Ontario needs to invest in EVs as a realistic Option.

[Boges]

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That's kind of the thing though, with most tech you don't need bridge tech. Good tech that makes sense stands on its own. There may be an initial. Adjustment or challenges but very quickly it flies we didn't need any transitional technology between horses and cars. There was no transitional technology when home computers came out, people saw they were better than an abacus and away they went.

Same with most other successful tech.  The new product was good enough that people just went for it. The reason you want to see transitional tech here is because it's NOT about the tech, it's about the end goal. And we don't have the tech to do a good job of that yet.

Which is fine - but we need to look seriously at the cost benefit of forcing the market to something it's not ready for vs waiting till it's ready.

We already have EVs that can get several hundred kms on a charge. But they're prohibitively expensive for most people. We're in the stage of early adopters. Like people paying $1,000 for a DVD player. 

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No, that wasn't transitional.  That was just improvement over time.  They didn't buy b&w tvs while they WAITED for colour.  (except gleeson who was waiting for 3d )

Same.  That's not transitional.

ROFLMAO - also not transitional

Products evolve into better products.  That's natural.  Computers get faster. Cars get better. Tv's get bigger.  That's not transitional.

Transitional involves an imperfect solution which bridges the gab  between a need in the marketplace and an actual product that fills that need properly.  It assists the 'transition'.  Going from a flip phone to an iphone isn't transitional  

Natural Gas is a 'transition technology'.  It bridges the gap between coal and oil  and true clean energy which isn't quite there yet.  Stereo records are not  

It's a TV, it's an EV. An EV is already a pretty cool car. 

We're just talking about the Battery being more scalable, cheaper and less reliant on rare earth metals. It's an improvement to the tech. Perhaps using the term transitional was incorrect. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Boges said:

We already have EVs that can get several hundred kms on a charge. But they're prohibitively expensive for most people. We're in the stage of early adopters. Like people paying $1,000 for a DVD player. 

We've been over this. They're not just expensive they're impractical for a lot of people. I know you WANT that to be not true but it is. There IS a market segment that does benefit from it and i'd strongly encourage them to use it, but it's not a replacement for an ICE car, not in the way that cars were a replacement for horses.
 

Quote

 

It's a TV, it's an EV. An EV is already a pretty cool car. 

We're just talking about the Battery being more scalable, cheaper and less reliant on rare earth metals. It's an improvement to the tech. Perhaps using the term transitional was incorrect. 

 

"Cool" isn't the same as practical or useable.  You might think it's a "Cool" car.  I don't - my interest in it is purely the elimination of the use of gasoline. I can make my own electricity, i can't make my own gas.  And electricity is something we have in abundance here. Gas we have to pipe in.

And no - we're not just talking about bigger batteries.

We're talking about needing entirely new battery technology. Something much lighter, with much more capacity for it's physical size, AND the ability to charge at a much much faster rate.  Additional safety is also important.  AND cost has to drop dramatically.  And that's before we talk about charging infrastructure, there has to be some way to store power at charging stations.

We're talking about a massive advancement in tech.

Let me put it this way.  Before ICE engines, they had steam engines.  They drove trains and such.  You COULD make a steam engine car and they did in fact make them .

But it wasn't a very good solution.  Then the ICE engine as we know it was invented.  And that WAS a good solution and everybody wanted one and they took off with NO need for subsidies. The infrastructure built itself very very fast.

What we have now is electric versions of the steam engine.  We're waiting on the ICE version.

[herbie]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

What we have now is electric versions of the steam engine.  We're waiting on the ICE version.

Unfortunately the only thing that burns and helps the goal of CO2 reduction is hydrogen and burning that is the least efficient way to use it.

Fuel cells took Apollo to the Moon over 50 years ago and some fuel cell EVs are already being tested for sale. You can rehash all the same objections all over again real soon if someone like Elon looks for a new project. Or wait for another 50 years of oil companies and the Big 3 telling you they're "still not there yet".

Edited July 11, 2023 by herbie

[herbie]

EV everythings!

Canada's First Fully Electric Tug Arrives in Vancouver

https://www.marinelink.com/news/canadas-first-fully-electric-tug-arrives-506530

[CdnFox]

On 7/11/2023 at 1:19 PM, herbie said:

Unfortunately the only thing that burns and helps the goal of CO2 reduction is hydrogen and burning that is the least efficient way to use it.

Fuel cells took Apollo to the Moon over 50 years ago and some fuel cell EVs are already being tested for sale. You can rehash all the same objections all over again real soon if someone like Elon looks for a new project. Or wait for another 50 years of oil companies and the Big 3 telling you they're "still not there yet".

If it isn't there yet we don't need oil companies to tell us - we just know.  Which is where we're at now.

if it IS there there's nothing the oil companies could do to hold it back. Any more than the coal companies could when the world stopped running primarily on steam. Remember we used to fight wars over that stuff too

All we can do is work towards a real solution but you can't force a half-solution on the public at large.  Sure - EV;s right now are a good choice for many people and they will go for it and more power to them. But wide spread adaption just isnt' possible quite yet.

 

[Perspektiv]

On 7/11/2023 at 8:44 AM, Boges said:

Like people paying $1,000 for a DVD player. 

I will keep using a cassette tape for a decade until the technology levels off to similarly expensive.

I remember a friend paying 2, 000$ for a computer that barely sold for 399$ a decade or so later.

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

but you can't force a half-solution on the public at large.

A smart government would incentivize the change. Not virtue signal (divide) over it. Thats not leadership.

[Boges]

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

A smart government would incentivize the change. Not virtue signal (divide) over it. Thats not leadership.

Isn't that what Carbon Taxes do? There's a tax rebate for it. 

Also, the Federal Rebate on EVs serves a similar purposes. 

The divide happens when people claim that the gumint is trying to rip your precious ICE away from you!

Much of the developed world has made moving away from Fossil fuels a priority (even China). This is a goal they've all set. We'll see if it's attainable.

I'm seeing more and more EVs on the road an in parking lots every day. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

Much of the developed world has made moving away from Fossil fuels a priority (even China)

China is expanding it's use of fossil fuels at a rate where it will increase it's output by an amount equal to the total out put of canada about every two years.

So if we managed to stop every single emission, turned the ligths out and all died - china would replace what we emit within 2 years.  

Sorry, but if you thought other countries were taking this 'seriously' i'm afraid you were mistaken.

[Perspektiv]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

There's a tax rebate for it. 

Why not just make the cars affordable and as attractive as the ICEs?

This encourages purchasing. Making them way more expensive, and shaming those who drive ICEs does everything but.

 

1 hour ago, Boges said:

The divide happens

When the government virtue signals and shames those who drive ICEs.

Punishes even, driving up the price of goods, as an unintended consequence, driving the demand to cheaper goods which often have to be imported o_O

1 hour ago, Boges said:

Much of the developed world has made moving away from Fossil fuels a priority (even China).

Where does China rank in emissions? You must offer an equivalent product in order to eliminate fossil fuels.

Plastics alone, keep us dependent on their use.

Do you use active wear?

Great. If you use polyester, you my friend are contributing to the problem.

Look up the products we use that use fossil fuels. Forget their packaging, which has remained unchanged. 

Its virtue signaling and fear mongering, to make people complacent to high taxes while achieving little.

2 hours ago, Boges said:

I'm seeing more and more EVs on the road an in parking lots every day. 

Thats great, but doesn't point to incentives working. It points to the natural effect of the technology becoming better, and thus being adopted. 

Business 101.

[Boges]

I'm not sure using China as an example why we shouldn't move to Green solutions will hole water for very long. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/08/energy-chinas-renewables-progress-comes-alongside-a-coal-power-boom.html#:~:text=In 2020%2C China's Xi announced,for carbon neutrality by 2060.

Quote

 

The major additions of new coal-fired capacity may not necessarily mean that carbon emissions from the power sector will increase in China, CREA and GEM analysts said, particularly given the country’s rapid progress in scaling up clean energy.

China is recognized as the undisputable global leader in renewable energy expansion, adding new projects to the grid almost as fast as the rest of the world combined in 2022.

The build-out comes as part of the government’s strategy to cut its energy intensity and reach peak emissions “in a well-planned and phased way.”

“When we look around the world today, we can firmly see that the energy transition is in progress,” said Mike Hemsley, deputy director at the Energy Transitions Commission think tank.

 

 

Edited July 19, 2023 by Boges

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Boges said:

I'm not sure using China as an example why we shouldn't move to Green solutions will hole water for very long.

 

I am.  Your own source proves why.  they can 'lead the way' in renewables all they like but at the end of the day if they're increasing coal just as fast we're not achieving much.

The idea is to REPLACE things like coal with renewables.  At this point it's just virtue signaling.

If they're going to add the equivilant of Canada's entire output every2 years - what difference does it make what we do?

You seem to feel that they can increase CO output as long as tehy're also increasing solar and some how global warming will hold off on moral grounds to acknowledge their effort.  That's not how science works.  Until they get their own emissions capped and reducing then really any efforts on our part are virtue signalling.

[Boges]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I am.  Your own source proves why.  they can 'lead the way' in renewables all they like but at the end of the day if they're increasing coal just as fast we're not achieving much.

The idea is to REPLACE things like coal with renewables.  At this point it's just virtue signaling.

If they're going to add the equivilant of Canada's entire output every2 years - what difference does it make what we do?

You seem to feel that they can increase CO output as long as tehy're also increasing solar and some how global warming will hold off on moral grounds to acknowledge their effort.  That's not how science works.  Until they get their own emissions capped and reducing then really any efforts on our part are virtue signalling.

Canada has a fraction of the population and manufacturing of China, so I'm not sure how that's a relevant comparison. 

Canada has already largely removed coal from their electricity generation. So here we're talking about transportation. 

[Perspektiv]

32 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

some how global warming will hold off on moral grounds to acknowledge their effort.  

Laugh all you want, but Trudeau felt his tax hikes on fuel, would have stopped the forrest fires, or rather stop them next year. Or is it the year after. Maybe he was playing politics, and being opportunistic to sew panic.

Anyways, of no importance.

Make it 1, 02$ and New Delhi air will be clear.

Next time you cringe at fuel prices, remember the forrest fires you're stopping. Ignore that global warming means all countries contribute to it (the poorest, immensely), and focus on "climate change" which ignores that reality. It also has a more professional way of shaming you for it, individually. 

You're not being hosed. You're a hero.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

Canada has a fraction of the population and manufacturing of China, so I'm not sure how that's a relevant comparison. 

 

Either the globe is warming due to those emissions or it is not.  It's very simple. If it is - no excuses. If it's not - why do i care.

[Boges]

36 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Either the globe is warming due to those emissions or it is not.  It's very simple. If it is - no excuses. If it's not - why do i care.

But you've built in an excuse that "Because China" means that we don't have to do anything. Imagine if we had that same view on Human and Worker Rights. 

China is in a terrible spot right now. They don't have the resources to support their population. One of the reasons they've resorted to Coal is that Climate change has made Hydro electric electricity less feasible for them. 

The good news for the Globe is that they've entered a demographic crisis where they could see their population cut in half this century. They don't have enough young people to support their manufacturing clout going forward.  

Western countries compensate for this with immigration. Fat chance of an Asian country doing the same. 

[herbie]

28 minutes ago, Boges said:

But you've built in an excuse that "Because China" means that we don't have to do anything. Imagine if we had that same view on Human and Worker Rights. 

I've tried pointing this out with "peeing in the pool" and "Shitting in the well" analogies as we all share the same air/water/climate. But unfortunately opponents simply go back to repeating the same old song.

So how about: There's over 1 billion people in China and they're modernizing and buying cars. More of them are EVs than anywhere else. Coal fired power plants to charge one billion cars produce less CO2 than one billions ICE vehicles do. Simple enough?

China is also adopting Green solutions faster than we are. As well as threatening all S Asia with proposed dams, river diversions and military actions in the Himalayas. If India and China start lobbing nukes, we won't have to worry about climate change. They'll "solve it" with a nuclear winter....

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, Boges said:

But you've built in an excuse that "Because China" means that we don't have to do anything. Imagine if we had that same view on Human and Worker Rights. 

I can't believe you need me to explain this to you.  First off - that's like saying "becuase you've got the excuse of gravity now you feel you don't have to just float away."   well.... yes, but it's kind of an odd thing to complain about. The facts are the facts.

Second - if we change workers' rights in Canada then things actually change in Canada.  Nothing that china does affects that.  But with climate change what china does DOES affect us. 

It's like you're playing some sort of game for points -  either man made climate change is real or it isn't - and if it is and we don't control china then nothing we do is going to make much difference.  Simple fact. we'd be far better off spending our money on adapting.

Quote

China is in a terrible spot right now. They don't have the resources to support their population. One of the reasons they've resorted to Coal is that Climate change has made Hydro electric electricity less feasible for them. 

Oh well i'm sure that climate change will be happy to wait for their situation to improve out of courtesy.

 

Quote

The good news for the Globe is that they've entered a demographic crisis where they could see their population cut in half this century. They don't have enough young people to support their manufacturing clout going forward.  

 

Ok - well, wake me in the second half of the century and we'll talk climate change i guess

Look - if climate change is happening and is human caused then we have two choices - we stop it or we adapt to it.  Cananda can't stop it or even slow it down on it's own. So if others won't/can't do what's necessary to stop it - then all we can do is go to plan b and adapt.  It's that simple

7 minutes ago, herbie said:

I've tried pointing this out with "peeing in the pool" and "Shitting in the well" analogies as we all share the same air/water/climate. But unfortunately opponents simply go back to repeating the same old song.

So how about: There's over 1 billion people in China and they're modernizing and buying cars. More of them are EVs than anywhere else. Coal fired power plants to charge one billion cars produce less CO2 than one billions ICE vehicles do. Simple enough?

China is also adopting Green solutions faster than we are. As well as threatening all S Asia with proposed dams, river diversions and military actions in the Himalayas. If India and China start lobbing nukes, we won't have to worry about climate change. They'll "solve it" with a nuclear winter....

Makes no difference in the slightest.  At the end of the day their emissions are going up, which means climate change is happening and you can pee or poo as much as you like but that's not going to change just because you feel sorry for china.

SO if we can't fix it, we should be spending our money adapting.

[Boges]

25 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I can't believe you need me to explain this to you.  First off - that's like saying "becuase you've got the excuse of gravity now you feel you don't have to just float away."   well.... yes, but it's kind of an odd thing to complain about. The facts are the facts.

Second - if we change workers' rights in Canada then things actually change in Canada.  Nothing that china does affects that.  But with climate change what china does DOES affect us. 

It's like you're playing some sort of game for points -  either man made climate change is real or it isn't - and if it is and we don't control china then nothing we do is going to make much difference.  Simple fact. we'd be far better off spending our money on adapting.

Oh well i'm sure that climate change will be happy to wait for their situation to improve out of courtesy.

Ok - well, wake me in the second half of the century and we'll talk climate change i guess

Look - if climate change is happening and is human caused then we have two choices - we stop it or we adapt to it.  Cananda can't stop it or even slow it down on it's own. So if others won't/can't do what's necessary to stop it - then all we can do is go to plan b and adapt.  It's that simple

Makes no difference in the slightest.  At the end of the day their emissions are going up, which means climate change is happening and you can pee or poo as much as you like but that's not going to change just because you feel sorry for china.

SO if we can't fix it, we should be spending our money adapting.

I don't feel sorry for China. China is ostensibly an opponent of the West. So they aren't particularly concerned with our priorities. 

So do we force them, or just ignore the priorities because China doesn't play ball? All the while China IS! actually investing heavily in the technology required to move past fossil fuels and creating an environment where all renewable tech has to go through them. 

So as to the OP of this thread, we in the west need to start investing in this stuff as well, so we don't become dependent on China for batteries and Solar tech etc.

Canada, the US and Europe are all moving in that direction. The first world moving past fossil fuels will make a huge difference regardless what China does. 

[Boges]

40 minutes ago, herbie said:

So how about: There's over 1 billion people in China and they're modernizing and buying cars. More of them are EVs than anywhere else. Coal fired power plants to charge one billion cars produce less CO2 than one billions ICE vehicles do. Simple enough?

China is also adopting Green solutions faster than we are. As well as threatening all S Asia with proposed dams, river diversions and military actions in the Himalayas. If India and China start lobbing nukes, we won't have to worry about climate change. They'll "solve it" with a nuclear winter....

Like with Germany, I suspect these Coal plants are a stop-gap until renewables can be used more broadly. 

I think it's safe to say that neither country wants to be indebted to the likes of Russia for their energy future. 

[Boges]

The impetus for this thread was hoping Ontario would invest in Charging infrastructure. 

I took a trip to Prince Edward County over the weekend. Though PEC has zero working fast chargers EnRoute truckstops each have 4 pretty decent ones. They didn't exist when I started the thread. 

I was anxious that they'd all be used, but I was able to charge when needed. There's going to be a bit of a balancing act when EVs become more popular vs the number of these chargers available. If you are on a road trip and don't have one available, that will cause problems. 

But most EV owners use them infrequently (and they aren't meant to be used regularly). 

There's definitely going to be a huge re-training of how re-fuelling works as we enter the EV age. 

The solution would be more Stage 2 chargers available everywhere so when people go places they can charge when they do their tasks. DC Fast chargers should only be required on Road-Trips. 

[CdnFox]

51 minutes ago, Boges said:

I took a trip to Prince Edward County over the weekend. Though PEC has zero working fast chargers EnRoute truckstops each have 4 pretty decent ones. They didn't exist when I started the thread. 

Well i'm not sure we can give this thread FULL credit for that, but hey progress is progress LOL

(I know you weren't, it was just funny how you phrased that)

52 minutes ago, Boges said:

There's definitely going to be a huge re-training of how re-fuelling works as we enter the EV age. 

It's not practical.  There will be no true 'EV' age as we know them today i suspect, any more than there was a 'steam powered car'  age.  Sure they existed, were even commercially produced.  But they were a transitory tech with too many issues - ice solved that.

I suspect it'll be the same here. A new tech will appear in the next 10 - 15 years that will finally make complete sense and people will naturally move to it. Maybe radical advancements in energy storage or some sort of on board generating capacity or the like, i don't know.  EV's proved the point but they're not entirely practical compared to gas, but that day will come.

[Boges]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

It's not practical.  There will be no true 'EV' age as we know them today i suspect, any more than there was a 'steam powered car'  age.  Sure they existed, were even commercially produced.  But they were a transitory tech with too many issues - ice solved that.

I suspect it'll be the same here. A new tech will appear in the next 10 - 15 years that will finally make complete sense and people will naturally move to it. Maybe radical advancements in energy storage or some sort of on board generating capacity or the like, i don't know.  EV's proved the point but they're not entirely practical compared to gas, but that day will come.

You're thinking practically in comparison to the ICE. Where EVs provide some clear advantages. 

If DC charging time drops to 10 minutes for a trip of 500 km, then we're pretty close to similar experience. But that's only when we consider a trip that's longer than the range of the car. So for most drivers that's relatively rare. 

The advantages of being able to fuel at home, more than outweigh the inconvenience of waiting 30 minutes for a charge on a road trip, when they happen. 

I can see a world, similar to how we have it now with Petrol and Diesel, where personal travel is dominated by EVs and long haul (Trucks, Shipping, Airlines) travel is replaced by something like Hydrogen. Hydrogen is still expensive (relative to electricity) and can't be used at home. 

But the only way Hydrogen makes sense over Gasoline is if it can be produced using Green Energy. Otherwise it's pointless. We aren't there yet either. But we're getting there. I saw a video recently that Spain could could be a leader in Green Hydrogen because they're already somewhat energy independent by they receive so much sunshine.  

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, Boges said:

You're thinking practically in comparison to the ICE. Where EVs provide some clear advantages. 

No, i'm thinking practical period.  There are mostly disadvantages. We've gone over them here.  For some select people the advantages outweigh the disadvantages but for most it's a far far less practical solution than gas engines.

Any solution that fully takes hold will HAVE to be at least as practical or more so than ice.

Quote

If DC charging time drops to 10 minutes for a trip of 500 km, then we're pretty close to similar experience. But that's only when we consider a trip that's longer than the range of the car. So for most drivers that's relatively rare. o much sunshine.  

This is canada.  MOST people do long trips at some point - not to mention back woods trips.  And not everyone wants to "fill up" every day and if they did there woudln't be enough charging stations and people would have to wait long periods.

Sure - if we can get charging times down to the point where it's very similar to gas that goes a long way.  Add to that batteries that have double or triple the capacity with the same weight etc. That's doable.

But that's what i meant when i said the tech will have to significantly mature. It's not there yet - something will come along to fix that i'm quite sure but it's not there yet.

[Boges]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

This is canada.  MOST people do long trips at some point - not to mention back woods trips.  And not everyone wants to "fill up" every day and if they did there woudln't be enough charging stations and people would have to wait long periods.

Actually most people in Canada live in Cities. So I dispute that. I've never travelled by car to a vast majority of Canada. I suspect many haven't. 

 

Quote

Sure - if we can get charging times down to the point where it's very similar to gas that goes a long way.  Add to that batteries that have double or triple the capacity with the same weight etc. That's doable.

Again it's not the intent of the EV. The intent is to charge it at night, and for those that have access to a charger, it works great. The idea of going to a gas station for fuel is just learned behaviour that doesn't need to continue on. 

Quote

But that's what i meant when i said the tech will have to significantly mature. It's not there yet - something will come along to fix that i'm quite sure but it's not there yet.

 

I never said it was. Maybe one day, recharging a car will be like getting a Propane Tank. You just swap an empty battery for a changed one. I think that happens in China. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

Actually most people in Canada live in Cities. So I dispute that.

It's indisputable. If you live in an apartment or townhouse it's VASTLY less efficient right now period if everyone switched over.  Like - barely usable less efficient.  And that's a huge hunk of city people and growing. I deal with this crap every day.

If you live in a city but like to go camping fishing hunting etc it's vastly less efficient.  That's a hell of a lot of the population as well.

If you live in the city and take longer trips even once a year to other cities perhaps visit someone or for events,  its problematic.  There have just been two different stories of people having to abandon their vehicles on longer trips, one of which was the ceo of ford as i recall.

IF you require your vehicle for work, such as being a delivery driver or repair person it's probably less efficient unless you're lucky enough to have your own charging infrastructure which is not as easy as you might think.

Being in a city does NOT make it practical automatically.  Its more like for the small number of people where it is practical, the majority of them will live in a city.

2 hours ago, Boges said:

Again it's not the intent of the EV. The intent is to charge it at night,

Then it's not practical for many applications. Sorry. 

When it BECOMES practical, as practical as ICE is, then people will move to it and ice will become a thing of the past.  That will NOT happen with the current tech.

2 hours ago, Boges said:

Maybe one day, recharging a car will be like getting a Propane Tank. You just swap an empty battery for a changed one. I think that happens in China. 

Well maybe - i doubt it's happening right now given the size and weight of the battery bank but sure, maybe some day - but again that will most likely take new tech. Not really practical with the way it is right now.

 

All you're saying there is what i said - not entirely practical now, almost certainly will eventually evolve into tech that is entirely practical.    We're all waiting with fingers crossed hope it's soon, but it isn't right now just yet.