Electric vehicles can now power your home for three days

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

Key Points

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

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

✅ Charging deserts complicate route planning on long highway stretches.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Hydrogen vs Battery-Electric Vehicles compare FCEV and BEV tech for range, charging and refueling, zero-emissions, infrastructure in Canada, highlighting urban commuting, heavy-duty use, fast 5-minute fills, 30-minute fast charging, and renewable hydrogen from surplus wind.

Key Points

Hydrogen FCEVs suit long range and heavy-duty use; BEVs excel in urban commutes with overnight charging.

✅ FCEVs refuel in about 5 minutes; ideal for long range and heavy duty.

✅ BEVs fit urban commuting with home or night charging; fewer stops.

✅ Hydrogen enables energy storage from surplus wind and hydro power.

We’re constantly hearing that battery-electric cars are the future, as automakers pursue Canada-U.S. collaboration on EVs across the industry, so I was surprised to see that companies like Toyota, Honda and Hyundai are making hydrogen fuel-cell cars. Which technology is better? Could hydrogen still win? – Pete, Kingston

They’re both in their electric youth, relatively speaking, but the ultimate winner in the race between hydrogen and battery electric will likely be both.

“It’s not really a competition – they’ll both co-exist and there will also be plug-in hydrogen hybrids,” said Walter Merida, director of the Clean Energy Research Centre at the University of British Columbia. “Battery-electric vehicles [BEVs] are better for an urban environment where you have time to recharge and fuel-cell electric vehicles [FCEVs] are better-suited for long range and heavy duty.”

Last year, there were 9,840 BEVs sold in Canada, up from 5,130 the year before. If you include plug-in hybrids, the number sold in 2017 grows to 18,560, though many buyers now face EV shortages and wait times amid high gasoline prices.

And how many hydrogen vehicles were sold in Canada last year?

#google#

None – although Hyundai leased out about a half-dozen hydrogen Tucsons in British Columbia for $599 a month, which included fuel from Powertech labs in Surrey.

In January, Toyota announced it will be selling the Mirai in Quebec later this year. And Hyundai said it will offer about 25 Nexos for sale.

“It’s chicken or egg,” said Michael Fowler, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Waterloo. “Car manufacturers won’t release cars into the market unless there’s a refuelling station and companies won’t build a refuelling station unless there are cars to fuel.”

Right now, there are no retail hydrogen refuelling stations in Canada. While there are plans under way to add stations in B.C., Ontario and Quebec, we’re still behind Japan, Europe and California, though experts outline how Canada can capitalize on the U.S. EV pivot to accelerate progress.

“In 2007, Ontario had a hydrogen strategy and they were starting to develop hydrogen vehicles and they dropped that in favour of the Green Energy Act and it was a complete disaster,” Fowler said. “The reality is the government of the day listened to the wrong people.”

It’s tough to pinpoint a single reason why governments focused on building charging stations instead of hydrogen stations, Merida said.

“It’s ironic, you know – the fuel cell was invented in Vancouver. Geoffrey Ballard was one of the pioneers of this technology,” Merida said. “And for a while, Canada was a global leader, but eventually government programs were discontinued and that was very disruptive to the sector.”

HYDROGEN FOR THE MASSES?

While we tend to think of BEVs when we think of electric cars, fuel-cell vehicles are electric, too; the hydrogen passes through a fuel cell stack, where it mixes with oxygen from the atmosphere to produce an electric current.

That current powers electric motors to drive the wheels and extra energy goes to a battery pack that’s used to boost acceleration (it’s also charged by regenerative braking).

Except for water that drips out of the hydrogen car, they’re both zero-emission on the road.

But a big advantage for hydrogen is that, if you can find a station, you can pull up to a pump and fill up in five minutes or less – the same way we do now at nearly 12,000 gas stations.

Compare that with fast-charging stations that can charge a battery to 80 per cent in 30 minutes – each station only handles one car at a time. What if you get there and it’s busy – or broken? And right now, there are only 139 of them in Canada.

And at slower, Level 2 stations, cars have to be plugged in for hours to recharge.

In a 2018 KPMG survey of auto executives, 55 per cent said that moves to switch entirely to pure battery-electric vehicles will fail because there won’t be enough charging stations, and some critics argue the 2035 EV mandate is delusional given infrastructure constraints.

“Ontario just invested $20-million in public charging stations and that’s going to service 100 or 200 cars a day,” Fowler said. “If you were to invest that in hydrogen stations, you’d be able to service thousands of cars a day.”

And when you do charge at a station, you might not be using clean power, as 18% of Canada’s 2019 electricity came from fossil fuels according to national data, Fowler said.

“At least in Ontario, in order to charge at a public station during the day, you have to rev up a natural-gas plant somewhere,” Fowler said. “So the only way you’re getting zero emissions is when you can charge at night using excess nuclear, hydro or wind that’s not being used.”

But hydrogen can be made when surplus green energy is stored, Fowler said.

“In Ontario, we have lots of wind in the spring and the fall, when we don’t need the electricity,” he said.

And eventually, you’ll be able to connect your fuel-cell vehicle to the grid and sell the power it produces, Merida said.

“The amount of power generation you have in these moving platforms is quite significant,” Merida said.

There are other strikes against battery-electric, including reduced range by 30 per cent or more in the winter and the need to upgrade infrastructure such as electrical transformers so they can handle more than just a handful of cars on each street charging at night, Fowler said.

In that KPMG survey, executives predicted a nearly equal split between BEVs, FCEVs, hybrids and gasoline engines by 2040.

“Battery-electric vehicles will serve a certain niche – they’ll be small commuter vehicles in certain cities,” Fowler said. “But for the way we use cars today – the family car, the suburban car, buses and probably trucks – it will be the fuel cell.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ontario EV V2G Pilots enable bi-directional charging, backup power, and grid services with IESO, Toronto Hydro, and Hydro One, linking energy storage, solar, blockchain apps, and demand response incentives for smarter electrification.

Key Points

Ontario EV V2G pilots test bidirectional charging and backup power to support grid services with apps and incentives.

✅ Tests Nissan Leaf V2H backup with Hydro One and Peak Power.

✅ Integrates solar, storage, blockchain apps via Sky Energy and partners.

✅ Pilots demand response apps in Toronto and Waterloo utilities.

Electric vehicle owners in Ontario may one day be able to use the electricity in their EVs instead of loud diesel or gas generators to provide emergency power during blackouts. They could potentially also sell back energy to the grid when needed. Both are key areas of focus for new pilot projects announced this week by Ontario’s electricity grid operator and partners that include Toronto Hydro and Ontario Hydro.

Three projects announced this week will test the bi-directional power capabilities of current EVs and the grid, all partially funded by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) of Ontario, with their announcement in Toronto also attended by Ontario Energy Minister Todd Smith.

The first project is with Hydro One Networks and Peak Power, which will use up to 10 privately owned Nissan Leafs to test what is needed technically to support owners using their cars for vehicle-to-building charging during power outages. It will also study what type of financial incentives will convince EV owners to provide backup power for other users, and therefore the grid.

A second pilot program with solar specialist Sky Energy and engineering firm Hero Energy will study EVs, energy storage, and solar panels to further examine how consumers with potentially more power to offer the grid could do it securely, in part using blockchain technology. York University and Volta Research are other partners in the program, which has already produced an app that can help drivers choose when and how much power to provide the grid — if any.

The third program is with local utilities in Toronto and Waterloo, Ont., and will test a secure digital app that helps EV drivers see the current demands on the grid through improved grid coordination mechanisms, and potentially price an incentive to EV drivers not to charge their vehicles for a few hours. Drivers could also be actively further paid to provide some of the charge currently in their vehicle back to the grid.

It all adds up to $2.7 million in program funding from IESO ($1.1 million) and the associated partners.

“An EV charged in Ontario produces roughly three per cent of emissions of a gas fuelled car,” said IESO’s Carla Nell, vice-president of corporate relations and innovation at the announcement near Peak Power chargers in downtown Toronto. “We know that Ontario consumers are buying EVs, and expected to increase tenfold — so we have to support electrification.”

If these types of programs sound familiar, it may be because utilities in Ontario have been testing such vehicle-to-grid technologies soon after affordable EVs became available in the fall of 2011. One such program was run by PowerStream, now the called Alectra, and headed by Neetika Sathe, who is now Alectra’s vice-president of its Green Energy and Technology (GRE&T) Centre in Guelph, Ont.

The difference between now and those tests in the mid-2010s is that the upcoming wave of EV sales can be clearly seen on the horizon, and California's grid stability work shows how EVs can play a larger role.

“We can see the tsunami now,” she said, noting that cost parity between EVs and gas vehicles is likely four or five years away — without government incentives, she stressed. “Now it’s not a question of if, it’s a question of when — and that when has received much more clarity on it.”

Sathe sees a benefit in studying all these types of bi-directional power-flowing scenarios, but notes that they are future scenarios for years in the future, especially since bi-directional charging equipment — and the vehicles with this capability — are pricey, and largely still not here. What she believes is much closer is the ability to automatically communicate what the grid needs with EV drivers, as Nova Scotia Power pilots integration, and how they could possibly help. For a price, of course.

“If I can set up a system that says ‘oh, the grid is stressed, can you not charge for the next two hours? And here’s what we’ll offer to you for that,’ that’s closer to low-hanging fruit,” she said, noting that Alectra is currently testing out such systems. “Think of it the same way as offering your car for Uber, or a room on Airbnb.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

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

Key Points

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

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

✅ Interprovincial transmission expands reliability and lowers costs

✅ Stringent clean electricity standard and full carbon pricing

By Tom Green
Senior Climate Policy Advisor
David Suzuki Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

German Wind Power 2030 Outlook highlights onshore and offshore growth, repowering, higher full-load hours, and efficiency gains. Deutsche WindGuard, BWE, and LEE NRW project 200+ TWh, potentially 500 TWh, covering rising electricity demand.

Key Points

Forecast: efficiency and full-load gains could double onshore wind to 200+ TWh; added land could lift output to 500 TWh.

✅ Modern turbines and repowering boost full-load hours and yields

✅ Onshore generation could hit 200+ TWh on existing areas by 2030

✅ Expanding land to 2% may enable 500 TWh; offshore adds more

Wind turbines have become more and more efficient over the past two decades, a trend reflected in Denmark's new green record for wind-powered generation.

A new study by Deutsche WindGuard calculates the effect on the actual generation volumes for the first time, underscoring Germany's energy transition balancing act as targets scale. Conclusion of the analysis: The technical progress enables a doubling of the wind power generation by 2030.

Progressive technological developments make wind turbines more powerful and also enable more and more full-load hours, with wind leading the power mix in many markets today. This means that more electricity can be generated continuously than previously assumed. This is shown by a new study by Deutsche WindGuard, which was commissioned by the Federal Wind Energy Association (BWE) and the State Association of Renewable Energies NRW (LEE NRW).

The study 'Full load hours of wind turbines on land - development, influences, effects' describes in detail for the first time the effects of advances in wind energy technology on the actual generation volumes. It can thus serve as the basis for further calculations and potential assessments, reflecting milestones like UK wind surpassing coal in 2016 in broader analyses.

The results of the investigation show that the use of modern wind turbines with higher full load hours alone on the previously designated areas could double wind power generation to over 200 terawatt hours (TWh) by 2030. With an additional area designation, generation could even be increased to 500 TWh. If the electricity from offshore wind energy is added, the entire German electricity consumption from wind energy could theoretically be covered, and renewables recently outdelivered coal and nuclear in Germany as a sign of momentum: The current electricity consumption in Germany is currently a good 530 TWh, but will increase in the future.

Christian Mildenberger, Managing Director of LEE NRW: 'Wind can do much more: In the past 20 years, technology has made great leaps and bounds. Modern wind turbines produce around ten times as much electricity today as those built at the turn of the millennium. This must also be better reflected in potential studies by the federal and state governments. '

Wolfram Axthelm, BWE Managing Director: 'We need a new look at the existing areas and the repowering. Today in Germany not even one percent of the area is designated for wind energy inland. But even with this we could cover almost 40 percent of the electricity demand by 2030. If this area share were increased to only 2 percent of the federal area, it would be almost 100 percent of the electricity demand! Wind energy is indispensable for a CO2-neutral future. This requires a clever provision of space in all federal states. '

Dr. Dennis Kruse, Managing Director of Deutsche WindGuard: 'It turns out that the potential of onshore wind energy in Germany is still significantly underestimated. Modern wind turbines achieve a significantly higher number of full load hours than previously assumed. That means: The wind can be used more and more efficiently and deliver more income. '

On the areas already designated today, numerous older systems will be replaced by modern ones by 2030 (repowering). However, many old systems will still be in operation. According to Windguard's calculations, the remaining existing systems, together with around 12,500 new, modern wind systems, could generate 212 TWh in 2030. If the area backdrop were expanded from 0.9 percent today to 2 percent of the land area, around 500 TWh would be generated by inland wind, despite grid expansion challenges in Europe that shape deployment.

The ongoing technological development must also be taken into account. The manufacturers of wind turbines are currently working on a new class of turbines with an output of over seven megawatts that will be available in three to five years. According to calculations by the LEE NRW, by 2040 the same number of wind turbines as today could produce over 700 TWh of electricity inland. The electricity demand, which will increase in the future due to electromobility, heat pumps and the production of green hydrogen, can thus be completely covered by a combination of onshore wind, offshore wind, solar power, bioenergy, hydropower and geothermal energy, and a net-zero roadmap for Germany points to significant cost reductions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

U.S. Renewable Energy Forecast 2024 will see wind and solar power surpass one-fourth of electricity generation, EIA projects, as coal declines, natural gas dips, and clean energy capacity, grid integration, and policy incentives expand.

Key Points

EIA outlook: renewables at 26% of U.S. power in 2024, led by wind and solar as coal declines and gas share dips.

✅ Wind and solar hit 18% combined, surpassing coal's 17%.

✅ Natural gas dips to 37% as demand rebounds modestly.

✅ Coal plant closures accelerate amid costs, emissions, and age.

Renewable energy is poised to reach a milestone, after a record 28% in April this year, as a new government report projects that wind, solar and other renewable sources will exceed one-fourth of the country’s electricity generation for the first time, in 2024.

This is one of the many takeaways from the federal government’s Short Term Energy Outlook, a monthly report whose new edition is the first to include a forecast for 2024. The report’s authors in the Energy Information Administration are expecting renewables to increase in market share, while natural gas and coal would both decrease.

From 2023 to 2024, renewables would rise from 24 percent to 26 percent of U.S. electricity generation; coal’s share would drop from 18 percent to 17 percent; gas would remain the leader but drop from 38 percent to 37 percent; and nuclear would be unchanged at 19 percent.

It was a big deal in 2020 when generation from renewables passed coal for the first time in 130 years over a full year. Coal made a comeback in 2021 and then retreated again in 2022 as renewables surpassed coal in generation. The ups and downs were largely the result of fluctuations in electricity demand during and then after the Covid-19 pandemic.

The new report indicates that coal doesn’t have another comeback in the works. This fuel, which was the country’s leading electricity source less than a decade ago, is declining as many coal-fired power plants are old and economically uncompetitive. Coal plants continue to close, and developers aren’t building new ones because of concerns about high costs and emissions, a trend underscored when renewables became the second-most prevalent source in 2020 across the U.S.

The growth in renewable energy is coming from wind and solar power, with wind responsible for about one-third of the growth and solar accounting for two-thirds, the report says, and combined output from wind and solar has already exceeded nuclear for the first time in the U.S. Other renewable sources, like hydropower and biomass, would be flat.

In fact, the growth of wind and solar is projected to be so swift that the combination of just those two sources would be 18 percent of the U.S. total by 2024, which would surpass coal’s 17 percent.

A key variable is overall electricity consumption. EIA is projecting that this will fall 1 percent in 2023 compared to 2022, due a mild summer. Then, consumption will increase 1 percent in 2024.

If demand was rising more, then natural gas power would likely gain market share because of gas power plants’ ability to vary their output as needed to respond to changes in demand.

I asked Eric Gimon, a senior fellow at the think tank Energy Innovation, what he thinks of these latest numbers.

He said wind and solar have gotten so big that it almost makes sense to track them as their own categories as opposed to lumping them into the larger category of renewables. He expects that the government will do this sometime soon.

Also, he thinks the projected increases for wind and solar, while substantial, are still smaller than those resources are likely to grow.

“My experience over the last 10 years is that the EIA tends to have flattish forecasts,” he said, meaning the federal office has underestimated the actual growth.

Some energy analysts have criticized EIA for being slow to recognize the growth of renewables. But much of the criticism is about the Annual Energy Outlook, which has numbers going out to mid-century, even as the U.S. is moving toward 30% from wind and solar by the end of the decade. The Short Term Energy Outlook, with numbers going one year into the future, has been more reliable.

Gimon said EIA is “kind of like your conservative uncle” in its forecasts, so it’s notable that the office expects to see a significant uptick in wind and solar.

Even so, he thinks the latest Short Term Energy Outlook should be read as the lower end of the range of potential increase for wind and solar.

For him to be right, the wind and solar industries will need to figure out solutions to the challenges they’ve been having in obtaining parts; they will need to make progress in dealing with local opposition to many projects and in having enough interstate power lines to deliver the electricity. And, new policies like the Inflation Reduction Act will need to have their desired effect of encouraging projects through the use of tax incentives.

It’s not much of a stretch to imagine that clean energy industries will make some progress on all of those fronts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News