The member states of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative are continuing their efforts to transition their electric systems toward renewable generation systems. Electricity demand growth and the shuttering of existing fossil fueled generation are moving them toward “tipping points” beyond which renewable generation would have to be dispatchable to maintain grid stability and reliability. Renewable generation, which has so far merely displaced output from conventional generation, would be required to replace that generation and to provide additional dispatchable generation.

The primary focus of this transition has been on existing coal generating stations, many of which provide baseload power to the grid. However, the renewable replacement for a 500 MW coal generating station is a very different facility. A solar-based facility with a 25% capacity factor would require generating capacity of 2,000 MW and storage capacity of 9,000 MWh with an output capability of 500 MW, assuming that full sun was available every day to provide output to the grid and recharge storage. Design to continue providing 500 MW on subsequent days without solar generation would require additional storage capacity of 12,000 MWh plus additional generation of 500 – 600 MW to recharge storage rapidly. Each additional day without solar generation would require further generation and storage expansion.

Intermediate load generation varies its output throughout the day to follow varying grid demand. A 500 MW intermediate load solar generating facility with a 25% capacity factor would require 500 MW of generating capacity to meet daytime load plus an additional 750 MW of generating capacity to meet nighttime loads approximately 50 % of daytime loads, as well as approximately 4,500 MWh of storage. Design to meet similar loads on subsequent days without solar generation would require an additional 7,500 MWh of storage plus an additional 300 – 400 MW of generation to recharge storage rapidly. Each additional day without solar generation would require further generation and storage expansion.

Peak loads could be met with output from storage sized to meet expected peak magnitude and duration, provided with dedicated generation to maintain sufficient storage charge.

Potential maximum duration of period of low/no solar generation output is a critical renewable system design factor. Conventional generation operation continues through extended periods. However, renewable generation systems must rely on storage to continue to power the grid through weather related interruptions or curtailments of generation output Recent RGGI state experience with solar output interruption of 10 days resulting from winter storm Fern suggest that significant additional storage capacity and additional generation capacity to rapidly recharge storage would be required to avoid blackouts or grid failure during such storms.

The greatest concern for the RGGI member states is winter storms because the capacity factor of solar generation systems is lowest in winter when the likelihood of multi-day generation interruptions is increased by snow accumulation on solar collectors. Blackouts or grid failure present far greater danger of adverse health effects during periods of protracted cold.

Originally published here. 

That safety theme shows up clearly in the Energy Central community’s regular content focus. Recent examples include:

From Reactive to Predictive: How AI Can Reshape Field Safety in Utilities

Beyond the Meter: The Emerging Safety Gap in Customer-Owned Energy Systems

Why Utility Leaders Must Prioritize Energy Storage Safety—Before It’s Too Late

Equipping the Utility Workforce for Faster, Safer Emergency Response

The Innovation-Safety Balance: How Utility Leaders Can Prioritize Both - Part 1

One of the most important lessons from these conversations is that safety cannot live in a single department or sit only in a monthly report. Energy Central contributors have argued for embedding safety into strategy, culture, and day-to-day operations, while also making room for frontline workers to surface concerns before they become incidents.

That mindset matters because the industry is changing quickly. As distributed energy resources expand, clear communication, shared documentation, and defined responsibilities become essential to maintaining safety beyond the meter. And as utilities deploy more energy storage, they need strong coordination with local authorities, first responders, and other stakeholders before an incident ever occurs.

May is a good time to pause, reset, and recommit. Whether the focus is field work, storage, emergency response, or customer education, the goal is the same: reduce risk, strengthen preparedness, and make safety part of every decision. At Energy Central, that conversation is already happening — and it is one worth carrying forward all year long.

Two typical examples: Banks. The "consultant" will help you buy the "most interesting" option for your investment profile. Energy utility or trading company. The "consultant" will "guide" you on matters relating to the "wire" and/or the commodity.

However, the classic definition of a consultant is someone who assesses the client's situation and presents their analysis in an "agnostic" way so that the best result within the given conditions is achieved.

The salesperson, on the other hand, has a very clear specific interest: to sell their "offers." Frequently, this sale is associated with a bonus. Therefore, the client needs to be careful.Who do they want to guide them?

In Brazil, the issue of "conflict of interest" is not very relevant. The client "agrees" to be "guided" by the "consultant." The good news is: if you choose a real consultant, you're much more likely to achieve and maintain way better results!

Gerard and Laurent welcome Tinne Van der Straeten, CEO of WindEurope—the leading voice of the wind industry in Europe, representing more than 600 members across the entire value chain.

Tinne brings a distinctive perspective to the discussion. As Belgium’s Minister for Energy during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, she experienced an energy crisis first hand. Her background in policymaking offers a different vantage point from that of investors, shaped by the practical realities and trade-offs of government decision-making.

The conversation highlights that, despite ongoing challenges, wind energy continues to expand rapidly across Europe, with €45 billion in final investment decisions recorded in 2025. There is now a clear opportunity to repower first-generation onshore turbines, which could double installed capacity and potentially triple electricity generation. Offshore wind also stands out as a major growth area, with the North Sea remaining the central hub, while the Baltic Sea is developing steadily and early signs of momentum are emerging in Spain.

At the same time, the discussion points to the persistence of outdated, ideologically driven debates around energy sources—such as gas in Germany or nuclear in France—which increasingly feel disconnected from current realities. Policies like bans on onshore wind in Poland and offshore wind in Sweden illustrate decisions that risk slowing progress.

A central theme is the urgent need to electrify demand, particularly through the adoption of electric vehicles, heat pumps, and the expansion of datacenters.

The conversation concludes by emphasizing that the missing piece is a large, integrated pan-European grid—potentially extending to Canada—combined with battery storage. Such infrastructure would accelerate decarbonization, support economic resilience, and help Europe regain control over its energy future.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/redefining-energy/id1439197083

https://open.spotify.com/show/4FDIRo16s1C9Fpc9v1HyGi

Studies:

-          GWEC 2026 https://www.gwec.net/reports/globalwindreport

-          WindEurope Wind Energy Statistics and Outlook Report

https://windeurope.org/news/europe-invested-45bn-in-new-wind-energy-in-2025-market-tampering-would-put-future-investments-at-acute-risk/

-          WindEurope energy system cost study:

https://windeurope.org/news/a-renewables-based-energy-system-will-save-europe-1-6-trillion/

Let's tackle one of the most persistent misconceptions in solar energy: if you buy a 400W panel, shouldn't it produce 400W? A logical question, and the short answer is almost never, at least not in real-world conditions.

That "400W" rating is measured under Standard Test Conditions (STC)—a controlled lab environment with perfect sunlight intensity, ideal cell temperature (25°C/77°F), and zero atmospheric interference. Your rooftop, however, operates in the real world: clouds drift, temperatures rise, dust accumulates, and your roof angle rarely matches the lab's perfect tilt.

So what actually determines how much power your panel delivers on a given day?

1 - Irradiance: sunlight intensity varies by time of day, season, and geographic location—noon in summer isn't the same as 4 PM in winter.

2 - Temperature: solar cells lose efficiency as they heat up, typically dropping 0.3–0.5% in output for every degree above 25°C (that's the temperature coefficient at work).

3 - System losses: inverters convert DC to AC at ~95–98% efficiency, wiring introduces minor resistance, and shading from trees or chimneys can disproportionately impact string performance.

4 - Orientation and tilt: panels facing true south (in the Northern Hemisphere) at your latitude's optimal angle capture far more energy than east/west or flat-roof installations. When you add these up, a 400W panel commonly produces 280–360W during peak sun hours—and that's completely normal.

Homeowners who watched their monitoring app show 320W on a bright afternoon and immediately wondered if their system was underperforming. That concern is valid, and it's exactly why transparency must anchor every solar conversation. Instead of leading with peak wattage, we advocate for modeling based on your site's specific irradiance data, local temperature profiles, and realistic loss factors.

When consultants show clients a production range and explain why output fluctuates hour to hour, trust replaces anxiety. The goal isn't to oversell a spec; it's to equip you with the knowledge to interpret your system's performance confidently and recognize that consistent, predictable generation is far more valuable than a fleeting lab-maximum.

Solar's financial and environmental payoff doesn't depend on hitting 400W every hour. What matters is cumulative energy production over weeks, months, and years—and a well-designed system reliably delivers 70–90% of its theoretical annual yield, even with real-world variables.

If you're evaluating solar for your home or guiding clients through the decision, focus on lifetime kilowatt-hours, not peak-watt myths.

#SolarEnergy #SolarPanels #CleanEnergy #RenewableEnergy #HomeSolar #EnergyEfficiency #SolarPerformance #NetMetering #SolarROI

demands, and the push toward real-time operations. Yet most utilities are still running their business on

heavily customized IS-U systems and S/4HANA cores that were never designed for the speed and

intelligence today’s grid requires.

Here’s the truth many utilities already feel but rarely say out loud:

You can’t modernize if your core is clogged with custom code.

This is exactly why SAP’s Clean Core strategy is becoming the new north star for utilities — and why SAP BTP

(Business Technology Platform) is emerging as the real brain of the modern utility architecture.

Let’s break this down in simple, practical terms.

1. Why the Utility Core Is Struggling Today

For years, utilities solved every new business requirement the same way:

 Add custom code

 Add more tables

 Add more batch jobs

 Add more interfaces

It worked… until it didn’t.

Today, this approach creates real problems:

 Upgrades take months

 Integrations break easily

 Data is scattered

 Batch jobs delay decisions

 Innovation becomes slow and expensive

Utilities want AI, automation, predictive insights, and real-time operations — but their core systems are too

rigid to support it.

This is where Clean Core comes in.

Exercise:
A country introduces hydrogen-powered public transport and industrial storage facilities.
- Identify three legal challenges related to hydrogen deployment.
-Propose two regulatory frameworks needed to ensure safety and compliance.
- Discuss liability in case of a hydrogen storage explosion: who should be responsible (operator, manufacturer, regulator)?

Correction:
1) Three legal challenges
a. Safety regulation and standards
Hydrogen is highly flammable, so legal systems must define:
- Storage pressure limits (e.g., 350–700 bar systems)
- Transport safety rules
- Industrial zoning regulations for hydrogen facilities

b. Certification and compliance
Challenges include:
- Lack of unified international hydrogen standards
- Need for certification of electrolyzers, fuel cells, and storage tanks
- Cross-border regulation differences (EU vs non-EU frameworks)

c. Risk management and environmental law
- Hydrogen classified as “clean energy” but lifecycle emissions depend on production method
- Legal ambiguity around “green hydrogen” certification
- Environmental impact of leaks (indirect greenhouse effects via atmospheric chemistry)

...

Automotive – Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle Design

Exercise:
An automotive company is developing a hydrogen fuel cell car.

• Compare hydrogen fuel cells with battery electric systems in terms of:
  - refueling time
  - range
  - efficiency

• Identify two engineering challenges in storing hydrogen onboard vehicles.

• Propose a basic architecture of the vehicle energy system.

Correction:
1) Comparison: Fuel cell vs battery electric vehicles
Refueling time
- Hydrogen: ~3–5 minutes
- Battery EV: ~30 min–8 hours (depending on charger)
--> Hydrogen advantage: fast refueling

Range
- Hydrogen: 500–700 km typical
- Battery EV: 300–600 km (varies widely)
--> Hydrogen advantage: longer range for heavy-duty use

Efficiency
- Battery EV: 80–90% well-to-wheel efficiency
- Hydrogen fuel cell: ~30–55%
--> Battery EV advantage: much higher efficiency

2) Engineering challenges in hydrogen storage
a. High-pressure storage
- Requires 700 bar tanks
- Structural reinforcement increases vehicle weight and cost

b. Hydrogen embrittlement
- Hydrogen weakens metals over time
- Impacts durability of storage tanks and pipelines

....

Aerospace – Hydrogen-Powered Aircraft Concept

Exercise:
An aircraft manufacturer is exploring liquid hydrogen as aviation fuel.
- Explain why hydrogen is attractive for aviation decarbonization.
- Identify two major technical constraints of using liquid hydrogen in aircraft.
- Propose one aircraft subsystem that must be redesigned for hydrogen compatibility.

Correction
1) Why hydrogen is attractive
- Very high energy per mass (≈3× kerosene)
- Zero CO₂ emissions during combustion/fuel cell use
- Enables decarbonization of long-haul aviation
- Potential for fuel cell electric propulsion (low noise)

2) Two major technical constraints
a. Low volumetric energy density
- Hydrogen takes much more space than jet fuel
- Requires large cryogenic tanks → affects aerodynamics
b. Cryogenic storage complexity
- Must be stored at −253°C
- Requires insulation, boil-off management systems
- Energy losses due to evaporation

3) Subsystem requiring redesign
hydrogen aircraft design requires complete architectural redesign, not incremental modification

...

Scenario:

A hyperscale data center (50 MW IT load) wants to reduce its reliance on diesel generators and transition to a hydrogen-based backup and partial primary energy system using fuel cells.

Tasks:

1. Energy Demand Analysis

   • Calculate the total daily energy consumption of the data center (assume 50 MW constant load).

   • Estimate backup energy required for 12 hours of autonomous operation.

2. Hydrogen System Design

   • Propose a hydrogen storage system (compressed gas, liquid hydrogen, or solid-state).

   • Estimate the amount of hydrogen required for 12 hours of backup operation.

   • Select a suitable fuel cell type (e.g., PEM or SOFC) and justify your choice.

3. System Architecture
   Draw a block diagram showing: Hydrogen storage, Fuel cells, Power conditioning system, Integration with grid and UPS systems

4. Performance & Sustainability Analysis

   • Compare hydrogen backup with diesel generators in terms of:

     • CO₂ emissions

     • Efficiency

     • Operational cost

   • Identify at least 3 technical challenges (e.g., storage safety, efficiency losses, supply chain).

Correction:

1. Energy Demand Analysis

Given:

-IT load = 50 MW constant
- Backup duration = 12 hours

Step 1: Daily energy consumption
Edaily​=50MW×24h=1200MWh

Step 2: Backup energy (12 hours)
Ebackup​=50MW×12h=600MWh
--> Backup requirement = 600 MWh

2. Hydrogen Requirement Estimation

Fuel cell efficiency assumption:

• PEM fuel cell efficiency ≈ 55%
  So chemical energy needed:
  EH2​=600 / 0.55 ≈1090.9MWh
  Convert MWh to MJ

  1MWh=3600MJ

  EH2​≈3,927,240MJ

  Hydrogen energy content

  1 kg H₂ ≈ 120 MJ

  Mass_H2 = 3927240 / 120 = 32 727 Kg
  Hydrogen required ≈ 32.7 metric tons

3. Storage System Choice

Option evaluation:

• Compressed gas (350–700 bar):
  - Mature technology
  - Large physical footprint
  - Suitable for stationary backup

• Liquid hydrogen:

  -Higher energy density

  -Requires cryogenic storage (-253°C)

  -High energy losses

• Solid-state storage:

  -Safer

  -Still expensive and less mature

--> Best choice: Compressed hydrogen (700 bar)
Reason: cost-effective, scalable, already used in industrial backup systems.

4. Fuel Cell Selection
--> Chosen: PEM Fuel Cells (Proton Exchange Membrane)

Justification:

-Fast start-up (critical for backup power)
- High power density
- Works well for dynamic load changes in data centers
- Lower operating temperature (~80°C)

SOFC rejected because:
- Slow start-up
- High temperature (~800°C)
- Better suited for continuous industrial power, not backup

7. Technical Challenges

-Hydrogen storage safety: Risk of leakage and explosion
- Energy losses in hydrogen chain: Electrolysis + compression + fuel cell losses (~60% total efficiency)
- Supply chain dependency: Need for continuous green hydrogen supply infrastructure
- High capital expenditure: Fuel cells and storage tanks expensive upfront
- Thermal management: Fuel cells require stable temperature control

Hydrogen Integration in Cybersecurity of Smart Grids

Objective:

Analyze cybersecurity risks and design a protection strategy for hydrogen-integrated smart grid infrastructure.

Scenario:

A smart grid includes hydrogen-based distributed energy resources (DERs), such as hydrogen fuel cells and electrolyzers connected to renewable energy sources. These systems are remotely monitored and controlled via IoT-based energy management systems.

Tasks:

1. System Identification

   • Identify all cyber-physical components involved:

     • Hydrogen production units (electrolyzers)

     • Storage systems

     • Fuel cells

     • Grid communication layer

2. Threat Modeling

   • List at least 5 potential cyberattacks, such as:

     • Manipulation of hydrogen production signals

     • False data injection in energy management systems

     • Denial-of-service (DoS) on fuel cell controllers

   • Explain the possible physical consequences of each attack (e.g., pressure instability, blackout risk).

3. Security Architecture Design

   • Propose a cybersecurity framework including:

     • Authentication mechanisms for hydrogen DER devices

     • Encryption protocols for control signals

     • Intrusion detection systems tailored for energy systems

4. Resilience Strategy

   • Suggest 3 strategies to ensure system resilience (e.g., redundancy, local autonomous control, fail-safe hydrogen shutdown mechanisms).

5. Critical Discussion

   • Discuss how integrating hydrogen increases both energy flexibility and cyber vulnerability in smart grids.

Correction:
1. Cyber-Physical Components
Hydrogen system components:
-Electrolyzers (H₂ production)
-Hydrogen storage tanks
-Fuel cells (energy conversion)
-Pressure/temperature sensors
-Safety valves and actuators

Cyber layer:
-SCADA systems
-IoT energy management systems (EMS)
-Cloud monitoring platforms
-Communication networks (5G, ...)

2. Threat Modeling (with impacts)
Attack 1: False data injection
-Manipulates hydrogen level readings
- Impact: overproduction or depletion → system instability

Attack 2: DoS on electrolyzer control system
-Blocks hydrogen production commands
-Impact: energy shortage in peak demand

Attack 3: Manipulation of pressure sensors
-Falsifies tank pressure data
- Impact: risk of overpressure explosion or shutdown

Attack 4: Malware in SCADA system
-Gains control over fuel cells
-Impact: blackout or unsafe shutdown

Attack 5: Communication interception (MITM)
-Alters control signals between EMS and hydrogen units
- Impact: misalignment between production and demand
--> hydrogen systems introduce physical risk amplification from cyberattacks

....

• SRP signed a plump PPA with NextEra Energy Resources for 3 GW of solar and 1 GW of battery storage, with projects expected to be built across AZ through 2027. At peak production, the new capacity could serve about 675K homes.

• The deal lands in a state already deep into solar. Arizona currently has more than 11.4 GW installed, with solar supplying about 16% of in-state electricity. Another 13.8 GW is projected over the next five years—but some Republicans officials are intent on hobbling the renewable rollout.

• For context: Eversource, Avangrid, and other NE transmission owners want their base ROE bumped to 11.39%. Ratepayer advocates and state leaders are already lining up against it. 

• In March, FERC retroactively cut the region’s base ROE to 9.57%...a decision following 15 years of litigation. The agency put the region’s utilities on the hook for an estimated $1.5B in customer refunds (due May 2027).

• The transmission owners say FERC’s lower figure reflects stale market conditions from 2012-13—not today’s environment that demands sustained transmission investment.