Rhode Island issues its plan to achieve 100% renewable electricity by 2030

Wind Turbine Operations and Maintenance Market is expanding as offshore and onshore renewables scale, driven by aging turbines, investment, UAV inspections, and predictive O&M services, despite skills shortages and rising logistics costs.

Key Points

Sector delivering inspection, repair, and predictive services to keep wind assets reliable onshore and offshore.

✅ Aging turbines and investor funding drive service demand

✅ UAV inspections and predictive analytics cut downtime

✅ Offshore growth offsets skills and logistics constraints

Wind turbines are capable of producing vast amounts of electricity at competitive prices, provided they are efficiently maintained and operated. Being a cleaner, greener source of energy, wind energy is also more reliable than other sources of power generation, with growth despite COVID-19 recorded across markets. Therefore, the demand for wind energy is slated to soar over the next few years, fuelling the growth of the global market for wind turbine operations and maintenance. By application, offshore and onshore wind turbine operations and maintenance are the two major segments of the market.

Global Wind Turbine Operations and Maintenance Market: Key Trends

The rising number of aging wind turbines emerges as a considerable potential for the growth of the market. The increasing downpour of funds from financial institutions and public and private investors has also been playing a significant role in the expansion of the market, with interest also flowing toward wave and tidal energy technologies that inform O&M practices. On the other hand, insufficient number of skilled personnel, coupled with increasing costs of logistics, remains a key concern restricting the growth of the market. However, the growing demand for offshore wind turbines across the globe is likely to materialize into fresh opportunities.

Global Wind Turbine Operations and Maintenance Market: Market Potential

A number of market players have been offering diverse services with a view to make a mark in the global market for wind turbine operations and maintenance. For instance, Scotland-based SgurrEnergy announced the provision of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as drones, as a part of its inspection services. Detailed and accurate assessments of wind turbines can be obtained through these drones, which are fitted with cameras, with four times quicker inspections than traditional methods, claims the company. This new approach has not only reduced downtime, but also has prevented the risks faced by inspection personnel.

The increasing number of approvals and new projects is preparing the ground for a rising demand for wind turbine operations and maintenance. In March 2017, for example, the Scottish government approved the installation of eight 6-megawatt wind turbines off the coast of Aberdeen, towards the northeast. The state of Maryland in the U.S. will witness the installation of a new offshore wind plant, encouraging greater adoption of wind energy in the country. The U.K., a leader in UK offshore wind deployment, has also been keeping pace with the developments, with the installation of a 400-MW offshore wind farm, off the Sussex coast throughout 2017. The Rampion project will be developed by E.on, who has partnered with Canada-based Enbridge Inc. and the UK Green Investment Bank plc.

Global Wind Turbine Operations and Maintenance Market: Regional Outlook

Based on geography, the global market for wind turbine operations and maintenance has been segmented into Asia Pacific, Europe, North America, and Rest of the World (RoW). Countries such as India, China, Spain, France, Germany, Scotland, and Brazil are some of the prominent users of wind energy and are therefore likely to account for a considerable share in the market. In the U.S., favorable government policies are backing the growth of the market, though analyses note that a prolonged solar ITC extension could pressure wind competitiveness. For instance, in 2013, a legislation that permits energy companies to transfer the costs of offshore wind credits to ratepayers was approved. Asia Pacific is a market with vast potential, with India and China being major contributors aiding the expansion of the market.

Global Wind Turbine Operations and Maintenance Market: Competitive Analysis

Some of the major companies operating in the global market for wind turbine operations and maintenance are Gamesa Corporacion Tecnologica, Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technologies, Vestas Wind Systems A/S, Upwind Solutions, Inc, GE Wind Turbine, Guodian United Power Technology Company Ltd., Nordex SE, Enercon GmbH, Siemens Wind Power GmbH, and Suzlon Group. A number of firms have been focusing on mergers and acquisitions to extend their presence across new regions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Biden Impact on Canadian Energy Exports highlights shifts in trade policy, tariffs, carbon pricing, and Keystone XL, with implications for aluminum, softwood lumber, electricity trade, fracking limits, and small modular nuclear reactors.

Key Points

How Biden-era trade, climate rules, and tariffs may reshape Canadian energy and exports.

✅ Reduced tariff volatility and friendlier trade policy toward allies

✅ Climate alignment: carbon pricing, clean power, cross-border electricity

✅ Potential gains for oil, gas, aluminum, and softwood lumber exporters

There is little doubt among industry associations, the Conference Board of Canada and C.D. Howe Institute that a Joe Biden White House will be better for Canadian resource and energy exporters – even Alberta’s beleaguered oil industry, despite Biden’s promise to kill the Keystone XL pipeline.

The consensus among industry observers in the lead-up to the November 3 U.S. presidential election was that a re-elected Donald Trump would become even more pugnacious on trade and protectionism, putting electricity exports at risk for Canadian utilities, which would be bad for Canadian exporters. The Justin Trudeau government would likely come under increased pressure to lower Canadian business taxes to compete with Trump’s low-tax climate.

“A Joe Biden victory would likely lead to higher taxes for both corporations and wealthy Americans to help pay down the gigantic fiscal deficit that is currently running at plus-US$5 trillion,” the conference board concluded in a recent analysis.

On trade and tariffs, the conference board said: “Many but not all of these ongoing trade disputes would wither away under a Joe Biden administration. He would likely run a broad trade policy favouring strategic allies like Canada.

While Canadian industries like forestry and aluminum smelting benefited from strong demand and prices in the U.S. under Trump, the forced renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement failed end tariffs and duties on things like softwood lumber and aluminum ingots, even as Canadians backed tariffs on energy and minerals during the dispute.

The uncertainty over trade issues, and Trump’s tax cuts, which made Canada’s tax regime less competitive, have contributed to a period of low business investment in Canada during Trump's presidency.

“For Canada, we’ve seen a period, since this administration has been in power, where investment has eroded steadily,” conference board chief economist Pedro Antunes said. “We are not doing well at all, in terms of private capital investment in Canada.”

Alberta’s oil industry has been hit particularly hard, with a slew of divestments by big energy giants, and cancellations of major projects, like the $20 billion Frontier oilsands project, scrubbed by Teck Resources.

While domestic policies and global market forces are partly to blame for falling investments in Canada’s oil and gas sector, up until the pandemic hit, investment in oil and gas increased significantly in the U.S., while declining in Canada, during Trump’s first term.

Biden is also expected to level the playing field with respect to climate change policies. Canadian industries pay carbon taxes and face regulations that their counterparts in the U.S. don’t. That has disadvantaged energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries like mines and pulp mills in Canada.

“With Biden in office, Canada will once again have a partner at the federal level in the states in the transition to a decarbonized economy,” said Josha MacNab, national policy director for the Pembina Institute.

Biden’s policies might also favour importing aluminum, cross-laminated timber, fuel cells and other lower-carbon products and commodities from Canada.

At least one observer believes that Canada’s oil and gas sector might benefit more from a Biden White House, despite Biden’s pledge to kill the Keystone XL pipeline.

“I think Joe Biden could be very good for Alberta,” Christopher Sands, director of the Wilson International Center’s Canada Institute, said in a recent discussion hosted by the C.D. Howe Institute.

Sands added that the presidential permit Biden has promised to tear up on the Keystone XL pipeline project is a construction permit, not an operating permit.

“The segment of that pipeline that crosses the U.S.-Canada border, which is the only place that the presidential permit applies, has been built,” Sands said. “So I think that’s somewhat of an empty threat.”

He added that, if Biden bans fracking on federal lands, as he has promised, and implements other restrictions that make it more costly for American oil and gas producers, it might increase the demand for Canadian oil and gas in the U.S. The demand would be highest in the U.S. Midwest, which depends largely on Marcellus Shale production, notably in Pennsylvania, and Western Canada for its oil and gas.

One of the Canadian industries directly affected by the Trump administration was aluminum smelting, which is relevant for B.C. because Rio Tinto plc’s Kitimat smelter exports aluminum to the U.S.

Jean Simard, president of the Aluminum Association of Canada, said one of Trump’s legacies was the reactivation of a little-used mechanism – Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act – to hit Canada and other countries, notably China, with import tariffs.

The 10 per cent tariffs on aluminum cost Canadian aluminum producers US$15 million in the month of August alone, Simard said.

The Trump administration eventually exempted Canadian aluminum exports from the tariffs, then reintroduced them, and then, one week before the election, exempted them again.

These on-again, off-again tariff threats create tremendous uncertainty, not just for Canadian producers, but also for U.S. buyers. That kind of uncertainty is likely to ease under a Biden presidency.

Simard said Biden’s track record suggests he is well-disposed towards Canada and less confrontational with allies and trade partners in general, and some in Washington have called for a stronger U.S.-Canada energy partnership as well.

Meanwhile, softwood lumber tariffs have been imposed by Democrats and Republicans alike. But there are compelling reasons for ending the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber war.

Home renovation and repair in the United States has done surprisingly well during the pandemic.

As a result of sawmill curtailments in the U.S. due to pandemic restrictions and high demand for lumber in the U.S. housing sector, North American lumbers prices broke records this summer, soaring as high as US$900 per thousand board feet.

“It shows that there’s very strong demand for our product,” said Susan Yurkovich, president of the Council of Forest Industries.

Ultimately, the duties Canadian lumber exporters pay are passed on to U.S. consumers.

Sands said Biden’s climate action pledges, including a clean electricity standard, could increase opportunities for trading electricity between Canada in the U.S., as the U.S. increasingly looks to Canada for green power, and could also be good for Canadian nuclear power technology.

Strong climate change policies necessarily result in an increased demand for low-carbon electricity, and advancing clean grids, which Canada has in abundance, thanks to both hydro and nuclear power.

“[Biden] does share the desire to act on climate change, but unlike some of his fellow party members who are more signed on to a Green New Deal, he’s open to pragmatic solutions that might get the job done quickly and efficiently,” Sands said.

“This is a huge opportunity for small, modular nuclear reactors, and Atomic Energy Canada has some great designs. There’s a real opportunity for a nuclear revival.” 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

NC WARN Solar Case tests third-party solar rights as North Carolina Supreme Court reviews Utilities Commission fines over a Greensboro church's rooftop power deal, challenging Duke Energy's monopoly, onsite electricity sales, and potential rate impacts.

Key Points

A North Carolina Supreme Court test of third-party solar could weaken Duke Energy's monopoly and change utility rules.

✅ NC Supreme Court weighs Utilities Commission penalty on NC WARN

✅ Case could permit onsite third-party solar sales statewide

✅ Outcome may pressure Duke Energy's monopoly and rates

North Carolina's highest court is taking up a case that could force new competition on the state's electricity monopolies.

The state Supreme Court on Tuesday will consider the Utilities Commission's decision to fine clean-energy advocacy group NC WARN for putting solar panels on a Greensboro church's rooftop and then charging it below-market rates for power.

The commission told NC WARN that it was producing electricity illegally and fined the group $60,000. The group said it was acting privately and appealed to the high court.

If the group prevails, it could put new pressure on Duke Energy's monopoly, which has seen an oversubscribed solar solicitation in recent procurements. State regulators say a ruling for NC WARN would allow companies to install solar equipment and sell power on site, shaving away customers and forcing Duke Energy to raise rates on everyone else.

#google#

That's because if NC WARN's deal with Faith Community Church is allowed, the precedent could open the door for others to lure away from Duke Energy, as debates over how solar owners are paid continue, "the customers with the highest profit potential, such as commercial and industrial customers with large energy needs and ample rooftop space," attorney Robert Josey Jr. wrote in a court filing.

Losing those power sales would force the country's No. 2 electricity company to make it up by charging remaining customers more to cover the cost of all of its power plants, transmission lines and repair crews, a dynamic echoed in New England's grid upgrade debates as solar grows, wrote Josey, an attorney for the Public Staff, the state's official utilities consumer advocate.

The dispute is whether NC WARN is producing electricity "for the public," which would mean it's intruding on the territory of the publicly regulated monopoly utility, or whether the move was allowed because it was a private power deal with the church alone.

NC WARN installed the church's power panels in 2015 as part of what it described as a test case, amid wider debates like Nova Scotia's delayed solar charge for customers, challenging Duke Energy's monopoly position to generate and sell electricity.

North Carolina was one of nine states that as of last year explicitly disallowed residential customers from buying electricity generated by solar panels on their roof from a third party that owns the system, even as Maryland opens solar subscriptions more broadly, according to the North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center. State law allows purchased or leased solar panels, but not payments simply for the power they generate.

NC WARN's goals included "reducing the effects of Duke Energy's monopoly control that has such negative impacts on power bills, clean air and water, and climate change," the church's pastor, Rev. Nelson Johnson, said in a statement the same day the clean-energy group asked state regulators to clear the plan.

Instead, the North Carolina Utilities Commission ruled the arrangement violated the state's system of legal electricity monopolies and hit the group with nearly $60,000 in fines, which would be suspended if the church's payments were refunded with interest and the solar equipment donated. The group has set aside the money and will donate the gear if it loses the Supreme Court case, NC WARN Executive Director Jim Warren said.

NC WARN's three-year agreement saw the group mount a rooftop solar array for which the church would pay about half the average retail electricity price, state officials said. The agreement states plainly that it is not a contract for the sale or lease of the $20,000 solar system, the church never owns the panels, and the low electricity price means its payback for the equipment would take 60 years, Josey wrote.

"Clearly, the only thing of value (the church) is obtaining for its payments under this agreement is the electricity created," he wrote.

In court filings, the group's attorneys have stuck to the argument that NC WARN isn't selling to the public because the deal involved a single customer only.

The deal "is not open to any other member of the public ... A private, bargained-for contract under which only one party receives electricity is not a sale of electricity 'to or for the public,' " attorney Matthew Quinn wrote to the court.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

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

Electric Vehicle Charging Costs and Times explain kWh usage, electricity rates, Level 2 vs DC fast charging, per-mile expense, and tax credits, with examples by region and battery size to estimate home and public charging.

Key Points

They measure EV charging price and duration based on kWh rates, charger level, efficiency, and location.

✅ Costs vary by kWh price, region, and charger type.

✅ Efficiency (mi/kWh) sets per-mile cost and range.

✅ Tax credits and utility rates impact total ownership.

More and more car manufacturing companies dip their toes in the world of electric vehicles every year, making it a good time to buy an EV for many shoppers, and the U.S. government is also offering incentives to turn the tides on car purchasing. Electric vehicles bought between 2010 and 2022 may be eligible for a tax credit of up to $7,500. 

And according to the Consumer Reports analysis on long-term ownership, the cost of charging an electric vehicle is almost always cheaper than fueling a gas-powered car – sometimes by hundreds of dollars.

But that depends on the type of car and where in the country you live, in a market many expect to be mainstream within a decade across the U.S. Here's everything you need to know.

How much does it cost to charge an electric car?
An electric vehicle’s fuel efficiency can be measured in kilowatt-hours per 100 miles, and common charging-efficiency myths have been fact-checked to correct math errors.

For example, if electricity costs 10.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, charging a 200-mile range 54-kWh battery would cost about $6. Charging a vehicle that consumes 27 kWh to travel 100 miles would cost three cents a mile. 

The national average cost of electricity is 10 cents per kWh and 11.7 cents per kWh for residential use. Idaho National Laboratory’s Advanced Vehicle Testing compares the energy cost per mile for electric-powered and gasoline-fueled vehicles.

For example, at 10 cents per kWh, an electric vehicle with an efficiency of 3 miles per kWh would cost about 3.3 cents per mile. The gasoline equivalent cost for this electricity cost would be just under $2.60 per gallon.

Prices vary by location as well. For example, Consumer Report found that West Coast electric vehicles tend to be less expensive to operate than gas-powered or hybrid cars, and are often better for the planet depending on local energy mix, but gas prices are often lower than electricity in New England.

Public charging networks in California cost about 30 cents per kWh for Level 2 and 40 cents per kWh for DCFC. Here’s an example of the cost breakdown using a Nissan LEAF with a 150-mile range and 40-kWh battery:

Level 2, empty to full charge: $12
DCFC, empty to full charge: $16

Many cars also offer complimentary charging for the first few years of ownership or provide credits to use for free charging. You can check the full estimated cost using the Department of Energy’s Vehicle Cost Calculator as the grid prepares for an American EV boom in the years ahead.

How long does it take to charge an electric car?
This depends on the type of charger you're using. Charging with a Level 1 charger takes much longer to reach full battery than a level 2 charger or a DCFC, or Direct Current Fast Charger. Here's how much time you can expect to spend charging your electric vehicle:

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

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

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News