BC: 100% of all new vehicles sold by 2040 have to be zero emission

Cock Throppled

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
5,119
1,086
113
Upstairs
Not a bad idea, but as more electric cars come on line, just watch electricity rates skyrocket.

Also, the main key is price. Either the subsidies for EV's have to increase, and/or the unit price has to come down.
 

licks2nite

Well-known member
Nov 30, 2006
1,238
260
83
Economies of scale should fix things up. Electric motors are far less expensive to build and far less maintenance required than internal combustion engines. Batteries are just a bunch of sludge and virtually no labour to build compared to engines. Suppose a bit of research required in transmission and differential ratios for a different torque characteristic that is likely done already. Should be a cake walk for B.C. with Site "C" coming on line.
 

MissingOne

Don't just do something, sit there.
Jan 2, 2006
2,230
441
83
... Batteries are just a bunch of sludge and virtually no labour to build compared to engines. ...
It's expensive sludge. Unless we get many more lithium, cobalt etc. suppliers coming on line, we'll continue to be held to ransom by a small number of suppliers who can demand high prices for the materials that go into batteries. Even copper could be in short supply in the next decade unless more mines come on stream. The anti-petroleum crowd still seems to be a bit oblivious to the amount of additional mining we're going to need to supply the "green energy revolution".

It happens that the mining industry is one of my best sources of revenue, so I'm all for more mines. I kinda suspect, though, that the green crowd doesn't yet realize the amount of additional resource extraction we're heading for as we move to a reduced-carbon economy. Much as I myself am pro-mining, we have to acknowledge that additional resource extraction will have environmental consequences.
 

clu

Active member
Oct 3, 2010
1,268
14
38
Vancouver
Electric cars just punt the problem down the road. If the power plants that are providing the electricity to charge your cars are still fossil fuel burning then you've gained nothing in terms of curtailing emissions.
 

appleomac

Active member
Aug 9, 2010
703
188
43
Electric cars just punt the problem down the road. If the power plants that are providing the electricity to charge your cars are still fossil fuel burning then you've gained nothing in terms of curtailing emissions.
Many assumptions in your theory that may or may not be correct assumptions. What's the total amount of emissions from vehicles? How much more emissions are created from additional electricity demand? Are these two amounts equal, or is one of these amounts greater than the other? If so which amount is greater?
 

clu

Active member
Oct 3, 2010
1,268
14
38
Vancouver
Many assumptions in your theory that may or may not be correct assumptions. What's the total amount of emissions from vehicles? How much more emissions are created from additional electricity demand? Are these two amounts equal, or is one of these amounts greater than the other? If so which amount is greater?
The only real assumption is whether the fuel-to-energy conversion efficiency of the power station is not significantly better than than car's to offset the add-on cost of storage and retrieval in the battery.
 

appleomac

Active member
Aug 9, 2010
703
188
43
The only real assumption is whether the fuel-to-energy conversion efficiency of the power station is not significantly better than than car's to offset the add-on cost of storage and retrieval in the battery.
I have no idea what that all meant. The point I was attempting to make was that you seem convinced that emissions gained from additional electricity production would completely offset emissions reduction from all cars being zero emissions. Therefore; if that was your original assertion, what is the basis of your assumption that that would actually be the case?
 

overdone

Banned
Apr 26, 2007
1,826
442
83
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/brit...rucks-sold-by-2040-be-zero-emission-1.5093110

With gas prices going up and cost of battery packs going down, we may get there even quicker.
hahahaha

yeah right, lol

they don't even make up 2% of the market now

and that's with heavy subsides, which Ont eliminated, which economists call moronic

just like green energy, without subsidies, they aren't economical, look at Europe, look out east, take the subsidies away, it dries up

it's called physics, reality, the numbers aren't there yet, it isn't going to happen, certainly not for decades, certainly not 2, pipe-dream

look at the energy needed to replace the energy used now for vehicles, it's just not realistic, read David Booth's articles on the reality of it

to replace the gas pumps with recharging stations alone isn't possible

the transfer rate to charge a car fast, isn't there, right now an hour, it's considered a fast recharge

people who live in condos/apartments, where are they going to plug in?

don't have a garage, in winter, cause cold doesn't affect batteries, lol

delusions

and the power grids now can't keep up when it's stressed in hot summers

how you going to produce all that power? burn oil? NG? lol

you don't have any more rivers to damn up

enjoy that 2 dollar gas while it lasts
 

wetnose

Well-known member
Mar 23, 2003
2,077
481
83
South Vancouver
FYI, prices on battery packs have been falling like a rock. Since 2010, battery packs have fallen by 85% in real terms:

https://twitter.com/BloombergNEF/status/1075410072283594753

By the end of the next decade, the price is projected to fall even further by another 50%+.

And yes, Electronic Vehicles (EVs) are less than 2% of the market now...but 100 years ago, less than 2% of the population owned automobiles too. The idea of controlled explosions in a steel box was terrifying to some people.

But if an idea makes sense, then people will make the change and they have:

https://evadoption.com/ev-market-share/
 
Last edited:

clu

Active member
Oct 3, 2010
1,268
14
38
Vancouver
I have no idea what that all meant. The point I was attempting to make was that you seem convinced that emissions gained from additional electricity production would completely offset emissions reduction from all cars being zero emissions. Therefore; if that was your original assertion, what is the basis of your assumption that that would actually be the case?
Physics and chemistry? I wasn't certain it was an exact wash, but I feel that a lot of people don't seem to realise that electric cars are not zero emissions if the electricity it uses was pulled from a power grid that has its own emissions.

Anyway, Googling, I found this:

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-car-emissions

Seems in the US, on average, it is a wash between fuel efficient gas powered cars and pure electrical due to the carbon footprint of the power grid. In Canada, the average is better. I guess our power grid is on average cleaner?

Anyway, the report supports my assertion as far as the US is concerned anyway: electric cars don't mean squat if your power grid is fuelled by "beautiful clean coal." (And in fact, if it's coal powered electricity, a gas car is better for the environment than electrical according to that report.)
 

wetnose

Well-known member
Mar 23, 2003
2,077
481
83
South Vancouver

rlock

Well-known member
May 20, 2015
2,281
1,360
113
2040 is too slow, about 10 years too late really. (Remember that last year, the prediction was the world has about 12 years to get it's emissions down dramatically, or it's too late, and we can all look forward to living in some Mad Max style wasteland.)

There's a lot they can do that they aren't, to make the switch to EV's happen.

- Urban public transit must expand, and fully electrify.

- Accelerate the attrition of older gas-guzzling vehicles. Practically speaking, ICBC should be scrapping any vehicle made before 1995, for a start.

- Mandate that localized fleet vehicles be fully electric from now on. (We always think of private cars, but how many vehicles are running around that never get far from their home base: owned by governments, local utilities & agencies, universities, malls, airports, etc.) For such vehicles, charging is less of an issue because they have a centralized garage, and can just swap out when the batteries need charging. I've worked at facilities where they have their own vehicles, but those vehicles never leave the grounds except to get gas.

- Change the building codes to BUILD CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE INTO EVERY APARTMENT & OFFICE BUILDING. Seriously, where else are people likely to spend enough time to be able to charge? Home first, work second.

- Legislation that all taxis, limos, and ride-hailing services must use EV's, period. Do not allow just any vehicle to haul passengers for money. This one might have to be only in urban areas though.

Obviously a few of the above would require the car companies to get their ass moving on making more EV's that are designed for hauling cargo or large numbers of people. (Vans, pickups, buses, etc.) But if you force them to adapt to the new market conditions, they'll get it done, because there's obviously a lot of money to be made in selling new EV's as everyone ditches their old vehicles.
 

rlock

Well-known member
May 20, 2015
2,281
1,360
113
Physics and chemistry? I wasn't certain it was an exact wash, but I feel that a lot of people don't seem to realise that electric cars are not zero emissions if the electricity it uses was pulled from a power grid that has its own emissions.

Anyway, Googling, I found this:

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-car-emissions

Seems in the US, on average, it is a wash between fuel efficient gas powered cars and pure electrical due to the carbon footprint of the power grid. In Canada, the average is better. I guess our power grid is on average cleaner?

Anyway, the report supports my assertion as far as the US is concerned anyway: electric cars don't mean squat if your power grid is fuelled by "beautiful clean coal." (And in fact, if it's coal powered electricity, a gas car is better for the environment than electrical according to that report.)


Well, obviously, coal power plants - or even natural gas - are not going to cut it. They have to go. Renewables like wind and solar can make up some of that, but not all of the power-on-demand requirements. The solution there is probably nuclear power. Expensive up-front costs, but if they got off their ass to build the newer & safer types of plants (generation 3 or 4 reactors, or even thorium ones eventually), instead of trying to keep running the old unsafe ones, then the nuclear industry would not be the environmental nightmare it has been thus far.

China and India are building a huge number of new plants. In the US, they've only built one new nuclear plant in the last 40 years. Japan is still freaked out about anything nuclear (can you blame them?), but their most recent disaster was on a plant so old that no country would even consider a design like that safe anymore. CANDU reactors, especially the new generation ones, would be excellent tech for not just our own use, but the world's, but few people in Canada seem to know it or give ourselves credit as a country that's ahead of the curve.

No, instead we have idiot politicians who cling to never taking us off hydrocarbon fuels, even when alternatives exist that are within reach if we just divert some of the resources that currently go towards subsidizing coal, oil, & gas.
The business case for staying with the carbon-heavy status quo sucks, but it's all these elites of ours know, so we're being passed technologically by formerly 3rd world countries.
 

appleomac

Active member
Aug 9, 2010
703
188
43
Well, obviously, coal power plants - or even natural gas - are not going to cut it. They have to go. Renewables like wind and solar can make up some of that, but not all of the power-on-demand requirements. The solution there is probably nuclear power. Expensive up-front costs, but if they got off their ass to build the newer & safer types of plants (generation 3 or 4 reactors, or even thorium ones eventually), instead of trying to keep running the old unsafe ones, then the nuclear industry would not be the environmental nightmare it has been thus far.

China and India are building a huge number of new plants. In the US, they've only built one new nuclear plant in the last 40 years. Japan is still freaked out about anything nuclear (can you blame them?), but their most recent disaster was on a plant so old that no country would even consider a design like that safe anymore. CANDU reactors, especially the new generation ones, would be excellent tech for not just our own use, but the world's, but few people in Canada seem to know it or give ourselves credit as a country that's ahead of the curve.

No, instead we have idiot politicians who cling to never taking us off hydrocarbon fuels, even when alternatives exist that are within reach if we just divert some of the resources that currently go towards subsidizing coal, oil, & gas.
The business case for staying with the carbon-heavy status quo sucks, but it's all these elites of ours know, so we're being passed technologically by formerly 3rd world countries.
Rightly or wrongly; nuclear has an optics problem.
 

licks2nite

Well-known member
Nov 30, 2006
1,238
260
83
It's expensive sludge. Unless we get many more lithium, cobalt etc. suppliers coming on line, we'll continue to be held to ransom by a small number of suppliers who can demand high prices for the materials that go into batteries. Even copper could be in short supply in the next decade unless more mines come on stream. The anti-petroleum crowd still seems to be a bit oblivious to the amount of additional mining we're going to need to supply the "green energy revolution".

It happens that the mining industry is one of my best sources of revenue, so I'm all for more mines. I kinda suspect, though, that the green crowd doesn't yet realize the amount of additional resource extraction we're heading for as we move to a reduced-carbon economy. Much as I myself am pro-mining, we have to acknowledge that additional resource extraction will have environmental consequences.
Mississauga Ontario based Li-Cycle Technology™ claims to recycle all lithium-ion batteries and chemistries to recover enduring intermediate products: lithium, cobalt, copper. Consumes low amount of energy, produces no land fill waste, and minimal to no greenhouse gas emissions and commercial scalability.

The planet has 18 to 40 million tonnes of lithium. Reliable source nations Chile, Australia, Canada. Even without recycling lithium, the 1 billion vehicles currently on the planet could each be converted to electric that would operate many years.
 

storm rider

Banned
Dec 6, 2008
2,542
7
0
Calgary
All I can say towards electric vehicles is this.....FUCK NO from my side of things.I drive for a living and some days I drive 300+ kilometers a day at the same time I may move up to 1500 pounds of freight in various items.Could I do that with an electric car...not fucking likely LOL.

SR
 

Gardener

Active member
May 9, 2017
326
66
28
All I can say towards electric vehicles is this.....FUCK NO from my side of things.I drive for a living and some days I drive 300+ kilometers a day at the same time I may move up to 1500 pounds of freight in various items.Could I do that with an electric car...not fucking likely LOL.

Well all I can say to electric vehicles is....FUCK YES from my side of things. I drive 7kms a day to a Skytrain station and ride the train the rest of the way. At times I carry 5 pounds, made up of a empty bag with only a PBJ sandwich in it. I’ve done that 5 times per week for decades, so an EV makes massive sense to me.
 

jgg

In the air again.
Apr 14, 2015
2,835
1,071
113
Varies now
I drive 7kms a day to a Skytrain station
Why would you even bother with any vehicle? Ride a bike. Or an electric golf cart can likely go 7 kms.
 
Vancouver Escorts