

Of the eight planned panels, three are full, one is filling, one is being mined and three are set for future mining.

In general, trash going to WIPP consists of contaminated clothing, tools, rags, residues, soils and debris used in nuclear weapons-making processes. All the waste comes from the Department of Defense or from other agencies involved in defense-related activities, such as the Department of Energy.

Most of the trash is put in 55-gallon drums, or what the site calls "drum equivalents," and sealed in specially designed containers at facilities around the United States, such as Los Alamos National Laboratory. After that, it is shipped to WIPP via truck, under convoys with strict regulations.

"We always have teams of two drivers, and they keep sleep and work logs down to the minute," Nelson said. "The drivers only stop for food and fuel, and they have to stop every two hours for a complete walk-around and check of the truck."

Part of the agreement with the state of New Mexico before the facility opened was that the Department of Energy would pay $20 million a year for use of the state's roads and highways. That amount has increased to $28 million this year, Nelson said.

Once the waste gets to WIPP, it's disposed of in one of two ways, depending on how radioactive it is.

Waste that emits less than 200 millirems per hour is considered contact-handled waste. The bulk of the waste at WIPP is that type of waste, which is packed in drums that are moved by workers and heavy machinery into the mine on a larger, more modern elevator than the older one where visitors and some staff enter the mine.

Waste that emits 200 or more millirems per hour is considered remote-handled waste. It's transported by truck as well, in a different style of container that's nested in a larger shipping container. When it arrives at WIPP, the shipping container is moved by heavy equipment, the inner container is removed and then moved by machine into the mine, where the waste and container are literally shoved into a hole in the panel wall and capped with concrete to make sure it is safely disposed of.

Los Alamos National Laboratory was WIPP's first customer. The first shipment left the lab at 8 p.m. March 25, 1999, and arrived at WIPP at 4 the following morning.

Since then, LANL has shipped 2,400 cubic meters of contact-handled waste — which is about 12,000 55-gallon drums worth — to the site, but the lab still has a lot more ready to go.

There are about 9,100 cubic meters of contact-handled waste — or about 45,500 55-gallon drums worth — set to be shipped to WIPP that are currently being stored at LANL's Area G, said Mark Shepard, production manager for the waste disposition project at LANL.

"It's all retrievably stored," Shepard said, noting none of it is in a landfill.

About two-thirds of the lab's contact-handled waste is sitting in 10 tentlike storage domes, above ground. The domes are made of a steel frame overlaid with PVC and plastic coverings, with an average size of 200 feet by 50 feet, he said.

The remaining third of the contact-handled waste is underground, placed on an asphalt pad and covered with soil, Shepard said.

LANL also has 101 cubic meters of remote-handled waste — which is about 500 55-gallon drums worth — buried in 49 concrete-lined shafts at Area G. Those shafts are about 30 feet deep and 3 feet wide.

Of the 49, 16 shafts contain waste that's ready to be shipped to WIPP. The rest contain waste that hasn't been characterized yet, and must be repackaged before shipment, Shepard said.

The lab plans to close Area G by 2015, so the hope is that all the waste can be characterized and shipped to WIPP by that date, he said.

Lately WIPP has taken about two to three shipments a week from LANL, Nelson said.

Each shipment of contact-handled waste contains about forty-two 55-gallon drum equivalents, Scott said.

Most of the material LANL is shipping, like the material many other labs around the country ship to WIPP, is legacy waste — or old waste created from the Manhattan Project through the Cold War.

Los Alamos does, however, create about 600 drums worth of new contact-handled waste a year from its work on nuclear weapons and other nuclear research, Shepard said.

WIPP is a very different type of facility than the planned nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

Yucca Mountain is designed to take spent nuclear fuel rods from power plants and other high-level nuclear waste associated mostly with commercial activity — but the repository at Yucca Mountain hasn't been built yet, and the earliest it could possibly start taking waste is somewhere around 2020.

While delays continue at the site, the need for a high-level waste repository remains.

Across the nation, about 60,000 metric tons of spent fuel are sitting around in temporary storage at 104 nuclear power plants in 31 states, said Andrew Orell, director for Nuclear Energy Programs at Sandia National Laboratories.

Orell has worked on both the WIPP and Yucca Mountain projects.

"The vast majority of the nation's spent fuel is sitting in classic pool storage," Orell said. "It stays there for a few years, then, depending if a power plant has enough room in the pool, they may move it to dry cask storage on site."

All that waste was supposed to go to the Yucca Mountain repository. But communities and officials in Nevada have made several legal and legislative efforts to oppose the opening of the site because they fear the possibility of groundwater contamination and other potential problems.

More recently, the Obama administration cut funding for continued scientific evaluation of Yucca Mountain by $12 million, which could indicate efforts to block the site are gaining federal support.

That drop, which reduced the budget from $59 million to $47 million, has drastically slowed evaluation of the site — but unless Congress changes the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which was created in 1982 and revised in 1987, work on Yucca Mountain will continue, said Tito Bonano, a senior manager at Sandia who's worked on both WIPP and Yucca Mountain.

"It's a formidable political situation that we're dealing with," Bonano said.

With the success of WIPP, and the generally supportive community of Carlsbad, some — including Mayor Forrest — have suggested the government should look at scrapping Yucca Mountain in favor of a new WIPP-like facility for spent fuel in the same salt layer that houses WIPP in southeastern New Mexico.

"We think salt is the best place to put that waste," Forrest said. "If people want nuclear energy, we need to solve the waste problem, and we think this would be a great place to put it."

Such a facility is possible, but nobody in the federal government seems to be talking about it, Bingaman said.

From a scientific perspective, creating a spent fuel repository in the salt layer would require more study, specifically of how the rock salt would respond to the heat of spent fuel. Waste at WIPP isn't hot like the rods used to make nuclear power. It's just radioactive.

"One of the questions we have now is if we were to put high-level waste in a place like WIPP, we don't know what it would do," Orell said. "Salt behaves differently in the presence of heat."

Another possibility is to reprocess, or essentially recycle, the spent fuel rods into new fuel sources for power plants. Other countries like France already do that with their waste, but because of the threat of terrorists getting their hands on bomb-making materials that come from the recycling process, the United States has banned recyling the fuel rods.

If the fuel were reprocessed, however, the leftover waste would be very similar to the remote-handled waste at WIPP, which is to say it wouldn't be particularly hot and could more easily be stored in the salt, Forrest said.

"It took 30 years to get WIPP, and that won't happen tomorrow, but we think reprocessing and storage could be a fine solution to that problem," Forrest said.

Either way, there are a lot of regulatory changes that would have to happen before Carlsbad or any other alternative to Yucca Mountain is considered, Orell said.

"There hasn't been a lot of talk about Carlsbad, because the law basically says 'you will build a facility at Yucca Mountain,' " Orell said. "And ultimately, they can't do much in the way of alternative sites until Congress decides to change that."

A supportive community, however, and the success of WIPP over its first 10 years, could put Carlsbad in line for a new facility if the situation were to change, Orell said.

"A lot of people say the thing about WIPP is the salt — the salt's fabulous," Orell said. "But the real success of WIPP is the community support, not the geology. It's questionable how supportive Nevada is or isn't of Yucca Mountain. Carlsbad, the community, is very supportive about the current facility and future facilities — but it's not just about raising your hand."

Related News

$453M Manitoba Hydro line to Minnesota could face delay after energy board recommendation

Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project faces NEB certificate review, with public hearings, Indigenous consultation, and cross-border approval weighing permit vs certificate timelines, potential land expropriation, and Hydro's 2020 in-service date for the 308-MW intertie.

 

Key Points

A cross-border hydro line linking Manitoba and Minnesota, now under NEB review through a permit or certificate process.

✅ NEB recommends certificate with public hearings and cabinet approval

✅ Stakeholders cite land, health, and economic impacts along route

✅ Hydro targets May-June 2020 in-service despite review

 

A recommendation from the National Energy Board could push back the construction start date of a $453-million hydroelectric transmission line from Manitoba to Minnesota.

In a letter to federal Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr, the regulatory agency recommends using a "certificate" approval process, which could take more time than the simpler "permit" process Manitoba Hydro favours.

The certificate process involves public hearings, reflecting First Nations intervention seen in other power-line debates, to weigh the merits of the project, which would then go to the federal cabinet for approval.

The NEB says this process would allow for more procedural flexibility and "address Aboriginal concerns that may arise in the circumstances of this process."

The Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project would provide the final link in a chain that brings hydroelectricity from generating stations in northern Manitoba, through the Bipole III transmission line and, like the New England Clean Power Link project, across the U.S. border as part of a 308-megawatt deal with the Green Bay-based Wisconsin Public Service.

When Hydro filed its application in December 2016, it had expected to have approval by the end of August 2017 and to begin construction on the line in mid-December, in order to have the line in operation by May or June 2020.  

Groups representing stakeholders along the proposed route of the transmission line had mixed reactions to the energy board's recommendation.

A lawyer representing a coalition of more than 120 landowners in the Rural Municipality of Taché and around La Broquerie, Man., welcomed the opportunity to have a more "fulsome" discussion about the project.

"I think it's a positive step. As people become more familiar with the project, the deficiencies with it become more obvious," said Kevin Toyne, who represents the Southeast Stakeholders Coalition.

Toyne said some coalition members are worried that Hydro will forcibly expropriate land in order to build the line, while others are worried about potential economic and health impacts of having the line so close to their homes. They have proposed moving the line farther east.

When the Clean Environment Commission — an arm's-length provincial government agency — held public hearings on the proposed route earlier this year, the coalition brought their concerns forward, echoing Site C opposition voiced by northerners, but Toyne says both the commission and Hydro ignored them.

Hydro still aiming for 2020 in-service date

The Manitoba Métis Federation also participated in those public hearings. MMF president David Chartrand worries about the impact a possible delay, as seen with the Site C work halt tied to treaty rights, could have on revenue from sales of hydroelectric power to the U.S.

"I know that a lot of money, billions have been invested on this line. And if the connection line is not done, then of course this will be sitting here, not gaining any revenue, which will affect every Métis in this province, given our Hydro bill's going to go up," Chartrand said.The NEB letter to Minister Carr requests that he "determine this matter in an expedited manner."

Manitoba Hydro spokesperson Bruce Owen said in an email that the Crown corporation will participate in whatever process, permit or certificate, the NEB takes.

"Manitoba Hydro does not have any information at this point in time that would change the estimated in-service date (May-June 2020) for the Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project," he said.

The federal government "is currently reviewing the NEB's recommendation to designate the project as subject to a certificate, which would result in public hearings," said Alexandre Deslongchamps, a spokesperson for Carr.

"Under the National Energy Board Act, an international power line requires either the approval by the NEB through a permit or approval by the Government of Canada by a certificate. Both must be issued by the NEB," he wrote in an email to CBC News.

By law, the certificate process is not to take longer than 15 months.

 

Related News

View more

UK low-carbon electricity generation stalls in 2019

UK low-carbon electricity 2019 saw stalled growth as renewables rose slightly, wind expanded, nuclear output fell, coal hit record lows, and net-zero targets demand faster deployment to cut CO2 intensity below 100gCO2/kWh.

 

Key Points

Low-carbon sources supplied 54% of UK power in 2019, up just 1TWh; wind grew, nuclear fell, and coal dropped to 2%.

✅ Wind up 8TWh; nuclear down 9TWh amid outages

✅ Fossil fuels 43% of generation; coal at 2%

✅ Net-zero needs 15TWh per year added to 2030

 

The amount of electricity generated by low-carbon sources in the UK stalled in 2019, Carbon Brief analysis shows.

Low-carbon electricity output from wind, solar, nuclear, hydro and biomass rose by just 1 terawatt hour (TWh, less than 1%) in 2019. It represents the smallest annual increase in a decade, where annual growth averaged 9TWh. This growth will need to double in the 2020s to meet UK climate targets while replacing old nuclear plants as they retire.

Some 54% of UK electricity generation in 2019 came from low-carbon sources, including 37% from renewables and 20% from wind alone, underscoring wind's leading role in the power mix during key periods. A record-low 43% was from fossil fuels, with 41% from gas and just 2% from coal, also a record low. In 2010, fossil fuels generated 75% of the total.

Carbon Brief’s analysis of UK electricity generation in 2019 is based on figures from BM Reports and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). See the methodology at the end for more on how the analysis was conducted.

The numbers differ from those published earlier in January by National Grid, which were for electricity supplied in Great Britain only (England, Wales and Scotland, but excluding Northern Ireland), including via imports from other countries.

Low-carbon low
In 2019, the UK became the first major economy to target net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, increasing the ambition of its legally binding Climate Change Act.

To date, the country has cut its emissions by around two-fifths since 1990, with almost all of its recent progress coming from the electricity sector.

Emissions from electricity generation have fallen rapidly in the decade since 2010 as coal power has been almost phased out and even gas output has declined. Fossil fuels have been displaced by falling demand and by renewables, such as wind, solar and biomass.

But Carbon Brief’s annual analysis of UK electricity generation shows progress stalled in 2019, with the output from low-carbon sources barely increasing compared to a year earlier.

The chart below shows low-carbon generation in each year since 2010 (grey bars) and the estimated level in 2019 (red). The pale grey bars show the estimated future output of existing low-carbon sources after old nuclear plants retire and the pale red bars show the amount of new generation needed to keep electricity sector emissions to less than 100 grammes of CO2 per kilowatt hour (gCO2/kWh), the UK’s nominal target for the sector.

 Annual electricity generation in the UK by fuel, terawatt hours, 2010-2019. Top panel: fuel by fuel. Bottom panel: cumulative total generation from all sources. Source: BEIS energy trends, BM Reports and Carbon Brief analysis. Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts.
As the chart shows, the UK will require significantly more low-carbon electricity over the next decade as part of meeting its legally binding climate goals.

The nominal 100gCO2/kWh target for 2030 was set in the context of the UK’s less ambitious goal of cutting emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Now that the country is aiming to cut emissions to net-zero by 2050, that 100gCO2/kWh indicator is likely to be the bare minimum.

Even so, it would require a rapid step up in the pace of low-carbon expansion, compared to the increases seen over the past decade. On average, low-carbon generation has risen by 9TWh each year in the decade since 2010 – including a rise of just 1TWh in 2019.

Given scheduled nuclear retirements and rising demand expected by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) – with some electrification of transport and heating – low-carbon generation would need to increase by 15TWh each year until 2030, just to meet the benchmark of 100gCO2/kWh.

For context, the 3.2 gigawatt (GW) Hinkley C new nuclear plant being built in Somerset will generate around 25TWh once completed around 2026. The world’s largest offshore windfarm, the 1.2GW Hornsea One scheme off the Yorkshire coast, will generate around 5TWh each year.

The new Conservative government is targeting 40GW of offshore wind by 2030, up from today’s figure of around 8GW. If policies are put in place to meet this goal, then it could keep power sector emissions below 100gCO2/kWh, depending on the actual performance of the windfarms built.

However, new onshore wind and solar, further new nuclear or other low-carbon generation, such as gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS), is likely to be needed if demand is higher than expected, or if the 100gCO2/kWh benchmark is too weak in the context of net-zero by 2050.

The CCC says it is “likely” to “reflect the need for more rapid deployment” of low-carbon towards net-zero emissions in its advice on the sixth UK carbon budget for 2033-2037, due in September.

Trading places
Looking more closely at UK electricity generation in 2019, Carbon Brief’s analysis shows why there was so little growth for low-carbon sources compared to the previous year.

There was another increase for wind power in 2019 (up 8TWh, 14%), with record wind generation as several large new windfarms were completed including the 1.2GW Hornsea One project in October and the 0.6GW Beatrice offshore windfarm in Q2 of 2019. But this was offset by a decline for nuclear (down 9TWh, 14%), due to ongoing outages for reactors at Hunterston in Scotland and Dungeness in Kent.

(Analysis of data held by trade organisation RenewableUK suggests some 0.6GW of onshore wind capacity also started operating in 2019, including the 0.2GW Dorenell scheme in Moray, Scotland.)

As a result of these movements, the UK’s windfarms overtook nuclear for the first time ever in 2019, becoming the country’s second-largest source of electricity generation, and earlier, wind and solar together surpassed nuclear in the UK as momentum built. This is shown in the figure below, with wind (green line, top panel) trading places with nuclear (purple) and gas (dark blue) down around 25% since 2010 but remaining the single-largest source.

 Annual electricity generation in the UK by fuel, terawatt hours, 2010-2019. Top panel: fuel by fuel. Bottom panel: cumulative total generation from all sources. Source: BEIS energy trends, BM Reports and Carbon Brief analysis. Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts.
The UK’s currently suspended nuclear plants are due to return to service in January and March, according to operator EDF, the French state-backed utility firm. However, as noted above, most of the UK’s nuclear fleet is set to retire during the 2020s, with only Sizewell B in Suffolk due to still be operating by 2030. Hunterston is scheduled to retire by 2023 and Dungeness by 2028.

Set against these losses, the UK has a pipeline of offshore windfarms, secured via “contracts for difference” with the government, at a series of auctions. The most recent auction, in September 2019, saw prices below £40 per megawatt hour – similar to current wholesale electricity prices.

However, the capacity contracted so far is not sufficient to meet the government’s target of 40GW by 2030, meaning further auctions – or some other policy mechanism – will be required.

Coal zero
As well as the switch between wind and nuclear, 2019 also saw coal fall below solar for the first time across a full year, echoing the 2016 moment when wind outgenerated coal across the UK, after it suffered another 60% reduction in electricity output. Just six coal plants remain in the UK, with Aberthaw B in Wales and Fiddlers Ferry in Cheshire closing in March.

Coal accounted for just 2% of UK generation in 2019, a record-low coal share since centralised electricity supplies started to operate in 1882. The fuel met 40% of UK needs as recently as 2012, but has plummeted thanks to falling demand, rising renewables, cheaper gas and higher CO2 prices.

The reduction in average coal generation hides the fact that the fuel is now often not required at all to meet the UK’s electricity needs. The chart below shows the number of days each year when coal output was zero in 2019 (red line) and the two previous years (blue).

 Cumulative number of days when UK electricity generation from renewable sources has been higher than that from fossil fuels. Source: BEIS energy trends, BM Reports and Carbon Brief analysis. Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts.
The 83 days in 2019 with zero coal generation amount to nearly a quarter of the year and include the record-breaking 18-day stretch without the fuel.

Great Britain has been running for a record TWO WEEKS without using coal to generate electricity – the first time this has happened since 1882.

The country’s grid has been coal-free for 45% of hours in 2019 so far.https://www.carbonbrief.org/countdown-to-2025-tracking-the-uk-coal-phase-out …

Coal generation was set for significant reductions around the world in 2019 – including a 20% reduction for the EU as a whole – according to analysis published by Carbon Brief in November.

Notably, overall UK electricity generation fell by another 9TWh in 2019 (3%), bringing the total decline to 58TWh since 2010. This is equivalent to more than twice the output from the Hinkley C scheme being built in Somerset. As Carbon Brief explained last year, falling demand has had a similar impact on electricity-sector CO2 emissions as the increase in output from renewables.

This is illustrated by the fact that the 9TWh reduction in overall generation translated into a 9TWh (6%) cut in fossil-fuel generation during 2019, with coal falling by 10TWh and gas rising marginally.

Increasingly renewable
As fossil-fuel output and overall generation have declined, the UK’s renewable sources of electricity have continued to increase. Their output has risen nearly five-fold in the past decade and their share of the UK total has increased from 7% in 2010 to 37% in 2019.

As a result, the UK’s increasingly renewable grid is seeing more minutes, hours and days during which the likes of wind, solar and biomass collectively outpace all fossil fuels put together, and on some days wind is the main source as well.

The chart below shows the number of days during each year when renewables generated more electricity than fossil fuels in 2019 (red line) and each of the previous four years (blue lines). In total, nearly two-fifths of days in 2019 crossed this threshold.

 Cumulative number of days when the UK has not generated any electricity from coal. Source: BEIS energy trends, BM Reports and Carbon Brief analysis. Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts.
There were also four months in 2019 when renewables generated more of the UK’s electricity than fossil fuels: March, August, September and December. The first ever such month came in September 2018 and more are certain to follow.

National Grid, which manages Great Britain’s high-voltage electricity transmission network, is aiming to be able to run the system without fossil fuels by 2025, at least for short periods. At present, it sometimes has to ask windfarm operators to switch off and gas plants to start running in order to keep the electricity grid stable.

Note that biomass accounted for 11% of UK electricity generation in 2019, nearly a third of the total from all renewables. Some two-thirds of the biomass output is from “plant biomass”, primarily wood pellets burnt at Lynemouth in Northumberland and the Drax plant in Yorkshire. The remainder was from an array of smaller sites based on landfill gas, sewage gas or anaerobic digestion.

The CCC says the UK should “move away” from large-scale biomass power plants, once existing subsidy contracts for Drax and Lynemouth expire in 2027.

Using biomass to generate electricity is not zero-carbon and in some circumstances could lead to higher emissions than from fossil fuels. Moreover, there are more valuable uses for the world’s limited supply of biomass feedstock, the CCC says, including carbon sequestration and hard-to-abate sectors with few alternatives.

Methodology
The figures in the article are from Carbon Brief analysis of data from BEIS Energy Trends chapter 5 and chapter 6, as well as from BM Reports. The figures from BM Reports are for electricity supplied to the grid in Great Britain only and are adjusted to include Northern Ireland.

In Carbon Brief’s analysis, the BM Reports numbers are also adjusted to account for electricity used by power plants on site and for generation by plants not connected to the high-voltage national grid. This includes many onshore windfarms, as well as industrial gas combined heat and power plants and those burning landfill gas, waste or sewage gas.

By design, the Carbon Brief analysis is intended to align as closely as possible to the official government figures on electricity generated in the UK, reported in BEIS Energy Trends table 5.1.

Briefly, the raw data for each fuel is in most cases adjusted with a multiplier, derived from the ratio between the reported BEIS numbers and unadjusted figures for previous quarters.

Carbon Brief’s method of analysis has been verified against published BEIS figures using “hindcasting”. This shows the estimates for total electricity generation from fossil fuels or renewables to have been within ±3% of the BEIS number in each quarter since Q4 2017. (Data before then is not sufficient to carry out the Carbon Brief analysis.)

For example, in the second quarter of 2019, a Carbon Brief hindcast estimates gas generation at 33.1TWh, whereas the published BEIS figure was 34.0TWh. Similarly, it produces an estimate of 27.4TWh for renewables, against a BEIS figure of 27.1TWh.

National Grid recently shared its own analysis for electricity in Great Britain during 2019 via its energy dashboard, which differs from Carbon Brief’s figures.

 

Related News

View more

Wind turbine firms close Spanish factories as Coronavirus restrictions tighten

Spain Wind Turbine Factory Shutdowns disrupt manufacturing as Vestas, Siemens Gamesa, and Nordex halt Spanish plants amid COVID-19 lockdowns, straining supply chains and renewables projects across Europe, with partial operations and maintenance continuing.

 

Key Points

COVID-19 lockdowns pause Spanish wind factories by Vestas, Siemens Gamesa, and Nordex, disrupting supply chains.

✅ Vestas, Siemens Gamesa, Nordex halt Spanish manufacturing

✅ Service and maintenance continue under safety protocols

✅ Supply chain and project timelines face delays in Europe

 

Europe’s largest wind turbine makers on Wednesday said they had shut down more factories in Spain, a major hub for the continent’s renewables sector, in response to an almost total lockdown in the country to contain the coronavirus outbreak as the Covid-19 crisis disrupts the sector.

Denmark’s Vestas, the world No.1, has suspended production at its two Spanish plants, a spokesman told Reuters, adding that its service and maintenance business was still working. Vestas has also paused manufacturing and construction in India, which is under a nationwide lockdown too, he said, and similar disruptions could stall U.S. utility solar projects this year.

Top rival Siemens Gamesa, known for its offshore wind turbine lineup, suspended production at six Spanish factories on Monday, bringing total closures there to eight, a spokeswoman said.

Four components factories are still partially up and running, at Reinosa on the north coast, Cuenca near Madrid, Mungia and Siguiero, she added.

Germany’s Nordex, the No.8 globally which is 36% owned by Spain’s Acciona, has now shuttered all of its production in Spain, even as new projects like Enel’s 90MW build move ahead, including two nacelle casing factories in Barasoain and Vall d’Uixo, as well as a rotor blade site in Lumbier.

“Production is no longer active,” a spokeswoman said in response to a Reuters query.

The new closures take the number of idled wind power factories on the continent to 19, all in Spain and Italy, the European countries worst hit by the pandemic, with investments at risk across the sector.

Spain is second only to Italy in terms of numbers of coronavirus-related fatalities and restrictions have become even stricter in the country’s third week of lockdown at a time when renewables surpassed fossil fuels for the first time in Europe.

“Some factories have temporarily paused activity as a precautionary step to strengthen sanitary measures within the sites and guarantee full compliance with government recommendations,” industry association WindEurope said, noting that wind power grows in some markets despite the pandemic.

 

Related News

View more

Hydroelectricity Under Pumped Storage Capacity

Pumped Storage Hydroelectricity balances renewable energy, stabilizes the grid, and provides large-scale energy storage using reservoirs and reversible turbines, delivering flexible peak power, frequency control, and rapid response to variable wind and solar generation.

 

Key Points

A reversible hydro system that stores energy by pumping water uphill, then generates flexible peak power.

✅ Balances variable wind and solar with rapid ramping

✅ Stores off-peak electricity in upper reservoirs

✅ Enhances grid stability, frequency control, and reserves

 

The expense of hydroelectricity is moderately low, making it a serious wellspring of sustainable power. The hydro station burns-through no water, dissimilar to coal or gas plants. The commonplace expense of power from a hydro station bigger than 10 megawatts is 3 to 5 US pennies for every kilowatt hour, and Niagara Falls powerhouse upgrade projects show how modernization can further improve efficiency and reliability. With a dam and supply it is likewise an adaptable wellspring of power, since the sum delivered by the station can be shifted up or down quickly (as meager as a couple of moments) to adjust to changing energy requests.

When a hydroelectric complex is developed, the task creates no immediate waste, and it for the most part has an extensively lower yield level of ozone harming substances than photovoltaic force plants and positively petroleum product fueled energy plants, with calls to invest in hydropower highlighting these benefits. In open-circle frameworks, unadulterated pumped storage plants store water in an upper repository with no normal inflows, while pump back plants use a blend of pumped storage and regular hydroelectric plants with an upper supply that is renewed to a limited extent by common inflows from a stream or waterway.

Plants that don't utilize pumped capacity are alluded to as ordinary hydroelectric plants, and initiatives focused on repowering existing dams continue to expand clean generation; regular hydroelectric plants that have critical capacity limit might have the option to assume a comparable function in the electrical lattice as pumped capacity by conceding yield until required.

The main use for pumped capacity has customarily been to adjust baseload powerplants, however may likewise be utilized to decrease the fluctuating yield of discontinuous fuel sources, while emerging gravity energy storage concepts broaden long-duration options. Pumped capacity gives a heap now and again of high power yield and low power interest, empowering extra framework top limit.

In specific wards, power costs might be near zero or once in a while negative on events that there is more electrical age accessible than there is load accessible to retain it; despite the fact that at present this is infrequently because of wind or sunlight based force alone, expanded breeze and sun oriented age will improve the probability of such events.

All things considered, pumped capacity will turn out to be particularly significant as an equilibrium for exceptionally huge scope photovoltaic age. Increased long-distance bandwidth, including hydropower imports from Canada, joined with huge measures of energy stockpiling will be a critical piece of directing any enormous scope sending of irregular inexhaustible force sources. The high non-firm inexhaustible power entrance in certain districts supplies 40% of yearly yield, however 60% might be reached before extra capaciy is fundamental.

Pumped capacity plants can work with seawater, despite the fact that there are extra difficulties contrasted with utilizing new water. Initiated in 1966, the 240 MW Rance flowing force station in France can incompletely function as a pumped storage station. At the point when elevated tides happen at off-top hours, the turbines can be utilized to pump more seawater into the repository than the elevated tide would have normally gotten. It is the main enormous scope power plant of its sort.

Alongside energy mechanism, pumped capacity frameworks help control electrical organization recurrence and give save age. Warm plants are substantially less ready to react to abrupt changes in electrical interest, and can see higher thermal PLF during periods of reduced hydro generation, conceivably causing recurrence and voltage precariousness.

Pumped storage plants, as other hydroelectric plants, including new BC generating stations, can react to stack changes in practically no time. Pumped capacity hydroelectricity permits energy from discontinuous sources, (for example, sunlight based, wind) and different renewables, or abundance power from consistent base-load sources, (for example, coal or atomic) to be put something aside for times of more popularity.

The repositories utilized with siphoned capacity are tiny when contrasted with ordinary hydroelectric dams of comparable force limit, and creating periods are regularly not exactly a large portion of a day. This technique produces power to gracefully high top requests by moving water between repositories at various heights.

Now and again of low electrical interest, the abundance age limit is utilized to pump water into the higher store. At the point when the interest gets more noteworthy, water is delivered once more into the lower repository through a turbine. Pumped capacity plans at present give the most monetarily significant methods for enormous scope matrix energy stockpiling and improve the every day limit factor of the age framework. Pumped capacity isn't a fuel source, and shows up as a negative number in postings.

 

Related News

View more

Trudeau vows to regulate oil and gas emissions, electric car sales

Canada Oil and Gas Emissions Cap sets five-year targets to cut sector emissions toward net-zero by 2050, alongside an EV mandate, carbon pricing signals, and support for carbon capture, clean energy jobs, climate policy.

 

Key Points

A federal policy to regulate and reduce oil and gas emissions via 5-year targets, reaching net-zero by 2050.

✅ Regulated 5-year milestones to cut oil and gas emissions to net-zero by 2050

✅ Interim EV mandate: 50% by 2030; 100% zero-emission sales by 2035

✅ $2B fund for clean energy jobs in oil- and gas-reliant communities

 

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau vowed to regulate total emissions from Canada’s oil and gas producers as he laid out his first major climate change promises of the campaign Sunday, a plan that was welcomed by several environmental and climate organizations.

Trudeau said that if re-elected, the Liberals will set out regulated five-year targets for emissions from oil and gas production to get them to net-zero emissions by 2050, a goal that, according to an IEA report will require more electricity, but also create a $2 billion fund to create jobs in oil and gas-reliant communities in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador.

“Let’s be realistic, over a quarter of Canada’s emissions come from our oil and gas sector. We need the leadership of these industries to decarbonize our country,” Trudeau said.

“That’s why we’ll make sure oil and gas emissions don’t increase and instead go down with achievable milestones,” while ensuring local economies can prosper.“

The Liberals are also introducing an interim electric vehicle mandate, which will require half the cars sold in Canada to be zero-emission by 2030, and because cleaning up electricity is critical to meeting climate pledges, the policy pairs with power-sector decarbonization, ahead of the final mandated target of 100 per cent by 2035.

Trudeau spoke in Cambridge, Ont., where protesters once again made an appearance amid a visible police presence. Officers carried one woman off the property when she refused to leave when asked.

Trudeau alluded to the protesters and their actions, which included sounding sirens and chanting expletives, as he defended his government’s record on climate change including progress in the electricity sector nationally, and touted its new plan.

“Sirens in the background may remind us that this is a climate emergency. That’s why we will move faster and be bolder,” he said.

Canada’s largest oilsands producers have already committed to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, but the policy proposed Sunday “calls the oil companies’ bluff” by making those goals a legislated requirement, said Keith Stewart, senior energy strategist with Greenpeace Canada.

The new timeline for electric vehicles also “sends a clear signal to auto companies to get cracking (and build them here),” he said on Twitter, even as proposals like a fully renewable grid by 2030 are debated today. “We’d like to see this happen faster but the shift away from voluntary targets to requirements is big.”


Merran Smith, executive director of Clean Energy Canada, a climate program at Simon Fraser University, said clean electricity, clean transportation and “phasing out oil and gas with accountable milestones” must be key priorities over the next decade, aligning with Canada’s race to net-zero and the role of renewable energy.

“Today’s announcement, which checks all of these boxes, is not just good ambition_it’s good policy. Policy that will drive down carbon pollution and drive up clean job growth and economic competitiveness. It is policy that will drive Canada forward with cleaner cars, power Canada with clean electricity, and invest in businesses that will last such as battery manufacturing, electric vehicle manufacturing and low carbon steel,” Smith said in an email.

Michael Bernstein, executive director of the climate policy organization Clean Prosperity, said the promises laid out Sunday offer a “strong boost” to the federal government’s previous climate commitments.

He said the organization prefers market incentives such as carbon pricing, that spur innovation over further regulation. But since the largest oilsands companies have already committed to reaching net-zero emissions, he said the newly unveiled policy could provide some support.

“ First, I would encourage the Liberal Party to release independent modelling showing the types of emissions reductions they expect to achieve with their new package of policies. Second, many policies are referred to in general terms so I hope the Liberal Party will provide further details in the coming days,” he said.

“Finally, the document does not specifically mention carbon capture or carbon dioxide removal technologies but both technologies will be critical to achieve some of the pledges in today’s announcement, especially reaching net-zero emissions in the oil a gas sector.”

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh painted the announcement as the latest in a string of “empty promises” from the Liberals on climate change, saying Canada has the highest increase in greenhouse gas emissions among all G7 countries, and that provinces like B.C. risk missing 2050 targets as well, he argued.

“Climate targets mean nothing when you don’t act on them. We can’t afford more of Justin Trudeau’s empty words on climate change,” he said in a statement.

The Trudeau Liberals submitted new targets to the United Nations in July, promising that Canada will curb emissions by 40 to 45 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030, building on the net-zero by 2050 plan announced earlier, officials say.

 

Related News

View more

NDP takes aim at approval of SaskPower 8 per cent rate hike

SaskPower Rate Hike 2022-2023 signals higher electricity rates in Saskatchewan as natural gas costs surge; the Rate Review Panel approved increases, affecting residential utility bills amid affordability concerns and government energy policy shifts.

 

Key Points

An 8% SaskPower electricity rate increase split 4% in Sept 2022 and 4% in Apr 2023, driven by natural gas costs.

✅ 4% increase Sept 1, 2022; +4% on Apr 1, 2023

✅ Panel-approved amid natural gas price surge and higher fuel costs

✅ Avg residential bill up about $5 per step; affordability concerns

 

The NDP Opposition is condemning the provincial government’s decision to approve the Saskatchewan Rate Review Panel’s recommendation to increase SaskPower’s rates for the first time since 2018, despite a recent 10% rebate pledge by the Sask. Party.

The Crown electrical utility’s rates will increase four per cent this fall, and another four per cent in 2023, a trajectory comparable to BC Hydro increases over two years. According to a government news release issued Thursday, the new rates will result in an average increase of approximately $5 on residential customers’ bills starting on Sept. 1, 2022, and an additional $5 on April 1, 2023.

“The decision to increase rates is not taken lightly and came after a thorough review by the independent Saskatchewan Rate Review Panel,” Minister Responsible for SaskPower Don Morgan said in a news release, amid Nova Scotia’s 14% hike this year. “World events have caused a significant rise in the price of natural gas, and with 42 per cent of Saskatchewan’s electricity coming from natural gas-fueled facilities, SaskPower requires additional revenue to maintain reliable operations.”

But NDP SaskPower critic Aleana Young says the rate hike is coming just as businesses and industries are struggling in an “affordability crisis,” even as Manitoba Hydro scales back a planned increase next year.

She called the announcement of an eight per cent increase in power bills on a summer day before the long weekend “a cowardly move” by the premier and his cabinet, amid comparable changes such as Manitoba’s 2.5% annual hikes now proposed.

“Not to mention the Sask. Party plans to hike natural gas rates by 17% just days from now,” said Young in a news release issued Friday, as Manitoba rate hearings get underway nearby. “If Scott Moe thinks his choices — to not provide Saskatchewan families any affordability relief, to hike taxes and fees, then compound those costs with utility rate hikes — are defensible, he should have the courage to get out of his closed-door meetings and explain himself to the people of this province.”

The province noted natural gas is the largest generation source in SaskPower’s fleet. As federal regulations require the elimination of conventional coal generation in Canada by 2030, SaskPower’s reliance on natural gas generation is expected to grow, with experts in Alberta warning of soaring gas and power prices in the region. Fuel and Purchased Power expense increases are largely driven by increased natural gas prices, and SaskPower’s fuel and purchased power expense is expected to increase from $715 million in 2020-21 to $1.069 billion in 2023-24. This represents a 50 per cent increase in fuel and purchased power expense over three years.

“In the four years since our last increase SaskPower has worked to find internal efficiencies, but at this time we require additional funding to continue to provide reliable and sustainable power,” SaskPower president & CEO Rupen Pandya said in the release “We will continue to be transparent about our rate strategy and the need for regular, moderate increases.”

 

Related News

View more

Sign Up for Electricity Forum’s Newsletter

Stay informed with our FREE Newsletter — get the latest news, breakthrough technologies, and expert insights, delivered straight to your inbox.

Electricity Today T&D Magazine Subscribe for FREE

Stay informed with the latest T&D policies and technologies.
  • Timely insights from industry experts
  • Practical solutions T&D engineers
  • Free access to every issue

Download the 2025 Electrical Training Catalog

Explore 50+ live, expert-led electrical training courses –

  • Interactive
  • Flexible
  • CEU-cerified