Japan’s Panasonic Energy Co. Ltd., a battery supplier for Tesla Inc., plans to build a $4 billion EV battery plant in Kansas — a project that represents the largest economic development project in the state’s history and is expected to result in 4,000 direct jobs.
Gov. Laura Kelly (D) made the announcement yesterday at a joint news conference with Panasonic executives and other state officials.
“This project will be transformative for our state’s economy, providing in total 8,000 high-quality jobs that will help more Kansans create better lives for themselves and their children,” Kelly said. “We will be the production epicenter for batteries that will power the increasing demand for EVs in a more sustainable world.”
This Panasonic project continues, but with a few catches.
The battery factory will consume so much electric power, the utility is asking for a rate increase to build new substations and transmission lines. The Panasonic facility will consume as much as 250 MW of power.
Since so much electricity is needed, the utility will continue to operate a coal-fired power plant to supply reliable power.
From the link… Documents filed by Evergy with the Kansas Corporation Commission, which regulates utilities, provide details on the intense amount of electricity Panasonic will consume. The demand created by the nearly 4-million-square-foot plant in Johnson County is expected to double that of Evergy’s current largest customer in the state and require two new substations, upgrades to three current substations and work on 31 miles of transmission lines.
Also: Evergy is also citing the Panasonic plant, which will produce batteries for electric vehicles, in saying it will continue to burn coal at a Lawrence power plant until at least 2028. The utility will also delay until then plans to transition part of the plant from coal to natural gas. The decisions have spurred criticism from environmental advocates.
Kansas has lots of wind and solar potential. It makes no sense to not build out the the wind and solar capacity to negate the need for coal fired power plant. I fear that the coal and utility interests do not want wind and solar.
The local and state authorities in Johnson County of Kansas wanted this mega Panasonic project. They knew that the project would require between 100 - 250 MW or power. Adding new generation and transmission lines are part of doing business when locals and states bid for getting mega factories. When Tesla builds new factories they tell the local and state authorities what power and water requirements they have.
This article is 4 years old. Not sure if we are still #2 in the nation.
“Kansas ranks No. 2 in the nation for wind energy production as a share of total electricity generation, joining Iowa as one of only two states with more than 40 percent of the state’s total electricity produced by wind power in 2019.” Kansas continues to lead in wind energy (kansascommerce.gov)
I have no doubt this new battery plant will be a net economic benefit for that area of eastern Kansas. But the important word there is “net”. We can appreciate the positive effects from having a new large employer in the area, but we shouldn’t ignore the items on the negative side of the ledger. Some of those negative items might be…
Higher electric bills for the utility customers, to pay for the new infrastructure required for this new large power consumer.
Needing to keep the local coal-fired power plant in operation, since the new battery factory will need a reliable source of electricity that the wind and solar farms can’t supply.
The possible environmental damage created, either at the battery factory, or at the lithium mines and processing facilities at wherever they are getting the lithium from. Are there any waste streams associated with the manufacture of lithium-ion batteries? Where do those waste streams go?
This Panasonic plant will reportedly receive as much as $8 billion, much of it associated with the questionably named Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). It seems potentially inflationary to me, to have the government pay for these things. But will the US taxpayers, along with Kansas taxpayers who are supplying other monetary incentives, get their money’s worth?
I do not think you know that utility customers will pay for the infrastructure in the short term. It will be a small rate increase for 10 -20 years. Compare to what Georgia utility customers will pay for the $30 billion Vogtle 3&4 nuclear power plant, the Kansas rate increase in insignificant.
Kansas does not plan to keep the coal fired plant in operation for very long.
The environmental issues were considered when Kansas agreed to the battery factor.
Our government has voted for the IRA. Your complaining about the IRA is water under the bridge. Get over it. Texas, Kansas and other Southern states love all the money they are getting from IRA to improve their infrastructure and energy generation.