UK sets new record for wind power generation

EV Battery Recycling and Urban Mining enable a circular economy by recovering lithium-ion materials like nickel, cobalt, and lithium, building a closed-loop supply chain that lowers emissions, reduces costs, and strengthens sustainable EV manufacturing.

Key Points

Closed-loop recovery of lithium-ion metals to cut emissions, costs, and supply risk across the EV battery supply chain.

✅ Cuts lifecycle emissions via circular, closed-loop battery materials

✅ Secures nickel, cobalt, lithium for resilient EV supply chains

✅ Lowers costs and dependency on mining; boosts sustainability

Few people have had the sort of front-row seat to the rise of electric vehicles as JB Straubel.

The softly spoken engineer is often considered the brains behind Tesla: it was Straubel who convinced Elon Musk, over lunch in 2003, that electric vehicles had a future. He then served as chief technology officer for 15 years, designing Tesla’s first batteries, managing construction of its network of charging stations and leading development of the Gigafactory in Nevada. When he departed in 2019, Musk’s biographer Ashlee Vance said Tesla had not only lost a founder, but “a piece of its soul”.

Straubel could have gone on to do anything in Silicon Valley. Instead, he stayed at his ranch in Carson City, Nevada, a town once described by former resident Mark Twain as “a desert, walled in by barren, snow-clad mountains” without a tree in sight.

At first glance it is not the most obvious location for Redwood Materials, a start-up Straubel founded in 2017 with a formidable mission bordering on alchemy: to break down discarded batteries and reconstitute them into a fresh supply of metals needed for new electric vehicles.

His goal is to solve the most glaring problem for electric vehicles. While they are “zero emission” when being driven, the mining, manufacturing and disposal process for batteries could become an environmental disaster for the industry as the technology goes mainstream.

JB Straubel is betting part of his Tesla fortune that Redwood can play an instrumental role in the circular economy
“It’s not sustainable at all today, nor is there really an imminent plan — any disruption happening — to make it sustainable,” Straubel says. “That always grated on me a little bit at Tesla and it became more apparent as we ramped everything up.”

Redwood’s warehouse is the ultimate example of how one person’s trash is another person’s treasure. Each weekday, two to three heavy-duty lorries drop off about 60 tonnes worth of old smartphones, power tools and scooter batteries. Straubel’s team of 130 employees then separates out the metals — including nickel, cobalt and lithium — pulverises them and treats them with chemicals so they can re-enter the supply chain as the building blocks for new lithium-ion batteries.

The metals used in batteries typically originate in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Australia and Chile, and emerging sources such as Alberta’s lithium potential are being explored, dug out of open-pit mines or evaporated from desert ponds. But Straubel believes there is another “massive, untapped” source: the garages of the average American. He estimates there are about 1bn used batteries in US homes, sitting in old laptops and mobile phones — all containing valuable metals.

In the Redwood’s warehouse, Straubel’s team separates out the metals, including nickel, so they can re-enter the supply chain
The process of breaking down these batteries and repurposing them is known as “urban mining”. To do this at scale is a gargantuan task: the amount of battery material in a high-end electric vehicle is roughly 10,000 times that of a smartphone, according to Gene Berdichevsky, chief executive of battery materials start-up Sila Nano. But, he adds, the amount of cobalt used in a car battery is about 30 times less than in a phone battery, per kilowatt hour. “So for every 300 smartphones you collect, you have enough cobalt for an EV battery.”

Redwood is also building a network of industrial partners, including Amazon, electric bus maker Proterra and e-bike maker Specialized, to receive their scrap, even as GM and Ford battery strategies highlight divergent approaches across the industry. It already receives e-waste from, and sends back repurposed materials to, Panasonic, which produces battery cells just 50 miles north at the Tesla Gigafactory.

Straubel is betting part of his Tesla fortune that Redwood can play an instrumental role in the emergence of “the circular economy” — a grand hope born in the 1960s that society can re-engineer the way goods are designed, manufactured and recycled. The concept is being embraced by some of the world’s largest companies including Apple, whose chief executive Tim Cook set an objective “not to have to remove anything from the earth to make the new iPhones” as part of its pledge to be carbon-neutral by 2030.

If the circular economy takes root, today’s status quo will look preposterous to future generations. The biggest source of cobalt at the moment is the DRC, where it is often extracted in both large industrial mines and also dug by hand using basic tools. Then it might be shipped to Finland, home to Europe’s largest cobalt refinery, before heading to China where the majority of the world’s cathode and battery production takes place. From there it can be shipped to the US or Europe, where battery cells are turned into packs, then shipped again to automotive production lines.

All told, the cobalt can travel more than 20,000 miles from the mine to the automaker before a buyer places a “zero emission” sticker on the bumper.

Despite this, independent studies routinely say electric vehicles cause less environmental damage than their combustion engine counterparts. But the scope for improvement is vast: Straubel says electric car emissions can be more than halved if their batteries are continually recycled.

In July, Redwood accelerated its mission, raising more than $700m from investors so it could hire more than 500 people and expand operations. At a valuation of $3.7bn, the company is now the most valuable battery recycling group in North America. This year it expects to process 20,000 tonnes of scrap and it has already recovered enough material to build 45,000 electric vehicle battery packs.

Advocates say a circular economy could create a more sustainable planet and reduce mountains of waste. In 2019 the World Economic Forum estimated that “a circular battery value chain” could account for 30 per cent of the emissions cuts needed to meet the targets set in the Paris accord and “create 10m safe and sustainable jobs around the world” by 2030.

Kristina Church, head of sustainable solutions at Lombard Odier Investment Managers, says transportation is “central” to creating a circular economy, not only because it accounts for a sixth of global CO2 emissions but because it intersects with mining and the energy grid.

“For the world to hit net zero — by 2050 you can’t do it with just resource efficiency, switching to EVs and clean energy, there’s still a gap,” Kunal Sinha, head of copper and electronics recycling at miner Glencore says. “That gap can be closed by driving the circular economy, changing how we consume things, how we reuse things, and how we recycle.

“Recycling plays a role,” he adds. “Not only do you provide extra supply to close the demand gap, but you also close the emissions gap.”

Although niche today, urban mining is set to become mainstream this decade given the broad political support for electric vehicles, an EV inflection point and policies to address climate change. Jennifer Granholm, US secretary of energy, has called for “a national commitment” to building a domestic supply chain for lithium-based batteries.

It is part of the Biden administration’s goal to reach 100 per cent clean electricity by 2035 and net zero emissions by 2050. Granholm has also said the global market for clean energy technologies will be worth $23tn by the end of this decade and warned that the US risks “bring[ing] a knife to a gunfight” as rival countries, particularly China, step up their investments, while Canada’s EV opportunity is to capitalize on the U.S. auto sector’s abrupt pivot.

In Europe, regulators emphasise environmental and societal concerns — such as the looming threat of job losses in Germany if carmakers stop producing combustion engines. Meanwhile, Beijing is subsidising the sector to boost sales of electric vehicles by 24 per cent every year for the rest of the decade, according to McKinsey.

This support, however, could have unintended consequences.

A shortage of semiconductors this year demonstrated the vulnerability of the “just-in-time” automotive supply chain, with global losses estimated at more than $110bn. The chip shortage is a harbinger of a much larger disruption that could be caused by bottlenecks for nickel, cobalt and lithium supply risks as every carmaker looks to electrify their vehicle portfolio.

Electric car sales last year accounted for just 4 per cent of the global total. That is projected to expand to 34 per cent in 2030, underscoring the accelerating EV timeline, and then swell to 70 per cent a decade later, according to BloombergNEF.

“There is going to be a mass scramble for these materials,” says Paul Anderson, a professor at the University of Birmingham. “Everyone is panicking about how to get their technology on to the market and there is not enough thought [given] to recycling.”

Monica Varman, a clean tech investor at G2 Venture Partners, estimates that demand for battery metals will exceed supply in two to three years, leading to a “crunch” lasting half a decade as the market reacts by redesigning batteries with sustainable materials. Recycled materials could help ease supply concerns, but analysts believe it will only be enough to cover 20 per cent of demand at most over the next decade.

So far, only a handful of start-ups besides Redwood have emerged to tackle the challenge of reconstituting discarded materials. One is Li-Cycle, based in Toronto and founded in 2016, reflecting Canada-U.S. collaboration in EV supply chains, which earlier this year raised more than $600m in a merger with a special purpose acquisition company valuing it at $1.7bn. Li-Cycle has already lined up partnerships with 14 automotive and battery companies, including Ultium, a joint venture between General Motors and LG Chem.

Tim Johnston, Li-Cycle chair, says the group’s plan is to create facilities it calls “spokes” around North America, where it will collect used batteries and transform them into “black mass” — the powder form of lithium, nickel, cobalt and graphite. Then it will build larger hubs where it can reprocess more than 95 per cent of the substance into battery-grade material.

Without urban mining at scale, Johnston worries that the coming shortages will be like the 1973 Arab oil embargo, when US petrol prices quadrupled within four months, imposing what the US state department described as “structural challenges to the stability of whole national economies”.

“Oil you can actually turn back on relatively quickly — it doesn’t take that long to develop a well and to start pumping oil,” says Johnston. “But if you look at the timeline that it takes to develop a lithium asset, or a cobalt asset, or a nickel asset, it’s a minimum of five years.

“So not only do you have the potential to have the same sort of implications of the oil embargo,” he adds, “but [the effects] could be prolonged.”

Beyond aiding supply constraints and helping the environment, urban mining could also prove cheaper. A 2018 study on the recycling of gold and copper from discarded TV sets in China found the process was 13 times more economical than virgin mining.

Straubel points out that the concentration of valuable material is considerably higher in existing batteries versus mined materials.

“With rock and ores or brines, you have very low concentrations of these critical materials,” he says. “We’re starting with something that already is quite high concentration and also has all the interesting materials together in the right place. So it’s really a huge leg up over the problem mining has.”

The top-graded lithium found in mines today are just 2 to 2.5 per cent lithium oxide, whereas in urban mining the concentration is four to five times that, adds Li-Cycle’s Johnston.

Still, the process of extracting valuable materials from discarded products is complicated by designs that fail to consider their end of life. “Today, the design parameters are for quick assembly, for cost, for quality, fit and finish,” says Ed Boyd, head of the experience design group at Dell, the computer company. Some products take 20 or 30 minutes to disassemble — so laborious that it becomes impractical.

His team is now investigating ways to “drastically” cut back the number of materials used and make it so products can be taken apart in under a minute. “That’s actually not that hard to do,” he says. “We just haven’t had disassembly as a design parameter before.”

‘Monumental task’
While few dismiss the circular economy out of hand, there are plenty of sceptics who doubt these processes can be scaled up quickly enough to meet near-exponential demand for clean energy technologies in the next decade. “Recycling sounds very sexy,” says Julian Treger, chief executive of mining company Anglo Pacific. “But, ultimately, [it] is like smelting and refining. It’s a value added processing piece which doesn’t generally have enormous margins.”

Brian Menell, the founder of TechMet, a company that invests in mining, processing and recycling of technology metals and is partly owned by the US government, calls it “a monumental task”. “In 10 years’ time a fully optimised developed lithium-ion recycling battery industry will maybe provide 25 per cent of the battery metal requirements for the electric vehicle industry,” he says. “So it will be a contributor, but it’s not a solution.”

The real volume could be created when the industry recycles more electric vehicle batteries. But they last an average of 15 years, so the first wave of batteries will not reach their end of life and become available for recycling for some time. This extended timeline could be enough for technologies to develop, but it also creates risks. G2 Ventures’ Varman says recycling processes being developed now, for today’s batteries, risk being made redundant if chemistries evolve quickly.

Even getting consistent access to discarded car batteries could be a challenge, as older cars are often exported for reuse in developing countries, according to Hans Eric Melin, the founder of consultancy Circular Energy Storage.

Melin found that nearly a fifth of the roughly 400,000 Nissan Leaf electric cars produced by the end of 2018 are now registered in Ukraine, Russia, Jordan, New Zealand and Sri Lanka — places where getting a hold of the batteries at end-of-life is harder.

Berdichevsky of Sila Nano says his aim is to make EV batteries that last 30 years. If that can be accomplished, pent-up demand for recycling will be less onerous and costs will fall, helping to make electric vehicles more affordable. “In the future we’ll replace the car, but not the battery; of that I’m very confident,” he says. “We haven’t even scratched the surface of the battery age, in terms of what we can do with longevity and recycling.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Clean Coal Technologies Pristine Funding secures investment from a New York asset manager via Black Diamond, advancing commercialization, Tulsa testing, Wyoming relocation, PRB coal enhancement, and cleaner energy innovation to support global coal exports.

Key Points

Capital from a New York asset manager backs Pristine commercialization, testing, and Wyoming relocation to boost PRB coal.

✅ Investment via Black Diamond funds Tulsa test operations.

✅ Permanent relocation planned near a Wyoming mine site.

✅ First Pristine M module to enhance PRB coal quality.

Clean Coal Technologies, Inc., an emerging cleaner-energy company utilizing patented and proven technology to convert untreated coal into a cleaner burning and more efficient fuel, announced today that the company has secured funding for their Pristine technology through commercialization, a move reminiscent of Bruce C project funding activity, from a major New York-based Asset Management company. This investment will be made through Black Diamond with all funds earmarked for test procedures at the plant near Tulsa, OK, at a time when rare new coal plants are appearing, and the plant's move to a permanent location in Wyoming. The first tranche is being paid immediately.

"Securing this investment will confidently carry us through to the construction of our first commercial module enabling management to focus on the additional tests that have been requested from multiple parties, even as US coal demand faces headwinds across the market," stated CEO of Clean Coal Technologies, Inc., Robin Eves. "At this time we have begun scheduling plant visits with both US government agency and coal industry officials along with key international energy consortiums that are monitoring transitions such as Alberta's coal phaseout policies."

"We're now able to finalize our negotiations in Wyoming where the permitting process has begun and where we will permanently relocate the test facility later this year following completion of the aforementioned tests," added CCTI COO/CFO, Aiden Neary. "This event also paves the way forward to commence the process of constructing the first commercial Pristine M facility. That plant is planned to be in Wyoming near an operating mine where our process can be used to enhance the quality of PRB coal to make it more competitive globally, even as regions like western Europe see coal-to-renewables conversions at legacy plants, and help restore the US coal export market."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

California 100% Clean Energy by 2030 proposes accelerating SB 100 with solar, wind, offshore wind, and battery storage to decarbonize the grid, enhance reliability, and reduce blackouts, leveraging transmission upgrades and long-duration storage solutions.

Key Points

Proposal to accelerate SB 100 to 2030, delivering a carbon-free grid via renewables, storage, and new transmission.

✅ Accelerates SB 100 to a 2030 carbon-free electricity target

✅ Scales solar, wind, offshore wind, and battery storage capacity

✅ Requires transmission build-out and demand response for reliability

Amid a spate of wildfires that have covered large portions of California with unhealthy air, an environmental group that frequently lobbies the Legislature in Sacramento is calling on the state to accelerate by 15 years California's commitment to derive 100 percent of its electricity from carbon-free sources.

But skeptics point to last month's pair of rolling blackouts and say moving up the mandate would be too risky.

"Once again, California is experiencing some of the worst that climate change has to offer, whether it's horrendous air quality, whether it's wildfires, whether it's scorching heat," said Dan Jacobson, state director of Environment California. "This should not be the new normal and we shouldn't allow this to become normal."

Signed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown in 2018, Senate Bill 100 commits California by 2045 to use only sources of energy that produce no greenhouse gas emissions to power the electric grid, a target that echoes Minnesota's 2050 carbon-free plan now under consideration.

Implemented through the state's Renewable Portfolio Standard, SB 100 mandates 60 percent of the state's power will come from renewable sources such as solar and wind within the next 10 years. By 2045, the remaining 40 percent can come from other zero-carbon sources, such as large hydroelectric dams, a strategy aligned with Canada's electricity decarbonization efforts toward climate pledges.

SB 100 also requires three state agencies _ the California Energy Commission, the California Public Utilities Commission and the California Air Resources Board _ to send a report to the Legislature reviewing various aspects of the legislation.

The topics include scenarios in which SB 100's requirements can be accelerated. Following an Energy Commission workshop earlier this month, Environment California sent a six-page note to all three agencies urging a 100 percent clean energy standard by 2030.

The group pointed to comments by Gov. Gavin Newsom after he toured the devastation in Butte County caused by the North Complex fire.

"Across the entire spectrum, our (state) goals are inadequate to the reality we are experiencing," Newsom said Sept. 11 at the Oroville State Recreation Area.

Newsom "wants to look at his climate policies and see what he can accelerate," Jacobson said. "And we want to encourage him to take a look at going to 100 percent by 2030."

Jacobson said Newsom cam change the policy by issuing an executive order but "it would probably take some legislative action" to codify it.

However, Assemblyman Jim Cooper, a Democrat from the Sacramento suburb of Elk Grove, is not on board.

"I think someday we're going to be there but we can't move to all renewable sources right now," Cooper said. "It doesn't work. We've got all these burned-out areas that depend upon electricity. How is that working out? They don't have it."

In mid-August, California experienced statewide rolling blackouts for the first time since 2001.

The California Independent System Operator _ which manages the electric grid for about 80 percent of the state _ ordered utilities to ratchet back power, fearing the grid did not have enough supply to match a surge in demand as people cranked up their air conditioners during a stubborn heat wave that lingered over the West.

The outages affected about 400,000 California homes and businesses for more than an hour on Aug. 14 and 200,000 customers for about 20 minutes on Aug. 15.

The grid operator, known as the CAISO for short, avoided two additional days of blackouts in August and two more in September thanks to household utility customers and large energy users scaling back demand.

CAISO Chief Executive Officer Steve Berberich said the outages were not due to renewable energy sources in California's power mix. "This was a matter of running out of capacity to serve load" across all hours, Berberich told the Los Angeles Times.

California has plenty of renewable resources _ especially solar power _ during the day. The challenge comes when solar production rapidly declines as the sun goes down, especially between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m. in what grid operators call the "net load peak."

The loss of those megawatts of generation has to be replaced by other sources. And in an electric grid, system operators have to balance supply and demand instantaneously, generating every kilowatt that is demanded by customers who expect their lighting/heating/air conditioning to come on the moment they flip a switch.

Two weeks after the rotating outages, the State Water Resources Control Board voted to extend the lives of four natural gas plants in the Los Angeles area. Natural gas accounts for the largest single source of California's power mix _ 34.23 percent. But natural gas is a fossil fuel, not a carbon-free resource.

Jacobson said moving the mandate to 2030 can be achieved by more rapid deployment of renewable sources across the state.

The Public Utilities Commission has already directed power companies to ramp up capacity for energy storage, such as lithium-ion batteries that can be used when solar production falls off.

Long-term storage is another option. That includes pumped hydro projects in which hydroelectric facilities pump water from one reservoir up to another and then release it. The ensuing rush of water generates electricity when the grid needs it.

Environment California also pointed to offshore wind projects along the coast of Central and Northern California that it estimates could generate as much as 3 gigawatts of power by 2030 and 10 gigawatts by 2040. Offshore wind supporters say its potential is much greater than land-based wind farms because ocean breezes are stronger and steadier.

Gary Ackerman, a utilities and energy consultant with more than four decades of experience in power issues affecting states in the West, said the 2045 mandate was "an unwise policy to begin with" and to accommodate a "swift transition (to 2030), you're going to put the entire grid and everybody in it at risk."

But Ackerman's larger concern is whether enough transmission lines can be constructed in California to bring the electricity where it needs to go.

"I believe Californians consider transmission lines in their backyard about the same way they think about low-income housing _ it's great to have, but not in my backyard," Ackerman said. "The state is not prepared to build the infrastructure that will allow this grandiose build-out."

Cooper said he worries about how much it will cost the average utility customer, especially low and middle-income households. The average retail price for electricity in California is 16.58 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared to 10.53 nationally, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

"What's sad is, we've had 110-degree days and there are people up here in the Central Valley that never turned their air conditioners on because they can't afford that bill," Cooper said.

Jacobson said the utilities commission can intervene if costs get too high. He also pointed to a recent study from the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley that predicted the U.S. can deliver 90 percent clean, carbon-free electric grid by 2035 that is reliable and at no extra cost in consumers' bills.

"Every time we wait and say, 'Oh, what about the cost? Is it going to be too expensive?' we're just making the cost unbearable for our kids and grandkids," Jacobson said. "They're the ones who are going to pay the billions of dollars for all the remediation that has to happen ... What's it going to cost if we do nothing, or don't go fast enough?"

The joint agency report on SB 100 from the Energy Commission, the Public Utilities Commission and the Air Resources Board is due at the beginning of next year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Canada Coal Phase-Out Costs highlight Fraser Institute findings on renewable energy, wind and solar integration, grid reliability, natural gas backup, GDP impacts, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, nuclear alternatives, and transmission upgrades across provincial electricity systems.

Key Points

Costs to replace coal with renewables, impacting taxpayers and ratepayers while ensuring grid reliability.

✅ Fraser Institute estimates $16.8B-$33.7B annually for renewables.

✅ Emissions cut from coal phase-out estimated at only 7.4% nationally.

✅ Natural gas backup and grid upgrades drive major cost increases.

Replacing coal-fired electricity with renewable energy will cost Canadian taxpayers and hydro ratepayers up to $33.7 billion annually, with only minor reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change, according to a new study by the Fraser Institute.

The report, Canadian Climate Policy and its Implications for Electricity Grids by University of Victoria economics professor G. Cornelis van Kooten, said replacing coal-fired electricity with wind and solar power would only cut Canada’s annual emissions by 7.4%,

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s has promised a reduction of 40%-45% compared to Canada’s 2005 emissions by 2030, and progress toward the 2035 clean electricity goals remains uncertain.

The study says emission cuts would be relatively small because coal accounted for only 9.2% of Canada’s electricity generation in 2017. (According to Natural Resources Canada, that number is lower today at 7.4%).

In 2019, the last year for which federal data are available, Canada’s electricity sector generated 8.4% of emissions nationally — 61.1 million tonnes out of 730 million tonnes.

“Despite what advocates, claim, renewable power — including wind and solar — isn’t free and, as Europe's power crisis lessons suggest, comes with only modest benefits to the environment,” van Kooten said.

“Policy makers should be realistic about the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, which accounts for less than 2% of emissions worldwide.”

The report says the increased costs of operating the electricity grid across Canada — between $16.8 billion and $33.7 billion annually or 1% to 2% of Canada’s annual GDP — would result from having to retain natural gas, consistent with net-zero regulations allowing some natural gas in limited cases, as a backup to intermittent wind and solar power, which cannot provide baseload power to the electricity grid on demand.

Van Kooten said his cost estimates are conservative because his study “could not account for scenarios where the scale of intermittency turned out worse than indicated in our dataset … the costs associated with the value of land in other alternative uses, the need for added transmission lines, as analyses of greening Ontario's grid costs indicate, environmental and human health costs and the life-cycle costs of using intermittent renewable sources of energy, including costs related to the disposal of hazardous wastes from solar panels and wind turbines.”

If nuclear power was used to replace coal-fired electricity, the study says, costs would drop by half — $8.3 billion to $16.7 billion annually — but that’s unrealistic because of the time it takes to build nuclear plants and public opposition to them.

The study says to achieve the federal government’s target of reducing emissions to 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2050, would require building 30 nuclear power plants before 2030, highlighting Canada’s looming power problem as described by analysts — meaning one plant of 1,000-megawatt capacity coming online every four months between now and 2030.

Alternatively, it would take 28,340 wind turbines, each with 2.5-megawatts capacity, or 1,050 turbines being built every four months, plus the costs of upgrading transmission infrastructure.

Van Kooten said he based his calculations on Alberta, which generates 39.8% of its electricity from coal and the cost of Ontario eliminating coal-fired electricity, even as Ontario electricity getting dirtier in coming years, which generated 25% of its electricity, between 2003 and 2014, replacing it with a combination of natural gas, nuclear and wind and solar power.

According to Natural Resources Canada, Nova Scotia generates 49.9% of its electricity from coal, Saskatchewan 42.9%, and New Brunswick 17.2%.

In 2018, the Trudeau government announced plans to phase-out traditional coal-fired electricity by 2030, though the Stop the Shock campaign seeks to bring back coal power in some regions. 

Canada and the U.K. created the “Powering Past Coal Alliance” in 2017, aimed at getting other countries to phase out the use of coal to generate electricity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EV Adoption Limits highlight that electric vehicles alone cannot meet emissions targets; life cycle assessment, carbon budgets, clean grids, public transit, and battery materials constraints demand broader decarbonization strategies, city redesign, and active travel.

Key Points

EV Adoption Limits show EVs alone cannot hit climate targets; modal shift, clean grids, and travel demand are essential.

✅ 350M EVs by 2050 still miss 2 C goals without major mode shift

✅ Grid demand rises 41%, requiring clean power and smart charging

✅ Battery materials constraints need recycling, supply diversification

Today there are more than seven million electric vehicles (EVs) in operation around the world, compared with only about 20,000 a decade ago. It’s a massive change – but according to a group of researchers at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering, it won’t be nearly enough to address the global climate crisis. 

“A lot of people think that a large-scale shift to EVs will mostly solve our climate problems in the passenger vehicle sector,” says Alexandre Milovanoff, a PhD student and lead author of a new paper published in Nature Climate Change. 

“I think a better way to look at it is this: EVs are necessary, but on their own, they are not sufficient.” 

Around the world, many governments are already going all-in on EVs. In Norway, for example, where EVs already account for half of new vehicle sales, the government has said it plans to eliminate sales of new internal combustion vehicles by 2025. The Netherlands aims to follow suit by 2030, with France and Canada's EV goals aiming to follow by 2040. Just last week, California announced plans to ban sales of new internal combustion vehicles by 2035.

Milovanoff and his supervisors in the department of civil and mineral engineering – Assistant Professor Daniel Posen and Professor Heather MacLean – are experts in life cycle assessment, which involves modelling the impacts of technological changes across a range of environmental factors. 

They decided to run a detailed analysis of what a large-scale shift to EVs would mean in terms of emissions and related impacts. As a test market, they chose the United States, which is second only to China in terms of passenger vehicle sales. 

“We picked the U.S. because they have large, heavy vehicles, as well as high vehicle ownership per capita and high rate of travel per capita,” says Milovanoff. “There is also lots of high-quality data available, so we felt it would give us the clearest answers.” 

The team built computer models to estimate how many electric vehicles would be needed to keep the increase in global average temperatures to less than 2 C above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100, a target often cited by climate researchers. 

“We came up with a novel method to convert this target into a carbon budget for U.S. passenger vehicles, and then determined how many EVs would be needed to stay within that budget,” says Posen. “It turns out to be a lot.” 

Based on the scenarios modelled by the team, the U.S. would need to have about 350 million EVs on the road by 2050 in order to meet the target emissions reductions. That works out to about 90 per cent of the total vehicles estimated to be in operation at that time. 

“To put that in perspective, right now the total proportion of EVs on the road in the U.S. is about 0.3 per cent,” says Milovanoff. 

“It’s true that sales are growing fast, but even the most optimistic projections of an electric-car revolution suggest that by 2050, the U.S. fleet will only be at about 50 per cent EVs.” 

The team says that, in addition to the barriers of consumer preferences for EV deployment, there are technological barriers such as the strain that EVs would place on the country’s electricity infrastructure, though proper grid management can ease integration. 

According to the paper, a fleet of 350 million EVs would increase annual electricity demand by 1,730 terawatt hours, or about 41 per cent of current levels. This would require massive investment in infrastructure and new power plants, some of which would almost certainly run on fossil fuels in some regions. 

The shift could also impact what’s known as the demand curve – the way that demand for electricity rises and falls at different times of day – which would make managing the national electrical grid more complex, though vehicle-to-grid strategies could help smooth peaks. Finally, there are technical challenges stemming from the supply of critical materials for batteries, including lithium, cobalt and manganese. 

The team concludes that getting to 90 per cent EV ownership by 2050 is an unrealistic scenario. Instead, what they recommend is a mix of policies, rather than relying solely on a 2035 EV sales mandate as a singular lever, including many designed to shift people out of personal passenger vehicles in favour of other modes of transportation. 

These could include massive investment in public transit – subways, commuter trains, buses – as well as the redesign of cities to allow for more trips to be taken via active modes such as bicycles or on foot. They could also include strategies such as telecommuting, a shift already spotlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic. 

“EVs really do reduce emissions, which are linked to fewer asthma-related ER visits in local studies, but they don’t get us out of having to do the things we already know we need to do,” says MacLean. “We need to rethink our behaviours, the design of our cities, and even aspects of our culture. Everybody has to take responsibility for this.” 

The research received support from the Hatch Graduate Scholarship for Sustainable Energy Research and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

UK EV Grid Capacity leverages smart charging, V2G, renewable energy, and interconnectors to manage peak demand as adoption grows, with National Grid upgrades, rapid chargers, and efficiency gains enabling a reliable, scalable charging infrastructure nationwide.

Key Points

UK EV grid capacity is the power network's readiness to meet EV demand using smart charging, V2G, and upgrades.

✅ Smart charging shifts load to off-peak, cheaper renewable hours

✅ V2G enables EVs to supply power and balance peak demand

✅ National Grid upgrades and interconnectors expand capacity

The surge of electric vehicles (EVs) on our roads raises a crucial question: can the UK's electricity grid handle the additional demand? While this is a valid concern, it's important to understand the gradual nature of EV adoption, ongoing grid preparations, and innovative solutions being developed.

A Gradual Shift, Not an Overnight Leap

Firstly, let's dispel the myth of an overnight transition. EV adoption will unfold progressively, driven by factors like affordability and the growing availability of used models. The government's ZEV mandate outlines a clear trajectory, with a gradual rise from 22% EV sales in 2024 to 80% by 2030. This measured approach allows for strategic grid improvements to accommodate the increasing demand.

Preparing the Grid for the Future

Grid preparations for the EV revolution have been underway for years. Collaborations between the government, electricity providers, service stations, and charging point developers are ensuring grid coordination across the system. Renewable energy sources like offshore wind farms, combined with new nuclear power and international interconnections, are planned to meet the anticipated 120 terawatt-hour increase in demand. Additionally, improvements in energy efficiency have reduced overall electricity consumption, creating further capacity.

Addressing Peak Demand Challenges

While millions of EVs charging simultaneously might seem like they could challenge power grids, solutions are being implemented to manage peak demand:

1. Smart Charging: This technology allows EVs to charge during off-peak hours when renewable electricity is abundant and cheaper. This not only benefits the grid but also saves owners money. The UK government's EV Smart Charge Points Regulations ensure all new chargers have this functionality.

2. Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) Technology: This futuristic concept transforms EVs into energy storage units, often described as capacity on wheels, allowing owners to sell their unused battery power back to the grid during peak times. This not only generates income for owners but also helps balance the grid and integrate more renewable energy.

3. Sufficient Grid Capacity: Despite concerns, the grid currently has ample capacity. The highest peak demand in recent years (62GW in 2002) has actually decreased by 16% due to energy efficiency improvements. Even with widespread EV adoption, the expected 10% increase in demand remains well within the grid's capabilities with proper management in place.

National Grid's Commitment:

National Grid and other electric utilities are actively involved in upgrading and expanding the grid to accommodate the clean energy transition. This includes collaborating with distribution networks, government agencies, and industry partners to ensure the necessary infrastructure (wires and connections) is in place for a decarbonized transport network.

Charging Infrastructure: Addressing Anxiety

The existing national grid infrastructure, with its proximity to roads and train networks, provides a significant advantage for EV charging point deployment. National Grid Electricity Distribution is already working on innovative projects to install required infrastructure, such as:

• Bringing electricity networks closer to motorway service areas for faster and easier connection.
• Leading projects like the Electric Boulevard (inductive charging) and Electric Nation (V2G charging) to showcase innovative solutions.
• Participating in the Take Charge project, exploring new ways to facilitate rapid EV charging infrastructure growth.

Government Initiatives:

The UK government's Rapid Charging Fund aims to roll out high-powered, open-access charge points across England, while the Local EV Infrastructure Fund supports local authorities in providing charging solutions for residents without off-street parking, including mobile chargers for added flexibility.

While the rise of EVs presents new challenges, the UK is actively preparing its grid and infrastructure to ensure a smooth transition. With gradual adoption, ongoing preparations, and innovative solutions, the answer to the question Will electric vehicles crash the grid? is a resounding yes. The future of clean transportation is bright, and the grid is ready to power it forward.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News