Bus depot bid to be UK's largest electric vehicle charging hub

US Renewable Energy Transition is the shift from fossil fuels to wind, solar, and nuclear, targeting net-zero emissions via grid modernization, battery storage, and new transmission to replace legacy plants and meet rising electrification.

Key Points

The move to decarbonize electricity by scaling wind, solar, and nuclear with storage and transmission upgrades.

✅ Falling LCOE makes wind and solar competitive with gas and coal.

✅ 4-hour lithium-ion storage shifts solar to evening peak demand.

✅ New high-voltage transmission links resource-rich regions to load.

Generating electricity to power homes and businesses is a significant contributor to climate change. In the United States, one quarter of greenhouse gas emissions come from electricity production, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Solar panels and wind farms can generate electricity without releasing any greenhouse gas emissions, and recent research suggests wind and solar could meet about 80% of U.S. demand with supportive infrastructure. Nuclear power plants can too, although today’s plants generate long-lasting radioactive waste, which has no permanent storage repository.

But the U.S. electrical sector is still dependent on fossil fuels. In 2021, 61 percent of electricity generation came from burning coal, natural gas, or petroleum. Only 20 percent of the electricity in the U.S. came from renewables, mostly wind energy, hydropower and solar energy, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and in 2022 renewable electricity surpassed coal nationwide as portfolios shifted. Another 19 percent came from nuclear power.

The contribution from renewables has been increasing steadily since the 1990s, and the rate of increase has accelerated, with renewables projected to reach one-fourth of U.S. generation in the near term. For example, wind power provided only 2.8 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity in 1990, doubling to 5.6 billion in 2000. But from there, it skyrocketed, growing to 94.6 billion in 2010 and 379.8 billion in 2021.

That’s progress, as the U.S. moves toward 30% electricity from wind and solar this decade, but it’s not happening fast enough to eliminate the worst effects of climate change for our descendants.

“We need to eliminate global emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050,” philanthropist and technologist Bill Gates wrote in his 2023 annual letter. “Extreme weather is already causing more suffering, and if we don’t get to net-zero emissions, our grandchildren will grow up in a world that is dramatically worse off.”

And the problem is actually bigger than it looks, even as pathways to zero-emissions electricity by 2035 are being developed.

“We need not just to create as much electricity as we have now, but three times as much,” says Saul Griffith, an entrepreneur who’s sold companies to Google and Autodesk and has written books on mass electrification. To get to zero emissions, all the cars and heating systems and stoves will have to be powered with electricity, said Griffith. Electricity is not necessarily clean, but at least it it can be, unlike gas-powered stoves or gasoline-powered cars.

The technology to generate electricity with wind and solar has existed for decades. So why isn’t the electric grid already 100% powered by renewables? And what will it take to get there?

First of all, renewables have only recently become cost-competitive with fossil fuels for generating electricity. Even then, prices depend on the location, Paul Denholm of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory told CNBC.

In California and Arizona, where there is a lot of sun, solar energy is often the cheapest option, whereas in places like Maine, solar is just on the edge of being the cheapest energy source, Denholm said. In places with lots of wind like North Dakota, wind power is cost-competitive with fossil fuels, but in the Southeast, it’s still a close call.

Then there’s the cost of transitioning the current power generation infrastructure, which was built around burning fossil fuels, and policymakers are weighing ways to meet U.S. decarbonization goals as they plan grid investments.

“You’ve got an existing power plant, it’s paid off. Now you need renewables to be cheaper than running that plant to actually retire an old plant,” Denholm explained. “You need new renewables to be cheaper just in the variable costs, or the operating cost of that power plant.”

There are some places where that is true, but it’s not universally so.

“Primarily, it just takes a long time to turn over the capital stock of a multitrillion-dollar industry,” Denholm said. “We just have a huge amount of legacy equipment out there. And it just takes awhile for that all to be turned over.”

Intermittency and transmission
One of the biggest barriers to a 100% renewable grid is the intermittency of many renewable power sources, the dirty secret of clean energy that planners must manage. The wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine — and the windiest and sunniest places are not close to all the country’s major population centers.

Wind resources in the United States, according to the the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy.
Wind resources in the United States, according to the the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy.
The solution is a combination of batteries to store excess power for times when generation is low, and transmission lines to take the power where it is needed.

Long-duration batteries are under development, but Denholm said a lot of progress can be made simply with utility-scale batteries that store energy for a few hours.

“One of the biggest problems right now is shifting a little bit of solar energy, for instance, from say, 11 a.m. and noon to the peak demand at 6 p.m. or 7 p.m. So you really only need a few hours of batteries,” Denholm told CNBC. “You can actually meet that with conventional lithium ion batteries. This is very close to the type of batteries that are being put in cars today. You can go really far with that.”

So far, battery usage has been low because wind and solar are primarily used to buffer the grid when energy sources are low, rather than as a primary source. For the first 20% to 40% of the electricity in a region to come from wind and solar, battery storage is not needed, Denholm said. When renewable penetration starts reaching closer to 50%, then battery storage becomes necessary. And building and deploying all those batteries will take time and money.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Tesla Q2 2020 earnings highlight resilient electric vehicles as production and deliveries outpace legacy automakers, while Gigafactory Austin advances, solar installations slump, and energy storage, Megapack, and free cash flow expand despite COVID-19 disruptions.

Key Points

Tesla posted a fourth consecutive profit, strong cash, EV resilience, solar slump, and rising energy storage.

✅ Fourth straight profit and $418M free cash flow

✅ EV output and deliveries fell just 5% year over year

✅ Solar hit record low; storage rose 61% to 419 MWh

Tesla survived the throes of the coronavirus pandemic relatively unscathed, chalking up its fourth sequential quarterly profit for the first time on Wednesday.

On the energy front, however, things were much more complicated: Tesla reported its worst-ever quarter for solar installations but huge growth in its battery business, amid expectations for cheaper, more powerful batteries expected in coming years. CEO Elon Musk nevertheless predicted the energy business will one day rival its car division in scale.

But today, Tesla's bottom line is all about electric vehicles, and the temporary halt of activity at Tesla's Fremont factory due to local health orders didn’t put much of a dent in vehicle production and delivery. Both figures declined 5 percent compared to the same quarter in 2019. In contrast, Q2 vehicle sales at legacy carmakers Ford, GM and Fiat Chrysler declined by one-third or more year-over-year, even as the U.S. EV market share dipped in early 2024 for context.

The costs of factory closures and a $101 million CEO award milestone for Elon Musk didn’t stop Tesla from achieving $418 million in free cash flow, a major improvement over the prior quarter. Cash and cash equivalents grew by $535 million to $8.6 billion during the quarter.

Musk praised his employees for “exceptional execution.” 

“There were so many challenges, too numerous to name, but they got it done,” he said on an investor call Wednesday.

Musk also confirmed that Tesla will build a new Gigafactory in Austin, Texas, five minutes from the airport. The 2,000-acre campus will abut the Colorado River and is “basically going to be an ecological paradise,” he said. The new Texas factory will build the Cybertruck, Semi, Model 3 and Model Y for the Eastern half of North America. Fremont, California will produce the S and X, and make Model 3 and Model Y for the West, in a state where EVs exceed 20% of sales according to recent data.

Return of the Tesla solar slump

This was the first entire quarter affected by the coronavirus response, which threw the rooftop solar industry into turmoil by cutting off in-person sales. Other installers scrambled to shift to digital-first sales strategies, but Tesla had already done so months before lockdowns were imposed.

Q2, then, offers a test case on whether Tesla’s pivot to passive online sales made it better able to deal with stay-at-home orders than its peers. The other publicly traded solar installers have not yet reported their Q2 performance, but Tesla delivered its worst-ever quarterly solar figures: Installations totaled just 27 megawatts. That’s a 7 percent decline from Q2 2019, its previous worst quarter ever for solar.

Musk did not address that weak performance in his remarks to investors, opting instead to highlight the company’s late-June decision to offer the cheapest solar pricing in the country. “We’re the company to go to,” he said of rooftop solar. “It’s only going to get better later this year.”

But the sales slump indicates Tesla’s online sales model could not withstand a historically tough season for residential solar.

"Every single residential installer in the country is going to have a bad Q2 because of the initial impacts of COVID on the market," said Austin Perea, senior solar analyst at Wood Mackenzie. "It's hard to disaggregate the impacts of COVID from their own individual strategies."

Tesla's 23 percent decline in quarter-over-quarter solar installations was not as bad as the expected Q2 decline across the rooftop solar industry, Perea added.

On the vehicle side, Tesla’s sales declined less than did those of major automakers. It’s possible that the same pattern will hold for solar; a less severe drop than those seen by Sunrun or Vivint could be claimed as a victory of sorts. But this quarter made clear that Q2 2019 was not the bottom for Tesla’s solar operation, which once led the residential market as SolarCity but significantly diminished since Tesla acquired it in 2016.

Tesla currently stands in third place for residential solar installers. But No. 1 installer Sunrun said this month that it will acquire No. 2 installer Vivint Solar, making Tesla the second-largest installer by default. That major consolidation in the rooftop solar market went unremarked upon in Tesla's investor call.

Solar and energy storage revenue currently equate to just 7 percent of the company's automotive revenue. But Musk reiterated his prediction that this won’t always be the case. “Long term, Tesla Energy will be roughly the same size as Tesla Automotive,” he said on Wednesday's call.

The grid storage business offered more reason for optimism: Capacity deployed grew 61 percent from the first quarter, rising to 419 megawatt-hours. The prepackaged, large-format Megapack product turned its first profit that quarter.

"Difficult to predict" performance in the second half of 2020
Tesla withdrew its financial guidance last quarter in light of the upheaval across the global economy. It refrained from setting new guidance now.

“Although we have successfully ramped vehicle production back to prior levels, it remains difficult to predict whether there will be further operational interruptions or how global consumer sentiment will evolve, given risks to the EV boom noted by analysts, in the second half of 2020,” the earnings report notes.

The company asserted it will still deliver 500,000 vehicles this year regardless of externalities, a goal that aligns with broader EV sales momentum in 2024 trends. It already has sufficient production capacity installed to reach that, Tesla said. But with 179,387 cars delivered so far, Tesla faces an uphill climb to ship more cars in the second half.

Wall Street maintained its buoyant confidence in Tesla's share price, despite rising competition in China noted by rivals. It closed at $1,592 before the earnings announcement, rising to $1,661 in after-hours trading.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Canada Coal Phase-Out Costs highlight Fraser Institute findings on renewable energy, wind and solar integration, grid reliability, natural gas backup, GDP impacts, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, nuclear alternatives, and transmission upgrades across provincial electricity systems.

Key Points

Costs to replace coal with renewables, impacting taxpayers and ratepayers while ensuring grid reliability.

✅ Fraser Institute estimates $16.8B-$33.7B annually for renewables.

✅ Emissions cut from coal phase-out estimated at only 7.4% nationally.

✅ Natural gas backup and grid upgrades drive major cost increases.

Replacing coal-fired electricity with renewable energy will cost Canadian taxpayers and hydro ratepayers up to $33.7 billion annually, with only minor reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change, according to a new study by the Fraser Institute.

The report, Canadian Climate Policy and its Implications for Electricity Grids by University of Victoria economics professor G. Cornelis van Kooten, said replacing coal-fired electricity with wind and solar power would only cut Canada’s annual emissions by 7.4%,

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s has promised a reduction of 40%-45% compared to Canada’s 2005 emissions by 2030, and progress toward the 2035 clean electricity goals remains uncertain.

The study says emission cuts would be relatively small because coal accounted for only 9.2% of Canada’s electricity generation in 2017. (According to Natural Resources Canada, that number is lower today at 7.4%).

In 2019, the last year for which federal data are available, Canada’s electricity sector generated 8.4% of emissions nationally — 61.1 million tonnes out of 730 million tonnes.

“Despite what advocates, claim, renewable power — including wind and solar — isn’t free and, as Europe's power crisis lessons suggest, comes with only modest benefits to the environment,” van Kooten said.

“Policy makers should be realistic about the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, which accounts for less than 2% of emissions worldwide.”

The report says the increased costs of operating the electricity grid across Canada — between $16.8 billion and $33.7 billion annually or 1% to 2% of Canada’s annual GDP — would result from having to retain natural gas, consistent with net-zero regulations allowing some natural gas in limited cases, as a backup to intermittent wind and solar power, which cannot provide baseload power to the electricity grid on demand.

Van Kooten said his cost estimates are conservative because his study “could not account for scenarios where the scale of intermittency turned out worse than indicated in our dataset … the costs associated with the value of land in other alternative uses, the need for added transmission lines, as analyses of greening Ontario's grid costs indicate, environmental and human health costs and the life-cycle costs of using intermittent renewable sources of energy, including costs related to the disposal of hazardous wastes from solar panels and wind turbines.”

If nuclear power was used to replace coal-fired electricity, the study says, costs would drop by half — $8.3 billion to $16.7 billion annually — but that’s unrealistic because of the time it takes to build nuclear plants and public opposition to them.

The study says to achieve the federal government’s target of reducing emissions to 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2050, would require building 30 nuclear power plants before 2030, highlighting Canada’s looming power problem as described by analysts — meaning one plant of 1,000-megawatt capacity coming online every four months between now and 2030.

Alternatively, it would take 28,340 wind turbines, each with 2.5-megawatts capacity, or 1,050 turbines being built every four months, plus the costs of upgrading transmission infrastructure.

Van Kooten said he based his calculations on Alberta, which generates 39.8% of its electricity from coal and the cost of Ontario eliminating coal-fired electricity, even as Ontario electricity getting dirtier in coming years, which generated 25% of its electricity, between 2003 and 2014, replacing it with a combination of natural gas, nuclear and wind and solar power.

According to Natural Resources Canada, Nova Scotia generates 49.9% of its electricity from coal, Saskatchewan 42.9%, and New Brunswick 17.2%.

In 2018, the Trudeau government announced plans to phase-out traditional coal-fired electricity by 2030, though the Stop the Shock campaign seeks to bring back coal power in some regions. 

Canada and the U.K. created the “Powering Past Coal Alliance” in 2017, aimed at getting other countries to phase out the use of coal to generate electricity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Lithuania Wind Power Investment accelerates renewable energy expansion with utility-scale wind farms, solar power synergies, streamlined permits, and grid integration to cut imports, boost energy independence, and align with EU climate policy.

Key Points

Lithuania Wind Power Investment funds wind projects to raise capacity, cut imports, and secure energy independence.

✅ 700-1000 MW planned across three wind farms over 3 years

✅ Simplified permitting and faster grid connections under new policy

✅ Supports EU climate goals and Lithuania's 2030 energy independence

The current unstable geopolitical situation is accelerating the European Union countries' investment in renewable energy, including European wind power investments across the region. After Russia launched war against Ukraine, the EU countries began to actively address the issues of energy dependence.

For example, Lithuania, a country by the Baltic Sea, imports about two-thirds of its energy from foreign countries to meet its needs, while Germany's solar boost underscores the region's shift. Following the start of the Russian invasion in Ukraine, the Lithuanian Government urgently submitted amendments to the documents regulating the establishment of wind and solar power plants to the Parliament for consideration.

One of Lithuania's priority goals is to accelerate the construction and development of renewable energy parks so that the country will achieve full energy independence in the next eight years, by 2030, mirroring Ireland's green electricity target in the near term. Lithuania is able to produce the amount of electricity that meets the country's needs.

Ramūnas Karbauskis, the owner of Agrokoncernas Group, one of the largest companies operating in the agricultural sector in the Baltic States, has no doubt that now is the best time to invest in the development of wind power plants in Lithuania. The group plans to build three wind farms over the next three years to generate a total of about 700-1000 MW of energy, and comparable projects like Enel's 450 MW wind farm illustrate the scale achievable. With such capacity, more than half a million residential buildings can be supplied with electricity.

According to Alina Adomaitytė, Deputy General Director of Agrokoncernas Group, the company plans to invest 1-1.4 billion Euros in wind power plants in three different regions of Lithuania.

"Lithuania is changing its policy by simplifying the procedure for the construction and development of wind and solar parks. This means that their construction time will be significantly shorter, unlike markets facing renewables backlogs causing delays. At present, the technologies have improved so much that such projects pay off quickly in market conditions," explains Adomaitytė.

Agrokoncernas Group plans to build wind farms on its own lands. This has the advantage of allowing more flexibility in planning construction and meeting the requirements for such parks.

"Lithuania is a very promising country for wind parks. It is a land of plains, and the Baltic Sea provides constant and sufficient wind power, and lessons from UK offshore wind show the potential for coastal regions. So far, there are not many such parks in Lithuania, and need for them is very high in order to achieve the goals of national energy independence," says the owner of the group.

According to Adomaitytė, until now the Agrokoncernas Group companies have specialized in agriculture, but now is a particularly favorable time to enter new business areas.

"We are open to investors. One of the strategic goals of our group is to contribute to the green energy revolution in Lithuania, which is becoming a strategic goal of the entire European Union, as seen in rising solar adoption in Poland across the region."

In addition to wind farms, Agrokoncernas Group is planning the construction of the most modern deep grain processing plant in Europe. This project is managed by Agrokoncernas GDP, a subsidiary of the group. The deep grain processing plant in Lithuania is to be built by 2026. It will operate on the principle of circular production, meaning that the plant will be environmentally friendly and there will be no waste in the production process itself.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Labrador EV Charging Infrastructure faces gaps, with few fast chargers; Level 2 dominates, fueling range anxiety for Tesla and Chevrolet Bolt drivers, despite rebates and Newfoundland's network linking St. John's to Port aux Basques.

Key Points

It refers to the current and planned network of Level 2 and Level 3 charging sites across Labrador.

✅ 2 public Level 2 chargers: Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Churchill Falls

✅ Phase 2: 3 fast chargers planned for HV-GB, Churchill Falls, Labrador City

✅ $2,500 rebates offered; rural range anxiety still deters buyers

Retired pilot Allan Carlson is used to crossing Labrador by air.

But he recently traversed the Big Land in an entirely new way, driving for hours on end in his electric car.

The vehicle in question is a Tesla Model S P100D, which Carlson says he can drive up to 500 kilometres on a full charge — and sometimes even a little more.

After catching a ferry to Blanc-Sablon, Que., earlier this month, he managed to reach Happy Valley-Goose Bay, over 600 kilometres away.

To get there, though, he had to use the public charging station in Blanc-Sablon. He also had to push the limits of what his car could muster. 

But more affordable mass-market electric vehicles don't have the battery power of a top-of-the-range Tesla, prompting the Big Land's first EV owner to wonder when Labrador infrastructure will catch up to the high-speed charging network recently unveiled across Newfoundland this summer.

Phillip Rideout, an electrician who lives in Nain, bought a Chevrolet Bolt EV for his son — the range of which tops out at under 350 kilometres, depending on driving patterns and weather conditions.

He's comfortable driving the car within Nain but said he's concerned about traveling to southern Labrador on a single charge.

"It's a start in getting these 14 charging stations across the island," Rideout said of Newfoundland's new network, "but there is still more work to be done."

The provincial government continues to push an electric-vehicle future, however, even as energy efficiency rankings trail the national average, despite Labradorians like Rideout feeling left out of the loop.

Bernard Davis, minister of environment and climate change, earlier this month announced that government is accepting applications for its electric-vehicle rebate program, as the N.W.T. EV initiative pursues similar goals.

Under the $500,000 program, anyone looking to buy a new or used EV would be entitled to $2,500 in rebates, an attempt by the provincial government to increase EV adoption.

But according to a survey conducted this year by polling firm Leger for the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturer's Association, 51 per cent of rural Canadians found a lack of fast-charging public infrastructure to be a major deterrent to buying an electric car, even as Atlantic EV interest lags overall, according to recent data.

While Newfoundland's 14-charger network, operated by N.L. Hydro and Newfoundland Power, allows drivers to travel from St. John's to Port aux Basques, and 10 new fast-charging stations are planned along the Trans-Canada in New Brunswick, Labrador in contrast has just two publicly available charging locations: one at the YMCA in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and the other near the town office of Churchill Falls.

This is the proposed second phase of additional Level 2 and Level 3 charging locations across Labrador. (TakeChargeNL)
These are slower, Level 2 chargers, as opposed to newer Level 3 charging stations on the island. A Level 2 system averages 50 kilometres of range per hour, and a Level 3 systems can add up to 250 kilometres within the same time frame, making them about five times faster.

Even though all of the fast-charging stations have gone to Newfoundland, MHA for Lake Melville Perry Trimper is optimistic about Labrador's electric future.

Trimper has owned an EV in St. Johns since 2016, but told CBC he'd be comfortable driving it in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

He acknowledged, however, that prospective owners in Labrador might not be able to drive far from their home charging outlet. 

More promises
If rural skepticism driven by poor infrastructure continues, the urban population could lead the way in adoption, allowing the new subsidies to disproportionately go toward larger population centres, Davis acknowledged.

"Obviously people are not going to purchase electric vehicles if they don't believe they can charge them where they want to be or where they want to go," Davis said in an interview in early September.

Under the provincial government's Phase 2 proposal, Newfoundland and Labrador is projected to get 19 charging stations, with three going to Labrador in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Churchill Falls and Labrador City, taking cues from NB Power's public network in building regional coverage.

Davis would not commit to a specific cutoff period for the rebate program or a timeline for the first fast-charging stations in Labrador to be built.

"At some point, we are not going to need to place any subsidy on electric vehicles," he said, "but that time is not today and that's why these subsidies are important right now."

Future demand 
Goose Bay Motors manager Joel Hamlen thinks drivers in Labrador could shift away from gas vehicles eventually, even as EV shortages and wait times persist.

But he says it'll take investment into a charging network to get there.

"If we can get something set up where these people can travel down the roads and use these vehicles in the province … I am sure there will be even more of a demand," Hamlen said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Alectra EV Leadership Award highlights Plug'n Drive and CEA recognition for AlectraDrive, GridExchange, smart charging, and clean energy innovation at the GRE&T Centre, advancing Canadian EV adoption, utility-led programs, rate design, and smart grid integration.

Key Points

An award recognizing Alectra Utilities for leading EV programs and clean energy innovation driven by its GRE&T Centre.

✅ Honors utility-led EV programs: AlectraDrive @Work, @Home, GridExchange

✅ Recognizes smart grid, charging, and innovative rate design

✅ Endorsed by Plug'n Drive and CEA; SEPA and Corporate Knights honors

Plug'n Drive and the Canadian Electricity Association (CEA) have awarded Alectra Utilities with the 'Tom Mitchell Electric Vehicle Utility Leadership Award' for its programs: AlectraDrive @Work, AlectraDrive @Home, GridExchange, which explores models where EV owners sell power back to the grid, Advantage Power Pricing and York University Electric Bus Simulation Study. All of these initiatives operate out of Alectra's Green Energy & Technology Centre (GRE&T Centre) and align with emerging vehicle-to-grid integration pilots nationwide.

"We appreciate receiving this award from Plug'n Drive and the CEA," said Brian Bentz, President and CEO, Alectra Inc. "The work that the GRE&T Centre does is an important part of our effort to help build a clean energy future and embrace new technologies like EV charging infrastructure and vehicle-to-grid pilots to help our customers."

The Electric Vehicle Awards, now in their sixth year, recognize Ca­nadian car dealerships and electricity utilities that are leaders in the sale and promotion of electric vehicles, from dedicated education efforts like the EV education centre in Toronto to consumer events such as the Quebec Electric Vehicle Show that raise awareness. Electricity utilities are recognized based on the merits and impacts of utility led EV programs and initiatives.

Earlier this year, Alectra was named Public Power Utility of the Year by the Smart Electric Power Alliance (SEPA) and ranked third in Corporate Knights 'Best 50 Corporate Citizens', as Canadian innovators deploy V1G EV chargers that support smart, grid-friendly charging.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News