Ukraine's Green Fightback: Rising from the Ashes with Renewable Energy

Floating Solar at Fort Bragg delivers a 1 MW DoD-backed floatovoltaic array on Big Muddy Lake, boosting renewable energy, resilience, and efficiency via water cooling, with Duke Energy and Ameresco supporting backup power.

Key Points

A 1 MW floating PV array on Big Muddy Lake, built by the US Army to boost efficiency, resilience, and backup power.

✅ 1 MW array supplies backup power for training facilities.

✅ Water cooling improves panel efficiency and output.

✅ Partners: Duke Energy, Ameresco; DoD's first floating solar.

Floating solar had a moment in the spotlight over the weekend when the US Army unveiled a new solar plant sitting atop the Big Muddy Lake at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. It’s the first floating solar array deployed by the Department of Defense, and it’s part of a growing current of support in the US for “floatovoltaics” and other innovations like space-based solar research.

The army says its goal is to boost clean energy, support goals in the Biden solar plan for decarbonization, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and give the nearby training facility a source of backup energy during power outages. The panels will be able to generate about one megawatt of electricity, which can typically power about 190 homes, and, when paired with solar batteries, enhance resilience during extended outages.

The installation, the largest in the US Southeast, is a big win for floatovoltaics, and projects like South Korea’s planned floating plant show global momentum for the technology, which has yet to make a big splash in the US. They only make up 2 percent of solar installations annually in the country, according to Duke Energy, which collaborated with Fort Bragg and the renewable energy company Ameresco on the project, even as US solar and storage growth accelerates nationwide.

Upfront costs for floating solar have typically been slightly more expensive than for its land-based counterparts. The panels essentially sit on a sort of raft that’s tethered to the bottom of the body of water. But floatovoltaics come with unique benefits, complementing emerging ocean and river power approaches in water-based energy. Hotter temperatures make it harder for solar panels to produce as much power from the same amount of sunshine. Luckily, sitting atop water has a cooling effect, which allows the panels to generate more electricity than panels on land. That makes floating solar more efficient and makes up for higher installation costs over time.

And while solar in general has already become the cheapest electricity source globally, it’s pretty land-hungry, so complementary options like wave energy are drawing interest worldwide. A solar farm might take up 20 times more land than a fossil fuel power plant to produce a gigawatt of electricity. Solar projects in the US have already run into conflict with some farmers who want to use the same land, for example, and with some conservationists worried about the impact on desert ecosystems.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Inflation Reduction Act Clean Energy drives EV adoption and renewable power, but grid interconnection, permitting, and supply chain bottlenecks slow wind, solar, and offshore projects, risking emissions targets despite domestic manufacturing growth and tax incentives.

Key Points

An IRA push to scale EVs and renewables, meeting EV goals but lagging wind and solar amid grid and permitting delays.

✅ EV sales up 50%, 9.2% of 2023 new cars; growth may moderate.

✅ 32.3 GW added, below 46-79 GW/year needed for climate targets.

✅ Grid, permitting, and supply chain delays bottleneck wind and solar.

A year and a half following President Biden's enactment of an ambitious climate change bill, the landscape of the United States' clean energy transition, shaped by 2021 electricity lessons, presents a mix of successes and challenges. A recent study by a consortium of research organizations highlights that while electric vehicle (EV) sales have surged, aligning with the law's projections, the expansion of renewable energy sources like wind and solar has encountered significant hurdles.

The legislation, known as the Inflation Reduction Act, aimed for a dual thrust in America's climate strategy: boosting EV adoption, alongside EPA emission limits, and significantly increasing the generation of electricity from renewable resources. The Act, passed in 2022, was anticipated to propel the United States toward reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 40 percent from 2005 levels by the end of this decade, backed by extensive financial incentives for clean energy advancements.

Electric vehicle sales have indeed seen a remarkable uptick, with a more than 50 percent increase over the past year, as EV sales surge into 2024 across the market, culminating in EVs comprising 9.2 percent of all new car sales in the United States in 2023. This growth trajectory met the upper range of analysts' predictions post-law enactment, signaling a strong start toward achieving the Act's emission reduction targets.

However, the EV market faces uncertainties regarding the sustainability of this rapid growth. The initial surge in sales was largely driven by early adopters, and the market now confronts challenges such as high prices and limited charging infrastructure, while EVs still trail gas cars in overall market share. Despite these concerns, projections suggest that even a slowdown to 30-40 percent growth in EV sales for 2024 would align with the law's emission goals.

The renewable energy sector's progress is less straightforward. Despite achieving a record addition of 32.3 gigawatts of clean electricity capacity in the past year, the pace falls short of the projected 46 to 79 gigawatts needed annually to meet the United States' climate objectives. While there is potential for about 60 gigawatts of projects in the pipeline for this year, not all are expected to materialize on schedule, indicating a lag in the deployment of new renewable energy sources.

Logistical challenges are a significant barrier to scaling up renewable energy, especially as EV-driven electricity demand rises in the coming years. Lengthy grid connection processes, permitting delays, and local opposition hinder wind and solar project developments. Moreover, ambitious plans for offshore wind farms are hampered by supply chain issues and regulatory constraints.

To achieve the Inflation Reduction Act's ambitious targets, the United States needs to add 70 to 126 gigawatts of renewable capacity annually from 2025 to 2030—a formidable task given the current logistical and regulatory bottlenecks. The analysis underscores the urgency of addressing these non-cost barriers to unlock the full potential of the law's clean energy and emissions reduction ambitions.

In addition to promoting clean energy generation and EV adoption, the Inflation Reduction Act has spurred domestic manufacturing of clean energy technologies. With $44 billion invested in U.S. clean-energy manufacturing last year, this aspect of the law has seen considerable success, and permanent clean energy tax credits are being debated to sustain momentum, demonstrating the Act's capacity to drive economic and industrial transformation.

The law's impact extends to emerging clean energy technologies, offering tax incentives for advanced nuclear reactors, renewable hydrogen production, and carbon capture and storage projects. While these initiatives hold promise for further emissions reductions, their development and deployment are still in the early stages, with tangible outcomes expected in the longer term.

While the Inflation Reduction Act has catalyzed significant strides in certain areas of the United States' clean energy transition, including an EV inflection point in adoption trends, it faces substantial hurdles in fully realizing its objectives. Overcoming logistical, regulatory, and market challenges will be crucial for the nation to stay on course toward its ambitious climate goals, underscoring the need for continued innovation, investment, and policy refinement in the journey toward a sustainable energy future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EV battery supply strategies weigh in-house cell manufacturing against supplier contracts, optimizing costs, scale, and supply-chain resilience for electric vehicles. Automakers like Tesla, GM-LG Chem, VW-Northvolt, and Ford balance gigafactories, joint ventures, and procurement risks.

Key Points

How automakers secure EV battery cells by balancing cost, scale, tech risk, and supply-chain control to meet demand.

✅ In-source cells via gigafactories, JVs, and proprietary chemistries

✅ Contract with LG Chem, Panasonic, CATL, SKI to diversify supply

✅ Manage costs, logistics, IP, and technology obsolescence risks

Auto makers, pumping billions of dollars into developing electric cars, are now facing a critical inflection point as they decide whether to get more involved with manufacturing the core batteries or buy them from others.

Batteries are one of an electric vehicle’s most expensive components, accounting for between a quarter and a third of the car’s value. Driving down their cost is key to profitability, executives say.

But whereas the internal combustion engine traditionally has been engineered and built by auto makers themselves, battery production for electric cars is dominated by Asian electronics and chemical firms, such as LG Chem Ltd. and Panasonic Corp. , and newcomers like China’s Contemporary Amperex Technology Co.

California, the U.S.’s largest car market, said last month it would end the sale of new gasoline- and diesel-powered passenger cars by 2035, putting pressure on the auto industry to accelerate its shift to electric vehicles in the coming years.

The race to lock in supplies for electric cars has auto makers taking varied paths, with growing Canada-U.S. collaboration across supply chains.

While most make the battery pack, a large metal enclosure often lining the bottom of the car, they also need the cells that are bundled together to form the core electricity storage.

Tesla several years ago opened its Gigafactory in Nevada to make batteries with Panasonic, which in the shared space would produce cells for the packs. The electric-car maker wanted to secure production specifically for its own models and lower manufacturing and logistics costs.

Now it is looking to in-source more of that production.

While Tesla will continue to buy cells from Panasonic and other suppliers, it is also working on its own cell technology and production capabilities, aiming for cheaper, more powerful batteries to ensure it can keep up with demand for its cars, said Chief Executive Elon Musk last month.

Following Tesla’s lead, General Motors Co. and South Korea’s LG Chem are putting $2.3 billion into a nearly 3-million-square-foot factory in Lordstown, Ohio, highlighting opportunities for Canada to capitalize on the U.S. EV pivot as supply chains evolve, which GM says will eventually produce enough battery cells to outfit hundreds of thousands of cars each year.

In Europe, Volkswagen AG is taking a similar path, investing about $1 billion in Swedish battery startup Northvolt AB, including some funding to build a cell-manufacturing plant in Salzgitter, Germany, as part of a joint venture, and in North America, EV assembly deals in Canada are putting it in the race as well.

Others like Ford Motor Co. and Daimler AG are steering clear of manufacturing their own cells, with executives saying they prefer contracting with specialized battery makers.

Supply-chain disruptions, including lithium shortages, have already challenged some new model launches and put projects at risk, auto makers say.

For instance, Ford and VW have agreements in place with SK Innovation to supply battery cells for future electric-vehicle models. The South Korean company is building a factory in Georgia to help meet this demand, but a fight over trade secrets has put the plant’s future in jeopardy and could disrupt new model launches, both auto makers have said in legal filings.

GM executives say the risk of relying on suppliers has pushed them to produce their own battery cells, albeit with LG Chem.

“We’ve got to be able to control our own destiny,” said Ken Morris, GM’s vice president of electric vehicles.

Bringing the manufacturing in house will give the company more control over the raw materials it purchases and the battery-cell chemistry, Mr. Morris said.

But establishing production, even in a joint venture, is a costly proposition, and it won’t necessarily ensure a timely supply of cells. There are also risks with making big investments on one battery technology because a breakthrough could make it obsolete.

Ford cites those factors in deciding against a similar investment for now.

The company sees the industry’s conventional model of contracting with independent suppliers to build parts as better suited to its battery-cell needs, Ford executive Hau Thai-Tang told analysts in August.

“We have the competitive tension with dealing with multiple suppliers, which allows us to drive the cost down,” Mr. Thai-Tang said, adding that the company expects to pay prices for cells in line with GM and Tesla.

Meanwhile, Ford can leave the capital-intensive task of conducting the research and setting up manufacturing facilities to the battery companies, Mr. Thai-Tang said.

Germany’s Daimler has tried both strategies.

The car company made its own lithium-ion cells through a subsidiary until 2015. But the capital required to scale up was better spent elsewhere, said Ola Källenius, Daimler’s chief executive officer.

The auto maker instead signed long-term supply agreements with Asian companies like Chinese battery-maker CATL and Farasis Energy (Ganzhou) Co., which Daimler invested in last year.

The company has said it is spending roughly $23.6 billion on purchase agreements but keeping its battery research in-house.

“Let’s rather put that capital into what we do best, cars,” Mr. Källenius said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Clean Energy Investment is surging as renewables, electric vehicles, grids, storage, and nuclear outpace fossil fuels, driven by energy security, affordability, and policies like the Inflation Reduction Act, the IEA's World Energy Investment report shows.

Key Points

Investment in renewables, EVs, grids, and storage now surpasses fossil fuels amid cost and security pressures.

✅ $1.7T to clean tech vs just over $1T to fossil fuels this year.

✅ For every $1 in fossil, about $1.7 goes to clean energy.

✅ Solar investment poised to overtake oil production spending.

Investment in clean energy technologies is significantly outpacing spending on fossil fuels as affordability and security concerns, underpinned by analyses showing renewables cheapest new power in many markets, triggered by the global energy crisis strengthen the momentum behind more sustainable options, according to the International Energy Agency's (IEA) latest World Energy Investment report.

About $2.8 trillion (€2.6 trillion) is set to be invested globally in energy this year, of which over $1.7 trillion (€1.59 trillion) is expected to go to clean technologies - including renewables, electric vehicles, nuclear power, grids, storage, low-emissions fuels, efficiency improvements and heat pumps – according to report.

The remainder, slightly more than $1 trillion (€937.7 billion), is going to coal, gas and oil, despite growing calls for a fossil fuel lockdown to meet climate goals.

Annual clean energy investment is expected to rise by 24% between 2021 and 2023, driven by renewables and electric vehicles, with renewables breaking records worldwide over the same period.

But more than 90% of this increase comes from advanced economies and China, which the IEA said presents a serious risk of new dividing lines in global energy if clean energy transitions don’t pick up elsewhere.

“Clean energy is moving fast – faster than many people realise. This is clear in the investment trends, where clean technologies are pulling away from fossil fuels,” said IEA executive director Fatih Birol. “For every dollar invested in fossil fuels, about 1.7 dollars are now going into clean energy. Five years ago, this ratio was one-to-one. One shining example is investment in solar, which is set to overtake the amount of investment going into oil production for the first time.”

Led by solar, low-emissions electricity technologies are expected to account for almost 90% of investment in power generation, reflecting the global renewables share above 30% in electricity markets.

Consumers are also investing in more electrified end-uses. Global heat pump sales have seen double-digit annual growth since 2021. Electric vehicle sales are expected to leap by a third this year after already surging in 2022.

Clean energy investments have been boosted by a variety of factors in recent years, including periods of strong economic growth and volatile fossil fuel prices that raised concerns about energy security, and insights from the IRENA decarbonisation report that underscore broader benefits, especially following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Furthermore, enhanced policy support through major actions like the US Inflation Reduction Act and initiatives in Europe's green surge, Japan, China and elsewhere have played a role.

In Ireland, more than a third of electricity is expected to be green within four years, illustrating national progress.

The biggest shortfalls in clean energy investment are in emerging and developing economies, the IEA added. It pointed to some bright spots, such as dynamic investments in solar in India and in renewables in Brazil and parts of the Middle East. However, investment in many countries is being held back by factors including higher interest rates, unclear policy frameworks and market designs, weak grid infrastructure, financially strained utilities and a high cost of capital.

"Much more needs to be done by the international community, especially to drive investment in lower-income economies, where the private sector has been reluctant to venture," according to the IEA.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

World Bank Offshore Wind Investment drives renewables and clean energy in developing countries, funding floating turbines and shallow-water foundations to replace fossil fuels, expand grids, and scale climate finance across Latin America, Africa, and Asia.

Key Points

A World Bank program funding offshore wind to speed clean power, cut fossil fuels, and expand grids in emerging markets.

✅ US$80bn to 565 onshore wind projects since 1995

✅ Pilot funds offshore wind in Asia, Africa, Latin America

✅ Floating turbines and shallow-water foundations enable deep resources

Europe and the United States now accept onshore wind power as the cheapest way to generate electricity, and U.S. lessons from the U.K. are informing policy discussions. But this novel technology still needs subsidising before some developing countries will embrace it. Enter the World Bank.

A total of US$80 billion in subsidies from the Bank has gone over 25 years to 565 developing world onshore wind projects, to persuade governments to invest in renewables rather than rely on fossil fuels.

Central and Latin American countries have received the lions share of this investment, but the Asia Pacific region and Eastern Europe have also seen dozens of Bank-funded developments. Now the fastest-growing market is in Africa and the Middle East, where West African hydropower support can complement variable wind resources.

But while continuing to campaign for more onshore wind farms, the World Bank in 2019 started encouraging target countries to embrace offshore wind as well. This uses two approaches: turbines in shallow water, which are fixed to the seabed, and also a newer technology, involving floating turbines anchored by cables at greater depth.

The extraordinary potential for offshore wind, which is being commercially developed very fast in Europe, including the UK's offshore expansion, China and the U.S. offshore wind sector today as well, is now seen by the Bank as important for countries like Vietnam which could harness enough offshore wind power to provide all its electricity needs.

Other countries it has identified with enormous potential for offshore wind include Brazil, Indonesia, India, the Philippines, South Africa and Sri Lanka, all of them countries that need to keep building more power stations to connect every citizen to the national grid.

The Bank began investing in wind power in 1995, with its spending reaching billions of dollars annually in 2011. The biggest single recipient has been Brazil, receiving US$24.2 bn up to the end of 2018, 30 per cent of the total the Bank has invested worldwide.

Many private companies have partnered with the Bank to build the wind farms. The biggest single beneficiary is Enel, the Italian energy giant, which has received US$6.1 bn to complete projects in Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Romania, Morocco, Bulgaria, Peru, and Russia.

Among the countries now benefitting from the Banks continuing onshore wind programme are Egypt, Morocco, Senegal, Jordan, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines.

Offshore wind now costs less than nuclear power, and global costs have fallen enough to compete in most countries with fossil fuels. Currently the fastest-growing industry in the world, it continued to grow despite Covid-19 across most markets.

Persistent coal demand

Particularly in Asia, some countries are continuing to burn large quantities of coal and are considering investing in yet more fossil fuel generation unless they can be persuaded that renewables are a better option, with an offshore wind $1 trillion outlook underscoring the scale.

Last year the World Bank began a pilot scheme to explore funding investment in offshore wind in these countries. Launching the scheme Riccardo Puliti, a senior director at the Bank, said: Offshore wind is a clean, reliable and secure source of energy with massive potential to transform the energy mix in countries that have great wind resources.

We have seen it work in Europe we can now make use of global experience to scale up offshore wind projects in emerging markets.

Using data from the Global Wind Atlas, the Bank calculated that developing countries with shallow waters like India, Turkey and Sri Lanka had huge potential with fixed turbines, while others the Philippines and South Africa, for example would need floating foundations to reach greater depths, up to 1,000 metres.

For countries like Vietnam, with a mix of shallow and deep water, wind power could solve their entire electricity needs. In theory offshore wind power could produce ten times the amount of electricity that the country currently gets from all its current power stations, the Bank says.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

UCS EV emissions study shows electric vehicles produce lower life-cycle emissions than gasoline cars across all states, factoring tailpipe, grid mix, power plant sources, and renewable energy, delivering mpg-equivalent advantages nationwide.

Key Points

UCS study comparing EV and gas life-cycle emissions, finding EVs cleaner than new gas cars in every U.S. region.

✅ Average EV equals 93 mpg gas car on emissions.

✅ Cleaner than 50 mpg gas cars in 97% of U.S.

✅ Regional grid mix included: tailpipe to power plant.

One of the cautions cited by electric vehicle (EV) naysayers is that they merely shift emissions from the tailpipe to the local grid’s power source, implicating state power grids as a whole, and some charging efficiency claims get the math wrong, too. And while there is a kernel of truth to this notion—they’re indeed more benign to the environment in states where renewable energy resources are prevalent—the average EV is cleaner to run than the average new gasoline vehicle in all 50 states. 

That’s according to a just-released study conducted the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which determined that global warming emissions related to EVs has fallen by 15 percent since 2018. For 97 percent of the U.S., driving an electric car is equivalent or better for the planet than a gasoline-powered model that gets 50 mpg. 

In fact, the organization says the average EV currently on the market is now on a par, environmentally, with an internal combustion vehicle that’s rated at 93 mpg. The most efficient gas-driven model sold in the U.S. gets 59 mpg, and EV sales still trail gas cars despite such comparisons, with the average new petrol-powered car at 31 mpg.

For a gasoline car, the UCS considers a vehicle’s tailpipe emissions, as well as the effects of pumping crude oil from the ground, transporting it to a refinery, creating gasoline, and transporting it to filling stations. For electric vehicles, the UCS’ environmental estimates include both emissions from the power plants themselves, along with those created by the production of coal, natural gas or other fossil fuels used to generate electricity, and they are often mischaracterized by claims about battery manufacturing emissions that don’t hold up. 

Of course the degree to which an EV ultimately affects the atmosphere still varies from one part of the country to another, depending on the local power source. In some parts of the country, driving the average new gasoline car will produce four to eight times the emissions of the average EV, a fact worth noting for those wondering if it’s the time to buy an electric car today. The UCS says the average EV driven in upstate New York produces total emissions that would be equivalent to a gasoline car that gets an impossible 255-mpg. In even the dirtiest areas for generating electricity, EVs are responsible for as much emissions as a conventionally powered car that gets over 40 mpg.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News