Scientists generate 'electricity from thin air.' Humidity could be a boundless source of energy.

Africa 2030 Energy Mix Forecast finds electricity generation doubling, with fossil fuels dominant, non-hydro renewables under 10%, hydro vulnerable to droughts, and machine-learning analysis of planned power plants shaping climate and investment decisions.

Key Points

An analysis predicting Africa's 2030 power mix, with fossil fuels dominant, limited renewables growth, and hydro risks.

✅ ML model assesses 2,500 planned plants' commissioning odds

✅ Fossil fuels ~66% of generation; non-hydro RE <10% by 2030

✅ Policy shifts and finance reallocation to scale solar and wind

New research today from the University of Oxford predicts that total electricity generation across the African continent will double by 2030, with fossil fuels continuing to dominate the energy mix posing potential risk to global climate change commitments.

The study, published in Nature Energy, uses a state-of-the art machine-learning technique to analyse the pipeline of more than 2,500 currently-planned power plants and their chances of being successfully commissioned. It shows the share of non-hydro renewables in African electricity generation is likely to remain below 10% in 2030, although this varies by region.

'Africa's electricity demand is set to increase significantly as the continent strives to industrialise and improve the wellbeing of its people, which offers an opportunity to power this economic development and expand universal electricity access through renewables' says Galina Alova, study lead author and researcher at the Oxford Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment.

'There is a prominent narrative in the energy planning community that the continent will be able to take advantage of its vast renewable energy resources and rapidly decreasing clean technology prices to leapfrog to renewables by 2030 but our analysis shows that overall it is not currently positioned to do so.'

The study predicts that in 2030, fossil fuels will account for two-thirds of all generated electricity across Africa. While an additional 18% of generation is set to come from hydro-energy projects across Africa. These have their own challenges, such as being vulnerable to an increasing number of droughts caused by climate change.

The research also highlights regional differences in the pace of the transition to renewables across Sub-Saharan Africa, with southern Africa leading the way. South Africa alone is forecast to add almost 40% of Africa's total predicted new solar capacity by 2030.

'Namibia is committed to generate 70% of its electricity needs from renewable sources, including all the major alternative sources such as hydropower, wind and solar generation, by 2030, as specified in the National Energy Policy and in Intended Nationally Determined Contributions under Paris Climate Change Accord,' says Calle Schlettwein, Namibia Minister of Water (former Minister of Finance and Minister of Industrialisation). 'We welcome this study and believe that it will support the refinement of strategies for increasing generation capacity from renewable sources in Africa and facilitate both successful and more effective public and private sector investments in the renewable energy sector.'

Minister Schlettwein adds: 'The more data-driven and advanced analytics-based research is available for understanding the risks associated with power generation projects, the better. Some of the risks that could be useful to explore in the future are the uncertainties in hydrological conditions and wind regimes linked to climate change, and economic downturns such as that caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.'

The study further suggests that a decisive move towards renewable energy in Africa would require a significant shock to the current system. This includes large-scale cancellation of fossil fuel plants currently being planned. In addition, the study identifies ways in which planned renewable energy projects can be designed to improve their success chances for example, smaller size, fitting ownership structure, and availability of development finance for projects.

'The development community and African decision makers need to act quickly if the continent wants to avoid being locked into a carbon-intense energy future' says Philipp Trotter, study author and researcher at the Smith School. 'Immediate re-directions of development finance from fossil fuels to renewables are an important lever to increase experience with solar and wind energy projects across the continent in the short term, creating critical learning curve effects.'

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Electricity Investment Surpasses Oil and Gas 2016, driven by renewable energy, power grids, and energy efficiency, as IEA reports lower oil and gas spending, rising solar and wind capacity, and declining coal power plant approvals.

Key Points

A 2016 milestone where electricity topped global energy investment, led by renewables, grids, and efficiency, per the IEA.

✅ IEA: electricity investment hit $718b; oil and gas fell to $650b.

✅ Renewables led with $297b; solar and wind unit costs declined.

✅ Coal plant approvals plunged; networks and storage spending rose.

Investments in electricity surpassed those in oil and gas for the first time ever in 2016 on a spending splurge on renewable energy and power grids as the fall in crude prices led to deep cuts, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said.

Total energy investment fell for the second straight year by 12 per cent to US$1.7 trillion compared with 2015, the IEA said. Oil and gas investments plunged 26 per cent to US$650 billion, down by over a quarter in 2016, and electricity generation slipped 5 per cent.

"This decline (in energy investment) is attributed to two reasons," IEA chief economist Laszlo Varro told journalists.

"The reaction of the oil and gas industry to the prolonged period of low oil prices which was a period of harsh investment cuts; and technological progress which is reducing investment costs in both renewable power and in oil and gas," he said.

Oil and gas investment is expected to rebound modestly by 3 per cent in 2017, driven by a 53 per cent upswing in U.S. shale, and spending in Russia and the Middle East, the IEA said in a report.

"The rapid ramp up of U.S. shale activities has triggered an increase of U.S. shale costs of 16 per cent in 2017 after having almost halved from 2014-16," the report said.

The global electricity sector, however, was the largest recipient of energy investment in 2016 for the first time ever, overtaking oil, gas and coal combined, the report said.

"Robust investments in renewable energy and increased spending in electricity networks, which supports the outlook that low-emissions sources will cover most demand growth, made electricity the biggest area of capital investments," Varro said.

Electricity investment worldwide was US$718 billion, lifted by higher spending in power grids which offset the fall in power generation investments.

"Investment in new renewables-based power capacity, at US$297 billion, remained the largest area of electricity spending, despite falling back by 3 per cent as clean energy investment in developing nations slipped, the report said."

Although renewables investments was 3 per cent lower than five years ago, capacity additions were 50 per cent higher and expected output from this capacity about 35 per cent higher, thanks to the fall in unit costs and technology improvements in solar PV and wind generation, the IEA said.

COAL INVESTMENT IS COMING TO AN END

Investments in coal-fired electricity plants fell sharply. Sanctioning of new coal power plants fell to the lowest level in nearly 15 years, reflecting concerns about local air pollution, and emergence of overcapacity and competition from renewables, with renewables poised to eclipse coal in global power generation, notably in China. Coal investments, however, grew in India.

"Coal investment is coming to an end. At the very least, it is coming to a pause," Varro said.

The IEA report said energy efficiency investments continued to expand in 2016, reaching US$231 billion, with most of it going to the building sector globally.

Electric vehicles sales rose 38 per cent in 2016 to 750,000 vehicles at $6 billion, and represented 10 per cent of all transport efficiency spending. Some US$6 billion was spent globally on electronic vehicle charging stations, the IEA said.

Spending on electricity networks and storage continued the steady rise of the past five years, as surging electricity demand puts power systems under strain, reaching an all-time high of US$277 billion in 2016, with 30 per cent of the expansion driven by China’s spending in its distribution system, the report said.

China led the world in energy investments with 21 per cent of global total share, the report said, driven by low-carbon electricity supply and networks projects.

Although oil and gas investments fell in the United States in 2016, its total energy investments rose 16 per cent, even as Americans use less electricity in recent years, on the back of spending in renewables projects, the IEA report said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

BC Hydro Deferred Regulatory Assets detail $5.5 billion in costs under rate-regulated accounting, to be recovered from ratepayers, highlighting B.C. Utilities Commission oversight, audit scrutiny, financial reporting impacts, and public utility governance.

Key Points

BC Hydro defers costs as regulatory assets to recover from ratepayers, influencing rates and financial reporting.

✅ $5.5B in deferred costs recorded as net regulatory assets

✅ Rate impacts tied to B.C. Utilities Commission oversight

✅ Auditor General to assess accounting and governance

Auditor General Carol Bellringer says BC Hydro has deferred $5.5 billion in expenses that it plans to recover from ratepayers in the future, as rates to rise by 3.75% over two years.

Bellringer focuses on the deferred expenses in a report on the public utility's use of rate-regulated accounting to control electricity rates for customers.

"As of March 31, 2018, BC Hydro reported a total net regulatory asset of $5.455 billion, which is what ratepayers owe," says the report. "BC Hydro expects to recover this from ratepayers in the future. For BC Hydro, this is an asset. For ratepayers, this is a debt."

She says rate-regulated accounting is used widely across North America, but cautions that Hydro has largely overridden the role of the independent B.C. Utilities Commission to regulate rates.

"We think it's important for the people of B.C. and our members of the legislative assembly to better understand rate-regulated accounting in order to appreciate the impact it has on the bottom line for BC Hydro, for government as a whole, for ratepayers and for taxpayers, especially following a three per cent rate increase in April 2018," Bellringer said in a conference call with reporters.

Last June, the B.C. government launched a two-phase review of BC Hydro to find cost savings and look at the direction of the Crown utility, amid calls for change from advocates.

The review came shortly after a planned government rate freeze was overturned by the utilities commission, which resulted in a three per cent rate increase in April 2018.

A statement by BC Hydro and the government says a key objective of the review due this month is to enhance the regulatory oversight of the commission.

Bellringer's office will become BC Hydro's auditor next year — and will be assessing the impact of regulation on the utility's financial reporting.

"It is a complex area and confidence in the regulatory system is critical to protect the public interest," wrote Bellringer.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EU Energy Price Surge is driving up electricity and gas costs, inflation, and cost of living across the EU, prompting tax cuts, price caps, subsidies, and household support measures in France, Italy, Spain, and Germany.

Key Points

A surge in EU gas and electricity costs driving inflation and prompting government subsidies, tax cuts, and price caps.

✅ Low-income EU households now spend 50-70 percent more on energy.

✅ Governments deploy tax cuts, price caps, and direct subsidies.

✅ Gas-dependent power markets drive electricity price spikes.

Higher energy prices, including for natural gas, are pushing up electricity prices and the cost of living for households across the EU, prompting governments to cut taxes and provide financial support to the tune of several billion euros.

In the United Kingdom, households are bracing for high winter energy bills this season.

A series of reports published by Cambridge Econometrics in October and November 2022 found that households in EU countries are spending much more on energy than in 2020 and that governments are spending billions of euros to help consumers pay bills and cut taxes.

In France, for example, the poorest households now spend roughly one-third more on energy than in 2020. Between August 2020 and August 2022, household energy prices increased by 37 percent, while overall inflation increased by 9.2 percent.

“We estimate that the increase in household energy prices make an average French household €410 worse off in 2022 compared to 2020, mostly due to higher gas prices,” said the report.

In response to rising energy prices, the French government has adopted price caps and support measures forecast to cost over €71 billion, equivalent to 2.9 percent of French GDP, according to the U.K.-based consultancy.

In Italy, fossil fuels alone were responsible for roughly 30 percent of the country’s annual rate of inflation during spring 2022, according to Cambridge Econometrics. Unlike in other European countries, retail electricity prices have outpaced other energy prices in Italy and were 112 percent higher in July 2022 than in August 2020, the report found. Over the same time period, retail petrol prices were up 14 percent, diesel up 22 percent, and natural gas up 42 percent.

We estimate that households in the lowest-income quintile now spend about 50 percent more on energy than in 2020.

“We estimate that before government support, an average Italian household will be spending around €1,400 more on energy and fuel bills this year than in 2020,” the report said. “Low-income households are worse affected by the increasing energy prices: we estimate that households in the lowest-income quintile now spend about 50 percent more on energy than in 2020.”

Electricity production in Italy is dominated by natural gas, which has also led to a spike in wholesale electricity prices. In 2010, natural gas accounted for 50 percent of all electricity production. The share of natural gas fell to 33 percent in 2014, but then rose again, reaching 48 percent in 2021, and 56 percent in the first half of 2022, according to the report, as gas filled the gap of record low hydro power production in 2022.

In Spain, where electricity prices have seen extreme spikes, low-income households are now spending an estimated 70% more on energy than in 2020, according to Cambridge Econometrics.

Low-income squeeze
In Spain, low-income households are now spending an estimated 70% more on energy than in 2020, according to Cambridge Econometrics. It noted that the Spanish government has intervened heavily in energy markets by cutting taxes, introducing cash transfers for households, and capping the price of natural gas for power generators. The latter has led to lower electricity prices than in many other EU countries.

These support measures are forecast to cost the Spanish government over €35 billion, equivalent to nearly 3 percent of Spain’s GDP. Yet consumers will still feel the burden of higher costs of living, and rolling back electricity prices may prove difficult in the near term.

In March, electricity prices alone were responsible for 45 percent of year-on-year inflation in Spain but prices have since fallen as a result of government intervention, Cambridge Econometrics said. Between May and July, fossil fuels prices accounted for 19-25 percent of the overall inflation rate, and electricity prices for 16 percent.

Support measures
Rising inflation is also a real challenge in Germany, Europe’s largest economy, where German power prices have surged this year, adding pressure. Also there, higher gas prices are to blame.

“We estimate that the increase in energy prices currently make an average household €735 worse off in 2022 compared to 2020, mostly due to higher gas prices,” Cambridge Econometrics said, in a report focused on Germany.

The German government has introduced a number of support measures in order to help households, businesses and industry to pay energy bills, amid rising heating and electricity costs for consumers, including price caps that are expected to take effect in March next year. Moreover, households’ energy bills for December this year will be paid by the state. According to the report, these interventions will mitigate the impact of higher prices “to some extent”, but the aid measures are forecast to cost the government nearly 5 percent of GDP.

Fossil-fuel effect
In addition to gas, higher coal prices have also pushed up inflation in some countries, and U.S. electricity prices have reached multi-decade highs as inflation endures.

In Poland, which is heavily dependent on coal for electricity generation, fossil fuels accounted for roughly 40 percent of Poland’s overall year-on-year inflation rate in June 2022, which stood at over 14 percent, the consultancy said.

The price of household coal, which is widely used in heating Polish homes, increased by 157 percent between August 2021 and August 2022.

Higher energy prices in Poland are partly due to Polish and EU sanctions against Russian gas and coal. Other drivers are the weakening of the Polish zloty against the U.S. dollar and the euro, and the uptick in global demand after COVID-19 lockdowns, said Cambridge Econometrics.

Electricity prices have risen at a much slower pace than energy for transport and heating, with an annualized increase of 5.1 percent.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EV Flood Fire Risks highlight climate change impacts, lithium-ion battery hazards, water damage, post-submersion inspection, first responder precautions, manufacturer safeguards, and insurance considerations for extreme weather, flood-prone areas, and hurricane aftermaths.

Key Points

Water-exposed EV lithium-ion batteries may ignite later, requiring inspection, isolation, and trained responders.

✅ Avoid driving through floodwaters; park on high ground.

✅ After submersion, isolate vehicle; seek qualified inspection.

✅ Inform first responders and insurers about EV water damage.

As climate change intensifies the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, concerns about electric vehicle (EV) safety in flood-prone areas have come to the forefront. Recent warnings from officials regarding the risks of electric vehicles catching fire due to flooding from Hurricane Idalia underscore the need for heightened awareness and preparedness among consumers and emergency responders, as well as attention to grid reliability during disasters.

The alarming incidents of EVs igniting after being submerged in floodwaters have raised critical questions about the safety of these vehicles during severe weather conditions. While electric vehicles are often touted for their environmental benefits and lower emissions, it is crucial to understand the potential risks associated with their battery systems when exposed to water, even as many drivers weigh whether to buy an electric car for daily use.

The Risks of Submerging Electric Vehicles

Electric vehicles primarily rely on lithium-ion batteries, which can be sensitive to water exposure. When these batteries are submerged, they risk short-circuiting, which may lead to fires. Unlike traditional gasoline vehicles, where fuel may leak out, the sealed nature of an EV’s battery can create hazardous situations when compromised. Experts warn that even after water exposure, the risk of fire can persist, sometimes occurring days or weeks later.

Officials emphasize the importance of vigilance in flood-prone areas, including planning for contingencies like mobile charging and energy storage that support recovery. If an electric vehicle has been submerged, it is crucial to have it inspected by a qualified technician before attempting to drive it again. Ignoring this can lead to catastrophic consequences not only for the vehicle owner but also for surrounding individuals and properties.

Official Warnings and Recommendations

In light of these dangers, safety officials have issued guidelines for electric vehicle owners in flood-prone areas. Key recommendations include:

1. Avoid Driving in Flooded Areas: The most straightforward advice is to refrain from driving through flooded streets, which can not only damage the vehicle but also pose risks to personal safety.

2. Inspection After Flooding: If an EV has been submerged, owners should seek immediate professional inspection. Technicians can evaluate the battery and electrical systems for damage and determine if the vehicle is safe to operate.

3. Inform Emergency Responders: In flood situations, informing emergency personnel about the presence of electric vehicles can help them mitigate risks during rescue operations, including firefighter health risks that may arise. First responders are trained to handle conventional vehicles but may need additional precautions when dealing with EVs.

Industry Response and Innovations

In response to rising concerns, electric vehicle manufacturers are working to enhance the safety features of their vehicles. This includes developing waterproof battery enclosures and improving drainage systems to prevent water intrusion, as well as exploring vehicle-to-home power for resilience during outages. Some manufacturers are also investing in research to improve battery chemistry, making them more resilient in extreme conditions.

The automotive industry recognizes that consumer education is equally important, particularly around utility impacts from mass-market EVs that affect planning. Manufacturers and safety organizations are encouraged to disseminate information about proper EV maintenance, the importance of inspections after flooding, and safety protocols for both owners and first responders.

The Role of Insurance Companies

As the risks associated with electric vehicle flooding become more apparent, insurance companies are also reassessing their policies. With increasing incidences of extreme weather, insurers are likely to adapt coverage options related to water damage and fire risks specific to electric vehicles. Policyholders should consult with their insurance providers to ensure they understand their coverage in the event of flooding.

Preparing for the Future

With the increasing adoption of electric vehicles, it is vital to prepare for the challenges posed by climate change and evolving state power grids capacity. Community awareness campaigns can play a significant role in educating residents about the risks and safety measures associated with electric vehicles during flooding events. By fostering a well-informed public, the likelihood of accidents and emergencies can be reduced.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News