Ontario needs to invest in EVs as a realistic Option.

[Boges]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The vast majority of people drive short distances every day.  I guess i should have been more clear that i mean 'overall' rather than on an individual basis, as in "canada would get 90 percent of the benefit".  That's my fault for being unclear, sorry.

The biggest reason people don't want to adopt EVs is because they want a large range. Why spend the extra for a half-measure like a PHEV? 

Quote

well i know a lot are not. There are many options with ranges of 150 km or more and which are not horrible on gas when they do have to use it. So seeing as the majority of people live within 50 km of their workplace, most would be able to complete the daily trip and still pick up the kids without recharging.  If they have to use a little gas it will be a very little.

Please cite a PHEV that gets 150 EV only range. The two that had decent ranges are the Chevy Volt and the Honda Clarity, but have been discontinued. 

 

Quote

Because that's what gov'ts are pushing. That's what is goign to get the rebates.  But that's not necessarily what the gov't SHOULD be pushing

When I was looking I could get a $2,500 Federal rebate for a PHEV. 

 

Quote

I've seen a number of studies that suggest that the pollution caused by generating that electricity basically wipes out the benefits of the EV environmentally in places where they still burn coal and oil  And we to still have places that do that in canada.

Please cite such studies. The initial carbon footprint for an EV is higher, but not over the life of the car. 

 

Quote

Well isn't that what hybrids do? Soooo we're back to that.

Sure. I'm not advocating for actually using a Gasoline Generator, but I'm just saying that it would use less gasoline than an ICU for a comparable range. 

Quote

 

I know a thing or two about the battery tech they're using currently in regular vehicles. I guarantee you it's not as big a difference as you might think over the life of the vehicle.  It would pay off big time in places like bc or quebec where hydro generated power is abundant.

But regardless - and yes i do know a thing or two about this - we simply don't have what it takes to go full ev right now without major costs or serious problems which will impact us on many levels.

But we can derive most of the benefit over all with plug in hybrids and it wouldn't take nearly the same effort or cost.  It feels like there are environmental 'puritans' out there who really want to repress that idea not because it's wrong but out of love for the idea of a 'pollution free' solution where carbon is not permitted at all. But - we know that's not possible right now in most areas.

 

In the EV world you use the Kwh as the energy unit that matters. A litre of Gasoline has the potential energy of 9 kwhs. Or at least that's what Google says.  

My middling EV has a battery that's 37 kwh. That means, to achieve a range of up to 300 kms, I'd be using the comparable energy of less than 4 litres of gasoline.

Even the most fuel efficient ICE can't get go 100 kms without burning 5 litres of gasoline. 

Edited February 21, 2023 by Boges

[herbie]

3 hours ago, Boges said:

You don't actually get 90% of the benefits with PHEV. Unless you're only driving short distances every day. 

Which is what everyone does. Just as everyone wants an SUV because they're more useful. And the inherent problems with hybrids can and will be solved, look at Mazda's idea of an updated rotary engine that runs at a steady RPM for best mileage and least pollution. That will take care of people with only one car, which believe it or not is a minority. There's your range problem gone a huge reduction in fuel and CO2, tie in a little BEV putt putt in your 2 car garage and the family's all set.

And at risk of 1,000 pages of excuses not to, Toyota and Honda are investing billions on FUEL CELL vehicles. Forge ahead with stories of the future with cars burning on every corner and vehicles exploding like the Hindenburg...

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

The biggest reason people don't want to adopt EVs is because they want a large range. Why spend the extra for a half-measure like a PHEV? 

PHEVS actually have the longer range.  Drive 1000 KM and measure how often you stop ,

1 hour ago, Boges said:

hen I was looking I could get a $2,500 Federal rebate for a PHEV. 

I could get 5000 for a pure electric a while back.

And did the gov't announcement say that all cars by whatever year are going to be EV? Or both hybrids and ev's? thought it was just ev's.

Quote

Please cite such studies.

there are a number including the Reuters one which the notes:

in the worst case scenario where an EV is charged only from a coal-fired grid, it would generate an extra 4.1 million grams of carbon a year while a comparable gasoline car would produce over 4.6 million grams, the Reuters analysis showed.

So - as i said, almost all the benefit wiped out in such areas.

And - we're making some assumptions about battery life especially in colder climates which may make the predictions "optimistc".

Then you need to factor in the average life of the cars.  Some will crash for example,  they're not all going to last to their mechanical maximum. Those that are destroyed early will need to be replaced. Seeing as the enviornmental costs are 'front loaded', how badly does that change the picture.

And even those numbers don't take into account the costs enviornmentally and actually of upgrading the electrical grids.

When the dust settles EV's don't make much sense in some areas when all factors are considered. The pay off is small or non existant for a huge cost or hassle. Other areas it makes more sense but it varies.

1 hour ago, Boges said:

My middling EV has a battery that's 37 kwh. That means, to achieve a range of up to 300 kms, I'd be using the comparable energy of less than 4 litres of gasoline.

Sure - but if you have to burn gasoline to generate those 37 kwh you're going to use more than 4 litres.  If that were not the case, then hybrids would get 100 kms per liter of gasolline, and frankly that would be a massive enough environmental savings to justify not bothering with EV's at this point.

You can't argue that gasoline is inefficient and then try to claim that gasoline is efficient.  If it's not efficient powering cars it's not efficient creating electricity.

[OftenWrong]

5 hours ago, Boges said:

You'd be far better off from a carbon scenario if you charged your EV with Gasoline from a Generator. It'll use a fraction of the gasoline as an ICE vehicle. 

Boy the sales pitch really got the hook in you. I'd like to see a cite or a little math on that one.

[OftenWrong]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I've seen a number of studies that suggest that the pollution caused by generating that electricity basically wipes out the benefits of the EV environmentally in places where they still burn coal and oil  And we to still have places that do that in canada.

It's an interesting point. I didn't fo look up the efficiency, but in principle you never get more out than goes in. In fact, you never even break even when it comes to energy transfer. See the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

It's a Law.

 

[CdnFox]

21 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

It's an interesting point. I didn't fo look up the efficiency, but in principle you never get more out than goes in. In fact, you never even break even when it comes to energy transfer. See the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

It's a Law.

 

It is in fact.  You do gain some efficiency because a power plant can be geared to run at 'constant' speeds rather than needing to accelerate etc.  And some forms of fossil fuels are less polluting that gas or oil. But - in some places it doesn't make as much sense, you lose most of the benefit and the cost of getting there is pretty high.

[OftenWrong]

Other issue is that many people do not want a smaller, more lightweight vehicle. If you're just going to Costco down the road, ok maybe these EV's are suitable. Maybe. I'm talking safety. Now let's say you need to go on the 401. Massive trucks going 120 in the right lane. That means you better be able to GO, you f*cker...

But I tell you what, you get in an accident, that's where you want to have some serious steel around you. 

Not some lightweight mini-suv made of fiberglas

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by OftenWrong

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

Other issue is that many people do not want a smaller, more lightweight vehicle. If you're just going to Costco down the road, ok maybe these EV's are suitable. Maybe. I'm talking safety. Now let's say you need to go on the 401. Massive trucks going 120 in the right lane. That means you better be able to GO, you f*cker...

But I tell you what, you get in an accident, that's where you want to have some serious steel around you. 

Not some lightweight mini-suv made of fiberglas

 

I hear there are some truck EV's either available or coming on line soon. But the bottom line is that even if that weren't the issue today, some of the more sticky problems with EV's are just not going to go away. In some areas the environmental savings is highly questionable. THe power grid upgrades are not happening in the near future and i see no plans to make them happen. New buildings aren't even being built with the capacity to charge all the vehicles if they were ev's. And retrofitting old ones is going to be an expensive nightmare.

I like the ideas of ev's.  I like the reduction in smog in the cities and i think that when the tech matures just a LITTLE more they will be a great option if we can solve the power issues. I think that if you look at the model A ford you could find all kinds of problems, but it wasn't long till things got better.

But i just don't see that we're going to be there soon, and it seems like really pushing hybrid tech would bridge that gap nicely.

[Boges]

13 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Boy the sales pitch really got the hook in you. I'd like to see a cite or a little math on that one.

I did here. 

Quote

 

In the EV world you use the Kwh as the energy unit that matters. A litre of Gasoline has the potential energy of 9 kwhs. Or at least that's what Google says.  

My middling EV has a battery that's 37 kwh. That means, to achieve a range of up to 300 kms, I'd be using the comparable energy of less than 4 litres of gasoline.

Even the most fuel efficient ICE can't get go 100 kms without burning 5 litres of gasoline. 

 

 

[Boges]

11 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Other issue is that many people do not want a smaller, more lightweight vehicle. If you're just going to Costco down the road, ok maybe these EV's are suitable. Maybe. I'm talking safety. Now let's say you need to go on the 401. Massive trucks going 120 in the right lane. That means you better be able to GO, you f*cker...

But I tell you what, you get in an accident, that's where you want to have some serious steel around you. 

Not some lightweight mini-suv made of fiberglas

 

Scraping the bottle of the barrel with excuses with this one. 

1) Trucks in Ontario are throttled to 105 kms/hr. 

2) EV, by and large, are much faster than comparable ICE Vehicles

3) I always find it pathetic when people think big SUVs are somehow a security blanket if they get T-boned by a Semi. 

[OftenWrong]

Yeah Boges that's ok. That's why I alluded to the mass of the vehicle. See I'm one step ahead of you here. As usuL

Yes I know the game your playing. You believed the sales brochure. You've got a poster of a Tesla on the wall.

Obviously it behooves the design of EV's that they be as lightweight as possible. I say that conflicts with a trend in wanting EVER BIGGER cars. Pickup trucks, not SUV's you urbanite.

Sorry if you don't like it.

[CdnFox]

I do believe there are still strong cases to be made for EV's  in specific individual cases.  I don't think they're a horrible idea over all.  I just don't think they scale well and attempting to shoe horn a majority of the population into that solution will end in disaster on several levels.

 

[Boges]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Yeah Boges that's ok. That's why I alluded to the mass of the vehicle. See I'm one step ahead of you here. As usuL

Yes I know the game your playing. You believed the sales brochure. You've got a poster of a Tesla on the wall.

Obviously it behooves the design of EV's that they be as lightweight as possible. I say that conflicts with a trend in wanting EVER BIGGER cars. Pickup trucks, not SUV's you urbanite.

Sorry if you don't like it.

But EVs aren't lightweight. The battery is quite heavy. 

Do you have evidence that the frame of an EV is flimsier then a conventional ICE? That seems to be what you're alluding to here.

There are also EV pickup trucks and large SUVs for those of you that are intimidated on the highway, like you quite obviously are. 

[Boges]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

I do believe there are still strong cases to be made for EV's  in specific individual cases.  I don't think they're a horrible idea over all.  I just don't think they scale well and attempting to shoe horn a majority of the population into that solution will end in disaster on several levels.

 

I keep saying that they currently aren't for everyone. 

And Hybrids do exist if the price of gas is an issue but you can't charge or drive long distances. 

But if you have a predictable commute everyday like a whole lot of people who drive cars from A to B to A on a daily basis. It's an excellent option. 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Boges said:

But if you have a predictable commute everyday like a whole lot of people who drive cars from A to B to A on a daily basis. It's an excellent option. 

Sure, especially if you have the ability to install a proper level 2 charger at home. And i fully support people having as many buying choices as they can get.

I don't think there's all that much dispute there - i think the issue is when you try to scale it and make it the default solution for people. I don't think the solution scales well at all (right now with today's tech and infrastructure).

I honestly believe that we really couldn't support more than about 5 percent of the population having full ev's without major and massive infrastructure changes that would be extremely costly and probably would not be worth the 'benefits' we'd get from making the changes.

And i think that's where the waters get muddy and it's hard to actually work out the numbers and benefits to get a clear answer on that.

I still believe we're missing a trick not encouraging better development of hybrid or hybrid like tech. THe vast majority of drives are short range and you can create a much more efficient engine if it can run at a constant speed.

Other than that, we need to wait for better and more practical tech to emerge.

[Boges]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sure, especially if you have the ability to install a proper level 2 charger at home. And i fully support people having as many buying choices as they can get.

I don't think there's all that much dispute there - i think the issue is when you try to scale it and make it the default solution for people. I don't think the solution scales well at all (right now with today's tech and infrastructure).

I honestly believe that we really couldn't support more than about 5 percent of the population having full ev's without major and massive infrastructure changes that would be extremely costly and probably would not be worth the 'benefits' we'd get from making the changes.

And i think that's where the waters get muddy and it's hard to actually work out the numbers and benefits to get a clear answer on that.

I still believe we're missing a trick not encouraging better development of hybrid or hybrid like tech. THe vast majority of drives are short range and you can create a much more efficient engine if it can run at a constant speed.

Other than that, we need to wait for better and more practical tech to emerge.

Yesterday's solutions don't solve tomorrow's problems. 

I honestly don't know why anyone in the market for a car right now wouldn't consider at least a Hybrid option. It saves money on ware and tear and gas. 

Moving towards an EV only future also assumes we've moved to a Green Energy future which assumes that storing electricity becomes do-able, which is not the case now. 

Solid State Batteries that don't require thousands of cells will be the norm in the future.

I didn't buy an EV because I expect it to save the world. I bought it because I knew I had a regular commute of 90 kms and I didn't want to be a slave to Carbon Taxes and Gas Price swings caused by Geo political issues and Hurricanes in the Gulf. 

It's remarkably freeing being able to plug your car in at night and expect a full charge in the morning. 

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, Boges said:

I honestly don't know why anyone in the market for a car right now wouldn't consider at least a Hybrid option. It saves money on ware and tear and gas.

Sure - who wouldn't consider it. As a concept it's great. And for many people that concept is a practical reality, but for many more it's not until the tech and infrastructure changes substantially.

I think we're basically in agreement at this point - the tech will have to change before ev vehicles are practical on a wide scale, although they certainly are for some individuals now.

[Boges]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I think we're basically in agreement at this point - the tech will have to change before ev vehicles are practical on a wide scale, although they certainly are for some individuals now.

Yes we are. 

But there are plenty that seem to think goals shouldn't be set until answers already exist. 

As if JFK shouldn't have set a target for going to the Moon because at the time it wasn't possible. Imagine if our world worked that way? Nothing would get done. 

I suspect the motives are simply that letting go of fossil fuels seems like a defeat of some kind to these people. 

[CdnFox]

23 minutes ago, Boges said:

Yes we are. 

But there are plenty that seem to think goals shouldn't be set until answers already exist. 

As if JFK shouldn't have set a target for going to the Moon because at the time it wasn't possible. Imagine if our world worked that way? Nothing would get done. 

I suspect the motives are simply that letting go of fossil fuels seems like a defeat of some kind to these people. 

Well in fairness i think it depends on the goals.  Setting a goal for ev sales or conversion before we have the tech doesn't seem practical to me.  I think if we wanted to set a goal for having the tech then that would be a different story.

If something is hard to do but doable, then setting a hard goal and 'forcing' everyone to figure it out is potentially useful.  But if you say 'by 2030 everyone must fly to the moon by flapping their arms"...   well that's not useful.  And i kind of feel we're there with ev stuff just yet. I don't believe it's possible to achieve the goal the feds have set without doing severe damage to our economy for no significant benefit.

Here's the thing - we didn't need to force people to give up horses and buy cars. When the tech was there and the time was right people just did it because it made sense.

I feel like that will be the case here. As you say everyone loves the concept. As things change to make that a more practical solution people will migrate to it of their own free will.  Trying to force that just encourages poor execution and problems with adapting, and that could delay the process far more than it speeds it.

[Boges]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well in fairness i think it depends on the goals.  Setting a goal for ev sales or conversion before we have the tech doesn't seem practical to me.  I think if we wanted to set a goal for having the tech then that would be a different story.

If something is hard to do but doable, then setting a hard goal and 'forcing' everyone to figure it out is potentially useful.  But if you say 'by 2030 everyone must fly to the moon by flapping their arms"...   well that's not useful.  And i kind of feel we're there with ev stuff just yet. I don't believe it's possible to achieve the goal the feds have set without doing severe damage to our economy for no significant benefit.

Here's the thing - we didn't need to force people to give up horses and buy cars. When the tech was there and the time was right people just did it because it made sense.

I feel like that will be the case here. As you say everyone loves the concept. As things change to make that a more practical solution people will migrate to it of their own free will.  Trying to force that just encourages poor execution and problems with adapting, and that could delay the process far more than it speeds it.

Well with this, there's a Climate imperative that most leaders buy into. So it's not exactly the same. 

I think 12 years from now is a pretty good runway. And again the goal is just to say that all NEW cars sold need to be electrified. So no one is banning ICE vehicles. I think most Automakers are moving down that path already. 

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Boges said:

Well with this, there's a Climate imperative that most leaders buy into. So it's not exactly the same. 

I think 12 years from now is a pretty good runway. And again the goal is just to say that all NEW cars sold need to be electrified. So no one is banning ICE vehicles. I think most Automakers are moving down that path already. 

The climate imperative is leading people to make bad decisions.

As to the time line 12 years doesn't even come close the way things are. It would not be possible to accomodate that unless massive changes started taking place today which the gov't has no provision for. We can flap our arms as hard as  we like, but it won't help.

If the gov't wanted to do  something useful it might have done something like "we'll put 20 billion on the table and a new law that every province must be able to provide for ev charging and infrastructure within 12 years".   Then things might have moved along.  But as it is - the goal is outrageously unrealistic.

And that causes people to basically ignore  it.  And when it doesn't work and the next idea is proposed  people will be 'we tried before, i don't want to try again'.

This is just the worst kind of harmful virtue signalling from trudeau. It cost him nothing so what the heck and who cares if it hurts rather than helps, he'll be gone by then

 

[Boges]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The climate imperative is leading people to make bad decisions.

As to the time line 12 years doesn't even come close the way things are. It would not be possible to accomodate that unless massive changes started taking place today which the gov't has no provision for. We can flap our arms as hard as  we like, but it won't help.

If the gov't wanted to do  something useful it might have done something like "we'll put 20 billion on the table and a new law that every province must be able to provide for ev charging and infrastructure within 12 years".   Then things might have moved along.  But as it is - the goal is outrageously unrealistic.

And that causes people to basically ignore  it.  And when it doesn't work and the next idea is proposed  people will be 'we tried before, i don't want to try again'.

This is just the worst kind of harmful virtue signalling from trudeau. It cost him nothing so what the heck and who cares if it hurts rather than helps, he'll be gone by then

You don't think all major automakers aren't making plans to move their production towards EVs? 

Why do you think the price of Lithium has skyrocketed? 

With an EV future you have to re-think the way transportation works. You won't need a fleet of chargers on every few blocks. Most people will do their charging at home or close to home. 

Stage 2 chargers do not take a huge upfront investment to make. The biggest obstacle would be old apartments where everyone shares the same hydro costs. Residents have no problem paying for someone else keeping their apartment 18 degrees year-round, but collectively paying to charge a car may be a bridge too far. But most people thinking like that will probably be dead by 2035. 

[CdnFox]

21 minutes ago, Boges said:

You don't think all major automakers aren't making plans to move their production towards EVs?

What difference would that make?

21 minutes ago, Boges said:

Why do you think the price of Lithium has skyrocketed? 

That's not going to help with the transition.

21 minutes ago, Boges said:

With an EV future you have to re-think the way transportation works. You won't need a fleet of chargers on every few blocks. Most people will do their charging at home or close to home. 

They can't. It's not possible wihtout spending massive massive amounts in infrastructure changes on many levels.

The majority of people (in cities - edited)  these days live in a strata or will be soon. Those buildings, even the new ones being built, cannot support a charger for each individual stall. Most can't provide one for even a 10th of the stalls. Not without massive rewiring at great expense. AND - even if they could, the electrical grid can't supply them yet. 

It's not possible without doing massive economical damage and honestly unless massive efforts were underway today which they are not i doubt we'd be ready in time.

I already see this problem every day. There are many who realize they bought ev's prematurely for their circumstances.

21 minutes ago, Boges said:

Stage 2 chargers do not take a huge upfront investment to make. The biggest obstacle would be old apartments where everyone shares the same hydro costs. Residents have no problem paying for someone else keeping their apartment 18 degrees year-round, but collectively paying to charge a car may be a bridge too far. But most people thinking like that will probably be dead by 2035. 

It is quite easy to deal with the cost issues.  The problem is that NOBODY  including the newest buildings are putting in enough electrical provisions to handle that kind of power load.  Even with load balancing (splitting feeds amongst users when there's more than one using it) you can't provide for even half of the average building. Townhouses are often worse.

And as i said - even if you rewire the buildings the power grid isn't there. I can't get enough power to provide for owners even if the building could handle it, which they can't.

And for a strata it's a long process to even begin that work, which they won't if there isn't a clear path. There's general meetings to be held, there's proposals to be obtained, the owners have to be convinced it's worth spending the money,

 

It's just not reasonably possible in 12 years, unless MASSIVE gov't investments and regulations happen pretty much right now,  And they're not. Hell most provinces haven't even changed the building codes to require conduit for ev charging.

Edited February 22, 2023 by CdnFox

[Boges]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

What difference would that make?

That's not going to help with the transition.

They can't. It's not possible wihtout spending massive massive amounts in infrastructure changes on many levels.

The majority of people (in cities - edited)  these days live in a strata or will be soon. Those buildings, even the new ones being built, cannot support a charger for each individual stall. Most can't provide one for even a 10th of the stalls. Not without massive rewiring at great expense. AND - even if they could, the electrical grid can't supply them yet. 

It's not possible without doing massive economical damage and honestly unless massive efforts were underway today which they are not i doubt we'd be ready in time.

I already see this problem every day. There are many who realize they bought ev's prematurely for their circumstances.

It is quite easy to deal with the cost issues.  The problem is that NOBODY  including the newest buildings are putting in enough electrical provisions to handle that kind of power load.  Even with load balancing (splitting feeds amongst users when there's more than one using it) you can't provide for even half of the average building. Townhouses are often worse.

And as i said - even if you rewire the buildings the power grid isn't there. I can't get enough power to provide for owners even if the building could handle it, which they can't.

And for a strata it's a long process to even begin that work, which they won't if there isn't a clear path. There's general meetings to be held, there's proposals to be obtained, the owners have to be convinced it's worth spending the money,

It's just not reasonably possible in 12 years, unless MASSIVE gov't investments and regulations happen pretty much right now,  And they're not. Hell most provinces haven't even changed the building codes to require conduit for ev charging.

You do know any EV can be set up with the same outlet as a Dryer. So to say it's some pie in the sky optimism is ridiculous. How did we get Central Air in modern buildings? 

This is all predicting the future. If this doesn't happen, shame on all involved, because the technology is much better. Smarter people than you or I will make this happen. 

Or we just continue on with wildly inefficient technology because it's what we're used to. 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Boges said:

You do know any EV can be set up with the same outlet as a Dryer. So to say it's some pie in the sky optimism is ridiculous. How did we get Central Air in modern buildings? 

Before you go any further, i 've got about 500 pages of engineers reports on my desk right now regarding ev charging in specific buildings. I don't really care what your weird air conditioner theories are - i know what i'm talking about.

Central air takes ONE  hook up. And in fact they do cause a lot of power issues. Ask california about that. And to answer your question for the most part they started to design new buildings with central air and incorporate it into the original design  - old buildings did without it. But if everyone's got an EV then ALL buildings must provide for it. It's a world of difference.

A modest sized condo would have 80 units. To provide 30 amps between them even if you load balance over 4 units would be 600 amps and you'd have to be able to supply that all at once for extended periods. That's above and beyond the building's other power needs. Buildings are not built for that.  It CAN be done but you'd have to go back and re do the building grid and that is NOT cheap. Then theres the costs of the coring to get to the parking stalls. None of that is cheap or easy either. So - who's paying for that? ANd how long will it take if we started today to get all the buildings up? Unless we import a hell of a lot of electricians it's going to be more than 12 years. I can barely get one on site to fix a light fixture right now.

It cannot be done without extensive modifications and in most cases the local grid couldn't do it for more than about one building if at all without upgrades. So we're also talking about hundreds of millions in upgrades for hydro . This is NOT a simple prospect.

2 minutes ago, Boges said:

This is all predicting the future. If this doesn't happen, shame on all involved, because the technology is much better. Smarter people than you or I will make this happen. 

If you're counting on a roll of the dice - then it is morally and ethically wrong to set a hard date. A gov't goal must be achievable.

2 minutes ago, Boges said:

Or we just continue on with wildly inefficient technology because it's what we're used to. 

No, it is possible to stimulate advancement without being destructive.  An off the cuff example would be requiring all provincial power companies to produce a plan for how they will upgrade their grid to allow for ev's when the need is there with details. That helps a lot with planning and gives politicians an idea fo what's possible to develop strategies with. Or require all new buildings to be plumbed with conduit for ev charging circuits, and to have the internal capacity physically even if they don't have enough power run to the building day one.  That at least starts to provide for infrastucture moving forward and it's an order of magnitude cheaper than retro'ing the building later.

There's things we can do. But now - the gov't can say "oh we solved that problem" without having actually done ANYTHING constructive and can just walk away.  And 12 years from now when we're stuck in the same boat the liberals will be like "oh well - that guy is gone now, vote for us! We can solve the problem in 12 years from now, isn't that great!?"