Volvo Trucks to launch complete range of electric trucks in Europe in 2021

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

Canada Electricity Decarbonization Costs indicate challenging greenhouse gas reductions across a fragmented grid, with wind, solar, nuclear, and natural gas tradeoffs, significant GDP impacts, and Net Zero targets constrained by intermittency and limited interties.

Key Points

Costs to cut power CO2 via wind, solar, gas, and nuclear, considering grid limits, intermittency, and GDP impacts.

✅ Alberta model: eliminate coal; add wind, solar, gas; 26-40% CO2 cuts

✅ Nuclear option enables >75% cuts at higher but feasible system costs

✅ National costs 1-2% GDP; reserves, transmission, land, and waste not included

Along with many western developed countries, Canada has pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40–45 percent by 2030 from 2005 emissions levels, and to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

This is a huge challenge that, when considered on a global scale, will do little to stop climate change because emissions by developing countries are rising faster than emissions are being reduced in developed countries. Even so, the potential for achieving emissions reduction targets is extremely challenging as there are questions as to how and whether targets can be met and at what cost. Because electricity can be produced from any source of energy, including wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and any combustible material, climate change policies have focused especially on nations’ electricity grids, and in Canada cleaning up electricity is viewed as critical to meeting climate pledges.

Canada’s electricity grid consists of ten separate provincial grids that are weakly connected by transmission interties to adjacent grids and, in some cases, to electricity systems in the United States. At times, these interties are helpful in addressing small imbalances between electricity supply and demand so as to prevent brownouts or even blackouts, and are a source of export revenue for provinces that have abundant hydroelectricity, such as British Columbia, Manitoba, and Quebec.

Due to generally low intertie capacities between provinces, electricity trade is generally a very small proportion of total generation, though electricity has been a national climate success in recent years. Essentially, provincial grids are stand alone, generating electricity to meet domestic demand (known as load) from the lowest cost local resources.

Because climate change policies have focused on electricity (viz., wind and solar energy, electric vehicles), and Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero according to the IEA, this study employs information from the Alberta electricity system to provide an estimate of the possible costs of reducing national CO2 emissions related to power generation. The Alberta system serves as an excellent case study for examining the potential for eliminating fossil-fuel generation because of its large coal fleet, favourable solar irradiance, exceptional wind regimes, and potential for utilizing BC’s reservoirs for storage.

Using a model of the Alberta electricity system, we find that it is infeasible to rely solely on renewable sources of energy for 100 percent of power generation—the costs are prohibitive. Under perfect conditions, however, CO2 emissions from the Alberta grid can be reduced by 26 to 40 percent by eliminating coal and replacing it with renewable energy such as wind and solar, and gas, but by more than 75 percent if nuclear power is permitted. The associated costs are estimated to be some $1.4 billion per year to reduce emissions by at most 40 percent, or $1.9 billion annually to reduce emissions by 75 percent or more using nuclear power (an option not considered feasible at this time).

Based on cost estimates from Alberta, and Ontario’s experience with subsidies to renewable energy, and warnings that the switch from fossil fuels to electricity could cost about $1.4 trillion, the costs of relying on changes to electricity generation (essentially eliminating coal and replacing it with renewable energy sources and gas) to reduce national CO2 emissions by about 7.4 percent range from some $16.8 to $33.7 billion annually. This constitutes some 1–2 percent of Canada’s GDP.

The national estimates provided here are conservative, however. They are based on removing coal-fired power from power grids throughout Canada. We could not account for scenarios where the scale of intermittency turned out worse than indicated in our dataset—available wind and solar energy might be lower than indicated by the available data. To take this into account, a reserve market is required, but the costs of operating such a capacity market were not included in the estimates provided in this study. Also ignored are the costs associated with the value of land in other alternative uses, the need for added transmission lines, 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.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

California NEM-3 Tariff ushers a successor Net Energy Metering framework, revising export compensation, TOU rates, and non-bypassable charges to balance ratepayer impacts, rooftop solar growth, and energy storage adoption across diverse communities.

Key Points

The CPUC's successor NEM policy redefining export credits and rates to sustain customer-sited solar and storage.

✅ Sets export compensation methodology beyond NEM 2.0

✅ Aligns TOU rates and non-bypassable charges with costs

✅ Encourages solar-plus-storage adoption and equity access

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has officially commenced its “NEM-3” proceeding, which will establish the successor Net Energy Metering (NEM) tariff to the “NEM 2.0” program in California. This is a highly anticipated, high-stakes proceeding that will effectively modify the rules for the NEM tariff in California, amid ongoing electricity pricing changes that affect residential rooftop solar – arguably the single most important policy mechanism for customer-sited solar over the last decade.

The CPUC’s recent order instituting rule-making (OIR) filing stated that “the major focus of this proceeding will be on the development of a successor to existing NEM 2.0 tariffs. This successor will be a mechanism for providing customer-generators with credit or compensation for electricity generated by their renewable facilities that a) balances the costs and benefits of the renewable electrical generation facility and b) allows customer-sited renewable generation to grow sustainably among different types of customers and throughout California’s diverse communities.”

This successor tariff proceeding was initiated by Assembly Bill 327, which was signed into law in October of 2013. AB 327 is best known as the legislation that directed the CPUC to create the “NEM 2.0” successor tariff, which was adopted by the CPUC in January of 2016.

The original Net Energy Metering program in California (“NEM 1.0”) effectively enabled full-retail value net metering “allowing NEM customers to be compensated for the electricity generated by an eligible customer-sited renewable resource and fed back to the utility over an entire billing period.” Under the NEM 2.0 tariff, customers were required to pay charges that aligned them more closely with non-NEM customer costs than under the original structure. The main changes adopted when the NEM 2.0 was implemented were that NEM 2.0 customer-generators must: (i) pay a one-time interconnection fee; (ii) pay non-bypassable charges on each kilowatt-hour of electricity they consume from the grid; and (iii) customers were required to transfer to a time-of-use (TOU) rate, with potential changes to electric bills for many customers.

NEM 2.0

The commencement of the NEM-3 OIR was preceded by the publishing of a 318-page Net Energy Metering 2.0 Lookback Study, which was published by Itron, Verdant Associates, and Energy and Environmental Economics. The CPUC-commissioned study had been widely anticipated and was expected to act as the starting reference point for the successor tariff proceeding. Verdant also hosted a webinar, which summarized the study’s inputs, assumptions, draft findings and results.

The study utilized several different tests to study the impact of NEM 2.0. The cost effectiveness analysis tests, which estimate costs and benefits attributed to NEM 2.0 include: (i) total resource cost test, (ii) participant cost test, (iii) ratepayer impact measure test, and (iv) program administrator test. The evaluation also included a cost of service analysis, which estimates the marginal cost borne by the utility to serve a NEM 2.0 customer.

The opening paragraph of the report’s executive summary stated that “overall, we found that NEM 2.0 participants benefit from the structure, while ratepayers see increased rates.” In every test that the author’s conducted the results generally supported this conclusion for residential customers. There were some exceptions in their findings. For example, in the cost of service analysis the report stated that “residential customers that install customer-sited renewable resources on average pay lower bills than the utility’s cost to serve them. On the other hand, nonresidential customers pay bills that are slightly higher than their cost of service after installing customer-sited renewable resources. This is largely due to nonresidential customer rates having demand charges (and other fixed fees), and the lower ratio of PV system size to customer load when compared to residential customers.”

Similar debates over solar rate design, including Massachusetts solar demand charges, highlight how demand charges and TOU decisions can affect customer economics.

NEM-3 timeline

Popular content
The preliminary schedule that the CPUC laid out in its OIR estimates that the proceeding will take roughly 15 months in total, starting with a November 2020 pre-hearing conference.

The real meat of the proceeding, where parties will present their proposals for what they believe the successor tariff should be, as the state considers revamping electricity rates to clean the grid, and really show their hand will not begin until the Spring of 2021. So we’re still a little ways away from seeing the proposals that the key parties to this proceeding, like the Investor Owned Utilities (PG&E, SCE, SDG&E), solar and storage advocates such as SEIA, CALSSA, Vote Solar, and ratepayer advocates like TURN) will submit.

While the outcome for the new successor NEM tariff is anyone’s guess at this point, some industry policy folks are starting to speculate. We think it is safe to assume that the value of exported energy will get reduced, with debates over income-based utility charges also influencing rate design. How much and the mechanism for how exports get valued remains to be seen. Based on the findings from the lookback study, it seems like the reduction in export value will be more severe than what happened when NEM 2.0 got implemented. In NEM 2.0, non-bypassable charges, which are volumetric charges that must be paid on all imported energy and cannot be netted-out by exports, only equated to roughly $0.02 to $0.03/kWh.

Given that the value of exports will almost certainly get reduced, we expect that to be bullish for energy storage as America goes electric and load shapes evolve. Energy storage attachment rates with solar are already steadily rising in California. By the time NEM-3 starts getting implemented, likely in 2022, we think storage attachment rates will likely escalate further.

We would not be surprised to see future storage attachment rates in California look like the Hawaiian market today, which are upwards of 80% for certain types of customers and applications. Two big questions on our mind are: (i) will the NEM 3.0 rules be different for different customer class: residential, CARE (e.g., low-income or disadvantaged communities), and commercial & industrial; (ii) will the CPUC introduce some sort of glidepath or phased in implementation approach?

The outcome of this proceeding will have far reaching implications on the future of customer-sited solar and energy storage in California. The NEM-3 outcome in California may likely serve as precedent for other states, as California exports its energy policies across the West, and utility territories that are expected to redesign their Net Energy Metering tariffs in the coming years.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

ONroute EV Charging Stations now live on Ontario's Highways 401 and 400, powered by Ivy Charging Network with 150 kW fast chargers, Tesla-compatible ports, Canadian Tire support, and government-backed clean transportation infrastructure.

Key Points

ONroute EV Charging Stations are Ivy-managed 150 kW fast-charging hubs along Highways 401/400, compatible with all EVs.

✅ Up to 150 kW DC fast charging; ~100 km added in about 10 minutes

✅ Compatible with all EV models, including Tesla-compatible ports

✅ Located along Highways 401/400; 2-4 chargers per ONroute site

Electric vehicle (EV) drivers can now charge at 10 ONroute locations along Highways 401 and 400, reflecting progress on the province's charging network rollout to date.

Ivy Charging Network, ONroute and their partners, Canadian Tire Corporation (CTC) and the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) announced the opening of four Charge & Go EV fast-charging stations today: Ingleside, Innisfil, Tilbury North, Woodstock

Each of Ivy's Charge & Go level 3 fast-chargers at ONroute locations will support the charging of all EV models, including charging ports for Tesla drivers.

Quick Facts

Ivy Charging Network is installing 69 level 3 fast-chargers across all ONroute locations, with the possibility of further expansion as Ontario makes it easier to build charging stations through supportive measures.

Ivy's ONroute Charge & Go locations will offer charging speeds of up-to 150 kWs, delivering up to a 100 km charge in 10 minutes.

This partnership is part of CTC's ongoing expansion of EV charging infrastructure across Canada, as utilities like BC Hydro add more stations across southern B.C.

Ivy Charging Network is a joint venture between Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation.

Natural Resources Canada, through its Electric Vehicle and Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Deployment Initiative, invested $8-million to help build the broader Ivy Charging Network, alongside other federal funding for smart chargers supporting deployments, providing access to 160 level 3 fast-chargers across Ontario including these ONroute locations.

'Our partnership with ONroute, Canadian Tire and the Ontario Ministry of Transportation will end range anxiety for EV drivers travelling on the province's major highways. These new fast-charging locations will give drivers the confidence they need on their road trips, to get them where they need to go this summer,' said Michael Kitchen, General Manager, Ivy Charging Network.

'ONroute is proud to now offer EV charging stations to our customers, in partnership with Ivy and Canadian Tire. We are focused on supporting the growth of electric cars and offering this convenience for our customers as we strive to be the recharge destination for all travelers across Ontario,' said Melanie Teed-Murch, Chief Executive Officer of ONroute.

'Together with our partners, CTC is proud to announce the opening of EV fast-charging stations at four additional ONroute locations along the 400-series highways. Our network of EV charging stations is just one of the ways CTC is supporting EV drivers of today and tomorrow to make life in Canada better, with growth similar to NB Power's public charging network underway,' said Micheline Davies, SVP, Automotive, Canadian Tire Corporation. 'We will have approximately 140 sites across the country by the end of the year, making CTC one of the largest retail networks of EV fast charging stations in Canada.'

'We're giving Canadians cleaner transportation options to get to where they need to go by making zero-emission charging and alternative-fuels refueling infrastructure more accessible, as seen with new fast-charging stations in N.B. announced recently. Investments like the ones announced today in Ontario will put Canadians in the driver's seat on the road to a net-zero future and help achieve our climate goals,' said the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Natural Resources.

'Ontario is putting shovels in the ground to build critical infrastructure that will boost EV ownership, support Ontario's growing EV manufacturing industry and reduce emissions, complementing progress such as the first fast-charging network in N.L. now in place,' said Todd Smith, Minister of Energy. 'With EV fast chargers now available at ten ONroute stations along our province's business highways it's even more convenient than ever for workers and families to grab a coffee or a meal while charging their car.'

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Tesla Battery Day Innovations detail larger cylindrical EV cells with higher energy density, greater power, longer range, cobalt-free chemistry, automated manufacturing, battery recycling, and lower cost per kWh to enable an affordable electric car.

Key Points

Tesla Battery Day innovations are new EV cells and methods to cut costs, extend range, and scale production.

✅ Larger cylindrical cells: 5x energy, 6x power, 16% more range

✅ Automation and recycling to cut battery cost per kWh

✅ Near-zero cobalt chemistry, in-house cell factories worldwide

Elon Musk described a new generation of electric vehicle batteries that will be more powerful, longer lasting, and half as expensive as the company’s current cells at Tesla’s “Battery Day”.

Tesla’s new larger cylindrical cells will provide five times more energy, six times more power and 16% greater driving range, Musk said, adding that full production is about three years away.

“We do not have an affordable car. That’s something we will have in the future. But we’ve got to get the cost of batteries down,” Musk said.

To help reduce cost, Musk said Tesla planned to recycle battery cells at its Nevada “gigafactory,” while reducing cobalt – one of the most expensive battery materials – to virtually zero. It also plans to manufacture its own battery cells at several highly automated factories around the world.

The automaker plans to produce the new cells via a highly automated, continuous-motion assembly process, according to Drew Baglino, Tesla senior vice-president of powertrain and energy engineering, a contrast with GM and Ford battery strategies in the broader market today.

Speaking at the event, during which Musk outlined plans to cut costs and reiterated a huge future for Tesla's energy business during the presentation, the CEO acknowledged that Tesla does not have its new battery design and manufacturing process fully complete.

The automaker’s shares slipped as Musk forecast the change could take three years. Tesla has frequently missed production targets.

Tesla expects to eventually be able to build as many as 20m electric vehicles a year, aligning with within-a-decade EV adoption outlooks cited by analysts. This year, the entire auto industry expects to deliver 80m cars globally.

At the opening of the event, which drew over 270,000 online viewers, Musk walked on stage as about 240 shareholders – each sitting in a Tesla Model 3 in the company parking lot – honked their car horns in approval.

As automakers shift from horsepower to kilowatts to comply with stricter environmental regulations amid an age of electric cars that appears ahead of schedule, investors are looking for evidence that Tesla can increase its lead in electrification technology over legacy automakers who generate most of their sales and profits from combustion-engine vehicles.

While average electric vehicle prices have decreased in recent years thanks to changes in battery composition and evidence that they are better for the planet and household budgets, they are still more expensive than conventional cars, with the battery estimated to make up a quarter to a third of an electric vehicle’s cost.

Some researchers estimate that price parity, or the point at which electric vehicles are equal in value to internal combustion cars, is reached when battery packs cost $100 per kilowatt hour (kWh), a potential inflection point for mass adoption.

Tesla’s battery packs cost $156 per kWh in 2019, according to electric vehicle consulting firm Cairn Energy Research Advisors, with some studies noting that EVs save money over time for consumers, which would put the cost of a 90-kWh pack at around $14,000.

Tesla is also building its own cell manufacturing facility at its new factory in Germany in addition to the new plant in Fremont.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Bioo Soil-Generated Electricity turns biological batteries and photosynthesis into renewable energy, powering IoT sensors for smart farming and lighting, using microbe-powered soil electrochemistry to cut battery waste, reduce costs, and scale sustainable agritech infrastructure.

Key Points

Bioo Soil-Generated Electricity powers IoT sensors and lighting using soil microbes, delivering clean renewable energy.

✅ Microbe-driven soil batteries replace disposable chemical cells

✅ Powers IoT agritech sensors for moisture, pH, and temperature

✅ Cuts maintenance and costs while enabling sustainable farming

SCENES shines a spotlight on youth around the world that are breaking down barriers and creating change. The character-driven short films will inspire and amaze, as these young change-makers tell their remarkable stories.

Pablo Vidarte is a born inventor. At the age of eight, he was programming video games. By 16, he was challenging NASA and competing with the Spanish army to enhance the efficiency of external combustion engines. "I wanted to perfect a system that NASA did in 2002 oriented to powering cars. I was able to increase that efficiency by 60 per cent, which was pretty cool," Pablo explained. Aged 18, he created his first company specialising in artificial intelligence. A year later, he founded Bioo, a revolutionary startup that generates electricity from plants' photosynthesis.

"Imagine, being in the middle of a park or a street and being able to touch a plant and turn on the lights of that specific area," Pablo told Scenes. "Imagine storing the memories of humanity itself in nature. Imagine storing voice messages in a library that is an open field where you can go and touch the plants and communicate and interact with them. That's what we do at Bioo," he added.

The creation of Bioo, however, was not a walk in the park. Pablo relied on nanotechnology engineers and biologists volunteering their time to turn his idea of biological batteries, inspired by biological design, into a reality. It took a year for a prototype to be created and an investor to come on board. Today, Bioo is turning plants into biological switches, generating renewable energy from nature, and transforming the environment.

"We realised that we were basically killing the planet, and then we invented things like solar panels and solutions like peer-to-peer energy that we're able to prevent things from getting worse, but the next step is to be able to reverse the whole equation to revive that planet that we're starting to lose," the 25-year-old explained.

Batteries creating electricity from soil
Bioo has designed biological batteries that generate electricity from the energy released when organic soil decomposes. Like traditional batteries, they have an anode and a cathode, but instead of using materials like lithium to power them, organic matter is used as fuel. When microorganisms break down the organic soil, electrons are released. These electrons are then transported from the anode to the cathode, and a current of electricity is created. The batteries come in the shape of a rectangular box and can be dug into any fertile soil. They produce up to 200Wh a year per square metre, and just as some tidal projects use underwater kites to harvest energy, these systems tap natural processes.

Bioo's batteries are limited to low-power applications, but they have grown in popularity and are set to transform the agriculture industry.

Cost savings for farmers
Farmers can monitor their crops using a large network of sensors. The sensors allow them to analyse growing conditions, such as soil moisture, PH levels and air temperature. Almost 90 per cent of the power used to run the sensors come from chemical batteries, which deplete, underscoring the renewable energy storage problem that new solutions target.

"The huge issue is that chemical batteries need to be replaced every single year. But the problem is that you literally need an army of people replacing batteries and recalibrating them," Pablo explains. "What we do, it's literally a solution that is hidden, and that's nourishing from the soil itself and has the same cost as using chemical batteries. So the investment is basically returned in the first year," Pablo added.

Bioo has partnered with Bayer, a leading agricultural producer, to trial their soil-powered sensors on 50 million hectares of agricultural land. If successful, the corporation could save €1.5 billion each year. Making it a game-changer for farmers around the world.

A BioTech World
In addition to agriculture, Bioo's batteries are now being installed in shopping centres, offices and hospitals to generate clean power for lighting, while other companies are using ocean and river power to diversify clean generation portfolios.

Pablo's goal is to create a more environmentally efficient world, so shares his technology with international tech companies as green hydrogen projects scale globally. "I wanted to do something that could really mean a change for our world. Our ambition right now is to create a biotech world, a world that is totally interconnected with nature," he said.

As Bioo continues to develop its technology, Pablo believes that soil-generated electricity will become a leader in the global energy market, aligning with progress toward cheap, abundant electricity becoming a reality worldwide.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News