Enabling storage in Ontario's electricity system

Nature-friendly offshore wind energy supports climate neutrality by reducing greenhouse gases while safeguarding marine biodiversity through EU marine spatial planning, ecosystem-based approaches, cross-border coordination, and zero-use zones for resilient seas.

Key Points

An approach to offshore wind that cuts emissions while respecting ecological limits and protecting marine biodiversity.

✅ Aligns buildout with ecological limits and marine spatial plans

✅ Minimizes noise, collision, and habitat loss for sensitive species

✅ Coordinates EU-wide monitoring, data, and cross-border siting

Offshore wind power can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but it poses risks for the seas. Germany will hold the EU Council Presidency and the North Sea Energy Cooperation Presidency in 2020. What must be done to contain the climate and species crises, as it were?

Offshore wind power is an important regenerative energy source with a $1 trillion market outlook in the coming decades. However, the construction, operation and maintenance of the systems put marine mammals, birds and fish at considerable risk. Photo: Siemens AG

In order to achieve the German and EU climate and energy goals by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050, we need a nature-friendly energy transition. At present, the European energy system is largely based on fossil fuels. This is changing, as renewables surge across Europe for end consumers and industry and the large-scale electrification of the energy consumption sectors. Offshore wind energy is an element for future power generation.

A nature-friendly energy transition is only possible if energy consumption is reduced and energy efficiency is maximized in all applications and sectors. Emissions reductions through offshore wind energy In 2019, Europe had an installed offshore wind energy capacity of around 22 gigawatts from 5,047 grid-connected wind turbines in twelve countries. In Germany, the nominal output of the offshore wind turbines feeding into the German power grid was around 7.5 gigawatts, with clean energy accounting for about 50% of electricity nationwide. The wind blows much stronger and more steadily at sea than on land.

The power capacity of the turbines has also almost doubled in the last five years, which has led to a higher energy yield. Offshore wind energy is a building block for replacing fossil fuels, and markets like the U.S. offshore sector are about to soar as well. Wind turbines at sea provide electricity almost every hour of the year and have operating hours that are as high as conventional power plants. They can contribute to significant reductions in CO2 emissions and to mitigate the climate crisis.

It must be ensured that offshore wind turbines and parks as well as the grid infrastructure make a positive contribution to climate protection through their expansion and that the overall condition of marine ecosystems improves. The expansion of offshore wind energy is necessary from the point of view of climate science and must take place within the framework of the ecological load limits and under nature conservation aspects.

Seas and marine ecosystems suffer from years of overfishing, pollution and industrial use. The conservation status of sea birds, marine mammals and fish stocks is poor. Ecosystem services and productivity of the oceans are decreasing as a result of massive species extinction and unfavorable habitats. Changes in sea temperature, oxygen levels and acidification of the oceans reduce their resilience to the climate crisis.

The latest reports from the European Environment Agency show in black and white that the good environmental status and other goals of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive are not being achieved. The primary goal must therefore be to meet the obligations of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the EU nature conservation directives.

With the expansion of offshore wind energy, the pressure on the already polluted marine ecosystems is increasing. Offshore wind turbines also harbor risks for marine ecosystems, especially if they are built in unfavorable locations. Studies show harmful effects on marine mammals, birds, fish and the ocean floor. In Europe, where wind power investments hit $29.4 billion last year, a regulatory framework must be created for the expansion of offshore wind energy within the ecological limits and taking into account zero-use zones. The European Union urgently needs to take coherent measures for healthy and resilient seas.

New strategy of the European Commission The EU Commission plans to present a strategy for the expansion of renewable energies at sea on November 18, 2020.

The strategy will address the opportunities and challenges associated with the expansion of renewable energies at sea, such as effects on energy networks and markets, management of the maritime space, the technological transfer of research projects, regional and international cooperation and industrial policy dimensions, as well as political headwinds in some countries that can affect project pipelines. NABU welcomes the strategy, but worries about insufficient consideration of marine protection, ecological load-bearing capacity and the marine spatial planning that regulates interests in the use of the sea. All EU member states have to submit their marine spatial planning plans by March 2021.

Conclusions of the European Council Shortly before the end of 2020, the European Council plans to adopt conclusions for cooperation among European member states on the subject of offshore wind energy and other renewable energy sources at sea. It is important that the planning and development of offshore wind energy is coordinated across national borders, including alignment with the UK's offshore wind growth, also to protect marine ecosystems.

However, the ecosystem approach must not be left out. It must be ensured that the Council conclusions focus on the implementation of EU marine and nature conservation directives for the expansion of offshore wind energy within the load limits. EU-wide monitoring systems can help protect marine species and ecosystems. Germany holds the EU Council Presidency and the North Sea Energy Cooperation Presidency for 2020 and can make a decisive contribution.

NABU demands on offshore wind energy in Europe Expansion targets for offshore wind energy across Europe should be based on the ecological load limits of the seas. Development of concrete concepts for the ecological upgrading of areas in marine spatial planning and operationalization of the ecosystem-based approach.

For the nature-friendly expansion of offshore – Wind energy systems must take into account avoidance distances from seabirds to turbines, habitat loss, collision risks and cumulative effects. Implementation / obligation to sensitivity analyzes – they allow targeted conclusions about the best possible locations for offshore wind energy without conflicts with marine protection.

Targeted keeping of areas free for species and their Habitats of anthropogenic use – this increases planning security and can lower investment thresholds for EU funding programs. Ensuring regional cooperation between the European member states for nature Protection and with the involvement of nature conservation authorities – after all, the marine ecosystem does not stop at borders.

Adjustment of priorities: If offshore wind energy is prioritized over other renewable energy sources across Europe, other industrial forms of use of the seas must be given a lower priority.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

B.C. EV Bottleneck signals a post-pandemic demand surge for electric vehicles amid semiconductor and lithium-ion battery shortages, driving waitlists, record sales, rebates, charging infrastructure needs, and savings on fuel and maintenance across British Columbia.

Key Points

B.C. EV bottleneck is rising demand outpacing supply from chip and battery shortages, creating waitlists.

✅ 85% delayed EV purchase; demand rebounds with reopening.

✅ Supply chain limits: chips and lithium-ion batteries.

✅ Plan ahead: join waitlists, consider used EVs, claim rebates.

B.C. Hydro is warning of a post-pandemic “EV bottleneck” as it predicts pent-up demand and EV shortages will lead to record-breaking sales for electric vehicles in 2021.

A new survey by B.C. Hydro found 85 per cent of British Columbians put off buying an electric vehicle during the pandemic, but as the province reopens, the number of people on the road commuting to-and-from work and school is expected to rise 15 per cent compared with before the pandemic.

It found about two-thirds of British Columbians are considering buying an EV over the next five years, with 60 per cent saying they would go with an EV if they can get one sooner.

“The EV market is at a potential tipping point, as demand is on the rise and will likely continue to grow long-term, with one study projecting doubling power output to meet full road electrification,” said a report about the findings released Wednesday.

The demand for EVs is prompted by rising gas prices, environmental concerns and to save money on maintenance costs like oil changes and engine repairs, said the report. At the same time, a shortage of semiconductor chips and lithium ion batteries needed for auto production is squeezing supply.

For people wanting to make the switch to electric, B.C. Hydro recommended they plan ahead and get on several waiting lists and explore networks offering faster charging options. Used EVs are also a cheaper option.

B.C. Hydro said an electric vehicle can save 80 per cent in gas expenses over a year and about $100 a month in maintenance costs compared with a gas-powered vehicle. There are also provincial and federal rebates of up to $8,000 for EV purchases in B.C., and additional charger rebates can help with installation costs.

B.C. has the highest electric vehicle uptake in North America, with zero-emission vehicles making up almost 10 per cent of all car sales in the province in 2020 as the province expands EV charging to support growth — more than double the four per cent in 2018.

According to a report by University of B.C. business Prof. Werner Antweiler on the state of EV adoption in B.C., electric vehicles are still concentrated in urban areas like Metro Vancouver and the Capital Regional District on Vancouver Island where public charging stations are more readily available.

He said electric vehicle purchases are still hampered by limited choice and a lack of charging stations, especially for people who park on the street or in condo parkades, which would require permission from strata councils to install a charging station, though rebates for home and workplace charging can ease installation.

The online survey was conducted by market researcher Majid Khoury of 800 British Columbians from May 17-19. It has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3.5 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Electric Car Motors convert electricity to torque via rotor-stator magnetic fields, using AC/DC inverters, permanent magnets or induction designs; they power EV powertrains efficiently and enable regenerative braking for energy recovery and control.

Key Points

Electric car motors turn electrical energy into wheel torque using rotor-stator fields, inverters, and AC or DC control.

✅ AC induction, PMSM, BLDC, and reluctance architectures explained

✅ Inverters manage AC/DC, voltage, and motor speed via frequency

✅ Regenerative braking recovers energy and reduces wear

When was the last time you stopped to think about how electric cars actually work, especially if you're wondering whether to buy an electric car today? We superfans of the car biz have mostly developed a reasonable understanding of how combustion powertrains work. Most of us can visualize fuel and air entering a combustion chamber, exploding, pushing a piston down, and rotating a crankshaft that ultimately turns the wheels. We generally understand the differences between inline, flat, vee-shaped, and maybe even Wankel rotary combustion engines.

Mechanical engineering concepts such as these are comparatively easy to comprehend. But it's probably a fair bet to wager that only a minority of folks reading this can explain on a bar napkin exactly how invisible electrons turn a car's wheels or how a permanent-magnet motor differs from an AC induction one. Electrical engineering can seem like black magic and witchcraft to car nuts, so it's time to demystify this bold new world of electromobility, with the age of electric cars arriving ahead of schedule.

How Electric Cars Work: Motors
It has to do with magnetism and the natural interplay between electric fields and magnetic fields. When an electrical circuit closes allowing electrons to move along a wire, those moving electrons generate an electromagnetic field complete with a north and a south pole. When this happens in the presence of another magnetic field—either from a different batch of speeding electrons or from Wile E. Coyote's giant ACME horseshoe magnet, those opposite poles attract, and like poles repel each other.

Electric motors work by mounting one set of magnets or electromagnets to a shaft and another set to a housing surrounding that shaft. By periodically reversing the polarity (swapping the north and south poles) of one set of electromagnets, the motor leverages these attracting and repelling forces to rotate the shaft, thereby converting electricity into torque and ultimately turning the wheels, in a sector where the electric motor market is growing rapidly worldwide. Conversely—as in the case of regenerative braking—these magnetic/electromagnetic forces can transform motion back into electricity.

How Electric Cars Work: AC Or DC?
The electricity supplied to your home arrives as alternating current (AC), and bidirectional charging means EVs can power homes for days as needed, so-called because the north/south or plus/minus polarity of the power changes (alternates) 60 times per second. (That is, in the United States and other countries operating at 110 volts; countries with a 220-volt standard typically use 50-Hz AC.) Direct current (DC) is what goes into and comes out of the + and - poles of every battery. As noted above, motors require alternating current to spin. Without it, the electromagnetic force would simply lock their north and south poles together. It's the cycle of continually switching north and south that keeps a motor spinning.

Today's electric cars are designed to manage both AC and DC energy on board. The battery stores and dispenses DC current, but again, the motor needs AC. When recharging the battery, and with increasing grid coordination enabling flexibility, the energy comes into the onboard charger as AC current during Level 1 and Level 2 charging and as DC high-voltage current on Level 3 "fast chargers." Sophisticated power electronics (which we will not attempt to explain here) handle the multiple onboard AC/DC conversions while stepping the voltage up and down from 100 to 800 volts of charging power to battery/motor system voltages of 350-800 volts to the many vehicle lighting, infotainment, and chassis functions that require 12-48-volt DC electricity.

How Electric Cars Work: What Types Of Motors?
DC Motor (Brushed): Yes, we just said AC makes the motor go around, and these old-style motors that powered early EVs of the 1900s are no different. DC current from the battery is delivered to the rotor windings via spring-loaded "brushes" of carbon or lead that energize spinning contacts connected to wire windings. Every few degrees of rotation, the brushes energize a new set of contacts; this continually reverses the polarity of the electromagnet on the rotor as the motor shaft turns. (This ring of contacts is known as the commutator).

The housing surrounding the rotor's electromagnetic windings typically features permanent magnets. (A "series DC" or so-called "universal motor" may use an electromagnetic stator.) Advantages are low initial cost, high reliability, and ease of motor control. Varying the voltage regulates the motor's speed, while changing the current controls its torque. Disadvantages include a lower lifespan and the cost of maintaining the brushes and contacts. This motor is seldom used in transportation today, save for some Indian railway locomotives.

Brushless DC Motor (BLDC): The brushes and their maintenance are eliminated by moving the permanent magnets to the rotor, placing the electromagnets on the stator (housing), and using an external motor controller to alternately switch the various field windings from plus to minus, thereby generating the rotating magnetic field.

Advantages are a long lifespan, low maintenance, and high efficiency. Disadvantages are higher initial cost and more complicated motor speed controllers that typically require three Hall-effect sensors to get the stator-winding current phased correctly. That switching of the stator windings can result in "torque ripple"—periodic increases and decreases in the delivered torque. This type of motor is popular for smaller vehicles like electric bikes and scooters, and it's used in some ancillary automotive applications like electric power steering assist.

Permanent-Magnet Synchronous Motor (PMSM): Physically, the BLDC and PMSM motors look nearly identical. Both feature permanent magnets on the rotor and field windings in the stator. The key difference is that instead of using DC current and switching various windings on and off periodically to spin the permanent magnets, the PMSM functions on continuous sinusoidal AC current. This means it suffers no torque ripple and needs only one Hall-effect sensor to determine rotor speed and position, so it's more efficient and quieter.

The word "synchronous" indicates the rotor spins at the same speed as the magnetic field in the windings. Its big advantages are its power density and strong starting torque. A main disadvantage of any motor with spinning permanent magnets is that it creates "back electromotive force" (EMF) when not powered at speed, which causes drag and heat that can demagnetize the motor. This motor type also sees some duty in power steering and brake systems, but it has become the motor design of choice in most of today's battery electric and hybrid vehicles.

Note that most permanent-magnet motors of all kinds orient their north-south axis perpendicular to the output shaft. This generates "radial (magnetic) flux." A new class of "axial flux" motors orients the magnets' N-S axes parallel to the shaft, usually on pairs of discs sandwiching stationary stator windings in between. The compact, high-torque axial flux orientation of these so-called "pancake motors" can be applied to either BLDC or PMSM type motors.

AC Induction: For this motor, we toss out the permanent magnets on the rotor (and their increasingly scarce rare earth materials) and keep the AC current flowing through stator windings as in the PMSM motor above.

Standing in for the magnets is a concept Nikola Tesla patented in 1888: As AC current flows through various windings in the stator, the windings generate a rotating field of magnetic flux. As these magnetic lines pass through perpendicular windings on a rotor, they induce an electric current. This then generates another magnetic force that induces the rotor to turn. Because this force is only induced when the magnetic field lines cross the rotor windings, the rotor will experience no torque or force if it rotates at the same (synchronous) speed as the rotating magnetic field.

This means AC induction motors are inherently asynchronous. Rotor speed is controlled by varying the alternating current's frequency. At light loads, the inverter controlling the motor can reduce voltage to reduce magnetic losses and improve efficiency. Depowering an induction motor during cruising when it isn't needed eliminates the drag created by a permanent-magnet motor, while dual-motor EVs using PMSM motors on both axles must always power all motors. Peak efficiency may be slightly greater for BLDC or PMSM designs, but AC induction motors often achieve higher average efficiency. Another small trade-off is slightly lower starting torque than PMSM. The GM EV1 of the mid-1990s and most Teslas have employed AC Induction motors, despite skepticism about an EV revolution in some quarters.

Reluctance Motor: Think of "reluctance" as magnetic resistance: the degree to which an object opposes magnetic flux. A reluctance motor's stator features multiple electromagnet poles—concentrated windings that form highly localized north or south poles. In a switched reluctance motor (SRM), the rotor is made of soft magnetic material such as laminated silicon steel, with multiple projections designed to interact with the stator's poles. The various electromagnet poles are turned on and off in much the same way the field windings in a BLDC motor are. Using an unequal number of stator and rotor poles ensures some poles are aligned (for minimum reluctance), while others are directly in between opposite poles (maximum reluctance). Switching the stator polarity then pulls the rotor around at an asynchronous speed.

A synchronous reluctance motor (SynRM) doesn't rely on this imbalance in the rotor and stator poles. Rather, SynRM motors feature a more distributed winding fed with a sinusoidal AC current as in a PMSM design, with speed regulated by a variable-frequency drive, and an elaborately shaped rotor with voids shaped like magnetic flux lines to optimize reluctance.

The latest trend is to place small permanent magnets (often simpler ferrite ones) in some of these voids to take advantage of both magnetic and reluctance torque while minimizing cost and the back EMF (or counter-electromotive force) high-speed inefficiencies that permanent-magnet motors suffer.

Advantages include lower cost, simplicity, and high efficiency. Disadvantages can include noise and torque ripple (especially for switched reluctance motors). Toyota introduced an internal permanent-magnet synchronous reluctance motor (IPM SynRM) on the Prius, and Tesla now pairs one such motor with an AC induction motor on its Dual Motor models. Tesla also uses IPM SynRM as the single motor for its rear-drive models.

Electric motors may never sing like a small-block or a flat-plane crank Ferrari. But maybe, a decade or so from now, we'll regard the Tesla Plaid powertrain as fondly as we do those engines, even as industry leaders note that mainstream adoption faces hurdles, and every car lover will be able to describe in intimate detail what kind of motors it uses.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Clean Electricity Standard drives Biden's infrastructure, grid decarbonization, and utility mandates, leveraging EPA regulation, renewables, nuclear, and carbon capture via reconciliation to reach 80% clean power by 2030 amid partisan Congress.

Key Points

A federal mandate to reach 80% clean U.S. power by 2030 using incentives and EPA rules to speed grid decarbonization.

✅ Targets 80% clean electricity by 2030 via Congress or reconciliation

✅ Mix of renewables, nuclear, gas with carbon capture allowed

✅ Backup levers: EPA rules, incentives, utility planning shifts

The true measure of President Biden’s climate ambition may be the clean electricity standard he tucked into his massive $2.2 trillion infrastructure spending plan.

Its goal is striking: 80% clean power in the United States by 2030.

The details, however, are vague. And so is Biden’s plan B if it fails—an uncertainty that’s worrisome to both activists and academics. The lack of a clear backup plan underscores the importance of passing a clean electricity standard, they say.

If the clean electricity standard doesn’t survive Congress, it will put pressure on the need to drive climate policy through targeted spending, said John Larsen, a power system analyst with the Rhodium Group, an economic consulting firm.

“I don’t think the game is lost at all if a clean electricity standard doesn’t get through in this round,” Larsen said. “But there’s a difference between not passing a clean electricity standard and passing the right spending package.”

In his few months in office, Biden has outlined plans to bring the United States back into the international Paris climate accord, pause oil and gas leasing on public lands, boost the electric vehicle market, and target clean energy investments in vulnerable communities, including plans to revitalize coal communities across the country, most affected by climate change.

But those are largely executive orders and spending proposals—even as early assessments show mixed results from climate law—and unlikely to last beyond his administration if the next president favors fossil fuel usage over climate policy. The clean electricity standard, which would decarbonize 80% of the electrical grid by 2030, is different.

It transforms Biden’s climate vision from a goal into a mandate. Passing it through Congress makes it that much harder for a future administration to undo. If Biden is in office for two terms, the United States would see a rate of decarbonization unparalleled in its history that would set a new bar for most of the world’s biggest economies.

But for now, the clean electricity standard faces an uncertain path through Congress and steep odds to getting enacted. That means there’s a good chance the administration will need a plan B, observers said.

Exactly what kind of climate spending can pass Congress is the very question the White House and congressional Democrats will be working on in the next few months, including upgrades to an aging power grid that affect renewables and EVs, as the infrastructure bill proceeds through Congress.

Negotiations are fraught already. Congress is almost evenly split between a party that wants to curtail the use of fossil fuels and another that wants to grow them, and even high energy prices have not necessarily triggered a green transition in the marketplace.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said last week that “100% of my focus is on stopping this new administration.” He made similar comments at the start of the Obama administration and blocked climate policy from getting through Congress. He also said last week that no Republican senators would vote for Biden’s infrastructure spending plan.

A clean electricity standard has been referred to as the “backbone” of Biden’s climate policy—a way to ensure his policies to decarbonize the economy outlast a future president who would seek to roll back his climate work. Advocates say hitting that benchmark is an essential milestone in getting to a carbon-free grid by 2035. Much of President Obama’s climate policy, crafted largely through regulations and executive orders, proved vulnerable to President Trump’s rollbacks.

Biden appears to have learned from those lessons and wants to chart a new course to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. He’s using his majority in the House and Senate to lock in whatever he can before the 2022 midterms, when Democrats are expected to lose the House.

To pass a clean electricity standard, virtually every Democrat must be on board, and even then, the only chance of success is to pass a bill through the budget reconciliation process that can carry a clean electricity standard. Some Senate Democrats have recently hinted that they were willing to split the bill into pieces to get it through, while others are concerned that although this approach might win some GOP support on traditional infrastructure such as roads and bridges, it would isolate the climate provisions that make up more than half of the bill.

The most durable scenario for rapid electricity-sector decarbonization is to lock in a bipartisan clean electricity standard into legislation with 60 votes in the Senate, said Mike O’Boyle, the director of electricity policy for Energy Innovation. Because that’s highly unlikely—if not impossible—there are other paths that could get the United States to the 80% goal within the next decade.

“The next best approach is to either, or in combination, pursue EPA regulation of power plant pollution from existing and new power plants as well as to take a reconciliation-based approach to a clean electricity standard where you’re basically spending federal dollars to provide incentives to drive clean electricity deployment as opposed to a mandate per se,” he said.

Either way, O’Boyle said the introduction of the clean electricity standard sets a new bar for the federal government that likely would drive industry response even if it doesn’t get enacted. He compared it to the Clean Power Plan, Obama’s initiative to limit power plant emissions. Even though the plan never came to fruition, because of a Clean Power Plan rollback, it left a legacy that continues years later and wasn’t negated by a president who prioritized fossil fuels over the climate, he said.

“It never got enacted, but it still created a titanic shift in the way utilities plan their systems and proactively reposition themselves for future carbon regulation of their electricity systems,” O’Boyle said. “I think any action by the Biden administration or by Congress through reconciliation would have a similar catalytic function over the next couple years.”

Some don’t think a clean electricity standard has a doomed future. Right now, its provisions are vague. But they can be filled in in a way that doesn’t alienate Republicans or states more hesitant toward climate policy, said Sally Benson, an engineering professor at Stanford University and an expert on low-carbon energy systems. The United States is overdue for a federal mandate that lasts through multiple administrations. The only way to ensure that happens is to get Republican support.

She said that might be possible by making the clean electricity standard more flexible. Mandate the goals, she said, not how states get there. Going 100% renewable is not going to sell in some states or with some lawmakers, she added. For some regions, flexibility will mean keeping nuclear plants open. For others, it would mean using natural gas with carbon capture, Benson said.

While it might not meet the standards some progressives seek to end all fossil fuel usage, it would have a better chance of getting enacted and remaining in place through multiple presidents, she said. In fact, a clean electricity standard would provide a chance for carbon capture, which has been at the center of Republican climate policy proposals. Benson said carbon capture is not economical now, but the mandate of a standard could encourage investments that would drive the sector forward more rapidly.

“If it’s a plan that people see as shutting the door to nuclear or to natural gas plus carbon capture, I think we will face a lot of pushback,” she said. “Make it an inclusive plan with a specific goal of getting to zero emissions and there’s not one way to do it, meaning all renewables—I think that’s the thing that could garner a lot of industrial support to make progress.”

In addition to industry, Biden’s proposed clean electricity standard would drive states to do more, said Larsen of the Rhodium Group. Several states already have their own version of a clean energy standard and have driven much of the national progress on carbon emissions reduction in the last four years, he said. Biden has set a new benchmark that some states, including those with some of the biggest economies in the United States, would now likely exceed, he said.

“It is rare for the federal government to get out in front of leading states in clean energy policy,” he said. “This is not usually how climate policy diffusion works from the state level to the federal level; usually it’s states go ahead and the federal government adopts something that’s less ambitious.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ford Oakville Electric Vehicle Complex will anchor EV production in Ontario, adding a battery plant, retooling lines, and assembly capacity for passenger models targeting the North American market and Canada's zero-emission mandates.

Key Points

A retooled Ontario hub for passenger EV production, featuring on-site battery assembly and modernized lines.

✅ Retooling begins Q2 2024; EV production slated for 2025.

✅ New 407,000 sq ft battery plant for pack assembly.

✅ First full-line passenger EV production in Canada.

Ford Motor Co. has revealed some details of its plan to spend $1.8 billion on its Oakville Assembly Complex to turn it into an electric vehicle production hub, a government-backed Oakville EV deal, in the latest commitment by an automaker transitioning towards an electric future.

The automaker said Tuesday that it will start retooling the Ontario complex in the second quarter of 2024, bolstering Ontario's EV jobs boom, and begin producing electric vehicles in 2025.

The transformation of the Oakville site, to be renamed the Oakville Electric Vehicle Complex, will include a new 407,000 square-foot battery plant, similar to Honda's Ontario battery investment efforts, where parts produced at Ford's U.S. operations will be assembled into battery packs.

General Motors is already producing electric delivery vans in Canada, and its Ontario EV plant plans continue to expand, but Ford says this is the first time a full-line automaker has announced plans to produce passenger EVs in Canada for the North American market.

GM said in February it plans to build motors for electric vehicles at its St. Catharines, Ont. propulsion plant, aligning with the Niagara Region battery investment now underway. The motors will go into its BrightDrop electric delivery vans, which it produces in part at its Ingersoll, Ont. plant, as well as its electric pickup trucks, producing enough at the plant for 400,000 vehicles a year.

Ford's announcement is the latest commitment by an automaker transitioning towards an electric future, part of Canada's EV assembly push that is accelerating.

"Canada and the Oakville complex will play a vital role in our Ford Plus transformation," said chief executive Jim Farley in a statement.

The company has committed to invest over US$50 billion in electric vehicles globally and has a target of producing two million EVs a year by the end of 2026 as part of its Ford Plus growth plan, reflecting an EV market inflection point worldwide.

Ford didn't specify in the release which models it planned to build at the Oakville complex, which currently produces the Ford Edge and Lincoln Nautilus.

The company's spending plans were first announced in 2020 as part of union negotiations, with workers seeking long-term production commitments and the Detroit Three automakers eventually agreeing to invest in Canadian operations in concert with spending agreements with the Ontario and federal governments.

The two governments agreed to provide $295 million each in funding to secure the Ford investment.

"The partnership between Ford and Canada helps to position us as a global leader in the EV supply chain for decades to come," said Industry Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne in Ford's news release.

Funding help comes as the federal government moves to require that at least 20 percent of new vehicles sold in Canada will be zero-emission by 2026, at least 60 per cent by 2030, and 100 per cent by 2035.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Canada 2035 Zero-Emission Vehicle Mandate sets EV sales targets, raising concerns over affordability, battery materials like lithium and copper, charging infrastructure, grid capacity, renewable energy mix, and policy impacts across provinces.

Key Points

Mandate makes all new light-duty vehicles zero-emission by 2035, affecting costs, charging, and electric grid planning.

✅ 100% ZEV sales target for cars, SUVs, light trucks by 2035

✅ Cost pressures from lithium, copper, nickel; EVs remain pricey

✅ Grid, charging build-out needed; impacts vary by provincial mix

Whether or not you want one, can afford one or think they will do essentially nothing to stop global warming, electric vehicles are coming to Canada en masse. This week, the Canadian government set 2035 as the “mandatory target” for the sale of zero-emission SUVs and light-duty trucks as part of ambitious EV goals announced by Ottawa.

That means the sale of gasoline and diesel cars has to stop by then. Transport Minister Omar Alghabra called the target “a must.” The previous target was 2040.

It is a highly aspirational plan that verges on the delusional according to skeptics of an EV revolution who argue its scale is overstated, even if it earns Canada – a perennial laggard on the emission-reduction front – a few points at climate conferences. Herewith, a few reasons why the plan may be unworkable, unfair or less green than advertised.

Liberals say by 2035 all new cars, light-duty trucks sold in Canada will be electric, as Ottawa develops EV sales regulations to implement the mandate.

Parkland to roll out electric-vehicle charging network in B.C. and Alberta

Sticker shock: There is a reason why EVs remain niche products in almost every market in the world (the notable exception is in wealthy Norway): They are bloody expensive and often in short supply in many markets. Unless EV prices drop dramatically in the next decade, Ottawa’s announcement will price the poor out of the car market. Transportation costs are a big issue with the unrich. The 2018 gilets jaunes mass protests in France were triggered by rising fuel costs.

While some EVs are getting cheaper, even the least expensive ones are about double the price of a comparable product with an internal combustion engine. Most EVs are luxury items. The market leader in Canada and the United States is Tesla. In Canada the cheapest Tesla, the Model 3 (“standard range plus” version), costs $49,000 before adding options and subtracting any government purchase incentives. A high-end Model S can set you back $170,000.

To be sure, prices will come down as production volumes increase. But the price decline might be slow for the simple reason that the cost of all the materials needed to make an EV – copper, cobalt, lithium, nickel among them – is climbing sharply and may keep climbing as production increases, straining supply lines.

Lithium prices have doubled since November. Copper has almost doubled in the past year. An EV contains five times more copper than a regular car. Glencore, one of the biggest mining companies, estimated that copper production needs to increase by a million tonnes a year until 2050 to meet the rising demand for EVs and wind turbines, a daunting task given the dearth of new mining projects.

Will EVs be as cheap as gas cars in a decade or so? Impossible to say, but given the recent price trends for raw materials, probably not.

Not so green: There is no such thing as a zero-emission vehicle, even if that’s the label used by governments to describe battery-powered cars. So think twice if you are buying an EV purely to paint yourself green, as research finds they are not a silver bullet for climate change.

In regions in Canada and elsewhere in the world that produce a lot of electricity from fossil-fuel plants, driving an EV merely shifts the output of greenhouse gases and pollutants from the vehicle itself to the generating plant (according to recent estimates, about 18% of Canada’s electricity comes from coal, natural gas and oil; in the United States, 60 per cent).

An EV might make sense in Quebec, where almost all the electricity comes from renewable sources and policymakers push EV dominance across the market. An EV makes little sense in Saskatchewan, where only 17 per cent comes from renewables – the rest from fossil fuels. In Alberta, only 8 per cent comes from renewables.

The EV supply chain is also energy-intensive. And speaking of the environment, recycling or disposing of millions of toxic car batteries is bound to be a grubby process.

Where’s the juice?: Since the roofs of most homes in Canada and other parts of the world are not covered in solar panels, plugging in an EV to recharge the battery means plugging into the electrical grid. What if millions of cars get plugged in at once on a hot day, when everyone is running air conditioners?

The next few decades could emerge as an epic energy battle between power-hungry air conditioners, whose demand is rising as summer temperatures rise, and EVs. The strain of millions of AC units running at once in the summer of 2020 during California’s run of record-high temperatures pushed the state into rolling blackouts. A few days ago, Alberta’s electricity system operator asked Albertans not to plug in their EVs because air conditioner use was straining the electricity supply.

According to the MIT Technology Review, rising incomes, populations and temperatures will triple the number of air conditioners used worldwide, to six billion, by mid-century. How will any warm country have enough power to recharge EVs and run air conditioners at the same time? The Canadian government didn’t say in its news release on the 2035 EV mandate. Will it fund the construction of new fleets of power stations?

The wrong government policy: The government’s announcement made it clear that widespread EV use – more cars – is central to its climate policy. Why not fewer cars and more public transportation? Cities don’t need more cars, no matter the propulsion system. They need electrified buses, subways and trains powered by renewable energy. But the idea of making cities more livable while reducing emissions is apparently an alien concept to this government.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News