Is residential solar worth it?


residential solar

CSA Z462 Arc Flash Training - Electrical Safety Essentials

Our customized live online or in‑person group training can be delivered to your staff at your location.

  • Live Online
  • 6 hours Instructor-led
  • Group Training Available
Regular Price:
$249
Coupon Price:
$199
Reserve Your Seat Today

Home Solar Cost vs Utility Bills compares electricity rates, ROI, incentives, and battery storage, explaining payback, financing, and grid fees while highlighting long-term savings, rate volatility, and backup power resilience for homeowners.

 

Key Points

Compares home solar pricing and financing to utility rates, outlining savings, incentives, ROI, and backup power value.

✅ Average retail rates rose 59% in 20 years; volatility persists

✅ Typical 7.15 kW system costs $18,950 before incentives

✅ Federal ITC and state rebates improve ROI and payback

 

When shopping for a home solar system, sometimes the quoted price can leave you wondering why someone would move forward with something that seems so expensive. 

When compared with the status quo, electricity delivered from the utility, the price may not seem so high after all. First, pv magazine will examine the status quo, and how much you can expect to pay for power if you don’t get solar panels. Then, we will examine the average cost of solar arrays today and introduce incentives that boost home solar value.

The cost of doing nothing

Generally, early adopters have financially benefited from going solar by securing price certainty and stemming the impact of steadily increasing utility-bill costs, particularly for energy-insecure households who pay more for electricity.

End-use residential electric customers pay an average of $0.138/kWh in the United States, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). In California, that rate is $0.256/kWh, it averages $0.246/kWh across New England, $0.126/kWh in the South Atlantic region, and $0.124/kWh in the Mountain West region.

EIA reports that the average home uses 893 kWh per month, so based on the average retail rate of $0.138/kWh, that’s an electric bill of about $123 monthly, or $229 monthly in California.

Over the last 20 years, EIA data show that retail electricity prices have increased 59% across the United States, with evidence indicating that renewables are not making electricity more expensive, suggesting other factors have driven costs higher, or 2.95% each year.

This means based on historical rates, the average US homeowner can expect to pay $39,460 over the next 20 years on electricity bills. On average, Californians could pay $73,465 over 20 years.

Recent global events show just how unstable prices can be for commodities, and energy is no exception here, with solar panel sales doubling in the UK as homeowners look to cut soaring bills. What will your utility bill cost in 20 years?

These estimated bills also assume that energy use in the home is constant over 20 years, but as the United States electrifies its homes, adds more devices, and adopts electric vehicles, it is fair to expect that many homeowners will use more electricity going forward.

Another factor that may exacerbate rate raising is the upgrade of the national transmission grid. The infrastructure that delivers power to our homes is aging and in need of critical upgrades, and it is estimated that a staggering $500 billion will be spent on transmission buildout by 2035. This half-trillion-dollar cost gets passed down to homeowners in the form of raised utility bill rates.

The benefit of backup power may increase as time goes on as well. Power outages are on the rise across the United States, and recent assessments of the risk of power outages underscore that outages related to severe weather events have doubled in the last 20 years. Climate change-fueled storms are expected to continue to rise, so the role of battery backup in providing reliable energy may increase significantly.

The truth is, we don’t know how much power will cost in 20 years. Though it has increased 59% across the nation in the last 20 years, there is no way to be certain what it will cost going forward. That is where solar has a benefit over the status quo. By purchasing solar, you are securing price certainty going forward, making it easier to budget and plan for the future.

So how do these costs compare to going solar?

Cost of solar

As a general trend, prices for solar have fallen. In 2010, it cost about $40,000 to install a residential solar system, and since then, prices have fallen by as much as 70%, and about 37% in the last five years. However, prices have increased slightly in 2022 due to shipping costs, materials costs, and possible tariffs being placed on imported solar goods, and these pressures aren’t expected to be alleviated in the near-term.

When comparing quotes, the best metric for an apples-to-apples comparison is the cost per watt. Price benchmarking by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory shows the average cost per watt for the nation was $2.65/W DC in 2021, and the average system size was 7.15 kW. So, an average system would cost about $18,950. With 12.5 kWh of battery energy storage, the average cost was $4.26/W, representing an average price tag of $30,460 with batteries included.

The prices above do not include any incentives. Currently, the federal government applies a 26% investment tax credit to the system, bringing down system costs for those who qualify to $14,023 without batteries, and $22,540 with batteries. Compared to the potential $39,460 in utility bills, buying a solar system outright in cash appears to show a clear financial benefit.

Many homeowners will need financing to buy a solar system. Shorter terms can achieve rates as low as 2.99% or less, but financing for a 20-year solar loan typically lands between 5% to 8% or more. Based on 20-year, 7% annual percentage rate terms, a $14,000 system would total about $26,000 in loan payments over 20 years, and the system with batteries included would total about $42,000 in loan payments.

Often when you adopt solar, the utility will still charge you a grid access fee even if your system produces 100% of your needs. These vary from utility to utility but are often around $10 a month. Over 20 years, that equates to about $2,400 that you’ll still need to pay to the utility, plus any costs for energy you use beyond what your system provides.

Based on these average figures, a homeowner could expect to see as much as $12,000 in savings with a 20-year financed system. Homeowners in regions whose retail energy price exceeds the national average could see savings in multiples of that figure.

Though in this example batteries appear to be marginally more expensive than the status quo over a 20-year term, they improve the home by adding the crucial service of backup power, and as battery costs continue to fall they are increasingly being approved to participate in grid services, potentially unlocking additional revenue streams for homeowners.

Another thing to note is most solar systems are warranted for 25 years rather than the 20 used in the status quo example. A panel can last a good 35 years, and though it will begin to produce less in old age, any power produced by a panel you own is money back in your pocket.

Incentives and home value

Many states have additional incentives to boost the value of solar, too, and federal proposals to increase solar generation tenfold could remake the U.S. electricity system. Checking the Database of State Incentives for Renewables (DSIRE) will show the incentives available in your state, and a solar representative should be able to walk you through these benefits when you receive a quote. State incentives change frequently and vary widely, and in some cases are quite rich, offering thousands of dollars in additional benefits.

Another factor to consider is home value. A study by Zillow found that solar arrays increase a home value by 4.1% on average. For a $375,000 home, that’s an increase of $15,375 in value. In most states home solar is exempt from property taxes, making it a great way to boost value without paying taxes for it.

Bottom line

We’ve shared a lot of data on national averages and the potential cost of power going forward, but is solar for you? In the past, early adopters have been rewarded for going solar, and celebrate when they see $0 electric bills paid to the utility company.

Each home is different, each utility is different, and each homeowner has different needs, so evaluating whether solar is right for your home will take a little time and analysis. Representatives from solar companies will walk you through this analysis, and it’s generally a good rule of thumb to get at least three quotes for comparison.

A great resource for starting your research is the Solar Calculator developed by informational site SolarReviews. The calculator offers a quote and savings estimate based on local rates and incentives available to your area. The website also features reviews of installers, equipment, and more.

Some people will save tens of thousands of dollars in the long run with solar, while others may witness more modest savings. Solar will also provide the home clean, local energy, and U.S. solar generation is projected to reach 20% by 2050 as capacity expands, making an impact both on mitigating climate change and in supporting local jobs.

One indisputable benefit of solar is that it will offer greater clarity into what your electricity bills will cost over the next couple of decades, rather than leaving you exposed to whatever rates the utility company decides to charge in the future.

 

Related News

Related News

Spain Breaks Gas Link with Wind and Solar

Spain has broken its reliance on fossil gas as soaring wind and solar energy drive Europe’s lowest wholesale electricity prices, reducing emissions, stabilizing the grid, and advancing renewable power, energy independence, and clean transition goals across the EU.

 

How Has Spain Broken the Gas Link with Wind and Solar??

Spain has broken the link between gas and power prices by rapidly expanding wind and solar generation, which now supplies nearly half its electricity, cutting fossil fuel influence by 75% since 2019 and reducing power costs 32% below the EU average.

✅ Wind and solar cut fossil influence by 75% since 2019

✅ Power prices 32% below EU average in 2025

✅ Renewables meet nearly half of national electricity demand

 

Spain has emerged as one of Europe’s most affordable electricity markets, largely due to its rapid expansion of wind and solar power. By decoupling its wholesale electricity prices from volatile fossil gas and coal, Spain has achieved a 32 percent lower average wholesale price than the EU average in the first half of 2025. This remarkable shift marks a dramatic turnaround from 2019, when Spain had some of the highest power prices in Europe.

According to new data, the influence of fossil fuels on Spain’s electricity prices has fallen by 75 percent since 2019, mirroring how renewables have surpassed fossil fuels in Europe over the same period, dropping from 75 percent of hours tied to gas costs to just 19 percent in early 2025. “Spain has broken the ruinous link between power prices and volatile fossil fuels, something its European neighbours are desperate to do,” said Dr. Chris Rosslowe, Senior Energy Analyst at Ember.

The change is driven by a surge in renewable generation. Between 2019 and mid-2025, Spain added more than 40 gigawatts of new solar and wind capacity—second only to Germany, whose power market is twice the size. Wind and solar now meet nearly half (46 percent) of Spain’s electricity demand, compared with 27 percent six years ago. As a result, fossil generation has fallen to 20 percent of total demand, well below the levels seen in other major economies such as Germany (41 percent) and Italy (43 percent).

This renewable growth has also cut Spain’s dependence on imported fuels. In the past five years, new solar and wind plants have avoided 26 billion cubic metres of gas imports, saving €13.5 billion—five times the amount the country invested in transmission infrastructure over the same period. The Central Bank of Spain estimated that wholesale electricity prices would have been 40 percent higher in 2024 if renewables had not displaced fossil generation, and neighboring France has seen negative prices during periods of renewable surplus.

August 2025 marked a historic milestone: Spain recorded a full month without coal-fired generation for the first time. A decade earlier, coal accounted for a quarter of the nation’s electricity supply. Gas use has also declined steadily, from 26% of demand in 2019 to 19% this year.

However, the system still faces challenges. Following the April 28th Iberian blackout, Spain has relied more heavily on gas-fired plants to stabilize the grid. These services—such as voltage control and balancing—have proven to be expensive, with costs doubling since the blackout and accounting for 57 percent of the average electricity price in May 2025, up from 14 percent the previous year. Curtailment of renewables has also tripled, reaching 7.2 percent of generation between May and July.

Despite being Europe’s fourth-largest electricity market, Spain ranks only 13th in battery storage capacity, underscoring the need for further investment in clean flexibility solutions, such as grid-scale batteries to provide flexibility and stronger interconnections. Post-blackout reforms aim to address this weakness and ensure the gains from renewable integration are not lost.

“Spain risks sliding back into costly gas reliance amid post-blackout fears,” warned Rosslowe. “Boosting grids and batteries will help Spain break free from fossil dependency for good.”

With record-low electricity prices and one of the fastest decoupling rates in Europe, Spain’s experience demonstrates how large-scale wind and solar adoption can reshape energy economics—and offers a roadmap for other nations seeking to escape the volatility of fossil fuels.

View more

Ontario to Reintroduce Renewable Energy Projects 5 Years After Cancellations

Ontario Renewable Energy Procurement 2024 will see the IESO secure wind, solar, and hydro power to meet rising electricity demand, support transit electrification, bolster grid reliability, and serve manufacturing growth across the province.

 

Key Points

A provincial IESO initiative to add 2,000 MW of clean power and plan 3,000 MW more to meet rising demand.

✅ IESO to procure 2,000 MW from wind, solar, hydro

✅ Exploring 3,000 MW via upgrades and expansions

✅ Demand growth ~2% yearly; electrification and industry

 

After the Ford government terminated renewable energy contracts five years ago, despite warnings about wind project cancellation costs that year, Ontario's electricity operator, the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), is now planning to once again incorporate wind and solar initiatives to address the province's increasing power demands.

The IESO, responsible for managing the provincial power supply, is set to secure 2,000 megawatts of electricity from clean sources, which include wind, solar, and hydro power, as wind power competitiveness increases across Canada. Additionally, the IESO is exploring the possibilities of reacquiring, upgrading, or expanding existing facilities to generate an additional 3,000 MW of electricity in the future.

These new power procurement efforts in Ontario aim to meet the rising energy demand driven by transit electrification and large-scale manufacturing projects, even as national renewable growth projections were scaled back after Ontario scrapped its clean energy program, which are expected to exert greater pressure on the provincial grid.

The IESO projects a consistent growth in demand of approximately two percent per year over the next two decades. This growth has prompted the Ford government, amid debate over Ontario's electricity future in the province, to take proactive measures to prevent potential blackouts or disruptions for both residential and commercial consumers.

This renewed commitment to renewable energy represents a significant policy shift for Premier Doug Ford, reflecting his new stance on wind power over time, who had previously voiced strong opposition to wind turbines and pledged to dismantle all windmills in the province. In 2018, shortly after taking office, the government terminated 750 renewable energy contracts that had been signed by the previous Liberal government, incurring fees of $230 million for taxpayers.

At the time, the government cited reasons such as surplus electricity supply and increased costs for ratepayers as grounds for contract cancellations. Premier Ford expressed pride in the decision, echoing a proud of cancelling contracts stance, claiming that it saved taxpayers $790 million and eliminated what he viewed as detrimental wind turbines that had negatively impacted the province's energy landscape for 15 years.

The Ontario government's new wind and solar energy procurement initiatives are scheduled to commence in 2024, following a court ruling on a Cornwall wind farm that spotlighted cancellation decisions.

 

Related News

View more

Report: Canada's renewable energy growth projections scaled back after Ontario scraps clean energy program

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

View more

Space-based solar power, once for science fiction, is gaining interest.

Space-Based Solar Power enables wireless energy transfer from orbital solar arrays, using microwave beaming to rectennas on Earth, delivering clean baseload power beyond weather and night limits, as demonstrated by Caltech and NASA.

 

Key Points

Space-based solar power beams microwaves from arrays to rectennas, delivering clean electricity beyond weather and night.

✅ Caltech demo proved wireless power transfer in space.

✅ Microwaves beam to rectennas for grid-scale clean energy.

✅ Operates above clouds, enabling continuous baseload supply.

 

Ali Hajimiri thinks there’s a better way to power the planet — one that’s not getting the attention it deserves. The Caltech professor of electrical engineering envisages thousands of solar panels floating in space, unobstructed by clouds and unhindered by day-night cycles, effectively generating electricity from the night sky for continuous delivery, wirelessly transmitting massive amounts of energy to receivers on Earth.

This year, that vision moved closer to reality when Mr. Hajimiri, together with a team of Caltech researchers, proved that wireless power transfer in space was possible: Solar panels they had attached to a Caltech prototype in space successfully converted electricity into microwaves and beamed those microwaves to receivers, as a demonstration of beaming power from space to devices about a foot away, lighting up two LEDs.

The prototype also beamed a tiny but detectable amount of energy to a receiver on top of their lab’s building in Pasadena, Calif. The demonstration marks a first step in the wireless transfer of usable power from space to Earth, and advances in low-cost solar batteries could help store and smooth that power flow — a power source that Mr. Hajimiri believes will be safer than direct sun rays. “The beam intensity is to be kept less than solar intensity on earth,” he said.

Finding alternative energy sources is one of the topics that will be discussed by leaders in business, science and public policy, including wave energy, during The New York Times Climate Forward event on Thursday. The Caltech demonstration was a significant moment in the quest to realize space-based solar power, amid policy moves such as a proposed tenfold increase in U.S. solar that would remake the U.S. electricity system — a clean energy technology that has long been overshadowed by other long-shot clean energy ideas, such as nuclear fusion and low-cost clean hydrogen.

If space-based solar can be made to work on a commercial scale, said Nikolai Joseph, a NASA Goddard Space Flight Center senior technology analyst, and integrate with peer-to-peer energy sharing networks, such stations could contribute as much as 10 percent of global power by 2050.

The idea of space-based solar energy has been around since at least 1941, when the science-fiction writer Isaac Asimov set one of his short stories, “Reason,” on a solar station that beamed energy by microwaves to Earth and other planets.

In the 1970s, when a fivefold increase in oil prices sparked interest in alternative energy, NASA and the Department of Energy conducted the first significant study on the topic. In 1995, under the direction of the physicist John C. Mankins, NASA took another look and concluded that investments in space-launch technology were needed to lower the cost and move closer to cheap abundant electricity before space-based solar power could be realized.

“There was never any doubt about it being technically feasible,” said Mr. Mankins, now president of Artemis Innovation Management Solutions, a technology consulting group. “The cost was too prohibitive.”

 

Related News

View more

Road to electric vehicle targets in Manitoba not smooth, experts say

Manitoba ZEV Roadblocks highlight EV charging station gaps, rural infrastructure limits, dealership supply shortages, and ZEV mandate timelines, pushing mode shift to transit, cycling, and walking while hampering zero-emission vehicle adoption across the province.

 

Key Points

EV charging gaps, rural access limits, and supply constraints slow Manitoba's progress toward ZEV targets.

✅ Sparse Level 3 fast chargers outside Winnipeg

✅ Rural infrastructure limits long-distance confidence

✅ Dealership supply lags; long pre-order wait times

 

The federal government’s push toward zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), including forthcoming EV sales regulations, is hitting some roadblocks in Manitoba.

Earlier this year, Ottawa set a sales target to encourage Canadians to choose ZEVs. By 2026, their goal is to have ZEVs make up 20 per cent of new vehicle purchases. By 2035, they want all new vehicles sold to be ZEVs, a target that has sparked 2035 EV mandate debate among industry observers.

READ MORE: Ottawa sets 2026 target for mandating electric vehicle sales

Connie Blixhavn with the Manitoba Electric Vehicle Association (MEVA) doesn’t think Manitoba is on track.

“We’re not, not at all,” she said.

Blixhavn lives in Killarney, Man., and bought an electric vehicle last year. She plans her trips to Brandon and Winkler around the life of her car’s battery, but finds the charging infrastructure to be lacking and unreliable, a challenge echoed by Labrador's lagging infrastructure in Newfoundland and Labrador.

“Brandon is my closest place to get a level three charge, and when they’re not working, it limits where you can go,” she said.

Level three is the fastest type of EV charger, taking about 15-45 minutes to fully charge a vehicle’s batteries.

According to CAA, 68 of the province’s 94 EV charging stations are in Winnipeg. Blixhavn says it limits options for rural people to confidently adopt EVs, even as jurisdictions like the N.W.T. encourage EV adoption through targeted programs.

“I know we’re a big area, but they need to strategically plan where they put these so we all have access,” she said.

ZEVs are often not found on dealership lots – they have to be pre-ordered. One dealership employee told Global News demand far outweighs supply, amid EV shortages and wait times reported nationally, with some customers waiting one to two years for their new vehicle to arrive.

Mel Marginet with the Green Action Centre’s Sustainable Transporation Team is also wary of Manitoba’s ability to meet the 2026 goal, noting that even as experts question Quebec's EV push there are broader challenges. She believes the only way to come close is to change how much Manitobans use personal vehicles altogether.

“If we’re really concerned about the environment, we need to double and triple down on just reducing personal vehicle trips by and large,” she said.

Marginet points to transit, walking and cycling as ways to reduce reliance on driving.

“We depend on personal vehicles a lot in this province, and far more than we should have to,” she said. “My biggest worry is that we’ll take resources away from what we need to build to get people to use personal vehicles less.”

For Blixhavn, the lack of charging stations in her area has caused her to reduce her vehicle use. While she says she’s fine with the extra planning it takes to travel, she believes the lack of infrastructure is preventing Manitobans, especially those in rural areas, from catching up with other provinces, as Atlantic Canada EV interest lags the rest of the country, when it comes to choosing electric vehicles.

 

Related News

View more

CO2 output from making an electric car battery isn't equal to driving a gasoline car for 8 years

EV Battery Manufacturing Emissions debunk viral claims with lifecycle analysis, showing lithium-ion production CO2 depends on grid mix and is offset by zero tailpipe emissions and renewable-energy charging over typical vehicle miles.

 

Key Points

EV lithium-ion pack production varies by grid mix; ~1-2 years of driving, then offset by zero tailpipe emissions.

✅ Battery CO2 depends on electricity mix and factory efficiency.

✅ 75 kWh pack ~4.5-7.5 t CO2; not equal to 8 years of driving.

✅ Lifecycle analysis: EVs cut GHG vs gas, especially with renewables.

 

Electric vehicles are touted as an environmentally friendly alternative to gasoline powered cars, but one Facebook post claims that the benefits are overblown, despite fact-checks of charging math to the contrary, and the vehicles are much more harmful to the planet than people assume.

A cartoon posted to Facebook on April 29, amid signs the EV era is arriving in many markets, shows a car in one panel with "diesel" written on the side and the driver thinking "I feel so dirty." In another panel, a car has "electric" written on its side with the driver thinking "I feel so clean."

However, the electric vehicle is shown connected to what appears to be a factory that’s blowing dark smoke into the air.

Below the cartoon is a caption that claims "manufacturing the battery for one electric car produces the same amount of CO2 as running a petrol car for eight years."

This isn’t a new line of criticism against electric vehicles, and reflects ongoing opinion on the EV revolution in the media. Similar Facebook posts have taken aim at the carbon dioxide produced in the manufacturing of electric cars — specifically the batteries — to make the case that zero emissions vehicles aren’t necessarily clean.

Full electric vehicles require a large lithium-ion battery to store energy and power the motor that propels the car, according to Insider. The lithium-ion battery packs in an electric car are chemically similar to the ones found in cell phones and laptops.

Because they require a mix of metals that need to be extracted and refined, lithium-ion batteries take more energy to produce than the common lead-acid batteries used in gasoline cars to help start the engine.

How much CO2 is emitted in the production depends on where the lithium-ion battery is made — or specifically, how the electricity powering the factory is generated, and national electricity profiles such as Canada's 2019 mix help illustrate regional differences — according to Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and director of climate and energy at the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental research think tank.

Producing a 75 kilowatt-hour battery for a Tesla Model 3, considered on the larger end of batteries for electric vehicles, would result in the emission of 4,500 kilograms of CO2 if it was made at Tesla's battery factory in Nevada. That’s the emissions equivalent to driving a gas-powered sedan for 1.4 years, at a yearly average distance of 12,000 miles, Hausfather said.

If the battery were made in Asia, manufacturing it would produce 7,500 kg of carbon dioxide, or the equivalent of driving a gasoline-powered sedan for 2.4 years — but still nowhere near the eight years claimed in the Facebook post. Hausfather said the larger emission amount in Asia can be attributed to its "higher carbon electricity mix." The continent relies more on coal for energy production, while Tesla’s Nevada factory uses some solar energy. 

"More than half the emissions associated with manufacturing the battery are associated with electricity use," Hausfather said in an email to PolitiFact. "So, as the electricity grid decarbonizes, emissions associated with battery production will decline. The same is not true for sedan tailpipe emissions."

The Facebook post does not mention the electricity needs and CO2 impact of factories that build gasoline or diesel cars and their components. 

Another thing the Facebook post omits is that the CO2 emitted in the production of the battery can be offset over a short time in an electric car by the lack of tailpipe emissions when it’s in operation. 

The Union of Concerned Scientists found in a 2015 report that taking into account electricity sources for charging, which have become greener in all states since then, an electric vehicle ends up reducing greenhouse gas emissions by about 50% compared with a similar size gas-powered car.

A midsize vehicle completely negates the carbon dioxide its production emits by the time it travels 4,900 miles, according to the report. For full size cars, it takes 19,000 miles of driving.

The U.S. Energy Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy also looked at the life cycle of electric vehicles — which includes a car’s production, use and disposal — and concluded they produce less greenhouse gases and smog than gasoline-powered vehicles, a conclusion consistent with independent analyses from consumer and energy groups.

The agency also found drivers could further lower CO2 emissions by charging with power generated by a renewable energy source, and drivers can also save money in the long run with EV ownership. 

Our ruling
A cartoon shared on Facebook claims the carbon dioxide emitted from the production of one electric car battery is the equivalent to driving a gas-powered vehicle for eight years.

The production of lithium-ion batteries for electric cars emits a significant amount of carbon dioxide, but nowhere near the level claimed in the cartoon. The emissions from battery production are equivalent to driving a gasoline car for one or two years, depending on where it’s produced, and those emissions are effectively offset over time by the lack of tailpipe emissions when the car is on the road. 

We rate this claim Mostly False.    

 

Related News

View more

Sign Up for Electricity Forum’s Newsletter

Stay informed with our FREE Newsletter — get the latest news, breakthrough technologies, and expert insights, delivered straight to your inbox.

Electricity Today T&D Magazine Subscribe for FREE

Stay informed with the latest T&D policies and technologies.
  • Timely insights from industry experts
  • Practical solutions T&D engineers
  • Free access to every issue

Download the 2025 Electrical Training Catalog

Explore 50+ live, expert-led electrical training courses –

  • Interactive
  • Flexible
  • CEU-cerified