EV Battery Plant In Kansas To Be Powered By Coal

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
13,127
1,912
113
Ghawar
OCT 03, 2023

Panasonic's new battery plant in Kansas will require an amount of energy equivalent to that used by a small city, forcing a nearby utility to halt the shutdown of a coal-fired power plant. This has sparked criticism that electric vehicle production and electric vehicles aren't 'ESG-friendly.'

According to The Kansas City Star, citing documents filed by power company Evergy with the Kansas Corporation Commission, Panasonic's 4-million-square-foot plant in Johnson County will double the utility's load and require two new substations and upgrades to 31 miles of transmission lines.

Documents show Evergy will have to keep a Lawrence coal-fired power plant online until 2028 to meet the new load at the EV battery plant that will be ramped up as production begins at the end of 2025/early 2026. The utility plans to transition from coal to natural gas by the decade's end.

"Beyond the sheer magnitude of load and load factor, Panasonic's construction schedule, and, in turn, its energy needs, are being planned on a very aggressive schedule. With energy needs starting to ramp in 2024 and full load requirements by 2026, there is urgency to procure capacity and energy to fulfill the expected energy usage schedule," said Kayla Messamore, Evergy's vice president of strategy and planning.

Currently, no other power generation source in the area can supply enough on-demand power to the Panasonic battery plant. In testimony from Ryan Mulvany, Evergy's vice president of distribution, he said the plant will demand approximately 200 to 250 megawatts (or the equivalent of a small city).

Despite the $4 billion cost of the factory, the Japanese company is "poised to get as much as $6.8 billion from provisions in last year's federal Inflation Reduction Act," the local paper said in July. The company is expected to receive over $8 billion in federal, state, and local incentives and support the plant in Johnson County.

Zack Pistora, a lobbyist with the Kansas Sierra Club, called the EV battery plant powered by coal a "shame":

"Not only are we squandering an opportunity to access local Kansas clean energy resources that invest in our state, but it also is not doing anyone else a favor as far as more greenhouse gas pollution."

For readers, none of this should be a surprise. The whole 'ESG' movement is a scam. For years, we've noted "Some EVs Are "Dirtier" Than Conventional Vehicles; New Study Finds" and 'Zero Emissions' From Electric Vehicles? Here's Why That Claim Has Zero Basis. Four years ago we said, "Electric Car-Owners Shocked: New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars."

 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
89,060
21,174
113
Greenwashing.

The oil$gas industry caused this problem, you should pay up and shut up and let the rest of the world fix it.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
89,060
21,174
113
E-waste is far more toxic than CO2. E-waste itself is a greenhouse gas emitter. So they are both toxic and contribute to emissions.

We are at the point that we have to do everything we can to lower CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions.
Batteries may not be the best solution, but its still one we need to use.
There are other options for storage, but not as many portable ones.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
89,060
21,174
113
Data suggests that batteries themselves increase CO2 emissions. Overt use of batteries will not only increase CO2 emissions (working against your goal), but also accumulate toxic, non-biodegradable waste that we cannot do anything about. The only way to reduce emissions and make the planet cleaner, is to reduce consumption. That isn't possible in our consumerist world.
No, the studies say using renewables and EV's will be cheap and cleaner than fossil fuel cars.
 

Not getting younger

Well-known member
Jun 29, 2022
4,573
2,464
113
OCT 03, 2023

Panasonic's new battery plant in Kansas will require an amount of energy equivalent to that used by a small city, forcing a nearby utility to halt the shutdown of a coal-fired power plant. This has sparked criticism that electric vehicle production and electric vehicles aren't 'ESG-friendly.'

According to The Kansas City Star, citing documents filed by power company Evergy with the Kansas Corporation Commission, Panasonic's 4-million-square-foot plant in Johnson County will double the utility's load and require two new substations and upgrades to 31 miles of transmission lines.

Documents show Evergy will have to keep a Lawrence coal-fired power plant online until 2028 to meet the new load at the EV battery plant that will be ramped up as production begins at the end of 2025/early 2026. The utility plans to transition from coal to natural gas by the decade's end.

"Beyond the sheer magnitude of load and load factor, Panasonic's construction schedule, and, in turn, its energy needs, are being planned on a very aggressive schedule. With energy needs starting to ramp in 2024 and full load requirements by 2026, there is urgency to procure capacity and energy to fulfill the expected energy usage schedule," said Kayla Messamore, Evergy's vice president of strategy and planning.

Currently, no other power generation source in the area can supply enough on-demand power to the Panasonic battery plant. In testimony from Ryan Mulvany, Evergy's vice president of distribution, he said the plant will demand approximately 200 to 250 megawatts (or the equivalent of a small city).

Despite the $4 billion cost of the factory, the Japanese company is "poised to get as much as $6.8 billion from provisions in last year's federal Inflation Reduction Act," the local paper said in July. The company is expected to receive over $8 billion in federal, state, and local incentives and support the plant in Johnson County.

Zack Pistora, a lobbyist with the Kansas Sierra Club, called the EV battery plant powered by coal a "shame":

"Not only are we squandering an opportunity to access local Kansas clean energy resources that invest in our state, but it also is not doing anyone else a favor as far as more greenhouse gas pollution."

For readers, none of this should be a surprise. The whole 'ESG' movement is a scam. For years, we've noted "Some EVs Are "Dirtier" Than Conventional Vehicles; New Study Finds" and 'Zero Emissions' From Electric Vehicles? Here's Why That Claim Has Zero Basis. Four years ago we said, "Electric Car-Owners Shocked: New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars."

So coal fired generation to supply the equivalent amount of hydro, as that of a “small” city. After that natural gas

to supply the same amount of hydro as a small city uses. Let’s call this H1

And on top of that, upgrades and additional infrastructure to get said Hydro to the plant…

The plant then makes enough batteries, and everyone in that same “small” city then starts plugging in their new EVs…………..

Hydro generation.
H1 for the small city
H1 for the plant
H1 for the new EVs
How to go from H1 to H3
And this somehow is supposed to be friendlier and feasible?

Oh, and bout those batteries….
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bazokajoe

Not getting younger

Well-known member
Jun 29, 2022
4,573
2,464
113
Because the situation here is very different, the opposite of slashing renewables and adding more natural gas. And I guess the reference to H1 and Hydro 1
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
89,060
21,174
113
Because the situation here is very different, the opposite of slashing renewables and adding more natural gas. And I guess the reference to H1 and Hydro 1
I have no idea what you are talking about.

But here in Ontario, DoFo spent $200 million cancelling renewable generation contracts and is now considering spending billions on new nuclear plants, the most expensive option.
 

Not getting younger

Well-known member
Jun 29, 2022
4,573
2,464
113
I have no idea what you are talking about.

But here in Ontario, DoFo spent $200 million cancelling renewable generation contracts and is now considering spending billions on new nuclear plants, the most expensive option.
H1 or Hydro 1 as it’s formally known was/is Ontarios hydro utility
.

Are renewables as reliable and constant as Nuclear? Are they cheaper. Certainly not in Ontario.

And while I couldn’t bring him into the discussion, one of my best friends is a nuclear physicist in one of our Nuke Stations. He has quite a bit of insight into things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shakenbake

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
89,060
21,174
113
H1 or Hydro 1 as it’s formally known was/is Ontarios hydro utility
.

Are renewables as reliable and constant as Nuclear? Are they cheaper. Certainly not in Ontario.

And while I couldn’t bring him into the discussion, one of my best friends is a nuclear physicist in one of our Nuke Stations. He has quite a bit of insight into things.
What is H3?
Renewables are cheaper than hydro even with storage.
And of course you have nuclear scientist friend.
 

Anbarandy

Bitter House****
Apr 27, 2006
10,553
3,124
113
This annoying girl man! 😅
"Bon jour Kautie! I luv Indian ultra-Nationalists. Text me when you arrive and I'll give you the buzz code and my room #."
exorcist.PNG
 
Last edited:

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
89,060
21,174
113
Renewables maybe. EVs no. See my link above. You'd need to combine reducing consumption with alternative sources. But reducing consumption should be the focus if you wanted change. Replacing all fossil fuel cars with EVs will not make it any better. The energy need itself will add to emissions.
Sure, add more transit as well.
But EV's will be part of the solution even if they are problematic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon1
Toronto Escorts