Reality check: It takes around five years, on average, for generation and transmission projects to move through review. “The current permitting system is broken,” Xan Fishman, vice president of energy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, told Energy Central over email.

But the grid quickly needs new gigawatts (and transmission lines) to meet a tsunami of demand. To cut through all that red tape ASAP, Congress is racing to broker a deal by August recess.

But first, why does the permitting process take so long? It’s “fractured across federal, state, and local authorities, and it attracts litigation that can last a long time with uncertain outcomes,” Tom Sharp, director of permitting intelligence at analytics firm Arbo, told us via email.

That litigation often stems from federal rules like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Clean Water Act, which were intended to safeguard US ecosystems and communities. These court battles can add years to the process and even kill some projects.

So, what’s the progress on permitting reform? In recent years, the House has introduced a flurry of bills. Roll the tape:

• You’ve got the SPEED Act, which aims to streamline NEPA and cut down litigation.

• There’s also the PERMIT Act, which has similar goals for the Clean Water Act.

• Both are sitting in the Senate but aren’t likely to pass, Sharp and Fishman agreed.

What’s more likely: A deal that wraps up these goals (along with accelerating the transmission buildout) into one hefty package. Senate committees are in negotiations right now, Fishman said. This potential deal would likely also tackle President Trump’s crusade against renewable projects, he added.

These talks have run into some speed bumps, but the stakes are high to wrap things up by next month’s Congressional recess: “If we don’t get this done, energy costs are going to rise and chances of blackouts will increase,” Fishman said.

The end of federal clean energy tax credits could mean higher PPA prices, experts warn.

• July 4 meant more than fireworks: Independence Day was the deadline for wind and solar projects to kick off construction in order to secure investment and production tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act.

• Meaning? The price of PPAs for projects no longer eligible for IRA tax credits could spike, according to industry experts. “It’s kind of a shift from the taxpayer to the ratepayer to make up that delta,” one analyst noted to Utility Dive.

• Putting the pressure on utilities and developers: Camelot Energy Group said a 200-MW solar facility with a 30% investment tax credit would need a PPA “in the $40 to $45 per MWh range. But if you’re non-tax advantaged, no ITC basis, then you’re basically pushing mid-to-high $60s.”

If you guessed that the 3-word phrase at the end of the title of this paper is a whimsical name for those round things on a road-vehicle that come in contact with the road, you are correct.

Disposing of waste is a big and rapidly growing problem, both in the U.S. and world-wide. Some waste is relatively easy to recycle, like paper, cardboard, glass and wood. Although a bit harder-to-recycle, metal-waste also typically has a higher value, and many metals can also be easily sorted via magnetic-methods. Then we start getting to the objects that are difficult to recycle, and the resulting raw materials have a low value. These are currently prime-candidates for land-fills, but these facilities are not the best use for land, especially in areas with high population densities. Worn-out tires are mostly on the “land-fill” end of this spectrum, and this is a world-wide issue. In this paper we suggest that there is a creative way to recycle tires rather than disposing of them.

By Kennedy Maize

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 29 redefined the fundamentals of how the federal government works going back some 144 years and the creation of the now-defunct Interstate Commerce Commission, which regulated railroads.

The court ruled 6-3 with the usual partisan divide that hitherto “independent” federal agencies are not independent. The president can fire members of commissions with Congressionally determined fixed appointments apportioned by political party at will.

In Trump v. Slaughter, with Chief Justice Roberts writing for the Republican majority, the court ruled Trump could can two Democrats appointed to fixed terms from the Federal Trade Commission because they disagreed with his policies, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya. They sued in federal court, although Bedoya later dropped out of the case.

A 1935 Supreme Court decision overturned Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt’s firing of a 1933 Republican FTC appointee, William F. Humphrey, based on a policy disagreement. The 1914 law that established the FTC said the president could remove commissioners only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The case became known as “Humphrey’s Executor.”

The federal courts upheld Humphrey in numerous cases over the years while whittling away at it on the margins. Last month the Republicans delivered a death blow. Roberts wrote, “We hold that such protection from removal is contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.”

 The decision could have implications for many nominally-independent agencies, including two important energy regulatory bodies, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. An analysis by the Sheppard law firm commented, “As Justice Sotomayor noted in dissent, dozens of independent commissions—such as Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Chemical Safety Board, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Merit Systems Protection Board—are now likely to become purely executive agencies, shifting tremendous power into the President’s hands.”

Those agencies are now beginning to ponder how to cope with the court’s decision in Slaughter. Former FERC commissioner and chairman Mark Christie, a Trump appointee and a decidedly independent (and sometimes irascible) force at the commission, commented on LinkedIn: “The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Slaughter case was a correct interpretation of the Chief Executive’s constitutional authority to supervise and dismiss those officers exercising executive powers.”

Christie, who now directs the Center for Energy Law and Policy at William & Mary Law School and is a veteran Virginia state utility regulator, added, “The practical and constitutional problems are that FERC and similar commissions, such as the FCC, FTC, and SEC, also exercise legislative and judicial powers not delegated to the President in the Constitution. So the Slaughter ruling effectively transferred legislative and judicial powers to the Chief Executive, a transfer that itself violates the Constitution’s fundamental separation of powers principles.

Congress created this mess by unconstitutionally combining legislative, executive and judicial powers in single agencies. But Congress can fix it by reclaiming its own legislative powers, including with regard to FERC specifically, the power to set rates.”

Rates that affect consumers’ power bills should be set based on facts in the public record, not by calls from executive branch officials outside the record. Consumers deserve nothing less.”

Christie’s prescription echoes the concurrence in Slaughter by Justice Neil Gorsuch. He asked, “Would Congress have delegated so much power, including legislative and judicial power, to independent agencies had it known that the President would come to control them? How will Congress respond now—if realistically it can? And what, if anything, will this Court do about it?”

Gorsuch’s answer: “From here, the only sure path is to finish the journey we start today and restore legislative and judicial powers to where they belong: in Congress and the courts. We have tolerated adventurous theories long enough. It is time to return, all the way, to the Constitution.”

Looking at the impact on the NRC, the Union of Concerned Scientists, which has long been a key watchdog over the NRC, predictably expressed broad concerns over the Slaughter ruling. UCS accused the court of “weakening longstanding safeguards designed to insulate agency decision-making from political influence and preserve the role of independent expertise in guiding policymaking and serving the public.”

Jennifer Jones, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS, said, “The effects of this decision will extend beyond any single administration. If presidents have the power to replace agency leadership at will, agencies risk losing the continuity, institutional knowledge and experience necessary to carry out their missions effectively.”

Veteran energy attorney and former NRC commissioner Peter Bradford (1977-1982), who has also been chairman of the Maine Public Utilities Commission (1982-1987) and New York Public Service Commission (1988-1995), told The Quad Report in an email, “Assuming though that the NRC is exercising executive powers, the implications under Trump are pretty awful, as in would you want the wizards of science who turned the reflecting pool into Mountain Dew to be calling the shots as to nuclear safety….The former NRC had to adhere to certain minimums to keep the minstrel show credible.  Now those are very much in doubt.”

The Quad Report, covering energy policy and politics

How will you strategize your energy approach?

Deciding on an energy strategy—whether for a company or an institution—depends on simulating future prices for the energy sources under consideration.

In this context, it is crucial to evaluate the pricing structures and/or tariffs available for each source.

Equally important are the risk management tools that can be employed to ensure the final monthly cost of the chosen source(s) aligns with the established business plan.

One thing is certain: those who tackle this challenge head-on are more likely to succeed than those who simply take a "wait-and-see" approach.

The next era of improving utility grid operations and maintenance is upon us. As the utility industry moves ahead with AMI 2.0, the opportunities for O & M improvements and customer participation continue to grow. With intelligence embedded in AMI 2.0 meters, utilities now have a massive network of distributed sensors, enabling improvements from the customer side of the meter to the grid and critical assets. 

The possibilities for grid and customer improvements include load visibility, grid fault detection, and demand management. The result is a more flexible grid that will also drive increased customer program participation, better demand forecasts, and even more targeted infrastructure investments. 

Join this exclusive Energy Central PowerSession to hear from industry thought and “do” leaders to learn how utility leaders and professionals are driving value for their grid operations and maintenance and  their customers at the grid edge.

Panelists:

• Moderator: Mike Smith, KLN Group

• Colin Gibbs, SVP, Revenue & Partnerships, Sense

• Dave Elve, Experienced Global Energy/Utility and IT Executive, Vass Solutions

• Heather Lancaster, Senior Leader Cloud, IT Infrastructure, and Security, Portland General Electric

We look forward to connecting with you!

Timeanddate.com: “Perihelion and Aphelion.”

My reason for posting this will become clear shortly. The exaggerated ellipse in the figure emphasizes that the orbit of our planet is not a perfect circle, but rather varies over the course of each year. “The Earth is closest to the Sun, at its perihelion, about two weeks after the December solstice and farthest from the Sun, or at its aphelion, about two weeks after the June solstice.”

The root of both words goes back to Helios, the Titan god of the Sun in ancient Greek mythology, often depicted with a radiant crown, driving his four-horse chariot across the sky each day, bringing light to gods + mortals. “This path’s shape varies due to the gravitational influences of other planetary objects, particularly the Moon.” But also Saturn + Jupiter.

This variation over 100,000 years is called ellipticity, + is one of the famous 3 Milankovitch celestial cycles, about which nothing more will be said today. Another more subtle point is that the Earth doesn’t actually rotate around the Sun, rather both rotate about their joint center of mass—which lies within the star given its huge mass compared to any of the planets.

“In 1246, the December Solstice was on the same day as the Earth reached its perihelion.” Since then, the perihelion and aphelion dates have drifted by a day every 58 years. “In the short-term, the dates can vary up to two days from one year to another.”

And as it turns out, this year it exactly corresponds to my younger + better looking brother Jonathan’s birthday today. As if that’s not enough, he is taller + a black belt in karate + has 3 gorgeous daughters. So, here’s looking at you, kid.

BTW, this is the only present you’re getting.

India's energy transition is entering a decisive new phase where reliability has become as important as capacity expansion. As renewable energy scales, rising electricity demand, industrial growth, and grid stability are exposing the limits of variable power generation. Against this backdrop, nuclear energy is emerging as a strategic complement to renewables, offering firm, round-the-clock electricity while strengthening energy security. India's renewed policy focus signals a long-term shift towards a more resilient and balanced power system.

👉 Read the full story: https://www.indoen.com/news/atomic-aspirations-how-nuclear-energy-can-anchor-indias-next-power-system

Africa’s commercial energy storage market is entering a rapid growth phase driven by grid instability, accelerating renewable deployment, and rising industrial electricity demand. Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) are increasingly being deployed as a core infrastructure component rather than a supplementary technology. This article examines the key market drivers, technology trends, and sector-specific opportunities shaping the evolution of energy storage across African markets.

1. Introduction: From Energy Access to Energy Reliability

Historically, Africa’s power sector discourse has focused on electrification rates and generation capacity. However, the current transition is increasingly defined by a different challenge: power reliability and quality.

In major commercial and industrial markets such as Nigeria, South Africa, and Kenya, businesses are facing:

• Frequent grid outages and load shedding

• Voltage instability affecting sensitive industrial loads

• High reliance on diesel backup generation

• Increasing peak demand charges

These conditions are creating strong demand for distributed energy storage solutions integrated with both grid and renewable assets.

2. Market Drivers Behind Commercial Energy Storage Adoption

2.1 Grid Instability and Capacity Constraints

Many African power systems are constrained by aging transmission infrastructure and limited generation reserve margins. As a result, commercial users often experience unreliable supply even in grid-connected areas.

Energy storage is being deployed to provide:

• Frequency and voltage support

• Peak load management

• Backup power during outages

• Grid services in some utility-led pilots

2.2 Growth of Distributed Solar PV

Africa has one of the highest solar irradiation levels globally, driving rapid deployment of distributed solar PV systems.

However, solar variability introduces new grid integration challenges, making storage essential for:

• Energy shifting from daytime generation to evening demand

• Smoothing intermittency

• Increasing self-consumption rates in C&I systems

2.3 Diesel Displacement Economics

Diesel generators have traditionally served as backup power across commercial and industrial sectors. However, rising fuel costs, logistics constraints, and environmental considerations are accelerating the transition toward hybrid systems.

A typical replacement architecture includes:

Solar PV + Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) + Energy Management Systems (EMS)

3. Technology Evolution in the African BESS Market

3.1 Lithium-ion as the Dominant Chemistry

Lithium-ion technologies have become the standard for new commercial deployments due to:

• Higher round-trip efficiency

• Longer lifecycle performance

• Declining cost per kWh

• Improved thermal and safety management systems

Key global suppliers include CATL and BYD Company Limited, both of which are actively expanding global ESS deployment capacity.

3.2 Containerized and Modular System Design

Containerized BESS solutions are particularly well-suited to African deployment conditions due to:

• Reduced on-site installation complexity

• Faster commissioning timelines

• Easier transport to remote or off-grid locations

• Scalable modular expansion (100 kWh to multi-MWh systems)

This architecture is increasingly preferred for industrial, mining, and telecom applications.

3.3 Integration with Energy Management Systems (EMS)

Modern BESS deployments are increasingly software-defined. EMS platforms enable:

• Demand forecasting and load optimization

• Peak shaving and arbitrage strategies

• State-of-charge optimization

• Predictive maintenance and lifecycle extension

This shift is increasing the overall value proposition of storage beyond simple backup functionality.

4. Key Application Segments

4.1 Industrial and Manufacturing

Industrial facilities require high power reliability to avoid production downtime. Energy storage is increasingly deployed to mitigate grid instability impacts.

4.2 Mining Sector

Mining operations represent one of the largest and fastest-growing segments for BESS adoption due to remote site locations and high energy intensity.

4.3 Telecommunications Infrastructure

Off-grid and weak-grid telecom towers are transitioning from diesel-based backup systems to solar-plus-storage hybrid configurations.

4.4 Commercial Buildings and Data Infrastructure

Commercial real estate, retail centers, and data centers are adopting storage for peak shaving, load shifting, and backup resilience.

4.5 Rural Electrification and Microgrids

Decentralized microgrid systems combining solar PV and battery storage are expanding electricity access in off-grid communities.

5. Financing Models and Market Structure Evolution

A key factor enabling market expansion is the evolution of financing structures:

• Energy-as-a-Service (EaaS) models

• Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs)

• Leasing-based storage deployment

• Public-private partnership (PPP) microgrid programs

These models reduce upfront capital barriers and are accelerating adoption in both commercial and public sector applications.

6. Challenges and Constraints

Despite strong growth potential, several structural challenges remain:

• High initial capital expenditure requirements

• Currency fluctuation risk in certain markets

• Supply chain dependency on imported components

• Regulatory fragmentation across jurisdictions

• Limited local technical capacity for O&M

However, declining technology costs and increased international investment are gradually mitigating these constraints.

7. Outlook: Toward a Distributed Energy System

The long-term trajectory of Africa’s power sector suggests a shift toward a distributed, storage-centric energy architecture, characterized by:

• Increased penetration of decentralized solar generation

• Widespread deployment of battery storage systems

• Integration of smart grid and EMS technologies

• Reduced reliance on diesel generation for backup power

In this context, energy storage is transitioning from an optional asset class to a foundational grid component.

Conclusion

Africa’s commercial energy storage market is evolving rapidly from early-stage adoption to systemic integration. Driven by reliability concerns, renewable expansion, and cost dynamics, BESS is becoming central to the continent’s energy infrastructure transformation.

For utilities, developers, and industrial energy users, the market represents both a technical shift and a strategic opportunity in shaping Africa’s future energy system.

PIOMAS: "PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume."

I met Andy Lee Robinson more than a few years ago, online that is. Last I heard he was in England. I do remember I paid him in British pounds sterling [£] for the lifetime privilege of using this image. This graph begins in 1979. Pertinent in comprehending this is realizing several points.

First, sea ice forms on the ocean surface, with contributions both from the salty ocean surface + fresh snowfall. Separate from the ice floes calving off tide-water glaciers.

Second, April—the light green line—is the maximum extent of sea ice, the end of Arctic winter of course.

Third, September—the black line—is the minimum extent of sea ice, in this case coincident with the end of Arctic summer.

The pictures you have often seen of the fluctuating surface area of Arctic sea ice represent just that, while this graph is a measure of total volume, more pertinent in understanding climate effects. When + where sea ice disappears, more dark blue ocean water absorbs far more solar energy, which is a main reason that the Arctic is warming up faster than the world as a whole.

It should be apparent to the naked eye where all of this is headed, with huge implications for geoscience, fishing, extinctions, navigation, territorial claims, seafloor mining, extraction of fossil fuels—and the survival of whales. Yes, whales, since with dwindling sea ice, pods of orcas have migrated north to predate on Arctic whales such as belugas + narwhales.

I post this every couple of years, + suggest somber contemplation. Especially if you work in a fossil fuel industry.

Amid a major heat wave, PECO workers went on strike for the first time after labor agreement negotiations collapsed.

• The demands: PECO’s 1,600 unionized workers have been negotiating with the utility since January, asking for 1) industry-standard wages 2) pension and health benefits for newer employees and 3) retirement benefits based on gross payroll. 

• PECO management has offered a nearly 20% wage increase over five years, but the union says its workers earn 30% less than their peers.

• Zoom out: On June 1, a PECO rate increase that upped monthly household bills by around $5 went into effect. That money does not go to workers, a union spokesperson said.

Weekend wind and storms pummeled the Northeast and Midwest—and thousands still don’t have power.

• The numbers: 454K customers across PA, NY, NJ, CT, and MI were still without power Sunday night after severe weather took down trees and power lines this weekend. Thousands more in the midwest and southeast are facing power outages due to severe heat, bringing the total close to 1 million homes and businesses without power across the country. 

• On Friday, PJM directed customers in emergency electricity-reduction programs to limit their power use amid generator outages, overloaded transmission lines, and surges in A/C usage as temps soared.

• By the way: The $6 billion Champlain Hudson Power Express transmission line (which started delivering power from Quebec to New York on June 1) went down Wednesday and Thursday. The line isn’t yet essential to the state’s power—but NYISO certainly needs all the power it can get, especially during extreme heat.

Load data from the National System Operator (ONS) for the first half of 2026 confirms the structural dominance of the Southeast/Center-West subsystem within Brazil's National Interconnected System (SIN), which accounted for approximately 55% of total average energy demand over the period, more than three times the combined share of the Northeast (17%) and Sul (18%) subsystems, with the North contributing the remaining 10%.

This concentration reflects the subsystem's industrial and demographic weight, but it also reinforces its role as the primary swing factor in national load behavior: average demand in Southeast/Center-West declined from roughly 46.1 GW average in January to 40.6 GW in June, a contraction of nearly 12% that alone drove most of the observed reduction in total SIN load across the semester.

Seasonal effects were evident across all subsystems, consistent with the transition from Brazilian summer to the milder autumn-winter period.

> The South subsystem exhibited the highest volatility in the dataset (standard deviation of approximately 2,135 MW versus 305–915 MW in the other regions), with average demand falling from 15.1 GW in January to 13.3 GW in June, a pattern typical of a subsystem more exposed to temperature-sensitive cooling load and to the variability of hydrological conditions in the South.

> The Northeast subsystem showed a comparatively moderate and steady decline, from 13.9 GW to 12.9 GW, while the North subsystem stood out as the only region with a slight upward trend, rising from 8.2 GW to 8.4 GW, likely reflecting more stable industrial and residential consumption patterns less affected by seasonal temperature swings.

From a system planning and market perspective, these findings carry direct implications for curtailment risk, transmission constraint management, and commercialization strategy in the Northeast

> The combination of a declining Southeast/Center-West subsystem load base and comparatively stable Northeast subsystem demand narrows the historical gap between subsystems, a dynamic that merits close monitoring given its potential influence on inter-regional transmission flows, marginal cost formation (PLD), and the relative attractiveness of new renewable capacity additions across regions.

As the second half of 2026 unfolds, tracking how these load trajectories interact with hydrological reservoir levels and the pace of intermittent generation additions will be essential for accurately assessing curtailment exposure and structuring bankable PPAs in the region.

#RenewableEnergy #EnergyTransition #PowerGrid #Brazil #EnergyMarkets #GridReliability #EnergySector #Sustainability #CleanEnergy #EnergyStorage #SolarEnergy #EnergyPolicy #PowerSystems #Curtailment #EnergyConsulting

When I moved my blog from Blogspot to Substack last August, I needed help many times. On the Blogspot platform, there was (and still is) no help at all. You have to go online to a Google Group (Blogspot is owned by Google) and ask your question there. But Substack has a really great chatbot that springs to attention as soon as you ask for help. While it sometimes takes me two or three back-and-forths to get the chatbot to understand what I’m asking, 90% of the time it understands what I need and gives me a definite answer. Of course, the answer is sometimes, “We just don’t support that now, but I’ll submit a new feature request for you if you would like.” I always confirm I’d like that, but I know full well I’m unlikely to see the new feature implemented in my lifetime.

Recently, I wanted to see a post I had written in 2015. (Some background: I started the Blogspot blog in January 2013. I transferred all my Blogspot posts - over 1200 then - to Substack last August and stopped posting any new posts on Blogspot last fall. In fact, as you’ll see if you go to the link at the beginning of this post, I will soon take down the Blogspot blog because it’s become too popular among AI models eagerly seeking information in posts I wrote years ago. In fact, my Blogspot blog had 672,000 pageviews last month alone, while I guess I receive no more than 10-15,000 pageviews per month in Substack and in Energy Central, where I also put up my posts. I believe the Blogspot pageviews are almost entirely from LLM training)

When I entered “2015” in the Substack search bar, I wasn’t terribly surprised that, while I immediately was shown every post where “2015” appeared in the text, the search doesn’t look at the date of the post itself, and therefore couldn’t show me which posts I wrote in 2015 (or any other date range). I asked the chatbot if it was possible to search on a date range. It cheerfully pointed out to me (it’s always cheerful, of course) that the feature I want isn’t supported in the search bar, but it would be happy to submit a new feature request for me. Even though I knew this would be useless, I let it do that anyway. Then it closed the ticket.

After that, I received the usual email asking me to clarify what I wanted, so I did that – again, not expecting anything more to come of it. However, this time a human emailed me to point out that there’s a completely different way – not involving the search bar – that I can see all of my posts within any date range. It works fine, so now I can find posts from 2015 or any other time period.

The important point about this is that I don’t think the person who solved my problem is some sort of brilliant individual that Substack is lucky to employ. They just did what a human who’s trying to be helpful does naturally (or should, anyway): go back to the problem I was trying to solve and figure out how it could be solved in the context of the Substack platform. The chatbot had categorized my problem as narrowly related to the search bar (even though it was formulated more generally), but my problem was really that I wanted to see posts from a range of dates – and I didn’t know the platform well enough to realize that the search bar isn’t the only possible way to do that. My guess is the human figured out the answer to my problem within a few seconds, even though the chatbot would probably never have done so without being given additional prompts that a human wouldn’t need.

The moral of this story is that generative AI, which is simply an elaborate statistical algorithm for predicting the next word in a sentence, will never reach the point where it can satisfactorily answer a question, if the questioner didn’t ask their question in a way that the answer will be straightforward – specifically, if the questioner didn’t ask the question in the context of the correct response. I asked my question in the context of the search bar, so that was all the chatbot focused on in its answer. But the human understood the question in the right context: “Given that I’m a Substack user, is there a way for me to find all of my posts within a particular date range?”

Of course, since this was Substack’s chatbot, it could have been trained always to consider every question that appears to be about a particular function within Substack to be instead a question about the platform as a whole. That might have allowed it to solve my problem without requiring human intervention, but what if I’d really been asking whether blogging platforms in general allow searches by posting date? That would have required an even bigger context, which the chatbot probably wouldn’t have been trained for.

Human beings don’t know all the answers, but they should at least be able to reformulate the question in its proper context. Generative AI can’t even do that and probably never will. 

Tom Alrich’s Blog, too is a reader-supported publication. You can view new posts for two months after they come out by becoming a free subscriber. You can also access all of my 1300 existing posts dating back to 2013, as well as support my work, by becoming a paid subscriber for $30 for one year (and if you feel so inclined, you can donate more than that or become a founding subscriber for $100). Whether free or paid, please subscribe. 

If you would like to comment on what you have read here, I would love to hear from you. Please comment in my chat or email me at [email protected].

Discover how Canada’s low-carbon power system balances electricity in real time and creates new opportunities for hydrogen production, energy storage, and decarbonization.

.

Revised and updated, to bring up-to-date feasibility of the EV cars, year 2025.

Hirsch Vivat P.E.  M.Sc. Auto-transport & mobile equipment.

That article discusses total real overall energy efficiency WTW of Electric car (EV) in comparison to the Gas powered (ICEV) based on CO2 polution.                                  

There are worldwide registries of 1.474 billion cars and only 2.4% are EVs. (Jan. 2024).                   EV sales are rapidly increasing (2024).     

Comparison of the Overall Energy Efficiency of internal Combustion Engine Vehicles vs. to EV will be calculated by using identical fuel. This is an “APPLE TO APPLE” approach. The benefit of renewable energy will be added in consequences calculations, page 4.

Energy efficiency of "Refinery" producing Fuel oil for Power Plants and Gasoline is about equal. (94.5% vs. 88.6%) or 1.07 ratios. The fuel oil #4 for power plants has a higher BTU content per gallon than gasoline on 1,137 ratios. The difference between them will be added in "total energy efficiency calculations"

 -The Total Energy Efficiency of EV is a multiplication of three components: (efficiency of the Refinery) x (efficiency of the Power Plant and Power Grid) x (efficiency of the EV car itself).  Or “Refinery -- to Power plant and Grid -- to the wheels” 

-Total Energy Efficiency for the gas-powered vehicle is a multiplication of two components: (efficiency of the Refinery) x (the ICEV car efficiency). Or “Refinery -- to the wheels”

- In both cases the “Well” to - “Oil supply”- to “Refinery”  is equal values for EV and ICEV and it cancel each other; Calculations will start for both vehicles equally, from “Refinery” to - "the Wheels”.

 Efficiency vs. energy consumption on gas-powered vehicle is RELATIVELY STABLE, when efficiency vs. energy consumption of EV is VARIABLE and it depends on the weather temperature, battery age, power plant fuel source, and added percentage of renewable non-fossil energy. In all published work of EV study a brand new EV is selected for testing and calculation? It is wrong; 6 years old EV with original used battery and 70000 mi mileage should be used for calculations and testing!  The average age of a car on US roads is now 12.2 years. 

  Average Power plant efficiency running on oil is n= 0.39; it happened to be about the same value as the average world efficiency of power generation n=0.40; power generation in USA n=0.40            Ref.16 U.S. Renewable Energy Factsheet | Center for Sustainable Systems (umich.edu)

Scope, calculation & summary.  “Efficiency” in engineering is measured by “ratio of useful output to total input” and designated in percentage or ratio coefficient (n=1 is equal to 100%). In most articles you may find non-engineering efficiencies which are measured in miles, watt hour per mile (Wh/mi) , MPGe, gas prices vs. electricity price, all calculated and tested at ideal non variable invariament. It is misleading and cannot be used for engineering assessment.        

TOTAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY CALCULATION OF EV can and should be done by using the “SYSTEM OF MULTIPLE COMPONENTS” : (regenerative breaking will be added)                                                                                                                                       1) For purpose of “apple to apple” comparison Total efficiency of power plants is taken  n=0.40      2) Efficiency loss of electrical transmission through the electrical grid is 6 % or efficiency factor is n=94;                                                                                                

3) Efficiency loss of electrical car battery is 10%  when is charged.  Charging efficiency factor is n= 0.9;                  

4) Efficiency loss of an electrical car battery when discharged is 10%, efficiency factor is n= 0.9;

5) Efficiency loss of an electrical battery when temperature falls below -20 C is n=0.60-0.65 for a 6 years old   battery. Ref#2     For calculation we will take n= 0.85 (not everywhere and not all the time is winter.) 

6) Efficiency loss of 15% of electrical power used for heating or A/C, efficiency n=0.85;

7) Mechanical efficiency:  only n=0.90;

8) Finally efficiency of an EV electrical motor is n= 0.90   (.80 -.94)  Ref #6

9) Battery efficiency for 6 years old battery is n=0.80 (Battery life is about 10 -12 years).  

10) EV “Charging invertor’’ from AC to DC has efficiency factor n=0.95;

Ref#13  Battery degradation results for our base EV and AEV for the composite... | Download Scientific Diagram (researchgate.net)   

   Efficiency calculations are made without adding 10-14 metric ton of the CO2 emission as a result of manufacturing the lithium-ion batteries; However CO2 battery footprint emission will be added for obtaining the TOTAL EFFICIENCY based on CO2 EMISSION on a page 4.          

NOW WE CAN CALCULATE THE TOTAL GLOBAL EFFICIENCY OF ELECTRICAL CAR, BASED ON OIL POWER PLANT GENERATION. (“Apples to apple” approach): Total EV efficience based on “global” electric power generation at the cold winter for a 6 years old EV is:                             

1.137 x 1.07 x 0.40 x 0.94 x 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.85 x 0.85 x 0. 90 x 0.90 x 0.80 x 0.95= 0.17    It looks that gasoline powered car today at the same conditions is a bit more efficient device than 6 years old EV when is driven by using identical fuel at winter as ICEV. Most of the EV efficiency studies are done within speed range from 0 to 100km/h. Only in a few studies you may find that additional energy of 40% is required to reach speed 140km/h or 25% additional energy required more than gas-powered car. That means that EV efficiency on high speed will drop even farther down.   Using the same approach but for a brand new EV at ideal conditions without using A/C or heater with added regenerative braking EV efficiency may reach 0.28-0.32, which is the same efficiency as latest ICEV models (028) or (diesel 0.37). Ref #12    https://www.researchgate.net/figure/ehicle-energy-economy-at-different-speeds_fig1_326822085

EPA is testing EVs only till 104 km/h, it is very low! 140 km/h would be acceptable.  When regenerative braking is used it will add15% to battery power; it will raise the total efficiency only to 0.20 at the winter conditions: [0.17 : O.80 x (0,80 + 0.15)] = 0.20

 Discussion:  Based on above calculation efficiency for 6 years old EV at the cold winter or hot summer is 0.20 . For gas-powered Cars (fuel tank- to- wheels) efficiency is reaching to 0.28 for new models (diesel powered is reaching 0.37). See Ref#15.  The EV  CONS are: high initial cost and maintenance, battery replacement cost, power loss by aging, less efficiency on the higher speed, additional weight of 1000 lb., charging time, blackouts. Travel for long distances on EV is not recommended. Ref#2  (See axle overload to asphalt pavement and EV tire wear Ref#14 . One of the most noticeable PROS of EV is reduction of the LOCAL CO2 pollution reverting it to the power plant chimney when running on fossil fuel and CO2 reduction when renewable portion of energy is added. Actual and total CO2 emission should be the main concern when buying an EV or Hybrid.

  Total worldwide electricity production consists of 27% renewable, 10% nuclear and 63% of fossil fuel. 37 % of non-fossil is divided by: 1/3 from “other sources”, 1/3 from nuclear and the rest from hydro plants build 10-70 years ago. It took more than 20 years to build up energy generation from “other resources “(solar, wind, thermo).  The new “project” is to convert worldwide remaining 63% of fossil fuel generation to renewable for 20 -30 years! Entire Electrical Grids (Globally) would be reconstructed and also expended to generate additional electricity to operate EVs.         5 out of 8 billion people are inhabitants of the relatively poor countries and would not be able to contribute funds for such mega-project. All western countries are responsible for 25% CO2 emission. For the next 12 years a HYBRID vehicle would be a better choice.  Hybrid car is more reliable with lower CO2 emission.  It may take another 10-15 years to produce a reliable EV car with a better charging system.  EV battery is very expensive to produce and dispose.  EV Battery last about 12 years at the range of 100000 - 200000 mi with the efficiency loss of 0.65 on the end of battery life. Cost of the EV battery is $16000 plus replacement cost. Disposal of lithium batteries can be hazardous for the environment. Ref#4https://8billiontrees.com/carbon-offsets-credits/carbon-footprint-of-lithium-ion-battery-production/

In the future EV market may be divided by two groups: one being able to afford a new expensive EV and another group would be left to buy used EVs with replaced batteries. So far the industry is in process to find sustainable batteries which will last 16-20 years.

 Conclusion:  My statement is valid only if all undersigned countries of the Paris Climate Agreement will be in compliance of all requirements.  To predict global transition to EV is challenging and unpredictable.   My TAKE:  The future (20-25 years) of the Global auto transportation: the larger part of transportation sector will be taken by PLUG-IN HYBRID vehicles ( ref# 17 Ensuring greenhouse gas reductions from electric vehicles compared to hybrid gasoline vehicles requires a cleaner U.S. electricity grid | Scientific Reports (nature.com) ) , next will be EV cars , the rest will be vehicles with high efficient turbocharged gas or/and diesel powered engines, shared with HYDROGEN powered vehicles.  (EV HUMMER, EV F-150 and TESLA CUBERTRUCK are not going to save the planet). A hydrogen vehicle does not require charging, it would not overload the Grid to some degree.ref#18 Optimal design of grid-connected green hydrogen plants considering electrolysis internal parameters and battery energy storage systems - ScienceDirect. Refuelling of Hydrogen vehicles will take couple minutes and would be performed on already existing gas station. Total transportation sector is contributing 21% pollutions globally; Road transportation 15.5%.  Cars, motorcycles and vans are contributing only 7.6% pollutions globally. As it is projected, 25 years from now car sector 7.6% will drop down to 4.0% globally by implementing EVs.  Landfill and water pollution from the battery manufactories and disposal will become in some countries unmanageable.   Semi-trailers responsible for 2% of global pollution temporary would be and can be left as it is. Last models of semi-trailers powered with new diesel engines are significantly more efficient and with fewer pollutant. Ref11. However maritime shipping as a part of transportation is responsible for 3% of the global pollution would be difficult to convert to electrical; new mega-large vessels may become nuclear powered. Aviation transport is 2.5% of the world CO2 emission. The necessity and demands to achieve the 3.6% reduction of CO2 pollution for the passengers cars are stated bellow:  there are 280 million registered vehicles in USA and 1.47 billion cars worldwide for now and that amount will grow. It is projected worldwide electrical energy will double up for the next 30 years. It would be very questionable to achieve that without adding Nuclear Power Plants. FAST  Supercharging stations for trucks (350 KW 480V) may cost $50,000 per charger or more with additional  high cost connecting them to the Electrical Grid; EV would require 50 KW per one FAST charger or slow overnight car charger only 10kw at home. Fast charging stations (level 3) require 4-5 times more energy demand from the Grid than SLOW charging stations (level 2). Fast charging systems will require additional Grid enlargement to fasciculate that demand. When only 20% of all registered vehicles in USA will be converted to EV a charge during one or two days would require, 28 million home chargers and 3 million public charging stations would be installed. That might not happen in other countries where citizens do not own detached homes with double garages. Other countries will need more public chargers. The cost of the global grid upgrading for 2035 is estimated to reach 2.5 trillion dollars (IEA). There are a lot of approximate not approved estimates by 195 countries including USA. Industry is trying to solve the inefficient battery performance by introducing new and better battery storages for EV. New inexpensive energy storages will make EV more attractive for consumers and better for environment; however it would not lower the pollutions emitted by the Power Plants running on fossil fuel. Finely, when new high efficiency battery storages will be introduced and implemented by industry, my “study” would not become obsolete, it would be updated to reflect the positive impact of the new technology.                                                                                            

Ref#1  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228794163_Comparing_Apples_to_Apples_Well-to-Wheel_Analysis_of_Current_ICE_and_Fuel_Cell_Vehicle_Technologies

 Ref#2    https://www.mdpi.com/2313-0105/10/3/107

Ref #3   https://www.ieso.ca/en/Learn/Ontario-Supply-Mix/Ontario-Energy-Capacity                                                                                                                                                                                                   Ref #5  Everything You Need to Know About the Fastest-Growing Source of Global Emissions: Transport | World Resources Institute (wri.org)                                                                                                                                                                                                  Ref #6  https://x-engineer.org/automotive-engineering/vehicle/electric-vehicles/ev-design-electric-motors/                                                                                                                                                                         Ref #7  IEA international energy agency.                                                                                                                  (Neither IEA or SAE international haven’t issued any standards for the total EV efficiency testing.  SAE so far has only standards for charging (connective elements), battery energy consumption for 5 range cycles tests and EV vibration test.  SAE is using only new EV components.                                                                                                                                                                                  Only EPA is providing a 5 cycle “fuel economy” test inside the building on dynamometer using maximum lower temperature  -7C (20F) and max speed 104 km/hour (65m/h). In my opinion a 6 years old EV with 70000mi should be stored and tested  at  -20C (-4 F) at the speed  reaching  140km/hour (87m/h) with the heater “on”. EV should be charged at -20C without preheating battery (manually or automatic); If preheating procedure is selected, energy used for preheating should be added as an efficiency loss. Finally EPA conclusions are based on non-compatible comparison between “receptacle - to-wheels” of EV vs. “well-to-wheels” for a gas-powered car. Those misleading results are advertised without mentioning, that electric generation in USA is still originated from 59% of burning the fossil fuels.  Test results by EPA are wrong and misleading. (See Page 4, USA).               Electric cars are only as clean as their power supply. Ref # 9  Fuel Economy and EV Range Testing | US EPA             Ref#10 Comparison of the Overall Energy Efficiency for Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles and Electric Vehicles (sciendo.com)           Ref#11  Advantages of Diesel Engines | Cummins Inc.     Total  global “road transportation” is contributing 15.5% OF CO2. (Total transportation sector is 21%)    CARS, MOTOCUCLES, VANS  as a subsector  are contributing only 7.67% ;  All other global sectors responsible for remaining  79% of  CO2 EMISSION.  It is predicted by UNFCCC that at 2050 year 700 million cars globally will be EV and WORLD power plants will be 8o% non-fossil fuel effective; that will decrease CO2 and other greenhouse gasses emission. The “car” sector CO2 pollution will drop down to 4.0% from the 7.67 %  it is a great achievement and used by politicians as the most important subject for the public discussions avoiding or lessen conversations for remaining 79 % CO2 pollution of the “other sectors”.     Ref#8   https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-overview    

.                                                                                                                                                                                     RESULTS:   PAGE 4  TOTAL EFFICIENCY  based on CO2 EMISSION.

One of the main purposes of EV is reduction of harmful emissions.                          In subsequent calculations the non-fossil amount of efficiency will be assumed as 100% effective and not being added in calculations, only efficiency from the power plant to the wheels of EV will be calculated. However CO2 battery footprint emission will be added for calculations; it adds 27% of hazardous emission per year, based on the EV lifespan.  Ref#4.       ICEV yearly emission is 4.6 ton CO2 per year. EV may last 12 years. Annual emission of CO2 as a result of battery manufacturing (14 : 12) : 4.6 = 27%).  As additional information to that study most likely that replaced battery may perform less than 12 years, in that case the annual added EV battery footprint may be increased to 40%. It would drastically reduce the TOTAL EFFICIENCY based on CO2.The subsequent calculations are conservative (the secondary battery is not added). EV tires wear is 30% higher (not added) Ref#14 Road Hazard: Evidence Mounts on Toxic Pollution from Tires - Yale E360     

1) ONTARIO, CANADA ; 28% OF THE GENERATION IS PRODUCED BY FOSSIL FUEL (OIL AND GAS, ABOUT 50/50 with the plant efficiency of 0.415). THE CO2 EMISSION COMES FROM 29% OF FOSSIL FUEL. Adding numerical number of 27% to CO2 emission as a result of battery manufacturing will increase the total percentage to 55%. Calculation on the page 2 is based on 100% use of fossil fuel. Adding 45% of non-fossil fuel (1 – 55 = 0.45) will change the outcome of the equation as it is shown : for “non-ideal” condition: (0.17 x 0.55)+ (0.17 x 1/0.415 x 0.45) = 0.28 and “for ideal” condition:  (0.30 x 0.55) + (0.30 x 1/0.415 x 0.45)= 0.49  The average will be (0.30 + 0.49) : 2 = 0.40   There some contribution of using an EV in Ontario; it will reduce pollution to 40% and it will totally eliminate the local CO2 emission at heavy slow moving city traffic. The plug-in Hybrid will reduce pollution by 25-35% just a bit less than EV percentage but without larger demand of electricity from the Electric Grid. Consumer shell read CONS and PROS described on the page 2. (EV may require the battery replacement in the future which may drastically increase the CO2 emission). Taking in account the high EV price and EV CONS the Plug-in HYBRID may be the first choice in Ontario, second choice would be EV. However, EV may become the first choice when it is used durng the long day in a heavy slow traffic and charged during the night on a slow 10kw charger. For BC and Quebec the EV will be the best choice for the reduction of harmful emissions. Alberta is using 89% of fossil fuel for electro generation; obviously EV would not be effective there at all.  Canada is using at average 21% of fossil fuel.               

 2) California: 46.5% electricity is generated by natural gas; adding 27% of CO2 emission as a result of battery manufacturing will increase the total percentage: 46.5 + 27 =73%   Calculating using the same approach as above, the efficiency responsible for CO2 emission will fluctuate from 0.22 to 0.40 or average 0.32. Plug-in Hybrids is justified in California. However EV will not be justified.                 3) USA is using in average 59% of fossil fuel to generate electricity (2024) , with the exception to Maine,  Vermont, Washington state, partially California and South Carolina.  Adding 27% of the harmful emission as a result of battery manufacturing will increase the total fossil emission higher.   Finally EV is not feasible to use in USA for now, Plug-in-Hybrid and latest ICEV models will be a better choice. At mentioned states with lower fossil fuel emission EV may be acceptable as a first choice.

4)France: 7% fossil, 70% nuclear, 23% renewable. EV in France counts as a “clean car”.                                                                                                                      

 -The EV efficiency on the EPA “stick-on” label is wrong and misleading and obtained using “receptacle-to- wheels” approach. It is ignored that 59% of US energy is generated by burning fossil fuel (21% in Canada). Only “well-to-wheels” method will evaluate the total efficiency correctly. Additional QR code on the stick-on car label can be added and used for “well-to-wheels” method to evaluate efficiency of the EV based on CO2 harmful pollution at the location where QR code is scanned. It is amazing that the EPA has come up with a measuring unit MPGe and Wh/mi that is based on converting an invariant unit to some arbitrary equivalent based on "equivalence" of energy; it is totally incorrect and misleading! (MPGe is mainly used in USA).  Finally, measuring efficiency units should be alike to European Union and the rest of the world using EEA unit counting CO2 in g/km. EV is “certified” by EPA as a “Zero-emission-vehicle” (ZEV) which is totally wrong and misleading. (European Environment agency EEA and the rest of the world do not have such non-technical invalid “certifications”, Europeans just call it LEV       (low emission). There are no any EV in USA, Mexico and Canada which are not emitting CO2. EV pollutants are just reverted to the Power plant chimneys; also battery carbon footprint is a part of the EV pollutants and should be included in CO2 harmful EV emission. One of the main purposes of EV is reduction of harmful emissions.  When renewable and nuclear energy will account for 60% or higher EV will become more justifiable.  See Ref#19 and Ref#20

Ref#19 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production#Renewable_production_(percent)

Ref#20 Which countries get the most electricity from low-carbon sources? - Our World in Data

Wikipedia: "Electricity sector in Brazil."

Brazil has the largest electricity sector in Latin America, + in 2024, Brazil added a substantial 10.9 GW of new power generation capacity, with a total installed capacity of 209 GW, of which nearly 85% was renewable. [Recall that a gigawatt or GW is equivalent to the instantaneous or power rating of a typical nuclear power plant.]. "The installed capacity grew from 11,000 MW in 1970 with an average yearly growth of 5.8% per year."

Impressively, Brazil has the largest capacity for water storage in the world, based largely on hydroelectricity generation capacity, which meets over 60% of its electricity demand. "The national grid runs at 60 Hz, just like in the US, and is powered 83% from renewable sources." This dependence on hydropower makes Brazil vulnerable to power supply shortages in drought years, as was demonstrated by the 2001–2002 energy crisis.

"In 2023, the output of Brazil's electricity system, serving over 88 million consumers, exceeded that of all other South American nations combined." Anticipated investments surpassing $100 billion by 2029 aim to expand utility-scale + distributed generation, alongside transmission + distribution projects. "The National Interconnected System (SIN) comprises the electricity companies in the South, South-East, Center-West, North-East and part of the North region." Only 3.4% of the country's electricity production is located outside the SIN, in small isolated systems located mainly in the Amazonian region.

Fascinating country in so many ways. From my background in infectious disease, problems with zika, dengue fever, malaria. But the specter of drought hangs over the Amazon + Brazil's power sector, as in many areas of the world. Since Brazil is about 92% tropical, it seems to me they should diversify further into solar + storage.