SCRANTON, Pa. (AP) — Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro unveiled a plan Wednesday to fight climate change, saying he will back legislation to make power plant owners in the nation’s third-biggest energy-producing state pay for their greenhouse gas emissions and require utilities to buy more electricity from renewable sources.

Such legislation would make Pennsylvania the first major fossil fuel-producing state to adopt a carbon-pricing program. But it is drawing fierce opposition from business interests wary of paying more for power and will face long odds in a Legislature protective of the state’s natural gas industry.

Shapiro’s proposal comes as environmentalists are pressuring him to do more to fight climate change in the nation’s No. 2 gas-producing state and as the state’s highest court considers a challenge to his predecessor’s plan to adopt a carbon-pricing program. It also comes after many of the state’s biggest power polluters, coal-fired plants, have shut down or converted to gas.

At a news conference in Scranton, nicknamed the “Electric City,” Shapiro said his plan will make Pennsylvania competitive in a clean energy economy, improve electricity reliability, cut greenhouse gas emissions and lower electricity bills.

It is long past time for lawmakers to act, he said.

“If they choose to do nothing, they’re choosing to be less competitive in an environment that demands us to bring excellence to the table every single day,” Shapiro said. “They’re choosing to fall behind if they choose to do nothing.”

Under Shapiro’s plan, Pennsylvania would create its own standalone carbon-pricing program, with most of the money paid by polluting power plants — 70% — going to lower consumer electric bills. No one will pay more for electricity and many will pay less, Shapiro said.

Meanwhile, utilities would be required to buy 50% of their electricity from sources that are mostly carbon-free by 2035, up from the state’s current requirement of 18%.

Currently, about 60% of the state’s electricity comes from natural gas-fired power plants, and the 50% renewables requirement could hurt demand for electricity from those plants. Another third of Pennsylvania’s electricity is from nuclear plants — which are not included in the 50% renewables requirement — and the rest from coal and renewables.

Republicans who control the state Senate have pushed to open greater opportunities for natural gas production in Pennsylvania, and have warned that carbon-pricing could raise electricity bills, fray the electricity grid, hurt in-state energy producers and drive new power generation to other states.

“Families are feeling the strain of inflation and increased household expenses, which must be a chief concern when implementing any changes to energy policy,” Senate Majority Leader Joe Pittman, R-Indiana, said in a statement Wednesday.

Shapiro’s administration did not provide many details of his strategy Wednesday, including how much it would reduce greenhouse gases, how much money power plants would pay or how it would affect the average household electric bill.

Patrick Cicero, Pennsylvania’s consumer advocate, said the amount of savings on electric bills will depend on usage — large industrial customers would see more and low-income households would get “significant reductions” because of a planned expansion of the state’s energy-assistance program.

For the average household, “it’s not going to be much,” Cicero said, “but it’s not costing households more. That’s a win-win.”

Neighboring Maryland, New Jersey and New York have set requirements to draw 50% or more of their electricity from renewables by 2030, prompting warnings that Pennsylvania risks falling behind in a clean energy economy.

Robert Bair, president of the Pennsylvania State Building and Construction Trades, whose members work on power plants, refineries and pipelines, said Pennsylvania energy policy must protect workers in the coal and gas industries. But he also said Pennsylvania will lose clean energy jobs to other states if it does nothing.

Heavy energy users and coal-industry businesses slammed Shapiro’s “energy tax” as posing a damaging blow to industries and a fatal blow to the state’s few remaining coal-fired power plants.

The Marcellus Shale Coalition, which represents Pennsylvania’s enormous natural gas industry, was more circumspect. The most pressing challenge is ensuring the electric grid is stable and reliable, said Dave Callahan, the group’s president.

Despite the lack of details, Shapiro’s plan drew statements of support from renewable energy trade associations and environmental advocates.

“Even what the governor has proposed is not enough to meet the needs of addressing the climate crisis, but it’s a huge step forward from where Pennsylvania is now,” said Alex Bomstein, executive director of the Clean Air Council.

Meanwhile, environmental advocates worry about abandoning the plan produced by Shapiro’s predecessor, former Gov. Tom Wolf.

For the time being, a state court has blocked Wolf’s regulation that authorizes Pennsylvania to join the multistate Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which imposes a price and declining cap on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

As a candidate for governor, Shapiro had distanced himself from Wolf’s plan — although critics said Shapiro’s plan is similar — and Shapiro wouldn’t say Wednesday whether he’d enforce Pennsylvania’s participation in the regional consortium should the courts uphold it and the Legislature do nothing.

“I’m focused on getting these things passed,” Shapiro said.

TOKYO (AP) — Japan on Monday marked 13 years since a massive earthquake and tsunami hit the country’s northern coasts. Nearly 20,000 people died, whole towns were wiped out and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was destroyed, creating deep fears of radiation that linger today. As the nation observes the anniversary, the AP explains what is happening now at the plant and in neighboring areas.

A magnitude 9.0 earthquake struck on March 11, 2011, causing a tsunami that battered northern coastal towns in Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima prefectures. The tsunami, which topped 15 meters (50 feet) in some areas, slammed into the nuclear plant, destroying its power supply and fuel cooling systems, and causing meltdowns at reactors No. 1, 2 and 3.

Hydrogen explosions caused massive radiation leaks and contamination in the area.

The operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, says that the tsunami couldn’t have been anticipated. Government and independent investigations and some court decisions have said the accident was the result of human error, safety negligence, lax oversight by regulators and collusion.

Japan has since introduced stricter safety standards and at one point shifted to a nuclear energy phaseout. Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s government reversed that policy and has accelerated restarts of workable reactors to maintain nuclear power as a main source of Japan’s power supply.

A deadly Jan. 1 earthquake in Japan’s northcentral region destroyed many homes and roads but didn’t damage an idled nuclear power plant. Even so, it caused worry that current evacuation plans that solely focus on radiation leaks could be unworkable.

The nation marked a moment of silence at 2:46 p.m. Monday, with Kishida attending a memorial in Fukushima.

WHAT HAPPENED TO PEOPLE IN THE AREA?

About 20,000 of more than 160,000 evacuated residents across Fukushima still haven’t returned home.
Decontamination work before the Tokyo Olympics meant to showcase Fukushima’s recovery led to the elimination of some no-go zones, but they remain in seven of 12 towns that had been fully or partially off-limits.

In Futaba, the hardest-hit town and a co-host of the Fukushima Daiichi plant, a small area was opened in 2022. About 100 people, or 1.5% percent of the pre-disaster population, have returned to live. The other host town, Okuma, which along with Futaba sacrificed part of its land to build an interim storage site for nuclear waste gathered from the decontamination, has seen 6% of its former residents return.

Annual surveys show the majority of evacuees have no intention of returning home, citing lack of jobs, schools and lost communities, as well as radiation concerns.

Residents who have raised radiation worries or linked it to their health problems have come under attack for hurting Fukushima’s reputation.

The disaster-hit towns, including those in Iwate and Miyagi prefectures, have seen sharp population drops.

Fukushima Gov. Masao Uchibori said on NHK TV that a growing number of young people want to move to Fukushima to open businesses or help in the reconstruction, and he expressed hope that more residents will return.

WHAT ABOUT TREATED RADIOACTIVE WATER DISCHARGES?

Last August, Fukushima Daiichi began discharging treated water into the sea, and is currently releasing a fourth 7,800-ton batch of treated water. So far, daily seawater sampling results have met safety standards. The plan has faced protests from local fishers and neighboring countries, especially China, which has banned Japanese seafood imports

Fukushima Daiichi has struggled to handle the contaminated water since the 2011 meltdowns. TEPCO says the start of the process is a milestone and removing the tanks is crucial to make space for facilities needed as decommissioning progresses.

The contaminated cooling water is pumped up, treated and stored in about 1,000 tanks. The government and TEPCO say the water is diluted with massive seawater before release, making it safer than international standards.

WHAT ABOUT LOCAL FISHING?

Despite earlier fears that the water discharge would further hurt Fukushima’s hard-hit fishing industry, they have not damaged its reputation domestically. China’s ban on Japanese seafood, which mostly hit scallop exporters in Hokkaido, apparently prompted Japanese consumers to eat more Fukushima seafood.

Sampling and monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency have also boosted confidence in local fish.

Fukushima fishing returned to normal operations in 2021, and the local catch is now about one-fifth of its pre-disaster level because of a decline in the fishing population and smaller catch sizes.

The government has earmarked 10 billion yen ($680 million) to support Fukushima fisheries.

ANY PROGRESS REMOVING MELTED FUEL?

The contents of the three reactors is still largely a mystery. Little is known, for instance, about the melted fuel’s condition or exactly where it’s located in the reactors. Not even a spoonful of the fuel has been removed.

About 880 tons of melted nuclear fuel remain inside the three damaged reactors, and Japanese officials say removing it would take 30-40 years. Experts call that timeline overly optimistic. The amount of melted fuel is 10 times that removed from Three Mile Island following its 1979 partial core melt.

Robotic probes have glimpsed inside the three reactors, but their investigation has been hampered by technical glitches, high radiation and other complications.

It’s crucial for officials to understand the data from melted debris so they can make a plan to remove it safely. TEPCO aims to get the first sample out later this year from the least-damaged No. 2 reactor.

TEPCO has been trying to get the sample by using a robotic arm. Officials have struggled to get the robot past the wreckage, and hope that by October they can use a simpler device that looks like a fishing rod.

The fuel in the worst-damaged No. 1 reactor mostly fell from the core to the bottom of its primary containment vessel. Some of it penetrated and mixed with the concrete foundation, making removal extremely difficult.

In February, the plant made its first drone flight into the primary containment vessel to investigate the melted debris and examine how the fuel initially fell from the core. But a second day of exploration was canceled because a data transmission robot failed.

IS A 2051 COMPLETION POSSIBLE?

The government has stuck to its initial target for a completed decommissioning by 2051, but it hasn’t defined what that means.

The lack of data, technology and plans on what to do with the radioactive melted fuel and other nuclear waste makes it difficult to understand what’s in store for the plant and surrounding areas when the cleanup ends, according to TEPCO’s decommissioning company chief, Akira Ono.

An overly ambitious schedule could result in unnecessary radiation exposure for plant workers and excess environmental damage, experts say.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A new Biden administration rule that sets tougher standards for deadly soot pollution faced a barrage of legal challenges March 6, as 25 Republican-led states and a host of business groups filed lawsuits seeking to block the rule in court.

Twenty-four states, led by attorneys general from Kentucky and West Virginia, filed a joint challenge stating that new Environmental Protection Agency rule would raise costs for manufacturers, utilities and families and could block new manufacturing plants and infrastructure such as roads and bridges. Texas filed a separate suit, as did business groups led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers.

“The EPA’s new rule has more to do with advancing President (Joe) Biden’s radical green agenda than protecting Kentuckians’ health or the environment, said Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman, who is leading the joint lawsuit along with West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey.

The EPA rule “will drive jobs and investment out of Kentucky and overseas, leaving employers and hardworking families to pay the price,” Coleman said.

The soot rule is one of several EPA dictates under attack from industry groups and Republican-led states. The Supreme Court heard arguments last month on a GOP challenge to the agency’s “good neighbor rule,” which restricts smokestack emissions from power plants and other industrial sources that burden downwind areas.

Three energy-producing states — Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia — challenged the rule, along with the steel industry and other groups, calling it costly and ineffective. The rule is on hold in a dozen states because of the court challenges.

In opposing the soot rule, Republicans and industry groups say the United States already has some of the strictest air quality standards in the world — tougher than the European Union or major polluters such as China and India.

Tightening U.S. standards “wouldn’t improve public health, but it would put as many as 30% of all U.S. counties out of compliance under federal law, leading to aggressive new permitting requirements that could effectively block new economic activity,” Coleman said.

The EPA rule sets maximum levels of fine particle pollution — more commonly known as soot — at 9 micrograms per cubic meter of air, down from 12 micrograms established a decade ago under the Obama administration.

Environmental and public health groups hailed the rule as a major step to improve the health of Americans, including future generations. EPA scientists have estimated exposure at previous limits contributed to thousands of early deaths from heart disease and lung cancer, along with other health problems.

EPA Administrator Michael Regan said the new soot rule, finalized last month, would create $46 billion in net health benefits by 2032, including prevention of up to 800,000 asthma attacks and 4,500 premature deaths. The rule will especially benefit children, older adults and those with heart and lung conditions, Regan said, as well as people in low-income and minority communities adversely affected by decades of industrial pollution.

“We do not have to sacrifice people to have a prosperous and booming economy,” Regan said.
Biden is seeking reelection, and some fellow Democrats have warned that a tough new soot standard could harm his chances in key industrial states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

The EPA and White House officials brushed aside those concerns, saying the industry has developed technical improvements to meet previous soot standards and can adapt to meet the new ones. Soot pollution has declined by 42% since 2000, even as the U.S. gross domestic product has increased by 52%, Regan said.

The new rule does not impose pollution controls on specific industries. Instead, it lowers the annual standard for fine particulate matter for overall air quality. The EPA will use air sampling to identify counties and other areas that do not meet the new standard. States would then have 18 months to develop compliance plans for those areas. States that do not meet the new standard by 2032 could face penalties, although EPA said it expects that 99% of U.S. counties will be able to meet the revised annual standard by 2032.

Industry groups and Republican officials dispute that and say a lower soot limit could put hundreds of U.S. counties out of compliance.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned the White House in January that 43% of total particulate emissions come from wildfires, and called the pollution standard “the wrong tool to address this problem.”

The EPA said it will work with states, counties and tribes to account for and respond to wildfires, an increasing source of soot pollution, especially in the West, where climate change has led to longer wildfire seasons, with more frequent and intense fires. The agency allows states and air agencies to request exemptions from air-quality standards due to “exceptional events,” including wildfires and prescribed fires.

Besides Kentucky, West Virginia and Texas, other states challenging the EPA rule include: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming.

All three cases were filed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

TOKYO (AP) — Japanese authorities said they were forced to abandon plans Feb. 29 to send in drones for a second day to probe one of the damaged reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant because of equipment failure.

Two drones successfully flew inside the reactor for the first time on Feb. 28, to examine some of the molten fuel debris and other damages in areas where earlier robots failed to reach. But the latest development delayed the probe further and underscored the difficulty of the task.

The government and TEPCO plan to remove the massive amount of fatally radioactive melted nuclear fuel that remains inside each reactor since a magnitude 9.0 quake and tsunami in March 2011 destroyed the plant’s power supply and cooling systems, causing a triple meltdown.

The daunting decommissioning process has already been delayed for years and mired by technical hurdles and a lack of data.

TEPCO had prepared since July to fly a fleet of four drones, one at a time, inside the hardest-hit No. 1 reactor’s primary containment vessel, in which most of the fuel in the core melted and fell to the concrete bottom, experts say.

The first two drones Feb. 28 captured images showing enough space for the other two to reach the particular area that TEPCO’s experts wanted to examine.

Thursday’s flights were canceled after a snake-shaped crawling robot, designed to transmit data from a drone’s high-definition camera to the control room, stalled before reaching a targeted position, said TEPCO spokesperson Kenichi Takahara.

The cause of its failuire is under investigation, Takahara said without elaborating or saying when the next drone flight might take place.

Fukushima Daiichi decommissioning chief Akira Ono was cautiously optimistic.

“We should not force it because it could cause bigger trouble for our future work,” he said “We just want to be careful.”

On Feb. 28, the first of what was supposed to be a two-day project, the two drones inspected the area around the exterior of the main structural support in the vessel, called the pedestal. It is located directly under the reactor’s core. Officials hoped to film the core’s bottom to find out how overheated fuel dripped there in 2011.

TEPCO officials said they plan to use the new data to develop technology for future probes as well as a process to remove the melted fuel from the reactor.

About 880 tons of highly radioactive melted nuclear fuel remain inside the three damaged reactors. Critics say the 30- to 40-year cleanup target set by the government and TEPCO is overly optimistic. The damage in each reactor is different, and plans need to accommodate their conditions.

TEPCO has sent a number of probes — including a crawling robot and an underwater vehicle — inside each reactor but was hindered by debris, high radiation and the inability to navigate through the rubble, though they were able to gather some data. In 2015, the first robot to go inside got stuck on a grate.

TOKYO (AP) — A drone small enough to fit in one’s hand flew inside one of the damaged reactors at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant Feb. 28 in hopes it can examine some of the molten fuel debris in areas where earlier robots failed to reach.

Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings also began releasing the fourth batch of the plant’s treated and diluted radioactive wastewater into the sea. The government and TEPCO, the plant’s operator, say the water is safe and the process is being monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency, but the discharges have faced strong opposition by fishing groups and a Chinese ban on Japanese seafood.

A magnitude 9.0 quake and tsunami in March 2011 destroyed the plant’s power supply and cooling systems, causing three reactors to melt down. The government and TEPCO plan to remove the massive amount of fatally radioactive melted nuclear fuel that remains inside each reactor — a daunting decommissioning process that’s been delayed for years and mired by technical hurdles and a lack of data.

To help on data, a fleet of four drones were set to fly one at a time into the hardest-hit No. 1 reactor’s primary containment vessel. TEPCO plans to probe a new area on Feb. 29.

TEPCO has sent a number of probes — including a crawling robot and an underwater vehicle — inside each reactor but was hindered by debris, high radiation and the inability to navigate through the rubble, though they were able to gather some data. In 2015, the first robot to go inside got stuck on a grate.

The drone flight comes after months of preparations that began in July 2023 at a nearby mock facility.

The drones, each weighing 185 grams (6.5 ounces), are highly maneuverable and their blades hardly stir up dust, making them a popular model for factory safety checks. Each carries a front-loaded high-definition camera to send live video and higher-quality images to an operating room.

In part due to battery life, the drone investigation inside a reactor is limited to a 5-minute flight.
TEPCO officials said they plan to use the new data to develop technology for future probes as well as a process to remove the melted fuel from the reactor. The data will also be used in the investigation of how the 2011 meltdown occurred.

On Feb. 28, two drones inspected the area around the exterior of the main structural support in the vessel, called the pedestal. Based on the images they transmitted, TEPCO officials decided to send the other two in Thursday

The pedestal is directly under the reactor’s core. Officials hope to film the core’s bottom to find out how overheated fuel dripped there in 2011.

About 880 tons of highly radioactive melted nuclear fuel remain inside the three damaged reactors. Critics say the 30- to 40-year cleanup target set by the government and TEPCO is overly optimistic. The damage in each reactor is different, and plans need to accommodate their conditions.

TEPCO’s goal is to remove a small amount of melted debris from the least-damaged No. 2 reactor as a test case by the end of March by using a giant robotic arm. It was forced to delay due to difficulty removing a deposit blocking its entry.

As in the past three rounds of wastewater discharges which started in August, TEPCO plans to release 7,800 metric tons of the treated water through mid-March after diluting it with massive amounts of seawater and sampling it to make sure radioactivity is far below international standards.

China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning on Wednesday accused Japan of risking the whole world with “nuclear-contaminated water” and demanded it stop “this wrongdoing.” Mao urged Japan to cooperate in an independent monitoring system with neighboring countries and other stakeholders.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed skeptical Wednesday as the Environmental Protection Agency sought to continue enforcing an anti-air pollution rule in 11 states while separate legal challenges proceed around the country.

The EPA’s “good neighbor” rule is intended to restrict smokestack emissions from power plants and other industrial sources that burden downwind areas with smog-causing pollution.

Three energy-producing states — Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia — challenged the rule, along with the steel industry and other groups, calling it costly and ineffective. The rule is on hold in a dozen states because of the court challenges.

The Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has increasingly reined in the powers of federal agencies, including the EPA, in recent years. The justices have restricted EPA’s authority to fight air and water pollution — including a landmark 2022 ruling that limited EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants that contribute to global warming. The court also shot down a vaccine mandate and blocked President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program.

The court is currently weighing whether to overturn its 40-year-old Chevron decision, which has been the basis for upholding a wide range of regulations on public health, workplace safety and consumer protections.

A lawyer for the EPA said the “good neighbor” rule was important to protect downwind states that receive unwanted air pollution from other states. Besides the potential health impacts, the states face their own federal deadlines to ensure clean air, said Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, representing the EPA.

States such as Wisconsin, New York and Connecticut can struggle to meet federal standards and reduce harmful levels of ozone because of pollution from power plants, cement kilns and natural gas pipelines that drift across their borders.

Judith Vale, New York’s deputy solicitor general, said as much as 65% of some states’ smog pollution comes from out of state.

The EPA plan was intended to provide a national solution to the problem of ozone pollution, but challengers said it relied on the assumption that all 23 states targeted by the rule would participate.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed sympathetic to that argument, saying the EPA plan could impose unreasonable costs on states that remain under its authority, because it was initially designed for 23 states.

“EPA came back and said, ‘Even if we have fewer states, we’re going to plow ahead anyway,”’ Kavanaugh said. “Let’s just kind of pretend nothing happened and just go ahead with the 11 states.”

The EPA proceeded “without a whole lot of explanation, and nobody got a chance to comment on that” as part of the rule-making process, added Justice Neil Gorsuch.

“What (states) are asking for is simply an opportunity to make the argument before the agency,” said Chief Justice John Roberts.

Stewart responded that requirements for states to control air pollution don’t change based on the number of states subject to the rule. “The requirements are exactly the same,” he said.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned why the Supreme Court was hearing the case before the other legal challenges were completed. A lawyer for industry groups challenging the rule said it imposes significant and immediate costs that could affect the reliability of the electric grid.

“There are hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, in costs over the next 12 to 18 months,” with only a small reduction in air pollution and no guarantee the final rule will be upheld, said industry lawyer Catherine Stetson. “There are over-control issues here,” she said.

The EPA has said power-plant emissions dropped by 18% in 2023 in the 10 states where it has been allowed to enforce its rule, which was finalized last March. Those states are Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. In California, limits on emissions from industrial sources other than power plants are supposed to take effect in 2026.

The rule is on hold in another dozen states because of separate legal challenges. The states are Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.

States that contribute to ground-level ozone, or smog, are required to submit plans ensuring that coal-fired power plants and other industrial sites don’t add significantly to air pollution in other states. In cases where a state has not submitted a “good neighbor” plan — or where EPA disapproves a state plan — the federal plan was supposed to ensure that downwind states are protected.

Ground-level ozone, which forms when industrial pollutants chemically react in the presence of sunlight, can cause respiratory problems, including asthma and chronic bronchitis. People with compromised immune systems, the elderly and children playing outdoors are particularly vulnerable.

Environmental and public health advocates have praised the EPA plan as a life-saving measure for people who live hundreds of miles away from power plants, cement factories, steel mills and other industrial polluters.

Industry groups criticize it as having an anti-coal bias that would drive up the cost of electricity.

The California Public Utilities Commission agreed to extend the shutdown date for the state’s last functioning nuclear power facility through 2030 instead of closing it in 2025 as previously agreed. Separately, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission will consider whether to extend the plant’s operating licenses.

The twin reactors, located midway between Los Angeles and San Francisco, began operating in the mid-1980s. They supply up to 9% of the state’s electricity on any given day.

The Public Utilities Commission’s decision marks the latest development in a long fight over the operation and safety of the plant, which sits on a bluff above the Pacific Ocean.

In August, a state judge rejected a lawsuit filed by Friends of the Earth that sought to block Pacific Gas & Electric, which operates the plant, from seeking to extend its operating life

And in October, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission rejected a request from environmental groups to immediately shut down one of two reactors.

PG&E agreed in 2016 to shutter the plant by 2025, but at the direction of the state changed course and now intends to seek a longer operating run for the plant, which doesn’t produce greenhouse gases that can contribute to climate change.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who once was a leading voice to close the plant, said last year that Diablo Canyon’s power is needed beyond 2025 to ward off possible blackouts as California transitions to solar and other renewable energy sources.

Activists condemned the extension and noted that the projected costs of continuing to run the aging plant are expected to top $6 billion.

“This ill-conceived decision will further escalate financial strain on California ratepayers and extend the threat of a catastrophe at Diablo Canyon,” said Ken Cook, president of the nonprofit Environmental Working Group.

“With California’s annual renewable energy additions exceeding Diablo Canyon’s output, there is zero reason to keep it running,” he added in a statement.

The United States will work with other governments to speed up efforts to make nuclear fusion a new source of carbon-free energy, U.S. Climate Envoy John Kerry said Dec. 5, the latest of many U.S. announcements in the last week aimed at combatting climate change.

Nuclear fusion melds two hydrogen atoms together to produce a helium atom and a lot of energy—which could be used to power cars, heat and cool homes and other things that currently are often powered by fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas. That makes fusion a potentially major solution to climate change, which is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Still, fusion is a long way off, while other clean technologies like wind, solar and others are currently in use and could be increased.

“We are edging ever-closer to a fusion-powered reality. And at the same time, yes, significant scientific and engineering challenges exist,” Kerry said, in Dubai for U.N. climate talks. “Careful thought and thoughtful policy is going to be critical to navigate this.”

Researchers have been trying for decades to harness the reaction that powers the sun and other stars —an elusive goal because it requires such high temperatures and pressures that it easily fizzles out.

Kerry wants to speed that up in hopes of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times, a benchmark set by the international community. He urged nations to come together to “harness the power of fundamental physics and human ingenuity in response to a crisis.” The strategy lays out five areas for international partnerships: research, the supply chain and future marketplace, regulation, workforce issues and public engagement. Kerry spoke at the Atlantic Council Global Energy Forum.

The United States and United Kingdom announced a partnership in November to accelerate global fusion energy development, and the United States announced its own vision last year for research needed over the decade. In southern France, 35 nations are collaborating on an experimental machine to harness fusion energy, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, to prove the feasibility of fusion as a large-scale, carbon-free source of energy. That project has been plagued by delays and cost overruns. On Friday, Japan and Europe said they were launching the world’s largest fusion reactor.

Both China and Russia are partners in ITER, and China in particular is moving aggressively to promote fusion research and development, said Andrew Holland, chief executive officer of the Fusion Industry Association.

“We’re trying to build a global posse to get there before the Chinese so the Chinese don’t dominate another new technology,” he said.

Before he left for Dubai, Kerry put on a hardhat and toured Commonwealth Fusion Systems in Devens, Massachusetts, a company racing to design, build and deploy fusion power plants.

Until now, all nuclear power has come from nuclear fission reactors in which atoms are split — a process that produces both energy and radioactive waste. The global nuclear industry launched an initiative at COP28 for nations to pledge to triple this kind of nuclear energy by 2050. More than 20 have already signed on, including the United States and the host of this year’s talks, the United Arab Emirates.

Fusion doesn’t produce the radioactive waste of nuclear fission. In a global race to make it a practical and possibly limitless power source, more than $6 billion has been invested to date, according to the Fusion Industry Association. There are more than 40 fusion companies globally now with over 80% of the investment in the United States. Thirteen of the companies emerged in just the past year and a half.

Commonwealth Fusion Systems has raised the most, more than $2 billion, according to the association.
Like the 35-nation effort, Commonwealth is trying to create fusion inside what’s called a tokamak. The doughnut-shaped machine uses powerful magnets to confine and insulate a plasma so it’s hot enough for the fusion reaction to occur and stays hot longer.

A year ago, in a major breakthrough that used a different technology at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, scientists for the first time were able to engineer a reaction that produced more power than was used to ignite it, called net energy gain. Their process uses lasers.

Physicists around the world view the doughnut-shaped machines as the most promising kind of magnetic fusion device.

Tokamaks have been getting bigger in size for better performance. Commonwealth Fusion was founded in 2018 by researchers and students from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Plasma Science and Fusion Center. Using breakthroughs in superconducting magnet technology combined with science from their own compact tokamak, the MIT group set out to build a magnet tolerant of high temperatures that could achieve really strong magnetic fields, using little electricity.

Their hope is to build a smaller, less expensive unit more rapidly, to make fusion commercially viable for the first time, said Professor Dennis Whyte, a co-founder of Commonwealth who leads the Plasma Science and Fusion Center.

“If fusion becomes economically competitive, we’ve solved energy for humanity forever, forever. It’s like, of course you go after that,” he said in an interview. “The compulsion that’s coming both from climate change and from energy security means it sure seems this is the right time to make the big push to get there.”

The company and the university collaborate closely. In 2021, they turned on their superconducting electromagnet and demonstrated a record-breaking magnetic field, making it the strongest fusion magnet of its kind. Whyte said he knew then fusion had changed forever.

But despite the hype, reliable and cheap nuclear fusion energy is still a pipe dream, said Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington. Fusion is far less likely than other alternatives to be commercialized on a timeframe that would allow it to help prevent the worst effects of climate change, he said. Lyman said the enormous price tag could also rob more promising alternatives, such as renewable energy, of resources they need to thrive,

Yet 19 fusion companies think they will deliver power to the grid before 2035, the Fusion Industry Association said in July.

Commonwealth is designing its first power plant, which it’s calling “ARC,” to connect to the grid in the early 2030s.

ARC is intended to make roughly 460 megawatts of electricity. About 60 of those would be used to run the plant, for a net output of about 400 megawatts, enough to power tens of thousands of homes. It’s projected to cost roughly $1 billion to $2 billion, according to the company, and fit on a space the size of a basketball court.

Before that, Commonwealth says it will build and test a prototype tokamak it calls SPARC, hoping to turn that on in late 2025 or early 2026.

CEO Bob Mumgaard said he thinks clean energy from fusion can decarbonize heavy industries that are big emitters of greenhouse gases.

“That’s our future play, it’s the really hard stuff, the stuff that gets you to zero,” he said in an interview.

Along the walls at Commonwealth runs a pattern of white dots at hip level, one for each of the 10,000 fusion power plants they think the world will need by 2050. Mumgaard said it’s a daily reminder the world uses a lot of energy, most of it from fossil fuels, and that has to change.

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The United States committed Dec. 2 to the idea of phasing out coal power plants, joining 56 other nations in kicking the coal habit that’s a huge factor in global warming.

U.S. Special Envoy John Kerry announced that America was joining the Powering Past Coal Alliance, which means the Biden Administration commits to building no new coal plants and phasing out existing plants.

No date was given for when the existing plants would have to go, but other Biden regulatory actions and international commitments already in the works had meant no coal by 2035.

“We will be working to accelerate unabated coal phase-out across the world, building stronger economies and more resilient communities,” Kerry said in a statement. “The first step is to stop making the problem worse: stop building new unabated coal power plants.”

Coal power plants have already been shutting down across the nation due to economics, and no new coal facilities were in the works, so “we were heading to retiring coal by the end of the decade anyway,” said climate analyst Alden Meyer of the European think-tank E3G. That’s because natural gas and renewable energy are cheaper, so it was market forces, he said.

As of October, just under 20% of the U.S. electricity is powered by coal, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. The amount of coal burned in the United States last year is less than half what it was in 2008.

Coal produces about 211 pounds (96 kilograms) of heat-trapping carbon dioxide per million BTUs of energy produced, compared to natural gas which produces about 117 pounds (53 kilograms) and gasoline which is about 156 pounds (71 kilograms), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The U.S. had been pushing other nations, especially China and India which are building new coal plants pell-mell, to get rid of the fuel, which causes more heat-trapping carbon emissions than other power systems.

The Dec. 2 action “sends a pretty powerful international signal that the U.S. is putting its money where its mouth is,” Meyer said.

The Powering Past Coal Alliance started six years ago and had 50 country members until Saturday when the United States and six others joined, said alliance spokeswoman Anna Drazkiewicz. Others joining Saturday include the Czech Republic and the Dominican Republic.

“Energy transition is not an easy task and as such requires strong cooperation and support,” said Kosovo environment minister Artane Rizvanolli. “Joining the Powering Past Coal Alliance reiterates Kosovo’s clear commitment and ongoing efforts towards a socially just and clean energy sector.”

With greater energy storage comes greater responsibility – a reality the entire battery industry is currently facing.

When the demand for electric hoverboards led to the installation of inferior lithium-ion batteries, battery manufacturers were forced to take a fresh look at safety issues. When the batteries in certain electric vehicle models spontaneously ignited, the existing technology once again came under scrutiny. If a shift towards cleaner, greener electric power is to become a mainstream reality, the energy storage process needs to become generally safer.

An article in the journal Scientific American explores the issues facing the commercial and consumer battery industry today. With every innovation in battery chemistry or storage capacity comes a risk of failure, often resulting in dangerous fires or contaminations.

“Clearly, storing large amounts of energy is difficult from a physics standpoint; [the energy] would rather be somewhere else,” says Paul Denholm, a senior energy analyst at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

One of the immediate challenges for consumer battery manufacturers is a phenomenon known as thermal runaway. This is the root cause of many of the fires and explosions reported by owners of lithium-ion-powered devices, such as hoverboards or toy electric vehicles.

What is thermal runaway?

Many consumer batteries are composed of individual cells housed inside a protective shell or casing. When one of those cells overheats due to damage or poor design, the energy stored inside that cell is released as heat. This heat can damage the surrounding cells, creating a cascading effect that leads to ignition or a meltdown. Thermal runaway is believed to be responsible for many of the spontaneous battery fires in consumer products.

The current solution for thermal runaway is to physically separate each cell inside the casing, reducing the opportunity for a meltdown to spread. Another option is a mechanical “kill switch” that disrupts the circuit and discharges stored energy.

The price of portability

One inescapable scientific fact is that heat equals energy, and dissipating excess heat in a commercial battery array is a critical process. However, there is a difference between cooling down a stationary bank of batteries and the portable batteries installed in electric vehicles (EVs) and other consumer devices.

These portable batteries are exposed to a range of humidities, temperatures, and charging cycles, so they are more prone to experience thermal runaway

“The biggest thing that people become concerned about [for batteries in cars] is the ability to be able to tolerate abuse,” explains Joe Redfield, principal engineer at the Southwest Research Institute, a nonprofit engineering research and development group.

Do all types of batteries pose equal risks?

Most dry cell batteries, watch batteries, and consumer-grade rechargeable batteries have undergone extensive safety testing at the factory, but there are counterfeit versions on the market that do present a safety hazard for consumers. The main hazards from inferior dry cell batteries are chemical burns and accidental ingestion, not thermal runaway or spontaneous ignition.

Lead acid batteries

Lead acid batteries are considered a mature technology in the energy storage industry. The biggest risk from a lead acid battery is exposure to the diluted sulfuric acid stored inside the battery casing. Original lead-acid batteries allowed owners to replenish the acid/water solution by removing a cap, but modern sealed versions make exposure to corrosive chemicals much less likely. Most Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) systems use spill-resistant lead acid batteries because of their proven stability.

Spinning flywheels

Hydroelectric power plants rely heavily on spinning flywheels to generate electricity through a dynamo. Spinning flywheels have been in existence for decades and are generally located in restricted areas. The hazards of spinning wheel energy generation and storage are primarily mechanical. The flywheel’s 24/7 operating cycle often stresses the components, which can trigger a catastrophic failure if not contained or maintained regularly.

Sodium-sulfur batteries

Many modern high-capacity commercial batteries are combinations of chemicals that function as negative and positive charges for generating electricity. Such is the case with sodium-sulfur batteries, once considered to be a viable alternative to lithium-ion batteries. There are several risk factors associated with sodium-sulfur batteries, most notably their high operating temperatures and the volatile nature of pure sodium.

Sodium reacts violently when exposed to moisture, and the battery temperature must be maintained at 300 degrees Celsius or higher for maximum efficiency. For these reasons, there are only a limited number of active sodium-sulfur battery manufacturers in the world.

Fossil fuels

While most people would not consider natural gas, coal, or oil to be in the same category as dry cell batteries, these natural materials do contain significant amounts of stored energy. The hazards of fossil fuels are largely environmental, starting with the extraction process, moving to storage, and finally to public consumption. Fires and exposure to toxic fumes are common issues associated with fossil fuels.

Lithium-ion batteries

Lithium-ion batteries are perhaps the most familiar form of rechargeable batteries for consumers, but there is no single type of lithium-ion battery. Some pose less of a safety or environmental issue than others. Small watch batteries used in watches, calculators, and other electronic devices are not prone to thermal runaway, but they can be accidentally ingested.

Larger lithium-ion batteries, such as the ones used for power tools or small electric motors, can become damaged to the point of thermal runaway or complete failure.

While lithium-ion batteries have become dominant in the marketplace, they have also become the benchmark for newer battery technologies to surpass. Lithium-ion batteries nearing their final charging cycles can also be hazardous to users.

Lithium-sulfur batteries

One of the more promising metal/chemical combinations in recent years is the lithium-sulfur battery, with the potential to replace more expensive lithium-ion batteries in the future. The main drawback with current lithium-sulfur batteries is the corrosive nature of sulfur. The sulfur dissolves over time in the liquid designed to keep the lithium and sulfur separated in cells. The result is a major reduction in energy storage and recharging cycles.

Professor Yuichi Negishi of Tokyo University of Science (TUS) explains the potential of a lithium-sulfur battery (LSB), “LSBs with metal nanoclusters may find applications in electric vehicles, portable electronics, renewable energy storage, and other industries requiring advanced energy storage solutions.

“In addition, this study is expected to pave the way for all-solid-state LSBs with more novel functionalities,” highlights Prof. Negishi. In the near future, the proposed technology can lead to cost-efficient and longer-lasting energy storage devices. This would help reduce carbon emissions and support renewable energy adoption, promoting sustainability.”

The future of energy storage and consumer safety

While the focus of future battery and energy storage development seems to be cheaper, stronger, and faster, most researchers are also putting a premium on safer. Instead of building compartments for heavy lead acid batteries, future electric vehicles may incorporate carbon fibers into the structure of the body, with a lithium iron phosphate providing the positive charge. The result would be a lighter vehicle with a safer rigid structure.

Instead of sourcing cobalt as a cathode for lithium-ion batteries, future models would use safer components such as nickel, aluminum, and manganese. Not only would these batteries charge up to 80% in five minutes, but they would also provide up to 500 miles of drive time on a single charge.
Finally, IBM and Mercedes-Benz are teaming up to develop EV batteries with components derived from seawater. These batteries would require no heavy metals and provide greater energy density on a faster charge cycle.

This article was produced by Media Decision and syndicated by Wealth of Geeks. It was redistributed from The Associated Press.