Aboitiz receives another award for financing for its Tiwi and Makban geothermal plant

UK Transport Policy Overhaul signals bans on petrol and diesel cars, rail franchising reform, 15-minute cities, and active travel, tackling congestion, emissions, microplastics, urban sprawl, and public health with systemic, multimodal planning.

Key Points

A shift toward EVs, rail reform, and 15-minute cities to reduce emissions, congestion, and health risks.

✅ Phase-out of petrol and diesel car sales by 2030

✅ National rail franchising replaced with integrated operations

✅ Urban design: 15-minute cities, cycling, and active travel

Could it be true? That this government will bring all sales of petrol and diesel cars to an end by 2030, even as a 2035 EV mandate in Canada is derided by critics? That it will cancel all rail franchises and replace them with a system that might actually work? Could the UK, for the first time since the internal combustion engine was invented, really be contemplating a rational transport policy? Hold your horses.

Before deconstructing it, let’s mark this moment. Both announcements might be a decade or two overdue, but we should bank them as they’re essential steps towards a habitable nation.

We don’t yet know exactly what they mean, as the government has delayed its full transport announcement until later this autumn. But so far, nothing that surrounds these positive proposals makes any sense, and the so-called EV revolution often proves illusory in practice.

If the government has a vision for transport, it appears to be plug and play. We’ll keep our existing transport system, but change the kinds of vehicles and train companies that use it. But when you have a system in which structural failure is embedded, nothing short of structural change will significantly improve it.

A switch to electric cars will reduce pollution, though the benefits depend on the power mix; in Canada, Canada’s grid was 18% fossil-fuelled in 2019, for example. It won’t eliminate it, as a high proportion of the microscopic particles thrown into the air by cars, which are highly damaging to our health, arise from tyres grating on the surface of the road. Tyre wear is also by far the biggest source of microplastics pouring into our rivers and the sea. And when tyres, regardless of the engine that moves them, come to the end of their lives, we still have no means of properly recycling them.

Cars are an environmental hazard long before they leave the showroom. One estimate suggests that the carbon emissions produced in building each one equate to driving it for 150,000km. The rise in electric vehicle sales has created a rush for minerals such as lithium and copper, with devastating impacts on beautiful places. If the aim is greatly to reduce the number of vehicles on the road, and replace those that remain with battery-operated models, alongside EV battery recycling efforts, then they will be part of the solution. But if, as a forecast by the National Grid proposes, the current fleet is replaced by 35m electric cars, a University of Toronto study warns they are not a silver bullet, and we’ll simply create another environmental disaster.

Switching power sources does nothing to address the vast amount of space the car demands, which could otherwise be used for greens, parks, playgrounds and homes. It doesn’t stop cars from carving up community and turning streets into thoroughfares and outdoor life into a mortal hazard. Electric vehicles don’t solve congestion, or the extreme lack of physical activity that contributes to our poor health.

So far, the government seems to have no interest in systemic change. It still plans to spend £27bn on building even more roads, presumably to accommodate all those new electric cars. An analysis by Transport for Quality of Life suggests that this road-building will cancel out 80% of the carbon savings from a switch to electric over the next 12 years. But everywhere, even in the government’s feted garden villages and garden towns, new developments are being built around the car.

Rail policy is just as irrational, even though lessons from large electric bus fleets offer cleaner mass transit options. The construction of HS2, now projected to cost £106bn, has accelerated in the past few months, destroying precious wild places along the way, though its weak business case has almost certainly been destroyed by coronavirus.

If one thing changes permanently as a result of the pandemic, it is likely to be travel. Many people will never return to the office. The great potential of remote technologies, so long untapped, is at last being realised. Having experienced quieter cities with cleaner air, few people wish to return to the filthy past.

Like several of the world’s major cities, our capital is being remodelled in response, though why electric buses haven’t taken over remains a live question. The London mayor – recognising that, while fewer passengers can use public transport, a switch to cars would cause gridlock and lethal pollution – has set aside road space for cycling and walking. Greater Manchester hopes to build 1,800 miles of protected pedestrian and bicycle routes.

Cycling to work is described by some doctors as “the miracle pill”, massively reducing the chances of early death: if you want to save the NHS, get on your bike. But support from central government is weak and contradictory, and involves a fraction of the money it is spending on new roads. The major impediment to a cycling revolution is the danger of being hit by a car.

Even a switch to bicycles (including electric bikes and scooters) is only part of the answer. Fundamentally, this is not a vehicle problem but an urban design problem. Or rather, it is an urban design problem created by our favoured vehicle. Cars have made everything bigger and further away. Paris, under its mayor Anne Hidalgo, is seeking to reverse this trend, by creating a “15-minute city”, in which districts that have been treated by transport planners as mere portals to somewhere else become self-sufficient communities – each with their own shops, parks, schools and workplaces, within a 15-minute walk of everyone’s home.

This, I believe, is the radical shift that all towns and cities need. It would transform our sense of belonging, our community life, our health and our prospects of local employment, while greatly reducing pollution, noise and danger. Transport has always been about much more than transport. The way we travel helps to determine the way we live. And at the moment, locked in our metal boxes, we do not live well.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Electric Vehicle Ownership Costs include lower maintenance, repair, and fuel expenses; Consumer Reports shows BEV and PHEV TCO beats ICE over 200,000 miles, with per-mile savings compounding through electricity prices and reduced service.

Key Points

Lifetime EV expenses, typically lower than ICE, due to cheaper electricity, reduced maintenance, and fewer repairs.

✅ BEV: $0.012/mi to 50k; $0.028/mi after; vs ICE up to $0.06/mi

✅ PHEV: $0.021/mi to 50k; $0.031/mi after; still below ICE

✅ Savings increase over 200k miles from fuel and service reductions

Electric vehicles are a relatively new technology, and the EV age is arriving ahead of schedule today. Even though we technically saw the first battery-powered vehicles more than 100 years ago, they haven’t really become viable transportation in the modern world until recently, and they are greener than ever in all 50 states as the grid improves.

As viable as they may now be, however, it still seems they’re unarguably more expensive than their conventional internal-combustion counterparts, prompting many to ask whether it’s time to buy an electric car today. Well, until now.

Lower maintenence costs and the lower price of electricity versus gasoline (see the typical cost to charge an electric vehicle in most regions) actually make electric cars much cheaper in the long run, despite their often higher purchase price, according to a new survey by Consumer Reports. The information was collected using annual reliability surveys conducted by CR in 2019 and 2020.

In the first 50,000 miles (80,500 km), battery electric vehicles cost just US$0.012 per mile for maintenence and repairs, while plug-in hybrid models bump that number up to USD$0.021. Compare these numbers to the typical USD$0.028 cost for internal combustion vehicles, and it becomes clear the more you drive, the more you will save, and across the U.S. plug-ins logged 19 billion electric miles in 2021 to prove the point. After 50,000 miles, the costs for BEV and PHEV vehicles is US$0.028 and US$0.031 respectively, while ICE vehicles jump to US$0.06 per mile.

To put it more practically, if you chose to buy a Model 3 instead of a BMW 330i, you’d see a total US$17,600 in savings over the lifetime of the vehicle, aligning with evidence that EVs are better for the planet and your budget as well, based on average driving. In the SUV sector, buying a Tesla Model Y instead of a Lexus crossover would save US$13,400 (provided the former’s roof doesn’t fly off) and buying a Nissan Leaf over a Honda Civic would save US$6,000 over the lifetime of the vehicles.

CR defines the vehicle’s “lifetime” as 200,000 miles (320,000 km). Ergo the final caveat: while it sounds like driving electric means big savings, you might only see those returns after quite a long period of ownership, though some forecasts suggest that within a decade adoption will be nearly universal for many drivers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Food Waste to Green Hydrogen uses biological production to create clean energy, enabling waste-to-energy, decarbonization, and renewable hydrogen for electricity, industrial processes, and transport fuels, developed at Purdue University Northwest with Purdue Research Foundation licensing.

Key Points

A biological process converting food waste into renewable hydrogen for clean energy, electricity, industry, and transport.

✅ Enables rapid, scalable waste-to-hydrogen deployment

✅ Supports grid power, industrial heat, and mobility fuels

✅ Backed by patents, DOE grants, and licensing deals

West Lafayette, Indiana-based Purdue Research Foundation recently completed a licensing agreement with an international energy company – the name of which was not disclosed – for the commercialization of a new process discovered at Purdue University Northwest (PNW) for the biological production of green hydrogen from food waste. A second licensing agreement with a company in Indiana is under negotiation.

Food waste into green hydrogen
Researchers say that this new process, which uses food waste to biologically produce hydrogen, can be used as a clean energy source for producing electricity, as well as for chemical and industrial processes like green steel production or as a transportation fuel.

Robert Kramer, professor of physics at PNW and principal investigator for the research, says that more than 30% of all food, amounting to $48 billion, is wasted in the United States each year. That waste could be used to create hydrogen, a sustainable energy source alongside municipal solid waste power options. When hydrogen is combusted, the only byproduct is water vapor.

The developed process has a high production rate and can be implemented quickly to support large H2 energy systems in practice. The process is robust, reliable, and economically viable for local energy production and processes.

The research team has received five grants from the US Department of Energy and the Purdue Research Foundation totaling around $800,000 over the last eight years to develop the science and technology that led to this process, much like advances in advanced nuclear reactors drive clean energy innovation.

Two patents have been issued, and a third patent is currently in the final stages of approval. Over the next nine months, a scale-up test will be conducted, reflecting how power-to-gas storage can integrate with existing infrastructure. Based upon test results, it is anticipated that construction could start on the first commercial prototype within a year.

Last week, a facility designed to turn non-recyclable plastics into green hydrogen was approved in the UK, as other innovations like the seawater power concept progress globally. It is the second facility of its kind there.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

US Renewable Energy Cost Advantage signals cheaper utility-scale solar and onshore wind versus natural gas, with LCOE declines, tax credits, and climate policy cutting electricity costs for utilities and grids across the United States.

Key Points

Cheaper solar and wind than natural gas, driven by LCOE drops, tax credits, and policy, lowering US electricity costs.

✅ Utility-scale solar is about one-third cheaper than gas

✅ Onshore wind costs roughly 44 percent less than natural gas

✅ Policy and tax credits accelerate renewables and cut power prices

Natural gas’s dominance as power-plant fuel in the US is fading fast as the cost of electricity generated by US wind and solar projects tumbles and as wind and solar surpass coal in the generation mix, according to Guggenheim Securities.

Utility-scale solar is now about a third cheaper than gas-fired power, while onshore wind is about 44% less expensive, Guggenheim analysts led by Shahriar Pourreza said Monday in a note to clients, a dynamic consistent with falling wholesale power prices in several markets today. 

“Solar and wind now present a deflationary opportunity for electric supply costs,” the analysts said, which “supports the case for economic deployment of renewables across the US,” as the country moves toward 30% wind and solar and one-fourth of total generation in the near term.

Gas prices have surged amid a global supply crunch after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, while tax-credit extensions and sweeping US climate legislation have brought down the cost of wind and solar, even as renewables surpassed coal in 2022 nationwide. Renewables-heavy utilities like NextEra Energy Inc. and Allete Inc. stand to benefit, and companies that can boost spending on wind and solar, as wind, solar and batteries dominate the 2023 pipeline, will also see faster growth, Guggenheim said.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

B.C. EV Bottleneck signals a post-pandemic demand surge for electric vehicles amid semiconductor and lithium-ion battery shortages, driving waitlists, record sales, rebates, charging infrastructure needs, and savings on fuel and maintenance across British Columbia.

Key Points

B.C. EV bottleneck is rising demand outpacing supply from chip and battery shortages, creating waitlists.

✅ 85% delayed EV purchase; demand rebounds with reopening.

✅ Supply chain limits: chips and lithium-ion batteries.

✅ Plan ahead: join waitlists, consider used EVs, claim rebates.

B.C. Hydro is warning of a post-pandemic “EV bottleneck” as it predicts pent-up demand and EV shortages will lead to record-breaking sales for electric vehicles in 2021.

A new survey by B.C. Hydro found 85 per cent of British Columbians put off buying an electric vehicle during the pandemic, but as the province reopens, the number of people on the road commuting to-and-from work and school is expected to rise 15 per cent compared with before the pandemic.

It found about two-thirds of British Columbians are considering buying an EV over the next five years, with 60 per cent saying they would go with an EV if they can get one sooner.

“The EV market is at a potential tipping point, as demand is on the rise and will likely continue to grow long-term, with one study projecting doubling power output to meet full road electrification,” said a report about the findings released Wednesday.

The demand for EVs is prompted by rising gas prices, environmental concerns and to save money on maintenance costs like oil changes and engine repairs, said the report. At the same time, a shortage of semiconductor chips and lithium ion batteries needed for auto production is squeezing supply.

For people wanting to make the switch to electric, B.C. Hydro recommended they plan ahead and get on several waiting lists and explore networks offering faster charging options. Used EVs are also a cheaper option.

B.C. Hydro said an electric vehicle can save 80 per cent in gas expenses over a year and about $100 a month in maintenance costs compared with a gas-powered vehicle. There are also provincial and federal rebates of up to $8,000 for EV purchases in B.C., and additional charger rebates can help with installation costs.

B.C. has the highest electric vehicle uptake in North America, with zero-emission vehicles making up almost 10 per cent of all car sales in the province in 2020 as the province expands EV charging to support growth — more than double the four per cent in 2018.

According to a report by University of B.C. business Prof. Werner Antweiler on the state of EV adoption in B.C., electric vehicles are still concentrated in urban areas like Metro Vancouver and the Capital Regional District on Vancouver Island where public charging stations are more readily available.

He said electric vehicle purchases are still hampered by limited choice and a lack of charging stations, especially for people who park on the street or in condo parkades, which would require permission from strata councils to install a charging station, though rebates for home and workplace charging can ease installation.

The online survey was conducted by market researcher Majid Khoury of 800 British Columbians from May 17-19. It has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3.5 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

U.S. Renewable Energy Record 28% signals a cleaner power grid as wind, solar, and hydroelectric output soar; EIA data shows cost-competitive clean energy reshaping the electricity mix and reducing carbon emissions across regions.

Key Points

EIA-reported April share of electricity from wind, solar, and hydro, reflecting cost-driven growth in U.S. clean power.

✅ Wind, solar additions dominated recent U.S. capacity buildouts

✅ Lower levelized costs make renewables most competitive

✅ Seasonal factors and outages lowered fossil and nuclear output

The amount of electricity generated by renewable resources hit a record 28% in April, a breakthrough number that shows how important renewable energy has become in U.S. energy markets as it surpassed coal in 2022 overall.

"It's a 'Wow' moment," said Peter Kelly-Detwiler, an energy analyst and author of "The Energy Switch," a recent book about the transition to a carbon-free energy economy.

The percentage of U.S. electricity produced by renewable energy from wind, solar and hydroelectric dams has been steadily rising, from 8.6% in April 2001 to this April's 28%. Those numbers were released this week by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which tracks energy data for the nation.

What explains the surge?
There are several reasons. At the top is that wind and solar installations dominated U.S. energy buildouts.

"Basically, the only things we've added to the grid in the past decade are wind, solar and natural gas," said Harrison Fell, an economist and engineer at Columbia University, where he co-leads the Power Sector and Renewables Research Initiative.

That's happening for two reasons. The first is cost. Renewables are simply the most economically competitive power currently available, Kelly-Detwiler said.

In 2021, the cost of producing a megawatt-hour of electricity from a new wind turbine was $26 to $50. The same amount of electricity from the cheapest type of natural gas plant ranged from $45 to $74, according to Lazard, a financial advisory firm that publishes annual estimates of the cost of producing electricity. 

Federal and state mandates and incentives to increase the amount of clean energy used also help, Fell said, as renewables reached 25.5% of U.S. electricity recently. 

"When you do the math on what's the most profitable thing to add, it's often going to be wind and solar at this stage," he said.

Was weather a factor?
Yes. April tends to be a particularly windy month, and this spring was windier than most, Fell said.

There's also less power coming into the grid from fossil fuels and nuclear in the spring. That's because electricity demand is generally lower because of the mild weather and fossil fuel and nuclear power plants use the time for maintenance and refueling, which reduces their production, he said.

Another surprise was that in April, wind and solar power together produced more electricity than nuclear plants nationwide. 

Historically, nuclear power plants, which are carbon-neutral, have reliably produced about 20% of America's electricity. In April that number dropped to 18% while wind and solar combined stood at 19.6%.

The nuclear decrease is partly a result of the shutdown of two plants in the past year, Indian Point in New York state and Palisades in Michigan, as well as scheduled closures for maintenance.

Will the trend continue?
When all U.S. carbon-neutral energy sources are added together – nuclear, wind, hydroelectric and solar – almost 46% of U.S. electricity in April came from sources that don't contribute greenhouse gases to the environment, federal data shows.  

"It's a milestone," Kelly-Detwiler said. "But in a few years, we'll look back and say, 'This was a nice steppingstone to the next 'Wow!' moment."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News