Ontario Making it Easier to Build Electric Vehicle Charging Stations

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

EV Charging Coal and Oil Claim: Fact-check of kWh, CO2 emissions, and electricity grid mix shows 70 lb coal or ~8 gallons oil per 66 kWh, with renewables and natural gas reducing lifecycle emissions.

Key Points

A viral claim on EV charging overstates oil use; accurate figures depend on grid mix: ~70 lb coal or ~8 gallons oil.

✅ About 70 lb coal or ~8 gal oil per 66 kWh, incl. conversion losses

✅ EVs average ~100 g CO2 per mile vs ~280 g for 30 mpg cars

✅ Grid mix includes renewables, nuclear, natural gas; oil use is low

The claim: Average electric car requires equivalent of 85 pounds of coal or six barrels of oil for a single charge

The Biden administration has pledged to work towards decarbonizing the U.S. electricity grid by 2035. And the recently passed $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill provides funding for more electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure, including EV charging networks across the country under current plans.

However, a claim that electric cars require an inordinate amount of oil or coal energy to charge has appeared on social media, even as U.S. plug-ins traveled 19 billion miles on electricity in 2021.

“An average electric car takes 66 KWH To charge. It takes 85 pounds of coal or six barrels of oil to make 66 KWH,” read a Dec 1 Facebook post that was shared nearly 500 times in a week. “Makes absolutely no sense.” 

The post included a stock image of an electric car charging, though actual charging costs depend on local rates and vehicle efficiency.

This claim is in the ballpark for the coal comparison, but the math on the oil usage is wildly inaccurate.

It would take roughly 70 pounds of coal to produce the energy required to charge a 66 kWh electric car battery, said Ian Miller, a research associate at the MIT Energy Initiative. That's about 15 pounds less than is claimed in the post.

The oil number is much farther off.

While the post claims that it takes six barrels of oil to charge a 66 kWh battery, Miller said the amount is closer to 8 gallons  — the equivalent of 20% of one barrel of oil.

He said both of his estimates account for energy lost when fossil fuels are converted into electricity. 

"I think the most important question is, 'How do EVs and gas cars compare on emissions per distance?'," said Miller. "In the US, using average electricity, EVs produce roughly 100 grams of CO2 per mile."

He said this is more than 60% less than a typical gasoline-powered car that gets 30 mpg, aligning with analyses that EVs are greener in all 50 states today according to recent studies. Such a vehicle produces roughly 280 grams of CO2 per mile.

Lifecycle analyses also show that the CO2 from making an EV battery is not equivalent to driving a gasoline car for years, which often counters common misconceptions.

"If you switch to an electric vehicle, even if you're using fossil fuels (to charge), it's just simply not true that you'll be using more fossil fuel," said Jessika Trancik, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studies the environmental impact of energy systems.  

However, she emphasized electric cars in the U.S. are not typically charged using only energy from coal or oil, and that electricity grids can handle EVs with proper management.

The U.S. electricity grid relies on a diversity of energy sources, of which oil and coal together make up about 20 percent, according to a DOE spokesperson. This amount is likely to continue to drop as renewable energy proliferates in the U.S., even as some warn that state power grids will be challenged by rapid EV adoption. 

"Switching to an electric vehicle means that you can use other sources, including less carbon-intensive natural gas, and even less carbon-intensive electricity sources like nuclear, solar and wind energy, which also carry with them health benefits in the form of reduced air pollutant emissions," said Trancik. 

Our rating: Partly false
Based on our research, we rate PARTLY FALSE the claim that the average electric car requires the equivalent of 85 pounds of coal or six barrels of oil for a single charge. The claim is in the ballpark on coal consumption, as an MIT researcher estimates that around 70 pounds. But the oil usage is only about 8 gallons, which is 20% of one barrel. And the actual sources of energy for an electric car vary depending on the energy mix in the local electric grid. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Canada Renewable Energy Outlook highlights IEA forecasts of slower capacity growth as Ontario cancels LRP auctions; wind, solar, and hydro expand amid carbon pricing, coal phase-out, Alberta tenders, and falling costs despite natural gas competition.

Key Points

The Canada Renewable Energy Outlook distills IEA projections and policies behind wind, solar, and hydro growth to 2022.

✅ IEA trims Canada renewables growth to 9 GW by 2022

✅ Ontario LRP cuts and Quebec tenders reduce near-term additions

✅ Wind, solar, hydro expand amid carbon pricing and coal phase-out

A new report expects growth in Canadian renewable energy capacity to slow in the next five years compared to earlier projections, a decrease that comes after Ontario scrapped a contentious clean energy program aimed at boosting wind and solar supplies.

The International Energy Agency’s annual outlook for renewable energy, released Wednesday, projects Canada’s renewable capacity to grow by nine gigawatts between 2017 and 2022, down from last year’s report that projected capacity would grow by 13GW.

The influential Paris-based agency said its recent outlook for Canadian renewables was “less optimistic” than its 2016 projection due to “recent changes in auctions schemes in Ontario and Quebec.”

PROGRAM CUTS

In mid-2016 the Ontario government suspended the second phase of its Large Renewable Procurement (LPR) program, axing $3.8 billion in planned renewable energy contracts. And Quebec cancelled tenders for several clean energy projects, which also led the agency to trim its forecasts, the report said.

Ontario cut the LRP program amid anger over rising electricity bills, which critics said was at least partly due to the rapid expansion of wind power supplies across the province.

Experts said the rise in costs was also partly due to major one-time costs to maintain aging infrastructure, particularly the $12.8-billion refurbishment of the Darlington nuclear plant located east of Toronto. The province also has plans to renovate the nearby Pickering nuclear plant in coming years.

The IEA report comes as Ottawa aims to drastically cut carbon emissions, largely by expanding renewable energy capacity. The provinces, including the Prairie provinces, have meanwhile been looking to pare back emissions by phasing out coal and implementing a carbon tax.

While Ontario’s decision to scrap the LRP program is a minor setback in the near-term, analysts say that tightening environmental policy in Canada and elsewhere will regardless continue to drive rapid growth in renewable energy supplies like wind power and solar.

Even the threat of cheap supplies of natural gas, a major competitor to renewable supplies, is unlikely to keep wind and solar supplies off the market, despite lagging solar demand in some regions, as costs continue to fall.

“It’s not just this (Ontario) renewables program, it’s the carbon pricing program, the coal phase out, a whole plethora of programs that are squeezing natural gas margins,” said Dave Sawyer, an economist at EnviroEconomics in Ottawa.

RENEWABLE ENERGY CAPACITY

Canada’s renewable energy capacity is still expected to grow at a robust 10 per cent per year, the report said, and is expected to supply 69 per cent of overall power generation in the country by 2022.

The IEA, however, expects the growth in hydro power capacity to “slow significantly” beyond 2022, after a raft of new hydro projects come online.

Canadian hydro power capacity is projected to grow 2.2GW in the next five years, mostly due to the commissioning of the Keeyask plant in Manitoba the Muskrat Falls dam in Newfoundland and Labrador and the Romaine 3 and 4 stations in Quebec, in a sector where Canada ranks in the top 10 for hydropower jobs nationwide.

Solar capacity in Canada is expected to grow by 2GW to 4.7GW in 2022, approaching the 5 GW milestone in the near term, mostly due to feed-in-tariff programs in Ontario and renewable energy tenders currently underway in Alberta.

Globally, China and India lead renewable capacity growth projections. China alone is expected to be responsible for 40 per cent of renewable capacity growth in the next five years, while India will double its renewable electricity capacity by 2022. The world is collectively expected to grow renewable electricity capacity by 43 per cent between 2017 and 2022.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Whooping crane migration near wind turbines shows strong avoidance of stopover habitat within 5 km, reshaping Great Plains siting decisions, reducing collision risk, and altering routes across croplands, grasslands, and wetlands.

Key Points

It examines cranes avoiding stopovers within 5 km of turbines, reshaping habitat use and routing across the Great Plains.

✅ Cranes 20x likelier to rest >5 km from turbines.

✅ About 5% of high-quality stopover habitat is impacted.

✅ Findings guide wind farm siting across Great Plains wetlands.

As gatherings to observe whooping cranes join the ranks of online-only events this year, a new study offers insight into how the endangered bird is faring on a landscape increasingly dotted with wind turbines across regions. The paper, published this week in Ecological Applications, reports that whooping cranes migrating through the U.S. Great Plains avoid “rest stop” sites that are within 5 km of wind-energy infrastructure.

Avoidance of wind turbines can decrease collision mortality for birds, but can also make it more difficult and time-consuming for migrating flocks to find safe and suitable rest and refueling locations. The study’s insights into migratory behavior could improve future siting decisions as wind energy infrastructure continues to expand, despite pandemic-related investment risks for developers.

“In the past, federal agencies had thought of impacts related to wind energy primarily associated with collision risks,” said Aaron Pearse, the paper’s first author and a research wildlife biologist for the U.S. Geological Survey’s Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center in Jamestown, N.D. “I think this research changes that paradigm to a greater focus on potential impacts to important migration habitats.”

Some policymakers have also rejected false health claims about wind turbines and cancer in public debate, underscoring the need for evidence-based decisions.

The study tracked whooping cranes migrating across the Great Plains, a region that encompasses a mosaic of croplands, grasslands and wetlands. The region has seen a rapid proliferation of wind energy infrastructure in recent years: in 2010, there were 2,215 wind towers within the whooping crane migration corridor that the study focused on; by 2016, when the study ended, there were 7,622 wind towers within the same area.

Pearse and his colleagues found that whooping cranes migrating across the study area in 2010 and 2016 were 20 times more likely to select “rest stop” locations at least 5 km away from wind turbines than those closer to turbines, a pattern with implications for developers as solar incentive changes reshape wind market dynamics according to industry analyses.

The authors estimated that 5% of high-quality stopover habitat in the study area was affected by presence of wind towers. Siting wind infrastructure outside of whooping cranes’ migration corridor would reduce the risk of further habitat loss not only for whooping cranes, but also for millions of other birds that use the same land for breeding, migration, and wintering habitat, and real-world siting controversies, such as an Alberta wind farm cancellation, illustrate how local factors shape outcomes for wildlife.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Canada Net-Zero demands renewable energy deployment, leveraging hydropower to integrate wind, solar, and storage, scaling electrification, cutting oil and gas emissions, aligning policy, carbon pricing, and investment to deliver a clean grid by 2050.

Key Points

A national goal to cut emissions 40-45% by 2030 and reach economy-wide net-zero by 2050 through clean electrification.

✅ Hydropower balances intermittent wind and solar.

✅ Policy, carbon pricing, and investment accelerate deployment.

✅ Clean energy jobs surge as oil and gas decline.

As the UN climate talks draw near, Canada has enormous work left to do to reach its goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Collectively, Canadians have to cut overall greenhouse-gas emissions by 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieve net-zero by 2050 across the economy.

And whereas countries like the U.K. have dramatically slashed their emissions levels, Canada's one of the few nations where emissions keep skyrocketing, and where fossil fuel extraction keeps increasing every year despite our climate targets.

Changes in national emissions and fossil fuel extraction since 1950, for G7 nations plus Norway and Australia
Graphic by Barry Saxifrage in Sep.15 article,Canada's climate solution? Keep increasing fossil fuels extraction.
Given its track record, and the IEA's finding that Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero, how will Canada achieve its goal of getting to net-zero by 2050?

As Trudeau seeks to cement his political legacy, these are the MPs he’s considering for cabinet
By Andrew Perez | Opinion | October 25th 2021
In the upcoming online Conversations event on Thursday, 11 a.m. PT/2 p.m. ET, host and Canada's National Observer deputy managing editor David McKie will discuss how cleaning up Canada's electricity and renewable energy can put the country on track to hitting its targets with Clean Energy Canada executive director Merran Smith, Canadian Institute for Climate Choices senior economist Dale Beugin, and WaterPower Canada CEO Anne-Raphaëlle Audouin.

Getting to net-zero grid through renewable electricity
“If we wanted to be powered by 100 per cent renewable electricity, including proposals for a fully renewable electricity grid by 2030, Canada is one of the countries where this is actually possible,” said Audouin.

She says for that to happen, it would take a slate of clean energy providers working together to fill the gaps, rather than competing for market dominance.

“You couldn't power Canada just with wind and solar, even with batteries. That being said, renewables happen to work very well together ” she said. “Hydropower already makes up more than 90 per cent of Canada’s renewable generation and 60 per cent of the country’s total electricity needs are currently met thanks to this flexible, dispatchable, abundant source of baseload renewable electricity. It isn’t a stretch of the imagination to envision hydropower and wind and solar working increasingly together to clean up our grid. In fact, hydropower already backs up and allows intermittent renewable energies like wind and solar onto the grid.”

She noted that while hydropower alone won't be the solution, its long history and indisputable suite of attributes — hydroelectricity has been in Canada since the 1890s — will make it a key part of the clean energy transition required to replace coal, natural gas and oil, which still make up around 20 per cent of Canada's power sources.

Canada's vast access to water, wind, biomass, solar, geothermal, and ocean energy, and a federal government that has committed to climate goals, makes us well-positioned to lead the way to a net-zero future and eventually the electrification of our economy. So, what's holding the country back?

The new reality for renewables
According to Clean Energy Canada, it's possible to grow the clean energy sector, but only if businesses invest massively in renewables and governments give guidance and oversight informed by the implications of decarbonizing Canada's electricity grid research.

A recent modelling study from Clean Energy Canada and Navius Research exploring the energy picture here in Canada over the next decade shows our clean energy sector is expected to grow by about 50 per cent by 2030 to around 640,000 people. Already, the clean energy industry provides 430,500 jobs — more than the entire real estate sector — and that growth is expected to accelerate as our dependence on oil and gas decreases. In fact, clean energy jobs in Alberta are predicted to jump 164 per cent over the next decade.

Currently, provinces with the most hydropower generation are also the ones with the lowest electricity rates, reflecting that electricity has been a nationwide climate success in Canada. Wind and solar are now on par, or even more competitive, than natural gas, and that could have big implications for other major sectors of the economy. Grocery giant Loblaws (which owns brands including President's Choice, Joe Fresh, and Asian grocery chain T&T) deployed its fleet of fully electric delivery trucks in recent years, and Hydro-Québec just signed a $20-billion agreement to help power and decarbonize the state of New York over the next 25 years.

In The New Reality, Smith writes that many carbon-intensive industries, such as the mining sector, could also potentially benefit from the increased demand for certain natural resources — like lithium and nickel — as the world switches to electric vehicles and clean power.

“Oil and gas may have dominated Canada’s energy past, but it’s Canada’s clean energy sector that will define its new reality,” Smith emphasized.

Despite its vast potential to be one of the world's clean energy leaders, Canada has a long way to getting on the path to net zero. Even though the country is home to some of the world's leading cleantech companies, such as B.C.-based clean hydrogen fuel cell providers Ballard Power and Loop Energy and Nova Scotia-based carbon utilization company CarbonCure, the country continues to expand fossil fuel extraction to the point that emissions are projected to jump to around 1,500 MtCO2 worth by 2030.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Electric vehicles may cost more upfront but often save money long-term. A new MIT study shows the total cost of EV ownership is lower than gas cars when factoring in fuel, maintenance, and emissions.

Total cost of EV ownership is the focus of new MIT research showing electric vehicles offer both financial and environmental benefits over time.

✅ Electric vehicles cost more upfront but save money over their lifetime through lower fuel and maintenance costs

✅ MIT study confirms EVs have lower emissions and total ownership costs than most gas-powered cars

✅ New interactive tool helps consumers compare climate and cost impacts of EVs, hybrids, and traditional vehicles

Electric vehicles are better for the climate than gas‑powered cars, but many Americans are still reluctant to buy them. One reason: The larger upfront cost.

New data published Thursday shows that despite the higher sticker price, electric cars may actually save drivers money in the long-run.

To reach this conclusion, a team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculated both the carbon dioxide emissions and full lifetime cost — including purchase price, maintenance and fuel — for nearly every new car model on the market.

They found electric cars were easily more climate friendly than gas-burning ones. Over a lifetime, they were often cheaper, too.

Jessika Trancik, an associate professor of energy studies at M.I.T. who led the research, said she hoped the data would “help people learn about how those upfront costs are spread over the lifetime of the car.”

For electric cars, lower maintenance costs and the lower costs of charging compared with gasoline prices tend to offset the higher upfront price over time. (Battery-electric engines have fewer moving parts that can break compared with gas-powered engines and they don’t require oil changes. Electric vehicles also use regenerative braking, which reduces wear and tear.)

As EV adoption continues to boom, more consumers are realizing the long-term savings and climate benefits. Ontario’s investment in EV charging stations reflects how infrastructure is beginning to catch up with demand. Despite regional energy pricing differences, EV charging costs remain lower than gasoline in nearly every U.S. city.

The cars are greener over time, too, despite the more emissions-intensive battery manufacturing process. Dr. Trancik estimates that an electric vehicle’s production emissions would be offset in anywhere from six to 18 months, depending on how clean the energy grid is where the car is charging.

In some areas, EVs are even being used to power homes, enhancing their value as a sustainable investment. Recent EPA rules aim to boost EV sales, further signaling government support. California leads the nation in EV charging infrastructure, setting a model for nationwide adoption.

The new data showed hybrid cars, which run on a combination of fuel and battery power, and can sometimes be plugged in, had more mixed results for both emissions and costs. Some hybrids were cheaper and spewed less planet-warming carbon dioxide than regular cars, but others were in the same emissions and cost range as gas-only vehicles.

Traditional gas-burning cars were usually the least climate friendly option, though long-term costs and emissions spanned a wide range. Compact cars were usually cheaper and more efficient, while gas-powered SUVs and luxury sedans landed on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Dr. Trancik’s team released the data in an interactive online tool to help people quantify the true costs of their car-buying decisions — both for the planet and their budget. The new estimates update a study published in 2016 and add to a growing body of research underscoring the potential lifetime savings of electric cars.

Take the Tesla Model 3, the most popular electric car in the United States. The M.I.T. team estimated the lifetime cost of the most basic model as comparable to a Nissan Altima that sells for $11,000 less upfront. (That’s even though Tesla’s federal tax incentive for electric vehicles has ended.)

Toyota’s Hybrid RAV4 S.U.V. also ends up cheaper in the long run than a similar traditional RAV4, a national bestseller, despite a higher retail price.

Hawaii, Alaska and parts of New England have some of the highest average electricity costs, while parts of the Midwest, West and South tend to have lower rates. Gas prices are lower along the Gulf Coast and higher in California. But an analysis from the Union of Concerned Scientists still found that charging a vehicle was more cost effective than filling up at the pump across 50 major American cities. “We saw potential savings everywhere,” said David Reichmuth, a senior engineer for the group’s Clean Transportation Program.

Still, the upfront cost of an electric vehicle continues to be a barrier for many would-be owners.

The federal government offers a tax credit for some new electric vehicle purchases, but that does nothing to reduce the initial purchase price and does not apply to used cars. That means it disproportionately benefits wealthier Americans. Some states, like California, offer additional incentives. President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. has pledged to offer rebates that help consumers swap inefficient, old cars for cleaner new ones, and to create 500,000 more electric vehicle charging stations, too.

EV sales projections for 2024 suggest continued acceleration, especially as costs fall and policy support expands. Chris Gearhart, director of the Center for Integrated Mobility Sciences at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, said electric cars will become more price competitive in coming years as battery prices drop. At the same time, new technologies to reduce exhaust emissions are making traditional cars more expensive. “With that trajectory, you can imagine that even immediately at the purchase price level, certain smaller sedans could reach purchase price parity in the next couple of years,” Dr. Gearhart said.

Related Pages:

EV Boom Unexpectedly Benefits All Electricity Customers

Ontario Invests in New EV Charging Stations

EV Charging Cost Still Beats Gasoline, Study Finds

EPA Rules Expected to Boost U.S. Electric Vehicle Sales

California Takes the Lead in Electric Vehicle and Charging Station Adoption

EVs to Power Homes: New Technology Turns Cars Into Backup Batteries

U.S. Electric Vehicle Sales Soar Into 2024