ENVR EV Battery Factory Requires Coal Burning Power Plant to Operate

[Hfcomms]

EV Battery Factory Will Require So Much Energy It Needs A Coal Plant To Power It​

A new electric vehicle battery factory in Kansas is demanding so much energy that the state is delaying the retirement of a coal plant to make sure the facility has enough power.

September 22, 2023

The Lawrence Energy Center in Kansas is a coal-fired power plant that will extend its life to power a new EV battery facility. (Cowboy State Daily Staff)


A $4 billion Panasonic electric vehicle battery factory in De Soto, Kansas, will help satisfy the Biden administration’s efforts to get everyone into an EV.

It also will help extend the life of a coal-fired power plant.

​

Resource Adequacy​

Panasonic broke ground on the facility last year. The Japanese company was slated to receive $6.8 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act, which has been pouring billions into electric vehicles and battery factories as part of its effort to transition America away from fossil fuels.

The Kansas City Star reports that the factory will require between 200 and 250 megawatts of electricity to operate. That’s roughly the amount of power needed for a small city.

In testimony to the Kansas City Corporation Commission, which is the state’s equivalent of the Wyoming Public Service Commission, a representative of Evergy, the utility serving the factory, said that the 4 million-square-foot Panasonic facility creates “near term challenges from a resource adequacy perspective,” according to the newspaper.

As a result, the utility will continue to burn coal at a power plant near Lawrence, Kansas, and it will delay plants to transition units at the plant to natural gas.

Not Happy​

And environmentalists are not happy about that.

The situation reflects an ignored fact about EVs — they require enormous amounts of energy to produce.

A 15-pound lithium-ion battery holds about the same amount of energy as a pound of oil. To make that battery requires 7,000 pounds of rock and dirt to get the minerals that go into that battery. The average EV battery weighs around 1,000 pounds.

All of that mining and factory processing produces a lot more carbon dioxide emissions than a gas-powered car, so EVs have to be drivenaround 50,000 to 60,000 miles before there’s a net reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

So, as more factories are built in the U.S. to supply EV manufacturers, there will be higher demands on the grid for power.

​

Growing Recognition ​

Emily Arthun, CEO of the American Coal Council, was in Washington, D.C., this week speaking with federal lawmakers and members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Arthun, who lives in Gillette, told Cowboy State Daily that there’s a growing recognition of the need for coal to supply baseload power.

“I met with senators and representatives who understand that we’re going to need coal for far longer than people are talking about,” Arthun said.

The Inflation Reduction Act aims to produce more green energy industries here in America, and Arthun said there’s a growing recognition that these are energy intensive.

“People are starting to understand that energy needs are increasing, and these premature [coal-fired power plant] closures are a liability,” Arthun said.

​

Lipstick On A Pig​

Rep. Cyrus Western, R-Big Horn, told Cowboy State Daily that many people are unaware of how energy is produced to create a reliable grid.

“Kilowatts don’t just fall out of the sky,” he said.

Besides the energy demand for the industrial capacity in America, there will be more demands placed on the grid to charge all these vehicles.

“That electricity has got to come from somewhere. It’s not going to come from solar farms and wind turbines,” he said.

Western said renewables are a great source of “auxiliary supplemental power,” but without a solid base load to ensure a reliable energy supply, they don’t work. These are realities that some still don’t want to accept.

“This administration wants to put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig,” he said.

Kevin Killough can be reached at Kevin@cowboystatedaily.com.

EV Battery Factory Will Require So Much Energy It Needs A Coal Plant To Power It

A new electric vehicle battery factory in Kansas is demanding so much energy that the state is delaying the retirement of a coal plant to make sure the facility has enough power.

cowboystatedaily.com

 

[Griz3752]

Of course that will never be on National News on any Network.
EVER.

 

[Ogre]

Our state senator voted against this monstosity. Real estate is reappraised every year. (Overall average this year was 11%, expected to be even more next year with the increase workers needing housing.) More drain on the schools, more drain on the infrastucture, more drain on our pocketbooks. But, hey, it's to save the planet, so what does any of that matter?

 

[Abe Froman]

Ford is building Blue Oval City outside of Memphis. The most striking part to me when I drive past the construction site is the massive number of high voltage power lines leading to it.

 

[summer-texan]

this TED talk about the myth of ev's explains why the biden and all the ev people are not doing their homework.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1E8SQde5rk&t=5s

 

[Dennis Olson]

Irony can be so ironic at times.

 

[Dennis Olson]

@summer-texan a runtime is required for vids.

 

[Dobbin]

Back when the electric markets were "normal" and fossil fuel was the majority energy source there was a "rumor" that went around that it took more energy to "make" a solar panel (polycrystalline) than it would produce in its lifetime.

That rumor was eventually "disproved." But we'll test it today with a Google query.

Google query: Does it take more energy to "make" a solar panel than it produces?

MYTH #1: Solar panels require more energy to manufacture than they produce in their lifetime. FACT: A study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory conclusively demonstrates that the manufacturing energy cost versus the energy production payback for solar modules is generally less than 4 years.

Above is energy payback. A similar query can be made on money.

Google query: What is the payback period (financial) for a solar installation?

In the U.S., the payback period for solar panels is about eight years on average, but this can vary quite a bit from one homeowner to the next. In fact, your solar payback period may fall anywhere between five and 15 years.

Dobbin

 

[subnet]

Back when the electric markets were "normal" and fossil fuel was the majority energy source there was a "rumor" that went around that it took more energy to "make" a solar panel (polycrystalline) than it would produce in its lifetime.

That rumor was eventually "disproved." But we'll test it today with a Google query.



Above is energy payback. A similar query can be made on money.



Dobbin

add the supposed lifespan of 20 years...
Its almost a bust.

 

[Dobbin]

add the supposed lifespan of 20 years...
Its almost a bust.

Thing is, any sunk investment is sunk at TODAYS cost of money and cost of energy.

Once sunk that freezes the cost of money to today's rate - but the cost of energy can go up - or can go down.

Mostly since the mid 1990s the cost of energy has been dropping slowly. Owner tells of big jumps during the Arab Oil Embargo of the 1980s, but from there energy cost "leveled" and then dropped slowly - with a possible minimum cost under Trump's "Full Energy Dominance."

The Biden Regime creation of an artificial "energy shortage" by ratcheting in regulations, cancelling project permissions, withdrawal of drilling permits, restricting transport of energy stock have increased the cost of energy - often nearly 2X what it was under Trump. The same WEF "standards" of energy development have brought European Energy to as much as 5X what it was.

So that changes severely both the cost of alternatives (law of supply & demand as more seek to "get away" from grid) and the duration of pay-back resulting therefrom.

Elsewhere I have referenced Owner's comments which he took from a 1990s vintage "Home Power Magazine." His comment was the "cheapest solar electricity system considered provided electricity at 16c per KWHR" (This included capital cost, maintenance, ultimate replacement cost) Most systems were more and it took a "dedicated" enthusiast to bring electric cost this best low number (and document ALL costs.) These numbers compared to a nationwide electric energy cost then of about 12c per KWHR. Needless to say most did not rush to adopt solar electricity.

Hence the developed government subsidies to encourage solar development and make it "cost effective." Which while probably a good thing for society to do is NOT cost effective despite the nom-de-plume.

And the cost ineffective can be considered "reliability insurance" against another Arab Oil Embargo.

Today Owner says he pays about 22c a KWHR - it has been as high as 26c. So that 16c a KWHR system would today look like a pretty good deal.

But - this worm may turn too with a change of Administration - and a "drill baby drill" President.

But Owner's thinking on energy use is "minimize." If you don't use it - you don't have to provide for it - or pay for it. Cost of electricity may be high but he combats that by getting as much of his domestic energy load AWAY from electricity. All lighting in the house is now LED - and some of these very small LEDS. Owner says his desk light in the man-cave uses 2-1/2 Watts. Sometimes his wife complains about it being too dark and "turn on a light - I can't see."

He says "You need to use the light for the tool that it is - and consider when and where you need it."

And "No, I'm not expecting you to sit in the dark. You can move closer to the light."

Its at about this point in the discussion I divert my attention elsewhere...

Dobbin

 

[Luddite]

But Owner's thinking on energy use is "minimize." If you don't use it - you don't have to provide for it - or pay for it. Cost of electricity may be high but he combats that by getting as much of his domestic energy load AWAY from electricity.

That's all well, good and prudent if that is a choice.

The frustration for some is being compelled to minimize for questionable science.

Environmental zealots can ignore the true environmental costs of their green utopia. They can ignore the governmental edicts which pick winners and losers.

They can't make ME ignore the consequences: higher costs, lower reliability and less redundancy.

 

[CGTech]

At the company I work for, we just finished pricing out the cost of adding solar. And determined our payback period would be almost 17 years, when all costs were added in. Not too mention that we could only cover about 35-40% of our electric use at best on an annual basis. Decided not to proceed.

 

[Dennis Olson]

Mostly since the mid 1990s the cost of energy has been dropping slowly.

My energy cost is double what it was only five years ago.

 

[hiwall]

Everything runs on coal, it is the most popular source of electricity worldwide.

 

[SAPPHIRE]

TPTB talk out of both sides of their mouths and various other orifices as well................

 

[Elza]

TPTB talk out of both sides of their mouths and various other orifices as well................

Primarily out of the southern most orifice.

 

[Dobbin]

My energy cost is double what it was only five years ago.

As is Owner's - but 95 percent of that increase has occurred since Joe Biden took office. Before then, limited inflation was actually LOWERING energy cost. Now we have unlimited inflation (or the potential) AND mandated shortage of energy product.

In inflationary times nobody wants to spend money to develop and increase energy stocks. Money spent this way in an inflationary environment could well be money wasted. Inflation creates an even tighter wellhead to finish market product stream - and more subject to "interruptions." (I.e. market resilience is decreased because resilience ties up product/money.) You don't tie up money in inflationary time.

And - the worst part is - the energy is there. Joey and his band of Glowbull Extremists have single handedly (along with RINOs) created an "artificial" energy shortage.

The oil companies don't care. They get their cut whether its small fossil they sell, or large fossil. And it matters not if its coal, oil, natgas, or propane. THEY GET THEIR CUT.

And in many cases they kinda like a reduced thru-put and make the same, or even GREATER money. Government can be a friend if you "play along."

I hear these things from Owner and sometimes I struggle to "recreate" the conversation for repetition here so apologies for a near misrepresentation.

Dobin

 

[summer-texan]

@summer-texan a runtime is required for vids.

sorry. i don't think i ever did one before.
copy that!!!!