China To Generate Electricity From Compressed Air

EV charging anxiety reflects concerns beyond range anxiety, focusing on charging infrastructure, fast chargers, and network reliability during road trips, from Tesla Superchargers to Electrify America stations across highways in the United States.

Key Points

EV charging anxiety is worry about finding reliable fast chargers on public networks, not just limited range.

✅ Non-Tesla networks vary in uptime and plug-and-charge reliability.

✅ Charging deserts complicate route planning on long highway stretches.

✅ Sync stops: align rest breaks with fast chargers to save time.

With electric cars, people often talk about "range anxiety," and how cars with bigger batteries and longer driving ranges will alleviate that. I just drove an electric car from New York City to Atlanta, a distance of about 950 miles, and it taught me something important. The problem really isn't range anxiety. It's anxiety around finding a convenient and working chargers on America's still-challenged EV charging networks today.

Back in 2019, I drove a Tesla Model S Long Range from New York City to Atlanta. It was a mostly uneventful trip, thanks to Tesla's nicely organized and well maintained network of fast chargers that can fill the batteries with an 80% charge in a half hour or less. Since then, I've wanted to try that trip again with an electric car that wasn't a Tesla, one that wouldn't have Tesla's unified charging network to rely on.
I got my chance with a Mercedes-Benz EQS 450+, a car that is as close to a direct competitor to the Tesla Model S as any. And while I made it to Atlanta without major incident, I encountered glitchy chargers, called the charging network's customer service twice, and experienced some serious charging anxiety during a long stretch of the Carolinas.

Long range
The EPA estimated range for the Tesla I drove in 2019 was 370 miles, and Tesla's latest models can go even further.

The EQS 450+ is officially estimated to go 350 miles on a charge, but I beat that handily without even trying. When I got into the car, its internal displays showed a range estimate of 446 miles. On my trip, the car couldn't stretch its legs quite that far, because I was driving almost entirely on highways at fairly high speeds, but by my calculations, I could have gone between 370 and 390 miles on a charge.

I was going to drive over the George Washington Bridge then down through New Jersey, Delaware, Virginia then North Carolina and South Carolina. I figured three charging stops would be needed and, strictly speaking, that was correct. The driving route laid out by the car's navigation system included three charging stops, but the on-board computers tended push things to the limit. At each stop, the battery would be drained to a little over 10% or so. (I learned later this is a setting I could adjust to be more conservative if I'd wanted.)

But I've driven enough electric cars to have some concerns. I use public chargers fairly often, and I know they're imperfect, and we need to fix these problems to build confidence. Sometimes they aren't working as well as they should. Sometimes they're just plain broken. And even if the car's navigation system is telling you that a charger is "available," that can change at any moment. Someone else can pull into the charging spot just a few seconds before you get there.
I've learned to be flexible and not push things to the limit.

On the first day, when I planned to drive from New York to Richmond, Virginia, no charging stop was called for until Spotsylvania, Virginia, a distance of nearly 300 miles. By that point, I had 16% charge left in the car's batteries which, by the car's own calculation, would have taken me another 60 miles.

As I sat and worked inside the Spotsylvania Town Centre mall I realized I'd been dumb. I had already stopped twice, at rest stops in New Jersey and Delaware. The Delaware stop, at the Biden Welcome Center, had EV fast chargers, as the American EV boom accelerates nationwide. I could have used one even though the car's navigation didn't suggest it.

Stopping without charging was a lost opportunity and it cost me time. If I'm going to stop to recharge myself why not recharge the car, too?
But that's the thing, though. A car can be designed to go 350 miles or more before needing to park whereas human beings are not. Elementary school math will tell you that at highway speeds, that's nearly six hours of driving all at once. We need bathrooms, beverages, food, and to just get out and move around once in a while. Sure, it's physically possible to sit in a car for longer than that in one go, but most people in need of speed will take an airplane, and a driver of an EQS, with a starting price just north of $100,000, can almost certainly afford the ticket.

I stopped for a charge in Virginia but realized I could have stopped sooner. I encountered a lot of other electric cars on the trip, including this Hyundai Ioniq 5 charging next to the Mercedes.

I vowed not to make that strategic error again. I was going to take back control. On the second day, I decided, I would choose when I needed to stop, and would look for conveniently located fast chargers so both the EQS and I could get refreshed at once. The EQS's navigation screen pinpointed available charging locations and their maximum charging speeds, so, if I saw an available charger, I could poke on the icon with my finger and add it onto my route.

For my first stop after leaving Richmond, I pulled into a rest stop in Hillsborough, North Carolina. It was only about 160 miles south from my hotel and I still had half of a full charge.

I sipped coffee and answered some emails while I waited at a counter. I figured I would take as long as I wanted and leave when I was ready with whatever additional electricity the car had gained in that time. In all, I was there about 45 minutes, but at least 15 minutes of that was used trying to get the charger to work. One of the chargers was simply not working at all, and, at another one, a call to Electrify America customer service -- the EV charging company owned by Volkswagen that, by coincidence, operated all the chargers I used on the trip -- I got a successful charging session going at last. (It was unclear what the issue was.)

That was the last and only time I successfully matched my own need to stop with the car's. I left with my battery 91% charged and 358 miles of range showing on the display. I would only need to stop once more on way to Atlanta and not for a long time.

Charging deserts
Then I began to notice something. As I drove through North Carolina and then South Carolina, the little markers on the map screen indicating available chargers became fewer and fewer. During some fairly long stretches there were none showing at all, highlighting how better grid coordination could improve coverage.

It wasn't an immediate concern, though. The EQS's navigation wasn't calling for me to a charge up again until I'd nearly reached the Georgia border. By that point I would have about 11% of my battery charge remaining. But I was getting nervous. Given how far it was between chargers my whole plan of "recharging the car when I recharge myself" had already fallen apart, the much-touted electric-car revolution notwithstanding. I had to leave the highway once to find a gas station to use the restroom and buy an iced tea. A while later, I stopped for lunch, a big plate of "Lexington Style BBQ" with black eyed peas and collard greens in Lexington, North Carolina. None of that involved charging because there no chargers around.

Fortunately, a charger came into sight on my map while I still had 31% charge remaining. I decided I would protect myself by stopping early. After another call to Electrify America customer service, I was able to get a nice, high-powered charging session on the second charger I tried. After about an hour I was off again with a nearly full battery.

I drove the last 150 miles to Atlanta, crossing the state line through gorgeous wetlands and stopping at the Georgia Welcome Center, with hardly a thought about batteries or charging or range.

But I was driving $105,000 Mercedes. What if I'd been driving something that cost less and that, while still going farther than a human would want to drive at a stretch, wouldn't go far enough to make that trip as easily, a real concern for those deciding if it's time to buy an electric car today. Obviously, people do it. One thing that surprised me on this trip, compared to the one in 2019, was the variety of fully electric vehicles I saw driving the same highways. There were Chevrolet Bolts, Audi E-Trons, Porsche Taycans, Hyundai Ioniqs, Kia EV6s and at least one other Mercedes EQS.

Americans are taking their electric cars out onto the highways, as the age of electric cars gathers pace nationwide. But it's still not as easy as it ought to be.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

U.S. 2023 Utility-Scale Capacity Additions highlight surging solar power, expanding battery storage, wind projects, natural gas plants, and new nuclear reactors, boosting grid reliability in Texas and California with record planned installations.

Key Points

Planned grid expansions led by solar and battery storage, with wind, natural gas, and nuclear increasing U.S. capacity.

✅ 29.1 GW solar planned; Texas and California lead installations.

✅ 9.4 GW battery storage to more than double current capacity.

✅ Natural gas, wind, and 2.2 GW nuclear round out additions.

Developers plan to add 54.5 gigawatts (GW) of new utility-scale electric-generating capacity to the U.S. power grid in 2023, according to our Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory. More than half of this capacity will be solar power (54%), even as coal generation increase has been reported, followed by battery storage (17%).

Solar

U.S. utility-scale solar capacity has been rising rapidly EIA summer outlook since 2010. Despite its upward trend over the past decade 2018 milestone, additions of utility-scale solar capacity declined by 23% in 2022 compared with 2021. This drop in solar capacity additions was the result of supply chain disruptions and other pandemic-related challenges. We expect that some of those delayed 2022 projects will begin operating in 2023, when developers plan to install 29.1 GW of solar power in the United States. If all of this capacity comes online as planned, 2023 will have the most new utility-scale solar capacity added in a single year, more than doubling the current record (13.4 GW in 2021).

In 2023, the most new solar capacity, by far, will be in Texas (7.7 GW) and California (4.2 GW), together accounting for 41% of planned new solar capacity.

Battery storage

U.S. battery storage capacity has grown rapidly January generation jump over the past couple of years. In 2023, U.S. battery capacity will likely more than double. Developers have reported plans to add 9.4 GW of battery storage to the existing 8.8 GW of battery storage capacity.

Battery storage systems are increasingly installed with wind and solar power projects. Wind and solar are intermittent sources of generation; they only produce electricity when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. Batteries can store excess electricity from wind and solar generators for later use. In 2023, we expect 71% of the new battery storage capacity will be in California and Texas, states with significant solar and wind capacity.

Natural gas

Developers plan to build 7.5 GW of new natural-gas fired capacity record natural gas output in 2023, 83% of which is from combined-cycle plants. The two largest natural gas plants expected to come online in 2023 are the 1,836 megawatt (MW) Guernsey Power Station in Ohio and the 1,214 MW CPV Three Rivers Energy Center in Illinois.

Wind

In 2023, developers plan to add 6.0 GW of utility-scale wind capacity, as renewables poised to eclipse coal in global power generation. Annual U.S. wind capacity additions have begun to slow, following record additions of more than 14 GW in both 2020 and 2021.

The most wind capacity will be added in Texas in 2023, at 2.0 GW. The only offshore wind capacity expected to come online this year is a 130.0 MW offshore windfarm in New York called South Fork Wind.

Nuclear

Two new nuclear reactors at the Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia nuclear and net-zero are scheduled to come online in 2023, several years later than originally planned. The reactors, with a combined 2.2 GW of capacity, are the first new nuclear units built in the United States in more than 30 years.

Developers and power plant owners report planned additions to us in our annual and monthly electric generator surveys. In the annual survey, we ask respondents to provide planned online dates for generators coming online in the next five years. The monthly survey tracks the status of generators coming online based on reported in-service dates.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Canada EV Manufacturing Strategy catalyzes electric vehicles growth via batteries, mining, and supply chain localization, with Unifor deals, Ford and FCA retooling, and government incentives safeguarding jobs and competitiveness across the auto industry.

Key Points

A coordinated plan to scale EV assembly, batteries, and mining supply chains in Canada via union deals and incentives.

✅ Government-backed Ford and FCA retooling for EV models.

✅ Battery cell, module, and pack production localizes value.

✅ Mining-to-mobility links metals to the EV supply chain.

As of a month ago Canada was just a speck on the global EV manufacturing map. We couldn’t honestly claim to be in the global race to electrify the automotive sector, even as EV shortages and wait times signalled surging demand.

An analysis published earlier this year by the International Council on Clean Transportation and Pembina Institute found that while Canada ranked 12th globally in vehicle production, EV production was a miniscule 0.4 per cent of that total and well off the average of 2.3 per cent amongst auto producing nations.

As the report’s co-author Ben Sharpe noted, “Canada is a huge auto producer. But nobody is really shining a light on the fact that if Canada’s doesn’t quickly ramp up its EV production, the steady decline we’ve seen in auto manufacturing over the past 20 years is going to accelerate.”

National strategy
While the report received relatively scant attention outside industry circles, its thesis was not lost on the leadership of Unifor, the union representing Canadian autoworkers.

In an August op-ed, Unifor national president Jerry Dias laid out the table stakes: “Global automakers are pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into electric vehicle investments, but no major programs are landing in Canada. Without a comprehensive national auto strategy, and active government engagement, the future is dim … securing our industry’s future requires a much bigger made-in-Canada style effort. An effort that government must lead.”

And then he got busy at the negotiating table.

The result? All of a sudden Canada is (or rather, will be) on the EV assembly map, just as the market hits an EV inflection point globally on adoption trends.

Late last month, contract negotiations between Unifor and Ford produced the Ford Oakville deal that will see $2 billion — including $590 million from the federal and Ontario governments ($295 million each) — invested towards production of five EV models in Oakville, Ont.

Three weeks later, Unifor reached a similar agreement with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles on a $1.5-billion investment, including retooling, to accommodate production of both a plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicle (including at least one additional model). 

Workforce implications
The primary motivation for Unifor in pushing for EVs in contract negotiations is, at minimum, preserving jobs — if not creating them. Unifor estimates that retooling the Ford plant in Oakville will save 3,000 of the 3,400 jobs there, contributing to Ontario's EV jobs boom as the transition accelerates. However, as VW CEO Herbert Diess has noted, “The reality is that building an electric car involves some 30 per cent less effort than one powered by an internal combustion engine.”

So, when it comes to the relationship between jobs and EVs, at first glance it might not seem to be a great news story. What exactly are the workforce implications?

To answer this question, and aid automakers and their suppliers in navigating the transition to EV production, the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) has done a study on the evolution of labour requirements along the automotive value chain. And the results, it turns out, are both illuminating and encouraging — so long as you look across the full value chain.

Common wisdom “inaccurate”
The study provides an in-depth unpacking of the similarities and differences between manufacturing an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle versus a battery EV (BEV), and in doing so it arrives at a surprising conclusion: “The common wisdom that BEVs are less labor intensive in assembly stages than traditional vehicles is inaccurate.” 

BCG’s analysis modeled how many labour hours were required to build an ICE vehicle versus a BEV, including the distribution of labour value across the automotive value chain.

While ICE vehicles require more labour associated with components, engine, motor and transmission assembly and installation, BEVs require the addition of battery manufacturing (cell production and module and battery pack assembly) and an increase in assembly-related labour. Meanwhile, labour requirements for press, body and paint shops don’t differ at all. Put that all together and labour requirements for BEVs are comparable to those of ICE vehicles when viewed across the full value chain.

Value chain shifting to parts suppliers
However, as BCG notes, this similarity not only masks, but even magnifies, a significant change that was already underway in the distribution of labour value across the value chain — an accelerating shift to parts suppliers.

This trend is a key reason why the Canadian Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association launched Project Arrow earlier this year, and just unveiled the winner of the EV concept design that will ultimately become a full-build, 100 per cent Canadian-equipped zero-emission concept vehicle. The project is a showcase for Canadian automotive SMEs.

The bulk of the value shift is into battery cell manufacturing, which is dominated by Asian players. In light of this, both the EU and UK are working hard to devise strategies to secure battery cell manufacturing, including projects like a Niagara Region battery plant that signal momentum, and hence capture this value domestically. Canada must now do the same — and in the process, capitalize on the unique opportunity we have buried underground: the metals and minerals needed for batteries.

The federal government is well aware of this opportunity, which Minister of Industry, Science and Economic Development Navdeep Bains has coined “mines to mobility.” But we’re playing catch up, and the window to effectively position to capture this opportunity will close quickly.

Cooperation and coordination needed
As Unifor’s Dias noted in an interview with Electric Autonomy after the FCA deal, the scale of the opportunity extends beyond the assembly plants in Oakville and Windsor: “This is about putting workers back in our steel plants. This is about making batteries. This is about saying to aluminum workers in Quebec and B.C. … to lithium workers in Quebec … cobalt workers in Northern Ontario, you’re going to be a part of the solution…It is a transformative time. … We’re on the cusp of leading globally for where this incredible industry is going.”

With their role in securing Ford’s EV production commitment, the federal and Ontario governments made clear that they understand the potential that EVs offer Canada, including how to capitalize on the U.S. auto sector's pivot as supply chains evolve, and their role in capitalizing on this opportunity.

But to ultimately succeed will require more than an open chequebook, it will take a coordinated industrial strategy that spans the full automotive value chain and extends beyond it into batteries and even mining, alongside Canada-U.S. collaboration to align supply chains. This will require effective cooperation and coordination between governments and across several industrial sectors and their associations.

Together they are Team Canada’s pit crew in the global EV race. How we fare will depend on how efficiently and effectively that crew works together. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Canada Net-Zero Electricity 2035 aligns policy and investments with renewables, wind, solar, hydro, storage, and transmission to power electrification of EVs and heat pumps, guided by a stringent clean electricity standard and carbon pricing.

Key Points

A 2035 plan for a zero-emissions grid using renewables, storage and transmission to electrify transport and homes.

✅ Wind, solar, and hydro backed by battery storage and reservoirs

✅ Interprovincial transmission expands reliability and lowers costs

✅ Stringent clean electricity standard and full carbon pricing

By Tom Green
Senior Climate Policy Advisor
David Suzuki Foundation

Electric vehicles are making inroads in some areas of Canada. But as their numbers grow, will there be enough electrical power for them, and for all the buildings and the industries that are also switching to electricity?

Canada – along with the United States, the European Union and the United Kingdom – is committed to a “net-zero electricity grid by 2035 policy goal”. This target is consistent with the Paris Agreement’s ambition of staying below 1.5 C of global warming, compared with pre-industrial levels.

This target also gives countries their best chance of energy security, as laid out in landmark reports over the past year from the International Energy Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A new federal regulation in the form of a clean electricity standard is being developed, but will it be stringent enough to set us up for climate success and avoid dead ends?

Canada starts this work from a relatively low emissions-intensity grid, powered largely by hydroelectricity. However, some provinces such as Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick still have predominantly fossil fuel-powered electricity. Plus, there is a risk of more natural gas generation of electricity in the coming years in most provinces without new federal and provincial regulations.

This means the transition of Canada’s electricity system must solve two problems at once. It must first clean up the existing electricity system, but it must also meet future electricity needs from zero-emissions sources while overall electricity capacity doubles or even triples by 2050.

Canada has enormous potential for renewable generation, even though it remains a solar power laggard in deployment to date. Wind, solar and energy storage are proven, affordable technologies that can be produced here in Canada, while avoiding the volatility of global fossil fuel markets.

As wind and solar have become the cheapest forms of electricity generation in history, we’re already seeing foreign governments and utilities ramp up renewable projects at the pace and scale that would be needed here in Canada, highlighting a significant global electricity market opportunity for Canadian firms at home. In 2020, 280 gigawatts of new capacity was added globally – a 45 per cent increase over the previous year. In Canada, since 2010, annual growth in renewables has so far averaged less than three per cent.

So why aren’t we moving full steam – or electron – ahead? With countries around the world bringing in wind and solar for new generation, why is there so much delay and doubt in Canada, even as analyses explore why the U.S. grid isn’t 100% renewable and remaining barriers?

The modelling team drew on a dataset that accounts for how wind and solar potential varies across the country, through the weeks of the year and the hours of each day. The models provide solutions for the most cost-effective new generation, storage and transmission to add to the grid while ensuring electricity generation meets demand reliably every hour of the year.

The David Suzuki Foundation partnered with the University of Victoria to model the electricity grid of the future.

To better understand future electricity demand, a second modelling team was asked to explore a future when homes and businesses are aggressively electrified; fossil fuel furnaces and boilers are retired and replaced with electric heat pumps; and gasoline and diesel cars are replaced by electric vehicles and public transit. It also dialed up investments in energy efficiency to further reduce the need for energy. These hourly electricity-demand projections were fed back to the models developed at the University of Victoria.

The results? It is possible to meet Canada’s needs for clean electricity reliably and affordably through a focus on expanding wind and solar generation capacity, complemented with new transmission connections between provinces, and other grid improvements.

How is it that such high levels of variable wind and solar can be added to the grid while keeping the lights on 24/7? The model took full advantage of the country’s existing hydroelectric reservoirs, using them as giant batteries, storing water behind the dams when wind and solar generation was high to be used later when renewable generation is low, or when demand is particularly high. The model also invested in more transmission to enable expanded electricity trade between provinces and energy storage in the form of batteries to smooth out the supply of electricity.

Not only is it possible, but the renewable pathway is the safe bet.

There’s no doubt it will take unprecedented effort and scale to transform Canada’s electricity systems. The high electrification pathway would require an 18-fold increase over today’s renewable electricity capacity, deploying an unprecedented amount of new wind, solar and energy storage projects every year from now to 2050. Although the scale seems daunting, countries such as Germany are demonstrating that this pace and scale is possible.

The modelling also showed that small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) are neither necessary nor cost-effective, making them a poor candidate for continued government subsidies. Likewise, we presented pathways with no need for continued fossil fuel generation with carbon capture and storage (CCS) – an expensive technology with a global track record of burning through public funds while allowing fossil fuel use to expand and while capturing a smaller proportion of the smokestack carbon than promised. We believe that Canada should terminate the significant subsidies and supports it is giving to fossil fuel companies and redirect this support to renewable electricity, energy efficiency and energy affordability programming.

The transition to clean electricity would come with new employment for people living in Canada. Building tomorrow’s grid will support more than 75,000 full-time jobs each year in construction, operation and maintenance of wind, solar and transmission facilities alone.

Regardless of the path chosen, all energy projects in Canada take place on unceded Indigenous territories or treaty land. Decolonizing power structures with benefits to Indigenous communities is imperative. Upholding Indigenous rights and title, ensuring ownership opportunities and decision-making and direct support for Indigenous communities are all essential in how this transition takes place.

Wind, solar, storage and smart grid technologies are evolving rapidly, but our understanding of the possibilities they offer for a zero-emissions future, including debates over clean energy’s dirty secret in some supply chains, appears to be lagging behind reality. As the Institut de L’énergie Trottier observed, decarbonization costs have fallen faster than modellers anticipated.

The shape of tomorrow’s grid will largely depend on policy decisions made today. It’s now up to people living in Canada and their elected representatives to create the right conditions for a renewable revolution that could make the country electric, connected and clean in the years ahead.

To avoid a costly dash-to-gas that will strand assets and to secure early emissions reductions, the electricity sector needs to be fully exposed to the carbon price. The federal government’s announcement that it will move forward with a clean electricity standard – requiring net-zero emissions in the electricity sector by 2035 – will help if the standard is stringent.

Federal funding to encourage provinces to expand interprovincial transmission, including recent grid modernization investments now underway will also move us ahead. At the provincial level, electricity system governance – from utility commission mandates to electricity markets design – needs to be reformed quickly to encourage investments in renewable generation. As fossil fuels are swapped out across the economy, more and more of a household’s total energy bill will come from a local electric utility, so a national energy poverty strategy focused on low-income and equity-seeking households must be a priority.

The payoff from this policy package? Plentiful, reliable, affordable electricity that brings better outcomes for community health and resilience while helping to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

U.S. Clean Energy Transition accelerates with IRA and BIL, boosting renewable energy, solar PV, battery storage, EV adoption, manufacturing, grid resilience, and jobs while targeting carbon-free electricity by 2035 and net-zero emissions by 2050.

Key Points

U.S. shift to renewables under IRA and BIL scales solar, storage, and EVs toward carbon-free power by 2035.

✅ Renewables reached ~22% of U.S. electricity generation in 2022.

✅ Nearly $13b in PV manufacturing; 94 plants; 25k jobs announced.

✅ Battery storage grew from 3% in 2017 to 36% by H1 2023.

In recent years, the United States has made remarkable strides in embracing renewable energy, with notable solar and wind growth helping to position itself for a more sustainable future. This transition has been driven by a combination of factors, including environmental concerns, economic opportunities, and technological advancements.

With the introduction of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), the United States is rapidly advancing its journey towards clean energy solutions.

To underscore the extent of this progress, consider the following vital statistics: In 2022, renewable energy sources (including hydroelectric power) accounted for approximately 22% of the nation's electricity generation, and renewables surpassed coal in the mix that year, while the share of renewables in total electricity generation capacity had risen to around 30% and the nation is moving toward 30% electricity from wind and solar as well.

Notably, in the transportation sector, consumers are increasingly embracing zero-emission fuels, such as electric vehicles. In 2022, battery electric vehicles (BEVs) represented 5.6% of new vehicle registrations, surging to 7.1% by the first half of 2023, according to estimates from EUPD Research.

The United States has set ambitious targets, including achieving 100% carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035 and aiming for economy-wide net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by no later than 2050, and policy proposals such as Biden's solar plan reinforce these goals for the power sector. These targets are poised to provide a significant boost to the clean energy sector in the country, reaffirming its commitment to a sustainable and environmentally responsible future.

IRA and BIL: Catalysts for Growth

The IRA and BIL represent a transformative shift in the landscape of clean energy policy, heralding a new era for the solar and energy storage sectors in the United States. The IRA allocates substantial resources to address the climate crisis, fortify domestic clean energy production, and solidify the U.S. as a global leader in clean energy manufacturing.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), an impressive investment exceeding $120 billion has been announced for the U.S. battery manufacturing and supply chain sector since the introduction of IRA and BIL. Additionally, plans have been unveiled for over 200 new or expanded facilities dedicated to minerals, materials processing, and manufacturing. This move is expected to create more than 75,000 potential job opportunities, strengthening the nation's workforce.

Following the introduction of IRA and BIL, solar photovoltaic (PV) manufacturing in the U.S. has also witnessed a substantial surge in planned investments, totaling nearly $13 billion, as reported by the DOE. Furthermore, a total of 94 new and expanded PV manufacturing plants have been announced, potentially generating over 25,000 jobs in the country.

Booming Solar Sector

In recent years, the U.S. solar sector has outpaced other energy sources, including a surging wind sector and natural gas, in terms of capacity growth. EUPD Research estimates reveal a notable upward trend in the contribution of solar capacity to annual power capacity additions, as 82% of the 2023 pipeline consists of wind, solar, and batteries across utility-scale projects. This trajectory has risen from 37% in 2019 to 38% in 2020, further increasing to 44% in 2021 and an impressive 45% in 2022.

Although the country experienced a temporary setback in 2022 due to pandemic-related delays, trade law enforcement, supply chain disruptions, and rising costs, it is now on track to make a historic addition to its PV capacity in 2023. According to EUPD Research's 2023 forecast, the U.S. is poised to achieve its largest-ever expansion in PV capacity, estimated at 32 to 35 GWdc, assuming the installation of all planned utility-scale capacity, and solar generation rose 25% in 2022 as a supportive indicator. Additionally, from 2023 to 2028, the U.S. is projected to add approximately 233 GWdc of PV capacity.

In terms of cumulative installed PV capacity (including utility-scale, commercial and industrial, and residential) on a state-by-state basis, California holds the top position, followed by Texas, Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona. Remarkably, Texas is rapidly expanding its utility-scale PV capacity and may potentially surpass California in the next two years.

Rapid Growth in Battery Storage

Battery energy storage has emerged as the dominant and rapidly expanding source of energy storage in the U.S. in recent years. The proportion of battery storage in the country's energy storage capacity has surged dramatically, increasing from a mere 3% in 2017 to a substantial 36% in the first half of 2023.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

EV battery supply strategies weigh in-house cell manufacturing against supplier contracts, optimizing costs, scale, and supply-chain resilience for electric vehicles. Automakers like Tesla, GM-LG Chem, VW-Northvolt, and Ford balance gigafactories, joint ventures, and procurement risks.

Key Points

How automakers secure EV battery cells by balancing cost, scale, tech risk, and supply-chain control to meet demand.

✅ In-source cells via gigafactories, JVs, and proprietary chemistries

✅ Contract with LG Chem, Panasonic, CATL, SKI to diversify supply

✅ Manage costs, logistics, IP, and technology obsolescence risks

Auto makers, pumping billions of dollars into developing electric cars, are now facing a critical inflection point as they decide whether to get more involved with manufacturing the core batteries or buy them from others.

Batteries are one of an electric vehicle’s most expensive components, accounting for between a quarter and a third of the car’s value. Driving down their cost is key to profitability, executives say.

But whereas the internal combustion engine traditionally has been engineered and built by auto makers themselves, battery production for electric cars is dominated by Asian electronics and chemical firms, such as LG Chem Ltd. and Panasonic Corp. , and newcomers like China’s Contemporary Amperex Technology Co.

California, the U.S.’s largest car market, said last month it would end the sale of new gasoline- and diesel-powered passenger cars by 2035, putting pressure on the auto industry to accelerate its shift to electric vehicles in the coming years.

The race to lock in supplies for electric cars has auto makers taking varied paths, with growing Canada-U.S. collaboration across supply chains.

While most make the battery pack, a large metal enclosure often lining the bottom of the car, they also need the cells that are bundled together to form the core electricity storage.

Tesla several years ago opened its Gigafactory in Nevada to make batteries with Panasonic, which in the shared space would produce cells for the packs. The electric-car maker wanted to secure production specifically for its own models and lower manufacturing and logistics costs.

Now it is looking to in-source more of that production.

While Tesla will continue to buy cells from Panasonic and other suppliers, it is also working on its own cell technology and production capabilities, aiming for cheaper, more powerful batteries to ensure it can keep up with demand for its cars, said Chief Executive Elon Musk last month.

Following Tesla’s lead, General Motors Co. and South Korea’s LG Chem are putting $2.3 billion into a nearly 3-million-square-foot factory in Lordstown, Ohio, highlighting opportunities for Canada to capitalize on the U.S. EV pivot as supply chains evolve, which GM says will eventually produce enough battery cells to outfit hundreds of thousands of cars each year.

In Europe, Volkswagen AG is taking a similar path, investing about $1 billion in Swedish battery startup Northvolt AB, including some funding to build a cell-manufacturing plant in Salzgitter, Germany, as part of a joint venture, and in North America, EV assembly deals in Canada are putting it in the race as well.

Others like Ford Motor Co. and Daimler AG are steering clear of manufacturing their own cells, with executives saying they prefer contracting with specialized battery makers.

Supply-chain disruptions, including lithium shortages, have already challenged some new model launches and put projects at risk, auto makers say.

For instance, Ford and VW have agreements in place with SK Innovation to supply battery cells for future electric-vehicle models. The South Korean company is building a factory in Georgia to help meet this demand, but a fight over trade secrets has put the plant’s future in jeopardy and could disrupt new model launches, both auto makers have said in legal filings.

GM executives say the risk of relying on suppliers has pushed them to produce their own battery cells, albeit with LG Chem.

“We’ve got to be able to control our own destiny,” said Ken Morris, GM’s vice president of electric vehicles.

Bringing the manufacturing in house will give the company more control over the raw materials it purchases and the battery-cell chemistry, Mr. Morris said.

But establishing production, even in a joint venture, is a costly proposition, and it won’t necessarily ensure a timely supply of cells. There are also risks with making big investments on one battery technology because a breakthrough could make it obsolete.

Ford cites those factors in deciding against a similar investment for now.

The company sees the industry’s conventional model of contracting with independent suppliers to build parts as better suited to its battery-cell needs, Ford executive Hau Thai-Tang told analysts in August.

“We have the competitive tension with dealing with multiple suppliers, which allows us to drive the cost down,” Mr. Thai-Tang said, adding that the company expects to pay prices for cells in line with GM and Tesla.

Meanwhile, Ford can leave the capital-intensive task of conducting the research and setting up manufacturing facilities to the battery companies, Mr. Thai-Tang said.

Germany’s Daimler has tried both strategies.

The car company made its own lithium-ion cells through a subsidiary until 2015. But the capital required to scale up was better spent elsewhere, said Ola Källenius, Daimler’s chief executive officer.

The auto maker instead signed long-term supply agreements with Asian companies like Chinese battery-maker CATL and Farasis Energy (Ganzhou) Co., which Daimler invested in last year.

The company has said it is spending roughly $23.6 billion on purchase agreements but keeping its battery research in-house.

“Let’s rather put that capital into what we do best, cars,” Mr. Källenius said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News