France Hits Record: 20% Of Market Buys Electric Cars

2020 U.S. Renewable Electricity Generation set a record as wind, solar, hydro, biomass, and geothermal produced 834 billion kWh, surpassing coal and nuclear, second only to natural gas in nationwide power output.

Key Points

The record year when renewables made 834 billion kWh, topping coal and nuclear in U.S. electricity.

✅ Renewables supplied 21% of U.S. electricity in 2020

✅ Coal output fell 20% y/y; nuclear slipped 2% on retirements

✅ EIA forecasts renewables rise in 2021-2022; coal rebounds

In 2020, renewable energy sources (including wind, hydroelectric, solar, biomass, and geothermal energy) generated a record 834 billion kilowatthours (kWh) of electricity, or about 21% of all the electricity generated in the United States. Only natural gas (1,617 billion kWh) produced more electricity than renewables in the United States in 2020. Renewables surpassed both nuclear (790 billion kWh) and coal (774 billion kWh) for the first time on record. This outcome in 2020 was due mostly to significantly less coal use in U.S. electricity generation and steadily increased use of wind and solar generation over time, amid declining consumption trends nationwide.

In 2020, U.S. electricity generation from coal in all sectors declined 20% from 2019, while renewables, including small-scale solar, increased 9%. Wind, currently the most prevalent source of renewable electricity in the United States, grew 14% in 2020 from 2019, and the EIA expects solar and wind to be larger sources in summer 2022, reflecting continued growth. Utility-scale solar generation (from projects greater than 1 megawatt) increased 26%, and small-scale solar, such as grid-connected rooftop solar panels, increased 19%, while early 2021 January power generation jumped year over year.

Coal-fired electricity generation in the United States peaked at 2,016 billion kWh in 2007 and much of that capacity has been replaced by or converted to natural gas-fired generation since then. Coal was the largest source of electricity in the United States until 2016, and 2020 was the first year that more electricity was generated by renewables and by nuclear power than by coal (according to our data series that dates back to 1949). Nuclear electric power declined 2% from 2019 to 2020 because several nuclear power plants retired and other nuclear plants experienced slightly more maintenance-related outages.

We expect coal-fired generation to increase in the United States during 2021 as natural gas prices continue to rise and as coal becomes more economically competitive. Based on forecasts in our Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), we expect coal-fired electricity generation in all sectors in 2021 to increase 18% from 2020 levels before falling 2% in 2022. We expect U.S. renewable generation across all sectors to increase 7% in 2021 and 10% in 2022, and in 2021, non-fossil fuel sources accounted for about 40% of U.S. electricity. As a result, we forecast coal will be the second-most prevalent electricity source in 2021, and renewables will be the second-most prevalent source in 2022. We expect nuclear electric power to decline 2% in 2021 and 3% in 2022 as operators retire several generators.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

U.S. Renewable Energy Share 2022 leads electricity generation trends, as wind and solar outpace nuclear and coal, per EIA data, with hydropower gains and grid growth highlighting rapid, sustainable capacity expansion nationwide.

Key Points

Renewables supplied over 25% of U.S. electricity in 2022, as wind and solar outpaced nuclear with double-digit growth.

✅ Renewables provided 25.52% of U.S. power Jan-Apr 2022.

✅ Wind and solar beat nuclear by 17.96% in April.

✅ Solar up 28.93%, wind up 24.25%; hydropower up 9.99%.

During the first four months of 2022, electrical generation by renewable energy sources accounted for over 25% of the nation’s electricity, projected to soon be about one-fourth as growth continues. In April alone, renewables hit a record April share of 29.3% — an all-time high.

And for the first time ever, the combination of just wind power and solar produce more electricity in April than the nation’s nuclear power plants — 17.96% more.

This is according to a SUN DAY Campaign analysis of data in EIA’s Electric Power Monthly report. The report also reveals that during the first third of this year, solar (including residential) generation climbed by 28.93%, while wind increased by 24.25%. Combined, solar and wind grew by 25.46% and accounted for more than one-sixth (16.67%) of U.S. electrical generation (wind: 12.24%, solar: 4.43%).

Hydropower also increased by 9.99% during the first four months of 2022. However, wind alone provided 70.89% more electricity than did hydropower. Together with contributions from geothermal and biomass, the mix of renewable energy sources expanded by 18.49%, and building on its second-most U.S. source in 2020 status helped underscore momentum as it provided about 25.5% of U.S. electricity during the first four months of 2022.

For the first third of the year, renewables surpassed coal and nuclear power by 26.13% and 37.80% respectively. In fact, electrical generation by coal declined by 3.94% compared to the same period in 2021 while nuclear dropped by 1.80%.

“Notwithstanding headwinds such as the COVID pandemic, grid access problems, and disruptions in global supply chains, solar and wind remain on a roll,” noted the SUN DAY Campaign’s executive director Ken Bossong. “Moreover, by surpassing nuclear power by ever greater margins, they illustrate the foolishness of trying to revive the soon-to-retire Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California and the just-retired Palisades reactor in Michigan rather than focusing on accelerating renewables’ growth.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

ABB Terra 360 EV Charger offers 360 kW DC fast charging, ultra-fast top-ups, and multi-vehicle capability for Ionity, Electrify America, and depot installations, adding 100 km in under 3 minutes with compact footprint.

Key Points

ABB's Terra 360 is a 360 kW DC fast charger for EVs, powering up to four vehicles simultaneously with a compact footprint.

✅ 360 kW DC output; adds 100 km in under 3 minutes

✅ Charges up to four vehicles at once; small footprint

✅ Rolling out in Europe 2021; US and beyond in 2022

Swiss company ABB, which supplies EV chargers to Ionity and Electrify America amid intensifying charging network competition worldwide, has unveiled what it calls the "world's fastest electric car charger." As its name suggests, the Terra 360 has a 360 kW capacity, and as electric-car adoption accelerates, it could fully charge a (theoretical) EV in 15 minutes. More realistically, it can charge four vehicles simultaneously, saving space at charging stations. 

The Terra 360 isn't the most powerful charger by much, as companies like Electrify America, Ionity and EVGo have been using 350 kW chargers manufactured by ABB and others since at least 2018. However, it's the "only charger designed explicitly to charge up to four vehicles at once," the company said. "This gives owners the flexibility to charge up to four vehicles overnight or to give a quick refill to their EVs in the day." They also have a relatively small footprint, allowing installation in small depots or parking lots, helping as US automakers plan 30,000 new chargers nationwide. 

There aren't a lot of EVs that can handle that kind of charge. The only two approaching it are Porsche's Taycan, with 270 kW of charging capacity and the new Lucid Air, which allows for up to 300 kW fast-charging. Tesla's Model 3 and Model Y EVs can charge at up to 250 kW, while Hyundai's Ioniq 5 is rated for 232 kW DC fast charging in optimal conditions. 

Such high charging levels aren't necessarily great for an EV's battery, and the broader grid capacity question looms as the American EV boom gathers pace. Porsche, for instance, has a battery preservation setting on its Plug & Charge Taycan feature that lowers power to 200 kW from the maximum 270 kW allowed — so it's essentially acknowledging that faster charging degrades the battery. On top of that, extreme charging levels don't necessarily save you much time, as Car and Driver found. Tesla recently promised to upgrade its own Supercharger V3 network from 250kW to 300kW, with energy storage solutions emerging to buffer high-power sites. 

ABB's new chargers will be able to add 100 km (62 miles) of range in less than three minutes. They'll arrive in Europe by the end of the year and start rolling out in the US and elsewhere in 2022.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Scotland Green Recovery Strategy centers on renewable energy, onshore wind, energy efficiency, battery storage, hydrogen, and electric vehicles, alongside public transport and digital infrastructure, local manufacturing, and grid flexibility to decarbonize industry and communities.

Key Points

A plan to cut emissions by scaling renewables, efficiency, storage, and infrastructure for resilient, low-carbon growth.

✅ Prioritize energy efficiency retrofits in homes and workplaces

✅ Invest in battery storage, hydrogen, and EV charging networks

✅ Support local manufacturing and circular economy supply chains

THE “green recovery” joins the growing list of Covid-era political maxims, while green energy investment could drive recovery, suggesting a bright and environmentally sustainable post-pandemic future lies ahead.

The Prime Minister once again alluded to it recently when he expressed his ambition to see the UK become the “world leader in clean wind energy”. In his typically bombastic style, Boris Johnson declared that everything from our kettles to electric vehicles, with offshore wind energy central to that vision, will be powered by “breezes that blow around these islands” by the next decade.

These comments create a misleading impression about how we can achieve a green recovery, particularly as Covid-19 hit renewables and exposed systemic challenges. While wind turbines have a key role to play, they are just one part of a comprehensive solution requiring a far more in-depth focus on how and why we use energy. We must concentrate our efforts and resources on reducing our overall consumption and increasing energy capture.

This includes making significant energy efficiency improvements to the buildings where we live and work and grasping the lessons of lockdown, including proposals for a fossil fuel lockdown to accelerate climate action, to ensure we operate in a more effective and less environmentally-damaging fashion. Do we really want to return to a world where people commute daily half way across the country for work or fly to New York for a two-hour meeting?

Businesses will need to adapt to new ways of operating outwith the traditional nine-to-five working week to reduce congestion and pollution levels. To make this possible requires Government investment in critical areas such as public transport and digital infrastructure, alongside more pylons to strengthen the grid, across all parts of Scotland to decentralise the economy and enable more people to live and work outside the main cities.

A Government-supported green recovery must rest on making it financially viable for businesses to manufacture here to reduce our reliance on imported goods. This includes processing recycleable materials here rather than shipping them abroad. It also means using locally generated energy to support local jobs and industry. We miss a trick if Scotland simply becomes a power generator for the rest of the UK.

MOVING transport from fossil fuels to renewable fuels will require a step-change that also requires support across all levels. The increased use of electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cells are all encouraging developments, but these will rely on investment in infrastructure throughout the country if we’re to achieve significant benefits to our environment and our economy.

This brings us to the role of onshore wind power; still the cheapest form of renewable energy, and a sector marked by wind growth despite Covid-19 around the world today. Repowering existing sites with newer and more efficient turbines will certainly increase capacity rapidly, but we must also invest into development projects that will further enhance the capacity and efficiency of existing equipment. This includes improving on the current practice of the National Grid paying operators to switch off wind turbines when excess electricity is produced and instead developing new and innovative means to capture this energy. Government-primed investment into battery storage could help ensure we achieve and further reduce our reliance on traditional, non-sustainable sources.

We need a level playing field so that all forms of energy are judged on their lifetime cost in terms of emissions as well as construction and decommissioning costs to ensure fiscal incentives are applied on a fairer basis.

Turning the maxim of a green recovery into reality will require more than extra wind turbines, and the UK's wind lessons underscore the importance of policy and scale. We need a significant investment and commitment from business and government to limit existing emissions and ensure we capture and use energy more efficiently.

Andy Drane is projects partner and head of renewables at law firm Davidson Chalmers Stewart.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Canada Electricity Decarbonization Costs indicate challenging greenhouse gas reductions across a fragmented grid, with wind, solar, nuclear, and natural gas tradeoffs, significant GDP impacts, and Net Zero targets constrained by intermittency and limited interties.

Key Points

Costs to cut power CO2 via wind, solar, gas, and nuclear, considering grid limits, intermittency, and GDP impacts.

✅ Alberta model: eliminate coal; add wind, solar, gas; 26-40% CO2 cuts

✅ Nuclear option enables >75% cuts at higher but feasible system costs

✅ National costs 1-2% GDP; reserves, transmission, land, and waste not included

Along with many western developed countries, Canada has pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40–45 percent by 2030 from 2005 emissions levels, and to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

This is a huge challenge that, when considered on a global scale, will do little to stop climate change because emissions by developing countries are rising faster than emissions are being reduced in developed countries. Even so, the potential for achieving emissions reduction targets is extremely challenging as there are questions as to how and whether targets can be met and at what cost. Because electricity can be produced from any source of energy, including wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and any combustible material, climate change policies have focused especially on nations’ electricity grids, and in Canada cleaning up electricity is viewed as critical to meeting climate pledges.

Canada’s electricity grid consists of ten separate provincial grids that are weakly connected by transmission interties to adjacent grids and, in some cases, to electricity systems in the United States. At times, these interties are helpful in addressing small imbalances between electricity supply and demand so as to prevent brownouts or even blackouts, and are a source of export revenue for provinces that have abundant hydroelectricity, such as British Columbia, Manitoba, and Quebec.

Due to generally low intertie capacities between provinces, electricity trade is generally a very small proportion of total generation, though electricity has been a national climate success in recent years. Essentially, provincial grids are stand alone, generating electricity to meet domestic demand (known as load) from the lowest cost local resources.

Because climate change policies have focused on electricity (viz., wind and solar energy, electric vehicles), and Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero according to the IEA, this study employs information from the Alberta electricity system to provide an estimate of the possible costs of reducing national CO2 emissions related to power generation. The Alberta system serves as an excellent case study for examining the potential for eliminating fossil-fuel generation because of its large coal fleet, favourable solar irradiance, exceptional wind regimes, and potential for utilizing BC’s reservoirs for storage.

Using a model of the Alberta electricity system, we find that it is infeasible to rely solely on renewable sources of energy for 100 percent of power generation—the costs are prohibitive. Under perfect conditions, however, CO2 emissions from the Alberta grid can be reduced by 26 to 40 percent by eliminating coal and replacing it with renewable energy such as wind and solar, and gas, but by more than 75 percent if nuclear power is permitted. The associated costs are estimated to be some $1.4 billion per year to reduce emissions by at most 40 percent, or $1.9 billion annually to reduce emissions by 75 percent or more using nuclear power (an option not considered feasible at this time).

Based on cost estimates from Alberta, and Ontario’s experience with subsidies to renewable energy, and warnings that the switch from fossil fuels to electricity could cost about $1.4 trillion, the costs of relying on changes to electricity generation (essentially eliminating coal and replacing it with renewable energy sources and gas) to reduce national CO2 emissions by about 7.4 percent range from some $16.8 to $33.7 billion annually. This constitutes some 1–2 percent of Canada’s GDP.

The national estimates provided here are conservative, however. They are based on removing coal-fired power from power grids throughout Canada. We could not account for scenarios where the scale of intermittency turned out worse than indicated in our dataset—available wind and solar energy might be lower than indicated by the available data. To take this into account, a reserve market is required, but the costs of operating such a capacity market were not included in the estimates provided in this study. Also ignored are the costs associated with the value of land in other alternative uses, the need for added transmission lines, 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.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change 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