EV shortages, wait times amid high gasoline prices

Canada Solar Capacity Outlook 2022-2050 projects 500 MW new PV in 2022 and 35 GW by 2050, driven by renewables policy, grid parity, NREL analysis, IEA-PVPS data, and competitive utility-scale photovoltaic costs.

Key Points

An evidence-based forecast of Canadian PV additions to 35 GW by 2050, reflecting policy, costs, and grid parity trends.

✅ 500 MW PV expected in 2022; cumulative capacity near 5 GW

✅ NREL outlook sees 35 GW by 2050 on cost competitiveness

✅ Policy shifts, ITCs, coal retirements accelerate solar uptake

Canada is set to install 500 MW of new solar in 2022, bringing its total capacity to about 5 GW, according to data from Canmet Energy, even as the Netherlands outpaces Canada in solar power generation. The country is expected to hit 35 GW of total solar capacity by 2050.

Canada’s cumulative solar capacity is set to hit 5 GW by the end of this year, according to figures from the federal government’s Canmet Energy lab. The country is expected to add around 500 MW of new solar capacity, from 944 MW last year, according to the International Energy Agency Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme (IEA-PVPS), which recently published a report on PV applications in Canada, even as solar demand lags in Canada.

“If we look at the recent averages, Canada has installed around 500 MW annually. I expect in 2022 it will be at least 500 MW,” said Yves Poissant, research manager at Canmet Energy. “Last year it was 944 MW, mainly because of a 465 MW centralized PV power plant installed in Alberta, where the Prairie Provinces are expected to lead national renewable growth.”

The US National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) studied renewables integration and concluded that Canada’s cumulative solar capacity will increase sevenfold to 35 GW by 2050, driven by cost competitiveness and that zero-emissions by 2035 is achievable according to complementary studies.

Canada now produces 80% of its electricity from power sources other than oil. Hydroelectricity leads the mix at 60%, followed by nuclear at 15%, wind at 7%, gas and coal at 7%, and PV at just 1%. While the government aims to increase the share of green electricity to 90% by 2030 and 100% by 2050, zero-emission electricity by 2035 is considered practical and profitable, yet it has not set any specific goals for PV. Each Canadian province and territory is left to determine its own targets.

“Without comprehensive pan-Canadian policy framework with annual capacity targets, PV installation in the coming years will likely continue to be highly variable across the provinces and territories, especially after Ontario scrapped a clean energy program, which scaled back growth projections. Further policies mechanisms are needed to allow PV to reach its full potential,” the IEA-PVPS said.

Popular content
Canada recently introduced investment tax credits for renewables to compete with the United States, but it is still far from being a solar powerhouse, with some experts calling it a solar laggard today. That said, the landscape has started to change in the past five years.

“Some laws have been put in place to retire coal plants by 2025. That led to new opportunities to install capacity,” said Poissant. “We expect the newly installed capacity will consist mostly of wind, but also solar.”

The cost of solar has become more competitive and the residential sector is now close to grid parity, according to Poissant. For utility-scale projects, old hydroelectric dams are still considerably cheaper than solar, but newly built installations are now more expensive than solar.

“Starting 2030, solar PV will be cost competitive compared to wind,” Poissant said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

UK Renewable Grid Connection Delays threaten the 2035 zero-carbon electricity target as National Grid queues stall wind and solar projects, investors, and infrastructure, slowing clean energy deployment, curtailing capacity build-out, and risking net-zero progress.

Key Points

Prolonged National Grid queues delaying wind and solar connections, jeopardizing the UK's 2035 clean power target.

✅ Up to 15-year waits for grid connections

✅ Over £200bn projects stuck in the queue

✅ Threatens zero-carbon electricity by 2035

The UK currently has a 2035 target for 100% of its electricity to be produced without carbon emissions, while Ireland's green electricity progress offers a nearby benchmark within the next four years.

But meeting the target will require a big increase in the number of renewable projects across the country. It is estimated as much as five times more solar and four times as much wind is needed, with growth in UK offshore wind expected to play a key role here.

The government and private investors have spent £198bn on renewable power infrastructure since 2010, alongside European wind investments recorded last year. But now energy companies are warning that significant delays to connect their green energy projects to the system will threaten their ability to bring more green power online.

A new wind farm or solar site can only start supplying energy to people's homes once it has been plugged into the grid.

Energy companies like Octopus Energy, one of Europe's largest investors in renewable energy, say they have been told by National Grid that they need to wait up to 15 years for some connections, even as a new 10 GW contract aims to speed UK grid additions - far beyond the government's 2035 target.

'Longest grid queues in Europe'
There are currently more than £200bn worth of projects sitting in the connections queue, the BBC has calculated.

Around 40% of them face a connection wait of at least a year, according to National Grid's own figures. That represents delayed investments worth tens of billions of pounds, reflecting stalled grid spending that slows renewable rollouts.

"We currently have one of the longest grid queues in Europe," according to Zoisa North-Bond, chief executive of Octopus Energy Generation.

The problem is so many new renewable projects are applying for connections, the grid cannot keep up with required network expansion such as new pylons in Scotland being discussed nationwide.

The system was built when just a few fossil fuel power plants were requesting a connection each year, but now there are 1,100 projects in the queue, a challenge mirrored by U.S. grid hurdles in moving toward 100% renewables today.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

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

Key Points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

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

Key Points

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

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

✅ National rail franchising replaced with integrated operations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Electric vehicles may cost more upfront but often save money long-term. A new MIT study shows the total cost of EV ownership is lower than gas cars when factoring in fuel, maintenance, and emissions.

Total cost of EV ownership is the focus of new MIT research showing electric vehicles offer both financial and environmental benefits over time.

✅ Electric vehicles cost more upfront but save money over their lifetime through lower fuel and maintenance costs

✅ MIT study confirms EVs have lower emissions and total ownership costs than most gas-powered cars

✅ New interactive tool helps consumers compare climate and cost impacts of EVs, hybrids, and traditional vehicles

Electric vehicles are better for the climate than gas‑powered cars, but many Americans are still reluctant to buy them. One reason: The larger upfront cost.

New data published Thursday shows that despite the higher sticker price, electric cars may actually save drivers money in the long-run.

To reach this conclusion, a team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculated both the carbon dioxide emissions and full lifetime cost — including purchase price, maintenance and fuel — for nearly every new car model on the market.

They found electric cars were easily more climate friendly than gas-burning ones. Over a lifetime, they were often cheaper, too.

Jessika Trancik, an associate professor of energy studies at M.I.T. who led the research, said she hoped the data would “help people learn about how those upfront costs are spread over the lifetime of the car.”

For electric cars, lower maintenance costs and the lower costs of charging compared with gasoline prices tend to offset the higher upfront price over time. (Battery-electric engines have fewer moving parts that can break compared with gas-powered engines and they don’t require oil changes. Electric vehicles also use regenerative braking, which reduces wear and tear.)

As EV adoption continues to boom, more consumers are realizing the long-term savings and climate benefits. Ontario’s investment in EV charging stations reflects how infrastructure is beginning to catch up with demand. Despite regional energy pricing differences, EV charging costs remain lower than gasoline in nearly every U.S. city.

The cars are greener over time, too, despite the more emissions-intensive battery manufacturing process. Dr. Trancik estimates that an electric vehicle’s production emissions would be offset in anywhere from six to 18 months, depending on how clean the energy grid is where the car is charging.

In some areas, EVs are even being used to power homes, enhancing their value as a sustainable investment. Recent EPA rules aim to boost EV sales, further signaling government support. California leads the nation in EV charging infrastructure, setting a model for nationwide adoption.

The new data showed hybrid cars, which run on a combination of fuel and battery power, and can sometimes be plugged in, had more mixed results for both emissions and costs. Some hybrids were cheaper and spewed less planet-warming carbon dioxide than regular cars, but others were in the same emissions and cost range as gas-only vehicles.

Traditional gas-burning cars were usually the least climate friendly option, though long-term costs and emissions spanned a wide range. Compact cars were usually cheaper and more efficient, while gas-powered SUVs and luxury sedans landed on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Dr. Trancik’s team released the data in an interactive online tool to help people quantify the true costs of their car-buying decisions — both for the planet and their budget. The new estimates update a study published in 2016 and add to a growing body of research underscoring the potential lifetime savings of electric cars.

Take the Tesla Model 3, the most popular electric car in the United States. The M.I.T. team estimated the lifetime cost of the most basic model as comparable to a Nissan Altima that sells for $11,000 less upfront. (That’s even though Tesla’s federal tax incentive for electric vehicles has ended.)

Toyota’s Hybrid RAV4 S.U.V. also ends up cheaper in the long run than a similar traditional RAV4, a national bestseller, despite a higher retail price.

Hawaii, Alaska and parts of New England have some of the highest average electricity costs, while parts of the Midwest, West and South tend to have lower rates. Gas prices are lower along the Gulf Coast and higher in California. But an analysis from the Union of Concerned Scientists still found that charging a vehicle was more cost effective than filling up at the pump across 50 major American cities. “We saw potential savings everywhere,” said David Reichmuth, a senior engineer for the group’s Clean Transportation Program.

Still, the upfront cost of an electric vehicle continues to be a barrier for many would-be owners.

The federal government offers a tax credit for some new electric vehicle purchases, but that does nothing to reduce the initial purchase price and does not apply to used cars. That means it disproportionately benefits wealthier Americans. Some states, like California, offer additional incentives. President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. has pledged to offer rebates that help consumers swap inefficient, old cars for cleaner new ones, and to create 500,000 more electric vehicle charging stations, too.

EV sales projections for 2024 suggest continued acceleration, especially as costs fall and policy support expands. Chris Gearhart, director of the Center for Integrated Mobility Sciences at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, said electric cars will become more price competitive in coming years as battery prices drop. At the same time, new technologies to reduce exhaust emissions are making traditional cars more expensive. “With that trajectory, you can imagine that even immediately at the purchase price level, certain smaller sedans could reach purchase price parity in the next couple of years,” Dr. Gearhart said.

Related Pages:

EV Boom Unexpectedly Benefits All Electricity Customers

Ontario Invests in New EV Charging Stations

EV Charging Cost Still Beats Gasoline, Study Finds

EPA Rules Expected to Boost U.S. Electric Vehicle Sales

California Takes the Lead in Electric Vehicle and Charging Station Adoption

EVs to Power Homes: New Technology Turns Cars Into Backup Batteries

U.S. Electric Vehicle Sales Soar Into 2024

Canada Green Investment Gap highlights lagging EV and clean energy funding as peers surge. With a green recovery budget pending, sustainable finance, green bonds, EV charging, hydrogen, and carbon capture are pivotal to decarbonization.

Key Points

Canada lags peers in EV and clean energy investment, urging faster budget and policy action to cut emissions.

✅ Per capita climate spend trails US and EU benchmarks

✅ EVs, hydrogen, charging need scaled funding now

✅ Strengthen sustainable finance, green bonds, disclosure

Canada is being outpaced on the international stage when it comes to green investments in electric vehicles and green energy solutions, environmental groups say.

The federal government has an opportunity to change course in about three weeks, when the Liberals table their first budget in over two years, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) argued in a new analysis endorsed by nine other climate action, ecology and conservation organizations.

“Canada’s international peers are ramping up commitments for green recovery, including significant investments from many European countries,” states the analysis, “Investing for Tomorrow, Today,” published March 29.

“To keep up with our global peers, sufficient investments and strengthened regulations, including EV sales regulations, must work in tandem to rapidly decarbonize all sectors of the Canadian economy.”

Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland confirmed last week that the federal budget will be tabled April 19. The Liberals are expected to propose between $70 billion and $100 billion in fiscal stimulus to jolt the economy out of its pandemic doldrums.

The government teased a coming economic “green transformation” late last year when Freeland released the fall economic statement, promising to examine federal green bonds, border carbon adjustments and a sustainable finance market, with tweaks like tightening the climate-risk disclosure obligations of corporations.

The government has also proposed a wide range of green measures in its new climate plan released in December — which the think tank called the “most ambitious” in Canada’s history — including energy retrofit programs, boosting hydrogen and other alternative fuels, and rolling out carbon capture technology in a grid where 18% of electricity still came from fossil fuels in 2019.

But the possible “three-year stimulus package to jumpstart our recovery” mentioned in the fall economic statement came with the caveat that the COVID-19 virus would have to be “under control.” While vaccines are being administered, Canada is currently dealing with a rise of highly transmissible variants of the virus.

Freeland spoke with United States Vice-President Kamala Harris on March 25, highlighting potential Canada-U.S. collaboration on EVs alongside the “need to support entrepreneurs, small businesses, young people, low-wage and racialized workers, the care economy, and women” in the context of an economic recovery.

Biden is contemplating a climate recovery plan that could exceed US$2 trillion as Canada looks to capitalize on the U.S. auto pivot to EVs to spur domestic industry. Per capita, that is over 8 times what Canada has announced so far for climate-related spending in the wake of the pandemic, according to a new analysis from green groups.
U.S. President Joe Biden is contemplating a climate and clean energy recovery plan that could “exceed US$2 trillion,” White House officials told reporters this month. “Per capita, that is over eight times what Canada has announced so far for climate-related spending in the wake of the pandemic,” the IISD-led analysis stated.

Biden’s election platform commitment of $508 billion over 10 years in clean energy was also seen as “significantly higher per capita than Canada’s recent commitments.”

Since October 2020, Canada has announced $36 billion in new climate-focused funding, a 2035 EV mandate and other measures, the groups found. By comparison, they noted, a political agreement in Europe proposed that a minimum of 37 per cent of investments in each national recovery plan should support climate action. France and Germany have also committed tens of billions of dollars to support clean hydrogen.

As for electric vehicles (EVs), the United Kingdom has committed $4.9 billion, while Germany has put up $7.5 billion to expand EV adoption and charging infrastructure and sweeten incentive programs for prospective buyers, complementing Canada’s ambitious EV goals announced domestically. The U.K. has also committed $3.5 billion for bike lanes and other active transportation, the groups noted.

Canada announced $400 million over five years this month for a new network of bike lanes, paths, trails and bridges, the first federal fund dedicated to active transportation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News