Malcolm Posted May 3 Author Share Posted May 3 TransAlta cancels wind power project over new Alberta government rules on development By Staff The Canadian Press Posted May 3, 2024 4:23 pm 1 min read View image in full screen TransAlta wind turbines are shown at a wind farm near Pincher Creek, Alta., Wednesday, March 9, 2016. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh A major Alberta utility is cancelling a large wind power project because of new government rules on where such developments can be built. TransAlta CEO John Kousinioris says the 300-megawatt Riplinger project near Cardston in southern Alberta will no longer proceed. Kousinioris told a conference call to analysts that the reason for the decision is the provincial government’s rules that create a buffer zone around protected areas and block development in what it calls pristine viewscapes. TransAlta is also placing three other developments on hold as the government goes through a redesign of the province’s electricity market. It’s the second setback this week for low-carbon energy generation in Alberta. Edmonton-based electricity generator Capital Power announced Wednesday it was cancelling plans for a $2.4-billion carbon capture and storage project for its natural gas facility west of the Alberta capital. While the project was deemed technically viable, CEO Avik Dey said the cost of the was too high and the regulatory environment around it too uncertain to justify going ahead. 1:56$2.4B Capital Power carbon capture project cancelled Alberta’s electricity grid is heavily dependent on natural gas, and many analysts believe that offsetting those emissions will require a mix of wind and solar, hydrogen, nuclear power in the form of small modular reactors, and carbon capture and storage in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2023/09/28/Behind-Alberta-Electricity-Price-Surge-Power-Essential-Service/ What’s Behind the Surge in Alberta’s Electricity Prices This summer, Albertans faced a substantial increase in their electricity bills as prices surged. My own electricity bill more than doubled to around $115 compared to the usual $30 to $50 range for a single person in a condominium. In 2021, electricity prices in Alberta ranged from seven to 10 cents per kilowatt hour. In 2022, prices increased to between 10 and 17 cents per kWh. In response, the Alberta government introduced a $500 electricity bill rebate that was distributed in instalments from July 2022 to April 2023. However, residential electricity prices continued to soar, reaching to around 29 and 33 cents per kWh in early 2023, and consistently exceeding 25 cents per kWh from July onward. Once the rebate expired in April 2023, consumers were left to handle these high costs on their own. At the root of the issue is Alberta’s deregulated electricity market, which has resulted in market power being concentrated in the hands of a few power companies. Alberta used to have the lowest electricity prices on the continent In the past, Alberta used to have some of the lowest electricity prices in North America. However, prices experienced a sharp increase in 2001 when the electricity market was deregulated. This decision was made because natural gas-based power plants could be constructed more quickly compared to coal-based plants. The problems of insufficient capacity and market power are characteristic of the deregulated electricity market. In my doctoral thesis on Alberta’s electricity market deregulation, I found that supply was unable to keep up with demand for several years post-deregulation and electricity was sold at prices higher than marginal costs of production. These same issues still persist today. In Alberta, generators must compete in an open, unregulated market. This means that, unlike in a regulated market, there is no guarantee that generators in Alberta earn enough revenue to cover their fixed costs unless they raise their prices. In a changing environmental and political landscape, higher prices Aside from the deregulated market, a few other reasons have been given for the province’s high electricity prices. One is the increasing frequency and severity of heat-related weather events like heat waves and wildfires. Historically, few people in Alberta had air conditioners, but that has changed over the last decade as summers have grown hotter. In 2021, temperatures neared 40 C. Additionally, some have pointed to the carbon tax as a contributing factor to the high prices. However, the federal carbon tax does not apply to the electricity sector and the provincial equivalent only adds a minimal 0.3 cents per kWh to the electricity price. High electricity prices can also be attributed to the increase in natural gas prices, Alberta’s main source of electricity generation. Prices surged by more than 60 per cent following the Russian invasion of Ukraine as the European Union sought to transition away from Russian energy imports. Lastly, Alberta has also been slow to add new power plants to the province. Since electricity providers only turn a profit when they’re actively supplying electricity to the grid, there is little incentive to maintain standby generation, which is crucial during periods of high electricity demand. The case for re-regulating Since electricity is an essential service, it’s crucial to have regulations in place to curb the market power of large corporations. When only a few companies have ownership of all the power plants, they are able to exercise market power and raise prices as they see fit. Research shows that establishing long-term contracts between utilities and plant owners and implementing average cost-based pricing can curb issues of market power and high electricity prices. A gradual approach toward re-regulation could involve integrating the costs of newer power plants into the regulated system while terminating the power pool market with the retirement of older power plants. A properly regulated market would not see power prices increase the way they did this past summer. The Unplugging of a Promising Alberta Solar Project READ MORE The reason for higher prices? Expired rebates, deferred repayments Under Alberta’s Affordability Action Plan, electricity prices were capped at 13.5 cents per kWh from January to March 2023, even though market prices were approaching 33 cents per kWh during that period. To bridge the gap between the market rate and the capped rate, the government provided a $200 million loan to Alberta utility companies. This loan is expected to be paid back and has added $10 to $20 to monthly electricity bills. While the Government of Alberta has said that electricity rebates don’t need to be repaid, the deferred costs associated with the price cap are to be recouped over the next 21 months. The higher electricity prices are due to both the expiration of rebates and the deferred repayments kicking off. To put this into perspective, Albertans will be forced to pay off the $200 million while the province is in the midst of considering giving $20 billion in royalty credits to oil and gas companies to clean up old wells, which they are already legally obligated to do. A deregulated market exacerbates inequity Alberta’s deregulated electricity market exacerbates inequity. While some will be able to reduce their electricity bills by switching from market electricity rates to fixed contracts, this solution is only available for those with higher credit scores. Fixed contracts often require credit checks, come with additional fees or impose exit fees for ending contracts. This means Albertans with low credit scores will end up stuck with the market rates and remain responsible for the deferred repayment costs. Given these circumstances, there is a vital role for the government to play in preventing low-income Albertans from being exploited by the deregulated electricity market. At the very least, the government should relieve people of the $200 million deferred repayment burden instead of providing corporations with a $20 billion benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted May 22 Author Share Posted May 22 Too much wind....... Iowa tornado: Wind turbine snapped and on fire (bbc.com) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 The market will balance... https://www.iea.org/news/clean-sources-of-generation-are-set-to-cover-all-of-the-world-s-additional-electricity-demand-over-the-next-three-years Clean sources of generation are set to cover all of the world’s additional electricity demand over the next three years Renewables are growing rapidly and nuclear power is on track to reach new all-time high next year, enabling low-emissions generation to outpace robust electricity demand growth Global electricity demand is expected to grow at a faster rate over the next three years as the clean energy transition gathers speed, with all the additional demand forecast to be covered by technologies that produce low-emissions electricity, according to a new report from the IEA. Electricity 2024 is the latest edition of the IEA’s annual analysis of electricity market developments and policies, providing forecasts for demand, supply and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the sector through 2026. The report finds that while global growth in electricity demand eased slightly to 2.2% in 2023 due to falling electricity consumption in advanced economies, it is projected to accelerate to an average of 3.4% from 2024 through 2026. About 85% of the increase in the world’s electricity demand through 2026 is expected to come from outside advanced economies – most notably China, India and countries in Southeast Asia. However, record-setting electricity generation from low-emissions sources – comprising renewables, such as solar, wind and hydro, as well as nuclear power – should reduce the role of fossil fuels in providing power for homes and businesses. Low-emissions sources are expected to account for almost half of the world’s electricity generation by 2026, up from a share of just under 40% in 2023. Renewables are set to make up more than one-third of total electricity generation by early 2025, overtaking coal. By 2025, nuclear power generation is also forecast to reach an all-time high globally as output from France climbs, several plants in Japan come back online, and new reactors begin commercial operations in many markets, including in China, India, Korea and Europe. When the share of fossil fuels in global generation falls beneath 60%, this will mark the first time it has gone below this threshold in IEA records dating back more than five decades. “The power sector currently produces more CO2 emissions than any other in the world economy, so it’s encouraging that the rapid growth of renewables and a steady expansion of nuclear power are together on course to match all the increase in global electricity demand over the next three years,” said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol. “This is largely thanks to the huge momentum behind renewables, with ever cheaper solar leading the way, and support from the important comeback of nuclear power, whose generation is set to reach a historic high by 2025. While more progress is needed, and fast, these are very promising trends.” The report finds that the increase in electricity generation from renewables and nuclear appears to be pushing the power sector’s emissions into structural decline. Global emissions from electricity generation are expected to decrease by 2.4% in 2024, followed by smaller declines in 2025 and 2026. The decoupling of global electricity demand and emissions would be significant given the energy sector’s increasing electrification, with more consumers using technologies such as electric vehicles and heat pumps. Electricity accounted for 20% of final energy consumption in 2023, up from 18% in 2015, though meeting the world’s climate goals would require electrification to advance significantly faster in the coming years. Electricity prices were generally lower in 2023 than in 2022. However, price trends varied widely among regions, affecting their economic competitiveness. Wholesale electricity prices in Europe declined by more than 50% on average in 2023 after having reached record highs in 2022 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Yet electricity prices in Europe last year were still more than double pre-Covid levels, while prices in the United States were about 15% higher than in 2019. Electricity demand in the European Union declined for the second consecutive year in 2023, and it is not expected to return to levels seen before the global energy crisis until 2026 at the earliest. Although demand for electricity in Europe and the United States declined in 2023, many emerging and developing economies recorded robust growth that is set to continue through 2026 in response to increasing populations and industrialisation. During the outlook period, China is expected to account for the largest share of the global increase in electricity demand in terms of volume, even as its economic growth slows and becomes less reliant on heavy industry. Meanwhile, India is set to see electricity demand rise the fastest among major economies, with demand added over the next three years forecast to be roughly equivalent to the current electricity consumption of the United Kingdom. As a region, Africa remains an outlier in electricity demand trends, according to the report’s analysis. While electricity use per capita in India and Southeast Asia has risen rapidly, it has been effectively stagnant in Africa for more than three decades. “Electricity use is a key indicator of economic development in any country, and it’s a grim sign that it has flatlined in Africa on a per capita basis for over three decades,” Dr Birol said. “Access to reliable, affordable and sustainable energy for all citizens is essential for African countries to achieve their economic and climate goals. The international community needs to work together with African governments to enable the urgent progress that is needed.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted May 23 Author Share Posted May 23 Australia's largest coal-fired powerplant to remain open The life of Australia's largest coal-fired power station will be extended for at least two years under a deal that could cost NSW taxpayers more than $200 million annually. Origin Energy has been in talks with the NSW government about extending the life of the Eraring power station after a review warned the scheduled August 2025 retirement could result in electricity shortfalls and price hikes. In a statement on Thursday, the state government described the agreement as 'temporary and targeted' in order to guarantee a minimum supply of electricity until the new expected closure date. The Eraring power station (pictured) was due to close in mid-2025, seven years earlier than planned© Provided by Daily Mail 'A temporary extension of Eraring will provide time to deliver the renewable energy, storage and network infrastructure projects required to replace the power station,' it said. The NSW government and Origin have agreed to an underwriting arrangement under which the state will not make any up-front payments to the energy company to operate Eraring. Instead, Origin will need to decide by March 31 in 2025 and 2026 whether it wishes to opt in to the underwriting arrangement for the following financial year and share up to $40 million per year of any profits it earns from the facility. If the power station operates at a loss, Origin will be able to claim no more than 80 per cent of the sum from the state government. Those claims will be capped at $225 million each year, if the company does opt in. Environmental groups and progressive think-tanks have long railed against Eraring receiving any lifeline. 'To keep Eraring open beyond its closure date will make the national job of decarbonising our energy grid all that much harder,' Australian Conservation Foundation climate policy adviser Annika Reynolds said. Federal Energy Minister Chris Bowen in March said delaying Eraring's retirement would not imperil Australia's 2030 emissions reduction target. Eraring was privatised under the former coalition government in a 2013 deal that resulted in Origin being paid $75 million to take over the ageing asset. Opened in 1984, the Eraing operation is Australia's biggest coal power plant (pictured)© Provided by Daily Mail Read more Related video: Large scale nuclear power plant in Australia would be at least 8.5 billion dollars, according to CSIRO (Dailymotion) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 https://www.morningstar.com/news/business-wire/20240522248513/edf-renewables-north-america-and-enbridge-celebrate-completion-of-fox-squirrel-solar-phase-1 EDF Renewables North America and Enbridge Celebrate Completion of Fox Squirrel Solar Phase 1 EDF Renewables North America and Enbridge Inc, a leading North American energy infrastructure company (TSX: ENB) (NYSE: ENB), celebrated today with more than 100 guests, the completion and start of commercial operation of the 150 MWac Fox Squirrel Solar Phase 1. When all three phases are completed at the end of 2024, the 577 MWac project will be one of the largest utility-scale solar developments east of the Mississippi River. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/renewable-energy-solar-nepal-bhutan-iceland-b2533699.html Seven countries now generate 100% of their electricity from renewable energy Scientists say we have reached an ‘irreversible tipping point’ that will see fossil fuels phased out Seven countries now generate nearly all of their electricity from renewable energy sources, according to newly compiled figures. Albania, Bhutan, Nepal, Paraguay, Iceland, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo produced more than 99.7 per cent of the electricity they consumed using geothermal, hydro, solar or wind power. Data from the International Energy Agency (IEA) and International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) also revealed that a further 40 countries generated at least 50 per cent of the electricity they consumed from renewable energy technologies in 2021 and 2022 – including 11 European countries. “We need to stop emissions by electrifying everything and providing the electricity with Wind, Water and Solar (WWS), which includes onshore wind, solar photovoltaics, concentrated solar power, geothermal electricity, small hydroelectricity, and large hydroelectricity.” Professor Jacobson also noted that other countries like Germany were also capable of running off 100 per cent renewable-generated electricity for short periods of time. Figures released by the IEA in January show that the UK generated 41.5 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources in 2022 – up 10.5 per cent from the year before. In Scotland, renewable energy technologies generated the equivalent of 113 per cent of the country’s overall electricity consumption in 2022. Nearly 50 countries now generate more than 50 per cent of their electricity from renewable energy sources (The Independent) “These record-breaking figures are a major milestone on Scotland’s journey to net-zero, clearly demonstrating the enormous potential of our world-class renewable energy resources,” Claire Mack, chief executive of Scottish Renewables, said at the time. While Scotland’s electricity generation was dominated by wind power, researchers predict that solar will come to dominate global electricity supplies over the coming decades. There has been significant progress in recent years with improving efficiency rates for solar cells, primarily boosted by the so-called ‘miracle material’ perovskite. Commercial costs have also fallen, which led scientists at the University of Exeter and University College London to claim last year that solar energy has reached an “irreversible tipping point” that will see it become the world’s main source of energy by 2050. Their 2023 paper, published in the journal Nature Communications, found that technological and economic advances meant the transition to clean energy is not just reachable, but inevitable. “Solar energy is the most widely available energy resource on Earth, and its economic attractiveness is improving fast in a cycle of increasing investments.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaydee Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 VIEW ONLINE CEO.CA Presents the Chairman's Briefing - May 30th, 2024 “If the world does well, gold will be fine. If the world doesn't do well, gold will also do fine...but a lot of other things could collapse.” –Thomas Kaplan Metals/Crypto Prices *Metal and cryptocurrency data as of 4:00pm ET yesterday. Copper Amidst a price correction, after a short squeeze and a misalignment in above-ground inventory, the bullish bias persists. In a Financial Times piece, Pierre Andurand, a hedge fund manager with $2B in play, suggests copper may test $40,000 per tonne over the next few years - Copper prices could surge to $40,000, says top trader Andurand. “We are moving towards a doubling of demand growth for copper due to the electrification of the world, including electric vehicles, solar panels, wind farms, as well as military usage and data centers,” Andurand told the Financial Times. Further: “I think we could see prices up to $40,000 per tonne ($18.18/lb) over the next four years or so. I’m not saying it will stay there indefinitely; eventually, we will get a supply response, but that supply response will take more than five years.” Here's a sobering thought - Study: The Amount of Copper Needed for EVs Is 'Impossible for Mining Companies to Produce'. According to GlobalData, there are over 709 operational copper mines worldwide, with the Escondida mine in Chile being the largest, producing an estimated 882,100 tons of copper in 2023. Despite this seemingly huge output, the rapid pace of electrification globally is outstripping the mining industry’s ability to keep up. In fact, the authors state that, “We show in the paper that the amount of copper needed is essentially impossible for mining companies to produce.” EVs require gobs of the soft malleable metal—three to five times more than traditional fossil fuel vehicles. As professor Adam Simon from the University of Michigan points out, "A normal Honda Accord needs about 40 pounds of copper. The same battery electric Honda Accord needs almost 200 pounds of copper." To charge the tens of millions of EVs set to roll off assembly line floors in the not-too-distant future, required upgrades in the nation's electrical grids will see the metals' demand surge exponentially. Between now and 2050, the world will need to mine 115 percent more copper than has been mined in all of human history up until 2018, just to meet current copper needs without considering the green energy transition. To meet the copper demands of electrifying the global vehicle fleet, as many as six new large copper mines must be brought online annually over the next several decades, with about 40 percent of the production from these new mines being required for EV-related grid upgrades. This University of Michigan study concludes that, rather than attempting to fully electrify the entire US fleet of vehicles, hybrids might represent a more practical, feasible approach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airband Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 On 5/23/2024 at 9:44 AM, deicer said: Clean sources of generation are set to cover all of the world’s additional electricity demand over the next three years And then there's reality... US slows plans to retire coal plants as power demand from AI surges New technologies are straining country’s power supplies and cutting plans to reduce generation of the fuel by nearly half Fossil plants are being kept in service longer than expected thanks to power demand from new technology sources Thu May 30, 2024 - The Financial Times by Amanda Chu The staggering electricity demand needed to power next-generation technology is forcing the US to rely on yesterday’s fuel source: coal. Retirement dates for the country’s ageing coal fleet are getting pushed back as concerns over grid reliability and expectations of soaring power demand force operators to keep capacity online. The shift in coal retirement plans underscores a growing dilemma facing the Biden administration as the US race to lead in AI and manufacturing drives an unprecedented growth in power demand that clashes with its decarbonisation targets. The International Energy Agency estimates the AI application ChatGPT uses nearly 10 times as much electricity as Google search. An estimated 54GW of US coal assets, about 4 per cent of the country’s total electricity capacity, is expected to retire by the end of the decade, a 40 per cent downward revision from last year, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights, citing reliability concerns. “You can’t replace the fossil plants fast enough to meet the demand,” said Joe Craft, chief executive of Alliant Resource Partners, one of the largest US coal producers. “In order to be a first mover on AI, we’re going to need to embrace maintaining what we have.” Operators slowing down retirements include Alliant Energy, which last week delayed plans to convert its Wisconsin coal plant to gas from 2025 to 2028. Earlier this year, FirstEnergy announced it was scrapping its 2030 target to phase out coal, citing “resource adequacy concerns”. Grid Strategies, a consultancy, forecasts US electricity demand growth of 4.7 per cent over the next five years, nearly doubling its projection from a year earlier, citing new manufacturing and industrial capacity and data centres used to power everything from AI to cryptomining to the cloud. A study released on Wednesday by the Electric Power Research Institute found data centres will make up 9 per cent of US power demand by 2030, more than double current levels. The White House has set a target to reach a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035. Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency finalised controversial rules to phase out coal plants starting in 2032 unless they install expensive carbon capture systems. The EPA found in its analyses that the power sector can meet demand while reducing pollution and providing reliable, affordable electricity under these rules, said a spokesperson, adding the agency “believes the rules are on firm legal ground”. Indiana is leading a group of 25 states in a lawsuit to stop the EPA rules. “We need more energy, not less,” Indiana’s Republican governor, Eric Holcomb, told the Financial Times. “We absolutely as Americans can’t afford to lose the AI war.” US coal generation is in long-term decline, making up 16 per cent of the country’s electricity supply last year, down from nearly 40 per cent in 2014, according to the US Energy Information Administration. Seth Feaster, a data analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, cautioned against equating reports of retirement delays to higher generation. The EIA projects that US coal generation will fall another 4 per cent this year and utilisation rates at coal plants remain low. “Simply pushing back a retirement date does not mean that those plants will be used,” Feaster said. “The trajectory of coal hasn’t really moved.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted May 31 Share Posted May 31 (edited) While your post reflects a reality in the U.S. currently, it also highlights the fight to preserve profits for coal and oil. The U.S. is currently stepping on the gas and brake at the same time. The future is inevitable, they just have to get past those who are fighting the change so that they can catch up with the rest of the world. https://www.mcgrawcenter.org/stories/across-america-clean-energy-plants-are-being-banned-faster-than-theyre-being-built/ Across America, clean energy plants are being banned faster than they’re being built Across America’s power grid, there’s a growing gap between what we need and what we’ll allow. As the planet warms and climate disasters grow more costly, the U.S. has set a target to reach 100% clean energy by 2035, a goal that depends on building large-scale solar and wind power. A nationwide analysis by USA TODAY shows local governments are banning green energy faster than they’re building it. At least 15% of counties in the U.S. have effectively halted new utility-scale wind, solar, or both, USA TODAY found. These limits come through outright bans, moratoriums, construction impediments and other conditions that make green energy difficult to build. The impediments come as a gigantic effort to build green energy also is underway. U.S. energy from commercial wind and solar is expected to hit 19% by 2025, and those sources are expected to surpass the amount of electricity made from coal this year. But green energy must increase radically over the next 11 years to meet U.S. goals. And those projects are becoming harder to build. Why people want the bans The opposition to renewable energy isn’t as simple as left vs. right, and it isn’t always a matter of big business vs. small activists. There’s no one group fighting renewables – there are many, with a range of objections. Former President Donald Trump often denigrates wind and solar power in his speeches. In December in New Hampshire, he said, falsely, that wind farms only last 10 years, that they kill “all the birds,” that solar energy isn’t powerful enough to run factories and that wind is 42 times more expensive than natural gas. There are several national think tanks and groups, many that receive fossil fuel funding, that have been putting out arguments, often false, opposing wind and solar power for years. Misinformation is stopping renewable energy projects : NPR Edited May 31 by deicer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted June 1 Author Share Posted June 1 Is carbon pricing a politically feasible climate policy? Research says maybe not It was supposed to be the climate policy that would do the heavy lifting for Canada's greenhouse gas emissions targets and live on as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's legacy, both at home and abroad. Trudeau rises during question period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Wednesday, May 1, 2024. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick© The Canadian Press OTTAWA — It was supposed to do the heavy lifting for Canada's greenhouse gas emissions targets. And it was supposed to remain a major part of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's legacy, both at home and abroad — part of an urgent global push to fight climate change. But instead of fulfilling those Liberal hopes, carbon pricing has become a significant political liability. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre's crusade against the consumer carbon price and his promise to "axe the tax" should he win the next election has resonated with many Canadians amidst an affordability crisis. The Tory leader has blamed the climate policy for driving up the cost of food and fuel, while dismissing or ignoring its purported benefits, including consumer rebates. The government has struggled to respond to the Conservatives' attacks, despite the carbon price enjoying widespread support among economists. Did the Liberals drop the ball? Or was the policy always destined for failure? Research suggests the Liberals may be fighting a losing battle, and some experts are urging policymakers to look for alternative policies to lower emissions, warning the threat of climate change is too dire to delay action. "It's very hard to find places with high, economy-wide carbon prices that have not generated significant political backlash," said Matto Mildenberger, an assistant professor of political science at the University of California Santa Barbara. Related video: Europe is a climate leader. Why that could soon change (cbc.ca) So Susan, looks like a real shift in voters priorities Loaded: 3.84% Play Current Time 0:01 / Duration 7:48 Quality Settings Captions Fullscreen cbc.ca Europe is a climate leader. Why that could soon change Unmute 0 View on Watch "That leads political scientists like myself to have real reservations about how viable carbon pricing is as a short-term strategy to confront the climate crisis." Consumers pay the cost of carbon pricing upfront in a very visible way, Mildenberger said. Its benefits are only enjoyed in the long run. The federal government's Canada Carbon Rebate is designed to compensate voters for the financial burden. According to the parliamentary budget officer, eight out of 10 families receive more in rebates than they pay in carbon taxes. But Mildenberger's research suggests the rebate is not as effective in shoring up public support as Liberals would hope. One study analyzing public support for carbon pricing in Canada and Switzerland found people don't know about the rebates they're getting and tend to underestimate their value. Another looked at the effect of rebates on public support for a carbon tax in the U.S. and Switzerland and found there was ultimately little impact. "Our results indicate that, absent political messaging, rebates increase public support for carbon taxes in both countries by building support among lower income groups," the 2022 paper said. "However, policy is always politicized, and when respondents are exposed to political messages about carbon pricing the effects associated with rebates are dampened or eliminated." Mildenberger said it's safe to conclude rebates have not been shifting people's perceptions. "People's partisan, ideological preferences dominate their perceptions of carbon pricing, much more so than the objective costs or benefits that come from the policy." Proponents often blame the Liberal government for failing to effectively communicate the policy and the rebates to Canadians. Mildenberger agreed the Liberals did not do a good sales job. For example, they did not heed advocates' advice to send rebates out in cheques, he said — something that would have connected the money with the policy in a "tangible" way. But Katya Rhodes, an assistant professor of public administration at the University of Victoria, said blaming communication on its own is an oversimplification of the challenge. Rhodes said some of her studies show that the more information people are provided about complex climate policies, the more confused they get. "It's really hard to be a politician when you introduce a carbon tax. Is it the ideal approach? I wouldn't do it if I were a politician." Rhodes added that trust in government plays a significant role in the success or failure of the carbon tax, as seen in countries like Finland and Norway. Economists say carbon pricing is the cheapest and most effective way to address climate change. By putting a price on pollution, the government is not dictating how emissions should be lowered. Instead, it offers an incentive for polluters to invest in emissions-reducing technologies, they say. It also incentivizes consumers to opt for goods and services that emit less greenhouse gases. More than 300 economists signed an open letter in March supporting the consumer carbon price and trying to dispel misconceptions about the policy. "I think there are many Canadians who say they care about climate change .... but they somehow think that we can reduce emissions without changing behaviour," said Christopher Ragan, director of McGill University's Max Bell School of Public Policy and one of the organizers behind the letter. Mildenberger and Rhodes both said they recognize that the carbon tax is, theoretically speaking, the best choice for fighting climate change. But both are advocating for governments to find other ways to reduce emissions because of how politically challenging it is. Experts say carbon pricing that uses a cap-and-trade system like Quebec does might be more palatable because people don't see its direct cost. Such systems set an upper limit on the amount of greenhouse gases an organization can emit, but allow them to purchase unused credits from other groups or businesses that have not used their full allowance. However, that form of carbon pricing isn't politically foolproof, either. Ontario Premier Doug Ford killed plans for a cap-and-trade system in 2018, arguing the policy would hurt businesses and raise costs. Mildenberger is a proponent of U.S. President Joe Biden's approach, which relies heavily on government investments and subsidies in the green economy. He said that puts a focus on the economic benefits of fighting climate change "while sidestepping the politics of taxes." But while Canada has tried to keep up with the U.S. by rolling out a suite of investment tax credits, Rhodes said Canada cannot compete with the U.S.'s deep pockets. Instead, she said Canada could lower emissions via flexible regulations, such as clean fuel standards. In a statement, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault defended the carbon tax as the most "cost-effective and efficient" way to reduce emissions. He cited departmental work that suggests replacing the consumer and industrial carbon prices with subsidies would cost taxpayers billions more. "Pierre Poilievre has absolutely no plan to tackle climate change in Canada and would rather exploit people's real anxieties for his own political gain than admit that eight out of 10 Canadians get more back than they pay through the Canada Carbon Rebate," Guilbeault said. A change in approach would come as a political blow to a Liberal government that has tried to push Canada to the forefront of the global fight against climate change. In 2021, Canada launched an international challenge to encourage other countries to adopt a carbon price, with the goal of having 60 per cent of emissions worldwide covered by such a system. But as the Conservatives maintain a double-digit lead in public opinion polls, carbon pricing's future is in serious doubt. "Canadians feel the pain of Justin Trudeau's punishing carbon tax every day when they buy food, pump gas and heat their homes and don’t need the opinions of pointy-headed 'experts' and radical Liberal politicians to know they are far worse off," Sebastian Skamski, a spokesman for Poilievre, said in a statement. Conservatives would end carbon pricing, lower the cost of zero-emissions energy and approve green projects, Skamski said. Poilievre has said little else about what he would do, though he has promised to prioritize "technology, not taxes." "I think it's unfortunate that you're going to lose what is fundamentally a good policy," said Ragan. "My big fear, actually, is that they will put nothing in its place." This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 1, 2024. Nojoud Al Mallees, The Canadian Press 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted June 26 Author Share Posted June 26 Will this new move garner any Liberal support? So far the :liberals have told countries interested in our LNG to PISS OFF Haisla Nation signs off on multi-billion-dollar Cedar LNG plant for B.C. coast By Simon Little Global News Posted June 25, 2024 4:21 pm Updated June 25, 2024 4:31 pm 2 min read Another liquified natural gas export plant on British Columbia’s coast is poised to go ahead. On Tuesday, the Hasila Nation and its partner Pembina Pipeline Corporation announced a green light with their final investment decision in the Cedar LNG plant. The $US3.4 billion project will see the construction of a floating LNG facility in Haisla territory in Kitimat. The nation is a majority owner in the project with a 50.1 per cent stake. advisory committee “With Cedar LNG, we have proven that Indigenous communities can successfully forge a path to economic independence and generational prosperity,” Haisla Chief Councillor Crystal Smith said in a statement. “We have created a model for how sustainable energy development should be done, with Indigenous Nations as owners, balancing environmental interests with global demand for cleaner energy.” The daily email you need for Calgary's top news stories. The project has already secured all major regulator approvals and has signed an agreement with the Coastal GasLink Pipeline for the delivery of 400 million cubic feet of natural gas per day, once it is up and running. Cedar LNG estimates the project will be in service by late 2028. B.C. Energy Minister Josie Osborne hailed the investment decision. 10:28Divisions within the Indigenous community on natural resource development “Cedar LNG will be one of the largest First Nations majority-owned infrastructure projects in Canada,” Osborne said in a statement. “It will play a key role in the Haisla Nation’s path to economic independence over the next four decades, employing up to 500 people during construction and providing 100 good, secure jobs, once operational.” The Cedar LNG plant will be powered by hydroelectricity sourced from BC Hydro, which its proponents claim will make it among the lowest carbon-emitting LNG facilities in the world. Supporters of the liquified natural gas industry say LNG can help lower global greenhouse gas emissions by helping developing countries switch from burning coal. But environmentalists say the industry creates its own emissions through the liquefaction and transportation process and the drilling and flaring of natural gas. They also note that methane has a much more potent warming effect than carbon dioxide in the near term, and warn that the gas often leaks during shipping and production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted July 10 Author Share Posted July 10 HMMMMMM Canada insurers investing in fossil fuels as climate risks grow, shareholder group says Story by Reuters • 1h • 2 min read ers TORONTO (Reuters) -Canada's top property and casualty insurers have invested more than C$19.5 billion ($14.30 billion) in fossil fuels production at a time when climate change is driving up risks for the industry, according to a report by a shareholder advocacy group. Investors for Paris Compliance (I4PC) called for regulators to examine fossil-fuels investments by the insurers, saying they result in higher claims and premiums. Insurers typically invest premiums on behalf of other clients and have pumped money into miners and oil companies including Canadian miner Teck Resources and Imperial Oil, the report said. I4PC has previously urged securities regulators to investigate major Canadian banks for their climate-related claims and for alleged misleading disclosures about their investments. Extreme weather, including wildfires in Western Canada and floods on the East Coast, resulted in more than C$3 billion in property claims last year, the fourth-highest year for insured losses in Canadian history. According to I4PC's report, Intact Financial held C$1.48 billion in fossil-fuel investments last year, which dropped to C$742 million at the end of the first quarter. Asked about the finding, Intact said energy represented about 2% of its invested assets and it was committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. Quebec-based credit union and insurance seller Desjardins, which the report said owns C$298 million in fossil-fuel investments, said energy accounted for 0.6% of its loan book and that it would maintain relationships with companies that commit to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. Peer Definity Financial also holds fossil-fuel investments. TD Bank, a lender that also sells insurance, is the largest fossil-fuel financier at C$15.47 billion, while Fairfax has C$1.53 billion in investment and has underwritten C$809 million. TD said the report "contrasts the investment profile of TD Bank Group as a whole with those of insurance companies with more focused mandates, which affects the conclusions drawn." The cost of insurance has risen amid higher risk and inflation. Home and mortgage insurance rates in Canada have jumped by more than 73% over the past decade, according to I4PC. The Insurance Bureau of Canada said the transition to a low carbon economy must be undertaken in a measured way and the insurers were actively working with federal and provincial regulators. It noted the industry's steps to partner with the federal government to introduce a national flood insurance program next year that takes costs away from taxpayers and makes insurance more accessible. ($1 = 1.3634 Canadian dollars) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted August 13 Author Share Posted August 13 You had a lot of questions about next-generation nuclear reactors. We posed them to the experts Story by Jennifer Mcdermott • 4d • 5 min read The United States is speeding up efforts to license and build a new generation of nuclear reactors to supply carbon-free electricity. Faster development is one thing Congress and the administration agree on. President Joe Biden signed legislation in July to modernize the licensing of new reactor technologies so they can be built faster. Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate environment and House energy committees praised the enactment. The U.S. is pursuing small modular reactors and advanced reactors. Some designs use something other than water for cooling, such as liquid metal, helium or liquid salt. Developers say the advanced coolants allow the reactors to run at low pressure, making them safer than traditional designs. Russia and China are the only countries that are already operating advanced reactors. The United States is trying to boost the new technology; the Energy Department announced $900 million in funding in June. Bill Gates' company, TerraPower, is the first in the U.S. to apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a construction permit for an advanced reactor that would operate as a commercial nuclear power plant. Readers had questions for The Associated Press about evolving nuclear. They wonder how the next generation of reactors can be a climate solution, where the radioactive waste would go, and above all, whether these new reactor designs are safe. e BytesCould You Survive A Nuclear Blast? 7:30 The AP turned to White House National Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi and experts at the Energy Department and Nuclear Regulatory Commission to help answer those questions. Q: Elizabeth M. from Bisbee, Arizona said advanced nuclear seems like a compromise that, despite drawbacks, is the most practical and clean solution for America’s big energy appetite. We asked Zaidi for his take on how these new reactors can be a climate solution. Zaidi said the world has to feed future energy needs “in a way that doesn't add to the problem of climate change.” Nuclear energy is one tool that can do that, he said. “As we are finding ourselves in the middle of the climate crisis in the decisive decade for climate action, it’s incumbent on us to pull every tool off of the sidelines and help harness these technologies in the race for the future,” Zaidi said. Nuclear power plants don't emit the planet-warming greenhouse gases that come from power plants that burn fossil fuels. Q: At least one reader wondered about the timeline for these reactors to come online, lamenting how long it takes for older plants to get running. Zaidi said the U.S. is working hard to make it happen “in this decade.” And he said the goal is “a massive ramp-up and scale-up of this technology” over the next 10 to 15 years. The project furthest along, from Gates' TerraPower, applied for its construction permit in March. The company has said it wants to start operating commercially in Wyoming in 2030. The NRC has a 27-month goal for its technical review. If NRC approves the project along that timeline, TerraPower could be spinning up electricity in the early 2030s if it takes about three years to gets its plant built and obtain an operating license. But that's not certain. Other first-of-their-kind nuclear projects frequently faced delays and cost overruns. Q: Lots of readers — including Jim M. from Manheim, Pennsylvania — wanted to know what would happen to the radioactive waste from new reactors. The question stems from the United States' decades-long inability to find a place to store spent fuel from current and former nuclear plants nationwide. Right now, spent fuel is being stored at more than 70 sites in more than 30 states — enclosed in steel-lined concrete pools of water or in steel containers known as dry storage casks. Acting Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Michael Goff said spent fuel from the new reactors will be stored at the same sites where it’s used — the same situation the U.S. has today — until some federal storage facility is operational. Goff said spent fuel from any new plants must be “stored, transported and disposed of” to meet the same NRC requirements that govern waste from current plants. That basically means keeping it cooled and secured. The shape and composition of the fuel from some of the new reactors will be different, meaning it may require some technical changes to the way the fuel is packaged and contained, the Department of Energy said. Goff noted that nuclear fuel can be recycled to make new fuel and byproducts, saying that “more than 90%” of its potential energy remains even after the fuel has been used in a reactor for five years. The U.S. doesn't currently recycle any of its spent nuclear fuel, but Goff said other countries, including France, do. And he said some advanced U.S. reactor designs might “consume or run on spent nuclear fuel” someday. The French nuclear industry reprocesses spent fuel to recover uranium and plutonium for reuse, which reduces the volume of waste. Some radioactive materials, or byproducts, have commercial, medical and academic uses. The United States has studied the prospect of commercial reprocessing of spent fuel, but expected little interest from applicants for reprocessing facilities and currently does not encourage it. Q: Anne L. from East Bay, California wants to know if these reactors have the same problems and dangers as large plants. She wasn't the only reader to wonder about such risks as overloads or meltdowns. Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Scott Burnell said all U.S. nuclear plants have to meet NRC safety requirements, showing how they operate safely under ordinary conditions. “They must also show they can safely shut down, and then keep their fuel properly cooled, under normal conditions and in case of severe weather, earthquakes, problems with plant systems and other extreme events. Current reactors use pumps and backup power systems to stay safe; new designs can rely on natural processes such as gravity and convection to remain safe,” he said. Burnell said the latest designs are proposing nuclear fuels and cooling capabilities that reduce the already small possibility of fuel overheating or melting. The NRC will require even those designs to account for extreme events and keep their fuel cooled and safe, he said. ___ The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org. Jennifer Mcdermott, The Associated Press Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted August 14 Author Share Posted August 14 GUNTER: 'Green' energy transition proving to be costly disaster (msn.com) Green' energy transition proving to be costly disaster The past 14 days have been a tough fortnight for those who, like our federal Liberal government, have a cultish obsession with saving the planet through a transition to “green” energy. The news since the beginning of the month is that electric vehicle sales continue to soften, the cost of the global transition to alternate energy will be many trillions (yes, trillions) more than anyone has admitted and the measures implemented thus far, at great expense already, have had little impact on emissions or fossil fuel use, both of which are up in the past decade. At least in the western world, the “green” movement has basically been a parlour game by “progressive” elites funded at great cost by consumers and taxpayers (who are usually one and the same people.) Within the past two weeks, auto giant Ford has announced it’s converting a plant in Oakville from making EVs to producing oversized, internal-combustion pickup trucks because there is no market for the EVs and lots of demand for heavy duty trucks. Quebec’s Lion Electric, which hopes to produce all-electric highway transports and buses, announced it was laying off 300 workers on top of the 220 it had laid off in February and April. Its shares are now in penny stock territory. Chinese solar firm forced into bankruptcy as glut deepens EDITORIAL: PM’s climate plan costs $200 billion Umicore, an EV battery maker, suspended construction of its $2.8-billion plant in eastern Ontario despite $1 billion in subsidies from Ottawa and Queen’s Park. And Northvolt, which last year announced a possible delay in the construction of its $3-billion plant in Quebec, announced in the last month that it was conducting a “strategic review” of its entire EV operations. Now that wealthier consumers have purchased their EV toys and status symbols, middle-class buyers are not jumping into the pricier, less-reliable, inconvenient-to-charge EV market in the numbers government planners and environmentalists had predicted. At a speech in Ottawa this week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau insisted the $33 billion his government has spent on EV battery and car plants (along with $19 billion or $20 billion from Ontario and Quebec) was money well spent. It will ensure Canada is at the forefront of the coming EV boom. But what if the EV boom never materializes? Government planners are often lousy predictors of future trends and technologies. We could be pumping tens of billions — hundreds of billions — into alternate energies that never become more than peripheral players in Canada’s energy supply just to satisfy the eco-fantasies of the Trudeau Liberals and their pals in the environmental movement. RECOMMENDED VIDEO Then along came Janet Yellen, the U.S. treasury secretary. Speaking in Brazil, where she was sure to attract less media coverage, Yellen claimed the energy transition, which the Biden administration fully backs, will cost globally at least $4.1 trillion a year for the next 25 years. Cumulatively, that’s well over $100 trillion. That’s 3% of worldwide production of all goods and services every year just for the transition to alternate energy. It’s a staggering number and one that is unlikely to be reached. No wonder surveys by Natural Resources Canada unveiled this week show most Canadians are worried about the cost of the energy transition for their families and convinced government initiatives to encourage consumers to buy such things as EVs and solar panels “favour higher-income households,” which is largely true. Monica Gattinger, who directs the University of Ottawa’s Institute for Science, Society and Policy, told the National Post that the public is mostly accepting of the transition, but wants to know “who pays for what, when and how?” While the transition to “green” energy may be complicated and unattainable, the answer to that question is simple: You pay. Either as consumers or as taxpayers, and likely as both, it will be your family income that pays for the $100 trillion in eco-fantasies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 I believe articles like that are being used to scare away small retail investors. The big money wants it all to themselves. The smart money is investing... https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240814473793/en/TEP-Will-Build-New-Battery-System-to-Support-Reliability https://about.bnef.com/blog/global-energy-storage-market-records-biggest-jump-yet/ https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Battery-Storage-Is-the-No-1-Energy-Investment-Playground.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted August 16 Author Share Posted August 16 4 hours ago, deicer said: I believe articles like that are being used to scare away small retail investors. The big money wants it all to themselves. The smart money is investing... https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240814473793/en/TEP-Will-Build-New-Battery-System-to-Support-Reliability https://about.bnef.com/blog/global-energy-storage-market-records-biggest-jump-yet/ https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Battery-Storage-Is-the-No-1-Energy-Investment-Playground.html Smart money? $$$$$ amounts (cost and of course profit) along with completion dates for the planned planned projects, without that the smart money would seem to be the usual "pie in the sky" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 3 hours ago, Malcolm said: Smart money? $$$$$ amounts (cost and of course profit) along with completion dates for the planned planned projects, without that the smart money would seem to be the usual "pie in the sky" Yes, smart money. Investing in companies investing in renewables and storage has been profitable for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted August 16 Author Share Posted August 16 talking about smart..... Adebt-ridden council has accused a Dubai-based solar tycoon of blowing £150 million of its cash on his luxury lifestyle, including by purchasing his own yacht and private jet. A High Court lawsuit by Thurrock Council in Essex, which declared itself bankrupt in 2022, claims Liam Kavanagh spent £13.7 million on a new yacht, £9.1 million on a private jet and another £20 million on a 232-acre country estate in Hampshire. The council invested some £400 million in bonds for a green energy scheme involving solar farms run by Kavanagh and his company Rockfire Capital, and racked up debts totalling more than £1.4 billion. It initially invested £268m, and claims it then went on to invest more cash based on 'fraudulent misrepresentations' and that Kavanagh deliberately ensured 'completely unrealistic' electricity prices were used to increase the farms' value. A High Court judge first questioned the integrity of the scheme after it came to light that Kavanagh and his company had pocketed £5 million in 'commission'. A High Court lawsuit by Thurrock Council in Essex, which declared itself bankrupt in 2022, claims Liam Kavanagh spent £13.7 million on a new yacht, £9.1 million on a private jet and another £20 million on a 232-acre country estate in Hampshire Kavanagh owns a fleet of super-cars including a Bugatti Chiron (stock image) - although these are not cited in legal filings It is alleged Kavanagh spent almost £14 million of Thurrock Council's money on a Bombardier private jet (stock image) Now court papers have revealed how cash was splurged on the Bombardier jet and yacht, as well as a £3 million home in Mallorca. 1 / 12 Jack Fowler has revealed he was rushed to hospital following a terrifying allergic reaction on a recent flight to Duba. The former Love Island star took to Instagram as he slammed the airline following the incident which left him breathing through an oxygen mask.©Provided by Daily Mail But the most expensive purchase was the Hampshire country estate, which comes complete with a swimming pool, wine cellar, home cinema and steam and hot tub room. Kavanagh also owned several supercars including a Bugatti Chiron, but there is no suggestion these were bought with the council's money. Thurrock's involvement with Mr Kavanagh began in June 2016 when, alongside Warrington and Newham councils, it financed the purchase of a solar farm in Swindon through bonds marketed by his company Rockfire Capital. Over the next two years, Thurrock helped buy 53 sites across the UK, all of which are now owned by Mr Kavanagh. The investments were issued through a complex series of bonds, all due to mature in the next three to four years. In return, Thurrock would get interest payments worth millions of pounds. Days after concerns emerged about Thurrock's solar deals in 2020, a new company, Anyard Holdings, was registered in the Isle of Man. Kavanagh subsequently liquidated key companies that owed the council hundreds of millions and transferred the solar farms into the new offshore structure. Kavanagh (pictured) subsequently liquidated key companies that owed the council hundreds of millions and transferred the solar farms into the new offshore structure Thurrock's involvement with Mr Kavanagh began in June 2016 when, alongside Warrington and Newham councils, it financed the purchase of a solar farm in Swindon Thurrock Council, which was Conservative until the local elections in May, issued its claim against Kavanagh and Rockfire Capital in March, and is asking for financial compensation. Last month, a judge ruled Kavanagh could be served with legal papers through a legal firm in the UAE. Court papers were published this week after Kavanagh's lawyers acknowledged their receipt. Kavanagh denies the allegations, previously releasing a statement: 'The claim has not been validly served on Mr Kavanagh and he is confident that his application challenging the court's jurisdiction will succeed. 'Irrespective of the question of jurisdiction, Mr Kavanagh strenuously denies the allegations. If and when necessary to do so, and should the court permit the claim to proceed, Mr Kavanagh will be putting forward a full defence.' Cllr John Kent, Leader of Thurrock Council, said: 'We have an obligation to Thurrock residents to recover as much money as possible and we will pursue these claims as vigorously as possible. 'We have served the claim on Kavanagh in Dubai, where he now resides, and now we look forward to our day in court where he will face accusations that he deceived the council and misappropriated money to fund an extravagant lifestyle he could otherwise not afford. 'This action demonstrates how determined we are to maximise our recovery on these investments, establish how our investment money was taken, and make sure that those culpable face the consequences of their actions. Read more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted August 24 Author Share Posted August 24 Geothermal energy, using superheated steam from deep underground, could play a part in solving the global climate crisis. Technology got us into this global climate crisis, and it will be technology that gets us out of it. Specifically, technology that lets us continue living in a high-energy civilization without burning fossil fuels, and that keeps the heat from overwhelming us while we work toward that goal. Solar, wind and nuclear power are already good alternatives to fossil fuels, and now a promising new contender is emerging. Geothermal power was once limited to countries with hot volcanic rock near the surface (Italy, Iceland, New Zealand), but now startups are going deep and doing a different kind of fracking. At four kilometres down, there’s hot, dry rock (20 © 2024 Microsoft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted August 28 Author Share Posted August 28 It will be interesting to follow the progress which is some years in the future. Ontario will be soliciting bids for new energy projects with the goal of adding some 5,000 megawatts to the electricity grid to meet demand in the coming decades, new Energy Minister Stephen Lecce said Wednesday. Lecce says the government is "energy agnostic" and the new procurement will be a mix of natural gas, hydroelectric, renewables, nuclear and biomass. The minister said the procurement will be necessary for the future of the province. "We will need at least 60 per cent more energy by 2050. The province needs more energy to grow our economy," Lecce said at the announcement in King City, Ont. Lecce said Ontario needs more energy to keep up with population growth, and to power electrification of industry and the rise of artificial intelligence, which requires massive amounts of electricity. The province's electricity demand is expected to grow by about two per cent each year, but could be even higher depending on electrification within the broader economy. To put the 5,000 megawatt figure in perspective, the refurbished Pickering nuclear plant is expected to produce 2,000 megawatts — or roughly enough to power two million homes. How the procurement will happen is still to be determined. The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) — a Crown corporation responsible for operating Ontario's electricity market — will develop a framework for the process by Sept. 20, according to a news release. Under that framework, the procurements should conclude by Feb. 28, 2026. Related video: Ontario municipalities urge federal government to act on aging infrastructure (cbc.ca) Water levels are down, but questions are mounting over how Loaded: 12.96% Play Current Time 0:01 / Duration 2:01 Quality Settings Captions Fullscreen cbc.ca Ontario municipalities urge federal government to act on aging infrastructure Unmute 0 View on Watch The IESO has said the province will need at least 60 per cent more energy by 2050. Restrictions on farmland, more local consultation The province is making efforts to protect key agricultural areas throughout the process, the minister said. Ground-mounted solar panels will be prohibited on prime agricultural farmland, said Lecce, who pledged the province would "never misuse" those lands. "Our farmers need more energy more than ever," Lecce said. "They need access to to affordable energy and so we made a commitment to work with them on a policy that ultimately will respect prime agricultural land." Other energy products being considered on prime agricultural land will now require an impact assessment before proceeding. The province is also giving power to municipalities to decide if they want a particular energy project. Energy products being considered on prime agricultural land will now require an impact assessment before proceeding. (Patrick Morrell/CBC News)© Patrick Morrell/CBC News "Long gone are the days where Queen's Park imposes projects on unwilling communities, undermining those agricultural areas," Lecce said. The news is welcome to farmers, said Drew Spoelstra, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. "The new energy procurement framework is a major step forward for Ontario," he said. "Reliable and affordable energy is incredibly important to the growth of the Ontario economy, including food production, food processing and the agri-food sector." Farmers and Premier Doug Ford's government have had an up-and-down relationship in recent years in light of the Greenbelt scandal. The province had said they were going to build 50,000 homes on the protected Greenbelt, which includes prime agricultural land. But several investigations by provincial bodies found the process was flawed as it favoured some developers with ties to the government over others. Farmers did not like the possible encroachment onto farmland and joined the chorus to denounce the Greenbelt move. Last summer, amid mounting public pressure to reverse course, Ford walked back those Greenbelt plans. Province looking at variety of energy sources According to the release, the province will be looking at a variety of energy sources during procurement, including wind and solar. In 2019, Premier Doug Ford defended his party's decision to tear up hundreds of renewable energy deals, a move that his government has acknowledged cost taxpayers more than $230 million. "If we had the chance to get rid of all the wind mills, we would," Ford said at the time. But more recently, the Ford government has taken a U-turn on renewable energy, and is now poised to oversee the biggest expansion of green energy the province has seen in nearly a decade. Ontario has also recently been adding electricity storage projects, with an eye to about 2,500 megawatts, and the IESO said the province's emerging battery fleet will pair well with wind and solar, so that the power generated by those methods can be stored and injected into the grid when needed. In response to Wednesday's announcement, Mike Schreiner, leader of the Ontario Green Party, said in a statement that renewables are the cheaper and cleaner option for expanding energy production in Ontario. "While I'm glad to see that the Ford government has finally reversed its archaic, ideological anti-renewables stance, it has a lot further to go if it wants to undo the years of damage its fossil gas obsession has caused," he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted September 5 Author Share Posted September 5 Latest failure: Energy firm fails in its bid to generate power from the Bay of Fundy A large tidal power turbine built for Nova Scotia Power is shown in Dartmouth, N.S. on Wednesday, Sept. 23, 2009. The company Occurrent, which developed a separate test project, has recently become the latest in a series of failed efforts to harness the Bay of Fundy's tides. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Andrew Vaughan© The Canadian Press HALIFAX — Another energy company has failed in its bid to develop tidal power from the Bay of Fundy. The Nova Scotia government confirmed today that Occurrent, formerly BigMoon Power, is filing for insolvency because it can't pay its bills. Last year, Sustainable Marine Energy — based in the United Kingdom — also failed, with estimated losses of more than $30 million. Patricia Jreige, a spokeswoman for the province's Natural Resources Department, says Occurrent's collapse is "a concern for our tidal industry," but she says the province remains open to considering other tidal-power projects. Colin Sproul, president of the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association, says he wants to know when the anchors that were to be used for Occurrent's project — four submerged rail cars filled with concrete — will be removed from the floor of the bay. The province says it holds security for the cleanup of what it refers to as "temporary gravel pads" on underwater Crown lands in the bay's Minas Basin. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 5, 2024. The Canadian Press Related video: Massive 202 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted September 5 Author Share Posted September 5 The East Coast state where another wind farm project has come unstuck (msn.com) Visit The Independent A 3-year-old girl was found dead on a bloody mattress with bruises and a cigarette burn. Her grandmother was just charged with homicide Trump says he’d tap Elon Musk to run ‘government efficiency commission’ for ‘drastic’ spending cuts Support pours in for families of Georgia school victims with over $100K in donations in first hours More for You © 2024 Microsoft Privacy and CookiesTerms of UseAdvertise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airband Posted September 5 Share Posted September 5 On 8/16/2024 at 7:38 AM, deicer said: The smart money is investing... Must be the dumb money heading for the hills..in a hurry. More cleantech companies fail as fundraising challenges emerge Rising interest rates, competition for funding and delayed federal support contribute to issues facing sector SunPower solar panels: the company filed for bankruptcy this year Thu Sep 05, 2024 - Financial Times by Patrick Temple-West and Amelia Pollard in New York and George Hammond in San Francisco Quote “Cleantech companies have struggled to grow revenues at margins that would chart a path to profitability,” Cleantech businesses that raised hundreds of millions of dollars from SoftBank, Amazon and other big investors are closing, while other green companies — including some touted by the Biden administration — are struggling to survive. Start-up cleantech businesses that easily raised money from venture firms just two or three years ago are now finding it harder to get hold of fresh cash. Stung by high interest rates and some delays from federal tax credit support, cleantech businesses have found that winning investments from private equity and infrastructure funds has become more difficult. These challenges could dent the Biden administration’s goals for renewable energy growth and reducing carbon emissions. In August, Moxion Power, a battery start-up that raised funds from Amazon’s Climate Pledge Fund, filed for bankruptcy. So too did SunPower, a publicly traded US solar company controlled by oil major Total of France. Moxion and SunPower are among four big renewable energy companies that have filed for bankruptcy so far this year — the most since 2014 — according to Bloomberg data that includes companies with more than $50mn in liabilities. Ambri, a battery company that raised funds from a Bill Gates venture fund, also filed for bankruptcy, as did Enviva, a wood pellets provider. Also in August, Swell Energy, a solar energy and battery provider that raised $120mn in 2022 from SoftBank’s Vision Fund, Ares Management and others, said it was winding down operations in its current form. The California business, which has not filed for bankruptcy, had previously partnered with Ares to raise $450mn in project financing in 2020. Suleman Khan, Swell’s chief executive, said its fleet of solar and battery systems would remain operational and it would work with utilities and battery makers to make sure power plant operations continued. Referring to the “missing middle” in private fundraising — the failure to bring companies from their start-up phase to commercial viability at scale — Arash Nazhad, co-head of the cleantech group at Moelis, said the climatetech and energy transition sectors “are particularly affected because of the capital intensity required for impactful solutions”. “An increasing number of companies are at risk, particularly those spending more than they generate without a clear path to becoming cash flow positive,” he added. Earlier this summer, FreeWire Technologies, which makes charging stations for electric vehicles, cut jobs and entered an “assignment for the benefit of creditors”, or ABC, arrangement, a legal manoeuvre sometimes used as an alternative to bankruptcy proceedings. FreeWire raised $125mn from BlackRock and others in 2022. Riverstone Energy, a UK-based investment fund, said this month it had written down its stake in FreeWire to zero. Arcady Sosinov, FreeWire’s founder and chief executive, said the company was not going out of business. The company was sold earlier this year and then restructured some of its debt, he said in a statement. The Biden administration has in past years touted FreeWire as one of the US cleantech businesses helping to build out the country’s network of EV chargers. Last year, California governor Gavin Newsom visited a Moxion Power factory to highlight the company’s role in the state’s clean energy transition. Executives at Moxion Power did not immediately respond to requests for comment. SunPower, SoftBank and Ares declined to comment, and Amazon did not respond to a request for comment. Part of the challenge for cleantech companies is the number of rising sectors that are now competing for funding. “[Cleantech] companies have struggled to grow revenues at margins that would chart a path to profitability,” said Bilal Zuberi, a general partner at Lux Capital. “Venture capitalists have seen a larger-than-expected portion of their [cash] reserves called into other sectors like AI, life sciences and defence tech.” 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted September 6 Share Posted September 6 Part of the problem is that growth isn't even across the spectrum. That's changing though... https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=63025 In-brief analysis September 5, 2024 Batteries are a fast-growing secondary electricity source for the grid Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, early release 2023 Annual Electric Generator Report (for annual data 2010–23) and our July 2024 electric generator inventory (for July 2024 data) Note: Annual data are end-of-year operational nameplate capacities at installations with at least 1 megawatt of nameplate power capacity. Utility-scale battery energy storage systems have been growing quickly as a source of electric power capacity in the United States in recent years. In the first seven months of 2024, operators added 5 gigawatts (GW) of capacity to the U.S. electric power grid, according to data in our July 2024 electric generator inventory. In 2010, only 4 megawatts (MW) of utility-scale battery energy storage was added in the United States. In July 2024, more than 20.7 GW of battery energy storage capacity was available in the United States. Battery energy storage systems provide electricity to the power grid and offer a range of services to support electric power grids. Among these services are balancing supply and demand, moving electricity from periods of low prices to periods of high prices (a strategy known as arbitrage), and allowing electricity from renewable sources, such as wind and solar, to be stored until needed instead of curtailing those sources at times when they produce more electricity than is consumed. Energy storage systems are not primary electricity sources, meaning the technology does not create electricity from a fuel or natural resource. Instead, they store electricity that has already been created from an electricity generator or the electric power grid, which makes energy storage systems secondary sources of electricity. Energy storage systems use more electricity for charging than they provide when supplying electricity to the electricity grid. Secondary sources of electricity such as batteries are included in our Annual Electric Generator Report and in our preliminary monthly electric generator inventory data because they provide the capacity to meet load even though energy storage systems do not generate electricity directly. Most U.S. utility-scale battery energy storage systems use lithium-ion batteries. Our data collection defines small-scale batteries as having less than 1 MW of power capacity. Small-scale battery data are reported separately from utility-scale battery systems. Other types of energy storage systems include pumped-storage hydroelectricity, flywheels, and compressed air. More detailed information about how batteries and these other systems work is available on our Energy Explained page about energy storage for electricity generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now