Jump to content

Ontario needs to invest in EVs as a realistic Option.


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The smart chargers not working? That's unpossible!!

Just out of curiosity - how was the gas station doing? Still pumping gas at all?  I hear some of them can still function down to minus 9

Yup gas was flowing unimpeded. On a second note, no EV's at the charging stations.

Try filling a 5gal container with electrons.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will admit cold presents a myriad of problems for EV adoptors. My Windshield washer fluid line freezes. My own fault for not pre-emptively using more winter focused fluid ahead of the time I guess. Good thing it doesn't get this cold very often in the Greater Toronto area. 

One thing I'm not having an issue with is charging. 

It seems Sodium Ion Batteries solve a lot of the issues with Cold. Much cheaper to produce too.

Again, we're well into the early adopter phase. The only people that have EVs right now are people that want one. In over a decade, if the EV situation is the same as it is now, skeptics may have a point. Right now it's all pearl clutching. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2024 at 8:21 AM, Boges said:

 

It seems Sodium Ion Batteries solve a lot of the issues with Cold. Much cheaper to produce too.

Again, we're well into the early adopter phase. The only people that have EVs right now are people that want one. In over a decade, if the EV situation is the same as it is now, skeptics may have a point. Right now it's all pearl clutching. 

EVs have been around for 120 years now.  When is this "early adopter" timeframe going to run out>?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, herbie said:

Keep giving us every ridiculous excuse why EVs are bad. Can't jump start a horse either. Or a brick for that matter.

Well there is the fact that you would never need to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, herbie said:

Keep giving us every ridiculous excuse why EVs are bad. Can't jump start a horse either. Or a brick for that matter.

Don't need to jumpstart a horse, they do fine in cold weather and you absolutely can jump start  a brick - you just can't tell it did any good because it just lays there....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Legato said:

Well there is the fact that you would never need to.

Unless you were dumb as one. ;) 

....

Yes Virgina, frigid weather may reduce your EV battery range

 

Electric vehicles lose up to 30% range when temperatures dip below freezing

 

CHICAGO-AREA TESLA DRIVERS STRANDED AS CHARGING STATIONS NOT WORKING IN COLD WEATHER

"Our batteries are so cold it's taking longer to charge now. It should take 45 minutes, it's taking two hours for the charger that we have," said Brandon Welbourne, a Tesla owner. "I have seen at least 10 cars get towed away from here because the cars, they died, they've run out of battery. It's too cold, it uses too much of the energy to try to keep the car somewhat reasonable temperature."

Too much energy to charge the cars in winter. More energy, more greenhouse gas. How is that an improvement at all? 

It's a simple equation. Unless of course you're academically less abled.

But hey. It'll be aight. Once we get them smr reactor nukes going we'll have tons of power.

A nuke on every corner.

That sounds good, right?

🤪  🤯 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Reduce not end. Just like your gas mileage and how the battery on your ICE vehicle won't start your ICE car at -40.
So you plug it in, don't you?

And if your EV will "only go 150" instead of 200 km and it's 25 km to work who gives a flying f*ck?

My Jeep wouldn't even crank over a couple days ago at -35... I had to plug it in for a couple hours.... wah wah wahh... Jeeps are no good!..wahh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, herbie said:

wah wah wahh... Jeeps are no good!..wahh

Jeeps do completely suck. As a former Wrangler and Patriot owner I can say... never again.

Those are just for pansy-boys who are all into looks, not substance...

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We drive a Wrangler for it's looks? We like that shoebox 1930s styling, eh? All the aerodynamics of an upright sheet of plywood. Yeah...

And a Patriot? You have my pity. At least it wasn't a Renetard.

But what has Alberta's inept power planning got to do with the Climate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, herbie said:

But what has Alberta's inept power planning got to do with the Climate?

Is actually endemic of the problem, meaning, it cannot be dealt with quickly. The rush to use EV's is all good and well, if they can be made to work in Canadian climes, and IFF (if and only if...) we have the electrical infrastructure to use them. I mean, can you imagine a massive blackout for weeks in this country right now? We're talking serious emergency. As a homeowner I know I'd be getting a gas generator, and will end up in a line with a million other dipshits trying to do same.

That's why, little herbie.

Gotta think, think, think...

;)

....

And now for another, useless anecdote. We got a ferry boat service here to take people and cars to the island. The boats have been in service way too long and need replacement. But then, the virtue-signalling city council, who were the first in Canada to declare a "climate emergency" in this town, decided to buy a new fangled electric ferry.

Result- project went way overpriced and overdue, and the boats are still not in service. Main problem is electrical infrastructure at the docks. They can't charge them sonomabitzes fast enough while the cars are loading and unloading, don't have the amperage. Fast chargers not good anyway, right? Now they're trying to 'float' the idea of 90-minute turnaround (as compared to 30 minutes for the old boats), presumably to give them more charge time as needed. Must be some big ass batteries on those boats I would imagine, they haul up to 75 cars and 400 people.

The geniuses at the Ministry of Transport are suggesting get the new EV ferries up and ready by using diesel generators so they can charge the batteries continually while enroute. So ya got yer gas engine to charge the batteries, to run the boat as a so-called green "electric fairy". My oh my.

That's government inaction for ya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

it cannot be dealt with quickly

Of course it can't if you refuse to even start.

Consider going from first man into space to landing on the Moon in 8 years. Now elect politicians that say it can't be done and refusing to even begin; welcome to cantservative values.
There just isn't enough time 2035 is like the day after tomorrow. We can't even start to....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.westernstandard.news/business/after-six-years-and-761-million-worth-of-studies-natural-resources-canada-says-winter-ev-tests-inconclusive/51809

After six years and $76.1 million worth of studies, Natural Resources Canada says winter EV tests 'inconclusive'

Natural Resources Canada (NRC) said it is too soon to tell if electric vehicles are reliable in Canadian winters, according to Blacklock’s Reporter. 

“It is too early to fully evaluate the intermediate and ultimate outcomes,” said NRC in a report. 

Six years and $76.1 million worth of studies were inconclusive, but analysts warned of potential negative unintended outcomes from cabinet’s EV mandate. 

 

Le Sigh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2024 at 9:27 AM, cannuck said:

EVs have been around for 120 years now.  When is this "early adopter" timeframe going to run out>?

Are you purposely being obtuse? 

We're clearly talking about the current generation of EVs that have a much wider public appeal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Boges said:

Are you purposely being obtuse? 

We're clearly talking about the current generation of EVs that have a much wider public appeal. 

and it took 120 years and hundreds of billions in government subsidies to circumvent what over a century of the marketplace had no chance of succeeding.   Going to the Li Ion road is incredibly irresponsible.   There is not enough known lithium reserves on the planet to put even a small dent in the needs for our global transportation needs.   The second level of incredible stupidity is governments knowing full well Li Ion BEVs are a dead end technology jumping onto the Hydrogen Economy bandwagon.   

All things should only be driven by market conditions - that governments should influence by regulation and taxation....NOT by politician choosiong winners and losers with massive subsidies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cannuck said:

and it took 120 years and hundreds of billions in government subsidies to circumvent what over a century of the marketplace had no chance of succeeding.   Going to the Li Ion road is incredibly irresponsible.   There is not enough known lithium reserves on the planet to put even a small dent in the needs for our global transportation needs.   The second level of incredible stupidity is governments knowing full well Li Ion BEVs are a dead end technology jumping onto the Hydrogen Economy bandwagon.   

All things should only be driven by market conditions - that governments should influence by regulation and taxation....NOT by politician choosiong winners and losers with massive subsidies.

You don't think Government subsidies go into the Oil Industry? 

Battery Tech already has the ability to supplant a good majority of anyone's personal vehicle need.

But but but, I want to drive 800 kms a day near the Arctic Circle!!!! Most people that drive cars don't. 

You also missed the part in my post where I mentioned Sodium Ion batteries. Do we have sufficient Sodium on Earth? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boges said:

You don't think Government subsidies go into the Oil Industry? 

 

It had to because the demand for oil was so high BECAUSE CARS WERE A RUNAWAY SUCCESS ON THEIR OWN  :)  you didn't NEED to tell people to buy cars - very quickly in their evolution cars became such an obvious improvement over horses that it happened quite organically.

EV's have not reached that point. The tech is coming, for some people they're a good idea but in almost every single way an ICE is still superior other than emissions and cost of fuel.

The day will come im' sure. And when it does nobody will need to be told or subsidized, they'll want it.  That day is not yet here.

IF we were REALLY smart we'd probably be focusing our world on making the very best most efficient plug in hybrids. We could probably make that jump tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

IF we were REALLY smart we'd probably be focusing our world on making the very best most efficient plug in hybrids. We could probably make that jump tomorrow.

That's an automaker decision. 

The problem with Plug-in Hybrids is that they all have a relatively pittance of a battery, so they're just glorified Hybrids. 

You get these Gas Guzzling SUVs with a Small battery that can maybe get 50 kms on EV only and then become more inefficient because of the added weight once it moves to Hybrid mode. 

The Chevy Volt and Honda Clarity were PHEV's that had relatively decent EV only ranges, Chevy and Honda both shitcanned them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Boges said:

That's an automaker decision. 

Not at all.  We give massive subsidies for EV's, but little to none for  hybrids. That is a gov't decision and it drives the market. if the gov't sent the signal that it would focus on hybrids that's what the automakers would be building and designing

Quote

The problem with Plug-in Hybrids is that they all have a relatively pittance of a battery, so they're just glorified Hybrids.

That's not the problem - that's the benefit.

Quote

You get these Gas Guzzling SUVs with a Small battery that can maybe get 50 kms on EV only and then become more inefficient because of the added weight once it moves to Hybrid mode. 

Right now you get gas guzzling suv's with NO battery because there's just not the infrastructure and price point to support it. The vast majority of people drive less than 50 km a day. So let them do the first 50 on battery and even if they drive 10 in 'gas guzzler' mode it's still a major net benefit.  You'll get 90 percent of the benefits of electric but you'd get much much wider adaption.

And - if the gov't set out some parameters and automakers sunk real money into development (because there's a guaranteed market) then you could significantly improve the hybrids to find that perfect balance and create the perfect engines etc.

Quote

The Chevy Volt and Honda Clarity were PHEV's that had relatively decent EV only ranges, Chevy and Honda both shitcanned them.

Of course they did - the gov't doesn't support them at all - the gov't is demanding PURE EV's.  The gov't says all cars must be ev's by 2035 or whateve r- why would you continue development of something the gov't is going to wipe out the market for?

If the gov't said "we're really going to push phev's as a bridge solution while we build things out and the tech improves" we'd have tonnes of options and people would adapt to them much faster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Not at all.  We give massive subsidies for EV's, but little to none for  hybrids. That is a gov't decision and it drives the market. if the gov't sent the signal that it would focus on hybrids that's what the automakers would be building and designing

That's not the problem - that's the benefit.

Right now you get gas guzzling suv's with NO battery because there's just not the infrastructure and price point to support it. The vast majority of people drive less than 50 km a day. So let them do the first 50 on battery and even if they drive 10 in 'gas guzzler' mode it's still a major net benefit.  You'll get 90 percent of the benefits of electric but you'd get much much wider adaption.

And - if the gov't set out some parameters and automakers sunk real money into development (because there's a guaranteed market) then you could significantly improve the hybrids to find that perfect balance and create the perfect engines etc.

Of course they did - the gov't doesn't support them at all - the gov't is demanding PURE EV's.  The gov't says all cars must be ev's by 2035 or whateve r- why would you continue development of something the gov't is going to wipe out the market for?

If the gov't said "we're really going to push phev's as a bridge solution while we build things out and the tech improves" we'd have tonnes of options and people would adapt to them much faster.

Just for the record, there is a Federal rebate for a PHEV. It's half an EV though. 

And if a vast majority of people drive less than 50 kms a day, the concern with EVs goes away, especially if prices come down with Sodium Ion batteries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Boges said:

Just for the record, there is a Federal rebate for a PHEV. It's half an EV though. 

 

So they offer half the money and also will be banning their sale by 2035.  Yeah - not really 'supporting' the market are they.

Quote

And if a vast majority of people drive less than 50 kms a day, the concern with EVs goes away, especially if prices come down with Sodium Ion batteries. 

Not in the slightest. On average people may drive that but people need to be able to drive more when they want to - and now ALL the problems come back up. 

Don't have time to charge your hybrid? No problem.  don't have time to charge your ev? oooooops.

Can't get a charger at home for an ev? That's a big issue.  Can't get one for a hybrid? No big deal - plug into the wall and if it's not fully charged in the morning no sweat.

Cold weather reducing range? Gotcha covered.

Do i need to go on?

A Phev eliminates the problems with full EV's. And those are serious problems. But it still delivers the vast majority of the benefits of an EV as far as environmental issues go.  And we could be adopting it everywhere tomorrow. Which means actual reductions would nose dive overall.

But it doesn't virtue signal loud enough. Sooo the gov't is not interested.  Because it's not the environment that actually matters, it's the optics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...