Harbour Air's electric aircraft a high-flying example of research investment

British Columbia Green Infrastructure Funding expands CleanBC Communities Fund projects, from EV charging stations to sewage heat recovery, delivering low-carbon heat in Vancouver and supporting Indigenous communities and COVID-19 recovery through the Green Infrastructure Stream.

Key Points

A joint federal-provincial program backing CleanBC to fund EV chargers, sewage heat recovery, and low-carbon heat.

✅ Funds EV charging across Vancouver Island and northern B.C.

✅ Expands sewage heat recovery via Vancouver's NEU

✅ Joint federal, provincial, local, and Indigenous partners

The governments of Canada and British Columbia are investing in infrastructure to get projects under way that meet people's needs, address the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and help communities restart their economies.  

Strategic investments in green infrastructure are key to creating clean healthy communities, making life more affordable, and building a clean electricity future for Canada.

Today, the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Environment and Climate Change and Member of Parliament for North Vancouver, on behalf of the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, and the Honourable George Heyman, B.C. Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, announced funding for 11 projects, alongside initiatives like the province's hydrogen project, to help B.C. communities save energy and reduce pollution.  

In Vancouver, the Sewage Heat Recovery Expansion Project will increase the capacity of the Neighbourhood Energy Utility (NEU) to provide buildings in the False Creek area with low-carbon heat and hot water. The NEU recycles waste heat and uses a mix of renewable and conventional natural gas to reduce harmful emissions.

Funding is also going towards expanding the network of Level-2 electric vehicle (EV) charging stations across the province. More than 80 new stations will be installed in communities across mid-Vancouver Island, as well as northern and central B.C., making clean transportation options, supported by incentives for zero-emission vehicles, more viable for more people.

These, along with the other projects announced today, will create jobs and strengthen local economies now while promoting sustainable growth and residents' long-term health and well-being.

The Government of Canada is investing more than $28.5 million in these projects through the Green Infrastructure Stream (GIS) of the Investing in Canada plan, and local and Indigenous communities are contributing more than $13 million. The Government of British Columbia is contributing nearly $18 million through the CleanBC Communities Fund, part of the federal Investing in Canada plan's Green Infrastructure Stream, which also supports rebates for home and workplace charging initiatives.

Quotes

"Expanding electric vehicle charging stations across Vancouver Island will make clean transportation more viable for more people. Encouraging green energy solutions like this is essential to building strong resilient communities. Canada's Infrastructure plan invests in thousands of projects, creates jobs across the country, and builds stronger communities."

The Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Environment and Climate Change and Member of Parliament for North Vancouver, on behalf of the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities

"This investment through the Green Infrastructure Stream is a great example of how federal partnerships with all levels of government can ensure a sustainable future for generations. Amidst COVID-19, we can rebuild better with a green recovery."

Hedy Fry, Member of Parliament for Vancouver Centre

"People deserve access to clean air, clean energy and clean economic opportunities and by investing in new clean infrastructure projects, we will reduce pollution, build better buildings, improve transportation options with EV charger rebates and make life more affordable for people. By working together with the City of Vancouver and other B.C. communities, along with the federal government, we're helping build back a stronger, better B.C. for everyone following the impacts of COVID-19 through our CleanBC plan."

The Honourable George Heyman, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy Government

"This is an important investment when it comes to addressing the climate emergency our city is facing. Nearly 60 per cent of carbon pollution created in Vancouver comes from burning natural gas to heat our buildings and provide hot water. This investment from our provincial and federal partners will help us greatly expand the Neighbourhood Energy Utility to reduce our carbon footprint even further."

His Worship, Kennedy Stewart, Mayor of Vancouver

Quick facts

Through the Investing in Canada Plan, the Government of Canada is investing more than $180 billion over 12 years in public transit projects, green infrastructure, social infrastructure, trade and transportation routes, and Canada's rural and northern communities.
The Government of Canada has invested $4.2 billion in 525 infrastructure projects across British Columbia under the Investing in Canada plan.
To support Canadians and communities during the COVID-19 pandemic, a new stream has been added to the over $33-billion Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program to help fund pandemic-resilient infrastructure. Existing program streams have also been adapted to include more eligible project categories.
The new Canada Healthy Communities Initiative will provide up to $31 million in existing federal funding to support communities as they deploy innovative ways to adapt spaces and services to respond to immediate and ongoing needs arising from COVID-19 over the next two years.
The 11 projects are part of the first intake of the CleanBC Communities Fund, which committed more than $63 million in joint federal-provincial funding. Additional projects from the first intake will be announced soon.
The second intake for the CleanBC Communities Fund is now open for applications from local governments, Indigenous groups, not-for-profits and for-profit organizations in B.C.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

EPA Auto Emissions Proposal 2027-2032 sets strict tailpipe emissions limits, accelerating electric vehicle adoption, cutting greenhouse gases, advancing climate policy, and reducing oil dependence through battery-electric cars and trucks across U.S. markets.

Key Points

An EPA plan setting strict tailpipe limits to drive EV adoption, cut greenhouse gases, and reduce oil use in vehicles.

✅ Cuts GHGs 56% vs. 2026 standards; improves national air quality.

✅ Targets up to two-thirds EV sales by 2032 nationwide.

✅ Reduces oil imports by about 20 billion barrels; lowers costs.

The Biden administration is proposing strict new automobile pollution limits that would require up to two-thirds of new vehicles sold in the U.S. to be electric by 2032, a nearly tenfold increase over current electric vehicle sales.

The proposed regulation, announced Wednesday by the Environmental Protection Agency, would set tailpipe emissions limits for the 2027 through 2032 model years that are the strictest ever imposed — and call for far more new EV sales than the auto industry agreed to less than two years ago, a shift aligned with U.S. EV sales momentum in early 2024.

If finalized next year as expected, the plan would represent the strongest push yet toward a once almost unthinkable shift from gasoline-powered cars and trucks to battery-powered vehicles, as the market approaches an inflection point in adoption.

The Biden administration is proposing strict new automobile pollution limits that would require up to two-thirds of new vehicles sold in the U.S. to be electric by 2032, a nearly tenfold increase over current electric vehicle sales.

The proposed regulation, announced Wednesday by the Environmental Protection Agency, would set tailpipe emissions limits for the 2027 through 2032 model years that are the strictest ever imposed — and call for far more new EV sales than the auto industry agreed to less than two years ago, a direction mirrored by Canada's EV sales regulations now being finalized.

If finalized next year as expected, the plan would represent the strongest push yet toward a once almost unthinkable shift from gasoline-powered cars and trucks to battery-powered vehicles, with many analysts forecasting widespread adoption within a decade among buyers.

Reaching half was always a “stretch goal," given that EVs still trail gas cars in market share and contingent on manufacturing incentives and tax credits to make EVs more affordable, he wrote.

“The question isn’t can this be done, it’s how fast can it be done,” Bozzella wrote. “How fast will depend almost exclusively on having the right policies and market conditions in place.”

European car maker Stellantis said that, amid broader EV mandate debates across North America, officials were “surprised that none of the alternatives” proposed by EPA "align with the president’s previously announced target of 50% EVs by 2030.''

Q. How will the proposal benefit the environment?

A. The proposed standards for light-duty cars and trucks are projected to result in a 56% reduction in projected greenhouse gas emissions compared with existing standards for model year 2026, the EPA said. The proposals would improve air quality for communities across the nation, and, with actual benefits influenced by grid mix — for example, Canada's fossil electricity share affects lifecycle emissions — avoiding nearly 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions by 2055, more than twice the total U.S. CO2 emissions last year, the EPA said.

The plan also would save thousands of dollars over the lives of the vehicles sold and reduce U.S. reliance on approximately 20 billion barrels of oil imports, the agency said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Canada Renewable Energy Outlook highlights IEA forecasts of slower capacity growth as Ontario cancels LRP auctions; wind, solar, and hydro expand amid carbon pricing, coal phase-out, Alberta tenders, and falling costs despite natural gas competition.

Key Points

The Canada Renewable Energy Outlook distills IEA projections and policies behind wind, solar, and hydro growth to 2022.

✅ IEA trims Canada renewables growth to 9 GW by 2022

✅ Ontario LRP cuts and Quebec tenders reduce near-term additions

✅ Wind, solar, hydro expand amid carbon pricing and coal phase-out

A new report expects growth in Canadian renewable energy capacity to slow in the next five years compared to earlier projections, a decrease that comes after Ontario scrapped a contentious clean energy program aimed at boosting wind and solar supplies.

The International Energy Agency’s annual outlook for renewable energy, released Wednesday, projects Canada’s renewable capacity to grow by nine gigawatts between 2017 and 2022, down from last year’s report that projected capacity would grow by 13GW.

The influential Paris-based agency said its recent outlook for Canadian renewables was “less optimistic” than its 2016 projection due to “recent changes in auctions schemes in Ontario and Quebec.”

PROGRAM CUTS

In mid-2016 the Ontario government suspended the second phase of its Large Renewable Procurement (LPR) program, axing $3.8 billion in planned renewable energy contracts. And Quebec cancelled tenders for several clean energy projects, which also led the agency to trim its forecasts, the report said.

Ontario cut the LRP program amid anger over rising electricity bills, which critics said was at least partly due to the rapid expansion of wind power supplies across the province.

Experts said the rise in costs was also partly due to major one-time costs to maintain aging infrastructure, particularly the $12.8-billion refurbishment of the Darlington nuclear plant located east of Toronto. The province also has plans to renovate the nearby Pickering nuclear plant in coming years.

The IEA report comes as Ottawa aims to drastically cut carbon emissions, largely by expanding renewable energy capacity. The provinces, including the Prairie provinces, have meanwhile been looking to pare back emissions by phasing out coal and implementing a carbon tax.

While Ontario’s decision to scrap the LRP program is a minor setback in the near-term, analysts say that tightening environmental policy in Canada and elsewhere will regardless continue to drive rapid growth in renewable energy supplies like wind power and solar.

Even the threat of cheap supplies of natural gas, a major competitor to renewable supplies, is unlikely to keep wind and solar supplies off the market, despite lagging solar demand in some regions, as costs continue to fall.

“It’s not just this (Ontario) renewables program, it’s the carbon pricing program, the coal phase out, a whole plethora of programs that are squeezing natural gas margins,” said Dave Sawyer, an economist at EnviroEconomics in Ottawa.

RENEWABLE ENERGY CAPACITY

Canada’s renewable energy capacity is still expected to grow at a robust 10 per cent per year, the report said, and is expected to supply 69 per cent of overall power generation in the country by 2022.

The IEA, however, expects the growth in hydro power capacity to “slow significantly” beyond 2022, after a raft of new hydro projects come online.

Canadian hydro power capacity is projected to grow 2.2GW in the next five years, mostly due to the commissioning of the Keeyask plant in Manitoba the Muskrat Falls dam in Newfoundland and Labrador and the Romaine 3 and 4 stations in Quebec, in a sector where Canada ranks in the top 10 for hydropower jobs nationwide.

Solar capacity in Canada is expected to grow by 2GW to 4.7GW in 2022, approaching the 5 GW milestone in the near term, mostly due to feed-in-tariff programs in Ontario and renewable energy tenders currently underway in Alberta.

Globally, China and India lead renewable capacity growth projections. China alone is expected to be responsible for 40 per cent of renewable capacity growth in the next five years, while India will double its renewable electricity capacity by 2022. The world is collectively expected to grow renewable electricity capacity by 43 per cent between 2017 and 2022.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Clean Electricity Standard drives Biden's infrastructure, grid decarbonization, and utility mandates, leveraging EPA regulation, renewables, nuclear, and carbon capture via reconciliation to reach 80% clean power by 2030 amid partisan Congress.

Key Points

A federal mandate to reach 80% clean U.S. power by 2030 using incentives and EPA rules to speed grid decarbonization.

✅ Targets 80% clean electricity by 2030 via Congress or reconciliation

✅ Mix of renewables, nuclear, gas with carbon capture allowed

✅ Backup levers: EPA rules, incentives, utility planning shifts

The true measure of President Biden’s climate ambition may be the clean electricity standard he tucked into his massive $2.2 trillion infrastructure spending plan.

Its goal is striking: 80% clean power in the United States by 2030.

The details, however, are vague. And so is Biden’s plan B if it fails—an uncertainty that’s worrisome to both activists and academics. The lack of a clear backup plan underscores the importance of passing a clean electricity standard, they say.

If the clean electricity standard doesn’t survive Congress, it will put pressure on the need to drive climate policy through targeted spending, said John Larsen, a power system analyst with the Rhodium Group, an economic consulting firm.

“I don’t think the game is lost at all if a clean electricity standard doesn’t get through in this round,” Larsen said. “But there’s a difference between not passing a clean electricity standard and passing the right spending package.”

In his few months in office, Biden has outlined plans to bring the United States back into the international Paris climate accord, pause oil and gas leasing on public lands, boost the electric vehicle market, and target clean energy investments in vulnerable communities, including plans to revitalize coal communities across the country, most affected by climate change.

But those are largely executive orders and spending proposals—even as early assessments show mixed results from climate law—and unlikely to last beyond his administration if the next president favors fossil fuel usage over climate policy. The clean electricity standard, which would decarbonize 80% of the electrical grid by 2030, is different.

It transforms Biden’s climate vision from a goal into a mandate. Passing it through Congress makes it that much harder for a future administration to undo. If Biden is in office for two terms, the United States would see a rate of decarbonization unparalleled in its history that would set a new bar for most of the world’s biggest economies.

But for now, the clean electricity standard faces an uncertain path through Congress and steep odds to getting enacted. That means there’s a good chance the administration will need a plan B, observers said.

Exactly what kind of climate spending can pass Congress is the very question the White House and congressional Democrats will be working on in the next few months, including upgrades to an aging power grid that affect renewables and EVs, as the infrastructure bill proceeds through Congress.

Negotiations are fraught already. Congress is almost evenly split between a party that wants to curtail the use of fossil fuels and another that wants to grow them, and even high energy prices have not necessarily triggered a green transition in the marketplace.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said last week that “100% of my focus is on stopping this new administration.” He made similar comments at the start of the Obama administration and blocked climate policy from getting through Congress. He also said last week that no Republican senators would vote for Biden’s infrastructure spending plan.

A clean electricity standard has been referred to as the “backbone” of Biden’s climate policy—a way to ensure his policies to decarbonize the economy outlast a future president who would seek to roll back his climate work. Advocates say hitting that benchmark is an essential milestone in getting to a carbon-free grid by 2035. Much of President Obama’s climate policy, crafted largely through regulations and executive orders, proved vulnerable to President Trump’s rollbacks.

Biden appears to have learned from those lessons and wants to chart a new course to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. He’s using his majority in the House and Senate to lock in whatever he can before the 2022 midterms, when Democrats are expected to lose the House.

To pass a clean electricity standard, virtually every Democrat must be on board, and even then, the only chance of success is to pass a bill through the budget reconciliation process that can carry a clean electricity standard. Some Senate Democrats have recently hinted that they were willing to split the bill into pieces to get it through, while others are concerned that although this approach might win some GOP support on traditional infrastructure such as roads and bridges, it would isolate the climate provisions that make up more than half of the bill.

The most durable scenario for rapid electricity-sector decarbonization is to lock in a bipartisan clean electricity standard into legislation with 60 votes in the Senate, said Mike O’Boyle, the director of electricity policy for Energy Innovation. Because that’s highly unlikely—if not impossible—there are other paths that could get the United States to the 80% goal within the next decade.

“The next best approach is to either, or in combination, pursue EPA regulation of power plant pollution from existing and new power plants as well as to take a reconciliation-based approach to a clean electricity standard where you’re basically spending federal dollars to provide incentives to drive clean electricity deployment as opposed to a mandate per se,” he said.

Either way, O’Boyle said the introduction of the clean electricity standard sets a new bar for the federal government that likely would drive industry response even if it doesn’t get enacted. He compared it to the Clean Power Plan, Obama’s initiative to limit power plant emissions. Even though the plan never came to fruition, because of a Clean Power Plan rollback, it left a legacy that continues years later and wasn’t negated by a president who prioritized fossil fuels over the climate, he said.

“It never got enacted, but it still created a titanic shift in the way utilities plan their systems and proactively reposition themselves for future carbon regulation of their electricity systems,” O’Boyle said. “I think any action by the Biden administration or by Congress through reconciliation would have a similar catalytic function over the next couple years.”

Some don’t think a clean electricity standard has a doomed future. Right now, its provisions are vague. But they can be filled in in a way that doesn’t alienate Republicans or states more hesitant toward climate policy, said Sally Benson, an engineering professor at Stanford University and an expert on low-carbon energy systems. The United States is overdue for a federal mandate that lasts through multiple administrations. The only way to ensure that happens is to get Republican support.

She said that might be possible by making the clean electricity standard more flexible. Mandate the goals, she said, not how states get there. Going 100% renewable is not going to sell in some states or with some lawmakers, she added. For some regions, flexibility will mean keeping nuclear plants open. For others, it would mean using natural gas with carbon capture, Benson said.

While it might not meet the standards some progressives seek to end all fossil fuel usage, it would have a better chance of getting enacted and remaining in place through multiple presidents, she said. In fact, a clean electricity standard would provide a chance for carbon capture, which has been at the center of Republican climate policy proposals. Benson said carbon capture is not economical now, but the mandate of a standard could encourage investments that would drive the sector forward more rapidly.

“If it’s a plan that people see as shutting the door to nuclear or to natural gas plus carbon capture, I think we will face a lot of pushback,” she said. “Make it an inclusive plan with a specific goal of getting to zero emissions and there’s not one way to do it, meaning all renewables—I think that’s the thing that could garner a lot of industrial support to make progress.”

In addition to industry, Biden’s proposed clean electricity standard would drive states to do more, said Larsen of the Rhodium Group. Several states already have their own version of a clean energy standard and have driven much of the national progress on carbon emissions reduction in the last four years, he said. Biden has set a new benchmark that some states, including those with some of the biggest economies in the United States, would now likely exceed, he said.

“It is rare for the federal government to get out in front of leading states in clean energy policy,” he said. “This is not usually how climate policy diffusion works from the state level to the federal level; usually it’s states go ahead and the federal government adopts something that’s less ambitious.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nova Scotia’s West Wind Clean Energy Project aims to harness offshore wind power to deliver renewable electricity, expand transmission infrastructure, and position Canada as a global leader in sustainable energy generation.

What is West Wind Clean Energy?

The West Wind Clean Energy Project is Nova Scotia’s $60-billion offshore wind initiative to generate up to 66 GW of clean electricity for Canada’s growing energy needs.

✅ Harnesses offshore wind resources for renewable power generation

✅ Expands grid and transmission infrastructure for clean energy exports

✅ Supports Canada’s transition to a sustainable, low-carbon economy

Nova Scotia has launched one of the most ambitious clean energy projects in Canadian history — a $60-billion plan to build 66 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind capacity, as countries like the UK expand offshore wind, capable of meeting up to 27 per cent of the nation’s total electricity demand.

Premier Tim Houston unveiled the project, called West Wind, in June, positioning it as a cornerstone of Canada’s broader energy transition and aligning it with Prime Minister Mark Carney’s goal of making the country both a clean energy and conventional energy superpower. Three months later, Carney announced a slate of “nation-building” infrastructure projects the federal government would fast-track. While West Wind was not on the initial list, it was included in a second tier of high-potential proposals still under development.

The plan’s scale is unprecedented for Canada’s offshore energy industry, as organizations like Marine Renewables Canada pivot toward offshore wind to accelerate growth. However, enormous logistical, financial, and market challenges remain. Turbines will not be in the water for years, and the global offshore wind industry itself is facing one of its most difficult periods in over a decade.

“Right now is probably the worst time in 15 years to launch a project like this,” said an executive at a Canadian energy company who requested anonymity. “It’s not Nova Scotia’s fault. It’s just really bad timing.” He pointed to failed offshore wind auctions in Europe, rising costs, and policy reversals in the United States as troubling signals for investors, even as New York’s largest offshore wind project moved ahead this year. “You can’t build the wind and hope the lines come later. You have to build both — together.”

Indeed, transmission infrastructure is emerging as the project’s biggest obstacle. Nova Scotia’s local electricity demand is limited, meaning most of the power would need to be sold to markets in Ontario, Quebec, and New England. Of the $60 billion budgeted for West Wind, $40 billion is allocated to generation, and $20 billion to new transmission — massive sums that require close federal-provincial coordination and long-term investment planning.

Despite the economic headwinds, advocates argue that West Wind could transform Atlantic Canada’s energy landscape and strengthen national energy security, building on recent tidal power investments in Nova Scotia. Peter Nicholson, chair of the Canadian Climate Institute and author of Catching the Wind: How Atlantic Canada Can Become an Energy Superpower, believes the project could redefine Nova Scotia’s role in Canada’s energy transition.

“It’s very well understood where the world is headed,” Nicholson said, noting that wind power is becoming increasingly competitive worldwide. “We’re moving toward an electrical future that’s cleanly generated for economic, environmental, and security reasons. But for that to happen, the economics have to work.” He added that the official “nation-building” designation could give Nova Scotia “a seat at the table” with major utilities in other provinces.

The governments of Canada and Nova Scotia recently issued a notice of strategic direction to the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Energy Regulator, aligning with Ottawa’s plan to regulate offshore wind as it begins a prequalification process and designs a call for bids later this year. The initial round will cover just 3 GW of capacity — smaller than the originally envisioned 5 GW — but officials describe it as a first step in a multi-decade plan.

While timing and economics remain uncertain, supporters insist the long-term potential of offshore wind in Nova Scotia is too significant to ignore. As global demand for clean electricity grows and offshore wind moves toward a trillion-dollar global market, they argue, West Wind could help secure Canada’s place as a renewable energy leader — if government and industry can find a way to make the numbers work.

Related Articles

• Canada Electricity News

EV Battery Manufacturing Emissions debunk viral claims with lifecycle analysis, showing lithium-ion production CO2 depends on grid mix and is offset by zero tailpipe emissions and renewable-energy charging over typical vehicle miles.

Key Points

EV lithium-ion pack production varies by grid mix; ~1-2 years of driving, then offset by zero tailpipe emissions.

✅ Battery CO2 depends on electricity mix and factory efficiency.

✅ 75 kWh pack ~4.5-7.5 t CO2; not equal to 8 years of driving.

✅ Lifecycle analysis: EVs cut GHG vs gas, especially with renewables.

Electric vehicles are touted as an environmentally friendly alternative to gasoline powered cars, but one Facebook post claims that the benefits are overblown, despite fact-checks of charging math to the contrary, and the vehicles are much more harmful to the planet than people assume.

A cartoon posted to Facebook on April 29, amid signs the EV era is arriving in many markets, shows a car in one panel with "diesel" written on the side and the driver thinking "I feel so dirty." In another panel, a car has "electric" written on its side with the driver thinking "I feel so clean."

However, the electric vehicle is shown connected to what appears to be a factory that’s blowing dark smoke into the air.

Below the cartoon is a caption that claims "manufacturing the battery for one electric car produces the same amount of CO2 as running a petrol car for eight years."

This isn’t a new line of criticism against electric vehicles, and reflects ongoing opinion on the EV revolution in the media. Similar Facebook posts have taken aim at the carbon dioxide produced in the manufacturing of electric cars — specifically the batteries — to make the case that zero emissions vehicles aren’t necessarily clean.

Full electric vehicles require a large lithium-ion battery to store energy and power the motor that propels the car, according to Insider. The lithium-ion battery packs in an electric car are chemically similar to the ones found in cell phones and laptops.

Because they require a mix of metals that need to be extracted and refined, lithium-ion batteries take more energy to produce than the common lead-acid batteries used in gasoline cars to help start the engine.

How much CO2 is emitted in the production depends on where the lithium-ion battery is made — or specifically, how the electricity powering the factory is generated, and national electricity profiles such as Canada's 2019 mix help illustrate regional differences — according to Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and director of climate and energy at the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental research think tank.

Producing a 75 kilowatt-hour battery for a Tesla Model 3, considered on the larger end of batteries for electric vehicles, would result in the emission of 4,500 kilograms of CO2 if it was made at Tesla's battery factory in Nevada. That’s the emissions equivalent to driving a gas-powered sedan for 1.4 years, at a yearly average distance of 12,000 miles, Hausfather said.

If the battery were made in Asia, manufacturing it would produce 7,500 kg of carbon dioxide, or the equivalent of driving a gasoline-powered sedan for 2.4 years — but still nowhere near the eight years claimed in the Facebook post. Hausfather said the larger emission amount in Asia can be attributed to its "higher carbon electricity mix." The continent relies more on coal for energy production, while Tesla’s Nevada factory uses some solar energy. 

"More than half the emissions associated with manufacturing the battery are associated with electricity use," Hausfather said in an email to PolitiFact. "So, as the electricity grid decarbonizes, emissions associated with battery production will decline. The same is not true for sedan tailpipe emissions."

The Facebook post does not mention the electricity needs and CO2 impact of factories that build gasoline or diesel cars and their components. 

Another thing the Facebook post omits is that the CO2 emitted in the production of the battery can be offset over a short time in an electric car by the lack of tailpipe emissions when it’s in operation. 

The Union of Concerned Scientists found in a 2015 report that taking into account electricity sources for charging, which have become greener in all states since then, an electric vehicle ends up reducing greenhouse gas emissions by about 50% compared with a similar size gas-powered car.

A midsize vehicle completely negates the carbon dioxide its production emits by the time it travels 4,900 miles, according to the report. For full size cars, it takes 19,000 miles of driving.

The U.S. Energy Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy also looked at the life cycle of electric vehicles — which includes a car’s production, use and disposal — and concluded they produce less greenhouse gases and smog than gasoline-powered vehicles, a conclusion consistent with independent analyses from consumer and energy groups.

The agency also found drivers could further lower CO2 emissions by charging with power generated by a renewable energy source, and drivers can also save money in the long run with EV ownership. 

Our ruling
A cartoon shared on Facebook claims the carbon dioxide emitted from the production of one electric car battery is the equivalent to driving a gas-powered vehicle for eight years.

The production of lithium-ion batteries for electric cars emits a significant amount of carbon dioxide, but nowhere near the level claimed in the cartoon. The emissions from battery production are equivalent to driving a gasoline car for one or two years, depending on where it’s produced, and those emissions are effectively offset over time by the lack of tailpipe emissions when the car is on the road. 

We rate this claim Mostly False.    

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News