Within A Decade, We Will All Be Driving Electric Cars

North Sea Offshore Wind Farms will deliver 150 GW by 2050 as EU partners scale renewable energy, offshore turbines, grid interconnectors, and REPowerEU goals to cut emissions, boost energy security, and reduce Russian fossil dependence.

Key Points

A joint EU initiative to build 150 GW of offshore wind by 2050, advancing REPowerEU, decarbonization, and energy security.

✅ Targets at least 150 GW of offshore wind by 2050

✅ Backed by Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark

✅ Aligns with REPowerEU, grid integration, and emissions cuts

Four European Union countries plan to build North Sea wind farms capable of producing at least 150 gigawatts of energy by 2050 to help cut carbon emissions that cause climate change, with EU wind and solar surpassing gas last year, Danish media have reported.

Under the plan, wind turbines would be raised off the coasts of Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark, where a recent green power record highlighted strong winds, daily Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten said.

The project would mean a tenfold increase in the EU's current offshore wind capacity, underscoring how renewables are crowding out gas across Europe today.

“The North Sea can do a lot," Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen told the newspaper, adding the close cooperation between the four EU nations "must start now.”

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo are scheduled to attend a North Sea Summit on Wednesday in Esbjerg, 260 kilometers (162 miles) west of Copenhagen.

In Brussels, the European Commission moved Wednesday to jump-start plans for the whole 27-nation EU to abandon Russian energy amid the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine. The commission proposed a nearly 300 billion-euro ($315 billion) package that includes more efficient use of fuels and a faster rollout of renewable power, even as stunted hydro and nuclear output may hobble recovery efforts.

The investment initiative by the EU's executive arm is meant to help the bloc start weaning themselves off Russian fossil fuels this year, even as Europe is losing nuclear power during the transition. The goal is to deprive Russia, the EU’s main supplier of oil, natural gas and coal, of tens of billions in revenue and strengthen EU climate policies.

“We are taking our ambition to yet another level to make sure that we become independent from Russian fossil fuels as quickly as possible,” von der Leyen said in Brussels when announcing the package, dubbed REPowerEU.

The EU has pledged to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 55% compared with 1990 levels by 2030, and to get to net zero emissions by 2050, with a recent German renewables milestone underscoring the pace of change.

The European Commission has set an overall target of generating 300 gigawatts of offshore energy of by 2050, though grid expansion challenges in Germany highlight hurdles.

Along with climate change, the war in Ukraine has made EU nations eager to reduce their dependency on Russian natural gas and oil. In 2021, the EU imported roughly 40% of its gas and 25% of its oil from Russia.

At a March 11 summit, EU leaders agreed in principle to phase out Russian gas, oil and coal imports by 2027.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EV Carpocalypse signals potential mismatch between electric vehicle production and demand, as charging infrastructure, utility coordination, and plug-in hybrid strategies lag forecasts, while state mandates and market-share plays drive cautious, data-informed scaling.

Key Points

EV Carpocalypse describes overbuilt EV supply versus demand amid charging rollout, mandates, and risk-managed scaling.

✅ Forecasts vs actual EV demand may diverge in near term

✅ Charging infrastructure and utilities lag vehicle output

✅ Mandates and PHEVs cushion adoption while data guides scaling

According to Forbes contributor David Kiley, and Wards Automotive columnist John McElroy, there may be an impending “carpocalypse” of electric vehicles on the way. Sounds very damning and it’s certainly not the upbeat tone I’ve taken on nearly every piece of EV demand content I’ve authored but the author, Kiley does bring up some interesting points worth considering. EV Adoption is happening, and it’s certainly doing so at ever faster rates as the market nears an EV inflection point today. The infrastructure (charging stations, utility cooperation) is being built out more slowly than vehicle manufacturers are producing cars but, as the GM president on EV hurdles has noted, the issue seems to be just that, maybe even the short and medium term plans for EV manufacturing are too aggressive.

#google#

With new EV and plug-in hybrid vehicle sales representing a mere .6% of new car cales in the US, a sign that EV sales remain behind gas cars even as new models proliferate, car makers are are going to be spending more than $100 billion to come out with more than a hundred models of battery electric vheicles which also includes PHEVs and the fear is these vehicles aren’t going to sell in the numbers that automakers and industry analysts may have expected. But forecasts are just that, forecasts, even as U.S. EV sales surge into 2024 suggest momentum. So there’s a valid argument to be made that they’ll either overshoot the true mark or come in way below the actual amount. With nine U.S. states mandating that 15% of new cars sold be EVs by 2025, you could say that at least automakers have supporters in state government helping to push the new technology into the hands of more drivers.

Still, it’s anyone’s guess as to what true adoption will be, and a brief Q1 2024 market share dip underscores lingering volatility. The use of big data and just in time manufacturing will ensure that manufacturers will miss the mark on EVs by less than they have in the past, and will able to cope with breaking even on these vehicles for the sake of gobbling up precious early stage market share. After all, many vendors have up to this point been very willing to break even or make a loss on their lease-only EVs or on EV or hybrid financing in order to gain that share and build out their brand awareness and technical prowess. With some stops and starts, demand will meet supply or supply may need to meet demand but either way, the EV adoption wave is coming to a driveway near you. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Canadian Electric Bus Fleet leads North America as Toronto's TTC deploys 59 battery-electric, zero-emission buses, advancing public transit decarbonization with charging infrastructure, federal funding, lower maintenance, and lifecycle cost savings for a low-carbon urban future.

Key Points

Canada's leading battery-electric transit push, led by Toronto's TTC, scaling zero-emission buses and charging.

✅ Largest battery-electric bus fleet in North America

✅ TTC trials BYD, New Flyer, Proterra for range and reliability

✅ Charging infrastructure, funding, and specs drive 2040 zero-emissions

The largest battery-powered electric bus fleet in North America is Canadian. Toronto's transit system is now running 59 electric buses from three suppliers, and Edmonton's first electric bus is now on the road as well. And Canadian pioneers such as Toronto offer lessons for other transit systems aiming to transition to greener fleets for the low-carbon economy of the future.

Diesel buses are some of the noisier, more polluting vehicles on urban roads. Going electric could have big benefits, even though 18% of Canada's 2019 electricity from fossil fuels remains a factor.

Emissions reductions are the main reason the federal government aims to add 5,000 electric buses to Canada's transit and school fleets by the end of 2024. New funding announced this week as part of the government's fall fiscal update could also give programs to electrify transit systems a boost.

"You are seeing huge movement towards all-electric," said Bem Case, the Toronto Transit Commission's head of vehicle programs. "I think all of the transit agencies are starting to see what we're seeing ... the broader benefits."

While Vancouver has been running electric trolley buses (more than 200, in fact), many cities (including Vancouver) are now switching their diesel buses to battery-electric buses in Metro Vancouver that don't require overhead wires and can run on regular bus routes.

The TTC got approval from its board to buy its first 30 battery-electric buses in November 2017. Its plan is to have a zero-emissions fleet by 2040.

That's a crucial part of Toronto's plan to meet its 2050 greenhouse gas targets, which requires 100 per cent of vehicles to transition to low-carbon energy by then.

But Case said the transition can't happen overnight. 

Finding the right bus
For one thing, just finding the right bus isn't easy.

"There's no bus, by any manufacturer, that's been in service for the entire life of a bus, which is 12 years," Case said.

"And so really, until then, we don't have enough experience, nor does anyone else in the industry, have enough experience to commit to an all-electric fleet immediately."

In fact, Case said, there are only three manufacturers that make suitable long-range buses — the kind needed in a city the size of Toronto.

Having never bought electric buses before, the city had no specifications for what it needed in an electric bus, so it decided to try all three suppliers: Winnipeg-based New Flyer; BYD, which is headquartered in Shenzhen, China, but built the TTC buses at its Newmarket, Ont. facility; and California-based Proterra.

They all had their strengths and weaknesses, based on their backgrounds as a traditional non-electric bus manufacturer, a battery maker and a vehicle technology and design startup, respectively.

"Each bus type has its own potential challenges." Case said all three manufacturers are working to resolve any adoption challenges as quickly as possible.

But the biggest challenge of all, Case said, is getting the infrastructure in place. 

"There's no playbook, really, for implementing charging infrastructure," he said.

Each bus type needed their own chargers, in some cases using different types of current. Each type has been installed in a different garage in partnership with local utility Toronto Hydro.

Buying and installing them represented about $70 million, or about half the cost of acquiring Toronto's first 60 electric buses. The $140 million project was funded by the federal Public Transit Infrastructure Fund.

Case said it takes about three hours to charge a battery that has been fully depleted. To maximize use of the bus, it's typically put on a long route in the morning, covering 200 to 250 kilometres. Then it's partially charged and put on a shorter run in the late afternoon.

"That way we get as much mileage on the buses as we can."

Cost and reliability?
Besides the infrastructure cost of chargers, each electric bus can cost $200,000 to $500,000 more per bus than an average $750,000 diesel bus. 

Case acknowledges that is "significantly" more expensive, but it is offset by fuel savings over time, as electricity costs are cheaper. Because the electric buses have fewer parts than diesel buses, maintenance costs are also about 25 per cent lower and the buses are expected to be more reliable.

As with many new technologies, the cost of electric buses is also falling over time.

Case expects they will eventually get to the point where the total life-cycle cost of an electric and a diesel bus are comparable, and the electric bus may even save money in the long run.

As of this fall, all but one of the 60 new electric buses have been put into service. The last one is expected to hit the road in early December.

Summer testing showed that air conditioning the buses reduced the battery capacity by about 15 per cent. 

But the TTC needs to see how much of the battery capacity is consumed by heating in winter, at least when the temperature is above 5 C. Below that, a diesel-powered heater kicks in.

Once testing is complete, the TTC plans to develop specifications for its electric bus fleet and order 300 more in 2023, for delivery between 2023 and 2025.

Potential benefits
Even with some diesel heating, the TTC estimates electric buses reduce fuel usage by 70 to 80 per cent. If its whole fleet were switched to electric buses, it could save $50 million to $70 million in fuel a year and 150 tonnes of greenhouse gases per bus per year, or 340,000 tonnes for the entire fleet.

Other than greenhouse gases, electric buses also generate fewer emissions of other pollutants. They're also quieter, creating a more comfortable urban environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

But the benefits could potentially go far beyond the local city.

"If the public agencies start electrifying their fleet and their service is very demanding, I think they'll demonstrate to the broader transportation industry that it is possible," Case said.

"And that's where you'll get the real gains for the environment."

Alex Milovanoff, a postdoctoral researcher in the University of Toronto's department of civil engineering, did a U of T EV study that suggested electrified transit has a crucial role to play in the low-carbon economy of the future.

His calculations show that 90 per cent of U.S. passenger vehicles — 300 million — would need to be electric by 2050 to reach targets under the global Paris Agreement to fight climate change.

And that would put a huge strain on resources, including both the mining of metals, such as lithium and cobalt, that are used in electric vehicle batteries and the electrical grid itself.

A better solution, he showed, was combining the transition to electric vehicles with a reduction in the number of private vehicles, and higher usage of transit, cycling and walking.

"Then that becomes a feasible picture," he said.

What's needed to make the transition
But in order to make that happen, governments need to make investments and navigate the 2035 EV mandate debate on timelines, he added.

That includes subsidies for buying electric buses and building charging stations so transit agencies don't need to make fares too high. But it also includes more general improvements to the range and reliability of transit infrastructure.

"Electrifying the bus fleet is only efficient if we have a large public transit fleet and if we have many buses on the road and if people take them," Milovanoff said.

In its fall economic update on Monday, the federal government announced $150 million over three years to speed up the installation of zero-emission vehicle infrastructure.

Josipa Petrunic, CEO of the Canadian Urban Transit Research and Innovation Consortium, a non-profit organization focused on zero-carbon mobility and transportation, said that in the past, similar funding has paid for high-powered charging systems for transit systems in B.C. and Ontario. But that's only a small part of what's needed, she said.

"Infrastructure Canada needs to come to the table with the cash for the buses and the whole rest of the system."

She said funding is needed for:

Feasibility studies to figure out how many and what kinds of buses are needed for different routes in different transit systems.

Targets and incentives to motivate transit systems to make the switch.

Incentives to encourage Canadian procurement to build the industry in Canada.

Technology to collect and share data on the performance of electric vehicles so transit systems can make the best-possible decisions to meet the needs of their riders.

Petrunic said that a positive side-effect of electrifying transit systems is that the infrastructure can support, in addition to buses, electric trucks for moving freight.

"It's not a lot given that we have 15,000 buses out there in the transit fleet," she said.

"But we should be able to get a lot further ahead if we match the city commitments to zero emissions with federal and provincial funding for jobs creating zero-emissions technologies."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Clean Coal Technologies Pristine Funding secures investment from a New York asset manager via Black Diamond, advancing commercialization, Tulsa testing, Wyoming relocation, PRB coal enhancement, and cleaner energy innovation to support global coal exports.

Key Points

Capital from a New York asset manager backs Pristine commercialization, testing, and Wyoming relocation to boost PRB coal.

✅ Investment via Black Diamond funds Tulsa test operations.

✅ Permanent relocation planned near a Wyoming mine site.

✅ First Pristine M module to enhance PRB coal quality.

Clean Coal Technologies, Inc., an emerging cleaner-energy company utilizing patented and proven technology to convert untreated coal into a cleaner burning and more efficient fuel, announced today that the company has secured funding for their Pristine technology through commercialization, a move reminiscent of Bruce C project funding activity, from a major New York-based Asset Management company. This investment will be made through Black Diamond with all funds earmarked for test procedures at the plant near Tulsa, OK, at a time when rare new coal plants are appearing, and the plant's move to a permanent location in Wyoming. The first tranche is being paid immediately.

"Securing this investment will confidently carry us through to the construction of our first commercial module enabling management to focus on the additional tests that have been requested from multiple parties, even as US coal demand faces headwinds across the market," stated CEO of Clean Coal Technologies, Inc., Robin Eves. "At this time we have begun scheduling plant visits with both US government agency and coal industry officials along with key international energy consortiums that are monitoring transitions such as Alberta's coal phaseout policies."

"We're now able to finalize our negotiations in Wyoming where the permitting process has begun and where we will permanently relocate the test facility later this year following completion of the aforementioned tests," added CCTI COO/CFO, Aiden Neary. "This event also paves the way forward to commence the process of constructing the first commercial Pristine M facility. That plant is planned to be in Wyoming near an operating mine where our process can be used to enhance the quality of PRB coal to make it more competitive globally, even as regions like western Europe see coal-to-renewables conversions at legacy plants, and help restore the US coal export market."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California NEM-3 Tariff ushers a successor Net Energy Metering framework, revising export compensation, TOU rates, and non-bypassable charges to balance ratepayer impacts, rooftop solar growth, and energy storage adoption across diverse communities.

Key Points

The CPUC's successor NEM policy redefining export credits and rates to sustain customer-sited solar and storage.

✅ Sets export compensation methodology beyond NEM 2.0

✅ Aligns TOU rates and non-bypassable charges with costs

✅ Encourages solar-plus-storage adoption and equity access

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has officially commenced its “NEM-3” proceeding, which will establish the successor Net Energy Metering (NEM) tariff to the “NEM 2.0” program in California. This is a highly anticipated, high-stakes proceeding that will effectively modify the rules for the NEM tariff in California, amid ongoing electricity pricing changes that affect residential rooftop solar – arguably the single most important policy mechanism for customer-sited solar over the last decade.

The CPUC’s recent order instituting rule-making (OIR) filing stated that “the major focus of this proceeding will be on the development of a successor to existing NEM 2.0 tariffs. This successor will be a mechanism for providing customer-generators with credit or compensation for electricity generated by their renewable facilities that a) balances the costs and benefits of the renewable electrical generation facility and b) allows customer-sited renewable generation to grow sustainably among different types of customers and throughout California’s diverse communities.”

This successor tariff proceeding was initiated by Assembly Bill 327, which was signed into law in October of 2013. AB 327 is best known as the legislation that directed the CPUC to create the “NEM 2.0” successor tariff, which was adopted by the CPUC in January of 2016.

The original Net Energy Metering program in California (“NEM 1.0”) effectively enabled full-retail value net metering “allowing NEM customers to be compensated for the electricity generated by an eligible customer-sited renewable resource and fed back to the utility over an entire billing period.” Under the NEM 2.0 tariff, customers were required to pay charges that aligned them more closely with non-NEM customer costs than under the original structure. The main changes adopted when the NEM 2.0 was implemented were that NEM 2.0 customer-generators must: (i) pay a one-time interconnection fee; (ii) pay non-bypassable charges on each kilowatt-hour of electricity they consume from the grid; and (iii) customers were required to transfer to a time-of-use (TOU) rate, with potential changes to electric bills for many customers.

NEM 2.0

The commencement of the NEM-3 OIR was preceded by the publishing of a 318-page Net Energy Metering 2.0 Lookback Study, which was published by Itron, Verdant Associates, and Energy and Environmental Economics. The CPUC-commissioned study had been widely anticipated and was expected to act as the starting reference point for the successor tariff proceeding. Verdant also hosted a webinar, which summarized the study’s inputs, assumptions, draft findings and results.

The study utilized several different tests to study the impact of NEM 2.0. The cost effectiveness analysis tests, which estimate costs and benefits attributed to NEM 2.0 include: (i) total resource cost test, (ii) participant cost test, (iii) ratepayer impact measure test, and (iv) program administrator test. The evaluation also included a cost of service analysis, which estimates the marginal cost borne by the utility to serve a NEM 2.0 customer.

The opening paragraph of the report’s executive summary stated that “overall, we found that NEM 2.0 participants benefit from the structure, while ratepayers see increased rates.” In every test that the author’s conducted the results generally supported this conclusion for residential customers. There were some exceptions in their findings. For example, in the cost of service analysis the report stated that “residential customers that install customer-sited renewable resources on average pay lower bills than the utility’s cost to serve them. On the other hand, nonresidential customers pay bills that are slightly higher than their cost of service after installing customer-sited renewable resources. This is largely due to nonresidential customer rates having demand charges (and other fixed fees), and the lower ratio of PV system size to customer load when compared to residential customers.”

Similar debates over solar rate design, including Massachusetts solar demand charges, highlight how demand charges and TOU decisions can affect customer economics.

NEM-3 timeline

Popular content
The preliminary schedule that the CPUC laid out in its OIR estimates that the proceeding will take roughly 15 months in total, starting with a November 2020 pre-hearing conference.

The real meat of the proceeding, where parties will present their proposals for what they believe the successor tariff should be, as the state considers revamping electricity rates to clean the grid, and really show their hand will not begin until the Spring of 2021. So we’re still a little ways away from seeing the proposals that the key parties to this proceeding, like the Investor Owned Utilities (PG&E, SCE, SDG&E), solar and storage advocates such as SEIA, CALSSA, Vote Solar, and ratepayer advocates like TURN) will submit.

While the outcome for the new successor NEM tariff is anyone’s guess at this point, some industry policy folks are starting to speculate. We think it is safe to assume that the value of exported energy will get reduced, with debates over income-based utility charges also influencing rate design. How much and the mechanism for how exports get valued remains to be seen. Based on the findings from the lookback study, it seems like the reduction in export value will be more severe than what happened when NEM 2.0 got implemented. In NEM 2.0, non-bypassable charges, which are volumetric charges that must be paid on all imported energy and cannot be netted-out by exports, only equated to roughly $0.02 to $0.03/kWh.

Given that the value of exports will almost certainly get reduced, we expect that to be bullish for energy storage as America goes electric and load shapes evolve. Energy storage attachment rates with solar are already steadily rising in California. By the time NEM-3 starts getting implemented, likely in 2022, we think storage attachment rates will likely escalate further.

We would not be surprised to see future storage attachment rates in California look like the Hawaiian market today, which are upwards of 80% for certain types of customers and applications. Two big questions on our mind are: (i) will the NEM 3.0 rules be different for different customer class: residential, CARE (e.g., low-income or disadvantaged communities), and commercial & industrial; (ii) will the CPUC introduce some sort of glidepath or phased in implementation approach?

The outcome of this proceeding will have far reaching implications on the future of customer-sited solar and energy storage in California. The NEM-3 outcome in California may likely serve as precedent for other states, as California exports its energy policies across the West, and utility territories that are expected to redesign their Net Energy Metering tariffs in the coming years.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canada 2035 Zero-Emission Vehicle Mandate sets EV sales targets, raising concerns over affordability, battery materials like lithium and copper, charging infrastructure, grid capacity, renewable energy mix, and policy impacts across provinces.

Key Points

Mandate makes all new light-duty vehicles zero-emission by 2035, affecting costs, charging, and electric grid planning.

✅ 100% ZEV sales target for cars, SUVs, light trucks by 2035

✅ Cost pressures from lithium, copper, nickel; EVs remain pricey

✅ Grid, charging build-out needed; impacts vary by provincial mix

Whether or not you want one, can afford one or think they will do essentially nothing to stop global warming, electric vehicles are coming to Canada en masse. This week, the Canadian government set 2035 as the “mandatory target” for the sale of zero-emission SUVs and light-duty trucks as part of ambitious EV goals announced by Ottawa.

That means the sale of gasoline and diesel cars has to stop by then. Transport Minister Omar Alghabra called the target “a must.” The previous target was 2040.

It is a highly aspirational plan that verges on the delusional according to skeptics of an EV revolution who argue its scale is overstated, even if it earns Canada – a perennial laggard on the emission-reduction front – a few points at climate conferences. Herewith, a few reasons why the plan may be unworkable, unfair or less green than advertised.

Liberals say by 2035 all new cars, light-duty trucks sold in Canada will be electric, as Ottawa develops EV sales regulations to implement the mandate.

Parkland to roll out electric-vehicle charging network in B.C. and Alberta

Sticker shock: There is a reason why EVs remain niche products in almost every market in the world (the notable exception is in wealthy Norway): They are bloody expensive and often in short supply in many markets. Unless EV prices drop dramatically in the next decade, Ottawa’s announcement will price the poor out of the car market. Transportation costs are a big issue with the unrich. The 2018 gilets jaunes mass protests in France were triggered by rising fuel costs.

While some EVs are getting cheaper, even the least expensive ones are about double the price of a comparable product with an internal combustion engine. Most EVs are luxury items. The market leader in Canada and the United States is Tesla. In Canada the cheapest Tesla, the Model 3 (“standard range plus” version), costs $49,000 before adding options and subtracting any government purchase incentives. A high-end Model S can set you back $170,000.

To be sure, prices will come down as production volumes increase. But the price decline might be slow for the simple reason that the cost of all the materials needed to make an EV – copper, cobalt, lithium, nickel among them – is climbing sharply and may keep climbing as production increases, straining supply lines.

Lithium prices have doubled since November. Copper has almost doubled in the past year. An EV contains five times more copper than a regular car. Glencore, one of the biggest mining companies, estimated that copper production needs to increase by a million tonnes a year until 2050 to meet the rising demand for EVs and wind turbines, a daunting task given the dearth of new mining projects.

Will EVs be as cheap as gas cars in a decade or so? Impossible to say, but given the recent price trends for raw materials, probably not.

Not so green: There is no such thing as a zero-emission vehicle, even if that’s the label used by governments to describe battery-powered cars. So think twice if you are buying an EV purely to paint yourself green, as research finds they are not a silver bullet for climate change.

In regions in Canada and elsewhere in the world that produce a lot of electricity from fossil-fuel plants, driving an EV merely shifts the output of greenhouse gases and pollutants from the vehicle itself to the generating plant (according to recent estimates, about 18% of Canada’s electricity comes from coal, natural gas and oil; in the United States, 60 per cent).

An EV might make sense in Quebec, where almost all the electricity comes from renewable sources and policymakers push EV dominance across the market. An EV makes little sense in Saskatchewan, where only 17 per cent comes from renewables – the rest from fossil fuels. In Alberta, only 8 per cent comes from renewables.

The EV supply chain is also energy-intensive. And speaking of the environment, recycling or disposing of millions of toxic car batteries is bound to be a grubby process.

Where’s the juice?: Since the roofs of most homes in Canada and other parts of the world are not covered in solar panels, plugging in an EV to recharge the battery means plugging into the electrical grid. What if millions of cars get plugged in at once on a hot day, when everyone is running air conditioners?

The next few decades could emerge as an epic energy battle between power-hungry air conditioners, whose demand is rising as summer temperatures rise, and EVs. The strain of millions of AC units running at once in the summer of 2020 during California’s run of record-high temperatures pushed the state into rolling blackouts. A few days ago, Alberta’s electricity system operator asked Albertans not to plug in their EVs because air conditioner use was straining the electricity supply.

According to the MIT Technology Review, rising incomes, populations and temperatures will triple the number of air conditioners used worldwide, to six billion, by mid-century. How will any warm country have enough power to recharge EVs and run air conditioners at the same time? The Canadian government didn’t say in its news release on the 2035 EV mandate. Will it fund the construction of new fleets of power stations?

The wrong government policy: The government’s announcement made it clear that widespread EV use – more cars – is central to its climate policy. Why not fewer cars and more public transportation? Cities don’t need more cars, no matter the propulsion system. They need electrified buses, subways and trains powered by renewable energy. But the idea of making cities more livable while reducing emissions is apparently an alien concept to this government.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News