Can food waste be turned into green hydrogen to produce electricity?

US electric vehicle momentum is slowing as tax credits expire, tariffs increase costs, and interest rates rise, while Europe and China accelerate EV adoption through stronger incentives, enhanced charging infrastructure, and growth in battery manufacturing.

Why has US Electric Vehicle Momentum Slowed as Globe Surges?

US electric vehicle momentum has slowed due to expiring subsidies, rising costs, and global competition from faster-moving markets.

✅ End of federal tax credits weakened buyer demand

✅ Tariffs and high interest rates raised EV prices

✅ Europe and China expanded incentives and infrastructure

You could be forgiven for thinking that electric cars might finally be gaining momentum in the United States. Last year, battery-powered vehicle sales topped 1.2 million—more than five times the number sold just four years earlier, amid an early-2024 EV surge in deliveries. Hybrid sales tripled over the same period, and in August, battery cars accounted for 10 percent of all new vehicle sales, a record high according to S&P Global Mobility.

Major automakers, including General Motors, Ford, and Tesla, reported record electric-vehicle deliveries this quarter, a rare bright spot in an industry still contending with high interest rates, inflation, and tariffs, and a sign the age of electric cars is arriving.

Yet analysts warn the apparent boom may be short-lived, noting a market share dip in early 2024 that could foreshadow slower growth. Much of the recent surge was driven by buyers rushing to take advantage of a federal subsidy worth up to $7,500 per vehicle—a credit that expired at the end of September. Without it, automakers expect demand to dip sharply.

"It's going to be a vibrant industry, but it's going to be smaller, way smaller than we thought," Ford CEO Jim Farley said Tuesday. General Motors’ CFO Paul Jacobson echoed that concern: "I expect that EV demand is going to drop off pretty precipitously," he told a conference last month.

Even with those gains, the US—still the world’s second-largest car market—remains a laggard compared with global peers, where global EV adoption has accelerated rapidly. Electric and hybrid vehicles accounted for nearly 30 percent of new sales in the UK last year and approximately one in five across Europe. In China, electric models accounted for almost half of all car sales in 2023 and are expected to become the majority this year, according to the International Energy Agency.

Analysts say policy differences largely explain the gap. Other regions have offered stronger incentives, stricter emissions rules, and more aggressive trade-in programs. President Joe Biden tried to close the gap, tightening emissions standards, offering loans for EV investments, and spending billions on charging networks while expanding the $7,500 credit. His goal was to have half of all US vehicle sales be electric by 2030.

Supporters argue that such measures are crucial to keeping American carmakers competitive with Chinese and European manufacturers. But former President Donald Trump, who recently dismissed climate change as a "con job," has vowed to roll back many of those initiatives, echoing arguments that the EV revolution is overstated by proponents. "We're saying ... you're not going to be forced to make all of those cars," Trump said this summer, while signing a bill to strike down California’s plan to phase out gasoline-only car sales by 2035. "You can make them, but it'll be by the market, judged by the market."

Although EVs have become cheaper, they still cost more than comparable gasoline models, and sales remain behind gas cars in most segments. The average US electric car sold for approximately $57,000 in August, which is roughly 16 percent higher than the overall average, according to Kelley Blue Book.

Chinese EV giants such as BYD have been blocked from the US market by tariffs supported by both Biden and Trump, further limiting price competition. Automakers now face the twin challenges of rising tariffs and disappearing subsidies.

"It would have been difficult enough if all you had to deal with were new tariffs, but with new tariffs and the incentive going away, there are two impacts," said Stephanie Brinley of S&P Global Mobility.

Researchers warn that the policy shift could further reduce EV investment. "It's a big hit to the EV industry—there's no tiptoeing around it," said Katherine Yusko of the American Security Project. "The subsidies were initially a way to level the playing field, and now that they're gone, the US has a lot of ground to make up."

Still, Brinley urged caution before declaring the race lost, even as some argue EVs have hit an inflection point in adoption. "Is [electric] really the right thing?" she asked. "Saying that we're behind assumes that this is the only and best solution, and I think it's a little early to say that."

Related Articles

• USA Electricity 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

U.S. Clean Hydrogen Hubs aim to scale production, storage, transport, and use as DOE and the Biden administration fund regional projects under the infrastructure law, blending green and blue hydrogen, carbon capture, renewables, and pipelines.

Key Points

Federally funded regional projects to make, move, and use low-carbon hydrogen via green, blue, and pink routes.

✅ $7B DOE funding via infrastructure law

✅ Mix of green, blue, pink hydrogen pathways

✅ Targets 10M metric tons annually by 2030

New details are emerging about the Biden administration’s landmark plans to build out a U.S. clean hydrogen industry.

On Friday, the Department of Energy named the seven winners of $7 billion in federal funds to establish regional hydrogen hubs. The hubs — funded through the infrastructure law — are part of the administration’s efforts to jump-start an industry it sees as key to achieving climate goals like the goal of 100 percent clean electricity by 2035 set by the administration. The aim is to demonstrate everything from the production and storage of hydrogen to its transport and consumption.

“All across the country, from coast to coast, in the heartland, we’re building a clean energy future here in America, not somewhere else,” President Joe Biden said while announcing the hubs in Philadelphia.

From 79 initial proposals, DOE chose the following: the Mid-Atlantic Hydrogen Hub, Appalachian Hydrogen Hub, California Hydrogen Hub, Gulf Coast Hydrogen Hub, Heartland Hydrogen Hub, Midwest Hydrogen Hub and Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Hub.

Many of the winning proposals are backed by state government leaders and industry partners, and by Southeast cities that have ramped up clean energy purchases in recent years as well. The Midwest hub, for example, is a coalition of Illinois, Indiana and Michigan — supported by politicians like Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D), as well as such companies as Air Liquide, Ameren Illinois and Atlas Agro. The mid-Atlantic hub is supported by Democratic members of Congress representing the region, including Delaware Sens. Chris Coons and Tom Carper and Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester.

The administration hopes the hubs will produce 10 million metric tons of “clean” hydrogen annually by 2030. But much about the projects remains unknown — including how trends like cheap batteries for solar could affect clean power supply — and dependent on negotiations with DOE.

A win for ‘blue’ hydrogen?
Nearly all hydrogen created in the U.S. today is extracted from natural gas through steam methane reformation. The emissions-intensive process produces what is known as “grey” hydrogen — or “blue” hydrogen when combined with carbon capture and storage.

Four recipients — the Appalachian, Gulf Coast, Heartland and Midwest hydrogen hubs — include blue hydrogen in their plans, though the infrastructure law only mandated one.

That has drawn the ire of environmentalists, who argue blue hydrogen is not emissions-free, partly because of the potential for methane leaks during the production process.

“This is worse than expected,” Clean Energy Group President Seth Mullendore said after the recipients were announced Friday. “The fact that more than half the hubs will be using fossil gas is outrageous.”

Critics have also pointed out that many of the industry partners backing the hub projects include oil and gas companies. The coalitions are a mix of private-sector groups — often including renewable energy developers — and government stakeholders. Proposals have also looped in universities, utilities, environmental groups, community organizations, labor unions and tribal nations, among others.

“The massive build out of hydrogen infrastructure is little more than an industry ploy to rebrand fracked gas,” said Food & Water Watch Policy Director Jim Walsh in a statement Friday. “In a moment when every political decision that we make must reject fossil expansion, the Biden administration is going in the opposite direction.”

The White House has emphasized that roughly two-thirds of the $7 billion pot is “associated” with the production of “green” hydrogen, which uses electricity from renewable sources. Two of the chosen proposals — in California and the Pacific Northwest — are making green hydrogen their focus, reflecting advances such as offshore green hydrogen being pursued by industry leaders, while three other hubs plan to include green hydrogen alongside hydrogen made with natural gas (blue) or nuclear energy (pink).

Many hubs plan to use several methods for hydrogen production, and globally, projects like Brazil's green hydrogen plant highlight the scale of investment, but the exact mix may change depending on which projects make it through the DOE negotiations process. The Midwest hub, for example, told E&E News it’s pursuing an “all-of-the-above” strategy and has projects for green, blue and “pink” hydrogen. The mid-Atlantic hub in southeastern Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey will also generate hydrogen with nuclear reactors.

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm has described clean hydrogen as a fresh business opportunity, especially for the natural gas industry, which has supported the concept of sending hydrogen to market through its pipeline network. Lawmakers like Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) — who said the Appalachian hub will make West Virginia the “new epicenter of hydrogen” — have pushed for continuing to use natural gas to make hydrogen in his state.

“Natural gas utilities are committed to exploring all options for emissions reduction as demonstrated by the 39 hydrogen pilot projects already underway and are eager to participate in a number of the hubs,” said American Gas Association President and CEO Karen Harbert in a statement Friday.

Green hydrogen also has faced criticism. Some groups argue that the renewable resources needed to produce green hydrogen are limited, even with sources such as wind, solar and hydropower technology, so funding should be reserved for applications that cannot be easily electrified, mostly industrial processes. There also is uncertainty about how the Treasury Department will handle hydrogen made from grid electricity — which can include power from fossil fuel plants — in its upcoming guidance on the first-ever tax credit for clean hydrogen production.

“Even the cleanest forms of hydrogen present serious problems,” Walsh said. “As groundwater sources are drying up across the country, there is no reason to waste precious drinking water resources on hydrogen when there are cheaper, cleaner energy sources that can facilitate a real transition off fossil fuels.”

But Angelina Galiteva, CEO of the hub in drought-prone California, said hydrogen will enable the state “to increase renewable penetration to reach all corners of the economy,” noting parallel initiatives such as Dubai's solar hydrogen plans that illustrate the potential.

“Transitioning to renewable clean hydrogen will pose significantly less stress on water resources than remaining on the current fossil path,” she said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Vineyard Wind Offshore Wind Farm delivers clean power to Massachusetts near Martha's Vineyard, with 62 turbines and 800 MW capacity, advancing renewable energy, cutting carbon, lowering costs, and driving net-zero emissions and green jobs.

Key Points

An 800 MW Massachusetts offshore project of 62 turbines supplying clean power to 400,000+ homes and cutting emissions.

✅ 800 MW powering 400,000+ MA homes and businesses

✅ 62 turbines, 13 MW each, 15 miles from Martha's Vineyard

✅ Cuts 1.6M tons CO2 annually; boosts jobs and port infrastructure

The crisp Atlantic air off the coast of Martha's Vineyard carried a new melody on February 2nd, 2024. Five colossal turbines, each taller than the Statue of Liberty, began their graceful rotations, marking the historic moment power began flowing from Vineyard Wind, the first large-scale offshore wind farm in the United States, enabled by Interior Department approval earlier in the project timeline. This momentous occasion signifies a seismic shift in Massachusetts' energy landscape, one that promises cleaner air, lower energy costs, and a more sustainable future for generations to come.

Nestled 15 miles southeast of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, Vineyard Wind is a colossal undertaking. The project, a joint venture between Avangrid Renewables and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, will ultimately encompass 62 turbines, each capable of generating a staggering 13 megawatts. Upon full completion later this year, Vineyard Wind will power over 400,000 homes and businesses across Massachusetts, contributing a remarkable 800 megawatts to the state's energy grid.

But the impact of Vineyard Wind extends far beyond mere numbers. This trailblazing project holds immense environmental significance. By harnessing the clean and inexhaustible power of the wind, Vineyard Wind is projected to annually reduce carbon emissions by a staggering 1.6 million metric tons – equivalent to taking 325,000 cars off the road. This translates to cleaner air, improved public health, and a crucial step towards mitigating the climate crisis.

Governor Maura Healey hailed the project as a "turning point" in Massachusetts' clean energy journey. "Across the Commonwealth, homes and businesses will now be powered by clean, affordable energy, contributing to cleaner air, lower energy costs, and pushing us closer to achieving net-zero emissions," she declared.

Vineyard Wind's impact isn't limited to the environment; it's also creating a wave of economic opportunity. Since its inception in 2017, the project has generated nearly 2,000 jobs, with close to 1,000 positions filled by union workers thanks to a dedicated Project Labor Agreement. Construction has also breathed new life into the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal, with South Coast construction activity accelerating around the port, transforming it into the nation's first port facility specifically designed for offshore wind, showcasing the project's commitment to local infrastructure development.

"Every milestone on Vineyard Wind 1 is special, but powering up these first turbines stands apart," emphasized Pedro Azagra, CEO of Avangrid Renewables. "This accomplishment reflects the years of dedication and collaboration that have defined this pioneering project. Each blade rotation and megawatt flowing to Massachusetts homes is a testament to the collective effort that brought offshore wind power to the United States."

Vineyard Wind isn't just a project; it's a catalyst for change. It perfectly aligns with Massachusetts' ambitious clean energy goals, which include achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 and procuring 3,200 megawatts of offshore wind by 2028, while BOEM lease requests in the Northeast continue to expand the development pipeline across the region. As Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Rebecca Tepper stated, "Standing up a new industry is no easy feat, but we're committed to forging ahead and growing this sector to lower energy costs, create good jobs, and build a cleaner, healthier Commonwealth."

The launch of Vineyard Wind transcends Massachusetts, serving as a beacon for the entire U.S. offshore wind industry, as New York's biggest offshore wind farm moves forward to amplify regional momentum. This demonstration of large-scale development paves the way for further investment and growth in this critical clean energy source. However, the journey isn't without its challenges, and questions persist about reaching 1 GW on the grid nationwide as stakeholders navigate timelines. Concerns regarding potential impacts on marine life and visual aesthetics remain, requiring careful consideration and ongoing community engagement.

Despite these challenges, Vineyard Wind stands as a powerful symbol of hope and progress. It represents a significant step towards a cleaner, more sustainable future, powered by renewable energy sources at a time when U.S. offshore wind is about to soar according to industry outlooks. It's a testament to the collaborative effort of policymakers, businesses, and communities working together to tackle the climate crisis. As the turbines continue their majestic rotations, they carry a message of hope, reminding us that a brighter, more sustainable future is within reach, powered by the wind of change.

Additional Considerations:

• The project boasts a dedicated Fisheries Innovation Fund, fostering collaboration between the fishing and offshore wind industries to ensure sustainable coexistence.
• Vineyard Wind has invested in education and training programs, preparing local residents for careers in the burgeoning wind energy sector.
• The project's success opens doors for further offshore wind development in the U.S., such as Long Island proposals gaining attention, paving the way for a clean energy revolution.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Vehicle-to-Home (V2H) Power enables EVs to act as backup generators and home batteries, using bidirectional charging, inverters, and rooftop solar to cut energy costs, stabilize the grid, and provide resilient, outage-proof electricity.

Key Points

Vehicle-to-Home (V2H) Power lets EV batteries run household circuits via bidirectional charging and an inverter.

✅ Cuts energy bills using solar, time-of-use rates, and storage

✅ Provides resilient backup during outages, storms, and blackouts

✅ Enables grid services via V2G/V2H with smart chargers

When the power went out at Nate Graham’s New Mexico home last year, his family huddled around a fireplace in the cold and dark. Even the gas furnace was out, with no electricity for the fan. After failing to coax enough heat from the wood-burning fireplace, Graham’s wife and two children decamped for the comfort of a relative’s house until electricity returned two days later.

The next time the power failed, Graham was prepared. He had a power strip and a $150 inverter, a device that converts direct current from batteries into the alternating current needed to run appliances, hooked up to his new Chevy Bolt, an electric vehicle. The Bolt’s battery powered his refrigerator, lights and other crucial devices with ease. As the rest of his neighborhood outside Albuquerque languished in darkness, Graham’s family life continued virtually unchanged. “It was a complete game changer making power outages a nonissue,” says Graham, 35, a manager at a software company. “It lasted a day-and-a-half, but it could have gone much longer.”

Today, Graham primarily powers his home appliances with rooftop solar panels and, when the power goes out, his Chevy Bolt. He has cut his monthly energy bill from about $220 to $8 per month. “I’m not a rich person, but it was relatively easy,” says Graham “You wind up in a magical position with no [natural] gas, no oil and no gasoline bill.”

Graham is a preview of what some automakers are now promising anyone with an EV: An enormous home battery on wheels that can reverse the flow of electricity to power the entire home through the main electric panel.

Beyond serving as an emissions-free backup generator, the EV has the potential of revolutionizing the car’s role in American society, with California grid programs piloting vehicle-to-grid uses, transforming it from an enabler of a carbon-intensive existence into a key step in the nation’s transition into renewable energy.

Home solar panels had already been chipping away at the United States’ centralized power system, forcing utilities to make electricity transfer a two-way street. More recently, home batteries have allowed households with solar arrays to become energy traders, recharging when electricity prices are low, replacing grid power when prices are high, and then sell electricity back to the grid for a profit during peak hours.

But batteries are expensive. Using EVs makes this kind of home setup cheaper and a real possibility for more Americans as the American EV boom accelerates nationwide.

So there may be a time, perhaps soon, when your car not only gets you from point A to point B, but also serves as the hub of your personal power plant.

I looked into new vehicles and hardware to answer the most common questions about how to power your home (and the grid) with your car.

Why power your home with an EV battery

America’s grid is not in good shape. Prices are up and reliability is down, and many state power grids face new challenges from rising EV adoption. Since 2000, the number of major outages has risen from less than two dozen to more than 180 per year, based on federal data, the Wall Street Journal reports. The average utility customer in 2020 endured about eight hours of power interruptions, double the previous decade.

Utilities’ relationship with their customers is set to get even rockier. Residential electricity prices, which have risen 21 percent since 2008, are predicted to keep climbing as utilities spend more than $1 trillion upgrading infrastructure, erecting transmission lines for renewable energy and protecting against extreme weather, even though grids can handle EV loads with proper management and planning.

U.S. homeowners, increasingly, are opting out. About 8 percent of them have installed solar panels. An increasing number are adding home batteries from companies such as LG, Tesla and Panasonic. These are essentially banks of battery cells, similar to those in your laptop, capable of storing energy and discharging electricity.

EnergySage, a renewable energy marketplace, says two-thirds of its customers now request battery quotes when soliciting bids for home solar panels, and about 15 percent install them. This setup allows homeowners to declare (at least partial) independence from the grid by storing and consuming solar power overnight, as well as supplying electricity during outages.

But it doesn’t come cheap. The average home consumes about 20 kilowatt-hours per day, a measure of energy over time. That works out to about $15,000 for enough batteries on your wall to ensure a full day of backup power (although the net cost is lower after incentives and other potential savings).

How an EV battery can power your home

Ford changed how customers saw their trucks when it rolled out a hybrid version of the F-150, says Ryan O’Gorman of Ford’s energy services program. The truck doubles as a generator sporting as many as 11 outlets spread around the vehicle, including a 240-volt outlet typically used for appliances like clothes dryers. During disasters like the 2021 ice storm that left millions of Texans without electricity, Ford dealers lent out their hybrid F-150s as home generators, showing how mobile energy storage can bring new flexibility during outages.

The Lightning, the fully electric version of the F-150, takes the next step by offering home backup power. Under each Lightning sits a massive 98 kWh to 131 kWh battery pack. That’s enough energy, Ford estimates, to power a home for three days (10 days if rationing). “The vehicle has an immense amount of power to move that much metal down the road at 80 mph,” says O’Gorman.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

California Gas Car Ban 2035 signals a shift to electric vehicles, raising grid reliability concerns, charging demand, and renewable energy challenges across solar, wind, and storage, amid rolling blackouts and carbon-free power mandates.

Key Points

An order ending new gasoline car sales by 2035 in California, accelerating EV adoption and pressuring the power grid.

✅ 25% EV fleet could add 232.5 GWh/day charging demand by 2040

✅ Solar and wind intermittency strains nighttime home charging

✅ Grid upgrades, storage, and load management become critical

On September 23, California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order that will ban the sale of gasoline-powered cars in the Golden State by 2035. Ignoring the hard lessons of this past summer, when California’s solar- and wind-reliant electric grid underwent rolling blackouts, Newsom now adds a huge new burden to the grid in the form of electric vehicle charging, underscoring the need for a much bigger grid to meet demand. If California officials follow through and enforce Newsom’s order, the result will be a green new car version of a train wreck.

In parallel, the state is moving on fleet transitions, allowing electric school buses only from 2035, which further adds to charging demand.

Let’s run some numbers. According to Statista, there are more than 15 million vehicles registered in California. Per the U.S. Department of Energy, there are only 256,000 electric vehicles registered in the state—just 1.7 percent of all vehicles, a share that will challenge state power grids as adoption grows.

Using the Tesla Model3 mid-range model as a baseline for an electric car, you’ll need to use about 62 kilowatt-hours (KWh) of power to charge a standard range Model 3 battery to full capacity. It will take about eight hours to fully charge it at home using the standard Tesla NEMA 14-50 charger, a routine that has prompted questions about whether EVs could crash the grid by households statewide.

Now, let’s assume that by 2040, five years after the mandate takes effect, also assuming no major increase in the number of total vehicles, California manages to increase the number of electric vehicles to 25 percent of the total vehicles in the state. If each vehicle needs an average of 62 kilowatt-hours for a full charge, then the total charging power required daily would be 3,750,000 x 62 KWh, which equals 232,500,000 KWh, or 232.5 gigawatt-hours (GWh) daily.

Utility-scale California solar electric generation according to the energy.ca.gov puts utility-scale solar generation at about 30,000 GWh per year currently. Divide that by 365 days and we get 80 GWh/day, predicted to double, to 160 GWh /day. Even if we add homeowner rooftop solar, and falling prices for solar and home batteries in the wake of blackouts, about half the utility-scale, at 40 GWh/day we come up to 200 GW/h per day, still 32 GWh short of the charging demand for a 25% electric car fleet in California. Even if rooftop solar doubles by 2040, we are at break-even, with 240GWh of production during the day.

Bottom-line, under the most optimistic best-case scenario, where solar operates at 100% of rated capacity (it seldom does), it would take every single bit of the 2040 utility-scale solar and rooftop capacity just to charge the cars during the day. That leaves nothing left for air conditioning, appliances, lighting, etc. It would all go to charging the cars, and that’s during the day when solar production peaks.

But there’s a much bigger problem. Even a grade-schooler can figure out that solar energy doesn’t work at night, when most electric vehicles will be charging at homes, even as some officials look to EVs for grid stability through vehicle-to-grid strategies. So, where does Newsom think all this extra electric power is going to come from?

The wind? Wind power lags even further behind solar power. According to energy.gov, as of 2019, California had installed just 5.9 gigawatts of wind power generating capacity. This is because you need large amounts of land for wind farms, and not every place is suitable for high-return wind power.

In 2040, to keep the lights on with 25 percent of all vehicles in California being electric, while maintaining the state mandate requiring all the state’s electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045, California would have to blanket the entire state with solar and wind farms. It’s an impossible scenario. And the problem of intermittent power and rolling blackouts would become much worse.

And it isn’t just me saying this. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agrees. In a letter sent by EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to Gavin Newsom on September 28, Wheeler wrote:

“[It] begs the question of how you expect to run an electric car fleet that will come with significant increases in electricity demand, when you can’t even keep the lights on today.

“The truth is that if the state were driving 100 percent electric vehicles today, the state would be dealing with even worse power shortages than the ones that have already caused a series of otherwise preventable environmental and public health consequences.”

California’s green new car wreck looms large on the horizon. Worse, can you imagine electric car owners’ nightmares when California power companies shut off the power for safety reasons during fire season? Try evacuating in your electric car when it has a dead battery.

Gavin Newsom’s “no more gasoline cars sold by 2035” edict isn’t practical, sustainable, or sensible, much like the 2035 EV mandate in Canada has been criticized by some observers. But isn’t that what we’ve come to expect with any and all of these Green New Deal-lite schemes?

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News