EV shortages, wait times amid high gasoline prices

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

US Renewable Energy Capacity 2023 leads new utility-scale additions, with solar, wind, and battery storage surging; EIA data cite tax incentives, lower costs, and smart grid upgrades driving grid reliability and decarbonization.

Key Points

In 2023, renewables dominate new US utility-scale capacity: 54% solar, 7.1 GW wind, 8.6 GW battery storage, per EIA.

✅ 54% of 2023 US additions are solar, a record year

✅ 7.1 GW wind and 8.6 GW batteries expand grid resources

✅ Storage, smart grids, incentives boost reliability and growth

Wind, solar, and batteries make up 82% of 2023’s expected new utility-scale power capacity in the US, highlighting wind power's surge alongside solar and storage, according to the US Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) “Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory.”

As of January 2023, the US was operating 73.5 gigawatts (GW) of utility-scale solar capacity, which aligns with rising solar generation trends across the US – about 6% of the country’s total.

But solar makes up just over half of new US generating capacity expected to come online in 2023, supported by favourable government plans across key markets. And if it all goes as expected, it will be the most solar capacity added in a single year in the US. It will also be the first year that more than half of US capacity additions are solar, underscoring solar's No. 3 renewable ranking in the U.S. mix.

As of January 2023, 141.3 GW of wind capacity was operating in the US, reflecting wind's status as the most-used renewable nationwide – about 12% of the US total. Another 7.1 GW are planned for 2023. Tax incentives, lower wind turbine construction costs, and new renewable energy targets are spurring the growth. 

And developers also plan to add 8.6 GW of battery storage power capacity to the grid this year, supporting record solar and storage buildouts across the market, and that’s going to double total US battery power capacity.

However, differences in the amount of electricity that different types of power plants can produce mean that wind and solar made up about 17% of the US’s utility-scale capacity in 2021, but produced 12% of electricity, even as renewables surpassed coal nationally in 2022. Solutions such as energy storage, smart grids, and infrastructure development will help bridge that gap.

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

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

Nova Scotia Biomass Electricity Policy increases dispatchable renewable generation from Port Hawkesbury and Brooklyn Energy, raising MWh output while critics cite clearcutting, carbon emissions, high costs to ratepayers, and delays replacing Muskrat Falls hydro.

Key Points

Policy directing utilities to maximize biomass power as dispatchable renewable supply during hydro delays.

✅ Port Hawkesbury biomass output up 35% year over year

✅ Brooklyn Energy used as dispatchable renewable supply

✅ Critics cite clearcutting, emissions, high ratepayer costs

A boiler owned by Nova Scotia Power on the grounds of the Port Hawkesbury paper plant, whose discount power rate request has drawn attention, is burning 35% more woody biomass this year than last. 

The year-to-date figures show 126,810 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity was generated over the first nine months of 2021 compared to 93,934 MWh for the same period in 2020 and 65,891 MWh in 2019. 

The information is contained in monthly fuel cost reports Nova Scotia Power must make to the Utility and Review Board, which regulates how much consumers ultimately pay for electricity and has received a call for major grid changes in Nova Scotia.

Burning biomass  — which includes everything from low-grade pulpwood to bark, shavings, and wood chip waste from sawmills — for the purpose of generating electricity is only about 22% efficient, even as some coal stations have switched to biomass abroad. Nova Scotia Power’s boiler at Port Hawkesbury supplies about 3% of the total electricity used in the province. 

Citizens concerned about climate change have for years opposed the government classifying biomass as “renewable energy” and have echoed calls to reduce biomass use for electricity, because clearcutting, which releases carbon from the ground, remains the dominant form of harvesting on Crown and private land. That’s despite ongoing work to begin implementing 2018 recommendations from Professor Bill Lahey to move toward a more ecological approach. 

In May 2020, after it became obvious renewable hydroelectricity from Muskrat Falls was going to be delayed yet again, the McNeil government passed an Order-in-Council extending until December 2022 the deadline to generate 40% of electricity from renewable sources as it moved to increase wind and solar projects across Nova Scotia. 

To help with the shortfall, Nova Scotia Power was told to “maximize” its use of biomass at both the facility it owns in Port Hawkesbury and another one in Brooklyn owned by its parent company, Emera.

In a letter to Nova Scotia Power dated May 15, then-Energy Minister Derek Mombourquette, amid debate over independent energy planning, added: “Nova Scotia Power shall also maximize the use of dispatchable renewable electricity from its own facilities, as well as those of renewable electricity power producers in Nova Scotia (excluding COMFIT generation sources).” 

By definition, “dispatchable” excludes wind and hydro sources, which are not available 24/7, though a new attempt to harness the Bay of Fundy's tides is underway. Nova Scotia Power claims the only “dispatchable renewable electricity power producer” in the province is Brooklyn Energy, the 35 MW biomass plant near Liverpool. 

The government capped at $7 million a year how much electricity Nova Scotia Power could buy from its affiliate company. Critics of the deal — such as auditors hired by the regulator and the province’s consumer advocate — say electricity generated by Brooklyn is the most expensive power and question why the province would burden ratepayers with its purchase.

The answer became apparent in September 2020 when then-Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Kelliann Dean appeared before the legislature’s standing committee on Natural Resources and Economic Development to praise the Order-in-Council for helping rescue the forestry industry four months after the closure of the Northern Pulp mill. 

“The change to Renewable Energy Standards (May,2020) is enabling Nova Scotia Power to generate more electricity from wood chips and sawmill residuals by operating two biomass plants at capacity until electricity from Muskrat Falls comes onstream,” she said. “We are using all the policy levers at our disposal to support the sector.”

Nova Scotia Power is not required to report to the UARB how much electricity is being produced or how much biomass is being burned at Brooklyn Energy. The company pleads “commercial confidentiality” when asked by The Halifax Examiner. 

Nova Scotia Power does report how much it spends each month to buy power from independent producers — a small group which includes Brooklyn but excludes all wind farms. That dollar amount has also increased over the past year — from $15.9 million for 10 months ending October 2020 compared to $23.3 million for 10 months ending October 2021. Unfortunately, the lack of transparency makes it impossible to know exactly how much of that increase is attributable to purchasing more biomass.

Radio silence
The current Minister of Natural Resources and Renewable Energy ,Tory Rushton, has the authority to reduce the amount of biomass being burned to generate electricity and by extension, the rate of clearcutting.

With a stroke of the pen, the PC government of Tim Houston could issue another Order-in-Council capping the amount of metric tonnes that could be used in the boilers, or, direct Nova Scotia Power to use biomass only when it is the most economical fuel choice. 

But so far, Rushton has not responded to the Halifax Examiner’s question about whether he intends to make any change to stop “maximizing” the use of biomass to produce electricity.

 The Examiner isn’t the only one pushing the Minister for answers to difficult issues. At noon today, Citizens opposed to a controversial clearcut on Crown land near Rocky Point Lake in Digby County will stage a demonstration outside the Department of Natural Resources and Renewable Energy on Hollis Street. The protest led by members of Extinction Rebellion and the Healthy Forest Coalition is to pressure the government to take action to protect the habitat of the mainland moose, an endangered species that ranges overs the Crown land currently being cut by the Westfor consortium. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Alberta Leads Canada’s Renewable Surge showcases how the province is transforming its power grid with wind, solar, and hydrogen energy projects that reduce carbon emissions, create sustainable jobs, and drive Canada’s clean electricity future.

Key Points: Alberta Leads Canada’s Renewable Surge

It is a national clean energy initiative showcasing Alberta’s leadership in renewable electricity generation, grid modernization, and sustainable economic growth.

✅ Expands solar, wind, and hydrogen projects across Alberta

✅ Reduces emissions while strengthening grid reliability

✅ Creates thousands of clean energy jobs and investments

Alberta is rapidly emerging as a national leader in clean electricity, driving Canada’s transition to a low-carbon energy future. A federal overview highlights how the province has become the powerhouse behind the country’s renewable energy growth across the Prairies, phasing out coal ahead of schedule and attracting billions in clean-energy investment.

In 2023, Alberta accounted for an astonishing 92 percent of Canada’s increase in renewable electricity generation, reflecting a renewable energy surge across the province. Solar and wind developments have expanded dramatically, as new lower-cost solar contracts are signed, reducing the province’s reliance on natural gas and cutting emissions from the power sector. Alberta’s vast land area and strong wind and solar resources have made it an ideal location for large-scale renewable projects that are transforming its energy landscape.

Federal programs are helping fuel this momentum. Through the Smart Renewables and Electrification Pathways program, 49 Alberta projects have already received over $660 million in funding, with an additional $152 million announced in the 2024 federal budget. Flagship developments include the Forty Mile Wind Farm and the Big Sky Solar Power Project, each backed by $25 million in federal support. These investments are creating jobs, strengthening grid reliability, and positioning Alberta at the forefront of Canada’s clean energy transition.

Although fossil fuels still dominate Alberta’s electricity mix, a major change is underway. In 2022, coal and natural gas accounted for 81 percent of electricity generation, while renewables and other sources contributed 18 percent, and the province’s hydroelectric capacity remained comparatively small. However, Alberta has successfully phased out coal generation ahead of the federal deadline, marking a milestone achievement in the province’s decarbonization journey.

Alberta’s renewable expansion features some of the country’s most significant projects. The Travers Solar Project in Vulcan County generates up to 465 megawatts — enough to power about 150,000 homes. Indigenous-led solar initiatives are also expanding, underscoring the province’s solar power growth, supported by $160 million in federal funding that has already created more than 1,500 jobs. On the wind side, the 494-megawatt Buffalo Plains Wind Farm, Canada’s largest onshore installation, began operating in 2024, followed by the 190-megawatt Paintearth Wind facility, which signed a 15-year power purchase agreement with Microsoft.

Beyond wind and solar, Alberta is exploring new technologies to maintain a stable, low-carbon grid while addressing solar expansion challenges related to grid integration. The province is collaborating with Saskatchewan on the development of small modular reactors (SMRs) to provide reliable baseload power and support the long-term shift toward net-zero electricity by 2050. Projects integrating carbon capture and storage are also moving forward, such as the proposed Moraine Power Generating Project — a 465-megawatt natural gas plant that is expected to create more than 700 jobs during construction.

The economic potential of Alberta’s clean energy transformation is substantial. Clean Energy Canada estimates that between 2025 and 2050, the province could gain more than 400,000 new jobs in the clean energy sector — triple the number currently employed in the upstream oil and gas industry. These positions will span renewable generation, hydrogen production, grid modernization, and energy storage.

With strong federal backing, aggressive private investment, and rapid deployment of renewable energy, Alberta is redefining its energy identity. Once known for its fossil fuel resources, the province is now positioning itself as a powerhouse for both green energy and fossil fuels in Canada, demonstrating that economic growth and environmental responsibility can go hand in hand.

Related Articles

• Canada Electricity News