Canada Lays Out Plan To Phase Out Sales of Gas-Powered Cars, Trucks By 2035 (www.cbc.ca) 405
"EVs mandates are coming to Canada whether you like it or not," writes Slashdot reader Major_Disorder, sharing a report from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. "Here is what my Canadian brothers and sisters need to know." From the report: New regulations being published this week by Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault will effectively end sales of new passenger vehicles powered only by gasoline or diesel in 2035. Guilbeault said the Electric Vehicle Availability Standard will encourage automakers to make more battery-powered cars and trucks available in Canada. "There's no mistaking it. We are at a tipping point," he said, noting sizable growth in EV sales in Canada and demand that has previously outstripped the available supply.
Automakers will have the next 12 years to phase out combustion engine cars, trucks and SUVs with a requirement to gradually increase the proportion of electric models they offer for sale each year. The electric-vehicle sales mandate regulations will be published later this week. They are setting up a system in which every automaker will have to show that a minimum percentage of vehicles they offer for sale are fully electric or longer-range plug-in hybrids. It will start with 20 per cent in 2026 and rise slightly to 23 per cent in 2027. After that, the share of EVs will begin to increase much faster, so that by 2028, 34 per cent of all vehicles sold will need to be electric -- 43 per cent by 2029 and 60 per cent by 2030. That number keeps rising until it hits 100 per cent in 2035.
Guilbeault said the government is working to revise the national building code to encourage the spread of charging stations. The updated code would ensure that residential buildings constructed after 2025 have the electrical capacity to accommodate the charging stations. [...] The policy will be regulated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and will issue credits to automakers for the EVs they sell. Generally, a fully electric model will generate one credit, with plug-in hybrids getting partial or full credit depending on how far they can go on a single charge. Manufacturers that sell more EVs than they need to meet each year's target can either bank those credits to meet their targets in future years, or sell them to companies that didn't sell enough. They can also cover up to 10 per cent of the credits they need each year by investing in public fast-charging stations. Every $20,000 spent on DC fast chargers that are operating before 2027 can earn the equivalent of one credit. Automakers that come up short for their sales requirements will be able to cover the difference by buying credits from others who exceed their targets, or by investing in charging stations. Automakers can start earning some credits toward their 2026 and 2027 targets over the next two years -- a bid by the government to encourage a faster transition.
Automakers will have the next 12 years to phase out combustion engine cars, trucks and SUVs with a requirement to gradually increase the proportion of electric models they offer for sale each year. The electric-vehicle sales mandate regulations will be published later this week. They are setting up a system in which every automaker will have to show that a minimum percentage of vehicles they offer for sale are fully electric or longer-range plug-in hybrids. It will start with 20 per cent in 2026 and rise slightly to 23 per cent in 2027. After that, the share of EVs will begin to increase much faster, so that by 2028, 34 per cent of all vehicles sold will need to be electric -- 43 per cent by 2029 and 60 per cent by 2030. That number keeps rising until it hits 100 per cent in 2035.
Guilbeault said the government is working to revise the national building code to encourage the spread of charging stations. The updated code would ensure that residential buildings constructed after 2025 have the electrical capacity to accommodate the charging stations. [...] The policy will be regulated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and will issue credits to automakers for the EVs they sell. Generally, a fully electric model will generate one credit, with plug-in hybrids getting partial or full credit depending on how far they can go on a single charge. Manufacturers that sell more EVs than they need to meet each year's target can either bank those credits to meet their targets in future years, or sell them to companies that didn't sell enough. They can also cover up to 10 per cent of the credits they need each year by investing in public fast-charging stations. Every $20,000 spent on DC fast chargers that are operating before 2027 can earn the equivalent of one credit. Automakers that come up short for their sales requirements will be able to cover the difference by buying credits from others who exceed their targets, or by investing in charging stations. Automakers can start earning some credits toward their 2026 and 2027 targets over the next two years -- a bid by the government to encourage a faster transition.
funny (Score:2, Insightful)
it is hilarious, Canada exports oil and gas and comes out with this. Of course the government pushes this to 2035, this way the current one doesn't have to deal with the consequences of its own idiocy.
Re: funny (Score:3, Insightful)
If they had integrity theyâ(TM)d ban the extraction and use of these oil and gas products but are probably addicted to the revenue
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you referring to the time he plead guilty to mischief for climbing the CN tower in a protest? A charge he plead guilty to?
And you're comparing that to the Trucker convoy protest?
Give me a break, They're all all a nuisance! =)
Re:funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Canada exports oil and gas and comes out with this.
Doesn't matter.
Fossil fuel reduction needs to happen on the demand side, not the supply side.
There will always be someone willing to pump oil as long as there are willing buyers. Cutting the supply requires the cooperation of Russia, Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela, etc. That's never gonna happen.
But anyone can reduce the demand.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Fossil fuel reduction needs to happen on the demand side, not the supply side.
I agree, we need to attack the demand for fossil fuels. I'll believe politicians are serious about lowering demand for fossil fuels when they start yanking out the political hurdles for nuclear fission and synthesized fuels. Banning the internal combustion engine means banning any option for carbon neutral liquid fuels. We need more options for lowering emissions, not fewer.
I watched a YouTube video earlier today where someone was commenting on some new EV chargers he saw in the UK. He commented on how
Re: (Score:2)
If we are going to have practical low CO2 transportation then we need to retain the option for liquid fuels. Not everyone can handle the large charging cables that come on newer chargers, and not everyone will have the luxury to wait for a recharge. Maybe we could see new technologies or practices address some of these issues.
We have technologies in the UK to address both of these. It's called "slow chargers installed in lamp posts". You charge using a normal, thin cable when you are at home.
The goal isn't
Re: funny (Score:2)
Re: funny (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Manufacturers don't want to build them.
Those manufacturers will go broke or at least lose a lot of money for being late to the party. They can try to block it, but they will lose.
Dealers don't want to stock them.
Yeah, it breaks my heart to think of dealers going out of business...
Customers don't want to buy them.
I think you'll find demand is outstripping supply. Customers don't want crappy products, and a lot of what has been shoved to the market from the legacy manufacturing companies are either crap (Nissan Leaf, FFS) or not what customers want (Toyota going hybrid only).
So I think the salient question is not, "What can we do to facilitate the adoption of electric cars?", it's, "What's stopping us from giving these pricks some quick street justice for shoving them down our throats?".
Normally, in a democracy, you would
Re: (Score:2)
Government is the majority force in the parliament. And yes, this will be reverted, just like it will be reverted everywhere where it's implemented.
Because if you think current shift across Europe rightward is bad to the point of current Commission openly stating that they are desperate to push as much environmental regulation now because next Parliament will likely block most such regulations, wait until you aristocrats ignore rabble for another decade.
You might actually get to the point where French Revol
Re: funny (Score:2)
Re: funny (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the majority of the population do leave in highly populated city centres because they are high populated. If these people reduce their car use because they are most able, that will have a significant impact on car use, even if some people can't.
My guess is that, like most of the developed world, in Canada car driving is a highly subsidized activity, paid for out of general taxation. All those roads and car parks cost quite a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason we need to rescind ICE is obvious to all but a few sleepwalkers.
But there might be other solutions than EV's to replace ICE's and this legislation does not favor one over the other solution.
Also, battery technology is moving forward, they get more powerful and lighter, charging will become faster or maybe we go to a battery exchange system.
We wil
Re: (Score:2)
>Some manufacturers might right now slow down the building of EV's, it is just this type of legal pressure that will make the EV building worth while.
"People not buying overpriced and underperforming vehicles" is in spite of legal pressure, not because of it. There's a massive legal pressure and a PR campaign to pressure people into buying EVs. Not only has this process largely stalled now that rich have already tried those vehicles, but it's now going in reverse as a large percentage of these rich are s
Re: (Score:2)
There might be an out of this. What I can see automakers doing is selling EVs that have the physical frame structure in place, as well as electrical and data connections. This way, they can sell a vehicle to a customer as a pure BEV. From there, the customer can have the dealer drop in a range extender, so they can have the best of both worlds, and also comply with the "EV or nothing" laws.
Range extenders work well. A few people I know have i3s + the three-banger, when it was offered for sale, and it pr
Re: (Score:3)
You're basically talking about a PHEV that is modular in terms of power train.
It really doesn't work though, at least not efficiently. Vehicle requirements are just too different for electric motor vs gasoline/ethanol or diesel ICE.
Re: (Score:2)
It is more of a transitional vehicle. Serial hybrids work well enough. They can be heavy, but the ICE engine can be changed from a vehicle engine that has to have a wide power band to something that just runs at a set RPM to keep the battery bank charged. Perhaps even a fuel cell.
There is a lot of stuff that needs to go into place before EVs truly replace ICE vehicles, and mandating it happens is not going to make the impossible, possible. A serial hybrid or even a conventional PHEV with an ICE engine a
Re: (Score:2)
Yours is a tiny world in a large city. Pretty much everyone else other than rich city dwellers who tries one is at best 50/50 on going back. In my experience, majority are going back after getting stuck in the middle of nowhere with no power in the cold winter for a few hours, turning a nice holiday drive to Lapland into a nightmare. This is in fact likely one of the main reasons why both European and North American auto manufacturers are slowing down the plant conversions.
You must be the CEO of the last buggy whip company.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm a person who doesn't think that all cars will totally be run on nuclear reactors any day now.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm a person who doesn't think that all cars will totally be run on nuclear reactors any day now.
Right, you seem to think we'll all be going back to gasoline and diesel any day now. You sound like one of those old white-beards who kept huffing and puffing til the day they died about the world going back to steam power any day now.
Re: (Score:2)
How deluded are you to think that we would need to "go back" to gasoline or diesel, when that is the current status quo?
Re: (Score:2)
How deluded are you to think that we would need to "go back" to gasoline or diesel, when that is the current status quo?
Sure, and the status just quo around 1900 was that steam dominated. That was also right around the time that gasoline and diesel engines started to gain some significant market share. The only place you see steam at now is in a museum. You still sound just like those white-bearded ex steam industry veterans did back before their beards turned white.
Re: (Score:2)
You are actually deluded enough to think that 1900 was steam dominated rather than leg power and horses for personal transportation. Ok.
Honestly, that's enough delusion for me for this day. Best of luck.
Re: (Score:3)
1. I agree the difference in utility between a horse and a motor vehicle is much larger than the difference in utility between an EV and an ICE (kinda obviously)
2. Consumer utility is not the only thing that matters. Regulations exist in every society, because every society has decided that market forces alone deliver meaningfully sub-optimal outcomes. In the case of motor transport, the meaningfully sub-optimal outcomes include tailpipe emissions including CO2, inducing climate change. Pretending that thes
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget the mean government banned leaded gas, the poor people who preferred to pollute the environment with lead were so greatly affected.
Majority of people are stupid, how else to you explain the preference for the SUV in today's market. After all people prefer the vehicle that is so much more profitable for the manufacturer. It is less safe, uses more fuel compared to a sedan.
People didn't ask for seat belts, crumple zones, all this came about because of regulation.
So spare me that what people prefe
Re:funny (Score:5, Interesting)
1. I'm not sure that there's good evidence that EV sales are actually slowing. You kind of have to look only at one part of this graph and ignore the bits before to make that case: https://www.anl.gov/esia/light... [anl.gov]
2. To the extent that your assertion is true, it's important to acknowledge the Federal government's is not the only thumb on the scale. Fossil fuel interests and fellow travellers including right wing state legislatures are also doing their damndest to influence sales of EVs, in their case negatively. Special EV taxes are just one example. And of course, the government has yet to take its thumb *off* the scale in relation to fossil fuels -- externalities remain burdens picked up by the taxpayer (including, let's not forget, the military expenditure to protect fossil interests). Motes and beams!
Re:funny (Score:5, Interesting)
"Pretty much everyone else other than rich city dwellers who tries one is at best 50/50 on going back"
and
"In my experience, majority are going back after getting stuck in the middle of nowhere with no power in the cold winter for a few hours, turning a nice holiday drive to Lapland into a nightmare."
Is just such transparently obvious made-up stuff that you would like to be true, rather than actually true. If you claim otherwise, then I dare you to set out your numerators and denominators:
- The number of acquaintances of yours who have tried an EV
- The number who are going tack to an ICE
- The number who took an EV on a holiday drive to Lapland and got stuck "in the middle of nowhere with no power in the cold winter for a few hours"
I reckon you either have one mate who told you this exciting story about driving to Lapland in winter and getting stuck, or no mates at all. I think the chances are exactly zero that the majority of your acquaintances who have bought EVs are giving them up. It's just a fantasy that makes you feel better about your dislike of EVs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:funny (Score:5, Informative)
it's only hilarious because progressive nitwits really think it's a feasible plan at this point time. Of course even if they DID manage to pull it off, it will backfire in such a way that hilarity will not be the right adjective.
The hilarious thing is that there are people who know enough about tech to be on Slashdot, but who still think that EVs are infeasible more than a decade after Tesla's supercharging network rolled out.
Re: funny (Score:2, Troll)
Electric cars are peanuts of impact to the power grid. In 2035 the grid will buckle and fail. Renewables will not be able to keep up especially in a place like Canada
Re: (Score:3)
The hilarious thing is that there are people who know enough about tech to be on Slashdot, but who still think that EVs are infeasible more than a decade after Tesla's supercharging network rolled out.
Where are these Tesla superchargers you speak of? I've never seen one.
After checking the Tesla map online, it does appear as though there is a single charger 20 miles from my home. A 40 mile drive to use one. I think I'll pass on that.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. The loss of range in the winter isn't very bad, and with heated seats and heat pumps, they're still pretty good overall. Now my 2012 Nissan Leaf (which I bought used) was *horrible* in the winter, so there were cases where that was true, and car makers have learned from that.
Re: funny (Score:2)
Stupid law designed to fail (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Happen to have a citation on the half to third? I'm not aware of the mass fraction penalty being that severe.
Also, building the infrastructure would be part of the plan.
That said, I fully expect it to experience mass underperformance and thus be riddled with exceptions and pushed back, date wise.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The stupidest part about all this is that it doesn't really help CO2 emissions all that much. In most places, EVs are remote combustion engines that have much higher CO2 up front investment to have one.
This is generally what makes me extremely suspicious/cynical that there actually is any real interest in reducing emissions. EV's have the main advantage because of how emissions are measured, being at the exhaust pipe, and since they don't have one, then they go past with excellent results, as I'm sure you're aware. But I can see that there is no interest in dealing with the manufacturing aspects, since it would only make sense for that to be measured, and also to consider the source of energy that powers
Re: (Score:2)
EV's have the main advantage because of how emissions are measured, being at the exhaust pipe, and since they don't have one, then they go past with excellent results,
Mission-fucking-accomplished.
If all EVs do is move noxious emissions to not the middle of densely populated areas, that's a huge win. However, since large thermal power stations are so much more efficient than tiny engines, even fossil fueled EVs emit less CO2 than fossil fueled cars.
modern huge vehicles that comply with emissions standards, b
Re: (Score:2)
If all EVs do is move noxious emissions to not the middle of densely populated areas, that's a huge win. However, since large thermal power stations are so much more efficient than tiny engines, even fossil fueled EVs emit less CO2 than fossil fueled cars.
You may want to check the difference because it isn't as great as you may think. I'm quite sure it's around single digit percentages, when you factor in energy conversions, battery efficiency and all that, to the point that if an EV starts using its heater in winter, I'm quite sure it will be worse off, on the presumption that the electricity comes from a coal plant.
You know, since leaving the EU, we still get news stories about what the actually EU does, but the wildly insane fearmongering barking mad headlines about what they "might" do have vanished completely. Anyone can propose anything. That doesn't mean it will happen or even be likely to happen.
Restricting old vehicles has been introduced in some European cities, that is a fact. It's not an EU thing, but rather a city decision. Prohibi
Re: (Score:2)
You may want to check the difference because it isn't as great as you may think.
I have and yes it is.
I'm quite sure it's around single digit percentages, when you factor in energy conversions, battery efficiency and all that, to the point that if an EV starts using its heater in winter, I'm quite sure it will be worse off, on the presumption that the electricity comes from a coal plant.
That's a pretty huge assumption. The UK generates a whopping 1.5% of its electricity with coal. We're a small, northerly co
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There has been no work by the same government to ensure there is infrastructure to support said "non-ICE" vehicles.
What infrastructure? Do you mean electrical outlets? We already have those.
Do you mean charging stations? Those already exist all across Canada and more are being installed every day.
And supply chains will break when all transport trucks will only be able to carry one third to half of the existing loads because batteries will be taking up the rest.
A Tesla electric semi has a 10,000-pound battery and carries 80,000 pounds of cargo. That is 12.5%, not half.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stupid law designed to fail (Score:5, Interesting)
All of the energy produced by burning fuel will need to be replaced by the electric grid infrastructure. Petrochemicals are very energy dense, that's why they're used. Has there been a corresponding ramp-up of the electric grid overall capacity? No there hasn't.
It doesn't work that way. Cars don't consume power from the grid while you drive them. They consume power from the grid when you charge them. The vast majority of charging happens at night, when grid power consumption is at its lowest. In most places, the difference between power usage during peak hours on a typical day and the power usage during the middle of the night is larger than the power requirements for charging enough EVs to replace every car on the road.
They haven't built up grid capacity because it isn't needed in most places.
Re:Stupid law designed to fail (Score:4, Interesting)
All of the energy produced by burning fuel will need to be replaced by the electric grid infrastructure.
This has been debunked over and over.
America generates 4.25 trillion kwh of electricity annually.
Americans drive a total of 3.2 trillion miles per year.
An EV uses about 0.25 kwh to drive a mile.
(3.2 * 0.25) / 4.25 = 19%.
There is way more than 19% of spare capacity during off-peak hours when EVs are programmed to charge.
EVs also mesh well with intermittent renewables. They can be programmed to charge when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing and then stop when the sun goes behind a cloud or the wind pauses.
EVs can even be programmed to feed power back into the grid during peak demand, so there is less need for gas turbine peakers.
No extra capacity is needed. Even if it was, the transition will happen over decades.
Re:Stupid law designed to fail (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"Total electricity generation" is basically irrelevant because nobody cares about the giant 3-phase arc furnaces, and other industrial users that use the other 79% of the electricity, and have their own substations anyway.
When people talk about "the power grid" in the context of electric car charging, they are normally talking about the "residential electricity grid". i.e. "people's houses". That's the "power grid" that all these cars are going to be plugged into, an
Re:Stupid law designed to fail (Score:5, Insightful)
> All of the energy produced by burning fuel will need to be replaced by the electric grid infrastructure.
Eventually, perhaps, but only the sale of new vehicles would end in 2035. It's not like all existing ICE vehicles already on the road will vanish. It'll probably be another 10 years before the majority of those are retired.
> Has there been a corresponding ramp-up of the electric grid overall capacity? No there hasn't.
About +15% in the past decade and projected to grow another 15-20% by 2035. If there's reason to believe the future demand will be there - like, say, a government mandate that would guarantee more electric vehicles on the road - then you have not only something to plan for but the economic outlook to justify the investment.
That's really the biggest, least discussed part of laws like this: They create a clearer future scenario that businesses and utilities can plan for, rather than pure speculation.
> What's the base load? That's the real number.
If only there was some way to store energy... like maybe store it right in the vehicles that will eventually use it. Man that'd be great...
=Smidge=
Re:Stupid law designed to fail (Score:5, Insightful)
How did this shite get marked Insightful?
At least acknowledge that while fossil fuels are very energy dense, about 70% of the energy they produce in transportation is wasted as heat rather than actually, you know, propelling vehicles forward. So you don't need to replace fossil fuel capacity on a joule-for-joule basis, or anything like it.
Re: (Score:2)
1-44/52=15.4% of capacity lost, which means that the 12.5% figure is closer than the 50%-66% the GP was claiming.
There's other possibilities as well to help make up for that. A bit of the aerodynamics that truck drivers and trailer owners* have been resisting for a while, for example.
*Mostly not the same people.
Re: (Score:2)
The only company running them, PepsiCo begs to differ. No numbers are actually disclosed because of just how disastrous they are according to leaks, but it's between 50 and 25% of weight that is hauled by normal long haul 18-wheelers.
We know how shit they are from the fact that they're only deployed in extremely limited role and only on a small handful of routes.
Re: Stupid law designed to fail (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You have it arse about face. The point of passing a law like this is to create the mandate to spend money on that infrastructure.
We have seen it happen in Europe. Once a cut off date was set, governments were able to invest in meeting it. Private companies had the certainty and timeframe needed to invest in collecting guaranteed profits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Stupid law designed to fail (Score:5, Informative)
There has been no work by the same government to ensure there is infrastructure to support said "non-ICE" vehicles. And supply chains will break when all transport trucks will only be able to carry one third to half of the existing loads because batteries will be taking up the rest.
The proposed policy doesn't cover anything that qualifies as "transport trucks". It is about passenger vehicles.
An empty gesture (Score:2)
Things can always change, but the liberals are projected to lose the 2025 election in a massive landslide, and the first thing the conservatives will do is eliminate this regulation. The new regulation conveniently doesn't take effect until 2026. The liberals have been in power for the past eight years, they had plenty of time to do this sort of thing, and if they had, it would be much harder to reverse.
Re: (Score:2)
You are seriously referring to "projections" for 2025?
Want to read some sheep entrails while you're at it?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:An empty gesture (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The person you are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
JFC your're so sad you're making multiple subthreads to argue with me over things I never said. I literally said "Sure Liberals are likely to lose," did you need me to specify that that means the Conservatives are the likely winners, or did you think I meant someone else?
Wrong nation (Score:4, Interesting)
A good example: the Alaska Highway. "Major" cities and gas stations are very far apart, and the infrastructure to deliver enough power for car (let alone truck) charging does not yet exist.
Key highways to remote areas are much more sparsely populated, and the cold makes matters much worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, Canada is 60% powered by hydro [wikipedia.org] with more than a few provinces having over 90% hydro.
Hydro is a great renewable source - it's a great inertial power plant (water was way more inertia than turbine blades) so it keeps the grid frequency stable, it's fast to react (minutes) making it useful for both base load and peaking power production, and given it only needs a valve to be operated, it can be used as a black start p
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter that we're in a generally cold and spaced-out country. It doesn't matter that the Trans-Canada highway is more of a 'plan b' and that it is often better to travel through the northern US to cross Canada because of the more frequent fuel & rest options along the way.
The EV conversion needs to come, and it's not right to tell the rest of the world to do it while we don't have to 'because Canada is special'.
My worry is that we won't get the EV costs down enough or their performance up en
Re: Wrong nation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Canada is a terrible country for this.
Why? As a side effect, they don't want you wandering too far outside of the metropolitan areas. People that live and work in the countryside (Alaska Highway for example) probably shouldn't be driving 'passenger cars' anyway.
The best thing we can do for emissions (here in the USA, probably in Canada too) is to keep large parts of the population from wandering around in the wilderness. The carbon footprint for that just sucks. Want to see the Grand Canyon? We'll install web cams.
Re: (Score:2)
Absent an order of magnitude improvement in battery capacity and charging rate, Canada is a terrible country for this.
A good example: the Alaska Highway. "Major" cities and gas stations are very far apart, and the infrastructure to deliver enough power for car (let alone truck) charging does not yet exist.
Key highways to remote areas are much more sparsely populated, and the cold makes matters much worse.
Except those gas stations do exist, and if they have power, which I suspect they virtually all do, then you can charge an EV. And if the power lines somehow aren't good enough for a charger you just need to add a second local (slow charging) battery to help out.
And, if you're really in trouble, it's generally easier to find an outlet then a gas station.
Another thing to remember is a gas station is a pretty big undertaking. You need to dig giant holes in the ground to put in the tanks, all sort of environmen
Re: (Score:3)
Norway managed to do it in harsh conditions. It's not that difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
Norway also has about the same percentage of urban population as Canada (in the low 80s).
People see the vast wasteland of Hoth taking up most of Canada on the map and assumes that is significant, where as half the people live in the tiny blip at the bottom known as the "Quebec Windsor corridor"
Not About Consumers (Score:2, Interesting)
This really isn't about consumers. With the right policies, EVs are already taking over in places like Norway, and as prices drop, they'll do the same elsewhere. This is much more about telling car manufactures that they can't drag their feet and survive. Canada has a huge business as a parts supplier for Detroit, so a major shakeup in the auto industry is not in their interest.
It will probably be quite difficult to sell ICE vehicles well before 2035. EVs are much simpler and cheaper to make apart from
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, Norway did it not with mandates, but by simply making EVs much cheaper with incentives.
Norway has massive oil revenue with which to do that. Canada has massive debt and our government is working to kill our oil revenue.
Also heavily taxing ICE vehicles is a mandate in all but name.
I'd push it to 2040. (Score:2)
Reason: give time to get the infrastructure for large-scale public EV charging in place. By 2030, EV charging on a vehicle going 500 km (310 miles) could be done in under 8 minutes even if the battery charge level is only 5-8%.
offered for sale != sold (Score:2)
They are setting up a system in which every automaker will have to show that a minimum percentage of vehicles they offer for sale are fully electric or longer-range plug-in hybrids. It will start with 20 per cent in 2026...
It seems they just need to have 20% of offered vehicles to be BEV or hybrid. The only question remains, 20% of all models, trims, or actual individual cars? If it's models, you just need to make sure that 20% of models are EV, maybe there will be a Chevy Bold, Colt, Volt, Dolt differing by max battery size, or seat layouts. If Trims, just add new trims to your only EV until the number of trims constitutes 20% of all trims sold. If it's 20% of units, if a manufacturer builds 800,000 ICE car, they
F*ck Trudeau (Score:4, Insightful)
Idiot in office needs to go.
Good luck driving anywhere in this country in an EV outside of a major metropolitan area.
Some Legacy (Score:2)
There are so many things wrong with this in Canada (Score:3, Interesting)
From the perspective of a Canadian, currently entering a Canadian winter, this new legislation is going to fail or have very detrimental side effects.
First, Canadian winters, or winters anywhere if the temp drops below 0C, cars charged in unheated areas are going to take forever to charge. That is unless the batteries are heated. The batteries are going to be unable to deliver their full charge in a useful way unless the batteries are heated. Seems to me we will be investing plenty of electricity in heating the batteries. Add to this the demand put on the batteries in order to heat the passenger compartment, or at least keep your breath from frosting the inside of the windshield.
Second, I’m already accustomed to regular power outages during the winter. I have access to two backup generators as a result of not wanting to freeze in the dark snowy night. What will it be like when all those electric vehicles are also charging on that same electricity grid. The one that nobody wants to invest time and money to upgrade.
Third, the plan seems to be to give incentives, and use the whip of changed building codes, for those that install publicly accessible charging stations in residential dwellings, single and multi-unit. Well has anyone been watching the news lately and noticed the rise in electric vehicle fires? I have. My wife suggested I build an attached garage so when she gets her “dream” electric truck she can park it inside. That would partially help with the first issue, but I am not willing to take the chance of her driving over tree debris on the road, damaging the battery pack, and then burning me to death in my sleep. Not a pleasant thought. Apartment buildings are going to require updates to their fire suppression and fire stop construction. I don’t imagine that is going to be included in the building code updates, politicians need to get re-elected.
Fourth in my list, but not the last issue with this jump on the bandwagon legislation, this will effectively restrict the movement of people in the Canadian winter. Imagine the first time you plan to drive more than 3 or 400 km in your all-electric air fryer and find yourself in need of a charge. You find a charger and hook up only to watch the charge status creep up at a glacial pace due to the cold battery. Will you do a road trip again? Yes, but in the old diesel truck running fryer oil when the Dino-juice is made illegal.
The only way to do this right is for the legislation to mandate hybrid electric vehicles. In fact, at this stage of the technology, all electric cars should be hybrid electric in order to spread the increasingly hard to source and environmentally expensive resources needed for the batteries among more vehicles. To build one 500km range all electric car is nuts when most of the daily range need is under 100km. Build 5 100km hybrid cars and you get 5X the benefit for the environment, range anxiety is gone, cars hauling obscene battery weight is reduced, and we can all sing hallelujah into the greener future. Oh, and fix the building codes.
yes, let's focus on 10% of the problem (Score:3, Informative)
https://ourworldindata.org/ghg... [ourworldindata.org]
If we are going to meaningfully reduce emissions or their effects
Re: (Score:2)
There is plenty of lithium at present, and more can definitely be mined if additional demand requires it. Hybrids are massively complex and do burn gas, why bother with them? 12 years is plenty of time to ramp up EV's. There will still be ICE cars on the road after that but new ones won't be sold.
Re: (Score:2)
Mining giants like Rio Tinto who stand to make a fortune on lithium if they can actually get it out openly disagree, and unlike you they actually aren't allowed to blatantly lie in their statements to shareholders when they disagree with your statement.
Re: (Score:3)
There isn't a roadmap to fully electric cars, let alone trucks. There isn't enough lithium-ion capacity yet
That's not how supply and demand works. You don't build lithium-ion capacity for what you're going to need in a decade. If you did that, then prices would collapse, because there would be too much supply for the demand in the meantime. No, you build for what you're going to need in a couple of years, because that's when the plants will start producing batteries, with room to expand for a few years after that. Then you continue to build more capacity over time, continuing to stay a couple of years ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
And how much of the CO2 released in production is due to heavy equipment using diesel fuel that will itself be electrified over the next decade? One great thing about electrification is that improvements in one sector benefit other sectors, too.
Re: (Score:2)
And how much of the CO2 released in production is due to heavy equipment using diesel fuel that will itself be electrified over the next decade?
Not much, because very little of that heavy equipment will be electrified in the next decade.
Re: (Score:2)
And how much of the CO2 released in production is due to heavy equipment using diesel fuel that will itself be electrified over the next decade?
Not much, because very little of that heavy equipment will be electrified in the next decade.
He LITERALLY just said that "l that will itself be electrified over the next decade?" Do people READ these days?
Re: (Score:2)
He LITERALLY just said that "l that will itself be electrified over the next decade?" Do people READ these days?
Don't quit your day job.
Re: (Score:2)
And how much of the CO2 released in production is due to heavy equipment using diesel fuel that will itself be electrified over the next decade?
Not much, because very little of that heavy equipment will be electrified in the next decade.
Actually, there's a big push to electrify mining, both for cost and safety reasons, so I wouldn't assume that. But most of it comes from the heat source used for smelting, which is also something that is rapidly being electrified as arc furnaces replace coke-fired (coal) furnaces.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is a somewhat difficult and expensive to use arc furnaces for making new steel hence they are using for scrap metal recycling. Coke fired furnaces have the advantage of directly adding carbon to the iron.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a somewhat difficult and expensive to use arc furnaces for making new steel hence they are using for scrap metal recycling. Coke fired furnaces have the advantage of directly adding carbon to the iron.
But more importantly, they remove oxygen, turning it from iron ore into iron. Once it's iron, you can much about with arc furnaces and oxygen or carbon to add or remove carbon.
Re: (Score:2)
One great thing about electrification is that improvements in one sector benefit other sectors, too.
What makes you believe that electricity production will only improve on lowering CO2 emissions? That hasn't always held true, especially with nations that are phasing out nuclear fission for electricity production. Petroleum may be bad for the environment but brown coal is worse.
Re: insanity (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose they are going to get mad at the slow uptake and start forcibly de-registering vehicles from the road system to push the demand.
Or they could gradually phase out gas stations so there'd be no way to fill your tank. That way they wouldn't have to take your car away. You could have all the ICE cars you want; you just wouldn't be able to put gas in them!
Re: "Offer to Sell" (Score:2)