Ontario needs to invest in EVs as a realistic Option.

[TreeBeard]

14 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Bwahaha, you and your stats. Yeah, there's so many EV cars now, right? You are pathetic. Do yourself a favour and stop trying to figure stuff out.

Not my stats….  I never did the study. 
 

The figure is a rate….  Number of fires per 100,000 vehicles.  The rate of fires in ICEs is way higher.  
 

Do your feelings trump facts?

[OftenWrong]

21 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Not my stats….  I never did the study. 
 

The figure is a rate….  Number of fires per 100,000 vehicles.  The rate of fires in ICEs is way higher.  
 

Do your feelings trump facts?

Uh huh. Right so when the number of cars is really low in one group, but really high in the other, you think that's comparing apples.

Even if the numbers are low, which they aren't because you are a liar. Just get it in your head-

THE FIRES ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO PUT OUT!

 ? ? ?

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Uh huh. Right so when the number of cars is really low in one group, but really high in the other, you think that's comparing apples.

It doesn't matter if its apples to tarantulas when the thing you're comparing is the rate at which they burst into flames.

This might be a base rate fallacy except in reverse.  Take this graph and exchange the words unvaccinated for EV's and vaccinated for ICE's and instead of hospitalized with COVID insert bursts-into-flames. 

Does that help clear things up at all?

  

 

Edited February 2, 2023 by eyeball

[OftenWrong]

21 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It doesn't matter if its apples to tarantulas when the thing you're comparing is the rate at which they burst into flames.

This might be a base rate fallacy except in reverse.  Take this graph and exchange the words unvaccinated for EV's and vaccinated for ICE's and instead of hospitalized with COVID insert bursts-into-flames. 

Does that help clear things up at all?

  

 

You're just confused, math definitely not being your forte. 

Stick to counting fish instead...  

[Boges]

17 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Yeah good idea because if you did, you wouldn't be able to put it out. And not just cause you're Boges and don't know how. Nobody can put it out.

This article explains the issue.

What If That Burning Car Has a Lithium-Ion Battery?

And I quote:
"The high-voltage battery in an electric vehicle can catch fire as the result of a crash or because of an internal battery failure. If it does, firefighters, tow operators, and other emergency responders risk electric shock from exposure to the battery’s high-voltage components. A further risk is that damaged battery cells can experience thermal runaway – uncontrolled increases in temperature and pressure – that can cause a battery to ignite and to reignite, sometimes more than once."

The battery keeps re-igniting, because it's a chemical exothermic reaction. Not to mention how the stuff inside is poisonous, and makes hydrogen which will explode.

Second nice thing about EV batteries is if you get them wet, like if water gets into it somehow because it got cracked and punctured. Water + Lithium creates a violent exothermic reaction. You can look it up, Boges. It's called Physics 101.  I

So do you make all your purchases solely based on the worst possible outcome? 

For someone who had distain for anyone who took, perhaps getting COVID seriously, you seem to think people should fear spontaneous combustion from the EV Batteries? 

Do you have any data on the frequency and chances of that vs other catastrophic accidents like, say, your furnace exploding? 

 

Quote

In terms of charging, you can expect these car batteries to behave similar to your phone battery. Similar characteristics. They need to be charged at a controlled, usually slow rate. Fast charges can work, but they take their toll on battery life. Too much fast-charging and you're looking at early battery failure. Sometimes they start getting hot. That's when you know the battery is failing.

I'm aware of this. Which is why people who don't have dedicated Stage 2 chargers probably shouldn't get an EV. Technology will, no doubt improve. 

In the 2 1/2 years I've owned an EV I've used a Stage 3 Fast Charger a grand total of 3 times. 

Edited February 2, 2023 by Boges

[Boges]

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

You're just confused, math definitely not being your forte. 

Stick to counting fish instead...  

You're being told the rate of EVs vs ICE vehicles bursting into flames relative to 100,000 cars

It's like Per Capita data. It's accounting for the fact that there are way more ICE vehicles vs EVs. 

One factor you can't exactly calculate, but it's a real factor, is the idea that ICE technology is pretty static whereas EV technology is constantly evolving. So as more automakers invest in EV technology the safer the technology becomes. 

Hyundai and Chevy have had to recall batteries for small instances of them catching on fire. This actually is an example of their Quality Control working and the technology becoming safer over the long-run.

How often do ICE vehicles have to be recalled for some chance of catastrophic safety issues? 

Edited February 2, 2023 by Boges

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

You're just confused, math definitely not being your forte. 

Stick to counting fish instead...  

This is a cognition issue, a trick of perception. It has nothing to do with math.

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

This is a cognition issue, a trick of perception. It has nothing to do with math.

Uh huh

lmao

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

You're being told the rate of EVs vs ICE vehicles bursting into flames relative to 100,000 cars

It's like Per Capita data. It's accounting for the fact that there are way more ICE vehicles vs EVs. 

One factor you can't exactly calculate, but it's a real factor, is the idea that ICE technology is pretty static whereas EV technology is constantly evolving. So as more automakers invest in EV technology the safer the technology becomes. 

Hyundai and Chevy have had to recall batteries for small instances of them catching on fire. This actually is an example of their Quality Control working and the technology becoming safer over the long-run.

How often do ICE vehicles have to be recalled for some chance of catastrophic safety issues? 

Cue the hand-waving arguments. You didn't even touch the issue of fast charging, but then what can you say. 

This battery tech has so many issues that we should not be blind to now, at the beginning of the EV "experiment". 

Just like we ignored the implicit hazard of plastic bags when they came out 30 years ago.

Because, "Save the trees. "

It all seemed so obvious to you people at the time. Well, look at you now.

[Boges]

17 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Cue the hand-waving arguments. You didn't even touch the issue of fast charging, but then what can you say. 

I conceded that I was aware that frequent fast-charging is bad for the battery. Which is why EV owners only use it when they have to. I haven't used a fast charger since 2021. 

Quote

This battery tech has so many issues that we should not be blind to now, at the beginning of the EV "experiment". 

Old man yelling at Clouds says what? 

Quote

Just like we ignored the implicit hazard of plastic bags when they came out 30 years ago.

Plastic bags came out in 1993? 

Quote

It all seemed so obvious to you people at the time. Well, look at you now.

You're equating plastics to EVs when they are are actually more analogous to the ICE and the idea that belching finitie toxic chemicals into the air would eventually catch up to us.

But they don't poop like horses do. . . 

Edited February 3, 2023 by Boges

[OftenWrong]

Dismiss it all you want, you're free to do so. Of course your interests wouldn't be at arms length, you went and bought one. And yet admitted you also own an ice vehicle. Not bad, not bad. Sounds like a toy to me. 

But this isn't about you, no one really cares what you do.  

Point is, these cells are highly volatile. Not when you use them properly, but say in an accident. 

Not only do they cause incredibly hot fires that don't go out, but they can also electrocute your ass.

Here is a linky-dink-

WHAT IF THAT BURNING CAR HAS A LITHIUM-ION BATTERY?

That's from the fire-fighters.

Here's one that makes the same points I do. 

What are the fire safety risks of lithium-ion batteries?

What will we need to think about as these batteries become ubiquitous?

The central risk with lithium-ion batteries is fire. The batteries are unlikely to catch fire – but they can, through faults inside the battery, or from external damage.

And when they do catch fire, the consequences can be serious.

Cosmos spoke to Magrabi at the 2022 Australasian Fire and Emergency Services Council (AFAC) conference in Adelaide, where he’d given a talk on battery fire safety.

“It’s an emerging risk, we’re still coming to grips with it. It’s very different from any other battery system we have,.

....

In other words this is a very real problem, and they don't have a solution yet. You're driving a potential death-trap.

Sounds like the Ford Pinto all over again...

[herbie]

On 2/3/2023 at 3:54 PM, OftenWrong said:

Sounds like the Ford Pinto all over again...

sounds more like you'd like people to believe that. Now how about coming up with an actual reason that Ontario should'nt be investing into EVs. Do you want it to lose auto manufacturing jobs?

[OftenWrong]

15 hours ago, herbie said:

Now how about coming up with an actual reason that Ontario should'nt be investing into EVs. Do you want it to lose auto manufacturing jobs?

I don't do requests. If you don't understand the problem, you end up asking the wrong questions.

More like, what is wrong with the rollout of EV's. Quite a lot, actually. The government's threat to stop the sale of ICE's in a few years is simply environmental virtue signalling. Canada will not even make a dent in reducing global carbon, yet are to be held up like an example. Just so you people can all go and polish your halos.

Second there is not the electrical infrastructure to support the entire country switching to battery power. There is not enough time to build the required infrastructure given the timeline the government has put forward.

Third that there is no plan to address the environmental hazards of these new technologies themselves. These batteries are toxic and incendiary if they go off.

Fourth, there is already known a limited supply of the rare earth materials. Projections already show we won't make it much beyond 2030.

It should be no surprise, that the government plan is incompetent. Unless of course, you're also incompetent which is likely the case. 

See how it works, sonny.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

It should be no surprise, that the government plan is incompetent.

There is that and of course there'll be the usual friction of Ottawa's climate change inaction maintaining much of the status quo for sometime yet.

[herbie]

Once again you present the same critiques of battery power as if problems aren't already being, can't or ever will be addressed. And not the issue of Ontario, where cars are made investing in them.

Edited February 5, 2023 by herbie

[OftenWrong]

5 hours ago, herbie said:

Once again you present the same critiques of battery power as if problems aren't already being, can't or ever will be addressed. And not the issue of Ontario, where cars are made investing in them.

Get back to me when they fix or address these probllems.

They still haven't addressed the issue of toxic waste from cfl's and diode lights.

Just like they never did fix the problem of plastic in the environment.

Just like they never did, nor ever will fix the problem with nuclear waste.

Because you have faith in government.

[Boges]

18 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I don't do requests. If you don't understand the problem, you end up asking the wrong questions.

More like, what is wrong with the rollout of EV's. Quite a lot, actually. The government's threat to stop the sale of ICE's in a few years is simply environmental virtue signalling. Canada will not even make a dent in reducing global carbon, yet are to be held up like an example. Just so you people can all go and polish your halos.

Second there is not the electrical infrastructure to support the entire country switching to battery power. There is not enough time to build the required infrastructure given the timeline the government has put forward.

Third that there is no plan to address the environmental hazards of these new technologies themselves. These batteries are toxic and incendiary if they go off.

Fourth, there is already known a limited supply of the rare earth materials. Projections already show we won't make it much beyond 2030.

It should be no surprise, that the government plan is incompetent. Unless of course, you're also incompetent which is likely the case. 

See how it works, sonny.

These are tired and debunked talking points everyone uses. 

A few years is 12. Even if you wanted an EV right now you couldn't get one because demand is so high. 

[Boges]

On 2/5/2023 at 10:11 PM, OftenWrong said:

Get back to me when they fix or address these probllems.

They still haven't addressed the issue of toxic waste from cfl's and diode lights.

Just like they never did fix the problem of plastic in the environment.

Just like they never did, nor ever will fix the problem with nuclear waste.

Because you have faith in government.

BTW in your world all EV development would stop until it meets and exceeds the range and availability of an ICE vehicle. 

No one is being forced to get an EV. Even in a decade people could keep their ICE vehicles as long as Gasoline was a reasonable fuel source, which I suspect it might not be. 

Battery tech will have to scale, Green Tech will have to grow, and charger availability will have to grow. It's not there yet.

I'm the first to say that these are really only for commuters with Single-Family homes in places with reasonable electricity rates. But even at that, carmakers can't keep them in stock. 

Edited February 7, 2023 by Boges

[OftenWrong]

8 hours ago, Boges said:

BTW in your world all EV development would stop until it meets and exceeds the range and availability of an ICE vehicle.  

Boges, aside from telling me what I think, which is always a mistake, you are basically agreeing with the issues I've raised.

No one is being forced to get an EV. Even in a decade people could keep their ICE vehicles as long as Gasoline was a reasonable fuel source, which I suspect it might not be.

So then they will be forced. I figure that Canada wants to be an EV poster-boy to the world. Guess who's face on the poster. Complete, with a green halo...

Point is Mr. Trudeau likes high gas prices, and looks forward to the day when gas is no longer available. 

There is nothing wrong with it in principle, it's just how we get there. And what we replace it with.

Battery tech will have to scale, Green Tech will have to grow, and charger availability will have to grow. It's not there yet.

You missed what really has to grow, besides Teebeard's puny intellect, that is.  

There is not enough power available. 

Or let me guess... you might go with the gas-powered generator to charge the EV. lmao

I'm the first to say that these are really only for commuters with Single-Family homes in places with reasonable electricity rates. But even at that, carmakers can't keep them in stock.

Admit what they really are... the latest status symbol for the liberal bourgeoise. 

[Boges]

17 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Boges, aside from telling me what I think, which is always a mistake, you are basically agreeing with the issues I've raised.

No one is being forced to get an EV. Even in a decade people could keep their ICE vehicles as long as Gasoline was a reasonable fuel source, which I suspect it might not be.

So then they will be forced. I figure that Canada wants to be an EV poster-boy to the world. Guess who's face on the poster. Complete, with a green halo...

Point is Mr. Trudeau likes high gas prices, and looks forward to the day when gas is no longer available. 

There is nothing wrong with it in principle, it's just how we get there. And what we replace it with.

Battery tech will have to scale, Green Tech will have to grow, and charger availability will have to grow. It's not there yet.

You missed what really has to grow, besides Teebeard's puny intellect, that is.  

There is not enough power available. 

Or let me guess... you might go with the gas-powered generator to charge the EV. lmao

I'm the first to say that these are really only for commuters with Single-Family homes in places with reasonable electricity rates. But even at that, carmakers can't keep them in stock.

Admit what they really are... the latest status symbol for the liberal bourgeoise. 

Well if Battery Tech does improve then Hydro Storage will also be a thing that will help with Power demands. 

The problem with Green and Solar isn't the ability to generate power, it's that it doesn't always generate them at the right times in the right places. Storage will be the next thing. Either that or embracing new forms of Nuclear. 

You can't solve tomorrow's problems with today's thinking, which it sounds like you want to do. 

Regarding Gas prices. Can you highlight another Western Democracy that has cheaper gas prices than Canada other than the US? All Developed nations are going down the path of making pollution cost more. 

The North American fringe right is on a lonely limb. 

Edited February 8, 2023 by Boges

[OftenWrong]

I do not represent any interests, nor do I make representations of any kind.

Meanwhile those of you who put your faith in blessed technology as the way out of our situation, may be in for a disappointment. Arguably the embrace of high tech is the very reason that we have created so much global carbon, and many other pollutants and toxins. CO2 is but one part of the overall picture of destruction caused by implementing technology and mechanization, taking us from an agrarian society that lasted for thousands of years, to the brink of destruction of not only mankind but all life on planet earth. All in a mere two hundred years.

So carry on, ye progressives I say. Right over the brink Carry on but make it quick.

It's just better that way, more humane.

....

Now back to your favourite topic Boges, why your EV will save the world. We talked about how dangerous the batteries are when they alight on fire. That they create an incredible heat of 2000 degrees that cannot be extinguished. It has to be left to burn itself out.

Second, the toxicity of spent batteries, and the difficulty recycling/ extracting the raw materials again, makes disposal an important issue.

Or did we not learn our lesson yet about spent fuel nuclear rods... the song and dance routine that sold the public on reactor safety. They too gave assurances that technology would save us.

Third, the issue that there is a limited supply of lithium in the first place. In fact it's already become clear there is not enough lithium for us to make the transition to EV's.

There are several article to substantiate this claim.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/07/electric-vehicles-world-enough-lithium-resources/

• The world could face lithium shortages by 2025, the International Energy Agency (IEA) says, while Credit Suisse thinks demand could treble between 2020 and 2025, meaning “supply would be stretched”.
• About 2 billion EVs need to be on the road by 2050 for the world to hit net zero, the IEA says, but sales stood at just 6.6 million last year, and some carmakers are already selling out of EVs.
• Lithium supply faces challenges not only from surging demand, but because resources are concentrated in a few places.
• Future developments with batteries or manufacturing methods could eventually alleviate some lithium shortages.

 

Boges, it sounds to me like the lithium battery is a dead end. Most countries are not investing in this tech, because there is a need for new fuel cell.

You've essentially bought the blue-ray of cars...

[CdnFox]

At the risk of being hated by both sides....

I feel like both sides in this argument are making some good points (and perhaps overhyping some).  But - isn't the solution then to look at plug in hybrids?

Environmentally you get about 90 percent of the benefits of electric vehicles with hybrids, depending on where you are perhaps more.

You don't need to worry about massive electric infrastructure changes.  That problem is bigger than people think, especially for those in condos or townhouses (which is a very sizeable portion of the public these days and growing).

You need about a quarter of the batteries, so you are putting less strain on a limited resource giving more time for the next gen of batteries to be born.  And the vehicles can still operate with the batteries at low capacity from age so there's less 'urgency' to replace them.

They can still do long range road trips without having dedicated charging stations everywhere.

It seems like for those who are proponents of EV's, Maxing out this tech until battery and electrification issues are resolved is really the best of both worlds. 

I mean - a sizeable hunk of the country still burns fossil fuels to produce electricity in the first place so until we beat that i'm not sure the gain for FULL ev's is worth the pain.

I shall now put on my helmet and body armour and await your replies.

[Boges]

On 2/18/2023 at 11:14 AM, OftenWrong said:

I do not represent any interests, nor do I make representations of any kind.

Meanwhile those of you who put your faith in blessed technology as the way out of our situation, may be in for a disappointment. Arguably the embrace of high tech is the very reason that we have created so much global carbon, and many other pollutants and toxins. CO2 is but one part of the overall picture of destruction caused by implementing technology and mechanization, taking us from an agrarian society that lasted for thousands of years, to the brink of destruction of not only mankind but all life on planet earth. All in a mere two hundred years.

So carry on, ye progressives I say. Right over the brink Carry on but make it quick.

It's just better that way, more humane.

....

Now back to your favourite topic Boges, why your EV will save the world. We talked about how dangerous the batteries are when they alight on fire. That they create an incredible heat of 2000 degrees that cannot be extinguished. It has to be left to burn itself out.

Second, the toxicity of spent batteries, and the difficulty recycling/ extracting the raw materials again, makes disposal an important issue.

Or did we not learn our lesson yet about spent fuel nuclear rods... the song and dance routine that sold the public on reactor safety. They too gave assurances that technology would save us.

Third, the issue that there is a limited supply of lithium in the first place. In fact it's already become clear there is not enough lithium for us to make the transition to EV's.

There are several article to substantiate this claim.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/07/electric-vehicles-world-enough-lithium-resources/

• The world could face lithium shortages by 2025, the International Energy Agency (IEA) says, while Credit Suisse thinks demand could treble between 2020 and 2025, meaning “supply would be stretched”.
• About 2 billion EVs need to be on the road by 2050 for the world to hit net zero, the IEA says, but sales stood at just 6.6 million last year, and some carmakers are already selling out of EVs.
• Lithium supply faces challenges not only from surging demand, but because resources are concentrated in a few places.
• Future developments with batteries or manufacturing methods could eventually alleviate some lithium shortages.

 

Boges, it sounds to me like the lithium battery is a dead end. Most countries are not investing in this tech, because there is a need for new fuel cell.

You've essentially bought the blue-ray of cars...

I like how you quote the WEF. Aren't those the devils trying to control us?\

Lithium is not a rare Earth element. There's plenty of it. We just have to mine it. Kinda like how we mine all the Fossil fuels we run our society off of. And unlike Fossil Fuel, Lithium IS RECYCLABLE. 

No one's going to throw a battery full of a valuable metal in a Landfill just to rot, just like no one throws away Copper, or Steel or Tin or any Metal that can repurposed. 

[Boges]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

At the risk of being hated by both sides....

I feel like both sides in this argument are making some good points (and perhaps overhyping some).  But - isn't the solution then to look at plug in hybrids?

Environmentally you get about 90 percent of the benefits of electric vehicles with hybrids, depending on where you are perhaps more.

You don't need to worry about massive electric infrastructure changes.  That problem is bigger than people think, especially for those in condos or townhouses (which is a very sizeable portion of the public these days and growing).

You need about a quarter of the batteries, so you are putting less strain on a limited resource giving more time for the next gen of batteries to be born.  And the vehicles can still operate with the batteries at low capacity from age so there's less 'urgency' to replace them.

They can still do long range road trips without having dedicated charging stations everywhere.

It seems like for those who are proponents of EV's, Maxing out this tech until battery and electrification issues are resolved is really the best of both worlds. 

I mean - a sizeable hunk of the country still burns fossil fuels to produce electricity in the first place so until we beat that i'm not sure the gain for FULL ev's is worth the pain.

I shall now put on my helmet and body armour and await your replies.

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

A lot of PHEVs are just giant honking SUVs with abysmal gas mileage that has a small battery that gets maybe 50 kms or range. And a lot of these don't even go for full EV range very long. 

Most car companies have discontinued the PHEVs and moved either towards Hybrids or Full EV models. 

Regarding burning fossil fuels for electricity. I've pointed this out many times. An EV battery uses so much less actual energy than the hugely energy gasoline. 

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. 

People don't realize how inefficient ICE vehicles are. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Boges said:

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

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.

2 hours ago, Boges said:

A lot of PHEVs are just giant honking SUVs with abysmal gas mileage that has a small battery that gets maybe 50 kms or range. And a lot of these don't even go for full EV range very long.

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.

2 hours ago, Boges said:

Most car companies have discontinued the PHEVs and moved either towards Hybrids or Full EV models.

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

2 hours ago, Boges said:

Regarding burning fossil fuels for electricity. I've pointed this out many times. An EV battery uses so much less actual energy than the hugely energy gasoline. 

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.

2 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. 

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

2 hours ago, Boges said:

People don't realize how inefficient ICE vehicles are. 

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.